Very good libertarian view of the current financial crisis

 

 

Bailout marks Karl Marx's comeback
Marx’s Proposal Number Five seems to be the leading motivation for those backing the Wall Street bailout

By Martin Masse

In his Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, Karl Marx proposed 10 measures to be implemented after the proletariat takes power, with the aim of centralizing all instruments of production in the hands of the state. Proposal Number Five was to bring about the “centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.”

If he were to rise from the dead today, Marx might be delighted to discover that most economists and financial commentators, including many who claim to favour the free market, agree with him.

Indeed, analysts at the Heritage and Cato Institute, and commentators in The Wall Street Journal and on this very page, have made declarations in favour of the massive “injection of liquidities” engineered by central banks in recent months, the government takeover of giant financial institutions, as well as the still stalled US$700-billion bailout package. Some of the same voices were calling for similar interventions following the burst of the dot-com bubble in 2001.

“Whatever happened to the modern followers of my free-market opponents?” Marx would likely wonder.

At first glance, anyone who understands economics can see that there is something wrong with this picture. The taxes that will need to be levied to finance this package may keep some firms alive, but they will siphon off capital, kill jobs and make businesses less productive elsewhere. Increasing the money supply is no different. It is an invisible tax that redistributes resources to debtors and those who made unwise investments.

So why throw this sound free-market analysis overboard as soon as there is some downturn in the markets?

The rationale for intervening always seems to centre on the fear of reliving the Great Depression. If we let too many institutions fail because of insolvency, we are being told, there is a risk of a general collapse of financial markets, with the subsequent drying up of credit and the catastrophic effects this would have on all sectors of production. This opinion, shared by Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson and most of the right-wing political and financial establishments, is based on Milton Friedman’s thesis that the Fed aggravated the Depression by not pumping enough money into the financial system following the market crash of 1929.

It sounds libertarian enough. The misguided policies of the Fed, a government creature, and bad government regulation are held responsible for the crisis. The need to respond to this emergency and keep markets running overrides concerns about taxing and inflating the money supply. This is supposed to contrast with the left-wing Keynesian approach, whose solutions are strangely very similar despite a different view of the causes.

But there is another approach that doesn’t compromise with free-market principles and coherently explains why we constantly get into these bubble situations followed by a crash. It is centered on Marx’s Proposal Number Five: government control of capital.

For decades, Austrian School economists have warned against the dire consequences of having a central banking system based on fiat money, money that is not grounded on any commodity like gold and can easily be manipulated. In addition to its obvious disadvantages (price inflation, debasement of the currency, etc.), easy credit and artificially low interest rates send wrong signals to investors and exacerbate business cycles.

Not only is the central bank constantly creating money out of thin air, but the fractional reserve system allows financial institutions to increase credit many times over. When money creation is sustained, a financial bubble begins to feed on itself, higher prices allowing the owners of inflated titles to spend and borrow more, leading to more credit creation and to even higher prices.

As prices get distorted, malinvestments, or investments that should not have been made under normal market conditions, accumulate. Despite this, financial institutions have an incentive to join this frenzy of irresponsible lending, or else they will lose market shares to competitors. With “liquidities” in overabundance, more and more risky decisions are made to increase yields and leveraging reaches dangerous levels.

During that manic phase, everybody seems to believe that the boom will go on. Only the Austrians warn that it cannot last forever, as Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises did before the 1929 crash, and as their followers have done for the past several years.

Now, what should be done when that pyramidal scheme starts crashing to the floor, because of a series of cascading failures or concern from the central bank that inflation is getting out of control? It’s obvious that credit will shrink, because everyone will want to get out of risky businesses, to call back loans and to put their money in safe places. Malinvestments have to be liquidated; prices have to come down to realistic levels; and resources stuck in unproductive uses have to be freed and moved to sectors that have real demand. Only then will capital again become available for productive investments.

Friedmanites, who have no conception of malinvestments and never raise any issue with the boom, also cannot understand why it inevitably leads to a crash.

They only see the drying up of credit and blame the Fed for not injecting massive enough amounts of liquidities to prevent it.

But central banks and governments cannot transform unprofitable investments into profitable ones. They cannot force institutions to increase lending when they are so exposed. This is why calls for throwing more money at the problem are so totally misguided. Injections of liquidities started more than a year ago and have had no effect in preventing the situation from getting worse. Such measures can only delay the market correction and turn what should be a quick recession into a prolonged one.

Friedman — who, contrary to popular perception, was not a foe of monetary inflation, but simply wanted to keep it under better control in normal circumstances — was wrong about the Fed not intervening during the Depression. It tried repeatedly to inflate but credit still went down for various reasons. This is a key difference in interpretation between the Austrian and Chicago schools.

As Friedrich Hayek wrote in 1932, “Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion. ... To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about ...”

The confusion of Chicago school economics on monetary issues is so profound as to lead its adherents today to support the largest government grab of private capital in world history. By adding their voices to those on the left, these confused free-marketeers are not helping to “save capitalism”, but contributing to its destruction.

Financial Post
Martin Masse is publisher of the libertarian webzine Le Québécois Libre and a former advisor to Industry minister Maxime Bernier.

夏天去洛基山国家公园(Rocky Mountain NP)的。去冰川国家公园（Glacier NP)还没整理完。

小动物的照片很可爱吧？不全是我拍的

 

不看照片，都觉得已经过去很遥远了啊。

 

 

跛脚鸭布什总统终于有机会实现他的“Legacy”了，过去一周，布什带领美国人民实现了毛泽东用枪杆子打了二十多年才实现的共产主义理想。290亿美元协助Bear stern被收购，2000亿美元接管Fannie Mae和Freddie Mac，850亿美元注资AIG，新出台的措施还将进一步收购投资银行的所有坏账不良资产，为亏损的共同基金作保（”with hundreds of billions of dollars” - Paulson）。一夜之间，美国政府正成为世界上最大的金融、保险业股东和房贷发放人，美国今天和未来几代纳税人的钱将被用于购建有史以来最大的金融垃圾场，而政府在华尔街的朋友们得以轻松洗脱坏债，继续他们高风险的盛宴狂欢。

 

“非常时期需要史无前例的举措。”布什和保尔森这样为他们的国有化措施辩护。

 

真的是史无前例吗？这个宣言听起来非常耳熟。没错，上一次美国政府进行大规模国有化是在75年前罗斯福总统上台宣誓与大萧条作斗争的时候，用了几乎一模一样的措辞。

 

我在社会主义国家接受的历史和政治教育，所以印象里总是有罗斯福是和华盛顿、林肯齐驱的伟大总统的先见。政府干预在资本主义的经济衰退时期真的有效吗？这和我后来自己看书和跟人讨论形成的对自由市场的信念有左，所以我又翻看了在这边出版的一些非主流历史书和史料，才明白我所受到的教育，看来是为了党为了向下一代突出“社中有资，资中有社”的伟大纲领而对罗斯福和他的“新政（new deal）”历史进行了一定的美化，而美国的主流历史，也已被左派自由派进行了篡改，为后来的奥巴马之类的社会主义宏图伟志作好铺垫（包括布什，从这次他干预经济如此aggressive的举措看，他是不折不扣的social conservative & fiscal socialist）。

 

大家常有的一个疑问是，29年美国的股市崩溃，为什么引起了历时这么久影响这么深远的经济萧条？当时经济危机对资本主义国家已经不是新问题了，20~21年美国也经历了类似的股市动荡和经济危机，但是在当年基本就调整过来了。一个标准的教科书解释是，当时共和党胡佛总统的“不作为”，继续试图让市场进行自行调节，才导致经济危机愈加深重引起旷日持久的萧条。事实是，跟罗斯福新政的伟大一样，这是一个被说了无数遍后变成真理的大谎言。

 

跟“不作为”指责恰恰相反的是，胡佛是一个大力干预积极有“作为”的总统。他在股市崩溃的当月，第一个举措就是要求所有的企业不得降低工人工资，其理论依据是保护工人家庭和防止购买力下降；接下来为了解决当时农民收入水平低的状况，他成立了联邦农业委员会(FFB), 通过稳定谷物公司(Grain Stabilization Corp.) 用大大高于市场的价格向农民收购谷物以提高其收入；更重要的，O Fan们或许会乐意看到的，1932 Revenue Act, 将柯立支时期25%的最高所得税税率提高到了63%！同时成立Reconstruction Finance Corp将征税所得向面临崩溃的行业例如铁路、银行等大量注资。（有没有觉得听起来有一种恐怖的耳熟？）这是一个“不作为”总统的政策吗？如果假以时日，胡佛所作的，恰恰将使他成为另一个“罗斯福”，或者也会被正名载入史册呢！

 

但恰恰是胡佛总统的大力“作为”，为美国经济带来的灾难性的后果：企业不能降低最低工资，生产成本在衰退的经济和疲软的购买力下不能被cover,  最后只能裁员或关门大吉；政府收购了大量的粮食，又不能向市场投放（这样谷物的价格马上就会下降），只能倒掉毁掉，所以才会出现一边是粮价高涨，人民饥荒，一边却是大量谷物被销毁的资本主义奇景（但是始作俑者却不是我们小时候被教育的黑心资本家，而是试图干预市场的政府！）；因为高税收，没有任何市场投资活动，而政府注资的企业最后还是纷纷倒闭，美国在29年到33年间，生产力下降了超过55%！

 

对比下来，20年的哈定总统才是真正的“无为而治”。20年股市衰退发生的时候，他所作的，就是减缩政府开支，除此之外就没了。虽然哈定在历史上属于被遗忘的总统之列，但是从哈定到柯立支，最高税率从一战后的73%退到40%到25%，最低税率从6%退到0.3%，百姓得到的实惠是实实在在的。而20年代也正是美国物质极大繁荣的资本主义黄金时代。这跟中国的历史教训类似，想要名留青史的皇帝往往给人民带来的是灾难，而汉文景这样“不作为”的皇帝倒真的带给百姓安居乐业。

 

罗斯福上台后推行的全国产业复兴法（National Industrial Recovery Act），从很大程度上说是对胡佛政策的进一步推广深入。不同的是，胡佛的政策还带着羞羞答答的资本主义外套，没有用政府资金直接在市场进行投资生产活动，罗斯福则是全盘干预金融和农业，并启动了规模庞大的政府工程企图解决失业问题。

 

在金融方面，在就职后的第三天，罗斯福即宣布全国银行“休假”，之后，国会通过紧急银行法令，对银行采取个别审查、颁发许可证制度，对有偿付能力的银行，允许尽快复业。之后通过的一系列总统令和国会法案，33年银行法，35年银行法等，包括建立由联邦承担责任的联邦储备体系（FDIC就是这么来的）和废除gold standard，统一价格收购民间黄金，等等。这些措施，被自由市场经济学家佛里德曼称为“the wrong cure for the wrong disease”，但客观地说应该有一定的效果，短期内银行信用开始恢复，存款增加，但由于对银行具体业务的细致规范，同时带来的是一年多内有4000多家农村中小银行倒闭或被兼并，大银行也被业务拆分丧失一部分竞争力。需要指出的是，罗斯福做的是审查规范银行，而没有接管！今天布什政府的举措比之当时更近了一步，其“历史意义”更是无法衡量。

 

农业方面，新政初的33 年，政府在春夏两季有计划地犁掉了大约1000万英亩棉田，收购和屠宰了大约20多万头即将临产的母猪和600多万头小猪，几千万头牛和羊，并给闲置耕地的农场主提供大量补贴让他们保持不产出。这还是保护农产品价格和提高农民收入的举措。从短期来看，农民（主要是能得到政府补贴的大农场主）的收入几乎增长了50%，但这中间，2/3的收入增长来自于政府补贴，纳税人的钱，另1/3来自转嫁到市场的高价。也就是说，所有大量还处于失业状态的其他百姓在为政府的振兴农业计划买单。同样的，一边有人在挨饿，一边却是大量的牲畜谷物被浪费，计划经济的伟大成果！而至今，农场主的闲置耕田还从政府得到各种各样的earmark 项目补助，就是“新政”的一脉相传。

 

罗斯福政府对农业和其他行业的定价控制到了什么程度呢？1942年有一个著名的Wickard v. Filburn 案。到40年的时候国家已经对每个农场每年可以种植某种谷物的亩数，和每亩产量，都有了规定(allotment)。但41年有个叫Filburn的农民在自家的耕地上多收了几十Bushels，按规定应该销毁。Filburn 不服，上诉到最高法院，认为自己种的粮食，自己家里用，并没有来扰乱政府的市场规范。最高法院裁定Filburn有罪，因为如果没有这些粮食，Filburn就会从市场上去购买；现在这些多余粮食导致他没有去购买，所以还是一种扰乱市场的行为。是不是听起来还是有点耳熟？没错，我爷爷在60年的时候自己在宅前种了几棵小黄瓜，被抓去教育一星期，名为“割资本主义尾巴”，原来是从罗斯福这里来的！新政时代被抓起来坐牢的还有偷偷降价的商人，和家里藏了黄金没有上交的居民。是不是跟我们耳熟能详的“打击投机倒把”很像？

 

被许多国人津津乐道的罗斯福“以工代赈”的大型工程项目，国家投资，是不是真的创造了“新的”工作岗位和机会呢？许多左派历史学家试图用不同的统计方法掩盖的事实是，在罗斯福新政期间，失业率从来没有真正提高过。从33年到40年，美国的平均失业率都在18%左右，不过稍稍好于29~33年大萧条时期的最坏程度。这个数字，一直到二战开始，才锐减至小于1%，因为22%的劳动力都被送去战场了！这期间，罗斯福政府创造了惊人的增税纪录，联邦税从1933年的16亿美元激增到1940年的53亿美元！所以所谓的政府投资，只是把纳税人的钱通过往往贪污低效的政府项目转移到另外一些人口袋里，每一个“新创造”的工作机会，只是用来被取代原来私有产业中的另一些工作机会，或者私人资本本来能创造的另一些工作机会。从短期来说，能够迅速创造一些岗位，因为政府投资是OPM (other people’s money)，不需要像私人资本投资那样等待、调研、选择项目和时机，但对长期经济的增长起到的是“饮鸠止渴”的作用。

 

奥巴马提出了跟罗斯福的大工业计划类似的宏伟蓝图，政府要在未来10年内投资1500亿美元在新能源，投资600亿美元在基础建设，来创造500万个“新”的工作岗位，并许诺这些岗位是”clean and permanent”。有了“新政”的前例，我们是不是应该要求奥教主许诺一个失业率控制来得更稳妥一些呢？

 

因为这些“新政”的短期效果，33年后美国经济开始恢复，但很快到37年又步入衰退。即使在37年新政最高峰，国民生产力还是低于29年以前美国的经济水平。而同样经历的29年萧条的西方其他资本主义国家，英国到1938年生产力已超出29年的20%了，德国，在32年受损程度跟美国相当，到38年也已恢复到超出29年的15%了。如果罗斯福新政真的有效，美国经济的恢复不应该如此缓慢和反复才对！

 

今天美国面临的金融危机，其严重性已经被用来与29年大萧条相提并论了。而历史如此惊人的相似性，更让我心怀沉重。今天布什政府对金融市场的介入，已经大大超出了胡佛的“作为”了，如果大选后奥巴马上台后推行他的宏伟“新政”，那么美国所面临的，将不仅仅是暂时的经济衰退，而是灾难性的萧条。到时候难道需要第三次世界大战来拯救美国经济？很难说奥巴马会不会创造出一个来成就他的个人伟业！

 

 

本文主要参考了

The American Enterprise online. http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17324/article_detail.asp

Thomas E. Woods, The politically incorrect guide to American history

Milton Friedman, From New Deal Banking Reform to World War II Inflation

和其他一些网路资料。有兴趣的同学可以找原文来读一读。

 

 

共和党全国大会过去三天，盖洛普民调显示，麦肯从大会前的落后奥巴马6点到今天的领先3点（McCain/Obama:  8/31, 42%/48%；9/6, 48%/45%）。从出其不意地选择黑马阿拉斯加州长莎拉·佩林当副总统候选人，到精心选择大会基调“以国为先”与民主党大会个人英雄式的华丽舞台形成鲜明对比，从几位落选初选候选人对麦肯全力支持和攻击民主党的演讲，到佩林充满激情和力量、令人惊艳的初次亮相演说，最后麦肯登台细述竞选纲领和在各个领域的政策，许诺带领人民战斗度过困难期，这一次RNC 的策划组织，将被作为完美案例列入美国总统竞选的教科书，不管最后竞选结果如何。

 中间非常微妙但是慢慢在民调和民主党的应对中显示出效果的，是此次共和党大会在短短不到一周的时间内，把奥巴马一直高举的“改变”大旗罗入了麦肯/佩林名下。佩林在周三的演讲和麦肯紧接着第二天的演讲，其实有一个连贯的主题，就是这一对搭档将真正地将变革带入华盛顿，重建共和党小政府和保守财税政策的传统，为民众的生活而不是华盛顿的政客谋福利。自全国选举开始以来，奥巴马一派（包括大量号称中立的自由派左派媒体）一直的策略是试图把麦肯描述成布什第二而让大量中间派和对现今美国经济和外交深感失望的选民投向民主党。现在左派正面临着一策略破产的恐慌中，这从近几天自由派媒体对佩林几近疯狂的污蔑和人身攻击中可见一斑。

 说到change, 除了宗教信仰式的口号，(change we can believe in), 略有常识的选民要问：第一，什么样的变化？是好的还是坏的变化？第二，候选人有什么样的业绩(track record) 和品格能力（characters）能够保证他/她许诺的变化？

 奥巴马的许诺在大多数时候是含糊不清的，在不同的场合下能有自称的 “fine tune”。他津津乐道的最大“change” ，莫过于结束布什政府不受欢迎的伊拉克战争，在上任16个月内撤军。其他在税收、医保和能源方面的政策，也许将后面专文论述。

 布什发动了一场从战略上来说很重要但是超出了他自己的领导能力和获胜意志的伊拉克战争，如今民间的反战情绪，几乎可以跟越战相提并论。但是奥巴马上周在接受Bill O’Relly （O’Relly factor） 独家专访时也承受，美军正在伊拉克慢慢取得胜利。如果正如他所坚持的，在16个月后撤军，在伊拉克的反政府恐怖武装只需慢慢拖到16个月，修生养息等美军撤离后卷土重来，或者跟伊朗政府联手绞杀现伊拉克政府，那么美国在伊战的投入和现在取得的初步胜利就会全功尽弃，伊拉克人民面临的是种族灭绝式的恐怖屠杀，我们在美国面临的是稳步高攀的油价，和悬在头顶的下一次911。这样的变化，是每一个真心热爱和平的的人希望看到的吗？正如佩林指出的，每一次奥巴马谈到伊拉克和反恐战争，他从来没用过“胜利”一词。我仔细察看了他网上的”blueprint” ，他真的是全盘”finish the war at Iraq”, “finish the war with Bin Laden” . 是啊，只要你退败，你随时都可以暂时性地“结束战争”，但是只有真正“赢得战争”，你才能真正得到更长期的和平。奥巴马要给美国的“变化”，是从“初步胜利”到“全盘溃败”的变化。当然，奥巴马没有真的打过仗，要他理解这一点，也许要求高了点。

 麦肯从来没有给过美国人民（和敌人）一个肯定的日期，什么时候将撤出伊拉克，但是他带领美国赢得伊战和反恐战争的决心和意志从来没有动摇过。如果没有他从2003 初就对拉姆斯菲尔德的小投入零接触战略一直提出异议，如果没有他不惜牺牲自己的竞选一力倡导加大兵力投入，那么奥巴马也不会看到今天美军的胜利。他给美国带来的变化，将会是从在战争中裹足不前持续伤亡消耗，到决定性的赢得战争，在伊拉克建立自主亲美的民主政府，为美国的国土安全提供保证和下一阶段的能源战略提供支持。——当然我这是站在美国人民和国家利益角度的分析，如果你觉得虽然你在美国获得了教育找到了工作，定居下来成了公民，你还是站在中国的利益和“世界公民”的角度投票，你觉得只要没炸到你头上再来个911也没什么大不了的，那么投奥巴马吧，他会给你你要的“变化”的！

 第二，从这两对候选人组合的track record 和 character来看谁真正地有推动改革和变化的能力。麦肯是共和党内出名的标新立异者 (Maverick) ，曾有多次在国会和参议院跨党派合作推动改革议案的纪录，在重要政策上， 他不管是否迎合大众脾胃，总是坚持自己的观点。在伊战上坚持很久以来几乎是自己一个声音的立场就是一个很好的例子。他过去支持的政策有好有坏，有对有错，但是没有过为了迎合别人的意见违心投票或者退缩的纪录。佩林更是一个实干的改革者 (reformer)，她在阿拉斯加担任市长和州长期间一直勇于挑战现状，特别在减少政府开支、能源开发和反共和党党内腐败上有令人瞩目的成绩。她不是一个华盛顿的局内政客，麦肯将她带入全国政治舞台，也显示出其change status quo 的决心：他将不是布什和华盛顿腐朽政治的延续，而是锐意改革者。

 奥巴马是此次竞选中将“变化”挂在嘴上提得最多的候选人了。一开始这个策略为他迎来了无数的欢呼和掌声（甚至鸡皮疙瘩和奥普拉的热泪），他有着披“变化”外套的最好条件：黑人，年轻，在华盛顿时日不多，善于用激情演讲掌握听众人群，确实给令人厌烦的无聊政坛带来了一些新鲜感。然而在他一面高祭“变化”大旗时，一面人们却发现他奇迹般的政坛发迹史，跟芝加哥地产黑帮甚至中东的资金支持有着千丝万缕的联系 （见前文“奥巴马真的是理想主义者吗？”）；人们还发现，他在参议院短短两年的记录中，投了130多次弃权票 (present),  人们难道不会怀疑：这样对大多数issue 没有明确的主张，或者没有足够的勇气提出明确主张并坚持倡导之的 “present”er, 真的已经准备好成为世界上最强大国家的 “president” 并且推动他许诺的“变化”吗？奥巴马自己给出了最好的回答：第一，他号称自己在参加竞选后的19个月内，迅速成长并学到了很多东西，所以哪怕当时没ready, 他现在已经ready 了；第二，（哪怕没有真的ready），他选了一个号称外交经验丰富的副总统候选人 Jill Biden 来护航！用一个混迹华盛顿政坛最长而政绩乏善可陈的政客 (perfect representation of “old, big-spending, do-nothing, me-first, country-second Washington crowd”) 来给华盛顿带来改革和新风？恐怕只有脑子中了毒变mental disorder 的最左自由派才会自欺欺人继续相信和等待 Obama/Biden 的 Change 吧！难怪现在奥巴马只能用宗教号召了，“I’m asking you to believe, not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington… I’m asking you to believe in yours.”言下之意，别再指着我了，你自己看着办“改变”吧！好啊，普通选民要是自己有能力改变华盛顿，他干吗不去选总统而来选你呢？

 平心而论，民主党此次选举占尽天时地利，民众对胶着的伊拉克战争的失望和对经济现状的恐慌，将布什政府和共和党推到很被动的位置。任何一个有一定资历的候选人，如希拉里，可能都会轻易为民主党赢得选举，但是民主党左派太看重奥巴马的明星效应了，恐怕他们一度都轻信民众会买奥巴马的“改变”支票吧。如今随着选举的进一步推进，一个经验不足，缺乏信心（选Biden 当 running mate）,却沉醉于自己个人光环（不选希拉里，怕分去媒体关注和以后权力）的奥巴马，逐渐展现在公众面前。民主党可以怪麦肯取巧，抢去了“change” 的名头，但是根本上，是他们让一个（后来两个）演说很漂亮的候选人，吹出了一个“改变”的大泡泡而没有什么真的内容和实行力在里面，最后只能把“change” 拱手送人。

 有意思的是，共和党号称在民主党大会过后的 Denver 捡到了12 大袋被随便丢弃在垃圾箱里和路边的美国国旗，并且大张旗鼓要解救和重新利用这些国旗。民主党的应对也很有意思，他们没有否认这些国旗原本属于他们，而是指责共和党“偷走”了这些国旗。接下来，我们知是不是也要听到奥巴马指责麦肯偷走了他” change” 的原创呢？Too bad, Barry, it’s who can deliver it, not who first said it!

 最后，用候选人自己对 “change “ 的表述可以最好地总结我的观点：

Obama: “If you will knock on doors with me and make phone calls with me, if you'll talk to your neighbors and your friends with me, if you'll believe with me, then I promise you this: We will not just win Ohio, we will win this general election, and you, and I, and Joe Biden, we will change this country and change the world."

Palin: “Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election. In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.”

 McCain: “And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big-spending, do-nothing, me-first, country-second Washington crowd: Change is coming！”

（我在文学城建了个博克，把讨论时政的发在那里。因为这里大家可能没那么感兴趣（如果还有人在读的话），就只做个备份吧。）

 

 

看奥巴马在民主党大会的演讲，哪怕我再不赞同他的政治主张，也不得不赞叹他的演讲才份。看他眼神神圣空洞地游离，缓缓扫过如痴如醉忘记了欢呼的人群，带着与上帝对话的姿态高呼”hope and change” 时，如果没有了解任何此次选举的其他背景，在此情此景的当下，谁都会把他看作上帝派来清扫华盛顿政坛污垢和解救美国人民于内政外交忧患的使者了吧？

 

奥巴马貌似清新的形象（right, that was what his running mate Biden said, clean），或许可以让他可以胜任薄荷口香糖的代言人， 但他却绝非人们想象的理想主义者，哪怕经验不足，却凭着一腔变革的热情可以为人民鞠躬尽瘁死而后已。

 

首先，从奥巴马的出身来看，复杂的背景很难让他成为克林顿所说的naïve idealist. 一出生即被亲生父母遗弃，年轻的白人母亲要继续游学四方，“献身”革命，从肯尼亚来的黑人父亲要回到祖国，投身政坛以期在非洲实现社会主义。他由白人外祖母抚养成人，后来还跟随母亲和中东的继父生活了一段时间。对肤色的心理认同一直是他心头的纠结。他幼时的名字是Barry Obama, 成人后自己改成更趋于黑人身份的 Barrack Hossain  Obama，从中可见其矛盾和挣扎，也是因为一个黑人的身份能为他捞取更多政治上的便利。虽然我们知道龙生龙凤生凤的等级观念是政治上严重不正确的，但是如果一个人对自己的身份认同从小缺乏安全感，需要不断挣扎和认证，他成年后的心里也会一直有空洞和阴影。难怪他成年后的第一本书献给了他从未谋面的亲生父亲，也许试图填补这一空洞？还是他父亲建议政府100%征税再统一照顾所有公民的社会主义立场让他遥遥共鸣？一个心理有阴影和缺陷的人是不会成为真正的理想主义者的。

 

第二，奥巴马在成年后的重要导师和“朋友”们无一例外是共产党、极左恐怖分子、或者极度憎恨美国特别是美国白人的黑人优越论者。如是一两个例子或者还是偶然，但是这些人物一个个浮出水面，却让人对奥巴马自己的真正“信仰”深表怀疑。当你看到他庄严神圣像一个真正的总统一样以“God bless America” 结束他的演讲时，难道脑子里不会浮现出他的黑人牧师Rev. Jeremiah Wright 歇斯底里的仇恨呼叫，“God D*** America”吗？他在他的教堂听他布道２０年，却宣称从来没有意识到这位牧师有如此反美和仇恨白人的观点言论。那被捧为神子一般的奥巴马对上帝和教堂也太不敬了吧！事实上，每当一个他的亲密朋友卷入官司或被揭出丑闻时，这位干干净净的候选人总是说，”this is not the ***** I used to know”.  Well, 看来我们只好真的相信他是如此简单不知世事的理想主义者，连基本的善恶都一而再再而三地不能分清。美国需要这样的“理想主义者”做总统吗？

 

第三，披着这样“理想主义者”外衣的奥巴马从个人操守来说其实是相当危险的。看他极富煽动性的演讲，不仅让人想起８年前的那个陈水扁，一样的情辞意以变革为题把民意玩得晕头转向。如果奥巴马上台，陈水扁的今天或许就是他的明天。我没有夸张其辞。奥巴马的另外一个多年好友，芝加哥地产商，Tony Rezko 在06年因操纵地方选举和信用欺诈入狱。而奥巴马夫妇在案发之前不久从他手里低价买入了他现在的百万豪宅！Rezko 同时还为奥巴马的竞选多次募捐，是他在芝加哥的重要筹款人之一！作为回报，Rezko 控制了当时芝加哥和公共医疗事业相关的地产开发。而当时奥巴马是州议会公共健康和人道服务委员会的主席！难道不会有人怀疑这中间的联系吗？但是奥巴马在接受采访时却极力撇清和Rezko的关系，称只是普通认识，从他那里买房完全合法。只是他也暗示他们的妻子间交往可能多一些，这简直是陈水扁吴淑珍的美国版了！if that’s not enough for your nerve，Rezko 的资金中还有很大的中东背景。和他同时被捕的就有一个是伊拉克的商人。这样奥巴马何以在短短两年内从岌岌无闻的州议员变成全国政治明星，他的背景和资金来源就相当可疑。好一个从芝加哥黑金政治泥潭中熏染出来的“理想主义者”！

 

第四，奥巴马以理想主义者的姿态在他的施政纲领中诉求美国的经济公正（”economic justice”）和社会正义（”social justice”），其实质一是推行社会主义式的财富再分配，二是为他的黑人弟兄们向美国社会“讨债”来了。他在演讲中一再强调，他的税收改革＂will benefit 95% working families in the United States”, 　不知就里的大多数华人听了还心花怒放，对啊，我们夫妇都起早贪黑为公司卖命，不就是” working family” 嘛！错了，奥巴马自己很早就给working class 下了定义，家庭年可税收入在５万美元以下！美国这样的家庭现在交的税是多少呢？接近于０！这样奥巴马的税收政策真的是劫富济贫，让财富从富有阶层（当然他自己是人民公仆，虽然住着百万豪宅，是不能算入内的）和中产阶级（包括像我住着公寓干一天挣一天的口粮，却被他的计算法摒出了劳动人民阶层的）向低收入阶层（包括大量躺在政府救济上过日子的黑人和拉美裔）无偿流动！这样的劫富济贫对经济活力的损害是不用多说的，而对低收入阶层是否是真的帮助呢？否！更多的政府补贴只会让本来有工作的低收入者完全退出劳动力市场，他们的生活也就逐渐变成完全仰仗政府恩惠，他们对“富人”也会更加虎视眈眈地仇恨，只想通过政府从他们那儿得到更多，而不是通过教育和努力工作改善处境，加入“富人”之列。真正的收益人是谁呢？是奥巴马这样的“理想主义者”，“社会正义”执行者！因为只有不断地投票给他们，穷人们才能保住不用工作生活无虞的眼前利益，而在这样的政策下，穷人群体只会迅速扩大，他们的票仓也就保住了！适时美国将提前实现“各尽所能，按需分配”的共产主义理想，而离沦入欧洲加拿大一类的二流国家为时也不远了。对奥巴马自己来说，这也许是他“理想主义”的实现和升华，对数代美国人来说，这个代价是不是大了一点呢？

 

第五，是奥巴马给自己的理想主义者面具上的最后一个狠狠耳光，就是他选的副总统候选人拜登，代表的是华盛顿政治最老朽腐败的一面。一个比麦肯还要浸淫华盛顿年久的参议员，一个以牙尖嘴利善于攻击出名的老油条政客，一个被证实在演讲中抄袭一个英国政客的演说稿而被迫退出８８年总统竞选的失败者，这是对奥巴马的“干净＂和“理想主义”多么完美的诠注啊！难道这个吸引了无数善男信女的理想主义标签依然让他底气不足？

 

 

一夜之间，刚被麦肯提名为竞选搭档，副总统候选人的阿拉斯加州长莎拉·帕林(Sarah Palin) 成为美媒新宠，几乎占据了所有新闻的头条。昨晚看了两个小时的电视，曾经无处不在的奥巴马只出现了一个镜头，蔫不拉几地说，共和党提名了一位女性，是美国在一次打破玻璃天花板的象征。媒体，哪怕是一边倒自由派的媒体，永远是喜新厌旧的。就算奥巴马一再暗示自己的肤色，帕林依然无法被忽视，而且注定成为接下来10个礼拜镜头的新星。

 

 

之前我一直看好罗姆尼。如果麦肯能摒弃前嫌（或者说拉下面子）选他，那么以他的行政和经济能力，和麦肯在国防和外交上的经验，共和党获胜的机会几乎是必然的。罗姆尼的加入也会让一直对麦肯的自由派倾向持怀疑态度的保守派吃下定心丸，避免了保守派大量投向第三党而导致奥巴马渔利获胜的可能。帕林获选的消息一出，我的反应是，估计麦肯是不想看到一个比自己更强的副总统候选人抢了风光吧。对这个州长，我只在最近看到新闻说她向国会反复提案开发阿拉斯加的石油天然气资源以缓解美国的能源危机，其他的一无所知了。她和2007年以前的奥巴马一样，是一个Nobody.

 

稍稍搜索了一下网路，再看了一会儿电视，主要是CNBC 采访她对阿拉斯加石油开发的意见，我对她的了解依然有限，但是这有限的点滴却让人兴趣大增。

 

今年44岁的帕林曾经是阿拉斯加选美小姐的季军。92年从政，先是一个小城市的市长，两年前才一鸣惊人地击败老辣的对手，成为州长。在市长和州长任期，她推行保守的经济政策，减税，削减政府项目和开支，自主开发资源，使阿拉斯加的经济保持良好增长。她在阿拉斯加的支持率也一直保持在90%以上！（还没当上第一夫人的米歇尔·奥巴马支持率是多少？国会“女王”南希·佩鲁西的支持率是多少？）和大多华盛顿女政客的女权主义和自由主义招牌不同，她反对堕胎，支持宪法第二修正案的个人持枪权（她和丈夫都热衷户外运动，打猎捕鱼不在话下，而不用像希拉里一样宣称“我真的打过鸭子”），在州内强力反腐败。她的从政经历惊人的简单，但不是像奥巴马的人马一直诋毁的经验不足，而是几乎没有任何负面新闻不靠党派斗争的清新干净。

 

她的私人生活也惊人地简单干净，无异于任何一个美国的普通家庭主妇。她是五个孩子的母亲，最小的才五个月！对的，你如果从电视中看到她后面站着的大女儿抱着的婴儿，那是她还在哺乳中的小儿子！据说她生产完之后才三天就回去上班了。最大的儿子18岁，正被派往伊拉克战场。她和结婚了20年的丈夫无疑是相爱的。当谈到她丈夫和丈夫的工作——油井工人和业余渔夫——时，她嘴角不自主地更往上弯，欣赏和幸福是出自内心的，想藏都藏不住。

 

她绝非花瓶。对CNBC 的女记者头头是道地解释石油开采的流程和技术，以及污染在那些步骤可以被避免时，她看起来更像是工程师和专业人员。女记者睁大眼睛，嗯啊点头，显然是试图想跟上而思路不及。这或许有咨询她丈夫的成效，但是我相信她应该是学得很快的那种。在被问及奥巴马方攻击她经验不足时，她机智反问：我92年开始在政府部门服务，请问奥巴马议员，他92年的时候在哪里？相信她和民主党副总统候选人，出名嘴臭的拜登辩论时，将会是一场令人期待的精彩好戏。

 

看过美国众女政客的芸芸嘴脸，帕林的出现无疑是赏心悦目的，绝对令人耳目一新。看看希拉里的歇斯底里，佩鲁西的伪道德高调，还有根植在米歇尔奥巴马僵硬的嘴角肌肉那儿的苦大仇深，甚至莱斯的孤单萧瑟，帕林的美丽、自然、健康让人看到女性的希望。她让人感到为政府工作也可以是快乐的，干净的，而不是不择手段爬取高位。她让人看到榜样，你不用牺牲作为女人、母亲、和寻常人的快乐，也一样可以做不寻常的工作，为民众服务。

 

在希拉里竞选阶段，有的支持者说，这会是他的女儿的榜样和动力。Well, it’s not necessary a blessing！ 难道会有人希望自己的女儿为了权力委曲求全，维心维护背叛的丈夫，甚至去恐吓被丈夫强奸的一个又一个女人闭嘴?  希拉里或许权力强大，但是她并不快乐，她在镜头前的微笑僵硬而虚伪。如果你希望你的女儿成功而且快乐，那么现在帕林是一个最好的榜样。你坚持信念和原则，全力付出，机会也会来到。有人说帕林会引起希拉里阵营倒戈向麦肯，但也不尽然。帕林会吸引的，是大量美国蓝领中间阶层，他们对当前政治腐败和经济衰败不满，但没有什么明确的政治见解，帕林的背景比华盛顿的政客更能引起他们的共鸣，她的亲和力也将为共和党加分。但对希拉里阵营核心的自由派和女权主义者，帕林的突起对她们来说无异于挑战。因为这和女权主义者营销了几十年的观念完全背道而驰：作为女性，你必须牺牲一切，忍辱负重，才能赢得和男性一样的成功和社会地位。亚利桑那现州长简妮·那帕纳托纳，一个满脸横肉一心想当奥巴马内阁大法官的单身老女人，前日在接受采访时半带得意地说，我当然也想过要小孩啊，但是你看，州长这活儿可不是容易的，你得要牺牲一点个人才能服务这么多人哪！看看帕林，她多么漂亮精彩，五个孩子的母亲！20年的丈夫！没错，她太漂亮了，简妮·那帕纳托纳之流应该只会暗生嫉妒，哪里可能投票给她！

 

当然，我并不会觉得只是因为帕林是个女人就投她和麦肯，这和只是因为奥巴马是个黑人就赢得大量同情选票一样肤浅和危险。她在国际事务上经验的明显欠缺显然也让她不能即时胜任总统一职，如果麦肯在任内出现意外的话。但如果奥巴马出去欧洲中东转了一圈回来，就可以宣布他有了外交经验，而且愚蠢的美国人可以接受这个结论，那么接下来的10周应该足够让人们更了解她，喜爱她，而以她的才智和学习能力，成为一个全国性的领袖人物也指日可待。

 

As much as I enjoyed my national pride during the Olympic games, this article still surprises me on how much simplification and misinterpretation this so-called “economist” put on the growth of China’s economy. Even though the author didn’t put “government-run economy” explicitly ( I noticed that he intentionally replaced “government” with “nation” at most places), the author was trying to indicate that US should take China as an example for “national investment, planning, concentrated state power, national mobilization and hard work”, basically call for a Roosevelt’s New Deal like “change” in US, which was absolutely in the opposite direction of what really happened in China.

Since late 70’s, China’s economic growth benefited from: very low tax on businesses in specified “open” regimes, mostly coastline cities including Shanghai; tax-free zones for foreign companies to attract investment and technology; and very cheap and abundant labors. On the contrary, in the vast inner land of the country, mostly rural areas and the part the author was trying to avoid discussing, where there were still high tax and all kinds of fees no stimulation for business to develop and grow, peasants were living with bare minimum necessities and couldn’t afford feeding their families sometimes. The poor in US who live on government welfare programs or “minimum wage” would never be able to imagine what “poor” living conditions really are. Those peasants have been driven out of the villages to look for jobs in coastline cities for survival, which of course added to the labor force the booming businesses there needed.

And talking about “national investment”, aka, government-run business, and planning economics, there has been a major collapse of state-owned business in China since early 90’s during a failed attempt of central government of “transforming” those companies into “share holder owned” businesses.  Why a power-savvy central government even started to try that? Because most of those companies were already in paralyzed status anyways when they started to face the competition from foreign companies and private business. It proved that any state-run business were very inefficient and corrupted and unable to face the competition from private business. Today in China’s market, stated-own companies mainly concentrated in monopoly areas like communication and energy, in consumer industries, the dominant force is foreign (or so-called multinational) companies, with bit and piece of private companies. Thanks to Obama’s future “blueprint” too, even more business will be driven there with imposed “windfall” tax, green-house gas tax and universal health care burden in US.

Were China still sunk in ““national investment, planning, concentrated state power” economically (politically I think it’s still true), we would still be mostly living hand-to-mouth and no where close we would be enjoying and celebrating the Olympics like today.

Were there any lesson US could learn from China’s economic growth, there is only a simple and classic capitalistic one: free market and low tax boom business and improve people’s living overall.  Obama might be well fit as a “leader” for China in the 60’s ( I bet Chairman Mao would have been very happy to select him as his heir with the tightly-synced ideas and his eloquent speech skills), but not for US today. 

 

 

 

 

 

Let us pause in life's pleasures and count its many tears,

While we all sup sorrow with the poor;

There's a song that will linger forever in our ears;

Oh Hard times come again no more.

There's a song, the sigh of the weary,

Hard Times, hard times, come again no more

Many days you have lingered around my cabin door;

Oh hard times come again no more.

While we seek mirth and beauty and music light and gay,

There are frail forms fainting at the door;

Though their voices are silent, their pleading looks will say

Oh hard times come again no more.

There's a pale drooping maiden who toils her life away,

With a worn heart whose better days are o'er:

Though her voice would be merry, 'tis sighing all the day,

Oh hard times come again no more.

Tis a sigh that is wafted across the troubled wave,

Tis a wail that is heard upon the shore

Tis a dirge that is murmured around the lowly grave

Oh hard times come again no more.

 

 

从Mt Whitney 回来已经一周了。这是我第二次登顶Mt Whitney. 我们一起去的6人中，Jeff 是第11次，忠诚的组织者。Matt 第6次，Sudip 和我一样，也是去年第一次参加。看来我也逃不开以后每年参加的命运了。

 

Jeff是循规蹈矩一丝不苟的人，所以每年如果能订到营地，他的行程总是固定的 （据我两年的经验）。今年也是如此。

 

第一天（7/3）。开车8小时到Mt Whitney Portal camp site, 在这8千多英尺的地方露营。如果有时间，一定要走去 半哩外的 Portal shop 逛逛，在旁边的瀑布小玩一下水。晚餐到山下的Lone Pine 镇解决。我点了号称是鸵鸟肉的汉堡 (ostrich burger)，有点干，感觉有点像水牛肉（buffalo burger), 无功无过。同去的Emrith 比较惨，原不会出错的Meatloaf 让他回去后吐了半天，差点误了登顶大计。晚上靠在营地的桌子旁聊天，有一只黑熊从我们的帐篷旁跑了过去！！我当时居然也没有害怕，只是一来想凑近看个仔细，二来担心他抓坏我新买的REI T2，也凑上前去发出了几声咆哮。黑熊溜得很快，只看到个黑影刷的过去，连个眼都没对上！不过在Mt. Whitney 野营真的一定要小心，储存食物的bEAR Box 是一定要要得！

 

第二天（7/4）。背上所有的东西上行6.5 英里到 顶峰脚下的 Trail camp 露营。我们大概7:15 出发，下午1点左右到达。因为之前进行了针对腿部和肩膀的力量训练，居然也没有觉得像去年一样痛苦。因为可以多点精力留意风景，果然开始觉得Mt Whitney 有所说的史诗般的壮美和多变。一开始是干爽的松林，阳光落下来都带着香；然后走入一片矮水柳杂生的湿草地，在一片山谷里甚是秀美；走出草地再往山上，半山腰挂着一个湖，Mirror Lake，从名字可以想象四周围洁白的花岗岩山峰和挺拔的松树在湖中的泠泠倒影；再往上，树渐渐地稀了，矮了，直到过了Tree line, 我们就只在乱石中烤着，摸向营地去。

在12,039 ft 的 Trail Camp，风和太阳都很大，很像是要大家靠成一堆，传一瓶烈酒来喝的样子。当然我们没有酒喝，只是溜达着，或在帐篷里烤着，让自己的身体适应一下海拔。

与我而言，海拔没有太大的问题，在Trail camp 使用WAG bag 总是一大挑战。因为整个Trail 没有厕所，而为了最小程度地污染环境，任何垃圾，包括身体制造的固体垃圾，都要包好带出去到山下扔进指定的地方。Wag bag 就是为这一用途而发明的，基本是一张大塑料布，里面一撮类似猫砂的东西，据称吸收一些液体后会膨胀成胶状把固状物包起来并吸收气味。然后你得把它包起来放进附带的zip lock bag，在想办法用最少接触你其他装备的办法固定到你的背包上。。。通常不得已要使用WAG bag 的地方只能在某一块大石头的背面，可以想象，在冷飕飕的风里解开裤子，又要担心有人撞入，又要担心万一风把塑料布刮走或掀起来（完一是使用中的？？），难得的一点便意只怕也会被吓走一半。据说去年有人能三天坚持不用WAG bag 的。不过今年我可有经验多了，先找三块小石头把三个角落固定，再找人看守要津，只要不怕冷，基本就可以慢慢享用了。我着意向第一次在这个Trail 的另一个女孩Betsy 传授了这一经验。过了半响，她一连沮丧地走近：“我捡了两块石头，翻起来下面都压着风干的&@$$%*&^%”。。。我沉默片刻，“你不要捡太大的石头。”

 

第三天(7/5)。It’s the big day! 把东西留在营地，我们背着水和食物登顶。虽然天气很好，但是保暖的衣服，围巾，手套，帽子，还有雨衣，这些都一定要带齐。因为天气多变，可能一朵小云彩后片刻就是暴风雨。从Trail camp 以上，是97个弯（有说95或99的）的Switchback，海拔上升很快，对心肺功能是很大的考验。我调整步息，只管慢慢往前，居然这次也没有太难。Switchback 的终点是 Trail Crest, 窄窄的一段山脊，有点像暴在外面的一颗牙的样子。山的这边，是我们出发和露营的 Inyo National Forest；山的那边，就是著名的Sequoia National park, 不过是Park 的深处，通常游人不到的地方。从camp site 到trail crest, 2.5 英里，我们花了大概1小时40分钟。休息了大概半小时，等落后的同伴，然后在一起走后面的2.5英里。这一段主要是沿着山脊往前，有一些不大的起伏，除了最后登顶的Stretch 之外。最后的半英里我走得很辛苦，山顶的小屋明明感觉已伸手可即，却又遥遥无期。呼吸困难，要不时停下来深喘一下。

但是达到山顶之后的那种喜悦是难以言说的。特别是。。。Jeff 背上了两磅Rainier cherry! 其实我在最后半哩一直在给自己打气，暗地里想的是，再忍一下，马上就可以吃樱桃了。是不是很有功夫熊猫的气概？天气好得不象话，连Ranger 都说是他见过在山顶最美丽的天气，阳光笑盈盈，蓝天一丝云彩都不挂。我找块石头把自己平躺下，放一颗樱桃在嘴里咬出汁水来，只觉得平生幸福尽在于此，没有他求了。（当然在山顶大啖十几颗樱桃对我可怜的久未接触新鲜食物的肠胃是个很大的刺激，其直接结果是下山时我不得不健步如飞，以求火速寻得一使用WAG bag 的稳妥之所。此话且不表。）

因为天好，我们在山顶慢慢消磨了一个多小时，下到露营地时已经快下午三点了。马上打包，背下山去昨天路过的草地扎营，大概在3哩之外。这一天腿是最累的。

 

第四天(7/6)。一早收拾营地，下山到 Portal Store和我们的停车地。这个Portal store, 对刚结束1~3天（也有>一周以上的，从John Muir trail 那边过来）on trail的登山可来说，可有几乎是家的意味了。其一是可以洗3块钱不限时的热水澡，其二，就是其举世闻名的超大号煎饼。Denny’s 或 IHOP 的和他们家的比起来，大概直径只及其1/5，厚度只及其1/4，大概相当于一个12英寸芝加哥批萨饼的样子。店主曾自豪再饿得狼吞虎咽的登山客也没人能吃完的。可是据称前年我们这一组有一位真得把一整个都吃完了，去年他在店里跟老板自夸了两句，老板也不做声，结果等他的上来，更比平常的大了一半，得用4个12 英寸盘装，把我们大家都笑翻了。他只好乖乖坐下，吃得没声没息。结果当然是没吃完。老伴很高兴他的记录不算被打破。（相册里有一张照片）

 

再8小时开回，午夜到家。下车才开始觉得腿硬得不行。

 

周一上班还得早起，还兴冲冲站上称，想说这么累一定会掉一些肉吧。重大打击，不但没轻还重了两公斤！！！大大超出了我常常自称的“正常体重波动”范围。因为Whitney 之余威尚在，这引发了我咬牙开始长达一周的减肥之举！这个，等一周之后见效了汇报吧。

 

 

很奇怪在content下什么都写不了，中文英文都不行。看来是标题有问题，人家msn不让浪费资源了。。。 地震的事。。。没有感同身受，觉得自己语言苍白，已经不足以handle 这么沉重的题目了。捐了钱，和几个同事做了个板和很多小传单在公司让大家帮忙一起捐。因为公司有1:1 match, 但只match 给个人，所以不好收现金。所以只是把几个捐款网址和公司match 办法打出来，让大家自己去捐。 发信给公司熟和不熟的中国同事找人帮忙中午站募捐台，10分钟就满了6班人。 我们做的板前，几个女同事哭了。。。 老板的老板过来看到，说有什么杂事都可以找他的秘书来帮忙。。。 一个美国同事过来说，上次他看到这样一块板是在上海site, 上海的同事为Katrina 募捐 我的朋友Yu, 她父母离重灾区不远。虽然他们那儿没有很多伤亡，也让她每天读睡不着觉。她平时是个沉默害羞的女孩，可是在召集募捐的时候完全向另一个人。沉着，坚定，认真地向每一个路过cafeteria 的同事介绍灾情和募捐方法。她发出去了最多的传单。。。 昨天的六级余震离他们家很近，但愿她家人平安！ 她前天跟她爸通了电话时带来的一点消息也让我很感动。。。她让她爸随身带个包，装好水和干粮以备不需。她爸说，没事儿，有人管呢。还说，这个时候不相信政府，还相信谁呢？她爸说他们那儿县城没有受大伤害，第二天商店就全部开门，所有食物和水还是原价。。。家家户户做了饭熬了粥打开家门招待逃难过来的灾区百姓厂区的医院开了门救人。。。 很想说些什么，只是再光彩的词，用起来只觉得虚浮。。。为下一个废墟中的生还者祈祷吧!

不知道我们公司是不是在Compaign for Best Place for Work。 最近的一些细微变化让我享受的同时颇为困惑：难道我们被google 收购啦？

 

首先是谣传了很久的免费咖啡的消息居然变成现实！而且包括Starbucks 咖啡！！而且是24小时开放！！！当然Cafeteria 墨西哥阿姨的脸色有点不好看，不过有得免费喝大家还是络绎不绝地去光顾。连在另一幢办公楼的从不喝咖啡的一位mm也在开始免费的当天特地来捧场一番（在我的鼓动之下）。喝了两口后她的结论是她还是不爱喝咖啡，哪怕是免费的。所以倒掉了事。另一位同事说免费后咖啡变淡了，估计兑水太多。不过我现在只喝decaf, 反正喝起来都是淡的，所以每天减少1。49远的开支，我也很满足了！

 

差不多同一个时候，进公司的服务台处摆上了几大筐漂亮诱人的水果，从早晨一直到5点下班。种类不多，苹果，橙子，梨，和大热门总是脱销的香蕉。但是一个个擦得油光锃亮，漂亮异常。路过想要不伸手挑一个都难。于是现在办公室里，大家行色匆匆走来走去的时候，差不多都在啃苹果:) 开会的时候也是，总有两三个苹果咀嚼声成为无聊会议的和谐伴奏。我今天的水果量：橙子一只午饭后，苹果一只下午四点的回前，草莓若干（自己带的）。事实上我的中国同事看到我还在自带水果非常不解，他们每天总要光顾3~4次。

 

不过据坐我对面的一个很喜欢大惊小怪的blonde 美国同事偷偷告诉我，她从水果计划之后已经重了6磅！看着她依旧苗条的身段，我怎么也不相信吃水果会这么把人吃胖。“不吃水果我也会吃巧克力阿！” “可是如果要重6磅，我还情愿吃巧克力呢！” 看着她睁得大大的无辜眼睛，我几乎要被说服了！

 

但是，这还不是全部！

 

刚才开完最后一个6点的会，我正饥肠辘辘想着赶紧冲回家吃东西，突然，就在走道边通常堆放一些废弃样品的一个小推车上，奇迹般冒出了四五种不同Cookie，brownie 和其他小甜点。塞下一块杏仁饼，一块brownie，再配一口咖啡后，顿觉内心充实可以再工作一会儿才回家。——果然资本家打的好主意啊！

 

我附近唯一没有受这些福利任何好处的是Jeff同学. 他不喝咖啡，茶，和任何刺激性饮料，并对公司提供免费饮料的行为深恶痛绝，认为是对我们健康的极大威胁。（还好他还没想到用他常用的写信给领导的方式抗议）。他也不吃公司提供的水果，因为不吃苹果橘子，香蕉又太紧俏，他嫌跟人抢丢人。至于点心的事，连提都不能跟他提！要不然他会唠叨到我情愿把吃下的饼吐出来！我用数据向他指出这些是公司分到人头的预算，如果他一个都不吃，等于薪水损失几百大圆。他置若罔闻。

 

好吧，吃了公司的饼，要真的工作一下了。。。

To Whom It May Concern

 Dear Sir/Madam,

 As a journalist, he or she is free to express his/her opinion, based on collected fact, not lies. Unfortunately Mr. Nevius proved that statement is wrong with his article on 4/10 paper. If Mr. Nevius’s purpose was to gather some unusual attention to his little column appearing at San Francisco Chronicle, congratulations he did a well job but not with honor. Maybe it is time for him to consider a job where being honest is not the minimum standard. What is sacrificed is the reputation of the respected local paper and readers’ trust.

 As I read Mr. Nevius’s piece on 4/10 paper, it became unclear to me what facts he spent time and effort to dig out. I did see lots of key messages from ‘anonymous’ resources. Please, don’t abuse that cover too much for the sake of his career as a journalist.

 I seriously ask for your help and investigation on Mr. Nevius’s article on 4/9 paper. As a reader I would appreciate that you by doing so could regain my trust and respect. Thank you.

 Regards,

***************

From: ************

To: cwnevius@sfchronicle.com
Cc: readerrep@sfchronicle.com; letters@sfchronicle.com
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 12:37:53 AM
Subject: about your arthicle on 4/10 about Torch Relay

I haven't updated this blog for more than a year! Haven't expected to just use it for stocking up things like this. I don't know if there is any friend still left reading this. But just to keep a record....

 

Following is my email to SF Chronicle and reporter C. W Nevius, who arbitarily discribed Chinese supporters in 4/9 SF Torch relay as professionals hired by Chinese government to put up a political show for Chinese TV. Other friends also supported the complaints and sent their voices to the newspaper as well. I'll post their mails here too so that everyone can see.

 

The original article can be found here:

 

 

 

Dear Mr. Nevius,

 

Your article “They Olympic torch in S. F./ The FIX: pro-China crowds attempt to stifle dissenters” on the 4/10 issue of San Francisco Chronicle is the most despicable piece with the most wicked slander I have even seen, even with the reputation of a paper like San Francisco Chronicle.

 

First of all, I strongly disagree with your easy conclusion that the thousands of Chinese people rallied to watch and support the Olympic Torch relay in San Francisco on 4/9 were “bused into San Francisco … by the Chinese Consulate and Chinese American groups” and their sole purpose was “ providing the Chinese government with a made-for-television commercial”. Even though I don’t live near S.F and missed the chance of welcoming the Torch myself, I know friends who have been so excited to attend the event that they asked for off from work for the day weeks back, I also know friends on Chinese forums (for your reference, U.S based Chinese forums which are not run or controlled by Chinese government) organizing themselves online and renting buses to go together.  Most of those friends got their high education in US and some have become US citizens for years. I feel really outrageous for them being described as the puppets of Chinese government in your article. Had you interviewed just a few people in the passionate crowd, instead of using the usual journalists’ trick of quoting anonymous “One torch relay insider told”, you might have got a totally different story. Of course, that is definitely not what you wanted. I don’t understand, as you wrote, there were thousands of “supporters of China” in AT&T park where you were supposed to do your homework for your article, how could you not ask any single one of them where he/she was from and who organized them, but easily concluded that it was a conspiracy of Chinese government and those people were “well organized” “professionals”, by just one anonymous quote and one quote of a Pro- Tibet independence organization leader’s “suspect”?  Where is your journalist’s common sense and baseline? If it was not from lack from professionalism, then it could only been an intentional libel to those peaceful and innocent Chinese/Chinese Americans. For that record, I’ll make sure to remind every one of my friends who attended the rally and being slandered by you hold their rights of charging you of legal liability. 

 

Secondly, you abused the First Amendment by accusing the voice of the Chinese people in the SF Torch relay as “Chinese government’s idea of free speech”.  Just because supporters of China and the Olympic Torch outnumbered pro-Tibet independence protesters by hundreds of times (if I were as biased and clueless as you, I would call it the limit that they could hire, but I’ll save it until I see the proved facts), it didn’t mean that they lost their rights to exercise peaceful assembly and petition as bestowed by the First Amendment.  This was the simple fact that 1/5 of the population base of SF are Chinese and most of them support the Olympic Game which is supposed to inspire peace and union of men instead of being used as a political lever for dividing and partitioning. As much as you want to believe, and want to persuade people to believe, that those tens of thousands of people were a “FIX” to stifle dissenters, you don’t even doubt a glimpse of possibility, that those people might represent some true voice from inside themselves? Just look at the number of people there yourself! And isn’t that your own article the best representation of your own words, “They speak freely, and everyone else gets shouted down.” Is that YOUR idea of freedom of speech?

 

Throughout your article, what I could see was the hostile attack towards China and Chinese people.  What’s wrong with you being so sensitive and protective when this young man in your article told you “Welcome to Beijing”? Would it make you feel more justified if he just called you “faker”? Well, it might then provide you more materials to write about!

           

Last, but not the least, I will make sure to do my duty to remind Mayor Gavin Newsom that your decipher of his decision on changing the torch relay route at the last minute as outwitting the Chinese crowd will serve well for his opponent in his next campaign. It was already a big shame on San Francisco that it kept tens of thousands of people, be them pro or anti China protesters, or just citizens wanting to see the torch and experience the event, waiting for hours in vain without even a glimpse of the Torch. It will also be a stain marked on Olympic Torch and the Game by San Francisco city. The official explanation that Mayor Newsom gave was for “safety concern”.  Now glad you made it clear, that the unspeakable reason for the last-minute route change was that Mayor Newson didn’t want to make it a “political kabuki theater” (for Chinese government?) , so that he’d rather play with the tens of thousands of his own people and let them down like this.  Don’t forget, those people make up for 1/5 of voting base in San Francisco! Whether Mayor Newsom is a tremulous coward who is not capable of getting on hold of the security situation of his own city, or he is a great conspirator, who totally ignores the feeling of his people and distains the sanctity of the Olympic torch and game spirit, people will form their judgment and it will be embodied in next election. But thanks to your good job of the explicit explanation in your article!

 

All that said, I agree that you can bear any opinions that you have on issues related to China, and your expression of those opinions is protected by freedom of speech and press.  However, you and your paper should also be solely responsible for all the conclusions, judgment, and implications you made in your article which didn’t have solid evidences to support.  For that count, you and your paper owe all the Chinese people at the 4/9 SF torch relay an apology for mis-charging them as organized professionals hired by Chinese government; you and your paper also owe Mayor Newsom an apology for mis-interpreting his decision that will cause immeasurable damage to his political career. Before I see the official apologies appear on your paper or website, I will keep contacting all the Chinese American groups in SF and my friends one by one, until one or a few of them launch legal cases against you and your paper. I will also keep mailing mayor’s office to express my concern and indignation. 

 

Thanks for your time.

 

Angry and concerned,

*** in Phoenix 

 

大概可以用来很好地形容这个blog和现阶段的生活吧。

诺见面后把我仔细审视，结论说：你眼角有皱纹了。她的眼角额头倒是还光滑如昔。我记得她十年前短发狰狞冲进冲出的样子，如今终于举止得宜仪态万方起来。是的，那是二十还不到的我们呢。

dust of ages...昨天买到的Eeels专辑blinking lights and other revelation里的新歌。看到这个名字，突然有在久已荒芜的blog上胡言乱语几句的冲动。E说，“"There are two kinds of Christmas people, those who like their Christmas lights to stay on solid and those who like them to blink. ” 我仔细回想，馥菱每年仔细布置起来的小小一棵圣诞树，是blinking light 还是solid light，竟然有记忆模糊的感觉。只记得有五彩颜色的小灯映在临街的窗上，深夜沿Wilson走回公寓，可以在楼下看到，让人安心和欢快。

应该是solid light吧。我现在想起来了。其实E漏掉一类，还有是ignore Christmas light的一类人，或者，看到觉得不错但是看了很多次也没放在心上的人。而我正慢慢滑入这类吧。

The dust of ages settles on your days.

变成３０岁也没有怎样，变成３０岁而失去了敏感、热情和随心所欲，让我觉得恐慌。

sign-up early birds: Min, Nuo

special guests: Yihong mm (don't jump, 花童, I know you must be jealous~)

                     Sinan (we will borrow him temporarily when his wife is away in SF)

Thanksgiving trip itinerary (tentative):

 

	PHX	NY	Albany	BOS	RI	PHX
20-Nov
21-Nov
22-Nov
23-Nov
24-Nov
25-Nov

    right, we are counting on Linyuan's for the big dinner at Thanksgiving night.... I still wish they could use crabs to replace turkey :D

     Nanjie, do you want to meet us at NY? we can have a big eating+shopping event together... Yaoyao and Mulei will spend the thanksgiving holiday on Florida beach, I guess we'd better not disturb them.

     hmmm... if somebody intends to invite me to BOS concert, I could consider starting the trip earlier and spend one more day in Boston ....

 

   Targeted couples to disturb: Linyuan's, Hongwei's, Nanjie's, Sinan's, Rongjing's ... please put "welcome" signs on your doors, and no dogs!  

 

X'mas trip itinerary: waiting for Nuo to finalize, but most likely targeting west coast.

 

sign-up criteria: young, pretty (taking Nuo as reference, not me!), single (or could pretend you are), capable of one of the followings: driving (+filling gas or navigating), drinking, laughing loudly, making good tea or coffee ....

 

 

 

put some pictures of last week's hiking trip... it was amazing to see the leaves changing in Arizona.

I picked lots of Aspen leaves back. Some of them were pure and clean golden... but after a night, they all withered.

 

I will upload some pictures of my parents visiting later... found a lot of good ones :D

有点想一个人去吃海鲜buffet.

不知道是不是听起来很庸俗。本来打算下午跟同事去flagstaff，明天一早爬山。害我从昨晚到今天早上都在充满动力地debug。

刚接到电话说没订到旅馆，只好明天一大早出发。突然多出来下午和晚上不知道要干吗。很想狠狠吃一顿的感觉。

不知道去餐馆告诉 侍者说，table for one. 听起来会不会很奇怪。

如果以后我来开个餐馆，就叫 Saturday Singles. 周末只接待单身客，生意应该不错吧。

四点睡，写了自己觉得很精彩的slides, manager早上看了也觉得很好。总结了我们力学组在一个项目上的意见，不幸的是，跟一位总工的方向不合。

午餐会议时间，被愚蠢的项目协调人一直打断。可恨的是，他一边嘴里还塞满食物，发出吧哒声响。这大概是我在这里遇到迄今最愚蠢和自以为是的人物了吧。他同时是总工最坚定的追随者和最会搞politics的。

讨论很激烈。没有结果。过一点了，约定再offline讨论。我跟他落在后面收拾，还在说到底应该什么方向等等。他突然说，you know, this is what I heard, in the end, can these mechanical analysts put their badges on table to back up their recommendations?

我一阵热血充头，仿佛看见自己把badge往他胖脸上摔去，说，f*** u, 老娘不干了！

当然只是千分之一秒的念头。现实中，我看到自己笑得阳光灿烂，几近innocent： oh, do I have to?

no. I didn't say that. this was what I heard from management. 他微笑凑近。high management.

后来跟我自己的经理哭诉（当然也没那么惨，算是笑着抱怨吧。）他说没事，别理这种话。

算是我在这里的第一个frustration. 愚蠢的人可以不用任何data back up就做决定，浪费掉数十万块钱。而我不光需要data，还需要badge... engineer 的现实。 

1, It's not very wise to get rid of a woman using another woman, because the latter might take 2~3 men in the future.

2, If you are a CEO or a Chairman, either keep the high confidential information from the board (best way to avoid leaking), or have it endorse every critical decision that might cause you into trouble.

3, It's always nice to have a scapegoat, prepare someone else if you don't want to be the one.

4, Of course, the more important is to try to get everything done in the right way at the first place and not get into trouble, it's always nicer that you don't even need a scapegoat.

5, Media could be your good ally in corp politics, but use them with caution... the power of media is like Domino, once triggered, it's very hard to get it  back to the starting place.

6, from a personal perspective of view... when I just joined Intel, I complained to some more senior colleague that the work load was too heavy, in contrast, my friend (dear YaoYao) who did an intern at HP said they didn't have much to do there. Then he advised me seriously, "Min, you should feel lucky that you are not in an environment where people 'don't have much to do', that means, they usually have too much time for politics." ... unfortunately, it seems that what observed by an engineer could be escalated to the CEO/BoD level without skew.

 

Nevertheless, I believe this will become a classic case for both corp ethics and PR. It could also be a perfect case of how a newspaper lauched a well contrived battle against a big company (for what?) and single handedly tossed down a board and 1~2 CEOs...