2009年4月28日

不該說出的話

就算忙得天昏地暗,也得寫劉迺強這不該的人說的不該話。

今天在辦工室偷閒的時候,翻閱《信報》,見到劉迺強一篇題為《死的尊嚴換來生的精采》的文章。

本來以為這篇文章是討論病人選擇安樂死的討論,怎料卻見到這不該的法西斯屁精在發牙瘟。

法西斯屁精說︰
「過去被人責罵的馬爾薩斯,最近已被平反【註一】。「承載極限」這新興名詞,徹頭徹尾就是一個馬爾薩斯主義理念,我們的地球已經超越了其承載極限。這是一個零和遊戲,每個人頭上那一份只會愈來愈少,加上世界的財富和資源分配不均,貧窮的人多了,他們還可稍忍耐,飢渴的人多了,就只可能世界大亂。

我們的環保運動,就是不願意面對最根本的問題:人口太多。我們過去不肯承認,因為人類對此無法可施。今天我們不肯直面,因為人類不願意面對生命科學的進展和它的後果【註二】……」
法西斯屁精的意思清楚不過,人口太多,有些人「不值得」再留在世上,才以送他們歸西最環保。那可不是我斷章取義,劉迺強自己在文章中這樣說︰
「……當前全球只有兩個選擇:一是設法讓人口逐步下降,要不然的話,就準備接受各種可怕的後果……」
法西斯屁精很不該。一向以舐中共屁股夾縫中的汾泌物和殘餘物維生,少不免要以口水滋潤中共的作孽。
「……過去出生的人口,已經累積起來,成為今天和明天的包袱。即使機警如我國,於三十年前開始強逼性計劃生育,我們的人口也要到二○二五年之後才穩定和可能下降,而到時人口已經超過十五億……」
不過,最令我火光,不是法西斯屁精的覓食方式,而是他對常識的侮辱!
「……無論生與死,已經不再是完全由自然擺布,或者神聖不可侵犯,愈來愈是個人的選擇空間,以及公共利益的一個部分……

……在西方社會,生命是絕對神聖的。因此,幫助病人安樂死在西方社會中是刑事罪行。中國人比較實際,各種原因對病人停止治療,讓其死亡十分常見。於面對人類愈來愈難自然死去這一個新形勢,死亡很明顯將趨向是一個選擇……

……讓每一個人自願選擇死亡與否,當然是最理想的事情,但卻十分困難。但是當面對人口太多,再難負擔的時候,個人的生死,便已經成了社會問題……

……作為第一步,我們需要改變對自殺的態度。我們都反對自殺,但我們都沒有辦法防止自殺。於是,自殺只能懷罪惡感的心情,偷偷地進行。結果是自殺者身心傷苦,死得很難看、很沒有尊嚴……

……我國文化傳統,因為輪迴之說深入人間,一向對於生死都抱較坦然開放的態度。「犧牲小我,成全大我」,老弱病殘,自動退出歷史舞台,人口得以下降和優化,騰出更多人均資源,讓下一代有可能活得更好,更是值得表揚鼓勵的事……

……我國因為人口、資源、環境壓力較大,形勢較為迫切,同時各方面又較具條件,應該再次敢為先下先,逐步起動選擇死亡的機制。如果政府能提供政策,讓自願騰出生存空間的人有某種榮譽獎勵,其後人獲得某些優惠的話,到某一階段,選擇死亡,甚至會慢慢成為未來人類的一種基本權利。」
先撇中共開計生帶來的嚴重社會扭曲和種種惡果,這法西斯屁精的邏輯真的是下九流。

由於法西斯屁精的文章無謂的修辭和對中共的歌頌太多,影響了大家的閱讀,我姑且將此他的發音重點羅列︰

1. 生死已經不是自然的事
2. 生死可以選擇、生死是個人問題也是公共問題
3. 中國人實際地對待這公共題目,相反西方人不實際地講「尊重生命」
4. 鼓勵自殺是第一步
5. 之後,就是像容許墮胎一樣,容許劉迺強理解中的安樂死
6. 最後,歌頌自行了決的「廢人」

大家可以看得出法西斯屁精的發音跟事實有多大距離嗎?

1. 「生死已經不是自然的事」︰法西斯屁精所指應是人類在生命科技上的種種突破。不過,在過去百多年來,生命科技的目的只有一個,就是要人生活得更好,更安穩。人的壽命長了,根生科技進步互為因果,人命長了,智慧、知識和技能的積累也豐富了,對資源使用也更有效,這才是連串發展的次序。馬爾薩斯的錯,在於沒有考慮到人可以讓資源更有效發揮。延伸閱讀 Julian Simon @ http://www.juliansimon.com/

2. 「生死可以選擇、生死是個人問題也是公共問題」︰引申法西斯屁精的思維,人的存在既然是大眾,甚至宇宙的負擔,那任何事情都可以是公共問題。不過,每個人都為自己的存在而付出,而不是像法西斯屁精幻想般,人人都要寄生在一個無所不能的極權之下,每個人都可以是貢獻者,而不是法西斯屁精般的寄生蟲。

3. 「中國人實際地對待這公共題目,相反西方人不實際地講『尊重生命』」︰。這樣說實在不該!真正有安樂死法例的正是西方國家,法西斯屁精是指鹿為馬。更最要一點,人家的安樂死是從個人結束痛苦出發,而不是甚麼一死以謝天下的狗屁封建思維。

4. 「鼓勵自殺是第一步」︰閱。膠都費事畀。以法西斯屁精的推論,改一個字,加一個字︰「我們都反對殺,但我們都沒有辦法防止殺。於是,只能懷罪惡感的心情,偷偷地進行。結果是被他殺者身心傷苦,死得很難看、很沒有尊嚴。」

5. 「之後,就是像容許墮胎一樣,容許劉迺強理解中的安樂死」︰同上。

6. 「最後,歌頌自行了決的『廢人』」︰法西斯屁精眼中,在廢人是甚麼呢?這裡存在無限想像空間。八十歲的李嘉誠是嗎?那麼十八歲的天水圍邊青呢?法西斯屁精一天年華老去,他會自裁救天下嗎?就算他會,李嘉誠也不會,那麼他會在十八層地獄咀咒生活的好好的人嗎?

人,每個人,生存和繁衍,都是個人的決定,也是神聖的過程。法西斯的新宗教,就是要否定人,要強迫人去承認他們扭曲的心靈,臣服於他們崇拜的魔鬼︰極權政治。

讓我念一遍天主經︰「我們的天父,願你的名受顯揚,願你的國來臨,願你的旨意奉行在人間,如同在天上。求你今天賞給我們日用的食糧,求你寬恕我們的罪過,如同我們寬恕別人一樣。不要讓我們陷於誘惑,但救我們免於凶惡。亞孟!」

2009年4月22日

Team Hoyt

同事傳來一條片,還有一段沒頭沒尾的文字。

有一天,兒子問爸爸:「爸爸你和我ㄧ起去跑馬拉松,好嗎?」

爸爸說好。

第二次,兒子又問爸爸:「爸爸你和我ㄧ起去跑馬拉松,好嗎?」

爸爸又說好。

有一天,兒子問爸爸:「爸爸和我ㄧ起去參加鐵人競賽,好嗎?」...

2009年4月16日

What is going on at Bangkok?

Below is an article by a friend of mine living in Bangkok on the situation in Thailand.

His conclusion: "It is actually another military coup."

The Democrat government came into power in December 2008 by rigging Parliament. About two week earlier, the People's Power Party (PPP) was disbanded by the Constitutional Court on the charge of election rigging, resulting in PM Somchai being disqualified and his cabinet dissolved. This happened amidst the seizure of the Government House and the two international airports by PAD. And even before that, in September 2008, PM Samak of the PPP was disqualified by this same Constitutional Court for a wrongdoing (i.e., making a cooking TV show!!!). The logic is clear: You win the election, but I use the judiciary power to destroy you and negate the will of the majority of the people!

Just days after the dissolution of the Somchai government and two days before the King's birthday, PAD abandoned the Government House and the airports.

The former PPP members tried to regroup and set up a new party, namely Peur Thai (For Thai) Party (PTP). But the military intervened and forced a large shunk of former PPP members to split and gave support to the Democrat Party Chief, Abhisit. So he became PM. And the PTP became the opposition. This was a 'silent' coup d'etat. The Abhisit government is a mere puppet, backed up the military under the skin of parliamentary democracy.

The Abhisit government is actually the PAD government. They gave support to PAD in taking over the Government House and the international airports. The Democrat Party members were part of PAD. One of PAD leaders is a Democrat member of parliament (MP). Three of PAD leaders got high-positioned jobs in the Abhisit government, one of them being Foreign Affairs Minister! The Democrats provided finance, personnel and mobilizing networks for PAD throughout, whereas both PAD and the Democrats, like the military and the judiciary, are just the arms of autocracy! You will NEVER see the prosecution of PAD leaders for all their crimes.

The red-shirts' originial intention of going to Pattaya on Friday 10 April was to present a message to ASEAN leaders that the Abhisit government was illegitimate. But, on the way back downhill from the hotel, the red-shirts were ambushed by a blue-shirt gang organized by government politicians and the Democrats in Chon Buri. Several red-shirts were hurt from beating and slingshots, two of them seriously injured by a pingpong bomb. The news reached the red-shirts in Bangkok. Everyone was angry. So more red-shirts were mobilized from Bangkok to arrive in Pattaya in the early morning of Saturday 11 April. They went back to the hotel and demanded that the government took responsibility for the attack. But there was no answer. The red-shirts became even more angry. They stormed the hotel and broke up the ASEAN summit. The red-shirts in Pattaya were unarmed. Of course, they picked up some sticks and stone when they encountered a blue-shirt gang again on the way back from the hotel that same afternoon.

The Abhisit government, losing face and credibility, decided to use force to suppress the red-shirt protest in Bangkok. So Abhisit declared the state of emergency in the area of Bangkok and five surrounding provinces on Sunday 12 April. The violent crash at the Ministry of Interior on that day happened AFTER the declaration of the state of emergency. The red-shirts went to Ministry of Interior because they knew that Abhisit was there. After shouting, pushing and shoving by the red-shirts, the black car (NOT Abhisit's), trying to move away, accidentaly hit one red-shirt. The red-shirts were angry and began to attack the car. Then, a security guard open fires and at least two red-shirts were severely injured. More crashes in Ministry's compound followed.

The troop started to move in from the North of Bangkok in the early morning of Monday 13 April. At around 4:30 am, the soldiers open fires at a small group of red-shirt guards at Din Daeng. Several people were killed instantly and several dozen were injured. Then the troop drove the red-shirts towards the Victory Monument and beyond. Several crashes followed. The soldiers kept shooting at those red-shirts. Many more were killed and injured. Red-shirts gradually retreated and finally regrouped at the main protest venue in front of the Government House. The armed gangs organized by government politicians roamed the streets and beat up any red-shirts they met and several were beaten to death.

The troop surrounded the red-shirt protesters in front of the Government House from all sides. Behind them were armed blue-shirt and plaincloth gangs organized by government politicians. TVs and the media showed hate messages and negative reports against the red-shirts throughout 13-14 April. They planned a remaking of the 6 October 1976 Student Massacre in the afternoon of Tuesday 14 April. At the last minute, there were around 8,000-10,000 red-shirts in front of the Government House. But, at 11:30 am of 14 April, the red-shirt leaders announced to "suspend" the protest and negotiated with the police to allow red-shirt people to go home unharmed. Five leaders were arrested immediately and are now jailed in military compounds around Bangkok. Around 20-25 arrest warrants have been issued to wipe out the whole lot of red-shirt leaders in one go. They are now seeking the charge of "high treason" (punishable by death) against the whole group. They expect the red-shirts, without leaders, will not be able to launch a new movement in the future. Then provincial red-shirts will be dissolved by the security network later on.

One point must be emphasized. The press and the media, particularly TVs, have been strictly censored and controlled by the government as a result of the state of emergency. So all reports are one-sided and are mostly propaganda. The government's insistence that there were no serious casualties is a lie. Soldiers are still stationed in the streets. The situation now is like a rule by a military government with the face of Abhisit on it. It is actually another military coup.

2009年4月8日

Exam cheaters jailed on state secret charges

BEIJING (Reuters) - Eight Chinese who used high-tech communications equipment, including mobile phones and wireless earpieces, to help their children cheat at university entrance exams have been jailed on state secret charges, local media said.

The eight, from the wealthy eastern province of Zhejiang, got together in 2007 to plot how to help their children as "they knew their achievements were not ideal," the official Legal Daily said.

One of the parents hired university students to provide answers which were sent to the children via wireless earphones while they were in the exam room, the report said.

But their ruse was discovered after police detected "abnormal radio signals" near the school, the newspaper said.

The parents were given jail terms ranging from six months to three years after being found guilty of illegally obtaining state secrets, it added, without saying what happened to their children.

China's college entrance exams, or "gaokao," are fiercely competitive tests.

Stories of cheating surface every year, despite stiff penalties. Students reportedly pay for leaked exam papers, smuggle in mobile phones and electronic dictionaries, or pay others to take the exam for them.

(Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Sugita Katyal)

消委會:學校選擇新高中課本應考慮家長負擔

較肉局會話燒毀會越權嗎?

家長都無自由揀學校,講乜野消費者權益?

Sent to you via Google Reader

消委會:學校選擇新高中課本應考慮家長負擔

教育局公布新高中學制下的教科書價格。

消委會總幹事劉燕卿建議學校,選擇課本時多考慮書價,減輕家長負擔,一些無提供價格的書本,可以不作考慮。部份書本付有的光碟等教材,老師可以考慮學生能否充份利用,才加入書單內。

至於參考書或地圖等,學校可以在書單上註明是否必要,由家長自行決定購買。另外,一些故事書可以由學校統籌,給學生輪流使用。


Humbly submitted from my iPhone

Did a Seismologist Accurately Forecast the L'Aquila Earthquake--Or Was It a Lucky Guess?

Really?

Sent to you via Google Reader

Did a Seismologist Accurately Forecast the L'Aquila Earthquake--Or Was It a Lucky Guess?

Yesterday, a magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck L'Aquila, Italy, killing more than 150 people, injuring some 1,000, and leaving thousands of people homeless. Soon after the deadly temblor hit, news outlets including Time magazine, Reuters, and The New York Times reported Italian authorities had previously removed from the Internet a warning that a big quake was imminent. The prediction had been posted weeks earlier by a seismologist at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Abruzzi, Italy. [More]



Humbly submitted from my iPhone

2009年4月1日

The Works of Leonard E. Read

You must be good to be copied, especially when free content is everywhere and plentiful. 

FEE is good.  No doubt about it.  

Sent to you via Google Reader

The Works of Leonard E. Read


[An MP3 audio version of this essay, read by Floy Lilley, is available as a free download.]



Leonard E. Read
Leonard E. Read


The works of Leonard E. Read, who founded the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) in 1946, are now online at the Mises Institute. It is probably not the complete collected works, but it is all that he collected in book form. These are books that shaped several generations of activists, donors, writers, and intellectuals. They are the books that kick-started the libertarian movement after World War II. The sons of FEE went on to do great good for the world, and FEE is often called the father of all libertarian think tanks — institutions that work outside official academia to advance radical ideas.


Read did more than merely sponsor lectures and publish. As a matter of fact, others were doing the same. So far as I know, no one has yet noticed that he used a secret weapon in his struggle, something that made him truly different and unusually effective. He eschewed the use of exclusive copyright. That is to say, he encouraged the widest possible distribution of his work and did not forbid others from copying his infinitely reproducible ideas.


Pick up any book or publication from FEE before the 1990s. You will see a remarkable and visionary sentence on the copyright page:




Permission to reprint granted without special request.




This one sentence is what made it happen. Any newspaper could print a column. Any publisher could include an essay. Indeed, he invited any publisher to take any FEE book and publish it and sell it, owing no royalties and asking no permissions.


"He was an evangelist spreading the news. He wanted to be pirated so that he could see that he was making a difference."

The publisher was not even asked to acknowledge its source! So, in this sense, he was even more radical than the Creative Commons attribution license. A FEE book was copyrighted solely so that someone else couldn't copyright it, and then maximum permissions were granted. In effect, Read was putting all of the scholarship of FEE in the public domain as soon as it was published.


This saved on the grueling bureaucratic struggle involved in granting permissions and keeping up with the permissions granted. Asking no fees or royalties meant saving on accounting bureaucracy as well.


Read was no anarchist. He was a believer in "limited government," but regardless, this much is true: he hated the state beyond its most limited form. He saw it as the great e...



Humbly submitted from my iPhone

Open Letter from One Non-Economist to Another

Nice one.

Sent to you via Google Reader

Open Letter from One Non-Economist to Another


[An MP3 audio version of this article, read by Floy Lilley, is available as a free download.]






Dear Dr. Drew Westen,


I read your commentary this morning, as many have undoubtedly done. The economy is a very interesting and pressing current affair. I realize you may receive volumes of email regarding what you have written, so I hope you will consider taking time to read what I have to share.


Although I take issue with virtually all of what you have written in your commentary, please allow me to address a specific portion of your article:




The president needs to tell the American people the story, over and over, of how we got in this mess, who put us in it and what will and won't get us out of it. Franklin Roosevelt had no trouble pinning the nation's economic difficulties on the Republicans who had fiddled with free-market extremism as the nation's economy burned, and it took 40 years and the charisma of Ronald Reagan for anyone to put voice to that ideology again.




I interpret this as your granting license to use propaganda to convince the people that free-market capitalism is to blame for the current situation, and that divisive politics should be used to make the case against the market. Is that your intention? If so, I would like to share a few pieces of information with you.


There is ample contrary historical evidence that shows that Hoover and the Republicans were actually quite a bit more involved in the affairs of the economy than supporters of the New Deal realize. Some of the best evidence I've come across is America's Great Depression by Murray N. Rothbard. If you have not had a chance to read it, I highly recommend it as a fascinating and insightful book. In this work, Rothbard shows that FDR simply extended policies put in place by Hoover — after running on a platform for decreased spending and less government interference. Can you imagine that? The Democratic candidate ran on a platform of lower taxes and smaller government in order to contrast himself to his predecessor who raised taxes and spent on many programs that were extended into what is today known as the "Roosevelt" New Deal. Rothbard systematically shows how, contrary to popular historic interpretation, artificially low interest rates and loose monetary policy of the Federal Reserve System fostered the boom of the roaring '20s. He then shows how government interference, combined with an increased burden to the taxpayers, prolonged the Depression duri...



Humbly submitted from my iPhone