Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Washington University
Political Review
As part of a new initiative, the Washington University Political Review is now offering magazine subscriptions! We publish three times per semester, at a set price of $25
Washington University
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Volum
Washi ng
W as
hi
ng
to n
e 14,
Un
Issue
1, Janu
iv er
ary 20 11
Vo lu
sit
14
,I
ss u
2,
ar ch
20 11
St .L ou is:
Be yo nd
th e
Bu bb le
Name: Address:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Phone number:
Washington University Political Review Campus Box 1128 One Brookings Drive St. Louis, MO 63130
Editors Notes
WUPRites, And so, it would appear, the end is very nearly upon us. For usnamely, Nick Wilbar and Josh Truppmanthe end is a very tangible thing: graduation, the end of college and, sadly, our final few days with the Political Review. As far as the two of us are concerned, the end represents something of a palpable breaking point. We wont be spending any more long nights in the Print Media Center, and we wont find ourselves at the helm of too many more WUPR meetings. We certainly wont be pulling any more magazine-induced all-nighters, and it seems difficult to imagine that well continue to worry too much about treasury appeals. Again, the end is very nearly upon us. Wed like to think, however, that the bulk of what weve worked towards this year is only still beginning. As an organization, the Political Review has grown tremendously over the past few semesters. Now, more so than ever before, were programming events, putting on fundraisers, and collaborating with a far wider range of student groups and on-campus organizations. Wed like to think that the group itself is trending in the direction of a cultureand that our culture is starting to permeate the greater fabric of the University as a whole. Even if it seems to be happening somewhat slowly, Wash. U. is becoming a more politically engaged place, and were grateful to have been here stoking the flames. The strides that the Political Review has taken, of course, would be utterly meaningless if divorced from the individuals by whom they were facilitated. With that in mind, a great deal of gratitude is in order to Siddharth Krishnan, Anna Applebaum, Peter Birke, Corey Donahue, Hannah Shaffer, Bryan Baird, Cici Coquillette, Michael Brodsky, and Brittany Meyer. Without their contributions, none of what weve brought to fruition would have been remotely possible. From our end, wed like to thank all of WUPRs readers. We can safely say that the last year has been among the most challenging and rewarding of our lives and ultimately, your response to WUPR has allowed this organization to grow the way it has. Heres to the next year of organizational growth and political activism at Wash U. Sincerely, Josh Truppman Nick Wilbar Editors in Chief
Table of Contents
National
From Cairo to St. Louis Nick Wilbar 52% of Americans Dont Know That Peter King is an Idiot Taka Yamaguchi The Case for Public Broadcasting Ben Lash Wanted: Civil Discourse Jake Lichtenfeld Immigration Double Talk Teresa Grosch Waiting in Line Andrew Luskin Who Are You Calling a Mudblood? Lennox Mark The Frontrunner Frontier Steven Perlberg Feeding Frenzy Andrew Luskin
Running on Empty?
International
5 6
19
Canadian Oil, Please? Josh Truppman No Future for Nuclear The Oil Wars
27 28
One More U.S. Mess Eve Herold The Politics of Intervention Kevin Kieselbach The Intervention in Libya Interview: U.P.D.
20 Nicolas Hinsch
7 8 9 10 12 14 16
30 Matt Lee
35 Will Dobbs-Allsopp
Staff List
Editors-in-Chief
Josh Truppman Nick Wilbar
Staff Writers
Katie Ayanian Max Bennet Rachel Braun Tripp Brockway Michael Cohen Mark Dally Will Dobbs-Allsopp Seth Einbinder Jay Evans Betal Ezaz Lauren Fine Gavin Frisch Kate Gaertner Ben-Parker Goos Teresa Grosh Jackie Gunn Alana Hauser Emily Hecker Eve Herold Nick Hinsch Josh Jacobs Alex Kaufman Kevin Kieselbach David Klayton Ben Lash Matthew Lauer Matt Lee Jake Lichtenfeld Andrew Luskin Lennox Mark Molly McGreggor Kirsten Miller Zach Moskowitz Alison Neuwirth Mariana Oliver Steven Perlberg Jannina Phi Dan Rebnord Daniel Rubin Ari Sunshine Alex Tolkin Brooke Yarrows
Director of Design
Brittany Meyer
Editorial Illustrators
David Brennan Laura Beckman Kelsey Brod Amelia Fawcett Dara Katzenstein Anya Liao David Maupin Michelle Nahmad Katie Olson Grace Preston Mia Salamone Jen Siegel Stephanie Trimboli Unless otherwise noted, all images are from MCT Campus. The Washington University Political Review is committed to encouraging and fostering awareness of political issues on the campus of Washington University in St. Louis. To do this, we shall remain dedicated to providing friendly and open avenues of discussion and debate both written and oral on the campus for any and all political ideas, regardless of the leanings of those ideas.
Layout Team
Jacqueline Gunn Katie Sadow Audrey Westcott
Staff Editors
Anna Applebaum Peter Birke Siddharth Krishnan
Art Coordinator
Audrey Westcott
Copy Editors
Mark Dally Madeline Enright Puneet Kollipara Chris Weinstein
Submissions
editor@wupr.org
Web Designers
Will Johnson Marissa Suh
Treasurer
Gavin Frisch
We have all heard the adage. The United States is the land of the free. Like generations before us, we are currently engaged in a struggle to define what exactly this means. We are facing Congressional Hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims, a proliferation of immigration bills that are unwelcoming to newcomers to say the least, and a fight for the right to donate blood. The nation is once again asking itself: Whose land is this? Who shall be free? At the center of this conversation is the media. With the possibility of substantial funding cuts, there is no certainty that the Corporation of Public Broadcasting will take part in this debate.
National
National
Did nobody realize that King was the last public official who should be heading up such a committee?
This would be a serious matter of concernif it were true. After further investigation, no public official could reaffirm Kings allegations, instead providing evidence to the contrary. This embarrassment, which is, at best, an oversight on Kings part and, at worst, a clear attempt to mislead the public, indicates further effort by King to paint Muslims as un-American and disloyal. King is extremely short-sighted in that he fails to realize that by holding these hearings, he has added one more bullet to Islamic fundamentalists stockpile of rhetorical ammunition that the United States is engaged in a war on Islam. Of course, homegrown Islamic radicalism is a danger to all Americans. There are many approaches to tackle this issue. One could, for instance, conduct targeted investigations into imams with suspected extremist ties and teachings, or follow up on the personal contacts of captured American Muslim radicals. There are many options. What must not be tolerated, however, are these ill-advised farces run by bigoted public officials who seem willing to sacrifice American citizens to keep their posts.
Taka Yamaguchi is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at tyamaguchi@wustl.edu.
As has happened far too many times in the history of this nation, doubt has been cast on the patriotism and loyalty of a select minority group. Muslim Americans of every color and ethnicity were the indirect victims of the recent congressional hearings on The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Communitys Response. 52% of Americans polled said that this charade was appropriate. I do not get it. To me, it seemed to be entirely unproductive in finding ways to combat so-called homegrown extremism, but particularly effective in further alienating Muslim-Americans. Muslims in the United States are often unfairly portrayed as violent extremists, but this is not entirely without some basis in fact. I think it is fair to accept that the radicalization of American Muslims is indeed occurring at some scale, however miniscule. I need only point to Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani naturalized citizen who attempted to detonate a car bomb in Times Square, as an example of this phenomenon. The handling of this matter through
congressional hearings, though, is rather different. Lets start with the hearings coordinator, Representative Peter King (RNY). He has famously stated that there are too many mosques in this country, and that 85% of mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists. Isnt this tantamount to a government official saying that there are too many bilingual Spanish schools in the United States, and then launching an investigation into crimes committed by Latinos? Did nobody realize that King was the last public official who should be heading up such a committee? Even if King intended for the hearings to be a thoughtful, meaningful, very fair hearingin which case, he is clearly not the man to deliver itwhat was his end goal? It seems that there were no obvious objectives, and as Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee put it, there is no redeeming factual information that any of us will receive today. It has already been tainted, the Congresswoman said. There is no loud sign of reasoning coming out of this hearing.
National
For some time now, conservatives have had an uneasy relationship with public broadcasting. Uncomfortable with seeing the government support a news outlet with allegedly liberal biases, right-leaning politicians have for many years advocated the private takeover of public media. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees the funding of National Public Radio (N.P.R.) and the Public Broadcasting Service (P.B.S.), has unrelentingly argued that public financing is necessary to support its stations in the short-term. In recent months, these tensions came to a head when current Fox News analyst Juan Williams was fired from his job at National Public Radio for making insensitive remarks about Muslims. But nobody stoked the flames quite like conservative filmmaker James OKeefe did when he launched a controversial project in early March. The scheme involved OKeefe organizing a lunch meeting between two N.P.R. executives, Ron Schiller and Betsy Liley, and a pair of his collaborators posing as donors from a Muslim philanthropy group. The objective, which was centered on OKeefes men professing a desire to donate $5 million to the radio station, intended to bait the N.P.R. employees into making controversial statements and secretly recorded them with a hidden camera. The plan was executed to perfection. As the cameras were discreetly rolling, both Schiller
and Liley made a number of inappropriate slips, which OKeefe then uploaded to his website. The incriminating comments featured strong rhetoric against the Tea Party and Republicans, and, perhaps most damaging, references to Jews controlling the media. Within the span of a week, the two employees were fired, N.P.R.s C.E.O. resigned under heavy-pressure, and G.O.P. lawmakers once again moved to strip public broadcasting of its government funding. Lost in the immediate backlash, however, were some more complicated realities. Firstly, Schiller and Liley were fundraising executives at N.P.R., which means that they were not responsible for the radio stations content. The employees were rightly terminated for their mishaps, but their comments should not necessarily be taken as a reflection of N.P.R.s
It probably goes without saying that any journalist with this severe lack of scruples should not play any role in breaking or reporting the news.
Ben Lash is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at blash@ wustl.edu.
National
National
Teresa Grosch is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at tgrosch@go.wustl.edu.
National
10
Andrew Luskin
Rick Santorum
U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania
Handicapping the Republican primary is a complex task because many of the candidates are already considered handicapped. Here is what to expect from the Republican presidential hopefuls:
John Bolton
Sarah Palin
Governor of Alaska
Strengths: One of the few anti-gay activists who hasnt been caught with another man yet Weaknesses: Google Santorum
Strengths: Experience as ambassador to the UN despite his hatred of the UN prepares him to run a government that he hates Weaknesses: His moustache is downright unpresidential
Strengths: Knows exactly what to do if alQaeda starts recruiting grizzly bears Weaknesses: Declining to run is the only way to show that she has good judgment, a situation she describes as Patch-22
Donald Trump
Rudy Giuliani
Mitt Romney
Strengths: Fathered a large chunk of the electorate; provides a steady stream of straight-talk bullsh*t, the likes of which we havent seen since Bush Weaknesses: Voters may want to elect somebody who gives a sh*t about them
Strengths: Ten-year anniversary of 9/11 will give him a chance to talk about 9/11 Weaknesses: The base may let you get away with three marriages, but not if youre from New York
Strengths: If no candidate excites Republican primary voters, they will sigh in disappointment and pull the lever for him Weaknesses: His hair maintenance is responsible for 35% of domestic oil consumption
National
Strengths: Depressingly, the freshest face the Republican Party has to offer Weaknesses: Makes Dick Cheney seem warm and cuddly; rapidly-expanding jowls may soon muffle him; when startled, exhibits a groping reflex
Strengths: Ancient Mayan prophecy predicts a disaster will befall the world in 2012she could fill the role Weaknesses: Television crews have been reluctant to interview her since she shrieked, twisted her neck in a full circle, and devoured Wolf Blitzer
Strengths: Despite his youth, has a vast and well-practiced store of meaningless rhetoric Weaknesses: Several networks have been known to cut to Chilis commercials during his debate responses; extremely punchable face
Mitch Daniels
Governor of Indiana
Jimmy McMillan
Mike Huckabee
Governor of Arkansas
Strengths: Appeals to Republicans who distrust charisma; most controversial move was switching Indiana to daylight saving time; 57 frame disguises great ballhandling skills Weaknesses: Just a matter of time until Romney snidely mentions the stack of telephone books Daniels must stand on in order to reach the podium
Strengths: Incomprehensible and insane ranting appeals to Tea Party activists; possible Alzheimers disease pays tribute to Reagan; karate expert, may punch Tim Pawlenty Weaknesses: Believes the rent is too damn high and wants to fix rates across the country
Strengths: Extremely likable, like a big homophobic teddy bear; believes that government intrusion is wrong, except when the Bible is involved Weaknesses: Adopted several minor tax raises as governorto the conservative base, a crime worse than puppy buggering
Andrew Luskin is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at andrewluskin@go.wustl.edu.
National
12
The American Red Cross, like a lightning rod amidst a thunderstorm, attracts more blood donors than any other organization in the country, private or public. They reported collecting 16 million donations in 2006 and are responsible for amassing 40% of the countrys blood supply annually. No one can deny that the American Red Cross conducts excellent work in its respected lines of service. Excellent, however, is not flawless, and flawed are the
antiquated guidelines by which the Red Cross determines eligibility. But whose guidelines are they? Issuance of the Donor History Questionnaire, used to determine the donors blood eligibility, is not an initiative of the American Red Cross, but rather of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Many people take offense with the F.D.A. for some of its qualifying criteria for blood donors. Some, such as age and weight requirements, seek to serve the obvious
13
National
Not unlike the federal governments recently repealed Dont Ask Dont Tell Policy which barred willing and able Americans from serving in their countrys depleted armed forces for seventeen years, the FDA bars countless willing and able donors from serving their community through their blanket ban on MSM blood.
has had sexual contact with someone they know to be infected with HIV/AIDS receives the same one-year deferment. However, a gay man who may have had protected, monogamous sexjust once since 1977is banned for life. While we presume the F.D.A. labors under the best of intentions, this disparity in the eligibility guidelines makes a very disturbing assumption about a key subculture in society: that all gay men have dirty blood. Consequently, the F.D.A.s policy is not only outdated but also discriminatory.
The bigotry embedded in this prohibition has awoken the ire of the Pride Alliance of Washington University in St. Louis who organized an awareness campaign to educate their peers about the issue. On Wednesday, March 30 (the same day as a campus wide blood drive), Pride members tabled in the Danforth University Center, informing passersby of the blood ban and encouraging them to join in their letter writing campaign to Dr. Jerry Holmberg, executive secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability. That day, over 165 students of Washington University signed pre-written letters to Dr. Holmberg expressing their opposition to the ban. Jonathan Branfman, a senior at Washington University and Prides social activism chair, coordinated the campaign. Our goal is to educate as many people about the M.S.M. blood ban as possible. Youd be surprised how many people dont know, stated Branfman. Danielle Bloch, a freshman majoring in the College of Arts and Sciences who donated her time and blood, said, I dont see any reason why gay donors cant give blood. By preventing any gay people from donating, the F.D.A. is severely limiting the potential donor population. Branfman expressed that Pride bears no ill-will to the American Red Cross who is merely complying with federal standards and they encouraged everyone they met to donate blood. The slogan of their campaign was, Giving blood is great. Help us give blood, too. Similar campaigns to end the ban on M.S.M.
blood have occurred at Pomona College and Yale University in February of this year. Alex Terrono, co-president of Pride, said, We really hope to remove this negative stigma from the L.G.B.T. community. We just want to participate equally in this great cause. Not unlike the federal governments recently repealed Dont Ask Dont Tell Policy which barred willing and able Americans from serving in their countrys depleted armed forces for seventeen years, the F.D.A. bars countless willing and able donors from serving their community through their blanket ban on M.S.M. blood. Studies conducted by the Williams Institute, a think tank based out of the University of California, Los Angeles, concluded that lifting the ban would result in an estimated 130,150 additional donors who are likely to donate 219,000 pints of blood annually. In a country where a transplant is needed every two seconds but less than 5% of the eligible population donate blood, the eligibility pool needs to be expanded. For the sake of those who depend on a robust and healthy supply of blood donations, as well as for the sake of civil equality in America, the immediate repeal or revision of the F.D.A.s ban on M.S.M. blood is necessary. Otherwise, while the rest of the world advances, our countrys sense of egalitarianism will remain stuck in the last century.
Lennox Mark is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at lennox.mark.ssea@gmail.com.
joelcohenfordays.
National
14
threatening, and Romney is perhaps the most mystifying frontrunner in recent memory. Romney has certainly been winning the so-called first primary, raising significantly more money than any other would-be candidate. The Romney team is well prepared to chart the most aggressive financial campaign course. He is also winning among his partys elites. According to a recent National Journal poll, Romney is the clear favorite among GOP insiders, well ahead of other tested Republicans like Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour, and Mitch Daniels. His unparalleled network of political and economic support could make Romney virtually unbeatable in the primaries. And while Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee are also garnering double-digit voter support in the crowded G.O.P. field, Romney has the party elder backing and plenty of cash. If history has anything to say, he will smoothly slide into the nomination. For years, the Republican Party has converged early on an established candidate (Ford in 1976, George H. W. Bush in 1988, Bob Dole in 1996). According to Gallup, in the ten competitive races for the Republican nomination since 1952, only John McCain in 2008 arrived at the frontrunner label late in the campaign. Even so, as the runnerup to George W. Bush in 2000, McCain was ultimately the only intelligible 2008 frontrunner. In the other nine cases, the frontrunner was clearly established in the year prior to the election. Late bloomers are very rare breed in the GOP. Perhaps until now. The Tea Party movement has invigorated a new sense of conservatism, and it may have more of an effect in 2012 than the G.O.P. leaders would like. Romneys flaws are well known and brutally antithetical to the Tea Partys
History tells us that Mitt Romney, the current frontrunner, will be the early and clear primary winner. But he is fraught with plenty of political demons. He is perhaps the most precarious GOP frontrunner of the last sixty years.
15
National
If the Tea Party is a legitimate force and can harness their power around any candidate, Romney or otherwise, the GOP could have a real shot in 2012.
If the Tea Party crusade is to be truly impactful, there will be room for other social conservatives to topple Romney in Iowa. It could even be someone like Michelle Bachmann. The passionate Minnesotan has already garnered support in the Hawkeye State, pleasing crowds with her spirited rhetoric and Tea Party charm. However, if Romney can convince Republican voters that he can topple Obama, he will get the nomination. In a recent CNN poll, more than two-thirds of Republicans favor a candidate who could beat President Obama. Fewer Republicans insisted on a candidate whose stance on the issues meshed with their own. It will be Romneys job to diminish the Tea Party rhetoric and show that he is the only electable candidate in the field. For Bachmann and other Tea Party hopefuls, 2012 may be an inopportune moment. The Democrats will
positions. His signature on Massachusettss health reform paved the way for President Obamas own 2010 health care legislation. His support of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (T.A.R.P.) and bailout of Wall Street banks will surely be a sore spot with the enraged conservative base. His political baggage aside, the race is still Romneys to lose. And if his shortcomings make him too unpalatable to the average Republican, Tim Pawlentys broad and unblemished appeal might win out in this process of elimination.
not have a competitive primary this year, and thus more independents will vote in the GOP primaries, making it tougher for candidates like Bachmann. She will certainly find connecting with national independents much more difficult than Iowa conservatives. The independent voters will nod to the frontrunner Romney, finding the raucous Tea Party zeal too overwhelming. 2012 will be a pivotal case study in the Republican nominating process. History tells us that Mitt Romney, the current frontrunner, will be the early and clear primary winner. But he is fraught with plenty of political demons. He is perhaps the most precarious G.O.P. frontrunner of the last sixty years. If the Tea Party is a legitimate force and can harness their power around any candidate, Romney or otherwise, the G.O.P. could have a real shot in 2012. Unfortunately for Tea Partiers, their grassroots efforts could prove too disjointed to unify with the G.O.P. insiders behind a consensus candidate. And then, in sticking to their M.O., Republicans will witness President Obama trounce the precarious Romney. In 2016, if a more organized Tea Party movement exists with a larger equity in the G.O.P., they just might be able to wield a frontrunner candidate of their own.
Steven Perlberg is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at stevenperlberg@gmail.com.
National
16
Andrew Luskin
WHaT HaPPeNeD
Just when you thought it was impossible to lose weight while eating 500 calories a day, modern medicine has the solution. Upper-class women in New York City are slimming down with daily injections of hCG, a hormone taken from the urine of pregnant women. Studies have found that when taken in conjunction with a diet inspired by the weight-loss secrets of Gulag prisoners, this expensive alternative to meth helps burn off fat in the arms, back, and belly. Side effects of the hormone treatment include blood clots, depression, headaches, and testicular immigration. hCG has also been used as a performance-enhancing drug, most notably by baseball slugger Manny Ramirez, which explains why he throws like a pregnant woman. As the forces of tyranny in government encroach upon our private lives, we must thank the heroes brave enough to stand up for liberty. One such hero is Montana State Representative Alan Hale, who remembers a simpler time, back before a police officer could arrest a man who had committed no crime, except for drinking a fifth of Old Crow and driving his pickup truck at 90 miles an hour with the headlights off. Hale, who wants to repeal all DUI laws, declared bars the center of communities and, fighting back tears, called drunk driving a way of life that has been in Montana for years and years. Indeed, the state animal is the inebriated grizzly bear, the state tree is the Plastered Ponderosa Pine, and the state medical condition is paraplegia. Having caught the scent of bleeding-heart liberalism in the water, the Republicans in Congress moved in for the kill. As they advocated defunding NPR, a tape was released showing an NPR executive insulting the Tea Party at a fundraiser. The CEO of NPR immediately resigned, but Congress still voted to take away all of their federal funding. How long will it take until liberals figure out that their scandal response strategy isnt working? Instead of apologizing and promising reform, take a page out of the conservative playbook: deny and distract until the publics goldfish-caliber short-term memory finds some shiny new celebrity to fixate on. If youre good enough at denial, you never have to move on to acceptance. The air seems clearer, endangered species are poking their heads out of their burrows, and Americas collective blood pressure has started to drop: Glenn Beck announced that he will leave his show on Fox News. I cant wait to see how the socialist progressive fascists are behind this one! In an attempt to educate young players, the video game Madden NFL 2012 will have the in-game announcers discuss how serious head injuries are whenever a player on the field receives a concussion. The addition follow a general trend in video games, mirroring Call of Dutys extended critiques of the militaryindustrial complex and Rock Bands career mode, which shows a downward spiral into drug abuse, depression, and syphilitic psychosis. After justifying anti-union measures on the grounds that the state was facing a fiscal crisis, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker gave a cushy $81,500 per year job to the unqualified college dropout son of a prominent donor. Public outcry caused the appointee to resign, but not before he received a $16,500 raise for his two months of work. Walker, himself a college dropout, may have taken his election last November as a sign that the people wanted unsuccessful and uneducated leaders. From that perspective, his plan to cut $900 million from the states schools seems almost compassionate.
17
National
After Libyan civilians were targeted with bombs, Muammar Gaddafis son and heir apparent Saif Gaddafi called the attack a big misunderstanding. I completely understandone time, on a camping trip, my friend asked me to pitch the tent, and I accidentally dropped three thousand pounds of bombs on a village. Boy, was my face red! What began as a Cinderella season for the Brigham Young University basketball team ended in disappointment after Cinderella was caught sneaking off with the coachman. Brandon Davies, a key player for the Stormin Mormons, was kicked off the team for having sex with his girlfriend, which violated the BYU honor code. Perhaps BYU just misunderstood the Duke formulanot punishing nonconsensual sex does not imply punishing consensual sex. Other violations of the BYU honor code include using profanity, not shaving, and drinking alcohol, coffee, or tea. It must be difficult to train a basketball team when a runners high is considered sinful. Congress reached a lastminute compromise on the budget, just in time to stop the federal government from shutting down. I was actually looking forward to a shutdownif
the federal government is anything like my wireless router, turning it off and on is the best way to make it work again. The outcry over Charlie Sheens use and abuse of drugs and hookers prompted CBS to cancel Two and a Half Men, so hell come out of the ordeal with more dignity than he came in with. Although the amount of radiation released from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was too small to cause direct harm to humans, scientists are concerned that radioactive isotopes may concentrate in milk. In order to test for potential health effects, WUPR purchased ninety gallons of milk, a pallet of Nesquik, and twelve rhesus monkeys. Because the grocery store only sells butchered monkey, not the live kind, we were forced to purchase the animals from a shady Hong Kong based eBay seller. We quickly learned that anyone who has ever used the phrase as much fun as a barrel of monkeys has clearly never opened a shipping crate full of angry macaques. WUPR is now accepting donations for our staff editors medical treatment and volunteers to sit on the cardboard box under which the monkeys are trapped until we figure out how to get them into a cage.
Andrew Luskin is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. His mind is so sharp they wont let him take it on a plane. He can be reached at andrewluskin@ go.wustl.edu.
?
There is nothing certain about the future of the worlds energy use. Countries around the world are debating which sources of energy are best: will it be nuclear, coal, oil, wind or solar? Questions of sustainability are abundant. Can current levels of energy consumption continue? Perhaps the worlds energy use is acceptable just the way it is. It is because of this volatile situation that we choose to discuss the future of energy. Whether considering the science of climate change or discussing the moral implications of creating nuclear waste sites, the state of energy today tells us a lot about how we as a species are dealing with the world that surrounds us. Of that there is no doubt.
19
Running on Empty?
This begs the question: if the pipeline poses such a dire environmental threat, then why build it at all?
Given this, it is perhaps unsurprising that President Obama recently referred to Canada as a potentially stable and reliable supplier of oil to the United States in the future. Pursuing the increased importation of oil from reserves in Canada is likely to remain a hot topic. Later this year, the State Department will decide whether or not to permit the construction of a 1,700 mile oil pipelinecalled the Keystone
increase in the acquisition of oil from a stable and reliable ally. By buying oil from Canada, the U.S. government can decrease its dependency on unfriendly and volatile governments in the Middle East. Simply put, proponents argue that the Keystone XL pipeline is a potential step that could lead to U.S. energy independence. The problem is that it is not the answer. Increasing the supply of Canadian oil to the United States is undoubtedly a sensible idea. However, this pipeline is not necessary for a dramatic increase in the procurement of oil from Canada. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. could double imports of Canadian oil using existing pipelines. The Keystone XL pipeline is a proposal with significant environmental risks and minimal political and economic benefits. This discussion is far from over. The State Department has yet to study the environmental impacts of the pipeline, and environmental groups seem poised to strongly protest it. As Obama said in a speech on April 7, 2011, These tarsands,therearesomeenvironmentalquestions about how destructive they are, potentially, what are the dangers there, and weve got to examine all those questions. As our country debates its energy future, it remains uncertain if Canadian oiland the Keystone XL pipeline will be part of our nations energy future.
Josh Truppman is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at jtruppman@wustl.edu.
Running on Empty?
20
A closer look at the economic realities of nuclear power shows that it didnt have much of a future to begin with.
dealt severe damage to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan has created grave doubts about the future of nuclear energy in the United States. A closer look at the economic realities of nuclear power shows that it did
21
Running on Empty?
plant, the price they will be able to charge for the electricity it generates, construction costs, financing arrangements, the length of time it will take to complete the plant, and many other variables. Incorrect predictions can lead to enormous financial losses. Nuclear fuel is cheap, but so is natural gas, hence there is no incentive for utility companies to take large risks on nuclear plant construction when they can more easily offer competitively priced electricity without so much spending up front. Will we ever see additional nuclear power plants built in the United States? Not any time soon. Nuclear power plants must become economically competitive with other forms of energy first, which would most likely require a price to be placed on carbon emissions. If utilities were forced to pay for their emissions of carbon dioxide with a carbon tax or were placed in a cap-and-trade system, the cost of energy from fossil fuels would increase, and nuclear energy would become economically viable. Then nuclear power would have to overcome safety concerns. The recent events in Japan have caused support for new nuclear power plants to drop to 43% from 57% in 2008, according to a recent poll by CBS News. As policymakers chart a course for Americas energy future, they should plan to steer clear of nuclear power.
Nicolas Hinsch is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at nhinsch@wustl.edu.
Running on Empty?
22
Never again. The generation that saw two world wars will hope that nothing can move the world to relive some of the bleakest moments in human history. Peacekeeping institutions were set up, and the United States. appointed itself global enforcer. We are approaching an era, however, where the incentives for war could soon override their deterrents. Energy is the currency of progress and is therefore the most precious commodity in the world today. Its sources are also scarce. Without an incredibly timely intervention, the world is headed for war, and the symptoms are there to see. The numbers tell a story. Fossil fuels, the name collectively given to oil, petrol and natural gas account for 86% of the worlds energy production. It is estimated that we have around 847 billion tons in coal reserves, which at current consumption rates would last us for another 120 years. Coal and natural gas, which account for 61% of the worlds energy production will, at best, last for another sixty years. By itself, this is not a cause for concern. At our current rate of technological innovation, this is enough time to shift away from fossil fuels. The real problem is the concentration of the reserves. The countries with the biggest petrol holdings are in the Middle East and the former U.S.S.R. Coal, which as an energy source is environmentally unsustainable, is more equitably distributed. The fear of carbon emissions, however, has rightly put widespread coal use on the backburner. China, the U.S. and the European Union have little or no oil and
natural gas reserves to speak of, and certainly not enough to feed their economic growth. In light of recent events, the Middle East is perhaps the worlds most politically unstable region. So far, the U.S has had friendly relations with leaders in the worlds most oil-rich regions. This situation looks set to change in ways that no one can predict. In 1956, when Gamal Nasser of Egypthimself the product of an anti-West government overthrownationalized the Suez canal, the West was jolted into action, promptly declaring war on him. With antiU.S. sentiment running high in many of the places touched by ongoing revolutions in the region, a similar situation is very possible. This could lead to an extremely dire situation. Already, there have been accusations that oil was the main reason behind the U.S. war in Iraq. While this remains little more than a conspiracy theory, the reaction of the U.S. to a country like Saudi Arabia turning hostile will almost certainly be one of panic. Worse still, China, the worlds fastest growing major economy has the most to lose in the event that oil and gas become increasingly scarce. With a poor record of human rights violations, few things would keep China from pursuing its precious energy reserves. Although most of Chinas power is currently coal-driven, but that does not look set to last, with its newfound emphasis on green energy. The way forward, therefore, is perilous. In a situation where the U.S and China can no longer rely on the Middle East for oil, there are a number
of possible doomsday scenarios. An extended war between the worlds two superpowers is too grim to imagine. Alternatively, the need for energy could speed up the process of economic imperialism, where countries that are economically poor but rich in resources essentially become subsidiaries to the worlds biggest economies, with little or no growth of their own. Factor in Indias 1.2 billion people, with its growing middle class and the global demand for energy will soon far outweigh its supply. In the short run, the temptation will be to stick with coal, but with evidence for global warming becoming more concrete every year, this introduces an entirely new set of problems. If the last twenty years are any indicator, the world is headed towards a prolonged period of conflict. The solution is obvious: a quicker search for alternatives to fossil fuels. Already, it seems likely that finding an alternative for 86% of the worlds energy will have far-reaching economic consequences. The alternative, however, is far too bleak to imagine. Unlike our great-grandparents generation, we will have an environmental crisis to deal with, in addition to a war for resources. If simply finding new sources sounds easier than done, so does the phrase never again, as our great grandparents generation will too quickly remind us.
Siddharth Krishnan is a sophomore in the School of Engineering. He can be reached at sid.1891@gmail.com.
23
Running on Empty?
Running on Empty?
24
When the magnitude-9.0 earthquake struck 45 miles east of the Japanese coast on March 11th, the biggest in the nations history, many media outlets sighed in relief. With only two or three hundred deaths reported thus far, they said, Japan would probably escape the devastating aftermath of the 1995 Kobe earthquake that claimed nearly 7,000 lives. Citing the strict building codes that make many Japanese skyscrapers resistant to earthquakes, they called Japan the most prepared country in the world to face such natural disaster. Weeks after the earthquake and the tsunami, the death toll currently stands at over 12,000. More than 15,000 are still unaccounted for. In many of the coastal areas near the epicenter of the quake, entire towns had been washed away and are now covered
in debris, showing no signs of the community that once thrived there; Sendai, the largest city in the tsunami-stricken Tohoku region with a population of at least one million, saw floods engulf over half its landmass. But when the news broke of the power failure at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, many in the foreign media immediately adopted an apocalyptic tone. Forget the 163,000 victims living in shelters, they said: Japan is on the brink of a nuclear meltdown. Sensationalist journalism is neither new nor surprising, especially given that newspapers somehow have to sell when most people get their news online for free. However, the dichotomy between the Japanese and the foreign medias reporting on the overheating nuclear fuel at Fukushima revealed more than
just the usual failings of the Western media. It was a telling account of the developed worlds schizophrenic relationship with nuclear power. Whilst the striking difference between the angle taken by the Japanese and the foreign media may have raised a few eyebrows, the formers toned-down reporting of the nuclear plants merely points to its desire to avoid instilling hysteria in the population. Although many foreign newspapers noted the Japanese stoicism with admiration, Japan hasnt always reacted to natural disasters with the same equanimity: when the Great Kanto Earthquake struck the capital in 1923, rumors spread about the supposed looting by Koreans and other foreigners. Many Koreans, then prejudiced against in Japan as secondclass citizens, faced lynching and killing by
25
the enraged locals. Times have changed, but the Japanese media seems justified in their efforts to avoid injecting unnecessary chaos. Meanwhile, the foreign media, free from the obligation of keeping its domestic population from hysteria, jumped on the opportunity to report on the pending nuclear holocaust. Comparing the situation to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, many journalists indulged in irresponsible reporting and painted a picture of Japan as being days away from Armageddon. One only needs to take a look at the Journalist Wall of Shame page on JPquake online to see a sample of shockingly careless reporting from around the world. Some of the most notorious offenders include the following: The Suns Virginia Wheeler implied that the commuters in Tokyo wearing masks, a common sight in the capital during springtime, did so because of radiation not seasonal allergies. Channel 7 showed a mushroom cloud right after switching from a sequence showing the Fukushima plant. Welt Onlines Robert Hetkmpfer asked in a headline, Is Tepco sending homeless people into the Nuclear Power Plant? While La Repubblicas Vittorio Zucconi went so far as to claim in an article title that The habit of pain is in the destiny. Of course, not all of the foreign media committed the same offences, and newspapers such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal adhered to their standards of responsible and quality journalism. Nor were all Japanese media outlets guilt free: some Japanese weeklies adopted a tabloid tone, spreading fear without adequate fact-checking. However, the foreign medias sensationalism succeeded in spooking the foreign community in Tokyo. A few questioned, with some justification, whether the Japanese media could be trusted on objectively reporting the events at Fukushima as they unfolded. Some, though thankfully not many, foreigners took to heart the foreign medias scaremongering of cancer-causing levels of radiation reaching Tokyo. The Swiss even moved their embassy from Tokyo to Osaka, despite the fact that there is a higher risk of dying from a traffic accident on the way to Osaka than being exposed to a dangerously high level of radiation in Tokyo. Perhaps the most disturbing of the foreign medias sensationalist reporting was that some news outlets exploited the opportunity to draw attention to their anti-nuclear agenda. The German weekly Der Spiegel seized the opportunity to run the headline The End of the Nuclear Energy Age. In Germany, where anti-nuclear sentiments run deep, the leftwing Green Party capitalized on the crisis at Fukushima and scored an electoral victory on March 27th at the state elections. The Greens broke the ruling Christian Democratic Unions nearly six-decade dominance in the traditionally conservative state of BadenWrttemberg, riding on the momentum of their I-told-you-so rhetoric after Chancellor Angela Merkel hastily shut down seven of Germanys seventeen nuclear plants. In fact, the media scrutiny of the Fukushima crisis took a life of its own as it stimulated debate about the future of nuclear energy. Whereas most developed countries had quietly accepted the need for nuclear energy as a necessary evil, the foreign medias grim portrayal of nuclear power means that, as Ms. Merkel has just learnt, it has now
Running on Empty?
become a political liability. A shame, because less reliance on nuclear energy means greater dependence on natural gas in the short-term and coal in the long-term. It is admittedly a stretch to claim that the medias sensationalism would lead to greater dependence on coal, and therefore greater CO2 emissions in the future, but they certainly played a role in amplifying public aversion to nuclear energy. On the other hand, I would also like to clarify that the foreign media did make a contribution, albeit a marginal one, to the reporting of the crisis at Fukushima and the nuclear industry as a whole. Whilst the Japanese media faithfully relayed the comments from expertswhose interests include protecting their jobs, i.e. the nuclear industry in Japanthis passivity bordered on protectionism, a treatment that the bureaucratic and inefficient Tokyo Electric Power Company did not deserve. The foreign media returned attention to the necessity of keeping the nuclear industry accountable, transparent, and somewhat trustful. They sent a message to the nuclear industry around
Comparing the situation to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, many journalists indulged in irresponsible reporting and painted a picture of Japan as being days away from Armageddon.
the world that it cannot keep hoping that the public would turn a blind eye to its safety risks. Hiding behind the comforting statistic that the likelihood of a core meltdown happening is about once every 17,000 years will not suffice, because unthinkable disasters do happen. However, the unrelenting reporting on the Fukushima Daiichi plant distracts from the painful reality of the consequences of the earthquake and the tsunami. We must not neglect the tens of thousands of people who are dead, missing, or have lost their family and livelihood because of the disaster: that is the real humanitarian crisis. The media has an infamously short attention span. They will likely forget about Fukushima in the coming months. But the victims should not be forgotten.
Jacqueline Gunn is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at gunnj@wustl.edu.
The U.S. response to Moammar Gadhafis brutal massacre of his own people has brought a hotly contested aspect of its foreign policy to the forefront of media.. Whether or not the U.S. was justified in carrying out air strikes over Libya brings with it even bigger questions of accountability, pragmatism and morality. An equally interesting question is: what might the world look like when the U.S. is no longer its most powerful nation? While the Middle East boils over, Africa remains as volatile and dangerous as ever. And with the recent massacres in the Ivory Coast going relatively unnoticed, the media has some explaining to do. The world is in flux.
27
International
to the global community by involving ourselves in multiple conflicts. We simply cannot take on another military effort while we currently juggle two others. And more importantly we cannot continue to exercise our authority as a military might that has no boundaries and no restrictions. When we have yet to truly succeed in paving the way to democracy and freedom, we cannot continue to supply this as our M.O. And so, with the Middle East and Northern Africa in the midst of radical political change, we must revisit our role in these troubled regions. Though Obama did avoid putting ground troops in Libya, his actions asserted the message that the United States has the capacity, and, more importantly, the right, to act in another country. Should we continue to perpetuate this message and elongate our resume of disaster and ineffective intervention? We cannot afford to extend our efforts in Libya beyond assisting NATO as we already are. Worryingly, Obamas speech, which echoed many of the messages in Bushs speech on Iraq, hinted that we might eventually increase our role in Libya. Obama cannot afford these parallels: not in speeches, nor in actions. He should instead choose to focus all military attention on getting out of two countries we have been engaged in for far too long.
Eve Herold is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at erherold@wustl.edu
International
28
government aggression to suppress protests, the situation in Libya had become an all-out civil war. Despite their early successes, the rebels were soon overmatched by Gaddafis superior weaponry. Gaddafis forces quickly pushed the rebels back to Benghazi and were within days of recapturing the city. During this time, Gaddafi had been threatening to kill his own citizens en masse to suppress the rebellion and began acting openly on these threats, launching airstrikes against his own people. In response to his barbaric tactics, many of Gaddafis ambassadors, ministers, and generals either resigned or defected to the opposition. At least hundreds of civilians had already been killed, and it is likely that Gaddafi would have killed thousands more in retribution had he been able to recapture Benghazi. The imminent humanitarian crisis demanded action. Fortunately, and surprisingly, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution in a timely manner, thereby permitting the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya by NATO countries that led by the United States, France, and the United Kingdom.
29
International
Intervening in Libya was morally justified and sanctioned by international law. Yet many criticized the hypocrisy of U.S. involvement in Libya while turning a blind eye to government suppression of protests in countries like Bahrain, whose monarchy is friendly to U.S. interests. However, these situations differ greatly. Unlike Libya, Bahrain is not facing the chaos of a civil war. While a few dozen protesters may be killed in the process of squashing the democracy movement in Bahrain, it pales in comparison to the thousands upon thousands who would have been killed or displaced had Gaddafi taken Benghazi. This is not to say that the killings in Bahrain should be overlooked or ignored. Shooting civilians is completely unacceptable, but the problem with intervening in Bahrain is that it would cause more problems than it would solve. The chaos resulting from an intervention would likely kill far more people than have been killed by the government. There are numerous countries around the world that mistreat their own people, and it is not possible for the United States or any nation to rectify all these situations. The United States has restricted itself to using diplomatic appeals with Bahrain, including adamantly pressing Bahrain to adopt democratic reforms and to negotiate
with the protesters. Bahrain instead chose to consult with the Saudis and use force to deal with the protesters. This is clearly not the desired result, but Bahrain is just one among many nations that uses such heavy-handed tactics. The involvement in Libya is the exception, not the rule. After the experience of liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein, it is clear that instituting regime changes is a messy and prolonged process, often with many unintended consequences that are arguably worse than the original problem. It is usually best not to get involved and even in the Libyan crisis, western leaders were hesitant and concerned of the repercussions. Ultimately, the United States and western powers decided to intervene in Libya because they could not stand idly by while a dictator slaughters his people en masse. They delayed, hoping the crisis would resolve itself with minimal casualties, but it became clear that the cost of not acting would far exceed the cost of acting. By limiting involvement to airstrikes, the United States and Europeans can protect civilians and avoid creating a long-term commitment to regime change in Libya. Of course some realpolitik also went into the differing policies on Libya and Bahrain. Bahrain is an ally of the United States whereas Libya is a nation with rogue
tendencies. In that sense, Bahrain was protected by its relationship with the United States while Libya was fair game. Yet this is not because the United States is hypocritical, but because idealism must be tempered by realism. With the growing influence of Iran in the region, overthrowing an ally like Bahrain would be foolish. Not only would the United States lose an ally, but it would also lose the trust of all other allies in the region. Forcing regime change in Bahrain would likely cause numerous rifts in alliances between the U.S. and Middle Eastern nations that would play into Irans hand. While the United States has a history of imperialist ventures, critics misinterpret the current situation when they accuse the United States of meddling in Libya while staying out of Bahrain in order to advance an imperialist agenda. The Libyan situation was a particularly severe problem that required an international response while Bahrain is an important ally that helps counterbalance Iran. Sometimes different situations just require different responses.
Kevin Kieselbach is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at kevin.kieselbach@wustl.edu.
International
30
Imagine the world in 2040. Lets assume that nothing catastrophic has happened. The world looks, for all intents and purposes, pretty much how it does today, except that the international economy has had a few more decades to develop. Brazil, Russia, India, and China (B.R.I.C.) have seen their economies soar to the great heights that we thought they would, and they have firmly established themselves as global powers. The United States has grown as well but has likely has been passed by China and India in terms of gross domestic product. The European Union (if it still exists), while still a major player, has declined relative to the other five powers because, among other reasons, its population has aged. Ill let you pick your favorite semistable nation and imagine that a crisis along the lines of Libya erupts there. In 2011, the U.S. and key members of the E.U. possessed the necessary clout to get a U.N. resolution
While these nations [France and Britain] supposedly intervened to prevent a humanitarian crisis, the primary reason for the intervention was economic in nature.
passed enabling them to intervene in Libya. Fast-forward to 2040, however, and this scenario likely would have played out very differently. This time around, France, Britain and the U.S. were able to influence the less powerful members of the U.N. Security Council into voting for the resolution,
while B.R.I.C. along with Germany chose to abstain from voting. In the following days, officials from these five governments call for an end to the military intervention. This division is very telling for how conflicts like this will be resolved in the future. In the multi-polar world we are heading toward, these countries will be the major players, and the five abstaining countries are the ones that are rising the fastest. From the foreign policy view of the U.S., and to a lesser extent Britain and France, the rise of these countries will present an interesting challenge. In the past halfcentury, the U.S. has shown little reluctance to intervene in countries to ensure that its political and economic interests are protected. In the case of Libya, Britain and France sought this course as well. While these nations supposedly intervened to prevent a humanitarian crisis, the primary reason for the intervention was economic
31
in nature. It almost always is. France and Britain get 15 and 7.5% of their oil imports, respectively, from Libya, and it is not an easy source to replace. For France and Britain, the loss of their oil imports from Libya would be the rough equivalent of the U.S. losing imports from Saudi Arabia or Mexico. With both their economies still fragile from the recession, France and Britain could ill-afford to see the possible impact of an extended conflict in Libya. The U.S., even with no immediate interests other than perhaps being a good ally or truly wishing to support democracy and preventing a humanitarian crisis, also decided to join in. How would a B.R.I.C. country react in a similar situation? The U.S.s role in world affairs has grown in tandem with its economic power. Although a clich, the line With great power comes great responsibility does seem to apply to the U.S. to an extent, and more aptly put, With great economic power comes great interest in countries that you rely on for key resources. With this being said, it is also important to acknowledge the other grounds for intervention. An interesting trait of U.S. intervention that has developed over time is that it seeks to intervene on moral grounds. Most often the intervention revolves around wanting to protect or bring democracy to a country that is struggling under the oppression of a brutal dictator. But this sense of high morals is compromised by the times that the U.S. did not intervene in the murders of thousands of civilians. This is relevant in future interventions because no member of B.R.I.C. has even hinted at possessing these types of moral concerns. Currently, the members of B.R.I.C. oppose the military intervention in Libya, with some ironically doing so on humanitarian grounds. Each nation has its own reasons for the position it holds. China is wary of intervention in a nations civil conflict, as it does not wish to set a precedent in case it must put down a revolution within its own borders. China is not a democracy, and given its current state and general culture, it is difficult to see it ever developing the moral streak that the U.S. has. Russias position is murkier as Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has come out against the intervention, while President Dmitry Medvedev later rebuked those remarks. My guess is that they are simply covering their bases in case they have to intervene in Georgia again or in some similar country. Russia has the worst human-rights record of the bunch and will likely never shed this part of its character. In the case of Brazil, its experience with foreign (U.S.) intervention against it and its neighbors has been negative, which is putting it lightly. As a result, Brazil has sought a more united Latin America free from the influence of outsiders. India, which has its own internal struggles, spoke out on the issue of respecting the sovereignty of other nations. For both Brazil and India, there is hope that as democracies they will eventually develop some moral concern that will lead them to intervene on humanitarian grounds when it is truly necessary. This potential dichotomy within B.R.I.C. presents many interesting possibilities for
International
how conflicts like Libya will be resolved 30 years from now. With the U.S.s already spotty record on propping up dictators when it suits its economic or political interests, we can predict that we will likely never see a time when the world powers let their morality be their one and only guide. As these powers settle into their new roles, however, conflicts will certainly arise between the democracies and China and Russia over when intervention is allowable. Currently a situation is developing that could lead to extensive conflicts down the road. China has developed a strong relationship with Pakistan and is constructing a large naval base there. Also, important pipelines that will supply China with the natural gas and oil that are crucial to its economic development run through Pakistan. It is no secret that
This division is very telling for how conflicts like this will be resolved in the future. In the multi-polar world we are heading toward, these countries will be the major players, and the five abstaining countries are the ones that are rising the fastest.
Pakistan and India are enemies and will remain so for the foreseeable future. There could be a time when Pakistan destabilizes to the point that the United States, India and Brazil feel it is necessary to intervene to prevent the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan from falling into the hands of terrorists. Will China be willing to stand by and allow that to happen, even if its interests conflict with the intervention? Will the members of B.R.I.C. shed their non-interventionist stances as their power grows? Could this lead to a larger conflict among the great powers? These are the types of questions that await the world when the next Libya erupts in 2040.
Matt Lee is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at mmlee12@ gmail.com
International
32
33
International
The government didnt reform anything when the time was right. It didnt reform the labor market, the production model or enact reforms promoting innovation and entrepreneurship. The main issue, even if it seems like a great paradox, is the weakness of Spanish capitalism.
as an important and influential intellectual who was also driven to despair by the political situation in Spain. As for my other colleagues and I, we came from civic movements and understood that traditional parties couldnt respond to our objectives because they were ready to betray us at any moment. That is why we all decided to found a new party. WUPR: Closed lists of political parties characterize Spains electoral system. Therefore, voters identify themselves with a certain ideology, and vote on a list, sometimes without even knowing the names of the candidates that they are voting for. In other systems, such as the one in the United States, where there are majority elections, there are only one or a few representatives elected to represent a district. Thus, the candidates get to know their voters, sometimes even personally. Dont you think that such a system would be beneficial for Spain? CMG: The model you are talking about is the Anglo-Saxon model. This model has quite few advantages, but still, we dont find it particularly interesting, as it is prone to becoming a two-party system. We think that proportional representation is more conducive to a multiparty system and better depicts the diversity of our society. However, in our last amendment to the electoral law, we proposed a system of open lists combined with the party lists system. With this system, which is quite complex, voters choose the names of the candidates they want to vote for, instead of voting for an already existing party list. WUPR: Lets shift our focus to the economy. The economic crisis in the United States started with the subprime crisis, when the mortgage bubble burst because of clients with no incomes, jobs, or assets. In Spain, the economy entered a recession due to its high dependency on construction and the burst of the speculative bubble at the beginning of 2008. How accountable would you consider politicians for this crisis? CMG: Politicians have a lot of responsibility in Spains case. They have been denying the existence of a real estate bubble for a long time and encouraging people to take on debt to buy houses. Zapatero [Prime Minister of Spain since 2004] pointed to absurdities like the fact that we already exceeded Italys GDP percapita growth and argued that we were going to exceed Frances GDP per-capita growth, ignoring that it was because of the real estate bubble. Spain is a country that has been living beyond its means. Both governments [the PP and PSOE government] supported banks in their extensions of loans, instead of promoting real value-added production. Spain has been a low-cost economic model, which is impossible to sustain. Given Spains standard of living, we could not compete against China or Brazil. The government didnt reform anything when the time was right. It didnt reform the labor market, the production model or enact reforms promoting innovation and entrepreneurship. The main issue, even if it seems like a great paradox, is the weakness of Spanish capitalism. There are very few really big companies. Among the ten or twelve biggest multinational companies, most were public companies that ended up being privatized. WUPR: You attribute the crisis in Spain to the lack of a strong capitalist system. However, in an effort to alleviate the strong inequality that exists in its society, the United States governmentwhich oversees a capitalistic economyoffered loans to the poorest sections of society through things like subprime mortgages, which were later also related to the economic crisis. How might you reconcile these two discrepancies? CMG: There are small differences between the two systems that account for this vast disparity. In the U.S. if you cannot pay your mortgage, the bank takes your house. In Spain, the bank will take your house, your income, everything. Given the decrease in property prices, banks, but mostly saving banks, did not foreclose on mortgages, since they wanted to keep mortgage prices in their inventories. Most saving banks were, in reality, bankrupt and they tried to hide it for a long time. In these cases, governments need to intervene fast otherwise the situation worsens. The reason behind Spains economic crisis is the political crisis caused by this lack of transparency. People simply dont trust Spanish banks, especially since we found out that most saving banks have been hiding billions in debt. Even the government of Catalonia reported a 1.2 billion public deficit while actually having 8 billion public deficit. This country is facing a serious economic crisis, coupled with its worst political circumstances ever.
Vernica Arranz Gonzales is a exchange student in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at veroarr@hotmail.com.
International
34
35
International
Will Dobbs-Allsopp is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at willda19@gmail.com Current Nigerian President Jonathan Goodluck
WUPR
(country)
LIBS
My fellow 1._________. There comes a time when we as a nation must make a conscious choice about our energy future. Are we going to continue to purchase 2. __________ percent of our energy from foreign 3. _________.Or are we going to create jobs in the pursuit of clean energy? This is our 4.________________. Currently our coun try gets its 3. ____________ from 5.___________,6.__________7.__________. It is time for us spur job creation at home while forging a path towards a clean energy independent future. That is why, tonight, I am announcing plan 8.______________________. This plan calls for our nation to end foreign imports of energy by the year 9.___________. In order to do this we will invest 10.____________ 11.___________into the research and development of clean energy technologies such as 12.___________ and 13.___________. This is key to help our children and our childrens children grow up in a world without the rampant pollution of today. Our goal is simple. 1.______________ will become energy independent and break the shackles of foreign imports. This is a matter of national strategic importance. 15. _________________________
(generic presidential sign off) (same country) (noun) (noun) (number) (currency) (number) (Native American hero) (same energy resource) (nation) (nation) (nation) (iconic generational event) (number) (energy resource) (countrys citizens)
Seth Einbinder is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at einbinders@wustl.edu.
27%
The percentage of Democrats that would have preferred to see their party hold out for the basic budget plan they want, even if that means the government shuts down.
**The poll was conducted by Gallup on 4/6/11.
38%
The percentage of Republicans that would have preferred to see their party hold out for the basic budget plan they want, even if that means the government shuts down. Basically, as noted, an incumbent president wants to have a job approval rating at the 50% level or higher to feel comfortable in his bid for re-election. Obama does not have that at the moment. Frank Newport, the editor-in-Chief of Gallup, on the launching of President Obamas reelection campaign.
31%
Job approval for Republicans in Congress.
32%
Job for Democrats in Congress.
**The poll was conducted by Gallup on 4/4/11. Both parties congressional approval ratings are the lowest that Gallup has recorded since opening this particular poll over a decade ago.
We couldnt have our own proposal on Social Security, because it would confuse the public [about] which one does this and which one does that, and once you put another proposal on the table youre conceding that there must be some big problem And were saying that we have a proposal on the table. Its called Social Security. Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, on Paul Ryans FY 2012 federal budget proposal.
43% 38%
The percentage of the vote that President Obama would receive against a generic Republican candidate. The percentage of the vote that a generic Republican candidate would receive against President Obama
** The poll was conducted by NBC News/ The Wall Street Journal between 3/31/11-4/4/11.
Rather than explaining to his population that Jones is a fringe crank whose actions are reviled by most Americans, Karzai has made this his most recent anti-American cause clbre, denouncing the Americans who have paid deeply in lives and treasure to support his inexplicably corrupt and unaccountable government. Christine Fair, a Georgetown University professor, on the Pastor Terry Jones the recent set of riots in afghanistan.