The
Purdue Review
Vol. 6 - Issue 4 A journal of conservative thought and opinion | www.purduereview.com
So It’s to be
Torture?
24: Fact or Fiction?
By Aaron Anspaugh
aarona@purduereview.com
Jack Bauer sat alone on the wit-
ness stand in the room of the Senate
hearing. He was being subpoenaed
as part of an investigation of “bru-
tality and torture in the course of his
operations.” As the hearing began,
Jack was questioned about his part
in the detainment and interrogation
of an Islamic terrorist in 2002. The
Senator leading the hearing was ob-
viously attempting to accuse Jack
Bauer and other agents of acting il-
legally in the line of their counter-
terrorism work. When directly asked
if he tortured the terrorist, Jack ad-
mitted that, according to the Geneva
Convention, he did use torture. Jack
On the Inside
then explained his actions:
“Ibrahim Haddad had targeted a
bus carrying 45 people, 10 of which
were children. The truth, Senator,
is that I stopped that attack from
happening.” The Senator shouted,
“By torturing Mr. Haddad!” Jack
calmly replied, “By doing what I
deemed necessary to protect inno-
cent lives.”
This scene in the popular tele-
vision show 24 might seem to ex-
ist only in the timeline set forth by
seven seasons in that show’s world.
However, the ideas explored in this
show, and especially this episode,
can be viewed through the prism of
today’s political environment. On
January 26th, CNN held an inter-
view with a United Nations special
Dining Courts Don’t Satisfy
»» Page 8
investigator on torture, Manfred
Nowak. Mr. Nowak was quoted
as saying “The government of the
United States is required to take all
necessary steps to bring George W.
Bush and Donald Rumsfeld before
a court.”
He continued to back up his asser-
tions that it should be Obama’s top
priority to investigate and bring to
justice anyone in the Bush adminis-
tration who was involved with “tor-
ture” of terrorist detainees, all while
refraining from defining any strict
definition of “torture.” He claimed
the priority would be “first and
foremost, to look at the individuals
who have tortured, where you have
»»See “24...” - pg. 5
Michael Steele, RNC
Chairman
»» Page 11
“Quidquid latine
dictum sit, altum
viditur.”
February, 2009
A Stimulating
Commentary
By Scott Sowers
editor@purduereview.com
Last week, President Barack
Obama complained that in this eco-
nomic down-turn everyone has be-
come an economist, all too eager to
give their two cents about the stimu-
lus package currently being debated
in Congress and on every cable news
show. “You’ve got some economists
and some folks who think they’re
economists. By the way, these days
everybody thinks they’re econo-
mists,” the President joked.
»»See “Stimulus...” - pg. 12
GET A LIFE!
A Practical Guide to the
Non-election Year for
Political Junkies
By Josh Teasdale
josht@purduereview.com
With 2008 now behind us, many
fervent political junks are emerging
from campaign offices, serial hotel
stays, canvassing groups, and sleep-
less nights glued to 24/7 news chan-
nels into a world filled with less po-
litical action. For many of us, making
this transition is difficult. Although
Joe the Plumber is still up to shenani-
gans which may be discussed, only
the most obsessive junkie will find
»»See “Junkie...” - pg. 6
Cartoons, Crosswords,
Sudokus and more
»» Page 15
THE PURDUE REVIEW February, 2009 Page 2THE PU

PURDUE REVIEW A Letter from Managing Editor Jay Wood

The

SCOTT SOWERS
Editor in Chief Greetings,
DIRK SCHMIDT Thank you for picking up our first issue of the new semester! Our paper was founded in January 2006
Publisher with a vision of providing a distinct conservative voice to the Purdue campus and the Greater Lafayette
JAY WOOD community. It’s a legacy we’re very proud to continue to this day. The Purdue Review is not a newspaper,
Managing Editor rather our analysis of the events that are shaping our lives - from Capitol Hill to Slayter Hill. As our paper
enters its fourth year of publication, we have high hopes of a bright future. We have a great staff committed
DAVE SIUKOLA to excellence.
Layout Editor

AARON ANSPAUGH Unfortunately, things aren’t as bright outside of our meeting room. Our nation is going through a time of
Features Editor great transition and uncertainty. The executive and legislative branches are in the hands of the far left. We’re
all looking for an effective solution to our economic downturn. Our thoughts and prayers go out to our
QUINN DAMERELL friends and loved ones who are struggling through this rough economic period.
Web Design

SEAN HARDING Morning will come again. We are a resilient crowd and we will stick together through the hard times. I have
Staff Writer full faith that our situation will improve, and we will reach a light at the end of this very dark tunnel. Then
and now, may our city on a hill forever shine, may our flag forever fly, and may freedom forever ring.
JORDAN HEBBE
Staff Writer God bless,
ABBIE KNIGGA
Copy Editor Jay A. Wood
Managing Editor
MATT LUNSFORD jay.wood@purduereview.com
PR Director

PAUL NANN
Staff Writer Publication Schedule:
SARAH PERKINS
Staff Writer
Feb. 11th Mar. 11th Apr. 15th

Subscribe to the Purdue Review

STEWART SIMPSON
Graphic Artist MISSION STATEMENT

JOSHUA TEASDALE The editorial staff at The Purdue Review

Senior Staff Writer will utilize the medium of print to enter-
tain, educate and enlighten the student body The Purdue Review is funded completely by donations and
LAUREN TRANCIK at Purdue University as well as the entire
Photographer Greater Lafayette community. advertisements. We receive no funding from Purdue University,
the Republican Party, or any political organization for that mat-
MARSHALL REMMELE
Columnist ter. Without the generous donations from readers like you, the
DISCLAIMER Purdue Review would not be able to fight liberalism and other
AMANDA THAYER
Contributing Editor The views expressed within these pages forms of lunacy at Purdue and in the Lafayette community.
are the views held expressly by each respec-
ROHAN JOHNSON tive writer. The opinions of these writers do
Staff Writer not necessarily reflect the opinions of any If you are interested in supporting The Purdue Review and
of the other writers in this publication nor our cause, please consider making a financial donation. Dona-
by Purdue University. This paper is in not
affiliated with Purdue University; however, tions can be mailed or made online. Checks should be made out
NATHAN ARNOLD the staff is comprised entirely of Purdue stu- to the Purdue Review. Mail subscriptions are free and can be
Chairman of the Board dents.
ordered on our website by contacting the Editor in Chief.
CHASE SLAUGHTER
Vice-Chairman of the Board www.purduereview.com
The Purdue Review meets every Wednes-
day from 8:00 to 9:00 pm in KRAN G021. editor@purduereview.com
This paper is distributed by the University All are welcome to attend the meetings
Conservative Action Network (U-CAN). The and contribute to the paper. No experi- The Purdue Review
first copy of this issue is free, at distribution ence is required.
sites. For additional copies, contact the Editor PO Box 931
in Chief, Scott Sowers at Lafayette, IN 47902
editor@purduereview.com Contact Scott Sowers for details:
editor@purduereview.com
Page 2THE PURDUE REVIEW
Drop That Gas-X
Sizing up the “Net-Zero Gas Tax”
By Rohan Johnson
rohanj@purduereview.com
We’ve been through a few rough
years in terms of gasoline prices.
Several politicians on both sides of
the aisle have advocated increasing
the federal gas tax in an attempt to
control carbon emissions and to re-
duce our dependence on foreign oil,
much of which comes from countries
that are not particularly fond of us.
Pundits generally agree on two
crucial factors to this aspect of taxing.
First, a recession is no time to raise
gas taxes on the American people. The
average family is struggling enough
in the midst of a recession and a weak
U.S. dollar. Joe the plumber is inno-
vative, and indeed resilient, but he
ought not to be robbed through means
of gasoline for his line of plumbing
trucks. Secondly, pundits agree that if
there were ever a time to raise the gas
The payroll tax holiday may be temporarty, but the gas tax will last forever.
tax and flex our crude oil regulating
muscles it would be now—creating
a paradox. We’ve seen the price of a
barrel of crude oil rise from 20 U.S.
dollars in early 2002, to a record high
of 152 U.S. Dollars in June 2008, and
now we’re finally back to about 40
dollars a barrel. Raising the tax while
the price of the barrel is relatively low
would mitigate costs on the American
consumer.
The answer to both of these ques-
tions seems to be emerging in the
form of Indiana Senator Richard Lu-
gar’s Net-Zero Gas Tax proposal. The
Net-Zero Gas Tax is a proposal that
has been largely propagated by con-
February, 2009
servative writer and columnist from
the Weekly Standard, Charles Kraut-
hammer. The proposal would enact
two tax policies simultaneously. The
first policy would raise the gas tax by
a set amount per gallon. After calcu-
lating the average amount of gas that
Americans purchase per week, the
second action would be implemented
to refund each citizen by the amount
taxed per gallon multiplied by that
average. This amount would be re-
turned by way of a decrease in the
payroll tax for employed individuals,
an increase in social security funding
for the elderly, and an increase in un-
employment insurance for those un-
able (or unwilling) to work.
According to Senator Lugar’s pro-
posal, and other proponents of the
Net-Zero Gas Tax such as Dr. David
Hummels, a professor of Econom-
ics at Purdue and an economic advi-
sor to President Obama throughout
the campaign, the end results should
look something like this: Demand for
gasoline will decrease as the demand
for gasoline is elastic, which was
clearly displayed this summer when
gas prices soared to nearly $4.50 in
some parts of the country; the world
price of a barrel of crude oil will
drop, as the United States takes in
nearly 14 million of the world’s 65
million imports of barrels of crude
oil per day. This drop in world prices
would certainly be a blow to some of
the United States economic and polit-
ical opponents. Dr. David Hummels
elaborated, “Russia and Venezuela
were acting really obnoxiously this
summer when oil prices were high.
They could afford to be. Lately, they
have taken on a much more accom-
modating and cooperative stance.”
With the implementation of the Net-
“Joe the Plumber is innovative, and indeed
resilient, but he ought not to be robbed
through means of gasoline for his line of
plumbing trucks.”
Zero Gas Tax, Hummels anticipates
more accommodation and coopera-
tion from unfriendly countries once a
gas tax is put in place. Lastly Hum-
mels speculates that the decrease in
the payroll tax would stimulate busi-
nesses and employers. “Cutting the
payroll tax also reduces the cost to
businesses hiring more workers and
would therefore be a likely stimulus
to employment, which is very much
necessary right now” said Hummels
of the alternative benefits of the de-
crease in payroll taxes.
The potential benefits of the
Net-Zero Gas Tax are clear, and the
chances that President Obama would
approve of it are pretty likely con-
sidering he spoke of increasing the
gas tax during the campaign; Sena-
tor McCain and Senator Clinton both
proposed a Gas Tax Holiday. The
Net-Zero Gas Tax advocates are also
quick to point out the friendship be-
tween Senator Lugar and President
Obama as further reason to suggest
that this gas tax hike is right around
the corner. But let’s take a step back,
put down the Gas-X, and look at the
complex implications of the tax.
Although the payroll tax would
be decreased, allowing businesses to
save money in one area, they would
also be forced to pay a higher gas tax,
which would increase the price of
their goods produced.
Also, the purpose of the gas tax,
as it is now, is to support transporta-
tion infrastructure. The government
should not be using the gas tax to ma-
nipulate aggregate demand. Let the
free market take its course. I’m fed up
with of government trying to control
Page 3
the markets. Adam Smith’s “invisible
hand” hasn’t failed us; politicians in
Washington who believe they know
how to manipulate the economy for
the better have failed us. The best
idea is to reduce the amount of taxa-
tion on the American people, thereby
reducing the grip and size of the fed-
eral government. This cannot be done
by raising taxes in any area, regard-
less of whatever “Net-zero” effect is
put in place.
If the government really wanted to
promote energy independence they’d
spend more time and resources pro-
moting safe nuclear energy and the
utilization of domestic oil and coal
resources. The United States is lag-
ging far behind the curve in terms of
energy efficiency as a result of the
last sixteen years. We’ve relied more
on the federal government to fix our
energy problem than Adam Smith’s
“invisible hand.” Despite the peo-
ples’ cry of “Drill baby, drill!” and
successful examples of the nuclear
power in countries like France who
relies on nuclear power for 87.5%
of their electrical power production,
politicians are futzing with tax rates
and spending money on unproven,
unreliable technologies, such as wind
and solar power.
Government regulation all too of-
ten leads to inefficiency and failure. It
really is quite disappointing that Sen-
ator Richard Lugar and Charles
Krauthammer would follow the path
blazed by former President George
W. Bush in “Abandoning free market
principles to save the free market.”
When will we learn that government
can’t fix our problems, they just make
them worse? Judging by the last elec-
tion, we aren’t even close to under-
standing this.
THE PURDUE REVIEW
Freedom of Choice Act vs. Declaration of Independence
By Aaron Anspaugh
aarona@purduereview.com
With the inauguration of President
Obama, the issue of abortion came up
immediately. Right off the bat, Presi-
dent Obama reversed an executive or-
der by President Bush that kept money
from being sent overseas to fund
abortions. Since President Obama
now has a majority in both the House
and Senate, another piece of abortion
legislation may be coming soon. The
Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) goes
a step beyond the existing govern-
ment stance on the issue. While Roe v.
Wade only took the negative by over-
turning state laws and stating that the
overall banning of abortions is uncon-
stitutional, FOCA will actually take
the opposite approach by affirming
through law that every woman has the
right to an abortion, at any time dur-
ing pregnancy, at any medical facility.
This will also overturn many restric-
tions and regulations that have been
placed on abortion that did not conflict
with Roe v. Wade, such as parental
notification and the right for religious
hospitals to deny abortions.
Since this issue is bound to, once
again, return to the front pages as soon
as FOCA is brought up again (and it
will be), there is a definite need to re-
examine the issue. For those who are
in favor of abortion, they claim it is a
right of personal liberty for a woman
to be able to choose what happens to
her body. For those who are against
abortion, the issue is not simply about
reasons for or against the procedure.
It goes up to a higher level, that of
the value of human life. Our found-
ing documents indicate that there are
certain rights that are endowed upon
humans from God (or perhaps nature
if you are atheist). The first of these is
the right to life.
Of the three God-given rights as
penned by Thomas Jefferson (those
being life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness), it was understood that life
was the most important of the three.
At the time, Jefferson was not as con-
cerned with British tyranny taking
away his right to live as much as his
right to liberty, but he still understood
that life was the most important of the
three. Without life, one cannot enjoy
the other two God-given rights. The
second right, liberty, was the second
most important, for without freedom,
February, 2009
ownership of property (pursuit of hap- known that the government usually
piness) is worthless. The order and ends up causing more trouble than it
wording of these rights was important intends to fix when it gets involved
to understanding the original intent of personal issues. However, the ones
the document. who use this argument for backing
Several years later, when the Bill of abortion show a lack of understanding
Rights was added to the Constitution, about the purpose of government in
several other rights were defined that the first place. Our Founding Fathers
the government was to protect. These, understood that small government
however, were not seen as God-given, was better than large government, but
but as restrictions on the government. that government did need to exist for
Also, since it was part of the Consti- certain purposes. A major one of these
tution, these rights could be modified purposes is to protect the God-given
at future dates through amendments. rights of its citizens.
While there may be some overlap, When the argument over slavery
those rights mentioned in the first 10 was raging, people had strong argu-
Amendments were not to be confused ments on both sides. Today, we don’t
with the unalienable rights given by see the slaveholders’ arguments as
God. The Founders understood that even being valid, but they did have
the natural rights as narrated by Jef- at least some Constitutional backing.
ferson were not given by government, The Constitution did not say much
Mr. Obama, Tear up this Bill!
and therefore could not be taken away about slavery until that time except to
or modified by government. acknowledge the existence of slaves
Our society, for the most part, feels by assigning them a population value
it is just and fair to be able to take the of 3/5ths of a person. For the slave-
God-given rights from people who holders, the slaves were their prop-
have violated the rights of other people, erty, and they did not want some big
such as the death penalty as a punish- government coming in and interven-
ment for murder (life), imprisonment ing by telling them what to do with
for serious crimes (liberty), and fines their property. They saw Lincoln as a
for lesser crimes (property). In fact, monarch who only wanted to expand
at the founding, we still had the insti- government and take away individual
tution of slavery established, which liberty. In reality, however, Lincoln
clearly violated the rights of liberty came to understand that it violated the
and property, and in some cases life. natural laws of humanity to sacrifice
Eventually, the majority sentiment be- the rights of life, liberty, and property
came such that people understood that of some in order to appease the desire
the God-given rights applied to ALL for property by others.
people, not just those who happened Today, we have a similar argument
to be in control of the others. raging. There are those who feel that
Conservatives, for the most part, a law against abortion violates their
are not in favor of big government personal liberty. In one sense, they do
intervention in private lives. It is well have some basis for an argument, since
Page 4THE PU
government intervention is usually
not a good thing in terms of personal
matters. The actual trade occurring to-
day, however, shows the right of life
(with liberty and property naturally
following) of unborn children being
sacrificed for the right of “liberty” by
mothers.
There are a few differences be-
tween the issues of slavery and abor-
tion. First, the unborn children can-
not protest or speak out against their
plight, as many escaped slaves and
freed blacks were able to do during
the era of slavery. Second, the right of
slaves as property that the slavehold-
ers used was actually justified based
on the Constitution’s view of slavery
at the time (until the passage of the
13th Amendment). There is no such
direct justification in the Constitu-
tion on how a mother’s ability to have
her child killed is related to “liberty”.
Third, the issue of the legality of abor-
tion has not been decided by elected
officials in the same way as the is-
sue of slavery. Lincoln, who made
the Emancipation Proclamation, was
elected. The Congress who composed
the Constitutional Amendment ban-
ning slavery was elected. The state
legislatures who ratified that same
amendment were all elected. The issue
of abortion was decided with no direct
popular support, but by justices with
no accountability to the people. The
Supreme Court overturned many state
laws in the process of discovering the
Constitutional right of an abortion.
In conclusion, the issue comes
down to a proper view of the situation.
While government intrusion into a
woman’s body doesn’t seem fair to the
woman’s liberty, there is no question
that a right to life is being violated in
exchange for that personal liberty. The
government must protect the God-giv-
en rights (starting with life) above all
else, whatever that may mean as far as
laws or Constitutional amendments.
That is a main purpose of our govern-
ment the way it is designed. When we
start taking away the God-given rights
of some, who cannot fight for them-
selves, in order to provide for the judi-
cially-created rights of others, we be-
gin to devalue those original rights.
Worse yet, we lay down a dangerous
precedent that the government has the
ability to take away the God-given
rights of anyone, including the most
precious right of life.
Page 4THE PURDUE REVIEW February, 2009 Page 5

24...
FROM PAGE 1
evidence, but then you have to look
into who ordered this”. Clearly, this
is not far off from what occurred in
24’s season opener.
The show 24 has often dealt with
difficult political and moral issues.
Many of the conflicts in the show
involve the question of whether the
ends justify the means in any given
scenario. Jack Bauer has been placed
in situations which most Americans
will never experience and he always
made a decision based on his own
judgment. As this season’s opener
demonstrated, that judgment, while
it may have saved thousands of lives
throughout the course of the show,
can still be punished if it does not
follow the letter of the law. Near the
end of Jack Bauer’s grilling session
by the Senate, Jack made a refer-
ence to how he felt in regards to his
breaking the law while fulfilling his
mission. He said, “In answer to your
question, ‘Am I above the law?’,
no, sir. I am more than willing to be
judged by the people you claim to
represent. I will let them decide the
price I need to pay.”
While a small faction in this
country may want the harshest pun-
ishments for people who merely
used their judgment in a difficult sit-
uation, most Americans can under-
stand the conditions into which our
front-line soldiers and agents are
placed every day. It is very easy for
an elitist Senator or United Nations
worker to accuse people of perform-
ing or sanctioning torture, but they
never see what good might have
come from the actions in question.
Clearly, there comes a point where
torture is extreme and immoral. But
in dealing with enemies who are
not afraid to give their lives or their
loved ones’ lives in order to kill in-
nocent civilians, extreme measures
are sometimes the only solution.
For the most part, the U.S. gov-
ernment allows agents in the field
to use reasonable means to obtain
information. Some of these tech-
niques, such as water-boarding,
were not considered torture until
the Obama administration arrived.
However, even with the strictest
laws against torture, we will never
know how many soldiers and agents
did what they deemed necessary to
save American lives over the course
of this war, regardless of the per-
sonal consequences they may have
had to face.
Does this strategy work? In late
2007, the Heritage Foundation re-
ported on 19 major terrorist attacks
that were thwarted since 9/11/2001.
When asked about how they felt
about the lack of terrorist attacks
since 9/11 and how they feel about
the role that “torture” may have
played, some Purdue students spoke
their mind:
Katy Jester, a junior majoring
in classical studies said, “In war
against terrorists, when people are
going to get hurt, I like the utilitari-
anism approach. I would rather one
person be tortured than 60 innocent
people die.” Other students view the
situation from a different perspec-
tive. An anonymous junior majoring
in C&IT said, “I don’t think [tor-
ture] is necessarily always wrong.
“ He clarified his statement by say-
ing, “Unless there is an immediate
and already-realized threat… we
shouldn’t resort to torture”.
Will Obama ignore the previous
administration’s actions and simply
move on in his “new” direction?
Or will he actively investigate and
prosecute anyone related to an al-
leged torture? Perhaps a third option
is most likely. President Bush was in
the hot seat for only a few months
when 9/11 occurred. At that point,
his entire mindset about foreign re-
lations was changed. He had access
to intelligence that few others did,
so his decisions were not based only
on what the popular opinion might
have been at the time. It was very
easy for everyone to criticize the
President and those below him in
the chain of command for their de-
cisions, but now the shoe is on the
other foot.
With President Obama keeping
Robert Gates in the Cabinet and re-
cently softening his rhetoric on anti-
war stances, it appears that he has
not yet departed from President
Bush’s approach to fighting the War
on Terror. President Obama has had
to and will continue to have to ask
himself the age old question: “Do
the ends justify the means in this
situation?” The answer will not al-
ways be the same, but it is some-
thing that has to be decided on a
case-by-case basis. The season 7
opener of 24 could be a good predic-
tion of what the next several years
will be like if Obama actually fol-
lows the advice of people such as
the U.N. worker, Manfred Nowak.
However, if Obama does not cave to
the extreme left’s calls for war
crimes charges against the Bush ad-
ministration and if he allows those
on the front-line of the War on Ter-
ror to use their judgment in saving
American lives, then maybe the en-
tertaining fiction of 24 will remain
merely fiction.

What to Get Your Valentine in a Recession

Guys Gals
Notebook Paper Footballs Ring Pop
(Fold 10, Place in Ziplock Bag) Boquet of Dandelions
Pair of Socks Facebook Gift
Duct Tape Wallet
The Notebook, recorded on VHS
Gift Certificate for Hope & Change
Conversation Hearts
Swatch Watch
Den Pop Basket of Soaps and Shampoos from Hotel
THE PURDUE REVIEW
Junkie...
FROM PAGE 1
such a topic entertaining without a
looming national election which will
decide the fate of the universe. Some-
how, even John Stewart is less funny
every night as he struggles to find a
way to be funny without criticizing
the President Obama. He seems to
still be stuck talking about former
President Bush and Vice President
Cheney. Stephen Colbert on the oth-
er hand seems to have become fun-
nier, as he is fearless in attacking any
politician, conservative, or hippie. to cash all those checks for hope and
Because many of us have
no real life outside of the 24 hour
news-cycle, here is a practical guide
to surviving the next 10 months till
the midterms start up in full force.
Having a discussion with people that
doesn’t involve defending or attack-
ing Sarah Palin’s shoes many sound
difficult, but it is possible. Because
of the incredible diversity of the pop-
ulation of Political Junkies, this guide
is organized by the various types of
people who get sucked into the show
that never ends.
Die Hard Liberal Hippie:
You’ve been reading Al Franken’s
books and can probably recite them
from memory; you know all about
Halliburton and how Dick Cheney
eats kittens. Enjoy the victory of
hope and change for as long as you
can and try to make some friends
while you are at it. The disappointing
thing about being a liberal when the
Democrats are in power is the same
thing that’s disappointing about being
conservative when the Republicans
are in power: Parties never live up to
their hype, at least not for long. Also,
there are fewer reasons to complain
about the government. Put down that
“Run for the Hills! The Democrats are on their
way to your house to take all your guns, your
Bible, and possibly turn your children gay with
an evil form of marmalade developed by Satan
himself!”
February, 2009
joint and wonder into the real world
to make some new friends and maybe
get a date. Or share the wealth a little.
There are many Junkies out there
who are less politically fortunate and
could use a good high. (Disclaimer:
the Purdue Review does not advocate
the use of illegal substances)
Liberal Government-Type
The Campaign is over and now
you’ve been ushered into power. The
problem is you now need to be able
change you’ve been writing for the
last two years. No worries though,
being in power is less about doing
anything real and more about making
everyone think you are doing some-
thing. Besides, the burnout rate for
working in government in a political
position is about two years. After that,
you get a book deal, the title of ‘con-
tributor’ or ‘analyst’ on some news
channel, and all the commentary you
can peddle. Be sure not to waste your
time at the top, there’s always that
guy in high school that pushed you
around or that girl that rejected you.
What’s the point of being in power if
you can’t get a little payback?
Democratic Political Operative
The sky is the limit. Unlike those
unfortunate bastards who have to go
work in the government, you are sat-
isfied with the ad-buys you cashed in
on and you can go right into writing
your books and spending your nights
in posh bars around DC, LA, or wher-
ever. You’ve probably got a few offers
to write or be on cable news opposite
Keith Olberman, but it’d probably be
best if you spent the next year just
living life. You are the perfect kind of
celebrity: all the influence and power
with only the bare minimum name
recognition. Anybody who’s anybody
knows who you are, but you can still
go to the grocery store without be-
ing recognized, not that you would
do that anyways, now that you have
“people”.
“The problem is you now need to be able to
cash all those checks for hope and change
you’ve been writing for the last two years.”
Liberal College Student Die-Hard
All those points you made in your
Political Science class finally paid
off. It feels good now that you can get
into debates at a party after you’ve
had a few drinks and not really worry
about zinging the conservative guy
on the other side (not that he’d know
it anyways, he’s about to pass out
clinging his bottle of jack). Your guy
won and it doesn’t really matter what
the other people say because “yeah,
but your guy lost” works at college
parties. Just try not to rub it in too
much. As much as everyone loves
that guy in class who knows exactly
the right thing to say to zing the con-
servatives, you will probably find it
isn’t a particularly good way to get
members of the opposite sex; or of
the same sex, if you’re into that kind
of thing. Be sure to develop topics of
conversation beyond Cheney being a
terrorist. It doesn’t make much sense
to blast the Republicans after they’ve
been kicked out of power so thor-
oughly. Kudos if you can talk about
topics completely unrelated to poli-
tics, you just might have a chance at
a real life.
New Voters and Regular College
Students
Get out while you can. You didn’t
care about politics before the last
election cycle, but actually became
informed enough to know the differ-
ence between Joe the Plumber and Joe
Biden: they both are naturally bald,
but one had a jobs project to restore
his hairline. You’re far better adjusted
Page 6THE PU
to normal life than those who have
been living and breathing politics
since high school. There will be those
that will try to recruit you into doing
things in an off election year. Since
you don’t really care, just nod, smile,
and move along. There’s a crazy party
happening down the street and I hear
jello and girls are involved.
Conservative College Student Die-
Hards
It may seem like the end of the
world, but don’t worry about it. If
you’re right, there’s not much you
can do about it and if you’re wrong,
there not much point in worrying
about it. Avoid de-friending anyone
who you think voted for “change.”
You’ll eventually run into them at a
party and get suckered into re-friend-
ing them again. Instead, worry about
getting ahead in life and getting set
up for a good job. You have no desire
to be a community organizer; you’re
hoping to actually make money. By
the time you graduate and get that
corner office, the Republicans will be
back in power and your campaign do-
nation will get you a plumb appoint-
ment, or at very least, a front seat to
see President Jindal speak.
Republican Operatives
Ouch, that was a kick in the pants.
It might be time to get out of the big
show. You can handle defeat a little
better than all those young’ins who
are now vying for your job since
you’ve been around the block a few
times. The good thing is you can now
bitch and moan about anything and
everything. You get to return to hav-
ing an ideology free of the practical
implications of governing and win-
ning elections. You still know all of
those well-furnished bars, so call up
See “Junkies...” - pg. 7
Page 6THE PURDUE REVIEW
Junkies...
FROM PAGE 6
some friends from the Reagan Revo-
lution and reminisce about the good
‘ole times. Also, don’t worry too
much, this whole hope and change
stuff will blow over faster than Com-
passionate Conservatism and then it
will be time for the Midterms. In the
meantime, take a vacation to Tahiti;
you don’t have to worry about gov-
erning or gloating, just relax a little
and get ready for the next big election
cycle.
Gun-Totin’, God-Fearin’, Conser-
vative Wack-jobs
Run for the Hills! The Democrats
are on their way to your house to take
all your guns, your Bible, and pos-
sibly turn your children gay with an
evil form of marmalade developed
by Satan himself! Best to move up
to Alaska where it’s too cold for Al
Gore and his kind to survive. They
talk about global warming a lot, but in
fact, they like it a little warmer, prob-
ably because of all the trips they have
Leaving the Poverty Plantation
By Jay Wood
jay.wood@purduereview.com
The Conservative Coalition for
American Values (CCAV) and The
Network of Enlightened Women
(NEW) are partnering together to
bring another guest speaker to cam-
pus. On Tuesday, February 17th,
they’ll be hosting Star Parker, a
woman with an incredible success
story. She will be speaking at 7 PM
in Mathews 210. Star will share her
story of how she got off of welfare
and began a successful independent
life.
In an online article in Today’s
Christian Woman, Star tells of how
she had four abortions (each tax sub-
sidized) in a three year span. She
got pregnant three months after her
fourth abortion, but decided to bring
the child to term. When Star was 23,
she quit her job and went on welfare.
Between welfare, food stamps, and a
February, 2009 Page 7
to take down to Hell for pow-wows
with you-know-who. Be comforted
in the knowledge that you survived
Bill Clinton and maybe even Carter.
Nancy Pelosi certainly is scary, but
you can only wear that much makeup
and have so many facelifts before
you get mistaken for a drag queen.
Besides, it’s probably the end of the
world anyways.
All in all, it’s been a crazy run the
last few years. Politics is certainly the
show that never ends and it’s incred-
ibly easy to get sucked in. So far you
have no life outside the report given
by the subcommittee on rules regard-
ing proper ways to address the first
pet. Try to have some perspective and
a life outside politics; there’s only so
much you can actually affect and Oh, what are you so happy about?
change. There are plenty of good
things in life that don’t revolve around
the news ticker on Fox News, CNN,
or MSNBC. And please, for goodness
sake, be able to laugh at yourself…at
least until the Midterms.
job that paid “under the table”, she
was better off financially then if she
worked a regular full-time job.
In the same online article, Star
said, “Later, I had no trouble drop-
ping my daughter, Angel, off at a
government-funded day care, sell-
ing some free medical-care stickers
to buy drugs, and hanging out at the
beach all afternoon. Now I look back
and say, ‘God, how was I so blind?’
Yet through my sinful lifestyle I’d
totally lost my understanding of right
and wrong.”
After a religious conversion expe-
rience, Star began to rely on God and
not on government. She no longer felt
dependent on welfare checks. She got
a job, married a pastor, and began a
prosperous life. Star Parker’s tale is a
classic American Dream success sto-
ry. Her visit to Purdue promises to be
yet another can’t-miss event in the
CCAV’s successful guest speaker se-
ries.
Star Parker
THE PURDUE REVIEW
Dining Courts Don’t Satisfy
By Jordan Hebbe
jordanh@purduereview.com
Before arriving to Purdue, I was
looking forward to eating in the din-
ing halls. As a health conscious stu-
dent, I was pleased with the variety
and quality of the food offered in
the halls. Or at least, I was during
my Day on Campus, at which point
Purdue was still trying to entice po-
tential students to attend. Since then,
I have been constantly disappointed
by Purdue’s dining system. The se-
lection is significantly lacking when
compared to this summer, the quality
is marginal at best, and the opportuni-
ties for wholesome nutrition are vir-
tually non-existent. I was determined
not to gain the “Freshman 15” and I
have succeeded, only by avoiding the
halls whenever possible and keep-
ing my own stock of fresh fruit and
healthy options in my dorm room. I
decreased my meal plan from 12 to
10, and I still end up having 5 meals
left at the end of the week. It is un-
acceptable for a large college like
Purdue to have such a subpar dining
system. Students pay, on average,
$18,000 to attend this school and I
believe that the dining halls should
reflect that number.
When compared with other dining
systems in the state, Purdue is behind
the curve. While the dining halls here
are architecturally state of the art and
aesthetically pleasing, they lack what
matters most: the best interests of the
student. The hours of operation for
They don’t even know what’s coming for them
February, 2009
the dining halls hinder rather than ac-
commodate Purdue’s student body.
The dining halls serve breakfast from
6:30am to 9:30am, lunch from 11am
to 2pm, and dinner from 5pm to
8:30pm. After researching the hours
of operation at Indiana University, I
found that some places stay open un-
til 2am and many do not close until
midnight. There are several dining
locations that open at 7:30am and do
not close until midnight. At Ball State
University, there is always at least
one dining court open until midnight.
Many of the courts open in the morn-
ing and remain open until late in the
evening, allowing students the free-
dom to eat where they want, when
they want, without having to fit it into
their schedules. Purdue’s restricted
hours are a nuisance to its students.
Granted, when comparing Pur-
due’s dining system to that of IU and
Ball State, it must be mentioned that
we operate on a different type of meal
credit system. At IU and Ball State,
they have more of a meal point sys-
tem. They put money into an account
and charge the meals on that account.
Even so, they offer more options, bet-
ter hours, and more healthy foods.
Their meal points are valid at all of
their locations, unlike Purdue. As any
student knows, our meal swipes are
only valid in 7 locations. We have
to use our dining dollars or pay up
front with another form of money
when eating at Harrison Grille and
Cary Knight Spot. And how about the
Union, where healthy food and deli-
The “only a salad” mentality just doesn’t work here
cious options abound? Well, you can-
not use your meal swipes and you are
only allowed to use $25 of your din-
ing dollars there per semester. Once
you’ve spent that $25, you have to
use your own cash. You have prob-
ably $150+ dining dollars left in your
account, and you are not even al-
lowed to choose where you use them.
What a waste.
Although it’s not widely discussed,
many students become sick from eat-
ing in the dining halls. On several oc-
casions I have gotten a cheeseburger,
only to find that it is undercooked
and still raw inside. I have been lucky
enough to notice this before eating
enough to become ill. Some students
have not been so lucky. Clark Cord
and Nick Mader, freshmen living in
Shreve Hall, both ate double swipe
steak from Wiley Hall on the same
evening and became sick because of
it. Another freshman, Kyle Nelson,
ate an omelet at Wiley Dining Court
and spent much of the day vomiting
afterwards. Hayley Warner fell ill
after eating at Earhart Dining Hall.
Karly Tepe and several of her friends
became sick after eating chicken at
Harrison Grille.
Although the mission statement
boasts to “provide a wide variety of
menu options with quality food and
services, accentuating and enhancing
the customer experience in a diverse
global community,” it fails to address
the student body’s foremost needs.
Page 8THE PU
We need a flexible schedule to fit our
own hectic ones. We need healthy
food that gives us energy for late
nights and lots of studying. The din-
ing administration seems to think that
a weak salad bar and apples, oranges,
and bananas give us enough variety
when it comes to health-conscious
food. They also seem to think that,
for everyone who is concerned with
eating healthy, Windsor Dining Hall
should suffice. Well, that just doesn’t
cut it. I said we want to eat healthy,
not vegan. Healthy food does not
consist of Spinach Quiche Pie (on the
menu at Wiley yesterday), or Straw-
berry Kiwi Spinach Pie (on the menu
at Wiley today), or Chick Pea Chhole
(on the menu at Ford today), or Vegan
Spicy Basil Tofu (on the menu at Ear-
hart today). Why do the dishes have
to be so complicated? Why is it that
every time the halls serve what could
be nice, normal, grilled chicken, they
have to put some kind of fruit all over
it? Just give us nice, healthy chicken.
Fruit and chicken were not meant to
be together, ever. If you want to give
us fruit, that would be wonderful. I
think we would all quite appreciate a
fresh fruit bar, featuring items like
strawberries, grapes, pineapple (real,
rather than canned, please), raspber-
ries, oranges, kiwi, peaches, and
blueberries. We want to eat these
things; we want to eat healthy.
Page 8THE PURDUE REVIEW February, 2009 Page 9

New Year, New Pennies

By Paul Nann
pauln@purduereview.com
We’re now happily in 2009 and
there are changes abound. One which
you might not notice right away is
that shiny new penny you found be-
neath the vending machine doesn’t
look completely like a penny. 2009 is
more than just another year; it’s also
the 200th anniversary of Lincoln’s
birth. On February 12th, his birthday,
we’re going to be changing up our
smallest denomination of currency to
commemorate Lincoln.
This isn’t the first time we’ve
changed the penny. Every few de-
cades we mix it up. Including the
four new designs this year, we’ve
had a total of eight redesigns of the
(small sized) penny. The current pen-
ny (officially known as ‘one cent’)
didn’t start to take shape until 1907
when Victor D. Brenner designed the
“Lincoln Wheat” penny to celebrate
the 100th anniversary of Lincoln’s
birth. This penny had the same front
design as the one we have today and
remained unchanged until 1957. That
year we got the penny we still use to-
day with the Lincoln Memorial on the
back.
The composition of the penny is
also interesting, even with the ‘cop-
per’ look changing every once in a
while. Although many people think
the modern penny is copper, it’s ac-
tually not. In 1982, the cost of cop-
per rose to the extent that the cost to
make a penny was far higher than the
one cent it represented. The U.S. Mint
decided to change the penny to 97.5%
zinc with copper plating. Since some
of the 1982 pennies are zinc and some
are copper, it is often difficult to tell
them apart. One simple way is to give
the penny a flip; if it makes a ringing
sound it’s copper, otherwise it’s zinc.
This wasn’t the first time that at-
tempts were made to lower the cost of
the penny. In 1943, all pennies were
made of steel. In 1974, there was a
failed attempt to convert the penny
to mostly aluminum (1.5 million of
those pennies were made, but they
were all recalled). Even now, attempts
are being made to change the compo-
sition of the coin. In 2008, a bill was
introduced to the House allowing the
Mint to change the makeup of coins
in hopes of making them cheaper to
produce.
It still costs more than one cent
to mint a penny. The only thing that
is changing this year is the back of
our beloved coin. The U.S. Mint has
come up with four brand new designs
for the penny this year, each of which
will be circulated. On the back of
each penny, you’ll find a new image
replacing the familiar Lincoln Me-
morial. Each of these new designs
consists of a distinct image symbol-
izing a certain stage of Lincoln’s life.
These four include his childhood, his
life in Indiana, his political career,
and his presidency. The front for all
of the pennies will remain the same.
The bust of Lincoln will remain un-
altered. A fifth design, commemorat-
ing the preservation of the union, will
be released in 2010. This final design
will be permanent. In that design, it’s
possible that the front of the penny –
the Lincoln bust- might be slightly
altered.
These pennies will be circulated.,
People can collect all four. . There
will also be a special Collector’s Coin
(complete with 95% copper).

Penny Compositions
1793–1857 - Copper
1857–1864 - 88% Copper, 12% nickel
1864–1942 - Bronze (95% copper, 5% tin and zinc)
1943 - Zinc-coated steel
1944–1946 - Brass (95% copper, 5% zinc)
1946–1962 - Bronze (95% copper, 5% tin and zinc)
1962–1982 - Brass (95% copper, 5% zinc)
1982– Present - 97.5% Zinc core, 2.5% copper plating

Penny Designs
Flying Eagle – ((1856–1858)
Indian Head – ((1859–1909)
Lincoln Wheat – ((1909–1958)
Lincoln Memorial – (1959–2008)
Lincoln Bicentennial (4 reverse designs) – (2009)
THE PURDUE REVIEW
Post-Partisanship: DOA
By Josh Teasdale
josht@purduereview.com
When running for President in
2000, George Bush promised to be
a “uniter and not a divider.” Upon
taking office at the start of 2001, he
sought out Democrats to work on
issues in a bipartisan fashion. He
worked with Ted Kennedy to pass
No Child Left Behind and support-
ed efforts to create more jobs, train
workers in new fields, established a
national Do-Not-Call List, created a
Medicare prescription drug plan for
seniors, imposed new regulations on
corporate accounting, and a pushed
to change campaign finance reform.
Many of these programs and pieces
of legislation made conservatives
cringe. President Bush, however,
despite his bipartisanship on many
domestic issues, became an increas-
ingly divisive figure in our country.
Much of that had to do not with do-
mestic issues, but the War on Terror
in Iraq and other national security
issues.
Fast forward eight years: Presi-
dent Obama won the 2008 presi-
dential election in much the same
way George Bush won in 2000—by
criticizing past divisive partisanship
and promising to unite the country.
Now, facing one of the worst eco-
nomic crises in recent history, he has
been pushing an economic stimulus
plan to shock and awe the country
out of its funk. With his first major
piece of legislation during his term,
bipartisanship or post-partisanship
has evaporated. Instead of hearing
all ideas about how to stimulate the
economy, he has allowed the Speaker
of the House, Nancy Pelosi to write
the stimulus bill. The bill which
passed in the House never saw the
light of day in a committee hearing,
but was instead written and brought
to the floor by Speaker Pelosi.
Now, it is not surprising that a
Speaker of the House would be in-
tensely partisan. Individuals who go
on to become Speaker win in a sin-
gle congressional district to become
a member of Congress than must
become party cheerleaders to win
the support of their party and the Of-
fice of the Speaker. Speaker Pelosi
February, 2009
never mentioned bipartisanship in
the 2008 election, much less post-
partisanship. If President Obama
truly wanted to avoid partisanship,
he should have taken the lead on this
stimulus plan and insist it go though
the regular committee system for
hearings and amendments. To ab-
dicate leadership to the Speaker of
the House on this major piece of
legislation is to abandon any hope
of attracting bipartisan support for
the final bill.
That is not to say the President
Remember, they won and don’t need to listen to the American people for two years at least.
has been uninvolved; he has gone
to speak to the Republican Caucus
in the House, where he insisted he
wanted to hear Republican ideas,
which he then routinely dismissed.
More recently, he has been issuing
dire warnings of an economic col-
lapse should this “stimulus” bill,
which could more accurately be de-
scribed as a massive pork appropria-
tions bill, fail it would lead to a new
great depression. Despite the obvi-
ous hopefulness of this pronounce-
ment, Republicans have continued
to be hesitant to support the bill.
Although a portion of the bill goes
toward tax rebates, far too much
of it goes towards pet programs of
the Democratic Party. The Presi-
dent readily admits that the bill is
not perfect, but appears to be taking
little-to-no effort to clean it up.
The new President’s troubles
seem to go beyond the current
stimulus package. At least four of
his nominees to major cabinet and
Whitehouse positions have tax prob-
lems which are creating controver-
sy. Nominees for Treasury, Labor,
Health and Human Services, and
a White House performance czar
have, in some way, failed to prop-
erly pay income taxes. Putting aside
the obvious irony of Democrats fail-
ing to pay taxes, the President has
refused to bar anyone from the ex-
ecutive branch who hasn’t followed
the tax code. Although Tom Daschle,
for Health and Human Services, and
Nancy Killefer, for Chief Perfor-
mance Officer, withdrew from con-
sideration, Tim Geithner will serve
as Secretary of the Department of
the Treasury even though he failed
Page 10THE PU
to pay his own taxes from 2000-
2001. The President’s nominee for
Labor Secretary, Hilda Solis, is still
under consideration by the Senate.
No President can be blamed
for all of the misfortunes which are
suffered while he is in office. How-
ever, the reaction of a President
to misfortunes is telling about the
man who currently resides at 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue. Coming into
office, President Obama set out an
ambiguous agenda for his first 100
days in office. However, many of
his campaign promises revolved not
around solid policy, but tone and
manner. What he has failed to real-
ize is that without strong leadership
from the Oval Office, his Demo-
crat counterparts in Congress will
destroy any kind of bipartisanship
just as quickly as any Republican.
Although he presumably couldn’t
have foreseen all of his nominees’
tax problems, he has far from taken
a hard line against failure to pay
taxes.
It seems that President
Obama is not going to get a honey-
moon period. This is partially due to
the current economic crisis, but also
partially attributable to his (lack of)
leadership in drawing up the current
recovery plan. Upon taking office in
2001, President Bush made a genu-
ine effort to bring Democrats on-
board and listen to their ideas. After
eight years and numerous difficul-
ties, the Bush presidency ended up
being far from the unifying force
many had hoped. Currently, Presi-
dent Obama (by bowing to Demo-
cratic Congressional leadership) is
wasting any chance he had at be-
coming the Anti-Bush (and we
haven’t even gotten to FOCA, Card
Check, and numerous other liberal
policies which the left is salivating
over). It is hard to imagine how the
tone of his Presidency will get any
better in the next four years. In the
end, President Obama seems likely
to end up being just as divisive and
controversial as President Bush.
Many conservatives would call that
poetic justice.
Page 10THE PURDUE REVIEW
Michael Steele, A Man with a Vision
By Jay Wood
jay.wood@purduereview.com
Blue Collar Comedy Tour co-
median Jeff Foxworthy is famous
for his “You might be a redneck…”
tests. For example, “If you’ve ever
mowed your lawn and found a car…
you might be a redneck.” A similar
test can be applied to members of
our party. For example, “If you’ve
lost control of Congress and the
White House because your party
doesn’t have strong effective lead-
ership… you might be a Republi-
can.”
Unlike Foxworthy’s jokes, the
state of the Republican Party, for
its members, is no laughing mat-
ter. Our party has lost a devastating
number of seats in Congress and has
handed the keys to the White House
to a man who represents the farthest
of the left in American politics. Jay
McCann, a Purdue professor in the
political science department ex-
plained what led to the transition of
power.
“In 2006, the 900 lb guerilla was
the war in Iraq. George W. Bush had
become a polarizing symbol. He
had poor approval ratings and they
stayed down for quite some time.
With the 2008 presidential race,
the coattails for Obama were not as
strong. It was more of a personal-
ized candidate-centered race. Cer-
tainly though, it was a good time to
run as a Democrat.”
Times are changing though. On
January 30th, after six ballots, Mi-
chael Steele was selected to be the
new chairman of the Republican
National Committee. Steele, the
party’s first black chairman, is the
former Lt. Governor of Maryland
and Chairman of GOPAC. The ver-
dict is still out on whether or not
Steele’s selection was in any way
a racial response to the election of
Barack Obama.
Both major parties now being led
by a black male might be a visible
challenge to what Clarence Thomas
would call “an old order” - that be-
ing a devotion of the black com-
munity to liberal ideals. Professor
McCann noted that the 60’s protest
generation (i.e. Jesse Jackson and
Al Sharpton) is becoming “long in
the tooth” and that it’s “a tiger that’s
February, 2009
losing its roar.” He added that Mi-
chael Steele’s challenge will be to
persuade left-leaning blacks that
Michael Steele, the man to lead the RNC out of the gutter
the GOP is a viable choice for them.
To do so, Steele will need to build
bridges to that culture. He could try
to reach out to them through value
initiatives, but he can only go so
far without losing support from the
conservative base.
McCann mentioned that the field
of candidates for chairman repre-
sented the diversity in the Repub-
lican Party and that those different
choices represented different poten-
tial futures for the Party (as far as
value and policy emphasis go).
On an individual basis, Michael
Steele might not have been the most
conservative of the candidates for
chairman. However, there is little
doubt that, as chairman, he will be
fully committed to advancing the
conservative principles of the Re-
publican Party and producing big
wins nationwide.
Professor McCann said, “Mi-
chael Steele might be the Republi-
can’s Howard Dean. In 2004, Dean
established a 50-state strategy. No
state, even a small state, would be
written off. Obama got this strategy
and took off with it.” If Michael
Steele wants to win nationwide, he
might want to learn a lesson from
his counter-part at the DNC.
Becoming winners again will in-
volve a number of things. According
Page 11
to Steele, we need to improve our
communication to voters. During a
Fox News Sunday appearance on
November 17, 2008, Michael said,
“… we don’t know how to talk to
people. We’ve absolutely forgotten
how to communicate a message.”
He went on to explain that the party
needs to improve how it relates to
ordinary citizens on the grassroots
level by sharing our side of the is-
sues that affect people’s everyday
lives.
During the 2008 Republican
Convention, it was Michael Steele
who came up with the now popular
chant, “Drill Baby Drill”. In doing
so, he showed his ability to recog-
nize an issue that resonated with
voters and communicate, at least in
part, the conservative position on
that issue. This is a practice that Mi-
chael hopes to continue throughout
his tenure as chairman.
Professor McCann added that
one of Michael Steele’s biggest pri-
orities will be internally rebuilding
the Republican Party. He said that
the GOP needs a morale boost at the
state and local level. “Nothing is
more sobering than a loss. Winners
don’t have an incentive to change.”
In discussing the rebuilding effort,
McCann reminisced about the GOP
takeover of the House in 1994 say-
ing, “The Republicans cleaned the
Democrats’ clocks. Church phone
trees used to let the congregation
know when one in the flock dies
and fax machines were turned in to
political machines.”
Such a comeback will require a
grassroots effort in all 50 states.
They say “all politics is local” and
that is certainly true, however, that
does not mean that a party can sur-
vive and be effective without strong
national leadership. Such leadership
has been absent in the Republican
Party for far too long. Times are
changing though. We now have a
dynamic leader with a vision of re-
storing our party to the dominant
force it once was. I don’t know if
you want to “clean the Democrats’
clocks”, but I certainly do. Michael
Steele is ready to help us do just
that.
THE PURDUE REVIEW
Stimulus...
FROM PAGE 1
The president was right of course.
Who wouldn’t want to give their
opinion on the stimulus package?
Most agree that something needs
to be done, and done quickly. Most
also agree that if Congress and the
President get it wrong, we could be
in for much worse times than we’re
experiencing now. This is where any
agreements about the stimulus pack-
age end. Should the bill include more
tax cuts or less? Will government
spending boost the economy more
than any other option? Should we be
more concerned about the long term
or short term effect? Something will
be stimulated when the government
subsidizes contraceptives, but will it
be the economy?
To get a better handle on these is-
sues and to help frame my own argu-
ment, I sat down with Purdue econom-
ics professors Dr. David Hummels, a
former economic adviser to candidate
Obama, and Dr. Bob Holland, a fre-
quent professor for the Principles of
Economics course.
I haven’t come across a person yet
whose initial reaction to the stimulus
bill has been, “Hell yeah! I’m all for
it,” and Hummels and Holland were
no different. Both expressed skepti-
cism, though for slightly different
reasons.
“I’ve got mixed feelings about it
because this is one of those things
where we have very little empirical
records in terms of what’s going to
work and what’s not,” Hummels told
me. He expressed this concern many
times during the interview, and for
good reason. Typically, in economic
down turns, the government has used
monetary policy to improve economic
conditions, but as both Hummels and
Holland agreed, the Federal Reserve
has pretty much tried all of its avail-
able options and to little effect.
Nothing on this scale or magni-
tude has ever been tried before. For
economists, it’s a fascinating experi-
ment. It may provide numerous data
that could potentially confirm or re-
fute the Keynesian macroeconomic
model. But is $900 billion dollars
too high a price for a grand experi-
ment in economics? “Part of me, as
an academic, is sort of fascinated to
see how this will work out. But on the
other hand—there’s no strong reason
I have to believe it won’t work, it’s
February, 2009
just that we haven’t tried it,” Hum-
mels stated.
Dr. Holland expressed a similar
concern, broaching the topic of long
term costs versus short term benefits.
“I’ll be the first to be pessimistic
about the potential benefits compared
to the cost,” Holland stated, “As
the economy starts to recover, what
we’re left with is a staggering amount
of debt. This will push interest rates
up which will slow any potential we
might have to grow. There’s always a
trade off.”
The Congressional Budget Of-
fice (CBO), the nonpartisan agency
responsible for providing economic
“We put ourselves in this situation by
spending beyond our means. So the trouble is,
if we got here by spending, will over-spending
get us out of this?”
data to Congress, agrees. In a letter
to Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) on
Wednesday, the CBO stated that, al-
though the stimulus package would
stimulate growth and reduce unem-
ployment in the short run, it would
reduce growth in the long term be-
cause of the added debt.
The CBO explained its findings
as follows: “To the extent that people
hold their wealth in the form of gov-
ernment bonds rather than in a form
that can be used to finance private
investment, the increased govern-
ment debt would tend to “crowd out”
private investment—thus reducing
the stock of private capital and the
long-term potential output of the
economy.”
This is where the argument be-
tween tax cuts and government
spending comes in. In general, Dem-
ocrats argue that the bill must include
more government spending for in-
frastructure projects, green technol-
ogy, healthcare, and unemployment
benefits. Republicans argue that more
tax cuts for corporations and indi-
viduals are needed. Both are likely to
stimulate the economy in some way,
but which option will work the fast-
est and will have the greatest benefits
in the short and long run? “We’re all
looking for some magical program to
prop demand back up,” Holland said.
In an attempt to find such a program,
I discussed the pros and cons of both
options with Hummels and Holland.
If directed properly, government
spending can provide immediate re-
lief by propping up certain sectors
of the economy. If spending projects
provide some sort of long term social
benefit, such as improved roads and
bridges or public buildings which
consume less energy, they could po-
tentially pay for themselves.
Extending unemployment benefits
would give money to people who
would otherwise not be consuming
anything, which would boost aggre-
gate demand for certain products and
services and thus reduce unemploy-
ment. Hummels noted that Keynes-
ian theory suggests that it doesn’t re-
ally matter where the money is spent.
The point is to put money in peoples’
pockets so that they go out and spend
it.
Any government spending pro-
gram designed to stimulate the econ-
omy must take effect immediately
and provide long term social and
economic benefit. It needs to provide
a sudden jolt to boost the economy.
Hummels added, “And then you want
it to be over with—you don’t want it
to contribute to some sort of structur-
al increase in the size of the govern-
ment. The whole idea is that you give
it a onetime shot in the arm and then
you get back to lower levels. Now the
problem is that anything you think of
is going to fail on at least one of those
dimensions, right?”
Dr. Holland noted that one of
the biggest problems with the cur-
Page 12THE PU
rent stimulus bill is that much of the
spending is staggered over several
years and that the amount spent in the
next year will probably be a “drop in
the bucket” relative to GDP. “If you
really believe in a fiscal stimulus,
you need to front load it, you need
to spend it now,” he said. But that
front loaded spending can have con-
sequences down the road, as the CBO
has reported.
Holland noted, “We put ourselves
in this situation by spending beyond
our means. So the trouble is, if we got
here by spending, will over-spending
get us out of this?”
Dr. Hummels added, “If you buy
into the logic of Keynesian macro-
economics, then the only one left
to spend any money is the federal
government. The downside of that
is (over the long run) people have to
pay more taxes to pay back.”
The alternative to government
spending to stimulate the economy,
then, is additional tax cuts.
Tax cuts can have two effects ac-
cording to Hummels: “The first ef-
fect is that it puts money in people’s
pockets that they will turn around and
spend on stuff to stimulate recovery;
the second is that if you cut taxes
in the appropriate way you change
incentives—you encourage people to
work more.”
Roughly one-third of the cur-
rent stimulus bill is in the form of
tax cuts. The biggest portion of this
is a $500 tax cut for people with an-
nual salaries ranging from $8,000 to
$75,000. Above this, the tax cuts start
dropping off. This is essentially the
tax cut which President Obama pro-
posed during the campaign. It’s part
of his “bottom-up” strategy to boost
the economy.
These are the most stimulating tax
cuts, because poor people don’t save
and the poorer they get, the more
quickly they’ll spend. Their spending
boosts consumption the fastest. This
is what economists refer to as “mar-
ginal propensity to consume.” Many
Republicans, however, would argue
that this tax cut is just another form
of government spending because in-
dividuals at lower income levels pay
relatively few taxes to begin with.
Some suggest that cutting corporate
See “Stimulating...” - pg. 13
Page 12THE PURDUE REVIEW
Stimulating...
FROM PAGE 12
income taxes would be a better idea.
“You could also cut taxes on busi-
ness,” Holland stated, “which will
give them more liquidity and encour-
age them to expand and acquire more
capital.” The result is what is referred
to as the “trickle-down theory.” A sig-
nificant cut in the corporate tax rate
or the capital-gains tax rate would
encourage corporations and small
businesses to expand by the way of
capital investment and employ more
people. This would reduce unem-
ployment rates and put more money
in people’s pockets. Tax cuts have
their drawbacks though.
Dr. Hummels pointed out that
there’s a lot of leakage away from
stimulus with tax cuts. There is no
guarantee that people will use their
extra take-home pay on domestic
consumption. They could instead
choose to buy foreign goods or save
it, which is what has happened in the
past. “We do know that from the last
couple of tax cuts that were pushed
through during the Bush Administra-
tion that people saved a lot of that and
spent just a little of that,” Hummels
said.
Photo of the Month
Photo by Lauren Trancik
February, 2009
Dr. Holland expressed a similar
sentiment, “The real problem with
that tax cut was that it was a onetime
tax cut. I can’t count on lower tax
rates years from now. So I take this
onetime tax cut and pay off my credit
card or save it because I’m concerned.
“In the end, neither
option will do much
good if the American
people are convinced
it won’t work.”
But what if I gave you a permanent
tax cut where you have lower tax cuts
next year, lower tax cuts the year af-
ter that? Now I might start thinking
about buying a car.”
The key then, is to make any tax
cuts permanent. With any tax cut,
however, government revenues will
drastically decline in the short term—
there will be much less for the gov-
ernment to spend. The question then,
is will government spending or tax
cuts result in the greatest benefit?
Although it is not recognized by the
Keynesian model, the multiplier for
tax cuts might be greater in the short
run than the multiplier for govern-
ment spending.
Multipliers measure the amount of
short run GDP growth from each dol-
lar of spending or tax cuts. Harvard
economist Greg Mankiw notes on his
blog that empirical data suggests that
the multiplier for government spend-
ing is somewhere between 1 and 1.4,
whereas the multiplier for tax cuts
can be as much as 3. Holland agrees,
“I think we would get a bigger bang
from our buck from tax cuts rather
than increases in government spend-
ing.”
Any tax cut must be followed by a
decrease in government spending in
order to reduce overall debt and max-
imize benefits in the long run. Obvi-
ously, this is not possible with the al-
ternative. Can we afford to not spend
money or reduce funding for certain
projects? If so, will it be enough to
Ronald Reagan on:
Recession
“A recession is when your neighbor
loses his job. A depression is when
you lose yours. And recovery is when
Jimmy Carter loses his.”
Page 13
offset the initial costs of any tax
cuts? The answer is difficult to come
by. It seems that there is no magical
program to get our program back on
track without any significant costs. I
do believe, though, that the short run
and long run costs of tax cuts will be
less than those of increased govern-
ment spending.
In the end, neither option will do
much good if the American people
are convinced it won’t work. “Wheth-
er it’s tax cuts or government spend-
ing, the package is going to ultimately
depend on consumer confidence,”
Holland stated. Both programs are
likely to stimulate the economy in the
short run, but which has the lowest
cost in the long run? This is up for
debate, but neither program will work
unless the American people believe
in it. It doesn’t seem that too many
Americans believe in the current
package. President Obama is going to
have to bring more Republicans to
the table, convince his party to cut the
pork, and get the American people on
board. Otherwise, we may be in for a
rough few years.
THE PURDUE REVIEW
Sea Kittens Move up the Food Chain
By Sean Harding
seanh@purduereview.com
A rose by any other name would
smell just a sweet. Or in this case a
fish, (and just as bad). Sea kittens
are the new name of fish according
to PETA. This little name change
doesn’t sound like much but accord-
ing to PETAThey’re saying, “it’s It’s
time for a serious makeover. And
who could possibly want to put a
hook through a sea kitten.”
I really want to give PETA the ben-
efit of the doubt and assume they’re
simply trying to be humorous. But
for the most part I believe that they
are serious in their belief that Sea kit-
tens would be a better name for fish.
According to PETA a name change
would be great PR for the poor guys.
This seems to be just more liberal
February, 2009 Page 14THE PU
nonsense. stabbing a rabbit. in cute clothes to learning about the
This name change seems to be PETA has an entire part section of petition to change their name. This
little more than a petty attempt at their website devoted to Sea kittens incredible drive has already signed
propaganda through deception. What and changing their image. You can well over 6000 people. PETA’s drive
seems even worse is that the en- do anything from dressing them up to change the name of fish is simply
tire stunt seems silly. For a group that wants to be
aimed solely at taken seriously, this seems a very odd
children. Us- choice. It’s hard to comprehend PE-
ing children as a TA’s thought process when it comes
target audience to their attempts to garner public sup-
is nothing new port. They go from one extreme to
for PETA. In another. PETA has been known to
the past, PETA even support semi semi-violent pro-
hasthey have tests and has even begun a contro-
distributed com- versial ad campaign about how being
ics to kids with a vegetarian makes menvegetarian
the name “Your makes men better at sex.
Mommy Kills For being a group that seems to be
Animals” and an very serious about their message,
illustration on they don’t seem to care about the se-
the cover of a riousness of their image.
woman violently Funny marketing will not make Long John Silvers ask for a bailout
Page 14THE PURDUE REVIEW February, 2009 Page 15

CAMPUS DIVERSIONS - NEW CLASSES, NEW BOREDOM

Stickey Wicket by Stewart Simpson

Mallard Fillmore by Bruce Tinsley

Sudoku By Dave Green

Medium
10 11 12 4 10
6 3

2009 Conceptis Puzzles, Dist. by King Features Syndicate, Inc.

7 4
16 8
4 6
3 14 4
19 13
6 10
23
17 4
25 24 25 7
30 17
17 23
9 23 15
16 11
Diabolical 24 22

16 24

Difficulty Level 2/09

Kakuro instructions: The object is to fill all empty

squares using numbers 1 to 9 so the sum of each horizon-
tal block equals the clue on its left, and the sum of each
vertical block equals the clue on its top. In addition, no
number may be used in the same block more than once.

Sudoku instructions: The object is to fill all empty

squares so that the numbers 1 to 9 appear exactly once in
Sudokus provided by http://www.sudokuoftheday.com each row, column and 3x3 box.
THE PURDUE REVIEW February, 2009 Page 16

Presidential Cocktails
Presidents’ Day is fast approaching (February 16th, to be exact), and what better way to celebrate our most
colorful and distinguished Presidents than with cocktails in their honor? So, we’ve compiled a list of drinks to
honor our former leaders. Drink responsibly and don’t inhale.
Abraham Lincoln: George Washington:
Log Cabin Barack Obama: Cherry Blossom
Ingredients: Yes, We Candy Apple Ingredients
2 oz Bourbon Ingredients: 1 oz Sambuca
1 tbsp Cream 1 dash Butterscotch Schnapps 1/2 oz Grenadine
1 tbsp Orange Juice 1 glass Sparkling Apple Cider Milk
1 tbsp Orange Soda Directions: Pour one glass of sparkling Directions: Add alcohol and fill to top
Directions: cider. Add butterscotch and serve in a with milk. Garnish with a cherry on the
Shake all ingredients (except soda) with highball glass. rim of the glass.
ice and stain into a Highball Glass. Fill
with orange soda and serve
John F. Kennedy:
Marilyn Monroe
George W. Bush:
Ingredients:
Texas Rattlesnake 4 oz Champagne
Ingredients: 1 oz Apple Brandy
1 part Whiskey 1 tsp Grenadine
1/2 part Cherry Brandy Directions: Pour into champagne
1 part Peach Liqueur saucer, and serve with two cherries
1 splash Sweet & Sour mix on a stick.
Directions: Mix all ingredients and
shake well. Serve in “Any Glass” Gar-
nish Ronald Reagan:
The Great Communicator
Bill Clinton: Ingredients:
Blow Job 1/2 oz Galliano
Ingredients: 1 1/2 oz Dark Rum
1/2 oz Amaretto 2 tsp Dark Creme de Cacao
1/4 oz Irish Cream Directions: Pour all of the ingredients
Directions: Pour liqueurs into a shot glass and into an old-fashioned glass filled with ice
top with whipped cream. cubes. Stir well.

Richard Nixon: Franklin Delano Roosevelt:

Water-Gator Juice Teddy Roosevelt: Fireside Tea
Ingredients: Panama Red Ingredients:
1/2 gal Vodka Ingredients: 1 oz Dark Rum
1 fifth Raspberry Schnapps 1 1/4 oz Tequila 1 tsp Sugar
1 fifth Watermelon Schnapps 3/4 oz Triple Sec 1 Cinnamon Stick
2 cans Fruit Punch 1 dash Grenadine 5 oz Hot Black Tea
2 large cans Fruits 1 dash Sweet & Sour Mix 1 Lemon Wedge
Directions: Drain canned fruit or use fresh Directions: Shake ingredients Directions: Pour tea into a heat-proof
fruit if desired, and set juice aside. Place fruit over ice and strain into a chilled goblet, and sweeten to taste. Add rum,
in a bowl or container , add half of each bottle cocktail glass lemon, and a cinnamon stick. Serve in a
of alcohol, and allow to soak for as long as Red Wine Glass
possible (overnight works best).