Beware the Trojan Panda

Today our coverage of China-Taiwan relations converges with our continuing panda coverage. The L.A. Times reports:

China’s latest weapon in its increasingly effective charm offensive against Taiwan is an offer of giant pandas. Who would think of turning down two lovable animals that zoos around the world can only dream about, you might ask?

The government of archrival Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian, for one, which finds itself tied in knots over the offer. Let one panda’s nose in the tent, Chen and his allies fear, and you buy into Beijing’s claim that Taiwan is part of China, a notion impossible for the pro-independence government on the island to accept.

“The pandas are a trick, just like the Trojan horse,” said lawmaker Huang Shi-cho of the Taiwan Solidarity Union party. “Pandas are cute, but they are meant to destroy Taiwan’s psychological defenses.”

Huh? Trojan pandas? It seems to us that pandas aren’t really in need of Trojans:

The species has earned the nickname “living fossils” for having an inefficient reproductive system, with captive males showing little interest in sex, and females in heat only a few days a year. Foreign scientists working with the Chinese have made advances in artificial insemination, while Chinese keepers have taken a different tack: panda “porn” videos to get them in the mood.

Panda porn? “Mei Xiang Does Manchuria”? Try not to think too hard about that, people.

Attack of the Pandas [LAT]

Earlier: Because Taiwan Is Always Getting Screwed By the U.S.
That Buttery Goodness Doesn’t Come Cheap
Metro Section: Stinky Panda Porn

READ MORE: addicted to pandas, butterstick, china, panda, pandas, porn, taiwan

That Buttery Goodness Doesn’t Come Cheap

We feel guilty covering Butterstick — and pandas more generally, such as Zoo Atlanta’s Yang Yang and Lun Lun, shown above — in the absence of a news hook. But now the New York Times has absolved us of guilt, with an article whose twee title — “Eats Shoots, Leaves, and Much of Zoos’ Budgets” — belies its hard-hitting nature.

The Times piece focuses on the high fees that American zoos must pay to the Chinese government to rent giant pandas. Yang Yang and Lun Lun, for example, earn $2 million a year for their government. And who knows how much they could rake in if they had a good agent?

What justifies these exorbitant fees? The Times explains:

Giant pandas are indisputably popular. Two months ago, the public snapped up 13,000 tickets to see Tai Shan, born at the National Zoo in Washington last July, in just two hours. Later that day the free tickets were being traded on eBay for as much as $200 each. [W]hen people cannot make it through the gates, self-described pandaholics blog with doe-eyed ardor about the bears or stay glued to the zoos’ panda Web cams.

The Times piece raises an interesting question: Is our national obsession with pandas leading us to subsidize an oppressive regime?

Addiction to oil? What a joke! Here’s the real question: Is the United States “addicted to pandas”?

Eats Shoots, Leaves, and Much of Zoos’ Budgets [NYT]

READ MORE: addicted to pandas, butterstick, panda, panda withdrawal syndrome, pandaholics, pandas