空櫈

空櫈



2010年的諾貝爾和平獎，得獎人是中國的：劉曉波


可惜去年 劉曉波 不能親自到場領獎，在頒獎典禮上 諾貝爾委員會留了張 “空櫈” 給 劉曉波！





香港有位歌手有首歌名:《空櫈》，雖然這首《空櫈》歌詞沒關連 劉曉波 的事跡，而是歌手懷念父親！




諾貝爾和平獎主席在頒獎禮中，稱 劉曉波 為中國的 孟德拉，而 劉曉波 又何止只是中國的 孟德拉 呢？以上《空櫈》歌詞中說：父親仿似巨人！而身材瘦瘦的 劉曉波 卻是中國近代歷史，其中一位不折不扣的巨人，


【維基百科】劉曉波 （1955年12月28日生）是生於吉林長春的中國作家、持不同政見者、著名政治犯，曾任北京師範大學中文系講師、獨立中文筆會第二屆及第三屆會長。

曾經參與八九民運，並在2008年發起《零八憲章》。六四之後著書立說呼籲政治改革，長期以來以非暴力方式爭取中國基本人權，多次被捕入獄。

最後一次入獄是在2009年被控煽動顛覆國家政權罪，判處有期徒刑 11年，剝奪政治權利兩年，目前在遼寧省錦州監獄服刑。

2010年挪威諾貝爾和平獎委員會將諾貝爾和平獎授予劉曉波，以表彰他長期以來以非暴力方式在中國爭取基本人權。

在 你喉 Youtube 找到 Empty Chair 的一段！

2011年度的諾貝爾和平獎，將於十二月十日在 Oslo 舉行，原來不經不覺已經一年過去了。劉曉波 仍然被身繋於牢獄之中，不過我們沒有忘記他，
劉曉波 以非暴力方式爭取，至今仍然值得我們尊敬！



後記：
發表本文之前筆者先發表了兩篇文章：
四千萬中國人是穴居的？ December 04, 2011
與龍共舞？December 07, 2011
連本篇共三篇文章其實是互相呼應。


《四千萬中國人是穴居的？》是有位美國 AEI 的 訪問學者 Jonah Goldberg先生，撰文嘲笑中國有四千多萬人住在黃土高原的“窯洞”是住宅羣。這位 高堡先生反駁 奧巴馬總統向中國學習的言論，並指出中國很多不足之處。


誠然，中國仍然是一個發展中國家，偏遠的貧窮省市城鄉居民，仍然住在簡陋的屋子確是事實。美國卻是居於發達國家之中的首位，兩黨政府歷來都不惜向外舉巨債，利用豐厚財源給予公民優越福利，力保護執政權。要把中國和美國比較，是如拿金蘋果與小橘子之間的比較。


至於《與龍共舞？》文中引用了“華盛頓郵報”的 columnist Eugene Robinson 的一篇文章，羅便臣先生初到中國訪問，見到中國高速發展，城市的中產階級崛起，認為美國人應該作出鼓勵。


不過，羅便臣先生卻引來他在“華盛頓郵報”的一位同事 Jennifer Rubin 立刻撰文駁斥。魯彬小姐認為中國政府的人權紀錄不佳，故此中國必須改善，才值得得到美國人的鼓勵，云云！


三篇由美國人寫有關中國的文章，尤其是最尾尾 珍妮花魯彬小姐 反諷 爾雋羅便臣先生的文章，反映出外國人怎樣看中國實在分歧甚大。可以代表著西方存在不同的角度來解讀中國，但那一派屬多數呢？那一派屬少數呢？我相信敵視中國的美國人一定仍然佔絕大的 majority 多數！


二零壹零年十月“諾貝爾和平獎委員會“宣布中國的維權人士 劉曉波 得獎，立刻引來中國政府的宣傳機器發動發起反擊，認為頒獎予一個罪犯，是嚴重干涉中國的內政。而在國外中國也依靠她的影響力，阻止勸止其他國家派遣代表出席當年度的”諾貝爾和平獎“頒獎典禮。


中國為了防範外國文化和價值觀向中國滲透，阻止西方國家企圖和平演變中國，還給了一個諾貝爾和平獎予 劉曉波，令中國暴跳如雷。另一方面中國又要防範東突厥對新疆的恐襲，更要消減達賴喇嘛暗中支持藏獨，而全國礦難不少，加上豆腐渣工程將隨時爆發意外，早前更發生高鐵列車追撞事故，怎不叫人擔憂！


外交上也屢有碰壁，中國支持利比亞的卡達菲，最後被西方支持的反政府軍推到，中國在利比亞數以百億美元的投資，情況凍過冰水。又中國在緬甸的水壩發電工程，卻因美國的希拉莉到訪而被逼喊停，又招致損失數十億美元。軍事上在東海南海都受到以美國為首的軍事圍堵，美國更在被澳洲達爾文港駐軍，瀛成第二島鏈牽制中國，繁此種種令人沮喪。


中國近年積極維穩，要建立和諧社會，很多管治弊端社會矛盾，都先“河蟹”再”河蟹“，最後就”河蟹河蟹“掉了。這就如把灰塵掃到地氈底裡去，用華麗的地氈掩蓋著灰塵，但灰塵愈積愈多，終有一日地氈不能掩蓋得盡，必有露出來的時候。少的灰塵不去儘早盡快處理掉，一大堆灰塵要處理就要用更大的力度，更長的時間去處理，真的害怕又發生六四類似事件！


中國近年經濟力量上升，但人權紀錄仍然不理想，官員貪腐瀆職的新聞不斷，國內貧富懸殊擴大。筆者偶有批評中國，但當然絕無惡意，只是懷著恨鐵不成鋼的心情，希望中國能早日真正地完全地誠實地崛起來！



後後記：

2013年 12月 5日 南非的 孟德拉 逝世終年 95歲。


南非總統發表了消息：

PRESIDENT JACOB ZUMA of South Africa: Our beloved Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, the founding president of our democratic nation, has departed.

He passed on peacefully in the company of his family around 20:50 on the 5th of December, 2013. He is now resting. He is now at peace.

Our nation has lost its greatest son. 
Our people have lost a father.

Although we knew that this day would come, nothing can diminish our sense of a profound and enduring loss. His tireless struggle for freedom earned him the respect of the world.







後後後記：

2015年 3月 4日 挪威的 諾貝爾委員會罷免了主席 Thorbjørn Jagland，降級為普通委員，有秋後算賬向中國屈服的嫌疑。

諾貝爾委員會主席 遭降職百年首次　任內曾頒獎劉曉波

【明報專訊】負責頒發和平獎的挪威諾貝爾委員會主席亞格蘭被降職，是委員會成立逾百年來首次。外界關注亞格蘭降職，會否與他任內向中國異見人士劉曉波頒發和平獎、導致中國與挪威交惡有關。

自劉曉波獲獎後，中挪關係迄今還未顯著改善。

挪威諾貝爾委員會舉行今年第一次會議，亞格蘭由主席降至委員，主席一職由副主席庫爾曼菲弗接任。諾貝爾委員會沒解釋這次人事變動的原因。庫氏否認主席換人與劉曉波獲頒和平獎有關，又強調自己也支持劉曉波得獎。不過有學者憂慮亞格蘭被降職，可能被外界視為向中國屈服。

曾任挪威首相的亞格蘭，2009年開始擔任諾貝爾委員會主席。近年委員會多次作出備受爭議的決定，包括在2009年將和平獎頒給上任不足1年的美國總統奧巴馬、2010年將和平獎頒予劉曉波，以及2012年將和平獎頒予歐盟（亞格蘭因兼任歐洲委員會秘書長，惹來外界質疑他涉及利益衝突）。

委員會全部5名成員由挪威國會根據黨派比例委任，由於右派在2013年大選勝出，令他們在委員會成為多數，不過即使不同政黨輪流上台執政，過去也從沒發生主席降職的先例。


後後後後記：

香港時間 2017年 7月 13日晚上 約九時許 傳來 劉曉波 死訊


【無線電視新聞】劉曉波在八九學運後多次進出監獄。2008年，因為起草聯署《零八憲章》，被控「煽動顛覆國家政權罪」，判監十一年，之後他獲頒發諾貝爾和平奬，表揚他為爭取中國人權的貢獻，但劉曉波直至去世都無法領獎。

劉曉波八十年代初，在北京師範大學中文系碩士畢業，熱心文學評論，在內地文壇有一定名氣，1988年出任師大中文系講師。不過第二年的北京學運，劉曉波由文學家變成當局眼中的異見分子。

1989年北京學運爆發，原本去了美國做訪問學者的劉曉波返回北京聲援學生，在六四事件前兩天，同侯德建等三人一起絕食。

劉曉波表示：「最好是搞一種和平的、持續性的、非常堅靭的、非常有靭性的，這樣意義的一種心平氣和的，這樣一種民主運動。因為這個廣場過去是專制的象徵，今天成為民主自由的象徵。」

解放軍在六四凌晨開入天安門廣場時，劉曉波亦有份勸學生離開。六四事件後，劉曉波被指是操控學運的「黑手」，因「反革命宣傳煽動罪」被捕，兩年後獲釋，之後繼續同其他異見人士就民主和國家改革發表意見，不時受到監視、軟禁，分別在1995年和1996年被捕，被判勞改。

2008年，劉曉波起草同聯署《零八憲章》，提出修憲同分權制衡等理念，第二年因為「煽動顛覆國家政權罪」，判監十一年，在遼寧錦州監獄服刑。

劉曉波入獄後不久，在 2010年獲頒發諾貝爾和平奬，表揚他為爭取中國人權長期進行非暴力抗爭，頒獎禮當日，台上只能夠預留一張空椅子予獄中的劉曉波。

他的妻子劉霞之後亦被當局軟禁，長期禁止與外界接觸。

遼寧省監獄管理局六月底證實，由於劉曉波患上肝癌，批准他保外就醫。劉霞終於可以在劉曉波生命的最後時刻抱著他。

劉曉波在入獄前，曾經在最後陳述中表達對劉霞的愛，當中提到，即使自己被碾成粉未，也會用灰燼擁抱太太。



伸延閱覽：
The Nobel Peace Prize Award Ceremony 2010 (88 minutes) Nobel Peace Prize Org
負責頒發和平獎給劉曉波的挪威諾貝爾委員會主席亞格蘭被降職 明報新聞網
劉曉波曾獲頒諾貝爾和平奬 惟去世前都無法領獎 無線電視新聞



我的舊文：
是幫他還是害他呢？
是幫他還是害他呢？ annex
再 不言而喻
零八宪章(简体中文版)

與龍共舞？

與龍共舞？



週六日讀了另一篇明報外地評論摘要﹕對中國的錯誤理解


【明報專訊】不少評論都說，中美兩國的紛爭源於互不了解，美國《華盛頓郵報》的專欄作者親身到北京考察，並且提出「美中是互相倚靠，說一國擊敗另一國是荒謬的」。

美國《華盛頓郵報》11月30日評論版文章 作者：Eugene Robinson

即使你對北京只有皮毛了解，也知道美國總統候選人對於中國的論述都是虛假、不誠實及愚笨的。每個社會都是相當難觸摸及複雜，我唯一所知是美國很多政客對中國的看法肯定是錯。

除了前駐華大使洪博培外，所有共和黨的候選人似乎主張「對中國強硬」，羅姆尼顯然是最強硬，至少在經濟事務上，他主張對中國打貿易戰，並揚言不能被中國擊敗。事實呢？在北京看到似乎是兩國擁抱多於戰爭，我住的酒店附近有蘋果電腦專門店、星巴克、Calvin Klein服裝店及其他耳熟能詳奢侈品牌。

一小時車程外的景點，第一間看到的餐廳是 Subway，名貴房車有保時捷、奧迪、平治等等。這些並沒有令中國操縱匯率的不公平政策變得合理，也沒有令中國更尊重知識產權，但當你走到北京的街上，看到的是急速增長、與美國相似的消費社會。

美中是互相倚靠，說一國擊敗另一國是荒謬的。正如坊間說，若你欠銀行 1000元，你對銀行有欠債，若你欠銀行1萬億，銀行則淪為你的財產。中國官員最不希望損害美國的經濟，若美國盡快恢復平穩增長，中國借給美國的貸款也會安全些。

中國最不希望損害美國經濟
差不多沒有人提及美國去年進口 3650億美元的中國貨，讓美國有胃口吸納中國工廠大量生產的貨品才符合中國的利益。所以不應該把問題看成是強硬恫嚇、擊倒對手，解決問題需要談判及簡單計算，中美雙方是極需要達成協議。

佩里指中共政權最終將灰飛湮滅，但中國早於 20年前已放棄共產主義。我當然知道中國政府不斷侵犯國民人權，這個政府自肥、貪污及壟斷所有權力，這些暴行不應該姑息，但我估計迅速增長的中產階級會令這個政府改變，我們應該鼓勵他們。


文中指：『20年前已放棄共產主義。』既然明報指明是外地評論摘要，因此未能一窺全豹，我急忙上網在《華盛頓郵報》網頁搜尋 Eugene Robinson 的原著原文來閱讀一遍。


The wrong way to talk about China by Eugene Robinson
【Washington Post】Even the briefest acquaintance with this smoggy, sprawling capital is basis enough to conclude that much of the campaign rhetoric we’re hearing about China is unrealistic, dishonest or just dumb.

This is my first visit to China, and I plan to spend the next few columns reporting what I see and learn. I spent enough years as a foreign correspondent to know how tricky first impressions can be. The subtleties and complexities of any society are — unsurprisingly — subtle and complex.

But not all first impressions are unreliable. Some are such no-brainers that they can only deepen with experience. One thing I already know is that the way many U.S. politicians talk about China is surely wrong.

With the exception of Jon Huntsman, who served as U.S. ambassador here, all the Republican candidates seem to want to be “tough on China.” Mitt Romney apparently has decided to be the toughest, at least on the economic matters most often cited as a reason to display toughness.

“We can’t just sit back and let China run all over us,” he said in one of the debates. “People say, well, you’ll start a trade war. There’s one going on right now, folks.”

Really? From here, it looks more like an embrace than a war. My hotel is in the chic, yuppified Chaoyang District, just up the street from an Apple store, a Starbucks, a Calvin Klein boutique and just about every luxury retailer you could possibly name.

An hour’s drive away, at the visitors center for the Mutianyu section of the Great Wall, the first restaurant you see is a Subway. High-status automobile brands in China include not just Porsche, Audi and Mercedes, but also Buick.

None of this remedies China’s unfair policy of manipulating exchange rates or its laxity in protecting intellectual property rights. But when you walk the streets of Beijing, you see a huge, rapidly growing consumer society that in many ways looks much like our own. I know this is an oversimplification. I know that boomtowns such as Beijing, Shanghai and others near the coast do not reflect conditions in the less-developed hinterlands.

But I also know that the U.S. and Chinese economies will be the two largest in the world through much of this century — and that they are so codependent that talk of one country running all over the other is nonsensical.

There’s a saying that if you’re in debt to the bank by $1,000, the bank owns you. But if you’re in debt to the bank by $1 trillion, you own the bank. The last thing Chinese officials would want is to do meaningful damage to our economy, because the more quickly we return to steady growth, the more secure China can be that all the money it lent us will be paid back.

It goes almost without mentioning that the United States imported about $365 billion of Chinese goods last year. China also has a compelling interest in making sure the United States retains the capacity to serve as the biggest buyer of the flood of products that Chinese factories produce.

So this is really a dispute over issues that shouldn’t be addressed with chest-pounding and tough-guy threats. The solution involves negotiation and simple arithmetic — and both sides have a powerful incentive to reach an accord.

Someone should explain this to Rick Perry — though on second thought, it might not make any difference. His most quotable bit of China-bashing came in the political realm. “I happen to think that the Communist Chinese government will end up on the ash heap of history,” he said.

But this ignores the big picture. Yes, China is governed — in an authoritarian, repressive, at times shockingly brutal manner — by a regime that calls itself communist.

But communism self-immolated two decades ago. Walk down any commercial street in Beijing and you see storefronts, venders and hawkers selling anything under the sun. Communism is no longer a system in China. It’s just a brand name that officials haven’t figured out how to ditch.

I’m aware, of course, of the shameful human rights violations that the Chinese government commits every day — and of the government’s selfish, corrupt insistence on maintaining a monopoly of power. These atrocities can never be forgotten.

But I’m betting that the burgeoning middle class will find a way to cast off these shackles. The correct response would be to cheer them on.


上篇舊文是一位美國學者嘲笑中國，國內還有四千萬人是穴居的，這一篇又是另一位美國的 columnist 在《華盛頓郵報》發表，他認為頗多美國人對中國錯誤理解。至於這位先生是何許人也？


【維基百科】Eugene Harold Robinson (born 1955) is an American Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper columnist and former assistant managing editor for The Washington Post. His columns are syndicated by The Washington Post Writers Group. Robinson is a member of the National Association of Black Journalists.


【維基百科】The Pulitzer Prize is a U.S. award for achievements in newspaper and online journalism, literature and musical composition. It was established by American (Hungarian-born) publisher Joseph Pulitzer and is administered by Columbia University in New York City.


原來 Eugene Robinson 是一位職業寫稿佬，不過就曾經勝出美國報業頗有名的 American Pulitzer Prize “普立茲”獎。


以上文章開章明義就指出：
即使你對北京只有皮毛了解，也知道美國總統候選人對於中國的論述都是虛假、不誠實及愚笨的。每個社會都是相當難觸摸及複雜，我唯一所知是美國很多政客對中國的看法肯定是錯。

Even the briefest acquaintance with this smoggy, sprawling capital is basis enough to conclude that much of the campaign rhetoric we’re hearing about China is unrealistic, dishonest or just dumb. The subtleties and complexities of any society are — unsurprisingly — subtle and complex. One thing I already know is that the way many U.S. politicians talk about China is surely wrong.



有人說：美國的奧巴馬總統臨近選舉年，為了鞏固籠絡保守派的游離票，必須向中國擺出強硬姿態，散播中國威脅論。美國人的霸主心態，她保持全世界最強盛的軍事力量，到處不戰而屈人屈國，要全世界屈從美國。德法倡導成立歐盟，並組建歐元 Euro歐羅區，就是要抗衡美國和歐洲美元（Eurodollars），至今歐盟歐羅落得如斯下場，各位有目共睹。


美國敵視中國又豈止須要競選連任奧巴馬呢？美國人即使在克林頓時代布殊時代，都是講的一套做的一套，在整個世界那處有利益，美國都要分一杯羹，到處如取如攜，暗偷不到就來明搶，直至榨乾榨淨為止，又何止中國呢？


況且美國有著 CNN，AP，NBC，ABC，CBS，FOX 等等強大跨國傳媒網絡 networks，總把美國處置於道德高地，向全世界指點江山，美國人的霸權主義主導世界 the American Way！


這位 爾雋 羅便臣先生是第一次來訪中國，就說要與龍共舞，他必須要先看清楚明白中國，雖然共產主義在中國名存實亡，但是具有中國特色的社會主義仍然存在，羅便臣先生不能單靠表面的遊覽項目，並且心存善意，便可以隨便說了解中國！



後記：
在《華盛頓郵報》網頁剛巧有另一位 columnist Jennifer Rubin 向 Eugene Robinson 的文章發礮。

A response to Eugene Robinson on China By Jennifer Rubin
【Washington Post】My colleague Eugene Robinson is in China and wrote a column Wednesday that reads a little like Walter Duranty in the USSR. He says this is his first visit to the country but then plunges into an attack on those who take issue with China’s trade and human rights policies, calling such critics’ arguments “wrong” and imploring us simply to “cheer” China’s progress.

His first bit of “evidence”that China isn’t so different from the good old U.S.A? He’s in a really nice hotel. “My hotel is in the chic, yuppified Chaoyang District, just up the street from an Apple store, a Starbucks, a Calvin Klein boutique and just about every luxury retailer you could possibly name. An hour’s drive away, at the visitors center for the Mutianyu section of the Great Wall, the first restaurant you see is a Subway. High-status automobile brands in China include not just Porsche, Audi and Mercedes, but also Buick.” Umm, so??

He concedes that doesn’t justify China’s unfair trading practices. But then what’s the point of raising it?

He says, “But when you walk the streets of Beijing, you see a huge, rapidly growing consumer society that in many ways looks much like our own. I know this is an oversimplification.” Actually, it’s horrible, tragically wrong.

I asked Daniel Blumenthal, an Asia expert at the American Enterprise Institute （AEI), for his opinion. (He has spoken regularly with Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s campaign about Asia but was speaking here purely for himself.) He was a bit dumbfounded by the column. He said that he would “suggest a visit by Robinson to the many women in China who have been forced to abort their second child thanks to the One Child Policy.”

Blumenthal was just getting warmed up: “Or perhaps an orphanage where he can find untold numbers of abandoned baby girls. How about Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo in his jail cell? Or some Tibetan monks who have taken to burning themselves to protest religious repression. If he does have time to leave Beijing he can visit some of the villages where people’s homes have been taken from them without compensation to make way for some pet project of a favored Communist Party crony.”

A former Bush administration official, now at a think-tank specializing in China, was nonplussed, e-mailing me: “The bit about communism ‘self-immolating,’ in addition to not being factual, is in unbelievably bad taste when Tibetan monks actually are self-immolating under very communist, Cultural Revolution-style, Chinese rule in Tibet. Beyond tacky.”

Robinson does, in cursory fashion, recognize “the shameful human rights violations that the Chinese government commits every day — and of the government’s selfish, corrupt insistence on maintaining a monopoly of power.” So maybe China isn’t much like the U.S. after all? A Starbucks doesn’t make you pro-Western or just like America. It says nothing about your political system, to be honest. (It reminds me of the euphoria that greeted each new Soviet dictator. He drinks Scotch — just like us!)

But perhaps most troubling is Robinson’s attack on Perry, who expressed the hope that “the Communist Chinese government will end up on the ash heap of history.” Robinson has a problem with the sort of outbreak of freedom that swept Eastern Europe at the end of the 1980s? He writes: “Yes, China is governed — in an authoritarian, repressive, at times shockingly brutal manner — by a regime that calls itself communist.

But communism self-immolated two decades ago. Walk down any commercial street in Beijing and you see storefronts, venders and hawkers selling anything under the sun. Communism is no longer a system in China. It’s just a brand name that officials haven’t figured out how to ditch.” So perhaps Perry should have said he hopes “the government masquerading as a Communist government but really ‘just’ brutally oppressive will end up on the ash heap of history”?

Actually, China’s rulers very much cling quite cynically to their ideology, which it uses, as all totalitarian ideologues do, to crush dissent, brutalize its people and murder minorities. It’s very appropriate to hope for such a system’s decline, just as Ronald Reagan rooted for the rotting, corrupt Communist Soviet government to fall.

But not to worry, Robinson is confident “the burgeoning middle class will find a way to cast off these shackles.” He wants us to cheer that, and we should. But cheering suggests that we do little or nothing about the regime itself. Blumenthal argues, “Yes, we should cheer the reformers on. Maybe Robinson can come home and visit with Obama. He can tell him to meet with just one of these dissidents and reformers. To my knowledge, our president has not yet done so.”

Perry and Mitt Romney, whom Robinson also dismisses as a hothead, see what Robinson does not: oppression, military aggression and economic criminality (especially with regard to theft of intellectual property).

Blumenthal reminds us, “China has undertaken the largest military build-up since the end of the Cold War. Yet no nation threatens China. President Obama has responded by cutting our defense forces across the board, and make no mistake, our Pacific forces will be profoundly affected. Robinson should visit Taiwan, Japan, Australia, India, the Philippines.

All have been intimidated by the Chinese military. They are the ones calling for a tougher China policy. Australia pushed Obama to place Marines in Darwin. They are frightened, as they should be. China’s military grows and we retreat.” He adds: “Obama is now pounding his chest with his ‘we are back in Asia’ rhetoric, but there is much less firepower to back up our supposed ‘return.’ ”

I hope Robinson’s column was the result of jet lag, and not the first in a series of Tom Friedman-like apologies for the brutal regime. I look forward to his accounts of meetings with monks, Christian minorities, mourning mothers, human rights activists and the rest.


兩篇由美國人寫有關中國的文章，可以代表著西方存在不同的角度來解讀中國，但那一派屬多數呢？那一派屬少數呢？我相信敵視中國的美國人一定仍然佔絕大的 majority 多數！還有最尾尾 珍妮花魯彬小姐 反諷 爾雋羅便臣先生的文章，明報卻沒有翻譯刊登出來，可謂失諸交臂，實在十分可惜！


【維基百科】Jennifer Rubin is an American columnist and a blogger for the Washington Post. Previously she worked at Commentary Magazine, the Pajamas Media, Human Events, and the Weekly Standard. She also published at Politico, New York Post, New York Daily News, National Review, the Jerusalem Post, and a variety of other media publications.



看 魯彬小姐的背景和保守右傾立場，和她原來找來 AEI 的學者詢問有關中國（見前文提及 AEI），還有在她文章字裡行間，像夾雜對 爾雋 羅便臣先生的私人恩怨，無怪她須要鳴大礮了！





伸延閱覽：
對中國的錯誤理解 雅虎新聞網
Eugene Robinson：The wrong way to talk about China washingtonpost.com
Jennifer Rubin：A response to Eugene Robinson on China washingtonpost.com
Eugene Robinson 維基百科
Jennifer Rubin 維基百科
Pulitzer Prize 維基百科

四千萬中國人是穴居的？

四千萬中國人是穴居的？



在網上讀到一篇美國人寫有關中國的”奇聞“！



【American Enterprise Institute（AEI）】Why we need not envy China～Jonah Goldberg
Up to 40 million Chinese people still live in caves. That’s more than the populations of Texas and Illinois combined. In fairness, a fraction of these caves are apparently pretty nice, complete with electricity and well-compacted dirt floors. But that’s grading on a curve because, well, they’re still caves.

Meanwhile, 21 million Chinese live below what the Communist party calls the “absolute poverty” line. That sounds pretty good if you have in mind our poverty line, which is just under $11,000 per year for an individual and roughly $22,000 for a family of four.

The absolute poverty rate in China is $90 a year, or $7.50 per month. And 35 million live on less than $125 per year. Hundreds of millions of Chinese live on $1 or $2 a day.

Michael Levy, who recently wrote a book on his stint as a Peace Corps worker in rural China (yes, China still asks for Peace Corps help), put it well in an interview with NPR: “Imagine that there’s a country exactly like the United States. Exactly the same size. It’s got the same cities. It’s got the same number of rich people and poor people. It’s just like us. And now add 1 billion peasants. That’s China.”

And yet that’s the country President Obama insists we need to emulate. “Everybody’s watching what’s going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics,” then-candidate Obama told an audience in Virginia in 2008. “Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure.

Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly superior to us now, which means if you are a corporation deciding where to do business you’re starting to think, Beijing looks like a pretty good option.”

Obama has returned to campaign mode and his fear-China refrain. To listen to Obama, China’s beating us in some sort of infrastructure race. “Folks in Congress are also going to get a chance to decide . . . whether our construction workers should sit around doing nothing while China builds the best railroads, the best schools, the best airports in the world.”

Maybe we could use more infrastructure spending, but China’s got nothing to do with it. The reason China has invested massively in infrastructure is simply that it has relatively little of it. America has 5,194 airports with paved runways (the only kind I use, how about you?).

That’s more than 11 times China’s 442. In fact, you can add up the paved airports of the next 10 countries combined, and America beats them with more than a thousand airports to spare. We have nearly twice the roadways China does and almost three times the railways.

Ah, but China is investing in high-speed rail! Which, we are told, will help us win the future. Except that China has, in the words of London’s Financial Times, “slammed the brakes” on its high-speed rail program for a slew of safety and economic reasons.

What people don’t often mention is that we have the best freight system in the world (in Europe, they move people on rails and cargo on roads; we mostly do the opposite because we’re so much more spread out).

That’s why Warren Buffett — the president’s favorite billionaire — has invested massively in freight rail. Alas, switching to high-speed rail in the U.S. would seriously threaten the efficiency of our system.

Obviously, China’s a formidable economic player, and a growing military and diplomatic power. But only a fool would trade our problems for theirs (even though Obama has reportedly told friends he envies the president of China for having an easier job).

China’s health and safety standards are abysmal compared with America’s. China’s air is crunchy, its rivers often flammable. Their housing bubble could make ours look like a minor correction. Demographically, China is still on target to get old before it gets rich.

Moreover, China’s social fabric is in dire need of repair. Just consider the recent horrifying footage of a two-year-old toddler who was struck by two vehicles and was left to die in agony in the middle of a busy street as passersby ignored her.

The New York Times reported this summer that, in some regions, it is common for officials to snatch newborn babies from parents — and sell them. Indeed, China has a thriving market in children. And do you really think our problems with income inequality are worse than China’s?

Oh, and let’s not forget: It’s still an autocratic police state.

Obama is hardly alone in his effort to mythologize China in order to justify expansion of government. Times columnist Tom Friedman — who has written often of his envy for China’s authoritarian system — begins his new book comparing the unreliable escalators at his neighborhood subway station with a glitzy convention center in China, in order to suggest that China is winning the future. It’s as instructive as comparing his mansion in Bethesda, Md., to a Chinese CAVE.


以上是我讀完明報每週六刊登的：外地評論摘要：《不必眼紅中國》 後，急急找出原文來閱讀。明報既然指是摘要，因此明報沒有將原文嘲笑中國：『四千萬中國人是穴居的！』都翻譯出來。


【明報專訊】《不必眼紅中國》美國企業研究所（AEI）11月4日評論文章 作者：Jonah Goldberg 中共指中國有 2100萬赤貧人口，若中國貧窮線與美國一樣那還好，只是中國赤貧的定義是年收入少於 90美元，另外，還有 3500萬人每年的生活費少於 125美元。有作者形容，中國等於是美國的翻版，再加 10億農民人口。

總統奧巴馬堅持我們要學習這個國家。中國大力投資基建，因為中國很缺乏。美國有 5194個機場有鋪設好的跑道，是中國的 442個的11倍以上。美國機場的數目，較隨後 10個國家總和多 1000個。我們的公路差不多是中國的兩倍，鐵路長度約是中國 3倍。

中國大力投資高鐵，有人說這是未來致勝的幫助，但中國的高鐵計劃因安全及經濟效益而「急煞車」。大家忘記美國擁有全世界最好的鐵路貨運系統，這是為什麼巴菲特大量投資鐵路運輸。


將美國的問題與中國交換？
中國是強大的經濟體系，軍事和外交實力不斷冒升，但只有傻瓜才會希望將美國的問題與中國交換。中國的醫療和安全水準與美國有天淵之別，中國的空氣污濁，對比起中國的樓市泡沫，美國樓市只屬小調整，中國人口老化較財富來得更快。

還有中國的社會問題，嬰兒光天化日被車輾過，沒有途人施以援手，還有販賣嬰兒等。美國的貧富懸殊是否較中國嚴重？遑論中國是專制的警察國家。

美化中國的不只奧巴馬，還有《紐約時報》專欄作家弗里德曼經常羨慕中國的威權體制，他以美國失靈的自動電梯，比較中國先進現代化的展覽中心，說明中國將於未來勝出。拿他漂亮的家與中國的貧民區比較一下，也一樣很有啟示。


Jonah Goldberg 何許人也？ 照維基百科有以下記載：

【維基百科】Jonah Jacob Goldberg (born March 21, 1969) is an American conservative syndicated columnist and author. Goldberg is known for his contributions on politics and culture to National Review Online, of which he is editor-at-large. He is the author of Liberal Fascism (2008), which reached #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list.

He appears on such television programs as Good Morning America, Nightline, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Real Time with Bill Maher, Larry King Live, Your World with Neil Cavuto and most recently the Glenn Beck Program and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. He is also a frequent participant on bloggingheads.tv.


【維基百科】The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative think tank founded in 1943.

Its stated mission is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism—limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate."

AEI is an independent nonprofit organization supported primarily by grants and contributions from foundations, corporations, and individuals. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C.


AEI 是美國保守派陣營的 think tank 智庫，而這位訪問美國的 AEI 學者兼名嘴 Jonah Goldberg先生說：『有四千萬中國人是穴居的』，相信是指中國西北黃土高原獨有的“窯洞”式住宅群。


【百度百科（簡體）】我国是一个窑居比较普遍的国家，从新疆吐鲁番、喀什，甘肃兰州、敦煌、平凉、庆阳、甘南，宁夏银川、固原，陕西乾县、延安，山西临汾、浮山、平陆、太原，河南郑州、洛阳、巩县以及福建龙岩、永定和广东梅县等地区。

陕西窑洞主要分布在陕北，指陕西省延安、榆林等地的窑洞式住宅。它建在黄土高原的沿山与地下，是天然黄土中的穴居形式，因其具有冬暖夏凉，不破坏生态，不占用良田，经济省钱等优点，被当地人民群众广泛采用。陕北窑洞有靠山土窑、石料接口土窑、平地石砌窑多种，一般城市里以石、砖窑居多，而农村则多是土窑或石料接口土窑。主要形式有地坑窑、沿崖窑、锢窑。

窑洞是中国西北黄土高原上居民的古老居住形式，这一“穴居式”民居的历史可以追溯到四千多年前。在中国陕甘宁地区，黄土层非常厚，有的厚达几十公里，我国人民创造性利用高原有利的地形，凿洞而居，创造了被称为绿色建筑的窑洞建筑。窑洞一般有靠崖式窑洞，下沉式窑洞、独立式等形式，其中靠山窑应用较多。

过去，一位农民辛勤劳作一生，最基本的愿望就是修建几孔窑洞。有了窑娶了妻才算成了家立了业。男人在黄土地上刨挖，女人则在土窑洞里操持家务、生儿育女。窑洞是黄土高原的产物、陕北农民的象征，它沉积了古老的黄土地深层文化。

据初步统计，自解放至今，中国的窑居群众总数达一亿一千万，目前仍采取窑方式者则有四千万人之多。其分布区域以经济欠发达的中西部为主，很多贫困户居住的土窑，年久失修，由于暴雨洪水、滑波泥石流等自然灾害造成窑洞房屋年久失修濒临倒塌，广大窑居人民群众随时面临着生命危险,希望知情者告知群众，不让他们的生命安全受到威胁。


當然中國仍然有很多方面確是不足，中國仍然是一個發展中國家，偏遠的貧窮省市城鄉居民，仍然住在簡陋的屋子確是事實。美國卻是居於發達國家之中的首位，兩黨政府歷來都不惜向外舉巨債，利用豐厚財源給予公民優越福利，力保護執政權。要把中國和美國比較，是如拿金蘋果與小橘子之間的比較，這位 Goldberg先生應該清楚明白得很。


而且文章中說：『總統奧巴馬堅持我們要學習這個國家（中國）。』是美國人自己說的，奧巴馬屬於民主黨，雖然維基百科沒有明說他是共和黨人，但卻有提及他屬於 conservative syndicated，故此希望 Goldberg 先生不要把美國的民主攻和黨爭烈火，燒到中國來。


再者，Goldberg先生 與 Tom Friedman先生 之間，看來有著嚴重的意見分歧，前者揶揄後者在馬里蘭州的大宅時，也不用把中國西北部黃土高原別具特色的“窯洞”式住宅，混為一談。


美國就是充滿著這一些保守愛國的寫稿佬名嘴，他們在大眾傳播的 networks 網絡上接受訪問，在報章雜誌發稿，總誓要語出驚人誓不休，因為這就是他們的賣點！ 至於廣大的美國民眾，懵閉閉咁就信以為真，有四千萬中國人是 caveman 哈哈哈！



後記：
有腦的中國商人，應該趕快到美國舉辦來華參觀“穴居人 Caveman” 的特式旅遊團，還把這位 Jonah Goldberg先生聘請為穴居旅遊大使，專責推廣這個 Caveman 穴居人之旅。包括：居住不同星級的“洞穴”套房，品嚐不同級別的穴居“cuisines”，和中國穴居人小孩婦女拍照。





伸延閱覽：
Why we need not envy China by Jonah Goldberg AEI.org
不必眼紅中國 雅虎新聞網
Jonah Goldberg 維基百科
American Enterprise Institute AEI 維基百科
窑洞（簡體） 百度百科