Thursday, April 30, 2009

自由的代价 vs. 奴役的代价 Price of Freedom vs. Price of Slavery




自由的代价 vs. 奴役的代价 Price of Freedom vs. Price of Slavery

每日一语:

自由的代价是风险,付出,永远的对真实的追求与永远的警觉。 自由的收获是幸福的可能,个体的成就与满足感,对更美好的未来的渴望及无尽的选择的可能性。

奴役的代价是屈辱,虚无感,无尽的痛苦与默默的绝望。 奴役的收获是虚假的、暂且的安逸感与一块随时可能被他人抢走的面包。 --- 陈凯

The price of freedom is risk-taking, effort, constant pursuit of truth and eternal vigilance. The benefit of being free is the possibility of being happy, a sense of personal achievement and satisfaction, a thrilling sense of looking forward to a better tomorrow and infinite possibilities of choices.

The price of slavery is constant humiliation/self-degradation, a sense of meaninglessness, endless pain/misery and the inescapable silent desperation. The benefit of slavery is a fake/temporary sense of safety/certainty and a piece of bread one may lose to others at any moment. --- Kai Chen


----------------------------------------------------------

Dear Visitors:

When my daughter Alex left to Zambia for her Peace Corps assignment, I said to her: "Do you know that you may die there?" She turned to me with a beautiful smile, in a voice full of inner serenity: "You can die here in the States as well. You can die anywhere at any moment as well."

I realized that she went with her decision to join the Peace Corps, not out of some impulse and impetuousness, but a deep understanding of her life's meaning. She knows what she is doing.

I feel immensely relieved and proud. I am very much at ease with her decision now than before the conversation. I feel I have done my job well as a parent - instilling a sense of meaningfulness in her life. She indeed has the will, the ability and the courage to be a free and independent being. She is indeed on her way toward freedom. She is indeed ready.

In contrast, I often hear the Chinese parents say to their children that their first responsibility is to their parents, not to their own individual destiny with a unique purpose known only to themselves and God. This indeed separates a culture of freedom and a culture of slavery. I just want to say to those who claim to fight for China's freedom: "Have you brought up your children as free beings, respecting their own choices, appreciating their uniqueness as a free being, being proud of their pursuit of meaning in their lives?"

If we want to be free, we must allow our children to be free. We must never allow ourselves to oppress others and be oppressed by others. We must be consistent in bearing our own individual responsibilities.

Best. Kai Chen 陈凯

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

“公”的败坏与肮脏 vs. “私”的清廉与美德 On "Private" vs. "Public"




“公”的败坏与肮脏 vs. “私”的清廉与美德 On "Private" vs. "Public"

- 个人兴趣与利益是资本主义道德社会的伟大基点 -


陈凯 5/23/2006

春光明媚,鲜花盛开。蜜蜂忙碌在花丛中。 这世界充满了无限生机。

花不为蜜蜂所开放,只为自身的繁衍展其艳丽,生蜜吐粉。 蜜蜂并不为花采蜜拢粉,只为自身的生息健康。 人并不为花,为蜜蜂而种花养蜂,只为自身的精神与躯体的享受。 但在这神秘的美妙的“为己”的天理中,花借蜂传宗,蜂借花充腹,人借花与蜂得到精神与生理的享受。 多么明智的安排! 多么逻辑的理念! 多么道德的自然! 上苍用他神力之手勾画着一幅五彩多姿的图案,编制着、谱写着一曲壮观动听的生命的交响乐。

价值在为己中产生。 道德在为己中呈现。 生命在为己中释放着无穷的绚丽斑斓。

是什么把这美好的一切在那罪恶的非人的社会中排斥,贬辍与颠倒了呢? 是那丑陋的,肮脏的与败坏的“公”字。

“私” 在一切专制政体中,在一切社会主义国度中,尤其在非人的中国一直是不道德的同义词。 在这反人,非人,虐人的专制制度中,一切“公”的都被称之为好的;一切“私”的都被指控为坏的。 想一想那些与“私”相连的词汇吧:

自私,私有,私人,私心,隐私,私有制,私有财产,私利,私欲、、。任何与私有关的似乎都是罪恶的,不道德的。 不光是“私”字,与“私”有关的一切字,词也都带有肮脏的,罪恶的,不道德的贬义。 个人,个人利益,个体经济,个人主义,个人兴趣,个人自由,各自为政,自我,自发,自负盈亏,自己负责,自主自立,自生自灭,自尊心,资本主义,资本积累,资产阶级、、。

怪诞的但逻辑的是: 在所有专制社会,社会主义政体中,尤其是在中国,“公”字被捧上了天,成为了“上帝”的同义语。 “政府”与“国”也都被“公”字带上了天,成为了满天飞的“圣牛”。 谁要是动了它谁就有罪。

在这“公”的挡箭牌之下,谁都可以假公真私,以公谋私,借公行私。 在这“公”的挡屁帘之下,谁都可以随地大小便。 在这“公”的圣名之下,谁都可以侵犯他人,偷取他人价值,掠夺他人物质与精神财富。 难得糊涂的人们把这罪责归为“私欲”与“私心”。 有灵有智有逻辑之人不难看到,事实正与中国人的伪政治,伪道德,伪国家的伪逻辑相反: 这些邪恶与罪孽正是“无私”与“公德”的必然产物。

私欲是上苍所予的客观所有。 没有私欲人便不能生存繁衍。 不能大小便的人是不正常的病人。大小便的生理功能是客观的无价值取向的正常人的必然。 将这种生理必然如:吃、喝、拉、撒、睡、行、性等价值化,将其视为“私”去贬,去排,去耻,去灭是道德沦丧的政,国,党,群的邪恶的写照与定义。 今天在“无私”,“贬私”,“辱私”,“灭私”的“公”的中国,“人”已成为贬义存在,成为政府的包袱,国家的负担,民族的耻辱,环境的污染而被压,被辱,被奸,被灭。 这一切的暴行都在那崇高的,神圣的“公有利益”之下被那些不敢称之有私的“无私之人”视而不见“,”听而不闻“。

”毫不利己,专门利人“的“大公无私”的卖身奴才和卖灵娼妓,如雷锋,成了中国人伪价值,伪道德的典范被人们永世传扬。 不敢为自身争利益,争权利的懦夫胆小鬼成了中国党政的无价之宝和权力靠山。 这不只是中国专制压抑的结果,也是中国人自制的伪道德的,名为”公“的枷锁桎梏的产物。

无私便无我;无私便无人;无私便无责;无私便无法;无私便无理,无私便无智,无私便无爱;无私便无情;无私便无灵;无私便无在,无私便无创造、、。 无私的人是奴,无私的人是鬼;无私的人是邪恶之源;无私的人是虚无的行尸走肉、、。 无私是无道德的定义。

中国的伪道德指“私“为”损人利己“。 殊不知逻辑的必然是“损人者绝利不了己”,“利己者也决不去损人”。 这才是真实的来自上苍的道德法则。 上苍用他那全能的力量与人不所知的方式永远惩罚着那些自身不产生价值,而靠骗,靠偷,靠抢的损人者的。 这些自欺的,精明而无智惠的蠢人们自以为损人便是利己的;他们永远也不懂得损人是害己,灭己的开始。 世界上所有的专制者们,包括中共王朝与所有支撑那王朝的人们都是以损人,害人,杀人开始的,他们也一定以损己,害己,灭己而告终。 这是自然与上苍的法则。 理性逻辑也不为损人奠基。 随地大小便的人们给自己造成了生病,传病的途径;将垃圾倒在邻居的院子里也不是“为己“的明智人之举。利用人与损害人的人为自己造成了恶劣的生存环境。他防人,怕人,躲人,永远阉割了自己欢乐,幸福的可能。 今天中国的现实状况不就是这些损人损己,害人害己的精明的,”无私无我”的,无灵无智的“公民”,“公人”的自制自造的真实写照吗!?

“私”人是对自身诚实的人。 他首先面对的不是他人,不是群体,不是政府,不是国家,不是强权、、。 他首先面对的是他自己,是上苍。 他虔诚的对待自己,如同他虔诚的对待上苍一样。 他决不会欺骗自己,由此他也决不想欺骗他人。 他面对真实的,上苍赐予他的灵魂,赐予他的一切。 他真诚的照看着他的灵魂,他的智慧,他的感情,他的躯体。 他不光对此不感到内疚,他对他的真诚的照看感到骄傲与自豪。 他将守护着他的灵魂的纯洁;他将保持他智慧的敏锐;他将维系他情感的高尚;他将照料他躯体的健康。 他深知他的一切是上苍赐予的,他对这一切不光有权利去拥有,有权利去享受,他也有德不容辞,理不容辞的义务去保卫这一切。 他坚守着他的“私有”。 他深知没有“私”他便没有自由的基点,没有“私”他只能成为“公”的附属和奴仆,没有“私”他将失去他的灵,他的智,他的权,他的值,他的爱,他会失去所有属于他的、也是上苍赐予他的一切。

只有在“公”的价值体系中才会有“牺牲”的伪道德。 在中国的专制的社会中到处充满了“被牺牲”与“自我牺牲”的群体的“牺牲品”。 在那伪道德的神坛上面,活着的和死了的“牺牲品”充斥着那虚无的祭坛,祭奠着那虚伪的“公”的价值。 牺牲的定义只能是用大的价值换取小的价值,否则何谓牺牲?这个内在矛盾的字眼只能在“公”的价值中产生并被伪用。 在“私”的价值体系和“私”的人们中,只有真实的“奉献”,没有虚伪的“牺牲”,因为任何的奉献都是自发的,自由的,自愿的,无强制的举动。 如果我舍命,舍身去救我所爱,我一定将我所爱作为比我命,我身更重,更大的价值。 如因我死而救得我所爱,那是我的宽慰,是以小得大。 这才是真正的道德,属于上苍的永恒的道德。

在“公”有社会中,所有的道德都是虚的,伪的,空的,假的。 “公”有的丑恶,肮脏的现象也逻辑的应运而生: 公有的厕所是最臭的;公有的饭馆是最脏的;公有的银行是最不负责,也是最危险的存资场所;公有的学校教育质量最差;公共交通最拥挤;公有企业最不盈利;公费医疗最要命;公有制最腐败;公有的“为他者”最虚假;共产国家最邪恶。

在“公”的旗帜下,个人是不被承认的可有可无。 个人的兴趣,利益是被“公”的群体任意践踏,强奸的玩物。 在“公”的文化里,本属“私人”的领域如:个人健康,个人财经,个人感情,个人爱好,个人性生活,性取向,个人家庭,生育,都成了公共财产,都成了“公”鬼们娱乐的源材。 人的尊严被“公”者抛到“公”厕的粪坑中,任意蹂躏,百般玩弄,调戏,直到所有的“私”人都变成了“公”鬼。 在“公”鬼的社会中,工作是被他鬼指定的,婚姻是被他鬼安排的,口味是被他鬼调教的,兴趣是被他鬼养成的,鬼格是被他鬼塑造的,鬼身是被他鬼喂养的。 “公”鬼们的唯一死存目的就是要消灭所有“私”人们的生存。

这就是“公”的罪恶。 这就是“私”的美德。

真正的政治家的唯一目标是将政治在社会中限制在最小的范围内。真正自由人的国度是将“公”基于“私”,附于“私”,限于“私”。 真正自由的人们是将“私”法律化,制度化,道德化。 只有具有“私”的高尚道德情怀的人才是人类历史前进的动力,才是生命与创造的无尽源泉。 铲除“公”的邪恶,埋葬“公”的罪孽,是所有“私”人的理不容辞,德不容辞的义务。

这“天下”既不归“帝”,也不附“国”,更不为“公”。 这“天下”是“人”的,是属于上苍的“人”的。

Monday, April 27, 2009

'Atlas Shrugged' author sees resurgence “无奈大力神”再次畅销




Ayn Rand, shown here on a 1999 stamp, is finding new readers thanks to the economic crisis.

'Atlas Shrugged' author sees resurgence “无奈大力神”再次畅销


Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" has sold hundreds of thousands in last 18 months

Book's sales have been sparked by financial crisis

From Doug Ganley
CNN

"Where is John Galt?" reads a sign in the back of a vehicle heading down Interstate 85 in Atlanta, Georgia.

1 of 2 The quotation is wrong. As any reader of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" can attest, the correct line is "Who is John Galt?" but the point is well taken.

In the midst of the credit crisis and the federal government's massive bailout plan, the works of Rand, a proponent of a libertarian, free-market philosophy she called Objectivism, are getting new attention.

"If only 'Atlas' were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster," Wall Street Journal columnist Stephen Moore wrote in early January.

It's obviously getting attention from the general public. Rand book sales are "going through the roof," said Yaron Brook, the president of the Ayn Rand Institute. According to Brook, "Atlas Shrugged," her most famous novel, has sold more copies in the first four months of 2009 than it did for all of 2008 -- and in 2008, it sold 200,000 copies. It's been in Amazon.com's top 50 for more than a month.

Not bad for a 1,100-page doorstop of a book that came out in 1957, by an author who died in 1982. Watch why Rand is so beloved »

"So many people see the parallels with actually what's going on, with the government taking over the banks, with the government kind of taking over the automobile industry, a president who fires the CEO of a major American corporation. These are the kind of things that come out of 'Atlas Shrugged,' " Brook said.

Even Hollywood is said to be interested, which is only fitting, since Rand was once a screenwriter. But developments have come in fits and starts. "Godfather" producer Albert S. Ruddy once wanted to make a film and talk of miniseries adaptations emerged in the '70s and '90s.

In 2006, Angelina Jolie was said to have been signed to star as Rand's heroine, rail magnate Dagny Taggart, and names such as Russell Crowe and Brad Pitt have also been floated. However, as of early 2009, the status of the film remains unknown.

"Atlas Shrugged" concerns a group of corporate chieftains and individualists who go on strike in protest of government intervention in business. Among those trying to figure out what's happening are Taggart and steel tycoon Hank Rearden. Eventually they meet John Galt, an engineer who had been elevated to legendary status by "stopping the motor of the world" in encouraging other individualists to drop out, and who delivers the novel's showstopping 50-page speech -- an expansive summary of Rand's philosophy.

Upon the book's release it divided critics and readers, some of whom praised its message of self-sufficiency. More, however, disliked Rand's politics and atheism, not to mention her writing.

"Is it a novel? Is it a nightmare? Is it Superman -- in the comic-strip or the Nietzschean version?" Time magazine asked in its review, adding that Rand's "philosophy must be read to be disbelieved. ... She deserves credit at least for imagination; unfortunately, it is tied to ludicrous naivety."

But Rand's book -- which followed 1943's "The Fountainhead," about a Frank Lloyd Wright-like architect determined to follow his own path -- was a best seller and has continued to be significant. In 1991, a Library of Congress/Book-of-the-Month Club survey named it No. 2 among respondents' most influential books, after the Bible.

Her philosophy of selfishness and her love of pure capitalism (she used to wear a dollar-sign brooch) has earned her many followers, particularly on the right. Rush Limbaugh is a fan; former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was a Rand acolyte in his younger days and a member of her New York salon.

But Rand critics are equally fervent, questioning her belief in pure free markets.

"What I find so remarkable about it is if capitalism can work on its own without any government regulation, then we wouldn't be here," said economist Heather Boushey of the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

Boushey points out that even Greenspan has reversed course, to an extent, in his admiration of laissez-faire economics.

"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity -- myself, especially -- are in a state of shocked disbelief," Greenspan told a congressional hearing in October.

The Rand Institute's Brook points out that, to Rand, selfishness did not mean disengagement from the world or sociopathy. "Rational self-interest, egoism, in Ayn Rand's perception is not being Bernie Madoff, not thinking short-term and satisfying just whims, and cheating and lying and stealing," he said. "It is about pursuing what's truly in your rational, long-term self-interest, figuring out what's good for you, without exploiting, taking advantage, without stealing from other people, without sacrificing from other people to yourself.

"But also," he added, "without sacrificing yourself to other people."

It's that debate over shared sacrifice that will likely continue to fuel Rand's critics, as well as her admirers. At bookstores, it will likely keep cash registers ringing, which could only have made the dollar-sign-wearing author very happy, indeed.

A Pacific Alliance for Peace 太平洋自由繁荣联合体



陈凯一语:

我曾在过去的文章中建议建立“PATO - Pacific Asian Treaty Organization 亚太公约组织”。 今天美日智库中的人刚有同样的想法。 我将我过去的文章贴在后面。

I have written an article suggesting a establishment of "PATO" (Pacific Asian Treaty Organization). Today finally someone in American and Japan think tank has the similar suggestion. I now paste my past article regarding this issue after today's article. --- Kai Chen

A Pacific Alliance for Peace 太平洋自由繁荣联合体


By William R. Hawkins
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, April 27, 2009

As the left-leaning news media relish reports that President Barack Obama is seeking to temper the image of the United States as the world’s preeminent power, it can be forgotten that there are overseas allies who want and need America to remain strong and vigilant against rising threats. They want America to continue its leadership role in forging coalitions to meet global dangers. This message was very clear at a conference April 17 in Washington sponsored by two Japanese think tanks, the Sasakawa Peace Foundation and the Ocean Policy Research Foundation.

The theme of the conference was the U.S.-Japan Maritime Alliance and how it can be expanded. Japan’s ambassador Shotaro Yachi opened the session by reading a message from Prime Minister Taro Aso calling for Washington and Tokyo to take the lead in building an “Arc of Freedom and Prosperity” which would sweep across “Japan, the Republic of Korea, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, Central Asia, Guam, Central and Eastern Europe, the Baltic region and Scandinavia roughly speaking.” This geographical description is of the opposite side of the “Arc of Instability” that has been used since the 1970s to describe the main trouble spots in the Eurasian landmass. The positive concept of the Arc would be founded on the values of “freedom, democracy, basic human rights, the rule of law and the market economy” according to Aso. The Asia-Pacific section of the Arc, extending as far as the Persian Gulf, would be backed by a “Seapower Network” that should expand beyond the current U.S.-Japan alliance to include Australia, India and the United Kingdom.

In this formulation, it is not difficult to understand from where the threats to those protected by the Arc alliance are expected to come. For diplomatic reasons, Aso had to say that the Arc “is not intended to contain China or Russia,” but his extended remarks were filled with examples of the dangers Beijing and Moscow pose to peace, stability and economic development.

The Prime Minister noted China’s advancement to the ocean is particularly spectacular. The Chinese Navy is proactively modernizing. We also have information that China is working to build aircraft carriers. China’s opaque expansion and modernization of its military, including the Navy, may greatly impact the maritime security environment which is so important to both Japan and the U.S. Moreover, Russia is increasingly more actively engaged in military activities in the Far East.

A major element in the “Japan-United States Seapower Alliance for Stability and Prosperity on the Oceans” paper presented at the conference by the Ocean Policy Research Foundation is development of seabed resources, both minerals and energy. The proposal calls for joint research and the sharing of new technology that can reach these untapped resources. But it is also clear that ocean wealth will also have to be protected from rivals. Prime Minister Aso pointed out that Japan and China have conflicting claims in the East China Sea, and that “China continues to carry out unilateral development based on its own claims. This cannot be considered to be an action of a responsible major power.” He also noted “excessive claims of jurisdiction by coastal states. This is a problem the U.S. Navy has faced from Chinese harassment of its ships in international waters. Beijing claims that the Exclusive Economic Zones awarded by the UN Law of the Sea Treaty confer sovereignty over large ocean expanses and not just a limited right to exploit resources.

Japan also has territorial disputes with Russia, and Aso mentioned the construction plan Moscow has for a strategic nuclear submarine base on the Kamchatka peninsula. China has recently built a similar base on Hainan Island menacing the South China Sea.

Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe appeared in person to deliver the keynote address at the Sasakawa conference. He echoed Aso’s arguments, and even compared, without naming names, the rising Chinese threat to that posed earlier by the Soviet Union. He stated that during the Cold War, Japan was the “cap in the bottle” past which the Soviet fleet could not pass from its Pacific base at Vladivostok. He then observed that the “Japanese island chain can fulfill the same role against another power if it pushes the envelop.” Geographically that chain could be seen as extending all the way south to Taiwan and the Philippines, forming a base for containing China’s naval ambitions.

Beijing is well aware of island geography. In the 2005 report on China Military Power issued annually by the U.S. Defense Department, General Wen Zongren, Political Commissar of the elite People’s Liberation Army Academy of Military Science, is quoted as saying that taking control of Taiwan is of “far reaching significance to breaking international forces’ blockade against China’s maritime security….to rise suddenly, China must pass through oceans and go out of the oceans in its future development.” Chinese strategists have discussed the creation of their own “string of pearls” naval bases to control the sea lanes of the Pacific Rim.

The OPRF paper urges Washington and Tokyo “to cooperate with all nations opposing the emergence of any aspiring hegemonic state that could disrupt the balance of power on the seas and create instability in the security environment” another thinly veiled reference to the rise of China. “The process of building the new seapower alliance will also serve as a new challenge for the Japan-U.S. alliance that many believe is beginning to waiver, “says the OPRF document.

An example of those who believe the alliance should not just waiver but dissolve was presented during the question period following Abe’s speech. Stanley Kober, a research fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, cited out of context George Washington’s warning against “entangling alliances.” He then claimed such alliances only serve to keep the world divided. He asked the former Prime Minister, “If the U.S. and Japan strengthen their alliance, what will Russia and China do?” Kober also thought it was a mistake to try to include India in the alliance. Cato has a history of trying to undermine American defense policy, and has been exhibiting a growing pro-Chinese bias.

Cato Vice President Gene Healy made the same reference to “entangling alliances” in a recent op-ed calling for “genuine, and deep, cuts in military spending” in which he also cited the “counterintuitive claim” of Christopher Preble, Cato’s Director of Foreign Policy Studies, that “our military dominance actually makes us less safe.” Last summer, Malou Innocent, another Cato foreign policy analyst, wrote an op-ed criticizing presidential candidate Sen. John McCain for “talking too tough on Russia and China.” She called on the next president “to continue cooperating with China and Russia.” Cato pronouncements are obsessed with trade and investment in China, reflecting the views of corporate interests who hope to profit from helping Beijing rise as a great power without regard for the impact on world politics or American security.

Abe responded to Kober by restating that the U.S., Japan and India “are democracies with shared interests” who also believe in human rights and the rule of law. Next year will mark the 60th anniversary of the U.S.-Japan alliance. Abe declared, “The United States has no better friend in the world than Japan.” Other Japanese speakers at the conference reinforced this point. Shunji Yanai, an advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and professor at Waseda University argued that the Iraq War has helped pull Washington and Tokyo closer together, as has the crisis over North Korean nuclear and missile programs. Japan sent military engineers to Iraq to help with reconstruction and has deployed naval units to support coalition operations in Afghanistan. Yanai also believes that North Korea has a secret uranium enrichment program that has not been addressed by the Six Party Talks orchestrated by China.

Naoyuki Agawa, a Dean at Keio University, joined Yanai in support of changes in Japanese constitutional interpretation to allow Tokyo to play a more active role in collective security operations. He agreed that joint operations in the Middle East have pulled the two fleets together and proclaimed, “Despite legal and constitutional restraints, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force is willing to fight alongside its fellow sailors” in the U.S. Navy.

It may not come to that. A strengthened and expanded alliance of maritime nations can serve as a powerful deterrent to the ambitions of China, Russia and their dangerous prodigies in Iran, Burma, North Korea and elsewhere. It will, however, take more than proclamations. Words must lead to actions.

The lunch speaker at the conference was Deputy Chief of Naval Operations Vice Admiral William Crowder, who had been commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet in the Pacific. He was dismayed by how much the size of the U.S. Navy has declined in recent decades. Today it has less than half the warships that were as sea when Ronald Reagan was president. The cuts in naval programs announced April 6 by the Obama administration, along with other cuts in high end programs involving aviation and missile defense that are part of the proposed 2010 defense budget, will undermine the favorable balance of power now enjoyed by the United States.

A warning from Japanese leaders of what is at stake in Asia could not have come at a more important moment.
-----------------------------------------------------------

支持亚太协防,阻慑中共北韩 Support Asia's PATO

每日一语:

Wicked men obey from fear; good men, from love. --- Aristotle

邪恶之人只服从恐惧;良德之人则尊崇爱心。 --- Aristotle


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

Dear Visitors: (Sat Sep 30, 2006)

NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, had played a crucial role in the downfall of the former USSR. America and European democracies banded together to have formed a strong military alliance to deter the expansionist USSR and its evil motive for global domination.

Now with the initiative from the new Japanese Premier Abe, the Asian Pacific region should soon have an allied military force to deter the evil regimes of China and North Korea under their communist rulers. We should call this new allied military organization centered around America, Japan, Australia and India, (the four major democracies in the Asian Pacific region) PATO -- short for Pacific Asian Treaty Organization.

In recent years, since the downfall of the USSR and the world wide communist regimes, Asia has become the focal point of potential military confrontation between good and evil, between the dying, struggling communist regimes represented by China and North Korea, and major and new fledgling democracies such as America, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Flash points around the 38 parallel in Korea and the Taiwan Strait due to the threat from North Korea testing missiles and its intention to possess nuclear weapons and China's repeated claim to use military force to repossess Taiwan, are the main concerns in today's Asia's political instability. A strong military alliance by America, Japan, Australia and India, plus some other willing democratic participants, will be just like the NATO in Europe during the cold war, forming an effective deterrence to the evil aggression from China and North Korea.

Time is on the Freedom side, the evil regimes from China and North Korea know this well. As long as peace prevails, these evil regimes will gradually fade away and collapse. But before they do, they will mount a desperate attempt to revive their grab on power. Creating an outside enemy by starting a war is always the means to maintain their control over their own population. PATO - Pacific Asian Treaty Organization will a very effective answer to this potential threat and instability in Asia.

I applaud Japan's new Premier's initiative to start forming such an alliance. And I urge all my readers and colleagues to support his initiative as well.

Best. Kai Chen 陈凯

Saturday, April 25, 2009

從“成蟲”處看華人對自由制度的信心 Distortion by the Chinese



陈凯一语:

陳永苗先生在此文中所用词“道德”应换为“伦理”。 Morality 不是 Mores (social norms). 此定义十分关键。 望读者清晰划分。

Mr. Chen has a great article here. But his definition of "Morality" is confused with "Mores" or "Social Norms". Hereby I caution all of you to distinguish “Morality" from "Social Norms". --- Kai Chen


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



從“成蟲”處看華人對自由制度的信心 Distortion by the Chinese

作者 : 陳永苗 2009-04-24 3:00 PM

【新世紀特稿2009年4月24日】

被香港政府委任為香港旅游大使的國際影星成龍(我們為他取名成蟲),在博鰲論壇說,台灣、香港自由太多,所以亂。“中國人是需要管的”。要不要自由制度,成蟲自身也是處在困惑當中。這涉及到國人對自由制度的信心這個難言之隱。根據台灣中時電子報民調48%網友認為成龍所言屬實。鳳凰網做了一個網民調查認同成龍說法的佔71.9%,佔絕對多數,不贊同的只有24%。

耶穌站在羅馬總督彼拉多面前,彼拉多質問,什麼是真理。彼拉多就是羅馬凱撒的在場代表。至高至大至強的人間權力面前,是否屈從權力就是真理,這是一個至關重要的事情。是站立無畏的,還是匍匐顫抖的?

如果是後者,人往往是人間權力的玩具或者道具。其思考在如何縝密,如何高深,越體現為貼近現實,越是玩具或者道具。要命的是,玩具或者道具還往往從權力處,沾得黑暗陰間的榮耀,道具在玩具面前自我夸耀,玩具在其他玩具面前自我夸耀。玩具同樣匍匐顫抖于道具面前。

一個良好的憲政,很大程度依賴于民眾對政體的信心。只要政治上有一點道德瑕疵,就會放大到全部的儒家道德政治思維方式,對于憲政而言,是一種具有腐蝕性的硫酸。可以說今天港台自由社會,對自由最大的威脅,在于人們的“心中賊”。動不動就訴諸于道德政治的判斷。

破山中賊容易,破心中賊難,中華憲政的最大天敵,就是儒家道德政治思維。我可以舉民國奠基之後的第一共和,被中華革命黨和國民黨的專政所挫敗,其原因很大程度在于對民國奠基有一種徹底變天時刻的渴望,渴望越強烈,一旦受挫,絕望感越強,于是滿臉橫肉蠻干起來。同樣被國民黨專政的中華民國是可以改良的,偏偏不改良,而有人滿臉流氣干起革命。這個過程,就像猴子一樣,丟了西瓜撿芝麻,一茬不如一茬。

我們不能繼承傳統儒家道德政治病毒,按照道德烏托邦的理想,來苛責一個轉型中的中華,來指責台灣的民主亂象,來指責香港自由亂象。批判是為了幫助其完善,而不是全盤摧毀。已經有的,是要促成其生長,而不是壓扁打散。

道德烏托邦式的批判,是不管當下的憲政成就如何,距離完美有多遠,只要不符合完美圖景,那麼就遭到完全否定。例如對代議制政體的否定。孫中山對近代西方代議政體,由極力推崇轉向懷疑和失望,後來他得出結論,以為代議政體就是國家長治久安之計,那也是不足信,茫茫前路無歸處。一大批高級憤青在主宰民國,民國不亂不完才怪。

道德在政治生活中很重要,但是沒有儒家說得那麼重要。讓民族群體之間面對苦難和命運,就會發現,並不是道德規定了民族群體,而是民族群體為了擺脫苦難和命運的殘酷,而生成了道德。這道德,就像軍隊的紀律,沒有紀律這軍隊就可能渙散,無法抗擊命運的進攻。然而道德和紀律是第二性的,而苦難和命運的進攻,以及抵抗,才是第一性的。

紀律並不能替代戰略,道德捍衛並不能替代立法者的偉大政治。

說道德規定了群體,紀律造就了軍隊,這是一種對群體和軍隊的渴望和依賴,是一種必然性支配的說法。個體由于長期受到群體的約束,沒法長達成人,對自己沒信心,才強烈依賴道德。就像一個士兵,在戰場上孤單一個人,準覺得自己完蛋了。

自由的表象是亂,但是亂中才能取勝,亂才能發揮創造性。君不聞古人說亂世出英雄麼。自由制度是不亂世照樣出英雄,因為把“亂”控制在一個合理的範圍之內,並且能夠讓“亂”服務于秩序,亂而彌有序。

以亂象的說法來阻擋民主進程,喚起民眾的恐懼,妖魔化民主,是特權階層最擅長的辦法之一。百姓從來都不拒絕自由民主,而接受的就是特權者,他們為了維護其特權統治,創造各種條件、各種說法來維持特權。他們的辦法就是把百姓置于各種有形無形的牢籠當中。喚起民眾的恐懼,就是最有效的無形牢籠。

我們今天來談民主制度、談自由制度的時候有一種焦慮,就是說民主到底是不是適合中國。這就是國人對自由民主制度的信心不足。因為我們長期以來,也就說百年來或者千年以來,對自由制度本身沒有一個非常切身的感受,沒有享受過自由帶來的好處和自信。可能長期承受的就是專制帶來的一種約束,一種恐懼。我們說民主制度好,在理論上提供了很多論證。但是很多人對民主制度沒有一個非常親密的感受,這種感受沒有被見證。因為沒有進入那種生命體驗中,所以不覺得自由制度真的好。

這確實需要有一個心理過程的變遷。可是問題是,我們這幾十年來對自由的感受特別緩慢,因為我們的專制制度阻礙了變遷的進程。長期的專政不是讓百姓獨立、變得自由,為自由辯護、說自由好,能夠帶來創造性、發揮人的主觀創造性;而只是說自由不好,神化權力,讓民眾不斷地害怕權力、崇拜權力。特權者覺得這樣人民好管理。對自由制度的好感和信心的心理過程變遷是非常緩慢的,而且受到非常大的阻礙。

基督教給儒家傳統道德政治,所帶來的沖擊,是超善惡的。在基督教精神的訓化之下,從甦格拉底-柏拉圖開始,經歷中古,然後抵達現代,這個過程是個體逐漸對自己恢復信心,不再依賴于群體,來面對苦難和命運,也就是個人逐漸成為王者,獨立自主的人,面對苦難和命運,個人是超善惡的。

而古典時代群體可以超善惡的,個人的生命權力必須受制于善惡,受制于道德,只有代表群體的貴族可以超善惡。而現代性中,個體受到不斷鼓勵獲得強大信心,終于勇敢地面對命運,展開超善惡的生命行動。這樣本來就是冰山的,幾千年來的道德秩序體系,就走向融化和瓦解。

只有基督教,才能加持對自由的信心,守住心火,幫助台灣和香港的自由度不墮落。

(陳永苗︰北京後改革研究所)

Thursday, April 23, 2009

中国人的迷恋 - 建立完美的专制 A Chinese Obsession - Perfecting Despotism



中国人的迷恋 - 建立完美的专制 A Chinese Obsession - Perfecting Despotism

每日一语:

直到今天,中国的人们仍在迷恋建立一个完美的专制制度。 对个体认同、个体价值、个体责任的恐惧与逃避使得中国的人们不愿意付出争取自由的代价。 不销毁这种基于群体的、崇尚专制的文化,自由将永远摈弃中国的人们。 --- 陈凯

Even today, the Chinese have yet to yearn for freedom. What they are still obsessed with is how to establish a perfect despotism. They fear and always try to escape individual identity, individuality, individual responsibility. They fear paying the necessary price to achieve freedom. With such a culture of collectivism and despotism, freedom will forever abandon the cowardice Chinese. --- Kai Chen


-----------------------------------------------------------

Dear Visitors:

Freedom is an alien concept to a Chinese. The Chinese are just too familiar with despotism and tyranny. Confucius and other Chinese thinkers could not escape this pattern. They had devised their rhetoric always around how to build a perfect despotic society.

Freedom as a concept has never been originated from China. It only came from Western philosophers. Even today freedom as a value is not accepted by the general population in China. Most people there fear freedom, doubt freedom, despise freedom, jeer freedom, hate freedom and will do everything to escape freedom, for only one reason - they fear the individual responsibility implied in the very concept.

The Chinese also fear being alone. You seldom see a Chinese person enjoying the state of being alone. Without being alone, the concept of individuality that is essential to individual liberty forever escapes the Chinese. They simply do not want to pay the necessary price to achieve freedom.

Thus we have a forever turning Chinese despotic dynastic cycle. No one is free and happy in that cycle of tyranny. Yet the Chinese fear even more without that tyranny, for they ultimately fear all the unknown. Despotism/tyranny is the only thing they know and feel kinship to.

This is a sharp contrast to what America is about. Everything America does is based on the principle of Freedom. The earliest population from Europe came here for only one thing - Freedom to worship. Americans paid dearly for their freedom and therefore they deserve the very freedom.

Those who do not want to pay the price for freedom will never deserve having freedom. In case they are liberated by others, they will not treasure the freedom. Destroying a despotic culture and establishing a culture of freedom thus becomes the foremost task for us.

I hope you all know what we are doing here in Youpai.org - destroying a culture of despotism and establishing a culture of freedom.

Best. Kai Chen

Sunday, April 19, 2009

自由谈--中国,美国自由观对照 On Freedom by Kai Chen





He who feels that his will is not free is insane; he who denies it is foolish. --- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

那些觉得自己的意志不是自由的人是精神上不健全的人;那些否认自己是自由的人其实只是傻瓜。 --- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

自由谈--中国,美国自由观对照


On Freedom by Kai Chen

作者:陈凯 Kai Chen
Sunday, May 14, 2006 3:07:48 AM

一位从中国来的人曾激情的与激烈的与我争辩说: “美国也不是自由的。你看,美国也有红绿灯去限制人的自由,不是吗?” 他用手指着街上的红绿灯,慷慨激昂地反驳着我。

无怪乎他是一位支持中共政府镇压天安门学生抗议的人。 “不镇压国家不就乱了吗! 我们也就做不了生意了。” 他并不掩饰他的利益动机。 我周围的那些来美已久的中国生意人对他的话宜无动于衷,未置可否,用沉默来认可。

我突然意识到中美人们对自由的认知与理解居然大到了针锋相对,水火不容,天壤之别的程度。 我觉得不得不插一言: “你觉得法律是去限制人与约束人的自由的,而不是去保护,保障人的自由的。你对自由如何理解?你对人如何理解?” 他一下说不出话来,好像他是第一次想到这个问题, 也好像第一次有人问他这个问题。

他的表现使我认识到“自由”二字在中国从来就被误解,曲解,反解。 因而中国人也从来就怕自由,厌自由,排自由,恨自由。俗化自由,丑化自由,将自由负向解义一直是中国专制政权,专制政治毒化人灵,毒化人脑的有效的强力的手段。 在这里我想用相当的篇幅去论述自由的概念,去传播自由的理念,去大声地宣扬自由的价值,去无畏的,无羞的,无束缚的为自由的精神高声唱赞。

自由(Freedom, Liberty)是由西方语言翻译而来。 中国文化,文字从未产生自由的概念。 自由是上帝赋予人的。 在一个没有上帝与人的社会里自然就不可能有自由的概念的产生。 这是一个必然的逻辑。 在一个只属皇帝与国家的社会里,“奴”的产生与泛滥是一个必然。 “奴”是对自由的反动。 有奴处定无人,定无自由。 在一个属于皇帝与国家的社会与群体文化中,“人”是不存在的,无人的社会自由便无处依附。无 “上帝”的社会自由便无从起源。自由没有主谓便是虚无。 中国的寺院,庙堂中到处可见是“虚”,“无”,“空”三字,就是因为无“人”的价值只能用“虚无”作解。 “虚无”从有中国起便是所有中国人追求的伪价值,基其反价值的定义。 “三国”,“水浒”,“红楼梦”,从“大江东去浪淘沙”到 “招安侍皇”到“空空道人”无一不是反人,反上帝,反自由,反存在的崇尚“虚无”的作品。

自由作为价值的前提是“个人意志”。 无个人便无选择与意志可言。 个人是自由的基点。群体的自由是专制政治制造的伪自由,因为无个体的群体是否认个体,压抑个体的虚无。而虚无是与自由格格不入的。 自由只对存在的实体有意义,而任何存在的实体只能是个人。 上帝只能通过个人将生命,灵魂,自由传给人间。 世上从无群体灵魂,从无“国魂”,“民族魂”, “种族魂”。 由此世上也不可能有“国格”,“民族感情”,“民族品质”。 “群体特质”也只能是学术词汇供理解某种概念而用,而绝不能泛化到个人的品质鉴定上, 或个人存在的定位上。 中国的所谓“群体自由”是中国专制骗人的产物,是中国式文化毒品的一个组成部分。 个群不分,本末倒置是中国人“难得糊涂”心理情节的基点。 以个袝群,以群压个的社会即没有自由,也不会将自由作为价值。 在这种社会里,只有代表群体的国家与皇帝才是价值的准则。

既然自由是天赋的,是上帝赐予人的基本权利,(生命与对幸福的渴望与追求是其他两个上帝赋予的基本权利。)政府与法律的建立只能是以保卫这种权利为动机和基点的。 宪法的建立就是在最大程度上保障与扩大个人的自由,并在最大程度上限制政府与群体的权力为目的与始发点的。 中国政府所制造的“发展权”,“生存权”是专制的,基于群体的伪词汇,伪价值旨在否定个人,否定存在,否定价值并对专制政府的滥用权力制造理论依据。 一个没有个人自由的国度是伪国度。一个不基于个人而基于群体的政体,政治是伪政体,伪政治。

无意义的,伪意义的语言腐蚀人的精神和思想。 在中国俗化,伪化,反化,虚化“自由”这个字眼的时候,我只想在此真化,实化,正化,价值化“自由”。

自由来自上帝,来自天赋。自由落实,赋义在个人。这是自由的来龙与去脈。 人所创造的一切政治实体与机构的唯一目的就是保障与扩大人的自由。 那么自由意味着自由于什么呢?

自由于其他人。 自由于其他人的干预,压抑,阻挠与伤害。 这是自由的唯一内涵。 人不能自由于人性,也就是不能自由于上帝。 人自由于上帝所赋与的性质与特征便不配称人:

自由于灵魂的人是鬼;自由于头脑,理性,智慧的人是痴呆的残疾;自由于欲望的人便不能生存与繁衍;自由于感情的人便不能有健全的心理;自由于尊严的人不能赢得尊重;自由于权利的人永远受辱做奴;自由于独立个性的人永无成就感;自由于个人意志的人永不知选择与责任;自由于自由的人永远虚无。

中国人对自由的理解正是对美国人(西方)对自由理解的反动反向: 中国人的“自由”正是要自由于上帝所赋予人的性质与特征,正是要把依附于他人作为“中国人”对自由的定义。 这就是为什么在美国(西方)承认人的个性与特质的时候,中国人却一味迷恋在人的优点和缺点上。 只有首先面对上帝而建立绝对道德价值准则的社会才会承认人的个性与特质并发挥每个人的天才。 迷恋在人的优点缺点上的社会一定是没有上帝只有群体的社会:人在这种社会里被由群体口味价值而建立的“优点缺点说”而将个性灭绝。 个性的灭绝加剧了“奴”,“虚人”“伪人” 对上帝的诋毁和对群体的崇拜。群体,国家,政府,皇上变成了伪上帝。 “全面”和“成熟”成为了这种无上帝社会,无神国的口头语和群体奴隶,政府奴隶特质的定义。

自由作为一个绝对价值和天赋权利并不保障自由的人都能幸福,只保障人对追求幸福的权利和得到幸福的可能性。 一个无自由的奴隶既没有这种权利,也没有这种可能性。 一个声称保证给人幸福的国度是一个奴役制的自欺欺人的国度。中国就是这样一个许诺幸福,毫无幸福,但又不许人说不幸福的社会。它是一个人既笑不出来,也不允许哭的半死半活的社会。 这是一个人如生活在他人粪便里的蛆虫,即吃不好也饿不死的奴隶的社会。 那在自由的国度中,有没有人生活的不如意呢? 当然有。 在自由的社会里,个人们用他们的自由做出不同的选择。 每一种选择的后果自然就不同。 有人用他的时间去上学;有人用他的时间去工作;有人用他的时间去游玩。有人用他的时间去喝酒赌博。人的侧重不同。 人的幸福取向也不同。 但人们都在自由的寻找,追求着幸福。有的人找到了;有的人找不到;有的人放弃不找了;有的人一直都在找。 但有一点:人有找或不找的自由。 人也有选择如何找的自由。 一个奴隶永远不会有个人的成就感满足感。 一个自由人却有找到这种成就感,满足感的可能并常常找到它们。

自由常常意味着自由的去尝试,去冒犯错的风险并承担其后果。 不冒风险,不犯错误,人就不可能真正学习与进步。 只有由自由人组成的自由社会才有进步的因素。 美国二百多年的成就超过了中国,世界其他国度几千年所取就是因为这个道理。

逻辑决定了一个自由的人往往尊重他人的自由。一个奴隶往往压抑其他奴隶。 一个自由于他人的人会释放巨大的原动力,创造力与生产力, 因为他的精神,思想与躯体是解放的,无束缚的。 他与其他人的交往与合作是主动的,积极的和有机的,建设性的。 在一个奴役制下生活的人往往是消极的,被动的,被嫉妒感支配的,有破坏心理的不幸之人。 创造,生产,探索,追求不在他的语言之中。 他的一切精力都集中在防备他人,取益他人上。 他自身并不生产价值。他幻觉的认为价值来自群体。 他认为群体,国家,政府和皇帝用天上掉下来的价值赡养了他,因此他也永远不会有主人感。

一个自由的人往往是有信仰的人。 他深知人的不完美,也由此对人的巨大潜力充满希望。 他深知自由精神的伟大并珍视自由的价值。 他绝不会卖掉自由去换取物质利益,不会去吸毒昏脑去寻求虚幻满足,不会自我阉割去卖我求忠,不会去抛弃尊严去为群所用,不会去否定个性讨好大家,更不会丧失灵魂去为皇,为国捐躯。 他捍卫着他灵,智,值,躯一体的完整。 他绝不妥协。 他只听从上苍的召唤。 他只尊崇他灵魂的声音。 他绝不屈从强权,暴力和无知无灵的多数的暴政。 他保卫着他的人的权利与自由。 他绝不垂涎权力与他人所得。 他只要平等的用自己的创造与他人交换,交流。 他捍卫着他的生命,他的自由,他的财产,他的爱。 他也珍视他人对自身生命,自由,财产和爱的捍卫。

他深深地懂得自由的代价。 他深深地懂得在这世界上没有不要钱的午餐。 他深深地懂得自由是属于勇敢者,而不属于懦夫胆小鬼的。 他无所畏惧地面对那自由的代价,因为他深深地懂得: 没有自由他就永远看不到自己的价值,也就永远看不到生命的意义。 在长生不老与生命意义之间,他将永远选择生命的意义。

他是一个真正的人,属于自己的人,尊崇上苍的人。 他是一个自由人。

Jackie Chan: Chinese people need to be controlled 奴才成龙



Hong Kong actor Jackie Chan, right, gestures as he speak while Chinese actress Lin Peng look on during …

Jackie Chan: Chinese people need to be controlled 奴才成龙

By WILLIAM FOREMAN, Associated Press Writer William Foreman, Associated Press Writer – Sat Apr 18, 2:48 pm ET

BOAO, China – Action star Jackie Chan said Saturday he's not sure if a free society is a good thing for China and that he's starting to think "we Chinese need to be controlled."

Chan's comments drew applause from a predominantly Chinese audience of business leaders in China's southern island province of Hainan.

The 55-year-old Hong Kong actor was participating in a panel at the annual Boao Forum when he was asked to discuss censorship and restrictions on filmmakers in China. He expanded his comments to include society.

"I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan said. "I'm really confused now. If you're too free, you're like the way Hong Kong is now. It's very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic."

Chan added: "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want."

The kung fu star has not been a vocal supporter of the pro-democracy movement in his hometown of Hong Kong. Since the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997, voters have not been allowed to directly elect their leader. Several massive street protests have been held to demand full democracy, but Beijing has repeatedly said Hong Kong isn't ready for it.

The theme at Saturday's panel discussion was "Tapping into Asia's Creative Industry Potential," and Chan had several opinions about innovation in China.

He said that early in his career, he lived in the shadow of the late martial arts star Bruce Lee. He said that during his first foray into Hollywood, he struggled to establish his own identity, so he returned to Hong Kong. After spending 15 years building his reputation in Asia, Chan finally got rediscovered by Hollywood, he said.

Chan said the problem with Chinese youth is that "they like other people's things. They don't like their own things." Young people need to spend more time developing their own style, he added.

The action hero complained that Chinese goods still have too many quality problems. He became emotional when discussing contaminated milk powder that sickened tens of thousands of Chinese babies in the past year.

Speaking fast with his voice rising, Chan said, "If I need to buy a TV, I'll definitely buy a Japanese TV. A Chinese TV might explode."

China quake survivors still wait for word 四川地震一年,中共掩盖真相




Liu Shengying with photos of her daughter, who died in a school collapse. There is a clamor for information about quake deaths for inquiry on school safety.

China quake survivors still wait for word 四川地震一年,中共掩盖真相

Barbara Demick / Los Angeles Times

Eleven months after the devastating earthquake in Sichuan province, the government has issued no official death toll and families yearn for DNA confirmation of their losses.


By Barbara Demick
April 19, 2009

Reporting from Hanwang, China -- In the 11 months since China's devastating earthquake, Wang Tingzhang and his wife have been transformed from docile, law-abiding citizens into defiant troublemakers, at least in the eyes of authorities.

Along the way, they've been pushed, punched, wiretapped, tailed and detained.

Their offense? Asking too many questions about what happened to their only child, an 18-year-old girl who was buried under the rubble of her high school in the May 12 earthquake here in Sichuan province.

In the early weeks after the magnitude 7.9 quake, Beijing was widely applauded for its efficiency, compassion and openness in handling China's worst natural disaster in decades. But since then, the curtain has fallen.

Even the death toll is shrouded in secrecy. Although about 70,000 people are believed to have died, the government has yet to release an official toll. DNA testing that could identify thousands of victims has stalled, with no explanation from authorities.

Parents and researchers asking about schools that collapsed have been detained and harassed.

Tan Zuoren, a literary editor and environmentalist who was creating an archive of children killed in collapsed schools, was arrested last month on charges of subverting state authority, according to Amnesty International. The rights organization said his dog was stabbed and his computer stolen as well.

In the last few weeks, more than 10 volunteers working on a similar project with Ai Weiwei, a Beijing artist best known as one of the designers of the so-called Bird's Nest Olympic stadium, were detained while doing research in Sichuan. One was beaten last weekend trying to photograph a school.

"Those in power view anybody asking questions as challenging the legitimacy of the government," said Ai, who has registered 5,000 names of the dead and is still counting. "In the case of my volunteers, you could say they deserved it. . . . But for the parents, most of whom are peasants and ordinary people, to be followed, harassed, wiretapped -- this is very scary for them."

There's a growing clamor for a complete listing of victims' names, ages and details of how they died so it can be determined whether a disproportionate number of schools collapsed compared with other buildings.

"If we bury the names of the dead, we cannot claim to have human rights in China," the Southern Metropolis Daily wrote in a hard-hitting editorial published Wednesday.

The Chinese government pledged last week to register "the names of the people who died or disappeared in the earthquake and make them known to the public."

To Wang Tingzhang, struggling for 11 months to get information about his daughter, Wang Dan, the Chinese government's promises sound hollow.

"They pressure us. They try to control us. They follow us and listen to our phone calls," said Wang, his soft voice rising. "But even if they kill us, it doesn't matter because we've lost our daughter. . . . We're not scared of the government anymore."

Wang, a polite man with a ruddy complexion and a shock of dark hair creeping low on his forehead, stands about 5 feet, just a little taller than his delicate-featured wife, Liu Shengying. They live with his mother in a shack they made themselves out of blue tarpaulin and bamboo to replace their destroyed home.

Although both are from large peasant families, they were true believers in the Communist Party and its limitations on family size. Without complaint, they had just one child, and poured all their savings and ambition into her.

"Girl or boy, I didn't care," said Wang, 44. "I didn't get much education myself. I would break my bones working or sell my house to make sure my child had a future."

On the day of the quake, Wang was working out of town at a plastics factory, but he flew home immediately. By the time he reached Dongqi Secondary School, where his daughter was enrolled, it was 3.30 a.m., 13 hours after the quake. The 1970s-era building had collapsed, burying the students under four floors of concrete and steel girders. Wang pitched in, helping to pull out the mangled bodies, looking in vain for his daughter.

With no refrigeration to preserve the bodies, those not immediately identified were taken away for a mass burial on a nearby mountain. But the volunteers photographed their faces, jotted down information about clothing and body size on index cards and snipped hair to be filed away in plastic bags for future identification.

A month later, Wang and his wife got a call from the Hanwang municipality, where they live, asking them to submit blood for DNA testing. They provided the blood, and then waited. And waited.

Every few months they visit the municipal office or the education department to ask when or even whether they might expect results.

"I realized that my daughter was dead. But there was still this fantasy that somehow the phone was going to ring," Liu said. "We wanted to get confirmation."

The couple had other questions about the school, where 240 of the 1,200 students were killed. Why had no repairs been made to the building, which was so weak that students were instructed not to run in the corridors? What had happened to nearly $6 million that the Dongqi auto company had donated to the municipality for rebuilding.

A group of parents went to city hall in October, hoping to get answers from officials. Instead, they found the entry blocked by police officers, who kicked and punched them as they tried to get near.

In November, Wang and his wife went to the school to meet other parents from their daughter's class and compare notes. They ran into one of their daughter's classmates -- one of four in the class of 50 who survived -- and were happy when she told them how well their daughter had been doing in school.

Chatting away, they didn't realize at first that they were surrounded by police officers dressed in full riot gear. They say the officers herded all the parents onto a waiting bus.

"We're going to take you to the municipal offices and they'll answer your questions," Wang said the police told them.

Instead, they were taken to the police station and locked up. They remained there from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m., when officers told them they couldn't go home until they signed a statement confessing that they had "surrounded the school and disturbed the public order." Exhausted and hungry -- they hadn't been allowed to eat -- all the parents signed.

Since then, every time that they've tried to meet with other parents, police have discovered their plans immediately.

"Our telephones are tapped," Wang said.

His wife, who is five months into a difficult pregnancy, doesn't leave home often. Wang goes regularly to the municipal office to ask when DNA results will be available and gets answers such as, "It's complicated. It takes a long time."

The Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs announced a week after the quake that it was setting up a DNA database for unidentified victims. Half a dozen companies and universities also volunteered their expertise and set up a website to help match victims and families. The site was shut down a few weeks later, along with all other nongovernmental DNA testing projects for quake victims.

"I don't know why. The reasons were never made clear," said Deng Yajun, head of the Beijing Institute of Genomics, a respected forensic research firm.

But Wang has his own theory. "Now it's almost a year and I'm beginning to wonder," he said. "Are they really doing DNA testing, or was this just something to tease us? It feels like they don't want outsiders to know the death toll."

barbara.1c

Eliot Gao and Nicole Liu of The Times' Beijing Bureau contributed to this report.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Taiwan's spy pilots honored for Cold War work 黑蝙蝠中队最终被授誉


My uncle Li Bangxun - Black Bat Squadron pilot 我叔叔李邦训 - 黑蝙蝠中队飞行员(接受美国志愿军飞虎队所授“最佳飞行员奖”- 15,000 小时无坠毁飞行)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOnSNzjE8ZM

点击此链锁观看黑蝙蝠中队歌曲

Click this link to listen to the song in praise of the Black Bat Squadron

黑猫中队与黑蝙蝠中队

黑猫中队与黑蝙蝠中队是冷战期间(1960s – 1970s)台湾空军的特种侦察机组。 它们的主要任务是定期飞入中国大陆领空搜集中共核子设施的情报。 U-2 和其它机型的侦察机是由美国国防部与中央情报局提供的。 在执行任务中有数名台湾空军飞行员为自由事业殉职。他们的不朽业绩将永垂青史。

我叔叔李邦训曾是黑蝙蝠中队的飞行员。 他在历经风险的侦察任务中立下了不朽的功绩。 我希望今天所有热爱自由的人们,尤其是中国大陆和台湾的人们会铭记他们的功勋。 --- 陈凯


Taiwan's spy pilots honored for Cold War work 黑蝙蝠中队最终被授誉


The Black Bats' major function was to drop Taiwanese spies to incite mainlanders to rise up against communist rule — an enterprise that almost invariably ended in failure..

By Annie Huang, Associated Press

HSINCHU, Taiwan — They gathered quietly on a rainy night in the northern Taiwanese city of Hsinchu, six survivors of a secret cadre of pilots who risked their lives against the communist enemy during the darkest days of the Cold War.

Known as "The Black Bats," they say they were working for the CIA, a claim backed up by a photo of them posing with the then CIA station chief. Between 1953 and 1967 they flew more than 800 sorties over the Chinese mainland, dropping agents, testing radar responses, even collecting air samples from suspected nuclear test sites.

After decades in the shadows, they are now coming forward, encouraged by the planned establishment of a museum honoring their exploits in this high tech center that was once the base of their operations.

Though their main mission — laying the groundwork for an anti-communist insurrection — unquestionably failed, they are seen by many on this democratic island of 23 million people as national heroes, because they helped cement a crucial connection with the United States when their homeland needed all the big power help it could get.

The Black Bats' story first emerged in Taiwan in 1992 when China repatriated the remains of 14 crewmembers who died when their plane was shot down over the mainland in 1959. A few books on their exploits were published in subsequent years, including one by the Taiwanese Defense Ministry detailing their clandestine China overflights.

But the Bats had remained largely anonymous until the gathering early in June at Hsinchu's National Tsing Hua University, where hundreds of Taiwanese observed a minute of silence for the 148 Black Bats who didn't return from their missions and paid an emotional tribute to the few surviving members of the group.

"We owe our national and social stability to them, but we had never thanked them in public," said Tsing Hua humanities professor Lung Ying-tai.

The Black Bats were formed in 1953, just four years after Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist forces were defeated on the mainland by Mao Zedong's communists. That loss precipitated their wholesale retreat to this leaf-shaped island 100 miles off the Chinese coast.

During his more than 20 years in power on the mainland, Chiang had maintained an uneasy relationship with the United States — many historians accuse him of widescale corruption — but once on Taiwan, Washington embraced him as an anti-communist bulwark.

The CIA was a major link in the new Taiwan-U.S. connection, Black Bat veterans say, providing the group with P2V, B17 and B26 aircraft to carry out their mission of scoping out the communist enemy, and inserting agents on the mainland to promote an anti-communist insurrection.

The veterans proudly display photographs taken with Ray Cline, then the agency's Taipei station chief, and show other memorabilia supporting their claim of CIA sponsorship.

"There's no doubt about the cooperation between the Black Bats and the CIA," said Tseng Wen-shu, who helped organize an exhibition about the Bats at a municipally sponsored Hsinchu military museum.

A 2004 book co-authored by CIA Taiwan veteran James Lilley says the agency used aircraft to insert Taiwanese agents into the mainland, though it does not mention the Bats specifically.

The CIA did not respond to an e-mail asking about its connection to the group.

Seventy-seven-year-old Chu Chen, one of about 10 surviving Black Bats pilots, said crews were trained in Taiwan by Americans he later learned were CIA employees. Like others in the group, he kept his exploits secret until recently — even from members of his own family.

"If we had disclosed anything, we could have been shot as intelligence agents leaking secrets," he said.

Taiwanese defense expert Fu Ching-ping said the CIA purposely hid its connection to the Black Bats because of fear of being implicated in military forays against the mainland.

"They employed the Taiwanese pilots so they could deny any connection if the mission went wrong," he said.

The Black Bats' major function was to drop Taiwanese spies to incite mainlanders to rise up against communist rule — an enterprise that almost invariably ended in failure.

No figures are available on how many spies were dropped, but surviving Black Bat pilots say few ever returned to Taiwan.

Former navigator Chou Li-hsu recalled numerous infiltration missions and extolled the bravery of the agents.

"They tossed their weapons down first and then they jumped," he said.

Several former pilots also recounted close encounters with pursuing communist planes, which narrowly missed shooting them down.

Eighty-two-year-old Tai Shu-ching said that in five years of Black Bat service he flew 78 sorties over China, including one in 1960 in which eight communist airmen were killed when their planes crashed into a mountain during a futile chase of Tai's P2V.

"Unarmed we broke through the Iron Curtain in the darkness of the night," he said. "Each time, we were confident that we could get the mission accomplished."

Tai's 1960 encounter with his communist pursuers is described in detail in Fights to Protect the Motherland's Airspace, a book published in 2001 by China's People's Liberation Army.

Besides inserting agents, Black Bat aircraft also flew near Chinese radar installations to obtain their electronic signatures in preparation for possible American bombing missions of the mainland — missions that never took place.

Crews also helped the U.S. monitor Chinese nuclear weapons programs in the early 1960s by collecting air samples from suspected Chinese test sites.

Chu, the former pilot, said he flew his B17 on one such mission, but only learned its true purpose after the fact.

A Taiwanese defense expert, Andrew Yang of Taipei's Council of Advanced Political Studies, said programs like the Black Bats provided Washington valuable intelligence about China's secretive nuclear weapons program when the mainland was largely isolated from the rest of the world.

"Taiwan was an important source of information for the U.S. ... enabling it to avoid taking actions arising from misjudging the situation," he said.

In parallel with the Black Bats, another Taiwanese squadron — the Black Cats — flew surveillance missions over the mainland throughout the 1960s. These were high-altitude flights using U2 spy planes to photograph military establishments. At least five of the U2s were shot down by Chinese missiles before the squadron was disbanded in 1974.

Taiwan's Defense Ministry finally recognized the "important contributions" made by both the Cats and the Bats following the Hsinchu gathering.

"They ... provided crucial strategic and military intelligence that helped stabilize the Taiwan Straits situation," the ministry said in a statement. "We will never forget this chapter of our history."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

德安全套广告 毛泽东成主角 网友热议 Condom to Resist Mao





德安全套广告 毛泽东成主角 网友热议 Condom to Resist Mao

【大纪元4月14日讯】德国一家广告商将中共前领袖毛泽东作为安全套广告的主角,配角还有希特勒、本·拉登并列。引发网友热议指,未免生出类似人渣,广告商有创意。

据报导该广告是在一家名为“Ads of the World”(世界广告网)的网站登载,广告名为“Doc Morris药房:毛泽东”。该广告借用毛泽东的形象,并加上希特勒与本·拉登,来为一家荷兰药店的安全套做广告。

广告制作方Grey Worldwide公司为德国第二大广告公司,已有50年历史,在97个国家设有428家办事处,包括中国上海。

该广告在中国大陆报导出来后,不到11个小时内仅一个网站就引发四万五千六百多条网民的留言,但点击进入后,发现只有二百多条表示愤怒的网民评论得以公开。

但也有论坛网网民直截了当,“一点也不愤怒”“愤怒个毛啊!!!我高兴啊!还是外国人了解历史啊!!”“我是国人。我不生气。”

“只有德国人才有这个权利这么做,因为马列主义就是德国人搞的嘛,德国人太了解这个东东是什么东东了!”

更有网民对该广告作出的评价为,“创意非常好,为避免生出类似M·希特勒、墨索里尼、斯大林、波尔布特、金家二胖这种人渣,请使用安全套,真TM有才!”

“就冲这创意,我也得买一打,什么牌的?”

“不得不佩服德国人!且不说这种自我反思、自我批判的精神,单只论创意,就足以令人赞叹了!的确,如果它们的父母用了这个东西,那人类会少受多少浩劫!不过,拉登似乎与另两个不在一个重量级上,改成斯大林似乎更好。”

(http://www.dajiyuan.com)

毛为主角,配角希特勒及本拉登。(网络图片)

The Dragon's Economic Conquest 龙对世界的吞噬




The Dragon's Economic Conquest 龙对世界的吞噬

By William R. Hawkins
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, April 14, 2009

The April 2 Leaders Statement issued at the close of the G20 economic summit proclaimed, “We start from the belief that prosperity is indivisible; that growth, to be sustained, has to be shared.” A noble sentiment, but not one many of the participants actually believe. The Chinese certainly do not believe in sharing, as they are working hard to exploit the world-wide economic crisis to their own advantage. Beijing is staking out a position on the global stage as the strongest national economy so as to win entrance into international organizations and councils as a peer competitor to the United States. Its message is that the Western model has failed, and that American “hegemony” is at an end.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January, Premier Wen Jiabao blamed “inappropriate macroeconomic policies of some economies and their unsustainable model of development” for the current financial collapse. He admitted that the events have had a “rather big impact” on the Chinese economy, saying, “We are facing severe challenges, including notably shrinking external demand, overcapacity in some sectors, difficult business conditions for enterprises, rising unemployment in urban areas and great downward pressure on economic growth.” Yet, Wen nevertheless claimed that China would still be able to meet its 2009 target of 8 percent growth at a time when every other major economy is in recession. The Chinese economy grew 9 percent in 2008 while the U.S. economy declined by 1.1 percent.

Beijing's bravado impressed World Economic Forum Asian Department Director Frank-Jürgen Richter. He told The People's Daily, the official newspaper of the ruling Chinese Communist Party, “The US economy once had been the engine for world economic development, but now it is faced with predicament and plagued by chaos…. Then, who, after all, can replace the United States? Only China! China's economic situation is very good, not only its domestic situation is favorable, but also more and more overseas investments are turned to China which is hopefully to take the place of the United States in five years to become the main motive force for global economic growth.”

The key to China's perceived clout is its massive $2 trillion hoard of hard currency, mostly held in dollars, which is being added to constantly via its trade surplus. The U.S. has sent over $1.5 trillion to China since 2000 via its trade deficit. Everyone wants the Chinese store of capital and purchasing power to flow their way. By all reports, it was the main subject on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's agenda when she visited Beijing in February. She was literally begging Chinese leaders to keep investing in U.S. Treasury securities to fund the rapidly expanding Federal budget deficit. She was thus willing to downplay all the geopolitical conflicts between Beijing and Washington.

Clinton's appeal was not something that had just materialized from the Obama administration. The Bush administration was also begging for Beijing to send back to the U.S. the money American consumers had sent to China to buy imports. In his opening statement to the U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue last June, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said, “We will discuss the best way to promote and protect bilateral investment and to counter protectionist pressures.” A major result of the SED was the launch of negotiations for a bilateral investment treaty. Such an agreement could minimize national security reviews and give Beijing a freer hand in the American market. The Joint U.S.-China Fact Sheet released at the end of the SED states that an Investment Forum “will focus on practical investor concerns, such as the process of investment reviews.” It is also stated that “the United States welcomes sovereign wealth fund investment, including from China.” This means the purchase by the Beijing regime itself of American productive assets in the private sector as well as government bonds.

The American public and Congress have found the specter of greater Chinese penetration of the U.S. economy alarming. When state-owned China National Offshore Oil Company attempted to acquire the Unocal energy firm in 2005, the House of Representatives passed a resolution against the deal, prompting Unocal to accept an offer from another American firm instead. The Unocal deal was one of the cases that led Congress to enact the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007. This was the first major piece of legislation of the 110th Congress, passed unanimously in the House and by voice vote in the Senate. It placed particular emphasis on investigating deals involving state-owned firms or which involved shifting control of infrastructure to foreign hands. Unfortunately, President George W. Bush confirmed Treasury's dominant role in the process by executive order. His action ignored a warning from the Government Accountability Office that the process “in protecting U.S. national security may be limited because Treasury- as Chair of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States- has narrowly defined what constitutes a threat to national security.”

The first successful test of the improved CFIUS process involved a Chinese firm. Huawei Technologies tried to purchase a stake in 3Com, a U.S. firm that makes computer network security software for the Pentagon. When it became apparent that CFIUS was not going to approve the deal, due in part to objections raised by the Director of National Intelligence (who had been named as an advisor to CFIUS in the 2007 bill), the offer to buy 3Com was withdrawn.

But in an alarming turn, Treasury Special Envoy Alan Holmer told a Chinese audience last May, “we often hear concerns from China about the U.S. investment review process and whether the United States truly welcomes Chinese investment. U.S. legal authority in this area is narrowly targeted to address acquisitions that raise genuine national security concerns, not broader economic interests or industrial policy factors.” So the GAO warning remains valid.

The New York Times reported Feb. 21 that “China is taking advantage of the economic downturn to go on a major shopping spree, investing in energy and other natural resources that could give it an economic advantage it has never had before. Some economic analysts say they believe that China's investments pose a threat to competitors like the United States.” Recent investments include oil production in Brazil, Venezuela and Russia; and mining operations in Australia. With world demand down during the recession, there are bargains to be had for a country with as much cash on hand as China.

In the United States, Beijing has been buying Treasury debt, which is the less dangerous course from the American perspective. Policy should seek to contain Chinese capital within the public sector where investments do not confer any control. Still, even this is not without risks. Writing in the Spring 2008 issue of the Army War College journal Parameters, business economists Felix K. Chang and Jonathan Goldman argue that China's large block of Treasury securities gives it the power to disrupt U.S. financial markets. “No bombs need fall from the sky. Yet damage can be inflicted on the United States through market manipulation that would be as costly to recover from as any conventional attack,” they warn.

Yet there is danger is overstating the amount of leverage Beijing can use against Washington. For years, the State Department has argued that the U.S. could not push China on economic issues like the trade deficit, currency manipulation or intellectual property protection because Beijing's help was needed against North Korean weapons programs. North Korea's test of a nuclear device in 2006 and its recent test of a long-range missile indicate that China has been more helpful in protecting the Pyongyang regime from effective countermeasures than it has been in supporting Washington's non-proliferation efforts. Now the argument from Treasury is that the U.S. cannot pressure China on issues like North Korea (or Iran) for fear that Beijing will disrupt American financial markets.

China tested its clout in the run up to the G20 summit. On March 24, People's Bank of China Gov. Zhou Xiaochuan wrote on the bank's Web site that it was time to step back from the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency and consider a global currency controlled by the International Monetary Fund. Russia had actually opened this challenge earlier when Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev called for the ruble to become a regional reserve currency, while a new global currency was created.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner took some heat when he initially said that the Chinese proposal deserved consideration. He clarified his position on March 30 saying, “The policy of the United States is that a strong dollars is in the interests of the United States. I believe the dollar will be the principle reserve currency for a very long time to come.” According to the White House, the issue did not come up when President Barack Obama met with President Hu Jintao on the sidelines of the G20 summit.

The Russian proposal was a clumsy attempt to create a ruble bloc to link the old Soviet republics to Moscow. Beijing has been trying something similar. China and Argentina recently agreed to exchange 70 billion yuan ($10 billion), of their currencies for use in trade and investment. “Dollars will not be needed for trade,” said The People's Daily, adding, “This measure will play a positive role in improving regional currency stability, preventing financial risk and reducing the spread of the crisis.” What it will actually do is tie the two countries together on a barter basis, confirming Beijing's neocolonial trade pattern of exchanging manufactured goods for Argentine raw materials.

China is the world's third largest economy, but keeps its financial system isolated. The yuan trades only in China, which allows the central bank to set the exchange rate by fiat to gain a competitive advantage in export markets. The yuan cannot be a world reserve currency, or even be included in a basket of currencies used to stabilize international rates.

Beijing has fewer options about how to use its dollar hoard than the United States has in regard to how it conducts trades and governs foreign investments. In theory, China could diversify its reserves to hold more euros, pounds, or yen, but China owns too many dollars to sell without driving down their market value. This would bring on the very dollar devaluation they see as the capital loss risk of holding so many dollars.

And this still does not to mention the unmentionable. The United States could cancel (default) on any sovereign debt owed to Chinese entities should the tensions between the rival powers erupt into war.

Beijing has gotten itself into this trap because managing its reserves was not its top priority. It has been happy to hold market safe, low-yield Treasury securities. Its focus has been on boosting employment at home, building production capacity and expanding the trade surplus that supports domestic development. The growth in the real economy is what keeps the Chinese people loyal to the regime. Rising unemployment as exports decline has Beijing worried. Prime Minister Wen Jiabao told a cabinet meeting in January that, “The country's employment situation is extremely grim.” Public security directors from across the country have been summoned to Beijing to learn how to suppress rallies and strikes before they turn into riots.

Chinese exports in February slid 25.7 percent from a year earlier, leading to the close of thousands of factories and the unemployment of millions. It is estimated that 60-70 million Chinese work in export industries. Of the major nations, China is the most dependent on trade, having engineered its rise on the massive transfer of wealth from overseas gained from trade surpluses, foreign investment, and technology transfers. Beijing is responding to the decline in trade in two ways. First, it is trying to grab a larger share of falling world exports by resorting to even more cutthroat competition against foreign rivals, many of whom in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are friends of the United States. Mexico is also a Chinese export rival. The second response has been to launch a massive domestic stimulus package of government infrastructure projects and expanded bank lending.

President Obama has said on several occasions, including at the G20 summit, that other nations cannot expect to base their economic recoveries on continued deficit spending by reckless American consumers. The United States must reduce its $700 billion global annual trade deficits to rebuild its own strength, and its must stop subsidizing Beijing's rise with $260 billion trade deficits with China. U.S. imports have doubled since 1999, hitting $2.5 trillion in 2008. This number can be brought down by moving high-end production back home, but America will always be the world's largest importer even as accounts are brought towards balance. This gives Washington substantial leverage as it decides who will be granted access to the rich U.S. market. That privilege should go to America's friends and allies, not its rivals.

In her book Allies, Adversaries and International Trade Princeton political economist Joanne S. Gowa argues that it is a mistake to abandon the traditional practice of having “trade follow the flag” because interdependence is too risky with any government that cannot be trusted on political grounds. Gowa writes, “power politics is an inexorable element of any agreement to open international markets, because of the security externalities that trade produces....trade enhances the potential military power of any country that engages in it.” Trade with an ally makes both parties stronger, whereas trade with an enemy creates what Gowa calls “a security diseconomy.” Such a security diseconomy exists today with China and should be ended.

The Beijing dictatorship has based its legitimacy with the Chinese people on economic progress accelerated by exploitive trade policies and on the promise that it can restore China to its rightful place at the center of world politics. The United States still has the power to deny both of these goals to the communist regime, thus not only preserving its own preeminence but hastening true reform in China by discrediting its current model of development.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Just How Free Is the World’s Freest Economy? 香港自由市场经济的危难




Just How Free Is the World’s Freest Economy? 香港自由市场经济的危难

Democracy may pose the greatest danger to Hong Kong’s free-market economy.

By John C. Goodman

Hong Kong has the freest economy in the whole world, according to both the Index of Economic Freedom published by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, and the Economic Freedom of the World report published by the Fraser Institute and the Cato Institute.

There are good reasons for this ranking. The highest tax rate on personal income in the country is only 16 percent, and there are no taxes on interest, dividends, or capital gains. Hong Kong has complete free trade. There is very little special-interest (mercantilistic) interference in most markets. Hong Kong is one of the least corrupt countries in the world. And its legal system is based on British common law.

These undoubtedly are the reasons why this tiny land of 7 million people, with no natural resources to speak of, has a per-capita income ($29,900) that rivals that of the United States. Hong Kong enjoyed meteoric economic success in the space of a few decades — and did so mainly under British rule. Ironically, while the mother country was stifled by socialism and the welfare state (before Margaret Thatcher, at any rate), the colony soared from Third World to First World status by adopting capitalism instead. By the time Hong Kong was turned over to China, its per-capita income exceeded that of Britain.

But just how free is Hong Kong? On a recent visit, I spent an entire week with people in and out of government, and what I learned was surprising and disturbing.

Shocking fact number one: One out of every two residents of Hong Kong lives in government housing.

Shocking fact number two: Under Hong Kong’s system of socialized medicine, everyone is entitled to (nearly) free health care (there are only nominal charges, and even those are waived if your income is low). In a sense, Hong Kong is even more socialistic than the Chinese mainland when it comes to housing and health care.

Of course, when things are free, demand exceeds supply. So there is a waiting list for public housing, and the average wait to see a medical specialist is more than seven months. That is why almost one out of every two health-care dollars is spent privately — with people paying market prices to obtain promptly what they are supposed to be getting gratis.

It gets worse. In a country that is often held up as the quintessential alternative to the modern welfare state, it turns out that people can and do apply for . . . well . . . welfare.

Shocking fact number three: One out of every seven Hong Kong residents is receiving cash payments from the government, and more than 40 percent of these people are neither old nor disabled.

To begin with, there is a basic cash benefit. Then there is a whole slew of child-related cash allowances, covering such items as day care, pre-school, kindergarten, textbooks, and school lunches. Add to that a transportation allowance, a utilities allowance, and even a burial allowance, and you get a whole new meaning of the idea of “cradle to grave.”

There are no lifetime limits to these benefits, but they are reduced if you earn any income. Start with an average $12,000 annual cash benefit. If the family earns $8,000, the benefit is reduced to $4,000. If the family earns $9,000, the benefit is only $3,000. In economic terms, these families face a 100 percent marginal tax rate on private-sector earnings. One wonders why anyone works at all in Hong Kong. The answer seems to be: There is a strong work ethic that overrides the lure of living off the state.

Shocking fact number four: There is no private property in Hong Kong — at least not real property. All land is owned by the government. Nominal owners are actually leaseholders who have merely acquired the right to use the property they have.

Ah, I know what you’re thinking. At least Hong Kong isn’t infected by political correctness and nanny-state lunacies. Think again. There are laws against age, sex, and race discrimination. Smoking in restaurants and office buildings is illegal. And (would you believe it?) Hong Kong has an indigenous population for whom some people feel a lot of guilt. Thus any male (females don’t count — an indigenous people’s exception to the no-sex-discrimination rule) who can prove he is a lineal descendant of a male who was living in the region in 1898 is entitled to a free plot of land on which to build a “small house.” Since land is so scarce, its value is worth many times the construction costs of a house — allowing many an 18-year-old to enter into a flip arrangement with a real-estate investor and become an overnight millionaire.

I don’t want to be too negative here. I would rank Hong Kong among the best places to live in the whole world. It is a city of glass and steel that is visually stunning. Schoolchildren wear uniforms. The people are unfailingly friendly. And although there are no obese people to speak of, it has some of the best restaurants in all of Asia.

The public-transport system is largely privatized and self-sustaining (no eco-friendly but uneconomical subsidies). There is a measure of school choice. One public school I observed posted ads touting its attributes. If it fails to attract enough students, it will have to close. The constitution requires a balanced budget. And maybe most important of all, government spending is only 20 percent of national income. By contrast, the U.S. government takes about 50 percent more than that; the average European government takes twice as much.

So what does the future hold? When the British turned Hong Kong over to China in 1997, the great fear was that China would try to turn it into a Communist state. As part of an effort to forestall that outcome, the British left the country with institutions that would move in the direction of true democracy with universal suffrage.

In retrospect, the fear was completely misplaced. Capitalism in Hong Kong is in far greater danger from its own citizens than it is from anyone in Beijing.

Ironically, the biggest problem is: The people of Hong Kong are just like us! They don’t understand free enterprise any more than Americans understand it. They are no more dedicated to it than we are. They do not think of free-market capitalism as a moral and ethical ideal any more than Americans or Europeans think of it that way.

True enough, people in Hong Kong are aware that theirs has been named the freest economy in the world, and they are proud of that fact — even though capitalism was handed to them by a colonial government that no one in Hong Kong ever voted for. But from what I can tell, they would be perfectly willing to let it die a death of a thousand cuts — just as the rest of the developed world has done.

All signs point in the wrong direction. The government is about to impose Hong Kong’s first minimum-wage law. It is pushing for expansion of the public sector in health care. And when the welfare cash allowances described above were reduced recently, almost all the members of the elected Legislative Council (which acts in an advisory role) protested the move.

The Chinese government has pledged universal suffrage in Hong Kong by 2020. But is that really such a good idea? Right now, the most important bulwark against the creation of a welfare state in Hong Kong is the fact that the citizens cannot vote for it.

— John C. Goodman is founder and president of the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Kennedy-Reagan v. Bush-Obama 肯尼迪,里根 vs. 布什,奥巴马




Kennedy-Reagan v. Bush-Obama 肯尼迪,里根 vs. 布什,奥巴马

By Peter Ferrara on 4.8.09 @ 6:08AM

"We tried that, and it didn't work," Obama and his partisans sneer in response to arguments that tax cuts are the key to restoring economic growth. Instead they support an economic recovery plan based on increased welfare, government spending, and federal deficits and debt as the key to growth. Anyway, they have a "balanced package" with tax cuts too.

Even some conservatives do not understand well enough that not all tax cuts stimulate growth. Which tax cuts work to stimulate the economy and long-term growth and which do not?

Cuts in tax rates stimulate economic growth because the lower rates allow producers to keep a higher percentage of what they produce and earn. For example, at a 50% tax rate the producer only keeps 50% of what he earns. If the rate is reduced to 25%, the producer keeps 75% of what he earns. This means greatly increased incentives to save, invest, start businesses, expand businesses, create jobs, engage in entrepreneurship, and work.

Moreover, these incentives do not just expand the economy by the amount of the tax cut. For example, a tax cut of $100 billion involving reduced tax rates does not just affect the economy by $100 billion. The lower tax rate affects every dollar and every economic decision throughout the economy. That is because every economic decision is based on the new lower tax rates. Indeed, the new lower tax rates affect every dollar, or unit of currency, and every economic decision throughout the whole world regarding whether to invest in America, start or expand businesses there, create jobs there, even work there, because all these decisions will be based on the new lower tax rates.

Kennedy's Tax Cuts

While President Obama and his hypnotized followers do not understand this, President John F. Kennedy did. Kennedy proposed legislation to reduce income tax rates across the board by 30%. Kennedy explained:

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today, and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates….[A]n economy constrained by high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget, just as it will never create enough jobs or enough profits."

Kennedy added:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other….It is between two kinds of deficits -- a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy -- or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, produce revenues, and achieve a future budget surplus.


Kennedy explained further that the best way to promote economic growth "is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system -- and this administration is pledged to an across-the-board reduction in personal and corporate income tax rates."

Kennedy's proposed tax rate cuts were adopted in 1964, cutting the top tax rate from 91% to 70%, as well as reducing the lower rates. Over the next year, economic growth soared by 50%, and income tax revenues increased by 41%! By 1966, unemployment had fallen to its lowest peacetime level in almost 40 years. U.S. News & World Report exclaimed, "The unusual budget spectacle of sharply rising revenues following the biggest tax cut in history is beginning to astonish even those who pushed hardest for tax cuts in the first place." Arthur Okun, the administration's chief economic advisor, estimated that the tax cuts expanded the economy in just two years by 10% above where it would have been.

Reagan's Tax Cuts

In 1981, Reagan cut the top income tax rate of 70% to 50%, with a 25% across the board reduction in income tax rates for everyone else. Then, in the 1986 tax reform, he cut the top rate to 28%, with only one other rate of 15% for everyone else. Reagan also cut corporate income tax rates.

By 1982, just before the tax cuts were fully phased in, the economy took off on a 25 year economic boom, what Art Laffer and Steve Moore called "the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet." Steve Forbes called it "an economic golden age." Forbes added:

Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the [25 year boom]. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year [worldwide] were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high tech-oriented economy.

In 1984, the economy grew by 6.8% in real terms, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the next 7 years, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989. Even with the Reagan tax cuts, total federal revenues doubled from 1980 to 1990, growing from $517.1 billion to $1,031 billion, or just over $1 trillion. In Reagan's last budget year, fiscal 1989, the widely overballyhooed federal deficit had declined to $152.5 billion, about the same as a percent of GDP as in 1980, 2.9% compared to 2.8%.

Bush's Tax Cuts

At first, Bush mostly followed in the steps of Kennedy and Reagan in his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Though his 2001 tax cut included some non-growth tax reductions, such as increasing the child tax credit, it also reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 39.5% to 35%, a reduction of only 11%, which he had to fight for tooth and nail. Bush's 2001 tax cuts also reduced the rate for the lowest income workers by 33%, from 15% down to 10%. In 2003, Bush cut the capital gains tax rate by 33%, and the income tax rate on corporate dividends by over half.

These tax rate cuts reversed the short, shallow 2001 recession and the negative economic effects of the 9/11 attacks, restoring growth. After the rate cuts were all fully implemented in 2003, the economy created 7.8 million new jobs and the unemployment rate fell from over 6% to 4.4%. Real economic growth over the next 3 years doubled from the average for the prior 3 years, to 3.5%.

Business investment spending, which had declined for 9 straight quarters, reversed and increased 6.7% per quarter. Manufacturing output soared to its highest level in 20 years. The stock market revived, creating almost $7 trillion in new shareholder wealth. From 2003 to 2007, the S&P 500 almost doubled. Steve Forbes noted, "Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy." In other words, the growth in the U.S. economy from 2002 to 2007 was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of China to the U.S. economy.

By 2006, capital gains tax revenues had doubled, despite the 25% rate cut. In fact, over the past 40 years, every time the capital gains tax rate has been cut, revenues have increased, and every time the rate has been increased, capital gains revenues have declined.

Tax Cuts That Don't Work

But by the last year of his term, Bush had completely lost his way. When the economy began to falter at the end of 2007, Bush proposed not the tax rate cut policies that had been so successful since Kennedy, but a $150 billion tax rebate stimulus plan based on the disastrous, failed Keynesian policies of the 1970s and 1930s.

Such tax rebates or tax credits do not work to stimulate economic growth because they do not change the fundamental incentives that govern the economy. A $500 tax credit or tax rebate involves the government either explicitly or effectively sending you a check for $500. But after that you and everyone else still face the same tax rates and same economic incentives.

Tax cuts do not expand the economy by "putting more money in people's pockets," thereby leading to increased spending. Increased welfare benefits would put more money in people's pockets as well. But this is an outdated Keynesian rationale from the 1930s that increasing spending will increase growth to meet the demand. That does not work for two reasons. First, the government has to borrow or tax the money from someone else in the economy to give you the tax credit or increased welfare check. So, if it takes $500 out of the economy to give you $500 through the tax credit or increased welfare, it has not added anything to the economy on net. Secondly, again, there is no change in fundamental incentives.

Sure enough, the now long forgotten Bush stimulus of early 2008 did not stop the declining economy. A full discussion of the causes of the 2008-2009 economic crisis is provided in my forthcoming IPI study America's Financial Crisis: Causes and Cures.

Obama's Tax Cuts

Yet, the tax cuts Obama has adopted and proposed are virtually the same as the failed Bush tax rebate stimulus of 2008. The centerpiece is a $400 per worker tax credit that will not work to stimulate the economy for the same reasons just discussed above in regard to the failed Bush 2008 stimulus.

Note that Obama's own budget documents show that 35% of his supposed income tax cuts go to people who do not pay income taxes, and therefore are not tax cuts at all, but welfare checks. This is why Obama's own budget accounts for this portion of his supposed tax cuts as outlays rather than revenue reductions. You can't cut income taxes for people who do not pay income taxes.

Moreover, Obama has also proposed a cap-and-trade tax on energy to counter supposed global warming. That will raise the price of gas, electricity, home heating oil, and every product that is produced and distributed using energy. This will more than offset the $400 per worker tax credit.

As of this month, we are in the longest recession since World War II. The National Bureau of Economic Research scores this recession as having started in December, 2007. Yet, from the beginning we have followed old-fashioned, Keynesian tax cut stimulus policies, first under Bush, but then continued under Obama, rather than the amazingly successful tax rate cut policies of Kennedy and Reagan. That is why this is the longest recession since World War II, with still no end in sight, and unemployment persistent and relentlessly climbing.

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

中国文字,文化与基因的近亲乱伦 The Chinese Cultural & Genetic Incest




中国文字,文化与基因的近亲乱伦 The Chinese Cultural & Genetic Incest

每日一语:

中国的方块,相形的单音节文字导致了乱赋义,无赋义与泛赋义的文字强奸与乱伦。 中国从秦皇到共产的“井田制”与“户口”造成了中国人生理基因的近亲乱伦与退化。 中国文化的闭塞与其内交乱伦造成了中国人畸形病态的“人鬼情结”,“孙猴子情结”与“阴阳宦官情结“,造成了中国人自欺败坏的道德虚无, 道德相对心态。 "内交”,“自交”,“他阉”与“自阉”是中国人习以为常的普遍行为。 畸形丑陋的产物便是必然。

只有自由是上苍的人的真正伦理。 中国人到了该用上苍的人的真正伦理为中国的文字,文化,生理与政治“正伦”的时候了。 --- 陈凯

The Chinese square-looking, pictorial, character-based syllabic language, from its beginning, has led to a linguistic nihilism, a subjective and despotic rape of human reasoning faculties, an linguistic incest that causes distortion of reality and deformity of human psyche. From the first Chinese emperor's invention of "Well-to-Farmland" system that chained humans to their geographical location, to the modern Chinese communists' inheritance of it by the system of "Residential Registration", the physiological degeneration of human genetics by close-relative incest among the Chinese families, by the xenophobic racist tendencies coupled with a negative "cultural selection" has caused invisible but real and grave damaging consequences. The Chinese cultural incest originated from a closed and stagnant cultural environment in an Oriental despotic setting, has caused inevitably the Chinese warped perception of reality, the distorted sense of logic and rationality and the moral relativism and nihilism. The "human-devil complex", the "Monkey King complex", "the self-castrating eunuch complex" and the "Yin-Yang existence" are the necessary products from such incest,ugly and deformed as they always have to be.

Only freedom is the normal, the natural, the healthy, the true way of life from God. Now it is time to use Freedom as the antidote to cure the sickness and deformity from the Chinese incest in their language, culture, genetics and political institutions. --- Kai Chen


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

黎鳴︰“中國文化”患上了典型的“文化返祖癥” Cultural Atavism

作者 : 黎鳴 2009-04-07 12:00 AM

生物學上的“返祖”現象,例如在人身上,即是在不該長毛的地方,像臉上、背上、手上、腿上,全都長滿了毛,活脫脫就像是一個人世間的“猿猴”,而智力上,恐怕也處于嚴重的衰退之中。

文化上的“返祖”現象,典型的就是中國人的永遠的“尊孔讀經” 和永遠的“儒家文化傳統”,仿佛“尊孔讀經”和“儒家文化傳統”就是中國人文化“身上”的標準的“毛”,如果不長這些“毛”,不讓它們長滿中國文化的“全 身”,中國人就會頑固地拒絕自己是“中國人”。如此的中國,似乎也活脫脫就像是世界各國之中的一個渾身長滿了“儒毛”的“智能侏儒”之國。至于“尊 孔讀經”和“儒家文化傳統”事實上已經造成了中國的文化屬于世界上最低級的(宗法)“文化”;中國人的大腦智力事實上已經因為這種文化而處在了最嚴重的衰 退狀態之中;以及中國人,特別是中國的漢人整整在一千年的時間里事實上已經喪失了最基本的人格,等等等等,諸如此類,中國人反倒不怎麼考慮了,而且更反而 對中國歷代皇家以及儒家聖人的歷史“傳奇”贊美有加,中國的皇帝們也幾乎全都登上了現代中國的銀幕或者熒屏;甚至不久,孔子的“偉大、光榮、正確”的輝煌 形象也將出現在中國的銀幕和熒屏之上,以便讓全中國和全世界的人民致以最崇敬的瞻仰。中國人長時期以來竟然均以如此最崇敬的情感去瞻仰這麼一個實質上的文 化“庸人”,這真是一個因“文化返祖癥”而病入膏肓的世界人類奇跡,更是一個文化民族在漫長的歷史之中永遠自我致愚的歷史奇跡!!!

為什麼中國人總是擺脫不了這種文化上的“返祖”情結呢?或索性 稱,為什麼“中國文化”會如此嚴重地患上這種“文化返祖癥”呢?而且“儒家文化傳統”到底具有什麼樣的“文化”呢(這哪是“文化”,而根本就是對中國人的 徹底的愚化啊)?我親愛的同胞,你們思考過這些嚴肅的問題麼?如果你們沒有思考過,那麼我希望您認真思考一下。如果您沒有時間思考,那麼我就把我思考的過 程和結果全都告訴您,並全都公布在我的博客之中。我將從哲學上,從邏輯上,從歷史上,從人學的人性、人格、人品等等等等全面的意義上對此作出盡可能最全息 的思考,這種思考將告訴您,我們將既要徹底地破除中國人對孔儒的完全盲目而更極其有害的迷信,也要重新樹立伏羲、老子、墨子等古代真正思想家們的具有現代意義的思維的價值,更要創立我們今天中國人自己的完全劃時代的新的思維價值的風範。為此,我請求我親愛的同胞密切關注我所有的博客。對于所有關注我博客的網友,尤其年輕的網友,我深深地感謝你們,並堅信在你們之中,將一定會出現中華民族新世紀真正思想的天才。(2009,3,24.)