9/10/11

Ryan Scissorhand-- The Deficit-Cutting Expert



本圖刊於北美世界日報民意論壇《刁觀點專欄》
Published: 4/24/2011, World Journal Sunday Forum《Tiao's Perspective Column》

愛德華剪刀手的遠親: 減赤專家 Ryan Scissorhand






His proposal to abolish Medicare and gut Medicaid would send tens of millions of people living on fixed incomes over the financial brink.
By Tim Rutten (洛杉磯時報專欄作家)
April 9, 2011



The hall of mirrors in which our bitterly partisan politics now play themselves out is a curious place. But even by its distorted standards, the reaction to House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan's budget blueprint has been odd, particularly the general reluctance to call it what it plainly is: an attempt to abolish Medicare and gut Medicaid, while further lowering the taxes paid by corporations and wealthy individuals.

Economists already are picking over the plan's dubious statistics, but — as The Times reported Friday — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has outlined what adoption of this proposal to supplant Medicare with vouchers and private insurance exchanges would mean. The overall cost of healthcare would go up, and retirees' out-of-pocket medical expenses would double — an increase that would push tens of millions of people living on fixed incomes over the financial brink.

The Wall Street Journal tellingly — and correctly — hailed Ryan's proposal for being "as important an advance as the shift from defined-benefit pensions to 401(k)s."

We all know how well that's worked out, but it does fix this plan firmly in the line of initiatives that, over the past 30 years, have dramatically increased social and economic inequality.

As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said on National Public Radio this week, "In the 1950s, the top marginal income tax rate was 91%. Now it's 35%.... Meanwhile, capital gains and dividends — a big chunk of [wealthy people's] income — were taxed at 35% as recently as the late 1980s. Now, they're taxed at 15%."

Forty-six years ago, President Johnson signed the bill that expanded the Social Security system to include Medicare and Medicaid. Those two programs were the jewels of an avalanche of social legislation that built on the legacy of the New Deal and that found inspiration in an unlikely place — a book, published in 1962, called "The Other America" by the writer and public intellectual Michael Harrington.

The book explored the poverty that then afflicted nearly one American in three and, like Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," it changed the political landscape.

Among the millions who read it and embraced its message was the president, John F. Kennedy. Johnson subsequently tackled the issue with all his consummate legislative skill. Harrington would come to feel that Medicare and Medicaid were the most lasting achievements of LBJ's epochal presidency, because — along with other changes in Social Security — they reduced old-age poverty to statistical insignificance, extending not just the lives of millions of our elderly, but also the vitality of their old age.

Harrington said that when he began his research into poverty in the late 1950s, "for most Americans to be old was to be poor."

And those who were poor and old, as he wrote in "The Other America," were likely to suffer: "The aged members of the other America are often sick, and they cannot move. Another group of them live out their lives in loneliness and frustration: They sit in rented rooms, or else they stay close to a house in a neighborhood that has completely changed from the old days. Indeed, one of the worst aspects of poverty among the aged is that these people are out of sight and out of mind, and alone."

Harrington's biographer, Maurice Isserman, wrote in 2008 that "what remains fresh and vital in 'The Other America' is its moral clarity." That quality is precisely what the debate over Medicare and Medicaid cannot be without.

In his introduction to "The Other America," Harrington noted that his exploration necessarily would involve "statistics, and that offers the opportunity for disagreement among honest and sincere men. I would ask the reader to respond critically to every assertion, but not to allow statistical quibbling to obscure the huge, enormous and intolerable fact of poverty in America. For, when all is said and done, that fact is unmistakable, whatever its exact dimensions, and the truly human reaction can only be outrage."

Backers of the Ryan plan are relying on the cold self-interest that so often dominates our era to mock the urgent solidarity expressed in that passage as quaint and naive. But because Harrington and those who shared his anger succeeded, the elderly and poor are no longer invisible.

And outrage is precisely what we ought to feel at this cruel attempt to push them back into want's dark shadow.

Donald Trump's Birther Investigation


Published: 4/17/2011, World Journal Sunday Forum《Tiao's Perspective Column》

圖刊於4/17北美世界日報民意論壇《刁觀點專欄》

註: 1.Alien--外國人,也是"外星人"之意。有意角逐2012總統的川普,頻爆料質疑歐巴馬的出生證明,這回可證據確鑿,抓個正著了....

2. FBI檔案公開:真有外星人
編譯中心綜合10日電 世界新聞網
April 11, 2011 06:00 AM

聯邦調查局最近公布的這份備忘錄,說明1947年飛碟墜毀於新墨西哥州羅斯威爾的事件可能是真的。美國政府始終否認有外星人登陸過美國,但是聯邦調查局(FBI)新近對外公開的一份備忘錄,顯示美國知名的「1947年羅斯威爾飛碟墜毀事件」可能確有其事。這份備忘錄指出,外星人於1950年前曾降落美國新墨西哥州的羅斯威爾市。備忘錄指出發現三架飛碟,裡面各有三具屍體。
英國每日郵報報導,這份呈報給當時聯調局長的備忘錄,是由負責華府辦事處的主管霍特爾(Guy Hottel)執筆,寫於1950年3月。備忘錄披露於聯調局設立的線上公共檔案閱覽室「資料庫」(The Vault),民眾可以通過登錄www.vault.fbi.gov訪問搜索。這份備忘錄可能再度引發政府掩飾真相的爭論。

霍特爾以「飛碟」為主題,指出空軍調查人員告訴他,新墨西哥州羅斯威爾發現「三個所謂的碟形飛行物」。飛碟呈圓形,中間突起,直徑約50呎(約15公尺),每個飛碟內有三個類似人形的屍體,但高度僅三呎(90公分),每「人」穿著質地精細、貼身的金屬衣。

霍特爾說,空軍調查人員指出,飛碟會在羅斯威爾墜毀,是因政府在當地架設了高功率的雷達,干擾了外星人的飛碟。公開的備忘錄已將空軍調查人員名字塗去,無法證實身分。然而備忘錄的部分內容,與1947年的羅斯威爾事件不謀而合,包括發生的時間及地點等。

這份備忘錄證明政府掩蓋飛碟與外星人登陸的事實。1947年,羅斯威爾傳出有一架飛碟墜毀時,當局最初承認,其後又改口稱墜毀的是一個氣象氣球。當時的報導說,軍方發現飛碟殘骸、外星人屍體,並加以解剖。

「資料庫」內另一份1947年所寫的備忘錄,稱軍方在羅斯威爾附近發現一個應是「飛碟」的物體。飛碟呈六角形,上方以電纜吊著一個氣球。註明是「急件」的備忘錄,指出飛碟形似氣象氣球。

All The Old Guys Love the Petite Greening


Published: 4/10/2011, World Journal Sunday Forum 《Tiao's Perspective Column》

刊於4/10 北美世界日報民意論壇《刁觀點專欄》

The Bravest Man in the States


Published: 4/3/2011 World Journal Sunday Forum 《Tiao's Perspective》

刊於北美世界日報民意論壇《刁觀點專欄》

The Ark of Odyssey Dawn



(Published: 3/27/2011, World Journal Sunday Forum 《Tiao's Perspective Column》)

《刁觀點專欄》在世報民意論壇以時事畫評調侃世局,天馬行空中儘量保持中立客觀,留予正反兩方表達意見空間。今在此blog轉貼兩則投書,盼進一步刺激思考。

聯軍襲擊利比亞,是強權推動公理嗎?

(轉貼文章-1)

聯軍襲擊利國 強權推動公理
【萬沐(加拿大) 3/27/11世報民意論壇】
人們在談到社會問題或國際問題的時候,往往要用一句話:「有強權,沒公理」。其實這是一個悖論,其危害一是將世界正義一口否決,危害二則是將強權和正義對立。

強權者,霸權也。強權的背後固然有單方意志的成分,如果這種單方意志的背後是恃強凌弱,那是應該譴責的。但如果是行俠仗義,路見不平拔刀相助,則是應該額手稱讚、大書而特書的。

此次法、英、美、加等在利比亞設立禁飛區就是值得肯定的正義行為。利比亞狂人以飛機導彈屠殺平民,激起國際社會公憤。聯軍應阿拉伯世界及非盟的要求,執行聯合國決議,出動戰機軍艦打擊這個獨夫民賊,可謂順天應人,好雨當時。但國際社會卻有為獨裁背書站台者指責聯軍是為了石油、為了扶持親美政權等意圖抹黑之。

請想,格達費繼續當政會影響到西方國家採購石油嗎?況且利比亞的石油僅占全球石油的百分之二;另外,如果此次設立禁飛區行動是為了扶持親美政權,那前段時間美國及西方國家為什麼要敦促親近西方的埃及前總統穆巴拉克下台?

說到底,這些風涼話,不過是某些專制勢力混淆國際視聽的小動作而已。而且將強權和正義完全對立,更希望造成人們判斷的混亂。其實,大家知道,如果沒有所謂的西方強權,二戰中德意日法西斯將奴役全世界;沒有所謂的西方強權,冷戰不會結束,也許第三次世界大戰早就打響。而沒有這次聯軍的行動,利比亞的抗議民眾,恐怕早就血流成河!

故此,國際社會的公理還得所謂西方的強權來推動,那些名義上指責強權,而實質上對抗公理的人可以休矣!




(轉貼文章-2)

強權的鱷魚眼淚 奧德賽的黎明或黑夜?

【李鑑慧/成功大學歷史系助理教授(台南市)聯合報民意論壇】2011/03/28


美軍侵略伊拉克八周年之際,美法英展開名為「奧德賽黎明」之軍事攻擊,如同過去無數戰事,以人道拯救為名,行侵略擴張之實。

「人權觀察組織」早已示警,西方各國針對利比亞之盤算顯非一般外交常態。的確,面對阿拉伯世界一波波革命浪潮,不曾見到美國與歐盟之具體回應,甚且就在出兵利比亞的同時,葉門政府殺害數十名反對者,亦不見強權介入,對於沙烏地阿拉伯與阿拉伯聯合大公國聯合跨海出兵鎮壓巴林反對勢力之行動,更是不吭一聲。更為反諷的是,英法美向來是格達費的主要武器供應國;一方面販售武器給獨裁者,一方面卻又高喊人權與和平。在西方冠冕堂皇的人道修辭背後,我們見不到一致性的人道考量,卻只見到鱷魚的眼淚。

為何西方強權對於阿拉伯各國改革浪潮,採取如此不一致之態度?長久以來,美國與突尼西亞、埃及及沙烏地阿拉伯等國,均保持良好關係,而這些國家也順應強權壓力,在國際貨幣基金「協助」下,走著自由經濟與私有化路線,實行不利於一般人民生計但卻圖利強權與自身統治階層之經濟政策。近幾年,利比亞雖與西方關係修好,但美國對其政權之控制,仍遠在其它阿拉伯國家之後,此次利比亞境內反對勢力之興起,正給予西方強權一絕佳機會,如同對付不聽話之海珊,欲除之而後快,進而扶植傀儡勢力,掌控此一中東重要產油國,建立區域控制。

對付格達費這等狂人,猶如對付海珊易如反掌,西方強權永遠不乏出兵藉口。但侵略伊拉克與阿富汗前車之鑑顯示,戰爭只會製造更多問題而無法解決問題。不管是內戰、國土分裂或部落式政治抬頭,乃至外國勢力佔領,都是此次軍事介入可能後果,徒然製造無盡災難。

面對可能來臨之更大規模衝突,利比亞邊境已出現大規模難民潮。但諷刺的是,此場侵略戰爭竟以「奧德賽黎明」為名,象徵一種歷經長久艱辛終得返鄉的人類千年大夢,寧不荒唐?

-----------------------------------


(附錄我(3/26)在他人文下的留言。人還是應該自許高些“aim higher”。)

貴文在評論上犯了幾點哲學上的謬誤:

1. 訴諸忠誠與權威(Loyalty and Authority)-- 純以美國/西方人的立場與利益為基點,無視他國歷史演變過程。

2. 雙重標準--北非中東局勢又再此證明了西方“民主與自由”的選擇性實行。

3.“Questionable Premise”--前提堪議-- 只要是美國/西方是強權,世界才會有正義與和平? 中東需有以色列,亞洲需有日本才能維持平衡?

4.“ False Dilemma”--偽兩刀論--這世界不是美國當老大,就必得是中共成霸權?

5. 訴諸無知( Ignorance)--無知為恐懼之母。 這世界如果沒有西方來領導,就會淪為共產主義和伊斯蘭統治的世界? 基於不斷被強化的假設--中國人,俄國人與穆斯林必然有稱霸奴役世界的邪惡野心?

-----------------

(利比亞系列之一: http://blog.udn.com/ctiao/4952336)

Godzilla Jr. Asks God Why?



( Published: 3/20/2011, World Journal Sunday Forum 《Tiao's Perspective Column》)

圖刊於北美世界日報民意論壇《刁觀點專欄》

(酷斯拉之天問)




自然--不自然,

不必然--必然。

制約下的壓抑,

僵直中的蒼白。

ZZ in the 11th NPC


Published: 3/13/2011, World Journal Sunday Forum 《Tiao's Perspective Column》
(圖刊於3/13/2011 北美世界日報民意論壇《刁觀點專欄》)

(文 by ZZ)

大家好,我是羊大代表ZZ,很榮幸獲邀參加2011年《第十一屆喜洋洋聯歡會》。在此就做一下簡報吧。

跟往常一樣,大家得裝羊同樂。今年節目最高潮是咱們領導戴上了老虎套當虎哥,揪出大灰郎那一幕。

看過2010年賀歲賣座卡通電影《喜洋洋與灰太郎--虎虎生威》嗎? 我拒看,因為我不是主角。不過對劇情倒是略知一二。反正,灰太郎就是壞蛋啦。

聽說文革有句標語很流行,說啥?「八億人,不鬥行嗎?」,乖乖,這會兒變十三億羊了。不過,也難為了胡哥,要照顧好這麼多羊的吃喝拉撒睡,真是很不容易耶。

聽說最近連花朵兒都起來造反,為了維持「社會和諧」,提升民生經濟,胡哥在演講時,連說了兩次「狠下功夫」,有的羊叫好,有的有點怕怕。

我在看文宣時,覺得很快樂幸福,不知不覺就睡著了。夢裡也在笑。好了,其他的事我就不記得了。

Bye -bye!

The Kings' Speeches


數十年以來,中東北非的王權,專制獨裁,壓制人權,是如何地受到保護與支持?

Published: 3/6/2011, World Journal Sunday Forum 《Tiao's Perspective Column》

刊於3/6 北美世界日報民意論壇《刁觀點專欄》

"王者之聲-宣戰時刻"甫上映,大家可能不清楚我為什麼把歐巴馬畫成這樣。附上電影劇照。演員Colin Firth 飾英王喬治六世,在治好口吃後,對著麥克風念"正義宣言",正式對希特勒宣戰。

Americans Have Awakened...How About Chinese?



Published: 2/27/2011, World Journal Sunday Forum 《Tiao's Perspective Column》
( 圖刊於2/27/2011 北美世界日報民意論壇《刁觀點專欄》)

用寫的不夠看了,聽聽他們怎麼唱吧!

美國: The world is going up in flames ---Charles Bradley


中國: 春天裡---旭日陽剛


“牽牛花革命"總發生在每個社會的破落牆角,日升則開,日落則息,永永遠遠.......

Wanna Make Wishes to Premier Wen!


Published:2/20/2011, World Journal Sunday Forum 《Tiao's Perspective》
(圖刊於2/20/2011 北美世界日報民意論壇《刁觀點專欄》)

"俺要向總理說願望"


此間中文電台正在播放大陸連續劇《婚姻保衛戰》,看得實在有氣。劇中人穿上設計師衣飾(包括睡衣),個個住在五星級裝潢的華廈,出入名車,頂著虛浮的行業,如證券,模特經紀,藝術家…等。他們愛到飯店餐廳談情說公事,其高檔令早期台灣瓊瑤三廳劇顯得土得掉渣,更別提俊男美女們,談的理財投資金額,動輒可是以「千萬」起跳哪!

「因時尚而好看」,據聞此劇大受歡迎,大陸同胞就愛看那股子浮誇勁兒。看劇看的不就是自個兒沒法過的人生嗎? 觀眾可以忍受大S和黃曉明之前在那部《泡沫之夏》超齡演出做大頭夢。那種孤苦小明星力爭上游,週旋在豪門子弟和國際巨星的情愛糾葛,離真實太遠,所以它所販賣的豪奢幻夢,讓人無感。相信也有不少人盯著螢幕,對劇情不甚了了,不過是好奇35歲的大S,在臉上究竟動過了那些「手腳」?

而《婚姻保衛戰》裡頭的那四對夫妻的生活,強調「源於生活又高於生活」的刻意精緻化,對比現實的粗糙反差太大,所以讓人生氣。連野餐的綠「曠野」也淨空到一眼望去只有一家三口人….此劇賣弄的現代風情,相信連住在歐美的「上流」階級都覺超過。看入只能「蝸居」的大陸人民眼裡,會在心中蘊釀出何種情緒?

幾天前新華網推出《我向總理說願望》欄目,溫爺爺的親民作風,令人讚許。但留言者的心聲,大比例有關住房問題,可真讓人心痛,揀一則代表:

「我們兩口子都是研究生畢業,在買房的路上天天省吃儉用,可離買的起房越來越遠,都說不可能解決所有人的買房問題,可像我們這種收入中等的人怎麼也應該屬於買的起的啊? 是我們不夠努力? 還是。 。 。」(2/20/11, 北京網友)

中國躍居世界第二大經濟體,而人均,一般生活條件,卻仍落後,國富民不均,再加上社會誇富成風,這教老百姓如何提升心靈層次?早十幾二十年如果把買美國垃圾債券的天文數字,拿來踏踏實實地,由中央主導給老百姓蓋平價住宅,該有多好?貧富懸殊所累積的民怨已十萬火急了,這才推出打房政策,是不是太晚了?地方官僚盤踞太久太深?從去年的什麼國十條,新國五條,到新出爐的國八條,京16條,穗國八條….上海油條…. 成了急就章。

再多孔子來說教,也無法平靜人心。光溫爺爺一人,能掙脫得了政商勾結的貪腐密網嗎? 看到螢幕上那群樣板人的嘴臉,不禁想到2008北京奧運時寫的《天籟假唱》,一個虛浮偏斜的社會,是不容易導向富強康莊正道的。

Mu-Barak Must Go!


Published: 2/13/2011, World Journal Sunday Forum 《Tiao"s Perspective Column》

(本圖作於2/9,刊於2/13 北美世界日報民意論壇《刁觀點專欄》)

2/9截稿前,穆巴拉克還賴著不下台,又死拉活拖到了2/11,埃及才正式變天。18天的人民示威這才算有了成果。在美國內已然跛鴨的歐巴馬,要如何因應中東變數?

(提醒注意這圖的細節:橫幅上那行字的多重解讀,包括穆巴拉克的英文拼法,拆開後的發音與歐巴馬的名字相同。另,金字塔上的那隻眼,您可熟悉?)

----------------------------------------

February 11, 2011 世界新聞網
埃及副總統蘇雷曼11日在電視台上宣布,埃及總統穆巴拉克(Hosni Mubarak)已經決定下台。消息傳來,全埃及各地示威的民眾都歡聲雷動。在解放廣場上數十萬的埃及群眾高聲歡呼埃及自由了,並揮舞埃及國旗。

穆巴拉克先前一度更換內閣、增設副總統;後來又在10日晚上宣布轉移政權給副總統蘇雷曼。但是,這兩次讓步都無法獲得示威民眾的接納,民眾堅持要他立刻下台。


82歲的穆巴拉克執政已長達30年,在面對埃及民眾18天來的大規模示威之下,終於不敵民意宣布下台。

(轉貼紐時專欄作家的文章)

What Egypt Can Teach America
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: February 12, 2011
The truth is that the United States has been behind the curve not only in Tunisia and Egypt for the last few weeks, but in the entire Middle East for decades. We supported corrupt autocrats as long as they kept oil flowing and weren’t too aggressive toward Israel. Even in the last month, we sometimes seemed as out of touch with the region’s youth as a Ben Ali or a Mubarak. Recognizing that crafting foreign policy is 1,000 times harder than it looks, let me suggest four lessons to draw from our mistakes:
1.) Stop treating Islamic fundamentalism as a bogyman and allowing it to drive American foreign policy. American paranoia about Islamism has done as much damage as Muslim fundamentalism itself.

In Somalia, it led the U.S. to wink at a 2006 Ethiopian invasion that was catastrophic for Somalis and resulted in more Islamic extremism there. And in Egypt, our foreboding about Islamism paralyzed us and put us on the wrong side of history.

We tie ourselves in knots when we act as if democracy is good for the United States and Israel but not for the Arab world. For far too long, we’ve treated the Arab world as just an oil field.

Too many Americans bought into a lazy stereotype that Arab countries were inhospitable for democracy, or that the beneficiaries of popular rule would be extremists like Osama bin Laden. Tunisians and Egyptians have shattered that stereotype, and the biggest loser will be Al Qaeda. We don’t know what lies ahead for Egypt — and there is a considerable risk that those in power will attempt to preserve Mubarakism without Mr. Mubarak — but already Egyptians have demonstrated the power of nonviolence in a way that undermines the entire extremist narrative. It will be fascinating to see whether more Palestinians embrace mass nonviolent protests in the West Bank as a strategy to confront illegal Israeli settlements and land grabs.

2.) We need better intelligence, the kind that is derived not from intercepting a president’s phone calls to his mistress but from hanging out with the powerless. After the 1979 Iranian revolution, there was a painful post-mortem about why the intelligence community missed so many signals, and I think we need the same today.

In fairness, we in the journalistic community suffered the same shortcoming: we didn’t adequately convey the anger toward Hosni Mubarak. Egypt is a reminder not to be suckered into the narrative that a place is stable because it is static.

3.) New technologies have lubricated the mechanisms of revolt. Facebook and Twitter make it easier for dissidents to network. Mobile phones mean that government brutality is more likely to end up on YouTube, raising the costs of repression. The International Criminal Court encourages dictators to think twice before ordering troops to open fire.

Maybe the most critical technology — and this is tough for a scribbler like myself to admit — is television. It was Arab satellite television broadcasts like those of Al Jazeera that broke the government monopoly on information in Egypt. Too often, Americans scorn Al Jazeera (and its English service is on few cable systems), but it played a greater role in promoting democracy in the Arab world than anything the United States did.

We should invest more in these information technologies. The best way to nurture changes in Iran, North Korea and Cuba will involve broadcasts, mobile phones and proxy servers to leap over Internet barriers. Congress has allocated small sums to promote global Internet freedom, and this initiative could be a much more powerful tool in our foreign policy arsenal.

4.) Let’s live our values. We pursued a Middle East realpolitik that failed us. Condi Rice had it right when she said in Egypt in 2005: “For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region, here in the Middle East, and we achieved neither.”

I don’t know which country is the next Egypt. Some say it’s Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Syria or Saudi Arabia. Others suggest Cuba or China are vulnerable. But we know that in many places there is deep-seated discontent and a profound yearning for greater political participation. And the lesson of history from 1848 to 1989 is that uprisings go viral and ricochet from nation to nation. Next time, let’s not sit on the fence.

After a long wishy-washy stage, President Obama got it pitch-perfect on Friday when he spoke after the fall of Mr. Mubarak. He forthrightly backed people power, while making clear that the future is for Egyptians to decide. Let’s hope that reflects a new start not only for Egypt but also for American policy toward the Arab world. Inshallah.

Chinese Tiger Mother? Phew!





Published: 2/6/2011, World Journal Sunday Forum 《Tiao's Perspective Column》

本圖刊於2/6/2011 北美世界日報民意論壇《刁觀點專欄》

(申明: 那個呸的人不是我喔, 她是誰?她究竟是誰? )

---------------------------------------

嘻笑過後,講點嚴肅的,這陣子討論虎媽教育的文章很多,到目前似乎還沒人提到以下看法:

1.如圖所示,灰姑娘時代的歐洲或百年前的美國,其社會經濟狀態,可有條件施行自由放任式(所謂"啟發式")的教育?

2.如果您的答案是:不能。那麼到歐美取經的"教育專家"憑什麼全套搬來現代歐美教育體系,並強加在一個社會經濟均尚未發展到歐美水準的地區?

3.在台灣有幾人能有像李遠哲和史英的資源,可供輸其子女? 可任其上森林學校,可請最優的家教,可跳過競爭留學海外?

4.美國的教育早已千瘡百孔,基礎教育相當不堪。其百年來的強勢造成了狂妄與怠惰,這正是美國國運下墜之因。對不同國家與父母,當其還在充實累積實力階段,必須先著重科技實用教育,並從小打好底子,有餘裕再多培養其他多樣資質。

拾人牙慧地去抄襲歐美失落的持家教育之道,合適嗎?

5.虎媽新聞炒得熱,似有幕後強大推力。歐美似在藉此彰顯"異族文化"入侵,與其主流的格格不入。從新聞反應看來,不僅西方大多數父母表示憤怒,深受西方教育理論影響的亞洲父母也"附會"地不以為然。這個現象,是否值得觀察注意?

2011 State of the Union



Published: 1/30/2011, World Journal Sunday Forum 《Tiao's Perspective Column》

( 刊於1/30/2011 北美世界日報民意論壇《刁觀點專欄》)