This is one of Jon Stewart's non-sociopolitical comedy clips/routines.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Bill Maher -- New Rules, 28 September 2007
Yes, the part about the pharmaceutical companies, that hits the nail on the head.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Evo Morales Speech and Interview
Evo Morales is the President of Bolivia and together with Hugo Chavez, is one the rising politicians in Latin America who leans towards democratic socialism. One thing I like about this guy is his approach towards thinking about governance, and he acknowledge the fact that while the economy of a country is important, it should not be the main driving ideology behind the governance of a country. For the last decade, it is in my opinion that the Singapore Government has been pursuing the type of free-market capitalism economy not unlike that of the US model (I could be wrong here, I am not an economics major, but it seemed to me to be that way), and I really do not agree with this. This is because, as I always maintained (much to the chagrin of my Libertarian friends), that free-market capitalism would ultimately end up with the rich getting richer and the poor getting screwed.
While the Bolivia economic model might not work for Singapore (for starters, we do not have that much land and natural resources), and while President Morales might not be without his flaws, I think the general concept that President Morales tries to push, Humanism, will work well anywhere. Here are a few things he has done after he was elected to President of Bolivia in 2005 that I think the politicians in Singapore can do well to reflect on:
(1) In January 28, 2006 he cut his salary by 57% to US$1,875 a month. (Think of all those arguments in the Singapore Parliament on why the Ministers should be paid MORE, MORE and MORE!!!
(2) In March 2006, he announced an increase in the minimum wage of 50%. (Think again of all the arguments in the Singapore Parliament why we need to keep minimum wage down in order to maintain competitiveness. Right, you get to up the wages for the "elite" while the common people have to maintain status quo, or become even worse off. And this is the kicker: Singapore does not have a minimum wage structure yet. Yeah, we are more free-market capitalism than the USA, who at least impose a minimum wage. Now wonder my Libertarian friend commented to me: I am surprised you do not support free-market capitalism... you come from Singapore!!!)
==================================================================================
This is Evo Morales' speech at the General UN Assembly, 2007:
Let’s respect our Mother Earth
Letter from President Evo Morales to the member representatives of the United Nations on the issue of the environment.
Sister and brother Presidents and Heads of States of the United Nations: The world is suffering from a fever due to climate change, and the disease is the capitalist development model. Whilst over 10,000 years the variation in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels on the planet was approximately 10%, during the last 200 years of industrial development, carbon emissions have increased by 30%. Since 1860, Europe and North America have contributed 70% of the emissions of CO2. 2005 was the hottest year in the last one thousand years on this planet.
Different investigations have demonstrated that out of the 40,170 living species that have been studied, 16,119 are in danger of extinction. One out of eight birds could disappear forever. One out of four mammals is under threat. One out of every three reptiles could cease to exist. Eight out of ten crustaceans and three out of four insects are at risk of extinction. We are living through the sixth crisis of the extinction of living species in the history of the planet and, on this occasion, the rate of extinction is 100 times more accelerated than in geological times.
Faced with this bleak future, transnational interests are proposing to continue as before, and paint the machine green, which is to say, continue with growth and irrational consumerism and inequality, generating more and more profits, without realising that we are currently consuming in one year what the planet produces in one year and three months. Faced with this reality, the solution can not be an environmental make over.
I read in the World Bank report that in order to mitigate the impacts of climate change we need to end subsidies on hydrocarbons, put a price on water and promote private investment in the clean energy sector. Once again they want to apply market recipes and privatisation in order to carry out business as usual, and with it, the same illnesses that these policies produce. The same occurs in the case of biofuels, given that to produce one litre of ethanol you require 12 litres of water. In the same way, to process one ton of agrifuels you need, on average, one hectare of land.
Faced with this situation, we – the indigenous peoples and humble and honest inhabitants of this planet – believe that the time has come to put a stop to this, in order to rediscover our roots, with respect for Mother Earth; with the Pachamama as we call it in the Andes. Today, the indigenous peoples of Latin America and the world have been called upon by history to convert ourselves into the vanguard of the struggle to defend nature and life.
I am convinced that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, recently approved after so many years of struggle, needs to pass from paper to reality so that our knowledge and our participation can help to construct a new future of hope for all. Who else but the indigenous people, can point out the path for humanity in order to preserve nature, natural resources and the territories that we have inhabited from ancient times.
We need a profound change of direction, at the world wide level, so as to stop being the condemned of the earth. The countries of the north need to reduce their carbon emissions by between 60% and 80% if we want to avoid a temperature rise of more than 2º in what is left of this century, which would provoke global warming of catastrophic proportions for life and nature.
We need to create a World Environment Organisation which is binding, and which can discipline the World Trade Organisation, which is propelling as towards barbarism. We can no longer continue to talk of growth in Gross National Product without taking into consideration the destruction and wastage of natural resources. We need to adopt an indicator that allows us to consider, in a combined way, the Human Development Index and the Ecological Footprint in order to measure our environmental situation.
We need to apply harsh taxes on the super concentration of wealth, and adopt effective mechanisms for its equitable redistribution. It is not possible that three families can have an income superior to the combined GDP of the 48 poorest countries. We can not talk of equity and social justice whilst this situation continues.
The United States and Europe consume, on average, 8.4 times more that the world average. It is necessary for them to reduce their level of consumption and recognise that all of us are guests on this same land; of the same Pachamama.
I know that change is not easy when an extremely powerful sector has to renounce their extraordinary profits for the planet to survive. In my own country I suffer, with my head held high, this permanent sabotage because we are ending privileges so that everyone can “Live Well” and not better than our counterparts. I know that change in the world is much more difficult than in my country, but I have absolute confidence in human beings, in their capacity to reason, to learn from mistakes, to recuperate their roots, and to change in order to forge a just, diverse, inclusive, equilibrated world in harmony with nature
Evo Morales Ayma
President of the Republic de Bolivia
September 24, 2007
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
This is an interview with Jon Stewart:
While the Bolivia economic model might not work for Singapore (for starters, we do not have that much land and natural resources), and while President Morales might not be without his flaws, I think the general concept that President Morales tries to push, Humanism, will work well anywhere. Here are a few things he has done after he was elected to President of Bolivia in 2005 that I think the politicians in Singapore can do well to reflect on:
(1) In January 28, 2006 he cut his salary by 57% to US$1,875 a month. (Think of all those arguments in the Singapore Parliament on why the Ministers should be paid MORE, MORE and MORE!!!
(2) In March 2006, he announced an increase in the minimum wage of 50%. (Think again of all the arguments in the Singapore Parliament why we need to keep minimum wage down in order to maintain competitiveness. Right, you get to up the wages for the "elite" while the common people have to maintain status quo, or become even worse off. And this is the kicker: Singapore does not have a minimum wage structure yet. Yeah, we are more free-market capitalism than the USA, who at least impose a minimum wage. Now wonder my Libertarian friend commented to me: I am surprised you do not support free-market capitalism... you come from Singapore!!!)
==================================================================================
This is Evo Morales' speech at the General UN Assembly, 2007:
Let’s respect our Mother Earth
Letter from President Evo Morales to the member representatives of the United Nations on the issue of the environment.
Sister and brother Presidents and Heads of States of the United Nations: The world is suffering from a fever due to climate change, and the disease is the capitalist development model. Whilst over 10,000 years the variation in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels on the planet was approximately 10%, during the last 200 years of industrial development, carbon emissions have increased by 30%. Since 1860, Europe and North America have contributed 70% of the emissions of CO2. 2005 was the hottest year in the last one thousand years on this planet.
Different investigations have demonstrated that out of the 40,170 living species that have been studied, 16,119 are in danger of extinction. One out of eight birds could disappear forever. One out of four mammals is under threat. One out of every three reptiles could cease to exist. Eight out of ten crustaceans and three out of four insects are at risk of extinction. We are living through the sixth crisis of the extinction of living species in the history of the planet and, on this occasion, the rate of extinction is 100 times more accelerated than in geological times.
Faced with this bleak future, transnational interests are proposing to continue as before, and paint the machine green, which is to say, continue with growth and irrational consumerism and inequality, generating more and more profits, without realising that we are currently consuming in one year what the planet produces in one year and three months. Faced with this reality, the solution can not be an environmental make over.
I read in the World Bank report that in order to mitigate the impacts of climate change we need to end subsidies on hydrocarbons, put a price on water and promote private investment in the clean energy sector. Once again they want to apply market recipes and privatisation in order to carry out business as usual, and with it, the same illnesses that these policies produce. The same occurs in the case of biofuels, given that to produce one litre of ethanol you require 12 litres of water. In the same way, to process one ton of agrifuels you need, on average, one hectare of land.
Faced with this situation, we – the indigenous peoples and humble and honest inhabitants of this planet – believe that the time has come to put a stop to this, in order to rediscover our roots, with respect for Mother Earth; with the Pachamama as we call it in the Andes. Today, the indigenous peoples of Latin America and the world have been called upon by history to convert ourselves into the vanguard of the struggle to defend nature and life.
I am convinced that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, recently approved after so many years of struggle, needs to pass from paper to reality so that our knowledge and our participation can help to construct a new future of hope for all. Who else but the indigenous people, can point out the path for humanity in order to preserve nature, natural resources and the territories that we have inhabited from ancient times.
We need a profound change of direction, at the world wide level, so as to stop being the condemned of the earth. The countries of the north need to reduce their carbon emissions by between 60% and 80% if we want to avoid a temperature rise of more than 2º in what is left of this century, which would provoke global warming of catastrophic proportions for life and nature.
We need to create a World Environment Organisation which is binding, and which can discipline the World Trade Organisation, which is propelling as towards barbarism. We can no longer continue to talk of growth in Gross National Product without taking into consideration the destruction and wastage of natural resources. We need to adopt an indicator that allows us to consider, in a combined way, the Human Development Index and the Ecological Footprint in order to measure our environmental situation.
We need to apply harsh taxes on the super concentration of wealth, and adopt effective mechanisms for its equitable redistribution. It is not possible that three families can have an income superior to the combined GDP of the 48 poorest countries. We can not talk of equity and social justice whilst this situation continues.
The United States and Europe consume, on average, 8.4 times more that the world average. It is necessary for them to reduce their level of consumption and recognise that all of us are guests on this same land; of the same Pachamama.
I know that change is not easy when an extremely powerful sector has to renounce their extraordinary profits for the planet to survive. In my own country I suffer, with my head held high, this permanent sabotage because we are ending privileges so that everyone can “Live Well” and not better than our counterparts. I know that change in the world is much more difficult than in my country, but I have absolute confidence in human beings, in their capacity to reason, to learn from mistakes, to recuperate their roots, and to change in order to forge a just, diverse, inclusive, equilibrated world in harmony with nature
Evo Morales Ayma
President of the Republic de Bolivia
September 24, 2007
===========================================================================
This is an interview done by democracy.org, a TV and radio news program in the United States, prior to his UN speech.
AMY GOODMAN: Today, a Democracy Now! special: We spend the hour with Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia. He traveled to New York this week, where he's scheduled to speak before the United Nations General Assembly today. On Monday, he addressed a high-level UN meeting on climate change, during which he accused what he called “predatory capitalism” of affecting the environment.
Evo Morales first spoke before the UN General Assembly last year, where he dramatically brandished a coca leaf and vowed never to yield to US pressure to criminalize coca production. Morales’s rise to power began with his leadership of the coca growers union in Bolivia and his high-profile opposition to the US-funded eradication of the coca crop. He helped to lead the street demonstrations by Indian and union groups that toppled the country's last two presidents.
An Aymara Indian, Evo Morales became the country's first indigenous president when he was elected nearly two years ago with more popular support than any Bolivian leader in decades. Since then, he has moved to nationalize Bolivia’s oil and gas industry and is seeking a new constitution that would grant more power to Bolivia’s indigenous majority.
Today, we spend the hour with Evo Morales, talking about indigenous rights, biofuels, the Iraq war, establishing diplomatic relations with Iran, and the enduring legacy of Che Guevara on Latin America. Democracy Now!’s Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with President Morales at the Bolivian mission here in New York. I began by asking President Morales what his message is this year to the UN General Assembly.
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Last year was our first experience, my first time at the United Nations, as well as my first time in the United States. And as the coca leaf stands for and is symbolic of the struggle of the peoples for land and for their sovereignty, so last time I was here, it was my responsibility to talk about how it is that I came to become president of Bolivia.
But today, the most important thing is to talk about the changes that we're forging in democracy through this cultural and democratic revolution in my country and at the same time share my enormous concern and to talk about things that are not just a regional or a local problem, but a global problem, and that's the environment.
JUAN GONZALEZ: One of the things that has happened, changes, obviously, is that just a few days ago, more than a week ago, the United Nations General Assembly passed an important declaration in terms of indigenous rights. Article 34, specifically, says that indigenous peoples have rights to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their customs. How important is this to Bolivia in the current writing of the new constitution that you're involved in now?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] First of all, we'd like to salute, thank and recognize the countries of the world that approved and voted for this Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, just as fifty, sixty years ago, the United Nations for the first time recognized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And it's only now, over 500 years later, that indigenous people’s rights are being recognized. Happily, there were only a few countries that didn't support this declaration.
And so, I want to say to the indigenous peoples, but also to the other peoples who live in the cities, that this is a very important thing that the struggle for indigenous people's rights has not been in vain. And it was very important to get organized to mobilize. It took over twenty years, but, working together, people were able to do this, to approve this declaration and establish that we are people that have rights just like anyone else on earth.
In some cases, it will be to recognize the rights of minorities in some countries, this declaration. In my country, it's to make sure that the majority is respected, and it will be respect for their institutions, for their structures. And this is an important contribution to unity within our country, but not because we have a declaration behind us recognized by the United Nations. It’s important that, even though this declaration exists, that doesn't mean that we, as the majority, are going to be vengeful or use this as the majority.
I want you all to know, through the means of communication like yourself, I want the people of the United States and the people of the world to understand that the indigenous movement is not vengeful. We want to live together, respecting the difference and the diversity that we have. Some of the people in our country, when they saw that this declaration that came out that’s not just a declaration recognizing indigenous peoples, but also right to land, to self-determination, they think that we're going to take a vengeful attitude, and I’m here to say never.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think the message was of the four countries that voted no: Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United States?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] It will be important for not the countries, but the people who lead those countries, their ambassadors, their leaders, to reflect and to embrace a recognition of indigenous people's rights. I’m convinced that indigenous peoples are the moral reserve of humanity. So amongst indigenous peoples, there’s not a mentality of being individualist, personalist or egotistical, and therefore there’s not an attitude of trying to take over resources and control them for themselves. How nice it would be if those four countries, or better, for the presidents of those four countries, and along with the social forces, and especially the indigenous peoples, join together to save humanity.
JUAN GONZALEZ: But in practical terms, implementing this in your country is obviously creating many issues. You have thirty-six different nationalities among the native people. And the battle now, the constitutional battle over whether you're going to have provincial autonomy or autonomy for these indigenous nations, how will that work itself out?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] First of all, dialogue and concerting, coming together. You're right, though, when you recognize that there are some small groups in my country that still don’t recognize exclusion and racism as it exists in our country. And that's why I call on the countries that not only supported this declaration, but also the countries that didn't support this declaration, to come together and move forward to recognizing indigenous people’s rights, but without excluding anyone.
My government will guarantee departmental or state-level autonomies, but also local-level autonomies and indigenous people’s autonomies. A lot will depend on the specificities of these different regions. Sometimes there will be regional autonomies and local autonomies; sometimes there will be regional autonomies, as well as indigenous autonomies. And we’ll have to figure out how these different autonomies are going to work together. When we made our initial demands as indigenous, original peoples, there were people who reacted to and rejected our demands. But I want to tell these people now -- and some people are originally from a place that dates back to a thousand years, some are much more contemporary, but we all have to learn how to live together.
AMY GOODMAN: Bolivian President Evo Morales. We'll come back to our conversation in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our conversation with the president of Bolivia, Evo Morales. He's addressing the United Nations General Assembly today. On Monday, he addressed a high-level UN meeting on climate change. Over eighty world leaders attended; President Bush did not. In it, Evo Morales spoke in his speech on Monday about referring to the need to prevent industrialized nations with their gas emissions from continuing harming the planet.
Democracy Now!, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with President Morales at the Bolivian mission. Juan asked President Morales about the issue of biofuels.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you about the message that you're going to be bringing to the United Nations, as well, over the issue of the use of agricultural products for biofuels, that clearly in Brazil President Lula has a different perspective. He is promoting the use of biofuels. What is your perspective on this issue?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] From the time that biofuels were first talked about, we've seen a spiraling process of speculation of land. There’s a whole speculation on grains like wheat, not only at the regional level within countries, but also internationally. So, therefore, the cost of agricultural products rises. And this is a product of that moment from which, going forward, people have been talking about biofuels.
And personally, in our movement, as well, we're convinced that agricultural products should not be dedicated, directed towards automobiles, cars, and that lands be dedicated towards old rusted vehicles. First to people, before automobiles. And that’s our difference.
And we want to debate this, but we don't want to debate it just as governments or presidents. We want to debate with our peoples, with the social forces in our countries, and I would even dare to say, at the South American regional level, submit this to a referendum of the peoples of South America and let the people say yes or no to different biofuels. This is something I’ve learned from Subcomandante Marcos, from his messages -- that is, to govern obeying the people. That means to govern, but respecting the different proposals that social forces put on the table, because sometimes when a proposal is put on the table between presidents, arguments arise, and this can even generate confusion amongst people sometimes. And that's why I consider it to be very important that people decide with their votes in a referendum about what the future biofuels is going to be. That would be the most democratic thing.
AMY GOODMAN: Mr. President, you've just established diplomatic relations with Iran. When the Iranian President Ahmadinejad leaves the United Nations General Assembly, New York, this week, he will first go to Bolivia. Why did you establish diplomatic relations?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] First of all, it’s important our peoples are from the culture of dialogue, so we have diplomatic relations with the United States, we have diplomatic relations with Cuba, just as we have diplomatic relations with France and with Iran, but, above all, diplomatic relations for life, for humanity, for peace with social justice.
In my country, we're going to be opening commercial and diplomatic relations to establish relationships of complementarity so that we can resolve the social and economic problems that we confront. We're never going to establish diplomatic relations to wage aggression or to hurt or to declare wars or to get involved in arms races. We're not of the culture of death.
Moreover, I respect the technology, the industrial development in the area of gas and oil in Iran, and that’s what we’ve seen as interesting, that we can work together on these issues. And I’d like to agree with you. We haven't ever thought about other issues in our relations. As far as I know, it’s not a country that's sending troops to end other people's lives in other countries. And I admire Cuba very much, for example, which sends people to other countries to help save lives.
AMY GOODMAN: Just to follow up on that point, has the United States weighed in? Has the United States responded to your diplomatic relations with Iran? And what do you think of the US talking about perhaps attacking Iran?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] The United States, nor any other country, can observe or comment or have anything to say about the relationships that we have with any other countries. We’re a small country, but we’re a sovereign country with dignity, with the right to establish relations with whoever we want. If the United States government reacts, if they would have reacted, it would suggest that they are still thinking that Latin American countries need to be subordinate to the United States. But happily, in Latin America, there are countries with democracies that are liberating democracies, not subordinate democracies.
AMY GOODMAN: Your vice president has denounced US funding of rightwing think tanks in Bolivia as intervening in internal affairs of your country.
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Former ministers and vice minister of the government of Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, who, as you know, escaped to the United States, and the former President Banzer, who, may he rest in peace, as well as former President Tutu Quiroga, these former ministers are financed through foundations, NGOs, to create this counterweight to the government of Evo Morales. It’s impressive. And what we're asking for is that all international cooperation be transparent, that it come through formally the central government.
AMY GOODMAN: What are those groups pushing for?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] First of all, these neoliberals, the rightwing organizations, the ones who sold out the country, as we say in Bolivia, is to exhaust the image of Evo Morales especially. And so, if they have objected, if they want to exhaust Evo Morales, it’s to be done with the government of Evo Morales. And these things circulated on the internet, then pamphlets, [inaudible]; verbatim they say, “We have to overthrow this Indian (and leave that blank),” because I can't repeat those words on the radio.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you about the student protests that broke out recently there and the continuing battle over writing a new constitution. It's been more than thirteen months, and the Constituent Assembly, I understand, now is going to start meeting again. But the battle, especially over this issue of the capital for Bolivia, what is the significance of the battle over whether Sucre or La Paz should be the capital of Bolivia?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Bolivia was founded in 1825, and the people who were participating, they were only 8% of the population; they were all mestizos or criollos. But who fought for the independence from Spain? It was that other 92%; it was the indigenous peoples. So we proposed to re-found the country, indigenous peoples, non-indigenous peoples, professional peoples, nonprofessional peoples, but to transform the country. Therefore, there are sectors that are seeking to undermine or make sure that the Constituent Assembly fails.
The enemies of this deep structural transformation that we're pursuing, some of them have entered, are members of the Constituent Assembly, and they've been working from the very beginning, when the Constituent Assembly started on 6th of August, 2006, to undermine the process through the demand for two-thirds, the demand for autonomy, and now the demand to move the capital of the country.
This issue of where the capital is going to be located is not a national issue. It’s not a problem for the government. It’s an issue for just two departments. And there are families that don't love their country and who are not working for the majorities, who are working for those people who have not been respected, the indigenous majorities, they're talking about where the capital is going to be located as a tool to shut down the Constituent Assembly.
But what are we working for? What are we betting on? First, as the government and also as the indigenous movement, to make sure that the Constituent Assembly concludes successfully. It’s the best way to find unity, equality and justice, to forge that in my country.
And I would like to remember the words of a businessman, actually, from Bolivia. What did he say before the Constituent Assembly? “I’d rather have rocks in my door than bullets.” What does that mean? That I would rather have these sorts of popular demonstrations and protests happening than a civil war, a fighting war with bullets.
And now, so that we have neither the protests nor the shooting war with bullets, we're pursuing this deep structural transformation through a democratic process, which is the Constituent Assembly. How are we doing this? Through the creation of writing a new constitution for the country.
Of course, it’s going to be difficult to have equality, but to make those differences between people smaller is possible. Early in the process, only weeks into the process, they said that Evo Morales was not going to respect private property. That was another attack, another attempt to undermine and cause the Constituent Assembly to fail. With the powerful people above, what we're trying to do is lift up the people, the humble people, from below, through using the strategic natural resources that we have to put them on a more equal footing.
And the other thing that they can't accept is, how is it that what they call the Indians, that they feel for the country and they're working for their people and that this Indian is governing well? This is something they can't tolerate. Two facts: the last time that Bolivia had a budget surplus was in the 1960s during a boom, a tin boom, and we've been over sixty years always with a fiscal deficit. Last year, for the first time, in my first year of government, we have a budget surplus, and Bolivia's international reserves never were more than $1 billion. And this year we're approaching $5 billion in international reserves. And the modification of the hydrocarbons gas and oil law, which cost us blood, thereafter the nationalization of gas and oil, has allowed Bolivia to improve our revenues, the revenues for the country. An example: in 2005, Bolivia only received $300 million -- $300 million in 2005 in revenues from state gas and oil, and this year we're going to be receiving more than $2 billion in revenues from gas and oil. And this is something they can't accept.
A political class, for them, government was business. It was enrichment. What they can't accept is that our corruption in Bolivia has been declining. In the past, Bolivia was considered in the number two position in terms of the championship for the most corrupt country. Many international institutions have recognized that corruption is on the decline in Bolivia. And what these groups don't accept is that this -- what they call an “Indian” can change Bolivia, bring dignity to Bolivia.
And in this situation, some sectors are talking about the re-election of Evo Morales, and so this is something that would have to be become constitutionally permitted. But what do the right, the neoliberal, the opposition, say to this? And they say we can negotiate anything, but not the re-election of this Indian. This is the problem. It's not a problem of where the capital of the country is located. And, of course, they never liked groups like the ones that you make reference to that will travel from Santa Cruz to Sucre to agitate, to stir up these issues.
AMY GOODMAN: Bolivian President Evo Morales. We'll return to the conclusion, where he talks about the war in Iraq and the legacy of Che Guevara. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our conversation with the Bolivian President Evo Morales. The Bolivian Supreme Court recently asked the government to start extradition proceedings for the former Bolivian President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, who lives here in the United States in Miami. They also asked for an order for him not to be allowed to go to another country, but to be sent back to Bolivia. I asked President Morales what the former president is guilty of and whether he thinks the United States will extradite him.
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] First of all, the United States cannot, should not receive, protect delinquents from any part of the world. It is unconscionable that the United States, a democratic country, would be protecting international criminals like Posada Carriles. The process has to do with two issues: first of all, human rights, and second of all, for economic damages done to the state. So people who massacre peoples, that violate human rights and do economic damage to countries and their economies have to go to jail. The United States shouldn't be sitting there waiting for a process to be put into motion, but rather should kick these people out so that they can be submitted to justice.
I hope the United States respects these norms and respects the decision of our Supreme Court. But here, we have an experience. The last military dictator was sent to jail. And since that time, in Bolivia, no member of the military dares to threaten a coup d’etat. Likewise, any democratic government that violates human rights, that massacres people or that does economic damage to the state should also be subject to these sorts of processes, and their leaders should be put in jail, so that they never dare to do it again either.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you said a few moments ago that you'd rather have protesters throwing rocks than using guns. In a few weeks, it will be the fortieth anniversary of the death of Che Guevara. He died in Bolivia. Looking back at it -- you were a child then -- what is your sense of the legacy of Che Guevara to the people of Latin America?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] First of all, in the ’40s, in the ’50s, in the ’60s -- of course, when I hadn’t been born yet -- my first perception was that people rose up in arms to struggle against the empire. Now, I see quite the opposite, that it’s the empire that’s raising up arms against the peoples. What I think is that back then, that the peoples, they got organized and struggled, looking for justice, for equality. And now I think that these transformations, these structural transformations, are being forged through democracies.
And from these two points of view, Che Guevara continues to be a symbol of someone who gave his life for the peoples, when in Bolivia and in other countries around the world reigned military dictatorships. So that's why it's amazing to see that all over the world Che Guevara is still there, forty years later. But now, we're living in other times. But to value and recognize that thinking, that struggle, and if we recognize and we value it, that doesn't mean it means to mechanically follow the steps that he took in terms of military uprising.
And that’s where, for example, I respect Fidel Castro. In 2003, I was invited to a conference in Havana, Cuba. And Fidel said the following: “Don't do what I’ve done. Do what Chavez is doing: transformations through a constituent assembly.” I think it was a good teaching, because we've seen the constituent assemblies in Venezuela, in Ecuador and now in Bolivia, as well, that through democracy we can achieve structural transformations.
AMY GOODMAN: What is the effect of the war on Iraq in Latin America, in Bolivia, in particular?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] There is a feeling that leads to the rejection, the repudiation of the United States government. This intervention of the United States in Iraq helps anti-imperialist thinking and feeling to grow. The pretext of fighting against terrorism and for security, with this pretext, they intervene and create all these deaths. But there are also other issues, economic issues, underlying it. I feel that we're in a times of not looking to how to extinguish lives, but rather how to save lives.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you about the issue of global warming. It's become a major increasing discussion in many governments and around the world. From the perspective of the indigenous people of Bolivia, the future of the planet? And what policies must be adopted, especially by the industrialized countries?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] So if globalization does not admit difference and pluralism, if it’s a selective globalization, therefore it will be almost impossible to resolve environmental issues and save humanity. The most important contribution that indigenous peoples can make is to live in harmony with Mother Earth. We say the “Mother Earth,” because the earth gives us life, and neither the Mother Earth nor life can be a commodity. So we're talking about a profound change in the economic models and systems.
AMY GOODMAN: Several years ago, Father Roy Bourgeois and others who founded the anti-School of the Americas movement at Fort Benning, Georgia, asked that -- came and visited you in the palace and asked that Bolivia not send soldiers to train at the -- what used to be called the School of the Americas, a place where Banzer, the dictator, had trained. Other countries are considering this ban. I think Venezuela, Argentina, Uruguay, Costa Rica have said they won't send soldiers. Will Bolivia?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] So, it's not just a question of not sending people. Perhaps it would be better to shut the School of the Americas. But I understand it’s also part of the survival and continuation of [inaudible] and to create a certain interventionist mindset.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you perhaps a delicate question. You mentioned earlier your admiration for Fidel Castro. Fidel, before he stepped down, had been president for more than forty years, before he stepped down from day-to-day administration in the Cuban government. President Chavez now has been in office for two terms and is seeking to change the law to maintain himself in office. Do you think that the leader of a country, no matter how progressive, should have a limited amount of time in power?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] To put those kinds of limits may not be the most democratic. Here, what’s important is the conscience of a people. And so, our proposal, there has to be a way to revoke leadership roles, but also to ratify leadership, and this is for mayors, for governors, for regional leaders, as well as for presidents. If they have the support of the people, then they have every right to be ratified in power. And mayors, governors and presidents, they can also be revoked, their mandates can be revoked before they finish their terms, if that’s the will of the people. In fact, I’m seeing at this point that, through ratifying and returning people to power, it actually becomes an incentive for them to do a good -- and continue to do a good and better job in their municipalities at the departmental levels in the positions that they hold, because the people have valued their work, and that's why they're ratified. But when they are not ratified, they take advantage of that fact, and they say, “OK, I’m on my way out the door, so now is the time to steal, as my mandate is ending.”
AMY GOODMAN: What is your assessment of President Bush?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Why would I have to evaluate President Bush? I respect your country. One concern that I have is that in Iran -- in Iraq, the massacre of the people cannot continue. I think that this is something that not only affects President Bush, but affects all the North American people. I think that in this new millennium, we fundamentally should be oriented towards saving lives and not ending lives. The differences continentally between countries, between regions, these should be discussed. And if there’s not agreements between governments and their presidents, why not submit these issues to the peoples to be decided upon? This would be the best way to do democracy now.
AMY GOODMAN: Bolivian President Evo Morales. He speaks today to the UN General Assembly.
===========================================================================
This is an interview with Jon Stewart:
Friday, September 28, 2007
嫁鸡随鸡
(One of my first column articles... they actually truncated this piece into a shorter version for print... Here is the original version, I guess.)
我的好朋友打电话来闲聊，向我透露她和男友已经开始筹备婚事了，准备年底注册结婚，只不过有两件事一直困扰着她。第一，由于某些日期安排上的问题，因此或许没有办法在注册的同天举行婚宴。朋友认为多数人现在都选择先注册再结婚，一点都不浪漫，而且她认为这种对于婚姻务实的态度 (许多人先注册是因为房子已经排到了) 亵渎了神圣的婚姻。虽然朋友声称她有此想法是因为不想随波逐流，不过我却认为这只不过是女人的浪漫虚荣心在作祟罢了。然后，我问朋友第二个困扰她的事是什么。
“哦，因为今年是鸡年，根据民间说法是寡妇年，就算不一定会成为寡妇，不过婚姻会受到影响而不美满，所以不宜结婚。” 朋友担心地说。
我听了简直无法相信自己的耳朵，还险些从椅子上掉下来。
如果我那位好朋友是好像我母亲那一辈的人，在没有接受过教育的环境下长大，因此很难摆脱迷信思想，那就算了。不过，我朋友却是受过高深教育的专业人士，成绩在大学时还相当优秀，可以算是所谓的现代独立新女性，怎么也会逃不出迷信思想的魔掌呢？我们的教育制度不是以能够培育拥有批判性思维 (critical thinking) 的学生而自豪吗？这是怎么一回事呢？
或许我对教育制度的指责过于苛刻了。毕竟迷信心理是因为人类思维模式的先天缺陷而造成的。除非很努力地训练自己纠正这种先天的思维缺陷，多数人正常的思维模式都偏向迷信。然而，这并不代表我们无法抵抗这种思维缺陷。曾经有研究显示，凡是对统计学 (statistics) 稍微有些认识的人，大致上都不会轻易陷入迷信的陷阱。或者，要是对科学原则稍微有了解的话也有所帮助。当然，我所指的科学原则，并非中学时期老师填鸭子般地塞入我们脑子里的科学知识 (scientific knowledge) ，而是教导人们如何判别世事真伪的指导原则的科学原则 (scientific principles) 。我没有记错的话，本人也是在大学时通过课外阅读才得知有关这方面的知识。嗯，我实在太喜欢本岛的教育制度了。
回来说我的朋友吧。她认为自己如果同天注册和摆婚宴，就不会显得自己和大众随波逐流了。然而，难道她这种因为报章里某无聊的民俗学家或者命理神棍说鸡年不适合结婚就考虑挪后婚期的行为，不也是盲从吗？况且，她不觉得这种迷信的行为是对彼此的一种侮辱吗？一段婚姻要维持，必须考双方的付出、对责任的承担，以及彼此谅解的沟通。如果最后婚姻美满而归功于选对了黄道吉日，不是间接漠视彼此之间的努力吗？如果最后婚姻失败而归咎于选错时辰，那不是一种逃避责任的行为吗？
朋友被我的话逼得有些哑口无言后，只好说：“哎呀，宁可信其有嘛。”
据我所知，朋友若延迟婚期，将会对两人造成相当大的不便。有时候这种 “宁可信其有” 的心态并非毫无所谓，而是得付出很大的代价。或许我举另一个的例子吧。有个家长认为她的儿子如果在考试前夕诚心地向神明祈祷，就可以考到非常好的成绩。这位小孩因为要祈祷而没有足够的时间温习课本，结果考试就考得一团糟。这可不是我随便捏造出来的例子，而是曾经真实发生在我朋友身上的事。这个世界没有所谓的免费午餐，就连 “宁可信其有” 这种心态也不会有。
再回来说我那个朋友吧。她相信两性平等，并且性格独立，如果受到不公的待遇，一定会全力替自己争取应有的权利。如果有任何人在她面前说出 “嫁鸡随鸡” 这种既大男人又封建的主义，不给她骂得狗血淋头才怪。说得也是，我们的社会好不容易才渐渐把这种不合理的思想摈除，迈向开明的思想。然而，为什么我们在面对迷信思想时也不能取得同样的成果呢？不要因为是过去老祖宗相信的东西，我们就一定得相信。不要因为是哪份报章登的东西，就一定是真理。如果脑袋永远不开明，永远无法拥有尖锐的批判思维，那么我们永远都会被这种类似 “嫁鸡随鸡” 的思想牵绊吧。
虽然鸡会看到日出而不由自主地啼叫，不过我们不需要听到不合逻辑的迷信思想时发出共鸣。
Overhyped Acupuncture Claims
A lot of my friends who believe in Traditional Chinese Medicine would always cite the effectiveness of acupuncture in their claims that TCM works. Despite the fact that previous studies on acupuncture shows weak evidence at best. Despite the fact that the concept of "qi" is not unlike the concept of elan vital in the medieval times. Despite the fact that a lot of studies have shown that TCM treatments (or any other types of alternative treatments) yielded no better results than placebo controls.
Below are two reports I found on the internet (here for the first article) and (here for the second article) that reports on how the media hypes up the effectiveness of acupuncture.
=====================================================================
Yawn...another overhyped acupuncture study
By Orac
===============================================================================
Does Acupuncture Work or Not?
Published by Steven Novella under Science and Medicine
Comments: 17
Acupuncture is a complex “alternative” modality because something physical is actually happening - thin needles are being stuck through the skin and manipulated. So it is therefore not impossible that a physiological response is happening. It is much easier to comment on things like homeopathy and therapeutic touch where literally nothing physical is happening and the plausibility for any benefit is therefore zero. So if I try to answer the question in my title, much explanation and qualifications are required. To answer this question - does acupuncture work? - my current best answer based upon available evidence is a qualified no. This answer is not changed by the most recent study of acupuncture that is being touted by the press as evidence that acupuncture works. (Here is the original study, but a subscription is required.)
Let’s first look at this study, which was a German study of acupuncture for back pain. Dr. Heinz Endres studied 1,100 randomized patients with three treatment arms. The first received standard therapy - massage, anti-inflammatories, and heating pads. The second received acupuncture, and the third received sham acupuncture where the needles were inserted but not deeply, and not manipulated, and not in traditional acupuncture points. The study found 47% improvement in the acupuncture group, 44% in the sham acupuncture, and 27% in the standard therapy group after 6 months.
This single study, even taken just by itself, falls far short of demonstrating that acupuncture works. And of course we have to place it in the context of plausibility and the entire acupuncture literature. We also have to identify appropriate sub-questions.
First let us consider the difference between “real” acupuncture and “sham” acupuncture. Acupuncture is based upon the ancient and superstitious pre-scientific notion that there are lines of mysterious life energy (chi) flowing through our bodies, and that the flow of this energy is responsible for health and illness. Acupuncture is supposed to free up blockages in the flow of chi energy. I grant this idea a scientific plausibility of zero - meaning we can safely discard it.
What does the evidence show for the chi theory of acupuncture? The evidence is overwhelmingly negative, and this study supports this negative consensus. Most well-designed studies that compare traditional and sham acupuncture show no difference between the groups. In this study the two groups were 47% and 44% respectively. This means that it does not matter where you put the needles or if you manipulate them in any way - that’s because there are no lines of flowing chi.
It’s interesting that no headlines declare from this data that the study shows chi does not exist, or that traditional acupuncture is a “sham.” (Hey, I like that - someone should use it.)
This means that all claims for acupuncture that rely upon the notion of chi - including all claims for so-called “medical” acupuncture, are without a theoretical basis and are refuted by empirical evidence. So acupuncture won’t cure cancer.
But this still leaves the semi-plausible claim that sticking needles in random locations in the body may provoke a physiological response that is helpful in the symptomatic management of certain chronic syndromes that involve pain, nausea, headaches, or similar symptoms. For this much more narrow claim my current answer is still a tentative no, acupuncture does not work (at least the evidence is not sufficient for me to prescribe it) but I am willing to be convinced by better evidence.
I do not find this study or studies like it convincing for a number of reasons. First, there is the obvious problem that the standard therapy group knew they were not getting acupuncture, so they were not blinded.
The second big problem with this study is that back pain is a complex and hard to treat entity. It may be caused by arthritic pain, inflammation, muscle tightness, soft tissue pain, and nerve pain, or any combination of these factors. So it is very heterogenous, and that is a bad thing for clinical trials. But more importantly, I am not convinced that the standard therapy group was adequate, primarily because 27% improvement seems low. Other studies have shown that as many as 65% of patients with chronic low back pain will improve within 12 weeks. This low response rate to the standard therapy opens the door to a placebo effect in the sham and traditional acupuncture groups, and that may be enough to explain the effect size we are seeing in this study.
Further, more is happening on the acupuncture table than just the needles. Subjects are encourage to relax, often with music and incense to enhance the environment. Often the acupuncture points are palpated prior to needle insertion, and this can serve as a form of gentle massage. In fact an acupuncturist once confided in me that he thought everything leading up to the needle insertion was more important to the symptomatic benefit than the needles. All of this introduces other variables that interfere with our ability to conclude that the needles introduce any physiological benefit.
Conclusion and Recommendations
At this time I think we can say that the theoretical basis of traditional acupuncture, namely chi, can be discarded. We can also confidently conclude on the weight of the literature that needle placement based upon traditional Chinese diagnostic methods and the notion of chi has been proven false. It doesn’t matter where you stick the needles. I think we can also dispose of any claims for medical acupuncture - using acupuncture to cure disease rather than treat symptoms. The evidence for acupuncture and smoking cessation is also sufficient to abandon this as a viable treatment.
What we are left with is using needle insertion for symptomatic treatment of various pain syndromes and perhaps nausea. I think it is important to dispense with the superstitious nonsense that still surrounds acupuncture so we can focus on these remaining questions. Is there any benefit to acupuncture above the placebo effect? Is the needle insertion a necessary component of the acupuncture treatment? (So far I find the evidence unconvincing on these questions.) If it does work, what is the underlying physiological mechanism and are their easier and less invasive ways to exploit it?
Acupuncture must free itself from its superstitious roots to more effectively address these questions, to be taken seriously, and to avoid the chronic problem of CAM where positive findings in a very narrow area are used to justify a large system of pseudoscience. In other words, evidence that perhaps acupuncture may help back pain is used to justify using it for everything, including cancer. The link must be broken.
Meanwhile, what is the next step in addressing the questions above. Study design in acupuncture has been improving, but is not yet sufficient to eliminate the placebo effect and other variables as being responsible for the inconsistent positive effects that have been seen. What we need are truly double blind tests - and not between traditional acupuncture and sham acupuncture (as I said, that ship has sailed) but between any acupuncture and no acupuncture.
Here is a suggestion. We need to develop an experimental acupuncture needle that is housed in an opaque rigid sheath. This has been done with glass sheaths in some studies because when pressing the sheath against the skin the subject cannot tell if a needle is inserted or not (because of limitations in what we call two-point discrimination - the nerves cannot separate the stimuli). This is a good idea to blind the subject, but now we must take it a step further to blind the acupuncturist. Modify this setup so that a plunger is depressed that either will or will not insert a needle into the subject, in a way so that the subject and the acupuncturist cannot know if a needle was inserted. What this will accomplish is to truly isolate the variable of needle insertion.
So far what we have seen in the acupuncture literature amounts to noise (see my earlier post on how to interpret the literature). To rise above these we need better studies. And more importantly the acupuncture community (and the media) needs to stop using narrow scientific evidence to support broad pseudoscientific claims.
Below are two reports I found on the internet (here for the first article) and (here for the second article) that reports on how the media hypes up the effectiveness of acupuncture.
=====================================================================
Yawn...another overhyped acupuncture study
By Orac
Never let it be said that Orac doesn't give the people what they want.
Well, most of the time, anyway.
What I'm referring to is a recent German study about acupuncture for low back pain that's been making its way around the media. I had actually been planning on commenting about it yesterday, but Iranian President (and Holocaust denier) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia University intervened and took me on one of my occasional diversions away from science and medicine into the history of the Holocaust, Holocaust denial, and politics. In just that two day interval, I've been deluged with e-mail about this particular study (well, I did get several, anyway), making me think that I'd better answer the call and give my readers what they want.
What's most annoying about this study is not so much the study itself but rather how it's being represented. For example, look at these headlines:
- Acupuncture Tops Conventional Therapy for Low-Back Pain (this is perhaps the worst of the lot)
- Needles 'are best for back pain'
Not surprisingly, these stories completely miss the point.
For example, here's what the BBC (which really should know better) says:
Acupuncture - real or sham - is more effective at treating back pain than conventional therapies, research suggests.A German team found almost half the patients treated with acupuncture felt pain relief.
But the Archives of Internal Medicine study also suggests fake acupuncture works nearly as well as the real thing.
In contrast, only about a quarter who received drugs and other Western therapies felt better.
The researchers, from the Ruhr University Bochum, say their findings suggest that the body may react positively to any thin needle prick - or that acupuncture may simply trigger a placebo effect.
One theory is that pain messages to the brain can be blocked by competing stimuli.
Researcher Dr Heinz Endres said: "Acupuncture represents a highly promising and effective treatment option for chronic back pain.
Here's what MedPage Today (which really, really should know better) said:
BOCHUM, Germany, Sept. 24 -- Acupuncture offers an effective alternative to conventional therapy for low-back pain, investigators here reported.Almost twice as many patients responded to acupuncture versus conventional therapy, Heinz G. Endres, M.D., of Ruhr-University Bochum, and colleagues, reported in the Sept. 24 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.
However, sham acupuncture worked just as well as verum, or true, acupuncture, they reported.
"Acupuncture constitutes a strong alternative to multimodal conventional therapy," the authors concluded. "Acupuncture gives physicians a promising and effective treatment option for chronic low-back pain, with few adverse effects or contraindications."
Notice how both articles completely gloss over a key observation: That "sham" acupuncture was seemingly just as effective as "real" acupuncture. Why is this important? Remember that acupuncture as a discipline claims that the insertion of needles in specific points in the body can relieve pain and have therapeutic effect. These points on the body are known as "meridians" and placing needles into these meridians is claimed to "unblock" or restore the "flow" of qi or the "life force." Never mind that there is no anatomic or physiologic basis for meridians, nor can ;em>qi be detected or measured, much less any change in the flow of qi due to sticking thin needles into specific points on the skin. "Sham" acupuncture, which, as I've discussed before, is an absolutely necessary control in any serious clinical trials to test acupuncture, is the placement of needles in locations other than the correct meridians.
So why is this key observation that sham acupuncture is as effective as acupuncture? Simple! The fact that it doesn't matter where the needles are placed is clear evidence that the entire "theoretical" underpinning of traditional Chinese medicine underlying acupuncture is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys. If it doesn't matter where needles are placed, then, as expected, meridians have no anatomical or physiological meaning. As Ben Goldacre put it:
But even more interestingly, the pretend acupuncture group, where they just bunged needles in any old place with a bit of ceremony, did just as well as the people having proper, posh, theatrical, genuine acupuncture.
In other words, if sticking needles into the skin has any effect on low back pain, it is not due to any magic--like qi. It has to be due to a physiological mechanism that good, old-fashioned, materialistic reductionist science can work out if given sufficient time and resources. In fact, it seems inappropriate even to call this acupuncture, because it doesn't at all depend on the traditional Chinese medicine concepts that underlie acupuncture. Of course, only some news reports are emphasizing this point properly. Instead, what we are treated with are truly silly statements like this:
Dr James Young, of Chicago's Rush University, said: "We don't understand the mechanisms of these so-called alternative treatments, but that doesn't mean they don't work."
It doesn't mean that they do "work" either. This study is weak evidence at best supporting a therapeutic effect due to sticking needles into the skin in terms of reducing the pain from chronic low back conditions. Let's take a look. Here's the abstract:
Background To our knowledge, verum acupuncture has never been directly compared with sham acupuncture and guideline-based conventional therapy in patients with chronic low back pain.Methods A patient- and observer-blinded randomized controlled trial conducted in Germany involving 340 outpatient practices, including 1162 patients aged 18 to 86 years (mean ± SD age, 50 ± 15 years) with a history of chronic low back pain for a mean of 8 years. Patients underwent ten 30-minute sessions, generally 2 sessions per week, of verum acupuncture (n = 387) according to principles of traditional Chinese medicine; sham acupuncture (n = 387) consisting of superficial needling at nonacupuncture points; or conventional therapy, a combination of drugs, physical therapy, and exercise (n = 388). Five additional sessions were offered to patients who had a partial response to treatment (10%-50% reduction in pain intensity). Primary outcome was response after 6 months, defined as 33% improvement or better on 3 pain-related items on the Von Korff Chronic Pain Grade Scale questionnaire or 12% improvement or better on the back-specific Hanover Functional Ability Questionnaire. Patients who were unblinded or had recourse to other than permitted concomitant therapies during follow-up were classified as nonresponders regardless of symptom improvement.
Results At 6 months, response rate was 47.6% in the verum acupuncture group, 44.2% in the sham acupuncture group, and 27.4% in the conventional therapy group. Differences among groups were as follows: verum vs sham, 3.4% (95% confidence interval, -3.7% to 10.3%; P = .39); verum vs conventional therapy, 20.2% (95% confidence interval, 13.4% to 26.7%; P < .001); and sham vs conventional therapy, 16.8% (95% confidence interval, 10.1% to 23.4%; P < .001.
Conclusions Low back pain improved after acupuncture treatment for at least 6 months. Effectiveness of acupuncture, either verum or sham, was almost twice that of conventional therapy.
As in all studies, particularly studies of alternative medicine modalities, pay very close attention to the inclusion and exclusion criteria:
Main inclusion criteria were as follows: age 18 years or older, clinical diagnosis of chronic low back pain for 6 months or longer, mean Von Korff Chronic Pain Grade score7 of grade 1 or higher and a Hanover Functional Ability Questionnaire score of less than 70%, no previous acupuncture for treatment of chronic low back pain, and signed informed consent. Primary exclusion criteria were previous spinal surgery; previous spinal fractures, infectious, or tumorous spondylopathy; and chronic pain caused by other diseases.
One point that leaps right off the page is that the patient population studied had had chronic low back pain for at least 6 months and, based on that duration and the patients' willingness to try acupuncture, we can reasonably infer that their pain probably wasn't responding particularly well to conventional therapy. This makes it unsurprising that the reported response rate in the standard therapy group was so low, given that it was just getting more of the same treatment. Other exclusion criteria included sciatica from other disease, infections, abuse of pain medication. In other words, none of the patients in the study had a clear, anatomic cause for their pain that could be corrected. I must emphasize that this in no way means that their pain isn't real; much if not most back pain doesn't reveal an obvious anatomical cause. What it does say is that, if you have chronic back pain that's due to a herniated disc, spondylosis, an injury causing a fracture (even if that fracture healed) a systemic disorder like rheumatoid arthritis, or other anatomic or physiologic causes that can be detected by radiological studies or other objective tests, the results of this study do not apply to you, at least not very well, anyway. (Remember my recent post about evidence-based guidelines and how guidelines based on evidence from studies that didn't study a relevant population are less reliable?) From my perspective, then, you'd be better off using surgery or other conventional, evidence-based therapies. And that's a big point right off the bat that you won't find in any of the news reports.
Then, there's a real question about the blinding in this study. Obviously, the patients in the conventional group knew what they were getting. Among the two groups of acupuncture patients, the "real" acupuncture were inserted 5 to 40 mm (yikes--40 mm = 1.57 inches!), while "sham" acupuncture needles were inserted only 3 mm. The outcome measures are also a bit dicey, as the response rate was defined without much justification as 33% improvement or better on 3 pain-related items on the Von Korff Chronic Pain Grade Scale or a 12% improvement or better on back-specific functional status measured by the Hanover Functional Ability Questionnaire and measured at 1.5, 3, and 6 months. Moreover, there is a group of patients who were excluded from the analysis for using "proscribed" treatments (for the acupuncture group, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs for no more than two days a week; for the "conventional therapy" group, not well specified). As described in Pyjamas in Bananas:
But more intriguing is the requirement that no proscribed therapy be used, or the patient is then assigned to the unresponsive category.The initial figures are 58%, 68%, and 71% responders for conventional, sham, and verum acupuncture respectively. Yet, once those who took "proscribed" treatments (we are not clearly told what these "proscribed treatments" might be for conventional therapy, for acupuncture it is anything other than rescue treatment for acute episodes of pain with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to be taken on no more than two days per week up to the maximum daily dose during the therapy period and only one day per week during follow-up) are classed as non-responders, and those who missed the 6 month assessment, these figures were 27%, 44%, and 47%.
Since failure to attend follow-up was 6%, 3%, 3%, this suggests a whopping quarter of all patients were classified as non-responders for using proscribed therapies. Now given the generous allowance of painkillers allowed to the acupuncture groups we might think this is just fine since their acupuncture clearly wasn't working for them, but what were the conventional therapy subjects being excluded for?
The bottom line appears to be:
So what we have here is a study comparing sticking needles into patients versus conventional therapy (presumably delivered by the same doctors) where only the interviewers (assessing outcome) were blinded, and where somehow, only half of patients were given analgesics in the conventional therapy group, where the acupuncture therapy group were allowed analgesics two days a week, and where half of conventional therapy responders were excluded for having 'proscribed' treatment that is never defined or quantified.
This analysis looks as though it is based primarily on a close reading of Table 5 in the paper and appears to be correct, but it's even worse than that. These excluded patients were moved to the "nonresponder" group. After correcting for the use of "proscribed" treatments, over 50% of responders to conventional therapy were moved to the nonresponder group, whereas only around 35% of responders from the sham acupuncture and 33% of responders to acupuncture were moved to the nonresponder group. At the very least, this certainly accentuated the difference between the conventional therapy group and the acupuncture groups, which were not so large in the first analysis, making a relatively small difference into a large difference. What should have been done is that these patients using "proscribed" treatments should have been excluded from the analysis altogether, rather than moved to the "nonresponder" group.
That all puts a rather different spin on the whole study that the media reports don't tell you about, doesn't it?
When I first read about this study and scanned the abstract the other day, I started out rather impressed. True, the study definitely did not support the theoretical framework that is claimed to support acupuncture as a discipline, but it did seem to indicate that sticking 14-20 needles in the skin could relieve low back pain better than conventional therapy. After a careful reading I'm not so sure that this is true anymore or that this isn't just another example of how elaborate procedures and rituals can produce strong placebo effects.
At least the study results forced the authors to admit this much:
The comparison of sham vs verum acupuncture was intended to differentiate the physiologic (specific) from the psychologic (nonspecific) effects of acupuncture. Among the nonspecific effects for both forms of acupuncture are positive patient expectations about acupuncture paired with negative expectations about conventional medicine, more intensive physician contact, and the experience of an invasive technique (needling). Given that the 2 forms of acupuncture are indistinguishable to the patient, any differences in outcomes between the 2 forms must be attributable to specific treatment effects. However, the 2 forms did not differ insofar as the primary outcome. This cannot be explained solely by positing the existence of additional,previously unknown acupuncture points or regions because in the sham acupuncture, needles were inserted only very shallowly and without elicitation of Qi. Several other hypotheses must be considered instead: (1) there are no specific acupuncture effects at all; (2) the specific acupuncture effect is very small and is overlaid by nonspecific effects; and (3) there exist specific acupuncture effects, the nature of which is still unknown,that lead to symptom improvement independent of point selection and depth of needling.
Or you could conclude that the whole concept of meridians and qi is a crock.
I've said before that I'm not as hostile to acupuncture as I am to woo like homeopathy. This is because there may well be physiological explanation for any effects observed, where such cannot be true for homeopathy, which is nothing more than the administration of water or other diluent with no active ingredient. That being said, this article is not nearly as strong evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture to treat low back pain as it has been made out to be in the press, while it is a very strong piece of evidence against concepts underlying traditional Chinese medicine.
===============================================================================
Does Acupuncture Work or Not?
Published by Steven Novella under Science and Medicine
Comments: 17
Acupuncture is a complex “alternative” modality because something physical is actually happening - thin needles are being stuck through the skin and manipulated. So it is therefore not impossible that a physiological response is happening. It is much easier to comment on things like homeopathy and therapeutic touch where literally nothing physical is happening and the plausibility for any benefit is therefore zero. So if I try to answer the question in my title, much explanation and qualifications are required. To answer this question - does acupuncture work? - my current best answer based upon available evidence is a qualified no. This answer is not changed by the most recent study of acupuncture that is being touted by the press as evidence that acupuncture works. (Here is the original study, but a subscription is required.)
Let’s first look at this study, which was a German study of acupuncture for back pain. Dr. Heinz Endres studied 1,100 randomized patients with three treatment arms. The first received standard therapy - massage, anti-inflammatories, and heating pads. The second received acupuncture, and the third received sham acupuncture where the needles were inserted but not deeply, and not manipulated, and not in traditional acupuncture points. The study found 47% improvement in the acupuncture group, 44% in the sham acupuncture, and 27% in the standard therapy group after 6 months.
This single study, even taken just by itself, falls far short of demonstrating that acupuncture works. And of course we have to place it in the context of plausibility and the entire acupuncture literature. We also have to identify appropriate sub-questions.
First let us consider the difference between “real” acupuncture and “sham” acupuncture. Acupuncture is based upon the ancient and superstitious pre-scientific notion that there are lines of mysterious life energy (chi) flowing through our bodies, and that the flow of this energy is responsible for health and illness. Acupuncture is supposed to free up blockages in the flow of chi energy. I grant this idea a scientific plausibility of zero - meaning we can safely discard it.
What does the evidence show for the chi theory of acupuncture? The evidence is overwhelmingly negative, and this study supports this negative consensus. Most well-designed studies that compare traditional and sham acupuncture show no difference between the groups. In this study the two groups were 47% and 44% respectively. This means that it does not matter where you put the needles or if you manipulate them in any way - that’s because there are no lines of flowing chi.
It’s interesting that no headlines declare from this data that the study shows chi does not exist, or that traditional acupuncture is a “sham.” (Hey, I like that - someone should use it.)
This means that all claims for acupuncture that rely upon the notion of chi - including all claims for so-called “medical” acupuncture, are without a theoretical basis and are refuted by empirical evidence. So acupuncture won’t cure cancer.
But this still leaves the semi-plausible claim that sticking needles in random locations in the body may provoke a physiological response that is helpful in the symptomatic management of certain chronic syndromes that involve pain, nausea, headaches, or similar symptoms. For this much more narrow claim my current answer is still a tentative no, acupuncture does not work (at least the evidence is not sufficient for me to prescribe it) but I am willing to be convinced by better evidence.
I do not find this study or studies like it convincing for a number of reasons. First, there is the obvious problem that the standard therapy group knew they were not getting acupuncture, so they were not blinded.
The second big problem with this study is that back pain is a complex and hard to treat entity. It may be caused by arthritic pain, inflammation, muscle tightness, soft tissue pain, and nerve pain, or any combination of these factors. So it is very heterogenous, and that is a bad thing for clinical trials. But more importantly, I am not convinced that the standard therapy group was adequate, primarily because 27% improvement seems low. Other studies have shown that as many as 65% of patients with chronic low back pain will improve within 12 weeks. This low response rate to the standard therapy opens the door to a placebo effect in the sham and traditional acupuncture groups, and that may be enough to explain the effect size we are seeing in this study.
Further, more is happening on the acupuncture table than just the needles. Subjects are encourage to relax, often with music and incense to enhance the environment. Often the acupuncture points are palpated prior to needle insertion, and this can serve as a form of gentle massage. In fact an acupuncturist once confided in me that he thought everything leading up to the needle insertion was more important to the symptomatic benefit than the needles. All of this introduces other variables that interfere with our ability to conclude that the needles introduce any physiological benefit.
Conclusion and Recommendations
At this time I think we can say that the theoretical basis of traditional acupuncture, namely chi, can be discarded. We can also confidently conclude on the weight of the literature that needle placement based upon traditional Chinese diagnostic methods and the notion of chi has been proven false. It doesn’t matter where you stick the needles. I think we can also dispose of any claims for medical acupuncture - using acupuncture to cure disease rather than treat symptoms. The evidence for acupuncture and smoking cessation is also sufficient to abandon this as a viable treatment.
What we are left with is using needle insertion for symptomatic treatment of various pain syndromes and perhaps nausea. I think it is important to dispense with the superstitious nonsense that still surrounds acupuncture so we can focus on these remaining questions. Is there any benefit to acupuncture above the placebo effect? Is the needle insertion a necessary component of the acupuncture treatment? (So far I find the evidence unconvincing on these questions.) If it does work, what is the underlying physiological mechanism and are their easier and less invasive ways to exploit it?
Acupuncture must free itself from its superstitious roots to more effectively address these questions, to be taken seriously, and to avoid the chronic problem of CAM where positive findings in a very narrow area are used to justify a large system of pseudoscience. In other words, evidence that perhaps acupuncture may help back pain is used to justify using it for everything, including cancer. The link must be broken.
Meanwhile, what is the next step in addressing the questions above. Study design in acupuncture has been improving, but is not yet sufficient to eliminate the placebo effect and other variables as being responsible for the inconsistent positive effects that have been seen. What we need are truly double blind tests - and not between traditional acupuncture and sham acupuncture (as I said, that ship has sailed) but between any acupuncture and no acupuncture.
Here is a suggestion. We need to develop an experimental acupuncture needle that is housed in an opaque rigid sheath. This has been done with glass sheaths in some studies because when pressing the sheath against the skin the subject cannot tell if a needle is inserted or not (because of limitations in what we call two-point discrimination - the nerves cannot separate the stimuli). This is a good idea to blind the subject, but now we must take it a step further to blind the acupuncturist. Modify this setup so that a plunger is depressed that either will or will not insert a needle into the subject, in a way so that the subject and the acupuncturist cannot know if a needle was inserted. What this will accomplish is to truly isolate the variable of needle insertion.
So far what we have seen in the acupuncture literature amounts to noise (see my earlier post on how to interpret the literature). To rise above these we need better studies. And more importantly the acupuncture community (and the media) needs to stop using narrow scientific evidence to support broad pseudoscientific claims.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
E-Waste
Next time you think of getting that computer or handphone upgrade, think whether it is absolutely necessary. Just because you don't have to deal with the discarded stuff doesn't mean others don't have to deal with it.
Richard Dawkins Talk, Lynchburg VA
This is a talk given by Richard Dawkins at the Randolph-Macon Woman's College in Lynchburg, Virginia, last year while he was making the tours for his book The God Delusion. While I would recommend reading the book, the points made by Dawkins in this talk does elucidate some of the points he makes in his books and also answers some criticisms from the religious right on his stance. This is quite a long lecture (1.5 hours long), as there were a lot of questions and answers. Notice there were a lot of students from Liberty University challenging Dawkins. Liberty University is a institution founded by the late repugnant and despicable Jerry Faldwell who wanted to meld religious fundamentalism into young people's mind. I liked Dawkin's rebuttal to a few of them, especially the one where he urges students from Liberty University to "go to a real university".
Part 1
Part 2
Part 1
Part 2
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Slavery by Globalisation
When I was home in Singapore during the summer, my father and I talked about the evils of globalisation. There was one story my father mentioned, where he had befriended a Chinese national who had came to Singapore to work as a contract worker as a janitor, and was told that he (the Chinese national, not my father) was duped into coming to Singapore with promises of good money and a better life. However, it turned out that while the money the Chinese national made in Singapore would have been good back home in Hainan Island, it was insufficient for him to live comfortably in Singapore. In fact, if you take spending power into account, he probably has a much lousier life in Singapore than at back home... and he couldn't do anything about it because he signed a contract and borrowed money trying to come to Singapore.
When I heard this story, I told that something was very wrong. Everywhere people (the corporation and the governments) was extolling the virtues of globalisation, but a lot of time I keep thinking that when certain people get rich under globalisation, it was at the expense of others who had no power to fight back, or who didn't know that they could fight back.
Below is a video clip of an interview by Jon Stewart on John Bowe, who recently published a book documenting the plight of foreign workers in United States not dissimilar to the Chinese national mentioned above.
When I heard this story, I told that something was very wrong. Everywhere people (the corporation and the governments) was extolling the virtues of globalisation, but a lot of time I keep thinking that when certain people get rich under globalisation, it was at the expense of others who had no power to fight back, or who didn't know that they could fight back.
Below is a video clip of an interview by Jon Stewart on John Bowe, who recently published a book documenting the plight of foreign workers in United States not dissimilar to the Chinese national mentioned above.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Friends of God Video Clip
This is a video clip from the documentary "Friends of God" that was shown on HBO in USA. I don't know about others, but I was flabbergasted, irritated and somewhat scared when I saw this video clip. This is really scary... how the religious right attempt to distort science and indoctrinate the young into their beliefs. Lest you dismiss this as something from the bible-belt in the USA, and it is not of a concern for Singaporeans, let me assure you that this problem of religious fundamentalism also exists in Singapore. Many a times I have been confronted by the religious for speaking on "evolution". And these people who confronted me were not uneducated people, but highly educated individuals from the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University. I am sorry, but these people are really detached from reality when they claimed that dinosaurs and human walked together......
Godspeed You Black Emperor! -- Dead Flag Blues
I have always thought that the music by Godspeed You Black Emperor! would make for a smashing soundtrack for any artsy video clips. Turns out that a lot of people out there agree with me. I found this one YouTube from a fan of GSYBE! who made a video montage of my favorite GSYBE! track, Dead Flag Blues. This is not the complete music track (the original music track is around 20 minutes long... YouTube only allows 10 minutes per video clip), so if you like what you hear, do try to find their music. You will not be disappointed.
Of Homosexuals and Religion and Singapore
Is it any surprising that religiosity is the biggest indicator of anti-homosexual views? I have always found it somewhat irony and even hypocritical that when you confront most people of faith, they claim that their religion teaches them to be tolerant, to be accepting, and to love their fellow men (and women), and yet when it comes to accepting someone who might be different from them in terms of sexual orientation, god forbids.
And I think I said it somewhere else, but I am saying it here again. Why is the government pandering to 'popular sentiments' and not revoking penal code 377A? I don't see them bowing to 'popular sentiments' (or unpopular sentiments) by lowering transport fees. I don't see them pandering to 'popular sentiment' by not increasing the ministers' pay packets. Oh, and I am sure when they disapprove of the use of Singlish, it was because not a lot of Singaporeans were using it. Geesh, I guess when you want to implement certain policies, you could either go with "but this is the popular view" or "hey, this is not the popular view, but we are doing this because we need to do it". My head is blowing up from the large gap in logic.
==============================================================
Sep 20, 2007 (Article From The Straits Times)
7 in 10 frown on homosexuality, NTU survey finds
People most likely to be anti-gay: The religious and those who conform to social norms
By Radha Basu
SEVEN in 10 people here frown on homosexuality, a Nanyang Technological University (NTU) study has found.
The study - which its authors claim is the first 'nationally representative' survey of its kind here - found two key predictors of sentiments here: how deeply religious a person was and how far he or she conformed to social norms.
The study by NTU's School of Communication and Information was published recently in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, which maps public opinion worldwide.
To gather the data, more than 1,000 people, profiled to resemble the national population, were asked six questions to gauge their attitudes towards lesbians and homosexuals.
For example, they were asked whether sex between two men or two women was 'plain wrong' and whether homosexuals or lesbians were 'disgusting'.
It was found that 68.6per cent of respondents 'generally held negative attitudes', 22.9per cent had positive attitudes and 8.5per cent were neutral.
Besides answering the questions, participants had to give their age, income, education level, gender and marital status. They also had to answer questions designed to gauge how religious they were and how strongly they felt about conforming to social norms.
Through statistical calculations, the study concluded that 'intrinsic religiosity' - viewing religion as the primary driving force in life - was the strongest predictor of anti-gay sentiment here.
On average, Christians and Muslims were seen to hold 'significantly more negative attitudes' than Buddhists or freethinkers.
Those who conformed to social norms also tended to view homosexuality more dimly.
Adherence to norms was assessed through questions such as whether one believed following family and social expectations was important.
Although gender did not influence attitudes much, two other demographic factors - marital status and age - did.
As in the West, most married people and older folk tended to hold a more negative view of homosexuality than those who were single or young, noted Associate Professor Benjamin Detenber, the principal researcher in the study.
But unlike in the West, where women tended to be more tolerant of gays than men, there was no major distinction here, said Prof Detenber.
The survey results did not surprise MP Sin Boon Ann, who heads the Government Parliamentary Committee for Community Development, Youth and Sports.
On granting more rights to homosexuals, he said: 'We are a conservative society and will not be trailblazers in this regard.'
He added that Singapore's public stand on the issue, including the recent move to continue regarding male homosexual sex as an offence, was a 'statement of values' rather than a 'statement of rights and obligations'.
The National Council of Churches here agreed, saying that the study confirmed Singapore society's inclination to 'uphold traditional and pro-family values'.
People's attitudes towards homosexuality here, said the council's general secretary Lim K Tham, may have been shaped by 'an upbringing influenced by religion and government policies that were family-centric'.
Whether the law that criminalises homosexual sex among men should be repealed was a matter of fierce debate in the recent review of the Penal Code.
The Government said that public feedback made it clear that the majority of people felt the law should stay.
Gay rights activist Alex Au said the lack of 'positive gay role models' could have led to anti-gay sentiments here.
However, he sees a definite softening in attitudes in the NTU findings.
Noting that a 2001 government survey showed that 85per cent found homosexuality 'unacceptable', he said: 'From 85per cent negative to 70per cent in a few years is a rapid change in attitudes.'
He conceded that the questions in the two surveys were different, but added: 'It's unlikely that lay respondents would concern themselves with such academic differences.'
And I think I said it somewhere else, but I am saying it here again. Why is the government pandering to 'popular sentiments' and not revoking penal code 377A? I don't see them bowing to 'popular sentiments' (or unpopular sentiments) by lowering transport fees. I don't see them pandering to 'popular sentiment' by not increasing the ministers' pay packets. Oh, and I am sure when they disapprove of the use of Singlish, it was because not a lot of Singaporeans were using it. Geesh, I guess when you want to implement certain policies, you could either go with "but this is the popular view" or "hey, this is not the popular view, but we are doing this because we need to do it". My head is blowing up from the large gap in logic.
==============================================================
Sep 20, 2007 (Article From The Straits Times)
7 in 10 frown on homosexuality, NTU survey finds
People most likely to be anti-gay: The religious and those who conform to social norms
By Radha Basu
SEVEN in 10 people here frown on homosexuality, a Nanyang Technological University (NTU) study has found.
The study - which its authors claim is the first 'nationally representative' survey of its kind here - found two key predictors of sentiments here: how deeply religious a person was and how far he or she conformed to social norms.
The study by NTU's School of Communication and Information was published recently in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, which maps public opinion worldwide.
To gather the data, more than 1,000 people, profiled to resemble the national population, were asked six questions to gauge their attitudes towards lesbians and homosexuals.
For example, they were asked whether sex between two men or two women was 'plain wrong' and whether homosexuals or lesbians were 'disgusting'.
It was found that 68.6per cent of respondents 'generally held negative attitudes', 22.9per cent had positive attitudes and 8.5per cent were neutral.
Besides answering the questions, participants had to give their age, income, education level, gender and marital status. They also had to answer questions designed to gauge how religious they were and how strongly they felt about conforming to social norms.
Through statistical calculations, the study concluded that 'intrinsic religiosity' - viewing religion as the primary driving force in life - was the strongest predictor of anti-gay sentiment here.
On average, Christians and Muslims were seen to hold 'significantly more negative attitudes' than Buddhists or freethinkers.
Those who conformed to social norms also tended to view homosexuality more dimly.
Adherence to norms was assessed through questions such as whether one believed following family and social expectations was important.
Although gender did not influence attitudes much, two other demographic factors - marital status and age - did.
As in the West, most married people and older folk tended to hold a more negative view of homosexuality than those who were single or young, noted Associate Professor Benjamin Detenber, the principal researcher in the study.
But unlike in the West, where women tended to be more tolerant of gays than men, there was no major distinction here, said Prof Detenber.
The survey results did not surprise MP Sin Boon Ann, who heads the Government Parliamentary Committee for Community Development, Youth and Sports.
On granting more rights to homosexuals, he said: 'We are a conservative society and will not be trailblazers in this regard.'
He added that Singapore's public stand on the issue, including the recent move to continue regarding male homosexual sex as an offence, was a 'statement of values' rather than a 'statement of rights and obligations'.
The National Council of Churches here agreed, saying that the study confirmed Singapore society's inclination to 'uphold traditional and pro-family values'.
People's attitudes towards homosexuality here, said the council's general secretary Lim K Tham, may have been shaped by 'an upbringing influenced by religion and government policies that were family-centric'.
Whether the law that criminalises homosexual sex among men should be repealed was a matter of fierce debate in the recent review of the Penal Code.
The Government said that public feedback made it clear that the majority of people felt the law should stay.
Gay rights activist Alex Au said the lack of 'positive gay role models' could have led to anti-gay sentiments here.
However, he sees a definite softening in attitudes in the NTU findings.
Noting that a 2001 government survey showed that 85per cent found homosexuality 'unacceptable', he said: 'From 85per cent negative to 70per cent in a few years is a rapid change in attitudes.'
He conceded that the questions in the two surveys were different, but added: 'It's unlikely that lay respondents would concern themselves with such academic differences.'
何勇 -- 垃圾场
《垃圾场》
我们生活的世界
就象一个垃圾场
人们就象虫子一样
在这里边你争我抢
吃的都是良心
拉的全是思想
你能看到 你不知道
你能看到 你不知道
我们生活的世界
就象一个垃圾场
只要你活着 你就不能停止幻想
有人减肥 有人饿死没粮
饿死没粮 饿死没粮 饿死没粮
有没有希望 有没有希望
有没有希望 有没有希望
我们生活的世界
就象一个垃圾场
人们就象虫子一样
在这里边你争我抢
吃的都是良心
拉的全是思想
你能看到 你不知道
你能看到 你不知道
我们生活的世界
就象一个垃圾场
只要你活着 你就不能停止幻想
有人减肥 有人饿死没粮
饿死没粮 饿死没粮 饿死没粮
有没有希望 有没有希望
有没有希望 有没有希望
Monday, September 24, 2007
陈升 -- 青鸟日记
认识我的人都知道，我非常喜欢陈升的歌。毕竟，我第一本小说集是他一首歌的歌名。如果说还会"崇拜偶像"的话，阿升应该是最接近这个category吧。
对于阿升的歌，经常听到的一个评语是：哎呀，他以前写的歌比较纯朴。到了北京一夜就变得太油了、太商业化了，而最近也没有写出什么好歌吧。我常有一个理论，就是这些人希望透过批评阿升来使得自己感觉有某种成就感。如果批评他，感觉自己就仿佛和阿升同一个等级了。对不起，你们这一辈子大概也无法写得出像他一样的歌曲吧，就连边都沾不到。如果你们把灵魂出卖给魔鬼，然后在某个深山的洞里修炼二十年，或许还有机会吧。
认为我的观点过于偏激？不如听听这首"青鸟日记"，阿升上一张专辑的歌。如果这首歌还没有办法感动你，或许这原本就不是你应该听的东西，还是回去听听那些偶像团体的罐头音乐吧。
对于阿升的歌，经常听到的一个评语是：哎呀，他以前写的歌比较纯朴。到了北京一夜就变得太油了、太商业化了，而最近也没有写出什么好歌吧。我常有一个理论，就是这些人希望透过批评阿升来使得自己感觉有某种成就感。如果批评他，感觉自己就仿佛和阿升同一个等级了。对不起，你们这一辈子大概也无法写得出像他一样的歌曲吧，就连边都沾不到。如果你们把灵魂出卖给魔鬼，然后在某个深山的洞里修炼二十年，或许还有机会吧。
认为我的观点过于偏激？不如听听这首"青鸟日记"，阿升上一张专辑的歌。如果这首歌还没有办法感动你，或许这原本就不是你应该听的东西，还是回去听听那些偶像团体的罐头音乐吧。
I Am Anti-ALL-Religions
A friend of mine who read this site commented to me that I was against a particular religion (guess which one?), and claims that I have an agenda against that particular religion as opposed to the others. This is not the case, as I dislike all types of religion and think that they should be deinstitutionalized. Reason being that I think religions are corrosive in nature and serves to amplify rather rein in the weakness that is human nature. We will be better served if humankind adopted more doubt and skepticism rather than blind faith.
Well, in order to illustrate that I am not just picking on one particular religion, I will post this ridiculous silly story that I found from BBC where religion again interferes with secular decisions. My point is: ALL RELIGIONS are corrosive, not just any particular ones. It just happens that my arrows hit that particular religion more than others because it is a large subset of this set called irrational beliefs, and hence the probability of it being hit is much larger.
============================================================================
Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn
The Indian government has withdrawn a controversial report submitted in court earlier this week which questioned the existence of the Hindu god Ram.
The report was withdrawn after huge protests by opposition parties.
The report was presented to the Supreme Court on Wednesday in connection with a case against a proposed shipping canal project between India and Sri Lanka.
Hindu hardliners say the project will destroy what they say is a bridge built by Ram and his army of monkeys.
Scientists and archaeologists say the Ram Setu (Lord Ram's bridge) - or Adam's Bridge as it is sometimes called - is a natural formation of sand and stones.
No evidence
In their report submitted to the court, the government and the Archaeological Survey of India questioned the belief, saying it was solely based on the Hindu mythological epic Ramayana.
They said there was no scientific evidence to prove that the events described in Ramayana ever took place or that the characters depicted in the epic were real.
Hindu activists say the bridge was built by Lord Ram's monkey army to travel to Sri Lanka and has religious significance.
In the last two days, the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has launched a scathing attack on the government for questioning the "faith of the million".
Worried about the adverse reaction from the majority Hindu population of the country, the Congress Party-led government has now done a U-turn and withdrawn the statement submitted in court.
The government asked the court for three months to try and sort out the issue.
Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam, appearing on behalf of the government, said they would set up a mechanism to hear concerns expressed by those opposed to the canal project.
The court adjourned the matter for three months saying they would take up the case again in January.
In the meantime, the court has said that dredging work for the canal could continue, but Ram's Bridge should not be touched
Road blocks
On Wednesday, Hindu hard-line organisations blocked roads across India to protest against the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project.
Commuters in the capital, Delhi, were stuck in traffic jams for hours as Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council) and Bajrang Dal blocked roads at various places.
Road blocks were also held in Bhopal, the capital of the central state of Madhya Pradesh, on the Delhi-Agra highway and on the Jaipur-Agra highway.
Train services were disrupted in many places across northern India.
The canal project proposes to link the Palk Strait with the Gulf of Mannar between India and Sri Lanka by dredging a canal through the shallow sea.
This is expected to provide a continuous navigable sea route around the Indian peninsula.
Once complete, the canal will reduce the travel time for ships by hundreds of miles and is expected to boost the economic and industrial development of the region.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/6994415.stm
Published: 2007/09/14 10:57:37 GMT
Well, in order to illustrate that I am not just picking on one particular religion, I will post this ridiculous silly story that I found from BBC where religion again interferes with secular decisions. My point is: ALL RELIGIONS are corrosive, not just any particular ones. It just happens that my arrows hit that particular religion more than others because it is a large subset of this set called irrational beliefs, and hence the probability of it being hit is much larger.
============================================================================
Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn
The Indian government has withdrawn a controversial report submitted in court earlier this week which questioned the existence of the Hindu god Ram.
The report was withdrawn after huge protests by opposition parties.
The report was presented to the Supreme Court on Wednesday in connection with a case against a proposed shipping canal project between India and Sri Lanka.
Hindu hardliners say the project will destroy what they say is a bridge built by Ram and his army of monkeys.
Scientists and archaeologists say the Ram Setu (Lord Ram's bridge) - or Adam's Bridge as it is sometimes called - is a natural formation of sand and stones.
No evidence
In their report submitted to the court, the government and the Archaeological Survey of India questioned the belief, saying it was solely based on the Hindu mythological epic Ramayana.
They said there was no scientific evidence to prove that the events described in Ramayana ever took place or that the characters depicted in the epic were real.
Hindu activists say the bridge was built by Lord Ram's monkey army to travel to Sri Lanka and has religious significance.
In the last two days, the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has launched a scathing attack on the government for questioning the "faith of the million".
Worried about the adverse reaction from the majority Hindu population of the country, the Congress Party-led government has now done a U-turn and withdrawn the statement submitted in court.
The government asked the court for three months to try and sort out the issue.
Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam, appearing on behalf of the government, said they would set up a mechanism to hear concerns expressed by those opposed to the canal project.
The court adjourned the matter for three months saying they would take up the case again in January.
In the meantime, the court has said that dredging work for the canal could continue, but Ram's Bridge should not be touched
Road blocks
On Wednesday, Hindu hard-line organisations blocked roads across India to protest against the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project.
Commuters in the capital, Delhi, were stuck in traffic jams for hours as Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council) and Bajrang Dal blocked roads at various places.
Road blocks were also held in Bhopal, the capital of the central state of Madhya Pradesh, on the Delhi-Agra highway and on the Jaipur-Agra highway.
Train services were disrupted in many places across northern India.
The canal project proposes to link the Palk Strait with the Gulf of Mannar between India and Sri Lanka by dredging a canal through the shallow sea.
This is expected to provide a continuous navigable sea route around the Indian peninsula.
Once complete, the canal will reduce the travel time for ships by hundreds of miles and is expected to boost the economic and industrial development of the region.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/6994415.stm
Published: 2007/09/14 10:57:37 GMT
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Joni Mitchell Interview
Yikes!!! Her new album is coming out soon!!! An album of all new materials!!! Damn, there goes my budget for this month!!!
我们不相信这些数据
(刊登于联合早报2007年9月23日)
最近观看Michael Moore 的新片《Sicko》后在网上碰到朋友就不经意谈起有关本地的公共医疗卫生服务。我发现许多曾在海外居住的朋友对于本地的公共医疗卫生设备都非常满意，甚至认为比海外优越许多。更可贵的是朋友们所居住的国家不仅限于发展中国家，其中也包括了欧美和日本等国家。难怪世界卫生组织在2000年对不同国家的公共医疗卫生服务做出评估时，将新加坡排名在第六，比英国、美国和日本的排名都来得高。
当然，不是每个人都有如此看法。有几位朋友因为自身的负面经验，或者听说别人无法偿还昂贵的医疗费用而坚持本地的公共医疗卫生服务欠佳。尽管我指出这仅是个别的负面例子，不过这些朋友都不以为然。就算我指出世界卫生组织的统计数据，并特别强调这非有关当局能够直接左右的排名时，这些朋友们竟然异口同声地回应此排名不能相信，其逻辑是所谓排名都是透过统计数据来决定，而有关当局肯定在某种程度上会扭曲统计数据以让自己脸上增光。
对于此论调，本人曾经多次听过。无论交谈的对象是德士司机或者大学生。无论话题是有关公共医疗卫生服务、教育制度或者公共交通服务。就算本人的立场不完全是偏袒有关当局，只要就事论事地引述国外团体调查所得到的正面评估，总是会听到数据是不能相信的论点。
我常思考为何一般大众会对于所谓统计数据，尤其是有关当局所发布的统计数据有所质疑。难道是因为对于统计学不够了解吗？有一句英文谚语 “Lies, damn lies and statistics” 就把统计数据与谎言等同，因为如果对于统计学不够了解的话，的确是很容易被有心误导者利用。本人承认统计这门学问并非简单，而本地教育制度并不积极推崇此学问，只有高中少数数学好的学生才有机会接触。在大学的非理科学生也没有机会修读基本的统计知识，就算是许多理科生也只是修读基本的统计课程。因此，一般大众对于统计数据不熟悉和质疑，在某种程度上可以理解。
不过，我怀疑一般大众对于任何间接赞赏有关当局的数据产生怀疑是源于他们与大众对话时所给的印象。有关当局在推行任何政策时总给人没有商量余地的印象。反正我们已经这么决定了，你有意见也没有用。当然，只要有关当局清楚和透明地向大众解释实行政策的利弊，或许会降低大家的质疑。然而，可惜的是一般大众对于有关当局办事的透明度觉得有些欠佳，认为许多决定的准则并不是很透明。
为何透明度不足会让人对数据怀疑呢？我从个人经验打个比方：我在本地大学就读时，曾目睹许多成绩不理想的同学对于上诉程序感到很不满，因为大学不会透露讲师们的评分标准，只是以官腔回应同学。许多同学因此怀疑成绩的准确性和真实性。然而，我在美国当助教 (teaching assistant) 时发现，这里的讲师不仅公开测验和考试的评分标准，还鼓励学生如果怀疑考卷打错分数时上诉。因此，我很少在这里看到学生上诉后会质疑讲师的评分不公平。
尽管我平常对于有关当局有很多牢骚，不过从许多客观的统计数据而言，我不得不承他们的效率和优越。然而，如果要一般大众也接受这些客观的统计数据，除了加强对于统计学的教育外，恐怕有关当局还必须除掉一般大众对于他们没有商量的余地和透明度不够的印象吧。要不然的话，无论客观数据多么地赞美，大家的回应依旧会是：对不起，我们不相信这些数据。
John Stewart Punks Nancy Grace
I'll admit it. When we first had cable in Singapore (SCV), and I was introduced to the "Talking Heads" pundits on TV from the Taiwanese Media (think people like 李敖、陈文茜、李涛 etc), I used to think that they are cool and soaked in everything that they said. Okay, in my defense, I was fresh into university and haven't had my Psychology 101 and 102 on statistics and research method, and not to mention the fact that I haven't had my Critical Thinking 101 (no, this is not a course offered by the university, but I somehow stumbled on an old textbook on logical thinking and fallacy, and the rest was history). Furthermore, I had no freaking idea how the media worked.
Now a few years wiser and more knowledgable, I now hold the greatest contempt for media personnel, especially now undergoing graduate school and minoring in statistics, I am much sharper in picking out fallacies in arguments and flaws in statistics and figures presented by the media to support/disavow certain arguments. Furthermore, I now understand the corrosive nature of the media (not all, but >90%) in shaping public opinion and discourse. This is why I somewhat agree with the Singapore government somewhat that the media should be regulated and is not all for "freedom of press". However, I must qualify myself by saying that what I think should be regulated is probably very different from what the Singapore government thinks. For example, I would allow Singlish and curse words to be on air, and would more than welcome any criticims to the government (trust me, there are many, if you have read this site). However, I would not allow any one of those patriotic kitschy shit on national pride on air (you know, the type that you see whenever National Day approaches).
The comedy clip below illustrates the point I make about the corrosive nature of the media quite well. The background story to this clip was that a few students from Duke University were accused of rape, and the media adopted the "guilty until proven innocent" rather than the "innocent until proven guilty" stance in covering this story. Jon Stewart has a fine time lampooning the worst of them all, Nancy Grace, for her despicable behavior.
Now a few years wiser and more knowledgable, I now hold the greatest contempt for media personnel, especially now undergoing graduate school and minoring in statistics, I am much sharper in picking out fallacies in arguments and flaws in statistics and figures presented by the media to support/disavow certain arguments. Furthermore, I now understand the corrosive nature of the media (not all, but >90%) in shaping public opinion and discourse. This is why I somewhat agree with the Singapore government somewhat that the media should be regulated and is not all for "freedom of press". However, I must qualify myself by saying that what I think should be regulated is probably very different from what the Singapore government thinks. For example, I would allow Singlish and curse words to be on air, and would more than welcome any criticims to the government (trust me, there are many, if you have read this site). However, I would not allow any one of those patriotic kitschy shit on national pride on air (you know, the type that you see whenever National Day approaches).
The comedy clip below illustrates the point I make about the corrosive nature of the media quite well. The background story to this clip was that a few students from Duke University were accused of rape, and the media adopted the "guilty until proven innocent" rather than the "innocent until proven guilty" stance in covering this story. Jon Stewart has a fine time lampooning the worst of them all, Nancy Grace, for her despicable behavior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
