Surin Pitsuwan '72 Signs Historic Free Trade Agreement Between ASEAN, Japan

Surin Pitsuwan '72, completed the signing of a historic Free Trade agreement between the ASEAN and Japan on April 15.

The ASEAN-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership (AJCEP) will increase ASEAN exports to Japan by 44.2% and Japanese exports by 27.5%. Additionally, ASEAN GDP is set to increase by 1.99% and Japanese GDP by 0.07% as a result of the deal.

"With the AJCEP, we hope to encourage regional cumulation that will benefit Japanese investors like Toyota, Mitsubishi and Sony, which are operating and have huge investments in ASEAN countries, and support ASEAN industries as well,”

(Partial) Courtesy of: Econ 50 GE, CMC legacy of Political and Economic Freedom

CMC Alum Appointed As Ambassador Extraordinary

C. Steven McGann (right) pictured with U.S. Charge d'Affaires, Mark Bezner in Palau

The Bush Administration made an announcement today to appoint C. Steven McGann '73 as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States to Republic of the Fiji Islands, the Republic of Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru, and the Kingdom of Tonga and Tuvalu.

The President intends to nominate C. Steven McGann, of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of the Fiji Islands, the Republic of Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru, and the Kingdom of Tonga and Tuvalu. Mr. McGann, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, currently serves as Director for Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Islands in the Bureau of East Asia and Pacific Affairs at the Department of State. Prior to this, he served as Maritime Security Coordinator in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Earlier in his career, he served as Director of the Office of Assistance for Asia and Near East in the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. Mr. McGann received his bachelor's degree from Claremont McKenna College and his master's degree from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.

Call That A Debate ?

Its Radical Universal Health Care vs. Less Radical Universal Health Care at Pomona next week. David Beier, VP Global Government and Corporate Affairs, Amgen and former Domestic adviser to Al Gore, will 'debate' E. Richard Brown, Director, UCLA Center For Health Policy Research and Current Health Care adviser to Barack Obama. Both speakers are guests of the Pomona Student Union.

"What kinds of policies are candidates proposing to reform the health care system? How will these proposals impact our generation? Come join us on Monday, April 28 at 7pm in Edmunds Ballroom as we examine the difficult questions shaping the national health care discussion with David Beier and Richard Brown."

As head lobbyist at Amgen, Beier spent $16.3 million lobbying last year, a 58% increase since 2006. He defended the sharp increase by stating,

"Amgen is a leading biotechnology firm and is highly regulated; we face a lot of legislative and regulatory issues," Beier said. "We resourced our advocacy to match our challenges."

Highly regulated, you say? Beier, of course, forgot to mention that as chief lobbyist with Amgen, and previously with Genentech, he made the case for stricter intellectual property rights regulation, licenses and larger tax credits.

So whose on the 'other side'?

Dr. E Richard Brown, Professor UCLA School of Public Health, is the author of Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and Capitalism in America. He is a strong advocate for universal coverage and finds socialized medicine to be cheaper and better than market driven models. What a right wing nut!

So there's your debate: Universal Health Care v Universal Health Care. As Kissinger would say, 'too bad they can't both lose.'!

For those interested in a real debate on health care, I would recommend Professor Frederick Lynch's lecture series: Markets, Mandates, or 'Medicare for All'?

The first lecture in this four part series featured Peter Harbage, Senior Program Associate in the Health Policy Program, New America Foundation. Harbage provided an excellent background into the current structure of the US Health industry, and the plausibility of universal coverage. Harbage worked as Health Care adviser to Presidential Candidate John Edwards.

The second and final speaker for this semester will be Sally Pipes, CEO Pacific Research Institute. CJ's preview.

Now there's a real debate with real ideological diversity and quality speakers.

Meinhardt and Crew Take Congratulatory Photo, Leave Others to Clean Up

Kevin Callahan: Cleaning up others activism

Tonight I went to Collins to witness the banning of the trays and the saving of the world.

Although my wiser and kinder friends inclined to go to Scripps, I decided that I would see the green sham for what it is. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't spoiling for a fight.

Trays were banned in Collins and so students were required to take multiple trips from their table to the food lines.

I walked into Collins, walked behind where the food police had set up to weigh our food, and took the trays that they were guarding. I gave Dan O'Toole another tray and we were the only two people in the cafeteria to have them. I did not cause a fuss, nor get into a debate with any of the food police. I simply walked by them and took that for which I paid. It was a simple symbolic act of refusing to be cowed.

Cowed? Yes, cowed. Although to be fair, there were very few products from cows tonight. The pizzas were made sans cheese and the pasta cheese was removed. No burgers were served. Also banned were tropical fruits, chocolate, and sugar.

After taking my trays and avoiding the dirty looks of several fellow cafeteria people, I sat down to enjoy my meal with the tray that I had taken. The evening progressed smoothly enough -- until Meinhardt and her crew of Environmental Crusaders decided that it was appropriate to take a congratulatory picture of themselves in front of the "pyramid of styrofoam." The pyramid was intended to model the number of styrofoam containers that Claremont students use on a daily basis. (It wasn't exactly a pyramid, but then again, don't fault the greens for getting their facts wrong!)

Of course, Meinhardt and her band left out of the photo that they weren't the ones who took down the massive tower they had built. That job fell to Kevin Callahan, Collins' manager, who I watched take down the entire pyramid before leaving the dining halll.

I guess the labor of setting up presentations to save the world doesn't fall entirely equally, after all.

Changed Your Lightbulbs, Your Soul, and Your Eating Habits

Sam Corcos just sent me this flier over at Pitzer College. (I generally avoid Pitzer after its plans to ban Coca-cola.) The flier is part of a campaign intended for "low carbon diet day," which just so happen to coincide with Earth Day. I first mentioned this campaign several months ago in a piece entitled "Bon Appetit Favors Food Protectionism?"

As I blogged then, Bon Appetit has a list of all the initiatives it is behind.

• Reducing the use of beef by 25% – Livestock production is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions.
• Sourcing all meat and poultry from North America – 80% of the energy used by the food system comes not from growing food, but from transporting and processing it.
• Sourcing nearly all fruits and vegetables from North America, using seasonal local produce as a first preference and using tropical fruits only as “special occasion” ingredients – Most bananas have traveled 3,000 miles in high-speed refrigerated ships to reach an American breakfast plate. A local apple might be grown within 10 miles.
• Serving only domestic bottled water and reducing waste from plastic bottles – Americans throw away 40 million plastic water bottles every day.
• Reducing food waste – Goal of 25% reduction in three years or less.
• Auditing the energy efficiency of kitchen equipment – In home or commercial kitchens energy losses of up to 30% can be easily corrected for very low cost.

Some of these decisions seem wise for Bon Appetit, but the surest way to solve some of these problems are through market mechanisms. Don't like food waste? Institute a pay as you go system. Don't like energy efficiency of kitchen equipment? Use more energy efficient equipment. You might save a penny or two.

But as for the rest of it, its an exercise in food protectionism. That's not even addressing the rather unsubstantive debate over bottled water and tap water. Turns out, bottled water isn't safer.

Moreover, by refusing to buy internationally, Bon Appetit ends up supporting the very wasteful practices of state-run water facilities here in the U.S. Juxtapose that with the pay for use water system of the U.K. and its easy to see which one is the more environmentally friendly.


Let's turn to the fliers that have sprung up in the dining halls.

Each one of the fliers asks a question or poses a statement:
Is my cheeseburger causing global warming? Does your sushi get more frequent flyer miles than you do? You've changed your light bulbs, now change your lunch.

Just for the record, we've had sushi only once during the past year and it was mediocre at best.

I've chosen to examine the lunch question because I think it's most indicative of the P.R. campaign to get us to eat, but more importantly, think alike. The picture is all the more symbolic because we don't get to see the real face of the person encouraging us to change our diet, nor do we get to critically examine his conclusions.

I never changed my light bulbs because I thought it would be good for my pocketbook, not for some mythical Earth. Given how little light it emits, I wonder if I ought to have changed them back, lest I risk damaging my vision any further.

The real question is why are food must be politicized and why we weren't even allowed to debate whether or not we would be without trays today.

Blog staff attend 7th Annual Celebrate Life Conference

This past weekend, Charles Johnson and I attended the 7th Annual "Celebrate Life Conference" of California Students for Life (CAStL) at Stanford University. CAStL is an umbrella organization for pro-life high school and college student groups in California. Officially, we were present as members of Live Action at CMC and traveled with the UCLA Live Action chapter.

The conference's theme was "Empowering Pro-Life Groups." Speakers included Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America, Steve Wagner of Stand to Reason, Steve Bierfeldt of the Leadership Institute, and several others.

Also speaking at the CAStL conference was Lila Rose, founder of Live Action, current president of the UCLA chapter, and editor-in-chief of the UCLA student magazine The Advocate. Last year, The Advocate made headlines for its expose of Planned Parenthood's coverup of statutory rape, and this year, The Advocate has again made national news with findings regarding the inherently racist policies of Planned Parenthood. Rose conducted a workshop during conference breakout sessions on "Pro-Life Investigative Experiences," sharing with students effective tactics for investigating the abortion industry. "We are in a state of war," Rose emphasized, "and, as in any war, we need to go undercover to find out the truth."

Another inspiring speaker was Dr. William B. Hurlbut, consulting professor at the Stanford University Institute of Neuroscience and at Stanford University Medical Center. Hurlbut, also a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, delivered a powerful message on the uniqueness of the human person, the importance of natural law, and the dangers presented by the treatment of human life as an instrument rather than an individual.

It was truly encouraging to see so many passionate pro-life students engaged in the weekend's activities. I highly recommend the CAStL conference to anyone remotely interested.

Photos by Peter Chadri.

QRC's Sincerity Problem

The Queer Resource Center of the Claremont Colleges recently distributed a student climate survey to determine student attitudes toward "LGBT" issues on campus. This survey, however, is insulting and demeaning.

Section 7 lists several Yes or No statements about "LGBT" students and issues. One of these statements reads, "Being LGBT is a choice, and an LGBT person could choose to be heterosexual if he or she wanted to." In this statement, the QRC is artificially conflating group identification with personal attraction. Such conflation is deceptive and manipulative, and the QRC's failure to recognize such a basic distinction significantly weakens their credibility as a constructive influence on campus.

What QRC is basically saying in this statement is, "If you are a woman and are attracted to other women, you are lesbian. You are one of us. You belong at QRC and not at Christian Fellowship." Their deceptive conflation of "LGBT" group identity with non-heterosexual personal attraction is manipulative toward orthodox Jewish and Christian students and the student body at large: either we accept the ethics of QRC, renounce our own, and label "LGBT" identity as good and necessary (check "No"), or we abandon common sense and assert that sexual inclination is a conscious choice (check "Yes"). While orthodox Christians and any clear-thinking people admit that group identification is a choice, I know of no reasonable person who believes that anyone, homosexual or heterosexual, can "choose" their temptations away. Yet this survey presupposes such belief on the part of anyone who asserts the first half of the statement, "Being LGBT is a choice." The Queer Resource Center is deceiving students about their pro-family peers and manipulating them into agreement with QRC.

Claremont students, "LGBT" or not, should be outraged at the Queer Resource Center's lack of sincerity in this operation. If the QRC really cared about "LGBT" students and creating a safe environment for them, it would be seeking to unite the student body around common values, NOT ostracizing the orthodox for our philosophical differences. If you are "LGBT" and concerned for your safety, your best allies are the people who believe, regardless of any peripheral qualities, that your human essence makes you valuable and worthy of protection.