The Review Declaration of

Independence

The IssuesCornell Review writers discuss the

issues that seperate the Presidential tickets, from the economy and

unemployment to women’s issues and foreign policy.

A thorough list of grievances against King Barack, and a civil call to establish

a new government. (p. 9)

UNDERGRAD SURVEY

Results from the Review’s straw poll of the Cornell undergraduate population, highlighting Cornell's

liberal tendencies. (p. 8)

16 pages!

2 November 1, 2012

CR

Every four years, citizens of the United States of Ameri-

ca get the distinctive opportunity to call into question the direction that their elected officials have been leading the country. Adults of every gender and race, religion and ideology, income and educa-tion, gather at assigned locations to cast votes that are, in theory,

equal in weight.It should come as no surprise,

therefore, that the United States Constitution is the longest-last-ing constitution in the world, weathering over two centuries of changing norms in a changing America. Its unique structure of periodic evaluations in the hands of the populous has allowed our law to be amended in language and attuned in interpretation.

Nevertheless, among the fac-ets that have remained constant throughout the life of this docu-ment is its dependence upon an educated citizenry. Considering that we are stakeholders in an ac-ademic environment, this facet speaks to members of the Cornell student body more now than it will at any other time in our lives.

Thomas Jefferson first spoke of the need of an educated pop-ulation for democracy to survive. This was his argument for some limited-form of government in-volvement in Education (until the massive centralization of the post-FDR years) and it was the motive behind the founding of our nation’s top institutions.

His argument is a simple one: citizens cannot be expected to engage in the most participatory form of government in the his-tory of the world if they are not educated on the issues that affect them and the ideals motivating the actors.

Cue the reporters. Cue the pundits. Cue academic insti-tutions. The people must be educated!

Fast forward to the 21st cen-tury, and it has become hard to differentiate between society’s efforts to educate voters and its efforts to keep people ignorant. As one campaign elucidates its social policies through a fabri-cated, government-dependent girl named Julia and focuses on the bells and whistles of marginal cuts to PBS, the other condens-es a complicated economic en-tanglement into a five point plan that leaves immense room for in-terpretation. Educated Patriots should consider both strategies an insult to their intelligence.

The challenge lies in the fact that many in power are compla-cent with Americans basing their vote on this limited knowledge, and they have been since our founding and the establishment of the Electoral College.

Ideologists in Generation Y

now have the opportunity to challenge this gridlock, and the fall of 2012 has been a time to discuss how this is possible and question many of the phenomena that have been taken for granted over the last four years.

With this argument, I would argue that a famous Winston Churchill quote calls for a re-wording: If you’re not an idealist

when you’re in your 20s, then you have no heart and no hope for a resto-ration of all that is glori-ous about America.

For a 20-year-old con-servative has both a heart and a brain, and in this election cycle, he or she has even more: an ideal-ized vision of America where the federal gov-ernment does not over-step the powers granted to it in the Constitution.

By questioning every-thing from the evolving nanny state to the myri-ad of bureaucratic insti-tutions, Cornell’s conser-vatives have shaped this discourse. But there is much to be done, and the efforts that will not end next Tuesday.

But they could take a giant leap forward — if Generation Y sides with the more ideologically coherent party.

A vote for this party, the Grand Old Party, will not immediately fix the problem of a disillusioned populous, for both parties will continue to cover their efforts to maintain order with a façade of change.

But I find optimism in the dic-tion of the Romney-Ryan ticket. Diction that speaks of a world

where order is maintained by the states, social issues are not fore-front on the national agenda, bur-dens are not passed to future gen-erations, and elected officials do not try to prolong their tenure in power by providing handouts that are the root of the Demo-crats creation of a population de-pendent on the government.

This dependence on the feder-al government has made Ameri-cans blind to the need to be edu-cated—not just in the maths and sciences, but in the rules that govern the survival of the Amer-ican experiment. The last few months have been a reminder of these ideals, and Patriots cannot let them die with a vote of com-placency on November 6th.

Alfonse Muglia is a junior in the School of Industrial & Labor Relations. He can be reached at arm267@cornell.edu.

Alfonse MugliaEditor-in-Chief

The Educated Voter: A Five Point Plan

This snapshot of Thomas Jefferson's gravestone sheds some light on what the Patriot considered to be his greatest accomplishments, namely writting the Declaration and founding the University of Virginia

Citizens cannot be expected to engage in the most participatory form of government in the history of the world if they are not educated on the issues that affect them and the ideals motivating the actors.

Editorial

November 1, 2012 3

CR

Next week’s election is quite possibly the last chance for

the great American experiment. The notions of limited govern-ment, personal responsibility, and the civil society imagined by our founding fathers are on the verge of final collapse. Why? As President John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Our population has moved so far away from this ideal that it may be impossible to recover.

This is personified by the rise of such voters as the Obamaphone Lady. The surprising part is not that she would sell her vote, but that the price would be so low. The existence of citizens like her points to the absolute failure (and corruption) of the civic ed-ucation of the American popula-tion. Rush Limbaugh described this sentiment best, saying, “So these are the people that don’t like Romney because of what he said about 47 percent? No, these are the 47 percent!... She knows. She knows how to get this free Obama phone. She knows ev-erything about it. She may not know who George Washington is or Abraham Lincoln, but she knows how to get an Obama phone.” The unnamed Obamaphone Lady personifies the 47% Romney spoke of. The candidate was widely criticized for this “gaffe”, but the sub-stance of his comment is cor-rect. 47% is exactly where the incumbent stands in the polls as of October 30.

This group is not merely made up of those dependent on the government as Romney sug-gested, but is a coalition of government dependents and their idealistic enablers. After Obama’s objectively disastrous term, and facing as vanilla and unobjectionable a Republican as Romney, these 47 percent are sticking by Democrat ideals. If they cannot be converted in this election, with the economy, for-eign relations, and social cohe-sion this bad, they never will. If the Obama reign has been insufficient, no presidency and no events will ever be enough to allow a widespread reverse of liberal indoctrination.

This trend has been worsen-ing since the days of the Great Depression. Our current state has followed from an endless string of policies and regula-tions that have corrupted the minds and souls of the citizenry for the benefit of those tempo-rary leaders and guardians of our society—politicians. Now, the progressive dream is on the verge of having more popu-lar support than the American dream.

All of this though, was pre-dicted centuries ago. Benjamin Franklin said, "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." He was echoed by Alexis de Tocqueville, the first outside analyzer of the American system: “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” More than 200 years later, have we finally reached the point where those who would vote only in their selfish interests outnumber those who vote with the future good in mind?

If Obama wins this election, it will signify that the 47% has become more than 50%, and that the permanent descent into soft tyranny has begun. The Democratic creation of and subsequent dominance, race-baiting, and demagoguery of the country’s demographic shift ensures this. Conservatives will be a minority in our own land, prevented by the nanny state from living the way we want in the country we created. If Romney wins, there is still time to postpone Franklin’s predic-tion. There will still be time to answer the challenge of Samuel Adams: "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our coun-try will stand in need of its ex-perienced patriots to prevent its ruin."

Noah Kantro is a junior in the College of Engineering. He can be reached nk366@cornell.edu.

Editorial 33

Jim KellerJerome D. Pinn

Anthony Santelli, Jr.Ann Coulter

Founders

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 ReviewFounded 1984 r Incorporated 1986

The Cornell Review meets regularly on Mondays at 5:00 pm in GS 156.

E-mail messages should be sent to cornellreview@cornell.edu

Noah Kantro Alfonse MugliaEditors-in-Chief

Karim LakhaniPresident

Lucia RafanelliManaging Editor

Vice President

Michael AlanExecutive Editor

Laurel ConradCampus News Editor

Kushagra AniketNational News Editor

ContributorsMisha Checkovich

Caitlin DemingCaroline Emberton

Andre GardinerAlex Gimenez

Roberto MatosChristopher Mills

Mike NavarroKirk SigmonBill Snyder

Emeritus MembersAnthony LongoLucas Policastro

Christopher SlijkOliver Renick

Faculty AdvisorWilliam A. Jacobson

Board of DirectorsChristopher DeCenzoJoseph E. Gehring Jr.Anthony Santelli Jr.

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 well-reasoned conservative opinion piece, we hope you will send it to cornellreview@cornell.edu for consideration.

Katie JohnsonTreasurer

Copyright © 2012 The Ithaca Review Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Now or Never for ConservatismNoah KantroEditor-in-Chief

The Review welcomes and encourages letters to the editor. Long, gaseous letters that seem to go on forever are best suited for publication in

the Cornell Daily Sun. The Review requests that all letters to the editor be limited to 350 words.

Please send all questions, comments, and concerns to cornellreview@cornell.edu.

The progressive dream is on the verge of having more popular support than the American dream.

The Cornell Reviewest.1984

november 1, 2012vol. xxxi, no. v

4 November 1, 2012

CR

Lost opportunities, misplaced priorities and incoherent poli-

cies—these are the words that will soon be used to describe President Obama’s record in foreign relations. Four years ago, when the President began his tenure, many enthusiastic

commentators welcomed the inau-guration of a new style of foreign pol-icy. But while the “Obama doctrine” was supposed to be based on the principles of negotiation and coop-eration, it soon changed into a strat-egy of appeasing our enemies and surrendering our national interests. In fact, contrary to his stated goal of establishing “a common security and a common prosperity with other

peoples and other coun-tries,” the President’s reign has seen an unprecedented rise in anti-Americanism, subversion of democratic reform, and perpetuation of Islamic extremism in the Middle East. Even after the death of Osama bin Laden, we now live in a more dan-gerous and volatile world than we did four years ago.

There is no need to re-count the list of formidable challenges that the US faces in Libya. But far more outra-geous than the intelligence and security blunder dur-ing the Benghazi attack was the Obama Administration’s rhetoric of denial. Obama does not see the attack on the American consulate as a pre-mediated terrorist op-eration. On the contrary, he regards it as a spontaneous protest against “a crude and

disgusting video.” Had this not been his position, he would have found no need to apologize to those who were offended or even to clarify that the US government had nothing to do with the obscure video. Numer-ous videos have been made about all sorts of religious beliefs that people hold dear, but that itself does not spark violence of this magnitude. Rather, it is Obama’s policy of hesi-tant intervention followed by dis-engagement, his lack of focus and attention, and his attitude of leav-ing foreign relations at the mercy of world events that has helped create a power vacuum in which terrorists can execute attacks with impunity.

What is even more astonishing is

that the President fails to grasp the suicidal psychology of Islamic ex-tremism and the enormous threat that it poses to the civilized world. Instead, he claims to sympathize

with the fictitious sense of “humili-ation” that Islamists claim to have suffered at the hands of “Western imperialism.” No one would have blamed Obama for succumbing to the illusion that people across the globe desire peace or share similar aspirations, but now his attempts to mislead Americans and his sheer in-competence in combating the rising tide of fundamentalism have lead us to doubt his intentions.

It is quite evident that President Obama views American power as malicious in nature and believes that its confident exercise amounts to

sinful intrusion. This explains why he is not prepared to mount serious pressure on Bashar al-Assad despite the massacre of 30,000 civilians, or

He condemned the idea of American leadership as hegemonic dominance and American Exceptionalism as vain arrogance while fanatics continued to raise the black banner of extremism over our consulates

World

Kushagra AniketNational News Editor

Platonic Squabbles

America cannot afford another four years of Obama's apology tour.

01The Last Stroke

If you haven’t been paying much attention to politics this election

season, start now. Contained in this article is in-

formation every American should know. Before you cast your vote, be-fore you make up your mind, and be-fore you even discuss politics with one more person, take five minutes out of your day to read it.

The Obama Administration faced some controversy earlier this year when the existence of its so-called “kill list” of al-Qaeda operatives and other terrorists became public knowledge. Suspects on the list were designated for “kill or capture,” and critics were troubled by the govern-ment’s endorsement of what was essentially a document authorizing the assassination of a slew of terror suspects who had never stood trial—

some of whom were Americans.Politically tricky as Presi-

dent Obama’s use of this list

might be, however, it is not my main concern here. My concern is with a 16-year-old boy named Abdulrah-man al-Awlaki.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was an American citizen. I say was because he was killed just over a year ago by an American drone. Despite the fact that his father, Anwar al-Awlaki, was on Obama’s hit list, Abdulrahman’s death was not an unintended or un-avoidable side-effect of the drone strike that ended his father’s life. To the contrary, Abdulrahman was killed in a separate strike two weeks after his father’s death.

Though Anwar al-Awlaki was a known al-Qaeda member who ac-tively encouraged terrorism against the US, his son had no such record. In fact, according to Esquire’s po-litical blog, he hadn’t seen his father once in the two years before their deaths.

What is the Obama Administra-tion’s explanation for all this? Firstly, it should be noted that, after Abdul-rahman was killed, Yemeni officials incorrectly reported his age as 21.

Now, though, we know he was only 16. Secondly, shortly after the killing, Time reports that a US official said Abdulrahman’s death was in fact a case of collateral damage, though not related to his father’s assassina-tion. The official claimed that the drone that killed Abdulrahman (and his teenage cousin and several oth-ers) was meant for al-Qaeda mem-ber Ibrahim al-Banna, who was also killed in the attack.

However, a video featured on The Atlantic’s website shows White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs giving a different explanation to a reporter. Speaking of Abdulrah-man, the reporter points out, “It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, with-out trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor.”

Gibbs’ response is as follows: “I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming

America, This Is What You Voted ForLucia RafanelliManaging Editor

A Fortnight of Follies

Continued on page 14

Continued on page 14

Fact Check

Obama’s Apology Tour

January 2009

April 2009

Saudi Arabia (Jan. 27)

“My job to the Muslin community is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We are not perfect.”

Strasburg,France (Apr. 3)

“In America, there's been a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world... There have been times when America has shown ignorance and been dismissive, even derisive”

“We [America] at times have been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms.”

Trinidad and Tobago (Apr. 17)

June 2009“I've come to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”

Cairo, Egpyt (June 4)

Turkey Parliment (Apr. 6)

“The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history.”

November 1, 2012 5

CR

National

It is abundantly clear that the case for removing President

Obama on November 6th can (and should) be made on entirely economic grounds.

Frankly, any lengthy diatribe here about foreign policy would amount to a needless distraction for three reasons. (1) The recent presidential “debate” has exposed the striking degree to which both Obama and Romney essentially agree on critical foreign policy questions: stated commitments to staunchly support Israel, devo-tion to preventing the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran, and a pledge to limit military interven-tionism; (2) the prevailing senti-ment, largely shared by foreign affairs analysts, that the great-est threat to national security is, in truth, the lethargic state of the economic recovery and the out-standing severity of the debt; (3) the acknowledgement among the vast majority of voters that pock-etbook issues should obviously predominate over all other ques-tions. For these reasons, we shall focus entirely on the economic case for removing Obama.

First, we are powerless to deny the glaring truth that the U.S economy desperately relies upon the optimism and confidence of its small businesses, the dyna-mism of its entrepreneurs, the rate of their start-ups, and the vi-tality of the markets which they are responsible for generating. Assuredly, the trajectory of the re-covery cannot possibly improve if small-businesses and large com-panies feel under siege, or lack confidence in their future pros-pects, and are therefore unwill-ing to engage in robust economic activity. After all, they amount to the overwhelming majority of en-terprises in the private sector (es-timation: 95%), and employ some 52% of American private sector workers according to the Small Business Administration.

We are also powerless to deny that these very agents of eco-nomic growth have felt alienated by the policies of the Obama ad-ministration. The confusion and fear which has been induced by Obamacare, in particular, has re-portedly rendered a paralyzing effect on an astounding number of small business owners. Its al-ready mounting costs could very

well prompt startled business owners, who simply cannot af-ford to bear its burdens, to accel-erate the laying off of its workers. This fact is commonly recog-

nized in most chambers of com-merce and manufacturing asso-ciations across the nation. Beset with trepidation, their members are overcome by a sense of anx-iety and uncertainty about their immediate prospects, especially if Obamacare survives.

Frankly, our president has ut-terly failed to instill confidence in much of the private sector, and

has thus failed to prompt them to rapidly accelerate job creation. The consequences have never been so clear. Without certainty,

businesses forego investing, forgo hiring ( job creation), forgo in-creasing employee wages (which would yield higher take-home pay), forgo risk taking, and forgo market expansion.

A president who fails to suc-cessfully motivate small busi-nesses to engage in these vital activities—investing, job cre-ation, risk-taking, market expan-sion and the awarding higher take-home pay to its employees—can appropriately be labeled an enemy of small businesses, in both perception and reality. More-over, Obama’s failure to remove a sufficient number of regulato-ry burdens in the form of exces-sive red-tape, which are known to obstruct start-ups, blemishes his record, and only suppresses economic optimism all the more. His promise to allow the expira-tion of the Bush tax cuts, though advertised as solely targeting the wealthy, will likely affect high in-come owners that are still strug-gling to keep their small busi-nesses afloat.

In other words, many of those Obama promises to tax are at the forefront of small businesses job creation efforts. Imagine the costs!

The implications for middle-income families have been pal-pable. The rate at which job cre-ation has occurred has remained staggeringly low for dozens of

months. Meanwhile, the rising cost of healthcare, the persistent decrease in take-home pay, the increasing difficulty to cover the costs of utilities oil and gas are all exacerbating suffering. The 23 million unemployed or underem-ployed, for years, is most indict-ing. Obama’s inability to bring about even gradual reversals of these trends is a harrowing blight upon his record.

Given the severe human toll which the currently poor busi-ness climate is taking on Ameri-can families, do we not have a moral imperative to vote for a vi-able alternative to the status quo?

The ushering of Romney into office itself will assuredly stim-ulate hope in the private sec-tor, since the office would finally be occupied by a man who sym-pathizes with and relates to the struggles of small business people in an intimate fashion. He prob-ably has a better sense for what they urgently need and could en-gage in dialogue more comfort-ably with them than Obama.

Thus, Romney’s mere pres-ence in the White House would induce renewal of optimism in commercial spheres nationwide. With the gradual dismantling of the regulatory scheme burdening small businesses, and with the implementation of a more small-business friendly tax code, we can expect to see an acceleration of hiring, more risk taking, more investment and less hesitation to partake in innovation. Most im-portantly, take-home pay is like-ly to rise under his tenure given these robust conditions.

Second, we turn to debt. Can there be any greater embarrass-ment to a president who, pledging to cut the deficit in half, instead presided over massive increases of the debt by $1 trillion each year of his term? Should there be any limit to our outrage in the face of a $16 trillion debt? Can anyone conceive of the degree to which the upcoming generations will be burdened given this figure? Should we not wallow in grief when we hear the incumbent pledging to expansions of budget-ary outlays? Are we to somehow ignore the likelihood that the def-icit will reach $20 trillion by the end of a second Obama term un-less drastic alterations to the so-cial safety net are implemented soon? Was anyone else depressed and exasperated to see our

Romney’s mere presence in the White House would induce renewal of optimism in commercial spheres nationwide.

How many Americans realize that if the United States defaults on its debt, it would make the 2008 financial crisis seem like a few splashes of water at the beach compared to the deluge of economic pain that such a default would amount to?

The Stakes Are Too HighGrappling with the economic question of 2012Roberto MatosColumnist

The Clarion Call

01

Continued on page 14

National

6 November 1, 2012

CR

It has been said that truth is the first casualty of war. In the pres-

idential and vice-presidential de-bates, the verbal sparring is evidence enough that a skirmish of sorts is underway. The candidates are not alone in this battle of wits (if you can call it that); everyone from well-in-formed and well-known comedians to Twitter members who display the creative possibilities of spelling and grammar are weighing in. It is true that some constituents do not have time to be informed about all the is-sues, but that being the case, is any-one qualified to vote?

The United States’ forefathers were not altogether agreed on the point, but they probably could not have foreseen the extensive media that exists today, able to inform the masses with more ease and expedi-ency than ever. The problem is that it does not always do so. Sandra Fluke, ’03, had a question-and-an-swer session with Cornell students and asserted we should “demand

more” from the media. Fluke stated that the com-

mon conservative qualm that

she was testifying for tax-funded birth control is false: she was actual-ly asking for privatized insurance at that time (even though she is gener-ally in favor of tax-funded birth con-trol). Fluke stated that the people in conservative media—“all of them” —are “angry” and have a “strategy” with which to “silence women’s voices” by “hate.” Such a generaliza-tion seems to be in opposition to her assertion that she only speaks when she knows all of the specifics.

She admitted that, although she was and is not an expert, she believes she was qualified to testify because of her ability to observe the circum-stances around her. She then de-cried the depersonalization and de-humanization of anonymous social

media, and believes to “hear from someone you know is more pow-erful” than listening to the media. Of course, most people dispensing

information or opin-ions to their friends got that information from the media in the first place, and not all of it is true.

When it comes down to it, everyone is qualified to have an opinion; everyone has access to conscious-ness, even if not every-one articulates it with equal excellence. Every individual is qualified to determine what is best for him or her, and vote accordingly.

That is why Americans vote—be-cause they believe that an individu-al knows his or her interests better

than a large government Leviathan does. It does take some effort to discover the truth about issues and candidates, since candidates have,

as ever, resorted to smear tactics and telling us what their opponent has done wrong rather than telling us what they are going to do right. Fact-checking websites, docking both sides for their untruths, have popped up and garnered thousands of hits.

It’s important to know the truth, not only on principle, but also be-cause it will inform our decisions and affect our impact on our society. Ms. Fluke emphasized the importance of voting to make our voices heard. I agree with her there, even though I disagree that voting for Romney-Ry-an will silence women. Maybe I’m not qualified, but I’m going to follow Ms. Fluke’s advice to observe what

National

The battle lines in the war on women have been drawn. Obvi-

ously, known to any sentient being, Mitt Romney is on the wrong side. I know because Eva Longoria tells me so, and in language I can't repeat here. I know because Debbie Was-serman Shultz shrieks it at me every so often on TV. And, since Sandra Fluke is endorsing Obama, I guess I know which way to vote now to ful-fill the duties of my gender.

I will be voting for Mitt Romney.Why would I be voting for such

a racist misogynist—especially since I am both a minority and a woman? Because these women are totally out of touch with what many women want from a president, and they have badly misrepresented what Mitt Romney and the Republican Party are all about.

Firstly, I do not believe Mitt Romney is either racist or misogy-nistic. Being against amnesty for il-legal aliens is certainly not racism, and if being against federally man-dated contraception coverage is mi-sogyny while capitulating to the Is-lamic fundamentalists in the Middle East and elsewhere under the ban-ner of multiculturalism is not, then water is dry, Cornell is a bucket full

of sunshine, and Barack Obama is a competent president.

Secondly, these women are (es-sentially) professional liars. Eva Longoria makes her (extremely lav-ish) living pretending to be fiction-al characters. What she contrib-utes to society is not tangible, is not life-changing, and certainly does not come from a place of deep con-templation and scholarly pursuit, let alone a place of absolute truth. Sandra Fluke is a professional activ-ist, who is bound to a partisan agen-da that takes into account no other world views and no other solutions except that which leftism propa-gates—facts or, more importantly, opposing viewpoints be damned. And Debbie. Oh, Debbie. Her un-truths and deceptions are legion, and well-documented. Where and how do these women find the gall to proclaim themselves the standard-bearers of my gender? Where did they ever get the idea that they rep-resent all women and anything that is not in line with their views is by definition not what a real woman is?

What offends me is that they claim the mantle of womanhood (and without input from a huge swath of those women they claim to represent), that what they speak is undeniable, and that anyone who

disagrees is de facto deficient in some way. Is someone who votes for Mitt Romney—who is certainly more accomplished than Barack Obama could even dream of being prior to his election to the presidency—real-ly stupid? Or do they just have dif-ferent priorities and a different set of political principles?

Certainly conservatism proper, which is grounded in centuries of political philosophy and reasoned inquiry, not to mention real-world experiments, is not some kooky off-shoot of some obscure political tradition. Conservatism (or classi-cal liberalism) is what gave birth to the Western world. To wish to pre-serve our tradition of individual lib-erty, free markets, and limited gov-ernment that has given rise to the freest and most prosperous society in the history of this world is not a small matter. So, when we—women, conservatives, minorities, what have you—want to vote for Mitt Romney because we believe it is he who will best execute the duties of the office in that tradition, we will do so with-out any of the racist or misogynis-tic motives that the Left unfairly as-cribes to Republican voters.

I think it is appalling to write us off as dumb or racist or other vulgar-ities. We are trying to participate in

the hallowed civic tradition of vot-ing, and to hear that our choice is basically evil is highly undemocrat-ic. To write off half of the electorate as hopelessly and fundamentally bad because of our preferred candidate (and by extension, our political phi-losophy) is dangerous to democracy and freedom itself.

I understand that it is part of our democratic tradition to pro-tect speech, even offensive and vul-gar speech. So, I am in no way call-ing for these women to be silenced. What I am going to call for instead is for people to look beyond identi-ty politics, to look beyond the ide-ological boxes the Left has placed subsections of society in, and accept that people of any gender or race or creed can vote, in good faith, for ei-ther Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, and that they will do so without ne-farious motives.

Misha Checkovich is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at mcc254@cornell.edu.

Misha CheckovichStaff Writer

01

Fact-Checking with Sandra FlukeKatie Johnsontreasurer

Ladies’ Liberty

The problem is that the government doesn’t have to be all things to all people, even though some may think it does.

A Woman Voting for Democracy

Continued at right

November 1, 2012 7

CR

Jobs: it seems to be the deciding factor in the upcoming election.

On both sides, we hear about eco-nomic growth and stability as the basis upon which we should vote, with Obama claiming that maintain-ing our current course will lead to additional job growth and Romney pointing out that the still-sluggish state of the economy necessitates a change in policy. It seems to be the only thing that directly affects vot-ers, and the candidate who can bet-ter assure the American voters that he can spur new job growth is sure to be the winner in the upcoming election.

On some level, this is a dubious basis on which to cast a vote; despite the prevailing sentiment pushed on the American public since FDR’s New Deal, it isn’t the job of the pres-ident or the federal government to create jobs, nor should it be. It is, however, his responsibility to foster an environment which is conducive to economic growth and activity, which in turn leads to job creation. So, while a president is not always to blame for a bad economy (although, much unlike our current president, he should take a leadership role and accept responsibility for it), the long-term responses of businesses and workers to the economic cli-mate serve as a gauge of the success or failure of the president’s policies.

The unemployment statistics re-leased for September by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics seem to paint an optimistic, though still rather dis-mal, picture: Officially, unemploy-ment is at 7.8%, the first time it has been below 8% since 2009. Despite a recent revision of estimated GDP growth downward to below 2%, many of President Obama’s support-ers flaunt this as a vindication of his economic policies, saying that he can continue a flurry of job creation if given another four years.

Yet, anyone who delves into the way the unemployment statistics are calculated knows that many vari-ables underlie this rosy picture of the job market. Over the past four years, the labor force participation rate (the percentage of the total working age population with or searching for a job) has been in con-sistent decline, dropping by nearly three percentage points since Presi-dent Obama took office to a 30-year low of 63.6%. Meanwhile, the aver-age duration of unemployment has more than doubled since 2008 to 40 weeks and has actually risen over the past three months. All this goes to show that employment prospects are still very bleak, especially for those who were laid off during the recession and have been unable to find steady work.

The biggest problem found in re-cent employment statistics, howev-er, is not one of quantity of jobs but quality. While new jobs have been created in the past year, the bulk of these are low-skill service or part-time jobs, resulting in a massive mis-allocation of human capital. In fact, when factoring in such underem-ployed workers, along with discour-aged workers who have dropped out of the labor force, the rate of employ-ment remains near-ly unchanged from August to Septem-ber, with just under 15% of people out of work or at a job be-neath their skills.

While many of the jobs shed dur-ing the recession were moderate to high-skill jobs, the ones replac-ing them tend to require less skill and be lower pay-ing. This leaves many older laid-off

workers, who have developed years of experience and could be a great asset in adding value to the econ-omy, with little choice but to com-pete with teenagers for jobs behind

a fryer or waiting tables.

This has taken its toll on youth employment, and is reflected in a persistently high youth unemploy-ment rate of over 17%. When you include the spike in college enroll-ment over the past five years turn-ing a significant number of young

people—people who would have otherwise gone into the workforce were entry-level job prospects not so weak—into students, we see that this has become and will continue to be a serious problem for the future labor force.

President Obama has claimed time and time again that his policies of relentless stimulus spending and bureaucratic red tape have helped promote job growth and brought the US back from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Yet, if the employment statistics over the course of his administration are any indication, his policies have cost far more in the form of massive distortions in the labor market than the short-term benefits they brought in the form of low-paying “McJobs.”

The employment statistics for October are set to be released four days before the election. One must wonder if there will yet again be a miraculous “drop” in unemploy-ment before people head to the vot-ing booths.

Christopher Slijk is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at cps95@cornell.edu

National

I’ve seen around me and vote accordingly; and it’s impos-sible not to see the truth that President Obama hasn’t kept his promises. I applaud Ms. Fluke for her services to needy women, and I think that if more Americans had the mental-ity of asking not what our country can do for us, but what we can do for our country, there would be fewer people dis-appointed by President Obama’s unsuccessful attempts to make our government all things to all people. The problem is that the government doesn’t have to be all things to all people, even though some may think it does.

Everyone griped about Mitt Romney only giving a cer-tain percentage in taxes, and ignored the fact that he gave over $2 million voluntarily. Talk about media inaccura-cy! Don’t wait to be forced—ask what you can do for your country, get informed, and keep it classy, Cornell.

Katie Johnson is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences and can be reached at kij5@cornell.edu.

01

While new jobs have been created in the past year, the bulk of these are low-skill service or part-time jobs, resulting in a massive misallocation of human capital.

Why Employment Statistics Are Not What They SeemChristopher SlijkStaff Writer

Unemployment Uncertainty

Continued from left

Goldwin-Smith HEC Auditorium5:30pm

(pizza provided!)

Education, the Sexes, & Feminism

How the once-noble cause of feminist thought lost its way & why it may take conservative women to put it back on track

Christina Hoff

Sommers

Saturday, November 3rd

Sponsored by: Cornell Network of Enlightened Women, Cornell Republicans, & The Intercollegiate Studies Institute

8 November 1, 2012

CR

Obama: 60%

Romney: 14%Other: 5%Undecided: 8%Not Voting: 12%

Obama: 92% ± 3

Romney: 6% ± 3

Spotlight

With the presidential election just around the corner, the Cornell Review took to Ho Plaza to gauge the opinions of our fellow students about which candidate has earned their votes on November 6th. As many of you may know, Cornell University

has the deserved reputation of being an exceedingly liberal campus, so it came as no surprise to see that Barack Obama received the majority of support (60%) in our confidential survey.

What is surprising is that Obama enjoyed much higher support from college students in 2008, and that support appears to be sliding. Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, it does not appear that he is the beneficiary to these voters that Obama may be losing. Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and myriad of other candidates seem to be enjoying a lift.

The big, ugly numbers that no one wanted to see was the great amount of native-born students that have not taken an active role in their representation. The survey showed that 20% of students are not registered and another 12% are not voting. The survey was limited to Cornell undergraduates that are United State citizens.

The Review acknowledges two potential biases. One is an overrepresentation of Arts students in relative terms, because they are the most likely to pass through Ho Plaza. Next is an underrepresentation of apolitical, uninterested, and disinterested students who declined to take the 15 second survey in the midst of their busy schedules. In reality, the percentage of students not voting in the election may be exceptionally higher.

Are you a registered voter in the United States?

If so, where are you registered?

What party do you consider yourself affiliated with?

If registered, which candidate are you most likely to vote for in the

Presidential election?

Which candidate do you believe most Cornell students will vote for?

Yes: 80% No: 20% ± 4 ± 4

poll sample n=315

± 3-5± 3-5

Home: 63%Ithaca: 17%N/A: 20%

Straw Poll of Cornell StudentsShows Some Surprises

Undergraduates Overestimate Obama’s Popularity

Democrat: 49%Republican: 11%Independent: 39%Other: 1%

According to a study by the Pew Research Center however, this downward trend in registration extends past our diverse campus. The study found that in 2012 only 50% of adults under the age of 30 are registered to vote, compared to 61% in 2008. When consider-ing the overwhelming support Barack Obama enjoyed among young voters in his first election, it stands to reason that these numbers should be especially troubling to his reelection campaign.

One of the more fascinating things about the Cornell poll is the presence of a phenomenon known as pluralistic ignorance. In essence, this theory states that an individual will believe that the opinions of other people are much more affected by an outside influence than their own. A textbook example of this effect was exhibited in our poll. While only 60% of Cornell students polled said that they were more likely to vote for Barack Obama, a staggering 92% believed that other Cornell students would vote for him.

Perhaps the belief that Cornell University is an exceedingly liberal campus is slowly becoming a myth.

While it is a small victory for the conservative student base at Cornell, it is one that we should put great hope in. If this University is actually 32% less liberal than people believe it is, then perhaps new students and young people who are just beginning to discover their political identities will begin to see that there are other options available besides the liberal ideologies that they are inundated with from the moment they first step foot on campus.

Diversity should not be limited to race, creed, or gender, but should include support for diversity of thought and ideology as well. So to all those closet Republicans out there on campus, the numbers do not lie: you are not alone.

Mike Navarro / Staff Writer

November 1, 2012 9

CR

The unanimous Declaration of the staff of the Cornell Review,

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with an individual and to assume the powers of the presidency, the limited yet important station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God

entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of all Americans requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any Administration becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to elect new Government, laying its foundation on Constitutional principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to lessen their Public Debt and Regulation. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Incumbents one-term established rarely are deposed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to remove their former Commander in Chief. The history of the present President of the United States is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused to govern within the confines of the powers granted to him under the Constitution of the United States.He has misused the Executive Privilege to withhold information from the American people regarding Operation Fast and Furious.He has forgone the War Powers Act to commit United States troops without the consent of the Senate.He has been weak against outspoken adversaries of America.He has piled mountains of debt upon the people; borrowing against the productivity of future generations to pay for today’s frivolous

policies.He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent

to their Acts of pretended Legislation:For the largest tax increase in history via Obamacare.For the appointment of federal judges who abuse the Judiciary’s powers.For facetious efforts to promote bipartisan cooperation.For concealing aspects of his personal identity from the American people.For playing the various American races and faiths against one another.He has forbidden our Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Justice

Department should bring litigation; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.He has ignored our Representative House repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.He has endeavoured to illegally increase the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of

Foreigners; refusing to pass others to discourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of Protection of our Lands.He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by giving his Blessing to A Corrupt and Racist chief of the Department of Justice.He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.He has affected to render the Military impotent and inferior to Foreign powers.For putting a tax cheat in charge of our Treasury.For intentionally and without end devaluing our currency.For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:He has abdicated Government here, by declaring we Americans who disagree with him out of his Protection and waging War against us.He has refused to allow us to drill our seas, mine our Lands, burn our coal, and destroyed the livelihoods of our people. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Hippie

Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is the undistinguished fornication with all ages, sexes and conditions.In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A President whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Liberal brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the principles of our philosophy and lifestyle here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow their usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and Country. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of common sense. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the Cornell Review, in Goldwin Smith Hall, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good Conservatives of this University, solemnly publish and declare, That these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Subordination to Barack Obama, and that all political connection between them and the Obama Administration, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to elect Romney, keep the House, win the Senate, repeal Obamacare, and to do all other Acts and Things which Republican Administrations may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

10 November 1, 2012

CR

Campus

In the weeks preceding the elec-tion, it was an exciting opportuni-

ty for Cornell students to be able to attend a debate with two prominent figures of the Democratic and Re-publican parties. Howard Dean and Rick Santorum went head-to-head in Bailey Hall on October 18. The topic of the debate, moderated by di-rector of the Cornell Forensics Soci-ety and ILR School senior lecturer,

Sam Nelson, was the government’s role in a free society.

Although Dean’s position seemed to resonate with the largely liberal audience, Santorum’s presence en-ergized the conservatives who, at times, feel overlooked or underrep-resented on campus. In his opening statement, Santorum spoke of the values of the founding fathers.

“I stand by what are the tradi-tional American principles that made this country successful about what the role of government is,” Santorum explained. “The role of

government is the understanding that rights come to us, not from the government, but from God.”

Dean, on the other hand, took the position that the Constitution is meant to evolve over time. “I don’t believe that the Constitution was a document written meant never to be changed,” he said. “There is no basis for originalism at all.”

Throughout the debate, Santo-rum expressed disapproval of Presi-dent Obama’s policies. He lamented, “this administration has gone hog-wild on regulating everything.” He

specifically mentioned the regula-tion of domestic drilling, to which the audience responded with a loud applause. When Santorum pointed out that the audience was applaud-ing $6-10 gas prices, the clapping and cheering became even louder.

Despite an obvious liberal-lean-ing slant, the audience was united in its support for Santorum when he shared a personal experience. In order to illustrate why the disabled should have guaranteed rights, he recounted how his four-year-old daughter is affected by a disability that essentially constitutes “a death-sentence.” His statement that, “as a parent of a special needs child, I don’t want the state determining what the best interest is of my child” was met with clapping and approval by the audience.

In preparation for the debate, The Cornell Review asked Cornell Republicans chair, Jessica Reif, what she thought Santorum and Dean’s perspective would add to the debate.

“Santorum is a leader in the con-servative movement, and I expect his thoughts on issues pertinent to the upcoming election will be of in-terest to Cornell students,” she re-sponded. “While Howard Dean has not run for office in several years, his stances certainly resonate with the political left. He is well-suited to de-bate Santorum.”

Party Heavyweights Debate the Role of GovernmentLaurel ConradCampus News Editor

Caitlin DemingStaff Writer

In a sit-down interview, Sam Nel-son, director of the Cornell Fo-

rensics Society (Speech and De-bate), and Senior Lecturer in the Cornell Forensics Department, of-fered his insight and unique per-spective on the three recent presi-dential debates.

Nelson indicated that the secret of every academic debate is not nec-essarily to persuade in general, but merely to persuade a uniquely de-fined and targeted audience, and to tailor one’s arguments with that spe-cific audience in mind.

“In non-critical debates, or in front of a political audience, the ra-tionale for engagement is somewhat different,” noted Nelson. The vast majority of the individuals in the au-dience already know who they will vote for before the debate is even announced. But they are watching in order to determine why they will vote as they plan to.

Thus, observers of a political de-bate are “watching simply because

they are in search of clear rea-sons to vote for the candidate they already know they’ll be

supporting,” he added. They merely watch to affirm a decision that has already been made in their minds. Hence, there are a very small per-centage of voters who base their de-cisions on who actually “wins” the televised debates.

“Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your political per-spective, that three percent of voters is potentially critical in American elections, especially because of the importance of undecideds in battle-ground states,” cautioned Nelson.

Nelson’s rapid but cogent assess-ment was that Romney arguably won all three debates, or at least se-cured a 2-1 victory overall.

After all, his performances ap-peared (1) sufficiently concrete (im-pressive) and (2) he made no major gaffes. Based on the conventional criteria for winning presidential de-bates, he obviously won the first de-bate, in which he aggressively pur-sued Obama, who was decidedly weak in style and lacked animation. Romney’s entire crisp delivery, de-meanor, presence and temperament appeared presidential. This car-ried over into the second debate; al-though Obama “fought back hard,”

Romney was mere-ly required to hold his own (rhetori-cally) sufficiently while still appear-ing presidential.

As for the for-eign policy de-bate, Romney, who might have initial-ly appeared to be at a disadvantage, fulfilled his role in that he didn’t show considerable weakness in sub-stance, he stood toe-to-toe with the president on his own turf in a substantive man-ner, he didn’t make any obvious blun-ders, and he “ap-peared reasonably intelligent.”

The unspoken implication, which was the subtext of Nelson’s analy-sis throughout the interview, is that Romney’s debate performances did not offer his supporters – and even undecideds – any glaring reasons

not to vote for him, given the criteria set forth here. In fact, he did quite the contrary.

Roberto Matos is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cornell.edu.

In the Debate Space with Sam NelsonRoberto MatosColumnist

Santorum v. Dean at Cornell

InterviewBody Language: Dean and Santorm present their arguments to a biased audience. Continued on Page 12

November 1, 2012 11

CR

National

There are many important issues at stake in this election, but it

should be clear to all young voters that we are fighting over a political system designed by politicians for individuals who have long since left this world. Our healthcare and social security programs were designed when my grandma was born, our social policies when my dad was born, and our military

policies just after I was born.

While this is a tremendous testament to the stability of American politics, it is also a product of generational shortsightedness. Policies designed with the best intentions and under tremendous pressure were also designed poorly and have left trillions on the table. It would be narrow-minded to say that this isn’t a universal problem; all countries with a vibrant democratic system are prone to certain policy inefficiencies, but that does not mean we, as future recipients and taxpayers, should not demand more from our government.

As youth voters, it is not only our responsibility to voice our concerns but also to promote policies that leave the next generation in a position to realize their own political and social goals. This article is not an endorsement of a Presidential candidate, but rather an explanation of what I want to leave for the next generation.

Health and WellnessThe New York City ban on large sugary drinks is indicative of the larger flaws in our healthcare system, and the relationship between costs and the government. While I abhor the measure’s effect on my ability to be a consumer in the marketplace, the ban is a logical step for local governments that are increasingly being called upon to pay for individual health costs.

The government involvement in healthcare insurance for the elderly,

the poor, and a variety of other groups leaves taxpayers sensitive to the poor health decisions that individuals make on an everyday basis. Be they proactive decisions such as smoking or eating certain foods, or passive decisions such as failing to work out, it all results in higher costs for the government, and therefore to us as taxpayers.

Due to this sensitivity, the government has been forced to tax, ban, and regulate its way out of the problem. In the case of the first, since politicians dictate taxation, the objective is usually revenue maximization rather than deadweight loss minimization. On bans, the result is additional deadweight loss, for the government usually fails to take into account the benefits of non-monetary factors. Regulation, usually seen as the least pervasive of the three, is reduced in effectiveness by our government’s bureaucratic systems.

The market’s solution to his problem has been to connect individuals to not only the costs, but also the benefits of their decisions. This means tying premiums to everyday health measures, and providing incentives for healthy decisions. If we are to solve the crisis of healthcare in this country, which is cost, we need to align incentives and take it upon ourselves to make healthy decisions.

Retirement and Support for the Aged PoorThe role that Social Security plays in supporting most individuals in retirement is well-documented. The program has gone from a basic insurance program, which most people never lived long enough

to collect from, to the primary source of retirement income. This system we have in place, like most government insurance programs, is built on demographic ratios and thus is not designed to meet the demands of future recipients.

The program fails on two fronts. First, it fails to provide individuals with an adequate risk adjusted rate

of return relative to investments in the marketplace. Individuals in public and private pensions regularly obtain higher return than social security, with great long-term security. This results not only in trillions in opportunity cost, but it also helps maintain the income inequality gap in this country.

Second, it does not provide enough support for individuals on the very bottom of the spectrum who rely on it for the entirety of their income.

Therefore, for the next generation, we need to shift Social Security from a retirement system back to a social safety net. Allowing individuals to invest in the marketplace would not only allow them to share in the returns gained by the 1%, but would also pump trillions back into the economy, providing jobs for millions out of work.

Electoral ReformI consider debate around social issues to be heavily tied to our election law. Despite all the concerns with both presidential candidates, there hasn’t been any real support for a 3rd party candidate. This is somewhat surprising given the fact that Ross Perot made two semi-successful Presidential runs, despite less concern about candidate quality.

While I’m not going to speculate on the recent shift away from third parties, we can all agree that our current system simply promotes the status quo politically.

While electoral reform is a major challenge given the need for legislation to get anything done, this is arguably the best solution to social problems in the country. Reaffirming the strength of our democratic process will ensure that all voices will be heard, not just those in swing states. For me, this means instant runoffs and an abolishment of the Electoral College, but there are plenty of other good ideas out there. Either way, we need some change to a system where change is quite lacking.

The glaring omission to this small and incomplete list is, of course, the economy, which I’ve left off purposely. Issues such as taxes and regulation are mostly short term and will change countless times over the next couple of decades. Even problems related to the debt, which are paid for over 30 year periods, are short-term. While I think there will be some resolution to the financial crisis related to entitlements, that issue will have to be resolved when I’m gone.

This election is not going to solve the many problems holding back our economy and social progress. The negative rhetoric and partisan politics are preventing any serious efforts for reform. However, there is no long-term legislative plan for government. Everything is focused around 2 and 4-year cycles, so it is impossible to really play the long game with candidates and messages. Therefore, if we are to realize genuine reform for the next generation, it’s going to have to start on November 6th, 2012.

Andre Gardiner is a junior PAM major in the College of Human Ecology. He can be reached at apg58@cornell.edu.

After I’m Dead and GoneAndre GardinerStaff Writer

As youth voters, it is not only our responsibility to voice our concerns but also to promote policies that leave the next generation in a position to realize their own political and social goals.

12 November 1, 2012

CR

The Collegetown area is the core of social life for Cornell stu-

dents. It provides substantial hous-ing options and hosts many of Cor-nell’s social activities, such as parties and fun eateries. But Collegetown has its share of problems. Under-standing both the benefits and prob-lems regarding Collegetown should be an important for all students. And thus it also has become a bat-tleground for the Ward 4 political arena.

The Collegetown Neighborhood Fair was a good first step in intro-ducing general knowledge regard-ing Collegetown. The Collegetown

Student Council, whose main du-ties include improving the Colleg-etown area and enhancing relations between students, landlords, and local residents, organized the neigh-borhood fair. The fair was meant to enhance community relations and engage students with information regarding Collegetown, specifically housing.

To this end, the fair accomplished its goals, but this is only a first step in dealing with the issues of Col-legetown. The fair only provided basic information, such as student

housing forums and general safety information.

To be informed about the issues, however, students need a deeper level of understanding. In a recent interview with the Cornell Review, Eric Silverberg, President of Colleg-etown Student Council, discussed how students can get involved.

“Regardless of whether a stu-dent intends to join our Council, all students – simply by being mind-ful of their conduct – nevertheless, can take ownership of a neighbor-hood that so many call home,” stated Silverberg.

The student council is a great way for individual Cornell students

to get involved, but much of Colleg-etown’s problems lie in the policies instituted by larger government in-stitutions, such as the Ithaca govern-ment. Thus, simply being mindful can at best only improve the general ambience of the area. Students, un-aware of the real issues, cannot hope to help with the problems facing Collegetown.

What is meant by Collegetown problems? Eric Silverberg and the Collegetown Council explained that economic development, student

relations, and safety were the main issues involving Collegetown. This statement scratches the surface of the problems facing Collegetown. And while many of these problems are complicated, they are none-

theless important for students to understand.

As a student looking to rent in Collegetown, I have first-hand expe-rience with off campus housing op-tions. One of the biggest problems is high rent. Living in a small apart-ment with four people can costs over $900 a month, making it very expensive for students. In addition, high rent affects the cost of business and thus makes conducting a small business more difficult.

This is an important issue, but it is rare to see students actually dis-cussing realistic solutions. For ex-ample, government regulations and high property taxes are some prima-ry causes of higher rent. Reducing these burdens, by instituting pro-growth policies, would be pragmat-ic and fiscally responsible solutions to the problem. And by examining these issues within the lens of poli-tics, students can become more en-gaged in their community and more accurately incur change.

Another problem facing Colleg-etown, and the Cornell Communi-ty, is the recent sexual assault cases. Reducing crime is a more difficult problem to solve, and with Ithaca’s government in debt, it may seem like not much can be done. Surely the first step is promoting responsible conduct for students, but more can be accomplished. Again, these is-sues represent problems with local polices. What are the government, and the even Cornell administration, spending money on? And why are more resources not being devoted to protecting the people?

At the fair, the Police handed out pamphlets with general safety in-formation, but again, this only is a first step in solving the problem. Students should be more actively

engaged with the government, and demand at very least a shift in spending towards essential func-tions of government, such as the po-lice. In conjunction with a more fis-cally conservative economic policy,

the police might actually be able to do more for students instead of sim-ply telling people to lock their doors.

With such issues facing Colleg-etown, it’s no surprise that the area has become a local battleground arena.

“If we are going to use city re-sources wisely, we must prioritize,” stated Misha Checkovich, a Cornell student running for Ward 4 Alder-woman. “There is clearly not enough money in the budget to do every-thing everyone might wish. My main concerns, and I believe every resi-dent's main concerns, are safety and infrastructure: the basic foundation to any great place to live and work.

With this theme of prioritize, Checkovich has suggested what some of input would be as the only student and only Republican on the Council.

“My priorities are to improve the streets, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes to make living and working in Ward 4 not only easier but safer for every-one. I also want to address build-ing safety and resident safety is-sues. This particularly includes fire and housing safety and the personal safety of residents.”

Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, the first step in becom-ing a responsible citizen is being aware of the issues. Collegetown isn’t simply a place near Cornell, it is an opportunity for students to get involved with politics and actually enact visible change in their com-munity. These problems have real solutions; they merely need a stu-dent-led community ready to fight for them.

Bill Snyder is a freshman in the Col-lege of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at wjs254@cornell.edu.

Battleground Collegetown

“My main concerns … are safety and infrastructure: the basic foundation to any great place to live and work.”—Misha Checkovich

Bill SnyderStaff Writer

Turnout for the Collegetown Neighborhood Fair earlier this month was lower than expected, perhaps a sign of student hesitation to fix the economic issues nega-tively affecting inhavitants.

Campus

Reif recommended that students become engaged with politics on campus through the debate, stating that “debate is a great way to expose students to opposing political ideol-ogies, as well as common ground be-tween party lines.”

Professor Rosemary Avery, chair of the Policy Analysis and Man-

agement Department, intro-duced the debaters.

“Although they are not the nom-inees, this does not mean that they are not an important part of their re-spective party,” remarked Avery in an interview with the Cornell Re-view. “Candidates run on party plat-forms, and both these individuals contributed toward the creation of those platforms, so they can speak to the core values of their parties.”

Professor Avery further believes that engaging with the Dean and Santorum debate is significant and important.

“There can be nothing more im-portant at this critical time in Ameri-ca’s history than making an informed vote—Cornell students might be voting for the very first time in their lives and it is our duty as citizens of this country to be informed in terms of voting,” she added.”

The Santorum / Dean debate was indeed a valuable opportunity for the Cornell community because it gave the audience a chance to hear different perspectives directly from the politicians themselves without

bias. No winner was announced, so it is left to Cornell students to de-termine which politician made the most convincing arguments for his position on the role of government in society.

Laurel Conrad is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at lrc54@cornell.edu.

Caitlin Deming is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at cad275@cornell.edu.

Continued from page 13.Santorum v. Dean

November 1, 2012 13

CR

Mitt Romney’s now-infamous comment about de-funding

PBS has sparked a firestorm of con-troversy between Republicans and Democrats across the nation, but this firestorm obfuscates a larger point the Right should address: the government should not only stop funding the creation of broadcast content, but it should also stop regu-lating broadcast content as well.

There is a reason for the gov-ernment to be at least indirectly in-volved in broadcasting. Without regulation, radio and television air-waves could be flooded with vari-ous signals from competing enti-ties, potentially rendering wireless technologies unusable or unreliable due to signal interference and vary-ing transmission standards. Thus, it makes sense for a governmental en-tity to play the role of wireless spec-trum referee where no-one else in the free market can and where true laissez-faire competition would de-stroy the proverbial commons.

In 1934, Congress created an or-ganization tasked with doing just that: the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Broadly, the FCC regulates who broadcasts what, how, and when, predominantly to prevent signal overlap and to foster national standards (including the ATSC standard, which is the sig-nal for digital television). The FCC even holds auctions of various elec-tromagnetic spectra, which not only help police the airwaves but help make the government some serious dough.

But the FCC isn’t all about tech-nological standardization and auc-tions – it has long since established itself as a national censor, establish-ing what can and cannot be said on broadcast radio and television. FCC decency regulations cover every-thing from swear words to nudity, and the FCC heavily penalizes any

broadcast radio or television chan-nel that deliberately or accidentally broadcasts content in violation of these regulations.

In other words, the modern FCC is the governmental equivalent of a doting, highly puritanical mother that can levy multi-million dollar fines.

The issue of the legality of the FCC’s censorship power has made its way all the way up to the Su-preme Court in numerous cases, though the Supreme Court has been less than clear regarding what the FCC can and cannot do.In 1978, the Supreme Court held in FCC v. Paci-fica Foundation that the FCC could regulate indecent broadcast content in certain circumstances.Much later, in 2009, the Supreme Court decided in FCC v. Fox Television Studios that

the FCC could ban “fleeting exple-tives” on broadcast television, and that the prohibition thereof was nei-ther arbitrary nor capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. However, in that case, the Court expressly refrained from consider-ing the case on First Amendment grounds. On remand, and almost as a direct challenge to FCC v. Pa-cifica Foundation, the Second Cir-cuit vacated the FCC’s fine on First Amendment grounds, ruling that the FCC’s regulations were unconstitu-tionally vague. After granting cer-tiorari (again), the Supreme Court (in the 2012 version of FCC v. Fox Television Studios) held that fines imposed before the “fleeting exple-tives” rule came into effect were the result of “unconstitutionally vague” regulations, but simultaneously up-held the FCC’s ability to regulate television licenses where its content

regulations were not unconstitu-

tionally vague.

In other words, according to the

Supreme Court, the FCC has the

power to regulate content in spite of

the First Amendment, but this rul-

ing is so narrow that it may be all but

destroyed by subsequent cases.

Accordingly, at least for the time

being, the FCC isn’t just a regulator

of the technical side of broadcasting:

it is also a (dubiously constitution-

al) censor, making normative de-

cisions about what content should

and should not appear on broadcast

television.

The FCC’s censorship power is

quite dangerous. As I have argued in

this column before, the government

is ill-equipped to determine what is

and is not appropriate in art, espe-

cially in a way that gives fair notice

to those who create content. Cur-

rent FCC regulations are awkward

and inconsistent, allowing grotesque

depictions of violence in shows like

Law & Order while simultaneously

prohibiting even the slightest hint of

Janet Jackson’s nipple on television. Even assuming that censorship is in-deed necessary, modern technology (such as swear filter boxes and the “v-chip”) censors content perfectly well without FCC assistance.

Any good Democrat would argue that the funds going to the cen-sorship-tasked department of the FCC are so little that cutting them would not save us from the deficit. Of course, this is very true—consid-ering the fines levied by the FCC for decency violations, the FCC’s cen-sorship efforts likely fund them-selves. Nonetheless, just as with the funding of PBS, the important ques-tion here is normative, not quan-titative: it is about whether or not the government should be involved in broadcast regulation at all, not whether or not cutting it would save a lot of tax dollars.

Just as much as it should not be involved in funding the creation of broadcast content, the government has no place in regulating broadcast content. While the technological side of the FCC is a positive force in the community, the censoring body of the FCC has done little other than enforce dubiously “moral” values upon the American public.

Kirk Sigmon is a graduate student in the Law School. He can be reached at kas468@cornell.edu.

Kirk SigmonColumnist

Right on the Law

The Other Big Bird: The FCC

In other words, the modern FCC is the governmental equivalent of a doting, highly puritanical mother that can levy multi-million dollar fines.

National

v o t e, or d i e.

14 November 1, 2012

CR

president forgo responding to this devastating indictment of his policies? How many Americans realize that if the United States defaults on its debt, it would make the 2008 financial crisis seem like a few splashes of water at the beach compared to the deluge of economic pain that such a default would amount to?

This brings us to the third and final justification for voting against Obama. Given the incom-patibility, venom and acrimony which has simmered – and will continue to persist – between the Obama Administration and

the Tea Party Congress, it seems likely that gridlock, political stalemate and low

legislative productivity will also persist. This would be unaccept-able, since no coherent economic agenda for reviving small busi-nesses or reducing the deficit would be engineered in such a situation.

When Romney takes office, he will find a Tea Party Congress that will be at least somewhat eager to work with him given the similarities between their world-views. Romney will serve to reign in the legendary hardline posi-tions taken by Tea Party members in Congress.

As for the Democrats in the Senate, who will likely main-tain their majority in November, it seems likely that they would yield, however reluctantly, to the firm pressure of the electorate by agreeing to some gradual re-forms to the social safety net by

agreeing to a budget reduction settlement. Nor would they hesi-tate to agree to tax relief for small businesses (it would amount to political suicide for them to re-fuse). In exchange, they would be granted the credibility to act as the gatekeepers of legislation passed by the Tea Party House of Representatives.

Romney’s history and ex-perience of negotiating with a legislative body dominated by Democrats should instill public confidence in his ability to engi-neer a bipartisan consensus. He’s a pragmatist.

After the litany of his failed promises (regarding the still-high unemployment rate, the deficit and healthcare costs), the case for reelecting Obama ap-pears increasingly weak. Most in-dicting, he has largely refrained

from describing a substantive narrative or coherent vision for the upcoming four years that is uniquely different from that of the past four years. He has failed to articulate a clearly defined set of policy prescriptions and solu-tions that would move a thinking person to support him again.

What change will come about if we reelect you Mr. President?

Since “nothing” appears to be the answer, our responsibility is clear. We have a moral obligation to support the alternative to the incumbent. We should settle for nothing less. The stakes are too high.

Roberto Matos is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cor-nell.edu

Odds and Ends

an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business."So, there you have it. The White

House has apparently taken to de-fending Abdulrahman’s killing. De-spite the fact that he was a child. And an American citizen. And never con-victed— or accused— of any crime. According to Press Secretary Gibbs, the simple misfortune of having a criminal in the family was enough to seal his fate as the victim of a deadly attack launched by his own country.

I don’t believe I need to say how sickening this position is, no mat-ter what your political leaning. If you’re a tough-on-terror securi-ty hawk, your first concern should be the protection of American citi-zens like Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and the endurance of the legal pro-tections—including the right to due process—that help make America a country worth fighting for. And if you’re a civil rights activist who was moved by Obama’s promises to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay (which, by the way, is still open), you should be shocked and maddened at his administration’s evidently flip-pant attitude toward the killing of a supposed-to-be-presumed-innocent American citizen.

As Ameri-cans, we gen-erally don’t believe the identity of a person’s father should deter-mine his year-ly income or where he goes to school, let alone whether or not he lives or dies; and as a country we would be fool-ish to deny Abdulrahman’s killing and the White House’s subsequent defense of it the scrutiny they de-serve. We would be foolish not to ask ourselves whether the man we put in the Oval Office four years ago is

the one we want running things four years from now.

Lucia Rafanelli is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at lmr93@cornell.edu.

provide military assistance to the Syrian opposition. This explains his arbitrary cuts to the defense budget that are set to devastate our long-term national security. And finally, this also explains why he regularly manages to amuse the Taliban by of-fering a timeline for the withdrawal of troops and raising the rhetoric of flight and abandonment.

In all of this, Obama ignores the fact that American troops have shown a great degree of restraint in their use of force. Even in the direst of circumstances, the American of-fensive has adhered to the laws of war and the standards of profession-alism¬. We have been more sensitive to the security of noncombatant ci-vilians and more willing to take risks for peace. But regardless of this fact, here is a President with a clear agen-da to curtail American influence in the world. Indeed, Obama can take pride in his strategy of appease-ment towards our avowed enemies that puts that great “Umbrella Man” Neville Chamberlain to shame.

In a 2008 Washington address, the President pledged to prevent terrorist states from acquiring nu-clear weapons. But apart from the rhetoric, his administration failed to mount sufficient diplomatic pres-sure on Iran. Even at the peak of the Arab Spring, Obama did not inter-vene to help the protestors against a repressive and reckless regime in Tehran. He took no steps to indict Ahmadinejad under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. In fact, the withdrawal of troops from Iraq has emboldened our adversaries and sounded the bugle of American re-treat from the region. But above all, the President failed to deter Iran’s nuclear weapons program—a strate-gic blunder that has not only sabo-taged the hope for peace in the Mid-dle East but also left the world in peril.

No Islamic nation with nuclear weapons can be trusted, least of all Iran, a state that sponsors interna-tional terrorism, threatens its neigh-bors in the Persian Gulf and perpet-uates brutal atrocities on its citizens. It is thus imperative that we deter Iran from the path of nuclear

armament through a se-ries of diplomatic and mil-itary measures. We must sever all commercial re-lations with Iran, includ-ing the export of refined petro-leum products, and tighten other economic sanctions on Iran. At the same time, we must be prepared for a swift and coordinated offen-sive against Iran’s nuclear program. But when the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu alarmed the world about the ''red line'' in Iran’s development of the bomb, it was Joe Biden who laughingly dismissed his concerns and applauded his critics.

Born in India, the first time I was introduced to American politics was when I heard the President deliver his celebrated “Yes, We Can” speech. Millions across the world seemed to be enchanted by his powerful mes-sage of hope and change. But four years down the line, we have come a long way from the romanticism of that night. While Obama dared us to believe in “The Audacity Of Hope,” he never for a moment believed in America. He condemned the idea of American leadership as hege-monic dominance and American

Exceptionalism as vain arrogance while fanatics continued to raise the black banner of extremism over our consulates. He offered unwarranted excuses for a video when the con-science of the nation demanded a massive retaliation.

Given the turbulent place that the world is in, I do not pretend to know what is going to happen in the coming years. I don’t know whether Assad will manage to sur-vive or whether Iran will build the bomb. But one fact seems abundant-ly clear—the worst that we can do in this situation, the absolute worst, is to do nothing. And that is precisely what this President has been doing. Consequently, I have no doubt that if this President were re-elect-ed, it would mean a lost decade for America.

Kushagra Aniket is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ka337@cornell.edu.

What You Voted ForContinued from page 4

The Last Stroke

Stakes Too High

Continued from page 4

Continued from page 5

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki

Tim

e

November 1, 2012 15

CR

Guest Column

After two years away from Cor-nell in the South Korean Army

as a combat medic, I returned to Ithaca this semester as a senior. The Army had forced me to mature but nevertheless, as a senior, I need-ed to get a job. Or at least decide what to do after graduation. Thus, I was forced to ask myself what I liked, what I disliked, and the mul-tiple other questions lost seniors ask themselves.

Last week, my Islamic history professor seemed to attack the heart of my problem when he asked our class, “What have you truly learned from your Cornell education?” Some of us ventured a few feeble squeaks but nobody seemed to have answers that were worth sharing. I privately indulged in my own thoughts and indeed wondered what I will have truly learned from Cornell after I left. Would Winston Churchill, in-ternational monetary theory, and French be what I learned at Cornell? Or was it something else?

In my attempt to conjure an intel-ligent answer to this question, I re-flected upon my recent experiences in the South Korean Army and my discussions with other ex-military students on campus. Maybe these students, who had also experienced life outside school, would give an-swers, and answer they did.

So, I decided to write a short ar-ticle about their stories—stories which seemed worth sharing with the Cornell community.

Chris Johnson, a graduate stu-dent at the economics department, told me his tale. After college, Chris had served in the United States Ma-rine Corps as an infantry officer.

As he conducted two combat tours in Iraq, Chris was forced to adjust quickly. He seemed to downplay the dangers he had faced when he said, he was “lucky” to have had been in a relatively safe area in Iraq. After Iraq, Chris came to Cornell to pur-sue graduate studies.

Chris admitted there were issues in adjusting to life after the mili-tary. He humorously stated, “They [Chris’s parents] had to remind me that my sister was not one of my ma-rines and I could not speak to her as such.”

When asked what the military had taught him though, Chris’s voice changed.

“I had a friend that I trained with and was killed on his first tour to Af-ghanistan. He had just married his girlfriend and they had moved to Japan. I also had a Marine in my pla-toon who deployed with me to Iraq and we returned back to the US, but he volunteered to go immediate-ly back to Iraq and was killed by an IED.”

Chris added the following: “You learn not to take for granted what we have. I know a lot of great people who have sacrificed a lot to be here [Cornell], so, I’m not trying to take that away from them at all. But I just know that, when you know what we’ve seen in the military, and had to live in that environment, you just learn not to take for granted friend-ships, your relationships with your family, and air-conditioning, run-ning water. Things could be a lot worse, very easily.”

Eonho Lee ‘13, formerly a UN peacekeeper with the UN Inter-im Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL), also commented on his military experience.

“Let’s be honest. I understand Cornell is diverse. I am myself a part of that diversity, being an interna-tional student. Yet we’re all college students; we’re, for the most part, protected from extreme situations such as starving to death or witness-ing personal acquaintances getting killed. The Army introduced me to a diversity I had never encountered.”

He continued, “There was a buddy whose father that was a part of a gang dealing with the prosti-tution industry. Another guy in my unit had attempted suicide, only to be stopped by another person at the last minute.”

Eonho was brave enough to con-clude, “At first, I unconsciously be-littled them. Yeah, I might have felt sorry for some of them, but I was arrogant without my knowing it. I made assumptions. However, after mingling with these guys, I found out they had qualities I did not. I re-ally learned that every person has a story. Every person has something he or she can teach me.”

Dave Blome, another former U.S. marine who had served in Iraq, and current graduate student in the his-tory department, pointed out anoth-er benefit we often overlooked:

“Cancer survivors might say the same thing. But I am appreciative most of just being able to move my arms and legs. Being able to enjoy the sun. Having the capability to ride my bike when I have the time. Back in Iraq, I came to terms with the prospect that in 15 minutes, 30 min-utes or an hour, everything might be dark—that I would be dead. I haven’t forgotten that. Now, little things like a good laugh with friends or family remind me of how great it is just to be living life.”

Perhaps though, the last word goes to Junhyung Lee ‘15, a comput-er science major in the College of Arts and Sciences.

Junhyung had served as a Ther-mo Observational Device (a special camera that sees objects in red, yel-low, and orange, depending on the temperature of the figures) special-ist on the heavily fortified North-South Korean border. The two Ko-reas are still officially at war, and border skirmishes are not uncom-mon as nearly 1 million armed men stand guard in bunkers, staring at one another across the border.

After his service, Junhyung com-mented on what he had learned to appreciate.

“I missed Sprite. I missed the freedom to walk over to a soda shop and buy a can of Sprite without wor-rying about reporting, getting per-mission, or potentially being shot at.”

Indeed these students’ stories convey the thanks and appreciation we often forget to give our friends, families, classmates, fellow employ-ees, and in general, our opportunity to learn. And of course, our sprites.

But, to go back to the question my professor had thrown: what have we learned here?

These students gained an appre-ciation of the many things in life we forget to thank, not because those things are unimportant but rather because they are so essential that we take them for granted. Let’s learn to appreciate the small things in life, because if we think about them, they may not be so small at all.

Hunny Jeong can be reached at hj257@cornell.edu.

Learning to Appreciate the Small ThingsEx-military Students discuss their experiences in Iraq, Lebanon and KoreaHunny JeongGuest Writer

CORNELLINSIDER.comInteresting news...for an interesting campus

16 November 1, 2012

CR

Read archived issues online at thecornellreview.com

Come to GS 156, Mondays at 5:00 pm or send us an email at cornellreview@cornell.edu

Join the Review.

Corona Veniet Delectis. A crown shall come to the worthy.

Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius.Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.Euripides

Candor dat viribus alas.Sincerity gives wings to strength.Horace

Cur ante tubam tremor occupat artus.Fear seizes the limbs before

the trumpet sounds.Virgil

Aliquis Latet Error.Some trickery lies hidden.Virgil

Audentis Fortuna iuuat.Fortune favours the bold.Virgil

There is properly no history, only biography. Ralph Waldo Emerson