Intel Being Sued

The world's largest computer chip company, Intel, is being sued by the US Federal Trade Commission for illegally attempting to thwart the success of other computer chip companies. Prosecutors say that Intel made "illegal threats" to other companies in order to maintain market superiority. This is not the first suit of this kind being made against the company, they have had at least three previous investigations in the recent past, but all have been settled or dropped. Intel's main targets are Dell, Hewlett-Packard and IBM.

I think it is vital that we maintain a fair market system in this country because we are looked to as an example for other nations trying to promoter economic freedom. I am glad that an actual federal organization is looking into this case because I think it will be more successful because Intel can't simply ignore their inquiries. I also think this is a reflection of the state of our economic climate in this country however. It is startling to me to realize that even the most powerful computer chip company in the world is too greedy to actually follow the rules, even though doing such would not hinder their profits. If American companies are permitted to continue along in this extraordinarily greedy manner, I don't believe that there is any hope of securing a truly free market system.

Links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8416627.stm

http://www.intel.com/#/en_US_01

Loggers playing nice?

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon has announced that he will be introducing a bill that would ensure protection of old-growth forests that is backed by timber companies and environmentalists as well. This union came as a surprise to many who had heard of the 8 month long argument over how this would affect both sides. The bill states that old-growth trees on federal land in eastern Oregon will be off limits to logging companies - any tree with a diameter greater than 21 inches can not be cut down. The loggers will however have more access to young trees in the area. This rule is already being practiced in many locations, but this bill will make it an official law.

I am surprised that the timer companies or the environmentalists agreed on this bill. However, I do think it will be very beneficial to our forests. We need to protect our forests, especially our old-growth ones that have proved to be healthy and stable enough to last this long. I do wonder about the part that states that loggers can cut down new trees though. I feel like eventually the old trees will die and there will be no younger ones to take their place. If this happens we will lose even more of the forest than we would've in the first place - basically, we'll have to start all over and plant thousands of young trees all at once and prohibit logging in the area. I also just wanted to talk about this bill because I thought it was ironic that it is coming out the same time as we did that controversial logging bill in our mock congress.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/science/earth/17timber.html?_r=1&ref=politics

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/293126.shtml

Religion and politics, together?

The New York Times reported that Washington University in St. Louis will be opening a new academic center for the study of the intersection between religion and politics called the John C. Danforth Center. The former senator states that he does not want to cause controversial debate at the center, but rather wants to promote the understanding of how the two ideas of religion and politics can work together.

I think my problem with this center is that I don't understand what they are going to be teaching. What issues with religion can be resolved in order to better suit politics. I certainly hope they are not suggesting any type of change in the separation of church and state. Plus, I don't see where the problem is since many of the members of Congress and the government are very religious. Where is the problem between the coexisting? I just don't see it. To me this center just sounds like a way for the former priest to promote a greater influence of re

ligion in American politics which I definitely do not support - it's un-American. Regardless, I think that the university could make much better use of funding than opening a highly questionable, limited scope program.

John C. Danforth

Links:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/new-center-on-religion-and-politics-to-be-named-for-former-mo-senator/

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=d000030

A Dose of Regret, for publishing this article.

The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel's front page story Sunday was about a 9-year-old boy, Dylan Bocanegra, who developed Bell's Palsy supposedly from receiving the H1N1 vaccine. The boys mother was interviewed and stated that she would never again attempt to get her children vaccinated against the flu virus. The story painted the disease as horrifying and the mother was seemingly distraught at her child's "possibly severe" reaction.

This story was ridiculous and did an immense disservice to the public. Not only is Bell's Palsy an extremely rare reaction to flu vaccines and it is almost always temporary and will leave no permanent damage, but they are not even sure if the vaccine was the cause of the disease. The disease is a viral infection of the facial nerve, when the infection grows, it presses down on the facial nerve causing it too decrease in function (hence the crooked smile of the 9-year-old boy). The article was seemingly aimed at deterring people from getting the H1N1 vaccine, when in fact it is more likely to develop Bell's Palsy from getting the flu than it is from getting the vaccine.

This brings up the issue of the press' role in society. I'm all for freedom of the press, let them print whatever they want. But it is also my opinion that being an authority of trust they should approach issues with caution. The public looks to the media for guidance and support and they should not abuse this trust by publishing sensationalist stories even if they may be hurting the greater society. How many more people do you think will get sick from H1N1 this year, simply because they were too scared of a ridiculous possibility to get vaccinated?

Link:

http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2009/12/11/121209_1A_H1N1_reaction.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=7

http://www.bellspalsy.ws/

Man, that's a huge tax!

The House recently approved a permanent tax of up to 45% on estates worth 3.5 million or more. The vote was passed 225 to 200, with all Democrats on the approval side. The House claims that that the tax will affect less than 1% of estates in the United States. Analysts say that the bill will probably be heavily revised in the Senate before going to a vote.

I was quite shocked that the government can tax that much on someone's personal fortune. Granted I'm sure the money goes to helpful programs that support the less fortunate, it seems wrong to cheat someone out of nearly half of their money. However, conversely, where else is the government to get money for necessary programs? I suppose aside from Congressional organ donating sessions, taxing the rich is the way to go.

Links:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/house-okays-permanent-extension-of-estate-tax/

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B258Q20091204?type=politicsNews

New forces to be sent to the Middle East

On Wednesday, Obama approved a surge of an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. A large portion of these troops, roughly 10,000 troops will be sent to the southern region of Helmand which is believed to be the financial and spiritual headquarters for the Taliban. This surge doubles the number of troops currently in that area - which has proven to be the deadliest area for American troops. Unfortunately, the rather large area (the size of West Virginia) is composed of dry, dusty desert that reaches temperatures of 130 degrees F in the summer.

I support the surge, but only if it is the last one. We can not have another Vietnam situation in which we continue to replace dieing troops with new ones. I feel that we can not just leave Afghanistan and abandon the people, but I do think that we need to be more careful with our troops there. We need to target certain things rather than attempt random attacks at members of the Taliban. I hope that these 30,000 troops will be enough for us to finally produce some progress in the region and not be a gateway to many future, unsuccessful surges.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/world/asia/03deployment.html?_r=1&ref=politics

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/obamas_surge_in_afghanistan_hardly_a_surprise_20091203/

Will China ever be our friend?

Earlier this week, President Obama made a trip to China to meet with President Hu and other Chinese officials. China's president remained very curt and cold towards Obama, stating that there is little chance for agreement on certain issues because the two countries have such different ideals. However, Obama and Hu did come to agreement on three issues that they would partner together on: economic issues, Iran, and climate change. However, President Hu remained very stubborn on China's uncooperative attitude towards certain issues, like their currency and human rights. However, the Obama administration states that the trip was not a failure, because the debates remained civil and allowed the US to avoid their usual chest-pounding way of relations.

I think China is one of the most difficult countries to work with because it exists as such an anomaly. It is a Communist country that lacks many civil rights and fair economic standards, and yet is one of the most financially powerful and influential countries in the world. I feel that Obama's respectful demeanor was the best choice to make because it will allow the US to be viewed as cooperative and non-arrogant. However, unless the US along with other countries can think of some way to pressure China into agreeing to certain policies, it seems unlikely that China will have any major changes of heart in the near future.

President Obama touring the Forbidden City on his recent trip to China's capital.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/world/asia/18prexy.html?ref=politics

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gHHrGSBYMtuFEoXFEAR0y07iucGA

If it doesn't get passed, become a vegetarian.

New York Senator Kristen Gillibrand has introduced the E. Coli Eradication Act of 2009 which would require meat companies to test for a deadly E. coil strain before mixing their trimmings typically used to make ground beef. Many companies already, voluntarily test their meats, but the bill focuses mainly on the slaughterhouses which rarely administer such testing. Gillibrand states that her interest in the issue was sparked when she read an article about Stephanie Smith, a 22-year-old, former dance instructor who is now partially paralyzed because of exposure to the E. coli strain in a hamburger. The testing targets the O157:H7 strain which appears to be most common and very harmful. The proposed testing would result in a one cent increase in cost per pound of ground beef.

I was shocked that we don't have this law already; I guess since Upton Sinclair's The Jungle food regulation slowed down. It seems to me that a one cent price increase won't cause any disturbance in sales or profits and will promote a much healthier food industry.

I also find it interesting that no matter what the story, the proponent never fails to deliver an empathy-wrenching story to back of their own propositions. This tactic is generally effective in garnering support for a cause, and in this case I think the issue, although probably not causing everyone who eats a hamburger to become paralyzed, is still worth exploring.

Stephanie Smith pictured above.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/health/19beef.html?_r=1&ref=politics

http://gillibrand.senate.gov/

PETA Wants the Prison

PETA officials recently announced that it has requested the use of the near-empty, maximum security prison in Thompson, IL if the Guantánamo Bay prisoners do not end up being transferred there. PETA employee Tracy Reiman stated that the prison would be turned into an 'empathy center' which would provide visitors a chance to experience aspects of the painful lives of commercial farm animals. Guests would be able to be, "... crammed into a crate to simulate the life of a sow on a factory farm," walk with weights on their backs, and receive a stuffed chicken doll that reads 'I am not a nugget.'

I thought this article was interesting because we are learning about interest groups, and I think PETA is a bit of an interest group in that it is a united group of individuals all supporting a common cause of ethical treatment of animals. This group was exercising its right to make requests/appeals to the government. I think it is fully within PETA's rights to establish such a center, but I think it will be very difficult to convince the government to allow an interest group sole use of a facility that cost taxpayers $120 million. It also seems to me to be slightly unfair, for one such radical group to receive this kind of preferential treatment at no cost to them, and a lot of cost to the public that never intended to be paying for an 'empathy center' for animals.

PETA demonstration.

Links:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/peta-eyes-prison-makeover/

http://www.peta.org/

Bush Facotry

"Bush Returns to Public Spotlight" by Peter Baker - NYTimes

Former President George W. Bush has launched the George W. Bush Institute on the campus of Southern Methodist University. The institute will promote freedom, education, and economic opportunity. In addressing the new institute, Bush did not make note of any of the more controversial events of his presidency (such as the War in Iraq) or his opinions of current President Obama.

I think it is quite noble of Bush to donate this facility that promotes common values like education and financial well-being. Although it may have been in self-preservation, the fact that he declined to comment on the controversial issues seems to me as progress in his defensive ways. During his presidency Bush was very reactionary when any mention of the war or weapons of mass destruction was made - he felt the need to aggressively defend all of his actions as the correct ones. However, this time, he very passively let it go by, and focused on the real issues that pertain to not only the conservative students of SMU, but also, America's general public as well.

Southern Methodist University

Links:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/bush-returns-to-public-spotlight/

http://www.georgewbushcenter.com/site/c.rvI2IaNVJyE/b.5572463/k.BE02/Home.htm

Surprise Winner in Seattle Mayor Race

Mike McGinn, an underdog Democrat in the Seattle race for mayor, won the election yesterday with 51% of the total vote - a margin of about 5000 votes. McGinn had emphasized the environmental aspect of his campaign, even riding his bike to the major campaign events. McGinn also ran with an incredibly low budget and support group - utilizing volunteers and small donations. It is especially surprising that he beat out his main Democratic opponent Joe Mallahan who carried the governor's endorsement.

I think this election is very interesting because it contradicts nearly all the normal election standards, such as name recognition, funding, and political endorsements. This sort of reminded me of Jeff Smith's campaign which seemingly failed because he didn't have the recognition and history, nor the extensive endorsing. However, something must have set the two apart from each other. Perhaps it is merely the difference in cities. Maybe Seattle pays closer attention to the individual opinions and stances of the candidates - and clearly is highly interested in environmental protection. However promising this election is for the future underdogs of the world, I highly doubt that this election is any kind of indicator for a massive change in the proceedings of elections. I think overall, elections will continue to be about face recognition and the abundance of money.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10seattle.html?_r=1&ref=politics

http://mcginnformayor.com/

Ft. Hood shooting, a racist inquiry?

Article: "US Senate may probe army shooting" - BBC News

Senator Lieberman, who chairs the Homeland Security Committee, has announced that he will launch a congressional investigation into the shooting at Ft. Hood. He states that he wants to know whether or not the act was one of terrorism.

It is perfectly understandable that the Congress would want to understand the motives behind a mass shooting on one of their own forts, and granted Nidal Hasan may have been a crazy man, but to automatically assume it is more likely to be a terrorist attack than recent military murders is racist. The now Republican-leaning senator is merely catering to his right-wing demographic as he spoke with Fox news about the highly suspicious nature of this case. Perhaps, Hasan was a terrorist; he had supposedly spoken angrily about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan before, as I'm sure many other, non-Muslim service men who were about to be deployed have too. If Hasan was linked to a larger terrorist organization like Lieberman insinuated, it seems odd that he would have executed such a spontaneous, rather noncomplex attack. I feel that if he had been part of a large, very experienced group, they would have planned some sort of massively devastating event for a man with quite high access to a military stronghold.

To me, this looks like Lieberman's attempt to gain any little bit of support for the war he can, even by taking seemingly racist actions. After all, would the Congress be so concerned if the shooter's last name had been Smith rather than Hasan?

Major Nidal Hasan

Links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8349413.stm

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jATMK2q96bKfz6B-aZUHOd5i4mBgD9BSD6UO2