OT: Clinton to be Convocation Speaker

[www.cornelldailysun.com]

Nice job.

Very cool. Even if you aren't ideologically inclined towards his politics, he's an excellent choice.

HRC was the convocation speaker for one of the graduations I attended. (Either one of mine in '92 or '93 or my brother's in '94.) I'm surprised that wasn't mentioned in the article.

Bit of a step up from my convocation speaker: Danny Glover.

Graham Meli '02 wrote:
Bit of a step up from my convocation speaker: Danny Glover.

Was he on a recruiting trip or something?

[Q]Very cool. Even if you aren't ideologically inclined towards his politics, he's an excellent choice.[/Q]I've never liked the man. But I have to say it's a pretty nice accomplishment to book him.

Was he on a recruiting trip or something?

Har. Please, we all know why Glover hasn't been in the lineup again after his injury. He's too old for this shit.

clinton is not on a campaign tour, age.

i am glad that the alums and the current students are so pleased about our choice. please look at the daily sun tomorrow for a full article written by the student committee. we are also sending this out nationally, so maybe someone will pick it up.

-mike rosenberg '04

Mike wrote:

clinton is not on a campaign tour, age.

I think Age was just making a joke about Danny Glover being the name of a current freshman defenseman.

gross oversight on my part!!

Section A Banshee wrote:

Har. Please, we all know why Glover hasn't been in the lineup again after his injury. He's too old for this shit.

Post Edited (03-04-04 13:49)

"Testosterone, which is the male hormone... and estrogen, which is the female hormone..." Thanks, Danny Glover. Seriously -- that's all I remember from his speech.

I thought James Carville was excellent, though. I thought his "lesser known things about Lincoln" was really inspirational. ...and I still have his Pooh quote in my aim profile

Olberman in '98 was great. The guy in '93 who read from his book, not so much.

Keith K '93 wrote:

Olberman in '98 was great. The guy in '93 who read from his book, not so much.

I believe that would be Matt Ruff, author of Fool on the Hill.

Mine was David Drinkwater (the only Dean of Students during my time on the Hill, since the position was vacant for the last three years after he left to take a headmaster job on Long Island), which was a cool choice.

[q]clinton is not on a campaign tour, age.

i am glad that the alums and the current students are so pleased about our choice. please look at the daily sun tomorrow for a full article written by the student committee. we are also sending this out nationally, so maybe someone will pick it up.

-mike rosenberg '04[/q]

::woosh::

Mike,

As you were on the committee, let me say - Kick ass choice!

Todd

Mike, I'm delighted that you guys were able to get Clinton for the convocation! I'll be able to hold this over my cousin '02 - who had Danny Glover - for the rest of our lives.

'93 was Matt Ruff, and I'm reasonably sure '94 was Mae Jemison. I was also pretty sure that while HRC spoke twice at Cornell during my years there, neither was at a Convocation.

Incidentally, Ruff is a great guy and an incredible writer. The class of '93 just didn't give him any guidance as to what to talk about, and he ain't a natural speaker. The book-in-progress he read from, "Sewer, Gas & Electric," ended up a masterpiece.

Beeeej

Yeah, Ruff seemed like a decent guy but was in over his head for a convocation speech. The crowd didn't treat him very well either. I felt kind of bad about it at the time.

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

Yeah, Ruff seemed like a decent guy but was in over his head for a convocation speech. The crowd didn't treat him very well either. I felt kind of bad about it at the time. [/Q]

I've heard the phrase "Fool on the Stage" used to refer to him.

Sewer, Gas & Electric was pretty great, but I think it's every Cornellian's duty to own a copy of Fool On The Hill

[www.amazon.com]

in a relatively uncontested category, I'd say it's the best piece of fiction set on the campus of Cornell University

[q]in a relatively uncontested category, I'd say it's the best piece of fiction set on the campus of Cornell University[/q]

I agree it's the best, but it's a larger category than you might think. :-{)} (Especially if you're willing to be slightly flexible about the meaning of "set on." For instance:

[www.amazon.com]
[www.amazon.com]
[www.amazon.com]
[www.amazon.com]
[www.amazon.com]
[www.amazon.com]
[www.amazon.com]
[www.amazon.com]
[www.amazon.com]
[www.amazon.com]
[www.amazon.com]

...plus R. Bolingbroke Johnson's "The Widening Stain," which appears to be so long out of print that even Amazon won't list it.

No, I actually don't have a lot of free time, thanks...

Beeeej

every time I see "Fool On The Hill," I think it's the latest in the Al Franken series...

For some reason, I had pretty strong visual associations with Fool on the Hill. I had a good idea of how many of the characters looked (even though some of them contradicted the description in the book). But the one I was absolutely sure about was Kiefer Sutherland as Ragnarok. Anyone else with me?

[Q]A-19 Wrote:

clinton is not on a campaign tour, age.
[/Q]

Well, I won't claim it is *only* a political move, but don't you think Bill's choice to speak at the 2 most prominant upstate schools might have *something* to do with a certain junior senator from NY?

Hillary's senate reelection campaign hasn't started just yet (not officially, anyway). She's still got two years.

I would think Clinton's appearances at Syracuse and Cornell are more like unofficial Democratic campaign events for this year's presidential race. Granted, the great majority of Cornell '04 graduates will likely vote for the Democrat anyway, but maybe it'll prompt more of them to actually vote in the election and get their connections to do the same.

That's just a guess, of course. I'm not much of a political strategist, much to my dismay.

[Q]Will Wrote:

I would think Clinton's appearances at Syracuse and Cornell are more like unofficial Democratic campaign events for this year's presidential race. [/Q]

I sure hope not since it is somewhat unnecessary as New York State is hardly "in play". I think it's all going to come down to Florida again.

cornell students are more likely to vote, and vote democratic. it's a waste of a speech for him if that's the only purpose. and ny state is a given for the dems in 2004. it's a central rule of campaigning- target the marginal voters in the swing states. this is clearly not indicative of our campus or our state. is it too hard for people to believe that:

(1) he is interested in speaking at one of the best universities in the nation (and we asked way before any of the other schools could have sent invites). give cornell some credit for once. we are moving up in the world bit by bit.

(2) he spoke at syracuse because they have an excellent public policy school and syracuse is the best city in the us to represent the us as a microcosm (see advertising demographic research)?

the Committee made a strong effort to stay away from politicians campaigning for this year's presidency, as we did not want students to be subjected to a campaign speech. i do not believe we will get that with bill clinton.

-mike rosenberg

What are we paying for Clinton's appearance?

[Q]nyc94 Wrote:

What are we paying for Clinton's appearance? [/Q]

That's what I want to know. Year in and year out I read that the convocation speaker is subpar because the committee doens't have enough money to buy big names like Clinton... not that I condone spending $50,000 plus (Cliton's fee is reportedly over 100k [www.usatoday.com] ; [www.smh.com.au]) that could be well spent elsewhere on a speech.

contract details, venue, and times will be released upon complete finalization, in a follow-up news story ASAP

chris, you have heard wrong about previous years. the problem was not that we could not afford big name speakers. none of the past years' invitees were unwilling to come because of the price. one of the biggest hardships in past years has been the proximity of the planning to the convocation. in past years, invitations have been issued only a few months before graduation, which results in a much shorter notification for the would-be speaker. top list speakers are booked years in advance, just like hotel rooms for a cornell graduation. if you wait too long, you wind up with a second or third choice, just like you wind up staying in albany or something. this cycle, we got on the process during junior year, giving us much extra time in alerting our top choice, president clinton. he was able to make his calendar for this year having already received our invite, and not the other way around. we are looking to amend the convocation process to give future classes the ability to present invitations much earlier.
hope this is informative for you!
-mike rosenberg '04

In any given year how much of a factor is the lack of honorary degree/not actually speaking on the day of or at the graduation ceremony?

Well,

I don't like to get into political debate on this forum, but since the subject was brought up -- here's my two cents.

If bringing that guy (and paying his sky-high fee) makes the Class of '04 happy, then so be it. But to suggest that this guy (former prez or not) has a clue to what is happening in foreign affairs is absurd.

He had several opportunities to capture Bin Laden and failed to take the opportunity. Thanks to "Bill's" preoccupations with foolish trifles, Bin Laden got away and executed his murderous plan on the WTC on 9/11, which cost us - the Cornell Community - one of our very finest -- Eamon McEneaney - a classy champion and who's life would be much more relevant to the graduates than someone who fancied himself as JF Kennedy, but really didn't have a clue as to why the Kennedy presidency was so endearing to the american public and the course of the nation. I cannot forgive him for being a factor (through negligence and laziness) in Eamon's demise.

I guess that's why I only give generously to the Hockey program nowadays. Bill Gates (who was recently speaking on campus) is a much better and relevant story of starting from nothing, than 'ol BC is.

When are we finally going to "move on" and get past those Clintons?

[Q]CAAB Wrote:
He had several opportunities to capture Bin Laden and failed to take the opportunity. Thanks to "Bill's" preoccupations with foolish trifles, Bin Laden got away and executed his murderous plan on the WTC on 9/11 [/Q]

You're either being revisionist or ignorant; either way, it bears addressing.

Even before 9/11, Clinton said one of his greatest regrets was not succeeding in capturing or killing Bin Laden before he left office, despite significant effort to do so. He and his national security people, upon departing the White House, tried to convey to the incoming Bush administration how important dealing with Bin Laden was. And even members of the Bush administration acknowledge that they didn't take the warning seriously enough.

Eamon McEneaney died because of a madman. Blaming it on Clinton, no matter what you think of his politics, is really kind of sad.

And what, exactly, should Clinton's invitation from the students of the class of 2004 have to do with what parts of Cornell get your charitable dollars? I heard some pretty good rationalizations in my days as a Cornell development officer, but that's a serious stretch.

Beeeej

I also don't like to get into a political discussion online among friends, but it's a bit bizarre to suggest Bill was distracted by foolish trifles when the opposition launched an impeachment farce based on the lamest of pretexts. That took some time out from all of our leaders' attention to the nation's real problems.

Clinton is polarizing. If you want to get into it about whether or not he was the most successful president of the postwar period (cough he was uncough), go to USCHO Cafe and pick any thread started by Ritt, Phil, RPIRED, etc...

Since it was brought up ("Even before 9/11, Clinton said one of his greatest regrets was not succeeding in capturing or killing Bin Laden before he left office, despite significant effort to do so" .. Beeeej)

- After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured
1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down and punished. Nothing happened.

- After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five US military
personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished. Nothing happened.

- After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19
and injured 200 US military personnel; Clinton promised that those
responsible would be hunted down and punished. Nothing happened.

- After the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and
injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down and punished. We lobbed a few cruise missiles at a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.

- After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39
US sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished. Nothing happened.

Obviously, you have intimate knowledge of all of the details of the Clinton administration's efforts to capture or eliminate Bin Laden. I applaud you on the thoroughness of your research.

Anyway, as to your definition of "nothing happened":

Those directly responsible for the planning and execution of the 1993 WTC bombing were captured and punished. See [www.adl.org] . Bin Laden, unfortunately, remained free.

The Saudis executed four Saudi Sunnis they declared had been responsible for the 1995 bombing, without allowing American investigators to interrogate them. See [mondediplo.com] .

The Saudi royal family prevented American investigators from examining most of the physical evidence in the 1996 Al Khobar bombing, and forbade them from conducting their own investigation. See [mondediplo.com] .

Four individuals were arrested and tried for their participation in the 1998 Nairobi and Tanzania bombings, and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. See [usinfo.state.gov] .

Seventeen individuals were arrested for the 2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing. At least ten of them escaped from a Yemeni prison before they could be brought to trial. See [www.foxnews.com] . It was another few years before the suspected "mastermind" was arrested, also by Yemeni security forces. See [cnews.canoe.ca] .

By the way, how's Bush doing capturing or eliminating Bin Laden?

Beeeej

P.S. "Res Ipsa LoquitUr" doesn't mean what you think it means.

[q]By the way, how's Bush doing capturing or eliminating Bin Laden? [/q]

Maybe we'll find out in mid to late October

Beeej,

Greg is right, 'ol Billy Boy' is a polarizing subject, which is why I would rather not get into a tit-for-tat string on this forum. Clearly we are not going to convince either of us, that the other is right, but I am disappointed by Class of 2004 to pay that bugger for some jokes, and his twilight zone view of the world.

BTW: you seemed to have come across in your reply to me, as if you know the Clinton admin so intimately well - vs-a-vis, your retort to Ken.

I can't imagine what he could possibly tell the Class of 2004 that would give them a leg up on their coming journey through post-collegiate life.

Martha convicted..... but why not Hillary? There's still that little matter of HER inside info to make a quick $100K in futures with the help of the Tysons, cause she strikes me as being dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to futures and stocks.

Let's GO Big Red!!!

--- Da Bear

Here is the statement by the 2004 Convocation Committee in the Sun today:
[www.cornelldailysun.com]

-Mike Rosenberg '04

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:
P.S. "Res Ipsa LoquitUr" doesn't mean what you think it means.

[/Q]

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law it's Res Ipsa LoquitOr.

The general meaning is "the thing (or fact) speaks for itself".

The precise meaning is "When you become a liberal you soon realize that facts are stubborn and inconvenient things".

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:

'93 was Matt Ruff, and I'm reasonably sure '94 was Mae Jemison. I was also pretty sure that while HRC spoke twice at Cornell during my years there, neither was at a Convocation. [/Q]I remember Ruff (disaster) and Jemison (OK). HRC had to be '92. I certainly remember being quite annoyed that my graduation weekend was occassion for a stump speech for WJC's campaign. And I was supporting that campaign.

(And enough with the politics, everyone. Can't we all just get along and hate Harvard together?)

I also remember the introduction of the SA president (I think) who encouraged the students to "frolic" more. It was textbook weenie college kid nonsense. He did everything short of starting the speech with "According to Webster's dictionary, "commencement" means ..."

Mike, is it true that Clinton waived his speaker's fee for us? Did you expect that? Just read it on "Dear Uncle Ezra"...

[Q]Ken Wrote:
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law it's Res Ipsa LoquitOr.
[/Q]

According to my Latin dictionary, loquitor is the first person singular of the deponent verb loquitari, to chatter, which is a frequentative derived from the deponent verb loqui, to speak. The third person singular of loqui is loquitur.

So Res ipsa loquitur means "The thing speaks for itself". Res ipsa loquitor means "I, the thing, chatter for myself".

Which is not a bad description of your liberal-bashing, come to think of it...

Becca and other inquiring minds,

It is in fact true that Clinton has waived his honorarium from the Class of 2004. The contract still needs to cover certain costs, such as staff hotel rooms, speaker transportation etc, and those amounts are being planned and will be released to the public as soon as they are available.

-Mike

[Q]I can't imagine what he could possibly tell the Class of 2004 that would give them a leg up on their coming journey through post-collegiate life. [/Q]

In all honesty, 99% of people probably don't even remember what the hell their commencement speaker said anyway. The only point of a commencement speaker is so you can say "My speaker was so and so" and everybody can act impressed and then tell you who their speaker was.

The '92 convocation speaker was Geraldine Ferraro. Excellent speaker. The '92 commencement speaker did not speak due to heavy rain and near freezing temperatures.

Is the speaking fee payable to Mr. W J Clinton, or is his speaking contingent on a donation to the Clinton Library Fund (or whatever it's called)? If the latter, it's reasonabe to charge higher fees due to the tax benefits.

[Q]KenP Wrote:

The '92 convocation speaker was Geraldine Ferraro. Excellent speaker. The '92 commencement speaker did not speak due to heavy rain and near freezing temperatures.
[/Q]
Bingo. Thanks, KenP. Ferraro was running for Senate herself in 1992 (didn't make it past the primary, though). It was her own stump speech that I remember being annoyed by. I have no idea why I replaced her in my memory with Hillary.

The commencement speaker was always Frank Rhodes, wasn't it? He was great at all of the graduations I saw him at, but in 1992 he was especially kind - he kept it as short as possible and let us get out of the rain. What a brutal day.

[Q]ugarte Wrote:

The commencement speaker was always Frank Rhodes, wasn't it? He was great at all of the graduations I saw him at, but in 1992 he was especially kind - he kept it as short as possible and let us get out of the rain. What a brutal day.[/Q]

For some reason I remember there being two speakers on the program. Maybe it was just Frank. I do remember his cutting the speech way short. What a day!

One of the things that makes Cornell's commencement ceremonies a lot shorter and more bearable than other schools' (along with not reading the names of all the graduates) is that the invited speaker speaks at the convocation, a separate event. Only the president speaks at commencement. It also helped that Hot Tub was a great speaker. (Although of the three commencements I attended, his speech at mine was my least favorite.)

[Q]KenP Wrote:

Is the speaking fee payable to Mr. W J Clinton, or is his speaking contingent on a donation to the Clinton Library Fund (or whatever it's called)? If the latter, it's reasonabe to charge higher fees due to the tax benefits. [/Q]Like Cornell needs a tax deduction?

Come on it has already been posted that he waved his fee.

Not specifically responding to the above quote, but I'm always amazed that he can bring up so much hatred before the facts are even known. Yes his personal life was poorly handled, but that's for he and his family to work on. In regards to how he ran the country that's a different story, but some would contend that we were better then than now.

[Q]Jim Hyla Wrote:
In regards to how he ran the country that's a different story, but some would contend that we were better then than now.
[/Q]

two words: bubble economy

two words: better speaker.

[Q]A-19 Wrote:

two words: better speaker. [/Q]

Than who? Bush? No argument here. Although I would direct you to Clinton's speech at the 1988 Democratic National Convention. Many thought it was the end of his career. But let's give credit where it's due: the speechwriters.

[Q]nyc94 Wrote:
let's give credit where it's due: the speechwriters.

[/Q]

I think you would find very few people who don't think Bush's speechwriters are among the best ever, but the fact is that Bush mangles the speeches.

And Clinton may have had a bubble economy, but he was responsible with the money gained from that, leaving a giant surplus that Bush wasted on his wealthy cronies.

Oh for the love of God. Can we please not have this political chest-thumping here? There's enough of that crap to filter through on USCHO.

I agree with Josh. I guess I should have known better before starting the thread.

Clinton write his own speeches, and did so almost all the time while President. At least we should all be able to agree on the fact that Clinton is an excellent speechwriter and a genius, and whether repub. or dem. you can take something good away from his speeches.

[Q]hIKE Wrote:
Clinton wrote his own speeches, and did so almost all the time while President. [/Q]Oh, stop it. Bill Clinton, like any man who is responsible for running the country (or running to run the country) did not have the time to write his own speeches. He may have edited his own speeches or contributed to his own speeches but I assure you that he had a speechwriting staff just as large and just as necessary as our current President.

This isn't a knock on Clinton or Bush, it just is what it is.

As usual, Chief, I'm not even entirely sure what language you're speaking.

But if I read you correctly, you're basically asking why the government prosecuted someone against whom it had evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed a crime, and why they didn't prosecute someone against whom - after spending a ton of money investigating - they didn't have enough evidence even to demonstrate that a crime had been committed at all.

For the answer, allow me to draw you a diagram...

Beeeej

[Q]Ken Wrote:
[Q]Beeeej Wrote:
P.S. "Res Ipsa LoquitUr" doesn't mean what you think it means.[/Q]

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law it's Res Ipsa LoquitOr.

The general meaning is "the thing (or fact) speaks for itself".[/Q]

That's funny, I was pretty sure Black's Law Dictionary was considered the final authority. Now I know why.

To apply Res Ipsa Loquitur, your assertion would have to be that, because Osama bin Laden survived Clinton's presidency, Clinton must have made no attempt to capture or eliminate him. Applying that logic, Bush must also have made no such attempt.

Seriously, what was your grade in Torts?

[Q]The precise meaning is "When you become a liberal you soon realize that facts are stubborn and inconvenient things".[/Q]

Oh, yeah. I'm definitely the one ignoring the facts. I notice you didn't actually address the substance of my post.

Beeeej

P.S. Clarkson sucks!