Volume 8, Issue 8 | April, 2011


The Purdue


Congressman Paul Ryan has proposed a plan to deal with the federal budget deficit. How viable of a solution is his plan?

roadmap for America’s Future?



What’s in a name? A look at the label of “conservatism” and how its modern connotations match up pg 3 Some words of wisdom from a graduating senior pg



Are liberal arts students at Purdue forced to take courses irrelevant for their future careers? pg 11


Fond memories of the legendary Nintendo 64 gaming system pg 16
Donald Trump wants to run for President. Could he win? We test him against ten key values that conservatives hold. Interning at the Indiana Statehouse | pg 9

Insights from an intern during a historic legislative session


April, 2011

The Purdue Review


Jordan Hebbe, Editor-in-Chief Kristin Patras, Publisher

T h e

P u r d u e

Letter From The Editor

Morgan Ikerd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Managing Editor Jay Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editor At Large Aaron Anspaugh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Features Editor Andrew Nguyen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Layout Editor Dirk Schmidt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assistant Publisher Tom Chew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staff Writer Schuyler DeArmond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staff Writer Graham Morrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staff Writer Eric Nowicki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staff Writer John Noble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guest Writer Sean Horoho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Copy Editor Anne Charlton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Copy Editor Michael Gardner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Copy Editor

Thank you for picking up the April issue of The Purdue Review. This will be the last issue of the semester and the last issue before school lets out for summer. We have had an exciting year at Purdue and we are bittersweet to see it ending. Purdue may not have had the best sports records this year, but we did fend off two attempts to change our identity and image. As soon as we saw the “Makers, All” campaign and the “Prototype Pete,” we reacted quickly by expressing our discontent. Both times, Purdue listened to us. To that, I say “Boiler Up!” The year brought us moments like two rare record snow days, months of trudging through about a foot of snow, tornadoes, a Matt Painter scare, another torn ACL, huge victories in Washington in November, the tragedy in Japan, and another Grand Prix week. But most important are the memories made and life lessons that we learned throughout the year.

Board of Directors: Nathan Arnold, Chair
Chase Slaughter, Adam Rusch, Jeff Schultz, David Bridges, Jan Payne, Vicki Burch

The Purdue Review is saying goodbye to two graduating members: longtime member and former editor, Jay Wood, and copy editor, Sean Horoho. Both of them have made many invaluable contributions to this journal. The whole staff will miss having Jay and Sean around, but we wish the both of them the best of luck!

The Purdue Review is looking for staff writers, columnists, photographers, section editors, copy editors, layout editors, full time media specialists, graphic designers, and web designers. If you’re interested in joining The Purdue Review, please contact the Editor-in-Chief, Jordan Hebbe, at editor@purduereview.com.

Join Us:

Only a couple of days and a few exams stand between you and your internships, your jobs, your study abroads, real life, or relaxation. Whatever the case may be, we hope that you enjoy your summer and we will see you in the fall. We wish the best of luck to all graduating seniors! Regards, Jordan Hebbe Editor in Chief


Support Us:

All Majors Welcome.

The Purdue Review is funded completely by donations and advertisements. We receive no funding from Purdue University, the Republican Party, or any political organization for that matter. Without the generous donations from readers like you, The Purdue Review would not exist. If you are interested in supporting The Purdue Review and our cause, please consider making a financial donation. Donations can be mailed or made online. Checks should be made out to The Purdue Review, Inc.. Mail subscriptions are free and can be ordered on our website or by contacting the Publisher.

The editorial staff at The Purdue Review will utilize the medium of print to entertain, educate and enlighten the student body at Purdue University as well as the entire Greater Lafayette community.

Mission Statement: Disclaimer:

The Purdue Review PO Box 931 Lafayette, IN 47902

The views expressed within these pages are the views held expressly by each respective writer. The opinions of these writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of any of the other writers in this publication nor by Purdue University. This paper is not directly affiliated with Purdue University; however, the staff is comprised entirely of Purdue students. This paper is distributed by the University Conservative Action Network (U-CAN), a registered Student Organization. The first copy of this issue is free, at distribution sites. For additional copies, contact the Publisher, Kristin Patras, at publisher@purduereview.com.


The Purdue Review

April, 2011


In the modern day United States, people are oftentimes divided along a continuum that has “conservatism” on one end and “liberalism” on the other. The word “conservative,” however, has many definitions and connotations that keep it from accurately summarizing the current crop of freedom-oriented thinkers. I consider myself to be “conservative,” but only because it is the most common name used to describe those who think like I do. The ideals behind the name are what matter most, so every effort should be made to find a name that does not detract from those ideals. Looking at the Merriam-Webster dictionary, there are 3 main definitions of “conservatism.” The first one simply means to tie to a political party with that name (like they have in the UK). The second definition of “conservatism” is “a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.” The definition also goes on to describe some specific policies, such as lower taxes, strong national defense, and limited government. The third definition states “the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change.” The latter two definitions are what cause confusion with those who today label themselves as “conservative.” The problem with the dictionary definition of “conservatism” as a political movement is that it tries to connect the non-political definition of the word “conservatism” to current positions held by people called “conservatives.” This is misleading. For example, the “conservative” position on lowering taxes is difficult to call traditional or gradual. Tax rates in America were at 77% on the top tax bracket in 1918, 24% in 1929, then 94% in 1944. What would be considered the “traditional” tax level? Some “conservatives” today are actually pushing for a completely new system of taxation, such as the FairTax (which would eliminate the income tax and create a national sales tax). These ideas are neither traditional nor gradual and would constitute

By AAron AnspAugh

Reexamining “Conservatism”
the largest change in the taxation system since the Income Tax Amendment. I could go into the other issues, but the main idea is that modern “conservatives” do not hold the non-political definition of “conservatism” as a core belief. Views on current policies and issues are founded upon core beliefs, whether the individual acknowledges those beliefs or not. A subjective term such as “conservative” is impossible to use as a foundation for a political belief system. But by allowing the term to be used as a label, this type of confusion was bound to happen. In the introduction to his book The Road to Serfdom (the 1956 edition), F.A. Hayek warns his American readers about his use of the words “conservative” and “liberal.” He wrote: “I use throughout the term ‘liberal’ in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that ‘liberal’ has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control.”

“The basic and crucial political issue of our age is: capitalism versus socialism, or freedom versus statism. For decades, this issue has been silenced, suppressed, evaded, and hidden under the foggy, undefined rubberterms of ‘conservatism’ and ‘liberalism’...”
with an official political party, people risk substituting the core beliefs of the movement with the reactionary political views of the party, weakening both the image of the ideology and the knowledge of those ideals. Many other terms exist that summarize different views and aspects of my political belief system. I consider myself a Federalist in that I believe the government has proper roles at each level (with the Federal being the most powerful). Going along with that idea, I also consider myself a “10ther” or states’ rights advocate since the Federal government should only have jurisdiction over those areas that are defined in the Constitution. I also consider myself to be somewhat of an Objectivist, which is the anti-collectivism movement defined by writer Ayn Rand. While all of these names may be somewhat accurate to describe my political belief-set, I do not think there is an ideal label at the current time for people who share my ideals. This frees me from ties to any person or passion of the present day. While I still do not know what exactly to call myself, I know that I am not alone. Many other Americans hold the same core values as I do. The important thing now is to establish that, even though we may differ in our view on current policies, we still share the same core values. That will change the argument from an emotionfueled political battle to an ideological discussion on how best to change government to adhere to our belief system. As with any democratically-elected government, we will not always win elections. As with any republic, our elected officials will not always do the right thing. This is an ongoing struggle, but it is a struggle that we must undertake. It is vital that we, under the banner of “conservatism” or any other name, understand exactly what we believe and why. Only then can our ideals be remembered and passed on, even to the farthest generation.

“libertarian” to describe types of libertyloving individuals. This name is derived from the word liberty, just as with “liberal,” but it does not have the statist aftertaste. One major problem I see with the use of this word, however, is the confusion between ideological movement and political party (since there is a Libertarian Party in the US). The same confusion occurs between those who call themselves “Constitutionalist” (referencing a belief in the values of the Framers) and the Constitution Party. Any time there is a political movement that shares a name

Looking beyond the name, I know what I believe. I believe government has a limited, specific purpose: that of protecting citizens and maintaining a legal system that maximizes property rights. I believe in freedom, not from want or from consequences, but from coercion by force from government or other entities. I do not believe in any type of utopia on earth, but in our society. I believe individuals should be able to determine their own place in life as well as worship freely. Based on these core beliefs, I can determine my position on just about any current political issue.

Ayn Rand

Hayek had an excellent point when he said that the term “liberal” was taken up by those who push for the opposite, and their opponents allowed it to happen. Because of this knowledge of the true origin of the word, a new term has arisen: “classical liberal.” As much as I like this term for its adherence to the original meaning of the word, I still feel like there are too many differing connotations in the current political landscape. Perhaps if current “liberals” were to accept the mantle of “collectivists” or “statists,” the term “liberal” could once again be used as it once was. There is, however, little chance of this happening in the US. In an effort to get around the current thoughts associated with the word “liberal,” some have attempted to use the term


April, 2011

The Purdue Review

Paul Ryan’s Roadmap
By John noBLE According to the US Government Printing Office, the 2011 federal budget deficit is estimated to be $1.65 trillion. This soaring budget deficit was not only a key factor in Republican victories in the 2010 midterm elections, but has led President Obama to put forth a plan to trim nearly $4 trillion in spending over the next ten years. This article will proceed to take a look at an alternative plan to help deal with the US budget deficit, specifically the plan detailed by Representative Paul Ryan from Wisconsin. This plan is called “A Roadmap for America’s Future.” The article will analyze two key provisions in the plan. First, it will look at the changes the plan would make to the US tax code, and second, it will look at changes the plan would make to Social Security. First, we will look at Ryan’s plan to drastically overhaul the US tax code. An Economist article summarizes the key points of Ryan’s roadmap, in which, “corporate income taxes are replaced with a corporate consumption tax of 8.5%. Capital-gains taxes are eliminated entirely. And Mr. Ryan caps federal government outlays at 19% of GDP; this year, they are running at around 25%.” The first issue is that of replacing corporate income taxes with a flat 8.5% consumption tax while also eliminating capihowever, these changes to tax law would disproportionately favor wealthy Americans. Capital gains taxes are, in their simplest form, taxes on money gained from investments, a good example being stocks. Since the investments subject to

Removing the US corporate tax and replacing it with a 8.5% consumption tax would no doubt make the US a much better place for corporations to do business. It would also make US corporations more competitive globally.
tal gains taxes. These reforms would have a substantial effect on how corporations do business in the US. Currently the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, sitting at 35%. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development offers a comparison of rates in other nations: the UK has a 28% rate, Canada is at 18%, and Germany has rates around 16%. Removing the US corporate tax and replacing it with a 8.5% consumption tax would no doubt make the US a much better place for corporations to do business. Additionally, it would have the effect of making US corporations more competitive globally by reducing the amount of money spent on taxes and consequently increasing the money available for capital goods purchases and expansion of operations. The net effect of lower taxes would be roughly analogous to a large subsidy for US businesses, helping to make them more competitive in places like China, where lower corporate tax rates and restrictive trade laws give local businesses an edge. On the downside, the tax are primarily held by middle and upper-class Americans, removing these taxes would disproportionately favor them over lower class individuals who often have little in the way of investments. The second plank of Mr. Ryan’s financial plan is the capping of federal expenditures at 19% of GDP. In many ways this concept resolves itself to a battle of financial ideologies. On one hand, economic liberals tend to favor government spending as a way to grow the economy, while economic conservatives tend to favor lower taxes and greater corporate growth. As a conservative, Ryan obviously favors lower spending, which by consequence would entail cutting numerous government programs. The most likely targets of these cuts would be welfare programs, such as Food Stamps or Unemployment Benefits. Outside of the clear ideological divide, one clear downside to capping government expenditures is that it does create a certain inflexibility in the

Photo by Gage Skidmore

See “Roadmap...” on Pg. 5

The Purdue Review

April, 2011


From page 4
US budget, which makes it difficult for the US to react to situations abroad. A good example of the problems inherent with a 19% cap is World War 2, during which US spending briefly spiked to more than 50% of GDP. While few people would argue that the US should not have spent that money, it shows that a 19% cap can potentially be dangerous in times where existing threats require higher than normal spending. Despite some drawbacks, however, a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the plan found that, “The economy would be considerably stronger under the proposal than it would be under the alternative fiscal scenario. Real gross national product per person would be about 70 percent higher in 2058 under the proposal than under the alternative fiscal scenario.” In short, given the alternative which in this case entails doing nothing, Ryan’s Roadmap seems to provide a viable, if not necessarily ideal solution. The second issue this article will examine is the impact of Congressman Ryan’s plan on Social Security. Few people will disagree with the statement that Social Security as a program is broken. Originating during the Great Depression, when the average life expectancy was less than fast approaching eighty, and this means that the average American is now retiring at sixty-five and receiving social security benefits for more than ten years. According to the New York Times, Social Security “is not only the biggest government entitlement plan, comprising over 20% of the federal budget, but also the most universal and the most popular.” Ryan’s plan first “preserves the existing Social Security program for those 55 or older.” Second, it “offers workers under 55 the option of investing over one third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts.” Third, it “makes the program permanently solvent – according to the Congressional Budget Office– by combining a more realistic measure of growth initial benefits with a modernization of the retirement age.” The first and perhaps most important thing to note about Ryan’s plan is that it changes nothing for people 55 years or older. From a practical standpoint, this means that his plan may survive a downfall which has historically plagued initiatives to reform Social Security. The simple fact is that many senior citizens are dependent on the program. The average benefits for a senior citizen are about $12,000 per the US, tampering with Social Security is often regarded as political suicide. By not changing the program for those over 55, the plan avoids raising a cause for concern for senior citizens (who still may be work longer. However, the current alternative of doing nothing would essentially result in the program’s bankruptcy in less than 40 years. Overall, Congressman Ryan’s plan is

d ren tax much do corbally.

Congressman Ryan’s plan is not an immediate or perfect solution. It does, however, offer at least a reasonable alternative to current US policy, which is largely to pretend the problem is not there and hope that it goes away.
fooled into thinking that Republicans are ruining their Social Security futures). The second point of Ryan’s plan is to give workers the option of investing part of their Social Security money into private retirement accounts. This potentially allows workers to see higher returns on their money. But, as the CBO report points out, “payouts would also be more uncertain, because returns on stocks and corporate bonds are risky.” The final part of the plan is to make Social Security permanently solvent. According to the CBO analysis of Ryan’s plan, “after 2065, the trust fund would begin to increase. By 2083, revenues would exceed outlays by substantial and rising amounts, leading to a growing surplus.” This is compared to the baseline scenario in which “trust funds would be exhausted in 2042.” These positive outcomes, however, would come at a substantial cost. Not only does Ryan’s plan necessitate increasing Social Security revenue via higher taxes on individuals, but it would also gradually increase the retirement age from its current place at 65 years, meaning people would have to not an immediate or perfect solution to the fiscal problems in the US. It largely favors upper and middle-class individuals as well as corporations, and it will increase taxes on numerous groups to keep the government solvent, while most likely cutting many social welfare programs. It does, however, seem to offer at least a reasonable alternative to current US policy, which is largely to pretend the problem is not there and hope that it goes away. As a final point, the CBO analysis of the plan offers a grim vision of what will happen if the United States of America continues on its current fiscal path: “Using the CBO’s ’textbook growth‘ model, it is not possible to simulate the effects of the alternative fiscal scenario after 2058 because deficits become so large and unsustainable that the model cannot calculate their effects. The Roadmap would put the federal budget on a sustainable path, generating an annual budget surplus of about 5 percent of GDP by 2080.”

A Congressional Budget Office analysis of the plan found that, “The economy would be considerably stronger under the proposal than it would under the alternative fiscal scenario.”
seventy years, most Social Security recipients would utilize the program for only a few years, and many did not live long enough to see any benefits at all. Today, however, the average life expectancy is

year, which is often a significant portion of a retiree’s income. This means that senior citizens are naturally opposed to changes in a plan critical to their livelihood. Since senior citizens tend to be active voters in


April, 2011

The Purdue Review

Testing Trump
By sChuyLEr d E ArMond Hold the phone!! Hot off the presses!! Read all about it! Read all about it!! Donald Trump wants to run for President... his hair piece does not. Donald Trump and his hair have been criticized heavily over the years. With his latest endeavor, running for President, Trump will be criticized more than ever. Can Trump win? Will people vote for him? Is he even serious? What is that weave made of? First up, Trump will be running on the GOP ticket. Many conservatives and Republicans have doubted his conservatism, especially due to the fact that he switched to being a Democrat in 2001. In the past few years, a “conservative litmus test” has been gaining support. The test used here is called the “Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates.” The test has ten values that most modern Republicans hold, and under Reagan’s saying “Anyone I agree with eight out of ten times is my friend,” a candidate is ideally supposed to possess eight of the ten values. If he strays from three or more, the RNC is supposed to withhold funding. This measure was never passed in any sense in the party, but it is still a fairly accurate test to use. The values are: (1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill (2) Market-based health care reform and opposing Obama-style government run healthcare (3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation (4) Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check (5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants (6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges (7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat (8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act (9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion (10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership


Photo by Gage Skidmore

Trump has no worthy quotes on smaller government and lowering the deficit. In 1999 and 2000, he stated that the rich should pay a one-time tax of 14.25% because it would pay off the national debt and was predicted to give a 35% boost to the economy. He also stated that he expected an economic crash bigger than the 1929 stock market crash. The majority of what he has said lately is that the deficit is killing the United States. Trump has reversed his stand on the 14.25% tax hike due to the fact that it would only get rid of about 25% of the debt. He also always talks about stopping other countries from “ripping us off.” His plan is to have all the countries that we police with military pay us; otherwise, we would leave. It is a good way to reduce costs and may gather some support. I say it is a conservative stance based on fiscal conservatism.

Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower de�icits, lower taxes


Market-based health care reform

All quotes, unless otherwise noted, were pulled from the 2000 release of Trump’s book The America We Deserve.

“I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health. It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare….Our objective [should be] to make reforms for the moment and, longer term, to �ind an equivalent of the single-payer plan that is affordable, well-administered, and provides freedom of choice. Possible?” Well, that was eleven years ago. Let’s see if Trump has changed his views. In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, transcribed on April 19, 2011, Trump stated, “It’s a long time ago. It’s 11 or 12 years ago. And frankly, a lot of people agreed with it. A lot of conservative Republicans agreed with it, at that time. We have a different country today. We can’t afford things that we could have afforded or that we thought we could afford many years ago. … I support health care for people. I want people well taken care of. But I also want health care that we can afford as a country. I have people and friends closing down their businesses because of Obamacare. … My plan now is to number one get rid of Obamacare.” Alright, that is more like it, Trump. Why has Trump changed his position? He says it is because the national deficit has soared almost to four times its level in 2000. I ask this, though: if we are worried about going bankrupt from a healthcare plan at $14 trillion in debt, why are we not worried about it at $4 trillion? A country in debt is a country in debt, no matter how much debt. Why are we talking about healthcare we can “afford?” I agree that the solution to health insurance problems in this country will take a while and that many small reforms need

to be made, not one large reform. However, on the issue of affordability, if any plan is not “affordable,” it should not go through. If the government has to spend one dime on a healthcare package, it is a bad package. We need to stop the increase of cost in insurance and in medical coverage, but most of all, we need to decrease the costs for people. A tiny little scale back in price will not work. We need large percentage changes of people’s income expenditures. We also need to promote savings in this country and not consumption. Any government healthcare package will cause an increase in consumption, and too much consumption is what got us into the hole in which we are now. Also, the single party market Trump talks about is a market because companies fight to be on the list of approved providers. The provider list generally only takes into account the face value costs of insurance; it does not take into account quality, liquidity of the company, or efficiency. I would much rather pay a few more dollars in premiums to a company that had more types of insurance with lower deductibles and higher maximums, did not leverage itself on new customers, and had the fewest number of wasteful employees. It is hard to find data on wasteful employees, but a company with great HR practices generally tries to achieve the highest efficiency, so we can use that as our measure. Single-payer systems also fail to mention the amount of dollars spent lobbying to get on the provider list,then the dollars spent on lobbying people to buy from the company. On this issue, I do not think Trump has any of the answers to fix our health insurance crisis. I do, however, think Trump will take the time to listen. He is more conservative on this issue now than in years past.


The Purdue Review

April, 2011


From page 6


Market-based energy reforms

“[Saudi Arabia and OPEC] are absolutely salivating. Now who knows how long they’re going to be around. They are only there because of us. It always amazes me when they raise the price. Nobody ever talks to them, nobody ever says no, you’re not going to do this. It’s not the market [raising the price], it’s OPEC. They set the price of oil. If they did it in this country, it would be called illegal. I think it’s incredible that we’re going slow on drilling. ... There are always going to be problems. You’re going to have an oil spill. You clean it up and you �ix it up and it’ll be �ine. I have people in the business and they say it’s almost impossible to get a permit to drill. So you can imagine how hard it is to get nuclear and other things but they say it’s almost impossible. If you look at natural gas, we’re the Saudi Arabia times 100 of natural gas--but we don’t use it.” Though he has no long term solutions (yet again), he has good ideas. He keeps bringing up this toughness that he would exhibit as President even though we don’t know how

well it would work. He is correct, though: people don’t stand up to OPEC. Our schools teach that it is a cartel, which is an illegal practice in the United States, but stop there: dialogue over. I see many anti-oil groups but no real strong anti-OPEC organizations. Some of these OPEC countries are some of the worst humanitarian countries on the globe, with the poorest incomes per capita. Trump is also right that the United States is working with the oil companies and producers by placing strict red tape in creating competitors in markets and competitors in alternative energy markets. I think it is a given that Trump knows about T. Boone Pickens. Pickens’ plan gained traction a few years back; then oil prices fell, and some GOP members claimed Nancy Pelosi was lobbying for wind farms and investing in wind companies at the same time. I think a serious Trump running for President would talk with Pickens and adopt support for his plan. They would be a kind of rich conservative tag team, energy policy duo.


Workers’ right to secret ballot

Card check. This is another issue that Trump has made no noteworthy quotes on, and he has talked about it even less. My guess is that Trump will support the current laws and rights of workers not to be tracked down by both union members and management based on votes. Just like in a Western, we will call this one a draw.


Legal immigration and assimilation

Photo by Gage Skidmore

“America is experiencing serious social and economic dif�iculty with illegal immigrants who are �looding across our borders. We simply can’t absorb them. It is a scandal when America cannot control its own borders. A liberal policy of immigration may seem to re�lect con�idence and generosity. But our current laxness toward illegal immigration shows a recklessness and disregard for those who live here legally. … The majority of legal immigrants can often make signi�icant contributions to our society because they have special skills and because they add to our nation’s cultural diversity. They come with the best of intentions. But legal immigrants do not and should not enter easily. It’s a long, costly, draining, and often frustrating experience by design. I say to legal immigrants: Welcome and good luck. … It comes down to this: we must take care of our own people �irst. Our policy to people born elsewhere should be clear: Enter by the law, or leave.” Trump and I have a few things in common here: neither of us wants amnesty, we both like immigrants, and it seems we both want real penalties for those that come in illegally. Trump has consulted with a lot of friends over the years, and those conversations have

changed his views. I talked once with a friend of a friend who was an illegal immigrant. Her story is a little different in that she got a visa to study in the United States but never went back to Mexico after her visa expired. She did not have to roam the border fences trying to find an opening or a spot where people would not open fire on her. She got lucky. During this talk, she told me about how the United States was cooperative in the immigration process while the Mexican side was rife with corruption. Many people have to bribe the Mexican officials to approve the paperwork, at very hefty dues, and then it is still a chance of luck that the official will not just pocket the money. When you hear this story, you understand why many dash across the border then live in secrecy. Remember, some of these people tried to immigrate legally but were then shot legally. That is the real crime. We need better immigration policy on our side and tougher enforcement of legal practices on the Mexican side. Trump seems conservative on this issue, and if elected, he will hopefully bring his toughness to the immigration table.

See “Trump...” on Pg. 8


April, 2011

The Purdue Review

From page 7


This is another issue, another brick in the wall of things we do not know about Donald Trump. Based on his frequent “toughness,” “The world is laughing at us,” “They are ripping us off,” and the ever “ahH-WHAT?!?” “Let’s take back the oil for the 1.5 billion we have spent in Iraq,” my guess is that Trump would support more troops in a given place. Also, since he wants to bomb North Korea, he sounds pretty conservative. I do not know his view on the surge, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan through troop surges


Containment of Iran and North Korea

“[In a Trump presidency], North Korea would suddenly discover that its worthless promises of civilized behavior would cut no ice. I would let Pyongyang know in no uncertain terms that it can either get out of the nuclear arms race or expect a rebuke similar to the one Ronald Reagan delivered to Ghadha�i in 1986. I don’t think anybody is going to accuse me of tiptoeing through the issues or tap-dancing around them either. Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?” Sounds straight up conservative here. It also sounds straight up disastrous.


Protection of the lives of the vulnerable years ago. One of the primary reasons I changed [was] a friend of mine’s wife was pregnant, and he didn’t really want the baby. He was crying as he was telling me the story. He ends up having the baby and the baby is the apple of his eye. It’s the greatest thing that’s ever happened to him. And you know here’s a baby that wasn’t going to be let into life. And I heard this, and some other stories, and I am pro-life.” It seems like he is starting to understand the GOP base a little better, even to the point of saying he would overturn ObamaCare because it has loopholes that would fund abortions.

For Trump’s views on gay rights and the defense of marriage, I have no idea what to say. Truth be told, he used to support civil unions and has said recently that he does not support gay marriage. Whether or not he still supports the civil unions is questionable. He has also stated that “it’s not about a person’s sexual orientation, but about their capabilities. … I think it’s important for gay couples who are committed to each other to not be hassled when it comes to inheritance, insurance benefits, and other simple everyday rights.” That quote came back in 2000 from an interview with The Advocate. Back then, he also said Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell had “clearly failed,” but now he opposes gays serving openly. His own three marriages will also not help his credibility or stop any scrutiny.


Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act

“I support a woman’s right to choose, but I am uncomfortable with the procedures. When Tim Russert asked me on Meet the Press if I would ban partial-birth abortion, my pro-choice instincts led me to say no. After the show, I consulted two doctors I respect and, upon learning more about this procedure, I have concluded that I would support a ban.” That was a quote in his 2000 book that shows that he was once supportive of abortions but then changed his mind slightly. Now take this quote: “One thing about me, I’m a very honorable guy. I’m pro-life, but I changed my view a number of


Right to keep and bear arms

“It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to con�iscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. ... I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.” Pretty conservative on guns and smart too. I like his stance on the issue and hope he does not flop, but it is not too early to start a betting pool for that.

Final Thoughts

Trump seems conservative on smaller government, smaller debt, opposing ObamaCare, a new immigration system, containing North Korea, and protecting the Second Amendment. Trump is unquoted on cap and trade, card check, and the troop surge in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump has flipped views on abortion, universal healthcare, and the Defense of Marriage Act. The bottom line is that even after all this investigation of Trump’s views, we are still uncertain as to

what he is thinking. He has not always been conservative. He has changed his mind on many issues at a time so close to campaigning. I don’t know what to think of him. All I know is that he has stated that he will make his decision to run by June. If and when he decides to run, he will be the most scrutinized person in America, moreso than Obama or even Palin have been, even more than any and all of the other candidates combined. Personally, I like “The Donald.” I think he is a great business man, a great capitalist,

and a smart guy. I would love to sit back and talk with Mr. Trump or even to have the opportunity to be able to walk into a boardroom once a week with him. He has taken chances that no one else has. He has failed and he has succeeded. Running for President will be his biggest risk yet. Even for a guy I like, I cannot say that I would vote for him. Maybe he can convince me and the rest of America, maybe he cannot. Maybe his hair is real, but most likely it is not. Good luck, Mr. Trump.


The Purdue Review

April, 2011


By JAy Wood

Interning at the Indiana Statehouse
This semester, I worked as a Media Intern for the Indiana House Republican Caucus. To say the very least, it was an experience of a lifetime. The 2011 session was arguably the most historic session in state history. To start, Speaker Bosma appointed two minority party members to be committee chairs. That is the first time in Indiana history that members of the minority party have been given that opportunity. Continuing that spirit of bipartisanship, Speaker Bosma allowed bills with minority party authors to be heard on the House Floor (and some of them passed with bipartisan support). Admittedly, the Republicans pushed a fairly aggressive agenda. Popular wisdom says that because the Republicans have been in the minority for so long, the minute they got a majority (and a big one at that), they put the political pedal to the metal. Despite the Speaker’s commitment to bipartisanship, the House Democrats were not willing to play along. After a Right to Work bill was introduced, everything went to hell in a handbasket. For those that do not know, “Right to Work” means that an individual is not forced to join a union as a condition of their employment. This bill outraged organized labor across the state. In an effort to defend the labor unions (which make up less than 10% of the workforce in Indiana), 37 members of the House Democrat caucus fled to Urbana, Illinois. The very next day, Republicans took the Right to Work bill off the table, hoping the Democrats would return. In retrospect, to return would have been the wisest choice for the Democrats. They could claim victory on that issue, protect the unions, and save face for the public. They did not bite on the opportunity for a one day walkout. Little did anyone know at the time, the walkout would end up lasting five weeks – a United States record for legislative walkouts. During that five week walkout, there were protests every single day by members of labor unions. On one of the protest days, the unions brought in famous Hollywood actor and union supporter Danny Glover. I was able to stand inches away from Mr. Glover during his interview with members of the media. Even though I adamantly disagree with him on this labor issue, it was still pretty awesome to stand next to someone that famous. On another protest day, the unions held a New Orleans-style funeral for “The Death of the Middle Class.” That was pretty humorous. Again, I adamantly disagree with the union’s position, but I must admit, I did enjoy the New Orleans-style jazz band they brought in that day to play popular tunes like “Oh When the Saints Go Marching In” and “Just a Closer Walk with Thee.” The high water mark for the union protest movement was March 10th. The protestors held a giant “We are Indiana” rally. The union leaders expected somewhere between 20 and 25,000 protestors to show up. Only 8,000 protestors showed up. That number was only reached because several people were literally bussed in from other states. I also thought that was humorous, given that it was a “We are Indiana” rally. After the rally failed, Minority Leader Bauer realized that sizeable support for his cause was non-existent. Unfortunately for him, he had backed himself into a corner by that point and had no idea how to get out of his situation. Eventually, after five weeks of absence, Bauer returned to Indiana with his caucus. With the presence of a quorum, the House was able to pass several bills, the most significant of which dealt with transforming K-12 education. The House Republicans were able to pass bills supporting charter schools and vouchers/”scholarships,” much to the dismay of the Indiana State Teachers Association (ISTA). This year is also a budget year, so I was able to watch that entire process take place. Also, since last year was a U.S. Census year, this year is the year that the majority parties in the House and Senate redraw legislative districts. As a campaign nut, the redistricting legislation was by far my favorite to watch. Before I participated in this internship, I knew next to nothing about state issues. I knew nothing about labor issues or education reform. I was also very unaware of how the legislative process works. Sure, I have watched the “How a Bill Becomes a Law” video from Schoolhouse Rock!, but that does not do the process justice at all. Above learning about the issues and the process, my favorite and most memorable experience with this internship was the people with whom I was able to connect. I was very fortunate to be part of a fantastic intern class and I had the pleasure of working for a wonderful full-time staff. Besides working with great interns and staff, I was also able to work closely with several legislators. While I certainly showed them due deference, I discovered that these legislators are ordinary people just like you and me. By having a close interaction with legislators and staff, I was able to make professional contacts and was able to find a job doing exactly what I want: campaigning. Lucky for me, my job starts as soon as my internship ends. I could not be any more grateful to everyone who helped me find the connections I needed to land this position. I highly recommend this internship to anyone who is even remotely interested. I think it helps if you are a complete partisan political nutcase junkie like me, but that is certainly not required. Several people who take part in this internship do not have a very strong interest or background in politics but would just like to learn the process. They enjoy themselves as well. I received 12 political science credits for this internship as well as a salary. By taking an online class this semester as well, I am still able to complete my degree and graduate this May. Beyond the money and the credits, the learning experience and the personal connections that can be made by taking part in this internship are invaluable. I certainly cannot guarantee that your session will be half as interesting as 2011 if you participate in this internship, but I highly recommend that you apply anyway! Good luck!


April, 2011

The Purdue Review

By JAy Wood

Senior Send-Off
Hawaii or something. I would not bother looking it up.” On Relationships – B-Dubs and Beauty: If you are single and looking for a significant other, quit looking. This sounds strange, but it works. My freshmen year and early sophomore year of college, I was actively pursuing relationships. That was an awful approach. Literally the weekend I stopped looking for anyone, I found the woman I am going to marry. It is a strange phenomenon, but by not looking, I was better able to be myself. By being myself, someone else was then drawn to me. Trust me, it works. After you get through the threshold of starting a relationship, you have to keep it going. Making your significant other happy might be easier than it seems. For men, tell your woman she is beautiful and that you love her. Granted, you have to back up the words, but saying those things goes a long way. Too many women do not hear that from their men, and they will definitely notice and appreciate it. For instance, one time I was telling this girl about my girlfriend and how I always tell her I love her and that she is beautiful. The girl started crying and told me that her boyfriend never tells her those things. They broke up shortly after she told me this. Gentlemen, take my advice. Tell your woman you love her and that she is beautiful. It means more than you think. Ladies, men are very simple creatures. We like you and we like sports, food, and beer. One of my favorite moments of all time was when I woke my girlfriend up on a Saturday morning last fall, and in a very tired voice she said, “Can we watch college football all day?” That moment will stay dear to me for the rest of my life. If you want to make your man happy, offer to spend time with him, watch sports with him, and eat and drink with him. In other words, take him on a date to BDubs. It is honestly that easy. On Extra-curricular activities – College is what you make it: With only 24 hours in a day, it can be hard to get involved in every single college activity you might desire. Joining the Greek system, singing in PMO, and working as an equipment manager for football and/or men’s basketball would probably all be fun, but there was simply not enough time for me to pursue all of that. Instead of going those routes, I decided to join The Purdue Review and the Purdue College Republicans (CRs). I certainly do not regret those decisions. my way in the world, I will never forget where I came from and all of the valuable lessons I learned. After four years, I have definitely decided that you learn more outside the classroom than you do inside the classroom. That is not an insult to our professors; I think many would agree that practical experience is more valuable than copying PowerPoint slides. Beyond academics, the life lessons you learn and priceless memories you make outside of the classroom

Since this is the last issue of the 20102011 academic year, it is also my last issue as a Purdue student and Purdue Review staff member. That being the case, I decided to share some thoughts and wisdom from a graduating senior. On School Spirit – (Boiler Up!): 99% of my decision to attend Purdue was based on the fact that I grew up as a Purdue fan (my Dad is an alumnus), and I wanted to spend four years going to Purdue football and basketball games. It would not have mattered to me one bit if Purdue had the worst political science program in the nation. I still have no idea what our program is ranked nationally, and I honestly do not care. Despite our numerous athletic injuries, I have not been disappointed one bit in my decision as a sports fan to enroll in this university. Something I have noticed in my four years here is that Purdue students have much more pride in their school than many other students. I never really noticed this until my girlfriend pointed it out, but almost everyone wears Purdue gear to class. The next time you walk around campus, glance at other students and you will see what I am talking about. We have an unwavering love of our university and all of its famous alumni (except Curtis Painter). You know you are a Purdue student if you do these things:

Beyond academics, the life lessons you learn and priceless memories you make outside of the classroom will be remembered forever.
CRs and The Purdue Review gave mesometimes literally- a front row seat for campus, local, state, and national politics over the past four years, which, if you have not noticed, have been rather exciting. More than that, these organizations led to me to meet the woman I plan to marry and many very dear friends. My point is that college is what you make it. While you might not find the love of your life, you can certainly meet lots of great people. The reality of college is that there are so many possibilities that, like me, you might not be able to participate in everything. You are certainly welcome to try, but my advice is to find two or three activities that you absolutely love and then pour your heart and soul in to those things. The more you put in, the more you will take away. Most importantly, when you walk across that stage in your cap and gown, do not have any regrets. On the Future – Boiler for Life: I recently accepted a campaign position with the Indiana Republican Party, which is exactly what I have wanted to do since I was fifteen years old. As I leave our great university and go off to make will be remembered forever. I do not remember much from Earth Science, but I can tell you that getting mono is terrible (although the weight loss is nice). I do not remember much from the nine credit hours of Spanish, but I can tell you that a burger with a layer of peanut butter on it tastes really good. I do not remember much from Geology, but I can tell you that cafeteria trays can be used as sleds. I do not remember much from Great Figures in Latin American History, but I can tell you that contrary to its name, the Purdue West/Klondike bus route does not make a routine stop outside the Purdue West Shopping Center, so if you do not pull the chain early, you will spend 45 minutes heading out to Klondike, then to Wal-Mart, then back to campus where you originally started. Those memories are what make college special. No matter where my career takes me, I will always be a Boilermaker. I will always be proud of my university, and I will always remember the lessons I learned- most of which occurred outside the classroom.

• There is a TV special about the first moon landing. “Neil Armstrong. Yeah, he went to Purdue. Boiler Up!” • Orville Redenbacher popcorn is on sale at Wal-Mart. “Hey, you know where Orville went to college? Purdue. Boiler Up!” • Brian Cardinal blocks a LeBron James shot. “That Gene Keady coaching really paid off. Boiler Up! • Rod Woodson is inducted into the NFL Hall of Fame. “Our fourth NFL Hall of Famer! Boiler Up!” • Curtis Painter subs in and throws three interceptions. “Where did he go to college? I think it was some tiny school in


The Purdue Review

April, 2011


It’s Time for Liberal Arts Majors to Specialize
By KrIsTIn pATrAs

Requiring students whose majors have absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences to take natural science courses is irrational.
vinced that it is time for liberal arts majors to specialize. Taking courses which have absolutely nothing to do with one’s future career is not only a waste of time and money, but it also puts unnecessary pressure on one’s overall GPA. More specifically, I am fed up with the six credit requirement in natural sciences. If I were good at science, I would not be in the College of Liberal Arts. Requiring students whose majors have abso-

After spending four semesters fulfilling my core requirements, I am con-

lutely nothing to do with natural sciences to take natural science courses is irratio-

nal. These courses will not make us any more appealing to future employers who are hiring us for positions which do not require any out of the ordinary scientific knowledge. Moreover, it is common sense that requiring students to take courses which they are obviously not good at and not interested in will only lower their GPAs and make them less appealing to future employers. This semester I took a course to fulfill

the natural science lab requirement. On the first day, our professor asked our class of 100 students how many students were taking the course for their major. I specifically remember seeing about five hands. This explains the frustration that was evident throughout the rest of the semester. It got to the point where as many as 20 students would all get up and walk out of class mid-lecture. Our professor would even stop and say, “See you all next time!”

as the students filed out. Clearly, not only did our professor feel as though his time was being wasted, but so did students.

These courses will not make us any more appealing to future employers who are hiring us for positions which do not require any out of the ordinary scientific knowledge.

Given the current economic crisis, Purdue should be doing everything in its power to make students more appealing for future job positions. Instead of wasting students’ time and money in courses not affiliated with students’ desires and required competencies, the College of Liberal Arts should be encouraging students to specialize. By not requiring these pointless courses, students would be freed up to take courses which will further en-

hance their knowledge on their chosen majors and, in effect, put them ahead in their job sector.


April, 2011

The Purdue Review

The Last Word
By JAy Wood In my four years with The Purdue Review, I have written on countless topics – campaigns and elections, security and defense, guest speakers, race and gender issues, the Tea Party movement, education reform, Von’s Bookstore, Purdue sports and restaurants, the Indiana Legislature, and how to celebrate holidays durparty candidacy did not negatively impact the chances of the Republican winning the race. That was not the case in District 2. That race was significantly tighter. Joe Donnelly (D) beat Jackie Walorski (R) by 1.5%. The Libertarian, Mark Vogel, took 5% of the vote. At the end of the day, 52% of District think long and hard about the impact of your vote and how voting for a third party candidate could serve as a spoiler for the major party candidate who falls on your side of the political spectrum. If you do decide to vote for that third party candidate and the major party candidate on the opposite end of the spectrum wins the elecSherri Shepherd is a co-host on The View. Following the 2008 Presidential Election, conservative blogger and commentator Michelle Malkin was a guest on The View. During that episode, Sherri Shepherd said that 2008 was the first presidential election in which she had ever voted. Sherri Shepherd has been eligible to vote since 1985. However, she did not choose to vote in the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential elections. But all of a sudden, 2008 rolled around, and Sherri decided that she wanted to vote. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what made the 2008 election important enough to compel Sherri Shepherd to cast her first vote for president. If you are confused, I will give you a hint: her vote had nothing to do with policy or the direction of the country. By acting that way, Sherri Shepherd was disregarding Dr. King’s message. On the day of the 2008 Indiana primary, I heard an Obama supporter say that one of her parents was from Germany and the other was from Puerto Rico, so because of that, she could really identify with Barack Obama. I chose not to be a smart alec and say that because both of my parents are from the United States, I could really identify with

If you are voting in a close race, then you need to think long and hard about the impact of your vote and how voting for a third party candidate could serve as a spoiler for the major party candidate who falls on your side of the political spectrum.
ing a recession (a running joke among my fellow Review staff members). For my last article as a Purdue student, I wanted to leave the readers with some final thoughts on the two subjects I am arguably most passionate about- campaigns and racial politics. I have touched on these subjects in previous issues, but they are too important to me not to give a final word. The Last Word on Campaigns: Following the 2010 midterm elections, I wrote an article about how Dan Parker, the Chair of the Indiana Democrat Party, spent $30,000 to send out direct mail pieces touting two Libertarian candidates (Mark Vogel in District 2 and Greg Knott in District 9) as the “true/real conservative” in their respective Indiana congressional races. In District 9, the direct mail piece had no substantive impact because Todd Young (R) beat Baron Hill (D) by 10%. Because this race was not close, Knott’s third 2 voters wanted a laissez-faire candidate who would fight to cut spending and keep taxes low. 48% of the voters wanted a candidate whose first vote would be to keep Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. That was the candidate who won the election. tion by a narrow margin, you have nobody to blame for that outcome but yourself. The Last Word on Racial Politics: Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “The basic thing in determining the best candidate is not his color but his integrity.” Dr. King was saying, in short, that when you go to vote, you should not think about what someone looks like, but rather who they are as an individual and what values they hold. This is not always how it happens in reality. Take Sherri Shepherd for example.

What will happen over the two years following the election? The people who voted for Mark Vogel will probably complain about how they are being represented in Congress by a Democrat who will more often than not vote in a way they disapprove of. Who elected Joe Donnelly though? Those Libertarian voters did. It is not this journal’s business to suggest which candidates you vote for. What I can suggest, however, is that if you are voting in a close race, then you need to

See “Last...” on Pg. 13

The Purdue Review

April, 2011


From page 12
both John McCain and Hillary Clinton, but believe me, I did have the urge. For using such flawed logic, I believe that woman’s wealth should be redistributed the most. In an MSNBC Interview on November 12th, 2007, Michelle Obama was asked why Obama was trailing Hillary Clinton 37% to 46% in the African American community. Michelle responded, “First of all, I think that that’s not going to hold. I’m completely confident. Black America will wake up and get it.” What Michelle meant was that she expected African Americans to support her husband just because he is black. As far as she was concerned, it should not matter what differences there were between her husband’s platform and Hillary Clinton’s platform (or heaven forbid any Republican platform). Simply because her husband was of a different race than his main primary opponent, everyone of that race should then support him for that reason alone. On February 18th, 2008, Michelle

Obama said that for the first time in her adult life, she was proud of her country. It is not a coincidence that those comments were made less than a week after Barack took the lead in primary delegates. Let me be very clear. There is absolutely

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “The basic thing in determining the best candidate is not his color but his integrity.” When you go to vote, you should not think about what someone looks like, but rather who they are as an individual and what values they hold.
world away. Never mind any of that. None of those types of things made Michelle Obama proud of her country. Only a man of color taking the lead in delegates made Michelle Obama proud. In the MSNBC clip, there was no men-

nothing wrong with a candidate of color taking the lead over a white candidate in a primary. However, for that to be the reason for someone becoming proud of his or her country for the first time is outrageous and disgusting. Never mind the rescue workers on 9/11. Never mind veterans walking in a Veteran’s Day Parade. Never mind American Red Cross workers rushing to the scene of a tsunami half a

Because Mr. Thomas does not hold the liberal values that he is expected to, folks like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton led an enormous movement that came four votes shy of blocking his Supreme Court confirmation.
tion of African Americans who did not support Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. That is the ultimate sin. Anybody who knows me knows that I am Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ number one fan. I love Clarence Thomas because he is a conservative who thinks for himself, even at the expense of being viewed as a traitor by many in the black community. There is an expectation among many in the black community that you must hold liberal values if you are part of that community. Since Clarence Thomas broke

away from that mold, he is viewed by many as “Uncle Thomas” instead of Justice Thomas. Having dark skin is not enough to make Clarence Thomas black in many people’s eyes; he is expected to hold liberal values as well. Because Mr. Thomas does not hold the liberal values that he is expected to, folks like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton led an enormous movement that came four U.S. Senate votes shy of blocking his Supreme Court confirmation. Mr. Thomas’ personal life was of absolutely no concern to any of his critics. The fact that he is a black person with conservative values made him the devil opponent of a crusade. In short, if you want to be considered an accepted member of the black community by folks like Michelle Obama, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, you must meet three requirements: you must have dark skin, you must hold liberal values, and in a battle between liberal candidates of different races, you must support the candidate who also has dark skin. Then, and only then, will you be accepted. That entire mindset is completely reprehensible. For folks who are always complaining about some sort of racial injustice, they are committing extreme racial injustices of their own. They are in no way adhering to Dr. King’s philosophy. They are in no way creating a colorblind society where people can think for themselves without fear of being shunned by their peers, and I believe that is wrong. Well, there you have it folks. As I said in the beginning, campaigns and racial politics are two subjects that I am extremely passionate about. Although I have discussed them before, I would be remiss if I did not end my Purdue career with [figurative] guns blazing about things I find so important. For that reason, I submit this piece to you as my last word.


April, 2011

The Purdue Review

Royal Wedding
By JordAn hEBBE To all male readers, let us save you the trouble: skip this article unless you have an interest in fairy tales, wedding gowns, princes charming, horse-drawn carriages, and/or castles. That’s right, ladies, it’s wedding time. Not just any wedding- a royal wedding. Prince William and Kate Middleton will say their vows on April 29th, 2011, in Westminster Abbey, the official royal church. Already projected to be the travel event of the year, the wedding is also expected to attract around 2 billion- yes that is 2 billiontelevision viewers. Most of the United States will still be in bed when the ceremony begins at 11:00am in London. Those looking to tune in should expect coverage to begin at around 4:00 am EST, with the actual ceremony starting around 6:00am. Almost every girl dreams about her what her wedding will be like, and the royal wedding will certainly be dreamlike. Like royal weddings that have gone before it, it will likely inspire a bevy of new trends in the wedding world. It has been a little over 20 years since a royal wedding of this magnitude took place and it was that of Prince Harry’s mother, the late Princess Diana and his father, Prince Charles. Since that time, a great deal has changed. In 1981, viewers all over the world woke up early to watch the wedding on a fuzzy television screen. This time, anyone will be able to sit down age years. William stuck with tradition by selecting the young page-boys who will carry the train of the bride’s dress. In lieu of gifts, the Royal couple has requested that their guests donate to the Another one of the few details that has been released is that Kate will be wearing a wedding band made of Welsh gold after she says “I do.” This is keeping with the Royal tradition of including a bit of Welsh gold in the bride’s ring. The rare Welsh gold comes from a mine that also contains copper, which results in gold that has a slight pinkish tint. When William proposed to Kate, he did so with his mother’s iconic sapphire and diamond engagement ring. I’m guessing that to Kate, that gesture alone meant more than all the King’s riches. Although they are determined to make the wedding their own in several unique ways, they are sticking with tradition where it matters most. By incorporating their own personalities and values into the traditional royal wedding process, they are creating an identity for themselves that will set them apart as modern monarchs.

Most fashionistas are predicting that Kate will choose a much simpler style of gown, but there has been much speculation on the matter and no one can say for certain until it is revealed this Friday.
at a computer, visit YouTube, and watch the entire day unfold thanks to TheRoyalChannel’s live streaming. Additionally, viewers can watch commentary, learning more history about the day. Following with tradition and British law, Queen Elizabeth gave her formal consent on April 21st, which will allow William and Kate to wed. The “Instrument of Consent,” as it is called, features the couple’s initials and family symbols, as well as other artwork chosen by an artist to represent the bride and groom. The couple is mixing tradition into their wedding party as well. Although Kate has selected a group of younger bridesmaids to accompany her, she has also decided to have her sister as her maid of honor. At 27, Kate’s sister, Pippa, is the oldest main bridesmaid in recent royal wedding history. Typically, the girls chosen are b e t we e n t h e i r p r e teen to late teencharitable fund set up for their wedding. The funds will be divided up and given to five meaningful causes that the couple has already chosen. Guests wishing to make a donation are able to specify one of the causes or donate to the general fund. Perhaps the most exciting of all is the tradition of keeping many of the major details a secret until they are revealed on the wedding day. At this point, it is still a mystery who Kate chose to design her gown and it is an even bigger mystery what the dress will look like. Princess Diana’s gown was white, ornate, and featured a 25-foot cathedral train. Most fashionistas are predicting that Kate will choose a much simpler style of gown, but there has been much speculation on the matter. No one can say for certain until it is revealed this Friday. Even the color and composition of the bride’s bouquet is kept a secret until it is first glimpsed on the big day. The only detail that has been revealed is that Kate will follow the tradition of including a sprig of myrtle in her bouquet, which has been a royal tradition since Queen Victoria added it to her own in 1840.


Campus Diversions
Curtis by Ray Billingsley

The Purdue Review

April, 2011


Mallard Fillmore by Bruce Tinsley


from http://www.veryfreesudoku.com


Kakuro instructions: The object is to fill all empty squares using numbers 1 to 9 so the sum of each horizontal 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 .


April, 2011

The Purdue Review

Tribute to the N64
As a kid in the mid to late-90’s, the Nintendo 64 console held a major role in the entertainment portion of my lifestyle (which was about 80% of my lifestyle in general at the time). I have many fond memories of sitting in front of a television, mashing-buttons on the famous 3-pronged controller, and playing and/or beating games that still remain some of my favorites of all time. The fun was only amplified by the ability to have up to 4 people playing most multi-player games, a 100% increase in awesomeness from the 2-player modes of previous systems. While the screen was usually barely visible after being chopped into 4 pieces, the chance to beat that many people at once was a major video game breakthrough. At one point, I believe I was unbeatable at Goldeneye, and could beat most people on Super Smash Bros. as well. By AAron AnspAugh

While the system and its capabilities were unique and memorable, the system would not have had the success it did without a stellar game lineup. Nintendo had many Mario-themed offerings, such as Mario 64, Mario Kart, Super Smash Bros. (which had many other characters), Mario Party, Mario Tennis, and Mario Golf. Just a side note, I once scored an albatross (3 under) on a hole in Mario Golf. My brother (a toddler at the time) erased the record of it, leading to one of the more traumatic experiences of my childhood. Other great games on the N64 included Diddy-Kong Racing, Banjo Kazooie, and Goldeneye 007, which revolutionized multiplayer shooting games. I know this list isn’t exhaustive, but my game selection at the time was limited by the games of my friends and the generosity of Santa. One cannot mention the N64 without

bringing up the Legend of Zelda series. Ocarina of Time on N64 is my favorite game of all time, and Majora’s Mask (the sequel) is not far behind. Both games had amazing gameplay and tremendous depth that had not been possible in previous game systems. I will never forget the hours I spent happily fishing at Lake Hylia, or the frustrating feeling I would get when struggling with the Iron Boots in the Water Temple. I have played and replayed Ocarina of Time to the point where my original cartridge is in tatters. But that is okay, thanks to Nintendo’s efforts to offer N64 games on modern platforms. When the Nintendo Wii came out, one major feature was the Virtual Console store, which allowed gamers to purchase and download classic games from NES, SNES, Sega, and N64. Not surprisingly, the N64 games (usually $10 apiece) have

been very successful. I truly appreciate the ability to play my favorite N64 games (Ocarina of Time included) on a newer system, leaving behind the medium of bulky and unreliable cartridges. Another way Nintendo plans on bringing N64 games into the present is through their new handheld system, the 3DS. As of now, only Ocarina of Time and Star Fox 64 are going to get the dual-screen, 3-dimensional upgrade, but fans would love to see other N64 games making the jump as well. But even with these new technologies, game upgrades, and virtualized remakes, nothing can replace the feeling of putting a well-played cartridge into the slot, picking up the N64 controller, and reliving the days when life was easy.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful