Tag Archives: becker rose cafe

What Would McDonald’s Do?

Posted on by
Reply

Last Wednesday, I attended the Becker-Rose Café featuring David Just, Gnel Gabrielyan and Adam Brumberg from the Cornell Food & Brand Lab. It was interesting to just listen about all of the different research that has been done in terms of what sorts of choices we make about food. While some things seemed obvious, like don’t go grocery shopping while hungry, I didn’t know that the type of food you ate before shopping also made a difference. Apparently, if you eat junk food right before, you will be more inclined to make unhealthy choices while shopping. Another part of grocery shopping I hadn’t considered was that it is actually in the interest of the store to sell more healthy options of their produce because it has a short shelf-life and it costs a little more. I would have never thought that a few green arrows on the ground pointing towards produce could affect consumption habits.

At one point, someone asked if the wealth of research being done on consumption choices could be used for evil, and of course, the answer was yes. But it really made me think. At one point, one of the speakers said that sometimes they’ll ask themselves, what would McDonald’s do? They talked about how effective McDonald’s was at helping guide better food choices, like providing apple slices in happy meals, and also some more dubious things, like reintroducing the McRib over and over again. I sat there thinking about other initiatives McDonald’s is good at, and not so good at, pushing. While salads are available as part of multiple healthier options, most people don’t go to McDonald’s for salads. While research would suggest that only one healthy menu item would deter people from buying it over many unhealthy choices, it seems like brains behind McDonald’s still haven’t overcome the strange stigma of going to McDonald’s and just ordering salad. Another interesting fast food fact that was shared was that people on diets who end up eating unhealthily can make even worse decisions than the average non-dieting consumer, because if they are going to take a cheat day, they might as well make the most of it.

Near the end of the talk, I found it interesting to hear that most people felt full when they finished their plate, and that’s one reason why plate size effects how much you consume. Perhaps it’s because I didn’t grow up eating from plates, but I never felt like finishing what I could physically see as mine meant anything to me feeling full. We refilled our bowls at home until we felt physically satisfied with the amount of food we ate, and while it was customary to finish the food you got for yourself, that was never the indication of being full. Perhaps this is a different between those who typically use plates to eat served food and those who don’t, or perhaps I’m just imposing my personal experience onto an overly-broad generalization with no actual basis.

International Criminal Law School?

Posted on by
1

Last week, I was able to attend the Becker/Rose Cafe with the Associate Dean of Cornell Law School, who spoke about criminal law and how cases can be handled between countries after injustices across borders occur. Most of the talk revolved around the recent American bombing of a hospital in Afghanistan, and how it would be handled by considering the different aspects of the attack, and whether or not it can be considered a “war crime.”

The talk was very exciting for me, because I come from a family of lawyers, but my parents and uncles mostly do litigation and property damage cases. This was perhaps the more exciting arm of the law that I had seen on television, more reminiscent of the Law & Order episodes I had watched in middle school. The thought process that goes into this case is astounding, and I see Professor Ohlins has carefully thought about many different aspects of this case in particular, from how the trial can go to the International Criminal Court to whether it can even be considered a war crime instead of “collateral damage.”

This makes me almost (almost) want to try my hand at law. Not because I want to go before a judge and talk loudly in a a courtroom in front of a jury of my peers, but because it seems like a problem that requires a lot of thought, a challenge that needs to be met, a question that needs to be answered. This is where the analytical essays we wrote in high school come in handy, learning how to craft and argument and effectively convey your own viewpoint. A lot of people say that the things we learn in school, like essay writing and math, are never used in the real world, but I see examples of it every day (granted I’m still in school, but I read the paper). I’ve always wanted to be in an environment where the stuff I learned throughout my life isn’t going to waste, just sitting in a file cabinet in my brain gathering dust, and hopefully I can find that kind of balance once I graduate. Not necessarily doing international criminal law, but something that can validate everything I’ve experienced and learned, the sum total of my life thus far, while still providing new and exciting challenges to look forward to.

War is fuzzy

Posted on by
Reply

Last Wednesday, Professor Ohlins lead a discussion during the Becker-Rose Café about international criminal law with a very current focus. I was surprised by how interactive the talk was, especially because he jumped straight into questions. The discussion started off with talking about the hospital attack. I do like to take the time to read newspapers online, but sometimes I read the headline and assume that I know the gist of the situation. Turns out, knowing that Doctors Without Borders was clearly unhappy about the situation barely grazes the surface of the issues with the event. As people mentioned what should be considered war crimes, it was interesting to think about the fact that we even have to define war crimes and that war itself is not illegal. It was also interesting to hear him talk about collateral damage, as at one point, when he mentioned a small military target with a large number of affected civilians not being worth it, I immediately thought about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He talked about how the ICC tends to not deal with cases of collateral damage because there is too much grey area.

I had never really thought about how war criminals were charged. Perhaps I had just assumed that they were brought in front of the UN like how a President is brought in front of the Senate for impeachment. Apparently, the judicial body is separate from the UN and has existed for less than two decades. I hadn’t heard much about the International Criminal Court and I know a lot less about the Middle East than I probably should, but I was surprised to hear about their arrest warrants. The UN had suggested that al-Bashir be tried for genocide and the ICC had put out an arrest warrant for him. South Africa, a signatory to the founding of the ICC, was obligated by the ICC to arrest al-Bashir if possible. Somehow, al-Bashir was invited to South Africa, and when people started to mention the idea of arresting him, the South African government flew him out without arresting him. This is where it gets fuzzy. If the South African government claims that they didn’t arrest him because of diplomatic immunity, they shouldn’t have rushed him out of the country, but they did. Also, it seems like having an international war criminal arrest warrant should have a higher priority than the fact that he’s a visiting dignitary.

Someone asked Professor Ohlins what he thought about Putin and whether or not he should be classified as a war criminal, and that’s an interesting topic because of the history of Putin’s power and his relations with other world leaders. While there is also a lot of grey area about what Putin has been pushing for in Ukraine and Syria and whether or not international war crimes are being broken, Professor Ohlins mentioned the example of the Malaysian airplane which got struck down over Ukraine, and how that incident could be tied to Putin based on the resources that contributed to the event.

Someone else asked a question about the US’s tendency to intervene in conflicts that might not be of particular American interest. This is a question I’ve thought about a lot because the US is strange when it comes to which conflicts it wants to get involved in. Professor Ohlins mentioned that the typical European thinking is to not get involved, which I tend to agree more with. However, he talked about the need for humanitarian intervention. While this sounds like a good idea, it can also seem quite hypocritical at times for the US to get involved in certain conflicts. I would have liked a bit more discussion on the topic, because it seemed like the person who posed the question wanted to address the problems with intervention rather than simply the moral high-ground of wanting to help others.

Overall, I learned a lot more about current issues in international criminal law than I thought I would. I enjoyed the discussion style of the talk because it worked well with the topic, because at the end of the day, there is a lot of grey area when it comes to war and fuzziness when dealing with the aftermath.

Confronting the Past

Posted on by
1

Not many people knew that we are living on Cayuga land. Not many people know that the University was built at the expense of indigenous people. Even worse, many refuse to acknowledge this ugly past.

 

Professor Cheyfitz spoke of the destructive ways that the United States government sanctioned the horrific destruction of Indians and their culture. First, the Trail of Tears in 1838 was massive genocide that aimed to clear the way for the United States expansion and resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. Then, The Dawes Severalty Act of 1887 split up communal land, tearing apart established communities and their way of life. They also kidnapped children and forced them into boarding schools. Then, they systematically destroyed their culture by cutting their hair, banning them from speaking their native languages, and removing their Indian names at these schools.

 

Indians are still socioeconomically disadvantaged today, which became very clear to me after Professor Cheyfitz’s talk. This is the legacy of colonialism and assimilation that continues to taint the United States, and it still not been rectified. The deep, entrenched systemic issues that function to marginalize the Indian peoples have a long history, and in various overt and subversive ways, still exist today. The next time I set foot in a new place, I will wonder whom it belongs to, how it became that way, and why that is. History should not be erased, and academic institutions should critically consider the roles they played in the erasure and theft of land the Indian people endured.

How much we don’t know

Posted on by
Reply

No, this isn’t a reference to prelim season which is once again upon us. This is from the Becker-Rose Café talk with Professor Cheyfitz. I knew that the topic was going to be about American Indians, but I wasn’t sure exactly what was going to be discussed, but I was glad I went. Professor Cheyfitz was engaging not only because of the content, but because of his clear passion about the subject.

He took questions from the audience and responded really well, whether it be with statistics that he knew off the top of his head, or with personal anecdotes. What struck me the most was the legality involved in reservations, whether it be the lack of prosecution, or their sovereignty (or lack thereof) in the eyes of the American government. He brought up the cases of Wuster v. Georgia and Cherokee vs. Georgia, which I remember learning about briefly in high school. When he said the oxymoronic “domestic dependent nation” in the decision, I remembered reading about the ruling, but not much else. I didn’t know about the struggles of the Marshall court in relation to the president at the time, or about anything more than just the outcome of the case. Even so, at least I had heard something about it before.

There was a good bit that I didn’t know. When Professor Cheyfitz asked if anyone was exposed to such topics in school, most people didn’t raise their hands, supporting his statements of how much we don’t know. He talked about how one of the main issues American Indians are facing is the public’s lack of knowledge.  When someone asked what was currently being done legislatively to help them, he said that there hasn’t been anything recent, that many people just don’t know.

Another piece of information that I learned about was that Cornell is actually on traditional Cayuga land. Professor Cheyfitz mentioned that there have been efforts for the University to acknowledge that the land this university is on was land of the Cayuga nation initially, but they don’t. He talked about how important he felt about knowing and understanding where we are, and I completely agree. A week ago, I had no idea that Cayuga Lake wasn’t just an arbitrary name with interesting syllables. I had no idea that the Cayuga were a people. It seems sort of obvious that the land that we are on didn’t initially belong to the US, but we don’t think too much about it.

I left the talk thinking about how much we as a society don’t know and how much I, as an individual, don’t know. Professor Cheyfitz’s talk definitely made me more interested in learning more about the Indians of upstate New York. He mentioned that many nations had websites about their culture and history, so I’m looking forward to reading through them at a later time. Professor Cheyfitz also suggested a book called The Round House if anyone is interested (though mostly, I am leaving the title here for my own reference).