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