Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 40

Political Review

Washington University

Volume 14, Issue 3, April 2011

Energy: Running on Empty?

Political Review
As part of a new initiative, the Washington University Political Review is now offering magazine subscriptions! We publish three times per semester, at a set price of $25

Washington University


Politi Reviecal Po w Re lit vi ica ew l

ton U nivers ity

Washi ng

W as



to n

e 14,



1, Janu

iv er

ary 20 11

Vo lu




ss u


ar ch

20 11

per semester. Please send us your address

and information below, and we thank you for supporting our publication!

St .L ou is:

Be yo nd

th e

Bu bb le

Name: Address:



Zip Code:

Phone number:

Please make checks payable to the

Washington University Student Union and

send your subscription form and payment to:

Washington University Political Review Campus Box 1128 One Brookings Drive St. Louis, MO 63130

For questions please email editor@wupr.org.


Editors Notes
WUPRites, And so, it would appear, the end is very nearly upon us. For usnamely, Nick Wilbar and Josh Truppmanthe end is a very tangible thing: graduation, the end of college and, sadly, our final few days with the Political Review. As far as the two of us are concerned, the end represents something of a palpable breaking point. We wont be spending any more long nights in the Print Media Center, and we wont find ourselves at the helm of too many more WUPR meetings. We certainly wont be pulling any more magazine-induced all-nighters, and it seems difficult to imagine that well continue to worry too much about treasury appeals. Again, the end is very nearly upon us. Wed like to think, however, that the bulk of what weve worked towards this year is only still beginning. As an organization, the Political Review has grown tremendously over the past few semesters. Now, more so than ever before, were programming events, putting on fundraisers, and collaborating with a far wider range of student groups and on-campus organizations. Wed like to think that the group itself is trending in the direction of a cultureand that our culture is starting to permeate the greater fabric of the University as a whole. Even if it seems to be happening somewhat slowly, Wash. U. is becoming a more politically engaged place, and were grateful to have been here stoking the flames. The strides that the Political Review has taken, of course, would be utterly meaningless if divorced from the individuals by whom they were facilitated. With that in mind, a great deal of gratitude is in order to Siddharth Krishnan, Anna Applebaum, Peter Birke, Corey Donahue, Hannah Shaffer, Bryan Baird, Cici Coquillette, Michael Brodsky, and Brittany Meyer. Without their contributions, none of what weve brought to fruition would have been remotely possible. From our end, wed like to thank all of WUPRs readers. We can safely say that the last year has been among the most challenging and rewarding of our lives and ultimately, your response to WUPR has allowed this organization to grow the way it has. Heres to the next year of organizational growth and political activism at Wash U. Sincerely, Josh Truppman Nick Wilbar Editors in Chief

Table of Contents
From Cairo to St. Louis Nick Wilbar 52% of Americans Dont Know That Peter King is an Idiot Taka Yamaguchi The Case for Public Broadcasting Ben Lash Wanted: Civil Discourse Jake Lichtenfeld Immigration Double Talk Teresa Grosch Waiting in Line Andrew Luskin Who Are You Calling a Mudblood? Lennox Mark The Frontrunner Frontier Steven Perlberg Feeding Frenzy Andrew Luskin

Running on Empty?


5 6


Canadian Oil, Please? Josh Truppman No Future for Nuclear The Oil Wars

27 28

One More U.S. Mess Eve Herold The Politics of Intervention Kevin Kieselbach The Intervention in Libya Interview: U.P.D.

20 Nicolas Hinsch

22 Siddharth Krishnan 23 Anna Applebaum 24 Jackie Gunn

Too Many Tragedies Lost in Translation

7 8 9 10 12 14 16

30 Matt Lee

32 Vernica Arranz Gonzales 34 Katie Ayanian

The No-Fly Zone The Forgotten Continent

35 Will Dobbs-Allsopp

Staff List
Josh Truppman Nick Wilbar

Staff Writers
Katie Ayanian Max Bennet Rachel Braun Tripp Brockway Michael Cohen Mark Dally Will Dobbs-Allsopp Seth Einbinder Jay Evans Betal Ezaz Lauren Fine Gavin Frisch Kate Gaertner Ben-Parker Goos Teresa Grosh Jackie Gunn Alana Hauser Emily Hecker Eve Herold Nick Hinsch Josh Jacobs Alex Kaufman Kevin Kieselbach David Klayton Ben Lash Matthew Lauer Matt Lee Jake Lichtenfeld Andrew Luskin Lennox Mark Molly McGreggor Kirsten Miller Zach Moskowitz Alison Neuwirth Mariana Oliver Steven Perlberg Jannina Phi Dan Rebnord Daniel Rubin Ari Sunshine Alex Tolkin Brooke Yarrows

Back Cover Illustration

Chris Hohl

Director of Design
Brittany Meyer

Editorial Illustrators
David Brennan Laura Beckman Kelsey Brod Amelia Fawcett Dara Katzenstein Anya Liao David Maupin Michelle Nahmad Katie Olson Grace Preston Mia Salamone Jen Siegel Stephanie Trimboli Unless otherwise noted, all images are from MCT Campus. The Washington University Political Review is committed to encouraging and fostering awareness of political issues on the campus of Washington University in St. Louis. To do this, we shall remain dedicated to providing friendly and open avenues of discussion and debate both written and oral on the campus for any and all political ideas, regardless of the leanings of those ideas.

Layout Team
Jacqueline Gunn Katie Sadow Audrey Westcott

Staff Editors
Anna Applebaum Peter Birke Siddharth Krishnan

Art Coordinator
Audrey Westcott

Managing Copy Editor

John Moynihan

Copy Editors
Mark Dally Madeline Enright Puneet Kollipara Chris Weinstein

Director of New Media

Taka Yamaguchi

Director of Strategy & Development

Neel Desai


Web Designers
Will Johnson Marissa Suh

Gavin Frisch

Front Cover Illustration

Kelsey Brod

We have all heard the adage. The United States is the land of the free. Like generations before us, we are currently engaged in a struggle to define what exactly this means. We are facing Congressional Hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims, a proliferation of immigration bills that are unwelcoming to newcomers to say the least, and a fight for the right to donate blood. The nation is once again asking itself: Whose land is this? Who shall be free? At the center of this conversation is the media. With the possibility of substantial funding cuts, there is no certainty that the Corporation of Public Broadcasting will take part in this debate.


From Cairo to St. Louis: A Cause Worth Missing Class For

Nick Wilbar
Anyone who has been at all engaged with recent world events cannot help but be aware of whats going on in the Middle East. Mubarak was given the boot in Egypt. Libya was sent spinning into civil war. And President Salehs rule in Yemen looks to be in its dying days. Any queries as to whether or not the world might be changing have been long-since settled; it rather obviously is. The questions with which we are left, therefore, circle largely around identifying those who are responsible. That the ephemeral force of people power might be at play in the Middle East is, at this point, well-past incontrovertible. The regions uprisings have not been coups, and all of them, it would appear, have been driven from the bottom-up. Taken alone, however, this bit of information says relatively little about the drivers of the uprisings themselves. Who were the huddled masses that camped out in Tahrir Square? Who are the provocateurs in Sanaa? Who, perhaps most pressingly of all, are the rebels in Benghazi? And why, in each of these cases, have they felt compelled to act? The easy answers are the ones most frequently cited: staggering political inequality, irksome economic stagnation, and rising unemployment among growing populations. On the most macro of levels, these are probably all correct. On the most micro of levels, each is essentially meaningless. Present though they may have been, social and economic problems rarely lead to spontaneous protestand the Middle Easts recent wave of demonstrations has been nothing if not orchestrated. Thus, the question persists. Who has been responsible? And the answer, it plainly seems, demands that people be considered. Young people, Facebook-using people, and college-aged peoplethese are the ones who have been at the helm, and these are the people from whom we should be drawing inspiration. The notion of college no doubt carries wildly differing connotations in places like St. Louis, Chicago and Boston than it does in cities like Cairo or Damascus. It is far from the case, however, that those differences in connotation should inform the way American collegians consider themselves relative to their society at large. College-aged individuals helped bring down Hosni Mubarak in Egypt; for all obvious intents and purposes, they changed the world. And while American colleges have provided humanity with the wonders of Facebook and a bevy of tech-start ups, its difficult not to feel as if their recent political contributions have been somewhat lacking. College campuses provide a useful, and indeed much used, political backdrop. Presidential debates are held at university centers. Rallies are staged in front-quads. And, with overwhelming regularity, speeches are delivered to college students. Each of these, however, renders the university itself little more than a passive hosta mere backdrop for something in which it doesnt really have any stake. Even during the recent unrest in Wisconsin, students themselves failed to play the driving role. They simply happened to inhabit an inviting space in close proximity to the Capitol, and proved willing to ride the wave of reactionary unrest in which their neighborhood was immersed. As far as anyone on the outside could tell, University of Wisconsin students didnt steer the ship, and they certainly didnt construct it. Unfortunately, this makes them normal. The value of American higher education is often times conceived in terms of what comes next. Rarely, if ever, do students shell out enormous tuition fees exclusively on the basis of the experience they anticipate having while on their campus of choice. Frequently, if not ubiquitously, that money is spent in an effort to improve our odds after graduation. As an obvious rule of thumb, betterpaying and generally more appealing jobs end up in the hands of better-educated individuals. It comes as no real surprise, then, that the notion of college is framed with one eye fixed firmly on the future. But while this does, in rational terms, stand to maximize an individuals utility, it has quite the opposite political and social effect. Its difficult to imagine a place with more built-in resourcesboth human and pecuniarythan a university campus. Its socially irresponsible to do anything other than demand that they be mobilized. The power of on-campus diversity in ideas and talents is nothing shy of staggering, and the proactive change it stands to enable could be similarly monumental. Yet, when harnessed, that often idle energy is all too commonly put in motion for narrowly construed reasons of future pay and employment prospects. This, in and of itself, is not really damning, nor is it particularly surprising. One does wonder, though, whether or not more socially lofty objectives might be pursued. It has to be imagined that the students organizing history-altering demonstrations on the banks of the Nile missed a few days of class earlier this semester. One hopes that as our world does continue to change, American students might find something worth missing class for too.
Nick Wilbar is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached by email at nick. wilbar@gmail.com


52% of Americans Dont Know that Peter King is an Idiot

Taka Yamaguchi
In todays high-stakes political environment, many Tea Party campaigners, such as 2012 GOP hopeful Herman Cain, have been all too eager to jump on the Islamophobia bandwagon. Is it possible that King, far from being motivated by a desire to protect Americans, carried out the hearings because he simply wants votes from like-minded people? It looks likely. While King is busy securing votes, Muslim Americans await the familiar onslaught of antiIslamic sentiment. Many people, including myself, believe that the congressional hearings have only made their plight worse by serving to reaffirm the suspicions of Muslims by some Americans. Another one of the hearings stated missions was to look into Kings accusations that Muslim Americans and the Muslim community as a whole were refusing to cooperate with authorities in tracking down homegrown extremists.

Did nobody realize that King was the last public official who should be heading up such a committee?
This would be a serious matter of concernif it were true. After further investigation, no public official could reaffirm Kings allegations, instead providing evidence to the contrary. This embarrassment, which is, at best, an oversight on Kings part and, at worst, a clear attempt to mislead the public, indicates further effort by King to paint Muslims as un-American and disloyal. King is extremely short-sighted in that he fails to realize that by holding these hearings, he has added one more bullet to Islamic fundamentalists stockpile of rhetorical ammunition that the United States is engaged in a war on Islam. Of course, homegrown Islamic radicalism is a danger to all Americans. There are many approaches to tackle this issue. One could, for instance, conduct targeted investigations into imams with suspected extremist ties and teachings, or follow up on the personal contacts of captured American Muslim radicals. There are many options. What must not be tolerated, however, are these ill-advised farces run by bigoted public officials who seem willing to sacrifice American citizens to keep their posts.
Taka Yamaguchi is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at tyamaguchi@wustl.edu.

Illustration by Jen Siegel

As has happened far too many times in the history of this nation, doubt has been cast on the patriotism and loyalty of a select minority group. Muslim Americans of every color and ethnicity were the indirect victims of the recent congressional hearings on The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Communitys Response. 52% of Americans polled said that this charade was appropriate. I do not get it. To me, it seemed to be entirely unproductive in finding ways to combat so-called homegrown extremism, but particularly effective in further alienating Muslim-Americans. Muslims in the United States are often unfairly portrayed as violent extremists, but this is not entirely without some basis in fact. I think it is fair to accept that the radicalization of American Muslims is indeed occurring at some scale, however miniscule. I need only point to Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani naturalized citizen who attempted to detonate a car bomb in Times Square, as an example of this phenomenon. The handling of this matter through

congressional hearings, though, is rather different. Lets start with the hearings coordinator, Representative Peter King (RNY). He has famously stated that there are too many mosques in this country, and that 85% of mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists. Isnt this tantamount to a government official saying that there are too many bilingual Spanish schools in the United States, and then launching an investigation into crimes committed by Latinos? Did nobody realize that King was the last public official who should be heading up such a committee? Even if King intended for the hearings to be a thoughtful, meaningful, very fair hearingin which case, he is clearly not the man to deliver itwhat was his end goal? It seems that there were no obvious objectives, and as Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee put it, there is no redeeming factual information that any of us will receive today. It has already been tainted, the Congresswoman said. There is no loud sign of reasoning coming out of this hearing.


The Case for Public Broadcasting

Ben Lash
journalism. Secondly, the brouhaha over federal funding for public media ignores the fact that the sum of money allocated to that end comprises far less than 1% of the federal budget. Any proposal to defund public broadcasting is certainly more of an attempt to score political points than it is to alleviate our debt. And, finally, the methods used by OKeefe were from far ethical. In and of itself, recording somebody without that persons consent is already a questionable practice. But OKeefe went even further than that. The initial version of the video he posted online was heavily edited to fit his own agenda, and certain statements from Schiller and Liley were not put in their proper context. He would later publish the full, unedited, version of the tape, but at that point the damage had been done. Of course, putting any amount faith in OKeefes integrity was probably a dubious move in the first place. In his role as a quasijournalist, OKeefe was arrested in 2010 for breaking into the congressional office of Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu. In another example of his shamelessness, he attempted to lure a CNN reporter onto a boat laden with sex toys while she was conducting an interview with him last August. It probably goes without saying that any journalist with this severe lack of scruples should not play any role in breaking or reporting news. Unfortunately, this isnt case. OKeefe wants to have the same impact as traditional reporters but gets to play by different rules. It is difficult to imagine an aspiring newsman with OKeefes record being considered for a job at a news organization with any shred of credibility. But in todays era of instant information dissemination, it becomes harder to separate the professional reporters from the amateurs. This raises interesting questions regarding the modern day ethics of journalism. And in my opinion, it strengthens the case for public funding of National Public Radio. As a news outlet that aims to inform objectively and report thoroughly, N.P.R. still has a role to play today. In a media environment that is increasingly decentralized, over-sensational, and hyper-partisan, it is important to have alternatives to irresponsible gatherers of news. In other words, it is important to have alternatives to people like James OKeefe.

For some time now, conservatives have had an uneasy relationship with public broadcasting. Uncomfortable with seeing the government support a news outlet with allegedly liberal biases, right-leaning politicians have for many years advocated the private takeover of public media. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees the funding of National Public Radio (N.P.R.) and the Public Broadcasting Service (P.B.S.), has unrelentingly argued that public financing is necessary to support its stations in the short-term. In recent months, these tensions came to a head when current Fox News analyst Juan Williams was fired from his job at National Public Radio for making insensitive remarks about Muslims. But nobody stoked the flames quite like conservative filmmaker James OKeefe did when he launched a controversial project in early March. The scheme involved OKeefe organizing a lunch meeting between two N.P.R. executives, Ron Schiller and Betsy Liley, and a pair of his collaborators posing as donors from a Muslim philanthropy group. The objective, which was centered on OKeefes men professing a desire to donate $5 million to the radio station, intended to bait the N.P.R. employees into making controversial statements and secretly recorded them with a hidden camera. The plan was executed to perfection. As the cameras were discreetly rolling, both Schiller

and Liley made a number of inappropriate slips, which OKeefe then uploaded to his website. The incriminating comments featured strong rhetoric against the Tea Party and Republicans, and, perhaps most damaging, references to Jews controlling the media. Within the span of a week, the two employees were fired, N.P.R.s C.E.O. resigned under heavy-pressure, and G.O.P. lawmakers once again moved to strip public broadcasting of its government funding. Lost in the immediate backlash, however, were some more complicated realities. Firstly, Schiller and Liley were fundraising executives at N.P.R., which means that they were not responsible for the radio stations content. The employees were rightly terminated for their mishaps, but their comments should not necessarily be taken as a reflection of N.P.R.s

It probably goes without saying that any journalist with this severe lack of scruples should not play any role in breaking or reporting the news.

Ben Lash is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at blash@ wustl.edu.


Wanted: Civil Discourse

Jake Lichtenfeld
Only a few months have passed since Jared Loughner opened fire at a Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords event in Tucson. He killed six innocent civilians, one of whom was a nine-year-old girl, and left over a dozen others wounded, including the Congresswoman. Ms. Giffords suffered a bullet through the brain, but thankfully has been making a better-thanexpected recovery. Nonetheless, the event seemed to be a turning point in American politics. Two days after the shooting, Congresswoman Giffords staff released an e-mail that she sent to the Secretary of State of Kentucky less than twentyfour hours before the shooting, which read, I am one of only 12 Dems left in a GOP district (the only woman) and think that we need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down. In his memorial speech in Tucson days after the e-mails release, President Barack Obama called on the nation to engage in an era of civility in order to prevent a similar tragedy from occurring. The new era of civility seemed to gain traction following Obamas plea. The new period encouraged members of Congress to bridge the partisan divide during the State of the Union Address to symbolize that they are more unified as Representatives of the United States than divided by partisanship. The University of Arizona at Tucson offered to create a National Institute for Civil Discourse, which is now being overseen and led by former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The traction even made its way here to Washington University with a panel discussion called A Vision for Civility with three Missouri Congresspeople: Democrats Russ Carnahan and William Lacy Clay Jr. and Republican Jo Ann Emerson. Congressman Carnahan and Congresswoman Emerson serve on the Center Aisle Caucus, which has been working for years to encourage civility in Congress. The overarching goal of the discussion was to teach students, faculty and local citizens that disagreements are perfectly acceptable as long as theyre addressed in a peaceful, respectful environment. As time moved on, the new society of civil discourse seemed to be fading away. Soon enough, the federal government was debating major budget cuts, uprisings were occupying the Middle East, protestors were swarming state capitals to protect union rights and Bristol Palin was coming to Washington University. With several polarizing issues, civility was no longer viewed as a priority. In a matter of months it appeared that the status quo partisan rhetoric had resumed, if not intensified. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann returned to arguing that health care reform is a part of a socialist agenda while Congressman Anthony Weiner tried to delegitimize Fox News while being interviewed on Fox News. MSNBC host Ed Schultz contributed as well by attempting to alienate Sarah Palins reservations about Obamas Libyan effort in asking, are you with the terrorists, Sarah, or are you with the president of the United States? It was as if the tragedy in Tucson had never occurred. The mere nature of United States elections causes politicians to campaign for the duration of their service in Congress. The easiest way to fundraise is to get attention, and the easiest way to get attention is to act hostile and antagonistic, which violate the core values of a call to civility. The media is equally guilty of hostility, if not more so. It is incontrovertible that the most notorious pundits receive the highest ratings and coverage. Truely fair and balanced debate may reduce the partisan rhetoric, but people are vastly more interested in stories that involve scandal, conflict and opinion bias, which contributes to the malevolence in the political media. If the Tucson disaster wasnt enough to reduce partisan rhetoric, it seems that a political society based on civility is next to impossible. Overall, the majority of politicians and media pundits show that polarization is an advantageous strategy of communication, despite a minority begging for political decorum. Partisan rhetoric attracts enough attention and cash that civility is too expensive to be a priority. As a result, it appears that a complete change in the political tone is unfeasible, even in the face of tragedy.
Jake Lichtenfeld is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at j.lichtenfeld@wustl.edu.

Illustration by Laura Beckman


Immigration Double Talk: Real Reform or Political Posturing?

Teresa Grosch
It has been almost a year since Arizona passed its controversial and legally contentious immigration law, Senate Bill 1070, that gave sweeping powers to police to detain and question anyone suspected to be in the country illegally, and made it a crime for legal immigrants to go anywhere without documentation of their legal status. As of April 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals has ordered Arizona to stop enforcing this law until a decision is made on its legality. While immigrants in Arizona can now breathe more easily, at least for a couple months, there have been an alarming number of copycat bills proposed in several southern states in recent months. Bills that contain many of the same instructions for the treatment of suspected illegal aliensin some cases directly copying the language used in SB 1070have enjoyed varied amounts of success in legislatures in Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Alabama, and several other states. Many of these bills appear to have a fair chance of being passed into law, although hopefully the current legal drama surrounding SB 1070 will make state legislators think twice about following in Arizonas footsteps. However, a bill does not necessarily have to be seriously considered in order to leave an imprint on the immigration discussion in the United States. In addition to the previously mentioned bills that do have the potential to become laws, a number of bills have been proposed that are so ridiculously unconstitutional, unfair, and unethical that there was never any real threat of their being passed in the first place. However, these proposals still manage to deeply insult immigrants, both legal and illegal, and damage Americas reputation as a desirable place to live. If passed, these bills would create an environment where the basic human rights of immigrants are threatened. In South Carolina, legislation was proposed that would make it unlawful to provide transportation to illegal immigrants, even to essential places like hospitals. In Alabama another proposal would have banned illegal immigrants from marrying U.S. citizens. Arizona, not to be outdone, proposed an even more ludicrous bill, which has since died, that would have kept citizenship from children born to illegal immigrants in the United States and prevented illegal immigrants from receiving even basic medical care. Instead of coming up with real solutions to the problems that illegal immigration has caused, we have turned to bullying and intimidation to express our frustrations. If the goal is to make America seem like such an unattractive and hostile place to live that illegal immigrants would no longer want to cross our borders, then perhaps we are succeeding. But when we begin to make America a less free, less fair, and less inviting place to live in order to keep non-citizens out, how long is it before we find we have created a place where we ourselves no longer want to live? Im not arguing that the United States should ignore its legitimate immigration problems. Part of the blame for these extreme bills can be placed on frustration that the federal government has not dealt with what many in the border-states feel is a problem that personally threatens their safety. There is a lot of drug related violence in the region that is directly related to illegal immigration, and branding citizens with legitimate safety concerns as racist is unproductive and unfair. However, there have also been a lot of irrational and inaccurate depictions of the problem of illegal immigration. As during any economic recession, people are afraid for their jobs and looking for a scapegoat on which to project their fears. Historically, these scapegoats have always been foreigners. It is true that there are some unscrupulous business owners hiring illegal immigrants for positions over legal citizens who would mandate compensation in minimum wage. However, the majority of these immigrants do jobs that Americans simply are not willing to do. The rhetoric from many politicians and the purpose of these bills is merely to exploit the fear that Americans are experiencing. These bills are political posturing that appeal to the knee-jerk reactions of citizens concerned for their livelihoods. Lawmakers on the right and left need to stop proposing impossible and insulting solutions to the immigration problem and focus on viable answers.

Illustration by Dara Katzenstein

Teresa Grosch is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at tgrosch@go.wustl.edu.



Andrew Luskin
Rick Santorum
U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania

Handicapping the Republican primary is a complex task because many of the candidates are already considered handicapped. Here is what to expect from the Republican presidential hopefuls:

John Bolton

US Ambassador to the United Nations

Sarah Palin

Governor of Alaska

Strengths: One of the few anti-gay activists who hasnt been caught with another man yet Weaknesses: Google Santorum

Strengths: Experience as ambassador to the UN despite his hatred of the UN prepares him to run a government that he hates Weaknesses: His moustache is downright unpresidential

Strengths: Knows exactly what to do if alQaeda starts recruiting grizzly bears Weaknesses: Declining to run is the only way to show that she has good judgment, a situation she describes as Patch-22

Donald Trump

Real Estate mogul

Rudy Giuliani

Mayor of New York, Mr. 9/11

Mitt Romney

Governor of Massachusetts, Mormon

Strengths: Fathered a large chunk of the electorate; provides a steady stream of straight-talk bullsh*t, the likes of which we havent seen since Bush Weaknesses: Voters may want to elect somebody who gives a sh*t about them

Strengths: Ten-year anniversary of 9/11 will give him a chance to talk about 9/11 Weaknesses: The base may let you get away with three marriages, but not if youre from New York

Strengths: If no candidate excites Republican primary voters, they will sigh in disappointment and pull the lever for him Weaknesses: His hair maintenance is responsible for 35% of domestic oil consumption

11 Newt Gingrich Michele Bachmann Tim Pawlenty


Speaker of the House, record-setting philanderer

Congresswoman from Minnesota, suspected banshee

Governor of Minnesota, cure for insomnia

Strengths: Depressingly, the freshest face the Republican Party has to offer Weaknesses: Makes Dick Cheney seem warm and cuddly; rapidly-expanding jowls may soon muffle him; when startled, exhibits a groping reflex

Strengths: Ancient Mayan prophecy predicts a disaster will befall the world in 2012she could fill the role Weaknesses: Television crews have been reluctant to interview her since she shrieked, twisted her neck in a full circle, and devoured Wolf Blitzer

Strengths: Despite his youth, has a vast and well-practiced store of meaningless rhetoric Weaknesses: Several networks have been known to cut to Chilis commercials during his debate responses; extremely punchable face

Mitch Daniels

Governor of Indiana

Jimmy McMillan

The Rent is Too Damn High guy

Mike Huckabee

Governor of Arkansas

Strengths: Appeals to Republicans who distrust charisma; most controversial move was switching Indiana to daylight saving time; 57 frame disguises great ballhandling skills Weaknesses: Just a matter of time until Romney snidely mentions the stack of telephone books Daniels must stand on in order to reach the podium

Strengths: Incomprehensible and insane ranting appeals to Tea Party activists; possible Alzheimers disease pays tribute to Reagan; karate expert, may punch Tim Pawlenty Weaknesses: Believes the rent is too damn high and wants to fix rates across the country

Strengths: Extremely likable, like a big homophobic teddy bear; believes that government intrusion is wrong, except when the Bible is involved Weaknesses: Adopted several minor tax raises as governorto the conservative base, a crime worse than puppy buggering

Andrew Luskin is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at andrewluskin@go.wustl.edu.



Who Are You Calling a Mudblood?

Lennox Mark
ends of maintaining the health of the donor. Others carry with them the taint of political incorrectness and are an overall offense to the sensibilities of civil equality. One such affront is item #34 on the Donor History Questionnaire, which reads, From 1977 to present, male donors, [have you] had sexual contact with another male, even once? The prospective donor is supposed to check yes, no, or I am female. An answer of yes automatically, and permanently, disqualifies that person from donating blood for the rest of his life. The rationale behind this rule is that men who have sex with men (hereafter referred to as M.S.M.) are at a higher risk of possessing HIV contaminated blood and thus should be prohibited from donating. Item #21 is the female counterpart, disqualifying women who have had sex with M.S.M. Originally implemented in 1985, at a time when HIV/AIDS detection tests were inconclusive and the epidemic was at its peak, the ban serves no constructive purpose in 2011. More than twenty years later, science and medicine have made it easy to detect HIV. Additionally, prevention education and disease awareness have decreased the number of new outbreaks immensely. The American Medical Association, the American Red Cross, the A.A.B.B. (formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks), and Americas Blood Centers have all issued statements challenging the scientific and medical validity behind the ban. Currently, these organizations, and all other blood donor sites, are handicapped in their work because of the F.D.A.s outdated policy. Even though all blood donations are tested and screened for transmittable diseases before they are given to a patient, the F.D.A. asserts that the slight possibility of human error in blood testing compounded with the high risk of M.S.M. donors makes the chances of giving a patient contaminated blood too close for comfort. However, the American Red Cross has statistically determined that the chances of this happening are 1 in 2 million. Also, the ban makes no attempt to identify those who have monogamous sexual partners or are practitioners of safe sex, thus erroneously assuming the worst of the L.G.B.T. community. Moreover, other high-risk communities are regarded in a different light. For example, a heterosexual who has paid a prostitute for sex is merely deferred from donating blood for a year. Even more shocking, a heterosexual who

Illustration by Mia Salamone

The American Red Cross, like a lightning rod amidst a thunderstorm, attracts more blood donors than any other organization in the country, private or public. They reported collecting 16 million donations in 2006 and are responsible for amassing 40% of the countrys blood supply annually. No one can deny that the American Red Cross conducts excellent work in its respected lines of service. Excellent, however, is not flawless, and flawed are the

antiquated guidelines by which the Red Cross determines eligibility. But whose guidelines are they? Issuance of the Donor History Questionnaire, used to determine the donors blood eligibility, is not an initiative of the American Red Cross, but rather of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Many people take offense with the F.D.A. for some of its qualifying criteria for blood donors. Some, such as age and weight requirements, seek to serve the obvious



Photos courtesy of Lennox Mark

Not unlike the federal governments recently repealed Dont Ask Dont Tell Policy which barred willing and able Americans from serving in their countrys depleted armed forces for seventeen years, the FDA bars countless willing and able donors from serving their community through their blanket ban on MSM blood.
has had sexual contact with someone they know to be infected with HIV/AIDS receives the same one-year deferment. However, a gay man who may have had protected, monogamous sexjust once since 1977is banned for life. While we presume the F.D.A. labors under the best of intentions, this disparity in the eligibility guidelines makes a very disturbing assumption about a key subculture in society: that all gay men have dirty blood. Consequently, the F.D.A.s policy is not only outdated but also discriminatory.

The bigotry embedded in this prohibition has awoken the ire of the Pride Alliance of Washington University in St. Louis who organized an awareness campaign to educate their peers about the issue. On Wednesday, March 30 (the same day as a campus wide blood drive), Pride members tabled in the Danforth University Center, informing passersby of the blood ban and encouraging them to join in their letter writing campaign to Dr. Jerry Holmberg, executive secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability. That day, over 165 students of Washington University signed pre-written letters to Dr. Holmberg expressing their opposition to the ban. Jonathan Branfman, a senior at Washington University and Prides social activism chair, coordinated the campaign. Our goal is to educate as many people about the M.S.M. blood ban as possible. Youd be surprised how many people dont know, stated Branfman. Danielle Bloch, a freshman majoring in the College of Arts and Sciences who donated her time and blood, said, I dont see any reason why gay donors cant give blood. By preventing any gay people from donating, the F.D.A. is severely limiting the potential donor population. Branfman expressed that Pride bears no ill-will to the American Red Cross who is merely complying with federal standards and they encouraged everyone they met to donate blood. The slogan of their campaign was, Giving blood is great. Help us give blood, too. Similar campaigns to end the ban on M.S.M.

blood have occurred at Pomona College and Yale University in February of this year. Alex Terrono, co-president of Pride, said, We really hope to remove this negative stigma from the L.G.B.T. community. We just want to participate equally in this great cause. Not unlike the federal governments recently repealed Dont Ask Dont Tell Policy which barred willing and able Americans from serving in their countrys depleted armed forces for seventeen years, the F.D.A. bars countless willing and able donors from serving their community through their blanket ban on M.S.M. blood. Studies conducted by the Williams Institute, a think tank based out of the University of California, Los Angeles, concluded that lifting the ban would result in an estimated 130,150 additional donors who are likely to donate 219,000 pints of blood annually. In a country where a transplant is needed every two seconds but less than 5% of the eligible population donate blood, the eligibility pool needs to be expanded. For the sake of those who depend on a robust and healthy supply of blood donations, as well as for the sake of civil equality in America, the immediate repeal or revision of the F.D.A.s ban on M.S.M. blood is necessary. Otherwise, while the rest of the world advances, our countrys sense of egalitarianism will remain stuck in the last century.

Lennox Mark is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at lennox.mark.ssea@gmail.com.



threatening, and Romney is perhaps the most mystifying frontrunner in recent memory. Romney has certainly been winning the so-called first primary, raising significantly more money than any other would-be candidate. The Romney team is well prepared to chart the most aggressive financial campaign course. He is also winning among his partys elites. According to a recent National Journal poll, Romney is the clear favorite among GOP insiders, well ahead of other tested Republicans like Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour, and Mitch Daniels. His unparalleled network of political and economic support could make Romney virtually unbeatable in the primaries. And while Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee are also garnering double-digit voter support in the crowded G.O.P. field, Romney has the party elder backing and plenty of cash. If history has anything to say, he will smoothly slide into the nomination. For years, the Republican Party has converged early on an established candidate (Ford in 1976, George H. W. Bush in 1988, Bob Dole in 1996). According to Gallup, in the ten competitive races for the Republican nomination since 1952, only John McCain in 2008 arrived at the frontrunner label late in the campaign. Even so, as the runnerup to George W. Bush in 2000, McCain was ultimately the only intelligible 2008 frontrunner. In the other nine cases, the frontrunner was clearly established in the year prior to the election. Late bloomers are very rare breed in the GOP. Perhaps until now. The Tea Party movement has invigorated a new sense of conservatism, and it may have more of an effect in 2012 than the G.O.P. leaders would like. Romneys flaws are well known and brutally antithetical to the Tea Partys

Illustration by Stephanie Trimboli

The Frontrunner Frontier

Steven Perlberg
Winning a presidential nomination is never a sure thing. Unless you are Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor is lucky enough to be the Republican frontrunner for the 2012 nomination. Since 1952, the G.O.P. has had an uncanny knack for nominating the heir apparent (save Barry Goldwater in 1964). His RomneyCare flaws notwithstanding, Mitt may be comfortably skipping his way to the nomination. That is, of course, unless the recent Tea Party resurgence is the real deal. If the Tea Party movement can harness their boisterous influence around another candidate, this installment of the G.O.P. presidential nomination saga could end up drastically different from previous chapters. Romney and the rest of the insider candidates will have to reconcile this inherent Republican Party divergence in order to win the nomination. 2012 might prove to be the beginning of a new era within the G.O.P., where seasoned frontrunners face more difficulty in the process of being nominated, or perhaps do not even get nominated at all. The field is still open and

History tells us that Mitt Romney, the current frontrunner, will be the early and clear primary winner. But he is fraught with plenty of political demons. He is perhaps the most precarious GOP frontrunner of the last sixty years.



If the Tea Party is a legitimate force and can harness their power around any candidate, Romney or otherwise, the GOP could have a real shot in 2012.
If the Tea Party crusade is to be truly impactful, there will be room for other social conservatives to topple Romney in Iowa. It could even be someone like Michelle Bachmann. The passionate Minnesotan has already garnered support in the Hawkeye State, pleasing crowds with her spirited rhetoric and Tea Party charm. However, if Romney can convince Republican voters that he can topple Obama, he will get the nomination. In a recent CNN poll, more than two-thirds of Republicans favor a candidate who could beat President Obama. Fewer Republicans insisted on a candidate whose stance on the issues meshed with their own. It will be Romneys job to diminish the Tea Party rhetoric and show that he is the only electable candidate in the field. For Bachmann and other Tea Party hopefuls, 2012 may be an inopportune moment. The Democrats will

positions. His signature on Massachusettss health reform paved the way for President Obamas own 2010 health care legislation. His support of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (T.A.R.P.) and bailout of Wall Street banks will surely be a sore spot with the enraged conservative base. His political baggage aside, the race is still Romneys to lose. And if his shortcomings make him too unpalatable to the average Republican, Tim Pawlentys broad and unblemished appeal might win out in this process of elimination.

not have a competitive primary this year, and thus more independents will vote in the GOP primaries, making it tougher for candidates like Bachmann. She will certainly find connecting with national independents much more difficult than Iowa conservatives. The independent voters will nod to the frontrunner Romney, finding the raucous Tea Party zeal too overwhelming. 2012 will be a pivotal case study in the Republican nominating process. History tells us that Mitt Romney, the current frontrunner, will be the early and clear primary winner. But he is fraught with plenty of political demons. He is perhaps the most precarious G.O.P. frontrunner of the last sixty years. If the Tea Party is a legitimate force and can harness their power around any candidate, Romney or otherwise, the G.O.P. could have a real shot in 2012. Unfortunately for Tea Partiers, their grassroots efforts could prove too disjointed to unify with the G.O.P. insiders behind a consensus candidate. And then, in sticking to their M.O., Republicans will witness President Obama trounce the precarious Romney. In 2016, if a more organized Tea Party movement exists with a larger equity in the G.O.P., they just might be able to wield a frontrunner candidate of their own.
Steven Perlberg is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at stevenperlberg@gmail.com.



Andrew Luskin
Just when you thought it was impossible to lose weight while eating 500 calories a day, modern medicine has the solution. Upper-class women in New York City are slimming down with daily injections of hCG, a hormone taken from the urine of pregnant women. Studies have found that when taken in conjunction with a diet inspired by the weight-loss secrets of Gulag prisoners, this expensive alternative to meth helps burn off fat in the arms, back, and belly. Side effects of the hormone treatment include blood clots, depression, headaches, and testicular immigration. hCG has also been used as a performance-enhancing drug, most notably by baseball slugger Manny Ramirez, which explains why he throws like a pregnant woman. As the forces of tyranny in government encroach upon our private lives, we must thank the heroes brave enough to stand up for liberty. One such hero is Montana State Representative Alan Hale, who remembers a simpler time, back before a police officer could arrest a man who had committed no crime, except for drinking a fifth of Old Crow and driving his pickup truck at 90 miles an hour with the headlights off. Hale, who wants to repeal all DUI laws, declared bars the center of communities and, fighting back tears, called drunk driving a way of life that has been in Montana for years and years. Indeed, the state animal is the inebriated grizzly bear, the state tree is the Plastered Ponderosa Pine, and the state medical condition is paraplegia. Having caught the scent of bleeding-heart liberalism in the water, the Republicans in Congress moved in for the kill. As they advocated defunding NPR, a tape was released showing an NPR executive insulting the Tea Party at a fundraiser. The CEO of NPR immediately resigned, but Congress still voted to take away all of their federal funding. How long will it take until liberals figure out that their scandal response strategy isnt working? Instead of apologizing and promising reform, take a page out of the conservative playbook: deny and distract until the publics goldfish-caliber short-term memory finds some shiny new celebrity to fixate on. If youre good enough at denial, you never have to move on to acceptance. The air seems clearer, endangered species are poking their heads out of their burrows, and Americas collective blood pressure has started to drop: Glenn Beck announced that he will leave his show on Fox News. I cant wait to see how the socialist progressive fascists are behind this one! In an attempt to educate young players, the video game Madden NFL 2012 will have the in-game announcers discuss how serious head injuries are whenever a player on the field receives a concussion. The addition follow a general trend in video games, mirroring Call of Dutys extended critiques of the militaryindustrial complex and Rock Bands career mode, which shows a downward spiral into drug abuse, depression, and syphilitic psychosis. After justifying anti-union measures on the grounds that the state was facing a fiscal crisis, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker gave a cushy $81,500 per year job to the unqualified college dropout son of a prominent donor. Public outcry caused the appointee to resign, but not before he received a $16,500 raise for his two months of work. Walker, himself a college dropout, may have taken his election last November as a sign that the people wanted unsuccessful and uneducated leaders. From that perspective, his plan to cut $900 million from the states schools seems almost compassionate.



the man behind the magic

After Libyan civilians were targeted with bombs, Muammar Gaddafis son and heir apparent Saif Gaddafi called the attack a big misunderstanding. I completely understandone time, on a camping trip, my friend asked me to pitch the tent, and I accidentally dropped three thousand pounds of bombs on a village. Boy, was my face red! What began as a Cinderella season for the Brigham Young University basketball team ended in disappointment after Cinderella was caught sneaking off with the coachman. Brandon Davies, a key player for the Stormin Mormons, was kicked off the team for having sex with his girlfriend, which violated the BYU honor code. Perhaps BYU just misunderstood the Duke formulanot punishing nonconsensual sex does not imply punishing consensual sex. Other violations of the BYU honor code include using profanity, not shaving, and drinking alcohol, coffee, or tea. It must be difficult to train a basketball team when a runners high is considered sinful. Congress reached a lastminute compromise on the budget, just in time to stop the federal government from shutting down. I was actually looking forward to a shutdownif

the federal government is anything like my wireless router, turning it off and on is the best way to make it work again. The outcry over Charlie Sheens use and abuse of drugs and hookers prompted CBS to cancel Two and a Half Men, so hell come out of the ordeal with more dignity than he came in with. Although the amount of radiation released from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was too small to cause direct harm to humans, scientists are concerned that radioactive isotopes may concentrate in milk. In order to test for potential health effects, WUPR purchased ninety gallons of milk, a pallet of Nesquik, and twelve rhesus monkeys. Because the grocery store only sells butchered monkey, not the live kind, we were forced to purchase the animals from a shady Hong Kong based eBay seller. We quickly learned that anyone who has ever used the phrase as much fun as a barrel of monkeys has clearly never opened a shipping crate full of angry macaques. WUPR is now accepting donations for our staff editors medical treatment and volunteers to sit on the cardboard box under which the monkeys are trapped until we figure out how to get them into a cage.

Andrew Luskin is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. His mind is so sharp they wont let him take it on a plane. He can be reached at andrewluskin@ go.wustl.edu.

There is nothing certain about the future of the worlds energy use. Countries around the world are debating which sources of energy are best: will it be nuclear, coal, oil, wind or solar? Questions of sustainability are abundant. Can current levels of energy consumption continue? Perhaps the worlds energy use is acceptable just the way it is. It is because of this volatile situation that we choose to discuss the future of energy. Whether considering the science of climate change or discussing the moral implications of creating nuclear waste sites, the state of energy today tells us a lot about how we as a species are dealing with the world that surrounds us. Of that there is no doubt.


Running on Empty?

Canadian Oil, Please?

Josh Truppman
In the long run, it is clear that we must replace oil as our primary source of energy. Nuclear energy, solar energy, wind power and other means of sustainable energy are vital to the protection of Earth from the effects of global climate change. However, while some of these technologies are functional today, others will take time to develop. In the meantime, we rely on a supply of oil from an increasingly volatile Middle East. Oil prices and thus the U.S. economyare deeply affected by political and social unrest in the region. XLthat would go from Canada to the Gulf Coast of Texas. This pipeline would pump oil sandswhich is a mixture of sand, clay, water and a dense form of petroleum. The proposal has already generated resistance from environmental groups. There are several good reasons for this. First off, it would require the strip mining of large swaths of forests in Alberta, Canada. Secondly, it could pose a threat to water supplies in both the United States and Canada. According to an editorial published on April 2, 2011 in the New York Times, refining two tons of tar sand into a barrel of oil requires four times as much water as producing a barrel of conventional oil. There is no doubt that this pipeline would require the use of enormous amounts of water in order turn oil sands into a usable form of petroleum. Lastly, the process of refining oil sands releases a significantly higher amount of greenhouse gas emissions than other forms of oil, such as conventional crude oil. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that greenhouse gas emissions from this process may be as much as 82% greater than the amount released from the refining of crude oil. It is clear that the construction of Keystone XL will have significant negative environmental impacts, both in Canada and in the United States. This begs the question: if the pipeline poses such a dire environmental threat, then why build it at all? Proponents of the pipeline argue that it will provide the framework for a long-term

Photo of an oil sands refinery

This begs the question: if the pipeline poses such a dire environmental threat, then why build it at all?
Given this, it is perhaps unsurprising that President Obama recently referred to Canada as a potentially stable and reliable supplier of oil to the United States in the future. Pursuing the increased importation of oil from reserves in Canada is likely to remain a hot topic. Later this year, the State Department will decide whether or not to permit the construction of a 1,700 mile oil pipelinecalled the Keystone

increase in the acquisition of oil from a stable and reliable ally. By buying oil from Canada, the U.S. government can decrease its dependency on unfriendly and volatile governments in the Middle East. Simply put, proponents argue that the Keystone XL pipeline is a potential step that could lead to U.S. energy independence. The problem is that it is not the answer. Increasing the supply of Canadian oil to the United States is undoubtedly a sensible idea. However, this pipeline is not necessary for a dramatic increase in the procurement of oil from Canada. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. could double imports of Canadian oil using existing pipelines. The Keystone XL pipeline is a proposal with significant environmental risks and minimal political and economic benefits. This discussion is far from over. The State Department has yet to study the environmental impacts of the pipeline, and environmental groups seem poised to strongly protest it. As Obama said in a speech on April 7, 2011, These tarsands,therearesomeenvironmentalquestions about how destructive they are, potentially, what are the dangers there, and weve got to examine all those questions. As our country debates its energy future, it remains uncertain if Canadian oiland the Keystone XL pipeline will be part of our nations energy future.
Josh Truppman is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at jtruppman@wustl.edu.

Running on Empty?


Illustration by David Brennan

No Future for Nuclear

Nicolas Hinsch
The United States was supposed to be poised for a nuclear renaissance. As oil prices skyrocketed and scientists warned of dire consequences to unchecked carbon dioxide emissions, a bipartisan consensus appeared to be emerging in favor of nuclear power. Then, on March 11, disaster struck Japan in the form of a 9.0-magnitude offshore earthquake and massive tsunami. This powerful combination not have much of a future to begin with. There are sixty-five nuclear power plants in the United States, which collectively produce enough energy to satisfy one fifth of the nations energy appetite. While the United States is the worlds largest producer of nuclear power, we are actually significantly less enthusiastic about nuclear energy than many other nations across the world. Approximately 75% of Frances energy is provided by nuclear reactors, as is 25% of Japans. It is also worth nothing that construction of every single nuclear power plant currently operating in the United States began before 1974; no new plants have been constructed in well over a quarter-century. Some attribute this lack of enthusiasm to safety risks that make nuclear energy a politically difficult issue. Even if a nuclear plant runs flawlessly, the fuel rods that it uses to generate electricity remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years after they are no longer useful. The spent fuel rods must be stored in water for five years to prevent them from catching fire, and must then be kept isolated from civilization indefinitely. This issue is made all the more pressing by the fact that the United States has come up empty in its search for a location to permanently store nuclear waste. In the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (N.W.P.A.), Congress designated Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the site for a permanent waste depository. However, Nevada has protested furiously, and thanks in part to the political clout of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the importance of Nevadas electoral votes in presidential election campaigns, the Obama administration has killed the proposal. Cooled waste continues to be stored on a temporary basis in concrete casks adjacent to reactors. Then there is the issue of what happens when nuclear power goes wrong. The most significant nuclear accident in United States history occurred in 1979 at the Three Mile Island reactor near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The reactor underwent a partial core meltdown due to a combination of mechanical and human errors, and although no radiation was released, it caused a massive scare that severely damaged nuclear powers reputation as a safe source of energy. While these safety concerns are important, they are not the primary reason that plants are no longer constructed. Nuclear power plants are extraordinarily expensive and complex, easily costing over $10 billion apiece. To justify the construction of a plant, companies must accurately model the useful life of the

A closer look at the economic realities of nuclear power shows that it didnt have much of a future to begin with.
dealt severe damage to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan has created grave doubts about the future of nuclear energy in the United States. A closer look at the economic realities of nuclear power shows that it did


Running on Empty?

plant, the price they will be able to charge for the electricity it generates, construction costs, financing arrangements, the length of time it will take to complete the plant, and many other variables. Incorrect predictions can lead to enormous financial losses. Nuclear fuel is cheap, but so is natural gas, hence there is no incentive for utility companies to take large risks on nuclear plant construction when they can more easily offer competitively priced electricity without so much spending up front. Will we ever see additional nuclear power plants built in the United States? Not any time soon. Nuclear power plants must become economically competitive with other forms of energy first, which would most likely require a price to be placed on carbon emissions. If utilities were forced to pay for their emissions of carbon dioxide with a carbon tax or were placed in a cap-and-trade system, the cost of energy from fossil fuels would increase, and nuclear energy would become economically viable. Then nuclear power would have to overcome safety concerns. The recent events in Japan have caused support for new nuclear power plants to drop to 43% from 57% in 2008, according to a recent poll by CBS News. As policymakers chart a course for Americas energy future, they should plan to steer clear of nuclear power.

Nicolas Hinsch is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at nhinsch@wustl.edu.

Running on Empty?


The Oil Wars

Siddharth Krishnan

Never again. The generation that saw two world wars will hope that nothing can move the world to relive some of the bleakest moments in human history. Peacekeeping institutions were set up, and the United States. appointed itself global enforcer. We are approaching an era, however, where the incentives for war could soon override their deterrents. Energy is the currency of progress and is therefore the most precious commodity in the world today. Its sources are also scarce. Without an incredibly timely intervention, the world is headed for war, and the symptoms are there to see. The numbers tell a story. Fossil fuels, the name collectively given to oil, petrol and natural gas account for 86% of the worlds energy production. It is estimated that we have around 847 billion tons in coal reserves, which at current consumption rates would last us for another 120 years. Coal and natural gas, which account for 61% of the worlds energy production will, at best, last for another sixty years. By itself, this is not a cause for concern. At our current rate of technological innovation, this is enough time to shift away from fossil fuels. The real problem is the concentration of the reserves. The countries with the biggest petrol holdings are in the Middle East and the former U.S.S.R. Coal, which as an energy source is environmentally unsustainable, is more equitably distributed. The fear of carbon emissions, however, has rightly put widespread coal use on the backburner. China, the U.S. and the European Union have little or no oil and

natural gas reserves to speak of, and certainly not enough to feed their economic growth. In light of recent events, the Middle East is perhaps the worlds most politically unstable region. So far, the U.S has had friendly relations with leaders in the worlds most oil-rich regions. This situation looks set to change in ways that no one can predict. In 1956, when Gamal Nasser of Egypthimself the product of an anti-West government overthrownationalized the Suez canal, the West was jolted into action, promptly declaring war on him. With antiU.S. sentiment running high in many of the places touched by ongoing revolutions in the region, a similar situation is very possible. This could lead to an extremely dire situation. Already, there have been accusations that oil was the main reason behind the U.S. war in Iraq. While this remains little more than a conspiracy theory, the reaction of the U.S. to a country like Saudi Arabia turning hostile will almost certainly be one of panic. Worse still, China, the worlds fastest growing major economy has the most to lose in the event that oil and gas become increasingly scarce. With a poor record of human rights violations, few things would keep China from pursuing its precious energy reserves. Although most of Chinas power is currently coal-driven, but that does not look set to last, with its newfound emphasis on green energy. The way forward, therefore, is perilous. In a situation where the U.S and China can no longer rely on the Middle East for oil, there are a number

of possible doomsday scenarios. An extended war between the worlds two superpowers is too grim to imagine. Alternatively, the need for energy could speed up the process of economic imperialism, where countries that are economically poor but rich in resources essentially become subsidiaries to the worlds biggest economies, with little or no growth of their own. Factor in Indias 1.2 billion people, with its growing middle class and the global demand for energy will soon far outweigh its supply. In the short run, the temptation will be to stick with coal, but with evidence for global warming becoming more concrete every year, this introduces an entirely new set of problems. If the last twenty years are any indicator, the world is headed towards a prolonged period of conflict. The solution is obvious: a quicker search for alternatives to fossil fuels. Already, it seems likely that finding an alternative for 86% of the worlds energy will have far-reaching economic consequences. The alternative, however, is far too bleak to imagine. Unlike our great-grandparents generation, we will have an environmental crisis to deal with, in addition to a war for resources. If simply finding new sources sounds easier than done, so does the phrase never again, as our great grandparents generation will too quickly remind us.
Siddharth Krishnan is a sophomore in the School of Engineering. He can be reached at sid.1891@gmail.com.


Running on Empty?

Too Many Tragedies

Anna Applebaum
Radiation poisoning is scary. The fear that accompanies this kind of contamination is difficult to envisiona lurking threat. In a situation where radiation has permeated the environment, how can you escape? The water you drink and the food you eat may be saturated with radiation that has settled into the earth. The air you breathe could be loaded with toxins; each inhale brings more harm. You do not want to leave your house, for fear of more exposure, but how can you stay in an infected area? Fear and uncertainty are everywhere. For anyone, this would be a frightening scenario. And for almost everyone, it remains only a distant possibilitya scene to discuss and debate when making decisions about energy sources or national security, but lacking an experienced understanding of its true impact. Few countries have had to deal with breakdowns of nuclear reactor plants and fewer still have faced the tangible consequences of war with nuclear weapons. Japan, however, falls into both categories. It is a country whose collective consciousness has been seared by horrific images of the cost of nuclear technology not just once, but three times since the advent of the nuclear bomb in 1945. Perhaps this is what makes the current crisis at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant in Japan such a tragedy. The only country to date hit by a nuclear bomb, Japan must face the specter of radiation poisoning once again. Between August 6th and August 9th 1945, during the final days of World War II, the United States deployed two nuclear weapons on the respective Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. An estimated 80,000 people at Hiroshima were instantly killed by the uranium bomb known as Little Boy; another 40,000 died during the explosion of Fat Boy at Nagasaki. While these are both incredibly destructive events, they are distinguished from other bombings by the nature of the fallout effects. The Radiation Effects Research Foundation estimates that approximately half of the total deaths from these bombings took place two to five years later, as a result of civilian exposure to radiation. This was the first and last time that nuclear weapons have been actively deployed during wartime. Unfortunately, those incidents were not the last time that Japan has had to deal with the effects of radiation. In 1954, the testing of a hydrogen bomb by the United States at Bikini Atoll went awry, with the resulting explosion two and a half times larger than expected. Indeed, Castle Bravo continues to be the most powerful nuclear device that the United States has ever detonated. Japanese citizens were once again affected by American nuclear actions; a Japanese fishing crew was poisoned and contaminated seafood and water were discovered in Japanese marketplaces for months afterwards. Psychologically, the Japanese were also beset by memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which had taken place less than ten years earlier. That trauma, like radiation, does not fade so quickly. Japan now faces radiation poisoning for the fourth time, with the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant releasing radioactive material as a result of the combined destructive force of an earthquake and tsunami. While much has been said about the danger to the Japanese people, the rescue efforts, and how this will affect nuclear energy worldwide, there has been little discussion about this disasters psychological effects. It seems accurate to suggest that this will be a deep and fundamental blow to the Japanese people. The events of the past are still very much present in Japans national memory; the deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the fear of Bikini Atoll are woven into the fabric of Japanese society. There have been obvious connections, like Japans limited military force and stringent denunciation of nuclear weapons. Yet cultural icons were just as influenced; the monster Godzilla, after all, is created as a result of a nuclear explosion. In this sense, the tragedy of Fukushima runs deep. It will long resonate in Japan regardless of whether or not if affects nuclear programs in other countries around the world.
Anna Applebaum is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at a.applebaum@wustl.edu.

Illustration by Michelle Nahmad

Running on Empty?


Lost in Translation: The Medias Misrepresentation of the Crisis in Japan

Jacqueline Gunn

Illustration by Audrey Westcott

When the magnitude-9.0 earthquake struck 45 miles east of the Japanese coast on March 11th, the biggest in the nations history, many media outlets sighed in relief. With only two or three hundred deaths reported thus far, they said, Japan would probably escape the devastating aftermath of the 1995 Kobe earthquake that claimed nearly 7,000 lives. Citing the strict building codes that make many Japanese skyscrapers resistant to earthquakes, they called Japan the most prepared country in the world to face such natural disaster. Weeks after the earthquake and the tsunami, the death toll currently stands at over 12,000. More than 15,000 are still unaccounted for. In many of the coastal areas near the epicenter of the quake, entire towns had been washed away and are now covered

in debris, showing no signs of the community that once thrived there; Sendai, the largest city in the tsunami-stricken Tohoku region with a population of at least one million, saw floods engulf over half its landmass. But when the news broke of the power failure at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, many in the foreign media immediately adopted an apocalyptic tone. Forget the 163,000 victims living in shelters, they said: Japan is on the brink of a nuclear meltdown. Sensationalist journalism is neither new nor surprising, especially given that newspapers somehow have to sell when most people get their news online for free. However, the dichotomy between the Japanese and the foreign medias reporting on the overheating nuclear fuel at Fukushima revealed more than

just the usual failings of the Western media. It was a telling account of the developed worlds schizophrenic relationship with nuclear power. Whilst the striking difference between the angle taken by the Japanese and the foreign media may have raised a few eyebrows, the formers toned-down reporting of the nuclear plants merely points to its desire to avoid instilling hysteria in the population. Although many foreign newspapers noted the Japanese stoicism with admiration, Japan hasnt always reacted to natural disasters with the same equanimity: when the Great Kanto Earthquake struck the capital in 1923, rumors spread about the supposed looting by Koreans and other foreigners. Many Koreans, then prejudiced against in Japan as secondclass citizens, faced lynching and killing by

the enraged locals. Times have changed, but the Japanese media seems justified in their efforts to avoid injecting unnecessary chaos. Meanwhile, the foreign media, free from the obligation of keeping its domestic population from hysteria, jumped on the opportunity to report on the pending nuclear holocaust. Comparing the situation to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, many journalists indulged in irresponsible reporting and painted a picture of Japan as being days away from Armageddon. One only needs to take a look at the Journalist Wall of Shame page on JPquake online to see a sample of shockingly careless reporting from around the world. Some of the most notorious offenders include the following: The Suns Virginia Wheeler implied that the commuters in Tokyo wearing masks, a common sight in the capital during springtime, did so because of radiation not seasonal allergies. Channel 7 showed a mushroom cloud right after switching from a sequence showing the Fukushima plant. Welt Onlines Robert Hetkmpfer asked in a headline, Is Tepco sending homeless people into the Nuclear Power Plant? While La Repubblicas Vittorio Zucconi went so far as to claim in an article title that The habit of pain is in the destiny. Of course, not all of the foreign media committed the same offences, and newspapers such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal adhered to their standards of responsible and quality journalism. Nor were all Japanese media outlets guilt free: some Japanese weeklies adopted a tabloid tone, spreading fear without adequate fact-checking. However, the foreign medias sensationalism succeeded in spooking the foreign community in Tokyo. A few questioned, with some justification, whether the Japanese media could be trusted on objectively reporting the events at Fukushima as they unfolded. Some, though thankfully not many, foreigners took to heart the foreign medias scaremongering of cancer-causing levels of radiation reaching Tokyo. The Swiss even moved their embassy from Tokyo to Osaka, despite the fact that there is a higher risk of dying from a traffic accident on the way to Osaka than being exposed to a dangerously high level of radiation in Tokyo. Perhaps the most disturbing of the foreign medias sensationalist reporting was that some news outlets exploited the opportunity to draw attention to their anti-nuclear agenda. The German weekly Der Spiegel seized the opportunity to run the headline The End of the Nuclear Energy Age. In Germany, where anti-nuclear sentiments run deep, the leftwing Green Party capitalized on the crisis at Fukushima and scored an electoral victory on March 27th at the state elections. The Greens broke the ruling Christian Democratic Unions nearly six-decade dominance in the traditionally conservative state of BadenWrttemberg, riding on the momentum of their I-told-you-so rhetoric after Chancellor Angela Merkel hastily shut down seven of Germanys seventeen nuclear plants. In fact, the media scrutiny of the Fukushima crisis took a life of its own as it stimulated debate about the future of nuclear energy. Whereas most developed countries had quietly accepted the need for nuclear energy as a necessary evil, the foreign medias grim portrayal of nuclear power means that, as Ms. Merkel has just learnt, it has now

Running on Empty?
become a political liability. A shame, because less reliance on nuclear energy means greater dependence on natural gas in the short-term and coal in the long-term. It is admittedly a stretch to claim that the medias sensationalism would lead to greater dependence on coal, and therefore greater CO2 emissions in the future, but they certainly played a role in amplifying public aversion to nuclear energy. On the other hand, I would also like to clarify that the foreign media did make a contribution, albeit a marginal one, to the reporting of the crisis at Fukushima and the nuclear industry as a whole. Whilst the Japanese media faithfully relayed the comments from expertswhose interests include protecting their jobs, i.e. the nuclear industry in Japanthis passivity bordered on protectionism, a treatment that the bureaucratic and inefficient Tokyo Electric Power Company did not deserve. The foreign media returned attention to the necessity of keeping the nuclear industry accountable, transparent, and somewhat trustful. They sent a message to the nuclear industry around

Comparing the situation to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, many journalists indulged in irresponsible reporting and painted a picture of Japan as being days away from Armageddon.
the world that it cannot keep hoping that the public would turn a blind eye to its safety risks. Hiding behind the comforting statistic that the likelihood of a core meltdown happening is about once every 17,000 years will not suffice, because unthinkable disasters do happen. However, the unrelenting reporting on the Fukushima Daiichi plant distracts from the painful reality of the consequences of the earthquake and the tsunami. We must not neglect the tens of thousands of people who are dead, missing, or have lost their family and livelihood because of the disaster: that is the real humanitarian crisis. The media has an infamously short attention span. They will likely forget about Fukushima in the coming months. But the victims should not be forgotten.
Jacqueline Gunn is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at gunnj@wustl.edu.

The U.S. response to Moammar Gadhafis brutal massacre of his own people has brought a hotly contested aspect of its foreign policy to the forefront of media.. Whether or not the U.S. was justified in carrying out air strikes over Libya brings with it even bigger questions of accountability, pragmatism and morality. An equally interesting question is: what might the world look like when the U.S. is no longer its most powerful nation? While the Middle East boils over, Africa remains as volatile and dangerous as ever. And with the recent massacres in the Ivory Coast going relatively unnoticed, the media has some explaining to do. The world is in flux.



One More U.S. Mess

Eve Herold
Wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. So spoke President Barack Obama in his March 28 address on Libya. Obamas speech, which focused on the United States action in Libya amid Moammar Gadhafis ongoing brutality, also pushed the exhausted notion of the United States as an emblem of freedom and democracy. Though Obama distinguished our role in Libya from President George W. Bushs actions in Iraq eight years earlier, there was nonetheless an overarching theme, one that has steadfastly been the core of United States foreign policy. Like presidents before him, Obama advocated the continuing need to defend freedom abroad and to challenge foes who threaten democracy. Yet this message is merely a sugary coating to a darker image of most United States policies abroad. Where the United States has made its mark, we have more often than not left a bloody footprint coupled with chaos and disorder. Vietnam, Somalia, Nicaragua, and El Salvador are just some examples. So we are to wonder, as we are faced with yet another military endeavor: what should our policy be? And what kind of precautions should we take to prevent leaving our all too familiar legacy? Gadhafis brutality cannot be ignored or appeased. And the United States being a participant in the NATO effort is far better than being a leader in strikes against Libya. However, the issue of where we go from here is the most urgent question. If we optimistically believe that Gadaffi will quickly back down, than there is no reason to speculate. Gadaffi, however, has hardly proven himself rational, or interested in appeasing the international community, especially the U.S. So, the question arises as to how active of a role the United States should play in Libya. As of January 31, the United States has 47,000 troops still in Iraq. And the U.S. has no intention of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan until July. We are currently in no position to be involving ourselves in yet another conflict. Obama has not committed, and promises not to commit, U.S. ground troops to Libya. So, we cannot label this intervention another Iraq. Ground troops aside, however, we are hypocritically involving ourselves in the stabilization of yet another country, when we have yet to stabilize Iraq or Afghanistan. Admittedly, our role in NATOs efforts is minimal. The important thing is for our role to stay that way. If NATOs efforts in Libya do not produce the desired result, we must avoid further engagement. At this time we cannot afford, nor have the authority, to engage more troops around the globe. The United States self-appointed role as the police of the world has proved disastrous time and time again, yet it somehow continues to be the countrys stance on foreign policy. Obama himself admitted that we cannot plausibly right every wrong and fix every situation. Perhaps Obamas current policy in Libya is appropriate, maybe even necessary. But we must continue to grapple with the message we send

Illustration by David Maupin

to the global community by involving ourselves in multiple conflicts. We simply cannot take on another military effort while we currently juggle two others. And more importantly we cannot continue to exercise our authority as a military might that has no boundaries and no restrictions. When we have yet to truly succeed in paving the way to democracy and freedom, we cannot continue to supply this as our M.O. And so, with the Middle East and Northern Africa in the midst of radical political change, we must revisit our role in these troubled regions. Though Obama did avoid putting ground troops in Libya, his actions asserted the message that the United States has the capacity, and, more importantly, the right, to act in another country. Should we continue to perpetuate this message and elongate our resume of disaster and ineffective intervention? We cannot afford to extend our efforts in Libya beyond assisting NATO as we already are. Worryingly, Obamas speech, which echoed many of the messages in Bushs speech on Iraq, hinted that we might eventually increase our role in Libya. Obama cannot afford these parallels: not in speeches, nor in actions. He should instead choose to focus all military attention on getting out of two countries we have been engaged in for far too long.

Eve Herold is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at erherold@wustl.edu



The Politics of Intervention

Kevin Kieselbach
U.S. foreign policy has long been accused of being imperialist and self-serving. Often it seems that U.S. actions abroad conflict with American democratic ideals at home. As democratic movements spring up throughout the Middle East, the United States is once again faced with the challenge of looking after its interests in the region while supporting democratic movements. The first round of revolutionsthose in Tunisia and Egyptwent just about as smoothly as possible, primarily because well-established government bureaucracies stayed in power and maintained order while the heads of state were driven from power. President Obama played it safe and avoided taking a definitive stance on whether or not Egypt needed a change of government. He ended up getting to have his cake and eat it too. The Egyptian government minus Hosni Mubarak is still very much intact and the democracy movement is at least temporarily satisfied. However, as the revolutions have continued, the United States has had to answer difficult questions. Regimes across the Middle East have been attempting to violently suppress democratic movements, and the United States has had to decide how to respond. In Bahrain, the United States has urged the government to adopt democratic reforms, but essentially avoided involvement. In contrast, in the case of Libya the United States has led an international coalition in launching airstrikes in support of the rebels. Not surprisingly, the discrepancy in the U.S. response to these revolutions has inspired accusations that American imperialism is rearing its head again. Regardless of what some may say, these differing responses were appropriate for their respective situations and represent a unified foreign policy strategy. Inspired by the uprisings sweeping across the Middle East, protests began in Libya in February against Colonel Muammar alGaddafi, who has been installed as dictator since 1979. Within little over a week, the protests had developed into a full-scale rebellion based in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi. While violence has accompanied other Middle Eastern nations antigovernment movements, mostly in the form of

Illustration by Laura Beckman

government aggression to suppress protests, the situation in Libya had become an all-out civil war. Despite their early successes, the rebels were soon overmatched by Gaddafis superior weaponry. Gaddafis forces quickly pushed the rebels back to Benghazi and were within days of recapturing the city. During this time, Gaddafi had been threatening to kill his own citizens en masse to suppress the rebellion and began acting openly on these threats, launching airstrikes against his own people. In response to his barbaric tactics, many of Gaddafis ambassadors, ministers, and generals either resigned or defected to the opposition. At least hundreds of civilians had already been killed, and it is likely that Gaddafi would have killed thousands more in retribution had he been able to recapture Benghazi. The imminent humanitarian crisis demanded action. Fortunately, and surprisingly, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution in a timely manner, thereby permitting the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya by NATO countries that led by the United States, France, and the United Kingdom.



Intervening in Libya was morally justified and sanctioned by international law. Yet many criticized the hypocrisy of U.S. involvement in Libya while turning a blind eye to government suppression of protests in countries like Bahrain, whose monarchy is friendly to U.S. interests. However, these situations differ greatly. Unlike Libya, Bahrain is not facing the chaos of a civil war. While a few dozen protesters may be killed in the process of squashing the democracy movement in Bahrain, it pales in comparison to the thousands upon thousands who would have been killed or displaced had Gaddafi taken Benghazi. This is not to say that the killings in Bahrain should be overlooked or ignored. Shooting civilians is completely unacceptable, but the problem with intervening in Bahrain is that it would cause more problems than it would solve. The chaos resulting from an intervention would likely kill far more people than have been killed by the government. There are numerous countries around the world that mistreat their own people, and it is not possible for the United States or any nation to rectify all these situations. The United States has restricted itself to using diplomatic appeals with Bahrain, including adamantly pressing Bahrain to adopt democratic reforms and to negotiate

with the protesters. Bahrain instead chose to consult with the Saudis and use force to deal with the protesters. This is clearly not the desired result, but Bahrain is just one among many nations that uses such heavy-handed tactics. The involvement in Libya is the exception, not the rule. After the experience of liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein, it is clear that instituting regime changes is a messy and prolonged process, often with many unintended consequences that are arguably worse than the original problem. It is usually best not to get involved and even in the Libyan crisis, western leaders were hesitant and concerned of the repercussions. Ultimately, the United States and western powers decided to intervene in Libya because they could not stand idly by while a dictator slaughters his people en masse. They delayed, hoping the crisis would resolve itself with minimal casualties, but it became clear that the cost of not acting would far exceed the cost of acting. By limiting involvement to airstrikes, the United States and Europeans can protect civilians and avoid creating a long-term commitment to regime change in Libya. Of course some realpolitik also went into the differing policies on Libya and Bahrain. Bahrain is an ally of the United States whereas Libya is a nation with rogue

tendencies. In that sense, Bahrain was protected by its relationship with the United States while Libya was fair game. Yet this is not because the United States is hypocritical, but because idealism must be tempered by realism. With the growing influence of Iran in the region, overthrowing an ally like Bahrain would be foolish. Not only would the United States lose an ally, but it would also lose the trust of all other allies in the region. Forcing regime change in Bahrain would likely cause numerous rifts in alliances between the U.S. and Middle Eastern nations that would play into Irans hand. While the United States has a history of imperialist ventures, critics misinterpret the current situation when they accuse the United States of meddling in Libya while staying out of Bahrain in order to advance an imperialist agenda. The Libyan situation was a particularly severe problem that required an international response while Bahrain is an important ally that helps counterbalance Iran. Sometimes different situations just require different responses.

Kevin Kieselbach is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at kevin.kieselbach@wustl.edu.



The Intervention in Libya & the Future World Order

Matt Lee

Imagine the world in 2040. Lets assume that nothing catastrophic has happened. The world looks, for all intents and purposes, pretty much how it does today, except that the international economy has had a few more decades to develop. Brazil, Russia, India, and China (B.R.I.C.) have seen their economies soar to the great heights that we thought they would, and they have firmly established themselves as global powers. The United States has grown as well but has likely has been passed by China and India in terms of gross domestic product. The European Union (if it still exists), while still a major player, has declined relative to the other five powers because, among other reasons, its population has aged. Ill let you pick your favorite semistable nation and imagine that a crisis along the lines of Libya erupts there. In 2011, the U.S. and key members of the E.U. possessed the necessary clout to get a U.N. resolution

While these nations [France and Britain] supposedly intervened to prevent a humanitarian crisis, the primary reason for the intervention was economic in nature.
passed enabling them to intervene in Libya. Fast-forward to 2040, however, and this scenario likely would have played out very differently. This time around, France, Britain and the U.S. were able to influence the less powerful members of the U.N. Security Council into voting for the resolution,

while B.R.I.C. along with Germany chose to abstain from voting. In the following days, officials from these five governments call for an end to the military intervention. This division is very telling for how conflicts like this will be resolved in the future. In the multi-polar world we are heading toward, these countries will be the major players, and the five abstaining countries are the ones that are rising the fastest. From the foreign policy view of the U.S., and to a lesser extent Britain and France, the rise of these countries will present an interesting challenge. In the past halfcentury, the U.S. has shown little reluctance to intervene in countries to ensure that its political and economic interests are protected. In the case of Libya, Britain and France sought this course as well. While these nations supposedly intervened to prevent a humanitarian crisis, the primary reason for the intervention was economic

in nature. It almost always is. France and Britain get 15 and 7.5% of their oil imports, respectively, from Libya, and it is not an easy source to replace. For France and Britain, the loss of their oil imports from Libya would be the rough equivalent of the U.S. losing imports from Saudi Arabia or Mexico. With both their economies still fragile from the recession, France and Britain could ill-afford to see the possible impact of an extended conflict in Libya. The U.S., even with no immediate interests other than perhaps being a good ally or truly wishing to support democracy and preventing a humanitarian crisis, also decided to join in. How would a B.R.I.C. country react in a similar situation? The U.S.s role in world affairs has grown in tandem with its economic power. Although a clich, the line With great power comes great responsibility does seem to apply to the U.S. to an extent, and more aptly put, With great economic power comes great interest in countries that you rely on for key resources. With this being said, it is also important to acknowledge the other grounds for intervention. An interesting trait of U.S. intervention that has developed over time is that it seeks to intervene on moral grounds. Most often the intervention revolves around wanting to protect or bring democracy to a country that is struggling under the oppression of a brutal dictator. But this sense of high morals is compromised by the times that the U.S. did not intervene in the murders of thousands of civilians. This is relevant in future interventions because no member of B.R.I.C. has even hinted at possessing these types of moral concerns. Currently, the members of B.R.I.C. oppose the military intervention in Libya, with some ironically doing so on humanitarian grounds. Each nation has its own reasons for the position it holds. China is wary of intervention in a nations civil conflict, as it does not wish to set a precedent in case it must put down a revolution within its own borders. China is not a democracy, and given its current state and general culture, it is difficult to see it ever developing the moral streak that the U.S. has. Russias position is murkier as Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has come out against the intervention, while President Dmitry Medvedev later rebuked those remarks. My guess is that they are simply covering their bases in case they have to intervene in Georgia again or in some similar country. Russia has the worst human-rights record of the bunch and will likely never shed this part of its character. In the case of Brazil, its experience with foreign (U.S.) intervention against it and its neighbors has been negative, which is putting it lightly. As a result, Brazil has sought a more united Latin America free from the influence of outsiders. India, which has its own internal struggles, spoke out on the issue of respecting the sovereignty of other nations. For both Brazil and India, there is hope that as democracies they will eventually develop some moral concern that will lead them to intervene on humanitarian grounds when it is truly necessary. This potential dichotomy within B.R.I.C. presents many interesting possibilities for

how conflicts like Libya will be resolved 30 years from now. With the U.S.s already spotty record on propping up dictators when it suits its economic or political interests, we can predict that we will likely never see a time when the world powers let their morality be their one and only guide. As these powers settle into their new roles, however, conflicts will certainly arise between the democracies and China and Russia over when intervention is allowable. Currently a situation is developing that could lead to extensive conflicts down the road. China has developed a strong relationship with Pakistan and is constructing a large naval base there. Also, important pipelines that will supply China with the natural gas and oil that are crucial to its economic development run through Pakistan. It is no secret that

This division is very telling for how conflicts like this will be resolved in the future. In the multi-polar world we are heading toward, these countries will be the major players, and the five abstaining countries are the ones that are rising the fastest.
Pakistan and India are enemies and will remain so for the foreseeable future. There could be a time when Pakistan destabilizes to the point that the United States, India and Brazil feel it is necessary to intervene to prevent the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan from falling into the hands of terrorists. Will China be willing to stand by and allow that to happen, even if its interests conflict with the intervention? Will the members of B.R.I.C. shed their non-interventionist stances as their power grows? Could this lead to a larger conflict among the great powers? These are the types of questions that await the world when the next Libya erupts in 2040.

Matt Lee is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at mmlee12@ gmail.com



Interview: Carlos Martnez Goriarrn

Vernica Arranz Gonzalez
Spain is in a crucial historical moment, facing an unemployment rate exceeding 20%, increases in the size of the public deficit, and problems regarding the countrys banking system. Founded in September 2007, the centrist U.P.D. (Union Progress & Democracy) party aims to address the constitutional and political crises that it believes exist in Spain. We had the opportunity to interview Carlos Martnez Goriarrn, a leader of the party, member of the Directing and Political counsels of the party. WUPR: Carlos, why do you think that U.P.D. succeeded in winning seats in three legislative houses, even in its founding stages? CMG: Well, we created a political party that represented the political ideas and thoughts of a lot of people. We gave political representation to a section of society that already existed and was waiting for a political alternative. The connection was immediate in voters minds. It was a small section in the beginning, as we received only around 350,000 votes in the National Parliament elections, but given the early creation of the party and the lack of access to the media, it was still very exciting. WUPR: In what political context did U.P.D. emerge and why did you decide to found it? CMG: Three or four of us founded U.P.D. We decided to create a new party because we knew from our prior experiences that reforming existing parties would have been almost impossible. Rosa Diez [deputy at the National Parliament] had vast experience as a member of the Socialist party, and she resigned from her post as Euro MP to found U.P.D. Fernando Savater participated in that project



The government didnt reform anything when the time was right. It didnt reform the labor market, the production model or enact reforms promoting innovation and entrepreneurship. The main issue, even if it seems like a great paradox, is the weakness of Spanish capitalism.
as an important and influential intellectual who was also driven to despair by the political situation in Spain. As for my other colleagues and I, we came from civic movements and understood that traditional parties couldnt respond to our objectives because they were ready to betray us at any moment. That is why we all decided to found a new party. WUPR: Closed lists of political parties characterize Spains electoral system. Therefore, voters identify themselves with a certain ideology, and vote on a list, sometimes without even knowing the names of the candidates that they are voting for. In other systems, such as the one in the United States, where there are majority elections, there are only one or a few representatives elected to represent a district. Thus, the candidates get to know their voters, sometimes even personally. Dont you think that such a system would be beneficial for Spain? CMG: The model you are talking about is the Anglo-Saxon model. This model has quite few advantages, but still, we dont find it particularly interesting, as it is prone to becoming a two-party system. We think that proportional representation is more conducive to a multiparty system and better depicts the diversity of our society. However, in our last amendment to the electoral law, we proposed a system of open lists combined with the party lists system. With this system, which is quite complex, voters choose the names of the candidates they want to vote for, instead of voting for an already existing party list. WUPR: Lets shift our focus to the economy. The economic crisis in the United States started with the subprime crisis, when the mortgage bubble burst because of clients with no incomes, jobs, or assets. In Spain, the economy entered a recession due to its high dependency on construction and the burst of the speculative bubble at the beginning of 2008. How accountable would you consider politicians for this crisis? CMG: Politicians have a lot of responsibility in Spains case. They have been denying the existence of a real estate bubble for a long time and encouraging people to take on debt to buy houses. Zapatero [Prime Minister of Spain since 2004] pointed to absurdities like the fact that we already exceeded Italys GDP percapita growth and argued that we were going to exceed Frances GDP per-capita growth, ignoring that it was because of the real estate bubble. Spain is a country that has been living beyond its means. Both governments [the PP and PSOE government] supported banks in their extensions of loans, instead of promoting real value-added production. Spain has been a low-cost economic model, which is impossible to sustain. Given Spains standard of living, we could not compete against China or Brazil. The government didnt reform anything when the time was right. It didnt reform the labor market, the production model or enact reforms promoting innovation and entrepreneurship. The main issue, even if it seems like a great paradox, is the weakness of Spanish capitalism. There are very few really big companies. Among the ten or twelve biggest multinational companies, most were public companies that ended up being privatized. WUPR: You attribute the crisis in Spain to the lack of a strong capitalist system. However, in an effort to alleviate the strong inequality that exists in its society, the United States governmentwhich oversees a capitalistic economyoffered loans to the poorest sections of society through things like subprime mortgages, which were later also related to the economic crisis. How might you reconcile these two discrepancies? CMG: There are small differences between the two systems that account for this vast disparity. In the U.S. if you cannot pay your mortgage, the bank takes your house. In Spain, the bank will take your house, your income, everything. Given the decrease in property prices, banks, but mostly saving banks, did not foreclose on mortgages, since they wanted to keep mortgage prices in their inventories. Most saving banks were, in reality, bankrupt and they tried to hide it for a long time. In these cases, governments need to intervene fast otherwise the situation worsens. The reason behind Spains economic crisis is the political crisis caused by this lack of transparency. People simply dont trust Spanish banks, especially since we found out that most saving banks have been hiding billions in debt. Even the government of Catalonia reported a 1.2 billion public deficit while actually having 8 billion public deficit. This country is facing a serious economic crisis, coupled with its worst political circumstances ever.

Vernica Arranz Gonzales is a exchange student in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at veroarr@hotmail.com.



The No-Fly Zone: Whos in Control in Libya?

Katie Ayanian
It has now been almost a month since the U.N. passed a resolution authorizing the no-fly zone over Libya on March 17, but the question remains: who will be responsible for overseeing this resolution? With its superior military capabilities, the United States agreed to lead the initial implementation of the nofly zone, launching Operation Odyssey Dawn on March 19. But now that the no-fly zone has gone into effect, it is unclear who is going to be involved and what role each actor will play. On March 20, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates explained that we agreed to use our unique capabilities and the breadth of those capabilities at the front of this process, and then we expected in a matter of days to be able to turn over the primary responsibility to others. We will continue to support the coalition, we will be a member of the coalition, we will have a military role in the coalition, but we will not have the preeminent role. As of March 31, the U.S.-led operation had ended and control of the mission had been transferred to NATO leadership. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was created in 1949at the end of World War IIon the premise that its member states agreed to promote peace and security around the world. NATO has since grown into a 28-nation alliance, consisting primarily of European states but also the United States and Canada. Many of these member states have committed forces to the conflict in Libya, but a major dilemma has arisen. So many North American, European, and Middle Eastern countries, each with different ideas and interests, have committed troops and armed forces to the situation in Libya that they have been unable to create a unified, concerted plan of action. France and Great Britain have been two of the strongest proponents of the no-fly zone since the beginning of March, and Frances foreign minister, Alain Jupp, has openly criticized the United States for being too slow to take a position on the situation in Libya, remarking, It often happens in our recent history that the weakness of democracies gives dictators free rein. But while these two states may be prepared to launch their own independent military operations in Libya, Italy has threatened to take back control of the military bases it offered for NATO forces to use in implementing the no-fly zone if NATO leadership does not stay in charge of the mission. A study conducted by the U.S. Energy Information Administration found that from January 2010 to November 2010, 28% of Libyas oil exports went to Italy, 15% went to France, and 10% went to Germany and Spain. As Libya is the largest oil-producing country in Africa, a halt in its oil exportation to European countries could have a devastating effect on the global economy. The economic centrality of Libyas oil is why countries like France and Italy have been outspoken in addressing the situation in Libya, but any military actions taken by these countries should be taken together as part of a united front. Yet another complicating factor is the role of the Arab League in implementing the nofly zone. The Arab League, formed in 1945, currently has 21 member states. While the Arab League initially supported the no-fly zone resolution, it has since become a staunch critic of the no-fly zone, saying that military action taken to enforce it has put civilians in harms way. There is a lot at stake in this country of more than 6 million people: the fate of civilians, the future of an oppressive regime, and oil control. Therefore it is imperative that NATO and the Arab League swiftly outline a plan of action to stop these brutal civilian killings and implement their decision immediately. The international community has an obligation to protect the Libyan people and stop Moammar Gaddafi from committing further atrocities.
Katie Ayanian is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at kayanian@wustl.edu.



The Forgotten Continent

Will Dobbs-Allsopp
Nobody seems to be focusing on the medias role in the U.S. intervention in Libya; after all, ultimately the personalities we see on TV bring us most of what we know about the world outside the United States. They have focused on the same region that has fascinated the Western world for the past decade. Sure, the Middle East has been going to pieces over the past several weeks and clearly a newly minted regional vibe will be in effect when all of this sorts itself out; Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya are going to be entirely different places than they were only a few short years ago. And yet, one thing that everyone seems to forget is that the each of these countries Tunisia, Egypt and Libya has two geographic allegiances: not just to the Middle East, but also to Africa. Africa is like the middle child who doesnt seem to get his fair share of attention. Instead, international headlines prefer to hone in on the hip, dramatic Middle East. Maybe focusing on the U.S.S.R. for so many years has infected our psyche; we have some bizarre need to focus on one singular region. Until recent days I couldnt think of one piece of news that happened in Sub-Saharan Africa since the World Cup. And its not like the continent doesnt have its fair share of authoritarian regimes or shady democracies; Moammar Gadhafi and Hosni Mubarak imitators rule countries across the continent. The Ivory Coast popped into the media sphere recently after hundreds of body bags lined streets and the United Nations and France intervened to remove Laurent Gbagbo. But this isnt a new development Gbagbo has escalated violence for months to dispute his loss in an election last year. Nigeria has an upcoming election in which current President Jonathan Goodluck will try to be elected for the first time to his current office; he was vice president until the former president had to resign because of heart conditions. For a country that has a long history of corruption, one of Africas largest metropolitan centers, Lagos, and heavy amounts of exported petroleum (of which the United States is the largest consumer), little was made of the election until bombings struck an electoral office recently. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, various rebel groups have been warring for years in the eastern part of the country, and the only article I can remember reading about it was in National Geographic and had to do with the resulting dwindling population of Silverback Gorillas. For some reason, Africa does not seem to warrant the attention of CNN, Fox News, or MSNBCinstead we get todays YouTube sensation or Charlie Sheens latest Twitter post, presumably because the news industry is driven by what the consumer wants to watch. Is it safe to say, then, that the United States simply does not care about what happens in Africa? Perhaps, but I tend to think that the majority of the blame lies with the perverted, self-contained spiral the news industry has fallen into. We count on media corporations to inform usthey are supposed to bring into our homes the events happening outside. But driven by the search for profit, the news companies are increasingly programming so they will appeal to their audience, the result of which is biased or selective reporting. So, yes, if a studio executive asked the average citizen he or she would probably express a larger concern for the Middle East than for the whole of Africa, but that concern arises partly because the average citizen doesnt know much about Africa. Nobody reports on it.

Will Dobbs-Allsopp is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at willda19@gmail.com Current Nigerian President Jonathan Goodluck



1.__________s Generic Energy Reform Speech

My fellow 1._________. There comes a time when we as a nation must make a conscious choice about our energy future. Are we going to continue to purchase 2. __________ percent of our energy from foreign 3. _________.Or are we going to create jobs in the pursuit of clean energy? This is our 4.________________. Currently our coun try gets its 3. ____________ from 5.___________,6.__________7.__________. It is time for us spur job creation at home while forging a path towards a clean energy independent future. That is why, tonight, I am announcing plan 8.______________________. This plan calls for our nation to end foreign imports of energy by the year 9.___________. In order to do this we will invest 10.____________ 11.___________into the research and development of clean energy technologies such as 12.___________ and 13.___________. This is key to help our children and our childrens children grow up in a world without the rampant pollution of today. Our goal is simple. 1.______________ will become energy independent and break the shackles of foreign imports. This is a matter of national strategic importance. 15. _________________________
(generic presidential sign off) (same country) (noun) (noun) (number) (currency) (number) (Native American hero) (same energy resource) (nation) (nation) (nation) (iconic generational event) (number) (energy resource) (countrys citizens)

Seth Einbinder is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at einbinders@wustl.edu.

The percentage of Democrats that would have preferred to see their party hold out for the basic budget plan they want, even if that means the government shuts down.
**The poll was conducted by Gallup on 4/6/11.

The percentage of Republicans that would have preferred to see their party hold out for the basic budget plan they want, even if that means the government shuts down. Basically, as noted, an incumbent president wants to have a job approval rating at the 50% level or higher to feel comfortable in his bid for re-election. Obama does not have that at the moment. Frank Newport, the editor-in-Chief of Gallup, on the launching of President Obamas reelection campaign.

Job approval for Republicans in Congress.

Job for Democrats in Congress.

**The poll was conducted by Gallup on 4/4/11. Both parties congressional approval ratings are the lowest that Gallup has recorded since opening this particular poll over a decade ago.

We couldnt have our own proposal on Social Security, because it would confuse the public [about] which one does this and which one does that, and once you put another proposal on the table youre conceding that there must be some big problem And were saying that we have a proposal on the table. Its called Social Security. Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, on Paul Ryans FY 2012 federal budget proposal.

43% 38%
The percentage of the vote that President Obama would receive against a generic Republican candidate. The percentage of the vote that a generic Republican candidate would receive against President Obama
** The poll was conducted by NBC News/ The Wall Street Journal between 3/31/11-4/4/11.

Rather than explaining to his population that Jones is a fringe crank whose actions are reviled by most Americans, Karzai has made this his most recent anti-American cause clbre, denouncing the Americans who have paid deeply in lives and treasure to support his inexplicably corrupt and unaccountable government. Christine Fair, a Georgetown University professor, on the Pastor Terry Jones the recent set of riots in afghanistan.