宰予的部落格：晝寢齋夜話

Velvet Revolution’s Roots Obscure 20 Years Later

PRAGUE — It was a revolution that began with a lie....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/world/europe/18czech.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

剛在《紐約時報》看到的。某美國軍人問：出兵伊拉克和阿富汗是否會影響對華備戰？
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/chinas-growing-military-might/

剛看到消息，香港明鏡出版社出了上下兩冊《林彪日記》。多麼寶貴的史料啊！雖然看介紹好像不是真的日記，而是通信、講話之類。將來一定要看看。

見下面關于英國改革計劃的討論。真是越改越糟。希望該計劃不要實行。

http://timesonline.typepad.com/dons_life/2009/11/do-universities-need-a-consumer-revolution.html

德国新政府停止对中国58亿欧元的外援
(博讯北京时间2009年11月01日转载)     
    
     【中央社╱柏林31日讯】为了让资源发挥最大的效益，德国新政府决定删除对中国的外援。德国外援一年预算58亿欧元，而且近年来不断追加，是全球仅次于美国的第二大外援国。

新任的经济协作及发展部长尼伯尔（Dirk Niebel）告诉「图画报」（Bild）说，德国决定把对抗贫穷的资源用在「最需要的地方」。
    
    他说：「像中国和印度这样的经济大国，已经无法满足这个标准。」
    
    德国对中国的外援一年约7,000万欧元，但并非直接的金援，而是以「发展援助」的名义，帮助中国发展再生能源和提升能源效率，创建永续的经济发展模式。
    
    不过，由于年经济成长率10% 的中国已经是全球第三大经济体，盗窃外国先进科技的传闻不断，加上它在非洲的势力日增，削弱西方的影响力，是否继续提供中国外援，一直是德国政坛争论的话题。
    
    本周上路的新政府，一改过去决策，删除对中国的外援。不过一位政府发言人补充说，当前进行中的计画仍将持续，「未来不会对中国有新承诺」。

http://news.boxun.com/news/gb/intl/2009/11/200911010035.shtml

（宰予按：這可以說是“國力得到承認”的必然結果。“揚眉吐氣”和國際援助很難兼得。當然這篇報導也寫得不仔細。從正文看，標題的數字是錯的。）

宰予按：下面是跟一些喜歡藏書的朋友交流的話。有些朋友認為，將來紙本書會完全被電子本取代。宰予則認為不會。

我覺得紙本和電子本會并行的。現階段，PDF本翻檢速度還是不如有些設計好的紙本。例如中華版平裝本的24史，我發現自己校對引文時用紙本的速度比用電子 本要快很多倍。（精裝縮印本，因為書本太大太重，所以翻檢速度就受影響。）長遠來說，電子本的缺點是技術不穩定，儲存的保障也不如紙本。從軟體這邊說，PDF我們大家有生之年應該都可以用的。但是百年之後如何？其 它電子格式，恐怕就更不一定有保障了。我認識的有些學者，花了很大功夫建立電子數據庫，但是十年過後，卻發現原來的軟件現在的電腦不支持了，于是前功盡 棄。從硬體來說，也有過時的問題。很明顯的，宋版書現在都可以看，但是幾十年前的唱片就不是大家都有設備聽的了。甚至我二十年前的軟盤，發現現在自己的設 備都不能讀了。所以，就圖書館建設來說，還是需要有足夠的紙本。由各種機構維持的網上資源，還有一些其它的局限性。例如，在美國，公立大學的圖書館是隨便 甚麼人都可以進去看書的。所以，基本上祗要圖書館有的紙本刊物，任何人就都能到架上看。現在為了節省經費和空間，有些大學訂了JSTOR之後，就取消了很 多刊物的紙本。對大學教授、研究生來說，雖然這樣翻檢不如紙本方便，但是可以從自己家裏上網看很多學術刊物，卻是以前沒有的方便。問題是，外面一般的人， 卻不能通過學校的網站上JSTOR。所以，轉成電子本，對沒有學校身份的人來說反而起了限制信息的作用。所以我覺得，圖書館收藏紙本是必須的。個人應該量 力收藏紙本。研究工作中，紙本和電子本需要并用。

Welcome. We expect to have an exciting day before us. The term “teach-in” had its origins in the 1960s when students and faculty sought to understand and therefore become active participants in the debate over the war in Vietnam. The same is true today: by assembling both experts and activists, inside policy-makers and outside critics, we will best prepare ourselves for the task that confronts us: nothing less than the defense of a great university in a time of acute dangers.

Our event here is both educational and political, designed to provide a progressive, alternative analysis of the budget crisis and a positive road forward for California, the UC system, and education at all levels of our state. The threat comes not from those who have actually denounced public higher education, but from those inside the UC system and the state government who say they have the University’s best interests at heart even as they distort and defame all that has made the University great. We hope this teach-in will forge the analytic weapons necessary to fight back.

To understand what we are in danger of losing, it helps to know why and how our university was built. This system is a product of the early post World War II years when the University of California was refounded, refunded, and greatly expanded. Although no single individual can lay claim to reshaping an entire institution of higher education, Clark Kerr comes close.

Kerr was a visionary. He was Berkeley’s chancellor in the 1950s and UC President from 1958 to 1967. As the architect of the 1960 Master Plan for higher education in California, Kerr refounded the UC system as the standard to which every other institution of higher learning aspired. Kerr’s hallmark was a guarantee “that there would be a place in college for every high school graduate…who chose to attend.”

Kerr’s dream for a “multiversity,” as he called it, was rooted in his career as a labor economist and liberal. He finished his BA at Swarthmore and then came West to Stanford for graduate study. He hated Stanford! To him the school was an institution in which its wealthy trustees distorted the educational mission. So he transferred to Berkeley where he worked with Paul Taylor, the radical advocate for California farm workers. Together, they studied the poverty, hardship, and desperation that John Steinbeck captured in his 1937 novel, the Grapes of Wrath. Kerr’s Depression-era experiences left him keenly aware of the inequalities that distorted American democracy but also dedicated to the peaceful resolution of conflict between labor and capital in the U.S. and elsewhere.

By the 1950s, Kerr had become convinced that a vastly expanded system of higher education was the key to a dynamic, harmonious society based on skill and knowledge. In this new economy, mass higher education was the key to this newly prosperous America where a booming California was clearly in the vanguard.  In his famous 1963 book, “The Uses of the University,” Kerr argued that the university was “at the hinge of history.”

Kerr's vision is all about you: a university campus designed to educate the great mass of the American people. To accommodate the influx of baby boomers, Kerr oversaw the opening of the San Diego, Irvine, and Santa Cruz campuses and he greatly expanded UC Santa Barbara. And despite the expenditure of an enormous sum of money, a UC education remained affordable. Under Kerr’s tenure, UC students had no tuition and almost no fees.

Four principles underlay Kerr’s University; they should be honored and defended today.

First, he rejected the philanthropic model for higher education, a model which then and now puts the name of so many wealthy men and women above the doorways of our great schools. UC would not be dependent upon the likes of a Leland Stanford, an Andrew Carnegie, a James Buchannan Duke, a John D. Rockefeller, or an Andrew Mellon. Instead it would be a product of the people of California, dependent upon the tax revenue of the state and accountable to a democratic polity.

Second, UC would  be a system both decentralized and a unitary.  Under Kerr’s leadership, UC Santa Barbara got its first independent chancellor and so too did UCLA, Davis, Santa Cruz and the rest of the campuses. But UC has always been one system, with one standard for faculty, student achievement, and administrative procedures. This is an amazing accomplishment, envied but still not emulated by many state systems, including such good ones as Michigan, Virginia, New York, and Wisconsin.

Third, all Californians would have access to higher education: a three tiered system that enabled first generation college students to live at home and then transfer to a State University or a to UC when and if they chose. Not all faculty liked this idea, especially if you were stuck at a state university without UC’s graduate programs, but for students it provided a ladder that they could climb, so that immigrants and the working class, in California more than any other state, might gain the knowledge and skills they so demanded. But all of this was and is dependent on low fees and plenty of classroom seats. Kerr built and expanded nine campuses of UC in the 1950s and 1960s. Today we have built Merced, just one more, and although enrollment at UC is higher than in Kerr’s day, it has not kept up with soaring population of the state.

And finally and perhaps most important, Clark Kerr and his generation of educators understood that the university was an investment, not in individual well being, although that was certainly true, but in the public goods that make a society both prosperous and democratic. Kerr himself too often thought that corporations and agribusiness would use the knowledge and trained graduates generated by the university in an equitable fashion – that was one reason students at Berkeley and Santa Barbara students revolted against his leadership 45 years ago.

But that the university was a public trust, that it must be responsible to a democratic populous, this Kerr firmly believed. It was the kind of vision that could inspire genuine loyalty to UC at the ballot box and in the legislature where both Republicans and Democrats voted tax increases to pay for it.

Today, Kerr’s idea of a unified, egalitarian, system of higher education requires a renewed defense. It is a vision that  this event seeks to recapture and recast for our own time.

http://toodumbtolivearchive.blogspot.com/2009/10/ucsb-teach-in-nelson-lichtenstein-on.html

BBC中文網說：
更新時間 2009年 10月 14日, 格林尼治標準時間07:03
《中國出口仍下降但跌幅收窄》
中國海關總署星期三（10月14日）發佈最新數據顯示，中國9月份外貿進出口總值為2189.4億美元，同比下降10.1%。
9月份中國進口和出口貿易值均超過千億美元，分別是1030.1億美元和1159.3億美元，同比下降分別是3.5%和15.2%。......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/zhongwen/trad/china/2009/10/091014_china_trade.shtml

《紐約時報》說：

In Recession, China Solidifies Its Lead in Global Trade

SHANGHAI — With the global recession making consumers and businesses more price-conscious, China is grabbing market share from its export competitors, solidifying a dominance in world trade that many economists say could last long after any economic recovery....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/business/global/14chinatrade.html?ref=business

現在美國某些公立學校怎麼這樣了：某少年小時候腦子受過傷，在一“特殊需要”學校念書。一天，他沒有按校規把襯衫掖到褲子裏。校內巡邏的警察乃狠打之。四個大人把孩子按倒在地不算，還把孩子的鼻梁打斷了。該警察體重是孩子的三倍。被警察叔叔和另外三個大人一起壓在身上，不知那孩子做何感受。

<h3>Brutalizing Kids: Painful Lessons in the Pedagogy of School Violence</h3>

Thursday 08 October 2009

http://www.truthout.org/10080912

今天早晨看到這個報導。作者花了六年時間觀察某研究型大學，最後寫成這本書。太寶貴了。

Gaye Tuchman
Wannabe U
Inside the Corporate University
272 pages, 6 x 9 © 2009
Cloth $25.00
ISBN: 9780226815299 Published October 2009

Inside Higher Ed的書評在這：

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/06/wannabe

宰予按：現在不是說要弘揚傳統文化嗎？孔子曰，“過猶不及”，總應該記得吧。

5岁女童被家长安排同时上12个兴趣班
2009-10-05 11:12:14　来源: 汉网-武汉晨报(武汉)　跟贴 114 条 手机看新闻

核心提示：武汉一5岁女孩，因父母认为幼儿园小孩都有特长，花1.5万元报了12个兴趣班。十一前，女孩因受不了，而用手、头撞墙，手上还被撞出血。

武汉晨报10月5日报道 父母花1.5万元报了12个兴趣班，令5岁女孩王君怡(化名)“崩溃”了：经常用头、手撞墙。吓坏了的父母十一长假带她到医院接受心理治疗。

3岁前父母从不逼小君怡做任何事，她很快乐。可3岁上幼儿园后，父母发现很多孩子会讲故事、会说26个英文字母，甚至会说简单的英语短句，20以内的加减法也算得很快，而这一切君怡全不会，最多会从1数到20。

从此君怡开始接受父母安排的魔鬼般强化训练，长期周末上兴趣班，今年暑假更是一口气给她报了 12个兴趣班：幼儿英语、幼儿心算、跆拳道、游泳、钢琴、亲子班、国际象棋、舞蹈、画画、书法等。从放假第一天起，小君怡天天在各个班之间连轴转，开学后 的周末也要上兴趣班。十一前期，君怡受不了这样的“厚爱”，用手、头撞墙，手上还被撞出血，父母心疼得厉害，赶紧带其到省中医院精神心理科治疗。

君怡的妈妈朱女士想不通，只是想发掘女儿的最大特长，为她好，她怎么会这样厌恶上兴趣班?要知道，这个暑假在她身上的兴趣投资超过1.5万元。

该科主任周晓宁说，任何学习都不值得以牺牲童年的快乐为代价。所谓的“兴趣班”实际上可以说是家长们的兴趣，但显然绝对不是孩子的兴趣。孩子的天性就是玩，0到6岁前不应过早地进行认字、算术等认知性学习，以后容易使他们对学习产生逆反心理。 (本文来源：武汉晨报 作者：黎清)

http://news.163.com/09/1005/11/5KRVA2JJ00011229.html

<h1>E. Coli Path Shows Flaws in Beef Inspection</h1>

昨天中秋節。人在美國，當然沒有啥節日氣氛。出去看了新電影一：

http://www.capitalismalovestory.com/

很值得看，雖然看得很傷心。

有朋友推薦了下面的文章：

Chronicle of Higher Education

September 28, 2009

Heteronormativity Is Hot Right Now

http://chronicle.com/article/Heteronormativity-Is-Hot-Right/48576/

那些術語很久不玩了，有點生疏。順便練一下吧：
This article occupies a plurality of liminal spaces: between the academic and the social, between analysis and satire, between parody and practical advice. It holds up a textual mirror to the mirror stage of the scholars in training. It exemplifies the self-referentialities of academic self-reflectivities, and problematizes the truthness of the textualities of academic discourses. :p

不知道裝得還像嗎？

（宰予按：剛看到下面的報導。轉貼之。） 老人解放前结婚后未登记 赠予房产无法办理 2009-09-28 02:39:51　来源: 华龙网-重庆晚报(重庆)　跟贴 94 条 手机看新闻

核心提示：一对年过九旬老人在解放前结婚，1950年《婚姻法》才开始实施后未登记，导致现在无人能证明两人已结婚，赠予子女房产无法办理。

重庆晚报9月28日报道  年过九旬的父母想将房产赠送给女儿，因为没有结婚证，几个月来，4个儿女来回跑了公证处、民政和街道三个部门，赠予一事仍然悬起。昨日，黎女士向本报反映了这件无奈事。

黎说，她家兄弟姊妹四人，父母已年过九旬，今年上半年，父亲诊断出胃癌，一家人商量后，决定将父母位于较场口77号的房产赠予给姐姐。随后，他们找到房管局，告知必须办理公证，可到市公证处咨询后，这才知道麻烦事来了。

“公证处称，办理房产赠予公证，必须提供父母二人的身份证、户口、房产证结婚证，可他们上世 纪30年代就结的婚，那时根本没有结婚证，现在突然要证，该去哪里补呢?”黎说，她到渝中区婚姻登记处咨询，准备帮父母补办结婚证，可对方称，1950年 5月1日后的事实婚姻才能补办结婚证。

这下，事情越来越复杂了。兄弟姊妹几个又找到公证处。对方说，实在补不了结婚证，就只能让街道出个证明。于是，他们找到解放碑街道办事处，满以为事情搞定了，可对方称街道没权利出此证明，这让黎女士一家人犯了糊涂。

“这几个月，三个部门来回奔波，让我们兄妹几人跑断了腿。”黎说，此事至今没办好，也成了父母的心病，几个儿女也担心这事变成父亲在生遗憾。

“我们并不了解居民的婚姻状况，也没有相关资料，肯定不能出具此类证明。”解放碑街道办事处一工作人员昨天解释。

而渝中区婚姻登记处工作人员解释称，1950年5月1日，国家第一部《婚姻法》才开始实施，对于之前的婚姻关系并没实施婚姻登记制度。若要补办，要由公证机关经过调查核实，是否是按当时当地风俗习惯结婚，且经群众公认的。

这样一来，转了一圈，出具证明又重新回到了公证处。对此，市公证处人员表示，在解放前结婚，且没有结婚证的情况确实比较特殊，如果街道不能出具证明，可找老人退休前任意一方的单位出具。

“到底谁能证明父母结了婚，我们搞不懂了。”黎女士说。

记者 任文劼 (本文来源：重庆晚报 )

http://news.163.com/09/0928/02/5K916RA500011229.html