ThePoliticalReview

Just last week…
Comedy Central has done many outrageous things over the years, from inflicting viewers with so-called apologies for “comedies” like “Krod Mandoon” to canceling “Reno 911”, but their latest decision to censor the most recent episode of “South Park” is just unacceptable. Kowtowing to the not-so-delicate threats the New York-based group Revolution Muslim made towards Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of South Park over an episode depicting the prophet Muhammad, Comedy Central executives caved in and added more limits to the content of the two recent episodes of the show than Parker and Stone had originally installed. Every mention of the name “Muhammad” is now bleeped out and given the same treatment a four letter word generally receives, and any image of the prophet is reduced to a black box, even through Parker and Stone, in their usual ridiculous humor style, show Muhammad stuffed in a bear suit and never his actual face. A short speech one of the characters gives about the episode’s perspective on tolerance and civil liberties never sees the light of day, thanks to the cowardly interference of Comedy Central.

At first glance, this whole incident seems insignificant and overblown. A zany cartoon that has a reputation for deliberately offending and is no stranger to controversy suddenly faces a serious show of disapproval; what’s the big deal? Something similar occurred in 2006, when cast member Isaac Hayes ditched the show allegedly because he found the show’s jokes on his religion Scientology too much to handle. However, the new controversy between “South Park” and Islam is just one skirmish in the current war radical Islam is raging against the West. One of the most impressive and unique aspects of our society is the extent to which we enjoy political and social freedoms that let us say and do what is on our minds, and these liberties are exactly what radical Muslims hate and intend to destroy. By proclaiming its disgust for any depiction of Muhammad whatsoever, no matter how inane or silly, and implying certain death for the perpetrators, Revolution Muslim and its ilk are sneakily helping to advance the fundamentalist Muslim agenda. Comedy Central’s response has sadly proven that this time, the radicals have won again.

This is hardly the first time a scandal like this has occurred, but this ought to be a wakeup call for Americans as to the powerful and dangerous effects radical Islam has against freedom. Today, there is still a disturbing double standard when it comes to satirizing any religion, belief or ethnicity, when compared to Islam.

For as long as anyone can remember everywhere…
Entertainment nowadays has endless examples of jokes on Christianity, Judaism and the like, such as Larry David urinating on a portrait of Jesus, or endless stereotypes of southerners, gays, Jews, and Jesus on “Family Guy”. The list of hilarious and racy jibes at manifold types of people in our modern culture goes on, but when one tries to come up with examples for Islam, the list is considerably shorter. Take the recent book The Cartoons That Shook the World by Jytte Klausen, which chronicles the controversy over the Danish political cartoons of Muhammad – without featuring any images of the actual cartoons. Editors at Yale University Press, not even wanting to risk publishing the cartoons again, gave in to Muslim pressure and removed all cartoons, essentially castrating the subject of the book and leaving it like a hot rod without wheels.

In 2009…
Roland Emmerich made sure to wreck every world landmark in his movie 2012, but graciously spared the Kaaba of Mecca, the holiest of holies for Muslims, because, as he pathetically stated, “you can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have ... a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is”. Can you say double standard? The movie alone was already a galling experience, but Emmerich’s spinelessness takes the cake.

Last week…
Emmerich is someone who has already given up the right to express whatever is on his mind and exercise artistic freedom, but Parker and Stone have not, and that is why they deserve our support and gratitude so much. The duo serves up an ingenious mix of humor and satire combined with deep meaning in their show, and their willingness to go places where no one else has dared gone before makes them an example for everyone in the free world. I’m not saying these things just because I’m a passionate “South Park” fan; Parker and Stone recently held firm to their decision to spoof Muhammad and resolved not to back down and be “hypocritical…messed up”. This kind of courage is rare these days, and truly uplifting to hear.

For centuries of Western history…
One of the greatest achievements of Western society is its formation of liberty unparalleled in any other part of the world, which allow for democratic government, virtually unlimited opportunity to write, say, and express any sort of ideas, and equality for people of all walks of life. Radical Muslims realize this and are hard at work undermining these freedoms. What happened to “South Park” is one such instance; if this trend of submitting to Muslim demands out of fear of retaliation continues, the West will lose another major front in the war against terror and fundamental Islam.

Spokesmen for Revolution Muslim claim that the message they send to Parker and Stone was hardly a threat but only a harmless warning intended to persuade them to realize their error and hubris, which is similar to “white nationalists” insisting that they are not spawn of the Nazis and KKK, but simply feel that different races can never coexist peacefully. Everything about the group’s threat to Parker and Stone indicates an incitement to violence; a photo of murdered Dutch director Theo van Gogh accompanies the home addresses of Parker and Stone, and a harsh criticism of their actions.

In 2004…
For those who don’t know, van Gogh made a 10 minute film entitled Submission that took an unflinching look at the lack of women’s rights under Islam, and for expressing his views was stabbed and shot by Mohammad Bouyeri, a radical Dutch Muslim.

Last Wednesday…
Recently, Revolution Muslim posted a lengthy response to the controversy it raised with its “warning” to Parker and Stone, trying to soothe critics by laying the blame on “imperialist” activities of the American Empire and its hideous genocidal lackey Israel, citing Parker and Stone for “spreading Islamophobia”, and calling for dialogue and increased understanding between cultures so that America’s attempts to colonize the Middle East will not succeed. The very name of the group is evidence that Revolution Muslim is interested in anything but peace and justice; the front page of their blog features protesters imploring Allah to “make a mushroom cloud over Israel” and encouraging Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to “eliminate…Israel from the map”. The article is a childish and perverted combination of Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto that has more holes and fallacies in its arguments than Swiss cheese, and the group itself has only a dozen members, yet Revolution Muslim still succeeded in intimidating Comedy Central and getting what they wanted with a simple Internet message.

In their blog post, Revolution Muslim argues that freedom of speech is a “vital tool in the staving of oppression, but this function has its limits”, and that freedom of speech nowadays is an excuse for people to show “pornography, homosexuality, slander, and libel against even that which is considered sacred”. Actually, freedom of speech has no real limits attached to it. George Orwell accurately noted that “if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”, and in a free society, while many things in today’s media are no desirable to everyone, everyone has the right to just avoid those things and express whatever suits them more. Throughout the article, the writer continues to openly spew hatred of America and anything deemed un-Islamic, claiming that America is a genocidal empire devoted to “destruction of the Islamic identity”, insisting that Muslims would never “insult the deities that other religions hold in high esteem”, citing traditional sharia law as reason for threatening Parker and Stone, and blaming the crux of the controversy on Parker and Stone and other “pawns” of racism and imperialism who support “passive acceptance of a sick status quo…dependent on a hedonistic, consumerist mindset that effectively numbs the general world populace and keeps them ignorant and oblivious to the imperialist reality”.

Where do I start in taking apart this garbage? This article is the worst of fascism and communism combined. Mountains of evidence reveal that on every point, Revolution Muslim is wrong and twisted.

For years…
Comedians have enjoyed the opportunity to make fun of very religion under sun, but suddenly, Islam is the excpetion and enjoys heightened status. The solution to this whole mess, Revolution Muslim states, would be to hold “detailed discussion…open dialogue” and for people to convert to Islam.

In 1939…
The Munich Agreement is a perfect example of the good that comes from negotiations with dictators and terrorists; management consultant Peter Drucker was right on the money when he noted that “if there is a word why the human race has never and will never progress, that word would be meetings’”. The sooner people wake up to this reality, the better.

For now…
Muslims have gained another victory in their quest to wipe away Western freedom. There is still, however, hope. The struggle against militant Islam is far from over, and there is still much that people can do to prevent radical Islam from intruding further. People everywhere, especially entertainers and comedians, can take an example people like from Jon Stewart and defy Revolution Muslim and their kind by disregarding what the radical Muslims threaten and continuing to express themselves freely, and not steer clear of any mention of Islam. People must continue the war against terror, because it is absolutely imperative to squash terrorism and put an end to militant Islam’s grip on the world. And lastly, an apology from Comedy Central to viewers it insulted with its cowardice wouldn’t hurt either.

Derek Sun can be contacted at dsun [at] artsci.wustl.edu

At 89, it’s no surprise that Justice John Paul Stevens has finally chosen to retire. I can’t speak from personal experience, but I’m sure it’s a good age at which to slow down and take things easy. Stevens’s announcement that he would be stepping down and leaving another Supreme Court seat vacant is sure to make the selection of a new Supreme Court Justice one of the most tense political battles of the upcoming summer. There is already rampant speculation about a number of possible judges and politicians who can replace Stevens, the most senior member of the nine justices of the Supreme Court and a key member of the court’s liberal wing.

In 1975…
President Gerald Ford nominates Stevens to the Supreme Court. Initially considered a justice on the conservative side when he begins his tenure, Stevens grows to become a member of the Supreme Court’s liberal side, famously dissenting in the 2000 case Bush v. Gore and then in the 2005 case Van Orden v. Perry, in which the court ruled that a display of the Ten Commandments outside the Texas State Capitol did not violate the First Amendment. Stevens has had a distinguished career, and has the honor of being the fourth longest-serving justice on the Supreme Court.

Back in 2010…
As if Obama didn’t have enough issues to juggle, such as health care, terrorism, the economy, and rogue nations, the job of appointing a new Supreme Court Justice has fallen onto his shoulders. Obama has already had experience with this task; he’s already appointed his first justice Sonia Sotomayor nearly a year ago to the Supreme Court to replace David Souter. There are plenty of issues for Obama to consider in his second Supreme Court pick, such as the legal and political experience of his nominee, the appeal and impact a certain nominee will have on Democrats and Republicans, and any possible skeletons in a nominee’s closet that will increase the difficulty and time of an already lengthy nomination process.

During spring of 2009…
Obama’s choice of Sonia Sotomayor went smoothly, for the most part, especially considering how most Supreme Court confirmations proceed. By selecting a Hispanic woman for the court, Obama cemented the traditionally strong support he receives from Hispanic voters and women, but Republicans, needless to say, were none too pleased throughout the whole process, specifically citing Sotomayor’s now famous “wise Latina” remark, claiming it as an example of playing the race card. Besides voicing the usual complaints about the nominee’s voting record on certain cases, critics of Sotomayor stated that she was unqualified for the Supreme Court and would decide cases based on race and socioeconomic status. Obama needs to avoid picking any more judges that would utter another “wise Latina” comment or anything similar, because doing so would thrust race into the spotlight again, bring up controversial and difficult debates about race, and create difficulty for everyone of all political stripes. The “wise Latina” phrase Sotomayor made was not intentionally harmful or race-baiting, but was vague and could be debated and misconstrued in so many ways, and greatly increased the tension and difficulty of the nomination process.

Some things never change…
Some things are already apparent when looking back at past nominations of Supreme Court justices, both in the Bush and Obama administrations. The same events occur during every endeavor to install a new member to the Supreme Court: the new nominee is praised endlessly by members of the president’s party; the opposition delivers an apprehensive response and makes good on its promise to relentlessly scrutinize every major and minor aspect of the nominee’s background and career, and savage political conflicts ensue until the nominee is finally accepted and inducted as a full fledged Supreme Court member.

In the upcoming days…
Obama needs to make sure to do some things differently this time around if he wants to give himself an easier nomination process. First of all, Obama should focus more on the qualifications, voting record, and other factors of a judge’s background instead of his or her race, which became a major issue during Sotomayor’s confirmation. The nominees available for Obama right now comprise a highly diverse group, and many offer Obama the chance to add more diversity to the court. However, diversity should take a backseat to experience and usefulness in this situation. By now, it’s apparent that after nearly a year in office, Obama needs strong allies in the Supreme Court who he can rely on, due to the perpetual opposition he faces from the Republican Party. In the eyes of the Tea Party protesters (and many conservatives and Republicans), Obama can do no right (no pun intended). After months of attempting to achieve compromise and bipartisanship with the opposition, which is about as easy as finding the Holy Grail or understanding quantum chemistry, Obama should realize that he needs to just find someone who closely supports his plans and does not have any outstanding past issues that Republicans could pick apart and attack.

Thus…
The latter requirement would mean that Janet Napolitano, current Homeland Security Secretary and possible candidate, should under no circumstances be nominated, because she ruined her own credibility and the Obama administration’s reputation by infamously insisting that “the system worked” after a terrorist attack almost succeeded on Christmas on Northwest Airlines Flight 253. Another name being floated around is Jennifer Granholm, governor of Michigan, but considering the moribund state of Detroit and Michigan’s current unemployment rate of 14.6% reported by the Department of Labor, Republicans will find plenty on Granholm’s record to criticize. One interesting possibility is Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Advisor of the Department of State and former dean of Yale Law School. Considered one of the most liberal possible candidates, Koh could potentially make history as the first Asian American member of the Supreme Court, giving Obama further credit for introducing diversity, but Koh’s strong liberal positions will infuriate and invigorate Republicans to no end.

Instead of them…
Better choices for the Supreme Court Obama should consider include Elena Kagan, current US Solicitor General who is usually seen as a moderate Democrat that some Republicans can at least tolerate. Having served as Associate White House Counsel under the Clinton Administration, the first female dean of Harvard Law School, and many other notable positions, Kagan has an impressive resume. Another good option is Merrick Garland, whose claim to fame was leading the investigation and prosecution of Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber. Garland has a reputation as a moderate and like Kagan, has a diverse and lengthy career in law, having been a Harvard Law School professor, assistant to the Attorney General, and Court of Appeals judge. A nominee with no judicial experience is an interesting possibility; Deval Patrick, Massachusetts governor, can be a right choice. His state features a healthcare plan similar to the one Obama has championed, he has a colorful career as a lawyer and prosecutor, but his personal friendship with Obama and tenure as governor could make him vulnerable to Republican questioning.

In the weeks and months to come…
Whoever Obama appoints as the hopeful successor to Stevens, he has to keep in mind that he needs someone who he can trust and depend on as a supporter of his policies to make his term run more smoothly. Instead of searching for someone who the Republicans can approve of, Obama should just choose a judge who does not have outstanding skeletons in their closets or who will turn race and gender into major issues, because those are the last things the nation needs right now.

Derek Sun can be contacted at dsun [at] artsci.wustl.edu

Japan in 1945..
The nuclear age begins when America uses the first atom bombs, Fat Man and Little Boy, on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bringing World War II to an end. Nearly a decade of physics research and development pays off. For a brief period, the US appears to reign as the sole superpower nation due to its monopoly over the atom bomb.

A desert in Kazakhstan in 1953..
Joe-4, the first Soviet atomic bomb, makes its debut. The US is still ahead, since it develops the first hydrogen bomb that dwarfs the original atomic bombs.

In the years that follow..
Britain gets its first nuclear bomb in 1952, followed soon by the French in 1960 and the Chinese in 1964. The nuclear club continues to expand, with rival neighbors India and Pakistan acquiring nuclear arms in 1974 and 1998, respectively. From the beginning of the nuclear era and even before their invention, it’s painfully clear that nuclear weapons are stronger than anything mankind has ever built, and could easily lead to complete annihilation of life on the planet if used. From cases of French soldiers in the Sahara to Japanese fishermen who got too close to nuclear testing sites, the world gets a small taste of just how horrific nuclear effects are.

To this day…
For good reason, nuclear weapons have always been at the back of everyone’s minds, and now they’ve resurfaced in the popular consciousness thanks to a number of recent world events. First off, President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitri Medvedev finally agreed on terms of a treaty designed to further limit the number of nuclear warheads each nation has. The latest installment of the Strategic Arms Reduction (START) treaties stipulates that both countries will reduce the number of nuclear arms they have by a third and need to submit to UN weapons inspections to carefully keep track of nuclear stockpiles. Neither nation may have more than 2,000 nuclear arms, but have to cut down their inventories to 1,500 bombs and 700 delivery systems.

A few days ago..
Another major development is Obama’s announcement of his Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which contains a number of revisions to the typical American approach on using nuclear weapons. Most notably, under Obama’s new rules, the US will promise not to use nuclear arms against hostile nations that are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, unless a nation is actively researching nuclear or biological weapons of mass destruction. The official US stance against North Korea and Iran remains unchanged, so overall the new NPR limits the situations in which the US may deploy nuclear weapons. To win over other countries, Obama is holding an international summit on nuclear weapons this weekend, with over 40 countries planning to attend, but one nuclear club member is opting out: Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his decision to send another Israeli representative in his stead, throwing another wrench into the already complex and testy dealings between America and Israel. Netanyahu’s sudden choice to steer clear of Obama’s nuclear summit also raises lingering questions about Israel’s secretive nuclear capacities. For now, Israel remains the only Middle Eastern country with nuclear bombs, and the nuclear issue is sure to remain prominent due to rival Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

In 1986..
Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu, troubled by the secrecy surrounding his nation’s nuclear program, reveals all he knows about Israel’s nuclear developments to Britain’s Sunday Times, such as number of warheads produced, procedures for enriching plutonium, and descriptions of bomb types. The Mossad subsequently kidnaps him and he is tried and imprisoned for revealing state secrets. Vanunu continues to be a thorn in Israel’s side, as he frequently is a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, and numerous organizations like Amnesty International have called for his release and accused Israel of torturing and unjustly punishing him.

In 1968..
Ireland and Finland propose the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to limit nuclear proliferation. Since the treaty went into effect in 1970, 189 nations have signed it. The main three terms of treaty call for disarmament, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the use of nuclear power for solely peaceful purposes. Several notable members of the nuclear club, including Israel, Pakistan and India have still not signed the treaty.

Several days ago in Prague..
In many ways, this meeting showed clear differences from past interactions between the US and Russia, and hopefully might even be proof that the new “reset” era promised by the Obama administration has finally arrived. Obama and Medvedev both spoke highly of each other, with Obama claiming that Medvedev is a “friend and partner” exercising “strong leadership”, and Medvedev returning the praise by citing “very good personal chemistry” with Obama. Both fortunately and unfortunately, no one raised questions about the ongoing issues of Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, Russian human rights abuses, or American and Russian missile defense systems coming dangerously close to each other in Europe.

The renewal of START is a positive step not only for usually tense US-Russia relations but also for the world, since reducing the risk of nuclear destruction is a common goal for all countries, but START’s problem is that it leaves so many questions unanswered about what lies next for Russia and America, as well as the role of nuclear weapons in the world. Like it or not, we have to acknowledge that the ultimate goal of complete nuclear disarmament so many people pursue is naïve and impossible at best and totally foolish at worst. Nuclear weapons are here to stay, and unbelievable as it sounds, that is actually something we should be thankful for.

Last October…
Around the time of the Nobel Committee’s out-of-the-blue proclamation that Obama was the latest Nobel Peace Prize recipient, one TIME editorial argued that if the Nobel Committee was truly interested in promoting peace and minimizing warfare, it ought to give recognition to a true peacekeeper: nuclear weapons. The article establishes a number of little-known and little-considered points for not entirely abolishing nuclear weapons; for example, even if legitimate and law-abiding nations all renounce nuclear arms and deactivate all their warheads, what will stop terrorists and rogue states like Iran and North Korea from doing so? America and the rest of the free world would be at an enormous disadvantage if it lacked nuclear weapons when dealing against such enemies. As political writer and commentator Charles Krauthammer noted lately, one of the most useful weapons the US possessed during the Cold War against the USSR was its threat to use nuclear weapons as a counter for any attack the Soviets made against Europe, keeping communism at bay and giving America a major advantage.

More importantly, the article argued that since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear arms have made people aware of the potential of mutually assured destruction (MAD) brought about by nuclear technology. Before the invention of nukes, humanity endured two world wars and countless constant conflicts occurring nonstop around the world, with 15 million people perishing a year on average due to warfare. In the past three decades, the figure has dropped steadily to 3 million a year. While new wars are always taking place and people are always dying of genocide, execution, famine, and other related effects of war, nuclear weapons now make countries think twice before plunging immediately into what TIME terms “the long, seemingly inexorable trend in modernity toward deadlier and deadlier conflicts”.

Now with Obama’s new nuclear policy..
These reasons are why Obama’s recent revisions of decades-old US nuclear policy have both positive and negative consequences. On the bright side, fewer nukes in all nations leads to lower risk of nuclear destruction of humanity and the world, as well as greater security and confidence that nuclear weapons are less prevalent. However, the US is now more constrained in its ability to deal with enemy threats and rogue nations under the new nuclear rules, and an America completely devoid of nuclear arms, although unimaginable, would be much easier prey for terrorists and hostile countries.

In the years to come..
For Obama, the current challenge is to balance negotiations with Russia and other members of the nuclear club to gradually decrease the number of nuclear weapons in the world while managing to not completely eliminate all of them, especially America’s own stockpile. Not only is this necessary, but Obama must also isolate and prevent rogue nations from developing nuclear arms further. In these cases, nuclear arms would definitely come in handy, since paradoxically, nukes are most effective at stopping conflict when they are not used at all.

Derek Sun can be contacted at dsun [at] artsci.wustl.edu

For ages...
Russians have used jokes as a way of communicating their thoughts about politics, society, and myriad issues. Jokes are an effective method of distracting people from the hardships they face, and anyone who knows anything about Russian history is aware of how hard the Russians have had it. This particular yarn sums up the relationship between Vladimir Putin and his successor/puppet Dmitri Medvedev: “Putin and Medvedev go to a restaurant. Putin orders steak, and the waiter asks, ‘And the vegetable?’ Putin replies, ‘The vegetable will have steak too.’”.

2 years ago…

Since Putin handpicked Medvedev to be the next president and practically guaranteed that he would win the presidency, it was obvious from the start that Medvedev was a pawn of Putin’s, lacking an agenda and initiative of his own. Although Medvedev offers the occasional disagreement from Putin, such as being more explicit in criticism of Stalin or expressing support for more democracy and freedom for dissent in Russia, he has never gotten the chance to implement those changes, mainly because of Putin’s lasting popularity in Russia that contrasts Medvedev’s completely lack of power and clout. Ever since Medvedev took the position of President of Russia and Putin retreated to the lesser role of Prime Minister, Russia has seen its stock plunge on virtually all areas. Russian oil is no longer the boon it was during the Putin years, since the international economic recession completely destroyed the desire for countries to purchase more oil. Although during Putin’s tenure as president, it appeared that Russia was gaining respect and clout as an international player capable of influencing world events, Russia under Medvedev hasn’t improved significantly at all in any way. Instead, Russia’s democratic government continues to deteriorate in quality, and corruption is still a notorious issue that remains endemic in Russian politics. In 2009, Transparency International, a think-tank, ranked Russia as 146th out of 180 countries in corruption (the higher rank the less corrupt), and issued Russia a score of 2.2 out of 10 in terms of government transparency. In all sectors, Russia seems to be on its dying throes. The population is only 141 million and shrinking, since the population growth rate in 2009 was only 0.002%, alcoholism is shortening the lifespan of men to 59, disrupting work in cities because of alcohol related incidents, creating chaos and sucking the vitality of rural towns till they completely wither, Russia’s democracy contains little real political diversity and freedom because Putin and Medvedev’s party United Russia holds a monopoly on all elections, and the Russian economy relies solely on oil and natural gas for survival, making the economy prosperous but vulnerable top collapse, which is exactly what happened in the recent recession.

Last Monday…

Now, with the bombing of the Moscow subways, Russia has gotten another taste of terrorism, again from militants based in Chechnya with possible links to al-Qaeda. This is definitely not the first time Russia faced a terrorist attack in its homeland; Chechen extremists and Islamic militants have held Russians hostage, launched massacres against Russian schoolchildren and bombed trains in recent years. However, this recent attack should serve as a wakeup call to Russians that the Medvedev years have been a disaster for Russia. Not only does Russia have to learn from this tragedy that it and the rest of the free world have a common enemy in Islamic terrorism, it’s also high time for Putin to return to his position as president of Russia so that he can give Russians better protection and prosperity.

First in 1998 and again in 2009…

Noted Russian academic, writer and political scientist Igor Panarin claimed vociferously that by 2010, the United States would cease to exist as a result of chaos brought about by the recession, with various parts of the country splitting to form independent nations and alliances. Panarin’s theory sounded ridiculous and unbelievable when he proposed it in 1998, and since 2010 has already arrived and New England doesn’t appear to be adopting the Euro anytime soon, it’s obvious Panarin was totally wrong again, similar to his support of Josef Stalin and his ideas for creating a “Eurasian Union” and “Asian Currency Unit” to rival America. On the contrary to Panarin’s beliefs, the general consensus among political analysts is that if anything, Russia has a higher chance than America of facing internal disintegration. The closest America has come to having any recent breakup is Texas Governor Rick Perry’s Tea Party-esque musings about Texas leaving the Union and Chuck Norris’s offer to lead that new nation, but considering the state of social, economic and political decay in Russia to the slow yet steady recovery occurring in America, any rebirth of the Texas Republic won’t be happening in the near future.

For the past eight years…

To be fair, life in Russia under Putin wasn't exactly a paradise. Journalists and political dissidents faced high risks of getting killed in Russia in shadowy contexts, with Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko and Natalya Estemirova being some notable figures who died seemingly because of connections to criticizing the Kremlin, reporting on harsh Russian military campaigns in Chechnya, and activities that threatened government legitimacy. Democracy and civil liberties have never enjoyed a home in Russia, and the situation was not much different during Putin’s reign. But it’s painfully clear that under Putin, Russia at least went through a period of economic prosperity, international respect, and social freedom it hadn’t had for decades as the Soviet Union. As a result of Putin’s savvy legal and market reforms, Russia bounced from depression and chaos in 1990s to a 72% increase in GDP, a 150% increase in average salaries of Russians, and a 17% decrease in people earning salaries below the national poverty line. In 2007, Russia’s foreign debt was only $47.8 billion, 1/3 of the amount in 1999, inflation was down from 36 to 8%, and unemployment fell from 13 to 8%. The economy is arguably the most central factor in ensuring that any society remains stable and productive; with enough money to spend and food on the table, people are less likely to commit crimes, start wars, and , to put it bluntly, cause any other problems. In other areas, Putin also succeeded in improving Russia’s international status by modernizing national infrastructure, expanding Russia’s international role in trade and diplomacy, decreasing the crime rate, and giving Russians a strong sense of pride in their nation again.

Putin, it would appear, is the only person capable of guaranteeing Russians these things, despite the way he sidestepped democracy and government transparency. Russia under Putin was moving towards being a wealthier and stronger nation, however slowly, and when the next election in Russia arrives, Russians would do well to mark their ballots for Putin. In recent months, Putin has indicated his willingness to run for president again in 2012, and if he wins, he can finally stop hiding his influence using Medvedev as his pawn. It’s highly unlikely that under Putin, Russia can develop an effective and legitimate democracy, but does anyone truly believe Russians are ready to handle and take care of themselves under a democratic system? Simply look at the rapid democratization of Russia’s politics and economy during the 1990s to see the disaster a fast transition to democracy can cause for a traditionally authoritarian nation like Russia. Russians have been accustomed to undemocratic rule for centuries, whether under czars or communism. True democracy is going to take decades or more to really take root in Russia. For now, Russians need a forceful and intelligent leader, and Putin is just the man for the job.

Derek Sun can be contacted at dsun [at] artsci.wustl.edu

Enough is enough. Now that Venezuelan president (dictator in all but name) Hugo Chavez is calling for restrictions on websites like Twitter and Facebook in his nation, echoing Chinese Internet bans, the time has come for President Obama to make long deserved changes to his policy towards Chavez. Obama still doesn’t seem to realize the error of his friendly gestures that do absolutely nothing to improve America’s standing with Venezuela, or the status of ordinary Venezuelans suffering under Chavez’s regime at this time.

Nearly 2 years and 3 months ago…

No one could put it in better and simpler terms than Juan Carlos, King of Spain, who famously told Chavez: “¿por qué no te callas?” or “why don’t you shut up?” at the 17th Ibero-American summit in 2007, immediately creating a new ringtone for millions of Spaniards. Chavez rightfully deserved this rebuke for continuously interrupting Spanish prime minister Jose Luis Zapatero during a speech, and it’s about time Obama said something along the lines of that as well to Chavez. Ever since becoming president, Obama has been trying to fulfill his campaign promises of reaching out to hold dialogues with rogue nations like Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea, and he has definitely been hard at work on attempting to get Chavez to sit down for diplomacy. However, the results have yet to appear.

Just 11 months ago…

Obama’s first meeting with Chavez in 2009 went splendidly – for Chavez, at least. Obama took a history book Chavez offered him (written all in Spanish) on exploitation of the Americas by Europeans, posed for photos with Chavez, and accomplished nothing in the way of diplomacy. Chavez got his chance to mock Obama, and didn’t have to make any negotiations or deals with America. Since then, there’s still been no sign of major improvement in US-Venezuela relations, nor any indication that Chavez is making his nation a better place.

Now…

It is painfully obvious that no matter what offers America makes to Venezuela and what happens to Venezuela, Chavez will never agree to negotiations with America. In 2007, the Bush administration’s diplomatic overture to Venezuela received a firm no, and Chavez has never approached Washington with plans for talks. Obama views Venezuela in the similar ways Richard Nixon viewed China, and Obama is trying the same strategy Nixon did, which is to suddenly reach out to a distant enemy nation and forge bonds between them. Unfortunately, there are a number of reasons why Obama’s diplomacy plans are absolutely futile and will never work, because Venezuela and China are totally different cases with completely opposite contexts.

Back then…

China during the time of Nixon’s visit was nearly at the point of total social and political collapse, after having just gone through the chaos of the Cultural Revolution. The economy was in ruins, schools were closed and vandalized, revolutionary factions were rioting, and people demanded recovery. Mao Zedong faced growing unpopularity and unrest among his constituency, and had little choice but to begin diplomacy with Nixon. The weakened communist leadership welcomed Nixon’s promises to provide economic aid and recognize China as the genuine China, as opposed to Taiwan. Thus, China was in a position to accept negotiations with the US, but Venezuela clearly is not.

Another important factor to note was that by the 1970s, China was a nation on its own, with virtually no contact from the outside world. China had no allies to speak of, since it had long separated from former partner the Soviet Union during the 1960s, had just fought a war with Vietnam, and did not maintain diplomatic relations with any other countries. Thus, China wisely chose to ally with the US to counter the Soviets, and to gain a friend in the US. The same situation doesn’t apply to Venezuela today. Venezuela is not wanting for allies at all; it has close relations with other South American nations like Bolivia and Ecuador, and in addition maintains friendships with Russia, Iran, and countries that traditionally are at odds with America as well.

Thirdly, China had virtually no functioning economy when Nixon came to visit, but Venezuela is a major oil exporter that the US is highly dependent upon. Venezuela is not begging for any financial aid that the US could provide, although Chavez’s socialist policies are causing business failures, rolling blackouts, and currency devaluation. While many Venezuelans do opposed Chavez and do their best to protest and hinder him from going even further, many Venezuelans still enthusiastically support Chavez, giving him the ability to stay in power. With enough votes and endorsements from his people, Chavez has resources to attack and annoy the US with.

Just recently, in the past few weeks…

For these reasons, it’s pointless for Obama to continue attempting to make peace with Chavez and play nice like he’s been doing so far. Obama needs to immediately wipe his grin off and talk tough to Chavez, who’s demonstrated time and time again that he is rabidly anti-American, proudly anti-Semitic, and will think nothing of disposing of civil rights and criticizing just about anything and everything for the world’s problems. His insane speeches give Muammar Gadhafi a run for his money, but unlike Gadhafi, Chavez is translating his words into action. He’s called video games, the Internet, Jews, and a host of other things international conspiracies, throws around the terms “fascist” and “racist” in about every speech he gives, and actively works to erode freedom in his country in the name of socialist revolution. Chavez shows no sign of stopping his tyranny; he recently authorized the arrest of Guillermo Zuloaga, the owner of Globovision, the only remaining TV channel in Venezuela that still blatantly criticizes Chavez policy, and hints at more arrests in the future, with Sean Penn eagerly backing him.

In the time to come…

The King of Spain understood that it’s futile to argue with a megalomaniac like Chavez, and called him out bluntly. Sadly, the king holds only ceremonial power, unlike President Obama. If Obama really wants to show Chavez that his methods of silencing critics forcefully, aggregating power and rewriting the national constitution at whim are completely unacceptable, he will have to completely revise the way he deals with Chavez and all opponents of America, for that matter. Obama needs to adopt a more assertive and fiercer stance by developing closer relations with Venezuela’s neighbors, and reduce trade with Venezuela, to show Venezuela that the US considers it replaceable. The most important choice Obama can make, however, to deal a blow to Chavez would be to invest in alternative energies to replace or at least decrease America’s appetite for oil, a major linchpin for US-Venezuela relations. If America becomes independent of foreign oil’s influence, Venezuela will be deprived of its most important export, hurting its economy even more and forcing Chavez and his cronies to reconsider being more cooperative and less iconoclastic.

Unfortunately, judging by Obama’s current preoccupations with the American economy, healthcare, terrorism, and much more, any substantial overhaul of America’s energy policy is unlikely to happen soon, and Chavez will continue his insane reign.

Derek Sun can be contacted at dsun [at] artsci.wustl.edu