Salim Adil is an author for Global Voices Online, a website that aggregates, curates, and translates news and views from the global blogosphere. The opinions expressed are his own and those of the bloggers he quotes.

Will this become one of those moments in history? In years to come will you recount to your grand children where you were when an Iraqi journalist, Montather Al-Zeidi, threw his shoes at the president of the United States? For me I was at home just getting my kids ready to sleep when my father called me insisting that I simply had to switch on the television immediately.

Iraqi bloggers reacted in much the same way with a number who wrote their first new post in months just to make their comment. Abbas Hawazin went as far to predict that shoe throwing will now be part of mainstream culture and has gone to look for a good-sized shoe to carry in his pocket, “in case I need to make any public expression of anger should the case arise.”

Last of Iraqis broke his once-a-week frequency to share his opinion on the incident. “In the Iraqi traditions or may I say Arabic traditions in general; it's the maximum insult a man can do…it's the maximum humiliation no word can accomplish”, he writes. And he gives his view of the Iraqi Street:

"Today I went to work as usual and all the people I saw were very very happy, it was like a national celebration…A female patient came to me for a filling and as we were waiting for the Anesthesia to take effect she said “do you know doc. That yesterday was an Eid to me; I haven't celebrated Eid for the past 3 years because the Americans “accidentally” killed my husband and son and Bush is the reason why they are here so yesterday some of my revenge has been taken” …all the staff said the same thing “A statue should be built for Muntathar” in fact many of them have used the photo of Muntathar as a background for their mobiles but the really beautiful thing that made me even happier was that no one referred to his sect or anything…they were all proud of him…"

One person who does not think so is Nibras Kazimi who stood alone among Iraqi bloggers to defend George Bush:

"Personally, I got angry. Very angry. I will make a public promise: should I ever run into a certain reporter called Muntather al-Zaidi, presently of Al-Baghdadia TV, I will seriously consider beating the crap out of him… See, I will forever remain indebted to President George W. Bush. He is my hero. He liberated Iraq, and that's how I will always see it. Had there been no President Bush, then Saddam would still be Saddam."

Baghdad Treasure is torn between professional pride and being an Iraqi:

"As a journalist myself, I found what the reporter did was extremely wrong. Journalists have their voices and pens (and now the internet) to express whatever they want to protest against. However, I was kind of relieved. As an Iraqi citizen, I believe Bush deserved this ending that the entire world will remember and cherish. I mean what wrong the man had done was huge. His failure to prepare for an invasion aftermath caused Iraqis and Americans hundreds of thousands of souls, not to mention the destruction of an entire country, the millions who have migrated and the creation of terrorism in Iraq."

For a longer version of this article, visit Global Voices

By Juliana Rincón Parra

Thomson Reuters is not responsible for the content of this post — the views are the author’s alone.

Frontera Filmmakers is social networking website based in San Diego, California that unites video producers from both sides of the USA-Mexico border. Its members share links to more than two dozen films and trailers related to border politics and culture.

One documentary on the site, 389 Miles, tells the story of residents on both sides of border. In the 4 minute trailer, the director Luis Carlos Romero-Davis invites us to meet migrants who brave the desert crossing the border, volunteers searching for them in order to provide aid, and others who are there to protect their country from illegal immigrants. He also shows a partial interview with a smuggler who tells all about the human trafficking trade in the region.

In Contaminacion 202 [in Spanish] youngsters from Tijuana, Mexico explain why it is important to control pollution and contamination, with examples of ground, water and air pollution. 

A third video is titled Entre Corazón y Mar (Between Heart and Sea), and shows the building process of the fourth Pacific Rim Park in Baja California, Mexico, where Mexicans, US citizens, Russians and Chinese have gathered together in spite of language differences to build a monument that honors diversity.

There are many other videos on the Frontera Filmmakers site including animations, TV show pilots, and cultural excursions into the lives of people who live their lives at the edge of two worlds.

This article originally appeared on Global Voices Online, a website that tracks global blog reactions to world news.

By Oiwan Lam

Thomson Reuters is not responsible for the content of this post - the views are the author’s alone.

According to a New York Times report in early September, the Chinese Central Bank has invested over $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury bills, bonds and debt securities. Of that, $376.3 billion has been put into the mortgage backed securities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 21% of the Chinese government’s foreign currency reserve.

Whose mistake?

Back in mid-August, Lew Mon-hung, a representative of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, wrote in several mainstream newspapers in Hong Kong to criticize the investment decision. His opinion has been censored by mainland Chinese mainstream media, but distributed widely on the internet. Chenjian is among one of the mainland bloggers distributing Lew’s viewpoint:

(translated from Chinese)

As a member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and with my experience in the finance sector, I am here to question the decision makers at the central government finance sector: you guys are the family’s failure, where do you get the balls to take people’s money to buy such a huge amount of fannie and freddie’s securities. Now they are bankrupted, how are you to take the responsibility?

A nation’s foreign currency reserve is not the net income of the country, when hot money flows out of the country, the reserve will be reduced. That’s why it is important to have safe investment, and it is necessary to diversify the risk. To put more than 20% of our foreign currency reserve on fannie and freddie, is a serious mistake.

(…)

The amount China invested on fannie and freddie is more than one hundred times of all the foreign donation to the Sichuan earthquake. What is the reason behind our policy on US investment? Is there any unknown secret behind such ridiculous decision? The Steering Committee of the People’s Congress should organize a special task force to investigate the issue and someone has to take the responsibility!

Conspiracy theory

Another article covered a conspiracy theory that has also been circulated in forums and blogs. One World One Dream reposts the article in full.

(translated from Chinese)

Where are our local economists? All these policies are led by the so-called mainstream economists, now who benefit from them and who are in trouble? Those who advocated “opening up for foreign strategic investors to our country and let them make profit through our cheap bank stocks; while on the other hand pushing our quality enterprises to list on foreign stock market and giving them more than 10 times financed capital gain.” What exactly they are serving? and who are they?

The writer urges netizens to re-post this article on official websites to warn the leader against any such financial decision.

ASM is also on the side of the conspiracy theory and maps out the steps of how the US government seized away fortunes from the rest of the World (zh).

China loses

Shi Hanbin, a local finance expert, was interviewed by CCTV on the impact of the US financial crisis on China on September 22. He further elaborates his viewpoint in his blog:

(translated from Chinese)

Three major impacts are: 1. the sub-prime crisis will result in the decrease of consumption in U.S and Europe and will therefore affect our export. No matter it is high value added product or cheap product, the negative impact on our export is inevitable. We need to encourage our internal market. 2. As U.S dollars continue to de-value and our major transactions are in US dollars, which means the price of commodities will increase. At the same time, anticipating the US dollar devaluation, hot money will flow into the commodity market, push up raw materials such as oil, iron and other mineral products’ prices. Eventually it would affect the cost of our imports. 3. It will also affect our capital and finance market. The loss of our finance institution will continue to grow. Hot money from the property market will flow away. That’s why we can’t save the property market right now or we shall help the hot money to leave the market with higher profit rate and destroy our economy further.

Shi Hanbin also questions how the investment decision was made:

(translated from Chinese)

How such decision come into being? How come so many decisions are not good for China but let a foreign country gain interest? The lack of transparency in decision making has deprived the people of their right to know and to monitor. And everything operates in black box.

(…)

In this crisis, China suffers from a serious loss. Even if there is opportunity, we can’t do anything because our capital is locked in the investment. We become the loser, after we lost thousands of billions we are doomed to failure.

Zhanghui noticed that after the first outbreak of the sub-prime crisis in Europe back in August 2007, Chinese banks didn’t reduce their investment in asset-backed securities. There is a net increase of US$59 billion between August 2007 and May 2008. Now, European countries can say no to the US$700 billion “bail-out” proposal, but China cannot.

As a major holder of US debt, China cannot sell out their share because it would lead to a huge fall in the price. Besides no other countries and investors would buy the share. Such an act is harmful to both sides. The two countries now have a shared interest in the financial crisis and it is necessary for the Chinese government to support the U.S government, more necessary than the G7.

Even though the Chinese and American government share the same interest in the crisis, many netizens feel it is a painful lesson for the Chinese. Here is another widely circulated opinion article quoted from Hong Kong newspapers (via dmxianfeng):

(translated from Chinese)

Hardworking and courageous Chinese people, we follow our ancient teaching in saving everything we can save: we produce a lot and import very little, we accumulate a lot and consume little, we earn a lot of U.S dollars and spend little. But in the end, we have to pay the bill of the US financial crisis. Moreover, we are paying the tribute with humbleness while the other side is full of arrogance! This is what we are facing in the global economy today: Who controls the finance institutes rules the world. This is a painful lesson and will leave an everlasting memory.

There are votes and comments in the China Daily forums on: Should the U.S. Congress pass the $700b bailout plan? Although it might not reflect popular opinion, it’s still worth a look.

This article originally appeared on Global Voices Online, a website that tracks global blog reactions to world news.

By Juhie Bhatia

Thomson Reuters is not responsible for the content of this post - the views are the author’s alone.

Health authorities in China reported this week that nearly 53,000 children have become sick after consuming tainted infant formula. As the effects of these contaminated dairy products become more widespread, many are discussing the alternative to formula — breastfeeding.

The scandal erupted earlier this month when Sanlu, China’s top-selling infant formula manufacturer, publicly recalled its products. The baby formula was deliberately contaminated with melamine, an industrial chemical that can cause kidney problems. Since then, thousands of children have become sick and the milk powder has been blamed for the deaths of four infants. The crisis has not only raised questions about food safety, but also about why so many children are being fed formula in the first place, instead of being breastfed.

Thanks to its numerous health benefits, the World Health Organization recommends that children be breastfed exclusively for the first six months of life. However, despite a long tradition of breastfeeding in China, rates have declined as more mothers turn to milk formula. The rates of exclusive breastfeeding during an infant’s first four months decreased from around 76 percent in 1998 to 64 percent in 2004. At six months, the percentage of babies being exclusively breastfed is only 51 percent.

Many blame China’s shift away from breastfeeding on formula companies who aggressively target the 17 million babies born each year in China. Samuel Dennis, a blogger and local politician in New Zealand says:

“With the recent tainted formula scare in China I immediately became suspicious - why are so many Chinese using formula anyway? It is a poor country, surely they would be breastfeeding? Sure enough, just like in the West in the 40s and 50s, formula is being promoted in China as better than breast milk.”

He goes on to cite a report that blames the marketing of formula:

“Under Chinese consumer protection regulations, ads can’t claim or hint that a product is a replacement for breast milk. Nor are ads permitted to use images of breastfeeding women and babies. Nonetheless, infant formula companies often flout these regulations.”

Mike Brady, blogging for Baby Milk Action, also blames formula companies and their unethical advertising tactics:

“Consider a little further why there is a growth in formula use in China. It is undergoing rapid industrialisation and urbanisation, but that does not have to mean the fall in breastfeeding rates that is being experienced. Part of the cultural change is prompted by western companies. For example, Nutricia, now owned by Danone, promoted its ‘Kissing my Baby’ formula in China in 2004 with this gift CD with children’s music.”

Some say that this push to use formula comes from doctors themselves. This despite the fact that China has banned the promotion of breast milk substitutes in hospitals since it launched the Regulation of Human Milk Substitutes Distribution in 1995. One article claims that almost 63 percent of babies receive formula in Chinese hospitals anyway. The same regulation also says that doctors must promote the advantages of breastfeeding.

Covenofovens, commenting on this article, shares his story of pushy doctors:

“We breastfed our baby exclusively for a year (breast milk and water only for the first 4 months, then breast milk, water and food after that)…This is not to say that we had formula pushed on us by doctors - especially the doctor that came to check on my wife a week after the birth. She brought a sample pack of formula produced close to Shenzhen (where our son was born), which sat on the shelf until we eventually threw it away.”

Nase, blogging from Malaysia on My Solitude of Space, says that the moms in his local Chinese community are less likely to breastfeed. He asked his mother as to the reasons why:

“Apparently (according to my mom and many Chinese moms), the main concern is about sagging breasts (quote from momma Rose: If I’d breastfed all five of you rascals, I’ll be walking on four legs now!)…Other less convincing reasons given by my momma Rose was that due to inconvenience, as moms also need to work and care to other whims of their older children and husbands too!”

minipumpkin agrees that body image is an issue, but also blames a lack of time and the misconception that formula is healthier:

(Translated from Chinese)

“Now there are many young mothers who are worried about their time and their body shape. Even though they have enough milk, they decide not to breast feed their babies. Moreover with so many infant milk formula ads in the market, these mother may feel that the infant formulas are very nutritious and it is very convenient too. Babies grow very fast and look healthy, so why not. I don’t want to criticize those mothers who decided not to breast feed their babies, some of them may be forced to use milk powder because they don’t have enough milk. I just feel fortunate that I have made a right decision. And now that the Sanlu scandal broke out, I decide to extend the breast feed period for my baby.”

kakb2006, quoted from Hong Kong’s newspapers, points out that working can be an especially large obstacle to breastfeeding for migrant workers.

(Translated from Chinese)

“Because many rural migrant workers go to the city to work, many women after giving birth need to return to the city and leave the babies in the village. As the mothers are not around to breastfeed the babies, they can only rely on milk powder. And because they are poor and cannot afford expensive infant formula, they can only use the cheaper brand. That’s why economic infant milk has a large market in the rural area.”

Some Chinese researchers have said that the shift back to breastfeeding will require greater promotion of its benefits. Hoyden About Town adds that this change will only happen if breastfeeding is supported financially, socially and practically. Perhaps the infant formula scandal will start pushing this change to happen in China. A post from the South China Morning Post reports:

“A lack of nursing skills, breastfeeding rooms, and public awareness are among the scores of reasons mainland mothers have abandoned breastfeeding over the years, but the melamine milk scandal is one factor forcing many to reconsider. Hospitals have been packed this week with scared mothers asking about breastfeeding, while the topic has become the most popular source of discussion on maternity and childcare websites.”

This article was originally posted on Global Voices Online, a website that tracks global blogger reactions to world news.