What a difference a year makes. No longer fresh off an elec-

toral victory that indicated na-tional support to “fundamentally transform” the country, President Obama’s “year of action” was full of bite-sized ambitions served on a lib-eral, progressive menu.

To fill time during the hour-long State of the Union address, Obama relied on tested talking points, like the minimum wage, and on an end-less stream of anecdotes that prove nothing objective, but rather pro-voke false empathy.

The underlying flaw of the Presi-dent’s speech was that there was no clear message and no clear audience. Obama certainly did not sidestep to the center to attract less ideological voters, and he made no entreaties to compromise with conservatives. As for his core base and the far-left crowd, I surmise only three parts stood out.

First, the promise to bypass the Constitution and Congress “wher-ever and whenever,” and rule—as Senator Ted Cruz put it—by ex-ecutive fiat. Second was the veiled promise to destroy jobs, business-es, and livelihoods by legislating to thwart man-made climate change. Third was the call-to-arms to erad-icate female workplace discrimina-tion, which, with Obama’s soaring inflection and the crowd’s applauds, was the climax of the night. After all,

CNN contributor Alex Castellanos described the speech as, “A lot like sex.”

However, liberals desiring a more passionate evening were most likely thoroughly disappointed with the President’s lackluster performance. Perhaps many went to bed that night wishing they had gone through with the break up when they had the chance.

Fortunately, for anyone who wasn’t too bored or nauseated by the 65-minute-and-7-second State of the

Union address, more political banter awaited. Unfortunately, this was the official 10-and-a-half minute GOP response and was therefore equally as boring and nauseating.

Representative Cathy McMorris-Rodgers of Washington, the highest-ranking woman in the House GOP leadership, was tapped to give the party’s response. No doubt, Obama’s 55% of the female vote last election inspired the choice of a self-made, humble-roots female conservative in a blue state. McMorris-Rodg-ers is the personification of the key

demographic—white, working class and middle class women—to which GOP candidates want to appeal come 2014 and 2016.

However, the representative had little, if anything, to say in her speech. There was an empty pitch for immigration reform, which House Speaker John Boehner re-cently put the brakes on, and only a few sentences devoted to Obam-acare, tax reform and spending cuts.

It was more of an autobiography than anything else, with McMorris-

Rodgers’ life story taking up the bulk of the speech. Though her story is impressive and admirable, it reveals nothing pertinent about the govern-ing ideology she was supposed to represent and explain to the coun-try. Even worse, in between the un-wanted summary of her life and light touches upon real issues, Mc-Morris-Rodgers turned to the tried-and-true Obama motif of endless anecdotes.

Luckily in this country, the state of the union is not an objective fact. Evidence, of course, is that there is a

televised response to the president’s take on the state of the union, and even more so that anyone can take to the Internet and espouse his or her views. The Tea Party response given by Senator Mike Lee of Utah is one of these third party responses—one that was largely overlooked, even by conservatives.

The first few minutes were dull, amounting to history lessons about the Boston Tea Party and Constitu-tional Convention that were as in-spiring as a PBS special. He was like a middle-of-the-road batter facing 3-2 at the plate, slugging too hard at clichéd allusions and whiffing at opportunities to use his grandstand for more intense, thought-provoking monologue. But just as you thought he was sure to strike out, like Mc-Morris-Rodgers did, he ripped one deep into center field. It wasn’t a homerun by any means, but at about the point where he listed his “three principal forms” of the inequal-ity crisis, the momentum rapidly picked up. In contrast to the capi-talist-antagonist narrative espoused by Obama and leftist cronies, Lee identifies inequality as government-caused, citing immobility of the poor, insecurity of the middle class, and cronyism of the elite. Lee then unleashed an unforgiving criticism of both Democrats and Republicans for reinforcing a government-de-signed status quo of economic in-equality and political stalemate.

“We Do Not Apologize.”The Conservative Voice on Campus

BLOGblog.thecornellreview.com SITEthecornellreview.com

An Independent Publication

The Cornell ReviewApril 7, 2014vol. xxxii, no. iii

INSIDE!

Israel-Palestine Negotiations

Mittens!Review of Netflix Biopic 2

8

The SA Found a Little Pocket Change 5

The Lying King

Editorial: Some Men Just Want to Watch the World Burn

3

10

Interview With IFC President Pritchett 6

The Many States of the UnionCasey BreznickNational News Editor

Continued on page 4

“He was like a middle-of-the-road batter facing 3-2 at the plate, slugging too hard at clichéd allusions and whiffing at opportunities to use his grandstand for more intense, thought-provoking monologue.”

2 April 7, 2014

CR

Netflix’s new documentary “Mitt” goes behind the scenes

to depict the lives of Mitt Romney and his family during the 2008 and 2012 elections, with the idea that “whatever side you’re on, see an-other side.”

The film opens with a focus on the 2008 primary. After Mitt failed to get elected as the Republican can-didate for president, there was hes-itation, especially from Ann Rom-ney (Mitt’s wife) and Mitt’s sons, to proceed to 2012. When asked about the possibility of a 2012 presiden-tial run, Ann responded “I think I need to write myself some notes as to why I would not want to do that again, on how difficult this is, and just say…if you’re tempted, the an-swer’s no. It’s too much.” Nonethe-less, the family moved forward with the campaign.

Watching “Mitt” is comparable to watching a home movie of sorts, firstly because the shots are often of Mitt’s family, normally at home. Secondly, the shooting is candid and natural, without music for the most part, and is intended to portray the genuineness of Mitt as a person, not simply a politician. Largely apoliti-cal, the documentary dives deep into Mitt’s family life, his personal normalcy and faith, and important-ly his drive to do what he believed to be right for Americans.

One of the opening scenes dis-plays Mitt Romney and his family and grandchildren sledding, with Mitt encouraging the children to go down the intimidating hill. In the background, though it is unclear who says it, a voice chimes in “when you’re in a race, you can’t just quit like that.” This seems to set the stage

for the portrayal of the genuine drive to keep going, past the

2008 election and on through

to 2012. Later, sitting at the couch with his family, Tagg Romney offers his father support in ensuring him that it was a responsibility of his to run, saying, “It would be a shame not to at least try. And if you don’t win, we’ll still love you. The coun-try may think of you as a laughing stock, and that’s okay. But I think you have a duty to your country, and to God to see what comes of it.” This idea became integral to the cam-paign, demonstrating that his fam-ily and many others believed Mitt to be a good choice for president because of his character and good intent, and not simply his policies.

Simple clips from “Mitt” show an amazingly humanizing view of the governor, from Mitt picking up trash on the balcony before a major debate to his sleeping in a cramped temporary bed while on the road during his campaign. Further, mul-tiple scenes demonstrate the fam-ily’s commitment to God and the dedication translating through fre-quent prayer. While Romney re-ceived criticism for his faith during his campaign, “Mitt” confirmed his solid commitment to his Mormon faith and his disbelief in the ques-tioning of this as an impediment to a successful presidential career. It was indeed portrayed as a defin-ing aspect of his high character on which this film focused.

Offering another slice of candid truth, Josh Romney discusses his dad with the filmmaker compar-ing a typical media response to the question “Do you ever think, well, is this worth it?” Josh says his real,

un-coached reaction (while not in-credibly far off from his “media” re-sponse) would be to say “…I mean what better guy is there than my dad? …Is he perfect? Absolutely not. He’s made mistakes; he’s done all sorts of things wrong but for good-ness sakes. I mean here’s a bril-liant guy…his experience is turn-ing things around which is what we need in this country. This is the guy for the moment…you just get beat up constantly…‘oh Mitt Rom-ney’s a flip-flopper, he’s this, he’s that’ and you just kind of go man, is this worth it? This is awful.” He pauses and continues, “So, that’s the

translation.”Mitt’s willingness to discuss

his faults on film is somewhat sur-prising, as throughout the film he speaks of his flaws and mistakes as if they are unavoidable and human, and instead of dwelling on the fault, tends to turn to his family for advice and support for improvement. This tendency adds to the repeated mes-sages of hope throughout the film, and what seemed to be the family’s relentless belief that there is posi-tivity and light where one looks for it. Reflecting this theme of resilien-cy, Tagg gives his opinion on his fa-ther’s setbacks and, comparing him to Rocky, says“…you gotta show you can take a punch…and don’t go down until this thing’s over. And whether you win or not, you want to be known as a fighter, and this thing’s far from over.”

A major eye-opening idea ex-pressed in this documentary is Mitt’s complete willingness to be

open and transparent, even in his personal life. Certainly one of the most transparent candidates in his-tory in terms of his allowing very consistent filming of his family, their expression of their faith, and their deeply-seeded beliefs about God and their country. This rais-es an important question: would America have voted differently if it had known the true Mitt, at least as portrayed in his exposé? It seems probable that many were unaware of his genuine character or falsely convinced that he didn’t have one, but the film makes clear the mes-sage that Mitt believed in his coun-try and his duty not for power, but for service. For this reason many observe that the release of this kind of behind-the-scenes documenta-ry portraying Mitt as a family man, as a relaxed, unaffected person of faith and belief in positivity, is poor-ly timed. If it had been released during his campaign, would minds have been swayed? Unquestionably, the film helps increase transparen-cy, and also arguably Mitt Romney’s trustworthiness, at the very least in character.

However, as the Romney family made clear, family and values are incredibly important and without them, little else matters. Recently Ann Romney was interviewed on Fox News in regards to the cam-paign and the documentary. She said “We lost, but truly the coun-try lost by not having Mitt [as presi-dent]…Really in life how do you de-fine success? And for me success is do you have a good relationship; do you have a good family.”

Laura Gunderson is a freshmen in the College of Agriculture & Life Sci-ences. She can be reached at lcg63@cornell.edu.

Opinion

continued from the front page

Source: Egypt Independent

“The country may think of you as a laughing stock, and that's okay. But I think you have a duty to your country, and to God to see what comes of it.”

Laura GundersenStaff Writer

Behind the Scenes of a Failed Campaign

April 7, 2014 3

CR

The Time for Games is Over

On February 7th at 11 AM EST, the XXII Olympic Winter

Games officially began with the ex-travagant opening ceremonies such occasion warrants. All “fail ring” jokes aside, the slow march of the American contingent out of the sta-dium tunnel and on to the stadium floor marked the end of the first game of the Olympics: the Boycott Challenge.

Following the Russian parliament’s June 2013 approval of a bill that bans “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations,” various human and civil rights groups were outraged. According to CBS News, “[t]he legislation will impose hefty fines for providing information about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, or LGBT,

community to minors or holding gay pride rallies.” Though the physical legislation is bad enough in and of itself, the unwritten law is much worse. Various extremist groups across Russia have become self-appointed enforcers of the new law, only they don’t extract fines: they beat, humiliate, torture, and sometimes kill any member of LGBT community they can find. Some groups took to social media, setting up fake dates on gay message boards, then filming themselves attacking their unfortunate victims.

Naturally, outrage at these practices has spread beyond just the LGBT community. Prior to the start of the games, many different organizations instituted

a world-wide call to boycott the games in Sochi entirely. Many world leaders openly denounced Russian president Vladimir Putin. However, no country went so far as to boycott the games entirely. Even Georgia, who was in armed conflict with Russia over contested territory during the 2008 South Ossetia War, sent four Olympians.

President Obama faced pressure from these advocacy groups, which represent a key demographic of his constituency. To his credit, the President handle the situation with aplomb by not personally attending the opening ceremony and sending prominent American LGBT representatives in his place. This action made a statement about the his disapproval of Russia’s policies towards gays without taking the

spotlight away from the athletes, where it rightly belongs.

But the games are now over.In the days following the

conclusion of the Olympics, Russian troops descended upon the Crimea region of Ukraine, an area that has been a subject of territorial dispute since Ukraine declared its independence. The current troubles stem from a debate between two opposing factions in the Ukrainian government—one side wishes to trade with the EU, while the other wants closer ties with Russia. The question is what Putin will decide to do now that his troops are there and Crimea has been annexed.

In response to these actions, President Obama has acted just as

he did with the Olympic boycott controversy—a stream of statements condemning Russia’s actions and a litany of economic sanctions. The problem is that this is not another social issue that can be solved with words and ceremonial gestures. Especially not when the words and actions have precisely zero impact upon there intended target.

To put it bluntly, Vladimir Putin and his entourage could not care less about President Obama’s eloquence.

Putin has stated that Russia could not only survive further sanctions by the US, but could actually become free of any economic dependence on the US or EU at all. Whether these claims are accurate is up for debate, but that isn’t necessarily the point. The point is that Vladimir Putin has finally become the man that former Presidents Clinton and Bush worried he would become: a man who no longer feels the need to hide his disdain for the West.

As the weeks progress, Putin’s shift in attitude has become even more apparent. From his actions in the Ukraine, to his reaction to the protests of Obama and other leaders, to his further support of President Assad in Syria, Putin seems to be taking any and every opportunity to openly challenge the international power of the United States. Meanwhile, President Obama is left with the difficult task of trying to figure out how negotiate with a man who does not respect him.

We can only hope that he figures it out sooner rather than later.

Mike Navarro is a senior in the College of Agriculture and Life Science. He can be reached at mln62@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 Tuesdays at 5:00 pm in GSH 156.

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

Faculty AdvisorWilliam A. Jacobson

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.

Copyright © 2014 The Ithaca Review Inc. All Rights Reserved.

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.

“To put it bluntly, Vladimir Putin and his entourage could not care less about President Obama’s eloquence.”

Mike NavarroEditor-In-Chief

The Cornell Reviewest.1984

thecornellreview.com

Mike NavarroEditor-in-Chief

Laurel ConradPresident

Nathaniel HunterCampus News Editor

Casey BreznickNational News Editor

ContributorsMichael Alan

Kushagra AniketCaroline Emberton

Andre GardinerAlex Gimenez

Laura GundersenMichael Loffredo

Roberto MatosBill Snyder

Emeritus MembersNoah Kantro

Alfonse MugliaKarim Lakhani

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

4 April 7, 2014

CR

America’s frustration was cap-tured in Lee’s statistics that “six of the ten wealthiest counties in Amer-ica are now suburbs of Washington, D.C.” and his insightful character-ization of the Obama-era economy as one for the “middle-men,” not the middle-class.

The Tea Party response’s main focus was on specific problems fac-ing this country, like mismanaged federal lands closed off to private sector development and taxpayer bailouts to banks, insurance com-panies, and auto manufacturers. But unlike the other speakers, Lee list-ed practical solutions in the works in Congress that could solve many of these problems, such as bills that would end all federal energy indus-try subsidies and reform the penal system to allow reformed, non-vi-olent offenders to reintegrate into

society. Granted, these solu-

tions are all Tea Party

solutions—pro-free market, fiscally conservative, libertarian-leaning—but even if you don’t identify with this political movement, I find it dif-ficult to argue either established po-litical parties’ addresses to be nearly as substantive. Even if you disagree

with most of what Lee had to say and what the Tea Party stands for, at least acknowledge that Lee and the Tea Party fundamentally approach modern governing as the unwind-ing of the inequality, suffering, and problems created by the governing of the past.

In sum: After watching Lee’s speech, you can list specific problems

and specific solutions. After watch-ing Obama’s speech, you can list partisan problems and partisan so-lutions. After watching McMorris-Rodgers’ speech, you can construct her family tree.

Casey Breznick is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at cb628@cornell.edu.

In late January the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the

United States Postal Service (USPS) issued a white paper assessing the viability of having post offices pro-vide basic non-bank financial ser-vices, such as payday loans, check cashing, and digital currency ex-changes. The report concluded that the USPS could generate $8.9 billion in revenue per annum, while in the process roughly a quarter of the US population would receive services they were unable to receive before. A week after the report was issued Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) issued an editorial in support of the findings.

The OIG’s case for the USPS pro-viding basic banking services relies on a few basic points. First, the OIG estimates that roughly a quarter of US households don’t have access to basic financial services, which trans-lates in just under $2,500 in annual fees. Second, they suggest that the

USPS is in a better position finan-cially to provide low-income earners with services such as payday loans. This could potentially lower the ef-fective interest rate on short-term loans from 391% to 28%. Finally, the OIG argues that the post office has the geographical infrastructure and reputation to provider greater ac-cess. They point Switzerland, New Zealand, and Italy, all of which have postal services that provide finan-cial services.

There are numerous flaws with the OIG's report. First, it provides an overly simplistic view of banking services available to low-income in-dividuals. While many in this coun-try spend a significant portion of their income on payday loans, this is due to their underlying, often poor, credit quality. Many of the largest US banks—including JP Morgan, Citibank, and Wells Fargo—are re-luctant to provide small loans be-cause of the high potential of low risk-adjusted returns. Even credit unions, which provide services to low-income individuals, are forced

to charge higher interest rates to compensate for the risk. While some advocates argue that loan rates are solely designed to maximize profit, this ignores certain competitive re-alities. Changes in technology and the vast number of financial insti-tutions put downward pressure on rates.

On the topic of risk, the OIG re-port understates the ability of the USPS to bear financial risk. First, the USPS is in the process of drastic cost reductions as a result of substantial short and long-term liabilities. As of 2013, liabilities exceeded assets by roughly $40 billion. Additionally, the USPS is already highly indebted to the US government. Therefore, it would be nearly impossible for the Post Office to accumulate the re-serves needed to finance payday ser-vices. Second, the USPS lacks the expertise to provide even the most basic finance services. They lack both the personnel and risk manage-ment background needed to provide low income loans. While they could theoretically outsource those needs,

that would significantly cut into their already weak bottom line.

The real problem with the OIG’s report is that it ignores execution pathways. While a large portion of the US population does not have ac-cess to the services of traditional banks, the US government currently spends billions annually in an effort to solve this problem, the most no-table of which is the credit union tax exemption. Credit unions already serve 96 million people, and are far better qualified than the USPS to provide additional services.

This report is simply a distrac-tion from the larger discussion of the USPS’s overall financial health. Advocates such as Elizabeth Warren are desperately seeking alternatives to necessary and inevitable discus-sions about service cuts and privati-zation to major government-funded programs like the USPS. Turning the post office into a community bank is a poor alternative, and a disaster waiting to happen.

National

State(s) of the UnionContinued from the front page

Best in Show Joins the Pony ExpressThe Cornell ReviewStaff Writer

April 7, 2014 5

CR

Former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown wants Cornell stu-

dents to do two things—first, check the voting records of our represen-tatives, and second, find out more about an organization called “No La-bels”, he revealed in his Call Audi-torium lecture “Beyond Labels: The Problem with Partisanship” on Feb-ruary 6th.

This is because, according to Brown, if our representatives vote with their political party 100 per-cent of the time, something is amiss.

In his lecture, Brown lamented the inability of politicians to reach across the political aisle in Washing-ton and recounted how his own In-sider Trading Bill was met with par-tisan difficulties. He promoted the idea that there should be a strong block of moderate legislators to mit-igate partisanship.

As an example of how things should work in Washington, he cited

his own open-mindedness in voting in favor with the controversial Dem-ocratic American Jobs Act in 2011.

Waxing nostalgic, Brown re-called the days of Ronald Reagan and Democrat Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil: by day fierce political opponents, but by night friends who worked things out over a game of cards.

“Was Reagan a RINO?” Brown asked rhetorically.

Later on, when discussing his ex-perience in the Senate, Brown com-plained that his own party often called him a RINO. But being a mod-erate is something Brown takes great pride in. Previously in an interview with the Associated Press, Brown remarked, “[I am] if not the most, one of the most bipartisan people in the entire Senate, and I take great pride in that.”

Cornell Republicans chair Kyle Ezzedine was pleased with the event. "I think the event was ex-tremely successful. The audience attendance was great and Scott

Brown's speech was insightful and relevant to today's congressional problems. I believe that Senator Brown's message was well received by the audience (except for a few instigators). Whether or not an au-dience member was conservative, liberal, Republican, or Democrat, I think they all appreciated Senator Brown's appeal to moderation and problem-solving."

Despite losing the 2012 election to Elizabeth Warren—the woman who falsely claimed to be Native American to advance her career— Brown told Cornellians he “won’t rule out a return to politics.”

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

Campus

In case you weren't aware—per-haps because you, like most sane

people, do not enjoy wading through two hours of tedium every Thurs-day evening—the Student Assembly is currently sitting on approximately one million dollars.

What's it for? That's what we'd all like to know.

The Student Assembly included.The Student Assembly Endow-

ment Fund is drawn from the stu-dent activity fee at a rate of $5 per student, per year, and it currently contains about $1 million. The idea was that once enough money was accumulated, the endowment could self-fund the SA Finance Commit-tee. 'Was' is the operative word. Last year, someone finally did some math and figured out that there wouldn't be enough money to do that until at least 2150. To put that in perspec-tive, you will die, your children will die, your grandchildren might make it (depending on future medical and technological advancements, etc.), and your grandchildren's grandchil-dren will be able to attend Cornell on the day that the SAFC can fund

itself. Assuming the school/state/country/world hasn't collapsed by then.

Soon following this discovery, a new plan was created. Accord-ing to SA Resolution 48, which was passed near the end of last spring, the endowment fund should be more or less replaced by an “inno-vation fund.” The endowment will still exist; it just won't be getting your five bucks every year. The In-novation Fund that replaces it would grant approximately $25,000 a year, approximately 1.974% of the endow-ment, to students starting new clubs, organizations, non-profits with higher startup costs, or organiza-tions which benefit the student body at large but could not secure funding by traditional means.

Now, I talk about this plan like it's set in stone: it isn't. Resolution 48 still must be re-ratified by the current Student Assembly, which has yet to happen. As such, the “in-novation fund” is just one of many options, and it isn't even an option that's totally accepted by the SA. For example, President Ulysses Smith has said that he would prefer a more “tangible project”, like a renovation of Willard Straight Hall.

As such, there is a million dollars just sitting around, and no one's sure what to do with it. Everyone's pet causes are running rampant through the SA because the money is un-marked at this point. It's fair game.

Like most things SA related, the problem is that the general student body has no idea that this money even exists, let alone that students have a say in what to do with it. The only press it's gotten in the Daily Sun was a third of an article on the first Student Assembly meeting of the semester.

That leaves the press the task of bringing this issue to you so you can voice your opinion. It is, in every

sense, your money. There's a strong

opportunity here, and it's in dan-

ger of going to waste. So, everyone

needs to put their heads together

(and their pet causes aside) to think

of something that can provide a long

lasting benefit. The Innovation Fund

isn't a bad idea, provided there are

strong, sane principles behind the

selection of its awardees. Neither

is a Willard Straight renovation—

though $1 million is probably not

enough to get a real, full renovation

going; more fundraising would be

necessary. I'm personally rooting for

a solid gold statue of President Skor-

ton in the center of the Arts Quad, or

even a stronger investment in fossil

fuels. But hey, we can all dream.

Nathaniel Hunter is a freshman

in the College of Arts & Sciences. He

can be reached at nth9@cor-

nell.edu.

A Milli, A Milli, A Milli, A Milli, A MilliThe SA Found Some Spending Money

Don't Label Me, Bro.Laurel ConradPresident

Nathaniel HunterStaff Writer

6 April 7, 2014

CR

Campus

Could you tell me a little bit about yourself, and why you wanted to be IFC president?

IFC Prez Pritchett on Greek FutureIn the last few years, the Cornell University Greek system has seen a

whirlwind of changes. With the institution of new rules, a new sorority, and new changes within the system, The Cornell Review sought out IFC President Cameron Pritchett to find out what may be next for the Greeks.

When you said that you saw other presidents seeing similar issues, what were you describing?

Overall, there has been a lack of transparency in a lot of ways and a lack of communication. That could be as result of the IFC as a governing body, and also with the administration on certain issues. One of my goals as IFC president is to try and end issues with lack of transpar-ency and communication. So, if it comes to something as far as the judicial process, a lot of presidents are un-clear about “What is a violation?” for a social event, how it is handled by the judicial board, and about the time-line for when something is going to be resolved.

This is something that causes a lot of pressure on you as a chapter president. And the rules themselves, the event management guidelines, are very difficult to un-derstand. A lot of times, they aren’t even accessible. If you’re going to hold people accountable for rules, it’s important to at least give them the opportunity to know what they’re being accountable to.

In addition to that, I think, generally, there hadn’t been as much of a communal aspect to being in a fraternity. So, it’s important that when I was in Sigma Chi, I loved Sigma Chi, they were a terrific chapter and I love my brothers and I love what we worked on, but there is also some-thing to be said for this entire Greek experience. In speaking with a lot of chapter presidents, they felt like they didn’t have the chance to speak through other forums to different people, and to co-sponsor events with them, and to have the relationships. We’re trying to do some more things to engage people, so they have the opportunity to know people through different parts of the system.

I am from Columbia, Maryland, and I am a junior in the Hotel School, but a little more non-traditional. I am more interested in policy, but I thought the Hotel School would give me a nice balance to the policy route, in case I want to go to law school. I thought the business education and the more practical skills—such as presentation, how to send emails, and write memos—would be helpful. I got involved on campus immediately fresh-man year in the Student Assembly.

I’ve always been that person who wants to be in a position where you can try to make change and understand what’s going on on-campus. So, SA gave me the opportunity to learn a lot about different student organi-zations. At the same time, I joined the Greek community, Sigma Chi. I was a little hesitant to join a fraternity. I came in not expecting to do so, until I really saw the benefits. I got to talk to people in different houses, especially in my own, who spoke so positively about the brotherhood, the camaraderie, and the tangible benefits of being in such a large national organization.

Joining Sigma Chi was the best experience I could have asked for. I expected just to join, be part of the house and go to some events. But I was inspired to pursue leadership, and I worked my way up to the executive board, becoming president at the end of my sophomore year. Through being president of Sigma Chi, I was exposed to the passion that people had in other houses. So, I got to meet a lot of other presidents of other chapters, who were having a lot of the same issues.

Ideally, I wanted to be president so that I could help the students as a whole such that that all students could have the wonderful Greek experience that I had. Yes, the Greek system has been in a very transformational stage over the last couple of years. The idea is that it is time for the system to proclaim some sort of self-gover-nance in order to make certain changes in our own system.

By Laurel Conrad, President

April 7, 2014 7

CR

Campus

To wrap up, what direction is the IFC headed in?

What are you trying to do to engage people?

One of the issues that we’ve had is only chapter presidents have been invited to participate. We have our IFC general body meetings on Wednesdays, and chapter presidents go or they send a representative. But with thousands of students in the Greek system, it’s important to engage beyond just the chapter presidents. So something we’ve done is create committees. That way it’s not just the people at the top of their organizations that have the ability to come in and have their input shared on different issues.

That’s one of the things I take away from my SA leadership: it’s good to create committees to delegate responsibility and come up with a tangible product. For example, one of the committees has to do with the quarter system. The goal is to have this working group of people, composed of IFC executive board members, chapter presidents, and just general fraternity members, who are researching and exploring information at Cornell and also benchmarking data from other schools, looking at how they deal with issues like alcohol safety awareness and interaction with fraternities the entire year.

Their goal is to find a recommendation about what the IFC’s official position is, with respect to the quarter system. And we’ve formed several committees that are going to be looking at big issues like that. We sent out the application, thinking that a few people would apply, and we got over 80 applications, which we did not expect. That just goes to show that when people have the opportunity to get involved and explore larger Greek system issues, they’ll take it. I look forward to seeing what the committees come up with.

Are live-in advisors a legitimate possibility that IFC may be pursuing?

The Fraternity and Sorority Advisory Council have been exploring live-in advisors for the past year. What I’ve wanted to do in the IFC role is state for that council what the IFC’s position is, so they can consider that as they con-tinue to explore. Last year’s executive board in the IFC put together a letter that essentially states what the position is of the IFC as a whole. We’ve been tailoring that letter over the last couple of weeks, and we’ve come up with a final product. And we’re going to put that up for a vote. After the end of that meeting, we will hopefully have a full position of the IFC that we can trans-mit to the Fraternity and Sorority Advisory Council. I expect a full decision sometime in April or May, but over all, there are a lot of questions to be asked.

“The idea is that it is

time for the system to

proclaim some sort of self-

governance in order to

make certain changes in

our own system. ”

Is there a situation when the IFC would consider adding a new chapter to campus?

One of my biggest goals this year is to make sure we don’t lose any more chapters. I wrote a letter at the beginning of the semester that stated why the institution of hazing had to be fully eradicated in our system. Why in 2014, hazing would not be tolerated at any level in this country and especially not in our fraternities. Very practically speaking, we all agree that what’s most important is that chapters stay on campus.

What we’ve seen is a very good new member education period, where chapters were abiding by the rules set forth. I’m very happy to see that chapters are taking that seriously, to make sure that they’re doing a responsible new member education period. That, on top of having a terrific rush week (where we had relatively few issues). In the words of a CUPD officer, it was the best week on record. The quietest, abiding by the dry policy, and making sure we were safe while making sure people found the best fit for them.

Overall, it’s hard to say we’re going to have more chapters coming back. There’s definitely interest. We have such a big Greek system at Cornell and a prominent one, but I will say that there are a number of chapters in the pipeline to return. It’s probably unlikely that we’re going to see entirely new chapters, at least in the foreseeable future.

I’d say a positive one. There’s concern from some students that they feel that the Greek system is scared, that it may be diminishing, or that some people might not want to see the Greek system here. But what I can say—based on all of my interactions with students, alumni, and adminis-trators—we all agree that the Greek system here is an important part of the Cornell experience. It’s been in the fabric of the Cornell experience since the very first days of this University, and we all want to see it continue to grow and flourish. What we’ll be doing in the IFC is to make sure that we’re not just preserv-ing the system, but also trying to strengthen it. We’re going to do that by engaging more people on issues that impact our entire community and figuring out how we can work with administrators and alumni on our mutual goals. I’m really excited about the direction the IFC is going, and the entire Greek system.

8 April 7, 2014

CR

After significant coaxing from John Kerry and the Obama Ad-

ministration, Israel and the Palestin-ians resumed peace talks in July of last year. Israel agreed to the release of 104 prisoners convicted of mur-der before the 1993 Oslo Accords in order to bring the Palestinians to the table. This move was bitterly criti-cized by many in Israel, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pre-ferred the prisoner release to a com-plete freeze on the growth of major settlement blocs which will likely remain part of Israel in any peace agreement.

The prisoner releases have oc-curred as scheduled, but the talks have thus far shown no significant progress. Wide gaps have persisted between the sides on every major issue, and both sides are no closer to an agreement than they were when the talks started in July.

In an attempt to make progress with the negotiations, Kerry has re-cently focused America’s efforts on producing a framework agreement, which will outline the basis for fur-ther negotiations on all of the core issues. The agreement will not of-ficially be binding for either side, thus allowing Netanyahu and Abbas some political deniability. Although the details have not been officially made public, various sources have revealed bits of information about what the proposal will contain.

The ultimate vision is to create a Palestinian state, the nation-state of the Palestinian people, alongside Is-rael, the state of the Jewish people. It will establish the pre-1967 lines as the basis for determining the bor-ders of the future Palestinian State, with mutual land swaps to account for new realities on the ground. This is a major concession for Isra-el, which vividly recalls the teeter-ing security of the state before 1967, and the basic topography of the mountainous west bank towering above the lower Tel Aviv area. From a purely military perspective, de-fending the coastal plain against at-tacks from higher ground is a scary endeavor.

Another major point of conten-tion has been the control of the Jor-dan border. Israel insists on long term control over the border to en-sure that rockets and other weap-ons aren’t smuggled into the new Palestinian state, allowing it to be-come a new base for terror attacks against Israel. The Palestinians call for an immediate Israeli withdrawal

and Palestinian or international forces to be given control over

the border. Kerry’s proposal

will likely include a phased Israeli withdrawal with massive American technological assistance to ensure border security, according to Martin Indyk, the State Department's lead envoy to the negotiations.

There will be compensation for both the Palestinian refugees and for the Jews who were expelled from Arab countries during the War of 1948. In addition, there will be no “right of return” allowing Pales-tinian refugees, their children, and grandchildren to return to sovereign

Israel. The proposal will be rather vague on Jerusalem, but will likely contain some reference to the estab-lishment of a Palestinian capital in some part of East Jerusalem.

Sources have indicated that Ne-tanyahu will accept the proposal for continuing the negotiations, de-spite the ardent opposition of many members of his coalition and even his own party. On the other hand, all signs point to the Palestinians rejecting the framework because of their persistent refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. And so, there is expected to be a standstill. Israel will likely recognize the right of Pal-estinians to have a nation for the Pal-estinian people, but the Palestinians will also likely refuse to recognize the existence of a state for the Jew-ish people.

If the conflict with Israel were about the occupation, then the Pal-estinians would accept this frame-work and potentially pave the way for a sovereign Palestinian state. This would then allow for a com-plete Israeli withdrawal. If it is about settlements, they should still accept it. After all, it will propose incorporating land from today’s

sovereign Israel into future Pales-tine, in an exact one for one ratio to the settlement blocs remaining part of Israel.

In fact, today’s situation reveals once again the true root of the con-flict between Israel and the Palestin-ians: the Palestinians’ refusal to ac-cept the right of the Jewish people to have their own distinctively Jew-ish state somewhere between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. It is a denial of current reality—that the majority of the world’s Jews reside

in Israel, and that Jews from around the world unanimously view Israel as their homeland. This is a denial of well-known history—that there was a series of autonomous Jew-ish states and two temples seated in Jerusalem, in the days of antiquity. The Palestinians want to ignore the fact that there has been a continu-ous Jewish presence in the land, al-though at times very small, from the time of the temples until today.

Now, when Palestinian officials are asked to explain their intransi-gence on this point, we tend to hear two possible answers. First, they claim that recognizing Israel as a Jewish state means denying their own Palestinian narrative. Second, it would mean dooming Israel’s Arab citizens to systemic discrimination, as non-Jews living in a Jewish state.

However, both points are untrue. Recognizing that Jews have a right to a homeland doesn’t imply that Palestinians have lost that right, and recognizing that Jews have a histo-ry of residing in that land in no way implies that Palestinians don’t also have such a history. These two nar-ratives are in no way mutually exclu-sive, unless the Palestinian narrative

is to rule over everything from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. The Palestinians are not being asked to deny their narrative. They’re being asked to recognize the truth of both narratives.

The second point is debunked simply by observing Israel as it is today. Its law and society are in many ways distinctively Jewish, with a calendar and work schedule shaped by Jewish law. Yet, Israel’s Arab citizens enjoy full and equal rights—equal participation in the

political process, equal access to all economic opportunities, and even the ability to serve in the IDF if they choose to do so. Therefore, Palestin-ian recognition of the Jewish state won’t diminish the full equality that Israeli Arabs already have.

Furthermore, the issue of rec-ognition represents the question of whether a potential deal will end the conflict or will be just another step-ping stone in the struggle against the Jewish state. Israel, who will become significantly more vulner-able after conceding large amounts of land in a peace deal, can’t take any chances. It must be assured that a peace deal will be the end of this conflict.

So President Abbas, Israel has already recognized the right of the Palestinian people to have a state. It’s time for you to stand before your people and recognize that the Jew-ish people have a right to their own state.

Benjamin Horowitz is the Chair of Political Affairs for the Cornell-Israel Public Affairs Committee. He is a ju-nior in CALS, and can be reached at bsh56@cornell.edu.

National8

Negotiation: An Issue of PerspectiveBenjamin HorowitzGuest Column

2006 Presidential and Perpetual Loser John Kerry, chatting with PA President Mahmoud Abbas about how staged this photo is.

April 7, 2014 9

CR

In a stunning move last December, the American Studies Association

(ASA) voted to endorse a boycott of all Israeli academic institutions over treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and other disputed territories.

Citing “Israeli occupation of Pal-estine and the expansion of ille-gal settlements”, lack of “academ-ic freedom for Palestinian students and scholars”, “Israeli institutions of higher learning…party to Israe-li state policies that violate human rights”, 66 percent of ASA members who voted approved of the boycott.

The ASA, which according to its website proclaims to be “devoted to the interdisciplinary study of Amer-ican culture and history”, forayed

into international politicking after the Association for Asian American Studies became the first sizable ac-ademic institution to officially boy-cott Israel.

To the chagrin of the anti-Israel, the boycott has failed to gain trac-tion, with over 200 universities, (in-cluding Cornell, Harvard, and Yale) denouncing it. Some universities, such as Penn State-Harrisburg and University of Texas-Dallas, have even terminated their institutional relationships with the ASA.

These preliminary facts and opin-ions aside, the purpose of this arti-cle is not to articulate either a pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli argument, though I am admittedly a support-er of both Israel’s sovereignty and a two-state solution. Those seeking to formulate their own opinions on the almost seventy year struggle be-tween Israelis and Palestinians can consult the dizzying amount of liter-ature and propaganda available.

This article’s purpose is to ex-pose two serious flaws and hypocri-sies with this particular boycott and its rationale—if it can be done—void of drawing in too much from the political, military, religious, etc. di-mensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The first of these flaws is the glar-ingly hypocritical rationale that, to

protest Israel’s supposed suppres-sion of Palestinian academic free-dom and educational opportunities, the ASA is boycotting the academic freedom and educational opportuni-ties of Israelis.

The Association of American Universities’ letter of rejection to joining the ASA boycott, of which Cornell President David Skorton is a signatory, offered this succinct re-buttal to the Orwellian double-think that must be the boycott’s founda-tional logic: “Efforts to address po-litical issues, or to address restric-tions on academic freedom, should not themselves infringe upon aca-demic freedom.”

Casting aside rational analysis of the futile, ineffective, and illogical nature of the ASA boycott, two edi-torials in the Cornell Daily Sun, one

by Rebecca John ’14 and the other by Anna-Lisa Castle ’14, called on the university to reverse its anti-boycott stance. They cited Israel’s human rights abuses, but not Palestinians’. They urged that boycott, divest-ment, and sanctions (BDS) would pressure Israel’s government into conceding to the Palestinians, but gave no consideration to the nega-tive repercussions of targeting and shaming Israeli scholars who have no connection to political and mili-tary policies. It is fallacious to argue that citizenship of a particular coun-try is an indictment to the country’s wrongdoings, real or perceived.

One editorialist even insinuated the existence of some sort of pro-Is-rael conspiracy involving President Skorton and Cornell’s partnership with Technion—an Israeli univer-sity—to build the Tech Campus in New York City.

Interestingly, on the heels of pas-sionate portrayals of the evils of Is-rael’s occupation of Palestinian lands, the editorials then qualified the boycott as largely symbolic: the institutions are being boycotted, not Israeli scholars who can still indi-vidually collaborate with ASA mem-bers. Accordingly, the conclusion is drawn that the boycott is therefore not an assault on academic freedom or the free flow of information.

But this backtracking invites the question: Is the boycott a firm stand against perceived wrongdoings or is it a symbolic gesture whose efficacy expires as soon as the ink of a cov-eted university president’s signature dries?

If the human rights violations are as bad as they are made out to be, then the boycott should be as puni-tive as possible. It is not, though, be-cause the ASA does not want to be accused of what it blatantly did with initiating its boycott—limiting aca-demic freedom both symbolically and in reality.

The second flaw relates to why the ASA targeted academic institu-tions. Instituting a boycott of Israe-li companies, or petitioning for eco-nomic and financial sanctions such as those placed on Iran, seems more sensible to the anti-Israel, pro-Pal-estinian cause. Instead, the ASA cas-tigated Israeli universities because of their supposed complicity with the contested actions of the Israeli government and military. American universities that came out against the ASA’s assertions denied these dubious claims, and no official en-dorsement by any major Israeli uni-versity of any Israeli government policies could be found.

Supposing that the ASA’s allega-tions were true, then it would have been understandable that the ASA or any academic institution took issue with politicized academia. But to remedy the situation, the ASA it-self politicized along highly partisan lines.

The common theme here is that the ASA fights fire with fire. They are to peacekeeping as the firefight-ers of Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 are to extinguishing fires.

Also related to this topic is, in its boycott resolution, what the ASA identifies as discriminatory admis-sions policies towards Palestinians. One way in which this notion is claimed to be proven, at least in some

articles supporting the boycott, is by comparing the percent population of Arabs in Israel (no data on specifi-cally Palestinians could be found) to those in universities—20.6% to 11%, respectively, according to Jew-ish Virtual Library and Jewish news source Haaretz.

Unfortunately, Cornell too is dis-criminatory because in its Class of 2017 only 7% of students are black or African American, whereas this demographic makes up 13.1% of the US population.

Despite the smoke and mirrors BDS proponents sometimes employ, this movement’s and the ASA boy-cott’s primary goal is to stir enough public support to force Israel into a conciliatory position as quickly as possible.

However, efforts to expedite the delicate peace-brokering required to settle this extremely complex, highly emotional issue risk worsen-ing the situation for both sides. Look into the past, when brinksmanship, appeasement, and perception (real or false) of international pressuring have all caused deadly conflicts.

It is rarely ever the case in a two-sided international or national crisis where neither side is totally void of blame or wrong-doing. Such a di-chotomous, black-and-white view of issues is revealing of either a low conceptual grasp of the situa-tion or an appeal to those who re-fuse to reconsider their dogmatic one-sidedness.

The complexity of the situation lies in the fact that Israel has its own paradigm regarding the interwo-ven political, military, historic, eth-nic, and religious dimensions to the conflict and Palestinians theirs. It is therefore surprising that scholars of culture and history such as those in the ASA, whose major career skill is the ability to evaluate varying and contradicting claims and

National

“Despite the smoke and mirrors BDS proponents sometimes employ, this movement’s and the ASA boycott’s primary goal is to stir enough public support to force Israel into a conciliatory position as quickly as possible.”

Anti-Israel Academic Boycott Hypocritical Casey BreznickNational News Editor

Scholars foray into international politics

Continued on page 10

10 April 7, 2014

CR

The President’s administration has been wrought with execu-

tive orders that have substantially altered the enforcement of legisla-tion. While executive orders are a constitutional right of the President, using executive orders to fundamen-tally alter legislation passed by Con-gress is nothing more than executive fiat.

Executive orders are a critical part of Presidential power. Because legislation is often vague, executive orders allow the President the abil-ity to more specifically implement and enforce law. For example, if Congress passed a law substantially increasing regulations on financial organizations, the President could order the creation of a finance com-mission to enforce these new regu-lations. The law has no mention of such a commission, but the President has the power to adjust his adminis-tration to best enforce congressional legislation. The problem is drawing the line between altering the way in which you enforce law and changing the intention of the law.

For President Obama’s admin-istration, the line does not seem to exist. One of the most controver-sial instances of Presidential execu-tive fiat was the alteration of immi-gration procedure to implement the defeated DREAM Act. The DREAM Act’s intention was to allow citizen-ship for illegal immigrants, mostly students, which also demonstrated good moral standing. The legislation, however, was defeated in Congress. Instead of obeying the authority of Congress, President Obama sent out an email changing immigration en-forcement procedures. Under the guise of “prosecutorial discretion,” the President changed illegal immi-gration enforcement policies to be more favorable towards illegal’s that met the DREAM Act criteria. The President’s use of “prosecutorial discretion” is nothing more than the Obama Administration’s attempt to legislate through executive power. The email fundamentally changes enforcement policy to institute a law that Congress did not want passed, which is a blatant abuse of power.

Another example of executive fiat is the President’s decision, on

two separate occasions, to delay the deadline for the implementation of Obamacare. What this means is that the regulatory statutes applied to business and individuals will not be enforced according to the date pre-determined by Congress. This is an abuse of executive orders. The Presi-dent is changing how he will enforce Obama-care, but instead, has chosen not to enforce the law at all (or at least temporarily). This is a violation of the President’s constitutional re-sponsibilities, which are to enforce the laws passed by Congress.

In one case, the President is choosing to create legislation through executive orders, and in the other, the President is refusing to enforce the law. This was not the in-tention of executive orders, nor are these constitutionally sanctioned presidential powers.

Many have argued that the Presi-dent has passed relatively few exec-utive orders, the past two examples not included. However, this is po-litical pandering to the Obama ad-ministration. Neither the immigra-tion enforcement changes nor the delay of Obamacare are technically

classified as formal executive or-ders. But, formal classification is not relevant to the argument. The Presi-dent is changing how he enforces a law to change legislative intent. For-mal classification is just a semantic argument against the reality of the situation. Furthermore, the fact that the President is not formally issuing executive orders suggests the Pres-ident is purposefully hiding his ac-tions. If anything, this is more cause for concern.

However, what is more trou-blesome is the Republican Party’s seeming disinterest in these execu-tive abuses. While the Republicans, in the case of Obamacare, may not want the policies to come into effect, inaction against these abuses sets up a harmful precedent. By not legally challenging the President, the Re-publicans are de facto justifying the President’s abuse of power. This is an erosion of a limited government and adherence to the Constitution, which the Republican Party claims to stand for. Instead of allowing the President to create legislation, Con-gressional Republicans should take Obama to the courts.

However, the Democrats should also be concerned. Because if such a precedent is firmly cemented in presidential politics, the Republi-cans will have equal cause to unilat-erally pass legislation against their interests.

Bill Snyder is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at wjs254@cornell.edu.

National

King Obama and the Executive Order

ideas, approach this issue so pas-sionately in favor of Palestine and so vehemently against Israel.

Any student of history and poli-tics knows that in a high-strung con-flict, in media res, the objectivity of right and wrong, of good and bad, is often lost. Sometimes it is intention-al, and sometimes it is because of the chaos of conflict. Each belligerent in a contentious situation, such as the lead up to war or the settlement of peace, considers only its own surviv-al and well-being.

This well-being can sometimes be insured by compromise rather than by absolute victory. For example, Israel might ensure its protection from international economic sanc-tions, terrorist attacks, and military invasion by handing over some con-tested land to the Palestinians. Like-wise, Palestinians might only vouch for some land or simply wish to be-come full citizens of Israel allowed to completely integrate into society. Granted, these proposals will never be fleshed out so simplistically, and they may never be fleshed out at all without a period of war or extreme physical aggression on both sides’ parts.

History has shown us that, unfor-tunately, the latter tends to be the

case, and agreement is often only achieved after suffering. Peaceful compromise is the exception to the dismal rule.

In the end, the BDS movement against Israel and all its corroborat-ing propaganda promoted by Cor-nell Daily Sun editorials, politicized scholars of American history and culture, and armchair activists, will not change the indisputable fact that neither Israel nor Palestine will ca-pitulate during peace time

However, what I think is the most important idea to keep in mind in any discussion regarding this topic is this final note: The struggle be-tween Israelis and Palestinians will ultimately have to be settled by Is-raelis and Palestinians.

Casey Breznick is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at cb628@cornell.edu.

Israeli Academic BoycottContinued from page 9

BILL SNYDERCAMPUS NEWS EDITOR

April 7, 2014 11

CR

CORNELLINSIDER (blog.thecornellreview.com)

‘UK Tea Party’ is Britain’s Most Favored Political PartyPosted by Casey Breznick

It is the definition of irony: Britain’s Tea

Party.

No, this isn’t a Monty Python skit where

the characters suddenly become aware of

the utter absurdity of what they’re present-

ing and walk out halfway through it.

Quite the contrary, the libertarian-con-

servative UK Independence Party (UKIP),

led by the charismatic Nigel Farage, has

rocketed from relative obscurity and the

political fringe to national prestige and

electoral success, defying past attempts to

crush this movement which seeks to upset

the isles’ political status quo.

Though UKIP has yet to marshal any

members to the UK Parliament, in the 2013

local elections the party received 23 per-

cent of the national vote and won over 140

seats, up from 3.1 percent in the 2010 na-

tional election and seven seats in 2009,

trouncing the Liberal Democrat’s 14 percent

share and falling just short of the Conserva-

tives’ 25 percent and Labour’s 29 percent.

If circumstances seemed like they couldn’t be better for UKIP, they are. In a poll conducted this week, the party ranked as Britain’s most favored po-

litical organization, with 27 percent ahead of Labour’s 26 percent and Conservatives’ 25 percent. These numbers bode well for UKIP’s performance in

European Parliamentary elections this May.

Alluded to as Britain’s Tea Party by The Economist, UKIP originated in 1993 for the exclusive purpose of opposing the Maastricht Treaty, which estab-

lished the European Union. When then-Conservative Prime Minister John Major signed the treaty, thereby making the UK subject to numerous regula-

tions associated with being a part of the European Union, many Conservative party members like Nigel Farage renounced their former party and joined

UKIP.

Today, UKIP’s central message still revolves around Euro-skepticism, an ideological force gaining traction elsewhere in the continent. Many of its

economic, political, and domestic policy proposals are rooted in bringing legislative control of the country back to the people of Britain from European

Parliament. These policies range from bringing 800,000 jobs back to the isle from Europe, ending all green taxes, adopting nuclear power, and securing

Britain’s porous borders.

Much like how the mischaracterized, media-rebuked Tea Party grew out of fed-up conservative and libertarians refusing to play ball with the false Re-

publican-Democrat dichotomy, so has UKIP stood against the tri-party grain in Britain. The Conservative party and the two left-wing parties have largely

succumbed to the socialist agenda of Europe.

“The sense of frustration the Tea Party feels about the remoteness about the bureaucratic class of the Washington beltway is similar to our frustra-

tion with being dealt with by Brussels,” Farage was quoted as saying in a Fox News article.

UKIP’s libertarian political platform has siphoned support from Conservative Prime Minster David Cameron.Farage argues that Cameron’s embracing

of nationalized healthcare and changing of the party’s symbol from the flame of liberty to an eco-friendly tree have made him no different from Labour

and Liberal Democrat left-wingers.

Party leader Nigel Farage, in a separate question from the opinion poll asking about party leader popularity, trailed Cameron by only five points and

was himself five points above Labour Party head Ed Miliband, who as opposition party head should be favored equally to or better than incumbent

Cameron.

After nearly being electorally eclipsed by Farage and UKIP, Cameron had this statement to offer for the BBC: “I know that everyone would like to say

that it’s just a little short-term, stamp your feet protest—it isn’t. There’s something really fundamental that has happened here.”

This conciliatory sentiment contrasts highly with Cameron’s 2006 castigation of the libertarian challengers as“fruitcakes and loonies and closet rac-

ists”. Looks like Cameron and 23 percent of the UK have since wised up and begun to dump the Kool-Aid for some tea instead.

blog.cornellreview.com

UKIP Party Leader Nigel Farage enjoys a brew following smashing success in the local elections (source: BBC).

12 April 7, 2014

CR

Marriage has many pains, but celibacy has no pleasures.Samuel Johnson

Idealism increases in direct proportion to one’s distance from the problem.John Galsworthy

The deadliest foe of democracy is not autocracy but liberty frenzied. Liberty is not foolproof. For its beneficent working it demands self-restraint, a sane and clear recognition of the practical and attainable, and of the fact that there are laws of nature which are beyond our power to change.Edward Henry Harriman

[Obamacare] creates a disincentive for people to work. By providing heavily subsidized health insurance to people with very low income and then withdrawing those subsidies

as income rises, the act creates a disincentive for people to work—relative to what would have been the case in the absence of that act.Douglas Elmendorf, Congressional Budget Office Director

That's the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want.Barack H. Obama, Feb. 10, 2014

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the social assistance state leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and

satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbors to those in need.Pope John Paul II

I've said it before, but if Barack Obama had been president instead of Ronald Reagan, I'd still be a citizen of the Soviet Union.Garry Kasparov

Being Irish, I have an abiding sense of tragedy which sustains me through temporary periods of joy.W.B. Yeats

China was to the Far East what Greece and Rome combined were to the West. Like Greece in the West, China was the source of cultural life to its Far Eastern sphere—to Korea, Japan,

Vietnam, and Mongolia—and like Rome, it served as a model for civil and military administration. Thus, the rebirth of China cannot be viewed merely as an instance of something that is going on at present in the underdeveloped part of the world. It is more as though Greece and Rome had come back to life, ready to dominate again the Mediterranean basin and Europe beyond the Alps.Eric Hoffer

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,As to be hated needs but to be seen;Yet, seen too oft, familiar with her face,We first endure, then pity, then embrace.Alexander Pope

Wisemen & Fools

Read archived issues online at thecornellreview.com

Come to Goldwin Smith 156, Tuesdays at 5:00 pm or send us an email at cornellreview@cornell.edu

Join the Review.

Change change change change change change change change change change change change Barack Obama