不求甚解-媙

wēi, 《字彙》於非切,音威. 美女貌. 一曰俗字.

意思就是靚女, 但又和威是同音字. 最近被巧妙地用在李鵬的女兒李小琳身上.

南寧本地白話酒令開頭是 “xx你威啊”. xx是對對方的稱謂, 一般是”兄弟”, 也可以是”大哥”, “友仔”……當然酒桌上不乏女性, 那這個酒令自然就成了”靚女你媙啊”. 同理, 粵語表讚歎習慣用一個”勁”字, 南寧白話是”威水”, 而”水”在閩南語裏用來形容美, 漂亮的東西. 那麼酒桌上三中全會以後, 姑娘都開始漂亮以後, 是不是也可以說一句”靚女, 你真系好撚媙水”.

轉-而你們在怕什麼-韓寒

因為新浪博客上的原文已經被刪,但是Google reader上還看得到,所以我轉在這里,

而你们在怕什麽

韩寒

今天,在一些论坛上,我看见了福建马尾审判三个网友,说真的,我的确完全不知道是怎么回事,于是,我就开始搜索,我先上了谷歌香港,结果就和我搜索胡萝卜和李子一样,页面再也无法打开,于是我上了百度,我只知道有三个网友,因为涉嫌诽谤,被抓了起来。那么他究竟诽谤谁了呢,诽谤了当地公安,我当时就想,这三个人完蛋了,诽谤了当地公安,再由当地法院审理,这审判结果岂他们不是都已经在当地饭店里谈好了。

本着公正的态度,我继续搜索这三个网友究竟是为什么诽谤了政府,但是线索到这里就断了,我先用了百度知道功能,百度表示不知道,当然,知道了也不会告诉你,于是,我使用了新浪爱问功能,结果爱问不问。最后,我大致知道了故事的内容,这其实是一个很典型的故事,为了防止出现文章过敏的情况,我一概隐去了人物姓名。

主人公突然死了,家属怀疑是被轮奸致死,提出尸检,尸检的结果是主人公自顾自病死,并非强奸致死。家属怀疑警方包庇罪犯,提出还要尸检,但是相关部门并不配合。家属的情绪很不稳定。三位维权人士听闻此事,以死者是被强奸至死的观点,的将此事件做成了视频和文章,转发到国内外论坛。当地公安召开新闻发布会,强调死者是自然病死,随后,参与制作视频发帖等人当地公安机关逮捕,其中主要负责的三人,二审被判有期徒刑一年到两年。

事情大致上就是这样的,就案情本身,关键是死者到底是怎么死的,这个我不知道,我也没有证据,所以无法站在维权者或者政府的任何一方说事。政府认为,只要他们宣布了,这就叫证据,维权者认为,只要他们调查了,这也是证据。这件事情我并不了解,在其他众多的维权事件中,政府一定全错么,不一定,维权者一定全对么,也不一定。但是为什么政府永远表现出全错的态势呢?

其实很多事情其实都是当地政府自己弄大的。如果他是真的自身突发疾病死亡,那么便让有公信力的地方来尸检,说服家属便是。很多网友说,政府急需成立廉政公署,来树立公信力,我认为廉政公署没有用,香港很少发生腐败事件,其实并不是拥有了廉政公署这四个字,而是因为廉政公署是独立的这三个字。我认为,大陆现在的国情是不适合成立一个独立的类似廉政公署的机构的,如果一成立然后来真的,那几乎所有公务员及其亲属都嗖一下不见了。但是,大陆最最急需成立的一个部门乃是独立的“尸检部”,这个尸检部必须拥有向廉政公署一样的独立性和公信力,必要的时候做到电视直播尸检。仔细回想中国近几年发生的公众事件,有多少是因为尸检而生。尸检部是维护社会稳定的重要部门,因为现在的尸检结果,无论是真的假的,老百姓都不相信。排除这件事情,虽然我认为,很可能不少的尸检结果是正确的,但老百姓的怀疑也不是错误的。一个喜欢先定性再定罪的政府,其绝招也很容易被老百姓学去,所以说,我们要原谅老百姓动不动就认为自己的亲人是被人害死,而罪犯是被政府包庇了,尸检是被政府操纵了。因为在这个社会里,你不讲证据,那我也不讲证据,你不透明,我就猜测,我一猜测,你就说我诽谤,我再追究,你就说这是国家机密,我一闹大,你就……你就……你就反而省事了,什么事情都不用做了,自然会有相关部门通知新闻部门这事情不准报道。但是,这一切埋下的都是仇恨的种子。

所以说,对于地方政府,这事情其实一开始就很好解决,绝对公正的尸检,如果真的是病死,说服家属,如果真的是被杀的,捉拿凶手。退一步讲,这个事情完全可以放到台面上,公开的去说清楚,大家拿各自的证据来说事,但官方是从来不屑于这么做的,他们认为这样降低了他们的威信。而且我们的官方永远是一开口就置自己于不利,你从来看不到他们坦诚的用我们人类正常交流的语言说话的时刻,永远用没有人性的官腔去对抗老百姓的哭诉。听音乐的朋友都知道,唱腔是多么的重要,一个你讨厌的唱腔,唱什么歌都是错的。

现在,那位女孩子是怎么死的已经不重要了,更重要的是那三位维权者的判决。至于诽谤罪,看来是非判不可了。类似的罪名不能从法律上去诠释,而是要从人情世故上去找结果。因为面子对于政府是很重要的,人家都关了你这么长时间了,尤其是因为这个理由,现在把你放出来,你法院是能得到喝彩,但是人家公安以后怎么混,都在一个县城里,抬头不见低头见,办公室不见桑拿见的,这见面了还怎么相处。其实这么多年,大家都误会了人民法院的意思,人民法院并不是指属于人民的并为人民服务的法院,而是指只负责解决人民与人民之间的矛盾的法院。

这三位替他人维权的网友,被判了一年到两年以后,很多网友认为,这件事情代表了互联网的黑暗时期将要到来,代表了维权人士将要遭到打击报复,代表了网络的监督将要受到取缔和法办,代表了言论自由的彻底消失,我认为其实这些都不是,小小的一个县城的公检法,你不能把人家想的那么深邃,其实这件事情只代表了一个意义,传达了一个讯息,那就是——让你见识见识我的厉害。

是的,让你见识见识我的厉害。我们见识了,我们都很害怕,但是我们也不知道,你们都在害怕些什么。

26 Mar. 2010

“In those days, twenty-five years ago, Reston had been a young political reporter in Washington, and before that a war correspondent in London during the Blitz, living with his Midwestern wife and baby son on the edge of destruction and rubble, working among a generation of American journalists profoundly influenced by the spirit of that time and place.”

from  The Kingdom and The Power by Gay Talese in 1969

23 Feb. 2010

今天是聽著太陽照常升起的原聲睡著的,醒的時候發現耳機被壓在頭下面,難怪我縱夢見瘋媽在找鞋子.

在需要荷爾蒙的時候硬漢給我了充分的腎上腺素和酸楚,在焦慮和瘋癲的社會就算是質樸,表達起來也需要帶些極端.是我們讓口號變得空洞.

獻給這個陽痿的社會和國家.

Google和我的幼稚病

事情到了現在關於Google的一切我已經錯得一沓糊塗,至少事實證明了一個在商言商的興趣點和企業信仰的悖論.又或者,企業信仰的就是在商言商的務實和目標,利益是一切.4個月以來,任何一件事,只要從利益的角度看總能找出蛛絲馬跡,嚴絲合縫.而我想打GFW一個耳光順理成章變成Google打我一個耳光,教我不要一廂情願,說到底,是我幼稚.

順便說,查閱過歐盟和西歐國家關於互聯網的法律法規,不比我們寬鬆,監控比中國更嚴,唯一不同只是屏蔽手段的差別.

記難忘的一天

兩個小時以前我提醒一位同學關注伊朗局勢并告訴他伊朗人在twitter上感謝中國網民的幫助.以下是我得到的回覆:

“哎……中國在中東的地位又跌了…

你看著吧…民主派的背後肯定是美國,鬧兩天美國就要施壓或者維和介入了

維持現狀起碼是主權國家,美國進不來

中國人就是他媽傻逼,要想愛國,直接去幫伊朗封鎖消息

還他媽的幫忙寫東西,傳信息

就像新疆那樣,封鎖起來直接鎮壓

壓下去以後官方給消息,誰都他媽進不來”

我回答:幫一個集權政府封鎖消息,你真想得出來,得到的回覆是:

“按中國的利益就應該這樣

美國關伊朗人民死活嗎

反正都是追求自身利益……沒有什麽舉措不正當的說法”

話說到這裡,我的失望已經多於憤怒.我不由自主想起老馬一句話:

只要有0.01%的利潤,他就能踐踏人間一切法律.

我不知道大家原來都是這樣愛國的.那麼按照這個說法如果哪天你家被強拆你在屋頂自焚那我一定會在警戒線外把所有拍照的錄像的翻牆上推的打個稀爛然後在你身上烤串雞翅,在你身子五成熟的時候撒點孜然,蜂蜜,七成熟的時候及時把火撲滅.

當然我知道,按你這個活法,在中國你不會是被拆那個.

Nasty Indian Tibetan in Copenhagen

I found those tiny little flags immersed in posters when I read the headline article in Economist’s website about the climate change conference in Copenhagen. First of all I thought they are just several demonstrators can’t help showing themselves in any hotspot. But I am bloody wrong. There is a delegation at UN’s climate-change conference in Copenhagen “met with negotiation teams from different countries, strongly appealing to them to raise the crucial environmental issues of Tibet”.

Nasty!

I don’t like Chinese government, and that is also the reason I don’t like Indian Tibetan.

A murder is a murder but nothing else, civil blood makes your hands unclean. If you can righteously kill by your creed, there is no doubt that I can righteous ruin your life by my will.

轉-Made in China, with Love – 南桥的日志 – 网易博客

via Made in China, with Love – 南桥的日志 – 网易博客.

在CNN上看到一个关于“中国制造”的广告,该广告宣扬中国产品走向世界的正面形象。去年CNN的主持人说中国人是“傻瓜和恶棍”,一时舆论大哗,甚至有人开始抵制CNN. 如今才一年时间,商务部开始主动出击,宣传正面形象,这里的进步有目共睹。

任何一个国家的形象,都不会自动改善,你得去付出自己的努力,一点点消除成见。其实这一路走过来,是花费了多少代人的心血的。如今我们或许会对中国在外的形象的改善想当然。事实上我们走过了一个非常漫长的过程。回首往事的时候,我们面对的是一段漫长的血泪史。据我的老师、跨文化研究学者刘海平先生介绍, 19世纪中叶,欧美国家曾把活生生的中国人,当作“展品”在博物馆陈列,或视为低等动物放在马戏团展演。1850年在纽约市立博物馆公开展出了一个三代六口人的中国家庭,展名为“The Living Chinese Family”。其中两位成年男子身着长袍,胸前甩着粗粗的长辫。1884年,一个马戏团则把一位“中国张姓巨人”和“40个受训的大象, 50笼的珍贵动物”放在一起巡回展览演出。当时美国的唐人街以肮脏、鸦片、妓女和黑社会著称,由此也成了个由警察做导游的旅游景点。

由于美国媒体现在考虑政治正确,害怕出现种族歧视,而今针对中国人的赤裸裸的“妖魔化”已经越来越少,这也是和中国人本身地位的改善和维权意识的提高密不可分。

但是“中国制造”产品被妖魔化,则屡见不鲜。有一部分被妖魔化纯属活该,因为本来质量就不好,别人没有诬陷你。几年前,美国媒体纷纷报道从中国进口的猫粮含毒,海鲜中含有抗生素,牙膏里含防冻剂,轮胎含安全隐患。假如有人用你的牙膏用得人如活鬼,你能怪他 “妖魔化”吗?所以形象是小事,质量是大事,这一点不能本末倒置。如果真是发现某中国家具品牌的质量问题被人曝光,我们是没有必要去护短的。真正的劣质产品,早死早好。

至于部分产品导致Made in China整体形象低劣,我深有感触,有时候感觉是哀其不幸,怒其不争。我知道,有人甚至取笑 “中国制造”就是一产品质量低下的活警告。以前我住的一个地区,有一个亚美人的群落,该群落和现代文明相对隔绝,不用电,不乘坐汽车,这个群落开了个家具公司。奇怪的是,他们居然在当地电视台做了个广告。除了宣扬自己的产品是纯粹手工之外,还特意强调“和那些‘中国制造’不一样”。本人还曾写信给电视台,呼吁其停播,后来该电视台果真没播,是不是我那封信起了作用,我不得而知。但是这种一竿子打翻一船产品的说法,是得纠正的。

鉴于媒体频传中国制造的问题,有段时间美国居然宣称60%的被召回产品为中国制造,这已经开始在冲击所有中国制造的形象,因为很少有人愿意去调查到底是哪60%的产品被召回,只能产生一个整体的成见。这不关是国家形象的问题,它直接关系到产家的利益。问题不改善,消费者会用钱包投票。2006-2008年间,我看到不少美国人做过不用“中国制造”的实验,比如维持一周,或者一个月 。美联社记者德克·拉莫斯(Dirk Lammers)就借给孩子买球鞋之机,去沃尔玛等地方去找不带“Made in China)标志的产品。这位记者父子发现正宗“美国制造”的产品,居然是“其它国家食品”(Ethnic food)中的那种幸运饼(fortune cookies)。而这“幸运饼”一直是中餐馆的保留噱头,是作为中国文化之一来贩卖的。但买其它东西时候完全回避中国制造,他发觉很困难,足见“中国制造”所涉的中国产业之广。不要说鞋袜纺织品,美国独立日时候家家户户门口插的美国国旗,大多是中国制造。由于中国产品“泛滥成灾”,一统天下,大部分回避或者抵制“中国制造”的活动都虎头蛇尾,不了了之,这多亏中国制造无处不在。 但是这个现象是不能长久维系的,因为这样下去,中国制造产品只能继续靠廉价取胜,上不了下一个台阶。

再者,如果是贸易保护,打击则更具直接。奥巴马前一段时间宣布的对中国轮胎加征关税,对中国的产商打击则十分沉重。奥巴马选轮胎开刀,是因过去中国轮胎曾有安全隐患,被美国媒体大为报道,很多美国人记忆犹新。奥巴马这么做,在政治上一点都不糊涂,他知道他在做什么。

因此,我很能理解为什么要去做CNN做广告。如果广告能促成中国制造形象的改变,那这点钱花得是值的。不过,“中国制造”形象的改变,或许和过去“台湾制造”、“日本制造”一样,需要一段时间。如上所述,关键还是质量本身的“质变”。不然,光靠广告是不行的。

另外,从广告本身来看,我们的对外形象战略有两个盲点:

首先,应该介绍美国人其实更关注的“责任”问题。在中国进口食品频出事故的时候,CNN自己做过一个专题报道,说中国有六个部门管出口食品安全:食品药物监管局、卫生部、农业部、商务部、工商总局、质监总局。西方有一句俗语:厨师多了做不好汤。在美国人看来,中国产品质量问题,是一个机制问题,而不是中国人有能力问题,生产不出高质量的产品。恰恰相反,他们不解的是,为什么中国人这么聪明(这是美国社会对华人的相当普遍认识),生产出来的东西却这么破烂呢?这一点他们不解,所以在找原因。他们怀疑这是accountability问题。accountability这个词很难翻译,一方面指的是管理的对口责任,另外一方面是指出了问题后的问责(hold someone accountable)。如果管理部门过多,出了事情反而大家可以互相扯皮,找不到负责的人,这是他们更担心的地方。与中国的六大部门相比,美国只有一家食品和药物监督局就解决了食品安全问题,一旦出了问题,民众会拿食品和药物监督局是问。CNN曾在其报道中说,中国管理多头,政出多门,管理漏洞随处可见,质量 “缝隙” 过多。这个问题不关是对外形象的问题。事实上需要去安抚、保证的,不仅仅应该是国外消费者,更应该是国内消费者,尤其是在这个拉动内需的时候。这个问题上套用蒋介石的一句话来说,是“攘外必先安内”。

另外,没有必要强调“法国设计、中国制造”这类信息。你这话什么意思?中国设计不行,不靠法国设计师行不通吗?这么做,或许能给制造业打开一扇门,却断了中国设计的一条路。中国不是刚开奥运会吗,从场馆到开幕式,也向世界展示了自己在某些方面的设计水平,也不是一无是处。贝聿铭不就一顶尖华人设计师吗?前一段看一电影,叫Mooseport, 里面那位总统图书馆的设计师看样子也是华人。这说明中国人自己心目中的设计水平,和世界心目中的中国设计水平,是前者过低,后者并不过低。要不《2012》中的方舟,又如何在中国设计建造?电影说明不了太多问题,但是它们能反映出一个时代对一个现象的认知(perception).  记得《麦肯锡季刊》中曾经介绍到的定价策略时,说到一个actual value(现实价值)和perceived value(认知价值)的差异。说一个产品的定价,如果让人想到自己的perceived value过低,那么再好的产品也卖不好。在设计问题上,我觉得这广告是要降低中国设计的perceived value, 自贬身价,从长远来看是没有什么好处的,除非中国笃定以后世世代代做世界工厂。事实上,并非离了法国设计师,中国连个像样的东西都造不出来。 倒是一些国外设计师设计的中国作品,如大裤衩,颇被人非议。这是我个人的看法。

艾未未老师您说呢?

所以,换作是我,我不会说Made in China,with French Designers。 我会说Made in China, with Love.

本文有所删节后载于《东方早报》,其它媒体转载的标题都是自己所加,与我的观点无关

陰三兒(in3)

我不喜歡他們的京片子,但是我喜歡直接的東西,我不高興!
開工!
[自由式]
[audio:http://m2.cdbs.com.cn/nj7/album/yinsan/weizhi/12.mp3]
[黑]
[audio:http://www.shuugouteki.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/hei.mp3]
[北京晚報]
[audio:http://bbs.unistar.net.cn/heat/music/bjwanbao.mp3]

Copy-The Time Weekly Photos(『Time』一周摄影图片精选:Nov 29 – Dec 05,2009)

『Time』一周摄影图片精选:Nov 29 – Dec 05,2009 –.

Thursday, December 04, 2009
雪中的德黑兰Milad电视塔,伊朗。摄影师:Morteza Nikoubazl
SNOW DAY: The Milad telecommunications tower stood tall as snow fell in Tehran, Iran, Thursday.

『Time』一周摄影图片精选:Nov 29 - Dec 05,2009

Monday, November 30,2009
一名失去丈夫的女子在食物分发站等待配给的时候裹紧衣服让自己更暖和一些,喀布尔,阿富汗。摄影师:Paula Bronstein
A woman tried to keep warm as she waited at a food distribution site for widows in Kabul, Afghanistan, Monday.

『Time』一周摄影图片精选:Nov 29 - Dec 05,2009

Tuesday, December 01, 2009
正在等待接受HIV监测的女子们身披布单,避免被别人认出,秘鲁,世界艾滋病日。摄影师:Martin Mejia
Prostitutes covered themselves to hide their identities before undergoing HIV testing at a brothel in Callao, Peru, Monday. Tuesday is World AIDS Day.

『Time』一周摄影图片精选:Nov 29 - Dec 05,2009

Tuesday, December 01, 2009
被指控于2007年11月谋杀室友的美国学生Amanda Knox在法院出庭,佩鲁贾,意大利。摄影师:Tiziana Fabi
American student Amanda Knox arrived in a Perugia, Italy, courtroom Tuesday.

『Time』一周摄影图片精选:Nov 29 - Dec 05,2009

Wednesday, December 02, 2009
西点军校的士官生在听奥巴马总统的演讲,纽约。摄影师:Jim Watson
West Point cadets listened Tuesday evening as President Barack Obama, speaking in West Point, N.Y.

『Time』一周摄影图片精选:Nov 29 - Dec 05,2009

Sunday, November 29, 2009
乌拉圭新总统Jose Mujica的支持者在庆祝大选胜利,这名前游击队员获得了53%选票。摄影师:Eduardo Di Baia
NEW PRESIDENT: Supporters of Jose Mujica celebrated his presidential win in Montevideo, Uruguay, Sunday.

『Time』一周摄影图片精选:Nov 29 - Dec 05,2009

Leica中文摄影杂志』推荐使用Email的方式订阅,亦可通过Google ReaderQQ阅读有道鲜果等RSS工具阅读;^_^,在Apple Mac OS X下可获得最佳阅读体验。

Tips: 你可以 在Twitter上关注Leica中文摄影杂志,or 与撰稿人交流

『小建议』如果你在Email里看到这篇文章,可以转发给你的朋友;如果你在Google Reader阅读器里看到这篇文章,可以共享给好友;如果你在豆瓣里看到这篇文章,不妨推荐给更多人;或者干脆Copy下这篇文章的链接,发给你MSN上最喜欢的人;我们永远相信,分享是一种美德,Great People Share Knowledge
Leica中文摄影杂志@Email订阅地址 or @RSS

Copy-Barack Obama's foreign policy: The quiet American | The Economist

Without surprise we got a provisional promise, but we should also fully understand that he was born to make promise which would never be executed.

via Barack Obama’s foreign policy: The quiet American | The Economist.

Barack Obama's foreign policy

The quiet American

Nov 26th 2009

From The Economist print edition

Is Barack Obama’s diplomacy subtle and strategic, or weak and naive? The world is about to find out

AFP

AT LAST Barack Obama seems to be starting to make up his mind. After months of agonising, he is apparently close to announcing that he will after all send a decent number of American reinforcements to Afghanistan (see article). Meanwhile, having barely mentioned climate change since his inauguration, he has now told the world that he is going to the international summit in Copenhagen—and with a provisional promise that the world’s greatest polluter will cut emissions.

Bold stuff. But both Afghanistan and Copenhagen can also be cited as evidence of a weakness that runs through his foreign policy. It looks to many as if he has dithered, not deliberated. On Afghanistan, far from being clever, his faint-hearted attempt to talk round Congress, manage his squabbling officials and twist the arm of Hamid Karzai, the vote-rigging Afghan president, has arguably accomplished little except hand the initiative to the enemy: his generals have an uphill struggle. On climate change, the rush to Copenhagen, with no bill in sight in Congress, has an air of desperation.

This goes to the heart of the debate about Mr Obama’s diplomacy. Which will he be, clever or weak? Does this president have a strategy, backed if necessary by force, to reorder the world? Or is he merely a presidential version of Alden Pyle, Graham Greene’s idealistic, clever Quiet American who wants to change the world, but underestimates how bad the world is—and ends up causing harm?

Short-sighters v long-gamers

The doubters argue that, however decent and articulate, Mr Obama is gaining a reputation as someone who can be pushed around. This month, after the president pandered to China by refusing to meet the Dalai Lama, China pushed for more by banning questions at his Beijing press conference with Hu Jintao, its president. When Mr Obama demanded that Israel stop all work on its settlements in the occupied territories, Binyamin Netanyahu, its prime minister, defied him and still, staggeringly, won praise from Hillary Clinton.

Each time, the doubters say, Mr Obama’s delicate overtures are met with ambiguity or contempt. Since he engaged Iran, it has continued to temporise and dissimulate over its nuclear programme. When Mr Obama abandoned a missile-defence system in Europe, he appeared to extract a pledge from Russia’s president, Dmitry Medvedev, that his country would support sanctions if Iran is recalcitrant—only for Vladimir Putin, the prime minister, repeatedly to say he sees no need. Although America has pledged $7.5 billion in aid to Pakistan over five years, the army seems reluctant to take on the Taliban who drift from northern Pakistan into Afghanistan—indeed, the conditions riding on the grant were spun by the Pakistani security services into an American “insult” (see article). Yes, Mr Karzai eventually buckled in Kabul, but his readiness to thumb his nose at the world superpower was humiliating.

The “clever” camp retort that diplomacy is not about instant gratification. Mr Obama has pulled off the urgent tasks of starting to withdraw troops from Iraq and resetting America’s dysfunctional relations with Russia. He has boosted the G20 as a new global forum. This week Israel announced a partial settlement freeze. With health-care reform under his belt, he will soon be able to turn to world affairs with his status enhanced. Besides, you could hardly accuse Mr Obama of timidity. In three speeches in Prague, Cairo and Accra, he set out a new foreign policy that rejects the Manichean view of his predecessor. He means to negotiate deep cuts in nuclear weapons, make peace between Arabs and Jews, engage Iran, heal the climate and establish America as the strongest and most upright pole of a multipolar world. Yes, this work lies ahead, but how much can you ask in a year of war and recession?

It is a fair point, but as the months drag on, the “weak” case has been gaining the upper hand. Mr Obama has yet to show he has the staying power to take on a dangerous, stubborn and occasionally bad world. Even allowing for Israel’s shift this week, the president has hardly lived up to his promise to work for Middle East peace “with all the patience and dedication that the task requires”. With one big exception, he has not yet shown that he can back his oratory with a stick—and that was a tariff on Chinese tyres, a weak sop to America’s unions.

Calm and conciliatory pragmatism is welcome after George Bush’s impetuous moral certitude, but it also carries risks. Critics on the American right are wrong to carp at Mr Obama’s bowing to kings and emperors. Simple courtesy will help restore America’s image, not diminish it. The trouble is that the president often seems kinder to America’s rivals than to its friends. His guest this week, Manmohan Singh, India’s prime minister, may well have moaned about Mr Obama’s kid-glove handling of China. Allies in eastern Europe, their soldiers dying in Afghanistan, resent being called mere “partners”, Mr Obama’s term for pretty much anyone (see article). The hapless Gordon Brown has got precious little thanks.

And how exactly will Mr Obama’s quiet multilateral vision, in which each nation does its bit for the good of all, work in practice? He is right that American power is circumscribed. But the European Union is not fit to help him police the world (see article). China, India and Russia are not willing.

“God save us always from the innocent and the good”

That leaves Mr Obama with a burden to shoulder on his own. In the coming weeks he could prove the doubters wrong. He could lead the way towards a brave deal on the climate. He could press Iran to negotiate over its nuclear programme before his own end-of-year deadline—or secure Russian backing for sanctions. He could agree to cut nuclear arms with Russia. He could bully the Palestinians and Mr Netanyahu to agree to talk. And he could get Mr Karzai and Pakistan to show that they mean to make Afghanistan governable. Even part of that list would set up Mr Obama as a foreign-policy president. But if there is no progress, then Mr Obama will be cast as starry-eyed and weak. He himself recognised the danger of that in one of those golden speeches: “Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.”

21.Nov 2009

詩,是要時不時拿出來曬一曬的,10年前讀到這首詩的時候覺得澎湃到不可一世,那麼,今天我忽然把他記起,因為許多事實我依然不-相-信,

回答

北島

卑鄙是卑鄙者的通行證,

高尚是高尚者的墓誌銘,

看吧,在那鍍金的天空中,

飄滿了死者彎曲的倒影.

冰川紀過去了,

爲什麽到處都是冰凌?

好望角發現了,

爲什麽死海裡千帆相競?

我來到這世界上,

只帶著紙、繩索和身影,

爲了在審判前,

宣讀那些被判決的聲音.

告訴你吧,世界

我-不-相-信!

縱使你腳下有一千名挑戰者,

那就把我算作第一千零一名.

我不相信天是藍的,

我不相信雷的回聲,

我不相信夢是假的,

我不相信死無報應.

如果海洋註定要決堤,

就讓所有苦水諸如我心中,

如果陸地註定要上升,

就讓人類重新選擇生存的頂峰.

新的轉機和閃閃星斗,

正在綴滿沒有遮攔的天空.

那是五千年的象形文字,

那是未來人們凝視的眼睛.

Copy-Space exploration: Any drop to drink? | The Economist

Jesus, what the hell is going on the moon?

Space exploration: Any drop to drink? | The Economist.

Space exploration

Any drop to drink?

Nov 13th 2009
From Economist.com

There is water—or, at least ice—on the moon

Reuters

THE moon is covered with seas, oceans and bays, the result of astronomers from past centuries whose imaginations out-ran the capabilities of their instruments, and who assumed that the Earth’s nearest neighbour was not that dissimilar to its mother planet. Modern astronomers know different. The moon is airless, waterless, weatherless and lifeless. Or so it would appear. But some have clung to the hope that the waterless bit applies only to liquid water, and that there might be places on the moon which harbour ice.

The places in question would be deep in craters at the moon’s poles—places, in other words, where the sun don’t shine. The ice, the hope went, would have arrived on board comets that crash at random on to the moon’s surface. Calculations suggest that enough of these would have fallen into the perpetual darkness of some of the polar craters, over the billions of years those craters have existed, to build up a reasonable supply of frozen water. And that, inevitably, has got the space cadets who wish to build permanently crewed bases on the moon in a tizzy. Any base would need a water supply. If that water did not have to be shipped from Earth, then the cost of establishing one might be brought down from the totally ridiculous to the merely absurd.

The experiment was carried out on October 9th, when NASA famously “bombed” the moon. The target was a crater called Cabeus, which is 100km from the moon’s south pole. The bombs were, first, the upper-stage booster of a probe called LCROSS (Lunar Crater Observation and SensingSatellite) and then, five minutes later, the LCROSS probe itself. During that five minutes, the instruments on LCROSS gathered data on the plume of debris thrown up by the booster’s impact and transmitted them hastily back to Earth. The impact of LCROSS was monitored by a second probe, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.Friday 13th of November, then, has brought good luck to the proponents of lunar bases. The preliminary results of an experiment conducted by NASA, America’s space agency, suggest there is indeed ice on the moon.

In the weeks since the double impact, NASA’s scientists have been analysing these results, and on Friday the scientists announced that the results suggest the presence of water in Cabeus. The telltales are specific “lines” in the spectrum of infra-red light from the plume. These correspond to the frequencies of light given off when water molecules are energetically excited. The investigators, led by Anthony Colaprete of NASA’s Ames Research Centre in California, were unable to explain the spectral lines in question by any other combination of plausible chemicals, so are pretty sure that water is what they have found. That finding is reinforced by a second set of lines, in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, which indicate the presence in the plume of hydroxyl radicals. Hydroxyl is HO, as opposed to water’s H2O, and it is usually the result of water molecules decomposing.

In truth, the result is not that surprising. There is always excitement when water is discovered anywhere but Earth. Since it is composed of the commonest element in the universe and the third commonest, however, it is actually quite abundant. The LCROSS finding is, nevertheless, a successful confirmation of an intriguing hypothesis. In due course, maybe, the spiritual airs of Roald Amundsen and Robert Falcon Scott will fulfill the space-cadets’ dream by visiting the moon’s south pole and confirming that there is ice there in person.