The Cornell Review“we do not apologize.”The Conservative Voice on Campus

BLOGcornellinsider.com SITEcornellreviewonline.com

an independent publication

In the past month or so, the notion of democracy has taken center

stage in political news and thought. Successful revolutions in Tunisia and now Egypt have expanded the base of democracy, exposing mil-lions more people to the potential for free elections and individual re-sponsibility. That being said, there still exist global forces which are hostile to democracy, some of which are gaining power in very sensi-tive regions of the world. To explain these forces, the Mario Einaudi Cen-ter for International Affairs hosted professor Ian Buruma, a Dutch au-thor and winner of the prestigious Erasmus prize.

Addressing a packed crowd of students, professors, and curious

onlookers, Buruma identified three main opponents of liberal democ-racy. He made pains to differenti-ate “liberal democracy” from other kinds of democracy, citing the Mus-lim Brotherhood as an example of a movement where democracy can become theocratic. First among these enemies are religious radi-cals, epitomized by radical Islamists in the Middle East and, increasing-ly, in Europe. Religion, he properly said, becomes very dangerous when it becomes a tool of politics. When-ever this happens, as demonstrated recently with radical Islam, its fol-lowers become irreconcilable with democracy. This does not mean that religion itself is radical; rather, it simply means that democracy is threatened when religious author-ity becomes political authority. This becomes a potential problem when

a religion, like Islam, is used as a rallying point for protesters against secular dictatorships, as we saw in Iran and potentially in Egypt.

The next ad-versary of the democratic pro-cess is the rise of populism, which he said differs in Europe and America. The re-cent rise of American populism, in reference to the Tea Party, is a phi-losophy that is almost entirely dis-trustful of the state and desires less government power and individual liberty. In Europe, a different type of right-wing populism is gaining hold, one that wants more govern-ment involvement in the protec-tion of the rights of native Europe-ans against immigrants. Either way,

AMMAN – If I had a Dinar every time a journalist has named the

“next Egypt” or the “next Tunisia” over the last month (or every time one predicted Egypt would not be the next Tunisia), I could take ad-vantage of studying abroad to buy that pyramid I’ve always wanted and drop out of Cornell. The inter-net may have given marginalized Arab youth a voice, but it has done the same for the simplified narra-tives and speculation of mainstream news media, including suddenly omnipresent “Middle East experts”. As events continue to play out on the ground in the Middle East, I see danger in trying to fit them into a clear framework of cause and effect

immediately. We can be fooled by trying to make things make sense.

In Jordan, for example, where I am studying this semester, the idea that the same people marching for democratic reforms often vigorously support the Hashemite King Abdul-lah II, as well, seems to befuddle journalists. It doesn’t match their narrative for the region. It doesn’t make sense. And yet most of the Jor-danians I have spoken to in the last month have exhibited similarly nu-anced views.

Two of my professors, both East-Bank Jordanians married to West-Bank Palestinians, have spent time in prison for political reasons. I braced myself for gloomy accounts of Jor-dan’s political turmoil in the 1960s and 1970s, but received a description

of Al Jafr prison—a Mecca for artists, intellectuals, and political activists at the time—that was nothing short of enchanting. If such contradiction exists in individuals, why do jour-nalists continue to explain events in various countries with simple, linear narratives? And why do we listen?

Inbetween reassuring family and friends that, despite what the New York Times may say, my safety is not threatened by an imminent Jordani-an-Palestinian civil war, I've come up with this answer: as humans, we prefer coherent stories to the Twitter-feed of history. We also like certainty.

A few hundred Jordanians marched in Amman last week. Most represented smaller individual

February 16th, 2011vol. xxix, no. vii

Karim Lakhani Staff Writer

Joseph Bonica Executive Editor

Please turn to page 2

Please turn to page 4

Please turn to page 4

Special CommentThe rebellious genius that is Olbermann ’79 will go unmatched

What's the Big Idea? Junior wants to help you learn how to count – calories.

The Fracking TruthSchlumberger oil man reveals the science of fracking

Red AfricaChina sets up shop in the Dark Continent

Humor page We don't know wot it means, but you have to see ot.Page 12

Page 5 Page 8Page 7Page 2

Cornell Chronicle: Under Cover of Diversity

Visiting Professor Geoffrey Herman speaks on life and work in Israel

Reporting back from the Conservative Political Action Conference

Interview Editorial6 3

NEWS FROM ABROAD

The Unpredictable Middle East

ARE EVERYWHERE.

Rob MorrisseyGuest Writer

At the end of each year, the Cor-nell Chronicle profiles gradu-

ating seniors in their May pre-Com-mencement issue. Each year, about twenty seniors are honored because of their great academic successes and unique interests.

The Review recently received an email sent to faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences last month re-garding student suggestions. Un-like previous years, this year the faculty were asked to indicate if the students they were recommending were part of an ethnic minority so the Chronicle could “make good choices when winnowing down the list” of potential students.

By wanting to add further di-versity to the students chosen, one would imagine that the Chronicle has been struggling to obtain a di-verse group of profiled seniors. That is not the case. In last year’s issue, at least eight of the twenty seniors were of an ethnic minority, equal to the school’s forty percent minority population.

Asking faculty members to pro-vide ethnicities when recommend-ing students could be a violation of

The Enemies of Democracy

ROB

MO

RRIS

SEY

2 February 16, 2011

CR

Cornell’s Equal Education and Em-ployment Opportunity statement: “Association with Cornell, either as a student, faculty, or staff member, involves participation in a free com-munity where all people are recog-nized and rewarded on the basis of individual performance rather than personal convictions, appearance, preferences (including sexual or af-

fectional orientation), or hap-penstance of birth.”

When asked about the poten-tial breach, Susan Lang, the Man-aging Editor of the Cornell Chron-icle, said: “We ask for ethnicities so that we will have a diverse group of students to showcase. We want the profiles to reflect the diversity of our student population.” Ms. Lang did not address the fact that the Chronicle’s last pre-Commence-ment issue properly reflected Cor-nell’s minority population with-out including such a clause. Maybe more troubling was her neglect to consider that requiring faculty members to include ethnicities on their recommendations of students

could potentially violate Cornell’s Equal Education statement.

Changing the system to give mi-norities an advantage is both un-fair and unnecessary. On their own, ethnic minorities obtain great ac-ademic success and were equally represented in the Chronicle’s pre-vious pre-Commencement issue. The addition of race to the criteria distracts the Chronicle from focus-ing on choosing the best and most unique students to profile and in-stead forces the editors to poten-tially deny qualified students be-cause of some “happenstance of birth.”

Under the cover of diversity, the Cornell Chronicle is instituting af-firmative action measures to cre-ate not only unreasonable, but also unwarranted advantages for ethnic minorities. Regardless of ethnicity, twenty dynamic members of the se-nior class should have equal oppor-tunities to “reflect on life and learn-ing at Cornell and on the future.”

Karim Lakhani is a freshman in the School of Hotel Admin-istration. He can be reached at kml248@cornell.edu.

“Congressman with Guts” Alan Grayson wasn’t the only mar-

tyr to fall at the hands of teabagger hate these last few months. Just three weeks ago, Cornell’s most intelligent alumnus ( just ask him!) and modern day muckraker Keith Olbermann ’79 announced that he was leaving the 8 PM timeslot on MSNBC. While so-called industry “experts” suggested the move had something to do with “ratings,” “making the network look bad,” or “being an insufferable jerk,” this is clearly Bush’s fault. Mr. Ol-bermann kept that redneck Jesus freak war criminal honest every single night. Only stellar, commit-ted journalism like Mr. Olbermann’s would have revealed that, even in his Dallas home, years after he had left the White House, Bush was single-handedly responsible for all of the world’s problems, including Presi-dent Obama’s--praise be upon Him--smoking habit. Naturally Dubya would want Mr. Olbermann, an ef-fective critic of his who issued such sharp, biting shots at the former President as “Bushitler,” “Nazi,” and “stupid Nazi liar,” gone.

Now if you’re wondering how the trust fund monkey boy man-aged to, in addition to stealing the presidency, pull off a feat as great as getting a powerful basic cable host pulled off of the air, you’re not alone. After all, while those teabagger big-ots at Fox “News” consistently beat Countdown in the ratings (obviously rigged), Mr. Olbermann had a loyal following of enlightened students,

baristas, professional peace activ-ists, and people who couldn’t find the remote, watching him yell at America and ask the tough ques-tions, though not to the guests on his show (they always, in a testament to how articulate and charismatic Mr. Olbermann is, seemed to agree with him), on a nightly basis. With only every other remaining MSNBC host holding Mr. Olbermann’s political views, we can only hope that there will still be somebody holding the Right accountable. Like those times Mr. Olbermann called Sarah Palin an idiot or made fun of John “Mc-Shame” (good one, Keith!) for being old. After all, Organizing for Amer-ica can only send out so many mass

text messages about the benefits of health care reform and, with mes-saging mastermind Robert Gibbs on his way out, we’re going to need a strong voice for truth on television.

But let’s be honest, Ed Schul-tz’s arteries aren’t going to get less clogged and Rachel Maddow has this silly preoccupation with things like “facts” and “integrity.” So, when the news broke last Wednesday that Mr. Olbermann would be joining Vice President Al Gore’s Current TV, you can imagine my relief that we’d still have somebody to tell us who the worst people in the world are. Mr. Olbermann will be coming to Current TV as “Chief News Officer”

and his new show will join Kill It, Cook It, Eat It, a reality show where contestants attempt to slaughter an animal humanely and, in the pro-cess, learn something about their evil omnivore ways, and repeats of This American Life (wait, isn’t that a radio show?) on the cable network’s lineup.

While I may not get Current TV on the cable I steal from my

neighbor, my other neighbor has a satellite with all the movie chan-nels and stuff (Taxi Cab Confessions, baby!), so you can be sure I will tune in daily to hear Mr. Olbermann’s take on the news. I encourage you to find similar means to circumvent the Orwellian eyes of the capitalist pigs that run your television provid-er and get access to Mr. Olbermann’s new show by any means necessary. How else could you find out when Sarah Palin orchestrates another massacre? Or when Mitt Romney fi-nally decides to unfire the fourteen million Americans whose jobs he took away? These are the pressing questions of our time that deserve answers. Answers you’ll now be able

to find just as soon as you listen to a very important message about Manbearpig.

Ephram Smith is a sixth-year se-nior studying Communications and Women’s Studies. He can be reached in the Eco House basement proba-bly “not inhaling” some questionable substances.

One student’s take on MSNBC’s decision to replace CALS alum with Shake Weight infomercials and more repeats of “Lockup”

Campus

Ephram SmithGuest Writer

While so-called industry “experts” suggested the move had something to do with “ratings,” “making the network look bad,” or “being an insufferable jerk,” this is clearly Bush’s fault.

Looking Back at the Edward R. Murrow of Our Time

SPECIAL COMMENT

Keith Olbermann ‘79 will be joining the world’s only channel dedicated to exposing Manbearpig, Al Gore’s Current TV.

MSN

BC

SOU

TH P

ARK

STU

DIO

S

Continued from the front page

CHRONICLE

February 16, 2011 3

CR

From February 10th to the 12th, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) gath-ered 11,000 of the most influential right-wing politicians and their fans in Washington, DC. Whereas last years conference was charged by the prospect of winning back the House and the Senate, this year was all about the impend-ing Republican nomination for President in 2012. This was even more complicated by the pres-ence of more openly libertarian organizations, and the controversy surrounding the participation of openly-gay groups. In short, it was the most uncouth gathering in recent CPAC history.

The myriad of potential presiden-tial candidates cast a shadow over the conference. Nearly every prospective Republican candi-date made a speech in the main ball-room, from dark horses like Sen. John Thune to assumed frontrun-ner Mitt Romney. There was a con-trast between the speeches from this year and those from last year, which had focused on differentiat-

ing “us” from “them” in anticipa-tion of the midterm election. Most attendees were camped out among several different politicians instead of being united under a handful of candidates. There were mul-tiple factors at play that left the sentiment so peculiar. First and foremost, the past two years have been a dramatic revision of the Republican party, particularly with the rise of the grassroots-based Tea Party, leaving the floor open to a number of leaders within the de-centralized movement. Second, the “traditional” Presidential nomi-nee would have been either John McCain, the last GOP candidate, or his prospective Vice, Sarah Palin, who are both unlikely nominees. This wide open field led to even the most unlikely prospects hint-ing at tossing their hat in the ring, from Michele Bachmann to Donald

Trump (hey, at least he knows how to fire people and declare bankruptcy!).

Rep. Ron Paul, a fixture at the conference for many years due to his trusty fiscal conservative posi-tions, and libertarian presidential hopeful, Governor Gary Johnson, contributed to another odd fact of the 2011 CPAC. In years past, libertarians were a fringe on the CPAC radar, usually referred to as “Goldwater conservatives” for the late Arizona Senator. Last year, though, Ron Paul was the unlikely winner of the annual straw poll

that asked which candidate at-tendees would like to see as the Republican candidate. As a conse-quence, more libertarians showed up, amplifying the foreign policy disputes between the ideologies and leading to yet anther straw poll

win for Texas congressman. Another oddity between this

years CPAC and those of the past was the unusually abrasive schism over issues that have never even been immediately at the forefront at a conference that has always been about rallying the base. For instance, there was early contro-versy from conservative family groups boycotting CPAC because of GOProud, the conservative gay rights group, having a role as a “participating organization.” These associations, including the American Family Association and National Organization for Marriage, even had some support-ers waiting outside and around the conference area with cards alleging the fall of society if gays are allowed to marry. Arguably this abrasiveness originated last year after Ryan Sorba was booed

offstage for condemning the pres-ence of the gay conservative group. Regardless, it cast another odd light on the gathering.

Though CPAC isn’t solely about about the sport of politics and leg-islation. Commentators and jour-nalists from across the spectrum were in attendance to rally around their issues and recount the events of the past year. Andrew Breitbart had the crowd in stitches with a humorous retelling of his encoun-ters exposing the hatred and psy-chotic nature of leftist community organizers like the SEIU, ACORN,

and Code Pink. Historian Tom Woods was there to discuss cutting back big government. Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund pre-sented the most recent information about voter fraud. Ann Coulter, Cornell ‘84 and a founder of our

esteemed publication, wrapped up the conference with a speech that harnessed her acer-bic wit and conservative analy-sis, noting events within the past year, like how President Barack Obama has turned “our entire health care system to the DMV.”

The journalists and com-mentators may have been more endearing than the politicians making their pitches for 2012 and the sexual preference-crazed groups, but the conference is about more than that. As J.P. Freire ‘04, associate editor of commentary at the Washington Examiner and former writer for the Cornell Review, noted, “CPAC isn’t about the speeches, those can be found online anyway. It’s about meet-ing people, making a conservation with the person sitting next to you and being exposed to other like-minds.” Freire has the right idea, after all, in two years Rep. Allen West went from being a concerned citizen to the 2011 keynote speaker.

Kathleen McCaffrey is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at kam424@cornell.edu.

3

Ann CoulterJim Keller

Jerome D. PinnAnthony Santelli, Jr.

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

Copyright © 2011 The Ithaca Review Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The Cornell ReviewP.O. Box 4654

Ithaca, NY 14850

The Cornell Review meets regularly on Mondays at 5:00 pm in GS 162.

E-mail messages should be sent to thecornell.review@gmail.com

Oliver RenickEditor-in-Chief

Dennis ShiraevEditor-at-Large

Joseph BonicaExecutive Editor

Lucas PolicastroManaging Editor

Raza HodaPresident

Hannah MacLeanNews Editor

Kathleen McCaffreyCampus News Editor

Lucia RafanelliNational News Editor

Anthony LongoTreasurer, News Editor

ContributorsMichael AlanPeter Bouris

Brendan P. DevineJohn FarragutNoah Kantro

Karim LakhaniTianye Liu

Rob MorrisseyAlfonse Muglia

Sam PellChris Slijk

Gregory SteinWilliam Wagner

Zach Waller

Faculty AdvisorMichael E. Hint meh26@cornell.edu

Board of DirectorsChristopher DeCenzoJoseph E. Gehring Jr.

Ying MaAnthony Santelli Jr.

The Cornell Review prides itself on letting its writers speak for themselves, and on open discourse. We do not all agree on every issue, and readers should be aware that pieces represent the views of their authors, and not necessarily those of the entire staff. If you have a well-reasoned conservative opinion piece, please send it to thecornell.review@gmail.com for consideration.

Editorial

CPAC in ReviewBy Kathleen McCaffrey

Whereas last years conference was charged by the prospect of winning back the House and the Senate, this year was all about the impending Republican nomination for President in 2012.

Ann Coulter ‘84 and Andrew Breitbart were highlights of the recent Conservative Political Action Conference.

4 February 16, 2011

CR

groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Communist Party of Jordan, and had different messages. Protes-tors have likely been encouraged by revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, but, regardless of external events, now is a good time to protest in Jor-dan because the current cabinet has failed to address economic concerns and looks vulnerable. Relations be-tween Jordanians and Palestinians seem good on the surface, yet if a Jordanian police officer were to ac-cidentally kill or injure a Palestin-ian demonstrator, there would be a small, but non-negligible, chance of civil war.

This description is unusual, and probably not satisfying. It lacks au-thority, a clear explanation of causes, and conclusive predictions. It would probably also result in my firing from any major news publication.

The main thing I have learned attending protests in Jordan, in

addition to some nifty phrases

in Arabic, is that events and opin-ions unfold much more randomly in the real world than popular narra-tives allow. One radical conclusion would be to avoid these misleading narratives all together and ignore

the news, but I think critical reading and a wariness of predictions can suffice. Some measure of self-decep-tion is necessary to feel comfortable understanding the world around us; if we are aware of this, it is unlikely to harm us.

however, the democratic process is interrupted by those who demand too much of the government, as Bu-ruma describes.

The final, and the most pow-erful adversary of democracy, are what Buruma calls the followers of the “Chinese model”. The Chinese model is defined as an authoritarian government operating a rather lib-eral economy, which Buruma says is so frightening because of its ap-parent success. The fact that China has, through market liberalization but with minimal state cessions of power, bettered its economy and the standard of living of its people can encourage certain radical govern-ments to embrace the model. This would be an obvious blow to demo-cratic movements in these nations, as the Chinese model is anything but democratic. It binds the people to-gether through a common belief in certain ethics and spiritualism that would be difficult to usurp demo-cratically once begun.

The way around this, according to Buruma, is to define liberal de-mocracy in three solid terms: com-promise, tolerance, and individual liberty. Any democracy must be will-ing to compromise, as long as these compromises do not go back on principles. Tolerance is important as long as violent intolerance is appro-priately combated so as to not dis-rupt the views of the majority. Final-ly, individual liberty is well and good so long as it does not lead to a total dissolution of state power.

The speech was overall well re-ceived and people largely agreed with the professor’s sentiments. Though few were able or willing to talk at the end of the assembly, most discussion focused on the positive reaction to the talk. Sales of his book that day, according to those working the table, were very solid after the speech’s conclusion.

Joseph Bonica is a junior in the College of Agriculture & Life Sciences and can be reached at jmb582@cor-nell.edu.

On February third, Cornell host-ed George Washington Uni-

versity law professor Daniel Solove to discuss the future of reputation on the Internet. Solove was a good candidate for the job, as he has au-thored nine books and more than forty articles on privacy law, in-cluding the most widely used text-book on the subject. In addition to his academic accomplishments, he is the senior policy advisor at Hogan Lovells, blogs at Concur-ring Opinions, and is the cofounder

of TeachPrivacy, an education con-sulting firm that helps schools with privacy issues.

As Solove explained, his own fascination with the world of social engagement on the Internet was

piqued in 2005 when he started to participate in the blogosphere. Since authors of blogs can see in-stant feedback to know that people are reading their work, the medium has become wildly popular. In fact, over the past seven years, the num-ber of blogs have gone from a hand-ful to well over fifty million.

Yet the Internet has a dark side, regarding priva-cy, about which Solove writes. In his talk, he made a few key points about how lives have been de-stroyed because of incidents on the Internet. One of his examples was the wildly popu-lar ‘Star Wars Kid’, who was parodied all over the net and on ‘Arrested Development.’ So-love points out, and rightfully so, that these sorts of missteps and faux pas are amplified a thousand times over in the age of the Internet, and very few people look to find out “more” about a per-son being teased on the web. Solove also mentioned the impact sites like JuicyCampus have had on the col-lege ethos. Solove considers them destructive since these gossip sites create hearsay in a vein that can-not really be managed or combat-ted reasonably. He characterized this type of technological infamy as “permanent digital damage.”

It wouldn’t have been a presen-tation worth attending, though, if Solove had no solutions to combat the fragility of reputation on the In-ternet. He explained succinctly that the law is too antiquated to fight

these types of defamation episodes. This is because, as he stated, laws that govern privacy usually lack the nuanced language necessary to be applied to the odd “twilight” of the Internet. Strangely, the result is that they protect corporations’ more often than individuals’ priva-cy. Furthermore, the concept of a “breach of confidence” when spill-

ing someone’s personal secrets on the Internet is not culpable in the United States, unlike Britain.

Predictably, Mr. Solove’s solution was law-based. His ideal compro-mise would not restrict speech, but would keep episodes like the Tyler Clementi incident, where a young man committed suicide after hav-ing a homosexual episode broad-cast via webcam, at bay through the looming threat of a lawsuit for such violations of personal priva-cy. That, of course, would require rewriting much of the privacy law today, adapting it to include con-siderations of the Internet. Solove made good use of examples to cor-roborate the idea that loopholes in the law have led to individuals

experiencing personal harm with no hope to procure damages.

Sadly, the lecture seemed to ne-glect the popular theory that our generation is in the middle of a transition period that may be self-refining. Maybe the answer to pre-serving reputation in the age of the Internet will lie in a revival of personal responsibility. Maybe our

generation has to be far more careful and conscious of what is recorded and posted to the web. It is not fair that we can be held culpable for our actions long after we grow out of them or regret them. Some-times people act as their own worst en-emies; consider the Streisand effect, or the unintended con-sequence of perverse-ly causing informa-tion to be publicized

more widely and to a greater ex-tent than would have occurred if no contrary action had been attempted to mask it. (The Star Wars Kid did just that.)

As long as we understand that we have never owned our reputa-tions, perhaps we can all start to be-come more responsible on the web, or at least begin to grasp what an inaccurate picture it can paint. Our generation is due to learn new hab-its; one cannot think that the “bad parts” of web-oriented globaliza-tion can be controlled or undone through courtrooms.

Kathleen McCaffrey is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at kam424@cornell.edu.

Campus

Shakeup in DC,“Superman” documentary, and, of course, Chris Christie — education is back in style Kathleen McCaffrey

Campus News Editor

DemocracyJordan

“[Laws] that govern privacy usually lack the nuanced language necessary to be applied to the odd “twilight” of the Internet.”

Continued from the front pageContinued from the front page

Privacy 2.0

Daniel Solove of George Washington University Law School

C-SP

AN

February 16, 2011 5

CR

The explosive growth and expan-sion of the Chinese economy

has dominated the headlines for the past decade, and now it seems that China has begun to project its influence far beyond the con-fines of East Asia or the shelves of Wal-Mart. The last two de-cades have seen a massive ex-pansion of Chinese investment and development in Zambia, Mozambique, Sudan, and other resource-rich Sub-Saharan Af-rican countries. From buying 25% ownership in Standard Bank, the largest commercial bank in Africa, to spending bil-lions of dollars on infrastruc-ture, to accumulating a net in-vestment value which is now believed to outstrip World Bank aid, it is clear that China is racing to establish itself as a significant presence in Africa.

Could this be a new race for re-sources? Perhaps an imperialis-tic power-grab in the mold of the “Scramble for Africa” of the late 19th century’? Or could this simply be an attempt to open up new markets and encourage additional trade for the benefit of all?

Though many are alarmed by this rapid expansion of Chinese in-vestment, the more immediate con-cern for native Africans and human rights champions alike is what these new developments mean for the Af-ricans who will be living amongst new foreign businesses and reaping the benefits – or suffering the mis-fortunes – that they bring.

On February 3rd, Professor Muna Ndulo of the Cornell Law School spoke on the changing business dy-namics that Chinese investment has brought to Africa, and the problems that it exposed in terms of work-er safety and treatment. Professor

Ndulo holds the optimistic view that the massive influx of Chinese invest-ment has been a net positive, offering impoverished African nations an al-ternative to the long-standing prac-tice of accepting handouts, which characterize much of the Western

aid to Africa.

This new wave of investment has given African countries the op-portunity to build lasting infra-structure, industrial capacity, and other improvements that will ben-

efit more than just the ruling class-es. While Professor Ndulo does rec-ognize the poor living and working

conditions of those in the employ of Chinese businesses, he assuages these concerns somewhat by point-ing out that the Chinese workers are working alongside them in the same conditions and, as time goes on and infrastructure improvements take

hold, these conditions will gradually improve.

Yet this idealistic notion has not been reflected by the reality of Chi-na’s human rights violations thus far. An example was presented this past October, when a particularly grue-some incident took place wherein the Chinese executives of a Zambi-an mine fired upon and wounded 11 miners after their protestations of poor pay and working conditions. Are such incidents exceptions to the rule, or do they point to a larg-er underlying problem in the way the Chinese treat their workers and, more broadly, their role in Africa? Are they acting as an exploiter rath-er than as a trading partner?

While not absolving the Chinese of blame in incidents such as these, Professor Ndulo believes that work-er safety is not ultimately the re-sponsibility of the Chinese business-es; they are, after all, simply looking

out for their own interests as any business would. Amidst all of the criticism of China, he proclaimed his belief that “...the first line of de-fense of human rights is not interna-tional, it is domestic.” While China is doing business in Africa, it is the job of local governments to protect its citizens and uphold the human rights they have recognized in their respective constitutions. It is they, not the international community, that have the foremost responsibility

to hold Chinese busi-nesses accountable to whatever work and safety standards they have agreed upon.

Overall, Professor Ndulo laments the unwillingness of Af-rican nations to ar-ticulate their own in-terests, saying that they must determine how they wish to ben-efit from trade with China and that ulti-mately “...it is up to Africa to control [the] relationship.” Ulti-mately, it must be Af-

rican governments that take up the responsibility of managing their re-lationships with this ever-grow-ing trade and investment partner. Professor Ndulo closed with the comment that, despite the wealth of resources in Africa, these nations are “drowning in [their] own cop-per.” What China’s expanding influ-ence over Africa means for the fu-ture geopolitical landscape and the resource security of the West is un-clear, but for Africans it is certain to bring sweeping changes, both in re-vitalized infrastructure and in grow-ing tensions between local workers and their Chinese managers. Yet, this investment might just be what the continent needs to open the door to substantive changes from decades of squandered foreign aid and cor-rupt, inefficient governance.

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

Campus

China's growing influence in AfricaChristopher SlijkStaff Writer

Investor or Invader?

China has begun to project its influence far beyond the confines of East Asia or the shelves of Wal-Mart.

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 thecornell.review@gmail.com

gravesen.info

but still thinks that it is too early to tell for sure. “There are very few ex-amples [of revolutions] that have ended in chaos,” she said, noting that the protests must end either in a democracy or in a regime incorpo-rating some democratic ideas. While this optimism in a democratic future

was shared by all the panelists, they predicted a less rosy future in the short term. Professor Fahmy thinks that after the protests have calmed down, the organizers will start dis-appearing. Patel had envisioned some sort of transitional govern-ment led by newly appointed Vice President Omar Suleiman, but Sulei-man has already handed the country

to the military, demonstrating just how unpredictable the future of the Egyptian revolution will be. Howev-er, their optimism in a stable demo-cratic government was not shared by many students in the audience. Lena Halabi, a graduate student from Leb-anon, was more doubtful about the future of Egypt. In response to the panelists high hopes, she observed,

“I know how hard it is to get things

done in the Arab world…people have

to pay for what politicians want to

do with the country.”

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

Continued from page 8

6 February 16, 2011

CR

This week, I had the honor of interviewing Prof. Geoffrey

Herman. Prof. Herman is a Jewish studies professor who specializes in ancient Jewish history – particular-ly the Jews in Babylonia. Trained at the Hebrew University in Je-rusalem, he has taught both there and in America. He is spending this year as a visiting professor at Cor-nell. Last semester, I took a course from him on the Jewish Galilee in Late Antiquity.

CR: You were raised in England?

Prof. Herman: I grew up in London and moved to Israel when I was 18.

CR: Why did you move to Israel?

Prof. Herman: It was a combina-tion of reasons. Partially religious reasons. I thought it was the right place to practice my religion.

CR: Why would that be, for those who aren’t as familiar with the Jewish religion?

Prof Herman: Firstly, it’s a more comfortable place to practice one’s religion. It’s easier. Being Jewish there is normal. Judaism is more public. There’s a better feeling about practicing one’s religion. There’s a saying that comes out of the German Jewish Enlightenment that says, “One should be a Jew in his home and a mensch on the street.” I didn’t identify with that. I felt that [being a Jew] should be one’s whole life, not a separation like that. So Israel felt like the right place in that sense.

And it’s the "promised land": the place where the Jewish people are supposed to be by Biblical promise. And that was important to me. I also believed in it from a nationalist perspective. I’m a Zionist. I want-ed to be part of a Jewish home-land, a Jewish country. There was also something about going back to one’s roots. My mother was from Israel.

CR: When did she move to England?

Prof. Herman: She moved to England when she was 19. She married. She moved as part of that stage in her life . . . My grandfather had come to Israel in the 1920’s. So I had a large family there from that side.

CR: Normally you hear about Jews moving to Israel in the ‘40’s. So there was a mass migration in the twenties as well?

Prof. Herman: Not a mass migra-tion, in the ‘20’s it was a trickle. The story is that my grandfather came from Russia by foot by him-self. He ran away from home. There was a stream of people coming,

settling. My grandmother, whom I never knew – she had come. Her father had

brought the whole family over, also in the 20’s., 11 children. They’d come from Poland . . .

CR: Were they coming for religious reasons?

Prof. Herman: In this period many people were coming for religious reasons. Also idealistic reasons.

CR: Yeah, Herzl had been published by this point.

Prof. Herman: . . . It wasn’t just dur-ing the Holocaust when Jews were feeling uncomfortable in Europe, there was a long period. Life cer-tainly wasn’t easy at that time . . .

CR: What’s it like raising a family in Israel now?

Prof. Herman: It’s pretty much like anywhere else. I live in Jerusalem in a very quaint neighborhood. Life is pretty regular. School and the usual concerns of a family.

CR: Is there much conflict in your area between Jews and Palestinians?

Prof. Herman: No. Jerusalem is a mixed city. One third of the popu-lation is Arab, generally the popu-lations are divided geographically. There isn’t much conflict generally. During times of particular tension there can be a little bit of trouble in areas other than Jerusalem.

In my student days when I went to the [Hebrew] university on Mt. Scopus - one travels through a part of town which is Arab - the bus would be stoned sometimes but that didn’t really affect my day-to-day life.

CR: So for the most part Jews and Arabs are living side-by-side and there’s only tension in periods of conflict?

Prof. Herman: Tension happens in areas where – side-by-side isn’t exactly right. Neighborhood-by-neighborhood is how they do it. That’s more or less the situation in Israel and Jerusalem. Everybody works together – that kind of divi-sion doesn’t exist in the workplace, but Jews and Arabs tend to live in separate neighborhoods.

But during the intifadas you would have tension, or if there was a ter-rorist attack, and there was a peri-od when Jews were targeted. Then there was more concern. They targeted buses, places of entertain-ment. You think a little bit about where you’re going. But otherwise things are pretty calm, in recent years much more than before.

CR: Why did you choose to come to Cornell?

Prof. Herman: I was offered the op-portunity to teach here for a year and I jumped at the opportunity. It’s a wonderful institution, I’m very happy here. The department is excellent, the students very impres-sive. I feel very fortunate.

CR: What was the most surprising

thing you discovered about the American university? How is the American university different from the Israeli universities in which you taught?

Prof. Herman: I can talk more about [my] department; it might not be true for other departments. But it’s more intimate. Also, the attitude toward grad students [at Cornell] is much more inclusive than universities in Israel – valuing each one individually and training them. While I was at grad school I hardly knew the different students who were studying the same things I was. Here you can count and you can name each one – they’re all on the website. Each one I think is given a lot more consideration.

CR: Do you have any idea about why this isn’t the case in Israel? Does this arise from different ideas about the university?

Prof. Herman: I don’t think it’s ide-ology. I think it’s a little bit about the lifestyle.

In Israel my field – for better or for worse- is very popular. There are a lot of students, a lot of graduate students. But it’s a different atmo-sphere. University is something you fit in between the rest of your life. Students in Israel are older. They start college at age 22 after serving in the army. And they’re typically holding down a job at the same time. And they come and go from lectures. It’s a different feel-ing on the whole than an American college.

CR: What inspired you to study ancient Babylonia? Mainly religious reasons?

Prof. Herman: No, I loved history from childhood. As a kid I liked the Romans, then I slowly moved Eastward in my interests. And I was very interested in Jewish histo-ry and ancient history. I think ulti-mately my choice of ancient history had to do with the teachers who were lecturing in that meaning-ful first year or two at the Hebrew University.

CR: Were classes taught in Hebrew?

Prof. Herman: Everything was in Hebrew. But I came to Israel with Hebrew when I was 18. I learned it from synagogue, school, and I had worked on it myself. Well, at least I thought I knew it well until I got my first reading assignments in aca-demic Hebrew..

CR: Yep.

Prof. Herman: Yes, you can imag-ine. But also I came to Israel when I was 18 and

didn’t start university until I was 21. I served in the Army, but that had also been a time to brush up on

one’s language skills.

CR: How was the Army?

Prof. Herman: For me it was –well first of all the military isn’t some-thing you do once and then you’re finished with. You have reserve duty for another 10-15 years after initial service.

Initial service was very meaning-ful. It was very important to do my part. It was important to go through it in order to feel like a full citizen. And it was eye-opening because one is thrown into Israeli society. And one learns a lot more, one serves with people from differ-ent socioeconomic circumstances and different cultures. You meet different kinds of people, both Jews and Arabs – Arabs can serve – certain Arab ethnic groups, like the Bedouin and Druze, can serve. So you meet all these people from very different backgrounds.

On the other hand it was a bit of a disappointment. I had asthma. I wasn’t able to be a combat soldier. I was in the education corps . . . It was very unglamorous, really.

CR: How knowledgeable do you think the average American is when it comes to the situation in Israel today?

Prof. Herman: Oh! That’s not an area I specialize in. My sense is that Americans have some kind of an idea about what’s going on, but it’s not that important to most of them. Since 9/11 I’m sure there’s been a lot more interest in the re-gion as a whole..

CR: Have you been able to talk to anyone on campus about Israel and the Middle East, or does it not come up?

Prof. Herman: On campus it doesn’t come up but on the street people are very friendly. I say I’m from Israel, they’re very interested. I get a positive response on the whole. That’s a good feeling. It’s the way it should be. It’s just one other country in the world.

CR: How has living in Israel affected your scholarly work?

Prof. Herman: The reason why I ini-tially chose to study at [the Hebrew University was] because it was the best place for what I wanted to study. We heard lectures on Mt. Scopus, but through the window of the lecture hall we could see in the distance Herodion – Herodion is an ancient historical site where Herod is supposed to be buried. We were studying topics, and they were within reach. You could go for a walk in the university grounds and see the Jewish catacombs that also would come up in lectures. There was an exciting sense of being in

Campus

Living in Zion a chat with Professor Geo¤rey HermanSam Pell

Staff Writer

Continued on the right

February 16, 2011 7

CR

When Dan Green ’12 woke up for class in high school, his

first order of business was food. But not quite in the conventional sense. Instead of groggily overfilling a bowl with Cinnamon Toast Crunch or tossing slabs of bacon in a pile of grease, he’d carefully count out 28 almonds. Why? Because that’s the serving size listed on the box and Dan Green knows numbers don’t lie.

The problem, Green says, is that people’s eyes lie. That’s why the applied nutrition and psychology major began DANI, Dynamic Au-tomated Nutrition Innovations, a start-up company that aims to solve America’s big problem—obesity—by creating technology that provides people with a way to accurately and effortlessly monitor their consump-tion habits.

“If you look at it from kind of a macro perspective, obesity is Amer-ica’s #1 public health crisis,” he told The Review. “Everyone thinks we’re just lazy, but if you look at the data in the last 40 years when obesity spiked, it came from this environ-ment where we always eat these huge portions, and there weren’t really any tools to help these people measure how much they eat.”

DANI’s headline product is a wireless food scale that connects with mobile applications to provide users with smarter information about their food. It is currently en-tering the semi-final round of Cor-nell’s Big Idea competition.

The hardware pairs with smart-phones, tablets, and computers so that the user has a simple and con-venient way to measure the amount of food that they consume. It then records the information, storing it

for data tracking and real-time in-formation analysis.

With the weight loss product industry reaching an estimated $44 million, the demand for vari-ous types of diet supplements and technologies is surging. Almost 77% of Americans are trying to lose or maintain weight, Green says, but 88% can’t correctly measure how many calories they take in on a daily basis.

“There’s a thing called ener-gy balance: change in body weight equals energy in minus energy out;

it’s a basic law of thermodynamics,” says Green.

The seemingly simple equation breaks down, however, when one can’t measure the input variables. Green says the nutrition facts you see on the back of your food packag-es are hard for consumers to gauge and sometimes downright confus-ing. Without knowing how much is enough, any diet plan or healthy eating efforts fall apart quickly. DANI wants to fill that gap.

“People see one bowl of cereal, one piece of fruit, and since they see it as one unit, they think it’s one

serving. But it could be two or three servings.”

With DANI, the consumer puts the bowl on a wireless scale, which tares to zero and then weighs the input. By scaling each serving, the consumer no longer relies on in-accurate visual measurements for what needs to be a precise quantita-tive assessment.

“DANI is a platform. Every time you hear about a weight loss diet there’s some degree of portion con-trol, whether its low carbs or high protein, and you need a way to

quantify that. So we serve as that middle person.”

DANI also helps the user obtain useful information about the food they’re consuming, as well. The person can scan a product’s bar-code UPC with their smartphone, recording that meal’s information so that as the bowl fills with food, the application displays real-time nutrition information about the contents. That’s everything you’re used to seeing on the box: saturated fat, sugar, vitamins, and of course, serving sizes. For the competitive dieter, the information compiled by

DANI can then be shared through social media like Facebook or Twit-ter, creating what Green sees as a potential ‘FourSquare for food.’

Green isn’t intimidated by the 100s of different calorie counters and diet apps on the smartphone market, or the fact that the weight loss industry generated $3.9 billion in revenue in 2010. He believes that the dependence of these products on the consumer’s measuring abili-ties greatly deters them from effec-tively improving the user’s habits.

“It’s really hard for people just to eat less; it’s like me telling you to study more to get your grades up. But if I tell you to study half an hour more in calculus or a half an hour more in computer science, it’s

smarter information – that’s what we call it. It’s not just standard ad-vice, it’s a way for you to see what exactly you’re doing.”

DANI’s very personal, user-fo-cused interface may be a product of Green’s time as a student at Cor-nell. Originally a biology major, he instead created a course of study that focuses on the psychology un-derpinning the way people eat, and the way one’s social surroundings affect their diet.

The idea for an advanced diet monitoring technology first came when Green worked on an experi-ment with acclaimed Cornell pro-fessor Dr. Brian Wansink. Wansink, a former Executive Director of the USDA's Center for Nutrition Poli-cy and Promotion, is the author of Mindless Eating and has directed all kinds of wacky and revealing stud-ies, from self-refilling soup bowls to examining the serving sizes in paintings of The Last Supper.

While observing how students serve themselves at a buffet, Green realized the potential uses for a wireless scale. As students ap-proached the table and slapped food on their plates, Green and other researchers at Cornell Food and Brand Lab were closely follow-ing the measurements on a hidden scale. What they found was that overweight students drastically

the place where the events we were studying occurred. And that was very inspiring. Eventually my inter-ests moved to places I couldn’t go to: Babylonia and Iran.

But that feeling of being able to study a topic like Jerusalem and explore was very exciting.

[In Jewish history] the level is very high . . . I’m just looking now at one of the Dead Sea Scrolls. [The Hebrew University] was one place where a class of freshmen could find themselves reading them in the original and be able to discuss them – which is quite unique. The university has a very large and wonderful department in Jewish studies. Imagine this, just for an-cient Jewish History (not including

Bible) there were 6 full professors, as well as 3 or 4 adjuncts.

You expect that because it’s Israel, but nevertheless it provides great opportunities, and that was what I wanted to do.

CR: So how do your kids like Israel?

Prof. Herman: They love it. Israel’s what they know and they’re very happy there. Here – they’ve in-tegrated very nicely in the school system. That was a concern for me. I have 5 kids from 10 to 2 years old. They’ve joined schools here. They knew some English before, since my wife is originally from the States and we have always spoken English at home, but not what you need for school.

But the kids, they’ve fallen in nicely.

They’ve made friends, and they’re excited about being here and also about the snow.

CR: Bet you don’t get much of that in Israel.

CR: How did you meet your wife?

She visited Israel and we met there. She’s originally a New Yorker, so being in Ithaca she’s finding there might actually be other parts of New York state besides NYC that are worth living in.

CR: Thanks so much for your time, Prof. Herman.

Sam Pell is a sophomore in the Col-lege of Arts &Sciences. He can be reached at sep87@cornell.edu.

Campus

Dan Green ’12 believes automated calorie counting is the first step toward healthy diets

Junior's big idea is to solve obesity with technology

Oliver RenickEditor-in-Chief

Please turn to page 9

8 February 16, 2011

CR

For the past several weeks, news of the Egyptian uprising against

president Hosni Mubarak has been the headline story of almost every news report around the globe. Cor-nell’s response to this crisis came as – you guessed it – a discussion panel, consisting of both government and Middle Eastern Studies professors. This group of political insiders tried to shed some light on a revolution that has already seen the political landscape of Egypt change more in a fortnight than it has in the last half century.

To better understand the origins of the mass protests, Professor

Zaid Fahmy provided a brief overview of modern Egyptian

politics, which are dominated by the ruling party of President Mubarak. “People are not really allowed to ex-press their political opinions open-ly,” he said, linking this to the police-state nature of the society. According to the professor, it is a society where “police torture is endemic” and ev-eryone knows someone who has been abused by the police. The po-lice presence in Egypt is immense, with the Fahmy reporting that “In-ternal Security” forces, responsible for overseeing the population, num-ber close to 1.5 million agents, while the national army, responsible for overseeing the safety of the popu-lation, is only half a million strong. “When in Cairo,” he said, “almost every few meters you will see a uni-formed officer.”

As for the revolution, Fahmy be-lieves its origins can be traced to

popular outrage over the govern-ment’s suppression of a labor strike on April 6th, 2008, which was record-ed by citizens with mobile phones and marked the beginning of a series of protests against the rulers of the country. For the past several years, these demonstrations have largely been kept from becoming regime-threatening by the internal security forces. Public anger grew after it was revealed that the police covered up the death of a man they had beaten, but the spark that ignited the current round of protests was the successful revolt in Tunisia, which served as an example for the Egyptians. Fahmy emphasized the critical role the in-ternet and social media played in what he called the “Facebook revo-lution”. Support for the protests was gained through YouTube channels and Facebook pages, and Twitter was the tool of choice for communi-cating during the protests after the government shut down internet and phone service.

The second panelist, Professor David Patel of the Government de-partment, addressed the future of Egyptian government. While much has been made of the possibility of the Muslim Brotherhood coming

to power and implementing op-pressive Islamic law in Egypt, Patel does not see them as a strong con-tender for control of the country. He noted that for years the Muslim Brotherhood has been the only orga-nized alternative to Mubarak’s rul-ing party, and has gained support not from the poor or the rural, but mostly from educated young pro-fessionals. However, he observes that, “It is really hard to know how support for the Muslim Brother-hood [under Mubarak] is going to translate into support for the Mus-lim Brotherhood afterwards in a de-mocracy.” Another reason for this is the powerful military, who Patel be-lieves would never allow the Muslim Brotherhood to take outright control of the country. Still, the speakers all agreed that if a democracy forms in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood will be a powerful voice within it, and as Patel succinctly stated, “The Muslim Brothers don’t think in years; they think in decades.”

The third and final speaker, In-ternational Studies professor Valer-ie Bunce, voiced her optimism in the possibility of a democratic Egypt,

On Thursday, February 3rd, Dr. Robert L. Kleinberg of Schlumberg-er-Doll Research gave a talk enti-tled “The Marcellus Shale: Science & Technology” in the main lecture hall of the new Physical Sciences Building. As this year’s speaker in the Moses Passer lecture series, Dr. Kleinberg presented his take on the “shale gas” reserves in the Marcel-lus Shale that currently exists over thirty-five hundred feet below Cor-nell University and a large portion of New England.

The lecture began with a talk about energy. Natural gas is the most versatile of the fossil fuels; not only can it be used for transit, as oil is, but it can also be used for heating homes and operating factories. Addition-ally, it is easier to transport in large quantities and releases less of those dread- e d

CO2 molecules when it is consumed. While Dr. Kleinberg, like many who are con-cerned about energy, believes that the planet needs to cut back its ad-diction on fossil fuels, he recogniz-es that the transition will take a long time and, in the interim, feels that natural gas is the way to go.

A few years ago, geologists dis-covered a literal gold mine of natu-ral gas trapped within the Marcellus Shale totaling to a reserve that could provide enough energy to last thirty years. Most people assume that this natural gas is contained within large open spaces that by some geologic miracle managed to hold enormous pockets of the energy source, but Dr. Klein-berg informed his crowd that this is not the case. The rea-son the shale in this area still con-tains so much gas is that it contains many tiny micro-scopic pockets. The gas, instead of moving to spe-cial wells, like oil, has stayed in

place since it formed.Unlike oil reserves, which require

sophisticated technology locate, the shale gas is ubiquitous. Contained within tiny pores in most of the rock, the gas can be found almost any-where in the Marcellus Shale. The questions and concerns really begin

to arise once large corporations start trying to extract the resource, and local residents have begun to won-der if the most effective and popular technique, known as hydraulic frac-turing or hydrofracking, is actually safe.

Hydrofracking has become a frightening term for people in this

area. Many are worried that the pro-cess could upset the environment and damage crops, which they need to make a living. Contrary to popu-lar belief, however, hydraulic frac-turing is a relatively slow process.

While it has come to be known as some type of “blasting” or “shoot-ing”, hydrofracking is actually quite the opposite. Over the course of multiple hours, a large volume of water, mixed with some salts (often mostly table salt), is pumped down a carefully drilled well. This pro-cess eventually provides the approx-imately two thousand pounds per square inch of pressure one needs to open up the pores containing the gas, and is stopped. Much of the water is sucked back out of the well and the high-pressured gas, which can now escape, is collected.

After explaining this, Dr. Klein-berg addressed the various safety concerns of audience members from the community. He pointed out that the water table, which goes down only about eight hundred fifty feet, is nowhere near even the very top of the shale (at thirty-five hundred feet). He asserted that the vast ma-jority of problems that arise from the drilling are a consequence of one very basic and well-reported issue: lack of integrity in the concrete surrounding the well’s foundation. While Dr. Kleinberg pointed out that nothing like the “Deepwater Hori-zon” could ever happen in Ithaca, he did say that he and his colleagues believe the laying of this concrete is the only part of the hydraulic Frac-turing process that could really ben-efit from government regulation.

While some skeptics will contin-ue to remain unconvinced, Dr. Rob-ert Kleinberg left his audience with a series of cogent reasons why hy-draulic fracturing is a great idea.

Greg Stein is a sophomore in the College of Engineering and can be reached at gjs58@cornell.edu.

Campus

Please turn to page 5

Noah KantroStaff Writer

hydraulicfracturing.com

Greg SteinStaff Writer

The Science of Fracking

Egypt in TurmoilProfessors optimistic about democracy

February 16, 2011 9

CR

Campus

Continued from page 7

Questions? Email recruiting@cgkfoundation.orgWe are an equal opportunity employer. M/F/D/V

Make yourpassionyour profession.

Apply today.

Full-time jobs in DC KochAssociateProgram.orgFull-time jobs nationwide LibertyAtWork.orgInternships in DC KochInternshipProgram.org

a projectof the KOCH INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

Interested in advancing economic freedom through your career by working at a public policy organization and undergoing management training?

TM

A full-time job and professional development all in one.

underserved themselves for their size, a concept known as social facilitation.

Green decided that if people could just accurately measure what they were eating, such drastic mea-sures wouldn’t have to take place.

As a child who fought and over-came obesity, Green believes that conventional weight-loss pro-grams, and even exercising, don’t isolate the real problem. His ca-reer goal is to shift the paradigm for

weight-loss from exercise-centric to diet related.

“Nowadays if you want to lose weight, most people join a gym and spend up to 800 dollars a year, and get nowhere, and get discour-aged and quit. We know what you eat has more of an impact on body weight. Exercise is great – it’s great psychologically, it’s great overall for you well-being, but losing weight should be all about diet.”

Right now Green’s top priority is beating the other 24 finalists to win the Big Idea Competition’s $4,000

so he can get a team of engineers to begin creating the actual stream-lined devices. Down the road, he has aspirations for an IPO.

With the American healthcare system expected to spend over $300 billion per year by 2018 sole-ly on obesity-related care, Green wants to fill the need for tools and strategies for national weight loss. Although Green sees enormous po-tential for profitability, there is also a bigger picture.

“With over 200 million Ameri-cans being overweight or obese,

obesity is now the nation’s largest preventable health crisis,” Green says in his Big Idea introduc-tion. “With just a 10% reduction in weight loss, a system like DANI can help eliminate type II diabetes, drastically decrease blood pressure, and even reduce risk of cardiovas-cular disease.”

Oliver Renick is a junior in the College of Engineering. He may be reached at ojr5@cor-nell.edu.

10 February 16, 2011

CR

You know it’s bad when the San Francisco Board of Supervi-

sors passes a nonbinding resolution about how racist you are.

That’s what happened to the talk radio mogul with the self-described “talent on loan from God,” Rush Limbaugh, when he briefly imitated the Mandarin language of Commu-nist Chinese President Hu Jintao. Using a cheap variation of the “ching chong” mocking of the nearly eight hundred year old language usually reserved for the deleted scenes on a DVD set of Mad TV, Limbaugh lam-pooned the leader’s speech at the White House state dinner put on for the totalitarian state holding nearly a trillion dollars in American debt. Limbaugh had intended to poke fun at the sound of Jintao’s stern de-livery of the White House speech, which was originally presented without an English translation.

Limbaugh is famous for creat-ing controversy surrounding his top rated radio show. While he is most well-known for irking liberals, the afternoon talker with a four hun-dred million dollar contract got on the bad side of some social conser-vatives last year when he invited Elton John to sing at his wedding at the luxurious Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, Florida. In addition to welcoming the famously homo-sexual singer to his nuptials, Lim-baugh professed his affinity for civil unions for same sex couples, a po-sition shared by President Obama and Elton John himself. However, the Jintao impression has received much more attention in the press.

The “controversy” started when a San Francisco politician, State

Senator Leland Yee, heard about the impressions on the website of “Media Matters for America,” a lib-eral watchdog concentrating on fig-

ures like Limbaugh, and led an attempt to boycott sponsors of Limbaugh’s show, including

Pro Flowers and Domino’s Pizza. Asian-American politicians and in-terest groups across the country seized on the opportunity to grab

a headline in their local paper and joined Yee’s condemnation of Lim-baugh. The day after the kerfuffle erupted, Limbaugh, true to form, commended himself for doing a “re-markable job” imitating the Chinese language and compared himself to Sid Caesar, the comic actor of Grease fame known for his impressions of languages he didn’t speak.

The fact that Limbaugh com-pared himself to Sid Caesar and laughed off the boycott attempt sug-gests a serious disconnect between Limbaugh and his regular listen-ers and the general public. Lim-baugh and the people who listen to his show on a regular basis see him as a satirist who comments on cur-rent events. He doesn’t see himself as having “talent on loan from God” any more than Howard Stern sees himself as the “King of All Media” and his impression of Hu Jintao’s loud, fragmented style of speaking should be no more offensive (al-though, admittedly, a lot less funny) than when Bill Hader does the same thing on Saturday Night Live.

In fact, Limbaugh’s peers on the left haven’t exactly been angels in the offensive jokes department. Co-medienne Rosie O’Donnell found

herself in similarly hot water in 2006 when she imitated Chinese newscasters using a similar “ching chong” bit on ABC’s The View. Oth-ers, however, like Janeane Garofalo, who headlined the failed “progres-sive alternative” to conservative talk radio, Air America, have made far more personal and actually offen-sive jokes. One of Garofalo’s most in-famous controversies surrounds her coining of the term “tea bagger,” re-ferring to a sex act, to describe tea party activists.

Lefty comedian Stephen Colbert brought the faux-controversy full circle, playing a clip of the twenty seconds of Limbaugh’s show featur-ing the impression and shrugging it off whilst mocking Limbaugh’s man-ner of speech himself and claim-ing that when the host gets up, “his chair smells like a box of cat litter.”

Michael Alan is a freshman in the School of Industrial and Labor Rela-tions. He can be reached at mja93@cornell.edu.

10 National

Alfonse MugliaStaff Writer

Michael AlanStaff Writer

You know it’s bad when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passes a nonbinding resolution about how racist you are.

Shocking: Radio Satirist Uses Satire

The State of Nationalism

PREM

IERE

RA

DIO

His formerly nicotine stained fingers:  Rush Limbaugh under fire for being Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh joins the ranks of lefties Rosie O’Donnell, Janeane Garofalo, and nearly every other comedian in managing to rile up people with no sense of humor

President Barack Obama ad-dressed a joint session of Con-

gress on Tuesday, January 25, in his annual State of the Union address. In the course of the roughly hour long speech, Obama laid out his agenda for the upcoming year in the typi-cal, over-the-top fashion that has become a trademark of the State of the Union.

“We are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea,” raved President Obama to a chorus of bipartisan applause.

“America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world,” he went on to say. “No work-ers, no workers are more produc-tive than ours. No country has more successful companies or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs.”

Through quotes like these and inspiration tales of ordinary, yet he-roic Americans who epitomize the American dream, the president at-tempted to instill feelings of op-timism in the legislators in atten-dance and the millions of Americans watching at home. He tried to spark feelings of American pride, while ig-noring the partisan feuds that have evolved in the first two years of his administration.

“We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world,” Obama continued. The plan for how to do so, however, will come behind closed doors, stirring par-tisan debates and becoming drawn out by the legislative process.

The physical possibility of Presi-dent Obama addressing this large of an audience throughout the year is slim, so when he and all the presi-dents before him get their night to shine, they have repeatedly con-structed their speeches with the themes of nationalism and optimism.

This sense of promoting opti-mism and togetherness was high-lighted especially this year by the fact that both chambers broke tradi-tion by not sitting along party lines. In the agreement, originally pro-posed by Colorado Sen. Mark Udall in the aftermath of the January 8th shootings in Tucson, Arizona that killed six and wounded Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, ’96, senators and representatives were allowed to sit wherever they wished.

Senators John McCain and John Kerry, the last two men to lose in presidential elections, sat shoulder to shoulder.

This year’s address was also marked by the removal of former Speaker of the House Nancy Pe-losi from her chair behind Presi-dent Obama, with John Boehner now awkwardly sitting and fidget-ing with Vice President Joe Biden as

Continued on the next page

February 16, 2011 11

CR

In recent months, the landscape of national immigration debates

has changed dramatically due to Ar-izona’s bold new immigration legis-lation. Now, another group of state legislators have entered the fray with two new immigration laws of their own.

Fremont, Nebraska recently passed a law prohibiting landlords from renting to illegal immigrants and prohibiting businesses from hir-ing them. Not surprisingly, the mea-sure has sparked controversy and come under attack from, among oth-ers, the ACLU. More surprisingly, though, such organizations are not without legitimate ground: Simi-lar laws in Pennsylvania and Texas were recently ruled unconstitu-

tional in federal courts, the general argument for their rejection being that they violated the 14th Amend-ment and that immigration policy is the duty of the federal government, not the states. These are indeed cu-rious objections, as Fremont’s new policy is, from a legal standpoint, es-sentially a prohibition against aiding and abetting those who have broken existing (federal) immigration laws.

However, perhaps the more dis-turbing reaction to Fremont’s re-forms came from a local organi-zation called One Fremont– One Future, which, according to a CNN online article, asserted after the bill’s passage that “the passage of this ordinance shows that we have

much to do in our community to educate, break down barriers, and build relationships.”

It seems, however, that attempt-ing to discourage complete disre-gard for the nation’s immigration laws is hardly indicative of a lack of education or of relationship-build-ing skills. Indeed, the very founda-tion of societal and communal re-lationships is a mutual trust among members. In modern states such as ours, a key element of this trust is the knowledge that one’s fel-lows will obey the country’s laws. It is largely through this belief that

people have the confidence to enter into contracts, agreements, the ac-tivities of civil society, and any num-ber of other relations critical to ev-eryday life as we know it.

Further, this life and these rela-tionships are protected most effec-tively when the nation and its peo-

ple are secure from physical threats. And while the economic advantag-es and disadvantages of hosting a growing population of illegal im-migrants could be weighed and de-bated for hours on end, it can hard-ly be denied that it is a security risk to house thousands of people of whom the government has no re-cord and therefore cannot effec-tively track. Thus, proposals such as Fremont’s, which ultimately consti-tute attempts to compel business-es to enforce standing immigration policies, could in fact be promoting

conditions prerequisite to the for-mation of healthy “community relationships.”

The story, though, does not end there. Nebraska State Senator Char-lie Janssen, himself from Fremont, has introduced another immigration bill to the Nebraska state legislature. According to the Nebraska Journal Star, this bill, if passed, would re-quire police officers to ask everyone they stopped or arrested about his immigration status if they had “rea-sonable suspicion” to believe the person was in the country illegally.

If the person in question then failed to prove his legal status, he would be detained and the police would notify federal immigration agents.

One major concern about this proposal is that it, like Arizona’s new legislation, could involve racial profiling of Hispanics. Therefore, the just enforcement of the new law would depend largely on the discre-tion of each individual police offi-cer, rendering it difficult to ensure. Such concerns have caused an out-cry among some Nebraskans.

11National

Lucia RafanelliNational News Editor

State-level anti-illegal immigration movements will not go anywhere quietly.

Join the Review.

Send us an email at des255@cornell.edu or come to GS 160, Mondays at 5:00 pm.

26 years young and better than ever.

Nebraska Follows Arizona’s Lead on Immigration

Protesters gather at the state capital to rally against Nebraska’s proposed new immigration law.

they looked at the president’s back for the hour.

“The world has changed,” Obama concluded, while wrapping up his first two years in office and one of his biggest campaign promises. “And for many, the change has been painful.”

The effects of the speech and the president’s idealist promises of non-partisan politics are yet to be seen, but the president did not shy from using perhaps his biggest night of the year as a chance to start over. In this sense, he has continued the re-cent precedent of our commanders in chief to use the night as an oppor-tunity to instill motivation and opti-mism in the nation.

Alfonse Muglia is a freshman in the ILR school. He can be reached at arm267@cornell.edu.

Continued from the left

Despite its problems, though, no less than ten other states are con-sidering similar proposals, and it appears that, at least for now, state-level anti-illegal immigration move-ments will not go anywhere quietly.

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

CR

I started out mopping floors, waiting tables, and tending bar at my dad's tavern. I put myself through school working odd jobs and night shifts. I poured my heart and soul into a small business. And when I saw how out-of-touch Washington had become with the core values of this great nation, I put my name forward and ran for office.John Boehner

The future does not belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave.Ronald Reagan

The Muslim Brotherhood is a fairly secular

organization.James Clapper

Director of National Intelligence

Take me now, Jesus!Glenn Beck on hearing the above

I am an Arab warrior, not a community organizer.Hosni Mubarak

To my mind, the single essential element on which all discoveries will be made is human freedom.Barry Goldwater

Governments never learn. Only people learn.Milton Friedman

We have a Republic, if we choose to keep it.Benjamin Franklin

In the eyes of the government, we are just one race here: It is American.Justice Antonin Scalia

There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.Ken Olson, president of Digital Equipment Corn. (1977)

They've compared me to Julius Caesar, Napoleon

Bonaparte and all those great leaders of the past that I love.

Chris Christie

In politics, an absurdity is not an impediment. Napoleon

It will be years—not in my time—before a woman will become Prime Minister.

Margaret Thatcher

12 February 16, 2011

Wisemen & Fools

To read these articles online, visit The Review's website, cornellreviewonline.com.

Visit our blog for breaking news and exclusive analysis: cornellinsider.com

Count on the Insider for swift coverage of significant campus events.

Change change change change change change change change change change change change change change change

Barack Obama