克鲁曼批总统就职演讲

诺贝尔经济奖得主克鲁曼在《纽约时报》专栏中批评OBAMA总统就职演讲没有为美国经济政策带来指引，只是老调重弹。

Op-Ed Columnist
Stuck in the Muddle
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Like anyone who pays attention to business and financial news, I am in a state of high economic anxiety. Like everyone of good will, I hoped that President Obama’s Inaugural Address would offer some reassurance, that it would suggest that the new administration has this thing covered.

But it was not to be. I ended Tuesday less confident about the direction of economic policy than I was in the morning.

Just to be clear, there wasn’t anything glaringly wrong with the address — although for those still hoping that Mr. Obama will lead the way to universal health care, it was disappointing that he spoke only of health care’s excessive cost, never once mentioning the plight of the uninsured and underinsured.

Also, one wishes that the speechwriters had come up with something more inspiring than a call for an “era of responsibility” — which, not to put too fine a point on it, was the same thing former President George W. Bush called for eight years ago.

But my real problem with the speech, on matters economic, was its conventionality. In response to an unprecedented economic crisis — or, more accurately, a crisis whose only real precedent is the Great Depression — Mr. Obama did what people in Washington do when they want to sound serious: he spoke, more or less in the abstract, of the need to make hard choices and stand up to special interests.

That’s not enough. In fact, it’s not even right.

Thus, in his speech Mr. Obama attributed the economic crisis in part to “our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age” — but I have no idea what he meant. This is, first and foremost, a crisis brought on by a runaway financial industry. And if we failed to rein in that industry, it wasn’t because Americans “collectively” refused to make hard choices; the American public had no idea what was going on, and the people who did know what was going on mostly thought deregulation was a great idea.

Or consider this statement from Mr. Obama: “Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed.”

The first part of this passage was almost surely intended as a paraphrase of words that John Maynard Keynes wrote as the world was plunging into the Great Depression — and it was a great relief, after decades of knee-jerk denunciations of government, to hear a new president giving a shout-out to Keynes. “The resources of nature and men’s devices,” Keynes wrote, “are just as fertile and productive as they were. The rate of our progress towards solving the material problems of life is not less rapid. We are as capable as before of affording for everyone a high standard of life. ... But today we have involved ourselves in a colossal muddle, having blundered in the control of a delicate machine, the working of which we do not understand.”

But something was lost in translation. Mr. Obama and Keynes both assert that we’re failing to make use of our economic capacity. But Keynes’s insight — that we’re in a “muddle” that needs to be fixed — somehow was replaced with standard we’re-all-at-fault, let’s-get-tough-on-ourselves boilerplate.

Remember, Herbert Hoover didn’t have a problem making unpleasant decisions: he had the courage and toughness to slash spending and raise taxes in the face of the Great Depression. Unfortunately, that just made things worse.

Still, a speech is just a speech. The members of Mr. Obama’s economic team certainly understand the extraordinary nature of the mess we’re in. So the tone of Tuesday’s address may signify nothing about the Obama administration’s future policy.

On the other hand, Mr. Obama is, as his predecessor put it, the decider. And he’s going to have to make some big decisions very soon. In particular, he’s going to have to decide how bold to be in his moves to sustain the financial system, where the outlook has deteriorated so drastically that a surprising number of economists, not all of them especially liberal, now argue that resolving the crisis will require the temporary nationalization of some major banks.

So is Mr. Obama ready for that? Or were the platitudes in his Inaugural Address a sign that he’ll wait for the conventional wisdom to catch up with events? If so, his administration will find itself dangerously behind the curve.

And that’s not a place that we want the new team to be. The economic crisis grows worse, and harder to resolve, with each passing week. If we don’t get drastic action soon, we may find ourselves stuck in the muddle for a very long time.

就像所有關心商業和金融新聞的人一樣，我對經濟局勢非常焦躁不安。不幸的是，歐巴馬總統周二的就職演說，未能帶給我信心。

先要聲明，這場演說沒有任何糟糕的錯誤。儘管對希望歐巴馬能推出全民健保的人來說，他只提到健康保險的超高費用，卻隻字未提毫無保險者的苦難，令人失望。

抽象一席話 和政客一般

但就經濟層面而言，我認為這場演說的真正問題是陳腔濫調。面對這場只有大蕭條可堪比擬的經濟危機，歐巴馬的反應與其他華府政客一樣：他抽象地談到做出艱難抉擇，反對特殊利益。
這麼說還不夠。事實上，這甚至根本不對。

歐巴馬說，這場經濟危機部分要歸咎於「我們全體未能做出艱難抉擇，迎接新的時代」。我不知道這是什麼意思。這場危機根本起於失控的金融產業，而我們未能駕馭金融產業，並不是因為我們不敢做出「艱難抉擇」。美國大眾不知道發生什麼問題，而知道問題所在的人，絕大多數卻認為自由放任是最棒的主意。

機器凸了槌 八股的官話

或者想一下歐巴馬的這段話：「我們的工人生產力並不比危機發生前差，我們創造發明的能力並未減弱，我們的商品和服務仍像上周、上個月乃至一年前那樣受到青睞。我們的能力並未削弱。但是墨守成規、著眼小利、不做艱難抉擇的時代已經過去了。」

前半段幾可確定是在引用凱因斯的名言，經過幾十年來無腦反對政府的時代，聽到新總統願意大聲呼應凱因斯，令人欣慰。凱因斯在大蕭條降臨之際時寫道：「自然資源及人類的智巧與先前同樣豐富，同樣有生產力。我們解決物質生活問題的進展也沒有變慢。我們就像之前一樣，有能力為所有人提供高品質的生活。…可是現在，由於對一架精巧機器的運作缺乏瞭解，對其掌握失去控制，我們正陷入一團渾沌爛帳之中。」

但是歐巴馬沒有掌握凱因斯的後半段—我們正陷入一團需要解決的混沌爛帳。相反地，歐巴馬代之以「讓我們重新開始，讓我們堅忍迎擊」這種八股官話。

做決定的人 準備好了嗎

請記住，胡佛對做出不受歡迎的決策毫無問題。面對經濟大蕭條，他有十足的勇氣與堅毅削減開支，加收稅款。不幸的是，這只讓狀況更糟。

不過演說也就只是說說。歐巴馬的經濟團隊絕對知道我們正處於空前亂局，周二的演說可能與未來的政策毫無關聯。

但是歐巴馬正如他的前任所言，是要「做決定的人」。他很快就要面臨許多重大決策，尤其是對於維持金融體系永續，作法要多大膽。局勢已如此惡化，認為該把一些大銀行暫時收歸國有才能解決問題的經濟學家，多得另人意外。

所以歐巴馬準備好了嗎？或者他就職演說裡的陳腔濫調，意味他會等著問題自行解決？這可不是我們想看到的新執政團隊。如果不儘快採取大膽行動，我們可能會陷在這團渾沌爛賬—很久，很久。

华裔美国总统可能吗?

这是一篇《台湾时报》的文章：


華府看天下：華裔美國總統 可能嗎
傅建中
　
歐巴馬已於二十日正式就任為美國第四十四任總統，也是美國立國二百三十多年來的第一位黑人總統，所以就職大典盛況空前，從全美和世界各地湧進華府的人潮將近兩百萬，來自台灣的慶賀團也躬逢其盛。不可諱言的，這一歷史性的盛會，可能百年難得一見。

由於歐巴馬打破種族樊籬，成為美國有史以來的非白人總統，其他族裔受到鼓舞，躍躍欲試，未來有意問鼎白宮。成功的機會有多少？照目前的情況來看，希望微乎其微。如以人口比例來說，西語系的拉美後裔的希望最濃，因為他們近年人數增加迅速，已取代黑人成為第二大族群，可是他們素質不齊，很難望他們在可預見的將來一躍而為美國的主流政治勢力。

華裔，占全美人口不到百分之二，要想在美國政壇脫穎而出，有實際的困難。目前能有趙小蘭、朱棣文分別在布希和歐巴馬政府中出任部長，已屬難能可貴。如想更上一層樓，恐怕力有不逮。這只消看看國會山莊上的華裔議員人數，即可了然。眾議員吳振偉是五百三十五名參、眾議員中唯一的華裔，以這樣的人單勢薄，如何能在政壇上呼風喚雨？
　
不論是趙小蘭，還是朱棣文，乃至現在白宮位居要津的盧沛寧，都是學優則仕型，並非經由選舉打入政壇的。在美國從政，參選是唯一的正途，也是達於巔峰的終南捷徑，在這方面，華裔的表現，遠不如人數居於劣勢的日裔。
　
誠如老外交家陸以正最近所言，美國政治主流仍操控於「黃蜂族群」（WASP，代表白人、英國後裔、基督教徒）中，過去二、三十年，WASP雖有式微之勢，基本上他們仍是美國權力的大本營。老實說，歐巴馬若無WASP全力支持，恐怕難圓白宮夢。

WASP和黑人在歷史上雖是主奴的關係，但關係密切，非比尋常，也非其他族裔可比。這些WASP在必須讓出政權的情形下，他們是「不予外人，寧予家奴」的。不管怎麼說，黑人是家人，總勝過外人，歐巴馬去年和希拉蕊爭奪總統候選人提名和最後勝選，多少沾了這方面的光，儘管歐巴馬不是美國傳統上的黑人。事實上，歐巴馬是黑白混合體，也就是英文所說的biracial，這使他與一般的黑人不同，加上他在白人家庭和社會成長的經驗與良好的教育，遂成就了他為一非常獨特（very unique）的非裔美人，在沒有其他選擇的環境下，歐巴馬成了白人社會的寵兒。在美國政壇上，他可說是個異數，前不見古人，後也可能沒有來者。
　
自由派的白人，對黑人有種與生俱來的原罪感，此所以甘迺迪、凱瑞參議員等力挺歐巴馬，非把他送進白宮不可，加上年輕世代白人對小布希強烈的不滿，為歐巴馬進軍白宮帶來空前的動力，終於實現了羅伯甘迺迪早在一九六一年的預言：四十年後美國會出現一位黑人總統。
　
以上都是華裔所沒有的有利條件，莫說是華裔，就算已完全融入美國社會且財大勢大的猶太人，都沒法比。WASP對猶裔總是心存疑慮，表面上不分彼此，不遺餘力地支持以色列，只是猶裔美人迄今仍被排斥於白宮宮牆外。
　
現在的問題是：歐巴馬能否像他在就職演說中所宣示的「再造美國」（remaking America），為美國開創一個「負責任的新時代」（a new era of responsibility）？果能如此，歐巴馬將和羅斯福在歷史上相互映輝，成為再造新政、讓美國起死回生的偉大總統。至少如他所言，他不會藉「貪腐」（corruption）和「欺騙」（deceit）把持權力。這不是指陳水扁嗎？台灣也需要有個像歐巴馬的總統。

三手烟 ？

吸烟的害处大家都耳目能详，特别是二手烟的害处。

现在，科学家/学者提出了另外一个吸烟大害，那就是三手烟。

January 3, 2009
A New Cigarette Hazard: ‘Third-Hand Smoke’

By RONI CARYN RABIN

Parents who smoke often open a window or turn on a fan to clear the air of second-hand smoke, but experts now have identified another smoking-related threat to children’s health that isn’t as easy to get rid of: third-hand smoke.

That’s the term being used to describe the invisible yet toxic brew of gases and particles clinging to smokers’ hair and clothing, not to mention cushions and carpeting, that lingers long after smoke has cleared from a room. The residue includes heavy metals, carcinogens and even radioactive materials that young children can get on their hands and ingest, especially if they’re crawling or playing on the floor.

Doctors from MassGeneral Hospital for Children in Boston coined the term “third-hand smoke” to describe these chemicals in a new study that focused on the risks they pose to infants and children. The study was published in this month’s issue of the journal Pediatrics.

“Everyone knows that second-hand smoke is bad, but they don’t know about this,” said Dr. Jonathan P. Winickoff, the lead author of the study and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.

“When their kids are out of the house, they might smoke. Or they smoke in the car. Or they strap the kid in the car seat in the back and crack the window and smoke, and they think it’s okay because the second-hand smoke isn’t getting to their kids,” Dr. Winickoff continued. “We needed a term to describe these tobacco toxins that aren’t visible.”

Third-hand smoke is what one smells when a smoker gets in an elevator after going outside for a cigarette, he said, or in a hotel room where people were smoking. “Your nose isn’t lying,” he said. “The stuff is so toxic that your brain is telling you: ’Get away.’”

The study reported on attitudes toward smoking in 1,500 households across the United States. It found that the vast majority of both smokers and nonsmokers were aware that second-hand smoke is harmful to children. Some 95 percent of nonsmokers and 84 percent of smokers agreed with the statement that “inhaling smoke from a parent’s cigarette can harm the health of infants and children.”

But far fewer of those surveyed were aware of the risks of third-hand smoke. Since the term is so new, the researchers asked people if they agreed with the statement that “breathing air in a room today where people smoked yesterday can harm the health of infants and children.” Only 65 percent of nonsmokers and 43 percent of smokers agreed with that statement, which researchers interpreted as acknowledgement of the risks of third-hand smoke.

The belief that second-hand smoke harms children’s health was not independently associated with strict smoking bans in homes and cars, the researchers found. On the other hand, the belief that third-hand smoke was harmful greatly increased the likelihood the respondent also would enforce a strict smoking ban at home, Dr. Winickoff said.

“That tells us we’re onto an important new health message here,” he said. “What we heard in focus group after focus group was, ‘I turn on the fan and the smoke disappears.’ It made us realize how many people think about second-hand smoke — they’re telling us they know it’s bad
but they’ve figured out a way to do it.”

The data was collected in a national random-digit-dial telephone survey done between September and November 2005. The sample was weighted by race and gender, based on census information.

Dr. Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician who heads the Children’s Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, said the phrase third-hand smoke is a brand-new term that has implications for behavior.

“The central message here is that simply closing the kitchen door to take a smoke is not protecting the kids from the effects of that smoke,” he said. “There are carcinogens in this third-
hand smoke, and they are a cancer risk for anybody of any age who comes into contact with them.”

Among the substances in third-hand smoke are hydrogen cyanide, used in chemical weapons; butane, which is used in lighter fluid; toluene, found in paint thinners; arsenic; lead; carbon monoxide; and even polonium-210, the highly radioactive carcinogen that was used to murder former Russian spy Alexander V. Litvinenko in 2006. Eleven of the compounds are highly carcinogenic.

这样的鸟论

马华议员在308大选前时常走透透，到处看阻塞的沟渠，巡视破坏不堪的道路，往往被人冠以“沟渠议员”。

在当时，反对人无所作为，或是“洁身自好”，对这类沟渠议员是不屑一顾，有时候更是冷嘲热讽。

但是，308过后，我们又再传煤上看到了很多的“沟渠议员”，指指点点，依样画葫芦，仍旧依样的在旁指着拍照。

其实，这种沟渠议员在马华党内何尝不是受到党内一些“清高”之士，捏之以鼻呢！

再回头来看党选过后，突然间又有一个怪论出炉，说什么是最好的XX部长，全国走透透，部门下的大小“虎似必打”都巡逻。

拜托，如果是因为大小部门都有巡逻就可以成为最好部长，那么同样的道理，308前马华在槟城的议员都是最好的议员了，他们服务一流，随传随到，又有中央部门的资源协助，怎么还是输了？

其实，沟渠议员也好，走透透到处巡逻的部长也好，他们勤于在民间走动是好事，了解民困，更是份内工作，但是同“最好、最差”的标准却是两码事，不能混为一谈。

反之，到处巡逻“虎似必打”，不也是彰显其管辖的部门效率出问题？要劳动上头出面，部长办事效率还要提升吗？

当然，部长全国走透透，很多时候也有本身在党内的政治前途的考量，简单扼要的说，是要广结善缘，为3年一次的党选存够“子弹”。间中可有没有“金钱政治”则只能以“SIAPA MAKAN CILI ，DIALAH YANG RASA PEDAS ”，自行判断，也可以“自行对号入座”，但是可不要象陈水扁那样的鬼蜮伎俩！

OBAMA 要干干净净

OBAMA就要在一月二十日上任了。

2009年一月刊的《远见》专题大幅度报道OBAMA，称为超人欧巴马时代。

其中第163页提到了OBAMA的阁员名单快速出炉，用人得宜博民众好感。

里面一段，有这样的报道：“为确保被提名人都是干干净净的，尽量减少提名后的震撼，他提出了长达60页的“提名表格”，要求可能被提名者必须巨细靡遗地填写，包括个人饮酒状况，家中奶妈是否合法，是否财务和个人私德是否经得起考验等，。。。”

看了这段报道，是我了解到为什么当前经济海淆，人心散漫之际，OBAMA会成为美国人，甚至是世界的希望。

而马来西亚，特别是在马华，还有很多人在迷途中（也不知道是无知而误入歧途，还是另有所谋），为私德有暇疵者喋喋不休。

可不要忘记，这些私德暇疵可是永久的记录在“线上”，由不得你说不提就不提。

奉劝个位在迷途中的朋友，马华在308后已经背负太多包袱，需要时间，精力一一解除，我们不能够再背上私德暇疵的包袱了。

再来一个私德暇疵的包袱，党不只是在迷途中，而是没有前途！