As I scanned the news today, two stories stuck out to me. The following are some observations about each.Story I:
China just recently announced that instead of attempting to compete in the world's gasoline powered automobile industry, it would skip this field and invest in becoming the world's leader in electric and hybrid powered cars. This is a brilliant manuver the likes of which Chairman Mao himself would love. (He's revolving in glee in his glass casket in the Forbidden City right now!) First, instead of wasting its capital on a dying industry that most Western countries are willing to support regardless of the consequences, China is saving its cash and letting GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc. strangle themselves. Secondly, by investing in the electric and hybrid powered car market, China is jumping the industrial gun on the next wave of comsumer demand. It is a little known secret that gas prices and environmentalism are quickly rendering the gas powered automobiles defunct. By investing now, before demand for alternatively-fueled cars materializes, China will have positioned itself to captolize. Third, such positioning not only creates jobs but will decrease China's reliance on fossil fuel, thus placing itself outside of the influence of Russia and the Middle East (the sources of the world's fuel).
See the following link for the full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/global/02electric.html?hp
Story II:
As everyone and their mother knows, this week marks the meeting of the G20. To date, the meeting has accomplished a great deal. It has seen the world's largest 20 economies pledge $1.1 trillion in aid to developing nations as well as promise to increase their yearly gifts to the World Bank. Furthermore, in a radical change from tradition, this year's G20 has even gone as far as to see France and Germany get along! C'est increable, non? That said, the media's coverage of the G20 has been astounding for the following fact: one of the chief stories out of London is not how the G20 nations have united in action at an unprecedented level or how this marks Barack Obama's first step onto the world stage. No, that would not be hip enough. Instead, the media has been spending its resources on identifying the fact that Michelle Obama wore J Crew on the morning she arrived in London and that her fashion sense and grace have been stunning the British countryside in a very Jackie O type of way. While I will be the first to admit that Mrs. Obama's sense of style is one of the better things to happen to the White House recently , the fact that the media focuses solely on her fashion, poise, and ability to socialize has knocked 40 years off the feminist movement. I say this because Michelle Obama is a Harvard Law graduate with legal experience at some of the nation's finest law firms. She is, by herself, an intellectual powerhouse capable of (some would argue) doing her husband's job (minus the political experience of course). Why is it that this side of Michelle Obama gets pushed aside and ignored in favor of the media's desire to turn her into a silent, African-American version of Jackie 0.? That doesn't seem right to me.
Check this link out (especially the article entitled, "Is first lady our queen?"). http://today.msnbc.msn.com/
