Another squirrel!!!
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Evolution
Another great video clip by QualiaSoup explaining evolution and clearing up some common misconceptions....
Friday, February 13, 2009
The Problem With Anecdotes
Another excellent video by QualiaSoup... This is why I am always skeptical of anecdotal evidence....
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Paul Scholes The Legend
This is one of my favorite football player of all times. In fact, I try to style the way I play football after him (er... with less skill of course).
Friday, January 30, 2009
Instruction Manual For Life
Another excellent video from Qualia Soup, this time in collaboration with Theramin Trees...
Do you have an instruction manual for life and did you really read it?
It Could Just Be Coincidence
I have recently found this user on YouTube who posts a lot of interesting short video clips on science education. I like his presentation because it is easy for the lay person to understand and he hits the critical points of the argument quite well. Below is a video that he has made on coincidences. I will be posting more videos from this person on my blog from now on. For those who are interested in viewing his other videos on YouTube, type in "QualiaSoup" to search for his videos.
当药物变成商品
（刊登于联合早报2009年1月25日）
如果在美国观看电视节目播放的广告，会发现许多药剂公司贩卖处方药物 (prescription drugs)的广告。有别于非处方药物 (non-prescription drugs)，处方药物需要医生开的药方才可以购买。尽管不同药剂公司所贩卖的处方药物有很大的不同，不过其广告模式却大同小异。广告演员首先会列出一些症状，声称这些症状很可能是某个疾病所导致。该演员然后会声称有研究显示有超过某个比例的美国人患上此疾病，并且警告该疾病的危险性。最后，该演员会声称某药物可以治疗或者预防此疾病，并呼吁观众向他们的医师询问有关此药物的资料。
老实说，一般人在观看了这些广告后会感到些许担忧吧，因为很多时候广告里所提到的症状都是些极常普遍的症状。若对于医疗知识没有某程度的了解，或许就会认为自己已经患上此疾病。难怪我不止一次听到美国的脱口秀表演者利用此现象制造笑话：当我看完这些广告时，我还以为自己身患绝症了。
然而，此行销策略在美国却引起争议。许多医疗学者认为药剂公司夸大了疾病发生的可能性，以及这些疾病所可能引发的症状。有两个权威的医疗刊物分别在几年前就针对了此现象发表了一系列报告，指出许多药剂公司为了提高销售量而不择手段地伪造疾病，把人们渐渐年老时所出现的普通生理状况包装城疾病，然后呼吁大众购买他们所制造的药物来治疗这些 “疾病”。这不仅让大众花前去购买不需要的药品，也间接在大众的心里制造了无谓的焦虑和恐慌。
不仅如此，此行销策略也间接提高了药物的费用。羊毛出在羊身上，花在广告上的经费在某种程度上就由更昂贵的药物价格来抵消。欧盟一直不允许药剂公司在欧洲进行如此积极的行销策略，是因为考虑到公共医疗费用会因此提高。美国的公共医疗服务在发达国家中是公认最糟糕的，而许多专家认为昂贵的药物是其中一个原因。
尽管我们可以将问题推给美国药剂公司的积极行销政策和美国政府的政策，不过只要进一步讨此问题，就不难发现其实是因为药剂公司、美国政府和有些美国大众对于药物和医疗服务在社会上所应该扮演的角色采取了某种看法。或许Merck三十年前的总裁Henry Gadsden在接近退休时接受Fortune Magazine的访问里所发表的言论可以很精确地表现出此看法：许多药剂公司的问题是他们的消费族群仅限于患病者；如果药物能够像口香糖一样就好了，因为药剂公司的消费族群就会扩增。Gadsden也表示为健康的人制造药物是他长期的梦想。
根据医疗记者Ray Moynihan指出，Gadsden的梦想在他发表该言论后被渐渐实现，因为许多药剂公司在九十年代将大笔资金从研究部门投入行销部门，利用上述的广告手法制造大众对于药物的需求。换句话说，药剂公司不再把药物当成药物在出售，而是将药物当成商品售卖，就算利用误导大众的广告手法来刺激或者制造新的消费市场也无所谓。
在近二十多年内，全世界的政治潮流都吹着一股崇尚自由市场和资本主义的风。当然，此潮流对于科技的进步和文化的多元化做出了相当的贡献。然而，无可否认的是在这股潮流的影响下，许多企业和政府机构渐渐把所有的制造出的产品当成商品，并且在某程度上把私人企业利润至上的原则引入许多公众服务中。因此，许多国家在近二十年内都打着提高效率和利润的原则把原本是国营的服务、工厂或者基本的水电服务私营化。当然，此举动在某程度上确实让许多原本效率低的国营工厂和服务变得更有效率。然而，如果透过以上将药物当成商品的原则思考此现象时，我们是否应该重新检讨和考虑此现象：我们社会里所有的服务或者产品是不是都应该采取私营企业利润至上的原则呢？
如果在美国观看电视节目播放的广告，会发现许多药剂公司贩卖处方药物 (prescription drugs)的广告。有别于非处方药物 (non-prescription drugs)，处方药物需要医生开的药方才可以购买。尽管不同药剂公司所贩卖的处方药物有很大的不同，不过其广告模式却大同小异。广告演员首先会列出一些症状，声称这些症状很可能是某个疾病所导致。该演员然后会声称有研究显示有超过某个比例的美国人患上此疾病，并且警告该疾病的危险性。最后，该演员会声称某药物可以治疗或者预防此疾病，并呼吁观众向他们的医师询问有关此药物的资料。
老实说，一般人在观看了这些广告后会感到些许担忧吧，因为很多时候广告里所提到的症状都是些极常普遍的症状。若对于医疗知识没有某程度的了解，或许就会认为自己已经患上此疾病。难怪我不止一次听到美国的脱口秀表演者利用此现象制造笑话：当我看完这些广告时，我还以为自己身患绝症了。
此类广告的普遍源自于美国政府于1997年对于处方药物的售卖放宽的政策。在各大药剂公司积极地向美国参议员进行游说后，美国政府增加了药剂公司透过大众媒体推销处方药物所能够使用的经费，导致药剂公司相继采取积极的行销策略。顺道一提，由于本地政府禁止药剂公司直接向大众推销处方药物，因此本地没出现类似广告。
然而，此行销策略在美国却引起争议。许多医疗学者认为药剂公司夸大了疾病发生的可能性，以及这些疾病所可能引发的症状。有两个权威的医疗刊物分别在几年前就针对了此现象发表了一系列报告，指出许多药剂公司为了提高销售量而不择手段地伪造疾病，把人们渐渐年老时所出现的普通生理状况包装城疾病，然后呼吁大众购买他们所制造的药物来治疗这些 “疾病”。这不仅让大众花前去购买不需要的药品，也间接在大众的心里制造了无谓的焦虑和恐慌。
不仅如此，此行销策略也间接提高了药物的费用。羊毛出在羊身上，花在广告上的经费在某种程度上就由更昂贵的药物价格来抵消。欧盟一直不允许药剂公司在欧洲进行如此积极的行销策略，是因为考虑到公共医疗费用会因此提高。美国的公共医疗服务在发达国家中是公认最糟糕的，而许多专家认为昂贵的药物是其中一个原因。
尽管我们可以将问题推给美国药剂公司的积极行销政策和美国政府的政策，不过只要进一步讨此问题，就不难发现其实是因为药剂公司、美国政府和有些美国大众对于药物和医疗服务在社会上所应该扮演的角色采取了某种看法。或许Merck三十年前的总裁Henry Gadsden在接近退休时接受Fortune Magazine的访问里所发表的言论可以很精确地表现出此看法：许多药剂公司的问题是他们的消费族群仅限于患病者；如果药物能够像口香糖一样就好了，因为药剂公司的消费族群就会扩增。Gadsden也表示为健康的人制造药物是他长期的梦想。
根据医疗记者Ray Moynihan指出，Gadsden的梦想在他发表该言论后被渐渐实现，因为许多药剂公司在九十年代将大笔资金从研究部门投入行销部门，利用上述的广告手法制造大众对于药物的需求。换句话说，药剂公司不再把药物当成药物在出售，而是将药物当成商品售卖，就算利用误导大众的广告手法来刺激或者制造新的消费市场也无所谓。
在近二十多年内，全世界的政治潮流都吹着一股崇尚自由市场和资本主义的风。当然，此潮流对于科技的进步和文化的多元化做出了相当的贡献。然而，无可否认的是在这股潮流的影响下，许多企业和政府机构渐渐把所有的制造出的产品当成商品，并且在某程度上把私人企业利润至上的原则引入许多公众服务中。因此，许多国家在近二十年内都打着提高效率和利润的原则把原本是国营的服务、工厂或者基本的水电服务私营化。当然，此举动在某程度上确实让许多原本效率低的国营工厂和服务变得更有效率。然而，如果透过以上将药物当成商品的原则思考此现象时，我们是否应该重新检讨和考虑此现象：我们社会里所有的服务或者产品是不是都应该采取私营企业利润至上的原则呢？
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Pictures of San Francisco Coastline
This was taken when I visited San Francisco over winter last year. I particularly liked the second photo.... thought it looked cool.
私奔
(A mushy poem, I guess...)
我们相约私奔于一辈子的柴米油盐
我会忘记如何浪漫
你会忘记如何撒娇
我们会脱下那些不堪的年少轻狂
穿上岁月在我们躯体上留下的痕迹
然后在接下来的每分秒
学习如何相爱
我们相约私奔于一辈子的柴米油盐
我会忘记如何浪漫
你会忘记如何撒娇
我们会脱下那些不堪的年少轻狂
穿上岁月在我们躯体上留下的痕迹
然后在接下来的每分秒
学习如何相爱
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
影子变形记
（刊登于联合早报2009年1月6日）
我放弃了存在的权利
让影子代替我与世界共鸣
将人工染料织入单调表面
将稻草和棉花塞入单薄躯体
用华丽服饰立体出影子的轮廓
用扑鼻的香气掩盖着不存在的气息
然后将脑里的知识和胸里的志气
全都移植到肚子累积的脂肪下
让重心集中在不显眼和没争议的地方
同时做为将自己固定在地面上的锚
将行人践踏过的灰尘如同衣裳穿在身上
任由地面的尘砂将身上棱角和色彩磨平
让面无表情粉刷在每寸变质的肌肤上
我的意志连接着影子控制所有举动
燃烧着梦想维持这场互相牵动
直到彼此取代对方的存在
直到没有人认出原来的我已经化成没有重量的黑影
直到全世界都习惯那具华丽和人造的虚体
或许这不只是自己的经历
或许每个人都是影子和每个影子都是每个人
我们只不过是生活在一个影子和影子接触的世界
我们的存在只不过是穿梭在影子和影子的影子和影子当中
直到黑暗降临把所有的影子掩盖
直到黑暗降临照亮着我们丑陋的存在
那影子和影子般的存在
我放弃了存在的权利
让影子代替我与世界共鸣
将人工染料织入单调表面
将稻草和棉花塞入单薄躯体
用华丽服饰立体出影子的轮廓
用扑鼻的香气掩盖着不存在的气息
然后将脑里的知识和胸里的志气
全都移植到肚子累积的脂肪下
让重心集中在不显眼和没争议的地方
同时做为将自己固定在地面上的锚
将行人践踏过的灰尘如同衣裳穿在身上
任由地面的尘砂将身上棱角和色彩磨平
让面无表情粉刷在每寸变质的肌肤上
我的意志连接着影子控制所有举动
燃烧着梦想维持这场互相牵动
直到彼此取代对方的存在
直到没有人认出原来的我已经化成没有重量的黑影
直到全世界都习惯那具华丽和人造的虚体
或许这不只是自己的经历
或许每个人都是影子和每个影子都是每个人
我们只不过是生活在一个影子和影子接触的世界
我们的存在只不过是穿梭在影子和影子的影子和影子当中
直到黑暗降临把所有的影子掩盖
直到黑暗降临照亮着我们丑陋的存在
那影子和影子般的存在
Friday, January 02, 2009
别做数字盲
(刊登于联合早报2008年12月30日)
由于有许多从事文学创作和文字教育的朋友，因此不仅一次在社交场合碰到以下的状况：某位朋友对一般人错误运用文字和搀杂不同语言的习惯表示不满和厌烦，并且提出这些胡乱运用语言的人在某种程度上就如同文盲。
然而，同样的朋友却会在相同场合在讨论某些和数字扯上关系的社会现象，或者是媒体上报道的某某指数时有意或者无意地表现出对于数字的误解和简单数学常识的陌生。有些朋友甚至还会因此而引以为豪，在我试图指正他们误解时声称他们不是数学家和科学家，没有必要去了解这些生冷和没有感情的数字，殊不知这些话语在他们先前的控诉前显得讽刺。
我经常向朋友们提出了解数字的运作和简单的统计知识的重要性和益处。然而，由于自己的本科并非数学，再加上统计学也只是副修而非主修，因此很多时候在提出以上的论点后，所能举出的例子都有限，导致了解数字和统计学原理的论点在朋友面前听起来没有说服力。
最近，我接触到了约翰·亚伦·保罗斯 (John Allen Paulos) 的作品。虽然保罗斯本身是位数学教授，不过他有别于一般大家印象中的数学教授。除了平易近人和带有些许幽默感的文字外，他对于困难数学概念的解释非常清晰，并且经常引用生动和熟悉的例子让读者对于所讲述的概念更清晰。
由于保罗斯历年来出版过多本著作，因此读者或许在决定应该先阅读哪一本时会稍微举棋不定。如果让本人来选择的话，必定会从Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences (《数字盲及其后果》) 开始。 保罗斯在此书里阐述了他的作品的中心思想，也就是了解数学对于整个社会的重要性，并且指出在由科技主导的社会里如果对于数字不了解就等同上世纪的文盲。他也从多方面指出数学知识对于个人和整个社会，在做任何决定时所扮演的重要角色。不仅如此，保罗斯也在此书探讨为何有许多人对于数学会有所恐惧，导致在学习的过程中没有办法掌握基本的数学概念和对数字无法产生敏锐的触感。其中一个原因，包括媒体和大众有意或无意重复数学是非常难学的科目，导致许多人在真正接触数学之前就有所偏见和恐惧。当然，保罗斯也指出，其中的原因是许多数学教师在教学时都刻意运用艰涩的术语和陌生的例子，而完全不试着将数学知识融入日常生活里。
如果《 数字盲及其后果 》是保罗斯对数学的热忱的宣言，那么Beyond Numeracy: Ruminations of a Numbers Man (《了解数学后：一个数字男的反思》)就是保罗斯对于一些数学常识、理论和概念的心得和反思。此书最适合那些对于数学常识有稍微了解的读者。保罗斯在此书以短篇文章的方式来阐述他对许多数学概念的心得，并且用全新的角度和观点让读者重新了解原本以为非常熟悉的数学概念。例如，你知道许多幽默的笑话里头，都蕴藏了某些数学和逻辑的结构吗？或者，你是否知道在日常生活中许多看似巧合的事物，在经过简单的计算后，会显得其实是很普通的事物？这些都是保罗斯在此书所提到的一些课题。
由于有许多从事文学创作和文字教育的朋友，因此不仅一次在社交场合碰到以下的状况：某位朋友对一般人错误运用文字和搀杂不同语言的习惯表示不满和厌烦，并且提出这些胡乱运用语言的人在某种程度上就如同文盲。
然而，同样的朋友却会在相同场合在讨论某些和数字扯上关系的社会现象，或者是媒体上报道的某某指数时有意或者无意地表现出对于数字的误解和简单数学常识的陌生。有些朋友甚至还会因此而引以为豪，在我试图指正他们误解时声称他们不是数学家和科学家，没有必要去了解这些生冷和没有感情的数字，殊不知这些话语在他们先前的控诉前显得讽刺。
我经常向朋友们提出了解数字的运作和简单的统计知识的重要性和益处。然而，由于自己的本科并非数学，再加上统计学也只是副修而非主修，因此很多时候在提出以上的论点后，所能举出的例子都有限，导致了解数字和统计学原理的论点在朋友面前听起来没有说服力。
最近，我接触到了约翰·亚伦·保罗斯 (John Allen Paulos) 的作品。虽然保罗斯本身是位数学教授，不过他有别于一般大家印象中的数学教授。除了平易近人和带有些许幽默感的文字外，他对于困难数学概念的解释非常清晰，并且经常引用生动和熟悉的例子让读者对于所讲述的概念更清晰。
由于保罗斯历年来出版过多本著作，因此读者或许在决定应该先阅读哪一本时会稍微举棋不定。如果让本人来选择的话，必定会从Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences (《数字盲及其后果》) 开始。 保罗斯在此书里阐述了他的作品的中心思想，也就是了解数学对于整个社会的重要性，并且指出在由科技主导的社会里如果对于数字不了解就等同上世纪的文盲。他也从多方面指出数学知识对于个人和整个社会，在做任何决定时所扮演的重要角色。不仅如此，保罗斯也在此书探讨为何有许多人对于数学会有所恐惧，导致在学习的过程中没有办法掌握基本的数学概念和对数字无法产生敏锐的触感。其中一个原因，包括媒体和大众有意或无意重复数学是非常难学的科目，导致许多人在真正接触数学之前就有所偏见和恐惧。当然，保罗斯也指出，其中的原因是许多数学教师在教学时都刻意运用艰涩的术语和陌生的例子，而完全不试着将数学知识融入日常生活里。
如果《 数字盲及其后果 》是保罗斯对数学的热忱的宣言，那么Beyond Numeracy: Ruminations of a Numbers Man (《了解数学后：一个数字男的反思》)就是保罗斯对于一些数学常识、理论和概念的心得和反思。此书最适合那些对于数学常识有稍微了解的读者。保罗斯在此书以短篇文章的方式来阐述他对许多数学概念的心得，并且用全新的角度和观点让读者重新了解原本以为非常熟悉的数学概念。例如，你知道许多幽默的笑话里头，都蕴藏了某些数学和逻辑的结构吗？或者，你是否知道在日常生活中许多看似巧合的事物，在经过简单的计算后，会显得其实是很普通的事物？这些都是保罗斯在此书所提到的一些课题。
由于保罗斯声称要让大众学习数学的好方法就是将其原理融入日常生活里，因此在他的作品当中找到 A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper (《一位数学家阅读报纸》)也不稀奇。此书的分划就如同一份报纸的不同版面，有社会、经济、政治、体育、讣告、书评、文学、生活等等，而保罗斯也同样采用短篇文章的方式探讨数学在这些课题中所扮演的角色。他有时候是指出和批评媒体对于某些数字的错误报道，有时候却提出某个数学或者统计学的原理，让读者刻意从另一个角度去认识同样的新闻报道。
以上介绍的三本书仅不过是保罗斯许多著作中的冰山一角，各位如果在阅读了这些书后对数学产生了多一点的兴趣，不妨去阅读保罗斯其他的作品。或者，只要各位能够开始了解学习数学和了解文字的重要性，知道其实数字盲和文盲没有什么不同时，那么相信保罗斯在写这几本书的目的也已经达到了。
星期天的存在
(A poem I wrote in high school. One of my all time favorites. Unfortunately, it was never officially published...)
我用一种孤独的姿态
向世人宣告我的存在
配合激动的摇滚舞曲
星期天早晨的无聊典礼
在还残留着梦的棉被里
“去你他妈的所有真理，
宁静是我唯一想听见的道理，
你的思维和行为让我反胃，
叫我怎么咽下早餐怎能享受咖啡？”
那不是叛逆的歌词
是我邻居厌烦的抗议
豪宅总是发出巨大的回音
它淹没了我吉它的声音
我必须向世人宣告我的存在
于是唯一的方法便是离开
离开被窝的温暖
离开斗室的墙壁
离开从邻居家中飘来的咖啡香
带着噪音和思绪
理想和勇气
和脚车一起出发
远去前偷偷把邻居的跑车刮花
还在他铁门上涂鸦
凶悍的狗儿追了上来
那是邻居的帮凶
它大概不喜欢我的作风
我急速骑着脚车逃离
我迫切需要一些援助
只要能遇上任何路人
我都会向他求救
管他红的黑的白的
只要不是猫就可以
当然也不能是狗
双犬相争我会被波及
但我终究没有与谁相遇
狗儿刁走了我的勇气
它留下了不灭的踪影
在白色的风和凉爽的云里
我踩着不知所措的继续
上下 上下 向前踏进
我开始有点口渴
我似乎有点饥饿
于是在十字路口的麦当劳
我决定暂时停下
我点了一个形而上学的麦香鸡
还有世界大同的炸薯条
更不能忘记我最喜欢的柠檬茶
那是比较能让我感觉到自我存在的饮料
窗外的风景有我的影子
那是为了寻觅而逃出躯体外的思绪
于是我决定写一首诗
从稿纸的第零页第零行开始
诗名就叫做〈星期天的存在〉吧
虽然听起来有些通俗
对面的桌子坐了一位可爱的姑娘
看起来像是白雪公主的妹妹
或者是梦中时常出现
却又无法触摸的倩影
我已经坠入爱河的无能为力
故事在此有了转折
就如同电影里的通俗情歌
原来那姑娘是我邻居的女儿
要爱她我就得抛开原则
我和我自己出现了隔阂
“生存本就是一种矛盾，
要大声宣告就必须保持沉默，
要叛逆就必须先遵守规则，
要企图寻觅首先就得学会放弃，
所谓终点也是起点，
而起点也是终点。”
这是影子给我的忠告
在他带着脚车离去前
留下我和不完整的躯体
我遗弃我所有的诗集
我开始学会放弃
噪音成为婚礼的进行曲
邻居成为我的岳父
狗儿成为我的伴郎
理想成为一支香槟
为我庆祝这美丽的葬礼
我沉睡在情人的怀抱里
我仿佛听到自己的存在
随着生命的呼吸而存在
就在这个庸俗的星期天下午
我用一种孤独的姿态
向世人宣告我的存在
配合激动的摇滚舞曲
星期天早晨的无聊典礼
在还残留着梦的棉被里
“去你他妈的所有真理，
宁静是我唯一想听见的道理，
你的思维和行为让我反胃，
叫我怎么咽下早餐怎能享受咖啡？”
那不是叛逆的歌词
是我邻居厌烦的抗议
豪宅总是发出巨大的回音
它淹没了我吉它的声音
我必须向世人宣告我的存在
于是唯一的方法便是离开
离开被窝的温暖
离开斗室的墙壁
离开从邻居家中飘来的咖啡香
带着噪音和思绪
理想和勇气
和脚车一起出发
远去前偷偷把邻居的跑车刮花
还在他铁门上涂鸦
凶悍的狗儿追了上来
那是邻居的帮凶
它大概不喜欢我的作风
我急速骑着脚车逃离
我迫切需要一些援助
只要能遇上任何路人
我都会向他求救
管他红的黑的白的
只要不是猫就可以
当然也不能是狗
双犬相争我会被波及
但我终究没有与谁相遇
狗儿刁走了我的勇气
它留下了不灭的踪影
在白色的风和凉爽的云里
我踩着不知所措的继续
上下 上下 向前踏进
我开始有点口渴
我似乎有点饥饿
于是在十字路口的麦当劳
我决定暂时停下
我点了一个形而上学的麦香鸡
还有世界大同的炸薯条
更不能忘记我最喜欢的柠檬茶
那是比较能让我感觉到自我存在的饮料
窗外的风景有我的影子
那是为了寻觅而逃出躯体外的思绪
于是我决定写一首诗
从稿纸的第零页第零行开始
诗名就叫做〈星期天的存在〉吧
虽然听起来有些通俗
对面的桌子坐了一位可爱的姑娘
看起来像是白雪公主的妹妹
或者是梦中时常出现
却又无法触摸的倩影
我已经坠入爱河的无能为力
故事在此有了转折
就如同电影里的通俗情歌
原来那姑娘是我邻居的女儿
要爱她我就得抛开原则
我和我自己出现了隔阂
“生存本就是一种矛盾，
要大声宣告就必须保持沉默，
要叛逆就必须先遵守规则，
要企图寻觅首先就得学会放弃，
所谓终点也是起点，
而起点也是终点。”
这是影子给我的忠告
在他带着脚车离去前
留下我和不完整的躯体
我遗弃我所有的诗集
我开始学会放弃
噪音成为婚礼的进行曲
邻居成为我的岳父
狗儿成为我的伴郎
理想成为一支香槟
为我庆祝这美丽的葬礼
我沉睡在情人的怀抱里
我仿佛听到自己的存在
随着生命的呼吸而存在
就在这个庸俗的星期天下午
陈升－美丽的邂逅
现在正在聆听陈升的新专辑《美丽的邂逅》。真是一张很棒的专辑。尽管阿升的歌曲里没有芭拉歌的那种 hook 和 melody，不过如果用心聆听的话，会发现里头有许多不一样的东西。本人较喜欢的有听起来有些梦幻的《飞行城市》、拥有中国风的《牡丹亭外》和《不完全部落》这些歌曲。
以下是本人在YouTube找到的阿升近期的专访，里头他稍微谈了自己的人生观和创作过程。
Part 1
Part 2
Part 1
Part 2
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
经济到底是什么？
(刊登于联合早报2008年12月28日)
随着美国经济正式进入萧条，全世界的经济也受到了波及。除了欧洲和亚洲各大股市都呈现不稳定的局面外，中国有许多工厂也因为全球对消费品的需求减少而相继关闭，导致许多工厂的劳工走向街头示威抗议。不仅如此，美国的零售业也大受打击，就算许多零售商积极减价，不过却无法刺激消费者的购买欲。
在大家都对于疲弱的全球经济感到不乐观和怨声载道时，本人不禁在这片低靡的情绪当中对所谓经济做出某种反思，并且回忆起很多年前某个长者曾经对我说过的这番话：所谓经济学只不过是个透过理解人类行为以将有限资源进行妥当配置的工具，而非可以主导人文发展的主要思维；然而，许多当权者和老百姓都对所谓经济学所产生的指数拥有某种迷信的崇拜，并且仰赖其指数和理论来主导国家的发展，导致社会上出现许多不合理的现象。
由于当时知识和人生经验有限，因此对于那位长者的话是一知半解。然而，最近一直阅读许多专家对于此 “经济危机” 的分析和解释后，才慢慢开始对于以上那番话有所领略。例如，在许多金融诈骗事件因为经济萎缩的关系而陆续被揭发之后，或者在了解次房贷危机之所以发生是因为许多美国银行仗着美国联邦政府松懈的管制而利用近乎不合法的方式处理这些贷款后，本人才慢慢了解到有时候所谓蓬勃的经济增长只不过是建立在许多金融机构对于数字的操弄，而许多所谓的财富仅不过是某种纸上谈兵罢了。
或者，从另一个角度看待此问题。美国在九十年代中期和前几年都拥有所谓蓬勃的经济，不过其贫富差距却在此期间越来越明显，而中产阶级的平均收入也在这期间逐渐减少。不仅如此，美国在这期间所生产的产品也有下降的趋势。在所谓经济蓬勃的景象下，其实一般美国老百姓的生活素质是每况愈下。其实仔细想想，如果一个国家的生产品减少的话，在某种程度就等同其国家的发展停滞不前吧。
然而，如果只是把国家的总生产做为其经济发展的指数，又似乎将其问题简单化了。中国在近几年所生产出的产品比世界上任何一个国家都多，在许多经济学者的眼力是拥有骄人的经济增长指数。不过，许多社会学者与此同时也指出中国社会的贫富差距逐渐增加，许多环保人士也指责中国的污染问题越来越严重，而许多人权组织也指出许多劳工剥削以及工厂非法聘用童工的问题。就算撇开以上问题不谈，中国制造的产品在近几年也拥有了不安全和不耐用的负面形象。
本人最近一直有个奇怪的想法，或许所谓经济增长指数不应该只是着重于生产品的数量，而也该考虑到底生产了什么，以及怎么生产的问题。此产品是否在制造过程中减低了对环境的冲击？此产品是否对于造福人群有所帮助？制造产品的劳工是否得到合理的赔偿？换个角度陈述以上的想法。如果咱们召集所有研究太阳能的科学家，提供他们双倍的薪金但却叫他们去当类似超级偶像的娱乐节目的表演者时，从数字上来看其实更好，不过人类距离利用太阳能的梦想却会越来越远。或者说，如果咱们不理会迅速增加的温室气体而砍伐所有的树木，生产指数一定会迅速增加，不过朝向世界末日的脚步将越来越快。或者说，如果某个国家的政府立法说劳工将不会得到任何薪金，其国家的经济竞争力和生产效率肯定全世界第一，不过仔细想想，美国十九世纪初期时也似乎拥有此经济模式。
当然，本人不是什么经济学者，对于所谓经济学的知识仅限于高中的课本和报章上的文章。或许，以上的想法仅不过是自己知识不足而产生的误解，或者只是某个理想主义者的白日梦。反正如果不去想这些问题的话，只要经济增长指数一直偏高，股市的交易指数一直没有滑落的话，大家还是可以一样过着安逸无忧的生活吧？
随着美国经济正式进入萧条，全世界的经济也受到了波及。除了欧洲和亚洲各大股市都呈现不稳定的局面外，中国有许多工厂也因为全球对消费品的需求减少而相继关闭，导致许多工厂的劳工走向街头示威抗议。不仅如此，美国的零售业也大受打击，就算许多零售商积极减价，不过却无法刺激消费者的购买欲。
在大家都对于疲弱的全球经济感到不乐观和怨声载道时，本人不禁在这片低靡的情绪当中对所谓经济做出某种反思，并且回忆起很多年前某个长者曾经对我说过的这番话：所谓经济学只不过是个透过理解人类行为以将有限资源进行妥当配置的工具，而非可以主导人文发展的主要思维；然而，许多当权者和老百姓都对所谓经济学所产生的指数拥有某种迷信的崇拜，并且仰赖其指数和理论来主导国家的发展，导致社会上出现许多不合理的现象。
由于当时知识和人生经验有限，因此对于那位长者的话是一知半解。然而，最近一直阅读许多专家对于此 “经济危机” 的分析和解释后，才慢慢开始对于以上那番话有所领略。例如，在许多金融诈骗事件因为经济萎缩的关系而陆续被揭发之后，或者在了解次房贷危机之所以发生是因为许多美国银行仗着美国联邦政府松懈的管制而利用近乎不合法的方式处理这些贷款后，本人才慢慢了解到有时候所谓蓬勃的经济增长只不过是建立在许多金融机构对于数字的操弄，而许多所谓的财富仅不过是某种纸上谈兵罢了。
或者，从另一个角度看待此问题。美国在九十年代中期和前几年都拥有所谓蓬勃的经济，不过其贫富差距却在此期间越来越明显，而中产阶级的平均收入也在这期间逐渐减少。不仅如此，美国在这期间所生产的产品也有下降的趋势。在所谓经济蓬勃的景象下，其实一般美国老百姓的生活素质是每况愈下。其实仔细想想，如果一个国家的生产品减少的话，在某种程度就等同其国家的发展停滞不前吧。
然而，如果只是把国家的总生产做为其经济发展的指数，又似乎将其问题简单化了。中国在近几年所生产出的产品比世界上任何一个国家都多，在许多经济学者的眼力是拥有骄人的经济增长指数。不过，许多社会学者与此同时也指出中国社会的贫富差距逐渐增加，许多环保人士也指责中国的污染问题越来越严重，而许多人权组织也指出许多劳工剥削以及工厂非法聘用童工的问题。就算撇开以上问题不谈，中国制造的产品在近几年也拥有了不安全和不耐用的负面形象。
本人最近一直有个奇怪的想法，或许所谓经济增长指数不应该只是着重于生产品的数量，而也该考虑到底生产了什么，以及怎么生产的问题。此产品是否在制造过程中减低了对环境的冲击？此产品是否对于造福人群有所帮助？制造产品的劳工是否得到合理的赔偿？换个角度陈述以上的想法。如果咱们召集所有研究太阳能的科学家，提供他们双倍的薪金但却叫他们去当类似超级偶像的娱乐节目的表演者时，从数字上来看其实更好，不过人类距离利用太阳能的梦想却会越来越远。或者说，如果咱们不理会迅速增加的温室气体而砍伐所有的树木，生产指数一定会迅速增加，不过朝向世界末日的脚步将越来越快。或者说，如果某个国家的政府立法说劳工将不会得到任何薪金，其国家的经济竞争力和生产效率肯定全世界第一，不过仔细想想，美国十九世纪初期时也似乎拥有此经济模式。
当然，本人不是什么经济学者，对于所谓经济学的知识仅限于高中的课本和报章上的文章。或许，以上的想法仅不过是自己知识不足而产生的误解，或者只是某个理想主义者的白日梦。反正如果不去想这些问题的话，只要经济增长指数一直偏高，股市的交易指数一直没有滑落的话，大家还是可以一样过着安逸无忧的生活吧？
Monday, December 15, 2008
Howard Zinn's Philosophy
I have recently been reading a lot of his works, and listening to a lot of his lectures. I am highly impressed by him and agree with a lot of what he says. This is a short clip that I found on YouTube, which summarizes his philosophy towards government and society.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Chomsky and Trivers
This is something from the Seed Magazine (here) that I thought was very interesting. It is a conversation between Robert Trivers (the person who proposed the kin selection theory) and Noam Chomsky (renown linguist and fierce critic of US foreign policy) on deception at the individual and international level.
Jon Stewart Interviews Mike Huckabee
This is an excellent interview by Jon Stewart on Mike Huckabee (who was one of the presidential candidate for the Republican Party in 2008). Mike Huckabee can be viewed as a fiscal and social conservative, and Jon Stewart is probably a progressive or liberal in my view. The first part of the interview is on economic conservatism (i.e. the whole idea of free-market as espoused by the libertarians) and the second part of the interview is on social conservatism (i.e. the recent gay marriage issue in USA). I thought the points that Jon made were excellent and just exposes the illogicality of the conservative mind.
Oh, no points for guessing which side I take.
Monday, December 08, 2008
An Interview With Lee Kuan Yew 2008
This is an interview I found online (here) that MM Lee gave earlier this year to a foreign newspaper. Surprisingly, I don't think I read any of the local papers picking up the content of this interview (I could have missed it), which is a shame, because I think the things that MM Lee said in this interview made a lot of sense.
==================================
by Arnaud De Borchgrave
Singapore (UPI) Feb 8, 2008
UPI Editor at Large Arnaud de Borchgrave interviewed Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew on Feb. 2. The following is the text of the interview.
UPI: How do you see Iraq?
Lee: I do not want to say anything that would hurt President Bush because I believe he went in with the best of intentions. He put his trust in Dick Cheney. And I had trust in Dick Cheney as the voice of experience -- oil business executive, defense secretary during the first Gulf War (1990-91). But I don't know what happened to Dick Cheney. He allowed himself to believe with Richard Perle and the neocons you could change Iraq. How could you change Iraq, a 4,000-year-old society that is not malleable? Everybody knows the troubles the British had during and after World War I. Ideology should have no place when making geopolitical assessments.
George W. Bush, whatever his faults, is not walking away from what was started, which is just as well otherwise further damage will be done.
Q: And the next president?
A: Of all the candidates who will inherit the problem, I prefer John McCain. He will see this thing through. Walking away from it would also have disastrous consequences. If Afghanistan is a failed state, it's not your fault. No one has ever made sense out of it. But if you leave Iraq in its present state, you will have even bigger problems throughout the entire Middle East. The Shiites will get together. The Iraqi Shia will become dependent on Iran, and the Iranians will have mastery of that critically important Gulf area.
Q: So what is your recommendation about Iran's nuclear ambitions?
A: Is it now unstoppable. They are a very old civilization. Unlike the Arabs, apart from Mesopotamia valley, they rank with the Chinese, as history's two principal civilizations worth talking about. And I think the mullahs and others want to go back to the days of empire.
Q: So should we be talking to them at the highest level, the way Henry Kissinger went to China?
A: (Chuckle) But you haven't got a Kissinger or a Brzezinski to do that anymore. Where is the successor generation of geopoliticians?
Q: In fact, democracies don't produce great statesmen anymore. Why?
A: You now have, and I don't know how long this phase will last, mass media domination, owned by a group of media barons who want constant change for their balance sheets.
Q: So the power of mass media has made it impossible for a great statesman or woman to emerge and last any length of time?
A: I'm not sure. It depends on the nature of the crisis that must be faced. When a real crisis sets in, a matter of life and death, opinion formulators realize this is no time to be pontificating, but a time to stay the course with someone who understands what this is all about. Short of that, the media help put a leader on the pedestal and then start chopping away at the pedestal until he/she falls in disgrace. That's part of the cycle of constant change. Watch Sarkozy in France. They hoisted him up to prominence and now they're already attempting to bring him down through his personal life.
Q: But didn't Sarkozy contribute to what you call the cycle?
A: Well, yes. But it's also the enormous pressure of media competition and the giant appetite for advertising revenue, what television program gets what viewership, or eyeballs, or clicks online. Never mind the consequences. If you get the advertising, you win.
Q: We have a whole new generation that doesn't read newspapers, but get their news online. The average age of a newspaper reader in the United States today is 55.
A: So I'm a dinosaur (laughs).
Q: When I last interviewed you in May 2001, I asked you what concerned you most about the next 10 years, and you replied, "an Islamist bomb, and mark my words, it will travel." Four months later, we had Sept. 11. Secondly you said, "China and India's challenge to the global status quo." Do you still have the same concerns about the next 10 years?
A: Not quite. The Islamic bomb has traveled already (in Iran). I'm not sure how this will now play out. The U.S., the Europeans, even the Russians, will have to make up their minds whether to allow Iran to go nuclear. The Russians are playing a game, posing as the nice guys with Iran, supplying nuclear fuel, and making it look as if America is causing all this trouble. But if I were Russia today, I would be very worried about Iran acquiring the bomb, because Russia is more at risk than America. The risk Israel runs is another dimension. Russia is at risk because whether it's the Chechens or Central Asian Muslim states that were former Soviet republics, none are friendly to Moscow. Next time there's an explosion in Moscow, it may be a suicide bomber who isn't wearing an explosive belt or jacket, but something a lot bigger. It would certainly be in Russia's interest to say at some future point to Iran, "this far and no further." It could also be that Russia no longer knows how to stop it, in which case the Russians will be opening the door to a very dangerous world of nuclear proliferation. You can be quite sure that if and when Iran gets the bomb, the Middle East will go nuclear.
Q: Which raises the question of the United States or Israel bombing Iran's nuclear facilities.
A: (long silent pause) ¿¿ I can express no views on that.
Q: The Israelis say they are facing an existential crisis.
A: No question, they are at risk.
Q: As I travel in moderate Muslim states in North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia, I ask heads of state and government how many extremists, or would-be jihadis, they estimate live in their midst, also how many fundamentalists who support openly or secretly the jihadi cause. The answer is usually 1 percent and 10 percent. In a country like Pakistan, that translates to 1.6 million extremists and 16 million supporters. On a global scale, that comes out to roughly 14 million extremists and 140 million sympathizers.
A: Yes, but I do not see them winning, and by that I mean able to impose their extremist system. I can see them inducing fear and insecurity, and causing fear, but they don't have the technology and the organization to overwhelm any government.
Q: So how do you assess the global threat since Sept. 11? What are we doing that's right and also that's wrong?
A: Even if we can't win, we mustn't lose or tire. We cannot allow them to believe they have a winning strategy, and that more suicide bombers and WMD will advance their cause and give them a chance to take over.
Q: So we're doing the right thing?
A: No. Iraq was a mistake. I've said this before and I said this in the presence of Paul Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the invasion, at an IISS conference two months after the fall of Saddam Hussein, when someone asked me what will happen in Iraq. In October 2002, I was in Washington and became quite convinced an invasion would take place. On the way home, I stopped in London and asked Tony Blair to brief me. After 45 minutes, I said, "Look I accept the argument that with British and American military capabilities it would be a walk over, but then what do you do the day after? Blair replied, "That's up to the Americans." I then said to Blair, "If you were in charge, what would you do?" His political adviser then stepped in and said, "We would appoint the strongest pro-Western general and then get out quickly." So I repeated all that at the IISS conference and explained this reflected the institutional memory of what the British had been through in Iraq in the early 1920s. Paul Wolfowitz stood up in high dudgeon. So to placate him, I said, "Of course the British don't have the resources you have."
Q: Did Wolfowitz ask anything of you?
A: Yes, he came to my office to ask that Singapore send police trainers to Iraq. I had known Paul since his days as an ambassador at the State Department. I said, "Paul, do you realize how long it takes to train a policeman in Singapore? And that's only in one language, English, and it still takes two years. And you want me to teach Iraqis how to do it in three months in English? No, he replied, we'll supply translators. This is an emergency, he said, and many nations are helping us. So I replied OK, but we'll do it in Amman, Jordan, not Baghdad, where we would become the targets of suicide bombers. When he told me they had disbanded Saddam's police force, I became very nervous. Because when the Japanese came down here in World War II, 20,000 of their troops captured 90,000 British, Indian and Australian troops. They sent them into captivity, but they left the local police in charge, and kept all the other positions of the British administration intact -- from power management to the gas board -- and simply put Japanese in charge of each British position. And 20,000 Japanese troops moved on to Java. But in Iraq, you disbanded everything, and tried to run things without the former Baath party officials who had been in charge of civil administration. You created an ungovernable vacuum.
Q: Why do you think this was so?
A: From Day One, the idea of remaking Iraq, without the civil service in place and without recalling Saddam's army to service, showed a frightening lack of understanding of local conditions and elementary facts of political and economic life in Iraq. In ancient days, those who invaded and conquered China on horseback got off their horses and applied themselves to the more difficult job of governing.
Q: Did Iraq have anything to do with al-Qaida?
A: Of course not, as became clear in the daily sessions the imprisoned Saddam spent with his Arabic-speaking FBI interrogator over several months before his execution. But U.S. authorities were convinced Saddam was secretly supporting al-Qaida with weapons and training and maybe even WMD. So therefore the imperative became the elimination of Saddam.
Q: Switching to Pakistan, most terrorist trails in the United Kingdom and most recently in Germany via Turkey, track back to training camps and madrassas in the tribal areas that straddle the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
A: We even had a terrorist of Pakistani descent here in Singapore.
Q: So what's your view of what should be done about the Pakistan-terrorist nexus?
A: (Laughs for several seconds) We should learn to live with it for a long time. My fear is Pakistan may well get worse. What is the choice? (President) Musharraf is the only general I know who is totally secular in his approach. But he's got to maneuver between his extremists who are sympathetic to Taliban and al-Qaida and moderate elements with a Western outlook. We forget that right after Sept. 11 he was given a stark choice by President Bush: either you abandon your support of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan or face the disintegration of Pakistan. There is an interesting study of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency that says 20 percent of the Pakistani army's officer corps is fundamentalist.
Q: So what do you feel the United States can do there now?
A: There is very little, if anything, the U.S. can do to influence the course of events in Pakistan that wouldn't make matters worse. Any U.S. interference in Pakistan would result in Pakistan's four provinces becoming four failed states. And then what happens to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal? It's a horrendous festering problem. The Feb. 18 elections may bring a little clarity and hopefully democratic stability to Pakistan, but I am not holding my breath.
Q: But Afghanistan cannot be stabilized until Taliban and al-Qaida are flushed out of FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas), failing which we could see the collapse of NATO in Afghanistan?
A: I'm surprised at NATO, some of whose members have such short memories. They can't seem to project into the future their experiences of the past. Do they believe the Russians have been defanged forever? Do they believe Europe is at peace and can remain at peace forever? This is a globalized world. So for NATO members to balk at casualties when America came to rescue them in two world wars, I simply cannot fathom. I guess it has to do with the mood in Europe, which is appeasement, and the shift from papa Bush to Madeleine Albright as the indispensable power with an uncertain trumpet, and then, of course, the neocons who persuaded the Europeans that it was America's show, and no longer theirs. Supposing America had kept to the papa Bush line of thinking and coalition building, Europe would have understood that while they are targeting America today, Europe would be next.
Q: So you do feel that NATO's future is at stake in Afghanistan?
A: No doubt about it. But you should also realize Afghanistan cannot succeed as a democracy. You attempted too much. Let the warlords sort it out in such a way you don't try to build a new state. The British tried it and failed. Just make clear if they commit aggression again and offer safe haven to Taliban, they will be punished.
Q: If NATO collapsed in the wake of a failed campaign in Afghanistan, would that be a major concern of yours in Singapore?
A: Not immediately, but overall the balance of power would be upset.
Q: In whose favor?
A: China and Russia. They would be faced with a much weakened West in the ongoing global contest. I can also see the danger if America loses heart and says to hell with it all because the Europeans are not helping and the Japanese are blocking this and that, and tokenism from all the others. Let's not forget that what we're all enjoying today is the result of Pax Britannica and Pax America over the past 100 years. So don't give it up.
Q: In the next 12 months, China, in this New Year of the Rat (Feb. 7) that you are now celebrating, will mark its transformation in the past three decades from one of the poorest countries in the 20th century into the world's third-largest economy, soon to displace Germany, as the globe's new engine room of economic growth. Will China be to the 21st century what America was to the 20th?
A: The Chinese leadership has come to the conclusion if they stay on their present course, the peaceful rise of China's power will prevail. They are determined not to challenge any existing power, meaning America, EU, Russia, but just make friends with everybody. Given the rules of the game now that China is in WTO, they can only grow stronger year by year, and within three or four decades, China's GDP will be equal to America's, their technology will be equal to what was long regarded as the world's only superpower, and their GDP will be larger than America's. And all that stems from what they have long studied in detail in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. When Deng Xiaoping came to Singapore he was amazed at what he saw, as his briefing papers did not tally with his own eyes. That's when he must have concluded the Communist system didn't work. He could see how we were exploiting Western capitalism and had plants all over the place with cheaper labor and exporting goods all over the world. Hell's bells, he said, we can do that, too. That's when China began setting up special economic zones around coastal cities. They saw Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore with the advantages of close ties with the West, access to Western technology, export markets, knowledge, capital and an educated workforce. Now with WTO, they are on the same course, sending 250,000 students abroad every year, and even though they may lose 60 percent to 70 percent of them to other countries, they don't care because they know many of them will come back eventually. Year by year, they're closing the gap.
Q: And all this peacefully?
A: I watched "The Rise of the Great Powers" and I was amazed at this scholarly job by noted historians. No Communist or leftist jargon. How did some of these powers rise in history? Tiny little Portugal? Naval technology, pure and simple. Christopher Columbus? Spain? Tiny Holland, the French, the British, the armada, what was the trick? Technology plus governments that united the people in a common objective toward growth.
Q: Can the Chinese keep a one-party state going in this age of mass media, the Internet, and almost 100 million blogs?
A: I was quite surprised when this television program analyzed the British rise to global power status. The barons brought the king to Magna Carta, and said you will rule through us, Parliament, not divine right, but divine right through us. And when the king misbehaved, such as Charles I, he was beheaded. It was subversive to advocate cutting off the head of the Communist Party, but in today's China the people have confidence in the leaders because they allowed the once-hated merchant class to emerge and grow. That's the same dynamics that once created the East India Company and created an empire.
Q: So you see China on the same glide path?
A: I think so. But they want to avoid building a pre-World War II Japan or a Germany. Territorial conquest is not necessary as it once was. You don't have to be a genius to know that they are producing five times as many engineers and scientists as the Americans. What is it they need most now? Roads, railways, infrastructure. They are everywhere in Africa, in the Arab world, Latin America. China is everywhere today. Can you be everywhere while focused on Iraq? In the Caribbean you have one embassy in Barbados that serves six other tiny island countries. The Chinese have an embassy in each place. And that's what you call your front yard.
Q: Are you saying this will be China's century?
A: No, no, I don't think so. They will want to share this century as co-equals. By 2030, it will be a different world. They won't invade Taiwan and try to take over militarily. That would be far too costly for them all over the world. The U.S. Pacific commander said, "Look, you've got all these forces trained to knock off our 7th Fleet and if Taiwan declares its independence you will have to move. I would be quite happy to leave it as it is, but not Beijing." In my opinion, Chinese leaders would also be happy to leave it as it is. Taiwan goes to America to get its technology, which then transits to China. If they take back Taiwan, it becomes Chinese without the same freedom of access to U.S. technology and research labs. So why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? The Chinese are quite comfortable leaving Taiwan the way it is.
Q: The nature of conflict is changing to an era of asymmetric warfare when one micro actor can neutralize or blunt a macro power. A few weeks ago, when five Iranian speedboats were darting in and out of three major U.S. warships steaming through the Strait of Hormuz, had they been loaded with super explosives, could have immobilized U.S. naval power the way al-Qaida attacked the USS Cole in Aden in October 2000.
A: But again, can the Chinese land troops in Taiwan and establish and hold and widen a beachhead? The answer is no. Can they conquer Taiwan militarily? Again, no. They can only inflict damage.
Q: But in the Gulf, if the U.S. and/or Israel bombed Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran has formidable asymmetrical retaliatory capabilities?
A: But let me repeat, they cannot conquer you. Hezbollah cannot conquer Lebanon. They can create trouble for the non-Hezbollah Lebanese. So micro actors can cause a lot of trouble for your friends, but they can't eradicate them.
UPI: Unless you've read science fiction, it's pretty hard to keep up with the ever-quickening pace of the revolution in technology. From the newfound ability to create artificial life to the now visible horizon of new supercomputers -- IBM's latest can compute at the rate of 1,000 trillion operations per second, up from 73 trillion -- that will surpass the human brain in every respect, to the current fusion of IT, biotech, nanotech and robotics. Humanity appears to be morphing from homo sapiens to homo connectus in one generation. Where do you see humankind going in the 21st century?
Lee: I give up! Because I no longer understand, let alone relate. I didn't do science beyond high school, but at least I could understand the world around us, from totalitarian dictators out to rule the world to the pushback on freewheeling, anything-goes democracy. Now I read learned articles that don't tell me why all this new stuff is happening. I learn new words daily, like biopharmaceuticals and biologics and send them to my secretary for an explanation, and the answer comes back, from Google or somewhere on the Internet.
When I was in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) recently, I was watching a BBC documentary, a sparkling, fascinating talk by Craig Ventner, the human genome scientist, who covered the whole field of tomorrow in 50 brilliant minutes. I was transfixed by the part about creating artificial life. But I can't figure out what it all means and where are we going.
Q: You are not alone. Most political leaders in today's world have the same handicap. We already have 1 billion people online around the world and 2 billion mobile phones for 6.5 billion people, all providing information as well as disinformation, streaming video, chat rooms, blogs, which are rapidly reaching the 100 million mark. What does this tell you about the impact on democratic government, dictatorship and national sovereignty?
A: I think national sovereignty will be around for a long while because it is the framework for activities between states. The alternative is a free-for-all chaos in the world. Suppose you have dozens of countries going through the kind of mayhem you now see in Kenya, all the technological paraphernalia in the world won't be of much help. It would be back to the Stone Age.
Q: But as you were watching that BBC documentary what was going through your mind about where all this is leading?
A: I do not buy the optimistic jargon about a new age of enlightenment. But as I watched Dr. Ventner's prediction about carbon-free fuel, I say then what? You can desalinate all the oceans of the world, then what? And we will still have the overpopulation problem. My conclusion is there are certain moral and physical limits to what mankind can do on this small planet. If you begin with human history from the earliest tribes, we still haven't moved beyond instinctive responses.
Q: But what you were watching also told you that anyone born today will live to be 120 and productive almost until the end, and the 22nd century will see 250 years as a normal lifespan.
A: And then what! It makes no sense. Three score and 10 is not a bad span. Lead a good productive life and leave the future to your progeny. I fear the future for my grandchildren may not be as good as ours was. In Singapore, we now have in our physically limited space 4.5 million people, 3.2 million of them our citizens, the rest foreigners who came to work here. Our planners are projecting 6.5 million. Our planners and demographers can already see 6.5 million. I said to them, "Look, go slow. It can't be done in our small city state."
Q: Nanotechnology will enable us to build skyscrapers two to three times higher.
A: Not while I'm still around.
Q: You also have a brain drain?
A: Yes, we're losing them to America.
Q: Not China?
A: No, there they have to compete against 1.3 billion people producing huge numbers of very bright people. They'd rather go to America where they become acclimatized, then go to China with an American firm. Chinese speakers, they are part of an American team with a leg up on their Chinese competitors. And from there, they can come back to Singapore with the kind of experience that puts them at the top of their game. Those who seek less rigorous competition, a more relaxed lifestyle, go to Canada and Australia.
Q: How many top brains do you consider lost to Singapore every year?
A: At the top end, about 1,000 a year. That's a loss of 4 percent or 5 percent. But compensating that, we have Chinese and Indians coming here looking for better prospects. So on balance, we're still gainers. But the day will come when China, in 30 or 40 years, will offer better prospects than any country in the world.
Q: Switching to the future of capitalism the subprime mortgage predatory fiasco gave the entire world the vision of another great depression. Major banks in the U.S. and Europe lost close to $300 billion to this gigantic fraud.
A: From time to time, smart crooks get the better of people. They skewer the system. I don't believe you can find a substitute for democratic capitalism. Let's not forget the human being's desire to do well for himself/herself, his/her spouse, kids, parents. And then, when you do well, have compassion for one's fellow human beings who are behind the curve. The system that maximizes this is the system that also gives the highest motivation to do better. Mao's China experimented with the idea of a new human being, the super worker. It was an abysmal failure. But even at the height of the Communist folly, I went to China and one of our escorts took off his Mao jacket to show us it was fur-lined, a sign he was doing better than the others. Therefore, not equal.
I do not believe you can predict how human beings and societies will evolve. If we reach the point of global population saturation, we will have to craft new strategies to protect ourselves. Take Singapore. Yes, we want ASEAN, yes we want the European Union model. But supposing I said, "Yes, and we also want the Schengen Accord," which would mean any access to an Asian country in this new union would give you automatic, uncontrolled access to Singapore, and our people would laugh at me. There will, of course, be entities that will say to each other, "We're part of the same camp, or oasis, and we can share each other's assets." But I can't have people entering freely and setting up plastic tents in my garden. So when you reach an advanced state of development, what kind of an organization do you need? I frankly don't know.
Q: So how do you see the future of capitalism?
A: As chairman of the equivalent of our Sovereign Wealth Fund, we examine and decide where to invest our money, in equities or bonds or what have you. Our fund managers are paid five times what I get. Why? Because they have had good track records in growing our fund and we know what they could command in the private sector. They are dealing with billions of dollars every day and must be compensated accordingly.
Unbridled capitalism, winner takes all like in America, does not work unless you can cope with an underclass. So here we also stay with the losers, make sure they have enough to live on, with healthcare, equal education opportunities for their children whose parents can no longer afford it. It's very important they not feel abandoned. So we have workfare and ingenuous ways to keep them working as we don't want layabouts doing nothing. We also subsidize homes which they would not be able to buy. A society can only survive if there is a sense of equity and fair play.
Q: So to conclude, back to what concerns you most about the next 10 years, including WMD terrorism?
A: First whether America will face this next rough patch without losing heart. Afghanistan cannot succeed as a democracy, nor as a new state defying centuries of tradition. To remake societies is beyond the capacity of any nation. America as a superpower has global responsibilities -- but that's not one of them. Utopias have no place in geopolitics.
==================================
by Arnaud De Borchgrave
Singapore (UPI) Feb 8, 2008
UPI Editor at Large Arnaud de Borchgrave interviewed Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew on Feb. 2. The following is the text of the interview.
UPI: How do you see Iraq?
Lee: I do not want to say anything that would hurt President Bush because I believe he went in with the best of intentions. He put his trust in Dick Cheney. And I had trust in Dick Cheney as the voice of experience -- oil business executive, defense secretary during the first Gulf War (1990-91). But I don't know what happened to Dick Cheney. He allowed himself to believe with Richard Perle and the neocons you could change Iraq. How could you change Iraq, a 4,000-year-old society that is not malleable? Everybody knows the troubles the British had during and after World War I. Ideology should have no place when making geopolitical assessments.
George W. Bush, whatever his faults, is not walking away from what was started, which is just as well otherwise further damage will be done.
Q: And the next president?
A: Of all the candidates who will inherit the problem, I prefer John McCain. He will see this thing through. Walking away from it would also have disastrous consequences. If Afghanistan is a failed state, it's not your fault. No one has ever made sense out of it. But if you leave Iraq in its present state, you will have even bigger problems throughout the entire Middle East. The Shiites will get together. The Iraqi Shia will become dependent on Iran, and the Iranians will have mastery of that critically important Gulf area.
Q: So what is your recommendation about Iran's nuclear ambitions?
A: Is it now unstoppable. They are a very old civilization. Unlike the Arabs, apart from Mesopotamia valley, they rank with the Chinese, as history's two principal civilizations worth talking about. And I think the mullahs and others want to go back to the days of empire.
Q: So should we be talking to them at the highest level, the way Henry Kissinger went to China?
A: (Chuckle) But you haven't got a Kissinger or a Brzezinski to do that anymore. Where is the successor generation of geopoliticians?
Q: In fact, democracies don't produce great statesmen anymore. Why?
A: You now have, and I don't know how long this phase will last, mass media domination, owned by a group of media barons who want constant change for their balance sheets.
Q: So the power of mass media has made it impossible for a great statesman or woman to emerge and last any length of time?
A: I'm not sure. It depends on the nature of the crisis that must be faced. When a real crisis sets in, a matter of life and death, opinion formulators realize this is no time to be pontificating, but a time to stay the course with someone who understands what this is all about. Short of that, the media help put a leader on the pedestal and then start chopping away at the pedestal until he/she falls in disgrace. That's part of the cycle of constant change. Watch Sarkozy in France. They hoisted him up to prominence and now they're already attempting to bring him down through his personal life.
Q: But didn't Sarkozy contribute to what you call the cycle?
A: Well, yes. But it's also the enormous pressure of media competition and the giant appetite for advertising revenue, what television program gets what viewership, or eyeballs, or clicks online. Never mind the consequences. If you get the advertising, you win.
Q: We have a whole new generation that doesn't read newspapers, but get their news online. The average age of a newspaper reader in the United States today is 55.
A: So I'm a dinosaur (laughs).
Q: When I last interviewed you in May 2001, I asked you what concerned you most about the next 10 years, and you replied, "an Islamist bomb, and mark my words, it will travel." Four months later, we had Sept. 11. Secondly you said, "China and India's challenge to the global status quo." Do you still have the same concerns about the next 10 years?
A: Not quite. The Islamic bomb has traveled already (in Iran). I'm not sure how this will now play out. The U.S., the Europeans, even the Russians, will have to make up their minds whether to allow Iran to go nuclear. The Russians are playing a game, posing as the nice guys with Iran, supplying nuclear fuel, and making it look as if America is causing all this trouble. But if I were Russia today, I would be very worried about Iran acquiring the bomb, because Russia is more at risk than America. The risk Israel runs is another dimension. Russia is at risk because whether it's the Chechens or Central Asian Muslim states that were former Soviet republics, none are friendly to Moscow. Next time there's an explosion in Moscow, it may be a suicide bomber who isn't wearing an explosive belt or jacket, but something a lot bigger. It would certainly be in Russia's interest to say at some future point to Iran, "this far and no further." It could also be that Russia no longer knows how to stop it, in which case the Russians will be opening the door to a very dangerous world of nuclear proliferation. You can be quite sure that if and when Iran gets the bomb, the Middle East will go nuclear.
Q: Which raises the question of the United States or Israel bombing Iran's nuclear facilities.
A: (long silent pause) ¿¿ I can express no views on that.
Q: The Israelis say they are facing an existential crisis.
A: No question, they are at risk.
Q: As I travel in moderate Muslim states in North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia, I ask heads of state and government how many extremists, or would-be jihadis, they estimate live in their midst, also how many fundamentalists who support openly or secretly the jihadi cause. The answer is usually 1 percent and 10 percent. In a country like Pakistan, that translates to 1.6 million extremists and 16 million supporters. On a global scale, that comes out to roughly 14 million extremists and 140 million sympathizers.
A: Yes, but I do not see them winning, and by that I mean able to impose their extremist system. I can see them inducing fear and insecurity, and causing fear, but they don't have the technology and the organization to overwhelm any government.
Q: So how do you assess the global threat since Sept. 11? What are we doing that's right and also that's wrong?
A: Even if we can't win, we mustn't lose or tire. We cannot allow them to believe they have a winning strategy, and that more suicide bombers and WMD will advance their cause and give them a chance to take over.
Q: So we're doing the right thing?
A: No. Iraq was a mistake. I've said this before and I said this in the presence of Paul Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the invasion, at an IISS conference two months after the fall of Saddam Hussein, when someone asked me what will happen in Iraq. In October 2002, I was in Washington and became quite convinced an invasion would take place. On the way home, I stopped in London and asked Tony Blair to brief me. After 45 minutes, I said, "Look I accept the argument that with British and American military capabilities it would be a walk over, but then what do you do the day after? Blair replied, "That's up to the Americans." I then said to Blair, "If you were in charge, what would you do?" His political adviser then stepped in and said, "We would appoint the strongest pro-Western general and then get out quickly." So I repeated all that at the IISS conference and explained this reflected the institutional memory of what the British had been through in Iraq in the early 1920s. Paul Wolfowitz stood up in high dudgeon. So to placate him, I said, "Of course the British don't have the resources you have."
Q: Did Wolfowitz ask anything of you?
A: Yes, he came to my office to ask that Singapore send police trainers to Iraq. I had known Paul since his days as an ambassador at the State Department. I said, "Paul, do you realize how long it takes to train a policeman in Singapore? And that's only in one language, English, and it still takes two years. And you want me to teach Iraqis how to do it in three months in English? No, he replied, we'll supply translators. This is an emergency, he said, and many nations are helping us. So I replied OK, but we'll do it in Amman, Jordan, not Baghdad, where we would become the targets of suicide bombers. When he told me they had disbanded Saddam's police force, I became very nervous. Because when the Japanese came down here in World War II, 20,000 of their troops captured 90,000 British, Indian and Australian troops. They sent them into captivity, but they left the local police in charge, and kept all the other positions of the British administration intact -- from power management to the gas board -- and simply put Japanese in charge of each British position. And 20,000 Japanese troops moved on to Java. But in Iraq, you disbanded everything, and tried to run things without the former Baath party officials who had been in charge of civil administration. You created an ungovernable vacuum.
Q: Why do you think this was so?
A: From Day One, the idea of remaking Iraq, without the civil service in place and without recalling Saddam's army to service, showed a frightening lack of understanding of local conditions and elementary facts of political and economic life in Iraq. In ancient days, those who invaded and conquered China on horseback got off their horses and applied themselves to the more difficult job of governing.
Q: Did Iraq have anything to do with al-Qaida?
A: Of course not, as became clear in the daily sessions the imprisoned Saddam spent with his Arabic-speaking FBI interrogator over several months before his execution. But U.S. authorities were convinced Saddam was secretly supporting al-Qaida with weapons and training and maybe even WMD. So therefore the imperative became the elimination of Saddam.
Q: Switching to Pakistan, most terrorist trails in the United Kingdom and most recently in Germany via Turkey, track back to training camps and madrassas in the tribal areas that straddle the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
A: We even had a terrorist of Pakistani descent here in Singapore.
Q: So what's your view of what should be done about the Pakistan-terrorist nexus?
A: (Laughs for several seconds) We should learn to live with it for a long time. My fear is Pakistan may well get worse. What is the choice? (President) Musharraf is the only general I know who is totally secular in his approach. But he's got to maneuver between his extremists who are sympathetic to Taliban and al-Qaida and moderate elements with a Western outlook. We forget that right after Sept. 11 he was given a stark choice by President Bush: either you abandon your support of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan or face the disintegration of Pakistan. There is an interesting study of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency that says 20 percent of the Pakistani army's officer corps is fundamentalist.
Q: So what do you feel the United States can do there now?
A: There is very little, if anything, the U.S. can do to influence the course of events in Pakistan that wouldn't make matters worse. Any U.S. interference in Pakistan would result in Pakistan's four provinces becoming four failed states. And then what happens to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal? It's a horrendous festering problem. The Feb. 18 elections may bring a little clarity and hopefully democratic stability to Pakistan, but I am not holding my breath.
Q: But Afghanistan cannot be stabilized until Taliban and al-Qaida are flushed out of FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas), failing which we could see the collapse of NATO in Afghanistan?
A: I'm surprised at NATO, some of whose members have such short memories. They can't seem to project into the future their experiences of the past. Do they believe the Russians have been defanged forever? Do they believe Europe is at peace and can remain at peace forever? This is a globalized world. So for NATO members to balk at casualties when America came to rescue them in two world wars, I simply cannot fathom. I guess it has to do with the mood in Europe, which is appeasement, and the shift from papa Bush to Madeleine Albright as the indispensable power with an uncertain trumpet, and then, of course, the neocons who persuaded the Europeans that it was America's show, and no longer theirs. Supposing America had kept to the papa Bush line of thinking and coalition building, Europe would have understood that while they are targeting America today, Europe would be next.
Q: So you do feel that NATO's future is at stake in Afghanistan?
A: No doubt about it. But you should also realize Afghanistan cannot succeed as a democracy. You attempted too much. Let the warlords sort it out in such a way you don't try to build a new state. The British tried it and failed. Just make clear if they commit aggression again and offer safe haven to Taliban, they will be punished.
Q: If NATO collapsed in the wake of a failed campaign in Afghanistan, would that be a major concern of yours in Singapore?
A: Not immediately, but overall the balance of power would be upset.
Q: In whose favor?
A: China and Russia. They would be faced with a much weakened West in the ongoing global contest. I can also see the danger if America loses heart and says to hell with it all because the Europeans are not helping and the Japanese are blocking this and that, and tokenism from all the others. Let's not forget that what we're all enjoying today is the result of Pax Britannica and Pax America over the past 100 years. So don't give it up.
Q: In the next 12 months, China, in this New Year of the Rat (Feb. 7) that you are now celebrating, will mark its transformation in the past three decades from one of the poorest countries in the 20th century into the world's third-largest economy, soon to displace Germany, as the globe's new engine room of economic growth. Will China be to the 21st century what America was to the 20th?
A: The Chinese leadership has come to the conclusion if they stay on their present course, the peaceful rise of China's power will prevail. They are determined not to challenge any existing power, meaning America, EU, Russia, but just make friends with everybody. Given the rules of the game now that China is in WTO, they can only grow stronger year by year, and within three or four decades, China's GDP will be equal to America's, their technology will be equal to what was long regarded as the world's only superpower, and their GDP will be larger than America's. And all that stems from what they have long studied in detail in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. When Deng Xiaoping came to Singapore he was amazed at what he saw, as his briefing papers did not tally with his own eyes. That's when he must have concluded the Communist system didn't work. He could see how we were exploiting Western capitalism and had plants all over the place with cheaper labor and exporting goods all over the world. Hell's bells, he said, we can do that, too. That's when China began setting up special economic zones around coastal cities. They saw Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore with the advantages of close ties with the West, access to Western technology, export markets, knowledge, capital and an educated workforce. Now with WTO, they are on the same course, sending 250,000 students abroad every year, and even though they may lose 60 percent to 70 percent of them to other countries, they don't care because they know many of them will come back eventually. Year by year, they're closing the gap.
Q: And all this peacefully?
A: I watched "The Rise of the Great Powers" and I was amazed at this scholarly job by noted historians. No Communist or leftist jargon. How did some of these powers rise in history? Tiny little Portugal? Naval technology, pure and simple. Christopher Columbus? Spain? Tiny Holland, the French, the British, the armada, what was the trick? Technology plus governments that united the people in a common objective toward growth.
Q: Can the Chinese keep a one-party state going in this age of mass media, the Internet, and almost 100 million blogs?
A: I was quite surprised when this television program analyzed the British rise to global power status. The barons brought the king to Magna Carta, and said you will rule through us, Parliament, not divine right, but divine right through us. And when the king misbehaved, such as Charles I, he was beheaded. It was subversive to advocate cutting off the head of the Communist Party, but in today's China the people have confidence in the leaders because they allowed the once-hated merchant class to emerge and grow. That's the same dynamics that once created the East India Company and created an empire.
Q: So you see China on the same glide path?
A: I think so. But they want to avoid building a pre-World War II Japan or a Germany. Territorial conquest is not necessary as it once was. You don't have to be a genius to know that they are producing five times as many engineers and scientists as the Americans. What is it they need most now? Roads, railways, infrastructure. They are everywhere in Africa, in the Arab world, Latin America. China is everywhere today. Can you be everywhere while focused on Iraq? In the Caribbean you have one embassy in Barbados that serves six other tiny island countries. The Chinese have an embassy in each place. And that's what you call your front yard.
Q: Are you saying this will be China's century?
A: No, no, I don't think so. They will want to share this century as co-equals. By 2030, it will be a different world. They won't invade Taiwan and try to take over militarily. That would be far too costly for them all over the world. The U.S. Pacific commander said, "Look, you've got all these forces trained to knock off our 7th Fleet and if Taiwan declares its independence you will have to move. I would be quite happy to leave it as it is, but not Beijing." In my opinion, Chinese leaders would also be happy to leave it as it is. Taiwan goes to America to get its technology, which then transits to China. If they take back Taiwan, it becomes Chinese without the same freedom of access to U.S. technology and research labs. So why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? The Chinese are quite comfortable leaving Taiwan the way it is.
Q: The nature of conflict is changing to an era of asymmetric warfare when one micro actor can neutralize or blunt a macro power. A few weeks ago, when five Iranian speedboats were darting in and out of three major U.S. warships steaming through the Strait of Hormuz, had they been loaded with super explosives, could have immobilized U.S. naval power the way al-Qaida attacked the USS Cole in Aden in October 2000.
A: But again, can the Chinese land troops in Taiwan and establish and hold and widen a beachhead? The answer is no. Can they conquer Taiwan militarily? Again, no. They can only inflict damage.
Q: But in the Gulf, if the U.S. and/or Israel bombed Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran has formidable asymmetrical retaliatory capabilities?
A: But let me repeat, they cannot conquer you. Hezbollah cannot conquer Lebanon. They can create trouble for the non-Hezbollah Lebanese. So micro actors can cause a lot of trouble for your friends, but they can't eradicate them.
UPI: Unless you've read science fiction, it's pretty hard to keep up with the ever-quickening pace of the revolution in technology. From the newfound ability to create artificial life to the now visible horizon of new supercomputers -- IBM's latest can compute at the rate of 1,000 trillion operations per second, up from 73 trillion -- that will surpass the human brain in every respect, to the current fusion of IT, biotech, nanotech and robotics. Humanity appears to be morphing from homo sapiens to homo connectus in one generation. Where do you see humankind going in the 21st century?
Lee: I give up! Because I no longer understand, let alone relate. I didn't do science beyond high school, but at least I could understand the world around us, from totalitarian dictators out to rule the world to the pushback on freewheeling, anything-goes democracy. Now I read learned articles that don't tell me why all this new stuff is happening. I learn new words daily, like biopharmaceuticals and biologics and send them to my secretary for an explanation, and the answer comes back, from Google or somewhere on the Internet.
When I was in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) recently, I was watching a BBC documentary, a sparkling, fascinating talk by Craig Ventner, the human genome scientist, who covered the whole field of tomorrow in 50 brilliant minutes. I was transfixed by the part about creating artificial life. But I can't figure out what it all means and where are we going.
Q: You are not alone. Most political leaders in today's world have the same handicap. We already have 1 billion people online around the world and 2 billion mobile phones for 6.5 billion people, all providing information as well as disinformation, streaming video, chat rooms, blogs, which are rapidly reaching the 100 million mark. What does this tell you about the impact on democratic government, dictatorship and national sovereignty?
A: I think national sovereignty will be around for a long while because it is the framework for activities between states. The alternative is a free-for-all chaos in the world. Suppose you have dozens of countries going through the kind of mayhem you now see in Kenya, all the technological paraphernalia in the world won't be of much help. It would be back to the Stone Age.
Q: But as you were watching that BBC documentary what was going through your mind about where all this is leading?
A: I do not buy the optimistic jargon about a new age of enlightenment. But as I watched Dr. Ventner's prediction about carbon-free fuel, I say then what? You can desalinate all the oceans of the world, then what? And we will still have the overpopulation problem. My conclusion is there are certain moral and physical limits to what mankind can do on this small planet. If you begin with human history from the earliest tribes, we still haven't moved beyond instinctive responses.
Q: But what you were watching also told you that anyone born today will live to be 120 and productive almost until the end, and the 22nd century will see 250 years as a normal lifespan.
A: And then what! It makes no sense. Three score and 10 is not a bad span. Lead a good productive life and leave the future to your progeny. I fear the future for my grandchildren may not be as good as ours was. In Singapore, we now have in our physically limited space 4.5 million people, 3.2 million of them our citizens, the rest foreigners who came to work here. Our planners are projecting 6.5 million. Our planners and demographers can already see 6.5 million. I said to them, "Look, go slow. It can't be done in our small city state."
Q: Nanotechnology will enable us to build skyscrapers two to three times higher.
A: Not while I'm still around.
Q: You also have a brain drain?
A: Yes, we're losing them to America.
Q: Not China?
A: No, there they have to compete against 1.3 billion people producing huge numbers of very bright people. They'd rather go to America where they become acclimatized, then go to China with an American firm. Chinese speakers, they are part of an American team with a leg up on their Chinese competitors. And from there, they can come back to Singapore with the kind of experience that puts them at the top of their game. Those who seek less rigorous competition, a more relaxed lifestyle, go to Canada and Australia.
Q: How many top brains do you consider lost to Singapore every year?
A: At the top end, about 1,000 a year. That's a loss of 4 percent or 5 percent. But compensating that, we have Chinese and Indians coming here looking for better prospects. So on balance, we're still gainers. But the day will come when China, in 30 or 40 years, will offer better prospects than any country in the world.
Q: Switching to the future of capitalism the subprime mortgage predatory fiasco gave the entire world the vision of another great depression. Major banks in the U.S. and Europe lost close to $300 billion to this gigantic fraud.
A: From time to time, smart crooks get the better of people. They skewer the system. I don't believe you can find a substitute for democratic capitalism. Let's not forget the human being's desire to do well for himself/herself, his/her spouse, kids, parents. And then, when you do well, have compassion for one's fellow human beings who are behind the curve. The system that maximizes this is the system that also gives the highest motivation to do better. Mao's China experimented with the idea of a new human being, the super worker. It was an abysmal failure. But even at the height of the Communist folly, I went to China and one of our escorts took off his Mao jacket to show us it was fur-lined, a sign he was doing better than the others. Therefore, not equal.
I do not believe you can predict how human beings and societies will evolve. If we reach the point of global population saturation, we will have to craft new strategies to protect ourselves. Take Singapore. Yes, we want ASEAN, yes we want the European Union model. But supposing I said, "Yes, and we also want the Schengen Accord," which would mean any access to an Asian country in this new union would give you automatic, uncontrolled access to Singapore, and our people would laugh at me. There will, of course, be entities that will say to each other, "We're part of the same camp, or oasis, and we can share each other's assets." But I can't have people entering freely and setting up plastic tents in my garden. So when you reach an advanced state of development, what kind of an organization do you need? I frankly don't know.
Q: So how do you see the future of capitalism?
A: As chairman of the equivalent of our Sovereign Wealth Fund, we examine and decide where to invest our money, in equities or bonds or what have you. Our fund managers are paid five times what I get. Why? Because they have had good track records in growing our fund and we know what they could command in the private sector. They are dealing with billions of dollars every day and must be compensated accordingly.
Unbridled capitalism, winner takes all like in America, does not work unless you can cope with an underclass. So here we also stay with the losers, make sure they have enough to live on, with healthcare, equal education opportunities for their children whose parents can no longer afford it. It's very important they not feel abandoned. So we have workfare and ingenuous ways to keep them working as we don't want layabouts doing nothing. We also subsidize homes which they would not be able to buy. A society can only survive if there is a sense of equity and fair play.
Q: So to conclude, back to what concerns you most about the next 10 years, including WMD terrorism?
A: First whether America will face this next rough patch without losing heart. Afghanistan cannot succeed as a democracy, nor as a new state defying centuries of tradition. To remake societies is beyond the capacity of any nation. America as a superpower has global responsibilities -- but that's not one of them. Utopias have no place in geopolitics.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
H M
I am sure any student of psychology will remember HM from their introductory psychology course: The man with only short-term memory but could not form long-term memory. Recently he died at the old age of 82, and this is an article in the New York Times about him (here).
==================================
H. M., an Unforgettable Amnesiac, Dies at 82
By BENEDICT CAREY
He knew his name. That much he could remember.
He knew that his father’s family came from Thibodaux, La., and his mother was from Ireland, and he knew about the 1929 stock market crash and World War II and life in the 1940s.
But he could remember almost nothing after that.
In 1953, he underwent an experimental brain operation in Hartford to correct a seizure disorder, only to emerge from it fundamentally and irreparably changed. He developed a syndrome neurologists call profound amnesia. He had lost the ability to form new memories.
For the next 55 years, each time he met a friend, each time he ate a meal, each time he walked in the woods, it was as if for the first time.
And for those five decades, he was recognized as the most important patient in the history of brain science. As a participant in hundreds of studies, he helped scientists understand the biology of learning, memory and physical dexterity, as well as the fragile nature of human identity.
On Tuesday evening at 5:05, Henry Gustav Molaison — known worldwide only as H. M., to protect his privacy — died of respiratory failure at a nursing home in Windsor Locks, Conn. His death was confirmed by Suzanne Corkin, a neuroscientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who had worked closely with him for decades. Henry Molaison was 82.
From the age of 27, when he embarked on a life as an object of intensive study, he lived with his parents, then with a relative and finally in an institution. His amnesia did not damage his intellect or radically change his personality. But he could not hold a job and lived, more so than any mystic, in the moment.
“Say it however you want,” said Dr. Thomas Carew, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine, and president of the Society for Neuroscience. “What H. M. lost, we now know, was a critical part of his identity.”
At a time when neuroscience is growing exponentially, when students and money are pouring into laboratories around the world and researchers are mounting large-scale studies with powerful brain-imaging technology, it is easy to forget how rudimentary neuroscience was in the middle of the 20th century.
When Mr. Molaison, at 9 years old, banged his head hard after being hit by a bicycle rider in his neighborhood near Hartford, scientists had no way to see inside his brain. They had no rigorous understanding of how complex functions like memory or learning functioned biologically. They could not explain why the boy had developed severe seizures after the accident, or even whether the blow to the head had anything do to with it.
Eighteen years after that bicycle accident, Mr. Molaison arrived at the office of Dr. William Beecher Scoville, a neurosurgeon at Hartford Hospital. Mr. Molaison was blacking out frequently, had devastating convulsions and could no longer repair motors to earn a living.
After exhausting other treatments, Dr. Scoville decided to surgically remove two finger-shaped slivers of tissue from Mr. Molaison’s brain. The seizures abated, but the procedure — especially cutting into the hippocampus, an area deep in the brain, about level with the ears — left the patient radically changed.
Alarmed, Dr. Scoville consulted with a leading surgeon in Montreal, Dr. Wilder Penfield of McGill University, who with Dr. Brenda Milner, a psychologist, had reported on two other patients’ memory deficits.
Soon Dr. Milner began taking the night train down from Canada to visit Mr. Molaison in Hartford, giving him a variety of memory tests. It was a collaboration that would forever alter scientists’ understanding of learning and memory.
“He was a very gracious man, very patient, always willing to try these tasks I would give him,” Dr. Milner, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at the Montreal Neurological Institute and McGill University, said in a recent interview. “And yet every time I walked in the room, it was like we’d never met.”
At the time, many scientists believed that memory was widely distributed throughout the brain and not dependent on any one neural organ or region. Brain lesions, either from surgery or accidents, altered people’s memory in ways that were not easily predictable. Even as Dr. Milner published her results, many researchers attributed H. M.’s deficits to other factors, like general trauma from his seizures or some unrecognized damage.
“It was hard for people to believe that it was all due” to the excisions from the surgery, Dr. Milner said.
That began to change in 1962, when Dr. Milner presented a landmark study in which she and H. M. demonstrated that a part of his memory was fully intact. In a series of trials, she had Mr. Molaison try to trace a line between two outlines of a five-point star, one inside the other, while watching his hand and the star in a mirror. The task is difficult for anyone to master at first.
Every time H. M. performed the task, it struck him as an entirely new experience. He had no memory of doing it before. Yet with practice he became proficient. “At one point he said to me, after many of these trials, ‘Huh, this was easier than I thought it would be,’ ” Dr. Milner said.
The implications were enormous. Scientists saw that there were at least two systems in the brain for creating new memories. One, known as declarative memory, records names, faces and new experiences and stores them until they are consciously retrieved. This system depends on the function of medial temporal areas, particularly an organ called the hippocampus, now the object of intense study.
Another system, commonly known as motor learning, is subconscious and depends on other brain systems. This explains why people can jump on a bike after years away from one and take the thing for a ride, or why they can pick up a guitar that they have not played in years and still remember how to strum it.
Soon “everyone wanted an amnesic to study,” Dr. Milner said, and researchers began to map out still other dimensions of memory. They saw that H. M.’s short-term memory was fine; he could hold thoughts in his head for about 20 seconds. It was holding onto them without the hippocampus that was impossible.
“The study of H. M. by Brenda Milner stands as one of the great milestones in the history of modern neuroscience,” said Dr. Eric Kandel, a neuroscientist at Columbia University. “It opened the way for the study of the two memory systems in the brain, explicit and implicit, and provided the basis for everything that came later — the study of human memory and its disorders.”
Living at his parents’ house, and later with a relative through the 1970s, Mr. Molaison helped with the shopping, mowed the lawn, raked leaves and relaxed in front of the television. He could navigate through a day attending to mundane details — fixing a lunch, making his bed — by drawing on what he could remember from his first 27 years.
He also somehow sensed from all the scientists, students and researchers parading through his life that he was contributing to a larger endeavor, though he was uncertain about the details, said Dr. Corkin, who met Mr. Molaison while studying in Dr. Milner’s laboratory and who continued to work with him until his death.
By the time he moved into a nursing home in 1980, at age 54, he had become known to Dr. Corkin’s M.I.T. team in the way that Polaroid snapshots in a photo album might sketch out a life but not reveal it whole.
H. M. could recount childhood scenes: Hiking the Mohawk Trail. A road trip with his parents. Target shooting in the woods near his house.
“Gist memories, we call them,” Dr. Corkin said. “He had the memories, but he couldn’t place them in time exactly; he couldn’t give you a narrative.”
He was nonetheless a self-conscious presence, as open to a good joke and as sensitive as anyone in the room. Once, a researcher visiting with Dr. Milner and H. M. turned to her and remarked how interesting a case this patient was.
“H. M. was standing right there,” Dr. Milner said, “and he kind of colored — blushed, you know — and mumbled how he didn’t think he was that interesting, and moved away.”
In the last years of his life, Mr. Molaison was, as always, open to visits from researchers, and Dr. Corkin said she checked on his health weekly. She also arranged for one last research program. On Tuesday, hours after Mr. Molaison’s death, scientists worked through the night taking exhaustive M.R.I. scans of his brain, data that will help tease apart precisely which areas of his temporal lobes were still intact and which were damaged, and how this pattern related to his memory.
Dr. Corkin arranged, too, to have his brain preserved for future study, in the same spirit that Einstein’s was, as an irreplaceable artifact of scientific history.
“He was like a family member,” said Dr. Corkin, who is at work on a book on H. M., titled “A Lifetime Without Memory.” “You’d think it would be impossible to have a relationship with someone who didn’t recognize you, but I did.”
In his way, Mr. Molaison did know his frequent visitor, she added: “He thought he knew me from high school.”
Henry Gustav Molaison, born on Feb. 26, 1926, left no survivors. He left a legacy in science that cannot be erased.
==================================
H. M., an Unforgettable Amnesiac, Dies at 82
By BENEDICT CAREY
He knew his name. That much he could remember.
He knew that his father’s family came from Thibodaux, La., and his mother was from Ireland, and he knew about the 1929 stock market crash and World War II and life in the 1940s.
But he could remember almost nothing after that.
In 1953, he underwent an experimental brain operation in Hartford to correct a seizure disorder, only to emerge from it fundamentally and irreparably changed. He developed a syndrome neurologists call profound amnesia. He had lost the ability to form new memories.
For the next 55 years, each time he met a friend, each time he ate a meal, each time he walked in the woods, it was as if for the first time.
And for those five decades, he was recognized as the most important patient in the history of brain science. As a participant in hundreds of studies, he helped scientists understand the biology of learning, memory and physical dexterity, as well as the fragile nature of human identity.
On Tuesday evening at 5:05, Henry Gustav Molaison — known worldwide only as H. M., to protect his privacy — died of respiratory failure at a nursing home in Windsor Locks, Conn. His death was confirmed by Suzanne Corkin, a neuroscientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who had worked closely with him for decades. Henry Molaison was 82.
From the age of 27, when he embarked on a life as an object of intensive study, he lived with his parents, then with a relative and finally in an institution. His amnesia did not damage his intellect or radically change his personality. But he could not hold a job and lived, more so than any mystic, in the moment.
“Say it however you want,” said Dr. Thomas Carew, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine, and president of the Society for Neuroscience. “What H. M. lost, we now know, was a critical part of his identity.”
At a time when neuroscience is growing exponentially, when students and money are pouring into laboratories around the world and researchers are mounting large-scale studies with powerful brain-imaging technology, it is easy to forget how rudimentary neuroscience was in the middle of the 20th century.
When Mr. Molaison, at 9 years old, banged his head hard after being hit by a bicycle rider in his neighborhood near Hartford, scientists had no way to see inside his brain. They had no rigorous understanding of how complex functions like memory or learning functioned biologically. They could not explain why the boy had developed severe seizures after the accident, or even whether the blow to the head had anything do to with it.
Eighteen years after that bicycle accident, Mr. Molaison arrived at the office of Dr. William Beecher Scoville, a neurosurgeon at Hartford Hospital. Mr. Molaison was blacking out frequently, had devastating convulsions and could no longer repair motors to earn a living.
After exhausting other treatments, Dr. Scoville decided to surgically remove two finger-shaped slivers of tissue from Mr. Molaison’s brain. The seizures abated, but the procedure — especially cutting into the hippocampus, an area deep in the brain, about level with the ears — left the patient radically changed.
Alarmed, Dr. Scoville consulted with a leading surgeon in Montreal, Dr. Wilder Penfield of McGill University, who with Dr. Brenda Milner, a psychologist, had reported on two other patients’ memory deficits.
Soon Dr. Milner began taking the night train down from Canada to visit Mr. Molaison in Hartford, giving him a variety of memory tests. It was a collaboration that would forever alter scientists’ understanding of learning and memory.
“He was a very gracious man, very patient, always willing to try these tasks I would give him,” Dr. Milner, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at the Montreal Neurological Institute and McGill University, said in a recent interview. “And yet every time I walked in the room, it was like we’d never met.”
At the time, many scientists believed that memory was widely distributed throughout the brain and not dependent on any one neural organ or region. Brain lesions, either from surgery or accidents, altered people’s memory in ways that were not easily predictable. Even as Dr. Milner published her results, many researchers attributed H. M.’s deficits to other factors, like general trauma from his seizures or some unrecognized damage.
“It was hard for people to believe that it was all due” to the excisions from the surgery, Dr. Milner said.
That began to change in 1962, when Dr. Milner presented a landmark study in which she and H. M. demonstrated that a part of his memory was fully intact. In a series of trials, she had Mr. Molaison try to trace a line between two outlines of a five-point star, one inside the other, while watching his hand and the star in a mirror. The task is difficult for anyone to master at first.
Every time H. M. performed the task, it struck him as an entirely new experience. He had no memory of doing it before. Yet with practice he became proficient. “At one point he said to me, after many of these trials, ‘Huh, this was easier than I thought it would be,’ ” Dr. Milner said.
The implications were enormous. Scientists saw that there were at least two systems in the brain for creating new memories. One, known as declarative memory, records names, faces and new experiences and stores them until they are consciously retrieved. This system depends on the function of medial temporal areas, particularly an organ called the hippocampus, now the object of intense study.
Another system, commonly known as motor learning, is subconscious and depends on other brain systems. This explains why people can jump on a bike after years away from one and take the thing for a ride, or why they can pick up a guitar that they have not played in years and still remember how to strum it.
Soon “everyone wanted an amnesic to study,” Dr. Milner said, and researchers began to map out still other dimensions of memory. They saw that H. M.’s short-term memory was fine; he could hold thoughts in his head for about 20 seconds. It was holding onto them without the hippocampus that was impossible.
“The study of H. M. by Brenda Milner stands as one of the great milestones in the history of modern neuroscience,” said Dr. Eric Kandel, a neuroscientist at Columbia University. “It opened the way for the study of the two memory systems in the brain, explicit and implicit, and provided the basis for everything that came later — the study of human memory and its disorders.”
Living at his parents’ house, and later with a relative through the 1970s, Mr. Molaison helped with the shopping, mowed the lawn, raked leaves and relaxed in front of the television. He could navigate through a day attending to mundane details — fixing a lunch, making his bed — by drawing on what he could remember from his first 27 years.
He also somehow sensed from all the scientists, students and researchers parading through his life that he was contributing to a larger endeavor, though he was uncertain about the details, said Dr. Corkin, who met Mr. Molaison while studying in Dr. Milner’s laboratory and who continued to work with him until his death.
By the time he moved into a nursing home in 1980, at age 54, he had become known to Dr. Corkin’s M.I.T. team in the way that Polaroid snapshots in a photo album might sketch out a life but not reveal it whole.
H. M. could recount childhood scenes: Hiking the Mohawk Trail. A road trip with his parents. Target shooting in the woods near his house.
“Gist memories, we call them,” Dr. Corkin said. “He had the memories, but he couldn’t place them in time exactly; he couldn’t give you a narrative.”
He was nonetheless a self-conscious presence, as open to a good joke and as sensitive as anyone in the room. Once, a researcher visiting with Dr. Milner and H. M. turned to her and remarked how interesting a case this patient was.
“H. M. was standing right there,” Dr. Milner said, “and he kind of colored — blushed, you know — and mumbled how he didn’t think he was that interesting, and moved away.”
In the last years of his life, Mr. Molaison was, as always, open to visits from researchers, and Dr. Corkin said she checked on his health weekly. She also arranged for one last research program. On Tuesday, hours after Mr. Molaison’s death, scientists worked through the night taking exhaustive M.R.I. scans of his brain, data that will help tease apart precisely which areas of his temporal lobes were still intact and which were damaged, and how this pattern related to his memory.
Dr. Corkin arranged, too, to have his brain preserved for future study, in the same spirit that Einstein’s was, as an irreplaceable artifact of scientific history.
“He was like a family member,” said Dr. Corkin, who is at work on a book on H. M., titled “A Lifetime Without Memory.” “You’d think it would be impossible to have a relationship with someone who didn’t recognize you, but I did.”
In his way, Mr. Molaison did know his frequent visitor, she added: “He thought he knew me from high school.”
Henry Gustav Molaison, born on Feb. 26, 1926, left no survivors. He left a legacy in science that cannot be erased.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Jon Stewart on the Auto Bailout
This is a not-so-subtle critique by Jon Stewart on the stupidity and hypocrisy of the bailout plan in USA. Also, I think the second clip makes a subtle point about we have allowed economic ideology to trump over pragmatism in the real world.
CEO Interview: Costco's Jim Sinegal
In this age where reports of CEO getting high wage package that is uncorrelated with their actual performance are common, I thought this article featuring Costco's CEO Jim Sinegal was so refreshing. This article was published in Fast Company (found here).
=============================================
Flat-screen TVs, wedding rings, mini-quiches, gallon jugs of mayo -- and, of course, free samples. America's fourth-largest retailer, which opened its first warehouse store 25 years ago this fall, is booming. Wall Street grumbles that Costco cares more about its customers and employees than its shareholders; it pays workers an average of $17 an hour and covers 90% of health-insurance costs for both full-timers and part-timers. Yet revenues have grown by 70% in the past five years, and its stock has doubled. In typically blunt language, cofounder and CEO Jim Sinegal makes his case for why "big box" and "progressive" aren't mutually exclusive.
You answer your own phone, you send your own faxes, you talk to customers and employees. What motivates you to stay involved in the details of the business?
Because I love it. I've been doing it all my life, and it's my style. That doesn't mean it's the right style or the style that works for everybody, but it's my style.
You recently announced that August same-store sales were up 9%, yet Wall Street analysts were unhappy because you hadn't met their expectations.
You know, that has nothing to do with reality. Analysts put their own numbers on things, and we can't help them there. We think that 9% in the state of this economy is pretty good.
Some of those analysts have argued that Costco's generosity to its workers hurts the company and its shareholders.
You have to recognize -- and I don't mean this in an acrimonious sense -- that the people in that business are trying to make money between now and next Thursday. We're trying to build a company that's going to be here 50 and 60 years from now. We owe that to the communities where we do business. We owe that to our employees, that they can count on us for security. We have 140,000 employees and their families; that's a significant number of people who count on us. We owe it to our suppliers. Think about the people who produce products for us -- you could probably multiply our family of employees by three or four times. And we owe it to our customers to continue to offer good prices. Our presence in a community makes pricing better throughout that community because when you have a tough competitor in the marketplace, prices come down.
Could we talk about your competition for a minute? Would you be willing to play a little game for us? Costco is to Sam's Club as _____ is to _____.
You're not going to get me to fall for that one. Listen, Sam's is a very formidable competitor. They're part of Wal-Mart. That's the biggest corporation ever in the world in terms of sales volume, and continuing to grow. They've made significant improvements to their Sam's operation. We watch them like a hawk. Hardly a week goes by that I'm not in a Sam's.
Do you buy anything?
I think I purchased one of their men's dress shirts one time, because I wanted to test it in comparison to ours. But I don't buy anything for consumption.
And obviously yours was better.
That's the reason I'm telling you the story [laughs]. No, I mean, we feel it's better. You know, you have to be careful not to delude yourself in what you're putting into a product. The final analysis is, the customers vote at the checkout.
What's the first thing you look for when you go into a Costco?
I try to approach the visits from the standpoint of a customer. Does the building have the right goods out? Is it well-stocked and clean and safe? Nothing is a bigger turnoff than poor housekeeping, most particularly in a place where you have food. Also, when you have a sloppy building, I can guarantee you're going to have high shrinkage [pilfering and shoplifting].
Sales on Costco's e-commerce site are expected to hit $1.6 billion this year, a 33% increase over 2007, and the average customer ticket is more than $400. What do you choose to put on the Web site as opposed to stocking in the regular warehouse?
We've generally tried to select items that are a little more unusual. For example, we've been offering floral arrangements for weddings. It's a complete package: The flowers for the tables and the flowers for the church and the flowers for the bridesmaids and boutonnieres for the men and the corsages for the ladies.
That seems unorthodox for a store like yours. Where do those kinds of ideas come from?
Certainly from our buyers, but they also come from our suppliers. When somebody sees that you're willing to take a chance on coffins, odds are they'll come up with some other good ideas.
Your coffin business is brisk?
They do well. They're generally special order. I think we sell more of them online than we do in our warehouses.
Are certain locations really great for coffins?
You mean like Florida [laughs]? No, no -- the unfortunate thing is people pass on everywhere.
What's done well that has surprised you?
Our Kirkland Signature wines. I thought, in that category of goods, people would be reluctant to take a house brand.
Kirkland Signature has become one of the most successful house brands out there.
There was so much pressure on prices going up, it created an umbrella for private labels to sneak in -- and under -- and to create significant savings. But we made up our minds that if we were going to make a private label, we weren't going to equivocate on the quality. Customers shop with us for value. They don't shop with us for cheap prices on cheap merchandise. They expect us to deliver value on quality.
What's an area that didn't work?
You don't have enough space in your magazine to talk about all the things that we've tried that didn't work out. Some time ago, we tried to get involved in the home-improvement business. We were going to have paint. There are places where you can get thousands of colors of paint. We were going to have four, and three of those were going to be white [laughs]. It's safe to say we underwhelmed the customer.
Do suppliers still balk at your policy of not marking products up more than 15%?
There will always be people who are going to be reluctant to sell to us. They use a lot of different excuses, but when you cut through all the defecation, the fact is, they don't want to see our prices on their merchandise. But most people have come around to say, "Hey, this is a pretty good company to do business with. They can sell a lot of our products." We have high-end customers. If anyone wants to purchase a Movado watch or Michelin tires or Waterford crystal, it's our customer.
How is the current economic climate impacting Costco?
We are subject to elements of the turndown just like everyone else. You might argue, "Well, gee, the value concept really holds these guys in good stead because people are looking for better pricing and perhaps are willing to go out of their way to find it." But Costco was developed to be cash-and-carry, catering primarily to businesspeople, and that business customer is probably seeing their business suffer a little bit, so their purchases are going to go down.
There are definitely purchases that are being deferred: patio furniture, housewares, and domestic products -- blankets and things like that. The upside is we're seeing more purchases of basic stuff like health and beauty aids and food. Apparel is doing reasonably well, but we're not in the business of selling $800 cocktail dresses.
Our healthiest business from a standpoint of sales growth has been in Asia; we're in South Korea and Taiwan and Japan. At the moment, our weakest, I would say, is in parts of California, Arizona, and around Las Vegas. Those are the places where we think more people have been hurt relative to this mortgage issue.
Are there economic issues you would like the next U.S. president to address?
I would like to see somebody paying attention to the deficits. I think they're significantly higher than have been stated, and they're not even taking into account the war or what's going to happen further down the line with Medicare and Social Security. How are we going to cover those costs? There's got to be some tough decisions made. These problems are not going to go away.
What's your stand on universal health coverage?
We should have it. I think that in the wealthiest nation in the world, it's a shame and disgrace that we don't. We try to provide a very comprehensive health-care plan for our employees. Costs keep escalating, but we think that's an obligation on our part.
What about high gas prices?
Even employees who work at Costco -- who make the type of wages that we pay -- are being hit at the gas pump. We're working very hard to schedule people from the same part of town so they can drive together. We're encouraging van pools. We're even testing 10-hour days, something we've never done in the past. If we can schedule some employees for four 10-hour days, that's one day they don't have to drive to work. They've got a 20% savings in their gas right there.
You've also installed skylights and solar panels in many of your buildings.
There's no sense in me BS-ing you. The reason we did it originally was exactly as you're suggesting -- to save money. We put the skylights in so that we didn't have to turn the lights on. But of course it's also environmentally correct. We also recycle all the boxes that the goods come in. And we're working on how we can simplify packaging and save on fuel. We just reconfigured our cashews. They were in a round canister, and we put them in a square canister. It sounds crazy, but we saved something like 560 truckloads a year of that one product. That's significant savings.
Is it true that you visit up to 12 Costco stores a day?
That's a legend I've tried to perpetuate, to keep everybody on their toes. You know, there certainly are days when I'll visit 12. I will be traveling to our warehouses every single week between now and Christmas. I love to hear the cash registers ring.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
寻找100%的球鞋
(刊登于联合早报2008年12月4日)
老实说，我没想到寻鞋任务会如此困难。毕竟鞋子是某知名品牌，而距离购买时间才不过短短六个月，只要随便到任何一间运动服装和器材店就可以找到吧？然而，我逛了十间店后都无法找到那双黑红色的绒制球鞋。很巧的是所有售货员通知我球鞋款式已过季时，都相继向我推荐另一个相同的款式。难道是商店售卖的球鞋款式大同小异，所以才导致售货员的想法变得一致吗？
在一般商店屡寻不获后，我就跑到专门出售过季球鞋的大卖场去。然而，搜寻的结果依然不变。由于过季的时期还不算太久，所以大卖场都还未引进此款式。毕竟，多数人不会在购买一双球鞋的六个月后买同样的球鞋。要不是邻居该死的狗将我刚买的球鞋咬得稀叭烂，我也不需要重新再买一双。
当我向朋友们抱怨自己买不到此款式的球鞋时，他们都纳闷地问我为何不买另一个款式的球鞋就可以了，何必大费周章找回同样的款式呢？理由非常简单，就是因为这个款式对我而言是近乎完美的。无论是颜色、设计、材质、功能和穿在脚上的舒适感，几乎无懈可击。当然，每个人的审美观都不同，我也不敢说这是全世界最完美的球鞋，只是对我而言它是完美无瑕的。借一句村上春树的话：这是一双100%的球鞋。
然而，我就如同村上春树小说里的男主角无法找到100％的女孩一样无法重新找到100％的球鞋。虽然经过朋友的建议上网搜寻后找到了同款的球鞋，不过此球鞋却是我讨厌的白色而非我喜欢的黑红色。朋友对我迟迟不肯订购此白色球鞋的举动感到不解：又不是选老婆，只不过是一双鞋子，没必要追求完美吧？我想朋友们不曾碰过100％的东西，所以才讲得如此轻松吧。
其实我也可妥协，不过是要在确认真的没办法后我才会妥协。因此，我到了该体育品牌公司的旗舰店，向他们解释了我的情况后，然后希望他们可以帮我解决此问题。然而，我竟然得到了公式般的回复：对不起，本公司已经不再生产此产品了，而且也没有存货了，因此对于您的要求感到非常抱歉。
我听了此回答之后，脑中闪过了《重庆森林》里金城武的一句对白：你们有想过罐头的感受吗？尽管现在的主题是鞋子而非罐头，不过我却觉得这句话套在此状况上很贴切。你们有想过球鞋的感受吗？说不生产就不生产，随随便便就用新的款式来代替它们，喜新厌旧般地将它们丢入历史的垃圾槽里。万一某双球鞋对某个人是100％的鞋子，你们不就剥夺了这个人拥有100％球鞋的权力了吗？你们在推出一款新的球鞋不是都打着出这是最好的口号吗？现在这么随便地停产，在某种程度上不是自掌嘴巴吗？
当然，我并没有说出这番话，只为了不希望惹麻烦上身。我也没有听从朋友的建议订购那双白色的球鞋，尽管它是暂时最接近100％的球鞋。想想看，这个世界不如意和不完美的事物有那么多，多这一桩又何妨？至少我知道自己想要的100％是什么，并且曾经拥有它。不在乎天长地久，只在乎曾经拥有，这句推销某消费品的广告台词用在此处来哀悼无法寻获某过季的消费品似乎显得有些吊诡吧？
老实说，我没想到寻鞋任务会如此困难。毕竟鞋子是某知名品牌，而距离购买时间才不过短短六个月，只要随便到任何一间运动服装和器材店就可以找到吧？然而，我逛了十间店后都无法找到那双黑红色的绒制球鞋。很巧的是所有售货员通知我球鞋款式已过季时，都相继向我推荐另一个相同的款式。难道是商店售卖的球鞋款式大同小异，所以才导致售货员的想法变得一致吗？
在一般商店屡寻不获后，我就跑到专门出售过季球鞋的大卖场去。然而，搜寻的结果依然不变。由于过季的时期还不算太久，所以大卖场都还未引进此款式。毕竟，多数人不会在购买一双球鞋的六个月后买同样的球鞋。要不是邻居该死的狗将我刚买的球鞋咬得稀叭烂，我也不需要重新再买一双。
当我向朋友们抱怨自己买不到此款式的球鞋时，他们都纳闷地问我为何不买另一个款式的球鞋就可以了，何必大费周章找回同样的款式呢？理由非常简单，就是因为这个款式对我而言是近乎完美的。无论是颜色、设计、材质、功能和穿在脚上的舒适感，几乎无懈可击。当然，每个人的审美观都不同，我也不敢说这是全世界最完美的球鞋，只是对我而言它是完美无瑕的。借一句村上春树的话：这是一双100%的球鞋。
然而，我就如同村上春树小说里的男主角无法找到100％的女孩一样无法重新找到100％的球鞋。虽然经过朋友的建议上网搜寻后找到了同款的球鞋，不过此球鞋却是我讨厌的白色而非我喜欢的黑红色。朋友对我迟迟不肯订购此白色球鞋的举动感到不解：又不是选老婆，只不过是一双鞋子，没必要追求完美吧？我想朋友们不曾碰过100％的东西，所以才讲得如此轻松吧。
其实我也可妥协，不过是要在确认真的没办法后我才会妥协。因此，我到了该体育品牌公司的旗舰店，向他们解释了我的情况后，然后希望他们可以帮我解决此问题。然而，我竟然得到了公式般的回复：对不起，本公司已经不再生产此产品了，而且也没有存货了，因此对于您的要求感到非常抱歉。
我听了此回答之后，脑中闪过了《重庆森林》里金城武的一句对白：你们有想过罐头的感受吗？尽管现在的主题是鞋子而非罐头，不过我却觉得这句话套在此状况上很贴切。你们有想过球鞋的感受吗？说不生产就不生产，随随便便就用新的款式来代替它们，喜新厌旧般地将它们丢入历史的垃圾槽里。万一某双球鞋对某个人是100％的鞋子，你们不就剥夺了这个人拥有100％球鞋的权力了吗？你们在推出一款新的球鞋不是都打着出这是最好的口号吗？现在这么随便地停产，在某种程度上不是自掌嘴巴吗？
当然，我并没有说出这番话，只为了不希望惹麻烦上身。我也没有听从朋友的建议订购那双白色的球鞋，尽管它是暂时最接近100％的球鞋。想想看，这个世界不如意和不完美的事物有那么多，多这一桩又何妨？至少我知道自己想要的100％是什么，并且曾经拥有它。不在乎天长地久，只在乎曾经拥有，这句推销某消费品的广告台词用在此处来哀悼无法寻获某过季的消费品似乎显得有些吊诡吧？
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
