First they came 。。。。

First they came 。。。。




劉進圖 被斬傷，兩個疑凶被送回香港，但 ”一哥“ 不停為事件降溫一再強調：


沒有直接證據與新聞工作有關！


似乎是要社會不要再追究誰是幕後的黑手！！！



【維基百科】Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller (14 January 1892 – 6 March 1984) was a German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor. He is best known as the author of the poem "First they came 。。。。".

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.


Martin Niemöller was a German pastor and theologian born in Lippstadt, Germany, in 1892. Niemöller was an anti-Communist and supported Hitler's rise to power at first. But when Hitler insisted on the supremacy of the state over religion, Niemöller became disillusioned.

He became the leader of a group of German clergymen opposed to Hitler. Unlike Niemöller, they gave in to the Nazis' threats. In 1937 he was arrested and eventually confined in Sachsenhausen and Dachau.

His crime was "not being enthusiastic enough about the Nazi movement." Niemöller was released in 1945 by the Allies. He continued his career in Germany as a clergyman and as a leading voice of penance and reconciliation for the German people after World War II.

His statement, sometimes presented as a poem, is well-known, frequently quoted, and is a popular model for describing the dangers of political apathy, as it often begins with specific and targeted fear and hatred which soon escalates out of control.


又 中國人有一句:各人自掃門前雪，莫管他家瓦上霜。

【釋義】：比喻每人只管自己的事，不管別人的事。

【出處】：《警世通言 玉堂春落難逢夫》：“王定拜別三官而去。正是：各人自掃門前雪，莫管他家瓦上霜。”


嗜悲 很偶然執起份“信報”，原來是很久以前攞返屋企想讀，但一直擱置在書桌上未讀過：


【信報專訊】疑因籌辦特首選舉全民投票觸動中央神經，而遭批評的港大民意研究計劃總監鍾庭耀表示，雖然近期遭受很多左派報章的批評，但不會因而擱置在下月23日舉行全民投票的計劃，供市民選出屬意的特首候選人，下周會開始為計劃籌款，並且公布民調方案及籌款方法。

鍾庭耀將展開為時兩星期的籌款計劃，目標是籌集 50萬元，並指如果要做到嚴謹的電子方式投票，需籌足50萬元，如果達不到這目標，可能會擱置計劃。他指出，籌辦全民投票的活動，是希望在民調以外，讓社會多點參與，而且為電子民間投票累積經驗。既然這計劃是服務民間社會，希望將籌款的責任交予市民，不打算向大學申請撥款。目前已有市民表示有意捐款。

左派報章及中聯辦官員連月對不同學者口誅筆伐，「大學教育關注組」多名學者召開申訴大會，多人憂慮事件惡化，日後發表惹中方不滿的文章，會受「文革式」謾罵，演變成「寒蟬效應」。關注組繼續跟進事件，有成員正草擬反對政治抹黑的聯署聲明。

此外，有學者促請成立團體，對抗中方或左派人士對學者的打壓，亦有學者建議學術界遊行至中聯辦抗議。

多名受打壓的當事人昨現身說法。遭中聯辦宣傳文體部部長郝鐵川及左報多番抨擊、指其民調「不科學」及「與外國勢力勾結」的港大民研計劃總監鍾庭耀，呼籲建構文明討論空間，又呼籲郝鐵川以身作則討論問題，「希望他們變得文明一點會好些。」

他們反對不文明的謾罵式批評，指這種「文革式」的謾罵，正正令港人對中國人身份認同感不能增長的原因。他以數年前曾接受NDI資助的項目，被指為與外國勢力勾結，惟他多次澄清NDI亦有資助大學及內地機構，但抹黑仍然繼續。他又指郝鐵川質疑十多條民調問題中的其中一條，但關於身份認同跌至十年新低的調查結果，並非建基於這問題而作結論，「如果參與這些激烈的評論，應至少看看事實」。


前些時 李家大少爺 在人大委員長面前，說要 《八大商會》出資另組 ”民調“，抗衡 《港大》的民調。加上往年 中聯辦的郝鐵川部長，先批評鐘庭耀主持的港大的民調：“不科學不符合邏輯”，後來再加上三個“？”：


一、是學者，還是公眾人物？
二、是學術話題，還是公共話題？
和最重手的
三、是學術自由，還是思想專制？


還說了：『羅蘭夫人有句名言：「自由啊自由，多少罪惡假汝之名以行。」聯繫歷史和現實，我想說一句「學者啊學者，多少非學術假汝之名以行。」』


嗜悲希望港大百年老店可以挺得住，不要辜負校名。其後，師兄再電郵多一篇，由香港民主教父：李柱銘，就同一議題發表的文章。（因為來源是電郵，不便建立伸延閱覽。）


【電郵來源】有人不按本子辦事： 李柱銘

去年底，中聯辦宣傳文體部部長郝鐵川，批評港大民調把「香港人」與「中國人」並列「不科學、不符合邏輯」，挑起社會廣泛討論，但高官們卻置若罔聞。

一月十九日，特首曾蔭權出席答問大會時，有議員問他何以沒有就郝鐵川批評港大民調一事，出來說公道話。他僅回應指：「我很相信大家明白到這是自由社會，我們相信每一個人都會尊重其他人的意見 。。。。我相信香港人心知肚明，哪是對、哪是不對。」

其實，議員早前已就著郝鐵川有關言論，在立法會提出類似的口頭質詢。而負責回應的政制及內地事務局長譚志源同樣表示，香港是一個自由及多元社會，任何人可以就不同事務發表意見，而特區政府亦沒有就事件跟中聯辦溝通。

他們的答案，顯然是為免得罪中聯辦或港人任何一方，而迴避直接回應。但事實上，身為中央官員的郝鐵川，其言論又豈能被視為「其他人」或「任何人」的意見呢？

其實，特區政府根本毋須對中聯辦的干預，如此忍氣吞聲，因為根據《基本法》第二十二條第一款：「中央人民政府所屬各部門 。。。。均不得干預香港特別行政區根據本法自行管理的事務。」況且，按照第二款「中央各部門 。。。。如需在香港特別行政區設立機構，須徵得香港特別行政區政府同意 。。。。。」

中聯辦如今一再明目張膽地干預特區內部事務，套用前新華社社長許家屯八五年罵港英政府的說法，就是「不按本子辦事」，那麼，特區政府理應依照《基本法》向中央表明，拒絕繼續讓中央在港設立中聯辦，要根本不應在特區存在的中聯辦「返鄉下」。



為何香港民間沒有當年“路祥安”事件般，廣大市民即時發出熱烈反應，反對京官企圖干預學術自由呢？原來事隔多年，究竟原來香港人已被溫水煮蛙，經已煮得半熟而不自知乎？


不要只以為在極權的獨裁者鐵蹄下才有禁聲，上世紀五十年代的美國，當時反共的 麥卡錫主義 McCarthyism 橫行。普遍的美國老百姓，但求明哲保身的心態，沒有人敢出來，主持正義。 直到 1954年3月7日，哥倫比亞廣播公司 CBS 的名記者 Edward R. Murrow，在節目《See It Now》中，冒著被株連的危險，挺身而出，譴責麥卡錫誣陷忠良、亂扣帽子的行為。


今時今日的香港，以及世界上，我們見到很多不合理事情，雖然暫時還未殺到埋身，有人噤若寒蟬，扮啞巴不出聲，有人扮鴕鳥，眼不見為凈。


所謂唇亡齒寒，今天我們不出聲，其他的人先倒下了，到我們自己真的需要面對，不合理的，不公平的，需要別人幫助之時，到個時還有沒有人出口仗義執言？還有沒有人能夠出手相助呢？




後記：
法律界的文字地盤，在明報有《法政隨筆》，繼 吳靄儀、李柱銘，發文後，陳文敏 也就同一話題寫了篇：學術與政治。


文章是由師兄電郵給我。（因為來源是電郵，不便建立伸延閱覽。）
【法政隨筆】
學術與政治
日前中聯辦郝鐵川高調批評港大鍾庭耀關於市民認同「香港人」身份遠多於「中國人」身份的民調研究為不科學和不合邏輯，在社會上引起不少討論。日前《大公報》社評更延展戰線，公開點名批評鍾庭耀、成名和蔡子強為「真政客，假學者」，打著「學術自由」的旗號，披學者的外衣，長期為個別抗中亂港的政黨服務等等。

郝鐵川日前亦再指出，學者若不只在學術刊物發表文章，而選擇在非學術刊物發表他們對公共話題的觀點時，便應該受其他人的監督及批評。學者應接受批評，這一點我是絕對同意的，但接受批評不是因為他們在非學術刊物發表評論，而是學者並不壟斷知識，追求學問應抱客觀懷疑、虛心求真的態度，唯有在思想言論自由的空間，求真理的治學態度，才能萌芽蓬勃。

郝鐵川似乎認為，在學術刊物發表文章只為供學術界欣賞，因此便可以不受監督。這種學術刊物與非學術刊物的二分法，在一定程度上反映了自文革以來一些國內學者為求明哲保身而決心鑽研一些一定不會在政治上造成錯失的題目的取態，亦反映了中港之間對學術研究與學術自由的不同取態與理解。

批評須是理性的，郝鐵川對鍾庭耀的民調指摘，早前我已指出他是從一個法律和形式的角度出發，香港是中國的一部份，香港人自然是中國人，將這兩個身份對立便是不合邏輯。但鍾庭耀要調查的身份認同並不是一個法律和形式的問題，而是一個錯綜複雜包括理性與感性的觀點的問題。

民調結果可能與部份政黨的政見相近，但這並不表示民調機構便是為政黨服務。《大公報》社論這些上綱上線的論據受駁之處不勝枚舉。說美國總領事可以隨意批評港事，為何中聯辦官員卻不可以？兩者性質、層次、處境皆截然不同，這種不倫不類的比較，只會貽笑大方。

陳文敏

中聯辦的 郝鐵川 撰文在明報發表提出三個“？”：一、是學者，還是公眾人物？二、是學術話題，還是公共話題？和最重手的 三、是學術自由，還是思想專制？

陳文敏文：『日前《大公報》社評更延展戰線，公開點名批評 鍾庭耀、成名 和 蔡子強 為「真政客，假學者」，打著「學術自由」的旗號，披學者的外衣，長期為個別抗中亂港的政黨服務等等。』


【明報專訊】
鍾庭耀：不因外界批評擱置
由去年底至今，左派報章與中聯辦官員點名抨擊多名學者，20多名學者昨在研討會批評中央今次是有組織圍剿，圖將本港尚餘的自由「凌遲處死」。抨擊重點對象之一、港大民研總監鍾庭耀則表示，不會因外界打壓而擱置3月23日辦特首選舉全民投票的決心。他透露周三開始公眾籌款，希望籌集50萬元經費。

指郝鐵川謾罵減港人認同感
中聯辦宣傳文體部長郝鐵川早前批評鍾庭耀發表的「港人身分認同」調查，是「不科學」及「無邏輯」，其後多份左派報章在短短40日發表了近70篇評論狠批鍾。鍾庭耀昨斥責這些「文革式的批評」偏離事實、充滿謾罵與人身攻擊，對他造成滋擾，市民亦不會接受，更認為郝鐵川應反省，因謾罵是本港市民的中國人身分認同感不能增長的原因之一。

鍾庭耀透露，他會如期在3月23日就特首選舉設立民間投票，並於本周開始向公眾募捐，籌集50萬元資金，為期兩周，但不會向政府和大學申請資助。

同被左報接連攻擊的科大社會科學部副教授成名表示，左派勢力在過去數月，先後匿名去信其所屬學院的院長，要求辭退他；又動員在該校民主牆張貼左報評論，支持他的文章卻無故被撕掉，「他們內外夾擊向我施壓，希望我自我審查。如果批判權貴的學者收聲，香港就會成為充滿謊言、向權貴歌功頌德的社會」。

近日社會就「蝗蟲論」的爭議不斷升溫，中大政治與行政學系高級導師蔡子強表示，在批評中央扼殺本港公共討論空間的同時，港人亦應反省自己的言論。他認為，社會應在政策層面討論「雙非嬰兒」問題的處理手法；又稱部分港人將內地人形容為「蝗蟲」，挑撥仇恨，已超越言論自由的層面，「與孔慶東鬧部分港人是狗無分別」，冀港人別被仇恨情緒衝昏，繼續撕裂社會。


記得，蔡英文在敗選演說：『台灣不能沒有反對的聲音！』引得在場的掌聲，我在香港聽見都為之動容。


難道我們香港人，就只可以聽孔慶東的”狗論“嗎？


後後記：

記得港大校長 徐立之 的說法
【明報專訊】
中聯辦宣傳文體部長郝鐵川以及多份本地報章，近期不斷發炮，點名批評港大民意研究計劃總監鍾庭耀負責的港人身分認同調查「不科學」、「不合邏輯」，郝的言論被質疑干涉學術自由。港大校長徐立之表明學術自由十分珍貴，強調「港大絕對無被外人干涉」，認為郝鍾二人的爭拗屬學術爭拗。

徐立之接任港大校長前，港大剛經歷校長鄭耀宗干預民調事件。徐表示，他應徵港大校長時，鍾庭耀曾問他如何捍衛港大學術自由，當時已向鍾保證維持港大學術自由。他說，不論郝鍾出發點為何，認為事件純屬學術討論，學者有不同意見十分正常，大學則為學者提供學術交流的平台。

被問及自己是「中國人」抑或「香港人」時，徐立之稱不評論問卷題目，指自己曾在全球各地居住，是「全球世界人」。


徐立之面對818港大淪陷事件的報告，都不知道校友，和普遍香港市民，是否接受者非獨立調查報告。暫時，唯有對郝鐵川vs鐘庭耀的，採取低調處理，企圖淡化對抗，而且他已不續約港大，當然息事寧人喇！


如今 徐校長 都正式離職了，交了個波給一位英國人做 港大校長，看看這位先生怎麽樣把 鐘庭耀 鏟去，一來為自己立威，二來並向中聯辦 輸誠，那末三來就可以準備上北京，得到 習主席 的接見！！！


後後後記：

前律政司司長 黃仁龍：言論新聞自由受威脅 「警鐘已響」

【明報專訊】《明報》前總編輯劉進圖遇襲案，警務處長曾偉雄稱沒有直接證據顯示與新聞工作有關；不過，前律政司長黃仁龍昨形容事件對社會核心價值造成傷害，不單違反法律和社會秩序、危害生命安全，同時亦威脅言論自由及新聞自由。黃仁龍直指「警鐘已經響起」，當暴力凌駕法律所保障的權利，社會必須強烈譴責、堅守法治，不能讓罪犯逍遙法外。

黃仁龍在 2005 至 2012年間出任律政司長，現私人執業。他昨日獲香港大學頒授名譽法學博士學位，以表彰他對社會和法律界所作的貢獻。黃仁龍以英文致辭時指出，社會雖不能避免面對轉變，但社會共識的核心價值可以使社會聯繫一起，保持穩定的發展。但他指出，明報前總編輯劉進圖上月遇襲，事件已對核心價值造成傷害。

「視暴力而不見 助長敵人心」
黃仁龍續說，兇徒的可怕行為已動搖社會的基本底線，更超越了社會對暴力的厭惡，引起社會更大擔憂：「為何一個致力實踐使命的人，在現今的香港社會仍會面對這樣的威嚇及危險？」黃引用古埃及箴言「對暴力視而不見，只會助長敵人的心」，呼籲社會必須不惜一切代價捍衛社會的核心價值，不容受到任何損害。

指濫用權利損力量
對於所有在前線行使言論及新聞自由的人，黃仁龍呼籲要以更努力及更負責任的方式去履行職責，讓公眾體會這些權利背後蘊含的美善。他亦指出，前線工作者過去偶爾忽視這場捍衛自由的爭戰，認為新聞工作者要更努力讓社會相信他們是值得信賴。黃指出，某些人濫用這些權利，會變相成為破壞這些權利的力量。

另外，立法會今日會辯論由內委會主席梁君彥提出的議案，內容為「本會對於明報前總編輯劉進圖先生遇襲事件表示非常震驚及憤慨，對兇徒暴行予以強烈譴責，並要求警方全力緝兇，盡快將兇徒繩之於法」。 有4名泛民議員提出修正案。原議案同獲泛民及建制派支持，但建制派不同意劉慧卿及范國威的修正案，預料二人的修正難獲通過。

泛民建制撐要求緝兇議案
民建聯葉國謙及新民黨葉劉淑儀說，支持原議案、毛孟靜及何秀蘭的修正，其中毛的修正案加上「盡力協助捍衛新聞自由」字眼。自由黨田北俊指出，范國威的修正要求為案件調查時間設限期，是不切實際的做法，所以反對該修正案。至於劉慧卿在修正案臚列近年12宗傳媒人受襲個案，要求當局保護新聞工作者，葉國謙指涉及個案太多，不能一概而論，所以不支持修正。


由 黃仁龍 提出 「警鐘已響」是否已經危矣！



伸延閱覽：
First they came by Martin Niemöller 維基百科
各人自掃門前雪 莫管他家瓦上霜 成語詞典
「寒蟬效應」學術界大控訴 反文革式謾罵學術界大控訴 反文革式謾罵 信報財經新聞
鐘庭耀 323全民投票 下周籌款 信報財經新聞
鐘庭耀 3‧23全民投票 周三起籌款 新浪新聞網
麥卡錫主義 維基百科
徐立之﹕評郝鐵川炮轟鍾庭耀二人屬學術爭拗 雅虎新聞網
黃仁龍：言論新聞自由受威脅 「警鐘已響」 MSN新聞網



我的舊文：
龍城殲霸戰 High Noon
不同政見是否對國家不忠

先睹為快 Coming Soon

先睹為快 Coming Soon

My cousin came back for vacation he brought back with a stack of DVDs. I spent 3 sleepless nights to watch them. Here are my movie reviews

踢躂小企鵝 Happy Feet --WOW it was fantastic

Voice Starring: Elijah Wood, Robin Williams, Brittany Murphy, Hugh Jackman, Nicole Kidman

The animation tech. team had done a great job, very fine art work, could see each hair, feather, eye bows, clearly neatly carefully done. The facial expressions were so real that I guessed they used human faces from human actors to add on the special effects.

Even the story line was very positive it criticized about over fishing by commercial businesses, Happy Feet ventured a long journey to raise the human being's attention to set quota for commercial fishing.

ONE thing I would like to warn the parents was that some scenes would scare your kids below 5 years old (being chased by penguin predators). So please take note.

Related Blogs:
Happy Feet 踢躂小企鵝
Lessons I learned from Happy Feet




口白人生 Stranger than Fiction --A good man fulfilling his destiny to save a LIFE

Starring: Will Ferrell, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Queen Latifah, Emma Thompson, Dustin Hoffman


HE knows he is going to die but since it is his fate so he goes for it. We cant compare this with the christians believes about Jesus Christ died on the cross to save mankind and on the 3rd day he came back and risen to sky.

BUT.... OK back to the story, not a typical Will Ferrell movie, this time HE is a boring routine guy doing the same things everyday for 12 years, and one day he met a girl (Maggie), a client of his profession. BUT BUT, it is actually the set up by a fiction writer (Emma) of which Will's life follows her story line. At first he was hesitant to go any further with Maggie, until the university professor (Dustin) told him it is his fate, it will happen no matter what.


So he continues with the relationship with this girl. But this writer is going to make him die while performing a bravely act of saving a LIFE (she has killed 8 other persons all in her 8 novels). As this guy is now very in love with this girl he wishes to change his destiny of NOT dying.


So he went to see this writer. But the writer handed him the finished pages and the draft of the ending and asked him to decide himself. AFTER reading the ending he determined that he would carry on as written. HE was then being hit by a bus while he tried save a boy and was bleeding and near death, NOW it was the writer's decision DID she want to change the ending???

Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson, need not to say they are both brilliant actor and actress with excellent acting skill, Will Ferrell stopped his overacted facial expression, but his role was a boring guy he only needed to lock his eye bows, zip his mouth, and stop moving his face.

To my surprise Maggie Gyllenhaal only appeared in very few scenes but she really lighted up the movie, she can be candidate for best supporting actress in many prize nominations. Before ending I must point out the director Marc Forster was the main reason that attracted me to see this movie. He has had several serious movies in the past and reportedly he won the job among some 20 or more directors.

Related blog(s): Stranger Than Fiction 離奇過小說

時凶感應 Deja Vu --Time line theory, alter the past change the future???

Starring: Denzel Washington, Val Kilmer, Paula Patton, Bruce Greenwood, Adam Goldberg


IF you were not prepared for the time line theory, this movie would be too complicated for YOU. This movie was playing the TIME line theory. Would the change in the past alter the outcome in the futures, or it was the destiny the fate that nobody could change. ONE could only change the path the procedure the way but the end result would still be the same??? This movie exploring these questions.

Denzel Washington is an ATF local agent in New Orleans he was recruited by the FBI to investigate a TERRORIST explosion killing over 500 people. The FBI told him they had a satellite surveillance system to capture the visual images and audio conversations of the whole city, but it took FOUR and a Half days to process the files so the earliest they could see was 4 1/2 days history. But actually the FBI had a time machine that can focus on each person each scene at their discretion but only FOUR and half days apart in the past because of the tech limitations.


NOW with this machine they traced the terrorist down and finally made the arrest. BUT can they use this machine to change the past and will the change alter the end result or just changing the path, and/ or STOP the explosion???? So, first they tried to send a note to Denzel in the past to warn him about the terrorist explosion. But it was being picked up by Denzel 's partner instead, and his partner did go to stop the terrorist but got shot. So Denzel must go back in the time to stop the crime himself. Can he change the ending????


The movie story telling goes very fast and jumping between the present and the past at the first half telling how they located the terrorist and captured him. Then in the second half when Denzel was being sent back to the past to kill the terrorist before the explosion. But Future Denzel who travelled back in time was being killed when he drove the pickup truck with bomb into the RIVER, then would the other Denzel of that time frame still be alive THERE????

Story was excellent and put the audience hanging in suspense, action also exciting, but don't expect too much acting as it was not a drama. Must go to see this movie if you were a die hard fans about time travelling and time line theory. People who like to use their brain when watching movies you are also invited.

Picture of posters from Yahoo movie dot com

Michelle Obama said

Michelle Obama said



曾有位美國籍的朋友開玩笑：美國人僅有的一天可以行使民主就是投票選總統日！僅得一任總統的 奧巴馬 未敢言退，成為當然《民主黨》的總統候選人。


他的夫人為夫先上台為夫掠陣：


Transcript of first lady Michelle Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention, as prepared for delivery:

Thank you so much, Elaine...we are so grateful for your family's service and sacrifice...and we will always have your back.

Over the past few years as First Lady, I have had the extraordinary privilege of traveling all across this country.

And everywhere I've gone, in the people I've met, and the stories I've heard, I have seen the very best of the American spirit.

I have seen it in the incredible kindness and warmth that people have shown me and my family, especially our girls.

I've seen it in teachers in a near-bankrupt school district who vowed to keep teaching without pay.

I've seen it in people who become heroes at a moment's notice, diving into harm's way to save others...flying across the country to put out a fire...driving for hours to bail out a flooded town.

And I've seen it in our men and women in uniform and our proud military families...in wounded warriors who tell me they're not just going to walk again, they're going to run, and they're going to run marathons...in the young man blinded by a bomb in Afghanistan who said, simply, "...I'd give my eyes 100 times again to have the chance to do what I have done and what I can still do."

Every day, the people I meet inspire me...every day, they make me proud...every day they remind me how blessed we are to live in the greatest nation on earth.

Serving as your First Lady is an honor and a privilege...but back when we first came together four years ago, I still had some concerns about this journey we'd begun.

While I believed deeply in my husband's vision for this country...and I was certain he would make an extraordinary President...like any mother, I was worried about what it would mean for our girls if he got that chance.

How would we keep them grounded under the glare of the national spotlight?

How would they feel being uprooted from their school, their friends, and the only home they'd ever known?

Our life before moving to Washington was filled with simple joys...Saturdays at soccer games, Sundays at grandma's house...and a date night for Barack and me was either dinner or a movie, because as an exhausted mom, I couldn't stay awake for both.

And the truth is, I loved the life we had built for our girls...I deeply loved the man I had built that life with...and I didn't want that to change if he became President.

I loved Barack just the way he was.

You see, even though back then Barack was a Senator and a presidential candidate...to me, he was still the guy who'd picked me up for our dates in a car that was so rusted out, I could actually see the pavement going by through a hole in the passenger side door...he was the guy whose proudest possession was a coffee table he'd found in a dumpster, and whose only pair of decent shoes was half a size too small.

But when Barack started telling me about his family – that's when I knew I had found a kindred spirit, someone whose values and upbringing were so much like mine.

You see, Barack and I were both raised by families who didn't have much in the way of money or material possessions but who had given us something far more valuable – their unconditional love, their unflinching sacrifice, and the chance to go places they had never imagined for themselves.

My father was a pump operator at the city water plant, and he was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis when my brother and I were young.

And even as a kid, I knew there were plenty of days when he was in pain...I knew there were plenty of mornings when it was a struggle for him to simply get out of bed.

But every morning, I watched my father wake up with a smile, grab his walker, prop himself up against the bathroom sink, and slowly shave and button his uniform.

And when he returned home after a long day's work, my brother and I would stand at the top of the stairs to our little apartment, patiently waiting to greet him...watching as he reached down to lift one leg, and then the other, to slowly climb his way into our arms.

But despite these challenges, my dad hardly ever missed a day of work...he and my mom were determined to give me and my brother the kind of education they could only dream of.

And when my brother and I finally made it to college, nearly all of our tuition came from student loans and grants.

But my dad still had to pay a tiny portion of that tuition himself.

And every semester, he was determined to pay that bill right on time, even taking out loans when he fell short.

He was so proud to be sending his kids to college...and he made sure we never missed a registration deadline because his check was late.

You see, for my dad, that's what it meant to be a man.

Like so many of us, that was the measure of his success in life – being able to earn a decent living that allowed him to support his family.

And as I got to know Barack, I realized that even though he'd grown up all the way across the country, he'd been brought up just like me.

Barack was raised by a single mother who struggled to pay the bills, and by grandparents who stepped in when she needed help.

Barack's grandmother started out as a secretary at a community bank...and she moved quickly up the ranks...but like so many women, she hit a glass ceiling.

And for years, men no more qualified than she was – men she had actually trained – were promoted up the ladder ahead of her, earning more and more money while Barack's family continued to scrape by.

But day after day, she kept on waking up at dawn to catch the bus...arriving at work before anyone else...giving her best without complaint or regret.

And she would often tell Barack, "So long as you kids do well, Bar, that's all that really matters."

Like so many American families, our families weren't asking for much.

They didn't begrudge anyone else's success or care that others had much more than they did...in fact, they admired it.

They simply believed in that fundamental American promise that, even if you don't start out with much, if you work hard and do what you're supposed to do, then you should be able to build a decent life for yourself and an even better life for your kids and grandkids.

That's how they raised us...that's what we learned from their example.

We learned about dignity and decency – that how hard you work matters more than how much you make...that helping others means more than just getting ahead yourself.

We learned about honesty and integrity – that the truth matters...that you don't take shortcuts or play by your own set of rules...and success doesn't count unless you earn it fair and square.

We learned about gratitude and humility – that so many people had a hand in our success, from the teachers who inspired us to the janitors who kept our school clean...and we were taught to value everyone's contribution and treat everyone with respect.

Those are the values Barack and I – and so many of you – are trying to pass on to our own children.

That's who we are.

And standing before you four years ago, I knew that I didn't want any of that to change if Barack became President.

Well, today, after so many struggles and triumphs and moments that have tested my husband in ways I never could have imagined, I have seen firsthand that being president doesn't change who you are – it reveals who you are.

You see, I've gotten to see up close and personal what being president really looks like.

And I've seen how the issues that come across a President's desk are always the hard ones – the problems where no amount of data or numbers will get you to the right answer...the judgment calls where the stakes are so high, and there is no margin for error.

And as President, you can get all kinds of advice from all kinds of people.

But at the end of the day, when it comes time to make that decision, as President, all you have to guide you are your values, and your vision, and the life experiences that make you who you are.

So when it comes to rebuilding our economy, Barack is thinking about folks like my dad and like his grandmother.

He's thinking about the pride that comes from a hard day's work.

That's why he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to help women get equal pay for equal work.

That's why he cut taxes for working families and small businesses and fought to get the auto industry back on its feet.

That's how he brought our economy from the brink of collapse to creating jobs again – jobs you can raise a family on, good jobs right here in the United States of America.

When it comes to the health of our families, Barack refused to listen to all those folks who told him to leave health reform for another day, another president.

He didn't care whether it was the easy thing to do politically – that's not how he was raised – he cared that it was the right thing to do.

He did it because he believes that here in America, our grandparents should be able to afford their medicine...our kids should be able to see a doctor when they're sick...and no one in this country should ever go broke because of an accident or illness.

And he believes that women are more than capable of making our own choices about our bodies and our health care...that's what my husband stands for.

When it comes to giving our kids the education they deserve, Barack knows that like me and like so many of you, he never could've attended college without financial aid.

And believe it or not, when we were first married, our combined monthly student loan bills were actually higher than our mortgage.

We were so young, so in love, and so in debt.

That's why Barack has fought so hard to increase student aid and keep interest rates down, because he wants every young person to fulfill their promise and be able to attend college without a mountain of debt.

So in the end, for Barack, these issues aren't political – they're personal.

Because Barack knows what it means when a family struggles.

He knows what it means to want something more for your kids and grandkids.

Barack knows the American Dream because he's lived it...and he wants everyone in this country to have that same opportunity, no matter who we are, or where we're from, or what we look like, or who we love.

And he believes that when you've worked hard, and done well, and walked through that doorway of opportunity...you do not slam it shut behind you...you reach back, and you give other folks the same chances that helped you succeed.

So when people ask me whether being in the White House has changed my husband, I can honestly say that when it comes to his character, and his convictions, and his heart, Barack Obama is still the same man I fell in love with all those years ago.

He's the same man who started his career by turning down high paying jobs and instead working in struggling neighborhoods where a steel plant had shut down, fighting to rebuild those communities and get folks back to work...because for Barack, success isn't about how much money you make, it's about the difference you make in people's lives.

He's the same man who, when our girls were first born, would anxiously check their cribs every few minutes to ensure they were still breathing, proudly showing them off to everyone we knew.

That's the man who sits down with me and our girls for dinner nearly every night, patiently answering their questions about issues in the news, and strategizing about middle school friendships.

That's the man I see in those quiet moments late at night, hunched over his desk, poring over the letters people have sent him.

The letter from the father struggling to pay his bills...from the woman dying of cancer whose insurance company won't cover her care...from the young person with so much promise but so few opportunities.

I see the concern in his eyes...and I hear the determination in his voice as he tells me, "You won't believe what these folks are going through, Michelle...it's not right. We've got to keep working to fix this. We've got so much more to do."

I see how those stories – our collection of struggles and hopes and dreams – I see how that's what drives Barack Obama every single day.

And I didn't think it was possible, but today, I love my husband even more than I did four years ago...even more than I did 23 years ago, when we first met.

I love that he's never forgotten how he started.

I love that we can trust Barack to do what he says he's going to do, even when it's hard – especially when it's hard.

I love that for Barack, there is no such thing as "us" and "them" – he doesn't care whether you're a Democrat, a Republican, or none of the above...he knows that we all love our country...and he's always ready to listen to good ideas...he's always looking for the very best in everyone he meets.

And I love that even in the toughest moments, when we're all sweating it – when we're worried that the bill won't pass, and it seems like all is lost – Barack never lets himself get distracted by the chatter and the noise.

Just like his grandmother, he just keeps getting up and moving forward...with patience and wisdom, and courage and grace.

And he reminds me that we are playing a long game here...and that change is hard, and change is slow, and it never happens all at once.

But eventually we get there, we always do.

We get there because of folks like my Dad...folks like Barack's grandmother...men and women who said to themselves, "I may not have a chance to fulfill my dreams, but maybe my children will...maybe my grandchildren will."

So many of us stand here tonight because of their sacrifice, and longing, and steadfast love...because time and again, they swallowed their fears and doubts and did what was hard.

So today, when the challenges we face start to seem overwhelming – or even impossible – let us never forget that doing the impossible is the history of this nation...it's who we are as Americans...it's how this country was built.

And if our parents and grandparents could toil and struggle for us...if they could raise beams of steel to the sky, send a man to the moon, and connect the world with the touch of a button...then surely we can keep on sacrificing and building for our own kids and grandkids.

And if so many brave men and women could wear our country's uniform and sacrifice their lives for our most fundamental rights...then surely we can do our part as citizens of this great democracy to exercise those rights...surely, we can get to the polls and make our voices heard on Election Day.

If farmers and blacksmiths could win independence from an empire...if immigrants could leave behind everything they knew for a better life on our shores...if women could be dragged to jail for seeking the vote...if a generation could defeat a depression, and define greatness for all time...if a young preacher could lift us to the mountaintop with his righteous dream...and if proud Americans can be who they are and boldly stand at the altar with who they love...then surely, surely we can give everyone in this country a fair chance at that great American Dream.

Because in the end, more than anything else, that is the story of this country – the story of unwavering hope grounded in unyielding struggle.

That is what has made my story, and Barack's story, and so many other American stories possible.

And I say all of this tonight not just as First Lady...and not just as a wife.

You see, at the end of the day, my most important title is still "mom-in-chief."

My daughters are still the heart of my heart and the center of my world.

But today, I have none of those worries from four years ago about whether Barack and I were doing what's best for our girls.

Because today, I know from experience that if I truly want to leave a better world for my daughters, and all our sons and daughters...if we want to give all our children a foundation for their dreams and opportunities worthy of their promise...if we want to give them that sense of limitless possibility – that belief that here in America, there is always something better out there if you're willing to work for it...then we must work like never before...and we must once again come together and stand together for the man we can trust to keep moving this great country forward...my husband, our President, President Barack Obama.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.



週四晚，奧巴馬 就會出場發表提名演說，我很有興趣聽聽！

政教合一 German Style

政教合一 German Style
又名：默克爾的政治與信仰



之前有篇 Blog 談 德意志 有位鐵娘子：默克爾，成功帶領 CDU （Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands）第三次連任執政黨，是戰後德國由東西德分治，到統一後多年穩定期。


大選後 德國社會民主黨在 12月 15日同意，與 默克爾 領導的基督教民主黨，及其巴伐利亞姐妹黨基督教社會黨組成 “大聯合政府”。默克爾 在 12月 17日組成新一屆的政府宣誓就職。


【中新網】德國聯邦議院 17日選舉默克爾為德國總理。默克爾即將開啟第三任期，她將在稍晚時候宣誓就職。

今年 9月，現任總理默克爾以壓倒性優勢成功地第三次當選德國總理。默克爾第三度出任這一歐洲最大經濟體的總理，有望超過英國“鐵娘子”撒切爾，成為歐洲執政時間最長的女性領導人。

在順利贏得大選 3個月後，德國社會民主黨 12月 15日同意與默克爾領導的基督教民主黨及其巴伐利亞姐妹黨基督教社會黨組成“大聯合政府”。

有媒體認為，盡管默克爾領導的新政府在議會中占有五分之四的多數席次，但其第三屆四年任期可能更加艱難，而且可能比前兩屆更加專注於國內事務。前兩屆任期因為全球金融危機和歐元區動蕩而受到很大影響。


嗜悲 一早就有興趣想知道，為何 默克爾 的政黨 CDU 基督民主聯盟，民主就是民主為何要加入 基督 Christianity 在前面，但一直未有時間去搜尋，如今請先讀讀 AM730 的文章：《基督教徒與德國民主》 上下 兩篇


【AM730】上篇

德國早前舉行大選，總理默克爾領導的基督民主聯盟(CDU)再次成為最大黨，預料可以順利連任。基督民主聯盟(簡稱基民盟)到底是怎麼一回事？在香港，很多基督教牧師明明是親建制、反民主的不是嗎？

幾年前，德國有個電視節目，讓民眾公投選出德國史上最偉大人物。第三位，是共產主義老祖宗卡爾‧馬克思。第二位，是發起宗教改革運動的馬丁‧路德。第一位，德國人心目中的史上最偉大人物是誰？康拉德‧阿登納。吓？邊位？阿登納是西德第一任總理，也是德國基民盟創黨領袖。

阿登納在 1876年出生於德國西部的科隆。科隆是個以科隆大教堂聞名於世，天主教會有著龐大影響力的城市。阿登納跟當年大部分市民一樣，都是天主教徒，但他們在當時以基督教徒為主的德國中是數於少數派，甚至是政府打壓的對象。

德國天主教徒和基督教徒的鬥爭
現在我們叫德國的這塊土地，以前並非一個統一的國家，有著很多不同的小國、傳統文化、甚至宗教信仰，其中天主教徒(Catholics) 和基督教徒(Protestants)的分裂最為嚴重，甚至引發過多場戰爭。1871年，位於現今德國東北部，以新教徒為主的普魯士王國，成功統一德國，但統一後的德國依然存在宗教分裂，東北部以基督教徒為主，西南部則以天主教徒為主，而後者都不太願意接受普魯士的統治。

普魯士出身的首相俾斯麥，在 1870年代開展一連串統稱為文化鬥爭的打壓天主教徒政策，禁止修會運作，充公大量教會資產，拘捕甚至放逐跟政府唱反調的主教。但行動只令天主教徒更加反政府。由天主教徒組成的中央黨在1874年選舉中得票激增，拿下國會四分一議席，令俾斯麥大失預算。後來文化鬥爭提前結束，但兩派教徒之間的鴻溝更深。

阿登納在 1906年開始從政，加入中央黨，很快就上位，在1917年當上科隆市長。當時正值第一次世界大戰，阿登納成功穩住市內治安和市民生活，施政獲得好評。

中央黨這個由天主教徒組成的政黨是怎樣的呢？首先當然是維護教會和教徒利益，反對削弱教會權力或教徒信仰自由。其次是以天主教教義看世情，在經濟方面強調要關愛窮人，在社會議題方面也傾向維護傳統價值觀。其實當年其他國家的天主教徒大都是傾向支持保守派的，但在德國由於政府主動挑機，中央黨才加入了反政府、爭民主的元素。

一戰後的德國政局與希特拉的上台
1918年，德國戰敗，皇帝威廉二世退位，德國從君主制變成共和制，政局出現翻天覆地的變化，中央黨這個民主派從反對黨變成執政黨。阿登納本來有實力問鼎總理寶座，但他是黨內強硬派，難跟其他政黨合作，結果未能成事。

當時德國的選民大致上可分為3大類：左派、天主教右派和基督教右派。左派由工會支撐，票投社民黨或共產黨。天主教右派在教會指示下全投中央黨(不少神職人員甚至有入黨)。基督教右派則較分散，包括保皇派、商界、農民等，有多個黨派。由於社會分化，政黨林立，政府難以運作(平均每年換一次總理)，人民逐漸對民主失去信心，期待強人打救。

希特拉就是這樣乘勢而上。不少人講到希特拉上台，會強調他的暴力團，說他逼人投票給他，但實情卻不是這樣簡單。事實是，有相當多的德國人是自願支持希特拉的。

1928年 5月的德國國會選舉，當時希特拉仍未上位，中央、社民、共產 3個非右派政黨的總得票達到 53%，納粹黨得票只有 2%，也就是說基督教右派選民都是投納粹黨以外的右派政黨。但很快的，美國引爆全球經濟大蕭條，德國經濟嚴重衰退，政府民望暴跌。

希特拉憑著出色的演說，狠批政府廢柴，又搞陰謀論說一切都是國際反德勢力和猶太人搞的鬼，支持度急升。德國廢帝威廉二世的四王子奧古斯特、英王喬治五世的堂弟薩克森‧科堡‧哥達公爵卡爾、德軍前副參謀長魯登道夫(即德軍第二號人物)等的社會賢達，都主動加入納粹黨或為其助選。

1932年 7月再次選舉，非右派 3黨的票加起來仍有 48%，只是微跌，納粹黨則急彈至 37%，其他右派政黨近乎全滅。納粹黨的票源是來自基督教右派，當時他們是最容易受民族主義和激進主義打動的一群。

儘管左派和天主教右派的支持者加起來較納粹黨多，他們卻各懷鬼胎，無法組成執政聯盟，身為最大黨領袖的希特拉成為新總理，開始將反對派逐一清除。

希特拉藉故將共產黨定性為恐怖組織，強制解散該黨，還派暴民不斷騷擾社民黨。中央黨內也開始有不少人，包括阿登納，正確地認清希特拉是個危險人物應該防範，但他們的警告未能奏效。情況就如一段短文所述的：

起初他們追殺共產主義者，我沒有說話，因為我不是共產主義者；

然後他們追殺工會成員，我沒有說話，因為我不是工會成員；

後來他們追殺天主教徒，我沒有說話，因為我是新教教徒；

最後，他們衝著我來了，卻已經沒有人站出來為我說話了。

文中提到的共產者、工會和天主教徒，正正是左派和天主教右派政黨：共產黨、社民黨、中央黨的支持者。而「我」，即短文的作者馬丁•尼莫拉，是一位基督教牧師，也曾投票支持希特拉。

這段話之所以警世，還因為這是作者根據親身經歷所寫的一段懺悔。各派都只顧自己，當其他人被打壓時視若無睹，心想「關我鬼事」，結果令希特拉可以將他們逐一鏟除。


下篇

1933年3月，希特拉上台後再次進行選舉，目標是拿下國會控制權。納粹黨得票升至 43%，但左派和天主教右派仍企硬在 42%，雙方勢均力敵。在阿登納管治下，天主教徒佔多數的科隆，中央黨的得票甚至高過納粹黨。納粹黨仍要依靠另一個右派政黨國民黨的支持。


希特拉於是提出一個「授權法案」，授權總理大量額外權力，令他可以變相無視國會獨斷獨行。法案需要國會通過，即是要國會自廢武功，其實任何正常人一聽都知有問題，左派立即就表明堅決反對。中央黨內部經過一輪激辯後，卻投下了贊成票。黨魁卡斯(Ludwig Kaas，本身是個神父)稱他跟希特拉談了個大和解方案，以支持授權法案換取希特拉政府保障天主教徒權益。授權法案最終獲得通過。

當然，希特拉沒有遵守承諾，一得到權力就將敵人鏟除。中央黨被解散，而作為黨幹部的阿登納也被免去科隆市長職務，更多次被監禁。基督教徒結果也難逃一劫，不論哪一宗教，跟政府唱反調的神職人員都被打壓。

希特拉還創立了一個官方教會，逼基督教徒脫離他們原本所屬的教會。1937年，羅馬天主教會公開譴責德國政府，但為時已晚，也沒能阻止迫害行動。希特拉之後發動第二次世界大戰，和屠殺猶太人的事就不詳談了。

但戰後的確很多德國人都反思，為甚麼希特拉當日可以上台呢？為甚麼這麼多人會上當信了希特拉的謊言呢？阿登納就認為是跟天主教徒和基督教徒內鬥有關：雖然教義細節不一樣，但在大是大非的社會問題上，兩教立場其實是相當相近的，如果能將兩派都團結起來，並將他們導向民主，將可成為一股龐大的政治勢力。


阿登納帶領西德走出困境
阿登納在二戰後成立基督民主聯盟(這個基督是包括所有耶教徒的 Christian，下稱基民盟)，放棄戰前中央黨只重視天主教徒的做法，拉攏基督教徒，甚至是曾經投票支持納粹黨的選民。策略成功，在 1949年的戰後西德第一次選舉中，基民盟成為最大黨，阿登納當選西德第一任總理，當時他已經 73歲。

阿登納上任後全力跟美英法等國恢復關係，令西德得到後台，可以搞好經濟，同時抗衡蘇聯威脅。1951年，德法意比荷盧六國一同創立歐洲煤炭共同體，深化經濟合作。

1952年，西德宣布向納粹大屠殺生還者，和以色列政府作出賠償。1955年，德國獲准重建軍隊並加入北約。1957年，歐洲煤炭共同體進化成為歐洲經濟共同體，即歐盟的前身。

1963年，阿登納跟法國總統戴高樂簽署德法友好條約，為兩國上百年的恩怨情仇劃上句號。此時西德經濟已經從二戰受到的破壞恢復過來，成為世界第四大經濟體(排在美蘇日之後)。

阿登納連任了 4次總理，到 1963年年底終於因年紀太大(87歲)，開始跟時局脫節而被勸退，總共做了 14年總理。他在 4年後的 1967年逝世，終年 91歲，西德政府在科隆大教堂為他舉行國葬。阿登納今時今日仍被選為史上最偉大的德國人，因為他成功穩定了戰後的亂局，重建經濟和社會，還令背負著發動兩次世界大戰罪名的德國，重新為國際社會所接受。


東德基督徒的最終勝利
留在東德的人就沒西德人那麼好過了。共產黨是無神論的，當然不會讓你有宗教信仰自由。東德雖然仍然有教堂運作，也有一個東德基民盟(Christian Democratic Union of Germany，即所謂的民主黨派，跟西德基民盟無關)，但兩者都受到共產黨的嚴格控制。

1972年，東德政府推出墮胎法案，東德基民黨有約 20位議員投了反對或棄權票，其他約 30人則投贊成票。在共產黨統治下，基督徒都要贊成墮胎。(順帶一提，這也是東德唯一一次有議員投反對票的法案。)

1989年，隨著蘇聯戈爾巴喬夫放寬對東歐的控制，東歐各共產國家的民間開始出現反政府浪潮。在東德的萊比錫，從 9月 4日晚開始的每個星期一晚，民眾都會在市中心的大教堂完成祈禱會後來個佔領行動，整晚持蠟燭在市中心廣場集會，以非暴力形式進行抗議行動。

曾經公開稱讚中共應對天安門示威手法的東德政府，一度下令保安部隊可以開槍鎮壓，可幸的是前線人員最終沒有執行。萊比錫的集會人數每個星期都不斷增加，鼓舞了其他城市的人仿傚，最終引發柏林市民眾推倒圍牆，結束東德共產政府統治。

現任德國總統高克(Joachim Gauck)，是東德出身，本業是牧師，也是當年的反政府示威領袖之一。而總理默克爾，同樣是東德出身，父親是牧師，柏林圍牆倒下那一晚她也有上街慶祝，還走入了西柏林考察資本主義社會到底是甚麼模樣。

當年由西德天主教徒阿登納創立的基民盟，今日仍在執政，但領袖已經變成一位東德基督教牧師的女兒。這個發展，直至廿幾三十年前，大概還沒有人會預料到。除了德國，瑞士、比利時、荷蘭、盧森堡、挪威、瑞典等國都有基督民主黨。

不論是天主教徒還是基督教徒，為了保護自己的信仰自由，都應該一起支持民主。香港有些教徒卻反過來，反民主和親無神論的共產黨，真可謂違反歷史潮流。


讀完後，嗜悲 稍微對德國近代的歷史，多了些認知但仍然很表面，比以前只知道有：經民主選舉出來的希特拉，資本主義共產主義東西德曾經分治，帕林圍牆倒下和東西德統一，如今知多一點總算邁進了一點。


上面 AM730文中有提過 馬丁 尼姆 的名句，英文版是：


【維基百科】Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller (14 January 1892 – 6 March 1984) was a German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor. He is best known as the author of the poem "First they came 。。。。".

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.


Martin Niemöller was a German pastor and theologian born in Lippstadt, Germany, in 1892. Niemöller was an anti-Communist and supported Hitler's rise to power at first. But when Hitler insisted on the supremacy of the state over religion, Niemöller became disillusioned.



連 牧師 Martin Niemöller 都 support 希特拉，可知當年的 希魔 真的很有政治魅力，希特拉 的 納粹黨也是經普選上台，普選可以成就民主，也可以成就了一代魔頭，選民有沒有能力，能否分清分楚不被矇騙，民主幼稚生因為有了 universal suffrage 走上歪路是很容易的。


有謂朋友之間吹水，最忌是談論：宗教 和 政治 religion and politics，不過 嗜悲 一向都有或多或少 touch 到一些政治民生信仰經濟話題，尚幸還未產生難纏的狂熱份子踩場，否則就是唯有關門大吉，God Bless： Mind Necessity 主佑： 心空海域 ！


西方社會推崇的自由民主，可以接受政黨輪替，淨是美國就有共和民主兩黨輪流玩，英國有工黨和保守黨輪換，加拿大自由黨保守黨 etc etc，都是他們引以為傲的核心價值。不過但是反而對於宗教信仰，卻不見得西方人可以不斷輪替，每隔四年就由天主教改信佛教，再四年就改信回教，又再四年變成基督徒，如此類推。


西方民主 不是時常鞭撻中東阿拉伯世界回教國家，說他們 ”政教合一“ 是非常危險的，看看如今在德國的執政黨的大聯盟，就包括了 默克爾 帶領的最大 基督教民主黨 Christian Democratic Union，不是牌面牌底都是 宗教政治 合一的政治黨派嗎？默克爾 本人誕生有宗教家庭，父親是傳教士和牧師，基督教信仰應該堅定不移，由她帶領德國已經 8年，由今之後還有多 4年。


可能有人會話基督教們，不是宗教狂熱如回教徒，沒有激進回教徒穆斯林要發動例如聖戰或類似聖戰 Jihad 的可能，不過歐洲不是曾經有十字軍東征嗎？哈哈哈 俱往矣！西方人真的是有個大口任佢講，雙重標準是慣性放諸各方。


Anyway 今次，只是記錄找到的一些資料與大家分享，多謝各位閱讀至此，請請！





伸延閱覽：
默克爾正式當選德國總理將宣誓就職 新浪新聞網
Christlich Demokratische Union CDU Christian Democratic Union （德意志） 維基百科 官方網頁
基督教徒與德國民主 (上) AM730新聞網
基督教徒與德國民主 (下) AM730新聞網








我的舊文：
The Merkel Regime 默克爾時代
談《一位女性總理》
我的政治 101 系列

正劇 悲劇 喜劇 鬧劇

正劇 悲劇 喜劇 鬧劇


《替補機制草案》經過兩次流會，於第三次的修訂辯論，主席透露將會通宵進行辯論。


週四的凌晨發生了 。。。。。

曾鈺成暫停會議擬中止修訂辯論 （看片）
【有線新聞】立法會《替補機制草案》修訂辯論凌晨四時半一度暫停。主席曾鈺成決定，引用議事規則第九十二條有關「未有規定的程序」條文，指定今午結束辯論，然後會逐項表決「拉布」議員提出的一千多項修正案，預計需時兩、三日表決。

凌晨四時許，熟悉的鐘聲再次響起，點算人數後，一直沒有發言的黃宜弘突然提出動議，要求終止終止辯論；主席曾鈺成隨即表示，他亦有考慮此問題，並且準備裁決。

曾鈺成引用議事規則第九十二條賦與的權力。九十二條規定，對於議事規則內未作出規定的事宜，立法會所遵循的方式及程由立法會主席決定，如果主席認為適合，可以參照其他立法機關的慣例及程序處理。

暫停會議後，曾鈺成與各黨派議員在辦公室激烈辯論，最後他決定會議在早上九時復會，讓議員總結發言，但最遲要在中午十二時結束，然後表決一千多項修訂，為拉布戰定出終點。


立法會九時復會辯論修訂至中午（看片）
【有線新聞】立法會原定通宵開會繼續審議《替補機制草案》一千多項修訂，主席曾鈺成在清晨應黃宜弘要求暫停會議，表示要裁決是否終止修訂辯論，並且和各黨派議員磋商。

泛民的吳靄儀會後指，曾鈺成和多個黨派的議員激烈辯論後，決定早上九時復會，又要求拉布議員只有十五分鐘發言時間，到中午就會結束辯論。

其中一位有份修訂草案的議員黃毓民批評，曾鈺成做法不公平，認為是一次政治打壓；又指只給予他們三小時發言時間不足，他相信要多用三日表決。

曾鈺成是在清晨五時前應黃宜弘議員要求暫停會議。他表示，這是根據議事規則第九十二條賦予的權力作出決定。黃宜弘休會時表示，對一千多項修訂忍無可忍，故提出終止辯論。



梁卓偉無回應是否向曾鈺成施壓（看片）
【有線新聞】立法會《替補機制草案》修訂辯論凌晨四時半一度暫停，主席曾鈺成決定今午結束辯論。 保安局局長李少光表示，曾鈺成並無就終止辯論與政府傾談；而特首辦主任梁卓偉被問到是否政府向立法會主席施壓，他無正面回應。



曾鈺成解釋終止辯論為取平衡（看片）
【有線新聞】立法會拉布戰出現突變，主席曾鈺成於凌晨四時許引用議事規則賦與他的權力叫停辯論，指令一千多項修訂於中午過後開始表決。

立法會主席曾鈺成表示，他不可以讓辯論無休止進行，就算黃宜弘不提出，他都會有決定。他又表示，只對議員和公眾負責，否認受到壓力。 兩方陣營通宵堅持，曾鈺成指結束會議是為大家好。

當初批准一千多項修訂，曾鈺成指已預計後果，但不容許會議無止境地拖延。他指這是零和遊戲，只有贏和輸，作為主席有責任做決定，他指沒有受過任何壓力。

在終止辯論替補機制草案的修訂案後，議員下午開始逐一表決一千多項修訂。到下午五時，已經對大約一百項修訂作出表決，除了一項政府的修訂外，其他都是拉布議員提出修訂，全部被否決。



黃毓民作出總結發言 （看片）
【有線新聞】立法會繼續審議《替補機制草案》的修訂案，黃毓民作總結發言。他說現時立法會，比盧梭所不喜歡的代議制度，更要不堪。另外，民意落差讓民意代表可以騎刧民意，做政黨私利事情。



泛民去信立會主席不滿終止辯論 （看片）
【有線新聞】二十名泛民議員聯署去信立法會主席，對他終止辯論的裁決表達不滿，並會約見主席，要求詳細交代。



替補機制草案辯論結束 （看片）
【有線新聞】立法會終止辯論《替補機制草案》的修訂案，下午開始表決程序。而上午恢復辯論期間，主席指黃毓民多次離題，故終止其發言，建制派議員則發言批評拉布的做法。

復會後，發動拉布的黃毓民繼續批評主席的裁決，曾鈺成在多次提醒下中止他的發言；陳偉業發言時一度感觸落淚。而辯論設有時限後，建制派的議員開始參與發言。

至下午，議員開始表決一千多項的修訂案，預計需時兩至三日才完成所有表決程序。


民間團體抗議曾鈺成終止辯論 （看片）
【有線新聞】多個民間團體反對立法會主席曾鈺成終止辯論的裁決，晚上會於立法會外集會抗議。


民陣和學聯等團體批評曾鈺成終止替補機制草案修訂的辯論是政治決定，令立法會淪為橡皮圖章，要求曾鈺成辭職，又指晚上八時會在立法會大樓外舉行集會抗議。

Just to Document 立此存照！



後記：
週五早晨天文台有雷暴黃雨警告前，立法會提早宣布開會時間押後，避免又再出現流會。

立法會延遲開始泛民批為免流會 （看片）
【有線新聞】立法會繼續表決《替補機制草案》的修一千多項訂案。

今天會議原定早上九時開始，但立法會秘書處在開會前通知會議改在九時半。議員會逐一表決一千多項修訂，至昨日下午五時休會時，已表決一百項修訂，除了一項政府的修訂通過外，其他由「拉布」議員提出的議案全均否決。預計需時數日時間才可完成一千多項修訂的表決。

而對於立法會臨時決定將開會時間推遲半小時至九時半，但未有解釋原因。有泛民議員批評，主席此決定為了保皇，避免出席議員人數不足而流會。



另外明報報導：反拉布者收300元當布景板
【明報專訊】過去兩日立法會「拉布」會議期間，大樓外湧現大批由旅遊巴接載前來的「反拉布」示威者，昨下午人數一度高達300。本報昨在大樓外接觸到多名「示威者」，當中最少8人坦承收每日約300元的酬勞到場作「示威布景板」。有領酬勞示威的中年待業婦女表示，由朋友「搭上搭」介紹連續兩日到立法會掙外快，獲包兩餐及免費專車接送，乘旅遊巴回程時由「上線」接頭人分發酬金。

包兩餐包接送 回程發薪
「朋友問我做不做示威布景板 。。。。他說應該不用抄身分證、不會被拉、不用露面，我才來。」不願透露姓名、戴口罩的中年婦人昨站在立法會大樓外「反拉布」示威人群的後排，遇到本報記者查詢時，直認收取酬勞，時薪為最低工資28元的一倍。她由「上線」介紹乘旅遊巴前往立法會，但負責人的身分則全不知情。記者昨午5時許，見多輛旅遊巴把示威者分批送到現場，至傍晚時估計有超過300人。

「反拉布者」表明撐拉布
該婦人說，前日到場時朋友沒告知她其實是立法會反拉布，「出賣尊嚴都要啦，又無工開，要帶錢返屋企開飯嘛」，被問到對出缺機制的立場，她反問記者，「我六四年年都去，你話我幫哪邊？」

她補充，昨午2時半一眾示威者先於觀塘地鐵站附近的茶樓午膳，報上名字，然後乘旅遊巴到立法會，她在觀塘見接載的旅巴超過20輛，而前日則只見5至6輛。

記者昨日在場觀察，發現反拉布示威者來自「五湖四海」，除染髮紋身青年，亦有家庭主婦、小童、學生、退休者以至貌似外傭的女子，分別由觀塘、屯門、旺角、藍田乘旅遊巴到場，部分人表示留在現場約3至6小時可獲得300元酬勞。

居於粉嶺的張小姐趁接小孩放學後約3小時，到場掙外快。她明確向記者表明自己「撐拉布」。

學者﹕建制打民意戰 恐適得其反
網上討論區有網民昨張貼聲稱是「今日收咗錢去反拉布」文章，並貼上聲稱出發前在觀塘茶樓免費飲食的點心照片，以及印有反拉布口號字句紙張。

中大政治與行政學系高級導師蔡子強估計，反拉布團體難以在工作日找到支持者到中區。他相信建制陣營試圖以民意戰打擊拉布，但隨着「支薪示威者」一事曝光，效果適得其反，令市民更同情「撐拉布」人士。


而東方日報則指出：秘書處出橋 黃宜弘「接紙仔」配合
【東方專訊】建制派今次「剪布」行動，表面上中總立法會議員黃宜弘發動，但實際上是由立法會秘書處及立法會主席曾鈺成出橋，黃宜弘可能只是誤打誤撞做了「剪布英雄」。此外，據悉建制派及曾鈺成是刻意苦等了三個星期，待愈來愈多市民反對拉布才出招，以免掀起民意反彈，影響九月立法會選舉的選情。

刻意等三周免招民怨
立會四大懶蟲之一、過往經常「閉目開會」的黃宜弘，昨早凌晨四時許突然「瞓醒」要求終止辯論出缺草案千三項修訂，並立即獲曾鈺成配合，加上有建制派議員透露，昨晨三、四時已聽到「即將有事發生」，有人更聲稱見到秘書處向黃「傳紙仔」，令人質疑兩人早夾定，背後或涉中聯辦、港府、甚至候任特首梁振英教路。黃昨強烈否認指控，強調是在「忍無可忍」下，自行細閱《議事規則》及向秘書處查詢後出招。事實上，他建議提出終止會議，與曾鈺成最終運用《議事規則》第九十二條是兩回事。

據悉，以《議事規則》第九十二條的「奇招」終止拉布，是立法會議事規則委員會早前研究出來的秘密武器。

早前有議員指會就立法會議席出缺草案及版權條例草案各提出逾千項修訂，議事規則委員會遂埋頭研究對策，包括參考外國的做法，動用第九十二條是其中一個方法，昨終到適當「出招」時機。


再有大公報：議會拉布四丑不服輸 圖入禀挑戰裁决
【大公網（簡體）】立法会主席曾钰成终止拉布，反对派「四丑」仍未心息，立法会昨日暂停会议后，社民连梁国雄（长毛）随即到高等法院申请禁制令，要求推翻曾钰成的裁决。拉布主谋陈伟业则声称或就曾钰成的裁决提司法覆核。另一边厢，民主党、公民党及工党等在拒绝参与拉布后，又扬言会考虑就有关裁决向曾钰成提不信任动议，反映反对派各有盘算，各怀鬼胎。/本报记者戴正言

经过三十多小时会议后，反对派「四丑」仍未玩够。曾钰成昨日以议事规则第九十二条终止人民力量黄毓民及陈伟业继续就一千三百多项修订辩论后，长毛疑要「玩完议会，再玩法庭」，于立法会会议结束后随即到高等法院提出禁制令，要求推翻曾钰成的裁决。长毛称，基本法并没有予主席权力，终止议员在立法过程中辩论的权利。法庭将于今日作出审议，并已通知立法会秘书处、曾钰成及律政司三方可派代表到庭。

立会会议期间，「四丑」之一的郑家富则与黄毓民及陈伟业轮流指称，曾钰成的判决剥夺其冗长的玩拉布发言，违反了议事传统，会向曾钰成提不信任动议。而陈伟业更声称会与律师研究，提出司法覆核。

另一边厢，民主党及公民党近日频频玩失踪，昨日又异口同声称「四丑」没有找他们商量拉布之事。会议期间，民主党主席何俊仁继续「唔见人」，只派出该党的党团召集人李华明会见记者，说会「贯彻始终」玩杯葛。

当被问及不参与拉布是否受到民意影响，李华明则前言不对后语，自爆民主党有就拉布进行民意调查，但又死撑称市民对拉布持不同意见。在记者追问下，他表示，大部分市民都反对拉布。至于拉布帮凶两次提休会动议待续议案的公民党昨日竟仍称，没有参与拉布，该党的吴霭仪更称，他们只是按程序提有需要的休会待续议案。

对于工程界议员何钟泰动议把记名表决时间，由五分钟缩短到一分钟，民主党与公民党不但无一成员到会议厅提出反对，齐齐「卸膊」称，「walk out了（离开了议会）就不会再walk in（步入议会）」。香港社会工作者总工会张国柱称「主角（玩拉布四丑）都唔紧张，旁边的人紧张什么，费事无端端被人踢走啦，你估未试过咩 。。。。」

另外，社民连梁国雄向高等法院申请禁制令，就曾钰成终止辩论申请司法覆核，法庭押后至今日审议。执业大律师陆伟雄说，现阶段不便评论，如果高院推翻梁国雄的申请，他也有机会上诉至终院，有关裁决结果影响深远及有一定的指标性，关乎日后议员是否有权就任何议题作拉布。如果梁国雄胜诉，政府应该代为提出上诉，否则日后所有民生议案，也有可能被无休止的拖垮，影响立法会正常运作。


當發生了流會，建制派被西環勒令保皇，反而泛民卻抱着不關己事，就連會都不參加，致使本來每次5分鐘的記名表決，被建制派修訂為只1分鐘，讓千多條修訂的表決時間，大大縮短了五分之四，僅剩下五分之一。


有報章甚至說是：『狼來了！』 就讓 嗜悲 借用 Martin Niemöller 的詩句， 馬田尼姆拉 眼見納粹德國興起，而寫成的 First they came 。。。

「First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.」


蔡子強譯成：
「他們最先走來捉共產黨，因為我不是共產黨，所以我無出聲；
他們稍後走來捉猶太人，因為我不是猶太人，所以我也無出聲；
他們接着走來捉工會分子，因為我不是工會分子，所以我還是無出聲；
到了他們來捉天主教徒，因為我是新教徒，所以我仍舊無出聲；
最後，他們走來捉我，環顧四周，已經沒有人留下來，可以為我出聲了。」


今次不止是狼來了，Martin Niemöller 指他們（納粹黨）最先走來捉共產黨，如今換轉是共產黨來了 。。。。。。！


嗜悲反問：共產黨不是已經早在1997年7月1日來了，他們正式從英國接收了香港嗎？



後後記：
經過否決了一千多條修訂，六月一日立法會繼續進行三讀的程序。

替補草案千多項修訂全數否決
【有線新聞】《替補機制草案》的千多項修訂終於全數表決，進入最後三讀審議階段。今次「拉布」，打破立法會審議草案時間最長的紀錄。

會議上，人民力量的黃毓民動議表決最後一條議案，其他建制派議員一同站起來。最後以1票贊成、32票反對，與其他千多項修訂一樣被否決。

議案隨即進入三讀階段，建制派議員發言，要求發動「拉布」的人民力量向市民道歉。

雖然未知《替補機制草案》何時最後表決，但已經打破草案在大會審議時間最長的紀錄。由五月初恢復二讀辯論起計，單是委員會審議階段，已使用逾一百小時，當中超過一半時間、即五十五小時多，用於一千三百多項修訂的逐項。

表決上，經歷三次大會、共八個工作天。而主席因為在席議員人數不足，曾經鳴鐘五十八次，其中一次在鳴鐘後，因人數仍不足而須流會。（ 看片）


拉布戰揭露出建制派的議員，尤其是功能組別的議員，出席立法會的會議出席率偏低，發言率嚴重的不足，只是在投票表決時做橡皮圖章。


替補機制條例三讀通過
【有線新聞】備受爭議的《替補機制條例草案》，晚上終於在立法會三讀通過。建制派議員眼見不多泛民議員在場，隨即取消發言，並且通過三讀表決，整個過程不足一小時。政制及內地事務局長譚志源形容，是戲劇性的發展。

立法會晚上八時復會，兩次因出席議員不足而鳴鐘點算人數，建制派議員隨後陸續回來。在第二次響鐘完畢時，多位建制派議員突然取消發言。

由於再無議員發言，主席曾鈺成立即三讀表決，不記名下最終通過。

有建制派議員批評泛民不出席，欲製造流會，決定取消發言。而譚志源指發展具戲劇性，他其後逐一介紹這五周有份參與的政府官員，又指不希望再見到「拉布」，以及運用《替補機制條例》的機會。

根據新通過的法例，立法會任何議席出現空缺，會繼續由補選填補。倘若議員自願辭職，他在隨後的六個月內都不可參與立法會的補選，而此項限制不適用於換屆選舉。 （看片）

泛民依然杯葛，剩下建制派議員在會議廳，竟然發生不夠人數，差點變成流會，最後響鐘湊夠人數，在不記名投票情況下，三讀通過了議案。


這條剝奪市民參選權和被選權的“出缺安排”成為事實。



伸延閱覽：
反拉布者收300元當布景板 新浪新聞網
秘書處出橋 黃宜弘「接紙仔」配合 新浪新聞網
議會拉布四丑不服輸 圖入禀挑戰裁决（簡體） 大公新聞網
替補草案千多項修訂全數否決 有線新聞
替補機制條例三讀通過 有線新聞


我的舊文：
五月三日的流會
Legco Resign at WILL
你知道嗎？
打爛沙盤問到篤！
內耗頻繁

又一宗集體槍殺

又一宗集體槍殺



Virgina Tech 的校園槍殺案，做成 30人死亡，依然未有忘記，今朝一早就傳來，駭人的集體槍殺案，發生美國於南部最大軍事基地 Fort Hood 胡德堡，Killeen 嬌憐市, Texas 德薩斯州，兇手是位曾在 Virginia Tech 攻讀的畢業生，現職美軍的精神科醫生。


【明報專訊】美國得州軍營的嚴重槍擊案中，開槍軍人是一名曾遭騷擾的精神科醫生，而軍方就撤回他已遭擊斃的說法。

軍方發言人稱，懷疑開槍釀成今次慘案的陸軍少校哈桑（Nidal Malik Hasan），在事件中身中多槍，但沒有死去。

發言人沒有解釋，為何當初軍方迅速宣布，槍手已經被擊斃。軍方較早時指，事件中有12人死亡、31人傷。

哈桑在軍中擔任精神科醫生。其親友表示，他因為信奉穆斯林，而遭軍中同袍騷擾，曾向軍方投訴。也有指他因為將被派往中東前線，極度不開心。


涉嫌槍殺 12名同僚和槍傷 31人的美軍，本身是一位在美國出生的約旦裔阿拉伯人，年齡三十九歲未婚的陸軍少校哈桑（Nidal Malik Hasan），本身專業是一位心理學精神科醫生，他也是信奉回教的伊斯蘭教徒，即將派遣到伊拉克。


《CNN》A solider suspected of fatally shooting 12 and wounding 31 at Fort Hood in Texas on Thursday is not dead as previously reported by the military, the base's commander said Thursday evening.

A civilian officer who was wounded in the incident shot the suspect, who is "in custody and in stable condition," Army Lt. Gen. Robert Cone told reporters.

"Preliminary reports indicate there was a single shooter that was shot multiple times at the scene," Cone said at a news conference.
"However, he was not killed as previously reported."

The suspect, identified as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at a military processing center at Fort Hood around 1:30 p.m., Cone said.

Three others initially taken into custody for interviews have been released, Cone said.

Hasan, 39, is a graduate of Virginia Tech and a psychiatrist licensed in Virginia who was practicing at Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood, according to military and professional records. Previously, he worked at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

A federal official said Hasan is a U.S. citizen of Jordanian descent. Military documents show that Hasan was born in Virginia and was never deployed outside the United States.

Hasan was scheduled to be deployed to Iraq "and appeared to be upset about that," Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said.


能醫不自醫，精神科醫生變槍手，是因為心理精神上有問題，而做出集體槍殺案子，他是自己作主，還是受到外界影響，做出集體槍殺案子呢？現時言之尚早！


不過，曾經被說成已經被殺的槍手，現在又已被正式證實，還沒有當場被殺死，並且已經被捕監禁起來，這會否是 FBI 和 Homeland Security 的誘敵計策呢？


現時網上謠傳很多，是怎樣的來龍去脈，若是證實兇手是受到外界指示，其實是個《二五仔》，《臥底》，《無間道》式的『變節』，原來是恐怖主義屠殺，美國軍中被『恐怖主義』份子滲透了！


奧巴馬話必要查到水落石出，這會否被一群別有用心的政客，利用來打擊異己，再牽起一場如『麥卡錫主義』般的『白色恐怖』，到處拉人胡亂扣帽子，有殺錯無放過，攪到三軍震動，軍心不振，人心惶惶！


My heart goes out to the victims and their families！
為死難者哀悼並向他們的家屬致予慰問！


後記：
不到廿四小時，CNN International 又播出，在佛羅里達州奧蘭度市，一座十六層高辦公大樓，發生了槍擊案件，槍手還未捕獲，相信有最少八人受傷或死亡，因為警察尚未能進入現場，未有進一步的消息。


《CNN》Firefighters and police responded to a reported shooting Friday at a high-rise building in Orlando, Florida.

Authorities received a report shortly before noon of a shooting on an upper floor of the office building, said John Tormos of the Orlando Fire Department.

CNN affiliate WESH reported that at least eight people were shot at the Gateway Center, a 16-story building.

Police cars and emergency vehicles surrounded the area, video showed. It also showed people fleeing.


在美國社會普遍存在很多怨氣，加上槍械管制寬鬆，一發不可收拾，會不會是由于『胡德堡事件』引發呢？



後記：
President Obama spoke at the Ft. Hood memorial service
《NEW YORK Times》We come together filled with sorrow for the thirteen Americans that we have lost; with gratitude for the lives that they led; and with a determination to honor them through the work we carry on.

This is a time of war. And yet these Americans did not die on a foreign field of battle. They were killed here, on American soil, in the heart of this great American community. It is this fact that makes the tragedy even more painful and even more incomprehensible.

For those families who have lost a loved one, no words can fill the void that has been left. We knew these men and women as soldiers and caregivers. You knew them as mothers and fathers; sons and daughters; sisters and brothers.

But here is what you must also know: your loved ones endure through the life of our nation. Their memory will be honored in the places they lived and by the people they touched. Their life's work is our security, and the freedom that we too often take for granted. Every evening that the sun sets on a tranquil town; every dawn that a flag is unfurled; every moment that an American enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – that is their legacy.

Neither this country – nor the values that we were founded upon – could exist without men and women like these thirteen Americans. And that is why we must pay tribute to their stories.

Chief Warrant Officer Michael Cahill had served in the National Guard and worked as a physician's assistant for decades. A husband and father of three, he was so committed to his patients that on the day he died, he was back at work just weeks after having a heart attack.

Major Libardo Eduardo Caraveo spoke little English when he came to America as a teenager. But he put himself through college, earned a PhD, and was helping combat units cope with the stress of deployment. He is survived by his wife, sons and step-daughters.

Staff Sergeant Justin DeCrow joined the Army right after high school, married his high school sweetheart, and had served as a light wheeled mechanic and Satellite Communications Operator. He was known as an optimist, a mentor, and a loving husband and father.

After retiring from the Army as a Major, John Gaffaney cared for society's most vulnerable during two decades as a psychiatric nurse. He spent three years trying to return to active duty in this time of war, and he was preparing to deploy to Iraq as a Captain. He leaves behind a wife and son.

Specialist Frederick Greene was a Tennessean who wanted to join the Army for a long time, and did so in 2008 with the support of his family. As a combat engineer he was a natural leader, and he is survived by his wife and two daughters.

Specialist Jason Hunt was also recently married, with three children to care for. He joined the Army after high school. He did a tour in Iraq, and it was there that he re-enlisted for six more years on his 21st birthday so that he could continue to serve.

Staff Sergeant Amy Krueger was an athlete in high school, joined the Army shortly after 9/11, and had since returned home to speak to students about her experience. When her mother told her she couldn't take on Osama bin Laden by herself, Amy replied: "Watch me."

Private First Class Aaron Nemelka was an Eagle Scout who just recently signed up to do one of the most dangerous jobs in the service – diffuse bombs – so that he could help save lives. He was proudly carrying on a tradition of military service that runs deep within his family.

Private First Class Michael Pearson loved his family and loved his music, and his goal was to be a music teacher. He excelled at playing the guitar, and could create songs on the spot and show others how to play. He joined the military a year ago, and was preparing for his first deployment.

Captain Russell Seager worked as a nurse for the VA, helping veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress. He had great respect for the military, and signed up to serve so that he could help soldiers cope with the stress of combat and return to civilian life. He leaves behind a wife and son.

Private Francheska Velez, the daughter of a father from Colombia and a Puerto Rican mother, had recently served in Korea and in Iraq, and was pursuing a career in the Army. When she was killed, she was pregnant with her first child, and was excited about becoming a mother.

Lieutenant Colonel Juanita Warman was the daughter and granddaughter of Army veterans. She was a single mother who put herself through college and graduate school, and served as a nurse practitioner while raising her two daughters. She also left behind a loving husband.

Private First Class Kham Xiong came to America from Thailand as a small child. He was a husband and father who followed his brother into the military because his family had a strong history of service. He was preparing for his first deployment to Afghanistan.

These men and women came from all parts of the country. Some had long careers in the military. Some had signed up to serve in the shadow of 9/11. Some had known intense combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some cared for those did. Their lives speak to the strength, the dignity and the decency of those who serve, and that is how they will be remembered.

That same spirit is embodied in the community here at Fort Hood, and in the many wounded who are still recovering. In those terrible minutes during the attack, soldiers made makeshift tourniquets out of their clothes. They braved gunfire to reach the wounded, and ferried them to safety in the backs of cars and a pick-up truck.

One young soldier, Amber Bahr, was so intent on helping others that she did not realize for some time that she, herself, had been shot in the back. Two police officers – Mark Todd and Kim Munley – saved countless lives by risking their own. One medic – Francisco de la Serna – treated both Officer Munley and the gunman who shot her.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know – no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice – in this world, and the next.

These are trying times for our country. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis. In Iraq, we are working to bring a war to a successful end, as there are still those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that Americans and Iraqis have sacrificed so much for.

As we face these challenges, the stories of those at Fort Hood reaffirm the core values that we are fighting for, and the strength that we must draw upon. Theirs are tales of American men and women answering an extraordinary call – the call to serve their comrades, their communities, and their country. In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility. In an era of division, they call upon us to come together. In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans.

We are a nation that endures because of the courage of those who defend it. We saw that valor in those who braved bullets here at Fort Hood, just as surely as we see it in those who signed up knowing that they would serve in harm's way.

We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes.

We are a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses. And instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln's words, and always pray to be on the side of God.

We are a nation that is dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal. We live that truth within our military, and see it in the varied backgrounds of those we lay to rest today. We defend that truth at home and abroad, and we know that Americans will always be found on the side of liberty and equality. That is who we are as a people.

Tomorrow is Veterans Day. It is a chance to pause, and to pay tribute – for students to learn of the struggles that preceded them; for families to honor the service of parents and grandparents; for citizens to reflect upon the sacrifices that have been made in pursuit of a more perfect union.

For history is filled with heroes. You may remember the stories of a grandfather who marched across Europe; an uncle who fought in Vietnam; a sister who served in the Gulf. But as we honor the many generations who have served, I think all of us – every single American – must acknowledge that this generation has more than proved itself the equal of those who have come before.

We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes.

This generation of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen have volunteered in a time of certain danger. They are part of the finest fighting force that the world has ever known. They have served tour after tour of duty in distant, different and difficult places. They have stood watch in blinding deserts and on snowy mountains. They have extended the opportunity of self-government to peoples that have suffered tyranny and war. They are man and woman; white, black, and brown; of all faiths and stations – all Americans, serving together to protect our people, while giving others half a world away the chance to lead a better life.

In today's wars, there is not always a simple ceremony that signals our troops' success – no surrender papers to be signed, or capital to be claimed. But the measure of their impact is no less great – in a world of threats that know no borders, it will be marked in the safety of our cities and towns, and the security and opportunity that is extended abroad. And it will serve as testimony to the character of those who serve, and the example that you set for America and for the world.

Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to thirteen men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home. Later today, at Fort Lewis, one community will gather to remember so many in one Stryker Brigade who have fallen in Afghanistan.

Long after they are laid to rest – when the fighting has finished, and our nation has endured; when today's servicemen and women are veterans, and their children have grown – it will be said of this generation that they believed under the most trying of tests; that they persevered not just when it was easy, but when it was hard; and that they paid the price and bore the burden to secure this nation, and stood up for the values that live in the hearts of all free peoples.

So we say goodbye to those who now belong to eternity. We press ahead in pursuit of the peace that guided their service. May God bless the memory of those we lost. And may God bless the United States of America.


伸延閱覽：
Fort Hood 胡德堡 中文谷歌新聞搜尋
Fort Hood TX 英文谷歌新聞搜尋
軍營槍擊事件系美軍士氣低迷的爆發式體現 香港新浪網
美軍基地槍擊案 兇嫌親戚：哈山無暴力傾向 中央日報
德州胡德堡軍事基地 中央廣播電台
德州基地槍擊案 歐巴馬：必查到水落石出 中央通訊社
美陸軍基地槍擊案兇手疑為軍醫 自由時報
美軍槍擊案兇嫌並未死亡正接受調查 中央通訊社
德州驚傳槍擊案 12死 31傷 世界日報
Fort Hood shootings suspect alive 12 dead 31 injured CNN.com
Shooting reported at Orlando high-rise CNN.com
President Obama spoke on Tuesday at the Ft. Hood memorial service nytimes.com
Full Text of Obama's remarks nytimes.com



我的舊文：
Gunman killed 30 people at Virginia Tech
不同政見是否對國家不忠和麥卡錫主義

The Inner Light (The story)

The Inner Light (The story)

本來是長長一篇過談論 "The Inner Light " 的﹐但驚各位訓著﹐所以分開呢登﹐但有關 story 這 part 還是太長 。

上次談 Star Trek - The Next Generation 第125集 "The Inner Light " 聽到的音樂。

Starship Enterprise 遇到一個物體﹐發出一道能量﹐剛好射中太空船船長 Captain Picard. 他暈倒不醒人事﹐船上全人努力搶救﹐而Picard 的腦波﹐顯現他是清醒的﹐原來Picard 魂遊到了另一個 dimension!!!

Picard 在這次奇遇﹐學會了吹奏笛子﹐當他再醒過來後﹐他發覺在他靈魂出竅之時﹐所用過得笛子﹐就藏在那個不明物體裡面﹐Picard 不自覺的拿起笛子﹐再次吹奏出哀怨的melody, 再次跌進回憶裡。
Listen to The Inner Light (The music)

今次講故事﹐the story copied from "the next generation" 網頁, 是很長很長﹐嘗試過改短一些﹐但自己重讀後﹐覺得失了真﹐所以保留了下來。

Yes words words and words, the paragraphs are quite long to read, but trust me they are good, and really intriguing. Please don't forget to click at the YOUTUBE "The inner light" at the bottom to watch the clipping too , and

the story goes:

The Enterprise encounters an object: a probe of unknown and fairly primitive design, which quickly begins matching their course and speed. It initially seems nonthreatening, but soon emits a beam of nucleons. The shields go up, but it manages to break through the shields in a very narrow region, and Picard (The Captain of starship Enterprise) suddenly faints.

He blearily sees Riker (First Officer of starship Enterprise) holding him...and then Riker dissolves into a youngish woman with a careworn look on her face, who asks Picard if he's feeling better, referring to him as "Kamin". Picard initially believes he's stuck in a holodeck program and attempts to leave, but to no avail. Feeling trapped, he paces. "What is this place?" "This...is your home, of course."

Picard is taken aback; is he a prisoner? Of course he's not, as she makes clear; he's been feverish for over a week. She says he's still very weak and asks him not to go outside, which he promptly does. He finds himself in the middle of a small village, where a large and happy man has just finished planting a sapling in the courtyard, as an "affirmation of life" and a symbol of hope, despite the devastating drought. As the crowd moves on, Picard accosts this man, who also welcomes "Kamin" back to the land of the fit. Upon hearing Picard's questions, however, he comes to believe that Picard has amnesia. Picard, realizing he needs answers, decides to play along with this. He discovers that his name is Kamin; that the man with him is his friend and Council leader Batai; that the woman is his wife Eline; and that they're in the community of Ressic on the planet Kataan. He takes a walk, to "reacquaint himself with the surroundings", and wanders for hours, seeing a gleaming city far away.

He returns home to Eline, who tells him she's been worried sick. As she gets him some dinner ("It's delicious." "You always say that."), he asks her a number of questions. First, he intends to send a message the next day, though he's not sure to where. Then, with a little prompting, he begins asking about them. "We're...married?" "Three years ago. The happiest day of my life was the day we got married." He discovers that he's an ironweaver, though he prefers to play his flute (poorly). He thanks her for her help, and she takes his hand and asks him to come to bed. He demurs and attempts to make excuses, but she is insistent. He begins to rise, and then sees the charm she wears, which is identical in shape to the probe they encountered. When he demands to know where she got it, however, he discovers that it's the first gift he ever gave her. He watches it twirl...and Riker, on the bridge, calls to Sickbay for help, as Picard's body slips into a coma.

Bev (Doctor of Enterprise) arrives and does some scans, finding incredible neurotransmitter activity. They reason that the probe has somehow connected itself to him like a tether, and find that the beam is nigh unto unblockable at present. They can destroy the probe, but Bev strongly urges against that. They wait.

Five years pass on Kataan. Picard is looking through a telescope of his own construction, charting the sun's path to attempt to find the cause of the drought. Eline, however, believes he's still looking for that ship of his, and hurtly upbraids him for not paying attention to the life he has now. When, she asks, will she get him back? When will they start a family?

Batai interrupts to take "Kamin" to the Administrator's visit. The Administrator is somewhat unsympathetic and unctuous, but Picard seems to impress him somewhat. Regardless, his idea to build atmospheric condensers is quickly dismissed as costly and unworkable, and the Administrator leaves with no firm plan of action in hand (or even in mind). Picard broods, but Batai notes that it's the first time in years he's heard "Kamin" speak like a true member of the community again. They return to Picard's house for dinner.

Later that evening, Picard and Batai sit while Picard plays the flute. Eline gently tells Batai that it's time he went home, and then chides "Kamin" about leaving his shoes everywhere. The conversation quickly turns more serious, with Picard acknowledging her points of that day and apologizing for not being a better husband to her. He asks her permission to build something else. She points out that he didn't need her permission to build the telescope, or the laboratory, and he doesn't need it now, but he insists. He wants to build a nursery. "Really?" "Unless, of course, if you would prefer a porch; it would be much easier to build, and I could start on it right away-" He gets no further.

Meanwhile, on the bridge, Geordi (Chief Engineer of Enterprise) launches a probe to follow the radioactive traces of the alien probe back to their source. Data (Second Officer of Enterprise) has figured out a likely way to disrupt the beam, and despite Bev's misgivings about the idea, Riker decides to do so.

Several years pass on Kataan. Kamin and Eline are holding the naming ceremony for their second child, named Batai for their late friend. After the formalities are concluded, they look at their daughter Meribor and note how fast she's grown. (Eline notes that she's accompanying Kamin all over the place, and is surely her father's daughter.) Kamin remarks that he once thought he never needed children, but that now he can't imagine life without them. Suddenly, he turns pale, shudders, and collapses. Eline calls for the doctor-

-and Bev and Ogawa (Doctor and Nurse of Enterprise) try frantically to stabilize Picard, but to no avail. With no choice, Data hastily manages to reestablish the beam, and Picard stabilizes.

Ten years or so later on Kataan, Meribor is in her late teens, and is turning into quite the scientist herself. She's continued her father's work on the drought, and has discovered that the soil is simply dead. She tries to voice the unspoken conclusion of her work, but Kamin tries to avoid it and change the subject. Eventually, however, she voices what he already knew: the planet is dying. He is saddened that she must bear this knowledge as well, but she bears it well. "I think I should marry Danek sooner rather than later, don't you?" "Seize the time, Meribor. Live now; make now always the most precious time. Now will never come again."

...And on the bridge, Geordi's managed to trace the probe's path back to its origin, a system called Kataan. Unfortunately, there are no inhabited planets there; the sun went nova and all life in that system died roughly a thousand years ago.

Several more years pass on Kataan. Eline comes out to see a very aged Kamin, still working on his telescope, and who urges Eline to lie down after her recent surgery. When they hear Batai playing the flute, she suggests Kamin talk to him, hinting that there are things that need to be said. Batai comes out to talk to them, and tells Kamin that he's leaving school to concentrate on his music. "This is the life I want." Kamin is initially aghast at this, but eventually comes around, telling Batai that they will "discuss" it later. He explains to a surprised Eline that he doesn't think he should stand in his son's way; and besides, he may not have much longer to lead his life anyway. Kamin notes that he'll be talking to the Administrator tomorrow and will possibly be expelled from the Council for his findings.

The next morning, he and the Administrator argue. At first, the Administrator simply refuses to listen, but he eventually tells Kamin in confidence that their scientists found the same conclusions roughly two years ago, but have kept it quiet to avoid starting a panic. A plan is currently underway to save some facet of the civilization, but more cannot be said at this time.

Suddenly, Batai comes running to Kamin; it's Eline. Kamin rushes home, but there's nothing that can be done. She asks Batai for a moment alone with Kamin, and is relieved to hear that he won't be thrown off the Council. "Remember...put your shoes away." "I promise." Eline dies, and a heartsick Kamin grieves over the body.

Years afterward, an extremely old Kamin is chasing after his grandson. Meribor and Batai come to take both of them to see "the launching." Kamin is initially not interested, but is talked into it. They head out to the courtyard, where Kamin sits on a bench at the outskirts. "What is it they're launching?"

"You know it, father. You've already seen it." "Seen it? What are you talking about? I haven't seen any missile." "Yes, you have, old friend. Don't you remember?"

Kamin turns, awestruck, to see his friend Batai again, as hale and hearty as he was in the prime of life.

"You saw it just before you came here. We hoped our probe would encounter someone in the future-someone who could be a teacher, someone who could tell the others about us."

"Oh...oh, it's me...isn't it? I'm the someone. I'm the one it finds. That's what this launching is-a probe that finds me in the future!"

"Yes, my love." This comes from Eline, now alive again and flush with the beauty of youth. "The rest of us have been gone a thousand years. If you remember what we were, and how we lived, then we'll have found life again."

"Eline..." He watches the missile lift off.

"Now, we live in you. Tell them of us...my darling..." Kamin stares...

...and Picard wakes up on the bridge of the Enterprise as the probe breaks contact and shuts down. He's initially very disoriented, but quickly reacquires at least a cursory knowledge of the situation. He discovers that he's only been unconscious for 20 or 25 minutes, and accompanies Bev to sickbay.

Some time later, Riker visits Picard in his ready room. As Picard gets used to the fact that this is once again his home, Riker hands him a small box they found inside the probe after they examined it. He leaves, and Picard opens the box, to find his flute. He cradles it to his breast, then softly plays it, as we see the ship fading off towards the stars.

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

This episode was being rated the most watchable among STAR TREK - The next generation total 7 seasons 177 episodes. Not only the story is very intriguing and touching, as a bonus I like the flute solo that Captain Picard used to play at the Planet Kataan too. The story also gave a warning to our planet earth about environmental conservation.


Click to see the clipping of "The Inner Light" with the theme music at the background.

初看 “The inner light" 時﹐只是被故事吸引﹐沒有記掛在心﹐很多年後﹐在海外旅途上﹐又給我看到﹐年紀大了﹐經歷多了﹐體會不同了﹐開始理解為何劇名名為"The inner light", 和太空船船長 Picard 為何﹐在結尾緊抱重新得到的笛子﹐再而吹奏一曲。之後終於給我有機會買到這一集的 VCD。

最近拿出來重看﹐又有多了一個奇想﹐如果可以好像Picard 一樣﹐只需幾十分鐘﹐就可以經歷幾十年的人生﹐是何等有趣﹐比看電影﹐比看書﹐更能代入﹐直程就是走進虛擬的世界裡﹐可以隨意利用科技﹐經歷不同的人生。

真實 vs 虛擬 的世界。。。。 可能我和大家是一同發著一個集體的夢﹐而離開這世界的才是夢醒的一群。

Listen to The Inner Light (The music)

後記: 記得另一部戲﹐Total Recall﹐人不用去外地旅遊﹐只要交費後﹐科技就把你帶進虛擬世界﹐週遊列國﹐或者經歷一次﹐有驚無險的歷險。

Related blog(s):
Soul Mate 心靈之侶 (The Host)
The Inner Light (The music)
THE INNER LIGHT vs the inner space
Transformers (The Dauphin)

Collection of letters remembering Armen Albert Alchian, 1914-2013

Collection of letters remembering Armen Albert Alchian, 1914-2013



Armen Albert Alchian, 1914-2013 港譯：艾智仁 國內：阿尔钦，二月十九日辭世，他是位沒有拿到 諾貝爾經濟學獎項的政治經濟學大師。

將以下英文文章譯作：中文閱讀


有關 艾智仁 的生平簡介
【維基百科】Armen Albert Alchian (April 12, 1914 – February 19, 2013) was an Armenian-American economist and an emeritus professor of economics at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Alchian was born in Fresno, California into an Armenian family. He attended California State University, Fresno for two years before transferring to Stanford University in 1934, which awarded him the B.A. (1936) and Ph.D. (1944). He served as a statistician with the USA Army Air Corps, from 1942 to 1946. In 1946, he joined the Economics Department at UCLA, where he spent the rest of his career. For many years, he was affiliated with the Rand Corporation. Alchian was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1978. In 1996, he became a Distinguished Fellow of the American Economic Association and in 2010 he received an honorary doctorate degree from Universidad Francisco Marroquín.

Alchian is the founder of the "UCLA tradition" in economics, a member of the Chicago school of economics, and one of the more prominent price theorists of the second half of the 20th century. He is the author of pathbreaking articles on information and uncertainty, and the theory of the firm. Through his writings on property rights and transaction costs, he is a founder of the new institutional economics. A surprising fraction of Alchian's writings have touched on topics conventionally viewed as macroeconomic: money, inflation, unemployment, and the theory of business investment. His writings are characterized by lucid witty exposition and a minimum of mathematical formalism.

Alchian is the coauthor with William R. Allen of the influential introductory economics text Exchange and Production. Its content and organization differ radically from those of other American university economics texts written during the second half of the 20th century. This was the first American introductory text to discuss information, transaction costs, property rights, and a market economy as a discovery process. It also contains the classic statement of what has come to be known as the Alchian–Allen theorem. This proposition, colloquially known as "ship the good apples out," states that when output varies in quality, the lower quality output is consumed nearby while the higher quality output is shipped long distances. The reason is simple: transportation costs vary with the weight and bulk, but not the quality, of that which is transported. The added per-unit amount decreases the relative price of the higher-grade product 。。。



以下是近日在網上讀到有關 艾智仁 和 懷念艾智仁 的文章：

【Econlib.org】Armen Alchian, an American economist born in Fresno, California, is in many ways like ronald coase. Like Coase, Alchian has published only a few articles, but very few are unimportant. And like Coase’s, many of Alchian’s articles are widely cited.

Many students and others who read economics are disturbed by economists’ assumptions that companies maximize profits. One of their objections is that managers of companies do not know enough to be able to maximize profits. In 1950 Alchian presented a thoughtful response to this objection in his first major article, “Uncertainty, Evolution and Economic Theory.” Alchian argued that even though all companies may not maximize profits, those that survive will be ones whose managers, by luck or by design, came close to maximizing profits. Therefore, those that we observe will have maximized profits. So for the long term at least, argued Alchian, for economists to derive the standard conclusions from the profit-maximization assumption, they do not need to show that all companies try to maximize profits.

While in the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War II, Alchian did some of the early work on the learning curve—the curve that relates unit costs to cumulative output. His article on the learning curve in aircraft production was based on statistical work he did during the war, but it could not be published until 1963 because it was based on classified information.

Alchian is also known for University Economics (now called Exchange and Production), coauthored with William R. Allen, a textbook that is unique in economics. It is much more literary and humorous than any other modern economics textbook that deals with complex issues for an undergraduate audience. Example: “Since the fiasco in the Garden of Eden, most of what we get is by sweat, strain, and anxiety.” It also welcomes controversy rather than shying away from it, in the process daring the reader to disagree. Take, for example, the book’s discussion of violence:

Before condemning violence (physical force) as a means of social control, note that its threatened or actual use is widely practiced and respected—at least when applied successfully on a national scale. Julius Caesar conquered Gaul and was honored by the Romans; had he simply roughed up the local residents, he would have been damned as a gangster. Alexander the Great, who conquered the Near East, was not regarded by the Greeks as a ruffian, nor was Charlemagne after he conquered Europe. Europeans acquired and divided—and redivided—America by force. Lenin is not regarded in Russia as a subversive. Nor is Spain’s Franco, Cuba’s Castro, Nigeria’s Gowon, Uganda’s Amin, China’s Mao, our George Washington.

Because of its literary quality and complexity, the textbook generally did not work with undergraduate or even M.B.A. classes. But its impact was out of all proportion to its sales. Many graduate students, particularly at the University of California at Los Angeles, where Alchian began teaching in 1946, and at the University of Washington (where Alchian student Steven Cheung taught), learned their basic economics from this book. Some of the University of Washington students went on to write best-selling textbooks that made many of Alchian and Allen’s insights more understandable to an undergraduate audience. Alchian and Allen’s textbook was truly a public good—a good that created large benefits for which its creators could not charge. And while Alchian played the role of selfish cynic in his class, some who studied under him had the feeling that he put so much care and work into his low-selling text—and into his students—because of his concern for humanity.

Other than through his text, Alchian’s largest impact has been in the economics of property rights (he wrote the article on property rights in this encyclopedia). Most of his work in property rights can be summed up in one sentence: You tell me the rules and I’ll tell you what outcomes to expect. In their textbook, for example, Alchian and Allen ask why the organizers of the Rose Bowl refuse to sell tickets to the highest bidders and instead give up wealth by underpricing the tickets. Their answer is that the people who make the decision on ticket prices do not have property rights in the tickets, so the wealth that is given up by underpricing would not have accrued to them anyway. But the decision makers can give underpriced tickets to their friends and associates. Thomas Hazlett, former chief economist at the Federal Communications Commission, used this same line of reasoning to explain why Rep. John Dingell blocked the Federal Communication Commission’s early attempts to auction off the electromagnetic spectrum and instead favored giving it away.

Alchian also used the analysis of property rights to explain the incidence of discrimination. In a paper coauthored with Reuben Kessel, Alchian, who was himself subject to discrimination as an Armenian, and Kessel pointed out that discrimination was more pervasive in private firms whose profits were regulated by the government, and then explained that this is what the analysis of property rights would predict. Discrimination is costly—not just to those discriminated against, but also to those who discriminate. The discriminators give up the chance to deal with someone with whom they could engage in mutually beneficial exchange. Therefore, argued Alchian and Kessel, discrimination would be more prevalent in situations where those who discriminate do not bear much of the cost from doing so. A for-profit company whose profits are not regulated would see the cost of discrimination in its bottom line in the form of lower profits. A company whose profits are limited and that is already at the limit would face no cost from discriminating. Alchian and Kessel used this analysis to explain why regulated utilities discriminated against Jews and why labor unions discriminated against blacks. This analysis explains why Alchian has never trusted government—but has trusted free markets—to reduce discrimination.

Before teaching at UCLA, Alchian was an economist with the RAND Corporation.



【華爾街日報】Armen Alchian never won a Nobel Prize in economics. But no less than Friedrich Hayek said he 'deserved' one.

In 1975, I attended a week-long conference in Connecticut at which the star attraction was Friedrich Hayek. Hayek, who had shared the 1974 Nobel Prize in economics with Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal, was doing a kind of victory tour of the United States. I told him that I thought Armen Alchian, one of my mentors when I earned a Ph.D. at UCLA, also deserved the Nobel Prize. I asked Hayek what he thought.

Hayek gave his characteristic wince, paused, and said, "There are two economists who deserve the Nobel prize because their work is important but won't get it because they didn't do a lot of work: Ronald Coase and Armen Alchian."

Sixteen years later, in 1991, Ronald Coase did win the Nobel Prize. When I got the news, I called Armen and told him the story. He got a kick out of it and seemed to have a new hope that he would win. He didn't, and now he can't. Armen Alchian died on Tuesday at the fine age of 98.

What was so important about Alchian's work? There were three aspects. First, he was one of the last economists of his generation to communicate mainly in words and not equations. Second, although economists often use the word "unrigorous" to refer to communication in words rather than math, Alchian was profoundly rigorous, writing clearly and carefully and using basic logic to reach sometimes-startling conclusions. As a result, many of Alchian's papers, even those from the 1950s, are still widely cited.

Third, Alchian is known for his textbook, "University Economics," first published in 1964 and later called "Exchange and Production," coauthored with UCLA colleague William R. Allen. That text is unique in economics. It is much more literary and humorous than any other modern economics textbook that deals with complex issues for an undergraduate audience. Example: "Since the fiasco in the Garden of Eden, most of what we get is by sweat, strain, and anxiety."

Alchian had his largest impact on the economic analysis of property rights. Most of his work in this area can be summed up in one sentence: You tell me the rules and I'll tell you what outcomes to expect.

In their textbook, for example, Alchian and Allen ask why the organizers of the Rose Bowl refuse to sell tickets to the highest bidders and, instead, give up wealth by underpricing the tickets. Their answer is that the people who make the decision on the prices don't have property rights in the tickets, so the wealth that is given up by underpricing wouldn't have accrued to them anyway. But the decision makers can give underpriced tickets to their friends and associates.

Thomas Hazlett, former chief economist at the Federal Communications Commission and now a professor at George Mason University Law School, used this same line of reasoning to explain why Michigan Congressman John Dingell blocked the FCC's early attempts to auction off the electromagnetic spectrum and, instead, favored giving it away. Auctioning would have reduced Mr. Dingell's power.

Alchian also used the analysis of property rights to explain racial and ethnic discrimination. In a 1962 paper coauthored with the late University of Chicago economist Reuben Kessel, Alchian—himself subject to anti-Armenian discrimination early in his life—pointed out that discrimination was more pervasive in private firms whose profits were regulated by the government. Alchian and Kessel explained that discrimination is costly, not just to those discriminated against, but also to those who discriminate. The discriminators give up the chance to deal with someone with whom they could engage in mutually beneficial exchange.

Therefore, argued Alchian and Kessel, discrimination would be more prevalent in situations where those who discriminate don't bear much of the cost from doing so. A company whose profits are not regulated would see the cost of discrimination in the form of lower profits. A company whose profits were limited and that was already at the limit would face no cost from discriminating.

Alchian first major article, "Uncertainty, Evolution and Economic Theory," was published in 1950. It was his response to a controversy about whether companies really do maximize profits. Alchian argued that even though all companies may not maximize profits, those that survive will be ones whose managers, by luck or design, came close to maximizing profits. Therefore, those that we observe will have maximized profits. So, for the long term at least, Alchian argued that economists don't need to show that all companies try to maximize profits in order to derive the standard conclusions from the profit-maximization assumption.

My personal favorite of his published papers is "The Economic and Social Impact of Free Tuition" (1968). Alchian pointed out that government aid to higher education is a transfer to the relatively rich. That's because people who can make it through college, even though they may have a low current income, have a high wealth.

He compared subsidizing college to subsidizing drilling expenses for someone sitting on a large pool of oil. The untapped student's potential is the analogue of the untapped oil. Alchian argued that lack of current income might be a justification for loans to aspiring college students but not for outright subsidies. He cinched the argument with the following story:

One poor, "uneducated" resident of Watts, upon hearing Ralph Bunche [a well-known black educator and diplomat] say that he could not have had a college education unless tuition were free, opined, "Perhaps it's time to repay out of his higher income for that privilege granted him by taxes on us Negroes who never went to college."

I still make Alchian's point in my classes and, although it upsets my students, not a single one has been able to undercut the fundamental soundness of Alchian's argument.


DAVID R. HENDERSON

Mr. Henderson is a research fellow with the Hoover Institution and an economics professor at the Naval Postgraduate School.



【independent institute】Arline Alchian Hoel reports that her father, Armen Alchian, “passed away peacefully in his sleep early this morning at his home in Los Angeles.” He was 98 years old.

Armen Alchian was a major figure in the economics profession for more than half a century. At UCLA, where he spent his academic career as a faculty member in the department of economics, he was a legend to generations of graduate students, who were required to take the price theory course he taught in the first year of the program. He used the Socratic method: he simply walked into the class each day and asked a student a question. From that point, the discussion went back and forth between teacher and students. Woe to any student who had arrived unprepared—and sometimes to those who had prepared. Public embarrassment was the price such students had to pay. But in the end, the students came away from the course with a healthy measure of their teacher’s mastery of applied price theory.

And master he was. Besides having a knack for making sense of countless aspects of economic and social life by viewing them as relative-price problems, Alchian helped to blaze trails toward extremely valuable improvements in microeconomic analysis by bringing into the analysis careful treatments of information, uncertainty, transaction costs, and property rights. For him, little difference existed between micro and macro; both were to be understood by using the same basic economic analysis of individual choice.

Alchian’s textbook, written with Bill Allen, differed from existing texts. It was, for one thing, not dumbed down. In addition, it included many questions at the end of each chapter, some of which were quite difficult. At the University of Washington in the late 1960s and 1970s, we used the Alchian and Allen book at every level: introductory, intermediate, and first-year graduate. The only difference came in the level of sophistication we expected in the answers to the questions. Although Alchian did not lack mathematical skills—from 1942 to 1946 he worked as a statistician for the Army Air Corps—his work did not display much mathematical formality. For the most part, he said what he meant in straightforward English prose, spiced with wit and sparkling asides.

Many of Alchian’s students and friends believed that he well deserved a Nobel Prize in economics, but this recognition never came to him. Yet, aside from Ronald Coase, no one had a greater influence in creating and fostering what has come to be known as the New Institutional Economics, one of the most notable improvements in mainstream economics during the past half century. Armen was also a genial and friendly man who loved to play golf. He was always at ease among colleagues and affected none of the arrogance that lesser lights sometimes impose on others. He leaves a rich legacy of grateful students and friends, and a profession substantially advanced in no small part because of his creative efforts.

Robert Higgs




【Marginal Revolution】Armen Alchian has died. Alchian was both clever and wise, an unusual combination. His 1950 paper Uncertainty, Evolution and Economic Theory applied basic insights from evolutionary theory to suggest new approaches to economic ideas.

Alchian, particularly with Demsetz, began the analysis of property rights not only what property rights do but how they evolve with changing circumstances (the link goes to Alchian’s entry on this topic in the CEE). Alchian’s textbook with Allen, University Economics which became Exchange and Production, is a classic; never a bestseller among students but avidly read by masters. The Alchian-Allen theorem, sometimes called the third law of demand, continues to bedevil theorists despite its simplicity. I am a fan of his paper Costs and Outputs which generalized some ideas about production and time and inspired Fisher Black.

I never met Alchian but have always profited from reading his papers and I was truly grateful and also thrilled when he blurbed my book Entrepreneurial Economics. Fred McChesney has a good appreciation including Alchian’s pioneering event study which was suppressed for national security reasons; Bob Higgs remembers Alchian’s legendary class at UCLA and here is Larry White interviewing William Allen about A Life Among the Econ his memoir of UCLA economics during its glory years.

Alex Tabarrok



【organizations and markets】I only met Armen once, but his influence on me was profound. In the fall of 1980 I was taking intermediate micro economics to fulfill a Business Degree requirement. The course was taught by the great Art DeVany, who had been a student of Armen’s at UCLA. Naturally he used “Exchange and Production” as his text. I remember vividly the day — it was a Thursday, late on a cloudy afternoon — when I entered a corner of a large hallway on campus. I was thinking about the concept covered in class that week: “prices are not determined by costs.” I went into that corner thinking like an accountant, and when I came out the other side I was thinking like an economist. It was an epiphany. I came out thinking “of course prices are not determined by costs!”

I quickly changed majors, decided to postpone law school for a detour in graduate economics, and have never looked back. Fortunately for me my advanced undergraduate theory class was taught by Chris Hall, an intellectual grandson of Armen’s via Steve Cheung. His text for the course was “Economic Forces at Work.” I loved Armen’s writing, his style, and his ease in making life a big puzzle to solve.

I mentioned that I have only met the great man once. It was at a PERC conference in the early 1990s. The small group sat around tables in alphabetical order, and so Alchian was first and (Doug) Allen was second. I jokingly said “ah, Alchain and Allen, together again.” I thought it was quite witty, but Armen ignored the remark. I made some other comments that he was similarly impressed with. So, remembering that “even a fool is counted wise when he keeps his mouth shut,” I just sat back and listened. It was a great treat, and Armen didn’t seem to mind having me tag along for the weekend. My favorite recollection was a long discussion we had over how Rockefeller actually made money.

As I think about his passing, the one thought that strikes me is “where is the Armen Alchain for today?” Where is the economist’s economist? I suppose there just never will be another AAA.



【uneasymoney.com】The first time that I ever heard of Armen Alchian was when I took introductory economics at UCLA as a freshman, and his book (co-authored with his colleague William R. Allen who was probably responsible for the macro and international chapters) University Economics (the greatest economics textbook ever written) was the required text. I had only just started to get interested in economics, and was still more interested in political philosophy than in economics, but I found myself captivated by what I was reading in Alchian’s textbook, even though I didn’t find the professor teaching the course very exciting. And after 10 weeks (the University of California had switched to a quarter system) of introductory micro, I changed my major to economics. So there is no doubt that I became an economist because the textbook that I was taught from was written by Alchian.

In my four years as an undergraduate at UCLA, I took three classes from Axel Leijonhufvud, two from Ben Klein, two from Bill Allen, and one each from Robert Rooney, Nicos Devletoglou, James Buchanan, Jack Hirshleifer, George Murphy, and Jean Balbach. But Alchian, who in those days was not teaching undergrads, was a looming presence. It became obvious that Alchian was the central figure in the department, the leader and the role model that everyone else looked up to. I would see him occasionally on campus, but was too shy or too much in awe of him to introduce myself to him. One incident that I particularly recall is when, in my junior year, F. A. Hayek visited UCLA in the fall and winter quarters (in the department of philosophy!) teaching an undergraduate course in the philosophy of the social sciences and a graduate seminar on the first draft of Law, Legislation and Liberty). I took Hayek’s course on the philosophy of the social sciences, and audited his graduate seminar, and I occasionally used to visit his office to ask him some questions. I once asked his advice about which graduate programs he would suggest that I apply to. He mentioned two schools, Chicago, of course, and Princeton where his friends Fritz Machlup and Jacob Viner were still teaching, before asking, “but why would you think of going to graduate school anywhere else than UCLA? You will get the best training in economics in the world from Alchian, Hirshleifer and Leijonhufvud.” And so it was, I applied to, and was accepted at, Chicago, but stayed at UCLA.

As a first year graduate student, I took the (three-quarter) microeconomics sequence from Jack Hirshleifer (who in the scholarly hierarachy at UCLA ranked only slightly below Alchian) and the two-quarter macroeconomics sequence from Leijonhufvud. Hirshleifer taught a great course. He was totally prepared, very organized and his lectures were always clear and easy to follow. To do well, you had to sit back listen, review the lecture notes, read through the reading assignments, and do the homework problems. For me at least, with the benefit of four years of UCLA undergraduate training, it was a breeze.

Great as Hirshleifer was as a teacher, I still felt that I was missing out by not having been taught by Alchian. Perhaps Alchian felt that the students who took the microeconomics sequence from Hirshleifer should get some training from him as well, so the next year he taught a graduate seminar in topics in price theory, to give us an opportunity to learn from him how to do economics. You could also see how Alchian operated if you went to a workshop or lecture by a visiting scholar, when Alchian would start to ask questions. He would smile, put his head on his forehead, and say something like, “I just don’t understand that,” and force whoever it was to try to explain the logic by which he had arrived at some conclusion. And Alchian would just keep smiling, explain what the problem was with the answer he got, and ask more questions. Alchian didn’t shout or rant or rave, but if Alchian was questioning you, you were not in a very comfortable position.

So I was more than a bit apprehensive going into Alchian’s seminar. There were all kinds of stories told by graduate students about how tough Alchian could be on his students if they weren’t able to respond adequately when subjected to his questioning in the Socratic style. But the seminar could not have been more enjoyable. There was give and take, but I don’t remember seeing any blood spilled. Perhaps by the time I got to his seminar, Alchian, then about 57, had mellowed a bit, or, maybe, because we had all gone through the graduate microeconomics sequence, he felt that we didn’t require such an intense learning environment. At any rate, the seminar, which met twice a week for an hour and a quarter for 10 weeks, usually involved Alchian picking a story from the newspaper and asking us how to analyze the economics underlying the story. Armed with nothing but a chalkboard and piece of chalk, Alchian would lead us relatively painlessly from confusion to clarity, from obscurity to enlightenment. The key concepts with which to approach any problem were to understand the choices available to those involved, to define the relevant costs, and to understand the constraints under which choices are made, the constraints being determined largely by the delimitation of the property rights under which the resources can be used or exchanged, or, to be more precise, the property rights to use those resources can be exchanged.

Ultimately, the lesson that I learned from Alchian is that, at its best, economic theory is a tool for solving actual real problems, and the nature of the problem ought to dictate the way in which the theory (verbal, numerical, graphical, higher mathematical) is deployed, not the other way around. The goal is not to reach any particular conclusion, but to apply the tools in the best and most authentic way that they can be applied. Alchian did not wear his politics on his sleeve, though it wasn’t too hard to figure out that he was politically conservative with libertarian tendencies. But you never got the feeling that his politics dictated his economic analysis. In many respects, Alchian’s closest disciple was Earl Thompson, who studied under Alchian as an undergraduate, and then, after playing minor-league baseball for a couple of years, going to Harvard for graduate school, eventually coming back to UCLA as an assistant professor where he remained for his entire career. Earl, discarding his youthful libertarianism early on, developed many completely original, often eccentric, theories about the optimality of all kinds of government interventions – even protectionism – opposed by most economists, but Alchian took them all in stride. Mere policy disagreements never affected their close personal bond, and Alchian wrote the foreward to Earl’s book with Charles Hickson, Ideology and the Evolution of Vital Economics Institutions. If Alchian was friendly with and an admirer of Milton Friedman, he just as friendly with, and just as admiring of, Paul Samuelson and Kenneth Arrow, with whom he collaborated on several projects in the 1950s when they consulted for the Rand Corporation. Alchian cared less about the policy conclusion than he did about the quality of the underlying economic analysis.

As I have pointed out on several prior occasions, it is simply scandalous that Alchian was not awarded the Noble Prize. His published output was not as voluminous as that of some other luminaries, but there is a remarkably high proportion of classics among his publications. So many important ideas came from him, especially thinking about economic competition as an evolutionary process, the distinction between the functional relationship between cost and volume of output and cost and rate of output, the effect of incomplete information on economic action, the economics of property rights, the effects of inflation on economic activity. Perhaps in the future I will discuss some of my favorites among his articles. Although Alchian did not win the Nobel Prize, in 1990 the Nobel Prize was awarded to Harry Markowitz, Merton Miller, and William F. Sharpe for their work on financial economics. Sharp, went to UCLA, writing his Ph.D. dissertation on securities prices under Alchian, and worked at the Rand Corporation in the 1950s and 1960s with Markowitz. Here’s what Sharpe wrote about Alchian:

Armen Alchian, a professor of economics, was my role model at UCLA. He taught his students to question everything; to always begin an analysis with first principles; to concentrate on essential elements and abstract from secondary ones; and to play devil’s advocate with one’s own ideas. In his classes we were able to watch a first-rate mind work on a host of fascinating problems. I have attempted to emulate his approach to research ever since.

And if you go to the Amazon page for University Economics and look at the comments you will see a comment from none other than Harry Markowitz:

I am about to order this book. I have just read its quite favorable reviews, and I am not a bit surprised at their being impressed by Armen Alchian’s writings. I was a colleague of Armen’s, at the Rand Corporation “think tank,” during the 1950s, and hold no economist in higher regard. When I sat down at my keyboard just now it was to find out what happened to Armen’s works. One Google response was someone saying that Armen should get a Nobel Prize. I concur. My own Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded in 1990 along with the prize for Wm. Sharpe. I see in Wikipedia that Armen “influenced” Bill, and that Armen is still alive and is 96 years old. I’ll see if I can contact him, but first I’ll buy this book.

I will always remember Alchian’s air of amused, philosophical detachment, occasionally bemused (though, perhaps only apparently so, as he tried to guide his students and colleagues with question to figure out a point that he already grasped), always curious, always eager for the intellectual challenge of discovery and problem solving. Has there ever been a greater teacher of economics than Alchian? Perhaps, but I don’t know who. I close with one more quotation, this one from Axel Leijonhufvud written about Alchian 25 years ago. It still rings true.

Alchian's unique brand of price theory is what gave UCLA Economics its own intellectual profile and achieved for us international recognition as an independent school of some importance—as a group of scholars who did not always take their leads from MIT, Chicago or wherever. When I came here (in 1964) the Department had Armen’s intellectual stamp on it (and he remained the obvious leader until just a couple of years ago ….). Even people outside Armen’s fields, like myself, learned to do Armen’s brand of economic analysis and a strong esprit de corps among both faculty and graduate students sprang from the consciousness that this ‘New Institutional Economics’ was one of the waves of the future and that we, at UCLA, were surfing it way ahead of the rest. But Armen’s true importance to the UCLA school did not stem just from the new ideas he taught or the outwardly recognized “brandname” that he created for us. For many of his young colleagues he embodied qualities of mind and character that seemed the more important to seek to emulate the more closely you got to know him.

David Glasner Washington, DC economist at the Federal Trade Commission.


將以上英文文章譯作：中文閱讀


【張五常文雜】阿尔钦（Armen Albert Alchian, 1914-2013）谢世了。是不幸的巧合：二月十九日晚上我写好《公司性质的思想发展》那一长节，文内分析阿师与德姆塞茨的贡献，最后一段说阿尔钦还健在，九十八岁，但几个小时后就收到朋友纷纷来邮，说阿师谢世了。这几年朋友之间知道这一天会快来，因为六年多前起老师的脑子退化得很快，几个月后他不能回复我和太太的电邮。早些时，巴泽尔告诉我阿尔钦的记忆力很不妥。我几番问研究医学的儿子为什么会是这样，儿子几次回答：「爸，阿尔钦是个很老的人呀，很老的人有几种可能会是这样的。」

这几年不少朋友传来美国的网页，对阿师的评价皆高到天上去：世界最伟大的经济学家；历史上最杰出的价格理论家。最常见的是问：为什么阿尔钦还没有拿得经济学诺贝尔奖？这些评语一般出自认识阿师的朋友，或是他教过的。我因而有这样的感受：愈是接近阿尔钦的人，对他的评价愈高。这是违反了世俗的图案吧。上世纪七十年代初期，在西雅图，跟阿师很熟的John McGee和我举他为天下经济学者之首，使还没有认识阿师的巴泽尔感到奇怪。后来巴兄认识阿师，过了一段时日，对我说阿尔钦名不虚传。

阿尔钦是个从来不介绍自己的人，文章发表在哪里无所谓。曾经在兰克公司与他共事的阿罗（Kenneth Arrow）有这样的回忆：一九五七年，阿尔钦写了一篇足以震撼行内的关于成本与产出（Costs and Outputs）的文章，被最大名的《美国经济学报》取录了，但当受到邀请为他的老师出文章结集时，就把该文交出去，推却了大名学报。有谁可以这样呢？我自己做不到，但受到阿师的影响，我不论学报的声望，文章写好就交给自己喜欢的编辑朋友。

不求闻达有代价。四分之一个世纪前阿尔钦在欧洲不是那么大名。一九八五年，英国要再出版他们的经济学百科全书，称New Palgrave，邀请我写四项：公有财产、经济组织（即公司）之外还要写《科斯》与《阿尔钦》。被写的经济学家要有点名气，也要在六十岁以上。该百科全书的编辑部严格地规限字数。《科斯》他们给我几千字，但《阿尔钦》只给几百。几百字怎可以表达阿尔钦的贡献呢？后来我对阿师道歉，解释因为字数的规限我无能为力，他报以一笑，说：「这不重要。」

要写《阿尔钦》，我可以如长江大河，滔滔不绝。事实上，在中语文章我滔滔不绝地写过阿尔钦。希望经济学能在中文世界搞起来，让阿师在神州大地名垂千古。同学们不要忘记，较早时我给香港读者写阿师，用的译名是「艾智仁」。

一九六三年我开始听阿尔钦的课，两年后成为他的入室弟子。博士论文《佃农理论》是在他与赫舒拉发的指导下写成的。我多次提及阿师的悉心教导，包括教我怎样写英文，这里不再说了。要补充的是他教我治学要一丝不苟，要执着于解释现象，要遵守作为学者的原则。

纯为真理而追求、为兴趣而思考的学者，经济学行内不多见。是我之幸，阿尔钦之外我还认识几个。然而，能从始到终都保持着一个小孩子的好奇心，我认识的只有阿尔钦一个人。

记得一次他从日本旅游回归，召我到他的办公室，我以为有什么重要教诲，原来他要我看一件他从日本带回来的物品。是什么呢？是一个小小的纸盒，内里空无一物，用一张纸包着，其包法跟香港的低档市场通常用的差不多。阿师显然没有见过，说：「你看东方人多聪明，为什么我们不知道可以这么简单地包的？」

我自己生长在香港西湾河的山头，喜欢在街头巷尾跑，知道的琐碎现象无数，每次跟阿师谈及，他总是兴趣盎然，问长问短。例如我向他提出的在激烈竞争的市场出现的讨价还价行为，他和我研讨了多次。可惜十多年前我终于找到解释后没有机会向他细说端详。我也没有机会向他细说我找到的关于捆绑销售与全线逼销的解释——以中文下笔是传达的困难。要是他知道一定会像小孩子那样左问右问了。

一九七六年，朋友为阿师的荣休举行第一次聚会——敬仰他的人太多了，为他的荣休或什么的而聚会起码有四次。第一次我交出《优座票价为何偏低了？》，意图推翻他一九六四年提出的关于玫瑰碗美式足球大赛的优座票价偏低的解释，他读后没有说什么。但三十年后的二○○六年，我寄他一本自己的英语论文选，其中有玫瑰碗与优座票价偏低之文，他回邮大赞该文——只赞该文！

阿尔钦的小孩子好奇心影响了我自己整生的经济研究的取向。由他指导写《佃农理论》时，在文中我提到一种英语称为 citronella（香茅）的植物，其产量在台湾土地改革初期急升，而我的理论清楚地解释了为什么这种香茅的产量急升。阿师对该香茅极感兴趣，要我跟进种植的细节。

为了兴趣与满足好奇心而做学问是不能不管细节的。从出道到今天，我不重视政府或机构提供的数据，也不重视统计学的回归分析，但重视细节。这主要是源于阿师的永远像孩子那样提问的影响了。不知细节经济学难有趣味，而没有趣味做学问没有意思。

在个性上，阿尔钦和我是两个很不相同的人。他谦谦君子，正如科斯写他，一举一动一言一行无不典雅。天下没有谁会这样看我！然而，阿尔钦是我敬重的老师，学不到他的典雅也学得他作为学者的操守：我们追求的是真理，责任是解释，可以提出政策建议，但除了这些前面就划着一条线，跨越就不是学者的行为了。这些年为了一点关心在中国改革的问题上我写了好些文章，偶尔破口大骂，但阿师划下来的界线我没有跨越过。另一方面，尽管因交易费用与权利界定的看法我多次提到科斯，但解释的方法，细节的考查与不越线的操守，主要还是阿师教的。

当年在洛杉矶加大的经济研究院，要找阿尔钦研讨不容易。这使同学们觉得阿师有点不近人情。起初我也以为是，后来知道不是。如下故事是真实的。

一九六七年初我写好了《佃农理论》的第一长章（是后来出版时的第二章加第三、四章的局部），突然收到香港的来信，说比我年长一岁的哥哥死了。我知道母亲最爱这个绝对值得爱的哥哥，想母亲一定伤心欲绝，于是考虑放弃论文，回港照顾母亲。当时我在长滩大学作助理教授，驾车到母校找老师赫舒拉发，对他说哥哥的不幸，要回港照顾母亲。赫师回应说我的论文进展得那么好，放弃可惜，但他会与有关的委员考虑，让我只凭那第一章拿博士。

那天下午去找阿尔钦，要跟他说上午我对赫师说的。阿师显然知道我的来意，先开口，说：「不要告诉我你的私人问题。」我于是什么也不说，离开了。过了一天，我在长滩收到阿尔钦寄来的信，附着一张五百美元的支票，信上只有简单的两行字：「这五百元你可以买糖果吃，或可聘请打字助手，快点把论文写完。」

那时五百元是我税前的一个月薪酬，不是小账。我还有什么选择呢？后来不到两个月我把论文写完，阿师说是奇迹。今天我感到遗憾的，是当时不应该把该支票兑现，花了那五百元。要是该支票还在，让子孙与同学们看看，是多么值得骄傲的事。又或者拿出去拍卖，一纸支票有机会传世。

今早跟阿师的太太与女儿通电话，她们说阿尔钦是到了一个更好的地方。


二零一三年二月二十一日晚



伸延閱覽：
Armen Alchian 維基百科
Armen Alchian (April 12, 1914 – February 19, 2013) by Robert Higgs independent institute
Armen Alchian by Alex Tabarrok Marginal Revolution
An Economist Who Made the Science Less Dismal by DAVID R. HENDERSON WSJ.com
Library of economics and liberty Armen A. Alchian econlib.org
悼老师阿尔钦 by 张五常 Steven N.S. Cheung 新浪blog
A remembrance from our friend by Doug Allen organizationsandmarkets.com
Armen Alchian, The Economists’ Economist uneasymoney.com