Putin's strategy on NATO

   If you look at the whole of Russia’s behavior around Ukraine, its strategy becomes clear – or as clear as clear gets in geopolitics. The buildup of troops started months ago. In time, it dawned on the U.S. and its NATO allies that something might be happening. The Russians issued their demands a few weeks ago, asking that NATO not grant Ukraine membership into the alliance and that it withdraw weapons from Eastern Europe. Put differently, Moscow wanted to return to a status quo that it had held before the Soviet Union fell.

One explanation for Russian behavior thus emerged. Moscow’s demands made it seem as though Ukraine and Eastern Europe posed a unique threat to Russia that would abate if NATO abandoned ship. That is simply untrue; missiles no longer need to be close to be a target in order to be a threat. That demand therefore made little sense except in the case I have been pressing: Russia needs strategic depth against a ground assault. However unlikely this threat may be, it is primal and visceral. That threat would be abated some if NATO retreated westward, but it would be all but removed if Russian troops eventually were deployed westward.

The problem with this line of thinking is that Russia knew full well that the U.S. and its allies would reject its demands.

Another theory was that Russia always intended to invade Ukraine. It wanted the United States to reject its offer to justify a war. The Europeans generally don’t want a war, nor do many in the United States. The Russians may have believed the rejection of their demands would have created serious concern in Europe but no more than interested awareness in the United States. So if we shift the focus away from Ukraine, Russia’s intention might have been to simply divide NATO so deeply that it could never be repaired. Considering the Europeans are unwilling to financially sustain the alliance, the U.S. doesn’t trust its members to share all the risks, and with the general economic forces driving Europe apart, Russia doesn’t have to try all that hard to divide the alliance.

On this point, Germany, the de facto leader of Europe, is essential. Its economy is currently weakened by limits on its export market and internal imbalances from the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the stabilizing factors of its economy has been the reliability of Russian natural gas exports, a reliability that was to be enhanced by the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Russia needs the revenue from selling to Europe in general and Germany in particular. Russia’s actions near Ukraine have thus created a conundrum. Germany – and really, all NATO members – needs Russia’s energy but does not trust Russia. A war might force Russia to stop exports to Europe, giving Germany and others the choice between internal mayhem and long-term security from Russia. Russia has made no overt move because the idea of an attack is more powerful than an actual attack.

This would explain why Russian demands were meant to be rejected, holding off an invasion while the fear of war grows. It would trigger German gestures of solidarity with NATO while urgently searching for a solution that would compel Russia to desist. It would explain Moscow’s extraordinary patience with the U.S. response, and it would explain the promise that in spite of massed forces, there will be no war. If NATO essentially breaks up, Russia will be in a position to create a neutral military zone and an economic zone that it is an integral part of and chief energy supplier to.

The one counter to all this is something we don’t usually pay attention to in geopolitics: public opinion. The outright rejection of the Russian offer should have divided the U.S. and created general anti-American feeling in Europe. So far, this has not happened, despite the fact that Russia is generally pretty good at using social and political divisions to shape the behavior of countries to its benefit.

Moscow’s actions and offers were meant to cast the U.S. as unreasonable. Yet no powerful anti-war movement has arisen in Europe as yet, and the division in Washington remains in place. Driving Europe in the direction the Russians want would seem to require public support. That would deny governments room for maneuver, which is precisely what Russia needs to do.

This is a complex explanation for a very complex set of maneuvers. If NATO shatters, the Russians think they will take control of Ukraine without risk. From the viewpoint of Germany at least, the benefits of NATO do not compare with the benefits of access to natural gas. Germany, for one, cannot value NATO over gas. Russia has adopted a strategy of indirect attack, first weakening NATO, perhaps mortally, then expecting Ukraine to fall in its lap. That is its expectation but Russia, as other nations, has been frequently wrong. The Russians were utterly honest when they said that they were not intending to attack Ukraine. They have bigger fish to fry before that.

 

英乌波宣布强化三国区域安全合作关系

 

英乌波宣布强化三国合作关系 乌克兰军队3年内计划增加10万兵力

 

乌克兰总统泽连斯基（Volodymyr Zelensky）2月1日在议会发表讲话时宣布，建立一个涉及乌克兰、波兰和英国的新的“政治合作模式”。英国首相约翰逊（Boris Johnson）并于当天到访基辅和泽连斯基举行了会谈。波兰总理莫拉维奇（Mateusz Morawiecki）也在当地对乌克兰进行访问。泽连斯基周二还签署了一项法令，未来3年内乌克兰武装部队人数将增加10万人。

乌克兰总理什梅加尔（Denys Shmygal）周二和来访的波兰总理莫拉维奇出席了联合记者会。什梅加尔向媒体表示：“我希望在不久的将来，我们能够正式启动乌克兰-波兰-英国的新区域合作模式，在俄罗斯持续侵略的情况下，我们应该签署一份关于合作的三边文件，以加强区域安全。”莫拉维奇在发言中告诉记者称，波兰将帮助乌克兰提供天然气和武器供应，以及人道主义和经济援助。

莫拉维奇说：“生活在像俄罗斯这样的邻国附近，我们有一种生活在火山脚下的感觉。”他补充说，华沙将向乌克兰提供火炮弹药、迫击炮、便携式防空系统和无人侦察机等防御性装备。莫拉维奇还呼吁德国不要启动北溪2号天然气管道项目，称其带来了严重的安全风险。莫拉维奇强调，反抗俄罗斯不仅对乌克兰，而且对整个欧洲和北约都很重要。

莫拉维奇说：“通过启动这条管道，柏林正在给普京的手枪装子弹，然后他可以用它来讹诈整个欧洲”。他表示，三国外长们正在“研究一种可能的形式，以加强波兰、乌克兰和英国之间在各个领域的合作”。

泽连斯基周二在乌克兰议会的发言中也提及：“我们正在欧洲创造一种新的政治合作模式，涉及乌克兰、英国和波兰”。英国外交大臣特拉斯（Liz Truss）早些时候说，英国、波兰和乌克兰之间正在考虑建立一个三方联盟。乌克兰外交部长库列巴（Dmytro Kuleba）也向记者介绍了建立这种联盟的积极工作。

泽连斯基周二还签署法令，将在未来三年内大幅扩大乌军的规模，在现有基础上增加十万军人，并提高士兵的待遇。

泽连斯基强调：“这项法令（的制定）不是因为我们很快就会发生战争......而是为了在不久的将来，乌克兰会有和平。”目前，乌克兰武装部队有近25万名军人，相比于俄军，不但人数明显不足，装备水平也十分落后。

泽连斯基呼吁称：“我们必须在国内政治上团结一致。你可以反对政府，但你不能反对乌克兰”。他谈到，“你可以鄙视......政府、总统，但你不能鄙视自己的人民，为了获得政治利益而播种恐慌，让人民处于恐慌状态。”

英首相约翰逊周二在到访基辅前通过推特强调：“作为一个朋友和民主伙伴，面对那些试图破坏乌克兰主权的人，英国将继续维护乌克兰的主权。“

北京大学发报告 - 中美脱钩造成中国陷严重技术瓶颈

   北京大学发表报告指出，美中科技脱钩后，双方虽都有损伤，但中国付出的代价更大，其中芯片制造、人工智能及IT产业更陷入瓶颈。而美国这一战略增加了中国获取先进技术和吸引人才的难度。南华早报说，而由于报告出自中国国内研究机构而非境外，因此引起一定程度关注。

据中央社今天引述报道说，中国北京大学发表报告，称美中脱钩，中国科技业陷入严重瓶颈。南华早报报道称，，这项报告由北大国际与战略研究所在1月31日农历除夕当天发表。而由于报告出自中国国内研究机构而非境外，因此引起一定程度关注。

据报告指出，在美中脱钩后，无论在技术面还是产业面发展，中国不但在大部分领域明显落后，甚至陷入真空状态，在芯片制造、人工智能及IT产业更面临发展瓶颈，中国付出的代价比美国更大。报告说，尤其在芯片制造和人工智能等关键技术上，目前已形成了脱钩共识，导致中国目前只剩下“技术含量低或附加值低的行业”与美企有联系。

这项报告指出，中国仅在一些小领域居领先地位，但像IT产业经过美中科技脱钩后，已面临“巨大冲击”。相形之下，双方脱钩对美国的IT产业没有明显影响。至于中国近年来急起直追、且自认颇具成就的人工智能产业，报告则提到，中国在人工智能领域仍远落后于美国。中国3年前才开始培养人工智能领域人才，但美国大学早已培养了这一领域的学生。

这项报告更针对中国的人才断层问题说，中国顶级的人工智能领域人才只有34%留在国内，56%已移居美国。至于整体在美国留学的中国公民，多达88%留在当地，只有10%返国工作。

据该报道称，航太科技也是中国经常自我标榜的领域。报告认为，航太科技是美中合作和相互依赖最少的领域。但在高度依赖商业市场的民航领域，中国仍处于劣势，在核心零件方面仍严重依赖美国和其他西方国家。报告认为，美国的脱钩战略还包括组建“科技民主联盟”，使中国在科技上被完全孤立，增加了中国从他国进口关键零组件、获取先进技术和吸引人才的难度。据报告最后建议，中国政府应选择国际合作和培养人才，才能使美中之间的科技差距不会继续扩大。

 

习近平企图历史翻案反毛泽东 ?

 

美联社:新疆教科书案暗示中共企图历史翻案

曾任新疆教育厅长的中共维族高官去年被判死缓，他被指控通过编撰历史教科书宣扬民族分裂思想。美联社在分析了这起案件以及相应的中国央视“电视认罪”画面后判断，即便以往得到毛泽东赞扬的新疆革命运动，近年来也逐渐被中共当局打上“民族分裂”标签。

中国当局近年来大大加强了对维语书刊的管控

（德国之声中文网）去年初，新疆自治区教育厅原厅长沙塔尔·沙吾提（Sattar Sawut）被判死刑缓期两年执行，原副厅长阿力木江·买买提明（Alimjan Memtimin）、新疆教育出版社先后两任社长阿卜杜热扎克·沙依木（Abdurazaq Sayim）与塔依尔·那斯尔（Tahir Nasir）则被判处无期徒刑，罪名则是编写了一套在新疆地区使用了十余年的教科书，被当局认为宣扬恐怖主义、分裂思想。

中国官方指责这些被判刑的维族高官为"两面人"，官媒CGTN（前身为央视外语频道）还就此案制作了一集题为"暗流涌动-中国新疆反恐挑战"的专题纪录片，其中包括沙塔尔·沙吾提的认罪、悔罪画面，自称"我们害了这些孩子"。

美联社仔细分析了这部中国官媒纪录片，对其中提到的多起新疆历史事件进行了溯源，并采访了多名曾经参与编辑这套教科书的人员。美联社认为，如今被中国官方认为违法的叙述，以前其实是为中共当局所认可的，其中甚至包括毛泽东亲自赞扬过的左派政治运动；而随着中共当局的立场变化，沙塔尔·沙吾提等个人遭受了噩运，新疆的维族学生也被剥夺了了解本民族历史的机会。

习近平似乎将多元化视作威胁

目前，美国等多个西方国家都宣布对即将开幕的北京冬奥会进行外交抵制，主要原因就是抗议中国当局在新疆严重侵犯少数民族人权。中国政府对此类指控予以坚决驳斥，认为所采取都是正当措施，旨在消除分裂主义和极端主义思潮。

在这场争端中，国际舆论主要关注了再教育营拘押行为、当局强力管控清真寺等现象，对中共体制内维族高官的命运、新疆教科书等议题则关注甚少。美联社指出，中国当局发动宣传和司法攻势，打击使用了十多年的新疆历史教科书及其负责官员，这一切都表明，中共政权正试图全面管控维族群体、重塑维族文化。近年来，习近平以民族团结的名义大力推动针对藏族、蒙古族、维族的同化政策，缩减双语教育，在淡化少数民族色彩的同时强化中华民族之认同。不少学者以及维权人士担心，基于传统的英雄及反派叙事的维族文化历史面临着失传的危险。美国马里兰大学研究中国双语教育政策的专家周明朗说，从更早的时候开始，官员就一直在增加新疆的汉语教学，特别是在2009年该地区首府乌鲁木齐发生民族冲突之后。周明朗指出，习近平摆脱了以往中国领导人所倡导的"一个统一的多元化国家"的说法，"习近平认为多元化是对统一国家的威胁。"

悉尼大学中国近代史高级讲师戴维·布罗菲（David Brophy）也在接受美联社专访时指出，如今对维族历史叙事的监管力度正在增大，以往被视作"争议"的话题，如今会被认为是"宣扬分裂主义"。他举例说，维族共产主义革命家阿合买提江·哈斯木（Ehmetjan Qasimi）所领导的三区革命运动，曾经得到毛泽东的称赞，并且在1949年8月受毛泽东邀请前往北平参加第一届政协会议，但不幸在转道苏联时遭遇空难去世；但是中国史学界对这段得到毛泽东肯定的历史始终争论不休，并且近年来态度越发敌视。

毛泽东赞扬、习近平反对?

三区革命运动的早期，即1944年，曾经成立过一个"东突厥斯坦共和国临时政府"，由泛突厥主义者、泛伊斯兰主义者和共产主义者组成，以反抗当时的中国国民政府。这个政权名义上在伊斯兰教上层人士手中，实质上则由苏联幕后控制。1946年，"东突厥斯坦共和国临时政府"宣告解散。美联社注意到，近期泄露的一份中共当局2017年内部文件显示，中国官方对新疆"三区革命运动"的立场已经出现了明显变化。该文件写道："三区革命是我国人民民主革命的一部分，但在早期阶段出现了严重的错误。"文件在强调"阿合买提江·哈斯木仍应其历史作用而受尊重"的同时，也指责了苏联的干涉、民族分裂分子的渗透，认为后者"建立了分裂政权……犯了民族分裂的严重错误"。

耐人寻味的是，CGTN的纪录片还特别提到一张阿合买提江·哈斯木佩戴勋章的照片，该勋章代表当时的"东突厥斯坦共和国"政权。新疆教育出版社美术编辑夏依达·玉素莆（Shehide Yusup）在纪录片中说，这张照片根本不应该出现在教科书中。

历史翻案风现苗头?

这套所谓的"问题教科书"里还有一张微妙的插图，似乎显示了国民党军士兵用刀指向匍匐在地的维吾尔叛军的画面。维族语言学家阿不都外力·阿尤普（Abduweli Ayup）对美联社表示，2001年在对教科书进行审核时，维族故事几乎没有得到任何关注；当时他还是一名硕士研究生，负责将其中一些故事翻译成汉语以供审查。现居挪威的他说，将国民党军士兵描绘成敌人的叙事方法，在当时被认为并无争议，编辑们更为担心的是引用外国作家的言论，比如托尔斯泰的名言或者匈牙利的诗歌。

化名为库尼都孜的一名新疆大学校报前编辑也对美联社表示，这套教科书本身是在获得高层批准后才出版投入使用的。

CGTN纪录片中，还有另一个试图对历史故事进行翻案的举动令不少维族人感到震惊。纪录片中，新疆教育出版社美术编辑夏依达·玉素莆（Shehide Yusup）说，7名维族少女英雄的传说全系捏造，所谓她们被汉族士兵包围在悬崖边、为保卫家园不惜跳崖的叙事是在"煽动民族仇恨"。而事实上，这些士兵是清朝军队的满族人，CGTN纪录片中也对这段历史有所叙述："满族士兵开始从四面八方攀登莫尔格勒山，维族领袖告诉这些女孩向这些士兵投下滚石。"

在新疆的乌什县，现在依然有一座供奉7名维族少女英雄的寺庙，其部分运营资金来自于当地政府。关于这个故事的史诗以及戏剧长期以来都很受欢迎。

目前旅居瑞典的库尼都孜就此哀叹说："他们想同化我们，他们想把我们抹去。"她对美联社表示，她的儿子在乌鲁木齐长大，学习汉语的时间比学习维吾尔语的时间多，汉语比维吾尔语说得更好。

 

FBI局长：中国政府对西方的威胁更加肆无忌惮

中国政府对西方的威胁比以往任何时候都 "更加肆无忌惮"， 更具破坏性--美国联邦调查局局长克里斯托弗·雷伊本周一在一次讲话中这样说道。他称，中国政府黑客窃取的个人和公司数据比其他所有国家的总和还要多。

 美国联邦调查局局长克里斯托弗·雷伊（Christopher Wray）周一晚间在里根总统图书馆发表讲话，对中国政府予以严厉斥责。其讲话也表明，尽管外交政策仍被俄乌紧张局势牵制，但美国仍将中国视为长期经济安全的最大威胁。

据FBI提供的一份讲话文本，雷伊表示，"我们在统计中看到，超过2000项调查涉及中国政府试图偷窃信息或技术。没有哪个国家像中国那样对我们的点子、创新和经济安全构成如此广泛的威胁。"

他说，联邦调查局每12小时就会接到一个对抗中国情报行动的新案件，中国政府黑客窃取的个人和公司数据比其他所有国家的总和还要多。

雷伊表示，中国政府经济间谍的危害不仅在于他们的企业靠着非法获得的技术领先，还在于把美国的企业和工人甩在后面，"公司倒闭、工作岗位流失这些伤害在过去十几年日积月累，形成了我们今天所感受到的挤压。全国各行各业的工人都感受到了。"

中国政府官员一再驳斥美国政府的指责。中国驻华盛顿大使馆去年7月发表声明称，美国方面  "毫无根据"地攻击和恶意抹黑，并称中国是 "网络安全的坚定捍卫者"。

威胁已经上升到一个新高度

雷伊在讲话中还表示，自从他2017年担任联邦调查局局长以来，已谈过很多关来自于中国政府的威胁，"但我今晚想在这里集中讨论它，因为这种威胁已经上升到一个新高度，比以往任何时候更加肆无忌惮，更具破坏性。我们所有人都必须关注这一威胁，这一点至关重要。"

雷伊还谈到去年11月一名中国情报人员被判定试图密谋盗取通用电气先进发动机商业机密，犯有经济间谍罪的案子。该情报人员为江苏省国家安全厅六局副处长徐延军(音译，Yanjun Xu，又译徐彦君 )，2018年4月在比利时被捕，六个月后被引渡到美国接受审判，是首位被引渡至美国接受审判的中国情报官员。

雷伊也谈到，该局正在努力保护美国学院和大学的学术研究和创新，但他没有提及备受批评的中国倡议。中国倡议由美国司法部2018年发起，目的在于打击经济间谍活动，并防止研究被盗，但批评者指责调查人员基于种族对研究人员和教授进行审查。本月早些时候，检察官以"无法承担在审判中的举证责任"为由撤销了针对华裔教授陈刚（Gang Chen）犯有电信欺诈、未报告外国银行账户和做虚假陈述的刑事指控。目前，美国司法部正在对"中国倡议"的命运进行审查，预计很快将公布结果。

雷伊在讲话中也指出，"中国政府和中国共产党是我们（需要）重点打击的威胁，而不是中国人民，当然也不是华裔美国人。

What are the true facts of drugs in beef

 

Antibiotics and Hormones in Beef

 

Today we're headed out to the farm, to have a look at that poster child of so many controversies: the beef cow. For better or worse, beef feeds many people around the world, and its production has become a massive industrial engine. Today we're going to focus on just one small part of that engine: the use of drugs in these cattle, for veterinary, growth, or other purposes. It's a practice that has exploded onto the pop foodie scene, and been portrayed as both a terrible danger to humans and an animal rights catastrophe, especially by the organic and all-natural lobbies. Some trumpet the perils of eating beef loaded with hormones; others fear the creation of antibiotic-resistant superbugs. What are the true facts of drugs in beef, and should you be concerned about them?

It's important to preface this topic with some acknowledgements: there are some very good reasons why beef is, strategically, a bad food product. Meat production, even as a percentage of the totality of all livestock industries, has a huge environmental impact. About a quarter of the world's land is used for grazing. A third of all planted crops worldwide go to feed livestock. It's the major driver of deforestation. A tenth of all fresh water goes to support livestock and their feed crops. A shocking 15% of greenhouse gases come from livestock. All of that produces polluted waste water and runoff, and consumes energy to operate. The beef industry truly is the big bully who grabs far more than his share of resources. However, this imbalance is what the market has chosen.

I point out these facts as a dedicated meat lover. I will eat filet mignons all day long. Like everyone, I strike a balance between the things I enjoy and their cost. But just as I don't allow my love of steak to cloud my awareness of the environmental impact of beef, neither should the beef opponents make up untrue facts to poison the well and portray beef as even worse than it is. As with many Skeptoid topics, a poor understanding of the facts of a problem lead to poor solutions. Whether you want to eat steak all day long, or you want it abolished from the food system, it is in your best interest to have a correct understanding of the facts, including the pros and cons of using antibiotics and hormones in the husbandry of beef cattle.

The most common beliefs among the general public are twofold: first, that growth hormones are given to cattle to make them grow faster, and that these hormones might cause endocrine problems in the people who consume the meat; and second, that antibiotics are given to cattle because it's cheaper than keeping them in clean, humane conditions, and these antibiotics represent an overuse that leads to resistant superbugs who present a danger to human health. As in so many subjects, there are elements of truth to this, elements of fiction, and parts of it that are misunderstood and sound a lot scarier than they really are.

Let's start with the antibiotic resistance. Anytime antibiotics are used to fight bacteria, there is usually a small number of those bacteria who happen to be resistant to that antibiotic. When that antibiotic is used a lot, the resistant bacteria gradually become the majority, and then we have a real problem: an infection that we can't fight. We already see this happening in medicine. It's an arms race between molecular biologists and evolving bacteria strains. The best defense is to always use antibiotics as infrequently as possible.

But cattle get sick, just like people do. In the cattle ranching industry, cattle are the industry; they are the valuable asset. We don't let them get sick and die if we can help it. So veterinarians are obviously a big part of cattle ranching. And antibiotics are, just like in humans, one of the essential tools to fight infections.

One concern activists have raised about this treatment is that resistant bacteria in the beef might make it all the way through the production process, end up in someone's steak, and give that person a bacterial infection. While it's true that a cow so treated might conceivably end up with a resistant infection, such an infection could only pose a threat to the consumer if the beef was consumed raw. This is the case with eating any animal meat, and always has been and always will be. At least if the cow had been treated, fewer bacteria would remain. Risk of contamination is one important reason why, thousands of years ago, we learned to cook our meat. Cook your beef (and any other meat) like a civilized person, and you don't have a significant concern about bacteria.

Some people are also concerned that even if no bacteria are making it through, there might be residue from the antibiotic that stays in the beef, gets eaten by people, and then promotes the growth of resistant bacteria in those people. Fortunately, this does not happen at all. Antibiotics are metabolized very rapidly by humans and animals. That's why your doctor gives you a bottle and you have to take several pills a day; the pharmacokinetics are such that there's not enough left in your system after only a few hours or days at the most. When cattle are treated with antibiotics, these pharmacokinetics are the same. But we don't take any risks here. Cattle given antibiotics are subject to what's called a withdrawal time, a waiting period where that cow cannot go into food production until we're sure there are no antibiotics left in its system. Depending on what drug is given, this withdrawal time is anywhere from 0 to 60 days. By the time any cow goes into food production, there's no antibiotic in its system.

But we take it even one step further than that. Nearly all ranchers in the United States follow the Beef Quality Assurance program, a set of guidelines for the safest practical beef production. One of these rules is that cattle should never be treated with antibiotics that are also used in human healthcare. This guarantees that even if a cow did somehow slip through the cracks and went into food production before all the antibiotics had gone through its system, and even if a person did consume that beef and got some of that antibiotic into their system, there's no way it could contribute to a population of bacteria resistant to any type of antibiotic that person might be prescribed.

The Beef Quality Assurance guidelines also recommend treating the fewest number of animals necessary. This one is easy for ranchers to follow, since antibiotics are expensive and nobody wants to spend money they don't have to spend.

Never say never, but the combination of the safeguards required by industry and the science of metabolism mean that the chances of beef production resulting in an outbreak of antibiotic resistant bacteria dangerous to humans are virtually nonexistent. What's far more likely, and what actually does happen in the real world, is bacterial contamination of meat and other foods from packaging and handling. Clean and cook your food well, and veterinary treatment of cattle with antibiotics is a concern that you can realistically cross off your list.

The other common belief about drugs given to cattle has to do with growth hormones. It is true that both natural and synthetic versions of estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone are used in most beef cattle in most countries. These are preferred because they occur naturally in cattle, just as they do in humans, so they're not a foreign substance. They are essentially the same thing as the anabolic steroids used by some bodybuilders. The main difference is the dose. A 100kg bodybuilder will sometimes take more than 1,000mg each week, while a 900kg beef cow is given a single 200mg pellet implanted under the skin of the ear which dissolves over a period of 100 to 365 days, depending on the type. (Note on these dosage ballparks: bodybuilders' doses vary wildly, and there are smaller doses than this for certain cattle.) Do the math. It's common for a human bodybuilder to take 650 times the maximum allowable dose that ranchers give to beef cattle.

In broad strokes, this is the long and the short of the reasoning behind why there's no need for concern about hormones given to beef. We give cattle very small doses, even smaller than the doses given to postmenopausal women; and it's a compound naturally produced the body anyway. That dose is not up to the ranchers to ratchet up if they want; it's established by law. Cattle on this regimen have a zero-day withdrawal time, meaning they are safe for food production at any time, as the level of hormone in the meat is well below maximum safe levels. The variation in naturally occurring hormone levels in different kinds of meat — fish, fowl, pork, beef — and even in cattle of different ages and breeds — is much greater than the difference between treated and untreated cattle.

Even if — by some process outside normal beef production — an excess level of hormones did get into the beef, some of it would be broken down by cooking, and most of what remained would not survive digestion. Hormones taken orally get metabolized, mostly by the intestines and the liver. This is why when we take hormones, they're often delivered via a patch or an implant or some other mechanism that bypasses the digestive system. It's also the reason they're given to livestock via an implant.

So unless you are eating a competitive bodybuilder — and in fact, not even eating him, but putting a sample of his muscle tissue under your skin as an implant — there is no plausible way that you can suffer any kind of an endocrine problem from eating normally produced beef.

I'll go a step further. The anti-beef lobby should, if anything, embrace the use of hormones on beef, because it reduces the time needed to bring them to market. This has a butterfly effect that improves all of those many impacts caused by the beef industry.

Beef has been a staple throughout human history, yet its production has seen only limited improvement in efficiency over the centuries. There are alternate red meats with a far lower environmental impact (kangaroo is one of which I'm especially fond), and obviously there are alternate diets that don't include red meat at all. There are fine fact-based reasons why we should look seriously into moving away from beef from cattle, and these are ones that the anti-beef lobby should focus on. Claiming harm to human consumers from drugs given to beef cattle simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny as a valid argument.

Brian Dunning

王岐山还会安然无恙吗？

 

董宏被判死缓 王岐山还会安然无恙吗？

 

董宏是王岐山当之无愧的“大秘”，他被判处死缓了。这件事引发的思考是，王岐山与董宏仕途高度交集，应唇亡齿寒，王岐山还会安然无恙吗？这件事引发的另外一个思考是，王岐山曾经是习近平的亲密伙伴，但他后来为什么被逐渐被边缘化了？

董宏是一个“亿级贪官”，被指贪污4.6亿元，这并不让人惊讶，中共高级干部里出的贪官，这几年一个比一个贪，有过之而无不及，像民间流传的，越反越贪。这起案子引起外界关注的，主要是董宏与曾经的中共“反贪大统帅”王岐山密集的仕途交集，

董宏被指贪污的时间线，与王岐山的外放、进京，再外放，再进京，密集交集，王岐山升为常委，担任中纪委书记，董宏本应到退休年龄，转升为副部级纪律检查员。很诡秘的是，青岛检察院起诉的时候，是把董宏的“敛财”图开始时间定在海南，但最终扩至此前的广东，这就从头到尾完全与王岐山做官图重合了。

青岛市人民检察院起诉书称，董宏犯罪的时间涉及1999年至2020年，“利用担任广东国际信托投资公司破产清算组成员、海南省委副秘书长、北京市人民政府副秘书长、原中央文献研究室副主任、中央巡视组副组长等职务上的便利以及职权、地位形成的便利条件”谋取利益。

官媒报道时也强调这样一个细节，这次受审时，“董宏敛财时间节点发生了变化——他在担任“广东国际信托投资公司破产清算组成员”时就已经开始收钱了。“从海南一下子提前到广东。这个时间线很有意味。

这意味着，董宏开始贪污的时间是1999年，他担任广东国际信托投资公司破产清算组成员时期，而同一时间，王岐山正在担任广东省委常委、副省长。此前的1998年，董宏出任广东省政府发展研究中心副主任，当时王岐山出任广东省副省长。

根据官媒『环球人物』此前报道，广信破产清算是在王岐山空降广东期间主持进行的，这被视为他的一大政绩。从以后董宏几乎跟着王岐山调动而调动的节奏来看，两人在彼时结下了密切的关系。

第二个“敛财”时间点，是董宏在海南省委担任副秘书长期间，这正是王岐山空降海南，在2002-2003担任海南省委书记、省人大常委会主任期间，董宏成了王岐山名副其实的大秘。

第三个“敛财”时间点，是董宏担任北京人民政府副秘书长期间，这时候，王岐山返回北京，于2003-2004担任北京市委副书记、代市长，王岐山2004-2007成为北京市委副书记，市长，董宏继续是王岐山的大秘。

期间，董宏于2006年离开王岐山，出任中央文献研究室副主任，官至副部级，合理的推算，他的提拔应与他的上司王岐山有密切的关系，当然，这只是推算。

王岐山后来一路狂飙高升，先入政治局，2012年中共十八大成为政治局常委，中共中央纪律检查委员会书记，非常值得注意的一个细节是，2013年，董宏60岁，应该是副部级官员退休的年龄，也就在这一年，王岐山刚刚出任中纪委书记，董宏被召入中纪委中央巡视组，参与并指导多轮巡视工作。

根据官媒报道，董宏正式落马的时间是2020年10月，中纪委官网称，“中央巡视组原副部级巡视专员董宏涉嫌严重违纪违法，目前正接受中央纪委国家监委纪律审查和监察调查。”官媒报道后来称，“这个副部级内鬼，开始备受外界关注”。

“内鬼”在某种程度上相当于“内奸”，董宏被视为内奸，肯定要比官方给出的这个时间早得多。他以中纪委副部级巡视专员、让官员闻风丧胆的身份，究竟在什么事情上触犯了“天条”而被视为“内奸”的？是否与王岐山卷入党内斗争有关，这是值得疑问的。

司法机关或者官媒为什么直到很晚才公布董宏的履历表，难道不想让人们发现他与王岐山仕途的高度交集，现在又公布的如此仔细，且把犯罪敛财时间追加到广东，这又意味着什么？

审判员的判词中还有一句很蹊跷的话，大约是说，董宏被轻判，是因为他自动投案，交代很好等等。轻判，董宏被判了死缓，这说明本应要给董宏定死罪的，为什么宽大处理了，因为自动投案，因为坦白得好。之前被执行死刑的赖小民就没有这样的运气，他也被指主动坦白等等，但照旧执行死刑，为什么董宏得到了宽大？

有分析怀疑董宏交代出一些有关王岐山的重要秘密，但目前缺乏证据支撑，但有一点许多观察人士都指出过，王岐山的确被习近平边缘化了，习近平为什么要把这样一位帮他清扫独揽大权路上所有障碍的功臣边缘化呢？紧接着而来的一个疑问是，既然王已经边缘化了，还有必要像不少分析人士所推测的，习近平要彻底打倒王岐山吗？

19大，“超过年龄界限”的王岐山从政治局常委退下，但是次年“光荣重返”，担任闲职的国家副主席，这是习为了感谢王岐山襄助之功，还是要把王岐山宁肯放在近旁比他在外边更放心的原因？众所周知，王岐山因其才干有“救火队长”之称，他不仅帮助习近平“定点拔除”一个个党内高官，甚至19大2中全会突击修宪废除国家主席任期制，也被认为是王岐山的点子。

有些分析认为，王岐山的种种“才干”，导致“功高震主”，所以被习不喜，再加上他与自由派人士，甚至一些公知人物，比如因批评习近平是“一位剥光了衣服也要坚持当皇帝的小丑”而被判刑18年的任志强曾有的个人关系，也导致王岐山被边缘化。

官媒多维引述分析人士称，董宏2006年离开王岐山出任中央文献研究室副主任，官至副部级，因其不在王岐山身边工作，案件不会波及王岐山。这一分析似乎忽略了董宏2013年重新向王岐山靠拢，担任中纪委副部级巡视员的事实。

但是，习近平真想要整掉王岐山吗，仍然存在很多疑问。在中共20大召开之前，还有观察的时间。一些政治学者认为，中共20大之前党内斗争更加激烈。加拿大维多利亚大学政治系教授吴国光对自由亚洲表示，在明年20大前，很可能是夏天以前，如果有中共政治局委员或是前任政治局常委被查，都不会令人惊讶。