Labour came second in Thursday’s vote, which for the first time since the 1970s produced no outright winner. The Conservatives gained the largest number of seats but fell short of the parliamentary majority needed to govern alone.

With the results of all the country’s contests declared, Conservatives earned 306 seats, Labour held 258 and the Liberal Democrats had 57. Other parties, such as the Scottish National Party and Welsh nationalists Plaid Cymru, held 28 seats.
As sitting prime minister, Brown would traditionally be given the first chance to put together a government. His left-of-center Labour Party is seen as a more natural coalition fit with the Liberal Democrats.

Many of the Conservative party’s old guard distrust the Liberal Democrats’ pro-European leanings and fiercely oppose its call for proportional representation, which would make it hard for any single party to hold power alone — effectively shutting out the Conservatives indefinitely. Talks were expected to begin between political players Friday, aided by civil service guidelines detailing how the process should unfold.

Although Britain has no written constitution, senior civil servants have been preparing furiously to lay out the rules and avoid market-rattling uncertainty in the event of a so-called hung parliament, a result in which no party secures a majority. The last time a British election produced such a result was in 1974.

A period of political wrangling and confusion in one of the world’s largest economies could unsettle global markets already reeling from the Greek debt crisis and fears of wider debt contagion in Europe. Britain’s budget deficit is set to eclipse even that of Greece next year, and whoever winds up in power faces the daunting challenge of introducing big government spending cuts to slash the country’s huge deficit.

The protesters, who believe that Abhisit came to power illegally in 2006, said they wanted Abhisit to commit to a date for dissolving Parliament ahead of the election. That date could help determine the future balance of power in the country because the dominant party stands to influence the reshuffle of top military posts that will take place in September. The plan, which Abhisit said took into account the main grievances of the protesters, was his first real effort to reach out to his opponents after several weeks of treating their demonstrations as mainly a security problem and accusing “terrorists” in their ranks of being responsible for the deadly violence.

Abhisit has said he would proceed with the reconciliation plan even if the protesters reject it, but in that case he could not set a date for the elections. The five-point plan announced Monday calls for respect for the monarchy, reforms to solve economic injustices, free but responsible media to be overseen by an independent watchdog agency, independent investigations into violence connected with the protests, and constitutional amendments intended to level the playing field for all political parties.

Art by Amelia Fawcett

In 2007, the Nobel Prize winning UN Intergovernmental  Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international scientific body that reviews and assesses studies related to climate change, released a report that stated, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Despite this scientific consensus, the media’s coverage of climate change continues to focus on the “debate” between climate change deniers and mainstream scientists instead of transitioning to the crucial discussion about what to do about climate change. As a result of the media’s skewed coverage, policymakers have to persuade people of the existence and adverse effects of climate change instead of being able to craft practical, necessary solutions to the problem.

The media’s focus on controversy and debate surrounding the issue of climate change is obscuring the scientific consensus. For example, this fall thousands of emails from a prominent British climate research center were hacked. Skeptics of climate change alleged that these emails showed that scientists had exaggerated the affects of climate change by manipulating data and withholding information from being published. The media, including respected sources such as the New York Times, called this controversy “Climategate” and reported on it in great detail. A government panel recently investigated these allegations and found that the scientists did not distort their data but should have been more transparent about publishing their results. It also found no details in the emails that challenged the scientific consensus that “global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity.” This story was reported on in the weeks leading up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.  Reports of the controversy may have distracted lawmakers from crafting a strong, binding international treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions and represent one reason why no such treaty emerged.

Although there is scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change, many broadcast meteorologists are climate change deniers. An Emory University study found that 29% of TV meteorologists believed that global warming was “a scam.” There are several reasons for this trend. First, broadcast meteorologists are not climate scientists, and their training is to predict short-term weather patterns, not to analyze long-term climate trends. It can be difficult for them to acknowledge that scientists can predict weather patterns years down the road. However, this position fails to acknowledge the distinction between weather and climate. While meteorologists predict the temperature and precipitation events that will occur at a specific point in time, climate scientists predict the overall trends and patterns that will occur as a result of increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Therefore, the long-term trends that indicate climate change are outside of a meteorologist’s area of expertise. Meteorologists have no more authority to evaluate the legitimacy of climate change science than a dentist has to evaluate the severity of a worldwide flu pandemic. The fact that so many meteorologists do not accept climate change science is alarming because 56% of Americans trust weathercasters more than they trust other news media or public figures to tell them about global warming, according to a Yale and George Mason study.

A study by University of Colorado professor Maxwell Boykoff found that the majority of informed scientists believe that the effects of climate change will have a “substantial cost” or a be a “catastrophe.” However, the media covers the climate change “debate” between a small number of right-wing think tanks that believe that climate change will have a “neutral” effect and the much larger number of scientists who believe it will have a “substantial cost.” The IPCC lies at the lower end of this “substantial cost” threshold; any prediction that climate change will have more severe costs than IPCC prediction is considered unreasonable and is not reported on in the popular media, even though far more scientists hold this “extreme” view than the view that climate change will have a neutral impact.

This skewed representation of climate change by the media has major implications for policymakers. Since the popular press does not adequately explain the severity of climate change and the scientific consensus that humans are causing it, many people believe that we do not need to take action to stop climate change. Therefore, constituents do not press their representatives to pass legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and the issue of climate change takes a backseat to the economy, healthcare, and numerous other issues. When climate change does get discussed, policymakers are less likely to support the ambitious proposals that we need to cap greenhouse gas emissions and promote renewable energy, because these are seen as extreme “liberal” solutions in contrast to the conservative approach of doing nothing and denying that humans are causing climate change – an approach that most scientists would object to but that the media has made legitimate.

Climate change is a complex issue that is difficult to fully explain in the short sound bites and newscasts that characterize the modern mainstream media. However, journalists should take responsibility to cover the issue with as much scientific integrity as possible and not succumb to the sensationalized “debate” between scientists and climate change deniers. Most Americans learn about climate change from the mainstream media, and therefore the media has a responsibility to present the issue accurately.

Art by Hannah Shaffer

Dear Readers,

After four years with WUPR, we’re finally ready to say goodbye.  It’s crazy to think how much of our college careers are wrapped up in this magazine, but all good things must come to an end.

Neither of us had any experience in publishing when we got to Wash U, but we had a real taste for politics and an undeniable love for expressing our opinions and ideas.  So when we heard about the Washington University Political Review, it was an easy decision to get involved; the people were warm, inviting, and, as you’d expect, always happy to talk politics.  The magazine was a much smaller operation back then.  We printed in black and white and usually only 16 pages long.  The then-editors had all been present at WUPR’s founding back in 2004, and they were worried the group wasn’t going to survive after they graduated.  Still, it was a neat place to work.  (Plus, it’s always cool the first time you see your name in print.)  So we stuck with it and rose through the ranks as positions opened up.  One of the first things WUPR taught us was how valuable it is to have dependable people willing to give you their time and effort.  All the Editors-in-Chief we worked for – Mike Bowers, Meredith Davis, Ben Jackson and Sam Levine – never let us forget how grateful they were for anything and everything we did for the magazine.  It was a valuable lesson, and we hope that we’ve kept alive that same atmosphere of earnest gratitude that they established.  In that spirit, we want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who made being Editors-in-Chief worthwhile.

Taking over as Editors-in-Chief was as terrifying as it was exhilarating.  There was so much we wanted to change, and yet just maintaining what we had was an overwhelming task.  Since so many people had graduated, it wasn’t really clear who was willing or able to make the magazine a reality.  At first we had to tackle that the hard way, doing far too much on our own. But, as the magazine got better, we picked up a bunch of great people who were eager to help out.  So to Brittany Parker, Mike Brodsky, Josh Truppman, Nick Wilbar and everyone else who believed in us when there wasn’t always much worth believing in, thanks so much.  You made more possible than you could possibly know.

This year especially has been incredible for us and for WUPR.  We started with two big goals: a bigger and better magazine and making the organization a closer-knit group of friends working together.  The results on both fronts have exceeded our wildest expectations.  The staff has exploded in size, and the quality of the magazine has grown to match.  We’ve also finally gotten our long prophesized website, wupr.org.  That achievement is something we cannot take any credit for.  All thanks go to the dynamic duo of Bryan Baird and Will Johnson.  They created a website almost out of thin air that started out fantastic and continues to get better every time we look at it.

All together, WUPR has a much stronger presence on campus than it did when we arrived in 2006. The sight of students reading WUPR in Whispers, the DUC, or during their less-than-captivating lectures never ceases to amaze or delight.   No small part of that bolstered reputation is due to our top-notch art staff, who have put out magazine covers and an ever increasing number of editorial illustrations that are jaw-droppingly impressive.  Really, the artists that work for WUPR are the best at Wash U, and we’ll fight anyone who disagrees.

The graphic design of the magazine has also grown by leaps and bounds this year.  A huge amount of that improvement can be laid on the shoulders of one person, Tyler Trussell, who is more talented than he knows what to do with.  The guy works like a mule, too.  We couldn’t have done it without him.

Also topping the list of people that we could not have done without is Lauren Weiss, our lead copy editor.  Literally, no one in the world is more willing to work long hours on short notice, and if anyone thinks she or he is better than her at detecting comma errors, we’ll be happy to provide a detailed (and properly punctuated) list of reasons why she or he is sorely mistaken.

Finally, thank you to our readers.  Running this organization has been just about the coolest and most enjoyable thing we’ve ever done.  There’s just some things you learn about yourself and what you’re capable of when it’s 3 a.m. and the issue is due to the publisher in six hours that you can’t learn any other way.  Thanks for caring about what we do and for taking our best efforts seriously.  Your continued interest and support make it all worthwhile.

Sincerely,

Greg Allen

&

Jake Laperruque

The real danger of today’s media is not the bias, but rather the way we access it.  With resources like Google, Twitter, Tivo, and Hulu, we now have the ability to watch whatever we want, whenever we want.  As the success of Fox News and MSNBC makes clear, individuals consume media sources that advocate viewpoints they already agree with.  In essence, the internet age, often claimed to herald a new age of communication and information- sharing, has also provided us with the means to construct our own personal, impenetrable echo chamber.

How do we save ourselves from this bubble?  Since a nonpartisan media seems  beyond hope, perhaps we can strive for the next best thing:  bias with a basis.  If we are going to give up news that is actually fair and balanced in favor of coverage that is “fair and balanced,” we should at least seek to have that coverage be based in fact and reason.  The result may be a public that is partisan and political, but in the end it will at least be informed.  However, contemporary news faces a dichotomy between this bias based in reason and bias based in bull, and no media personalities personify that divide better than Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck.

Despite his self-appointed label of “fake news host,” Stewart dishes out a heavy dose of real journalism in his reports.  For years, a staple of his style has been to catch politicians, commentators, and members of the media contradicting themselves by playing conflicting quotes in succession.  It’s hard to pick a single program that doesn’t contain at least one of these “gotcha!” moments.  The coverage is undeniably liberal; President Bush was a far more frequent victim than President Obama is today.  However, Stewart is at least giving his audience an argument that is based in facts.

Contrast this approach with Beck’s.  Each and every day, Beck constructs the narrative of his show around conjecture and speculation.  Instead of looking to facts, figures, quotes, and clips, he instead relies on his magic blackboard of truthiness, which allows him to chalk out whatever line of reasoning he wants, evidence be damned.  The Glenn Beck Show strives to achieve the lowest common denominator:  speculation itself is the end goal.

Perhaps even more important is the difference in how the two hosts value discourse.  It is a fair critique to say that Jon Stewart vehemently pushes liberal beliefs.  But no one could ever argue that he refuses to engage the other side.  On a regular basis, Stewart will host guests who are highly conservative.  And he won’t just bring on fringe Republicans for the sake of knocking them down; he takes appearances from individuals such as Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and other leading conservative figures.

Beck, on the other hand, is averse to ever hosting liberals or having someone appear to advocate for their viewpoints.  The most prominent Democrat he ever brought onto his show was recently resigned Congressman Eric Massa, but this was only because he thought Massa would accuse Democratic leadership of forcing him out of office because of his stance against healthcare reform.  When Massa took personal responsibility for his resignation and instead used his airtime to critique the Tea Party Movement, Beck grew irritated and ended his show by declaring to his audience, “I’m sorry I’ve wasted your time.”

For perhaps the only time ever, Beck was right.  He did waste everyone’s time: he ignored a genuine opportunity to engage someone who disagreed with him.  Jon Stewart never does, and it is that type of discourse that makes Jon Stewart’s programming, biased as it is, still a highly valuable source of journalism.  He is confident enough in his views to put them up against a capable adversary who wants to argue against them.  In doing so, he challenges not just himself, but also his viewers, to put substance behind their stances.  He forces his liberal-loving audience to question why they think they are correct and conservative principles are flawed.  And quite often he is forced to concede that it is not possible to do so, and that all we have is our own opinions.  It is the ability to provide that reasoning – on both the right and the left – that makes even a biased media one worth having.

H. Clinton:

———–

B. Obama: I’ve got it: next Supreme Court Justice will be Beyonce. Imagine how great her ass would look in a judicial robe.
M. Obama: I think that text was meant for Biden. Also, we need to talk.

———–

Steele: Hey, are you going to the teabagging rally later?
Pawlenty: You know, I think it’s time you went online and looked up what that word really means.
Steele: What? Which word?
Steele: OMG. It all makes sense now!

———–

B. Clinton: Just scored some sweet weed. This time, I totally inhaled. Now my wife sounds like an evil Mickey Mouse.

———–

Kucinich: So between Levi Johnston and Scott Brown, I think there’s a serious trend toward posing nude.
Reid: Oh god, please don’t tell me you’re getting ideas.
Kucinich: Check out this week’s AARP newsletter.
Reid: WTF?!?! Now I know how you got such a hot wife.

———–

Bernanke: Hey, we’re playing Monopoly with real Wall Street banks. You want in?
Geithner: Nah, man, I’m taking it easy tonight.
Bernanke: We also have hookers.
Geithner: I’ll be there in five.

———–

J. McCain: …—… …—… …—… …—…
C. McCain: Dammit John, it’s texting. You can type words. Also, you’re fine.

———–

Palin: Just read through all of my old Twitter posts. I must have been drunk, because I have no idea what the hell I was talking about.

Charlie Crist announces he will be running as an independent

Last week, Florida Governor Charlie Crist announced that he will be taking a page out of Joe Lieberman’s playbook by running as an independent for Florida’s open senate seat. This news came as a big blow to the GOP as they attempt to retake Congress, as Marco Rubio will have a much tougher time beating Crist in the general election. It appears that Crist will siphon votes from Rubio and the Democrat, Kendrick Meek. Current polls have either Crist or Rubio up by a few points, so the race will come down to the wire. Fortunately for the GOP, it seems like the ultraliberal Kendrick Meek will not be a huge factor in this race.

Crist’s betrayal to the GOP was painful, but it is worse than imagined. Crist has more than a good shot of winning the election, and his increasing liberal tendencies may end up resulting with Crist caucusing with the Democrats. Crist acknowledged that he may even end up voting for a Democrat to be the majority leader. On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Crist claimed, “I might not vote for either [a Democrat or a Republican]. I’m going to vote for who I think would be best for the people of Florida. And if that happens to be a Democrat, so be it.” If Crist ends up winning, there is more than a likely chance that we see Crist prefer his more recent liberal policies than his past right-leaning ones. Many believed that if Crist won, he would still align himself with Republicans.

Crist’s betrayal leaves everyone in a tough situation. Hopefully this time, Crist won’t achieve the same success that Lieberman did.

The law states that no one may appear in public “with the face fully or partly covered so as to render them no longer recognizable.” Although Belgian authorities have fined women in the past for wearing burqas in public, the new law will have effects in the entire nation and make currently spotty regulation of burqas much more strict. However, the law needs approval from both houses of parliament and the law may not take effect for at least several more months, since the Belgian government led by Prime Minister Yves Leterme resigned on April 22 after it was unable to reach a stable compromise over the use of Dutch and French in different parts of Belgium.

3% of the population of Belgium is Muslim, making Belgium one of the top five European nations with the highest percentage of Muslims in its population. Laws similar to Belgium’s new measure include a 2004 French law that banned wearing of the Jewish yarmulke, the Christian Cross, and Muslim Niqab in its schools, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy has criticized the burqa and called for a national ban on the garment. Denmark earlier this year called the burqa contradictory to Danish values but has not implemented a total burqa ban.

..And in the future, they knighted Mick Jagger!

For this week’s edition of Talking Heads, WUPR was able to procure a time machine though our extensive and possibly sinister connections. WUPR was purchasing our Student Union allotted twenty Kalashnikovs in an Islamabad gun market when a Pakistani merchant fooled WUPR representatives into buying a faulty product. The seller had failed to tell us that the device was actually a reverse time machine which transported a random person from the past into 2010 for one hour.

Upon activation of device, a figure suddenly materializes in the PMC.

WUPR: Oh its a…hmm…bulldog? With a trillby?

Mysterious figure: So that’s what I get for all that I’ve done for you blokes.

WUPR: Is that…Sir Winston Churchill?

Churchill: Indeed it is.

WUPR: My apologies! I guess I’ll have to explain what’s going on.

Churchill: No, that won’t be necessary, I’ve been through much worse. Besides, I’ve been briefed. The world isn’t as it should be you know.

WUPR: I’m sorry to hear that. How so?

Churchill: Well, first of all, what the hell happened to Britain? Didn’t we, like, own half the world? Those colonies can’t go it themselves. That’s why I never supported Indian independence; they need British rule not to blow themselves back into the stone age.

WUPR: Actually, India is doing pretty well for itself—for now they’re still the world’s largest democracy. And I do believe they are better than Britain at cricket too.

Churchill: That’s unreasonable. Nonsense. How dare you criticize the Queen’s team.

WUPR: Um. Yes. Let’s move on. Do you have any advice on how to make this world better?

Churchill: In fact I do. Look at that sultry fool Ahmadinejad. Haven’t you ever read a history book? Say, you ever heard of one Neville Chamberlain?

WUPR: Yes of course. He was all about appeasement; he let Hitler do what he want so he wouldn’t do it anyway by force…

Churchill: …and how did that turn out? I think that our great nations (of which mine is still better) should go and take care of the whole Iran problem you have now. You know, do things the old fashioned way and give Ahmadinejad something to think about. I still wish I’d done the same when I had the chance back in ‘38. We must stay vigilant against our threats.

WUPR: I think the world is different place now. But I admit, you definitely have the whole helped win World War II thing going for you.

Churchill: Remember my Iron Curtain speech? In your world, the communists have been replaced by those questionable “rogue states” or Axis of Evil or whatever. You can’t let the free world be bossed around like that! If you give, even a little, they’ll end up trying to take everything.

WUPR: Makes sense. But I think you forget about the two other wars we’ve busied ourselves with. Did you see the recent British election debates? Seems like you guys have taken a page from your friends across the pond.

Churchill: Yes. Very interesting to see our leaders now finally making good use of the media, getting to the hearts and minds of the British people. Except I did that 70 years ago on the radio, but everyone forgot after the war I guess. But no time for complaining; David Cameron seems like a good chap, being a fellow Conservative of course. He knows what’s best for Britain, I think. Gordon Brown, he’s um…how do you say it…not exactly charismatic. And Nick Clegg, well he’s just boring isn’t he.

WUPR: Good to see you’re on top of things sir.

Churchill: Thank you, I try. On the way here, a nice, white, middle-upper class 50-year old American man gave me a cup of tea and told me that you guys have a commie in Oval Office. Despicable. I can’t believe you let the reds get to you after all those hard years.

WUPR: I believe you came across a member of the so-called Tea Party Movement. I don’t think I’m technically allowed to say…

Churchill: …that they are full of crap? Yes, I became suspicious of him when he told me he had dedicated himself to American politics but pointed to New Zealand when I asked him where Iraq was.

WUPR: That’s not necessarily definitive of his not being a politician, but I understand your point.

Churchill: These kind of upstart political movements have always been around, some helpful, others just empty headed. In some ways, the world has changed. But in other ways, its very much the same. I hope your politicians realize that. Thank you for having me.

As WUPR watches in astonishment, Winston Churchill, starts his WWII-era Royal Air Force Spitfire, and flies away into the sunset. Stay tuned for more Talking Heads and more of the mysterious Pakistani time machine.