IN THEIR OWN WORDS
Casualties
“...at this point, of course, it’s
water under the bridge.”
— Sarah Palin, referring to her criticism of the
McCain campaign advisors in her new memoir,
Going Rogue.
“I enjoyed the book and she and I
are dear friends.”
— Senator McCain on Palin’s book Going Rogue,
which exposes tensions between Palin and Mc-
Cain during the 2008 presidential campaign.
“And I think most people would
be much more comfortable
with us biting off what we
could chew,”
— Senator Lamar Alexander, (R-TN), criticizing
the scope of the proposed health care plan in
the Senate.
“Carroll County is 10.5%. Maybe
that would cut it down in half,”
— Jerry Hebeler, discussing the positive eco-
nomic consequences of a plan to move Guan-
tamano detainees to his town.
“If the enemy wants to test its
bad luck and fire a missile into
Iran, before the dust settles,
Iran’s ballistic missiles will tar-
get the heart of Tel Aviv”
— Mojtaba Zolnour, the Iranian Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Khamenei’s representative, in a
statement to the Islamic Republic News
The Numbers
1,175
the number of people that died in
officially recorded coal mine acci-
dents across China during the first
half of this year.
18.4%
the decrease in coal mining deaths
in China between last year and this
year.
Best Sellers
1st
Going Rogue by Sarah Palin, which
documents her experiences as the
vice presidential candidate during
the 2008 presidential election.
48th
A Simple Christmas by Mike Hucka-
bee, which is a series of short sto-
ries for the holiday season.
Binge
$350,000
the amount paid at an auction for
the white glove Michael Jackson
wore during the 1983 premiere of
the moonwalk dance.
$2,000,000
the total amount paid for Michael
Jackson’s memorabilia at an auction
in New York.
 Politically Correct WUPR’S ONLY HUMOR
COLUMN SINCE 1776

With the blockbuster movie “2012” out in theaters,

how do YOU think the world is going to end in 2012?

Take the quiz and find out!

by
Mike
Friend
and
Willy
Chotzen‐Freud

1) In a time of need, you pray to D) SETI analyst (4 Points)

A) God (1 Point) E) Comic book store clerk (5 Points)
B) Copijcha, the god of rain (2 Points)
C) Rush Limbaugh (3 Points) 5) You named your son
D) Will Smith (4 Points) A) Jonathon (1 Point)
E) Vampires and werewolves (5 Points) B) Tezcatlipoca (2 Points)
C) Ronald Reagan (3 Points)
2) The last time you killed an animal was D) An unpronounceable string of bizarre sounds
A) When you drove over a squirrel (1 Point) (4 Points)
B) A baby sacrifice to the gods (2 Points) E) When I have a son I’m going to name him Edward
C) To protest the House passing healthcare. Commies! (5 points)
(3 Points)
D) A platypus, because you thought it was an alien. 6) You’re afraid of
(4 Points) A) Spiders (1 Point)
E) I don’t kill animals, because they could be magical B) The god of rain causing a drought because the
creatures (5 Points) sacrifice to him was not sufficient (2 Points)
C) Obamunism (3 Points)
3) You were excited by the invention of D) The White House being blown up by aliens
A) The iPhone (1 Point) (4 Points)
B) The wheel (2 Points) E) There not being a sequel to “New Moon”
C) Supply side economics. That’ll show them socialists
(3 Points) 7) Your favorite snack is
D) The tinfoil helmet to shield you from the ALIENS! A) Oreos (1 point)
(4 Points) B) Maize (2 points)
E) The movie poster (5 Points) C) Apple pie with a 72oz steak (3 points)
D) Saltines--aliens hate salt (4 points)
4) You work as a(n) E) Tomato juice, the thicker the better (5 points)
A) Accountant (1 Point)
B) Hunter/Gatherer (2 Points) Answers on Page 44
C) Truck Driver (3 Points)

December Edition Washington University Political Review 1

 The Washington University

Political Review December Edition

C o n t e n t s
Making Marriage Free to All 4
Laura Lane-Steele
The Adventures of Bill Clinton 6
Mike Friend

America’s Health Care Disparities 8

Peter Birke

America’s Second-Class Colonials 10

Lennox Mark
Siddharth Krishnan imagines the future
Supersizing America’s Taxes 11
issues of the world’s energy. Page 18. Alex Hoogland

Obama’s War 12
Corey Donahue

Feeding Frenzy Vol. 2 14

Andrew Luskin

Islam in France 16
Michael Brodsky

The Future of Power in China and India 18

Siddharth Krishnan

Mosque Controversy in Copenhagen 20

Anna Applebaum

Puerto Rican Voting Rights 22

Agnes Trenche
The Problems with a “Free Tibet” 23
Andrew Luskin rips through the stories of Derek Sun
the day with venom and wit in the latest
edition of feeding frenzy. Page 14. Shooting at Ford Hood 24
Dan Rebnord
 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
POLITICAL REVIEW
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF
GREG ALLEN MATT LEE
JAKE LAPERRUQUE BILLY ROH

DIRECTOR OF DESIGN STAFF WRITERS

LENNOX MARK
TYLER TRUSSELL
SPENCER BERRY
MAX HAMILTON
DIRECTOR OF CONTENT
AMY PLOVNICK
BRITTANY PARKER
ANNA APPLEBAUM
MAX BENNETT
STAFF EDITORS
Anna Applebaum considers the MICHAEL BRODSKY
PETER BIRKE

cultural significance of new mosques JOSH TRUPPMAN

REBECCA CRAIG
COREY DONAHUE
in Copenhagen. Page 20. NICK WILBAR
JAY EVANS
ALEX HOOGLAND
COPY EDITORS
JOHAN OLOFSSON
LAUREN WEISS
SASHA FINE
JOHN MOYNIHAN
Health Care Reform Done Right 26 AGNES SANDS
GAVIN FRISCH

Gavin Frisch MICHAL HYRC

ALEX KAUFMAN
WEB EDITOR ANDREW LUSKIN
Lingering Discrimination on Campus 28 BRYAN BAIRD
DAN REBNORD
Marcus Walton DEREK SUN
WEB DESIGNER SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN
WILL JOHNSON
A Duel of Economic Views 30 WILLY CHOTZEN-FREUND

Johan Oloffson and Spencer Berry TREASURER

SARA FICHMAN-KLEIN
TAKA YAMAGUCHI
MARCUS WALTON
Conflict in the Middle East 32 EDITORIAL ILLUSTRATORS
Taka Yamaguchi ART COORDINATOR LOUISE SMYTHE
KELSEY ENG ANITA LANDREE

Passage of the Lisbon Treaty 34 CARTER MALOUF

CHRISTINA BELDERSON
Michael Hyrc COVER ILLUSTRATOR
ANITA LANDREE HANNAH SHAFFER
VIDHYA NAGARAJAN
Preventing Gendercide 35 SNOW POWERS
BUSINESS MANAGER
Becca Craig MIKE FRIEND
DIANA CHU

CONTRIBUTORS
The Taliban-Drug Nexus 36 LAYOUT STAFF BETEL EZAZ
Hannah Shaffer RACHEL BRAUN NEEL DESAI
ALAA ITAI KIRSTEN MILLER
The Million Dollar Man 38
Mike Friend 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
Discrimination Against Ethiopian Jews 39 FRIENDLY AND OPEN AVENUES OF DISCUSSION AND DEBATE BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL
Sara Fichman ON THE CAMPUS FOR ANY AND ALL POLITICAL IDEAS, REGARDLESS OF THE LEANINGS OF
THOSE IDEAS.
The Green Deception 40
SUBMISSIONS
Alex Kaufman
EDITOR@WUPR.ORG

Chasing the Crazy out of the GOP 42

Jake Laperruque
Making Equality
Laura L an e - S t e ele

D
iscrimination and hate against marginal-
ized populations is still widespread (e.g.
the Mother’s Bar incident). However,
LGBT people are the only remaining minority
group that does not have legal protection against
discrimination. Although the LGBT movement
has made tremendous strides in the last few de-
cades, there is still vast amount of ground to be
made.
When it comes to political activism, Pride Al-
liance’s approach is twofold. We understand the
importance of “activism” in the traditional sense:
we protested on the State House steps when
Proposition 8 was passed in California, we call
and write to our local and national politicians
urging them to support equality, and we have an
active partnership with PROMO (Missouri’s pri-
mary LGBT lobbying group). However, we also
recognize that changes in legislation and policy
will not happen (or will not be effective even if
they do happen) until the hearts and minds of
Americans are changed as well. Every state that
has marriage equality has done so through the
courts, and when marriage equality has been put
up for the popular vote, it has lost. Badly. Every
single time. And even if ENDA (the employment
non-discrimination act) is signed into law, em-
ployers will have no trouble coming up with an
excuse to fire or not hire an LGBT person. Laws
that grant equality to LGBT people will not be
effective until people actually believe that LGBT
people should be equal. Achieving this goal is
Pride Alliance’s second form of political activ-

4 Washington University Political Review December Edition

 Free To All
ism. So how exactly do you change someone’s
mind about these issues? Coming out, if done in
a safe environment, can be a very effective first
step. It has been shown that when people know
an out LGBT person, they are significantly more
likely to vote for pro-gay legislation. But coming
out can’t be the end of the conversation. LGBT
people and straight allies must continue to have
dialogues with their friends, family members,
and coworkers who still oppose equality. We
have to convince people that the real gay agenda
is actually quite con-
servative: get married, “LGBT activism must be rooted in
get a job, and join the
military. Pride Alliance the larger social justice movement.”
believes that working on
the legislative level as well as the interpersonal
level is the best approach to LGBT activism in
this country.
Speaking as an individual, not as the presi-
dent of Pride Alliance, I believe LGBT activ-
ism must be rooted in the larger social justice
movement. As a community we have to realize
that other types of discrimination (classism, rac-
ism, sexism etc.) affect our members as much
or more than homophobia and heterosexism.
It frustrates me when we assume that other op-
pressed minorities have an obligation to stand
up and fight for LGBT rights when we do not
reach out and stand up for their rights as well.
Instead of waiting for a hand, let’s offer up ours
first. Collaboration and combining efforts across
marginalized race, ethnicity, class, gender, sexu-
December Edition
al identities are essential not only because they
constantly intersect but because as Martin Lu-
ther King Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat
to justice everywhere”.
It also frustrates me that gay marriage is the
main issue in the LGBT movement. It is the is-
sue that has drawn the most media attention and
the most money. First of all, our community has
much bigger problems than marriage equality.
For instance, every three days, a transgender
person is killed. LGBT youth have unacceptable
suicide, mental illness, and homelessness rates.
A person can be fired from his or her job simply
because an employer thinks they could be gay or
transgender. So why is gay marriage the head-
liner issue for our movement? I think that it is
at least partially because of the systems of hier-
archy and privilege that exist in our own LGBT
community. The LGBT movement has histori-
cally been led by its most privileged members:
Middle to upper class gay white men. They do
not have to worry about poverty, job security,
transgender stigma, and racism- pretty much
the only privilege they lack is marriage equality.
Second of all, gay and lesbian families are not the
only families who deserve the same 1049 rights,
privileges, and benefits of married heterosexual
couples. What about single parent households?
Washington University Political Review
Two best friends who live together? Widowers?
Divorcees? Why aren’t these groups of people
entitled to the same rights as heterosexual mar-
ried couples? Many people in the LGBT move-
ment do not recognize that marriage itself can
be a form of discrimination. While I believe that
the right to get married is important, I do not
think that it should be what is driving the move-
ment-politically, socially, or financially.
So where do we go from here? We are told to
be patient. That our time will come. That this
civil rights movement has
made huge strides in a short
number of years unprec-
edented. That Obama is on
our side but there are just
too many other things on his plate right now.
But we are tired of being patient and we are tired
of paying taxes to a government and contrib-
uting to a society that does not yet consider us
completely equal. And our hearts continue to be
broken every time our fellow American citizens
overwhelmingly vote hate into law. Given this
frustration and fatigue, LGBT people and our al-
lies must continue to be active in this movement
and the larger social justice movement. Get an-
gry. Protest. Write senators. Talk to your friends
about why they should too.
Laura
Lane‐Steele,
a
WUPR
contributor,
is
a
se‐
nior
 in
 the
 School
 of
 Engineering
 and
 Applied

Sciences.
 Her
 email
 is
 lauralanesteele@gmail.
com.

5
 Politically Correct
WUPR’S ONLY HUMOR COLUMN SINCE 1776
The Adventures of
Bill Clinton
The control room filled with a warm buzzing
noise as Clinton stepped in. On the walls of the
control room were the words “C.E.R.N testing
facility.” Clinton looked around for some button
or dial he could use to make the buzzing noise
stop as it got louder and louder. The noise became
so deafening that Clinton’s fillings began to rattle
in his head and his two titanium knees began to
quake. “Warning: dimensional breach initiated,”
said a calm French female voice. Suddenly the
room went dark and there was an explosion.
Clinton went unconscious. When he woke up
the control room was no more, the wall where
the panel of dials and knobs have stood had
been destroyed to reveal a huge tube. Suspended
above this tube was a black circle floating in the
air. Staring into this hole frightened Clinton as he
knew that the darkness was a façade and some-
thing hideous and evil was on the other side of
the interdimensional gate that had been created.
Clinton’s eyes were drawn from the interdimen-
sional rift by a tapping on his shoulder. It was a
little man in a lab coat who spoke with a strong
German accent. “I was forced by Dick Cheney
to make a portal to the conservaverse which is
what you see ahead of me. It is a universe where
liberal ideas never existed.” “So you mean it is a
portal to hell?” “No, hell is located in the center
of New Jersey, but we do znot zave time to talk.
You must listen. Now that a portal to the conser-
vaverse has been opened, our universe and the
conservaverse are slowly moving toward each
other. When they collide they will destroy each
other.” “I still don’t understand.” “Imagine our
universe is James Carville and the conservaverse
is Mary Matalin, when they come together the
results will be catastrophic; zhave you seen how
ugly zher children are?” “My god, how can I stop
6 Washington University Political Review
it? “Zoo must go into the conservaverse and re-
trieve Dick Cheney. Here, take this communica-
tion device so I can talk with you while you are
there.” With that Bill took the device, placed it
into his ear and jumped into the portal.
Bill awoke to find himself staring down the
barrel of a fully automatic .50 caliber machine
gun. He was sitting on a strip of asphalt wide
enough for exactly one car. “Sir, you are tres-
passing on my property,” said the man. Clinton
peered over the end of the weapon to see the face
of Howard Dean. “Howard, what are you doing
with that gun?” “Zhat is not Howard Dean” said
the scientist over the communication device
“He is Howard Dein, the mirror of your Howard
Dean in the conservaverse.” Dein asked again,
“What are you doing here?” Before Clinton had
time to answer Dein yelled “get down” he fired
his machine gun into the woods for 5 minutes
until he ran out of ammo, cutting down 10 red-
woods in the process. “Byaaaaah! Did you see
that! That herd of cows didn’t have a chance!”
In the smoldering wreckage of the forest Clinton
saw 50 bullet riddled cows laying on the ground.
“Why did you do that?” “Well a man has got to
feed his family.” “With 50 cows?” “Bill, in zhe
conservaverse because no one believes in work-
ing together zhere are no supermarkets or infra-
structure so people have to hunt for their own
food. Also because people follow the Bible to zhe
letter and think birth control is evil the average
family is roughly 30-50 people,” chimed in the
scientist.
Howard Dein looked at Clinton and said, “If
you help me move the cows into the truck I’ll
give you one to eat.” “Sounds good,” said Clin-
ton. Clinton turned around to see a Mack truck
equipped with a full trailer parked behind him.
Several hours later Clinton and Dein finished
loading the cows. As they got into the cab of
the truck and started to drive down the narrow
road Clinton asked, “Why is this road only wide
enough for one car?” “Well, when I built it I only
owned one car.” “You built this road by yourself?”
“Roads don’t build themselves.” “Bill, zhere is no
infrastructure in the conservaverse. Everyone
does everything for themselves, including build-
ing roads. If you keep asking stupid questions
Dein will become suspicious of you. Clinton’s
horror was interrupted as the engine of the truck
exploded in flame. “Goddamit that’s the 5th one
today” said Dein. “Well I guess we’ll have to walk
to the nearest vending machine.” “You’re just go-
ing to leave your burning truck here?” “Sure,
I can always buy a new one.” “What about the
cows?” “I’m sure we will run into another herd
on the way there, don’t worry you’ll get your
cow.” After walking for half an hour Clinton and
Dein came upon a vending machine. The ma-
chine had a giant logo on it which said Mega-
Corp. When Clinton and Dein walked up to the
machine it began talking to them “Welcome,
valued customer to the MegaCorp vending ma-
chine. Pick one of the six options of what you
want. Clinton looked at the options: “Energy
Drink, Lead Paint, Gasoline, Twinkie, American
Flag, Lightsaber”. Clinton clicked the option that
said lightsaber, the machine said in its light voice
“processing”. Suddenly a hole opened up in the
machine revealing a narrow aperture. The ma-
chine said, “please pay $20 in the next 10 seconds
or MegaCorp vending machine will kill you with
a laser.” “Bill, remember in the conservaverse it
is okay to kill someone if they don’t pay you.
Quickly, pay zem!” Bill took out a bunch of bills
and stuffed them into the machine. The vending
December Edition
machine said “thank you” and a lightsaber came
out. “How is this possible?” Clinton asked. “You
zhee, Bill, in the conservaverse there was never
a labor rights movement, nor the creation of the
concept of work place safety, although this has
resulted in the needless deaths of thousands of
people, it also allowed people to perform the ex-
periments necessary to create a lightsaber.”
Suddenly Clinton heard helicopters off in the
distance. He turned around to see men dressed
in camo coming out of the woods holding mas-
sive machine guns as well as several tanks com-
ing up the narrow road. One tank rolled up to
Clinton, its massive gun barrel pointed at his
face. The hatch on the tank opened up and Dick
Cheney popped out. “Bill Clinton, you bastard,
you couldn’t leave me alone could you?” “Aha,”
said the scientist “this is how you can close the Art by Louise Smythe. Her email is LouiseS@samfox.wustl.edu.
portal. You must bring Cheney back to our uni-
verse“ “How can I do that? “ “Cheney has zee with a shotgun and as long as I bury the body no Everyone here is so homophobic that they can’t
device that made the portal. You must convince one bothers me.” Since Clinton and Cheney had function in the presence of a naked man.” “Curse
him to come back.“ “Cheney, when you opened a been talking more and more soldiers had been you, Bill. I’ll never go back to our universe!”
portal to the conservaverse you condemned both coming out of the woods. The helicopters were “Yes you will, Cheney, because we are lovers!” At
of our universes to be destroyed,” said Clinton “I now circling above them the machine gunners this the soldiers shuddered and began to walk
don’t care Bill here I can buy my own personal in them aiming at Clinton. “Bill, I’m going to kill away. The helicopters flew off into the distance.
army, no one cares about the environment and you and then I am going to live the rest of my life “Wait! Come back! I’m not gay, we are not lov-
for Christ sakes there are lightsabers!” “Cheney, in the conservaverse.” “Bill, zoo must stop him.” ers!” Its too late, Cheney. You don’t have friends
both this world and our world will be destroyed “What can I do?” “Use your knowledge of zeh here anymore. Lets go back.” With that Cheney
if you stay here.” “Bill, I would rather die here conservaverse.” With that, Clinton knew what sighed and opened a portal back to C.E.R.N. By
than anywhere else, do you know how I got this he had to do. He turned on his lightsaber and the way, Clinton kept the lightsaber.
hair?” Cheney pointed to the full blond head of with one deft swipe cut off his clothes. Every-
hair on his head. “I stole it from a homeless man one averted their eyes fearful that if they looked
and no one cared because he is homeless and at Clinton they would be called gay. “What are Mike
 Friend,
 WUPR’s
 Business
 Manager,
 is
 a

no one cares about the homeless! In fact no one you doing, Bill?” said Cheney as he averted his sophomore
in
the
College
of
Arts
and
Sciences.

cares what I do. I can shoot a man in the face eyes. “I am using the conservaverse against you. His
email
is
sodiumsb@gmail.com

NEXT time on the adventures of Bill Clinton: Bill has a f--king lightsaber!

December Edition Washington University Political Review 7

 Minding the Gap
The United States’ Health Care
Disparities and
Health Care Reform
Peter Birke
!"#$%&'($)*+,)-%
./012)$3%4546%7889:%

T
hroughout United States’ ongoing health
')$
care debate, proponents of reform have '(#'$

'($
often cited affordability as the main im-
petus for action. While economic considerations !'$
!%#"$
!"#!$
are crucial aspects of health care reform, they cer- !%$

tainly aren’t the only considerations. Health care !*$

reform efforts should address the gaping racial !)$
disparities that exist in our current health care %&#"$
!($
system. In doing so, health care reform becomes
%'$
not only an issue of affordability, but of equality
as well. %%$

Data shows that racial and ethnic minorities %*$

receive less health care and lower quality health %)$

care than do whites. Thirteen percent of non-el- +,-./0$ 123450$

derly whites are uninsured. This number jumps This chart indicates the average life expectancy for white and black males and females. Males
up to 21% for African Americans and 34% for are represented by the blue bar, females the red.
Hispanics. A Hispanic child is three times less 632/$ 7/832/$

likely to have a consistent source of health care
than a white child. Minorities have less access
to primary care clinics, meaning they are more
likely to make expensive hospital visits. Further-
more, minorities often live in areas with little or
no access to health care at all. Even when they
do have the same access to health care as whites,
they often receive a lower quality of care. A 2008
study performed by researchers at the Harvard
Medical School revealed racial disparities among
diabetes patients receiving treatments from the
very same physician. Also, African Americans
and Hispanics are less likely to be referred for
lung cancer surgery and are less likely to be
prescribed pain control medications for cancer
than are whites. These statistics suggest that the
current set of health care treatment disparities
are not merely a result of socioeconomic factors,
but are actually a result of a patient’s race.
Why should we care about racial disparities in
health care? Despite various efforts to close these
discrepancies, they have persisted. In 2050, an
estimated 50% of the U.S. population will be a
member of a minority group. As the nation’s mi-
nority population continues to grow, the pres-
ence of health care disparities will become more
apparent and more detrimental as they come to
adversely affect ever-increasing swaths of the
population.
The health care reform currently being
pushed through Congress might potentially
alleviate some of the racial disparities just dis-
cussed. Before he died, Senator Edward Ken-
nedy remarked that expanding health insurance
coverage “would dramatically reduce racial and
ethnic disparities in health care and improve mi-
nority health.” If legislation is passed, the coun-
try would begin the long trek towards universal
coverage. Under the House bill, the Congressio-
nal Budget Office estimates that 96% of Ameri-
cans will be insured in 2019. While this measure
would reduce the barriers to health care that
many minorities experience, the problem of
disparate treatment would remain. Some steps
could be taken by Congress to address this. Cul-
tural understanding and foreign language skills
among health care workers could be improved
in order to serve minority populations more ef-
fectively. By increasing the number of minorities
in health care professions, their current lack of
representation in the field would be addressed.
Finally, Congress should standardize minority
health data collection so that disparities can be
identified and dealt with. Congress should not
waste this opportunity to address one the big-
gest inequalities of our time. Doing nothing
would be a bitter pill to take for minorities all
across the United States.
Peter
Birke,
a
WUPR
Staff
Writer,
is
in
the
Col‐
lege
of
Arts
and
Sciences.
His
email
is
pebirke@
wustl.edu.

8 Washington University Political Review December Edition

 Art by Kelsey Eng. Her email is KelseyE@samfox.wustl.edu.

December Edition Washington University Political Review 9

 AmericaNS
Or Second-Class Colonials?
A look at how the U.S. territories don’t hold the standing they deserve
Lennox Mark

T
he delicate balance between the tyranny of
the majority and the rights of the minor-
ity manifests itself daily in variant ways.
Glass ceilings, while many have shattered against
progressive legislation, still exist in many contexts.
Whether that minority is the most populous de-
mographic in the United States (women) or rep-
resented in the Oval Office (African Americans),
they can never gain the level of clout wielded by
the majority until they obtain that potent force
by which the United States is driven:
political power. In reality, no population
in the United States is more politically Unable to propose legislation of their
disenfranchised than the residents of the
U.S. territories. own, delegates may only comment
Guam. The Northern Marianas.
American Samoa. The list of U.S. is- on and suggest edits to those bills
land possessions within the Pacific and
Atlantic Oceans is lengthy, with more
than 50 individual islands under the
that are already in circulation.
dominion of the stars and stripes. Some
of these are highly populated; Puerto Rico, for
example, boasts a population of approximately
4 million people—nearly thirteen times that of
Wyoming. Others are utterly uninhabited, like
Baker Island in the South Pacific, which is used
primarily as a fishery. Some, like the Northern
Marianas, were acquired by invasive military
force and others, like the Virgin Islands were
purchased—$25 million in gold—as real estate.
What binds these distinct territories together is
neither culture, language, nor race, but a status
less than statehood, and for their inhabitants,
status as citizens in name only.
Political power comes in many different
forms, from the fame of celebrity status to the
wealth of a Wall Street banker. Aside from these
extremes, a very basic way to express political
power is through Congress. Congresspersons
act as the crusaders for our causes: members of
the House and the Senate advocate for legisla-
tion, respond to our grievances, and allocate
funds on our behalf. Nonetheless, citizens from
U.S. territories find that those seated in Con-
gress on their behalf are neither representatives
nor senators, but merely delegates. Delegates
are non-voting members of Congress and are
unable to actively participate in bringing about
national change. The power of the delegate is
limited to oratory. They may serve on commit-
tees, only to be overshadowed by their fellow
congresspersons, who trump them in voting
power and often in seniority as well. Unable to
propose legislation of their own, delegates may
only comment on and suggest edits to those bills
that are already in circulation. Congresspersons
are usually able to gain votes for legislation they
support by promising other congresspersons
their vote in exchange, an act called logrolling.
Without a floor vote to their name, delegates
cannot participate in logrolling with other con-
gressman or influence issues that are salient to
their constituents. While territory residents are
represented, it serves no lasting purpose, leaving
these people virtually isolated from the national
scene. Another way to connect to national poli-
tics is through the power of the ballot. However,
residents of U.S. territories are also barred from
this medium, not yet endowed with the power to
vote for the president or vice president. The 2008
presidential election witnessed an unprecedent-
ed turnout of traditionally apolitical minorities
such as the youth, African Americans, and La-
tinos. It’s a shame that territorial residents could
not also do so.
Despite these overt disadvantages, small vic-
tories are slowly bringing the territories into
mainstream America. All the territo-
ries have established local governments
identical to those of state governments,
fully equipped with a locally elected gov-
ernor and legislature. Now able to elect
local senators for their district, U.S. ter-
ritories have come a long way from the
military or naval rule under which most
started. The Office of Insular Affairs, a
part of the Department of the Interior,
allocates millions in federal funds each
year to the local governments of these island ter-
ritories to support renovation, construction, and
even scholarship funds. According to the U.S.
Department of the Treasury, six new quarters
will be minted this year, five of which will honor
Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Is-
lands, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. Sadly though, unlike the previous ter-
ritories that were able to make their way into the
heart of the Union, the current insular posses-
sions may never become fully fledged states. The
current territories may have to content them-
selves with a political existence not unlike their
geographic positioning: on the outskirts.
Lennox
 Mark,
 a
 WUPR
 Staff
 Writer,
 is
 a
 fresh‐
man
 in
 the
 College
 of
 Arts
 and
 Sciences.
 His

email
is
lennox.mark@gmail.com.

10 Washington University Political Review December Edition

T!" c#n$r#%&r'( #%&) *+ *n$,--.e'i$( p-/i0(
A1&2 H3o4l*n5
T
he explosion of obesity in the United States over the past 30 years
is staggering. The Center for Disease Control estimates that 34% of
Americans are “obese,” defined as having a Body Mass Index of over
30, and an additional 32.7% of Americans are overweight, with a BMI over
25. While the number of overweight Americans has remained stable since
1980, the number of obese Americans has more than doubled. This trend has
proven extremely costly: obesity was estimated to be responsible for 9.1%
of total U.S. health expenditures in 2006, a cost of up to $147 billion. As
the government considers how to expand national health care coverage and
cut costs, its proceedings must include an honest discussion of the problems
posed by obesity.
Two methods to discourage obesity and counteract its costs are already
under consideration: taxing unhealthy food and imposing financial incen-
tives (such as reduced insurance premiums for people in good health) to
encourage weight loss. Unfortunately, both approaches have significant
downsides. Taxes on unhealthy foods, or “obesity taxes,” are themselves in-
sufficient. Even if the government were capable of prescribing a universally
healthy diet, it would need to impose untenably high taxes to convince
consumers to follow its guidelines. In addition, even moderate obesity
taxes are ripe targets for political opposition, as evidenced by the scornful
response to New York governor David Patterson’s proposal to tax “sugared
beverages” last year. Although obesity taxes cannot solve the problem of
obesity, they may be a useful part of a larger anti-obesity campaign. Taxes
may not completely dissuade consumers from buying unhealthy foods, but
they could reduce the price disparity between unhealthy foods and their
alternatives, such as between soda and fruit juice. In addition, even mod-
erate obesity taxes could raise significant revenue, which the government
could use to subsidize healthier food options or fund health programs.
Obesity taxes will not solve the problem posed by obesity, but they may be
a useful part of the solution.
The proposal to charge higher insurance rates for obese people is more
problematic. Some insurance plans already include financial incentives
December Edition Washington University Political Review
to encourage healthy body weights, and it is common practice to charge
higher premiums based on another unhealthy life choice (smoking). As-
suming the government passes some sort of national health insurance
mandate, however, raising insurance premiums for obese people would
impose a significant, sudden, unforeseen, and unavoidable financial penal-
ty on at least a third of the population. This is particularly awkward because
obese people are statistically more likely to be poor and racial minorities,
so charging higher insurance premiums based on obesity would be both
inequitable and racially disparate. Subsidizing insurance for low-income
families could offset the inequity of their higher premiums, but this would
also remove their financial incentive to lose weight.
Like obesity taxes, raising insurance premiums for obese people may
not significantly impact obesity rates. But denying insurance companies
the right to charge obese people higher premiums (proportional to their
increased risk of diabetes and other health complications) would restrict
one of the fundamental objectives of insurance, to spread the risk of
healthcare costs. Charging obese patients the same premiums as healthier
patients would create a free-rider problem and saddle healthy citizens with
unfairly bloated bills.
The way forward is uncertain. The government walks a fine line between
promoting citizens’ health and welfare and restricting their autonomy, be-
tween allowing the free market to work and allowing insurance companies
to exploit an already vulnerable segment of society. But walking this line
is necessary: the obesity epidemic is itself a national health crisis that the
government must address, particularly in light of pending health care leg-
islation. Even if the government is ultimately unable to significantly reduce
obesity rates, it has a civic and fiscal responsibility to try.
Alex
Hoogland,
a
WUPR
Staff
Writer,
is
a
senior
in
the
College
of
Arts
and

Sciences.
His
email
is
ajhoogla@wustl.edu.

11
 OBAMA’s
WAR
A look at both sides of Obama’s
difficult decision
I
n September Stanley McChrystal, the top commander of American and
NATO forces in Afghanistan, publicly requested an additional 40,000
troops in order to help combat the Taliban and continue training Afghan
security forces. President Obama has deliberated for two months and his
decision is expected by the first week of December. It is important to note,
though, that no additional U.S. forces could begin deployment until early
next year, meaning Obama still has time.
Obama’s national security advisers have given him four options. The low
The Case for a Modest Increase
The war in Afghanistan has been going on for eight years. It is soaking
up U.S. resources and costing hundreds of lives in the process. This year
has shown the highest death toll since the beginning of the war, even after
Obama increased the number of American troops by 21,000 shortly after
entering office. Americans are growing tired of the lack of significant prog-
ress and—with a midterm election coming up—Democrats are becoming
much less willing to support a significant surge in Afghanistan. If he hopes
for increased funding, Obama will need to rely on the Republican vote
which won’t be easy. To increase the forces by 40,000 he’ll need to request
about $40 billion from Congress. This pricetag will surely anger those who
are watching the federal deficit skyrocket under Obama’s watch. It will be
12 Washington University Political Review
Corey Donahue
end option is to increase in 10,000 troops, most of which would go towards
training the Afghan security forces with a small group sent to hunt and
kill terrorists within Afghanistan. On the high end, Obama is consider-
ing what General McChrystal has suggested: a 40,000 troop increase sent
to eliminate the Taliban and also to help train Afghan forces. This option
would attempt to rebuild the country into a stable, modern state. There are
good reasons to support both extremes.
even harder for Obama and the Democrats to pass a healthcare bill, im-
migration reform, and climate change legislation.
Many point to the surge in Iraq as proof that an increase of troops in
Afghanistan will help finally push the war in the right direction. But one
cannot generalize Iraq to Afghanistan. Firstly, the government in Kabul is
significantly more corrupt and much less willing to engage in defeating its
insurgents. Also, there are far fewer Afghan security forces than there are
Iraqi. And while most of the Iraqi people are literate, only one in four of
the Afghan policemen are literate, meaning that police training is incred-
ibly difficult.
The Afghan security forces are floundering; a recent report showed that
December Edition
the number of Afghan battalions able to fight independently has actually
decreased in the last six months. One out of every four or five men in
the Afghan security forces quit each year. Somehow, General McChrys-
tal hopes to increase the Afghan Army from 90,000 to 134,000 in a year.
This goal is impossible without billions of dollars of American money be-
ing spent, only for Afghan men to then quit the army after receiving their
The Case for a Significant Increase
Since Obama appointed General McChrystal, there has been a refocus
on the loss of civilian lives in planning military strategy. General McChrys-
tal is not only fighting a war against the Taliban for territory, but also for
the allegiances of the Afghan people. Killing the Taliban is not necessar-
ily his priority: “You can kill Taliban forever because they are not a finite
number.” His focus is on making friends with local leaders, protecting the
people, and building an Afghan state. McChrystal is centering his troops
in the cities, hoping to draw the Taliban out of the mountainous regions.
He hopes that this will depict them as the aggressors, thereby turning lo-
cal people, whose loyalties are split, against the insurgents. The general
also intends to do his best, like with the Sunni Awakening in Iraq, to get
the Taliban to switch sides. This has failed in the past due to the inability
of American and Afghan forces to provide protection for those who have
joined the counterinsurgency. Increasing the number of troops will allow
General McChrystal to protect those who have offered to help the Ameri-
can and NATO armies.
American forces are making progress in stopping Al Qaeda and driving
Decision Time
There’s a good reason Obama has taken so long to make this near-im-
possible decision. If he wishes to support a full surge, he’ll receive attacks at
home, possibly jeopardizing some of the programs he still wishes to enact.
But if he supports only a small increase with modest goals, he’ll risk the
Afghan government being overrun by the Taliban, completely eliminating
any progress made in the past eight years. It seems that neither option will
At it again. These U.S. soldiers are in line to recieve their medical eximations upon their return from Iraq and Afghanistan. Depending on
Obama’s decision, some of them may be headed right back.
Corey
Donahue,
a
WUPR
Staff
Writer,
is
a
sophomore
in
the
College
of
Arts
and
Sciences.
His
email
is
corey.donahue@gmail.com.
December Edition Washington University Political Review
check.
With an incredibly corrupt government, incapable security forces, and
increasing costs for the United States, an increase in troops would surely
result in loss of hundreds more lives and Obama’s domestic reforms.
them out of the country and into Pakistan, which is facing its own prob-
lems in fighting back militants. Because of this, Pakistan has been largely
remiss in fighting back the Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda forces who are
pouring through its western border. President Obama hopes to use what-
ever leverage he can, including increased intelligence sharing and military
cooperation, in exchange for a harder stance against the Afghan Taliban
finding refuge in Pakistan.
The White House also hopes to gain some leverage within President
Hamid Karzai’s government. One method being discussed is moving
money from the central government to provincial leaders. This and other
threats that will weaken the government in Kabul are attempts to motivate
President Karzai to stop the rampant corruption within his administra-
tion.
Coupled with a plan to influence the governments of Afghanistan and
Pakistan into action while turning popular support against the Taliban, a
significant increase in troops will help turn the country around.
come without a high cost. But doing nothing is not a plan. Obama needs to
put some faith in General McChrystal, who has a clear strategy to win back
this war. Obama’s decision to send extra troops will not be popular, but it
will not be forgotten if the war can turn around and the Taliban’s attacks
largely diminish. A sizable increase with a thorough review in one year’s
time is the best choice Obama has in this lose-lose situation.
13
 The system—or whatever semblance
of one there is—is broken. Big Media.
Big government. Big corporations.
Big everything. Were being spoon-fed
an understanding of the world based on
nothing but what the system wants us
to feel. It makes me more than angry.
It makes me mad as hell, and Im not
going to take it anymore! At a time like
by Andrew Luskin this, being mad is the only way to stay
e, we’ve sane. So cue the madness, and shove
F o r a long tim ence-
… stin .
that ab ’t work
known u c a t io n doesn less old the system through the shredder.
ed ire
only sex is, a band of t -
s p it e t h e fe n d ed vene y
De ly d c
s bra v e preg n dn a
coots ha e and teenage c t s ” a n
eas of “fa
real dis fo r c e s p u b-
the evil g to inv
ade
against e n in i a nd is
” thr e a t
ississip p hat h
“reason r tin g in M
thes e l y said t m by get-
ols. Sta nation, ece n t
d hi
lic scho nd the me- ma r rasse , but
g a r o u
spreadin arriors are try overpower
in g s o …Oba er embar o n a test um-
ht 3 n
w ht to daug score of 7 rrent poll lain…
teacher their fig lling gir
ls
g a s c u o m p
thing n e w in
f e v o lu tion: te in
tin
e r i n gh i
i g h t to c
years o d r
ch them consi e has no
a billion w boys to tou ough this h
a ll o
re.” Alt
h bers,
not to no squa —
“ n o - is brilliant
their
u n d s t upid, it o c h a n ge
might s
o gt
lly tryin stead, they’re
h e y a r en’t rea s e x ; in
t ave about
ire to h nagers
the des s e t e e off,
o c o n fu s mec o
trying t Once the pant to d o …
y. w what You might
anatom n ’t k n o d Haggard
as the
s wo remember Te ary, homophobic
the boy tion
vicious, reac ace after
r w ho fell from gr
preache e— pardon
a m al e prostitut h.
he hi re d crystal met
and smoked
me, escort— pro m in en ce
itial rise to
Haggard’s in t on hi s advocacy of
…The Iraqi military is buying 1,500 bomb de- d in p ar
was ba se for Christian
tectors at $60,000 apiece. Slight problem: they m as culine ideal
a hy p er - imate Fight-
don’t work. The manufacturer claims that they lified by “Ult
men, exemp back and,
can detect bombs, guns, drugs, ivory, and “human s. ” N ow , Haggard is was
ing Je su a dick as he
research” at a range of up to five kilometers. The
su m ab ly , as much of at lo ok s like
pre ex p ression th
manufacturer’s website asserts that the device detects it h an s
before. W aggard insist
these things using “long-range electrostatic attraction ing burrs, H he
he’s swallow , but the way
of highly charged ions [of] difficult substances” and “ion
’s co m p le tely straight re n t st or y…
he
like-charged fluctuation” in the “Pico-gram range.” ” tells a diffe
says “amen
The device is “easy to aperate [sic],” uses no batteries,
and is apparently powered by bullshit. American advi-
sors have urged the Iraqis not to use these devices, but
Major General Jerad al-Jabiri, the man responsible for
this purchase, told the New York Times on November
ospi-
3 that he doesn’t care “whether it’s magic or scien- B e c k was h er
n rli
tific.” Jabiri went on to say, “I know more about this n Glen itis ea ’t
…Whe or appendic id n
issue than the Americans do. In fact, I know more f dia d
talized th, the me ey want
about bombs than anyone in the world.” Clearly, on e it: th
this m to hid
the Iraqis are in good hands, which may not stay n t r y
eve
attached much longer… ead…
him d

14 Washington University Political Review December Edition

 The nt is
epar tme l
Justice D ing after medica
n g e r go w h ic h eized
no lo
a dispen
sarie s,
i n has s
marijuan direc- ah P a l
only
a
t e s a new …Sar tlight like book
y in d ic a he drug
hopefu ll
o n Drugs. T the s
po —a
tion in t
he W a r
es has would er;
n ited Stat e r i c k u d of h is like
t h e U
d on pse
u- mav . I’m pro k
policy of een base tour a boo tarin
g
for de c a d e s b
cial c o n se r va-
i n w riting oughboy s roller.
d o n so Pa l ry D ing steam g
doscienc
ea n ounger illsbu
d fo r people y olicy the P approach sson duri s
n
tives’ ha t r e . If the p an le id
a r k e r t han they a lt h , the do w n
rned
h e r a
now estions
v o
and d a bout he Pali n l e a
ign a n d
”q u
y b e e n id d the
e ampa otcha
had reall t would have ra the c onable “g ke “What
do
e n ins
governm ay factory… unr e a s
edia , l i
e rem a
Frito-L e m s a g
t h e s r e-
from ?” Her m i t ’s not
…The ea d u g h
you r me, altho that
dicte 2009 ele a
the s ear what
d c
lican , except tions wer l
ally c e is. Even l
Inqui for o e as g o
the p si ne
ar ty tion, in w thing: th ring as p
bo
m e s s a Brist
is in are p h e ong r e- d a u ghter t h e
charg u ich t o her eted ill,
read e, as rged as h he mode ing Repu terpr r
t t e r b misin ing of “D
extra he charg heir seve retics. Th ate eleme - mean rill!”…
ct co es, th re an e r ad n ts of d
ers e n
nsure fessions,
e fat
, ket
d blo
odles ical right baby,
York that and c hup- s inqui
’s t th fa s
man 23rd co he masse e froth-c ced tor t itors
aged ngre s w ill h i n n u r ers
dling t ssi ed p
. Des o win on onal dist be compl reach
- …A
It’s li p ite th l y beca r ict, t i ant.
k h In Ne
get u e watchin is, they k use of the e Democ w new
p gap eep t radic rat
woul , climb b e r s h e a l
Bap
ti
d a on
ined, say that ck to the fall down isition g ed-
inqu s’ m goin st mega
they top, oing. g to chur
but I t h e st build co ch
d n a
there on’t thin eed to g nd fall do airs, the . Loc st $130 is
… k tha et w n dow ated milli
t the their hea n again. nt
mon own Da n 1.5 m n
o o
y wo d s e I stro llas, illion
uld fi xa
nd a m- thou s it th
nyth sand y that w e build square f to
ing for a s i in ee
t lea in the m ll span g is a co t in
seve st 8 ain seve lor fu
ra 0 ra
a de l-story 0 SUVs hall and l street l glass
d . s
and icated C glass pa The cen have pa , seat
c a f e h r i vilio t e r r king
two teria stian n, a will
gard gymnas s, a six- rock au glass sky feature
pres en, pla iums, a floor ed ditorium bridge a
e hom umably sma tele fountai ucation , caf ,
arin el ,a v n c és
r i d a, M with a can, ess peop gold-p isions lin plaza, a enter,
Flo an bu le la in r
pa, am held iron t at lea . Say wh ted mid g the w ooftop
I n Tam e beat e as he s a ic th st th a t yo d l e fin a lls, a
w. uc lic a min at e
e-ha n Br e po an w an d-bo these p Vatican u want ger to p nd,
…Ye ist Jase alled th g the m t the m ey gglin eo h ab o
r v c i n h a th gly d ple clai as tast out the int at
rese on and , think imed t s what isson m to e. It Vati
e i r o w n c l a a t ’ s out ant… wor ’ sn -
tir an d ruce has and “t
h
t turn ara- ship ot just
m I Jesu
the rist. B ar,” ou up.” lexios M from s; it’
o Akb
terr Allahu y blow y Father A visiting - s
“ e t c
said efore th rist was d pries for dire as
b o e
say the terr and rob k Bruce e man w an
d s h m
that bearde ried to a iming t hat the ces—
i s , a h o t o c la e d t
d v a n s
k
e e c e, w dition t as claim exual a bomber
Gr a d h e s e -
s. In ruce mad s, suicid ight be
tion orist, B m and en r
r r i know eets
a te to rob h
r y b ody hit on m the str at
ve d n h
tried se, as e ings an ves up o Bruce t ...Whether you agree with him
e c a u a l t h m s e l t e ll a n
b e e ld m or not, it’s refreshing to hav
to st w th dy shou that hu it ea
like hey blo e b o a r d i n s , president who doesn’t conside
t m e a r
fore mpa. So o n ce h their br “smart” a four-letter word…
a e f t…
of T ecause h 10% o prove i
t b u s e t o
jus nly as
gs o he h
bein ’t mean
n
does
Andrew
Luskin,
a
WUPR
Staff
Writer,
is
a
freshman
in
the
College
of
Arts
and
Sciences.
His
email
is
atluskin@artsci.wustl.edu.
December Edition Washington University Political Review 15
 French Politics
of Religion
A look at France’s policy on keeping church and
state separate and what that means for its people
I
slam and France. One of the world’s principal
religions, and one of Europe’s foremost na-
tions.
As a secular republic, France does not bar ad-
mission on the basis of faith, nor does it impose
upon its citizens a state-endorsed religion. In
fact, France takes the very opposite approach to
church-state relations. Some might even go so
far as to argue that their policy of religious and
political separation, called laïcité, is even more
stringent than that of the United States.
This rigid severance of religion and state ac-
tually makes the study of Islam in France con-
siderably more difficult. On account of a 1958
law that forbids the government from inquiring
about religion or ethnicity in their censuses,
no accurate breakdown of religious affiliation
within the country exists. Nevertheless, while
their estimates are admittedly rough around the
edges, the United States Department of State ap-
proximates that between five and ten percent of
the French population is Muslim.
In the years following World War II, Mus-
lim immigration to France began to surge. The
country’s workforce was inadequate for post-
war reconstruction efforts, and so the govern-
ment welcomed any and all able bodies that they
could find. This demand for manual labor hap-
pened to coincide with the emergence of North
African independence movements, and so na-
16
Michael
Brodsky
tives of former European colonies -- principally
Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia -- began to settle
in the French mainland. Even after the labor mi-
gration ended in the mid-1970s, family reunifi-
cation provisions allowed for the continued mi-
gration of thousands of individuals into France.
Given the widespread homogeny of French
society, immigrants such as these experienced
substantial difficulty assimilating into French
culture. Not only were these North African
Muslims ethnically and racially different, but
their religious practices and traditional garb
were distinct from those of the Roman Catholic
majority.
In late 2003 then-president Jacques Chirac
decided that the wearing of ostentatious reli-
gious symbols should be prohibited in public
schools. According to Chirac, as well as the par-
liament that signed off on his law, conspicuous
display of such religious trademarks was at odds
with laïcité guidelines. As a result, the wearing
of the hijab—a traditional Muslim head cover-
ing—was prohibited on public school domain.
This law, however, did not restrict students from
wearing discreet symbols of faith. As such, the
possession of chamsas, Stars of David and other
similar amulets was sanctioned, and any student
who chose to do so could still freely don reli-
gious jewelry.
Although it has long been a matter of con-
Washington University Political Review
tention, this issue of assimilation most recently
boiled to the surface in June 2009. During the
first presidential address to parliament since
the 19th century, President Nicholas Sarkozy
outlined his policy with regard to the wearing
of burqas, an outer garment worn by Muslim
women that covers their figures from head to
toe. Sarkozy announced that such customs un-
dermine self-worth and reduce women to servi-
tude: “We cannot accept to have in our country
women who are prisoners behind netting, cut
off from all social life, deprived of identity. That
is not the idea that the French republic has of
women’s dignity.” He continued, “The burqa is
not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience.
It will not be welcome on the territory of the
French republic.”
Nevertheless, the French leader emphasized
that the attack was not directed toward the Mus-
lim religion itself, and highlighted the need to
respect Islam as much as every other faith.
Responding to Mr. Sarkozy’s communiqué,
the leader of the French Council for the Muslim
Religion said, that “To raise the subject like this,
via parliamentary committee, is a way of stigma-
tizing Islam and the Muslims of France.” When
questioned about the matter, the president’s
commissioner for diversity and equal opportu-
nity expressed doubt that, even if passed, such a
law would be enforceable.
December Edition
 While Sarkozy’s intent was neither to under-
mine nor vilify Islam, the issue serves to remind
us that when it comes to Muslim assimilation,
there is work yet to be done. French Muslims
are much more likely to feel ostracized than
are their religious counterparts, and many ex-
perts acknowledge the integration difficulties
that Muslims experience. They point out that
Muslims disproportionately inhabit suburban
housing projects and are hit particularly hard
by France’s unemployment problems. Indeed, Art by Hannah Shaffer. Her email is hrshaffe@artsci.wustl.edu.
many have linked the November 2005 riots with
these disparities. The BBC reported that French The burka is still incredibly controversial in France.
discrimination toward immigrants, as well as a
negative conception of Islam, had marginalized
groups of French Muslims and might have been In point of fact, however, the French Muslim egalitarianism, its Muslim community is strug-
a contributing factor to the riots. community has far from embraced radical calls gling to fully assimilate into national culture.
To a degree, this Muslim estrangement stems to violence. During the immediate aftermath This problem—as well as its solution—lies in the
from the same fear that grips every other West- of the 9/11 attack—which happened to occur anomalous nature of Islam and the socioeco-
ern nation—that of Islamic fundamentalism. during the religiously important month of Ra- nomic issues that torment France. In the words
According to one report from the Brookings madan—French Muslims wasted little time be- of Stéphanie Giry, a Senior Editor at Foreign
Institute, speculation that “the largely migrant- fore overwhelmingly condemning the massacre. Affairs, “Grasping what has sometimes gone
populated suburbs might harbor wasps’ nests of Indeed, in a poll cast by the French Institute of wrong—and what has mostly gone right—with
America-haters—if not sleeper cells—coincided Public Opinion, these acts of terrorism were de- the integration of Muslims in France can thus
with the lethal explosion of a chemical factory nounced by 92 percent of Muslims. By the same offer clues to the challenges faced by Europe as
in Toulouse.” Furthermore, reports of a derailed percentage, the Islamic community responded a whole.”
terrorist plot against the American embassy in that the hijackers were not genuinely Muslim,
Paris, as well as the FBI’s arrest of a French Mus- “because Islam is a religion of peace and mod- Michael
Brodsky,
a
WUPR
Staff
Editor,
is
a
soph‐
lim thought to be the last missing September 11 eration.” omore
in
the
College
of
Arts
and
Sciences.
His

hijacker, only fueled popular distrust. Although France has long prided itself on email
address
is
michaelbrodsky@wustl.edu.

December Edition Washington University Political Review 17

 T he Power Str ug gle
The Future of China, India, and Energy
Siddharth Krishnan

Supply, demand and the growing economic superpowers sustainably will cient with its energy use, using 20%-100% more
energy than OECD (Organization for Economic
environment: Why energy be this century’s biggest challenge. Co-operation and Development) countries for
is today’s hottest issue Planning for a global the same industrial processes.
economic boom: Why we India has a similar story. In recent years the

T
oday, more than two hundred years af- liberalization of markets and an influx of foreign
ter the Industrial Revolution, the world
need to build a power plant direct investment (FDI) have seen India grow
is witnessing the emergence of two new every day for the next 30 at around 7% annually, because of which India’s
economic powers, China and India. While this is energy use per capita has doubled over the last
years
fantastic news, such rapid growth has created an 30 years. Though it still uses only a third of the
explosion in demand for energy. Unfortunately, China’s economy has been steadily growing at energy that China does, and a fourteenth of the
the most viable way of meeting this demand re- 9% every year and is expected to continue. Its energy that the United States, India’s huge popu-
mains fossil fuels, which is hugely problematic. economy is now the second largest in the world lation and impressive growth rate pose a major
Burning fossil fuels releases carbon, which behind, behind only the United States. Cor- environmental concern.
has been proven beyond a doubt to contribute to respondingly, its energy per capita has tripled According to Dr Pratim Biswas, the depart-
global warming, a phenomenon previously con- since 1976, making it the second largest con- ment head at the school of environmental en-
sidered natural and cyclical. Scientists are only sumer of energy the world – again second only gineering at Washington University, it will take
just beginning to realize the disastrous effects to the United States. Over 70% of this energy re- four hundred new power plants every year to
that even subtle changes in global temperature quirement is met by coal, which is the most pol- meet this growing energy need - a little over
could have. Meeting the demand raised by these luting fossil fuel. China is also extremely ineffi- one every day. If all this energy comes from fos-

18 Washington University Political Review December Edition

sil fuels, the consequences for the environment
arising from the increased carbon levels in the
atmosphere will be dire.
Why even a subtle
increase will make all the
difference: The threat of
global warming
The International Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) estimates that the mean global tempera-
ture will increase by 1.1-6.4 degrees Celsius by
the end of the 21st century, relative to the tem-
perature between 1980 and 1999. Though this
does not sound like much, even subtle increases
have the potential to cause large-scale changes
in the planet’s ecosystem. For instance, there
is an empirical correlation between tropical
cyclone activity and climate change. Sea levels
could rise by up to 0.6 meters, spelling disas-
ter for island nations. Other anticipated conse-
quences include a reduced ozone layer, reduced
agricultural yields and an increase in the cases of
diseases like malaria and dengue fever. Climate
change could also result in increased rates of
extinction of organisms, because of an expected
change in oceanic pH levels caused by the influx
of carbon.
In short, the consequences of global warm-
ing are scary. A substantial increase in fossil fuel
consumption to meet the rise in global energy
demand must be avoided. The answer lies in de-
veloping alternative sources of energy that emit
little or no carbon and that can be deployed on a
large scale in a decentralized way.
Small is beautiful: How
to avoid becoming a
dystopian inferno
In the words of Dr. Biswas, the solution to
the problem is a “temporal attack” that would
involve the development and use of alternative
sources of energy as well as mechanisms that
would make the burning of fossil fuels cleaner;
the latter approach buys time for the former to
take full effect. Before considering the alterna-
tives themselves, however, it is important to
establish the approach to employing them. Be-
cause energy is so important to the functioning
of a country, its production is often centrally
controlled and distributed. With today’s tech-
nology at our disposal, there are better ways to
ensure that energy needs are met.
The solution is what Dr. Biswas calls “Distrib-
uted Power Generation through a smart grid.” In
essence, this is a model by which energy is pro-
December Edition
duced on a small scale in many locations, with
the surplus fed into a large, computer-controlled
grid system that would connect the entire coun-
try. He notes that the decentralized smart grid
model is especially relevant in developing coun-
tries, where centrally sourced grid systems alone
cannot power every nook of the country. Also,
when there are many small power plants instead
of a few large ones, generation and transmission
losses can be minimized, leading to huge energy
savings.
The next challenge is, of course, where this
energy is going to come from. The obvious an-
swer is the sun, which is the true source of al-
most all of our energy today. Solar energy from
the sun causes pressure changes in the earth’s at-
mosphere that causes wind, lends itself to being
stored in organic matter that we burn as fossil
fuels and can be also trapped directly from the
sun by silicon-based solar panels. These panels,
called Solar Photovoltaic (SPV) cells are already
in use in many parts of the world, but an en
masse conversion to these is hampered by high
initial costs and the problem of energy storage
during nighttime. According to Dr Biswas, the
solution could lie in replicating nature’s photo-
synthetic process through cheap materials like
titanium oxide that would convert solar energy
and carbon to a burnable sugar. It is an area of
research that he believes holds huge potential.
Directly harnessing solar energy is, of course,
not the only way. Other sources of energy like
wind and heat from the earth are also options.
The challenges lie in implementing the mode of
energy production that is most feasible in a par-
ticular area. Iowa, for example is extremely con-
ducive to wind energy, while Missouri is not.
How high school physics
tells you nuclear energy is
not the answer
One of the ways many developing countries,
including India, hope to meet their energy needs
is by investing in nuclear energy. This is not a
viable option.
On paper nuclear energy seems like an ideal
solution. Nuclear power can produce huge
quantities of energy with virtually no carbon
emissions. Its proponents say it is the only way
we can hope to meet our energy needs. This is a
false hope.
High school physics tells us that radioactive
material asymptotically decays over time and
emits gamma rays and beta particles, both of
which are extremely harmful to living things.
It will take up to 250,000 years of storage for
nuclear waste to be rendered benign. Potentially
Washington University Political Review
leaking barrels of radioactive waste must not be
our legacy to future generations. Even more of a
potential threat is the danger of a repeat of the
Chernobyl disaster of 1986, the effects of which
are still being felt today in Europe and Russia.
Nuclear power also inherently requires a large
involvement on the part of the government. A
nuclear program needs huge initial investments
for the construction of power plants, uranium
and maintenance. This capital-intensive cen-
tralized approach is not viable in countries like
China and India, where the cost per head of run-
ning the program would far outweigh the ben-
efits. Also, with the majority of the population
being rural, it will be difficult to connect every
nook of the country through a centralized grid.
This is already proving difficult for India and the
losses due to the inefficiency of the transmission
system are huge.
America and energy
inefficiency
The United States is the most profligate coun-
try in the world with energy. Amory B. Lovins, an
energy expert at the Rocky Mountain Institute,
estimates that the average American uses twice
the energy that the average Briton does, though
both countries offer their citizens comparable
lifestyles. The reason for this is that energy in
the United States is cheap enough to be taken
for granted, so most people do. The change, as-
suming there is a change, needs to be behavioral
and will only happen through increased levels of
awareness.
Fortunately, this appears to be happening,
with newer generations having increased aware-
ness about global warming and the effects of ex-
cessive energy use.
A brighter future
It has become clear to scientists and policy-
makers that there is no real choice in the mat-
ter if future generations are to have a home on
Earth. It will take a combination of efficiency,
technology and effective implementation to deal
with the energy needs raised by India and Chi-
na. Some fear that the effects of burning fossil
fuels for this long are already irreversible. Most
scientists, however, still believe that there is time
to fix the situation. If this century is going to be
peaceful and sustainable, then change needs to
start now. With some luck, fossil fuels can be rel-
egated to burning lamps again.
Siddharth
 Krishnan,
 a
 WUPR
 Staff
 Writer,
 is
 in

the
 College
 of
 Arts
 and
 Sciences.
 His
 email
 is

skrishna@artsci.wustl.edu.

19
Anna Applebaum
Controversy in
Copenhagen

Why Denmark is
strongly opposing
the construction
of a grand mosque
in CopenhageN

20 Washington University Political Review December Edition

I
magine the situation: You are a typical Danish
citizen living in Copenhagen in the year 2009.
You take full advantage of being a member of
Danish society – a society that has made Den-
mark the happiest country in the world according
to both the World Map of Happiness from the
University of Leicester and the World Database of
Happiness from Erasmus University. Your coun-
try is considered the second most peaceful country
in the world according to the Global Peace Index
of 2008, finishing only behind Iceland. (And real-
ly, who could beat Iceland?) Finally, your country
is known for emphasizing civil rights and freedom
of speech; the organization Reporters without
Borders honored Denmark with the number one
spot on its WorldWide Press Freedom Index in
2005. Why, then, is the biggest current contro-
versy in your city about as basic a right as freedom
of religion?
In Copenhagen there has recently been a large
debate on the construction of two new “grand”
mosques. A grand mosque is merely a house of
worship built on a more massive scale to meet
the needs of a large congregation and to be an
aesthetic monument of some importance – the
same as any large church, synagogue or other
religious temple. This past August city coun-
cil members approved the construction of the
first two mosques of this stature, one each for
the Shiite and Sunni Muslim communities. Is-
lam is the country’s second largest religion and
Copenhagen in particular has a sizable Muslim
religious minority. Yet with the recognition that
these mosques were to be approved for construc-
tion, news outlets reported much turmoil and
conflict about the decision among Copenhagen
residents. According to The New York Times,
Danish citizen Per Nielsen said in reference to
the Shiite mosque, “There’s very strong pressure
— people living here don’t want it.” Martin Hen-
riksen, a key leader of the conservative political
party known as the Danish People’s Party, blunt-
ly stated, “We are against the mosque.” Why is
there such opposition to these new buildings? Is
this opposition based on religious discrimina-
tion against Muslims? Or is there another factor
at play in Denmark?
As of late, Danish society has had a complicat-
ed history with Islam. Relations with the religion
have been tense since the publication of twelve
editorial cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyl-
lands-Posten in 2005. Most of these cartoons de-
picted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, some-
thing strictly forbidden in the Muslim faith. At
first, the negative reaction was limited to a few
imams who demanded an apology for the pub-
lication of material they deemed intrinsically of-
fensive to Islam. As word of the cartoons spread,
December Edition
newspapers around the world reprinted the car-
toons, often as a supplement to articles describ-
ing the events in Denmark. This sparked protests
in Muslim communities worldwide. Overall
about one hundred people died, Danish embas-
sies were burned in four countries and Danish
flags were burned en masse, particularly in the
Middle East. This response created an opposing
reaction in many Western nations who directly
declared support of the newspaper. Several “Buy
Danish” campaigns were even started as a bla-
tant display of support for the nation. In effect,
the cartoons turned into a symbol for something
much more complicated and much uglier than a
conflict over an editorial decision. They showed
a dichotomy in understanding the values behind
both Islamic and Danish culture; they revealed
the existence of an equally entrenched prejudice
against Western and Islamic societies; they ex-
posed how quickly this intolerance on either side
could and, indeed, would turn into a destructive
hatred fueled by cultural and national egoism.
Danish society hasn’t recovered from the di-
visive shocks of the
cartoon controver- As of late, Danish society has
sy. Each anniver-
sary of the publica-
tion of the cartoons
had a complicated history with
has been marked
by protests and Islam. Relations with the religion
death threats to the
cartoonists, to the
editors and often to
have been tense since the pub-
Danes in general. A
Taliban spokesman lication of twelve editorial car-
said last year that
Danish troops in
Afghanistan were
toons in the Danish newspaper
a “primary target”
because of the car- Jyllands-Posten in 2005.
toons. More than
that, however, daily Danish life has been shaken.
Pursuing a policy of what they would deem bla-
tant discrimination, Danish Muslims feel that
the government is not committed to protect
freedom of religion for Islam, while simultane-
ously allowing it for Christianity, Judaism and
others. Others in Danish society are worried
about their freedom of speech: the violence and
intensity of the backlash against the cartoons’
publications feels unwarranted and like a threat
to public discourse on controversial topics. The
tension between Danish Muslim communities
and other sections of Danish society has been
building as a result of this mutual distrust. Those
who see both sides of the argument feel like they
must choose between a fundamentalist religious
view and a prejudiced reactionary view. The con-
Washington University Political Review
struction of the grand mosques has been seized
by people on all sides of the issue as a way of ex-
pressing their views on this more fundamental
tension. As a result, what might have otherwise
been a relatively neutral dialogue over construc-
tion plans has produced high levels of attention
and controversy.
Besides these tensions, the largest source in-
citing controversy about the mosques is the pre-
viously mentioned Danish People’s Party or the
DPP. This conservative party has taken notori-
ously anti-immigrant stances since it was elected
as part of the Danish government’s coalition in
2001. The DPP has been using incendiary rheto-
ric against the organizations dedicated to build-
ing the mosques, accusing them of being backed
by Iranian special interests and arguing that “the
Iranian regime is… a fascist identity that we don’t
want to set foot in Denmark.” With upcoming
municipal elections, the party has latched on to
the issue in order to increase their percentage
of the vote. It is unclear how well their aggres-
sive strategy is working in gaining popularity for
their party. However, it has certainly increased
the tension and conflict in Danish society about
this issue.
Imagine the situation: You are a typical Dan-
ish citizen living in Copenhagen in the year
2009. Are you Muslim? Do you belong to the
DPP? There is the question of whether you think
the mosques should be built. More importantly
though, how can you destroy an atmosphere of
suspicion, hate and intolerance? Is there any-
thing you can do? Would you do it?
Anna
 Applebaum,
 a
 WUPR
 Staff
 Writer,
 is
 a

freshman
 in
 the
 College
 of
 Arts
 and
 Sciences.

Her
email
is
a.applebaum@wustl.edu.
21
 Unheard Of
How
Puerto
Ricans
are
deprived
of
the
vote
at
the
federal
level
Agnes
Trenche
D
uring the Olympics, this nation’s athletes do not represent the U.S.
team, even though each member of this nation is a U.S. citizen.
This nation’s inhabitants learn English and U.S. History in school
alongside Spanish and local history, and they aren’t allowed to vote in U.S.
presidential elections. What nation am I referring to?
The answer is Puerto Rico, a tropical island and modern U.S. territory
located in the middle of the Caribbean Sea. Neither a U.S. state nor an
autonomous country, Puerto Rico has remained, for more than 100 years,
in a state of political ambiguity. Puerto Ricans are subject to U.S. laws,
but remain unable to participate in all U.S.
democratic processes, making them a po-
litical minority in the most acute sense of
the term.
The administrative mess of Puerto
Rico is deeply rooted in its long
imperial history. The is-
land was a Spanish colony
ceded to the United States
in the aftermath of the 1898
Spanish-American War.
While the U.S. government
undemocratically appointed
American governors to man-
age the territory well into the 1940s, in
1917 it granted islanders U.S. citizenship—just in time for the World War
I draft. Beginning in the 1950s, the United States allowed Puerto Rico to
write its own constitution and, from then on, elect its governors and local
legislators in a manner similar to that of U.S. states.
This constitutional government, now known as the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, installed a fine and dandy facsimile of sovereignty. The con-
stitutional clauses stipulate that, if the United States wished to dissolve the
local government or disavow the islanders’ U.S. citizenship, nothing could
stop it from doing so.
Granted, the United States is no longer on the sort of unchecked imperi-
alist mission that would lead it to dissolve Puerto Rico’s government. Even
so, U.S.-Puerto Rico relations are structured so that Puerto Ricans decide
local matters that can be federally revoked. Worse, Puerto Ricans cannot
participate in deciding the federal matters that can easily be imposed on
them. Congressional representation is not structured in the most assuag-
ing manner given these colonial circumstances. Despite having a popula-
tion of more than 3,900,000 U.S. citizens—on a par with that of Oregon,
which gets five representatives in the House and two in the Senate—Puerto
Rico has only one official Representative in Congress, but that meager del-
egation is denied the power to vote on legislation, even on matters pertain-
ing directly to Puerto Rico.
How is it, then, that the people of Puerto Rico have accepted this un-
22 Washington University Political Review
satisfying political stasis for more than 50 years? Economic dependence
can account for much of this acquiescence. According to the most recent
statistics, 45% of Puerto Rico’s population lives below the poverty line. Its
main industries – pharmaceuticals, electronics and tourism – are respect-
able, but not self-sustaining. The situation in Puerto Rico suggests that any
push toward the island’s independence would have to be framed according
to long-term economic reforms that would slowly move the island toward
economic autonomy. Until then, U.S. funds remain essential to keeping
the island running.
Perhaps this dependence has brought
about the fact that now, more than ever
before, Puerto Ricans desire full integra-
tion into the United States’ political sys-
tem. Approximately 50% of Puerto Ri-
c a n s now welcome the prospect of full
U.S. statehood. The ques-
tion remains, of course,
as to whether the United
States would even consider
admitting the island into the
Union. Hawaii’s transition
into statehood was passed
with 94.3% approval on the
part of its inhabitants; Puerto Rico is
far from that margin. Still, many islanders feel disengaged from the po-
litical processes of the country that presides over them, just as people in
the U.S. mainland feel detached from that tiny island somewhere in the
Caribbean Sea.
Furthermore, it would also be inaccurate to think that most Puerto
Ricans are comfortable with the idea of losing all the adjuncts that are
derived from sovereignty. There are several factors that would affect their
willingness to transition into statehood: whether Puerto Rico would be al-
lowed to retain Spanish as an official language, whether its Latin American
culture could be plausibly sustained, and whether the people of Puerto
Rico find it an acceptable tradeoff to exchange national identity for sus-
tained political security.
These tradeoffs seem downright unnatural. Colonial hand-me-down
politics has forced the political considerations of Puerto Ricans into a fun-
nel of options that pit cultural and national identity against satisfactory
governmental representation. While both of these elements are equally
important to a bona fide nation-state, it seems that Puerto Ricans might
only have the luxury of choosing one of them.
Agnes
Trenche,
a
WUPR
Copy
Editor,
is
a
sophomore
in
the
College
of
Arts

and
Sciences.
Her
email
is
antrench@artsci.wustl.edu.
December Edition

The Hidden History Of
Tibet
Derek Sun
T
he movement for Tibetan independence is the infallible representative of Tibetan interests.
has inspired other campaigns for minor-Yet this is not the case.
ity rights throughout the world. It seems Many Tibetan independence advocates ig-
that every Hollywood celebrity worth his or her nore the region’s dark feudalistic past under
theocratic rule and gloss over important details
salt seeks out the Dalai Lama and calls for the lib-
eration of Tibet from China. Blockbuster movies, regarding the history between Tibet and China.
songs, and books by the Dalai Lama and other To fully understand the conflict between Tibet
devotees of the Tibetan independence movement and China, we should examine the period that
directly precedes the Tibetan uprising of 1959.
sell like hotcakes. “Free Tibet” slogans appear ev-
erywhere, from bumper stickers to protest plac- One of the most common arguments posed by
independence advocates maintains that Tibet is
ards at the G20 summits. It seems as if the entire
fundamentally not a part of China and, by ex-
world is united on this issue, that there is no room
for compromise. It appears that the Tibetan peo- tension, should be an autonomous nation. They
ple are harmless innocents completely wronged by point to evidence suggesting that Tibet was sepa-
the Chinese government, and that the Dalai Lama rate from China until the formation of the mod-
ern day People’s Republic of
Art by Vidhya Nagarajan. Her email is vidhyan06@gmail.com. China in 1949. These claims
are not completely true,
since archaeologists and
historians have extensive
evidence that a number of
Chinese and Tibetan mon-
archs intermarried during
the Tang Dynasty, which oc-
curred between the 8th and
11 centuries. Trade was also
frequent between China
and Tibet during that era.
In this way, China remained
intimately connected with
Tibet up until the 19th cen-
tury, when Great Britain be-
gan expanding its influence
in the region.
After Mao Zedong and
the Chinese Communist
Party founded the People’s
Republic in 1949, they be-
gan the process of restoring
China’s international stat-
ure, in part by reintegrat-
ing Tibet into China. It may
appear that China had im-
perialistically and unjustly
conquered Tibet, but for
centuries Tibet was not the
December Edition Washington University Political Review
Shangri-la many foreigners portrayed it as. Tibet
was a theocracy, where an elite monk class ruled
the populace as slaves, raping, torturing, and
exploiting Tibetans. It is worth noting that 90%
of the Tibetan guerilla army, which was trained
by the CIA during the 1950s to combat the Chi-
nese military, was composed of monks. From
the 19th century, Michael Prenti documented
the fact that Western visitors to Tibet noted “an
engine of oppression” and “intolerable tyranny
of monks” operating in the country.
The Chinese presence in Tibet has trans-
formed Tibet from a backwater theocracy to
an increasingly modern and wealthy region.
Tibetans enjoy modern and secular education,
learning both their language and Mandarin, as
well as relaxed rules on the one-child policy in
order to sustain their population, opportunities
to earn money, own land and businesses and
live in a country with significantly better infra-
structure than it once had. Contrary to popular
belief, China actively promotes Tibetan culture
by including Tibet in artistic exhibits and per-
formances abroad, which never occurred during
the reign of the Dalai Lamas. None of the Dalai
Lamas and monks chose to implement these re-
forms, but instead kept Tibet rooted in a dark
and medieval past. Although many Tibetans
are still devoted to the Dalai Lama, investiga-
tions by the Washington Times in 1999 revealed
that “few Tibetans would welcome a return of
the corrupt aristocratic monks”, and sociologist
Kim Lewis conducted interviews with Tibetan
asylum refugees who unanimously refused to
return to Tibet and recounted “rampant sex and
exploitation” between monks and subjects.
Unfortunately the Communist Party has its
own issues, such as non-democratic rule and
religious repression. Time after time, protests
for Tibetan independence have been stifled by
government violence, imprisonment, and other
similarly totalitarian acts. This does not mean
that Tibetan advocates are entirely without their
own repressive history. One might be interested
to learn that the Dalai Lama describes himself as
“half-Marxist, half-Buddhist”, stating “Marxism
is founded on moral principles, while capitalism
is concerned only with gain and profitability.”
Thus, China needs to soften its hard-line ap-
proach if it wants to maintain cooperation and
power in Tibet. If China can tone down its re-
pression, it may finally be able to turn interna-
tional opinion in its favor.
Derek
Sun,
a
WUPR
Staff
Writer,
is
a
freshman

in
the
College
of
Arts
and
Sciences.
His
email
is

dsun@artsci.wustl.edu.
23
 Tr a g e dy
at For t Hood
Dan Rebnord

K
nown to members of the United States Hasan’s name. actions were in no way representative of the
military as “The Great Place,” the army As soon as Ibrahim Hooper, the national ideologies of Muslim-Americans, or of Islam as
post at Fort Hood, Texas, is the largest ac- communications director for the Council on a religious faith. In a public statement Hooper
tive duty base in the United States. Approximately American-Islamic Relations, heard that the Fort noted, “That’s unfortunately the world we live in
41,000 soldiers work on the base, and it is home Hood shooter’s name even sounded Muslim, he nowadays. So often, Muslims are accused of not
to two full divisions and twelve ad- condemning these kinds of acts.”
ditional units. The individuals that Recent investigations suggest
make up the Fort Hood commu- At approximately 1 p.m., Army Major that since September 11, 2001,
nity are like family to one another, Hasan had been taunted by fel-
but on November 5, tragedy struck
from within. At approximately 1
Nidal Malik Hasan entered the Fort low soldiers because of his reli-
gious beliefs. On August 16, 2009,
p.m., Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan filed a police report stat-
Hasan entered the Fort Hood medi- Hood medical processing center and ing that a bumper sticker on his
cal processing center and opened car that read “Allah is Love” had
fire on his fellow soldiers. After fir- been torn off and that his car was
ing more than a hundred rounds, opened fire on his fellow soldiers. keyed. As further details regard-
Hasan had killed 13 and injured ing Hasan’s background and mo-
dozens more. issued a statement condemning the attack. Even tives surfaced, it became clear that Hasan’s self-
In the days after the shooting, details about without direct confirmation that Hasan identi- identification as a devout Muslim was of critical
the killer and his motives were slow to emerge. fied with the Islamic faith, Hooper felt it was importance to the internal emotional conflict he
Officials were unsure of final casualty statistics, necessary for the largest Muslim civil rights and experienced that might have culminated in the
and it was originally unclear if the shooter had advocacy group in the United States to distance shooting. According to Dr. Val Finnell, Hasan’s
acted alone. However, there was one piece of in- itself from the Fort Hood shooting. The state- former classmate, Hasan viewed “the war on ter-
formation that was released relatively quickly— ment issued by CAIR reinforced that Hasan’s ror as a war against Islam.” Furthermore, Hasan

24 Washington University Political Review December Edition

himself argued at a presentation given at the
Walter Reed Army Medical Center, “It’s getting
harder and harder for Muslims in the service to
morally justify being in a military that seems
constantly engaged against fellow Muslims.” Re-
ports have been released suggesting that Hasan
was a strong advocate for allowing Muslims in
the U.S. Army to be allowed to conscientiously
object to their military duties because of their
religious beliefs.
Although Hasan may have felt that the United
States is engaged in military action that conflicts
with his religion, this logic is faulty at best. The
United States has toppled the regimes of two
countries: Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the
fact that both are Muslim-majority countries,
the regime of Saddam Hussein was a notably
secular government. Additionally, throughout
the War on Terror, the United States has relied
on key Middle Eastern allies of both secular and
Islamic varieties. Furthermore, Hasan clearly
misunderstood what it means to be considered
a “conscientious objector.” Conscientious objec-
tors are allowed to either leave the military or be
assigned to different positions if their religion or
moral convictions prohibit killing of any sort—
it is not enough to simply believe that a war is
unjust.
Although “Allahu Akbar” is used as a
proclamation of faith during the Islamic
prayer service, it has become a common
battle cry for Muslim extremists.
Undoubtedly, Hasan was an emotionally con-
flicted individual—but the relevance of his reli-
gious beliefs to what occurred at Fort Hood has
raised an important question: was the attack at
Fort Hood a terrorist attack similar to those of
September 11, 2001, and the London subway
bombings?
Shortly after the attack, eyewitnesses reported
that Hasan had shouted “Allahu Akbar” before
opening fire against his fellow soldiers. Although
“Allahu Akbar” is used as a proclamation of faith
during the Islamic prayer service, it has become a
common battle cry for Muslim extremists. Addi-
tionally, further investigations have revealed that
Hasan had communicated in the past with An-
war al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who now
resides in Yemen. The F.B.I. has confirmed that
December Edition
al-Awlaki was also the “spiritual advisor” to two
of the September 11 hijackers, but has not con-
firmed whether al-Awlaki was actually aware of
Shortly after the attack, eyewitnesses
reported that Hasan had shouted,
“Allahu Akbar” before opening fire
against his fellow soldiers.
the September 11 plot. Amongst his colleagues,
Hasan was known for his openness regarding his
Islamic beliefs, and in the aforementioned pre-
sentation that he gave at the Walter Reed Army
Medical center, Hasan used Qur’anic passages to
justify suicide bombings.
However, criminologists have noted that
Hasan’s day-to-day tendencies were quite differ-
ent from those of the September 11 hijackers or
the London subway bombers. If Hasan had been
working in close conjunction with Al-Qaeda or
another terrorist organization, Hasan would not
have been so
public about
his religious
beliefs; he
would have
done more to
blend into so-
ciety to mask
his identity.
According to
the Al-Qaeda
terrorist hand-
book, secrecy
should be used “even with the closest people,
for deceiving the enemies is not easy.” Criminal
profiler Pat Brown suggested in a recent inter-
view that Hasan’s characteristics and actions
were more like that of a serial killer. Hasan had
few, if any friends, and for the past few years he
had been searching, unsuccessfully, for a wife.
The one woman that he did have in his life, his
mother, died in 2001.
If Hasan was acting in accordance with his rad-
ical jihadist beliefs and felt that killing American
soldiers was what his religion required of him,
then the Fort Hood shooting can be accurately
defined as a terrorist attack. It is possible, how-
ever, that Hasan may have simply experienced
a mental breakdown and decided to lash out
against his fellow soldiers. Given the evidence
Washington University Political Review
that has been revealed so far, this scenario seems
unlikely, yet a possibility nonetheless. While the
truth may never be known, what we are left with
is a critical conceptual
problem surrounding
the Fort Hood shoot-
ing.
If Hasan’s action
ought to be consid-
ered an act of ter-
rorism, the ques-
tion of whether the
Fort Hood shooting
should be considered
an act of “Islamic” ter-
ror then arises. Some
have argued that Hasan’s religious affiliation has
absolutely nothing to do with the attack itself;
if a radical, evangelical Christian were to open
fire in an abortion clinic, the attack would not
be considered a “Christian” terrorist attack. In a
world that has become increasingly concerned
with political correctness, it is easy to under-
stand why many are afraid to associate a terrorist
attack with a religion—and they are right not to
do so. However, if Hasan was indeed motivated
by his radical religious beliefs, then it is not in-
correct to associate his attack with radical Islam
specifically. In other words, it is not inaccurate
to consider Hasan’s actions as being motivated
by radical jihadist ideologies, yet this is not to
say that Islam as a religious faith caused him to
do what he did. What we, as a society and a na-
tion, cannot do when analyzing and assessing
these kinds of attacks is over-generalize and as-
sociate a terrorist attack with a religion en bloc,
because while there will always be a radical few,
the vast majority of a religion’s followers are any-
thing but extremist.
Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was a lonely
individual with few friends. He had recently
witnessed the passing of his mother, and he was
convinced that his religious convictions were at
odds with his ability to go to war. For Hasan,
radical Islam filled this emotional void in his
life, and while it is not incorrect to associate his
violent actions with radical Islam, we must not
associate his actions with Islam as a whole.
Dan
 Rebnord,
 a
 WUPR
 staff
 writer,
 is
 a

sophomore
 majoring
 in
 PoliKcal
 Science.
 His

email
is
drebnord@wustl.edu.
25
 Fixing A Broken
Health Care
Reform Bill
The Problem

R
egardless of political ideology, everyone should agree that health
care reform is necessary. Health care costs are rising faster than
inflation, but we haven’t come to an agreement on the best way to
lower costs. In reforming health care, we must not tear up the foundations
of our current system, because it is evident that the United States has cer-
tain strengths. The United States has higher breast cancer (84% vs. 73%)
and prostate cancer (92% vs. 57%) survival rates than those in Europe.
Also, the United States has four times more MRI scanners per capita and
two times more CT scanners per capita than Canada. Challengers to our
system cite our lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates than
those in other developed countries. However, these facts are misleading:
our homicide rate is one of the highest of any country and we also lead the
developed world in teenage pregnancies. Although homicide and teenage
The Democrats want to completely overhaul our health care system
despite that the fact that the fundamentals of health care in our coun-
try are strong. According to the World Health Organization, the United
States health care system ranks first in responsiveness—the area that
counts for the least but should matter most. At risk infants have the best
chance of survival due to the availability of inutero neurosurgery and
neonatal intensive-care units. Approximately 47 million Americans are
uninsured, but this number fails to take into consideration that approxi-
mately 10 million are illegal immigrants, 18.3 million are under 34 years
old, and 9 million are making more than $75,000 per year and chose not
to be insured. Although that leaves a large number who need coverage,
the prospect is not as daunting as it may seem. Drastic change is not
needed. The Democrats’ plan to fix health care has more flaws than the

1
pregnancies are problems, we would be remiss in using this information to number of Botox injections given to Nancy Pelosi. Some flaws stand out
crush the foundations of our health care system. more than others.

The Solutions
The Democrats fail to account for the economic challenges health care companies face:
Democrats have fed the American people the perception that health care companies are evil, profit-craving corporations. What the Demo-
crats fail to acknowledge is that health care companies aren’t making the profits we think. Fortune 500 ranks health care as America’s 40th most
profitable industry, making only a 3.3% profit margin. To put it in perspective, the strapped-for-cash airline industry has a 3.6% profit margin. Low
profit margins are due to a variety of factors. First, the health care industry is a victim of adverse selection. Healthy, young people forgo buying health
insurance because they deem it unnecessary, while older, sicker people are the ones who have a higher demand for health care, thus causing insurers
to charge more. Thus, healthy people are put off by the high prices and the cycle continues. Furthermore, the industry is a victim of moral hazard;
people who have health insurance will act differently because of it. An individual is more likely to request a more expensive procedure if he or she
has insurance as opposed to paying out of pocket. Finally, physicians are expensive. Because Medicare pays hospitals at 71% and physicians at 81% of
market value, doctors avoid taking losses by price discriminating; to recover lost profits, doctors charge people who can afford health care at a higher
rate.
Democratic Rebuttal: Wouldn’t providing a public option force health care companies to charge a
lower price?
In theory, yes. However, the public option is only looked upon favorably by those who do not understand the economic situation of the health
care corporations. Democrats believe that a public option would force private insurers to charge less because of increased competition. The only way
for health care companies to lower prices is by reducing costs. It makes sense for any corporation to attempt to lower costs to increase their profit.
However, health care companies would have tried to lower costs even before the possibility of increased competition to increase their profit margins.
In the free market, it doesn’t make sense for a corporation to not attempt to maximize surplus. With the Democrats’ public option plan, it doesn’t
make sense for private insurers to even compete in a losing battle.

26 Washington University Political Review December Edition

2
The public option will lead to a government takeover of health care:
The implementation of a public option will lead to a single payer health care system for many reasons. First, private insurers will not be able to
compete with the government option. The government option, which will cost considerably less than a private plan, will force private insurers to
cut prices to such an unrealistic level that they will go out of business, making the public option a monopoly. Also, the public option will instigate
a vicious cycle. Employers have the option of providing health care to their employees that the government deems acceptable or paying an 8%
payroll tax and placing their employees on the public option. For many businesses, employers will deem the 8% payroll tax less costly than provid-
ing government-approved health care. This will take away consumers from private insurance and force the government to seek additional revenue,
because more than 47 million uninsured people will be forced on the public option. The vicious cycle will continue because the government will
be forced to increase taxes on those who aren’t on the public option. This increase in taxes will force more people onto the public option. The cycle
will be perpetuated as the government raises taxes until it becomes the sole health care provider. The health care bill is a disguise; it’s a way for the
government to increase taxes and create a single payer system that will constitute 1/6 of our nation’s economy.

Democratic Rebuttal: Why are Republicans so opposed to a single-payer system even though it has
had success in other countries, such as the United Kingdom and Canada?
The universal health care systems in the United Kingdom and Canada are actually worse in many ways than our current system. Foreigners
frequently come to the United States to see specialists and get complex surgeries. In the U.K., health care is rationed, evidenced by the reality that
seniors older than 70 are not eligible for dialysis. In our current health care system, hundreds of thousands of senior citizens are receiving dialysis.
The average wait to see a specialist in the United States is under 2 weeks, while overseas one can expect to wait up to 6 months. Long waiting times

3
lead to increased deaths for patients with potentially fatal illnesses. The health care system in the United States has its flaws, but a single-payer system
cannot handle individuals’ specific needs.

We cannot afford a $1.3 trillion overhaul to our health care system when our national debt is
increasing beyond $12 trillion:
The last thing we can afford to do right now is spend more money. First the bailouts, then the $787 billion stimulus, and now $1.3 trillion over the
next 10 years decreasing the quality of health care? Gas prices, among many other goods, are currently rising in price due to the decreasing value
of the dollar, so why weaken the dollar further by increasing our $12 trillion national debt? Now is the time for fiscal conservatism: we need less
government spending and lower taxes to foster businesses and job creation. The economy is the problem that the government should be attempting
to fix. If we can fix the economy, more people will have steady jobs and therefore more people will be able to afford health insurance. Pelosi’s plan
imposes more than $150 billion in new taxes on small businesses, which will dig us further into an economic recession. Regardless of the economy,
Pelosi’s plan is the wrong choice.

Democratic Rebuttal: Why can’t we pay $1.3 trillion for health care when we have spent more than
$1 trillion dollars on two wars this decade?
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had a negative effect on our economy. However, the difference between the $1 trillion spent in Afghani-
stan and Iraq and the $1.3 trillion to be spent on health care is that the money spent on our two wars is a sunk cost. In economics, a sunk cost is an
expense that cannot be recovered and should not be considered in future decisions. Thus, the $1 trillion spent on Iraq and Afghanistan should have
no impact on whether we decide to further cripple our economy by spending money on a severely flawed health care plan.

Conclusion
The Democrats are feeding us a perception that we are in a health care crisis. Although we are not in crisis mode yet, Pelosi and her liberal
minions are trying to pass legislation to make our problem worse. We can fix our health care system without rationing care, increasing the deficit,
and increasing taxes. A government option is foolish and unnecessary; a few changes to our fundamentally strong system can lower costs and
insure more people.

Gavin
Frisch,
a
WUPR
Staff
Writer,
is
a
freshman
in
the
Business
School.
His
email
is
gavin7f@verizon.net.

December Edition Washington University Political Review 27

Marcus Walton A Purpose
Defining The Association of Black
Students’ identity and our role in
racial politics on campus
A
s is declared in the ABS Constitution, “It
is our mission to give voice and power to,
address the needs of, and supplement the
experience of Black Students at Washington Uni-
versity.” This statement seems to clearly outline
the primary purpose and goal of our organization.
However, I believe that through the process of
achieving this goal, the Association of Black Stu-
dents has also widened the parameters that define
our constituency and overall objectives.
Over the past month, Washington Univer-
sity Class Councils, Student Groups, Senate, and
Student Executive Officers have collaborated to
engender what has become the largest platform
for dialogue on race relations of the past four
years. We as a community must now look back
at the results brought forth from such an effort.
While the dedication and passion evoked as a
result of the recent events in Chicago are com-
mendable, they may have also overshadowed a
larger issue at hand. First off, the most popular
form of action which has taken place over the
past month is the town hall forum, which is
more or less a dysphemism for informal discus-
sion, since the term “town hall forum” elicits
connotations of an outright confrontation of
beliefs, a platform for the expression of the town
or community. However, such events often turn
into a general collection of agreements with a
rare expression of dissent shown by members
of the audience. The truth is, as much as Wash-
ington University wants to take a stand against
racist institutions 300 miles away, it should first
look closer home. Although we as a campus can
28
make large strides towards bringing racism to
the forefront of our agendas, we have difficulty
confronting students who perpetuate racist ide-
ologies on this campus. As much as we can con-
gratulate the attraction of 400 students to Lab-
Sci, the question is, how many of the students
in attendance were the ones who needed to hear
such a discussion in the first place?
The existence of racist behavior and doctrines
are unfortunately far more prevalent on Wash-
ington University’s campus than most non-Black
students probably realize. (I purposely reference
Black people as a prototype here due to our na-
ture as the most popularly marginalized racial
demographic in U.S. society.) The main reason
why students might be surprised to hear such a
statement is simply because they are unaware of
the modern nature of racism. Labeling someone
a racist generally seems synonymous with expos-
ing his or her membership in the Ku Klux Klan.
Contrary to popular belief, one does not need to
be an active member of the Aryan Brotherhood
to proliferate racist beliefs. The vast majority of
today’s youth actually fear the word racism and
would likely avoid a blatant agreement with any-
thing they interpret as such. Most people would
like to believe that the fact that they “have Black
friends” negates their subtle racist treatment of
Black students on this campus.
While I would challenge anyone to deny the
existence of such an environment at Washing-
ton University, I can also understand the lack
of perception on the part of non-Black students
(more specifically white students), since they
Washington University Political Review
themselves rarely encounter such treatment and
are even less frequently clairvoyant enough to
recognize its existence around them. But unlike
the progression of protests after the incident at
Mother’s Bar, we as Black students cannot—
nor do we have the time to—protest the infinite
amount of actions perpetrated by individual stu-
dents. Should we conduct sit-ins at social events
and parties which stigmatize black students?
Monitor unjust calls made to WUPD that spe-
cifically target black males? Personally, I would
have to invest in a portable picket sign which
I would then have to carry around literally ev-
eryday if I was serious about protesting each in-
stance of racism on Wash U’s campus. And what
goals might these efforts accomplish? At worst,
embarrassment, which would merely encour-
age students on Wash U’s campus to hide their
racist beliefs. Can one really expect to alter the
perceptions internalized by our student body for
the past 20 years of their lives?
Let’s be serious. The battle against racism is
not hopeless, but, in many ways, misguided.
The root cause of the issue for our generation
is not a relic from the days of slavery. Nor is it
even a remnant of the Civil Rights movement.
Racism in today’s youth stems from perception
and misunderstanding. To be clear, this is not a
misunderstanding of black people, but more so
a misunderstanding of the conditions and envi-
ronment which have created our image and gen-
erally negative portrayal. Yes, statisticians have
claimed, “Black men born in the United States
in 2001 will have a one in three chance of go-
December Edition
for Progress
ing to prison during their lifetime.” However it is
equally as important to look at many of the pre-
dominately Black neighborhoods in the United
States. The façade of linkage between race and
crime has blocked the more apparent issue of so-
cial class and poverty in our nation. To even as-
sert that a Black person is inherently more likely
to commit a crime is (wait for it…) racist. These
issues are clearly influenced by lurking variables
such as income and educational inequalities in
our nation.
Obviously, there is a strong history of racism
in the world as a whole. So to state that only
contemporary factors are at play would be false.
But the point is that negative perceptions about
December Edition
Minority- A racial, religious, politi-
cal, national, or other group thought
to be different from the larger group
of which it is part.
Black people are largely reinforced by contem-
porary elements, such as the media and the ac-
tual state of the Black community in the United
States. This in itself is a far more pressing and
purposeful issue to address than the revelation
of racism in our midst at the university. When
ABS helps coordinate a town hall forum based
on overt racism at in Chicago, we can pack Lab-
Sci to its capacity. However when we coordinate
with Teach For America on a panel to discuss
education inequality in St. Louis—our own
backyard—we have difficulty filling the first few
rows.
The purpose of this article is not to rant about
the ongoing racist elements at Wash U, but rath-
Washington University Political Review
er to outline the long process by which the As-
sociation of Black Students has decided exactly
where to take a stand. As the Black minority on
campus, we are committed to standing up for is-
sues that affect our members. However, we are
also minorities amongst Black people. As re-
cipients of an opportunity to attend college and
ascend to highest echelons of our society, Black
students at Washington University are members
of an elite demographic. The exception to the
rule, per say. Part of our mission as an organiza-
tion is to eradicate our existence as an exception
and to address issues in the larger Black com-
munity, outside the Wash U bubble. This is re-
flecting in our work on education, our volunteer
work in the community, and our efforts to high-
light healthcare disparities.
In short, the Association of Black Students
has made strides to not only fight for the mi-
nority rights of our immediate members, but to
acknowledge our inclusion into a larger minor-
ity: Black people across the country. One that is
in dire need of attention. And it is through this
struggle that we wish to define our organization’s
ambition and purpose.
Marcus
Walton,
a
WUPR
Contributor,
is
a
junior

in
the
College
of
Arts
and
Sciences.
His
email
is

marcuswalton@wustl.edu.
29
 POINT
Fiscal Stimulus and
A discussion between Johan Oloffson and Spencer Berry
Oloffson
O
ne year after Obama’s optimistic cam-
paign promises, there is still a lot of
doubt and uncertainty about the fu-
ture of the economy. Why have we seen a sud-
den resurgence in the stock market? How come
this surge has not translated into gains in the job
market? Why is unemployment the highest it has
been in 26 years? The answers to these questions
are complex and multifaceted, but they can be
explored by if the stimulus bill actually decreased
unemployment.
Government spending is an inefficient way of
creating jobs, because it takes money away from
the private sector, generates too many short-
term solutions, and ultimately has a number of
unintended consequences that will only deter
job growth.
The most objective proof of Obama’s experi-
ment with Keynesian economics is the $787 bil-
lion stimulus bill of 2009. The affixed graph can
only have two implications: either the Obama
administration grossly miscalculated the state
of the economy at the time of the stimulus bill’s
inception, in which case their incompetence
should cause us to question their ability to fix an
economy that they do not properly understand.
Or, as the graph illustrates, the Obama admin-
istration accurately analyzed the state of the
economy, but chose to implement policies that
were incorrect and ultimately led to heightened
unemployment.
The stimulus package took too long to imple-
ment and many of the projects and initiatives
funded have not resulted in overall job growth.
As of October 9, the Department of Energy has
only spent approximately $1 billion of the $36.7
billion allocated. How can we to expect to create
new, green jobs if the government is ultimately
ineffective at employing their resources?
Meanwhile, $3.4 million will be spent by the
Department of Transportation to build an “eco-
30
passage” in Lake Jackson, Florida. In layman’s
terms, the eco-passage is a tunnel for turtles
and other wildlife underneath a local road. I like
turtles as much as anyone else, but I don’t think
the $3.4 million spent to create the turtle tunnel
has the same economic impact as money spent
within the private sector.
The real issue with the stimulus bill is that
only a small portion of the $787 billion is actu-
ally allocated for infrastructural improvement.
About 14% of the stimulus bill is allocated for
infrastructure and science. In contrast, welfare
and healthcare spending combine for approxi-
mately 18% of the bill. Yet President Obama
! It should surprise no one that our unem-
contends that this bill was about job creation
and not about the expansion of government.
Obviously, some unemployment benefits are
necessary in dire circumstances. However, cur-
rent welfare policies incentivize the unemployed
to remain unemployed. One such policy was the
“workfare” program implemented by Clinton
in 1998, which demands that able beneficiaries
work for two years in order to be eligible for up
Washington University Political Review
to five additional years of benefits. According to
the British newspaper The Times, Obama has
potentially jeopardized “one of the true undis-
puted triumphs of … the last 20 years” with a
stimulus package that contains ample govern-
ment handouts and little incentive for the un-
employed to get back to work.
The shortsightedness of the stimulus bill is
quite disturbing. Although irrelevant and un-
necessary, the construction of 37 bridges in rural
Wisconsin will create infrastructural jobs in the
area among contractors, suppliers, and workers.
However, once those bridges have been com-
pleted and the federal money is depleted, those
individuals will again be unemployed. These
employees will then have to turn to the private
sector for employment. Why not give a boost to
the private sector instead of providing tempo-
rary job security?
The second long-term unintended conse-
quence of the stimulus bill will be a net increase
in taxes, which will cause even greater unemploy-
ment. Obama has warned that this stimulus bill,
coupled with an expensive health care proposal,
will have to be paid for by increasing taxes on
the rich. However, a recent Wall Street Journal
article explains that, as the Joint Tax Committee
reports, a third of those affected by this $460.5
billion tax hike would be small business owners
who file under the individual income tax code.
To raise taxes on small business owners when
unemployment is already at a staggering 10.2%
will be extremely detrimental for our economy.
ployment rate is at a record high. We now see
the effects of a poorly crafted stimulus bill that
provides too much money to social welfare pro-
grams and is ineffective at implementing the
short-term jobs that it was intended to create.
When unemployment begins to decrease, we
will be able to thank U.S. corporations for their
help in upending this recession and not the U.S.
government.
December Edition
 COUNTERPOINT
the Economy
Berry
T
he American Recovery and Reinvest-
ment Act of 2009 has come under fire
from people on the right, who see it as
an encroachment by “Big Government” on the
private sector. They argue that it hurts the ability
of the private sector to allocate jobs, which is dou-
bly horrendous during a recession as large as the
current one. While the stimulus package wasn’t
perfect, neither is the private sector. Indeed, it was
the private sector that caused this recession in the
first place. The stimulus package, albeit riddled
with idiosyncratic inefficiencies, has done more
to prevent Great Depression-level unemployment
than the private sector could have done alone.
Undoubtedly, our economic situation is dire.
We have an unemployment rate of 10.2%, which
is the worst in the United States since the early
1980s. Analysts predicted in early 2009 that un-
employment would reach 8.75% without a stim-
ulus package. The unemployment rate could be
reduced to 7.75%, they argued, by implement-
ing extensive Keynesian government spending,
which would rack up a hefty, but necessary,
deficit. The acolytes of Glenn Beck point to the
current unemployment rate as indicative of the
stimulus package’s failure, but this is overly sim-
plistic. The predictions were made in January
2009 before the recession got as acute as it did
and at a time when even Paul Krugman pre-
dicted, at worst, a moderate recession. It is hard
to make an accurate assessment, but the unem-
ployment rate might well be above 15% had it
not been for the stimulus.
Conservatives argue that government spend-
ing will hurt the economy, because it takes funds
away from the private sector in order to fund
government projects. However, this is not en-
tirely accurate. Increasing government spending
must be funded either by an increase in taxes
(which we haven’t really seen) or through an in-
crease in the budget deficit (which we have seen,
December Edition
extensively). Increasing the budget may lead to
the crowding out of private investment, as inves-
tors would rather put their money in a safe and
high-yielding government security rather than
a private one, which may not be the best policy
decision. Private investment has fallen dramati-
cally since the recession began, but the brunt of
the decline occurred before the stimulus: a 16%
drop from Q4 2008 to Q1 2009, as opposed to
8% in the two quarters after it, thus indicating
that “crowding out” has not been as harmful as
some may think.
The stimulus bill’s allocation of resources has
been heavily scrutinized. To be sure, some of
this criticism is justified. More funding could
have been directed toward building infrastruc-
ture and more productive endeavors. However,
while this may have made the stimulus bill more
effective, wouldn’t it make conservatives even
angrier about increased spending? Perhaps gov-
ernment’s allocation of stimulus money is actu-
ally better than that of the private sector. After
all, in 2007 Americans spent more money on
breast implants and Viagra than on Alzheimer’s
research.
Furthermore, the bill would have to be paid
for in the form of increased taxes. Progres-
sive taxes do not necessarily hamper economic
Washington University Political Review
growth - especially when the tax revenue is put
to good use. Furthermore, these tax hikes (if
they materialize at all) would not take effect
until much later in the future, at a point when
our economy would have already experienced a
substantial amount of recovery. The bottom line
is that taxpayers won’t have to shoulder the gov-
ernment’s spending while the economy is still
floundering.
It is far too early to judge the effects of the
stimulus package, let alone the Obama adminis-
tration’s economic policy in its totality. Although
unemployment remains too high for comfort,
when all is said and done, history will show the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to
be, at the very least, a moderate success.
Johan
 Olofsson,
 a
 WUPR
 Staff
 Writer,
 is
 a

freshman
 in
 the
 Business
 School.
 His
 email
 is

olofssonj@wustl.edu.
 Spencer
 Berry,
 a
 WUPR

Staff
Writer,
is
a
senior
in
the
College
of
Arts
and

Sciences.
His
email
is
skberry@artsci.wustl.edu.
31
 The Conflict
in the Middle-East

The American Role in Preventing a Nightmarish Scenario

Taka Yamaguchi

D
istrust between Iran and Israel has acceptably dangerous threat. clear weapon within five years, Ahmadinejad’s
always been high, but the recent on- argument has a high degree of credibility.
slaught of threats and hard-line rhetoric
from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Preemptive strike, Since the departure of the Bush administra-
tion, the United States has taken a less rigid
has led tensions to skyrocket. The countries are Israeli style stance in dealing with rogue states. Although
now at the point of open hostility, and Israel has President Obama’s current policy consists of im-
repeatedly threatened to bomb suspected Iranian Many Western countries were hopeful that the partial negotiations with Iran, Israel wants the
nuclear arms facilities. Unfortunately, the situa- most recent UN proposition to Iran, which pro- United States to pressure Iran with the threat of
tion seems unlikely to improve, especially since posed that the Islam- severe consequences
the United States has never proven effective at re- ic Republic ship its if it does not heed
ducing the tensions between these two rivals. uranium abroad to Western demands.
Nuclear weapons are central to the skepti-
cism that is prevalent between Iran and Israel.
The Federation of American Scientists estimates
be enriched, would
finally be acceptable
to both parties. Un-
Iran and Israel is worried that
the current U.S. gov-
ernment may not see
Israel possesses 60-80 nuclear weapons, and Is-
rael is notable for being the only nuclear power
in the Middle East. History has shown that Is-
fortunately, like the
many propositions
that have hitherto
Israel spiral the issue as immi-
nently threatening as
they do. In the past,
Israel has shown that
toward a bloody
rael is not afraid to resort to drastic measures been proposed, this
to maintain its nuclear hegemony. In 1981, Is- one was rejected by it is determined to
raeli F-16s bombed Saddam Hussein’s nascent Iran’s regime. Prime assure its own secu-
nuclear weapons facilities. More recently, Israel Minister Binyamin rity and has attacked
airpower destroyed a cache of fissile uranium
in Syria that was suspected to have originated
Netanyahu of Israel,
although furious at
confrontation. foreign nuclear sites
without regard for
North Korea. the obdurate Ah- diplomatic conse-
Ahmadinjead is equally eager to see Israel’s madinejad, also im- quences. The Israeli
domination of the region relegated to the histo- plicitly accused the government may
ry pages. To Israel, the unpredictability of Iran’s United Nations and the United States of being once again risk taking matters into their own
government, coupled with its leaders’ stubborn overly concessionary. Given that experts have hands if the UN and the United States continue
hostility and radical ideology, represent an un- estimated Iran could develop a functional nu- to be ineffective in snubbing Iranian nuclear

32 Washington University Political Review December Edition

ambitions.
Several Israeli politicians have criticized Presi-
dent Obama’s more concessionary stance toward
Iran, because it relieves pressure on the Islamic
Republic. Opponents claim that this attitude
may simply allow Ahmadinejad and his cronies
to buy time to further develop their nuclear pro-
gram. In the near future, Israel is likely to feel suf-
ficiently threatened to attack Iran’s nuclear sites.
As recently as September 2008, Israel agreed to
purchase 1,000 U.S. missiles of the type used to
destroy large, heavily reinforced, underground
buildings. It is no mere coincidence these are ex-
actly the type of munitions required to counter
the the unique construction method of Iranian
nuclear facilities.
The Israelis are not the only ones stocking up
on arms, however. The Iranians have expressed
interest in new Russian surface-to-air missiles.
This could shorten the perceived Israeli time
frame for an attack, since Israel may feel the
need to strike before these air defenses can be
purchased and deployed. Feeling backed into a
corner, Israeli forces have never been so anxious
to remove the Iranian nuclear threat before it can
come to fruition. Its leaders are on the defensive
and are more likely than ever to resort a decisive,
confrontational solution. If so, Israel may rashly
decide that offensive unilateral action is the only
way to ensure its security. Unfortunately, doing
so risks plunging Israel into a situation where
the detrimental consequences far outweigh any
benefits.
Opening up a whole new
can of worms
There are several potential outcomes to an Is-
raeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, none of
which are in Israel’s favor. With Iran recently re-
vealing the existence of a hidden, underground
nuclear facility near the city of Qom, one must
assume that there could be other unknown and
highly protected sites. Since these unknown
nuclear sites would escape any Israeli first strike
unscathed, the Iranian nuclear timetable would
simply be pushed back rather than halted. This
ineffective attack would only succeed in harden-
ing Iranian resolve, earning Israel a harsh rebuke
from the international community and setting
the stage for a furious response from Iran.
What would such a response entail? Even in
the unlikely case that Iran has developed nuclear
weapons capable of striking Israel, the Iranian
regime would almost certainly not deploy such
missiles against Israel, since the inevitable con-
sequence would be a far more devastating Israeli
December Edition
nuclear counterstrike. Moreover, the resultant
diplomatic isolation would truly make Iran a pa-
riah in the international community. Simultane-
ously, the torrent of
economic sanctions
would cause the
Iranian economy
An Israeli strike
to collapse. Even
the most ideologi- and the subsequent
cally motivated and
bellicose members
of the Iranian gov-
Iranian retaliation
ernment would
categorically reject
a nuclear attack on
seem both
Israel because of
the plan’s suicidal imminent and
nature.
Land attacks are
also out of the ques-
inevitable
tion, as Israel and
Iran do not share a border. Iran’s antiquated and
poorly maintained air force would be no match
for Israel’s advanced air defenses; it would be an
understatement to call the probable result of an
Iranian air attack an embarrassment for Iran.
The answer lies in Iran’s secret, though widely
suspected, funding of Hezbollah, Hamas, and
other politically inclined “terrorists.” Iran is un-
derhandedly supplying these groups, united un-
der the banner of anti-Israel sentiment. Iran could
greatly increase its sale of a variety of weapons
or offer training to militants to, in essence, wage
a proxy war with Israel. With the unprecedent-
edly powerful militant groups attacking Israel in
strength from the north (Lebanon: Hezbollah)
and within it (Palestine: Hamas), Israel would
be forced to divert its attentions away from Iran
and engage in significant internal operations to
ensure its own security. There would be many
casualties on all sides, except for the orchestra-
tor (Iran). All of this would occur while Iran’s
leaders, if manipulative enough, could showcase
Iran as the latest victim of Israeli aggression and
blatant disregard for international law. Mean-
while, Iran could lick its wounds and continue
to secretly develop nuclear arms. With this plan
of action, Iran could minimize the damage to its
nuclear program and its public standing while
Israel remains embroiled in internal conflict. It
would be the ideal, two birds-one stone situation
for Ahmadinejad and friends.
Only the United States
can prevent war
In a recent speech Ahmadinejad stated that
Washington University Political Review
although Iran was willing to cooperate with the
West, it would not back down “one iota.” Such
comments only serve to make Israel increas-
ingly willing to use
force against Iran.
An Israeli strike and
the subsequent Ira-
nian retaliation seem
both imminent and
inevitable. The only
option to preventing
war, then, is to reduce
Israel’s well-founded
fears to a level where
its leaders do not
feel compelled to act
against their sworn
enemy. The only na-
tion that could fea-
sibly fulfill that role
is the United States.
It has been placed in a curious scenario where
it must put pressure on Iran in order to lessen
the likelihood of an Israeli preemptive attack.
Although President Obama’s cooperative atti-
tude is laudable, he is in a particularly difficult
position. He must either assume an extremely
uncompromising stance—and hazard being
compared to former President Bush—or play
the moderate and risk Israel taking matters into
its own hands. In order to avert war, Obama
will most likely have to heed the Israeli gov-
ernment’s demands for a much tougher stance
against Iran: supporting extremely severe sanc-
tions, terminating negotiations with Iran, and
threatening the use of force Iran to stop Iranian
development of nuclear weapons. Otherwise,
Israel is at risk of setting off a chain of events
that will lead to an unprecedented number of
horrifically costly terrorist and militant attacks.
Israel will then become mired in an internal
conflict without having eliminated the threat of
Iran. Hopefully, Netanyahu can foresee the likely
catastrophic consequences for Israel and follow
a less risky alternative to removing the Iranian
nuclear threat—such as the Obama administra-
tion’s current approach. Nevertheless, unless the
United States has the insight to intervene, Iran
and Israel spiral toward a bloody confrontation.
Taka
 Yamaguchi,
 a
 WUPR
 Staff
 Writer,
 is
 a

freshman
 in
 the
 college
 of
 Arts
 and
 Sciences.

His
email
is
tyama2891@gmail.com.

33
 The Passage of the
Lisbon Treaty
O
n December 1, 2009, a new treaty will
join Europe’s collection: the Lisbon
Treaty. It aims to streamline decision-
making in the European Union – an organiza-
tion established and governed by an amalgam of
treaties. Specifically it is composed of: the Trea-
ties of Rome (concerned with free trade agree-
ments), The Schengen Agreement (movement
between countries of the EU), The Maastricht
Treaty (formally establishing the EU), The Trea-
ty of Amsterdam (cooperation of the justice sys-
tems of the members of the EU) and the Treaty
of Nice (expanding the EU). It’s easy to get lost
in this maze of treaties, and adding a new treaty
next month to the mix will do little to ease the
confusion.
The dysfunctional path that the Lisbon Treaty
has taken to full ratification is the first indica-
tor at its ineffectiveness. All 27 member coun-
tries must ratify the treaty for it to take effect,
and while most European countries approved
the treaty quite quickly, Ireland, Poland and the
Czech Republic held out against doing so. Irish
voters voted against the treaty. It took a sec-
Art by Kaity Li. Her email is KaityL@samfox.wustl.edu.
34
Michael Hyrc
ond referendum this fall for voters to approve
the treaty, primarily out of their concern about
the economic crisis. The Polish President, Lech
Kaczynski, refused to sign the treaty until it had
been put to a vote by the Irish People. He signed
the treaty the day after Irish ratification was
complete, but the treaty was then held up by the
Czech Republic. While long ago ratified by Par-
liament, Czech President Vaclav Klaus refused
to sign the treaty, claiming that the treaty would
allow Germans expelled from Czechoslovakia
after World War II to file claims for Czech land.
Last minute negotiations allowed the Czech Re-
public to opt out from the portions of the treaty
they objected to and President Klaus signed the
treaty earlier this month. It is set to become le-
gally binding on December 1.
One would hope that all the trouble of pass-
ing such a treaty is worth it. Unfortunately, the
Lisbon Treaty falls far short of its principle goal,
which is to streamline decision making in the
European Union. Amidst 250 pages of nearly
unintelligible legal proscriptions, several ini-
tially promising changes can be found. One of
Washington University Political Review
the most touted changes that the Lisbon Treaty
brings is the establishment of the offices of Presi-
dent and Foreign Policy Chief. In doing so, the
European Union hopes to become more influ-
ential in international politics. Instead of the in-
terests of Europe being represented by dozens of
heads of state, this would allow Europe to speak
in one, unified voice and to wield power of the
same level as the United States, China or Rus-
sia. While this sounds great on paper, there is
little to suggest that the new positions will be
anything more than figureheads. It’s quite likely
that the President of the European Union will
occupy a role similar to the General Secretary
of the United Nations: commenting on interna-
tional matters but largely irrelevant in affecting
them.
The Lisbon treaty also aims to make voting
in the European Union more streamlined. The
European Commission, the most important ex-
ecutive power in the European Union, will be
reduced in size. More decisions in all tiers of
the European Union will be made by majority
decisions instead of requiring unanimity (but
anything to do with taxation, foreign policy or
defense still requires unanimity). The Lisbon
Treaty also makes the Charter of Fundamental
Rights, the European equivalent of the U.S. Bill
of Rights, legally binding. It’s largely irrelevant,
as many member states have opt-outs from the
parts of the Charter they object to.
The Lisbon Treaty is a product of a compro-
mise between 27 states with vastly different
interests. With no nations willing to sacrifice
enough sovereignty to the European Union
to make it meaningful, the Lisbon Treaty and
any future treaties will remain largely symbolic
legislation that does very little to strengthen the
European Union.
Michael
Hyrc,
a
WUPR
Staff
Writer,
is
a
senior

in
the
College
of
Arts
and
Sciences.
His
email
is

mjhyrc@artsci.wustl.edu.
December Edition
Stopping
Gendercide Becca Craig

I
n the United States ultrasounds during pregnancy are used for construc- one county in central China and found that nearly half of reported preg-
tive purposes. Often times, mothers and fathers experience the joy of nancies were subjected to sex determination by ultrasound examination.
discovering their baby’s sex. (And then appropriately purchase every- Disgustingly, nine out of ten of the determined female fetuses in second
thing imaginable in shades of either blue or pink.) Abroad, the practice of pregnancies were aborted if the couple’s first child was a girl.
ultrasound use is a completely different story. Ultrasound technicians simply While the abortion debate is another issue in itself, the problem is not
smile or shake their head to inform the par- the practice of abortion abroad, nor is it the
ents of the child’s sex: the former being a boy expansion of ultrasound technology. It’s
and the latter, a girl. Social pressures often the deeply rooted gender norms in India
lead parents to abort females in the hopes of and China that serve to devalue women.
acquiring a boy the next time around. This If women were valued for more than just
warped practice needs to be brought to a marriage and birthing purposes in the eyes
halt. of society, this problem could be solved.
In October 2009 the United States might Junhong claimed, “This calls for a wide
have been granted an avenue by which to range of social, economic, political, and le-
take action against this injustice, instead of gal measures designed to promote gender
idly hoping for “a change we can believe in.” equality and adoption of developmental
Last month, the United States attended the strategies that favor gender equity.” Inno-
UN Human Rights Council as an official vative behavior-change campaigns from the
member for the first time ever, and not a government and NGOs are needed in order
moment too soon. As the recent trend of to transform a culture whose attitudes en-
gender-selected abortions is continuously force and endorse sex-selective abortions.
worsening in Asian countries, the time for International pressure is also needed in
the United States to reverse this abomina- order for change to happen. Now is prime-
tion is now. time for the United States to take an actual
In most countries, there are about 105 stance against an atrocity that has left al-
male births for every 100 females. In India, most 15 million women missing in Asia.
there are fewer than 93 women for every As new members of the council, the United
100 men; in China there are 120 men for States should advocate for an end to the one
every 100 women. This new phenomenon child policy in China, which only perpetu-
of “gendercide” is attributed to gender- ates the cycle of sex selection. In addition
determining ultrasound clinics that are to this, the U.N Human Rights Council and
being conveniently constructed next to United States should work with govern-
abortion clinics. As a new Human Rights Art by Kaity Li. Her email is KaityL@samfox.wustl.edu. ments to develop initiatives to alleviate the
Council member, the United States should problem, including cash incentives to raise
turn opinion into action and take the lead to ratify the Convention on the daughters, campaigns promoting the education of young girls, and prefer-
Rights of the Child in the name of equal rights. ential treatment in health care, housing and employment. While change
The abortion of female fetuses was aided by the spread of cheap and will not happen overnight, it is time for the United States to take action in
portable ultra-sound scanners in the 1980s. Underground mobile scanning times of desperate injustice.
and illegal backstreet hospitals provided unreliable sex determination for
as little as $50. Sex-selective abortions are, surprisingly, most common in
wealthier areas in India. Chu Junhong, an Associate Professor of the Insti- Becca
Craig,
a
WUPR
Staff
Writer,
is
a
sophomore
PoliKcal
Science
and

tute of Population Research, Peking University, Beijing conducted a study American
Culture
Studies
major
in
the
College
of
Arts
and
Sciences.
She

that yielded chilling results. In 2005, Junhong interviewed 820 women in can
be
reached
at
racraig@wustl.edu.

December Edition Washington University Political Review 35

 The Taliban-Dr ug Nexus
N
inety-two percent of the world’s opium, morphine, and heroin—
all derivates of a gummy substance extracted from the poppy
plant—comes from Afghanistan, a nation in which the United
States is currently engaged in chaotic counter insurgency (COIN) tactics.
While Americans have been bombarded with news stories about General
McChrystal’s demand for increased troop deployment and insurgent attacks
in Afghanistan, the profound impact of Afghanistan’s narcotics trade is fre-
quently overlooked.
Afghanistan has not always been
the heart of the world’s poppy culti-
Under the Taliban, poppy
vation. Opium cultivation became
firmly woven into Afghanistan’s eco-
prices rose from $28 to $300
nomic fabric after the 1979 Soviet in-
vasion. This internecine warfare and
per kilogram, increasing the
the anarchy left in its wake destroyed
the Afghan countryside, leading many
incentive to cultivate.
to cultivate poppy, which promises a
steady and substantial income. Under the Taliban, poppy prices rose from
$28 to $300 per kilogram, increasing the incentive to cultivate. Adding fuel
to the fire, these developments occurred while surrounding countries were
cracking down on their own narcotics industries, causing drug lords to
relocate to the country with a comparative advantage in illegality.
Taliban Drug Money
and Narco-Corruption
Counter narcotics (CN) initiatives are integral elements of COIN. Much
of the drug trade’s profit flows into the coffers of insurgent groups, and the
nexus between the insurgency and the drug trade is growing. The U.S. CN
strategy estimates that 10%-50% of insurgent funding is drug money. The
Taliban has always levied taxes on farmers and traffickers and so reaped
profit at every level of the narcotics trade. Recently, however, the insur-
gency’s hand in the drug trade has become far more direct. For example,
the biggest drug dealer in the south is an ally of Taliban leader, Mullah
Omar. Ironically, the Taliban professes ardent adherence to Islam, which
preaches against the production and consumption of drugs. It seems that
36 Washington University Political Review
A roadblock to success in Afghanistan
An analysis by Hannah Shaffer
money trumps ideology.
While most recognize the need for CN initiatives, there are severe chal-
lenges to tackling this issue. Chief among them is the lack of political will,
which is largely a result of narco-corruption among government officials.
Unsurprisingly, it has proved difficult to motivate these politicians to crack
down on what makes them wealthy. The British found nine tons of poppy
in the cellar of Sher Mohammed Akhunzada, the Governor of Helmand,
and President Karzai’s brother Wali
Karzai is widely suspected of hav-
ing shady dealings with the narcotics
trade. Ninety-five percent of the pop-
py-rich south voted for Karzai, which
further increases the government’s
shaky commitment to CN. Therefore,
if Karzai made a real commitment to
CN, he would lose political and mon-
etary support. Afghanistan, ranked by
the Transparency International’s Corruption Percentage Index as the sec-
ond-most corrupt country in the world, needs to root out such corruption
in order to crack down on drugs and reclaim legitimacy.
Counter Narcotics Policies
Strategies to dismantle the drug trade include eradication, interdiction,
reform of the judicial sector, and alternative livelihoods. The points of dis-
agreement tend to focus on the correct balance of these policies—whether
to lean more toward incentives or disincentives, and in what order to im-
plement the initiatives. Effective CN policies require both a “carrot” and
“stick.” One cannot be used at the other’s expense.
The most important positive incentive is finding alternative livelihoods
for poppy farmers. Usually such support is in the form of subsidies, price
supports, micro-loans, and contract farming from private firms. Carrot
policies may seem like a panacea, but in practice there are complicating
factors. First, no licit crop matches poppy in profits (a hectare of poppy
yields $4,600 a year, while a hectare of wheat yields only $390). Second,
insurgents pressure farmers to take out loans to cultivate more poppy,
which creates a cycle of debt that cannot be broken by switching to licit
December Edition
 Art
by
Hannah
Shaffer.
Her
email
is
hrshaffe@artsci.wustl.edu.
(and less lucrative) crops. Finally, the threat of insurgent attacks makes
implementing development programs difficult. Despite these challenges,
24 of 34 provinces are now low-poppy or poppy-free, as many farmers are
responding to U.S. agricultural subsidies.
A corollary policy is a public information campaign to convince local
communities that CN helps rather than hinders the long-term economy.
This campaign should also tap Afghanistan’s base of religious leaders (mul-
lahs), who are opposed to drugs on religious grounds.
Although positive incentives to “win hearts and minds” are a piece of
the CN puzzle, relying solely on them or employing “sequencing”—first
developing an area before employing eradication—is ill-advised. The se-
curity sought by development programs cannot be reached while drugs
are present, because the industry is itself a hugely destabilizing force. It
is no coincidence that cultivation has spread like a cancer in the south
where insurgent violence has also increased. As the first Vice-President of
Afghanistan remarked, “This is a vicious circle: getting rid of poppy in the
south has been difficult because of insecurity, but the insecurity is fueled
by poppy.”
Interdiction—seizing drugs and arresting those involved in the drug
trade—is one of the key disincentive CN policies and the best way to com-
bine CN and COIN efforts. To cause the most disruption to the industry,
interdiction and law enforcement should start at the top with drug barons
tied to the insurgency. However, porous borders and mountain terrain im-
December Edition Washington University Political Review
pede interdiction efforts; on average only two percent of the total crop is
confiscated. The other hurdle to interdiction is a toothless and inconsistent
judicial system. Though the Afghan Constitution makes drug trafficking
illegal, drug kingpins frequently use bribery to avoid sanctions. To im-
prove law enforcement, justice salaries need to be raised, justice positions
expanded, and anti-corruption initiatives bolstered.
Eradication—destroying poppy fields—is the other (and more contro-
versial) “stick.” It serves as a threat to farmers and pressures them to take
advantage of alternative livelihood programs. While this strategy is ap-
pealing because of its “take-no-prisoners” approach, eradication should be
pursued only when there are viable crop alternatives.
Looking for a quick-fix to Afghanistan’s narcotics plague is an exercise
in futility, and attempting “silver bullet” solutions could even prove to be
counter-productive. The only hope of dismantling the Taliban-drug nexus
in this drug-ridden nation is first to engender political will for CN mea-
sures and then to implement a combination of “carrots” and “sticks” for
Afghan poppy farmers and narco-traffickers.
Hannah
Shaffer,
a
WUPR
Editorial
Illustrator,
is
a
sophomore
in
the
College

of
Arts
and
Sciences.
Her
email
is
hrshaffe@artsci.wustl.edu.
37
 The Million Dollar Man
An anecdote and analysis of the reality of the health care issues the United States faces
Mike Friend
It was a cold day in the city when high above the skyline in a hospital
room my grandfather passed away. He died of liver failure stemming from
complications created by his operation four months earlier. He was 78. My
grandfather was really like another parent to me, the love I felt and still feel
for him is as deep and strong as that which I have for both of my parents.
When I heard 2,000 miles away in St. Louis that he had passed, I sat
down and wept. I hadn’t cried in seven years - even when I had been in
severe physical pain - yet the words “grandpa is gone” crippled me. The
funeral was beautiful and horrible all at the same time. I was together with
my family and surrounded by my grandfather’s friends. It was odd to be
somewhere where everyone, all three hundred of those attending the fu-
neral, knew my grandfather. The procession to the graveyard involved 30
cars and when we finally laid him in the ground and the last bit of dirt had
been shoveled over the grave, I could not stop crying. I still could not stop
crying when I got back to St. Louis. I was forced to just hide it from the
public for the next few weeks. When I returned to school, one of the first
questions I remember asking my mother over the phone was: “Is grandma
going to be okay?” She responded “Yes”. Then I asked, “Is she going to be
able to pay for this?”
Four months in an ICU and a five-hour heart surgery had to cost a lot.
The ten surgeon team, the countless nurses, the mountains of drugs; the
numbers were running through my mind--how much was the medical bill
going to be. $250,000? That wouldn’t even cover the operation. $800,000?
That couldn’t cover the ICU care. The medical bill was more money than
my grandparents had ever seen in their lives—$1 million. But money
wasn’t a concern because Medicare covered it. It is hard to transcend the
emotions that surround my grandfather but the question has to be asked:
how much did his operation truly cost?
We know that resources are not infinite, and therefore the $1,000,000
could have been used somewhere else. Everyday Americans are fiscally—
and then emotionally—incapacitated by medical bills for $20, $30 and $50
thousand, for common events like a burst appendix, a broken arm and a
bad fever. How many people could $1 million help? We as a country spend
more on the last six months of life then we do on any other time period.
Does this make sense? Is it not wrong to waste resources on people who
aren’t going to live to reap the benefits of those resources? But let me return
to my grandfather because he deserves more than a simple quantitative
38 Washington University Political Review
analysis.
His situation was dire; he could either have the heart operation or his
heart could slowly bleed him to death over the course of the year. It would
be much like drowning—slowly sinking closer and closer to death with ev-
ery heart beat. Any rational person would choose surgery and my grand-
father was much more than a rational human being - he was a strong in-
dividual physically, mentally and morally. He worked pro-bono for people
who couldn’t afford his legal services. He served on the committee at his
synagogue and raised three successful daughters. He loved his wife, chil-
dren and all his grandchildren with blinding intensity. The reason that in
a small town in New England 300 people packed themselves into a funeral
home designed to hold only fifty, was that they all knew, long before he had
ever even worried about his health, that my grandfather was worth much
more than one million dollars.
Although the health care debate may be over in the House and some bill
might be passed, it will not solve this conflict between the young and the
old and how our resources are spent. I cannot say anyone should deny my
grandfather the right to an operation to continue his life no matter how
much it cost. On the other hand there are hundreds of thousands of people
who are now drowning in debt because they can’t pay their medical bills.
So what is the solution? The one that seems more logical is to put more
money into the system to accommodate everyone’s needs. So that we don’t
have to choose between the beloved grandfather in New England and 100
people with medical bills they can’t afford.
But the cold reality is that we have limited resources, and we have to
choose how to spend them. The reason that the health care debate is so
inflamed is not because of policy issues or the ideological struggle between
capitalism and socialism, but because no matter your religious beliefs we
all hold one truth in our heads. It’s a truth that a lot of us try to ignore: that
Shakespeare was right. “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player/ That
struts and frets his hour upon the stage/ And then is heard no more.” We
only have one shot on the stage - the only question is how long do we get
to stay there?
Mike
Friend,
WUPR’s
Business
Manager,
is
a
sophomore
in
the
College
of

Arts
and
Sciences.
His
email
is
sodiumsb@gmail.com
December Edition
 Ethiopian Jews
T
he years 1984 and 1991 saw two mass
immigrations of Jews from Ethiopia to
Israel, during which thousands of Jews
moved from an impoverished, developing society
into Israel’s modern world. By accepting these
immigrants, Israel took on a long struggle against
discrimination and segregation that remains a
very prevalent issue in Israel today. Legally, Ethio-
pian Israelis are full citizens with the same rights
as any other Israeli; they go to school, complete
their mandatory two or three years in the army,
attend university, work jobs, and live their lives.
However, several factors prevent Ethiopian Israelis
from realizing their aspirations. Ethiopian Jews are
a minority, and unlike other immigrants to Israel,
they are perceived differently, not only because of
the color of their skin, but also because of the ste-
reotypes associated with their nationality.
Admittedly, segregation is difficult to avoid
when bringing in large numbers of immigrants
from Ethiopia; many of them are impoverished
or sick, unable to speak Hebrew, and unpre-
pared for work in Israel’s more modern society.
For their first few years in Israel, the immigrants
were offered government absorption centers as
they learned Hebrew and Israeli ways. It seems
logical that most Ethiopian Jews leaving the ab-
sorption centers would live in poorer areas and
only obtain meager jobs that require minimal
education. Yet it has been over twenty years
since the first surge of immigrants, and in 2007,
65 to 70 percent of the community lived below
the poverty line. Despite the fact that many
Ethiopians are as educated as other Israelis, they
December Edition
Never-ending discrimination
still face an unreasonable struggle to find high-
quality jobs because of racism and stereotyping.
Because Ethiopian Israelis are a relatively new
minority, unlike the Ashkenazi or Sephardic
Jews who have been around since the establish-
ment of the state, the stereotypes with which
Ethiopian Jews arrived - being uneducated, old-
fashioned, and culturally different - are unfortu-
nately still prevalent today. An employer will see
the color of a prospective employee’s skin and
make assumptions about his or her work ethic or
intelligence. Worse, the employer might decide
that hiring an Ethiopian will be bad for business
because of racist customers. A study conducted
by Kiryat Ono Academy in Tel Aviv and pub-
lished on November 9 this year by Haaretz—one
of the biggest Israeli newspapers—found that
53 percent of employers would rather not hire
Ethiopians, regardless of how qualified they are.
If they are actually hired, the study finds that
the chances of the employee being promoted
are even slimmer. Since it is not legal to refuse
someone a position because of their ethnicity,
Israel needs to remedy the mentality that leads
to discrimination against all minorities and take
action against such immoral behavior. Currently
there is no affirmative action in Israel, and Ethio-
pian Jews do not want it because they want to be
hired or rejected because of their qualifications,
not their race. So, without government action,
we must depend on progress alone ending dis-
crimination.
Despite the fact that Israel launched two
waves of rescue missions and dispatched mil-
Washington University Political Review
Sara Fichman
lions of dollars to bring Ethiopian Jews to Israel,
the rabbinate has not been an ally to the Ethio-
pian Israelis. When the Ethiopians first arrived,
many were made to undergo a “conversion” to
Judaism despite the fact that they were already
Jewish. While this was defended as a precau-
tion to ensure that the immigrants were actu-
ally Jewish, this embarrassing and unnecessary
process confused Ethiopian Jews. Unfortu-
nately, religious discrimination didn’t end with
the abolition of this “conversion” in the 1980s.
Until recently, any Ethiopian couple who wanted
to marry were obliged to go to a specific Ethio-
pian rabbi for authorization - no matter how in-
convenient this was for the couple - while other
Israeli couples were allowed to simply visit their
local rabbi. The Israeli Supreme Court over-
turned this law in 2004, recognizing that it is
indeed racist to deny basic rights to Ethiopian
Jews, who are law-abiding citizens just like the
rest of the population.
It has been 25 years since the first swell of
Ethiopian immigrants, but the amount of dis-
crimination that remains in Israel’s modern so-
ciety is appalling. As the continuing struggle for
equity in professional, religious and social life
does not seem to be coming to an end, the gov-
ernment must further crack down on discrimi-
nation in order to improve the quality of life for
all Israelis.
Sara
 Fichman‐Klein,
 a
 WUPR
 Staff
 Writer,
 is
 a

freshman
 in
 the
 College
 of
 Arts
 and
 Sciences.

Her
email
is
srfichma@wustl.edu.


39
 Green
The

De c ep t ion
Alex Kaufman

Art by Christina Belderson. Her email is

ChristinaB@samfox.wustl.edu

I
n 2001 the Toyota Prius took the United
States by storm. The environmentally
friendly car proved that at least some
Americans were finally willing to shell out a few
extra bucks to fight global warming. As public
awareness of environmental problems has in-
creased, American consumers have become ever
more willing to spend extra on products that are
better for the environment.
Corporations have caught on to this shift in
consumer demand, but the resulting changes
to marketing campaigns haven’t always been
backed up by substantive changes to the prod-
ucts. Unfortunately, the old motto of “give the
people what they want” has been replaced by a
more sinister slogan of “give the people the same
stuff as before . . . with a label claiming to be
what they want.”
From granola bars to cell phones, soap to new
cars, consumers can find almost anything in a
“green” variety. Google “green products” and
you will find “green” versions for everything
you can imagine: there are green toothbrushes,
green can openers, green air conditioners, even
green green paint.
But are we really supposed to believe all this
stuff is good for the environment and not just
another form of advertising? It’s virtually im-
possible to be an environmentally conscious
consumer anymore, because there is no way to
tell a truly green product from one that just calls
itself green.
The increasingly common phenomenon of
deceptively labeled “green” products is rightly
called “greenwashing.” Greenwashing occurs
when companies disingenuously hawk their
products by dressing them up with leaves and
flowers on the label along with some sales pitch
(no matter how implausible) that qualifies their
product as “green.” Common phrases such as
“all natural” and “organic” get slapped on many
products that are, in reality, tawdry rip offs of

40 Washington University Political Review December Edition

 “Green” Product Sold As The Catch Is it Green?
An SUV that gets 36 MPG! Ameri- A (non hybrid) Toyota Camry gets
Ford Escape cans can now roll on 30-inch rims the same mpg. If you really wanted
Hybrid without the guilt. to change things, buy a hybrid that
gets 50mpg or more. !
A way to soak up the beer in your Paper towels can’t be recycled, so
rug without cutting down innocent you are still creating waste by using
Recycled Paper treesv them, not to mention consuming
Towels recycled paper that could be used
elsewhere. Why not just use a nor- !
mal towel?
The delicious taste of the Maine Disposable water bottles are still a
wilderness and 30% less plastic in huge waste. Besides,, “spring water”
Eco Water Bottle a landfill. is still just tap water. Buy a Nalgene
and fill it from the sink instead! !
These bulbs use less energy and last Because they have mercury in them
Fluorescent Light longer, saving you coin there is no convenient way to re-
Bulbs cycle them
!
Kill the germs with products that It’s hard to differentiate the legiti-
Green Cleaning are all-natural, non-toxic, biode- mate green cleaners from the fak-
Products gradable and somehow still neon ers. Make sure to check the labels.
green. !

real environmental ideas such as sustainability
and low environmental impact. The most infuri-
ating greenwashing takes place with the tacit ap-
proval of government regulators. For instance,
the Department of Agriculture classifies food as
“USDA organic” even if it contains inorganic in-
gredients and is produced with artificial fertiliz-
ers and pesticides. Lately it seems any reduction
environmental damage, however insignificant, is
cause enough to label a product “green.”
Some companies greenwash by bragging
about accomplishments that are downright
commonplace. Barbasol shaving cream proudly
bears the label “no CFCs” despite the fact that
CFCs were outlawed 31 years ago. Perhaps the
most egregious example of large-scale green-
washing was the decision by British Petroleum,
a giant of the oil industry, to legally change its
name to Beyond Petroleum (and spend mil-
lions of dollars on ads to tell the public about it).
Though BP made a $24 billion profit in 2008, the
company is now shutting down its alternative
energy division.
Corporate dishonesty is not a new phenom-
enon. Companies have been engaging in this
kind of deception for years. Candy bars that
proclaim 50% LESS FAT (than some other candy
bar) and car dealerships that announce “$3000
cash back!” (on the more expensive fully load-
ed option) are nothing new. But greenwashing
is a particularly insidious lie. Greenwashing is
not taking advantage of our desire to be slim-
mer or to save money; rather, it is taking advan-
tage of our moral desire to do what’s right. It’s
analogous to a business that pretends it is chari-
table or altruistic just to sell you their product.
Imagine if it turned out the company Newman’s
Own didn’t actually donate their profits to char-
ity, they just said they did in order to sell more
product. That is the model behind a lot of these
faux-green products.
Greenwashing isn’t just a dirty trick; it’s also a
dangerous weapon for those who oppose mean-
ingful action on global warming. The concept
that buying a different kind of Windex or a 48”
TV that includes some recycled plastic somehow
helps the environment in any kind of significant
way is just plain wrong. Global warming can’t
be solved by making slightly better consumer
choices. It’s a colossal problem that will require
drastic action and likely very dramatic changes
in the way we go about our daily lives. Green-
washed products perpetuate the plainly foolish
idea that consumers are solving the climate cri-
sis just by spending an extra 50 cents here and
there.
This misunderstanding may actually be a
significant barrier to stopping global warming.
Because many people don’t realize that the vast
majority of greenwashed products don’t really
have any significant impact, there is a very real
risk that they will infer that large-scale environ-
mental legislation and environmental activism
are not necessary. Prominent U.S. leaders who
seek to downplay the consequences of global
warming as well as business interests that are
opposed to environmental regulation have ad-
opted this argument wholeheartedly, citing
such meager changes as the “market solution”
approach to global warming. They argue that if
people want green products enough, the busi-
ness community will eventually adapt and give
it to them. Of course, this is not the case, as the
rising incidence of greenwashing proves. Yet
this argument was born from explosion of green
products in the mid 2000s. The idea of market
solutions to global warming has spread widely,
appearing in magazines like Forbes and Roll-
ing Stone, on cable news shows, and even on
the floor of Congress itself. The central irony
of greenwashing is that a formerly green cause is
now being used by the political right and oppo-
nents of climate change action to oppose envi-
ronmental legislation and regulation. Tragically,
greenwashing has perverted the environmental
movement into a weapon against itself.
Alex
 Kaufman,
 a
 WUPR
 Staff
 Writer,
 is
 a

freshman
 in
 the
 College
 of
 Arts
 and
 Sciences.

His
email
is
akaufman10@gmail.com.


December Edition Washington University Political Review 41

Chasing the
out of the
Jake Laperruque
R
ealignment, dealignment, schisms, segmenting, building, rebuilding,
changing. Modifications and transformations are part of the natural
evolution of political parties. But right now something unnatural is
happening in U.S. politics. A new faction is on the rise: the Irrational Wing
of the Republican Party. Founded out of fear and fueled by loathing, this
group threatens not just to consume the GOP, but also to bring the country
down with it.
The signs of a right-wing uprising are not sparse or isolated incidents.
They have been occurring with increasing frequency since the start of the
Obama presidency. This has been seen to the largest degree in two arenas:
the growing outrage of vocal conservative commentators and the Tea Party
Movement. The most popular and powerful commentators are a mix of
new and old: Rush Limbaugh, the foaming-at-the-mouth radio host who
has been a powerhouse conservative voice for decades but now seems to
be in the spotlight more than ever before; and Glenn Beck, the twitchy
conspiracy-fearing Fox commentator who recently burst into prominence
with his blubbering love of all things he finds good and American and an
unmatched suspicion of everything that doesn’t fit with his beliefs. Both
hosts have made a habit of declaring that every policy of the Democrats and
42 Washington University Political Review
the Obama administration is a plot to enact a socialist coup. Then there
are the Tea Partiers. Spread across the country, these anti-government
activists have been disrupting townhalls, marching on Washington, and
causing as much havoc as possible. This “Project Mayhem” styled activism
has been raising eyebrows as it went beyond the socialism accusation and
took comfort in equating Barack Obama with Hitler and the Holocaust.
The issue with these rogue elements is not that they exist; every political
group has its extremists, and the conservative crazies are no worse than
the loony liberals. The problem is that these fringe elements no longer
occupy the fringe. According to polling, Rush Limbaugh – who earlier
this year called for the reintroduction of segregated busing – is viewed
more than anyone else as the leader of the Republican Party. Glenn Beck
- who has claimed that President Obama is a racist and has a deep-seated
hatred of white people yet at the same time does not dislike white people
– orchestrated the massive September 12 protests on Washington that are
widely revered by the Tea Partiers and conservatives as a whole. Both have
contended that the health care reform plan is a secret scheme by Obama to
enact reparations. The Tea Parties have also received growing widespread
support from the Republican Party. Dick Army, the former House major-
December Edition
ity leader, created dontkillgrandma.com to spread the death panel myth
regarding health care. Representative Michelle Bachman recently spoke at
a Tea Party rally at the Capitol while proudly standing under a giant ban-
ner showing Holocaust victims at Danchau that read “National Socialist
Healthcare.”
These repulsive acts of irrational anger are not just forming a strong
base, but are taking control of the Republican Party. Republican leader-
ship has done practically nothing to condemn the nature of the conserva-
tive commentators and Tea Party protests, nor distance itself from their
anger and illogical argument. At the same time, the presence—even prev-
alence—of this wing is beginning to manifest itself in elections. This was
recently seen in the special election in NY-23, where Conservative candi-
date Doug Hoffman pushed the moderate Republican candidate out of the
race, only to lose to the Democrat. And Hoffman won’t be the last to run.
Tea Party candidates are popping up all over the country. In Florida proud
Tea Partier Patricia Sullivan is challenging Alan Grayson, the Democrat
who declared the Republican health care plan to be “don’t get sick” and if
you do “die quickly.” Growing in strength and getting louder all the time,
this irrational wing of the Republican Party is hoping to use the midterm
elections to turn their Tea Party into a riot.
The question remains: Why is this faction gaining so much prominence?
The thumping the Republicans received in the 2008 elections left them
leaderless and unsure of their future, creating a power vacuum for the Ir-
rational Wing to fill. Obama’s victory pushed these rouge elements into a
frenzy, causing them to frantically force themselves to the forefront of the
national debate as they feared that the doomsday clock was suddenly sec-
onds from midnight. As Bill Clinton recently stated, “The Tea baggers are
so enflamed because we’re winning.” (Yes, that’s right, Bill Clinton made
Art by Christopher Hohl. His email is ChristopherH@samfox.wustl.edu.
December Edition Washington University Political Review
the tea bagger joke.) But the primary culprits are the political parties.
Republicans, desperate to end their losing streak, are unwilling to start a
civil war to banish the Irrational Wing and have begun to cede territory to
candidates like Hoffman. Democrats – notably the Obama Administra-
tion, which began the “Limbaugh is the Leader of GOP” storyline – have
also allowed the rise of the Irrationals, who they believe will have more
trouble appealing to average Americans and thus will be easier to defeat
come election time.
But political motives aside, the descent into Glenn Beck- and Rush Lin-
baugh-induced chaos is bad for Democrats, bad for Republicans, and bad
for the country as a whole. Discourse and meaningful debate are the foun-
dation of democracy, and the Irrationals are an abomination of it. Demo-
crats need an opposition that keeps them honest and moderates policy by
producing their own ideas and alternatives. Spreading rumors of death
panels and placing labels of “socialist” and “Nazi” on legislation does not
accomplish this, and it does not help the country.
Politics is too often just about competition. Win at any cost, win no
matter what, win any way you can, win win win. But government is too
important for victory for victory’s sake. This is about more than voter mar-
gins and midterms; it is about the future of American discourse. Ameri-
cans of all political affiliations need a Republican Party that is rational,
reasonable and proactive. It’s time for Democrats and Republicans alike to
step up and demand it.
Jake
Laperruque,
WUPR’s
editor
in
chief,
is
a
senior
in
the
College
of
Arts

and
Sciences.
His
email
is
jakelaperruque@gmail.com.
43
SAMURAI Puzzle provided by www.djape.net

S U D O K U
Use digits 1 through 9 to fill in the grid.
Each row and column within a 9x9 box as
well as all 3x3 grids should contain only
one of each digit. The five boxes cannot
be solved independently of each other.

SCORING GUIDE FOR THE END OF THE WORLD QUIZ ON PAGE 1

Congratulations! You Are:

7-11 Points: You do not believe the world will actually end in 2012. You have somehow managed to convince yourself that life will con-
tinue on as normal for years and years. You ignore the warnings of Nostradamus, the Mayans, and other prophetic religions and civilizations,
which all predict the end of the world in 2012. You’re probably that same moron who believed that Y2K wasn’t a serious threat and that the
moon landing was actually real. So, so naive...

12-16 Points: You have seen Apocalypto and understand that the Mayan prophecy will undoubtedly come true. You will make the most
of your time leading up to December 21, 2012, but realize that it’s utterly irrelevant…The God that the Mayans mistook Columbus for will rise
in the East and take the rest of the world down with him (that God may well turn out to be Mel Gibson).

17-21 Points: You believe that Obama’s socialist agenda will destroy the world, one tax increase and wasteful government program at
a time. That anti-American, arugula-eating joke of a president is plotting something… you just know it. Talking to schoolchildren, showing
respect to other world leaders…it’s not that Obama is just un-presidential, he’s un-American (Muslim?). You will do whatever it takes to help
prevent that Commie from destroying Earth, but you realize the sad reality that regardless of what action you take, he has probably already
caused enough harm to destroy the world by 2012.

22-25 Points: Aliens!!! They’re attacking. You’ve seen the movies. You’ve read the books. They’ve already invaded, and the government has
covered it up. You suspect at least two of the Political Review writers of being aliens, and there are probably many more you haven’t discovered
yet. Soon the rest of the world will know the pain and suffering caused by an alien invasion, but by then it will be too late….

26-35 Points: You’re just some teenage girl who really likes Twilight. We tried to get you to participate in the actual topic of this quiz,
but all you want to do is go on and on about Taylor Lautner’s rock-hard abs. The idea that this cesspool on a screen is considered to be view-
able by human eyes is indication enough of the impending apocalypse. Although you don’t realize it, the millions of combined dollars your
demographic gives to the Twilight franchise is fueling an occult group dedicated to the destruction of the world. Congratulations, teenage girls
who wear black and “aren’t understood by anyone.” We hope you are happy.

December Edition Washington University Political Review 44

WUPR IS ONLINE
www.wupr.org
• PDF Downloads
• Political Blogs
• Web-Exclusive
Content
• RSS Feeds
• Much, much
more!
Artwork by Carter Malouf
cartermalouf@gmail.com