Wa s h i n g to n Un i ve r s i t y Wikileaks and the War in Afghanistan | Mosques

Political Near Ground Zero | Looking Back at the World

Cup | Offshore Drilling | The Media Against

Review
Israel | The Future of the American Economy |
Lame Duck Legislation and Midterm Elections

Volume 13, Issue 1, September 2010 | Combating Child Obesity | Feeding Frenzy
BY THE
NUMBERS
THE END OF THE WAR
25% 63%
The percentage of all
Americans that say that the
United States is safer from
terrorism as a result of the
Iraq war
ELECTION ‘10
59
The current number of
Democratic senators
THE PRESIDENT AND
THE COUNTRY’S FAITHS
24% 78%
President Obama’s approval
rating among Mormons
20%
The percentage of all
Americans that believe
that President Obama is a
Muslim
The portion of all Americans
that would oppose renewed
U.S. combat operations in
Iraq if Iraqi forces prove
unable to maintain security
7
The number of Senate seats
that Real Clear Politics
projects that the Democrats
will lose in the mid-term
elections
President Obama’s approval
rating among Muslims
IN THEIR
OWN
WORDS
“Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the
Holocaust museum in Washington.”
– Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich in reference to
the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”
“Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque
plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers
site is too raw, too real.”
– One of Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s ‘tweets’ on the
so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy
“But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe
that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as
anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a
place of worship and a community center on private property
in lower Manhattan…”
“I was not commenting and I will not comment on the
wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there…I was
commenting very specifically on the right people have that
dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”
– President Obama on the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”
 EDITORS’
NOTES
WUPRites,

Simply put, there is more to say than there is space in which to say
it. This summer’s news has been nothing shy of nonstop. Whether it
was trapped on Arizona’s border, stuck in the Gulf, or on stage next
to Shirley Sherrod, the center of this summer’s political world has
never stood still and never been anything less than compelling.
Without hesitation, it appears safe to assume that over the next
few months the heart of American politics will beat in-tune with the
mid-term elections. The elections will be sweeping—this much we
know. The Democrat’s super-majority is already gone, and some be-
lieve their simple congressional majority may be in its dying days as
well. Far from electorally safe himself, Harry Reid’s next job descrip-
tion may not include leading the Senate’s majority party, regardless
of whether or not he is re-elected. Again, the mid-term elections will
be sweeping. The curious question, though, is why?
And the answer, it would seem, has a lot to do with the political
happenings that have unfolded since W.U.P.R. was last published.
The President came out against the Arizona Immigration Law and
in favor of a mosque near Ground Zero (well, sort of). Poll num-
bers, on essentially every subject imaginable, have pretended like
they were pin-balls. Even to casual observers, the country is in a
state of flux.
Fully fair and balanced, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck shared a
conversation a few weeks ago in which Beck concluded that the
country was on the verge of collapse. And while this is clearly an ex-
aggeration, the notion that we are in a period of change—regardless
of what happens this fall—is irrefutable. It will be a wild ride, but
one for which all of us here at W.U.P.R. are already white-knuckled
and ready to go. Buckle-up and keep your eyes on the road.

Sincerely,

Nick Wilbar
Joshua Truppman

Editors in Chief
 TABLE OF
CONTENTS

1 The Media Against Israel 19 Lame Duck Dems

Michael Brodsky Assessing the Democratic Legislative Agenda
Corey Donahue
3 All the President’s Men
Civilian Military Relations in the United States’ Army 21 Feeding Frenzy
Anonymously submitted Andrew Luskin

5 Overturning Prop 8 23 Crisis Un-Averted

What it Means to the LGBTQI Movement Failings of the Financial Reform Bill
Josh Truppman Ari Sunshine

7 Rumblings in the South 26 Looking Back at the World Cup

Jay Evans Stephen Perlberg

9 Why I Cannot Stomach Deficit Peacocks 27 Let’s Move! Away from Childhood Obesity
Hannah Shaffer Anna Applebaum

13 Keep the Lines Open 29 A Tale of Two Countries

In Defense of Offshore Drilling Hangover Cures in Britain and America
Lennox Mark Peter Birke

15 Got it Wrong 31 The War on Wikileaks

Obama’s Missteps in Afghanistan Dan Rebnord
Daniel Rubin
33 In Defense of the Mosque Near Ground Zero
17 Mexico’s Drug War Rachel Braun
Why a Military Offensive May Not Be the Answer
Mariana Oliver 33 The Mosque Near Ground Zero and a Bridge to Nowhere
Nick Wilbar
 STAFF
LIST
Board of Advisers Kirsten Miller The Washington University Political Review
Professor Asad Ahmed Rachel Braun is committed to encouraging and fostering
Rep Don Calloway Lennox Mark awareness of political issues on the campus
Dean Ewan Harrison Mariana Oliver of Washington University in St. Louis. To do
Robin Hattori Peter Birke this, we shall remain dedicated to providing
Professor Bill Lowry Dan Rebnord friendly and open avenues of discussion and
Professor Andrew Rehfeld Derek Sun debate both written and oral on the campus
Taka Yamaguchi for any and all political ideas, regardless of
Editors-In-Chief the leanings of those ideas.
Josh Truppman Contributing Writers
Nick Wilbar Ari Sunshine Submissions
Daniel Rubin Editor@wupr.org
Director of Design
Billy Roh Front Cover Illustration
Grace Preston
Director of Content
Michael Brodsky Inside Back Cover Illustration
Stephanie Trimboli
Staff Editors
Corey Donahue Back Cover Illustration
Hannah Shaffer Christine Stavridis
Anna Applebaum
Editorial Illustrators
Art Coordinator Louise Smythe
Kelsey Eng Anita Landree
Carter Malouf
Copy Editor Christina Belderson
John Moynihan Gretchen Oldelm
Noah Macmillan
Director of New Media Holly Graham
Bryan Baird Sara Quatrano
Kaity Li
Web Editor Vidhya Nagarajan
Siddharth Krishnan Snow Powers
Diana Chu
Web Designer Anna Shafer-Skelton
Will Johnson Kelsey Eng
Audrey Westcott
Treasurer Christopher Hohl
Gavin Frisch Amelia Fawcett
Laura Beckman
Staff Writers Anya Liao
Rebecca Craig Collette LeMaire
Neel Desai Hannah Shaffer
Jay Evans
Betel Ezaz
Sasha Fine
Michal Hyrc
Alex Kaufman
Andrew Luskin
Tripp Brockway
 THE MEDIA
AGAINST ISRAEL Michael Brodsky
Since its creation in 1948, Israel has been fighting a war against
public opinion. Although anti-Semitism, the underdog syndrome,
and misinformation have certainly worked against it, Israel’s
greatest challenge actually stems from one-sided reporting. Yes,
what we read about Israel in the New York Times or Washington
Post is almost always factual. But being factual and being truthful
are two very different things.
While facts, figures, and images may be authentic, they do not
necessarily result in an honest recounting of an event. In order
for a news report to be truthful, it must accomplish two things:
provide context for the audience and use neutral vocabulary.
Without doing so, facts can be framed in such as way as to skew
Illustration by Audrey Westcott the reader’s understanding. For instance, if in 2003 news agencies

Issue 13.1 — 1
In order to accurately understand the news, it is vital to learn the
context in which events occur…
around the globe broadcast the United States’ military campaign
against Iraq, but neglected to mention that we suspected Iraq of
possessing weapons of mass destruction, the headlines would
have been factual, but certainly not truthful. In order to accurately
understand the news, it is vital to learn the context in which events
occur—news cannot be interpreted in a vacuum.
Vocabulary and syntax are also powerful tools, and when
harnessed masterfully can entirely change the meaning of a
sentence. Consider, for example, the difference in connotation
between a terrorist and a militant. In either case the individual in
question has either killed or attempted to kill innocent persons,
citing the defense of an ideal as justification. Invariably, however,
the words meant different things. According to the Western mind,
terrorism is—unequivocally—unacceptable. But militantism—
well, that doesn’t sound quite as bad. The public’s understanding
of the Middle East conflict hinges on the vocabulary that our news
media chooses to invoke.
When in June 2010 Israeli soldiers boarded seven Turkish cargo
ships in order to prevent them from entering Gaza, the international
media wasted little time before unconditionally rebuking Israel.
Headlines in the New York Times read: “Deadly Israeli Raid Draws
Condemnation,” while the Washington Post reported that “Israeli
troops raid aid flotilla headed for Gaza, killing nine.” When readers
across the world leafed through these reports, they were effectively
able to draw only one natural conclusion: that Israel is a brutal
aggressor nation, maliciously furthering the Palestinian plight.
And to be fair, if I hadn’t done outside research, I would have been
inclined to make a similar judgment.
So the question that I’m left with is this: why were these reports
so lopsided? Why didn’t they write: Israeli troops defend blockade
against terrorist-sympathizers? After all, the Egyptian and Israeli
governments dually administered the blockade—a fact that
was strikingly absent from all reports. Moreover, the blockade
was only instated because weapons and ammunition had been
constantly smuggled into Gaza by international vessels just like
Issue 13.1 — 2
these. The weapons were then used time and again by the terrorist
organization Hamas, as they wreaked havoc on both peaceful
Israeli communities and bustling urban centers in Egypt. Israel had
repeatedly announced to the flotilla that they would be allowed
to transport their cargo into Gaza if only they would submit to
security inspections. Such is standard protocol to ensure that
no military supplies were hidden amongst the food and medical
provisions. The flotilla captains all refused, responding to Israeli
requests with expletives and anti-Semitic denunciations.
Israel had little choice but to board the ships. Even so, they sent
in their marines armed primarily with non-lethal weapons. Only
the small handguns tucked away in their uniforms contained live
ammunition. Their orders were unequivocal: no action other than
self-defense would be tolerated. As soon as the first Israeli soldiers
set foot on the Mavi Marmara, however, they were assaulted with
clubs, axes and metal rods. Only after these marines were beaten
unconscious, shot with their own weapons and thrown overboard
did the Israelis who followed begin to defend themselves with
firearms.
The Mavi Marmara was anything but a ship full of peaceful
activists wanting only to supply their brethren in Gaza with aid. It
was the platform of a premeditated assault against Israeli soldiers,
carried out by self-confessed extremists. But why didn’t the media
cover any of this?
Our generation is fortunate to reap the benefits of lightning-
fast communication and international media. We are able to
learn about—almost instantaneously—the devastation that an
earthquake inflicts on Haiti, the impact of a presidential election
in Australia, or the inspiring play at a World Cup match in South
Africa. But with the privilege of reporting comes an extraordinary
responsibility, because even more influential than the truth is what
people perceive the truth to be.
— Michael Brodsky is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He
can be reached at michaelbrodsky@wustl.edu.
 ALL THE
PRESIDENT’S
MEN
Anonymous

The release of over 90,000 classified

military documents by the site WikiLeaks
has inspired intriguing discussion on several
fronts. Notably, the leaks provoked a great
deal of debate in the media over the status
of the war in Afghanistan and whether
it is being “won.” The corollary question
would of course be whether the leaks
actually produced any new information
on Afghanistan, to which the answer is a
resounding “no.” Indeed, the most alarming
information contained in the documents,
such as reports of Pakistan’s Inter-Service
Intelligence supporting the Taliban and the
Taliban’s use of sanctuaries in Pakistan, has
been common knowledge among observers
of the war for years. Perhaps a better question
to ask is to what degree the leaks affect the
war effort, especially by putting identified
Afghan informants and cooperative tribal
Illustration by Chris Hohl leaders at risk for retaliation.

Issue 13.1 — 3
The breach, instead, seems motivated by a disagreement with
policy, not Manning’s duty to report an unlawful act.
These questions, however, focus
only on the relative significance of the
content of the documents and miss
out entirely on the severity of the act
itself—the “communicating, transmitting
and delivering [of] national defense
information to an unauthorized source.” So
reads the indictment of Private First Class
Bradley Manning, an intelligence specialist
in the U.S. Army who has been accused of
leaking some 260,000 diplomatic cables
to WikiLeaks (though not specifically
the 90,000 Afghanistan documents). The
ensuing media debate has characterized
Private Manning as everything from a
traitor to a whistleblower, without much
in the way of serious analysis. Manning’s
many supporters have defended him for
his criticism of U.S. foreign policy and
have championed his First Amendment
rights to make that critique public. The
obvious problem, however, is that as a
uniformed service member, Manning’s
First Amendment rights are necessarily
Issue 13.1 — 4
restricted in order to prevent the release
of sensitive—and, in this case, classified—
information. So where does whistle-
blowing come in? Servicemen and
women indeed have the right, and in fact
responsibility, to report unlawful actions
by their superiors—but nearly all the
incidents referred to in Manning’s alleged
leak had already been investigated and
adjudicated. The breach, instead, seems
motivated by a disagreement with policy,
not Manning’s duty to report an unlawful
act.
The WikiLeaks incident of course
comes at the end of a summer marked
by the very public resignation of General
Stanley McChrystal, in another crisis of
civilian-military relations. In that case, the
commander of forces in Afghanistan was
forced to resign following the publication
of comments that suggested that there
was open conflict over strategy between
McChrystal and his civilian counterparts.
While these two stories differ vastly in
scope and character, they contain one
important similarity: a lack of military
professionalism.
A review of the strategy in Afghanistan
is already taking place, under the new
leadership of General David Petraeus. It is
worth noting, though, that this was already
scheduled, and was not precipitated either
by the removal of Gen. McChrystal or the
WikiLeaks release. Moreover, the public
reaction to the leaks will not likely have a
major effect on the strategy in Afghanistan,
which will undoubtedly continue to
support broad-based counterinsurgency.
Nonetheless, these two stories present an
important issue that President Obama
needs to address within his military: the
need for appropriate civilian-military
relationships and, similarly, military
professionalism. While there are channels
and forums for dissent within the military,
soldiers must understand that these exist
only within the context of their allegiance
to military and civilian leadership.
 OVERTURNING
PROP 8 What It Means to the LGBTQI Movement
Joshua Truppman
The last few months have been an important time in the fight
for LGBTQI rights, both in the United States and abroad. On
July 21st, Argentina became the first Latin American country to
legalize same-sex marriage. On August 4th, the Federal District
Court of California overturned Proposition 8, which had outlawed
same-sex marriages throughout the state. Although a stay on the
ruling is currently preventing same-sex couples from marrying,
many have hailed this decision as a breakthrough in the fight
for LGBTQI rights. Specifically, the language of Judge Vaughn
Walker’s decision has provided a well-reasoned foundation for the
legalization of same-sex marriages.
It is important that we look back on these developments and ask
ourselves: what do they mean for the future of the gay movement in
the United States? What can we learn from Argentina’s experience
with legalized same-sex marriage to more effectively advocate for
LGBTQI rights in the United States?
Illustration by Collette Lemaire Before I address these questions, I would like to be clear: I

Issue 13.1 — 5
believe in civil rights and, more importantly, human rights. The
issue of same-sex marriage is not a matter of being on the left
or the right, nor is it a question of what any of us as individuals
would choose to do. It is about the rights that states guarantee to
individuals on the basis of marital status and our responsibility to
guarantee those rights to all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, or
sexual orientation. Just as I believe that interracial couples should
have all of the same rights as couples of the same race, I believe
that LGBTQI individuals should have rights equivalent to those
of their heterosexual counterparts. Access to Medicaid, custodial
rights, domestic violence intervention, and paths to citizenship
are several examples of rights guaranteed through marriage that
should not be withheld based on one’s sexual orientation. In this
regard, even civil unions are not sufficient. As Dr. Nancy Cott, a
historian at Harvard (whose testimony Judge Walker referenced
in her decision), explains, “domestic partnerships [‘civil unions’]
cannot substitute for marriage because domestic partnerships do
not have the same social and historical meaning as marriage and
that much of the value of marriage comes from its social meaning.”
Given the long history of marriage in the United States, it is
imperative that the right to marriage is guaranteed to same-sex
couples. Separate but equal in matrimony is simply not an option.
What does Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling mean for same-
sex couples in California and throughout the United States?
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has decided not to
appeal Judge Walker’s decision. Nevertheless, a third-party group
backing Proposition 8 has chosen to appeal on behalf of the state
of California. Thus, as Peter Henderson explains, “The future of
the court case rests with U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judges
who must decide whether an independent group that backs the
ban has the right to appeal it.” Until the Circuit Court issues a
ruling, same-sex marriage in California will remain at a standstill.
Nevertheless, I strongly believe that this ruling reflects a
significant shift in the way Americans view same-sex marriage.
In the past month alone, prominent Republicans, such as radio
pundit Glenn Beck, have expressed that they are not necessarily
opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage. Even more
recently, Ken Mehlman, a former chairman of the Republican
National Committee, publically admitted to being gay. Although
this has angered many who view his past actions as both immensely
hypocritical and detrimental to LGBTQI rights, it is significant
that most Republicans have either expressed support for Mr.
Mehlman or abstained from criticizing him. Even Dick Cheney
once admitted that he thinks gay couples “ought to get a shot at it.”
Of course, it would be naïve to argue that these are all outcomes
of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling. Cheney’s support of same-sex
marriage—to be decided by states—is old news. Ken Mehlman
probably would have come out even if Prop 8 had not been
overturned. Rather, these are all indications of our society’s
growing acceptance of homosexuality. According to a CBS poll,
42% of Americans currently support same-sex marriage – the
highest percentage since the poll was first administered in 2004.
However, polls do not necessarily coincide with what is morally
and legally acceptable.
Indeed, a key component of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling is that
public opinion does not replace constitutionality. Even if people in
the United States overwhelmingly wanted to make the practice of
Islam illegal, it would neither be right nor legal to do so. In a 2004
USA Today article, Mathabane explains that in 1967—the year in
which the U.S. Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage—72%
Issue 13.1 — 6
Excerpts from Judge Vaughn Walker’s Ruling on Proposition 8
“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling
out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.
Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more
than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion
that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.
Because California has no interest in discriminating against
gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents
California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to
provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that
Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”
“Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less
will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens
suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that
view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning
that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As
such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the
voters or their representatives.”
of Americans were opposed to the decision. The role of the courts
is to guarantee the rights of all people living in the United States,
regardless of public sentiment.
This brings up a vital difference between the fight for same-
sex marriage in the United States and in Argentina. Argentina’s
legalization of same-sex marriage was largely fueled by its support
amongst Argentineans. Opinion polls directly prior to the Senate’s
vote on same-sex marriages estimated that as many as 70% of
Argentineans supported legalizing same-sex marriage. Thus,
despite heavy opposition from the Catholic Church and concerns
voiced by Senators, same-sex marriage was passed by a vote of 33
to 27 (with 3 abstentions). This demonstrates the importance of
public support for same-sex marriage, should it be legalized by
Congress. It seems unlikely to me that we will able to pass same-
sex marriage in the United States in the current context of a sub-
50% approval rating.
The fight for LGBTQI rights in the United States still has a
long way to go. Same-sex marriage is only legal in five states and
Washington, D.C. Thirty states have constitutional amendments
that explicitly bar the recognition of same-sex marriages.
Culturally, there are many places in the United States that are
not accepting of LGBTQI communities. Homophobia still holds
immense power in our society.
In this context, the fight for same-sex marriage must focus on
two primary goals: continuing to push for same-sex marriage
in states with relatively high approval ratings, and pursuing
this important issue in court whenever possible. In overturning
Proposition 8 in California, Judge Vaughn Walker demonstrated
the court’s power to guarantee justice for people living in the
United States, despite the nature of public opinion. If individuals
in the United States are not yet willing to extend rights to others on
the basis of race, ethnicity, sexuality, or any other discriminatory
factor, it is the responsibility of the U.S. legal system to do so. I
hope that Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision paves the way for other
courts to guarantee the rights of LGBTQI communities, thereby
protecting the rights of all individuals in the United States.
— Joshua Truppman is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences.
He can be reached at jtruppman@wustl.edu.
 RUMBLINGS
IN THE SOUTH
Jay Evans
As soon as U.S. Senator Mel Martinez
announced that he would not run for re-
election, Floridians started to scramble.
Rumors and whispers were being spread
that former governor Jeb Bush would
run, with Republicans offering him an
unopposed path to the general elections.
However, Bush would turn down the
opportunity, leaving room for current
governor Charlie Crist to step in. He
seemed the obvious replacement, and for
almost all of 2009 the polls agreed. He had
the support, both financially and spoken,
from the National Republican Senatorial
Committee; indeed, Mel Martinez and
John McCain each gave him their nods of

Issue 13.1 — 7
approval.
Then the New Year came, and with it a
new Republican frontrunner. Marco Rubio
started to grab headlines as he overtook
Crist in the polls. Rubio has been a member
of the Florida House of Representatives
since 2001, and was Speaker of the House
for the last two years. What actually split
the two candidates was the Stimulus Bill.
Rubio called Crist’s support of the bill
“horrifying.” It didn’t help Crist that he
was standing behind the president as the
Stimulus Bill was signed into effect. In a deft
political move, Rubio began to chalk up his
support as the people’s will, thus playing
into the rhetoric of his already growing Tea
Party base. He was quoted saying, “What’s
gaining support is not Marco Rubio, me
the person. It’s our message that limited
government has made America the freest
and most prosperous society in all of
human history.” Tea Partiers ate it up. This
split the voters, which split the primary.
The rift grew wider and wider, until
April of 2010. With the April 30 deadline
to submit party affiliation growing nearer,
there emerged rumblings that Crist would
drop his long-time Republican party and
instead run as an Independent. He had
been steadily losing ground to Rubio in
the polls. Sure enough, two days before
the deadline, Crist filed to run as an
Independent, thus guaranteeing him a spot
in the general election. Right before he
dropped out of the Republican nominating
race, Crist lagged woefully behind Rubio
56 to 33 percentage points.
However, this election is nowhere near
over. As of early August, the two candidates
were virtually tied in the general election
polls. Rubio would be remiss if he
underestimated the popularity that Crist Illustration by Anya Liao
maintains in Florida. Indeed, the clout held
by Crist is one of the main reasons that he rejected by much of the core conservative Florida is a swing state. Some years
remains a dangerous contender. bloc. Does supporting the Stimulus Bill it votes Republican, some years it votes
In addition to the embarrassment constitute a veering from the Republican Democratic. As such, Crist’s political
of losing, Crist’s withdrawal from the Party, or just from a sect within it? stances may prove irksome to staunch
Republican primary came with other high November will help decide. Republicans, but will seem just right to
prices as well. The National Republican However, Crist has not lost all of his many others. In past elections the Tea Party
Senatorial Committee withdrew its Republican support either. In a recent has split the Republican vote, and ushered
endorsement of him, and demanded a study, Republicans polled for Rubio 56 in a Democratic candidate by default. This
refund of the campaign funds that they to 23, while Independents voted for Crist could also happen in the Florida Senate
had donated. Moreover, many of his 39 to 20. Even the Democrats were split race. While Rubio has gained the support of
political supporters seem to be leaving 38 to 36 between Crist and Jeff Greene, a the Tea Party and some other Republicans,
him for Rubio and the Tea Party wave. This Democratic nominee hopeful. So regardless he hasn’t won yet. But neither has Crist.
very fact, however, prompts the question: of the Republican vote, Crist still maintains
did Crist leave the Republicans, or did the strong support among Independents
Republicans leave Crist? Because Crist and Democrats. His moderate stance on — Jay Evans is a sophomore in the College
failed to align himself completely with policy appeals to a wide variety of voters— of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at
the Tea Party movement, he has become something that must be kept in mind. jeevans@wustl.edu.

Issue 13.1 — 8
 WHY I
CANNOT
STOMACH
DEFICIT
PEACOCKS
HANNAH
SHAFFERIssue 13.1 — 9
 W
hen faced with new tax or spending
provisions, policy wonks, economists, and
elected representatives must attempt to
resolve the tension between our long-term
debt crisis and our short-term depressed
economic conditions.

They can choose to:

A. Increase our budget deficit

by increasing government spending
or decreasing taxes (see side bar for
explanation of budget calculation) in order
to stimulate our economy. This position is
often referred as “Keynesian” or “demand-
side” economics.

Or

B. Tighten our fiscal belts now,

recognizing that the recovery will be more
painful, in order to ensure our nation’s
long-term solvency. This position is often
referred to as “fiscal austerity”.

This choice undoubtedly represents a

stark difference in economic theory and
seemingly would provide a clear division
between advocates of choice A and
supporters of option B.
Yet many members of Congress, primarily
Republicans and conservative Democrats,
have recently selected both answers A and B
as a response to the current U.S. economic
recession. In marking both options on
their legislative scantron, these fiscal
conservatives have revealed themselves as
opportunistic legislators who hide their
true agenda behind a smokescreen of
“fiscal responsibility.” Their true agenda
has everything to do with the beneficiaries
of the tax or spending provision. If wealthy
Americans benefit, increasing the deficit
is wholly appropriate and option A is
preferable; but if poorer Americans benefit,
increasing the deficit is out of the question,
and option B is selected.
The Center for American Progress
(CAP) coined the term “deficit peacock” to
describe individuals who, as with the above
ILLUSTRATION BY AUTHOR politicians, “like to preen and call attention

Issue 13.1 — 10
to themselves, but are not sincerely
interested in taking…steps toward a
balanced budget. Peacocks prefer scoring
political points to solving problems.” I
cannot think of a more fitting term to
describe these elected representatives who
brandish their feathers in an attempt to
distract the public, and perhaps themselves,
from the real—and serious—budget issues
confronting our nation.
If you have been tracking Congress
recently, you have borne witness to these
peacocks in action. You have been privy
to the slanted rhetoric surrounding our
$12 trillion debt crisis. Perhaps nothing
exemplifies this more than the recent
words of Senator LeMieux (R-Florida), “If
you stacked 1 trillion one-dollar bills on
the ground up to the sky, it would go 600
miles into the sky.” Thank you, Senator, for
helping me to, as you put it, “get my brain
around” that one.
Average Benefit from the Bush Tax Cuts by Income Level
2001-2007
Figure 1
Income Level Increase in Income
After-Tax
Bottom quintile 0.4 %
Middle quintile 2.4 %
Top 1 % 5.0%
Over $1,000,000 5.7 %
In order to demonstrate the naked
posturing of the deficit peacocks and what
hides beneath their colorful plumage, allow
me to walk you through two budget-related
hot-button issues from this summer. I will
describe the way in which the peacocks
respond to these two issues. At which
moment does option A, stimulus, or option
B, fiscal austerity, better fit their needs?
Issue 1: the Extenders Bill
During the saga of H.R. 4213—the so
called “Extenders Bill”, which included
the extension of many unemployment
benefits of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (a.k.a. the 2009 stimulus),
conservatives spent hours on the Senate
and House floors impugning supporters
of the bill as “fiscally irresponsible.” They
exclaimed ad nauseam that the bill would
increase the deficit. Or they cried that our
debt-to-GDP ratio was fast approaching
the magical 90% threshold, which foretells
an economic Armageddon (for more
on this, see Reinhart and Rogoff ’s 2008
study, This Time is Different: A Panoramic
View of Eight Centuries of Financial
Crises, presented at Obama’s first deficit
commission).
In other words, for these conservatives,
we had better select answer B, even
though unemployment benefits would put
money in the pockets of cash-strapped
American consumers, who would almost
certainly spend the money instantly, thus
stimulating American business and the
larger economy in good, old-fashioned
Keynesian style. They claimed that our
nation simply cannot “afford” to help those
who have lost their jobs and should not
allow the unsustainable spending culture
of Washington to continue unchecked.
Average Tax-Cut
$29
$760
$41,077
$114,000
Issue 2: The Bush Tax Cuts
During the same session, Congress
debated the extension of the Bush tax cuts.
These cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003
and are set to expire, or “sunset,” this year.
Generally speaking, the cuts decreased
marginal tax rates on income across the
board and skewed benefits to favor high-
income earners: the largest percentage
decrease in income rate was for the top tax
bracket, which fell from 39.6 % to 35 %. In
addition, this policy shift decreased the tax
on capital gains (profit from investments),
which also favors wealthy households (for a
more in-depth explanation, see Cap. Gains
side bar).
Estimates from the Tax Policy Center
(TPC), a joint venture of The Urban
Institute and Brookings Institution, reveal
the effect that these regressive tax cuts have
had. Low-income households have received
Capital Gains
The Bush tax cut enacted in 2003
lowered the capital gains tax rate from
the already preferential rate of 20 %
to 15 %. Traditionally, economists
have favored a “preferential” or
lower tax rate for capital gains than
for ordinary income in order to
“encourage” domestic investment.
While the link between lower capital
gains rates and increased domestic
investment is far from airtight,
lower rates incontrovertibly favor
high income earners. Compare the
percentage of income derived from
capital gains across filers in 2007: the
top 400 filers derived 66 % of their
income from capital gains, while
filers making between $500,000 and
$1 million derived 22 %, and filers
making under $50,000 derived just 2
%. This de facto preferential treatment
for high income earners is why middle
and upper-middle class households
pay substantially higher average tax
rates than do the wealthiest 1 % of
Americans—and why CEOs and
private equity managers on average
pay lower tax rates than do their
secretaries. In fact, our “progressive”
federal income tax code could only
be characterized as regressive for very
wealthy households. In other words,
after a certain income level (currently
about $5 million), effective income
rates decrease as incomes increase.
tax cuts averaging $29, while the top 1 %
of households received cuts averaging $41,
077. Figure 1 illustrates in more detail
how President Bush’s tax policy’s widened
income inequality.
The results of this study do not even
account for the stagnating wages of 80 %
of Americans, or the fact that two-thirds
of our nation’s income gain flowed to
the wealthiest 1 % of Americans during
the time of these cuts. Perhaps the most
staggering statistic is the average after-
tax income increase for the wealthiest
400 households during this period—an
unbelievable 475 %! This gain in prosperity
for the wealthy provides a stark contrast
with that of middle-income Americans.
Now that Congress has begun
considering extending these tax cuts,
Issue 13.1 — 11
conservatives have spent hours impugning
those who favor allowing these cuts to
sunset as killers of economic stimulus.
Never mind that an extension of these cuts
over the next decade would cost us $800
billion in lost revenues (see figure 2 for
an illustration of costs over the next four
decades); never mind that these cuts have
already cost us 1.7 trillion in lost revenue
through 2008.
Blessing higher deficits in order to pay
for the Bush tax cuts while cursing higher
deficits in order to pay for unemployment
benefits is an inconsistent stance. This
stance becomes even more illogical with
the recognition that the $800 billion it
would cost the government in lost revenues
over the next decade to make the Bush tax
cuts permanent is more than four times
the cost of the entire extenders package.
Moreover, measures from the extenders
package are not permanent—so the
impact on our long-term fiscal situation is
insignificant. The same could not be said
for the Bush-era tax cuts, were they to be
extended permanently. Figure 4 below
demonstrates the effects of the extenders
bill and the Bush tax cuts on the US deficit
over the next decade.
Only deepening the deficit peacocks’
incoherence, a study conducted by the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that
examined eleven options to stimulate
growth and job creation found that
extending the 2001 and 2003 cuts were
the least effective way to stimulate the
economy. Indeed, they came in dead last.
The CBO’s conclusions are intuitive when
considering that a money transfer to those
Figure 2
Issue 13.1 — 12
who have just lost their jobs is very likely to
be spent, whereas tax cuts for the wealthy
will likely be saved or used to pay down
debt. This disparity is highlighted by the
fact that high-income households typically
spend only about a third of their income.
The conventional wisdom that the
expiration of the top two tax bracket would
hurt small business and discourage growth
and hiring is perhaps the most dubious
point of all. Only between 2 % and 3 %
of all small businesses in the U.S. would
be affected by the expiring tax cuts. This
concern for the welfare of small business
fails to recognize that businesses will
not regain economic vigor until people’s
willingness to purchase goods and services
has been restored.
And to those of you who believe, as
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-KY) and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl
(R-AZ) do, that the revenue effects of tax
cuts are minimal—that tax cuts “pay for
themselves”—I simply refer you to the 2003
CBO study on “dynamic” scoring. This
study, which took place during the Bush
administration, concluded that any new
revenue that tax cuts brought in would pale
in comparison to their cost. Claiming that
“tax cuts pay for themselves” is politically
convenient but fundamentally dishonest.
It does not hold up to logic, economic
theory, or empirical studies—and it is
almost universally rejected, as ludicrous,
by economists of all stripes. The power of
repetition is the only way to explain how
the idea has become accepted wisdom.
In the final analysis, the position
of the deficit peacocks only becomes
Budget Calculation Side-Bar
The US federal budget is calculated by
subtracting government expenditures
from tax revenues (revenues-
expenditures = budget). When the
result of this calculation is positive
(negative), the federal government
is running a budget surplus (deficit).
Therefore, increasing government
spending is identical to decreasing
taxes, in terms of its affect on the size
of the federal budget (at least in the
short- term, not taking into account
dynamic scoring, multiplier effects,
etc). This is why decreasing taxes and
increasing spending are both included
in option A. Both policy shifts would
increase the budget deficit in order to
stimulate the economy.
coherent after examining the distributional
effects of the tax cuts and the “extenders”
bill. Option A (increase deficits to
stimulate the economy) is selected when
the provision benefits high-income
Americans, and option B (fiscal austerity)
is selected when the provision benefits low-
income Americans.
Deficit peacocks are playing a public
relations shell game—misdirection with
economic theory—and I cannot stomach
the hypocrisy.
— Hannah Shaffer is a junior in the College
of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at
hannahbec90@yahoo.com.
Figure 3
 KEEP THE
LINES OPEN
Lennox Mark
No one in our country is ignorant of
the horrendous disaster that was the BP
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf
of Mexico. The incalculable damage to
the environment of the Gulf Coast will be
immortalized in history as a nightmare
we hope will never be relived. This oil
spill, once referred to by Fox News as
“Obama’s Katrina,” could become known
as the disaster of the decade, or, at the
very least, of the Obama administration.
Nevertheless, an all-out ban on offshore
drilling would do much more harm than
good to the American people.

Issue 13.1 — 13
 Indeed, an unequivocal ban is not
congruous with the spirit of America.
Almost everything we have accomplished
in this country was gained only after
grueling trial and error. When a system is
inefficient it is better to regulate or alter
it as necessary, rather than to abolish it
outright. When a plane crashes do we
abandon the idea of flying? No, we critique
our airports and the crafts in which we fly
so that they are better able to handle the
demands of travel. When the stock market
crashed in 1929 and plunged us into the
Great Depression, we ultimately survived
and emerged more capable economists
and business people. In fact, the pursuit of
success, even in the face of overwhelming
odds and financial drawbacks, helped
propel us into both outer space and cyber
space. This experience has better cautioned
and alerted us to an industry that will, like
most others, only improve with time and
By continuing to drill offshore, we will
achieve a greater degree of independence by
producing for ourselves what we have had to
fight and bargain for in the past.
practice.
In the game of diplomatic
hardball, there are various tools that
individual states can utilize in order to
exert their influence over another country.
According to Washington University’s
Dr. Andrew Sobel, these include: tools
of force, such as sanctions or military
occupation, and tools of incentive, such
as preferred trading status. Many Middle
Eastern countries, particularly those
belonging to OPEC, exert such incentives
very effectively, As reported by the Institute
for Energy Research, though the United
States contains merely 5% percent of the
world’s population, we consume 26% of
its crude oil production. This is a feat not
easily achieved. Each year, according to the
National Resources Defense Council, the
demand for oil grows as more third world
countries become industrialized, and
consequently want to snag a slice of the “oil
Issue 13.1 — 14
pie” for themselves. As a result, the prices
that we pay for oil continue to rise, both
in terms of hard money and diplomatic
leverage. Our ability to act unilaterally is
compromised considerably when other
countries hold a monopoly over the
oil that we need. By continuing to drill
offshore, we will achieve a greater degree of
independence by producing for ourselves
what we have had to fight and bargain for
in the past. We thus give ourselves a second
option, instead of relying almost entirely on
oil imports. One day we will be free from
oil—but that is not today. Today we need
oil badly, and to ignore our own reserves is
nothing short of wastefulness.
It would also be in our better
economic interest to continue our efforts to
harvest oil offshore. No, adding our oil to
the global market will not lower gas prices.
No, we will not reap a profit from crude oil
exports by selling what we drill to foreign
countries. But we would certainly benefit
from the hundreds of thousands of jobs
that would then remain intact. As reported
by the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and
Gas Association (LMOGA), as many as
500,000 people rely on the Gulf oil-rigs for
work. Moreover, as the LMOGA further
reports, the loss of these jobs would result
in a $165 to $330 million of salary lost on
idle rigs. Employment means much more
than just the fact that people have money
with which to support themselves and
their families. It also means that more
people are paying taxes and less people
are living off of welfare benefits, which
doubly increases government revenue. The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s
largest business and finance federation, has
repeatedly expressed their opposition to
a moratorium, citing potential economic
repercussions and the possibility of driving
away future business with oil industry.
“The bottom line,” as President
Obama stated, “is this: given our energy
needs, in order to sustain economic
growth, produce jobs and keep our
businesses competitive, we’re going to
need to harness traditional sources of fuel
even as we ramp up production of new
sources of renewable, homegrown energy.”
Let us not keep America tied helplessly to
overseas shackles. We should help both
ourselves and our progeny become more
energy independent by drilling offshore
and utilizing the resources that our own
land has been endowed with.
— Lennox Mark is a sophomore in the
College of Arts and Sciences. He can be
reached at lennox.mark.ssea@gmail.com.
 GOT IT
WRONG
Obama’s Missteps in Afghanistan
David Halberstam’s celebrated look at how The Best and the
Brightest got it wrong in Vietnam recounts a conversation between
Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Kennedy. The
two were discussing the U.S. arms policy and the alarming—yet,
in reality, fictitious “missile gap”—between the U.S. and U.S.S.R.
McNamara advocated for an increase from 450 to 950 nukes, while
the broader military establishment wanted 3000. When Kennedy
presented evidence that the military effectiveness of 450 and 950
nukes was equivalent—and thus provided a rationale to freeze
the nuclear buildup—McNamara admitted he only requested
950 because, given the perceived missile gap with the U.S.S.R., it
was “the smallest number we [could] take up on the Hill without
getting murdered.” This anecdote clearly illustrates the truism:
politics does not stop at the water’s edge. Political concerns have
continued to unduly sway foreign policy well into the present
era. This is particularly pertinent President Obama’s approach to
Afghanistan.
The beefed up counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy President
Obama introduced last December, in which the US would
introduce 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan, would
lead the casual observer to become concerned. For example, the
February offensive in Marjah, a town located in the southern
province of Helmand, was tentatively touted as a military success.
Nevertheless, it was ultimately plagued by the Afghan government’s
incompetence. Because of the compromised success in Marjah
and difficulty garnering local support for the American effort, the
planned offensive in the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar has been
postponed.
In late June, Wikileaks, an international organization with a
penchant for releasing embarrassing governmental documents,
Daniel Rubin
released over 90,000 confidential reports on Afghanistan. These
documents underscored the double-game played by our supposed
ally Pakistan, whose intelligence service may be continuing to
collaborate with the Afghan Taliban in order to diminish India’s
influence in the country. In short, this season could hardly be
characterized as an impressive one for “Team America.”
Obama’s Afghan policy is due for a serious review. In his West
Point speech, the President said, “We did not ask for this fight.
On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used
them to murder nearly 3,000 people.” Those men were harbored in
Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, giving President Bush bipartisan
and allied support to disrupt and dismantle the terrorist network
by depriving the insurgents of their Afghan safe haven. The US has
driven major Al Qaeda figures from Afghanistan, pushing their
decentralized networks into countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and
Somalia. It is claimed that COIN, a holistic approach to countering
insurgents that in Afghanistan includes “winning hearts and
minds” of locals in addition to engaging in traditional military
operations, is necessary to stop the Taliban from regaining
strength. But perhaps the U.S. is taking on this noble nation-
building mission without fully understanding the situation on
the ground, as we did in Iraq, continuing to fight even after no
WMDs were found. President Obama must realize that our major
terrorist foes do not lack countries from which to operate, with
Pakistan’s tribal areas being the most prominent. This begs the
question: why are we focusing exclusively on this one country—all
the while draining our budget—if Al Qaeda is currently operating
from many countries?
This is all the more puzzling considering then state-senator
Obama’s 2002 speech in which he said, “I know that even a
Issue 13.1 — 15
successful war against Iraq
will require a US occupation
of undetermined length, at
undetermined cost, with
undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq
without a clear rationale and
without strong international
support will only fan the
flames of the Middle East, and
encourage the worst, rather than
best, impulses of the Arab world,
and strengthen the recruitment
arm of Al-Qaeda.” Obama said
he was against “dumb wars,” “rash wars,” cynical attempts by “arm-
chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own
ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in
lives lost and in hardships borne.”
Yet now, irrespective of the two wars’ different beginnings, it
would seem Afghanistan fits a similar bill. We have been there
for nine years and have only recently focused our attention on
permanently ridding the country of the insurgency. Improvements
have been made. But the generals want a soft July 2011 deadline for
withdrawal from Afghanistan. Insurgents retain much influence in
the south and there is still significant (although recently declining)
poppy production. Local governments and police forces are
unforgivably corrupt, and our allies are getting squeamish about
their commitments in the face of mounting domestic pressure
to withdraw. These are only a few of the problems we face in
Afghanistan. Why hasn’t Obama been able to overcome these
obstacles?
Obama’s 2008 mandate was sweeping on domestic issues and
certain foreign ones (e.g. improving our public image, closing
Gitmo, and pulling troops out of Iraq). Since the 1970’s McGovern-
Carter era, the Democratic Party has ceded the national security
debate to the Republican Party. Therefore, a young Democratic
President could not appear weak on an issue where the US, post-
9/11, had the absolute moral high ground.
Kennedy’s war-weary Undersecretary of State, Chester Bowles,
wrote, “When a newcomer enters the field [of foreign policy] and
finds himself confronted by the nuances of international questions,
he becomes the easy target for the military-CIA-paramilitary-type
answers which can be added, subtracted, multiplied or divided.”
Given the nature of bureaucratic politics, it is not surprising that the
military—in this case the COIN gurus McChrystal and Petraeus—
advocated for an increased troop presence in Afghanistan. When
discussing the gradual build up of troops in Vietnam, Halberstan,
a journalist known for his work during the Vietnam war, wrote
“You could start with a small commitment; it was always easy to
increase it. It was a case of an institution automatically wanting
to expand and to feed itself. All institutions do their thing; in the
case of the military and generals, wanting troops is their thing.”
Obama, in his long review leading up to West Point, was clearly
persuaded by the merits of their reasoning—and undoubtedly by
the political upsides as well.
As Paul Bowles said in 1961, “Anyone in public life who has strong
convictions about the rights and wrongs of public morality, both
domestic and international, has a very great advantage in times of
strain since his instincts on what to do are clear and immediate.”
Obama has demonstrated this moral conviction in the past.
Issue 13.1 — 16
Specifically, his stance on Iraq prior to being elected and, more
recently, in his defense of the unpopular “Ground Zero Mosque,”
displays a possession of just such a moral reference point that
Bowles describes above. However, with regards to Afghanistan,
political calculations and bureaucratic positioning have obscured
Obama’s tendency to make wise and grounded decisions. This will
exacerbate the possibility of a Taliban takeover in Afghanistan,
occurring in light of a shift in U.S. strategy. However, as public
approval of our Afghan strategy declines, President Obama should
not forgo the chance to follow his instincts and change his policy
with regards to Afghanistan.
A recent New York Times article entitled “The Shadow War”
chronicles widespread counterterrorism operations against Al
Qaeda in the Middle East and in North Africa. The success of
these operations in hunting down terrorists raises the possibility
of a similar course of action in the southern, Taliban-laden
region of Afghanistan and may open a path towards drawing
down ground-troop involvement in the country. However, this
more covert counterterrorism strategy, consisting of “pursuing
the enemy using robotic drones and commando teams, paying
contractors to spy and training local operatives to chase terrorists,”
is potentially complicated. It may increase anti-US sentiment
and lead to an increase in terrorist recruitment; it may give the
sensation of moving forward while actually spinning our wheels
in the mud. For example, on May 25th, the U.S. authorized an air
strike in Yemen that killed suspected Al Qaeda operatives as well
as a respected provincial deputy governor, who was reportedly a
moderate voice in the region.
Moving forward, General Petraeus has stated that Obama’s July
2011 pullout date should not be firm, as the US war plan has only
been “fine-tuned and given the resources that it required in the
past few weeks.” The General recently said the pullout would be a
“process, not an event, and that it’s conditions based.” Although the
COIN strategy may work in the long run, the US is approaching
nine years at war, casualty rates are rising—with 60 and 65 deaths
in June and July, which were the highest monthly totals of the war—
and the U.S. has become increasingly concerned about growing
deficits and debt. This makes sense, as the Afghan War is predicted
to cost $117 billion in 2011, while Iraq and Afghanistan together
have already cost over a trillion dollars. Halberstam said that the
“essence of good foreign policy is constant re-examination.” Obama
must not be afraid to re-examine his strategy in Afghanistan.
— Daniel Rubin is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He
can be reached at dmrubin@artsci.wustl.edu.
 MEXICO’S
DRUG WAR
Why a Military Offensive May Not Be the Answer
Mariana Oliver

This year marks Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s third year

engaging in a drug offensive within his country. This offensive has
resulted in such violence and retaliation from various drug cartels
that it is now referred to as a “drug war” by almost every media
outlet. While the United States is waging war overseas in Iraq
and Afghanistan, a conflict is taking shape closer to home as well.
With CNN estimating over 28,000 deaths since 2006, our southern
neighbor is caught in a war of epic proportions.

Issue 13.1 — 17
 When Calderon initially proposed his plan to use military force
against the narco-traffickers responsible for the vast majority of
crime in northern Mexico, he received widespread support. His
plan was seen as a courageous public defiance of long-held social
hierarchies in which drug lords reigned freely and faced little
government interference. The United States was among the first
to offer a large round of applause for yet another offensive against
“terrorists”; through the Mérida Initiative, President Obama
pledged $1.4 billion in military aid to the Mexican government,
including weapons, technology, and training. The Initiative itself
has been widely controversial. Not only has aid been slow to
trickle in, but more significantly, many are skeptical of using brute
military force alone to combat drug traffickers.
In his third year leading the narco offensive, President
Calderon is racking up more enemies than he is supporters. The
numbers have not been kind to his plan’s track record: figures
show a sharp increase in drug-related deaths in Mexico since the
government’s offensive began. Last year’s number is estimated at
around 6,500. In 2010, 227 killings have occurred in Ciudad Juarez
alone. The recent mass murder of sixteen teenagers at a birthday
party in Ciudad Juarez sparked a fresh round of outcries against the
Mexican government. Despite the 6,000 federal troops stationed in
Mexico’s most militarized city, Ciudad Juarez has become the most
violent city in the nation.
Afghanistan is perhaps a valuable indicator of the effects of
militarizing poor cities that have well-established drug trafficking
rings. When the United States began its offensive in Afghanistan,
the army employed a counter-terrorist strategy, meaning that the
main goal was the killings of Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents.
However, it soon became apparent, as insurgent numbers and
residents’ loyalties continued to hold strong in towns, that the
counter-terrorist strategy would no longer hold up if permanent
progress and democratic rule were to be achieved in Afghanistan.
U.S. commanders implemented a counter-insurgency strategy
that, rather than emphasizing just targeted killings, also included
plans for political, economic, and civic operations.
My point in using this parallel is that, like the U.S., the
Mexican government is finally realizing that using only military
force against a socio-economic problem may not be the best
solution. Like the case of poppy production in Afghanistan, it is
not the poor rural farmers who are contributing to massive trade
in illicit drugs. Rather, it is the rich narco-traffickers who have
control over a system that brings in literally billions and billions
of dollars every year.
As President Calderon continues to use his military tactics,
he is finding that the drug-cartels are so deeply entrenched
and well established in Mexican society that, ironically, it is the
military that seems to be fighting in foreign territory. Recently in
Monterrey, Mexico, residents witnessed “narco-blockades,” which
has become an increasingly common strategy of drug cartels.
Narco-blockades consist of armed men dragging drivers out of
their vehicles (often 18-wheelers), and then using these trucks to
blockade roads against military and police access. In the case of
Monterrey, the drug cartels were able to block off thirteen major
roads in what La Jornada newspaper claimed was a show of force
by the cartel merely intended to embarrass the police.
While the Mexican military is not a foreign invader, for
all intents and purposes, it must act like one, as the drug cartels
have such clear command of their territories. This should come as
no surprise when one considers that these cartels have long been
Issue 13.1 — 18
a part of day-to-day life in Mexico. And while the existence of
cartels in this country is hardly a novelty, the upsurge in violence
is a recent occurrence. This makes sense, given that established
crime organizations operate with the intent of being as discreet as
possible, thereby allowing their operations to go largely unnoticed.
This is one reason why government and police corruption in
Mexico are also not new phenomena. Police bribes are all too
common ways to keep officials’ ears deaf to cartel operations.
What unleashed the chaos from Pandora’s box, therefore, was
not the drug cartels’ sudden decision to become violent. Engaging
in conspicuous acts of violence presents a huge threat to the order
of the narco-trafficking world; this risks exposing their world.
No, what kicked the hornet’s nest was the Mexican government’s
decision to suddenly unleash military force upon a long-known
problem. Threatened with such action, the drug cartels have now
responded with a much more organized and vindictive operation
than President Calderon could have imagined, but which is steadily
resulting in far too many casualties. Instead, the conflict has now
become a turf war where displays of violence become about who
possesses bigger and better guns.
Just because the drug cartels have been an ingrained part of
society does not mean that they belong there. I do not hold such
a position. Rather, this conflict calls for a reassessment of strategy
and purpose. The same way that killing Taliban members without
engaging in dialogue and economic development will not stop
insurgent operations in Afghanistan, making the killing of drug
cartel members the main and sole initiative will not end narco-
trafficking. Mexico has millions of people who, when enticed
with better economic possibilities, will easily replace lost cartel
members. And, in case there was any doubt, these members will
be replaced so long as the dire economic problems facing so many
Mexican residents continue to exist. Instead of military offensives
against people, the need lies in an operation against the cartel
structures themselves, including those who aid in their economic
survival through their own profiting off of drug money. This would
not be an easy strategy, as it would require a major disruption
of social hierarchy and the Mexican bureaucracy. Although this
strategy would still require military force, it would rely more on
charismatic leaders and strong public policy—as opposed to a
couple hundred U.S.-supplied AK-47s.
— Mariana Oliver is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She
can be reached at oliver.mariana89@gmail.com.
 LAME
DUCK DEMS
Assessing the Democratic Legislative Agenda
Corey Donahue

Understandably, for the next few months most of the political

focus will be directed towards the midterm elections. Republicans
are expected to win big as a result of voters’ frustration with the
Democratic agenda. Government bailouts, the fiscal stimulus, and
the health-care reform debate have painted a picture of government
vastly overstepping its boundaries. The lagging economic recovery
is also doing nothing to help the Democrats’ chances of reelection.
With this in mind, one has to wonder what congressional Democrats
can possibly do to keep themselves afloat.

Issue 13.1 — 19
 Congressmen get back from their summer recess in mid-
September. Although many members of both the House and the
Senate will be focusing on their reelection, the Democrats still hope
to pass some bills before the November 2nd election and remind
voters that they are getting things done. As President Obama
stated before leaving for his trip to Martha’s Vineyard, the first
order of business will be a bill intended to help small businesses.
It would allow for tax cuts for small businesses as well as the
easing of restrictions against loans. While in any other year this
bill would pass nearly unanimously, the Republicans are hoping
to block any last-minute victories for the Democrats by claiming
that the bill will be costly and increase the deficit. In addition, they
do not want to allow the Democrats to be able to point to a tax cut
when one of the main pre-election debates will be over whether or
not to extend the Bush tax cuts. These cuts, enacted in 2001 and
2003, are expected to add $3.8 trillion in debt over the next decade.
President Obama has proposed eliminating the tax cuts for those
making over $200,000 a year, resulting in $700 billion in savings.
Republicans argue that the Democrats are just continuing the tax-
and-spend policies that have resulted in the enormous deficit. In
addition, with a struggling economic recovery, Republicans argue
that raising taxes will only hurt small businesses. Democrats, on
the other hand, argue that the Bush tax cuts were a significant
factor that resulted in our debt and that eliminating these tax cuts
While Democrats may yet have plans for the next few months, many
of the important bills are still off the table. Major reforms of our
energy use, immigration laws, tax codes, education system, and
Social Security will have to come in the next Congress.
will help return America to fiscal responsibility. Expect this debate
to take center stage leading up to November 2nd, but it is doubtful
that any legislation will come of it until after the elections.
In addition to the small business bill, Democrats will try to pass
the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) before the election.
This bilateral treaty between the U.S. and Russia, signed in April,
would drastically reduce the nuclear arsenal of both countries.
Each country would be limited to 1,550 nuclear warheads (down
from 2,787 in Russia and 2,200 in the U.S.). Sixty-seven votes are
needed in the Senate in order to ratify the treaty. While some
Republicans, such as Dick Lugar (R-IN) support the treaty, others
have voiced concerns that it could weaken the U.S. military. But
considering that it is difficult to argue that 1,550 nuclear warheads
might not be enough, Republicans might find little support on this
issue. The bill will come to a vote before the election; and, while it
most likely will pass, it will be a very close vote.
While Congress usually takes a break between the election and
the inauguration of the next Congress (the “lame duck session”),
Democrats are strongly considering attempting to pass some
legislation during this time. In theory, retiring politicians, both
Democrat and Republican, will no longer be beholden to their
constituents, allowing them the ability to pass politically risky
legislation. Considering that they would wield much more power
in the next Congress and have the ability to force the Democrats
Issue 13.1 — 20
to compromise on a variety issues, Republicans are clearly greatly
opposed to such an action. But while Republicans are getting riled
up against a lame duck session, it is unlikely that a significant
amount of legislation will be passed. Beyond authorization bills
that would allow the government to continue to function, Senate
Democrats are unlikely to find much support from Republicans
for proposals such as card check, which would eliminate the secret
ballot in the workplace for union certification elections. This would
make it easier for workers to join unions and allow them greater
information in their voting process. But despite Republican fears
and insecurities, do not expect such a pro-union bill to pass during
a lame duck session. Even retiring politicians will not find this to
be a bill they can stomach.
One thing Democrats might try to pass in a lame duck session
is a repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the policy which requires gay
military members to hide their sexual orientation in order to
serve. While recently it seems to have lost steam, the repeal is
awaiting a report by the Pentagon Working Group on a potential
repeal’s effect on unit cohesion. Upon President Obama and
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ approval, the repeal will most
likely be passed in a Senate military authorization bill. While some
Republicans may put up a fuss, with some polls showing 75%
approval of a repeal, don’t expect “don’t ask, don’t tell” to still exist
by January.
The most debated issue will be the report from the deficit
commission appointed by President Obama in February. The
commission, mostly composed of Democrats and Republicans
from the House and Senate, is due to give its proposal for returning
the U.S. to a path of fiscal responsibility in early December. The
committee is chaired by Alan Simpson, former Republican Senator
from Wyoming, and Erskine Bowles, former Chief of Staff to
President Clinton. The report is expected to consist of a wide array
of tax hikes and entitlement cuts. The President hopes that it will
come to an up-or-down vote in Congress and that it can pass in its
entirety. Unfortunately, this is just a pipe dream for Obama and
the Democrats. While some retiring members of Congress might
find the bill to be a responsible answer to an alarming deficit, most
Congressmen will want to reform issues such as Social Security
and the tax codes on their own terms.
While Democrats may yet have plans for the next few months,
many of the important bills are still off the table. Major reforms
of our energy use, immigration laws, tax codes, education system,
and Social Security will have to come in the next Congress. But
don’t expect Congress to be devoid of any debate over the next few
months.
— Corey Donahue is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He
can be reached at corey.donahue@gmail.com.
 FEEDING
FRENZY Andrew Luskin
…A Portl
and mass
that he age thera Mark
made in pist accu eneral
appropria sed Al G G
interview te advan ore o Attor n e y ublicize
with the
National c e s and gr f sexual assault, a …Utah itter to p
Gore a “c
raz Enqu oped lleging ff used
T w it’s the
in Bill C ed sex poodle” and irer, the woman d her. In an exclus Shurtle I su ppose
sticking
linton’s s r a e s c ive ns.
somethin hadow— n out ribed
when Cli of the room. Gore how she called executio alternative to
g out of
overestim the nton dog , it appea sanitary ikes…
ate how q deal. The story se ged his s rs, is still np
of wrongd u ickly the
ice
e med plau
sib
u b ordinates
, he got heads o
oing, citin
lack of ev g inconsis melts—but the Po le—Gore is know
ide tencies in rtland D.A n to
story. For nce. The Enquirer the .c
$1 million reportedly woman’s statemen leared Gore
, Al Gore paid the w ts and an
sexually a utt
ssaulted m oman $1 million fo er ace a
e, too… r her
ne y ha d surgery to pl
…Dick C he him one
pu m p in hi s heart, taking
mechanica l Mecha-
to D ar th V ader. Though
step closer predict
ill ha ve no pulse, doctors
Cheney w back to
m ak e a fu ll recovery and be
that he w ill no time.
ne ig hb or ho od children in
terrorizin g to locate
the th at do ct ors were able
r t found onal, It’s a won de r
id ering that it ha
d been
ou ti t, co ns
e C nstitu o Cheney’s he ar
u prem age unco rich, wh t years…
orn i a S
ma r r i G i n g th ee
r missing for eigh
e Calif ame-sex ke Newt one, but s is
…Th an on s atives li of not iage
marr use of
t e ’s b n s e rv t it y h i s
st a c o an c of eca
u t r a ging
o s e the s r which t ended b at started
o l a h
s to uncle e tha one t affair
stand ges. It’s ys: the on man, the use of an ring
ia a o ca u
marr ned by g ounger w ended be started d he
e a t e a y n d h at w en n
h
thr r w ith r i a g ea e o net e nd
ai ar th ly t i o
an aff his first m oman, or ill probab her expira t
g w w d e s In the
du r i n ge r n
youn arriage a ree has p eople; h e
d as s e ju
e o ut th is summer. es by
ca m
wi t h a m
ber Th
p n the City 2 ne themselv
cond e gay een o …Sex and en who defi ecide to travel
his se that Num esn’t hat d be betw r Ame ri c an w om
aterialism
d
es
decid ingrich riage shou
do l movie, fou g w ealth and m out their lives and
to
G … n ause ati n e a b e s.
a r n th e ir h in selv
date. s that m s of wome e M id dle East to
w
x u a lly
m
liberate the ol for
v e i e to th to se to
belie and a ser uslim wom
en cruitment
man instruct M b e c om e a potent re e…
sure to om
The film is r years to c
e ri c an e x tremists fo
anti-Am

Issue 13.1 — 21
 …Everyth
ing’s bigg
persecuti er in Tex
on comp as, includ
2010 platf lex. Whe ing the s
ble-staff after tragedy orm this n the Tex ize of the
…Flags were solemnly raised to dou Among o summer, as GOP rele
ased their
ir
munity in California’s ther thin it set a ne
struck a small pornography-based com gay sex, gs, w b
make it a the Texas GOP w ar for nuttiness.
symbolic and Freudian
San Fernando Valley. In a highly same-sex felony fo
r a civil
ants to cr
iminalize
a sword from the prop marriage
act, porn actor Stephen Hill grabbed phase ou , kick the
United N
official to
perform
ng one. Hill fled, but t bilingua
closet and attacked his colleagues, killi global wa l ed ations ou a
edge of a cliff. A nine- rming, b ucation, teach aga t of the U
.S
the police caught up with him at the declare “A a n genetic in
s and clo st evolution and
.,
T officers ensued, ending me
it too late rican English” the
hour standoff between Hill and SWA ning rese
arch, and
ped off the cliff to his to give it o
back to M fficial language of
when the sword-wielding actor jum Texas. Is
the tragedy, only that it exico?...
death. Not much can be said about
the sword…
fails to prove the penis mightier than

veloped
t s have de tions,
ment sh scie nt is
emo
t he i r engage her …Engli at can express an than
ed bot
o n a n nounc didn’t even that t h
a robot kes it more h
um
Johnst at they clared a
which m ves…
- d a d dy Levi so in love th e. Bristol de rked out ee
d baby re in o Keanu R
wo we magaz that w his
s to l P alin an eekly. The t hrough the rried, since econd B.P. t
r i W t a s ff
… B f U s d ou t ere m t h e ro o
ke
n t h e cover o st—she foun ntil they w hetic: she is ter, Bristol b baby.
o fir t u op la r
Sarah stinen are pr weeks anothe
to tell e staying ab Her initials le. A couple ave fathered yed twenty-
er e. ho th lo
they w he first tim g to seal the ted he migh to an unemp barrassing
t n it m
so w el l too l o n ad m nga ge d you er now
e r to take fter Johnsto to become e the fame of Johnston is …Afte
sum m ta a d e. ist of r
e n g a gemen it’s a bad ide who parlaye irl magazin cations cons word “ being critic
the rls: out layg alifi refudi ized f
ber, gi l drop with P silla. His qu compa ate or
Remem high-schoo eling stint a red h ” in a Twitte using the
ld od own, W that “ e r
Shakes rself to Sh post, Sarah on-
n
year-o cy into a m their homet p P
n f too.” Th eare l a kespea a
pregna for mayor o alin… o ik re, no lin
n i ng is t o lP having ugh the co ed to coin ting
run p Br heard m n
i ng u sense Palin t parison ma ew words
knock if her alk, it y seem
b e a th speech would odd,
o wri ma
typew usand monk ting team tu ke a lot of
riters… eys sit r
ting at ned out to
a thou
sand

right? In response
…It’s not racist if you’re not explicit,
—all children born
to the boogeyman of “anchor babies” inues to
if their parents are Pa ul Ryan cont
in the United States are citizens, even …House R ep ub lic an
re,” a plan
a campaign to repeal fo r America’s Futu
not—conservatives have launched push his “R oa dm ap
percent of Amer
icans
the Republican party, on 95
birthright citizenship. As is typical for that would ra is e ta xe s rity, yet
hotic. Representative are and Social Secu
their arguments tended to be a bit psyc while slashi ng M ed ic . Though
that terrorist-mothers de ra l budget deficit
Louie Gohmert of Texas warned still increasi ng th e fe outside
ted States, then taking a de gree rarely seen
were giving birth inside the Uni the plan is st up id to ervatives
be trained as terrorists. er ci als, many cons
their children to another country to of Coors Li gh t co m m ils from
camp later, the terrorist- re se ntative Ryan ha
Twenty years of terrorist summer have signed on . R ep his near-
Graham was less crazy in , which explains
babies would return to attack. Lindsay the state of W is co ns
Susteren that Hispanic of cow shit…
but more graphic, telling Greta Van endless supply
child. It’s called ‘drop and
immigrants “come here to drop a
the Republican party: “drop
leave.’” This is why Hispanics reject
d in the same terms used
and leave” describes the birth of a chil
the toilet when he
to describe the uncle that doesn’t flush — Andrew Luskin is a sophomore in the College of Arts and
visits your house… Sciences. He can be reached at atluskin@wustl.edu

Issue 13.1 — 22
 CRISIS
UN-AVERTEDFailings of the Financial Reform Bill
Ari Sunshine

In the wake of the recent crisis, the Obama administration has

Illustration by Laura Beckman
pushed for the financial reform bill that was recently signed into
law. The legislation, officially entitled “The Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act,” is aimed at rooting out
the failures that led to massive taxpayer bailouts of financial firms.
Before analyzing the new bill, one must understand the basic causes
of the crisis.

Issue 13.1 — 23
 The Rise

The first problem occurred just after the turn of the twenty-first
century. With property prices skyrocketing, mortgage lenders
grew increasingly relaxed, making customers more easily able
to qualify to take out a mortgage. People could qualify for a
mortgage without providing any down payment or even proving
that they had any income. It seems nonsensical for lenders to give
out mortgages that had little likelihood of being repaid. It would
appear more rational, however, if they were able to transfer some
of the risks to others. That is precisely what they did.
Inexplicably, some of these mortgages—many through Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac—had the implied backing of the U.S.
government. In their race to promote home ownership, politicians
forgot that some people simply do not have the means to repay
a loan worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Other mortgages
were packaged together, which banks turned around to sell to large
investment firms like Goldman Sachs, who traded substantial
quantities of these mortgage-backed securities (MBS).
These securities were then repackaged into collateralized debt
obligations, or CDOs. The securities were obscured even further
when CDOs were broken up into different tranches, or portions,
and sold off to the banks’ clients. These tranches were so opaque
that despite being based on shaky loans, credit rating agencies
gave them triple-A ratings, implying a low default risk. The end
result was that the final investor had no idea that he was buying
unbelievably risky assets. Investors only saw a triple-A rated
product that returned a higher yield than treasury bonds.
The high ratings helped fuel demand for CDOs and gave
regulators little cause to worry about what the banks were doing.
Meanwhile, the banks—operating under the assumption that
there would eventually always be a buyer—kept churning out
new products. As a result, banks’ balance sheets swelled with
CDOs waiting to be brought to the market. In order to hedge
their bets banks turned to devices called credit default swaps
(CDS). They worked like insurance policies on mortgages. If a
large number of the mortgages defaulted, the banks would receive
some compensation from the counterparty (AIG, for example). the value of these assets would continue to rise.
The popularity of these new financial devices allowed banks and With rampant write-downs and no liquid capital, some of the
insurance companies to create a betting pool that was far larger weaker banks and insurance companies began to fold. Countless
than the worth of the actual mortgages. subprime lenders faded as quickly as they had risen, and companies
The finance companies did not have enough cash on hand to as large as Washington Mutual (which had over $300 billion in
finance their endeavors, so they borrowed and borrowed and assets back in 2007) were reduced to nothing. Bear Sterns was
borrowed. Before Lehman Brothers’ infamous collapse, the firm absorbed by JPMorgan and Lehman Brothers infamously filed for
was leveraged at a ratio of 31:1, meaning its debts were over 30 Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
times the value of its stockholders equity. This high-leverage, Fearing that the entire financial system could crumble before
high-risk strategy works well when a company’s assets increase in their eyes, America’s central bank, the Federal Reserve, stepped in
value quickly enough for it to cover its debts, but when asset values and took stakes in banks and insurers. AIG, which was connected
plummet… with every major bank through swaps, received $182 billion to
keep it afloat. Tens of billions were doled out to major banks in an
The Fall effort to prevent a repeat of what happened to Lehman Brothers.
As unpopular as taxpayer bailouts are, the alternative would
The money that banks had been recording as record profits have been much worse. A collapse of AIG would have brought
suddenly evaporated. Their assets were depleted and their all of Wall Street crashing down, thanks to the high degree of
outstanding loans loomed larger than ever. As lenders saw the interconnectivity created by swap agreements. This, of course, says
banks’ liquid assets disappear, they demanded that the banks nothing of the mass panic in the insurance market. Without the
demonstrate their ability to repay the loans. The problem was that banks, businesses across the globe would lack the funding needed
the banks had little or no available capital. They had used short- to operate. In short it would be capitalism without capital. The
term loans to finance purchases of MBS’s and CDOs that wouldn’t drawback to the current system is the massive budget deficits that
mature for decades. Everything depended on the assumption that our country currently faces.

Issue 13.1 — 24
 The Fix
The Wall Street reform bill was created to prevent a repeat of
the financial collapse. However, instead of addressing the issues
head on, the bill passes along the majority of the responsibility to
regulators, such as the Security Exchange Commission (SEC). The
majority of the 2300-page document is nothing more than helpful
tips for future members of regulatory agencies. Even a fervent
advocate for the bill, Representative Paul Kanjorski, (D-PA),
acknowledges its shortcomings. In reference to his amendment
that attempts to regulate companies that are “too big to fail,”
Mr. Kanjorski said in an interview, “It merely authorizes the
regulators to use a series of standards to determine whether or not
a particular financial company comes into that category of being
riskful.” The very same SEC, in which Congress is placing so much
trust, was complicit in creating the crisis to begin with. In 2004
they increased the amount of leverage that banks were allowed
to use by agreeing to a method of measuring risk that the banks
themselves created.
Do we need more regulation than we had during the crisis?
Absolutely. But this bill doesn’t truly deliver that. It creates a fancy
new Financial Stability Oversight Council, which sounds impressive
but whose main task is to simply make recommendations to the
Federal Reserve. Beyond that, most of the burden of regulation is
heaped onto existing supervisory bodies. If they couldn’t keep up
with their duties in 2007, they cannot realistically be expected to
efficiently deal with the mountains of requests that Congress has
thrown their way.
The bill did, however, significantly reform Wall Street itself in
one principal way. The section known as the “Volcker Rule” limits
banks’ abilities to make risky investments with their own capital.
This is intended to prevent banks from sustaining heavy trading
losses that would leave them too weak to lend. Nevertheless, the
rule will not prevent large banks from making risky bets. They will
continue to act as counterparties on their clients’ deals, allowing
them to remain active in the trading world. This portion of the bill
is a step in the right direction, but considering that it is supposed
to prevent another crisis, a mere step in the right direction is not
enough.
Half of the bill is dedicated to defending consumers from
potentially predatory actions by credit card and mortgage
companies. President Obama trumpets this part: “It will prevent
a financial crisis like this from happening again, by protecting
consumers against the unfair practices of credit card companies
and mortgage lenders.” Bad news, Mr. President. This crisis was
not caused by high credit card rates. It was caused by mortgage
companies writing as many loans as humanly possible because they
held none of the risk. It was caused by banks being obscenely over-
leveraged and credit rating agencies that failed to fully investigate
complex financial instruments. Extra regulation of mortgage
lenders is welcome, though no significant impact is likely, since
Washington failed to deal with the giants Fannie and Freddie.
These mortgage behemoths helped facilitate the housing bubble
by buying up or guaranteeing (using government funds) over $5
trillion worth of mortgages. The problem with Fannie and Freddie
is that profit seeking and the social good often have conflicts of
interest. Because they were beholden to stockowners, they were
forced to keep up with the investment banks in terms of leverage
and level of risk. This led to immense amounts of risky mortgages
being created without caution because they had the implied
backing of the U.S. Treasury. The mortgage giants, and their $5
trillion dollar balance sheet, are not even addressed in the bill
despite their significant impact on the crisis.
Also omitted are the credit rating agencies and the capital
requirements of banks. The credit rating agencies failed to analyze
the toxic mortgage securities thoroughly, probably because the
very banks selling the securities are the ones paying the agencies.
Washington’s solution: directing the SEC to complete a two-year
study on the matter. As for the high-leverage, low-capital strategy
that forced the government to bail out Wall Street, Congress
decided to leave it up to the trusty regulators, just as it was
during the crisis. It took Lincoln 272 words to convey his ideas
in the Gettysburg address. But in over 390,000 words, Congress
was unable to write a reform bill that addresses major causes of a
financial crisis.
— Ari Sunshine is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences.
He can be reached at arisunshine@go.wustl.edu.
Issue 13.1 — 25
 LOOKING
BACK AT THE
WORLD CUP
Illustration by Kelsey Eng
Weeks after the final gasps of the vuvuzelas, the euphoria of
Landon Donovan’s last-second-goal against Algeria has finally
started to wear off. But amid the YouTube reaction videos and the
countless Facebook statuses, the inescapable question remains:
Will the U.S. National Soccer Team’s achievement propel soccer to
continued national prominence?
Heading into June, all the elements seemed to be right for an
American feel-good story at the World Cup. Although the U.S.
squad had some household names, it certainly was not a “dream
team.” But as underdogs, they were just so easy to like.
In the months leading up to the World Cup, there seemed to be a
perfect storm of soccer brewing. Prominent American athletes had
been playing with European Clubs, Major League Soccer continued
its plans to expand and EA Sports’ FIFA 2010 held a firm position
in American Xbox 360’s. Once the largest sporting event in the
world was added into the mix, you had an unparalleled amount
Issue 13.1 — 26
Steven Perlberg
of American excitement. The numbers speak for themselves: 19.4
million tuned in for the US-Ghana match.
After being slotted against England in the heavily hyped opening
match, our boys came through and stunned the British in a 1-1
draw. But it wasn’t until the U.S. came from behind to tie Slovenia
and was prevented from winning only by way of a referee’s terrible
call that the nation was truly brought together. The Americans’
near-win over Slovenia ultimately set the stage for the most famous
moment: Landon Donovan’s late goal that beat Algeria, putting the
unlikely underdogs atop Group C. And, despite the heartbreaking
2-1 loss against Ghana that sent the team back to the States, there
was a warm appreciation awaiting back home.
Now that it is all over, and with Brazil 2014 still far away, many
Americans wonder if soccer is here to stay, or if it is safe to stop
following Jozy Altidore’s Twitter. There is no doubt this summer’s
performance was a huge step. Americans gained a certain
international legitimacy on the soccer pitch. After all, making it
to the knockout round warrants praise, especially considering that
both of 2006’s finalists, France and Italy, were absent.
But for the yearlong American football hooligan, you can rest
assured that Joe the Plumber will not trounce your scarf-wearing
niche sport. Even with aging soccer giants like Thierry Henry
arriving to play in New York, Major League Soccer will not gain
much notoriety in an already congested sports market.
While it was certainly fun to support a ragtag group of near-
overachievers, Americans will demand more in the future. The
grittiness and perseverance was admirable, but the Americans
must learn how to score before 2014. Suffice to say, the intrinsic
American need to win now, and in the future, resides on the soccer
pitch too. The cute underdog story is so last summer.
In the mean time, unless the MLS can reach the same professional
status as the top European leagues, the World Cup will be nothing
more than a novelty to Americans. Like the Olympics, the World
Cup will arrive every four years to pomp and circumstance and, if
we’re lucky, induce a month-long patriotic fervor, only to inevitably
fade into obscurity. But as we complete our fantasy football drafts
and lament over LeBron in the coming weeks, let us not forget
about that one beautiful second where Landon (and his endearing
hairline) made us all proud to live in the United States of America.
— Steven Perlberg is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences.
He can be reached at stevenperlberg@gmail.com.
 LET’S MOVE!
AWAY FROM
CHILDHOOD
OBESITY
Anna Applebaum
Say you are an average American adult,
feeling a bit hungry around lunchtime.
Though every person has a different
standard of health for their body depending
on gender, height, weight and level of
physical fitness, assume that you consume
close to the average 2,000 calories per day
recommended by nutrition labels. Now
say you wander into a local Friendly’s and
order something off the Kids Menu – a
Mac & Cheese Quesadilla Meal. Eating
food intended for a young child, you’ve just
consumed nearly 2,300 calories in one meal.

Issue 13.1 — 27

That figure is shocking. Yet what’s even
more shocking is that it is no anomaly,
no hidden, malicious plot by Friendly’s
Restaurant to clog the arteries of young
children. In fact, walk into an A&W,
Outback Steakhouse, or Steak N’ Shake,
and you can easily find items on kids menus
that are over 1,000 calories each. While
these restaurants are fast food places and
not known for their healthy eating options,
there is no excuse for their unbelievably
unhealthy dishes for children. To put it
frankly, it’s nauseating, and all part of the
new and sad trend hitting homes across
America – childhood obesity.
Nearly one in three children in the
United States is overweight or obese.
Take a second to consider exactly how
devastating that statistic really is. Walking
across America, one out of every three
kids you see is unhealthy because of how
they are eating. It is not just that they look
a little chubby; it is that one third of all
children born in America after 2000 will
contract diabetes at some point during
their lives. It is that countless others will
face heart disease, high blood pressure,
cancer and other chronic health problems
as a result of obesity. It is appalling to think
that American children are facing lifelong
battles with serious health problems all
Issue 13.1 — 28
because of the type and amount of food
they are ingesting at home and at school.
This is a very serious issue, and one that
cannot be ignored. After all, unhealthy
kids become unhealthy adults, draining
thousands of dollars in healthcare costs.
Research has also shown that when kids
do not receive proper nutrition, they fall
behind in school and are less likely to
Walking across America, one out of every
three kids you see is unhealthy because of
how they are eating.
engage in their communities. Not only will
unhealthy eating plague these kids’ health
for years, it will also contribute to a less
productive American society.
There is hope for reversing these trends,
however. Recently, childhood obesity
has started to be investigated as a serious
problem, thanks to First Lady Michelle
Obama’s new initiative known as Let’s
Move! This initiative has “the ambitious
goal of solving the challenge of childhood
obesity within a generation so that
children born today will reach adulthood
at a healthy weight,” according to the
Let’s Move! website. Some have criticized
Michelle Obama, arguing that this issue is
safe, well within the traditional bounds of
First Lady politics, and chosen for political
posturing. Yet there is nothing easy and
nothing simple about the combustible mix
of reasons for the rising rates of childhood
obesity. After all, there is no one cause for
this problem. Instead, it is the low funding
for school lunch programs, which leads
schools to choose the cheapest—and often
unhealthiest—options for their cafeterias
and vending machines. It is the higher
cost of healthy foods, driving low-income
families to eat at fast food restaurants
night after night. It is the existence of
dozens of “food deserts” across the United
States – areas where there is literally no
access to fresh fruits and vegetables. And
it is the increasingly sedentary lifestyle of
American children today, who spend on
average more than 7.5 hours a day watching
TV and movies, using cell phones and
computers for entertainment, and playing
video games.
Yet since the launch of Let’s Move!
in February of this year, the First Lady
has proven that there can be significant
progress against childhood obesity. She
has shaped the discussion by focusing
on the role of nutrition and exercise in
healthy lifestyles, not on body image and
“fat” versus “skinny”. She has created a
four pillar approach to tackling the issue
that emphasizes helping parents make
better choices, providing healthy food in
schools, improving access to affordable,
healthy foods, and increasing physical
activity. As well, the First Lady has focused
the national dialogue on healthy living in
general, realizing that childhood obesity
is reduced not just by smaller portions
and less calories, but by healthy families
working together.
So far, Let’s Move! has been a
powerhouse of momentum. In only six
months, it has ushered in the Task Force
on Childhood Obesity which conducts
research on childhood obesity; started the
program Chefs Move to Schools, getting
chefs to adopt schools and help educate
kids about food; and shepherded a bill for
the funding of new, healthier programs
for school lunches through Congress with
strong bipartisan support. In an age where
bureaucratic stalls and public apathy seem
to be the norm, the First Lady’s initiative
is quickly becoming an undeniable success
story.
Of course, the real test will be whether
families across America take up this cause
with as much vigor and determination as
the First Lady. After all, this is a problem
that cannot just be solved by laws passed
in Congress, or with increased media
attention. Instead, it needs the support of
individual people – parents, educators,
doctors, and businesses – working together
to provide a healthier, happier lifestyle
for America’s children. Hopefully in a few
years, kids’ meals will not look quite so
frightening.
— Anna Applebaum is a sophomore in the
College of Arts and Sciences. She can be
reached at a.applebaum@wustl.edu.
A TALE OF TWO
COUNTRIES Hangover Cures in Britain and America
Peter Birke

Leaders in both the United States and Britain have convinced

Illustration by Amelia Fawcett
citizens that it is a new dawn in their countries. Unfortunately the
new dawn has greeted both nations with pounding fiscal hangovers
after a night of spending binges and absent regulatory inhibitions.
China, India, and Brazil have completed their morning run and
are already halfway done with the Sunday Edition of The New York
Times. Bloated and sluggish, America and Britain will be lucky to
rise before noon.

Issue 13.1 — 29
 Britain
A year ago, I wrote an article about Conservative Party Leader
David Cameron and his quest to become British Prime Minister.
While he did not breeze into Number 10 Downing Street as easily
as expected, Cameron managed to forge a coalition government
with the Liberal Democrats to become the youngest prime minister
in nearly two centuries.
His coalition government had little time to bask in victory.
Britain’s massive budget deficit totaled 12 % of its GDP in 2010—
even surpassing Greece, the graveyard of capitalism, for the largest
budget deficit in the European Union. It quickly became apparent
that Cameron’s response to this fiscal crisis would define his tenure.
On June 22 Cameron’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, George
Osborne, released the Cabinet’s emergency budget which seeks
to restore Britain’s financial solvency. The budget would reduce
government expenditures by 6.3 % of its GDP by 2015. Three
quarters of the budget cut will be made through retrenchment
(budget cuts) while increased taxes will compose the rest. The
biggest retrenchment would lie in public services: government
departments would be forced to cut their individual budgets by a
crippling 25 % by 2015. The significant tax increase will be a rise in
the value added tax (VAT), a type of consumption tax, from 17.5
to 20 %.
These austerity measures are designed to preserve investor
confidence: if investors are nervous about Britain’s ability to pay its
bills, they will shy away from buying British government bonds.
Britain would then be forced to entice these tepid investors by
raising their government bond interest rates, making it very costly
for the government to borrow.
While everyone agrees that these problems must be addressed
in the long run, many critics of Cameron’s budget say his cutbacks
go too far too soon. Raised taxes and government cutbacks in the
early stages of an economic recovery could induce a double-dip
recession. To opponents, the budget would kick the walker away
from someone learning to walk again after a severe accident.
However, recent signs of growth in the British economy have
assuaged some of the naysayers in the Cabinet’s worst fears.
Another concern emerging from the proposed budget is the
way in which it will affect the poor. Public services and welfare
programs will be hit especially hard by spending cuts. A rise in the
VAT, a regressive tax, will hit the lower classes disproportionately
hard because poorer members of society spend a greater portion
of their income on consumption goods such as food and fuel.
Cameron’s austerity budget may very well restore Britain’s finances,
but would do so at the expense of the nation’s poor.
While everyone agrees that these
problems must be addressed
in the long run, many critics
of Cameron’s budget say his
cutbacks go too far too soon…
[and]…could induce a double-
dip recession.
Issue 13.1 — 30
David Cameron and his allies did not create this fiscal mess but
his government will do their best to fix it, even though Britain’s
political history is not on their side, since the last coalition
government in Britain lasted only eight months. While Cameron
and his coalition partner—Nick Clegg—have painted a picture of
sunshine and unity, it is only a matter time before the two sides
squabble and splinter over policy. Debate over election reform
and foreign policy seems imminent and may sour the coalition’s
nascent partnership. We have observed that Cameron is willing
to use a large scalpel to keep Britain’s finances in order; we will
soon learn if he is equipped with similar tools to keep his own
government in line.
United States
Last winter, TIME Magazine labeled the 2000s “The Decade
from Hell”. This is a fitting description for a decade during which
Americans witnessed the deadliest terrorist attack on American
soil, two wars, an economic crisis, a subsequent recession, and the
demise of two American great cities—Detroit and New Orleans.
A decade from now, we will refer to the 2010s as The Hangover
Decade—a time when the country will pay for its previous excesses.
Like Britain, America now has a fiscal headache from a budget
deficit in the trillions of dollars (billions were so last decade).
The Obama administration is currently focused on nursing the
economy back to health, but budget austerity lies in their future.
The lingering question is how the deficit will be closed.
In America, the biggest debate will be whether to extend former
President George W. Bush’s tax cuts, which benefit the top 2 % of
Americans and are set to expire in 2011. These unfinanced tax cuts
are one of the biggest contributors to the federal deficit and even
supply-side adherent Alan Greenspan has publically come out
in opposition to their extension. Republicans argue that the tax
cuts fuel investment and spending, boosting the economy in the
process. Democrats counter that wealthy beneficiaries are more
likely to sit on their extra savings than poorer beneficiaries.
America’s fiscal situation becomes even more muddled after one
considers government spending cuts. The health care reform bill
passed this year promises to cut the $138 billion from the budget
deficit by 2019. But these claims are questionable. The bill failed to
establish truly fundamental changes to the way Americans provide
and consume health care, which are necessary for any reduction
in government health spending. Even with two wars the Pentagon
could experience spending cuts, a move traditionally viewed as
political sacrilege.
Enacting government cuts will prove to be more difficult in the
United States than in Britain. In America, politicians raise funds
individually rather than receiving money from their political
party. Individual fundraising has led to less party discipline and
more influential interest groups in the United States. Within this
system, interest groups have a much easier time ensuring that their
favorite government program is exempt from any spending cut. But
with popular sentiment increasingly calling for deficit reduction,
Washington politicians will have to break out their scalpels soon.
The result of their work may not be a pretty sight, but the morning
after never is. In the Hangover Decade, austerity will eventually
replace weapons of mass destruction as the national buzzword.
— Peter Birke is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He
can be reached at pebirke@wustl.edu.
 THE WAR ON
WIKILEAKS Dan Rebnord

Two centuries ago Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The basis of our

governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object
should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether
we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers
without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the
latter.” Jefferson understood that the right to an independent press
was essential for the new American experiment of democratic self-
governance to be successful. To hold a government accountable for
its actions, citizens must have free access to information in order to
Art by Audrey Westcott make educated and informed decisions about that very government.

Issue 13.1 — 31
 However, there is some information that should be kept from
the public eye. Military intelligence falls within this category. If
certain aspects of military intelligence were to become public
knowledge, our nation’s security interests would be jeopardized.
As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Holmes wrote in the decision for
Schenk vs. United States in 1919, “When a nation is at war many
things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to
its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men
fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any
constitutional right.”
This fine line separating government transparency and
government secrecy has routinely come under attack throughout
our nation’s history, and the debate continues today. On July
25, 2010, a government watchdog website known as Wikileaks
published over 91,000 files of military intelligence related to
the current U.S. war in Afghanistan. According to the site, “The
Afghan War Diary is the most significant archive about the reality
of war to have ever been released during the course of a war. The
deaths of tens of thousands are normally only a statistic but the
archive reveals the locations and the key events behind most of
these deaths. We hope its release will lead to a comprehensive
understanding of the war in Afghanistan and provide the raw
ingredients necessary to change its course.”
And maybe it has. On August 4, just days after Wikileaks
released the “Afghan War Diary”, General David Petraeus issued
This fine line separating government transparency and government
secrecy has routinely come under attack throughout our nation’s
history, and the debate continues today.
a new “tactical directive” for U.S. forces operating in Afghanistan.
According to CNN, “The directive states that before firing, the
commander authorizing a strike must determine that there are
no civilians present. If the status of civilians is unknown, firing is
prohibited except when certain types of risk to troops exist.” Given
the timing for the release of this new directive, it seems quite likely
that this tactical change was a direct response to increased calls for
accountability due to the “Afghan War Diary’s” release.
While some have praised Wikileaks for its dedication to
transparency and accountability, U.S. military officials have
condemned the website for the disclosure of such highly classified
information. The Pentagon argues that the Afghan War Diary has
put the lives of American soldiers at risk, and that the revealed
documents may undermine military operations against extremists
in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the Pentagon claims that Taliban
forces are also studying the documents and may retaliate against
any Afghan civilian found to have been cooperating with U.S.
and NATO forces. Therefore, the Pentagon has requested that
Wikileaks remove the classified documents from its site and turn
over any further documents it has not yet published. Wikileaks has
expressed no intent to do so.
Recent, albeit conflicting, reports have suggested that Wikileaks
has been in communication with the Pentagon, requesting that
military officials help determine which of the thousands of still
unreleased documents should be kept classified. The Pentagon has
Issue 13.1 — 32
reportedly refused to negotiate, and instead continues to insist that
all unpublished documents be returned. Though the success of this
proposal is highly unlikely, such a solution might be an efficient
way of ensuring an appropriate balance between the transparency
necessary for democracy and the secrecy necessary for security.
This disagreement demonstrates two vastly different approaches
to classified documents. Either one assumes that the majority of
government information ought to be considered classified with
rare exceptions, or one assumes that all information ought to be
publicly available, with a few allowances made for national security
interests. Although the former scenario would certainly be secure,
excessive use of secrecy often leads to cover-ups for disastrous
policies and political corruption. In contrast, the latter scenario
allows for an appropriate level of secrecy, while at the same
time maintaining an adequate level of transparency to promote
accountability. Such a scenario is precisely what Wikileaks has
suggested to the Pentagon.
If Wikileaks were to work cooperatively with the Pentagon,
the move would be unprecedented. Wikileaks, acting as an
independent third party, would be capable of revealing raw
intelligence to the public that would normally be inaccessible. At
the same time, the Pentagon would be capable of censoring critical
aspects of the documents in order to protect the most vital of
security interests. Yet it is important to recognize that in such a
scenario, Wikileaks would undeniably have the upper hand. If the
Pentagon refused to negotiate on what it could reasonably censor,
Wikileaks could threaten to publish all the documents. Although
tension would inevitably run high between Wikileaks and the
Pentagon, the ultimate outcome would be far closer to an efficient
compromise between security and accountability than what now
exists. If the Pentagon were to eventually accept Wikileaks’ offer,
it would be unprecedented and could usher in a new era of secure,
transparent democracy in the United States.
— Dan Rebnord is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He
can be reached at drebnord@go.wustl.edu.
 IN DEFENSE OF
THE MOSQUE NEAR
GROUND ZERO
Rachel Braun
September 11, 2001. Though most of
us were just children, this date is forever
burned into our memories along with
the images of towers falling amid clouds
of smoke, and firemen rushing out of
burning buildings with soot on their faces
and bodies limp in their arms. This date
elicits tears and anger, fear and loathing.
The atrocities that happened on 9/11
will never be forgotten, nor should they.
On that day nine years ago, thousands
of absolutely innocent men, women and
children lost their lives to hatred, bigotry
and intolerance.
Today, we are faced with a challenge.
Plans were recently announced to build a
Muslim community center, complete with
a swimming pool, auditorium, restaurant
and yes, a prayer room, just two blocks
north of Ground Zero in lower Manhattan.
What an opportunity we have.
The monsters who flew planes
into the Twin Towers nine years ago
glorified a society of One Truth and one
fundamentalist approach to Islam. America
stands as the antidote to this poisonous
thinking as a free and liberal society.
The Cordoba House Mosque will serve
not only as a shining example of the beauty
of Islam, but as a reminder to all that
though brutally attacked, America survives
and her values survive alongside her.
Some have shown disdain and horror
at the idea that a Mosque will be built
near the site where those claiming to be
messengers of Islam attacked our country
and our people. While the feelings there are
understandable, we must be careful not to
condemn a people based on the actions of
a few. All of us, whether we are Christian,
Jewish, Catholic, or Atheist have had our
people used as scapegoats for those filled
with fear or hate to hide behind. We cannot
allow ourselves to repeat the mistakes of
history.
By supporting this Islamic center to
be built we are telling the world, and
reminding ourselves, that nothing, not even
terrorists and tragedy, can take our values
away. When we stand together behind
Freedom, we stand tall. So let us take this
stand and prove that we are stronger than
our enemies can ever hope to be.
THE MOSQUE NEAR
GROUND ZERO
AND A BRIDGE TO
NOWHERE
Nick Wilbar
The claim, in Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf ’s
own words, is that he aspires simply to be
a “bridge-builder.” And, perhaps, he does.
Yet despite the near-incessancy with which
his claim has been repeated, his course
of action has kept it from being entirely
convincing, and, if unchanged, will likely
make its realization impossible.
The Cordoba House Project—the aim
of which is, among other things, to build
the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”—had
been generating a minor media buzz for
weeks. Then, to the dismay of embattled
Democratic Congressional hopefuls across
the country, President Obama weighed
in. And as he did, what was a mere media
buzz gave way to absolute frenzy. Bloggers
began blogging, sound-bites were sounded,
and pollsters started polling. And what
came to light has been rather informative:
the American populous is opposed In attempting to “build-bridges,” however,
to the Cordoba House Project, and these points—valid as they may be—are
overwhelmingly so. Imam Rauf, therefore, only relevant if the groups to be bridged
seems to be left firmly wedged between a are convinced that they matter. And, as was
proverbial rock and a hard place: he can noted above, in this particular instance one
either back down and pull the project, or important group is still rather skeptical: the
else move forward as planned and risk American public.
further alienation—not only of himself, In an ideal situation, the greater
but potentially his religion as well. American populous would accept the
If, however, the assumption is proposed mosque project with arms
maintained that the ultimate goal of the wide open. Regrettably, however, the
project is to “build-bridges,” the question circumstances in which we actually exist
at once becomes moot. The Imam, it would fall well shy of the ideal. At this point, it
obviously seem, should simply call up seems rather apparent that forcing the so-
Governor Patterson—who has very publicly called Ground Zero Mosque into existence
offered to help the group find an alternative would do nothing but aggravate already
site—and look to move the mosque and heightened inter-religious tensions.
community center a bit farther away. As And this—America’s frequently hostile
things presently stand, the Cordoba House relationship with its third largest faith—
is to be built two blocks from Ground points to an issue that desperately needs to
Zero—and, without any doubt, the group be dealt with. Pushing the Cordoba House
certainly has the right to bring these plans into existence, however, is not the way to
to fruition. Furthermore, it is worth bearing do it.
in mind that two Manhattan-blocks are
doubtless more congested, developed, and — Nick Wilbar is a senior in the College of
populated than, say, two suburban blocks. Arts of Sciences. He can reached at nick.
It seems entirely plausible that the sheer wilbar@gmail.com.
density of urbanity between Ground Zero
proper and the location of the proposed — Rachel Braun is a sophomore in the
mosque might drown any feeling that the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be
two sites actually inhabit the same space. reached at rachelsbraun@wustl.edu.
Issue 13.1 — 33