Jim Shliferstein: The Cornell Review, Cornell's conservative newspaper. Many Cornellians would call it "insipid and obnoxious;" others, "journalism on the brink of inhumanity;" still others, "a biweekly contract with the fetid depths of hell, signed with infants' blood and sealed with rotted soul." Its renown is the infamy of Faust and Lucifer; its typeface the typeface of, I don't know, bludgeoned kittens or something. Yes, I think I can say without exaggeration that the publication of the Cornell Review is -- quite literally -- the worst thing that has ever happened.

Or is that worth rethinking? Every year, the paper's editorial board changes, and this time we may just have gotten lucky: the new guard represents a substantial ideological shift from the Rush Limbaugh conservatism once entertained.

Should we dread change? 'Cause God forbid the Review should become a hopelessly-out-of-touch, obnoxious, spite-soaked rag, or anything.

Paul Eastlund, Review Editor-in-Chief: You realize we can hear you.

JRS: Aaah!

At what I'm told was great risk to my soul itself, I sat down with two incoming Review staffers to discuss the future.

JRS: Is this a hostile takeover?

PME: No. In a lot of ways this movement