说到底还是天主教与回教的斗争。
Johann Adam Schall von Bell (simplified Chinese: 汤若望; traditional Chinese: 湯若望; pinyin: Tāng Ruòwàng) (May 1, 1591 - 15 August 1666) was a German Jesuit missionary to China.
Born of noble parents in Cologne, Germany, he attended the Jesuit Gymnasium and joined the Society of Jesus in Rome in 1611. In 1618 he left for China, reaching Macao in 1619.
Apart from successful missionary work, he became the trusted counsellor of the Shunzhi emperor of the Qing dynasty, was created a mandarin, and held an important post in connection with the mathematical school. His position enabled him to procure from the emperor permission for the Jesuits to build churches and to preach throughout the country.
500,000 are said to have been baptized by Jesuit missionaries within fourteen years. The Shunzhi emperor, however, died in 1661, and Schall's circumstances at once changed. Astrologer Yang Guangxian alleged he indirectly caused the death of Empress Xiao Xian. Schall was imprisoned and condemned to death. The sentence was not carried out, but he died after his release owing to the privations he had endured. A collection of his manuscripts was deposited in the Vatican Library.
Crown Prince Sohyeon, the first son of King Injo of Joseon Dynasty in Korea, was highly interested in western sciences, and while he was a captive in Manchuria, visited and invited Schall to learn western sciences. Schall on his part gave Sohyeon books on the Catholic faith, and looked forward to the spread of Catholicism in Korea, since Sohyeon was the heir to the king of Korea. Schall asked Sohyeon if he would be willing to bring some Chinese Catholics so that they could proselytize the Koreans, and Sohyeon did so. Soheyon was murdered when he entered Korea, which dashed Schall's hope of evangelizing Korea.
杨光先（1597年－1669年），字长公，中国安徽歙县人，祖籍浙江余姚，明末清初学者、穆斯林。
杨光先早年受恩荫为新安所千户。崇祯十年（1637年），将千户位让与其弟，以布衣身份抬棺死劾大学士温体仁和给事中陈启新，被廷杖后流放辽西。不久，温体仁倒台，杨光先被赦免回乡。
清朝建立后，任用传教士汤若望、南怀仁等人按照西方天文学成果制定新历法，遭到杨光先的激烈反对，写出《辟邪论》等文章加以驳斥，并屡次上书，称汤若望等意图谋反，需要将天主教信徒“人其人，火其书，庐其居”。他提出：“宁可使中夏无好历法，不可使中夏有西洋人。”
康熙四年（1665年），在鳌拜的支持下，杨光先的上疏得到了审议，结果汤若望被判处凌迟（后在孝莊皇太后斡旋下未执行），南怀仁被流放，钦天监中与传教士合作的中国人如李祖白等被处决。史称“康熙曆獄”。
历狱后，杨光先被任命为钦天监监副，但他知道自己实际上并不懂得历法，于是上疏请辞。清朝政府结果非但驳斥他的辞职要求，还将其提升为钦天监监正。杨光先被迫上任，只好编纂《不得已》一书以自明心志。杨光先推举吴明烜为钦天监监副，实际负责立法推算，以回回历取代西洋历法。
康熙七年（1668年），鳌拜倒台，清朝朝廷发现杨光先确实无法胜任历法推算，复启用南怀仁。南怀仁遂提出要以实证证明西洋历法的准确度，并在次年的推算比赛中战胜了杨光先、吴明烜。南怀仁更上疏称杨光先为鳌拜党羽，结果杨光先被判处死刑，后被康熙帝赦免回乡，死于路上。
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Battling the Information Barbarians
WSJ： THE SATURDAY ESSAY
JANUARY 29, 2010
Battling the Information Barbarians
China often views the ideas of foreigners, from missionaries in the 17th century to 21st-century Internet entrepreneurs, as subversive imports. The tumultuous history behind the clash with Google.
By IAN BURUMA
In 1661, Adam Schall [汤若望], a Jesuit missionary from Germany and astronomer at the Chinese imperial court, fell victim to jealous mandarins, and was sentenced to death for teaching false astronomy and a superstitious faith. He was only just saved from being strangled, when a sudden thunderstorm convinced his judges that nature had spoken against their verdict. Father Schall died soon after. But the defensiveness of the mandarins, who saw his foreign ideas as a threat to their status, would be a recurring theme in Chinese relations with the outside world.
So, is it true after all, what they say about clashing civilizations? It is tempting to see the official Chinese response to Hillary Clinton's speech on Internet freedom in that light. Spurred by Google's announcement that it might pull out of the Chinese market in protest over censorship, Mrs. Clinton talked about Internet freedom in terms of universal human rights. Her speech was promptly denounced in a Communist Party newspaper as "information imperialism." Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu claimed that China's regulation of the Internet (banning references to Tiananmen, Tibet, Taiwanese independence and so on) was in keeping with "national conditions and cultural traditions."
The claim of universality is indeed an important facet of American culture, rooted in the American Revolution and Protestant ethics. It is considered proper for a U.S. secretary of state to give voice to the ideal of universal human rights. Just so, a Chinese official sees it as his duty to assert the uniqueness, or even superiority, of Chinese culture. This was true of Confucian scholar-officials in the imperial past. It is still true today.
Thought control, in terms of imposing an official orthodoxy, is a very old tradition. The official glue that has long been applied to hold Chinese society together is a kind of state dogma, loosely known as Confucianism, which is moral as well as political, stressing obedience to authority. This is what officials like to call Chinese culture.
One can take a more cynical view, of course, and see culture as a mere fig leaf meant to hide the machinations of political power. The latest Chinese salvo against the U.S., blaming the Americans for instigating rebellion in Iran through the Internet, reveals that the current spat has a hard (and opportunistic) political core. And the assumption that Google, as a Chinese editorial put it, is a "political pawn" of the U.S. government, is a clear case of projection. [胡适所言：“过河卒子”]
In any case, instilling the belief that obedience to authority is not just a way to keep order, but an essential part of being Chinese, is highly convenient for those who wield authority, whether they be fathers of a family or rulers of the state. That is why in their efforts to promote democracy after World War I, Chinese intellectuals denounced Confucianism, with its rigid social hierarchy, as an outmoded orthodoxy which had to be eradicated.
It was, as we know, not so much eradicated as replaced by a Communist orthodoxy after 1949. And when this orthodoxy began to lose its grip on the Chinese public after the death of Chairman Mao in 1976, Chinese officials struggled to find a new set of beliefs to justify their monopoly on power. The ideological hybrid that followed Maoism was "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics," a mixture of state capitalism with political authoritarianism. Later, Confucianism actually made a comeback of sorts. But the most common ideology since the early 1990s is a defensive nationalism, disseminated through museums, entertainment and school textbooks. All Chinese schoolchildren are indoctrinated with the idea that China was humiliated for centuries by foreign powers, and that support of the Communist state is the only way for China to regain its greatness and never be humiliated again.
This is why foreign criticism of Chinese politics, or Chinese infringements of human rights, is denounced by government officials as an attack on Chinese culture, as an attempt to "denigrate China." And Chinese who agree with these foreign criticisms are treated not just as dissidents but as traitors. The term "information imperialism" is clearly designed to evoke memories of the Opium Wars and other historical humiliations. Chinese are meant to feel that foreigners who talk about human rights are doing so only to bash China.
This is not always entirely irrational. If Chinese chauvinism is defensive, American chauvinism can be offensive. The notion that the U.S. has the God-given right to impose its views about liberty and rights on other countries, sometimes backed by armed force, has provoked precisely the same reaction in many places as Napoleon's wars for Liberty, Fraternity and Equality once did. No matter how fine the ideals, people resent it when they are pushed down their throats. Besides, the Chinese are not alone in mixing politics with morality. The history of Christian missions in Asia, or indeed Africa, cannot be neatly separated from imperialism; they were indeed often part of the same enterprise. Even scientific ideas, such as astronomy or medicine, which might be considered to be neutral, came with values that were anything but. The earliest missionaries in China, such as the great Italian Jesuit Matteo Ricci [利玛窦] (1552-1610), introduced science as part of their aim to spread the Christian faith.
In fact, there is an interesting parallel between those early Christian missions and our contemporary efforts to spread universal human rights, especially in regard to China. Ricci and his colleagues, as Jesuits, believed that the best way to influence the Chinese elite was to adapt to Chinese culture, to wear Chinese clothes, to speak in Confucian terminology, to "go native," as it were. They were criticized by other Catholic orders, who saw this as a shameless betrayal of Christian principles. Only the true faith should be preached, with no compromises to heathen views.
A very similar debate is going on today between those who believe that applying Western notions of human rights and democracy to China is counterproductive. Many a politician, businessman or media tycoon has argued that adapting to special Chinese conditions is surely more effective if one wishes to have any influence in China. The fact that this argument is usually self-serving does not make it necessarily wrong, but so far it has certainly not been proven right. Chinese human rights have not been noticeably advanced because of foreign compromises with Chinese illiberalism.
The dilemma for the Chinese elites, ever since the early Christian missions, is the question of how to adopt useful Western ideas while keeping out the subversive ones. Intelligent Chinese knew perfectly well that much of Western knowledge (how to construct effective guns, say) was not only useful but essential as a way to make China strong enough to resist foreign aggression. But the tricky part for scholar-officials was how to use that knowledge without weakening their own position as guardians of Chinese culture.
To mention just one example, greater knowledge of geography and other civilizations made it harder to maintain that China was the center of the world which should naturally be paid tribute to by barbarian states. In ancient times, foreign barbarians were ranked with the beasts. By the time Matteo Ricci, in 1602, showed the Chinese a world map (now on view at the Library of Congress), some foreigners were treated with more respect, but the old Sino-centric defensiveness had far from vanished. If the Middle Kingdom was no longer the perfect model of civilization, its traditional political arrangements became vulnerable to domestic challenge.
One way of dealing with this problem was to separate "practical knowledge" from "essential" culture, or ti-yong [体用] in Chinese. Western technology was fine, as long as it didn't interfere with Chinese morals and politics. In practice, however, this was not feasible. Political ideas came to China, along with science, economics, and Western religion. And they did help to undermine the old established order. One of these ideas was Marxism, but once Mao had unified China under his totalitarian regime, he managed for several decades to insulate the Chinese from notions that might undermine his power.
Once China opened up to the world for business again in the late 1970s, under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, the old problem of information control emerged once again. Deng and his technocrats wanted to have the benefit of modern economic and technological ideas, but, like the 19th century mandarins, they wished to ban thoughts which Deng called "spiritual pollution." The kind of pollution he had in mind was partly cultural (sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll), but mainly political (human rights and democracy).
Deng's attempt, which was only partly successful, was made far more difficult by the invention of the Internet, the problems and possibilities of which were left for his successors to deal with. The Internet, which has boomed over the last few years, cannot be totally policed; there are simply too many ways to dodge the censors. But China, with its army of cyberspace policemen, has been remarkably effective at Internet control, by mixing intimidation with propaganda. The intimidation encourages self-censorship, and nationalist propaganda creates suspicion of foreign criticism. It is not hard to find well-educated Chinese who buy the line about "information imperialism."
On the other hand, there are also plenty of Chinese who have applauded Google's defiance of the authorities. When hackers, operating from China, targeted the Gmail addresses of Chinese human rights activists, Google decided that it would no longer help to police online information. As the Google CEO Eric Schmidt put it this week at Davos, where he repeated his criticism of Chinese censorship of the Internet: "We hope that will change and we can apply some pressure to make things better for the Chinese people." Even as government spokesmen criticized the US for interfering in Chinese affairs, hundreds of Chinese Internet users laid flowers at Google offices in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. This is why it is too simplistic, and even noxious, to see the conflict over Internet freedom simply as a cultural clash. Those who would like to enjoy the same freedoms that people in democracies take for granted are Chinese too.
The question, then, for Western companies, as much as for Western governments, is to decide whose side they are on: the Chinese officials who like to define their culture in a paternalistic, authoritarian way, or the large number of Chinese who have their own ideas about freedom. Google has made its choice. It strikes me as the right choice, for not only will it encourage a healthy debate on freedom of information inside China, but it could serve as a model of behavior for companies operating in authoritarian countries. Even for enterprises aimed at maximizing profits, it might sometimes pay to burnish their image by being on the side of the angels.
—Ian Buruma is the Henry R. Luce Professor at Bard College. His latest book, "Taming the Gods," will be published in March.
JANUARY 29, 2010
Battling the Information Barbarians
China often views the ideas of foreigners, from missionaries in the 17th century to 21st-century Internet entrepreneurs, as subversive imports. The tumultuous history behind the clash with Google.
By IAN BURUMA
In 1661, Adam Schall [汤若望], a Jesuit missionary from Germany and astronomer at the Chinese imperial court, fell victim to jealous mandarins, and was sentenced to death for teaching false astronomy and a superstitious faith. He was only just saved from being strangled, when a sudden thunderstorm convinced his judges that nature had spoken against their verdict. Father Schall died soon after. But the defensiveness of the mandarins, who saw his foreign ideas as a threat to their status, would be a recurring theme in Chinese relations with the outside world.
So, is it true after all, what they say about clashing civilizations? It is tempting to see the official Chinese response to Hillary Clinton's speech on Internet freedom in that light. Spurred by Google's announcement that it might pull out of the Chinese market in protest over censorship, Mrs. Clinton talked about Internet freedom in terms of universal human rights. Her speech was promptly denounced in a Communist Party newspaper as "information imperialism." Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu claimed that China's regulation of the Internet (banning references to Tiananmen, Tibet, Taiwanese independence and so on) was in keeping with "national conditions and cultural traditions."
The claim of universality is indeed an important facet of American culture, rooted in the American Revolution and Protestant ethics. It is considered proper for a U.S. secretary of state to give voice to the ideal of universal human rights. Just so, a Chinese official sees it as his duty to assert the uniqueness, or even superiority, of Chinese culture. This was true of Confucian scholar-officials in the imperial past. It is still true today.
Thought control, in terms of imposing an official orthodoxy, is a very old tradition. The official glue that has long been applied to hold Chinese society together is a kind of state dogma, loosely known as Confucianism, which is moral as well as political, stressing obedience to authority. This is what officials like to call Chinese culture.
One can take a more cynical view, of course, and see culture as a mere fig leaf meant to hide the machinations of political power. The latest Chinese salvo against the U.S., blaming the Americans for instigating rebellion in Iran through the Internet, reveals that the current spat has a hard (and opportunistic) political core. And the assumption that Google, as a Chinese editorial put it, is a "political pawn" of the U.S. government, is a clear case of projection. [胡适所言：“过河卒子”]
In any case, instilling the belief that obedience to authority is not just a way to keep order, but an essential part of being Chinese, is highly convenient for those who wield authority, whether they be fathers of a family or rulers of the state. That is why in their efforts to promote democracy after World War I, Chinese intellectuals denounced Confucianism, with its rigid social hierarchy, as an outmoded orthodoxy which had to be eradicated.
It was, as we know, not so much eradicated as replaced by a Communist orthodoxy after 1949. And when this orthodoxy began to lose its grip on the Chinese public after the death of Chairman Mao in 1976, Chinese officials struggled to find a new set of beliefs to justify their monopoly on power. The ideological hybrid that followed Maoism was "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics," a mixture of state capitalism with political authoritarianism. Later, Confucianism actually made a comeback of sorts. But the most common ideology since the early 1990s is a defensive nationalism, disseminated through museums, entertainment and school textbooks. All Chinese schoolchildren are indoctrinated with the idea that China was humiliated for centuries by foreign powers, and that support of the Communist state is the only way for China to regain its greatness and never be humiliated again.
This is why foreign criticism of Chinese politics, or Chinese infringements of human rights, is denounced by government officials as an attack on Chinese culture, as an attempt to "denigrate China." And Chinese who agree with these foreign criticisms are treated not just as dissidents but as traitors. The term "information imperialism" is clearly designed to evoke memories of the Opium Wars and other historical humiliations. Chinese are meant to feel that foreigners who talk about human rights are doing so only to bash China.
This is not always entirely irrational. If Chinese chauvinism is defensive, American chauvinism can be offensive. The notion that the U.S. has the God-given right to impose its views about liberty and rights on other countries, sometimes backed by armed force, has provoked precisely the same reaction in many places as Napoleon's wars for Liberty, Fraternity and Equality once did. No matter how fine the ideals, people resent it when they are pushed down their throats. Besides, the Chinese are not alone in mixing politics with morality. The history of Christian missions in Asia, or indeed Africa, cannot be neatly separated from imperialism; they were indeed often part of the same enterprise. Even scientific ideas, such as astronomy or medicine, which might be considered to be neutral, came with values that were anything but. The earliest missionaries in China, such as the great Italian Jesuit Matteo Ricci [利玛窦] (1552-1610), introduced science as part of their aim to spread the Christian faith.
In fact, there is an interesting parallel between those early Christian missions and our contemporary efforts to spread universal human rights, especially in regard to China. Ricci and his colleagues, as Jesuits, believed that the best way to influence the Chinese elite was to adapt to Chinese culture, to wear Chinese clothes, to speak in Confucian terminology, to "go native," as it were. They were criticized by other Catholic orders, who saw this as a shameless betrayal of Christian principles. Only the true faith should be preached, with no compromises to heathen views.
A very similar debate is going on today between those who believe that applying Western notions of human rights and democracy to China is counterproductive. Many a politician, businessman or media tycoon has argued that adapting to special Chinese conditions is surely more effective if one wishes to have any influence in China. The fact that this argument is usually self-serving does not make it necessarily wrong, but so far it has certainly not been proven right. Chinese human rights have not been noticeably advanced because of foreign compromises with Chinese illiberalism.
The dilemma for the Chinese elites, ever since the early Christian missions, is the question of how to adopt useful Western ideas while keeping out the subversive ones. Intelligent Chinese knew perfectly well that much of Western knowledge (how to construct effective guns, say) was not only useful but essential as a way to make China strong enough to resist foreign aggression. But the tricky part for scholar-officials was how to use that knowledge without weakening their own position as guardians of Chinese culture.
To mention just one example, greater knowledge of geography and other civilizations made it harder to maintain that China was the center of the world which should naturally be paid tribute to by barbarian states. In ancient times, foreign barbarians were ranked with the beasts. By the time Matteo Ricci, in 1602, showed the Chinese a world map (now on view at the Library of Congress), some foreigners were treated with more respect, but the old Sino-centric defensiveness had far from vanished. If the Middle Kingdom was no longer the perfect model of civilization, its traditional political arrangements became vulnerable to domestic challenge.
One way of dealing with this problem was to separate "practical knowledge" from "essential" culture, or ti-yong [体用] in Chinese. Western technology was fine, as long as it didn't interfere with Chinese morals and politics. In practice, however, this was not feasible. Political ideas came to China, along with science, economics, and Western religion. And they did help to undermine the old established order. One of these ideas was Marxism, but once Mao had unified China under his totalitarian regime, he managed for several decades to insulate the Chinese from notions that might undermine his power.
Once China opened up to the world for business again in the late 1970s, under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, the old problem of information control emerged once again. Deng and his technocrats wanted to have the benefit of modern economic and technological ideas, but, like the 19th century mandarins, they wished to ban thoughts which Deng called "spiritual pollution." The kind of pollution he had in mind was partly cultural (sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll), but mainly political (human rights and democracy).
Deng's attempt, which was only partly successful, was made far more difficult by the invention of the Internet, the problems and possibilities of which were left for his successors to deal with. The Internet, which has boomed over the last few years, cannot be totally policed; there are simply too many ways to dodge the censors. But China, with its army of cyberspace policemen, has been remarkably effective at Internet control, by mixing intimidation with propaganda. The intimidation encourages self-censorship, and nationalist propaganda creates suspicion of foreign criticism. It is not hard to find well-educated Chinese who buy the line about "information imperialism."
On the other hand, there are also plenty of Chinese who have applauded Google's defiance of the authorities. When hackers, operating from China, targeted the Gmail addresses of Chinese human rights activists, Google decided that it would no longer help to police online information. As the Google CEO Eric Schmidt put it this week at Davos, where he repeated his criticism of Chinese censorship of the Internet: "We hope that will change and we can apply some pressure to make things better for the Chinese people." Even as government spokesmen criticized the US for interfering in Chinese affairs, hundreds of Chinese Internet users laid flowers at Google offices in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. This is why it is too simplistic, and even noxious, to see the conflict over Internet freedom simply as a cultural clash. Those who would like to enjoy the same freedoms that people in democracies take for granted are Chinese too.
The question, then, for Western companies, as much as for Western governments, is to decide whose side they are on: the Chinese officials who like to define their culture in a paternalistic, authoritarian way, or the large number of Chinese who have their own ideas about freedom. Google has made its choice. It strikes me as the right choice, for not only will it encourage a healthy debate on freedom of information inside China, but it could serve as a model of behavior for companies operating in authoritarian countries. Even for enterprises aimed at maximizing profits, it might sometimes pay to burnish their image by being on the side of the angels.
—Ian Buruma is the Henry R. Luce Professor at Bard College. His latest book, "Taming the Gods," will be published in March.
【转贴】老华西街台菜馆
http://blog.yam.com/flying07/article/3663394
奔忙的星期六 一早起床當灰姑娘打掃小房間
接著就趕著出門去 下午時已經餓到前胸貼後背了
既然到了皇后區 就不免來個台灣小吃懷念之旅
吃到一個超級脹
這間餐廳的名字叫老華西街 我說還真有台灣味哩！
千萬不要端出蛇肉來給我吃 我會嚇昏
老華西街：84-02 Broadway, Elmhurst, New York
想念的豬血糕 只是如果蒜末換成花生醬會更完美
肉焿湯 媽 還是你煮的最好吃
湯勾芡到有點太過頭了吧！而且少了紅蔥頭的香
臭豆腐 好懷念哦！
讓我想到五月回去時 房客他們店裡炸的真不賴
肉圓 讓我想到彰化肉圓 口水要流下來了
九層塔炒螺肉 超好吃 手有點抖
炒豆苗 新鮮又好吃
三杯雞 讚 很有台灣味
又是一個吃到又飽又愉快的週末下午
台灣果真是寶島 什麼美食都好好吃
U.S. Deal With Taiwan Has China Retaliating
By KEITH BRADSHER
Published: January 30, 2010
HONG KONG — The Chinese government announced late Saturday an unusually broad series of retaliatory measures in response to the latest United States arms sales to Taiwan, including sanctions against American companies that supply the weapon systems for the arms sales.
The Foreign Ministry announced in a pair of statements from Beijing that some military exchange programs between the United States and China would be canceled in addition to the commercial sanctions. Furthermore, a vice foreign minister, He Yafei, has called in Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the United States ambassador to China, to protest the sales.
The American decision to sell more weapons to Taiwan “constitutes a gross intervention into China’s internal affairs, seriously endangers China’s national security and harms China’s peaceful reunification efforts,” Mr. He said in the ministry’s statement.
The Obama administration notified Congress on Friday of its plans to proceed with five arms sales transactions with Taiwan worth a total of $6.4 billion. The arms deals include 60 Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot interceptor missiles, advanced Harpoon missiles that can be used against land or ship targets and two refurbished minesweepers.
China has regarded Taiwan as a breakaway province ever since the Communists prevailed in 1949 in China’s civil war and the Nationalists retreated to Taiwan. The United States has been supplying Taiwan with arms under the Taiwan Relations Act, which Congress approved in 1979 and which mandates that the United States supply weapons that Taiwan could use to fend off an attack by mainland Chinese forces.
Canceling military discussions and calling in the American ambassador have been two standard Chinese measures in response to previous American arms sales to Taiwan. But the announcement of restrictions on the Chinese operations of American companies involved in the arms sales represents an unusual twist, said James C. Mulvenon, the director of the Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis, a defense analysis firm in Washington.
The Foreign Ministry’s statement that mentioned the commercial sanctions was vague, providing no details on the restrictions that would be imposed on these companies’ business dealings in China or even what companies would be involved.
“We regret that the Chinese side has curtailed military-to-military and other exchanges” Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said, according to Reuters. “We also regret Chinese action against U.S. firms transferring defensive articles to Taiwan.”
The United States has occasionally imposed bans on exports to the United States by Chinese companies that have violated international agreements on weapons proliferation, most notably penalizing Chinese companies involved in alleged surreptitious shipments of medium-range missiles to Pakistan.
But China is going a step further in moving to penalize American companies engaged in commercial arms transactions that are publicly announced and do not violate international nonproliferation pacts, Mr. Mulvenon said.
The World Trade Organization generally prohibits the imposition of import restrictions as political maneuvers. But the body’s rules include a broad exception for national security that the Chinese could cite if the United States tried to challenge them.
China has also never joined the W.T.O. side agreement on government procurement. So China could bar the American companies from selling to the government without fear of W.T.O. review.
Published: January 30, 2010
HONG KONG — The Chinese government announced late Saturday an unusually broad series of retaliatory measures in response to the latest United States arms sales to Taiwan, including sanctions against American companies that supply the weapon systems for the arms sales.
The Foreign Ministry announced in a pair of statements from Beijing that some military exchange programs between the United States and China would be canceled in addition to the commercial sanctions. Furthermore, a vice foreign minister, He Yafei, has called in Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the United States ambassador to China, to protest the sales.
The American decision to sell more weapons to Taiwan “constitutes a gross intervention into China’s internal affairs, seriously endangers China’s national security and harms China’s peaceful reunification efforts,” Mr. He said in the ministry’s statement.
The Obama administration notified Congress on Friday of its plans to proceed with five arms sales transactions with Taiwan worth a total of $6.4 billion. The arms deals include 60 Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot interceptor missiles, advanced Harpoon missiles that can be used against land or ship targets and two refurbished minesweepers.
China has regarded Taiwan as a breakaway province ever since the Communists prevailed in 1949 in China’s civil war and the Nationalists retreated to Taiwan. The United States has been supplying Taiwan with arms under the Taiwan Relations Act, which Congress approved in 1979 and which mandates that the United States supply weapons that Taiwan could use to fend off an attack by mainland Chinese forces.
Canceling military discussions and calling in the American ambassador have been two standard Chinese measures in response to previous American arms sales to Taiwan. But the announcement of restrictions on the Chinese operations of American companies involved in the arms sales represents an unusual twist, said James C. Mulvenon, the director of the Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis, a defense analysis firm in Washington.
The Foreign Ministry’s statement that mentioned the commercial sanctions was vague, providing no details on the restrictions that would be imposed on these companies’ business dealings in China or even what companies would be involved.
“We regret that the Chinese side has curtailed military-to-military and other exchanges” Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said, according to Reuters. “We also regret Chinese action against U.S. firms transferring defensive articles to Taiwan.”
The United States has occasionally imposed bans on exports to the United States by Chinese companies that have violated international agreements on weapons proliferation, most notably penalizing Chinese companies involved in alleged surreptitious shipments of medium-range missiles to Pakistan.
But China is going a step further in moving to penalize American companies engaged in commercial arms transactions that are publicly announced and do not violate international nonproliferation pacts, Mr. Mulvenon said.
The World Trade Organization generally prohibits the imposition of import restrictions as political maneuvers. But the body’s rules include a broad exception for national security that the Chinese could cite if the United States tried to challenge them.
China has also never joined the W.T.O. side agreement on government procurement. So China could bar the American companies from selling to the government without fear of W.T.O. review.
中方宣布四措施反制美对台军售 警告称后果自负
核心提示:何亚非强烈敦促美方充分认清售台武器的严重危害性，认真对待中方严正立场，立即撤销售台武器的错误决定，停止对台军售。否则，美方必须为由此产生的严重后果负责。
新京报1月31日报道 昨日，美国政府宣布，美国将向台湾出售“黑鹰”直升机、“爱国者-3”反导系统、扫雷艇等总额近64亿美元的武器装备。随后中方通过多种渠道表示强烈反对。
中国外交部副部长何亚非紧急召见美驻华大使，向美方提出严正交涉;中国国防部外事办公室主任钱利华奉命召见美国驻华使馆国防武官，向美方提出严正抗议。
在该消息宣布的17个小时内，中国迅速宣布了四项反制措施。中国国防部宣布，中国方面决定暂停中美两军计划内的有关互访安排。同时，中国外交部决定推迟中美两军部分交往项目，推迟双方拟于近期举行的中美副部长级战略安全、军控与防扩散等磋商。中方将对参与售台武器的美国公司实施相关制裁。
美宣布对台军售 外交部连夜交涉
北京时间昨日凌晨，美国政府宣布，美国将向台湾出售“黑鹰”直升机、“爱国者-3”反导系统、扫雷艇等总额近64亿美元的武器装备。
记者从外交部了解到，在美国政府宣布后，外交部副部长何亚非连夜向美驻华大使洪博培提出严正交涉。
何亚非称，美方无视中方多次严正交涉，执意作出售台武器的错误决定，严重违反中美三个联合公报特别是“八·一七”公报原则，粗暴干涉中国内政，严重危害中国国家安全，损害中国和平统一大业。中方对此表示强烈愤慨，并提出严正交涉。
何亚非强调，近来，由于美方执意实施美上届政府对台军售错误决定、对华采取贸易保护主义措施等问题，中美关系已经受到严重干扰。美方宣布上述售台武器计划，势必进一步损害中美关系，给两国诸多重要领域的交往与合作造成严重消极影响，导致双方都不愿看到的后果。
同时，何亚非强烈敦促美方充分认清售台武器的严重危害性，认真对待中方严正立场，立即撤销售台武器的错误决定，停止对台军售。否则，美方必须为由此产生的严重后果负责。
中国宣布四项对美反制措施
昨日，国防部新闻发言人黄雪平就美售台武器发表谈话。黄雪平说，考虑到美售台武器的严重危害性及对中美两军关系带来的恶劣影响，中方决定，暂停两军计划内的有关互访安排。中方将密切关注形势发展，视情况做出进一步反应。
中国外交部宣布，由于美方售台武器已严重损害中美关系，中方决定推迟中美两军部分交往项目，推迟双方拟于近期举行的中美副部长级战略安全、军控与防扩散等磋商。中方也将对参与售台武器的美国公司实施相关制裁。中国外交部官员表示，中美在有关重要国际与地区问题上的合作也将会不可避免地受到影响。
此外，全国人大外事委员会负责人发表谈话。这位负责人说，台湾问题事关中国主权和领土完整，涉及中国核心利益，关乎13亿中国人民的民族感情，始终是中美关系中最重要、最敏感的核心问题。中国人民对此表示强烈愤慨。
■ 军售清单
“黑鹰”直升机
是美军普遍使用的一种武装直升机，从美国西科斯基公司生产的双涡轮轴引擎、单旋翼直升机S-70型发展而来的一种中型通用/攻击直升机。除1名驾驶员外，机上可搭载11名士兵，主要执行向前沿阵地运送突击部队和对地面目标进行攻击的任务。
“爱国者-3”反导系统
是美国洛克希德-马丁公司在“爱国者”PAC-2系统的基础上，通过改进火控系统并换装新的PAC-3导弹而成的一种全新的防空系统。海湾战争以来，美国已极大增强“爱国者”系统的作战效能。
“鱼鹰”级扫雷艇
该艇长57.3米，宽11米，吃水2.9米，排水量895吨，船员编制51人。采用柴电推进，总功率为1600马力，最大航速12节，自持力15 天。船体采用硬壳式整体玻璃钢结构，取消了传统的结构骨架，舰体结构可承受水雷爆炸的巨大震波。反水雷装备为一套SLQ-48灭雷具和一套DGM-4闭环消磁系统。
“鱼叉”导弹
该导弹既可用作空对舰和舰对舰、又能用作潜对舰的反舰导弹。该导弹适应性好，可从多种发射平台发射。导弹水下发射运载器是一种无动力运载器，在水下运行无声音，隐蔽性好。该导弹有很强的抗干扰能力。“鱼叉”AGM-84是美军目前主要的反舰武器之一，是由麦克唐纳·道格拉斯公司研制。本组图片为资料图片
清单未见F16战斗机
在本次美国售台武器中，主要包括“黑鹰”直升机、“爱国者-3”反导系统、“鱼鹰”级扫雷艇、“鱼叉”导弹、多功能信息分发系统等武器，总价值近64亿美元。
此前，台湾方面希望美国出售的F16战斗机在这次军售清单中并未出现。对此，专家分析，黑鹰直升机和爱国者导弹系统主要以防御为主，攻击能力不是很强。美并未满足台湾方面F16战斗机意愿，说明在军售上仍然对大陆有所忌惮。
■ 分析
美关上双方军事交流大门
1月30日，美国政府通知国会决定向台湾出售“黑鹰”直升机、“爱国者-3”反导系统、“鱼鹰”级扫雷艇、“鱼叉”导弹、多功能信息分发系统等武器，总价值近64亿美元。刚刚“回暖”的中美军事交流无疑将受到严重影响。有识之士甚至疑虑：美方这一举动将关上中美军事交流的大门。
审视这次对台军售的清单，“爱国者-3”反导系统等先进武器赫然在列，不能不让人问道：这样的举动意欲何为?
中方理所当然作出强烈反应，向美方提出严正交涉。外交部副部长何亚非紧急召见美国驻华大使洪博培并提出严正抗议。中国国防部外事办公室主任钱利华奉命召见美国驻华使馆国防武官，向美方提出严正抗议。
国台办发言人、全国人大外事委员会负责人和全国政协外事委员会负责人也就美国政府决定售台武器发表谈话，对此表示强烈愤慨和坚决反对。
此次军售也势将影响两军刚刚恢复的军事交流。2009年10月，军委副主席徐才厚访问美国，因2008年10月美国布什政府宣布售台武器而受到严重干扰的中美两军关系得到了恢复。今年年内，双方已经安排了一系列新的交流活动，包括美国国防部长盖茨访华、中国人民解放军总参谋长陈炳德和美军参谋长联席会议主席马伦实现互访、中美军舰互访等。这次对台军售获批，无疑会严重影响这些预期进行的交流活动。
若刚刚“回暖”的中美军事关系因对台军售而受到严重影响，责任完全不在中方。新华社记者钱彤、李诗佳
■ 背景
美近年对台军售一览
2001年4月，美同意售台4艘基德级驱逐舰、8艘柴油动力潜艇、12架P-3C型“猎户座”反潜巡逻机、“爱国者-3”型防空导弹等先进武器装备，总价值约180亿美元。
2001年10月，美国宣布，向台湾出售40套“标枪”反坦克导弹系统，连同360枚导弹、零件等，总值约5100万美元。
2002年9月，美同意售台182枚“响尾蛇”空对空导弹、440枚“地狱火”二型空对地反装甲导弹、54辆两栖攻击和指挥车辆以及各种通讯装备和维修材料。总价值5.2亿美元。
2003年11月，美同意售台200枚AIM-120C-5型空空导弹。
2004年4月，美同意售台两套超高频率远程早期预警雷达及相关设备，总价值17.8美元。
2007年3月，美同意售台453枚AIM-120C-5型空空导弹和“小牛”空对地导弹，总价值4.21亿美元。
2007年，美同意售台66架F-16C/D型战斗机，总价值超过台币1200亿新台币，约37亿美元。
2007年9月13日，美国国防部国防安全合作署宣布，出售台湾12架P-3C型反潜机，以及144枚“标准-2”型导弹，军售总价共达22.3亿美元。
2007年11月13日，美国国防部通知国会，称可能向台湾出售价值9.39亿美元的“爱国者”导弹升级系统。
2008年10月3日，美国政府通知国会决定向台湾出售“爱国者-3”反导系统、E-2T型预警机升级系统、“阿帕奇”直升机等武器装备，总价值达64.63亿美元。
新京报1月31日报道 昨日，美国政府宣布，美国将向台湾出售“黑鹰”直升机、“爱国者-3”反导系统、扫雷艇等总额近64亿美元的武器装备。随后中方通过多种渠道表示强烈反对。
中国外交部副部长何亚非紧急召见美驻华大使，向美方提出严正交涉;中国国防部外事办公室主任钱利华奉命召见美国驻华使馆国防武官，向美方提出严正抗议。
在该消息宣布的17个小时内，中国迅速宣布了四项反制措施。中国国防部宣布，中国方面决定暂停中美两军计划内的有关互访安排。同时，中国外交部决定推迟中美两军部分交往项目，推迟双方拟于近期举行的中美副部长级战略安全、军控与防扩散等磋商。中方将对参与售台武器的美国公司实施相关制裁。
美宣布对台军售 外交部连夜交涉
北京时间昨日凌晨，美国政府宣布，美国将向台湾出售“黑鹰”直升机、“爱国者-3”反导系统、扫雷艇等总额近64亿美元的武器装备。
记者从外交部了解到，在美国政府宣布后，外交部副部长何亚非连夜向美驻华大使洪博培提出严正交涉。
何亚非称，美方无视中方多次严正交涉，执意作出售台武器的错误决定，严重违反中美三个联合公报特别是“八·一七”公报原则，粗暴干涉中国内政，严重危害中国国家安全，损害中国和平统一大业。中方对此表示强烈愤慨，并提出严正交涉。
何亚非强调，近来，由于美方执意实施美上届政府对台军售错误决定、对华采取贸易保护主义措施等问题，中美关系已经受到严重干扰。美方宣布上述售台武器计划，势必进一步损害中美关系，给两国诸多重要领域的交往与合作造成严重消极影响，导致双方都不愿看到的后果。
同时，何亚非强烈敦促美方充分认清售台武器的严重危害性，认真对待中方严正立场，立即撤销售台武器的错误决定，停止对台军售。否则，美方必须为由此产生的严重后果负责。
中国宣布四项对美反制措施
昨日，国防部新闻发言人黄雪平就美售台武器发表谈话。黄雪平说，考虑到美售台武器的严重危害性及对中美两军关系带来的恶劣影响，中方决定，暂停两军计划内的有关互访安排。中方将密切关注形势发展，视情况做出进一步反应。
中国外交部宣布，由于美方售台武器已严重损害中美关系，中方决定推迟中美两军部分交往项目，推迟双方拟于近期举行的中美副部长级战略安全、军控与防扩散等磋商。中方也将对参与售台武器的美国公司实施相关制裁。中国外交部官员表示，中美在有关重要国际与地区问题上的合作也将会不可避免地受到影响。
此外，全国人大外事委员会负责人发表谈话。这位负责人说，台湾问题事关中国主权和领土完整，涉及中国核心利益，关乎13亿中国人民的民族感情，始终是中美关系中最重要、最敏感的核心问题。中国人民对此表示强烈愤慨。
■ 军售清单
“黑鹰”直升机
是美军普遍使用的一种武装直升机，从美国西科斯基公司生产的双涡轮轴引擎、单旋翼直升机S-70型发展而来的一种中型通用/攻击直升机。除1名驾驶员外，机上可搭载11名士兵，主要执行向前沿阵地运送突击部队和对地面目标进行攻击的任务。
“爱国者-3”反导系统
是美国洛克希德-马丁公司在“爱国者”PAC-2系统的基础上，通过改进火控系统并换装新的PAC-3导弹而成的一种全新的防空系统。海湾战争以来，美国已极大增强“爱国者”系统的作战效能。
“鱼鹰”级扫雷艇
该艇长57.3米，宽11米，吃水2.9米，排水量895吨，船员编制51人。采用柴电推进，总功率为1600马力，最大航速12节，自持力15 天。船体采用硬壳式整体玻璃钢结构，取消了传统的结构骨架，舰体结构可承受水雷爆炸的巨大震波。反水雷装备为一套SLQ-48灭雷具和一套DGM-4闭环消磁系统。
“鱼叉”导弹
该导弹既可用作空对舰和舰对舰、又能用作潜对舰的反舰导弹。该导弹适应性好，可从多种发射平台发射。导弹水下发射运载器是一种无动力运载器，在水下运行无声音，隐蔽性好。该导弹有很强的抗干扰能力。“鱼叉”AGM-84是美军目前主要的反舰武器之一，是由麦克唐纳·道格拉斯公司研制。本组图片为资料图片
清单未见F16战斗机
在本次美国售台武器中，主要包括“黑鹰”直升机、“爱国者-3”反导系统、“鱼鹰”级扫雷艇、“鱼叉”导弹、多功能信息分发系统等武器，总价值近64亿美元。
此前，台湾方面希望美国出售的F16战斗机在这次军售清单中并未出现。对此，专家分析，黑鹰直升机和爱国者导弹系统主要以防御为主，攻击能力不是很强。美并未满足台湾方面F16战斗机意愿，说明在军售上仍然对大陆有所忌惮。
■ 分析
美关上双方军事交流大门
1月30日，美国政府通知国会决定向台湾出售“黑鹰”直升机、“爱国者-3”反导系统、“鱼鹰”级扫雷艇、“鱼叉”导弹、多功能信息分发系统等武器，总价值近64亿美元。刚刚“回暖”的中美军事交流无疑将受到严重影响。有识之士甚至疑虑：美方这一举动将关上中美军事交流的大门。
审视这次对台军售的清单，“爱国者-3”反导系统等先进武器赫然在列，不能不让人问道：这样的举动意欲何为?
中方理所当然作出强烈反应，向美方提出严正交涉。外交部副部长何亚非紧急召见美国驻华大使洪博培并提出严正抗议。中国国防部外事办公室主任钱利华奉命召见美国驻华使馆国防武官，向美方提出严正抗议。
国台办发言人、全国人大外事委员会负责人和全国政协外事委员会负责人也就美国政府决定售台武器发表谈话，对此表示强烈愤慨和坚决反对。
此次军售也势将影响两军刚刚恢复的军事交流。2009年10月，军委副主席徐才厚访问美国，因2008年10月美国布什政府宣布售台武器而受到严重干扰的中美两军关系得到了恢复。今年年内，双方已经安排了一系列新的交流活动，包括美国国防部长盖茨访华、中国人民解放军总参谋长陈炳德和美军参谋长联席会议主席马伦实现互访、中美军舰互访等。这次对台军售获批，无疑会严重影响这些预期进行的交流活动。
若刚刚“回暖”的中美军事关系因对台军售而受到严重影响，责任完全不在中方。新华社记者钱彤、李诗佳
■ 背景
美近年对台军售一览
2001年4月，美同意售台4艘基德级驱逐舰、8艘柴油动力潜艇、12架P-3C型“猎户座”反潜巡逻机、“爱国者-3”型防空导弹等先进武器装备，总价值约180亿美元。
2001年10月，美国宣布，向台湾出售40套“标枪”反坦克导弹系统，连同360枚导弹、零件等，总值约5100万美元。
2002年9月，美同意售台182枚“响尾蛇”空对空导弹、440枚“地狱火”二型空对地反装甲导弹、54辆两栖攻击和指挥车辆以及各种通讯装备和维修材料。总价值5.2亿美元。
2003年11月，美同意售台200枚AIM-120C-5型空空导弹。
2004年4月，美同意售台两套超高频率远程早期预警雷达及相关设备，总价值17.8美元。
2007年3月，美同意售台453枚AIM-120C-5型空空导弹和“小牛”空对地导弹，总价值4.21亿美元。
2007年，美同意售台66架F-16C/D型战斗机，总价值超过台币1200亿新台币，约37亿美元。
2007年9月13日，美国国防部国防安全合作署宣布，出售台湾12架P-3C型反潜机，以及144枚“标准-2”型导弹，军售总价共达22.3亿美元。
2007年11月13日，美国国防部通知国会，称可能向台湾出售价值9.39亿美元的“爱国者”导弹升级系统。
2008年10月3日，美国政府通知国会决定向台湾出售“爱国者-3”反导系统、E-2T型预警机升级系统、“阿帕奇”直升机等武器装备，总价值达64.63亿美元。
Thursday, January 28, 2010
美国和卢森堡关于避免双重征税和防止偷漏税的双边协定
这学期在上一门国际法的课，有一个问题涉及美国和卢森堡关于避免双重征税和防止偷漏税的双边协定（卢森堡是很多美国富人的避税天堂）。按照美国的制度，双边协定一般是由国务院（Department of State，相当于外交部）委派驻外大使与所在国谈好、签订，再拿回来请国会批准。这份协定，就是在1996年4月3号已经签好，再由克林顿总统于9月4日提请国会批准。克林顿提交给国会的文件长达88页 ，开头是他致参议院的短信，敦请尽早批准的意思。
这样的公函往来本来也没什么稀奇，但我是第一次看到，还是有些感慨。
1. “三权分立”好像是一个已经说滥了的概念。它其实一点都不抽象，而是在政府每天的运转中有着无数具体而微的体现。
2. 这份88页的文件，是我在老师的指导下从一个叫做GPO Access的美国联邦政府网站上检索到的。GPO的意思是Government Printing Office（政府印刷办公室），很朴实无华的一个名字。只要具备基本的检索知识，任何人都可以非常方便地查阅这些文件，查阅美国任何一份双边协定签订的始末。不需要密码，不需要缴费。所谓政府的透明，民众的参与权、监督权，就是体现在这些细小的方面。
这样的公函往来本来也没什么稀奇，但我是第一次看到，还是有些感慨。
1. “三权分立”好像是一个已经说滥了的概念。它其实一点都不抽象，而是在政府每天的运转中有着无数具体而微的体现。
2. 这份88页的文件，是我在老师的指导下从一个叫做GPO Access的美国联邦政府网站上检索到的。GPO的意思是Government Printing Office（政府印刷办公室），很朴实无华的一个名字。只要具备基本的检索知识，任何人都可以非常方便地查阅这些文件，查阅美国任何一份双边协定签订的始末。不需要密码，不需要缴费。所谓政府的透明，民众的参与权、监督权，就是体现在这些细小的方面。
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
译言 离开的39天
发自北京 2010-01-25 18:25:01
试水十几年，中国的互联网创业者始终面临多头管理、安全感缺失的问题，还有因此而导致的隐形成本增加，这对创业环境是一种恶化
言多未必得
在2009年11月30日下午两点前，译言的一切似乎都在朝令人满意的方向前进。两个月前的管理层变更，明确了网站发展方向，大规模的改版即将进 行，同时，近3年的口碑累积，为译言接连赢下了3家重要媒体的评奖——《新周刊》把年度最有价值网站（资讯类）的称号授予译言，《时尚先生》则形容，译言 网上的yeeyanese就像一群勤劳的蚂蚁，正把英文世界里的知识一刻不停地向中国搬运，“因为译言，中国网民的阅读范围从《参考消息》扩大到《纽约时 报》。”
下午两点，译言的服务器突遭关停，12万注册用户无法访问，而在三元桥的一间办公室里，后台同样无法登陆，“感觉就像什么东西一下子被抽掉一样，” 译言团队的冯成说。总经理陈昊芝紧急安排同事前往北京市通信管理局沟通，希望了解关站原因。当天晚上，译言的7位股东开会，商量应对方案。“做两手准备， 短期恢复或者短期不能恢复，甚至进入黑名单。”陈昊芝说，“最坏的情况下，公司不能叫译言，不能再做网站，但我们会把业务继续做下去。”
译言脱胎于一个名叫“言多必得”的翻译博客，旨在“发现，翻译，阅读中文之外的互联网精华”。本刊一年前报道译言时，它尚未实现盈利，看上去更像一 个分享互联网的公益站点。过去一年里，在前任总经理赵嘉敏和现任总经理陈昊芝的推动下，它通过“汉化”外媒，向门户网站供稿，建立了稳定的现金流，而随着 知名度的攀升和用户的扩散，网站的气质也发生了微妙的变化。前两年，译言上搜索最多的关键词是“myspace”和“facebook”，到了2009 年，译言越来越像一个媒体，甚至是观点的自由市场，开放多元却也喧闹嘈杂。“这半年最深切地理解了做媒体的艰辛，涉及到一些热点问题，在翻译报道、选点 上，可以说与不可以说之间你真的很难把握。”陈昊芝说。
《卫报》是译言最早合作的外媒，译言人可以从这家英国主流大报挑选文章翻译，作为协议的一部分，《卫报》也有权提供一些文章（譬如时政类）要求译言 翻译登载。在接受中国媒体采访时，《卫报》副主编伊恩·凯兹曾说：“当我在中国旅行时，感觉到中国民众对西方媒体存在误解，认为西方媒体对中国持一种仇视 的态度。但我要说，如果他们更多地看到我们的文章，他们就会知道西方社会对中国的态度也是各式各样，非常复杂的。我们希望通过这次合作‘试试水温’，希望 双方可以越走越近，减少误解和差异。”
译言的关停，恰与《卫报》的合作有关。在中国做网站，除了工信部ICP备案外，还要根据从事的业务申请各种许可证，译言翻译刊载国外时政类新闻信 息，按有关规定，必须具有互联网新闻信息服务许可证，而要申请这个许可证，必须满足“有5名以上在新闻单位从事新闻工作3年以上的专职新闻编辑人员”以及 “注册资本应当不低于1000万元”等条件——只有13人的译言团队，显然在短期内无法达到这些要求。
涅槃重生
关停头几天，只要一上线，陈七妹就要面对无数人的询问。她曾在一家纸媒做记者，2009年一家著名微博被关停后，她也在MSN上问其公关负责人“到 底还能开吗？”对方总是说“我也不清楚”。“我当时就觉得特别不能理解，是什么就是什么，不是什么就不是。结果这种事发生在我身上，所有的人都问我，我也 得这样了。”
12月3日晚间，译言在其网站上登出《致译言用户的公开信》：“由于部分文章把关出现偏差，违反国家相关规定，因此需要暂时关闭服务器。”一些人相 信，译言成了这一轮网络整治中最新的牺牲品。当晚，心情灰暗的冯成8点多才下班，在地铁安贞门站，有一个孤独的艺人在弹唱。“我是从译言的用户做起的，对 它的情感寄托很大……那一刻终于忍不住了。”
试水十几年，中国的互联网创业者始终面临多头管理、安全感缺失的问题。“这对创业者不只是看不清的问题，更是成本的问题，包括沟通成本、许可证成本 这些大量的所谓隐形成本，这对创业环境是一种恶化，”一位资深业者说，“在中国，中小企业贷款困难，我们大都是以自有资金去推动创业的，而保障几十万人上 百万人的创业热情，比某些意识形态的东西更重要，因为创新是国家的根基。如果中国自主创新能力最强的互联网行业，都变成像东莞、江浙一带的代工或来料加工 这种简单的复制，那中国的生产力可以真正提上去吗？”
让陈昊芝觉得格外可惜的是，在译言被关停的前一周，他已经通过电邮说服了英国人，“《卫报》方面认为中国缺乏的是资讯透明度，我们用一个月时间让他 们明白了其实中国更缺的是有效信息的质量，我们做了一个对比，《每日电讯报》(The Daily Telegraph)中文版不涉及任何时政新闻，可是流量是《卫报》中文版的几倍。”
尽管承诺用户“我们会回来”，但陈昊芝和他的团队并不知道能不能真的回来，他们通过两条路一直在努力。
先是继续与有关部门沟通，期望寻求谅解。事实上，此前译言曾经得到国家的两笔创业基金支持，“我想，这也是国家的一种认可。”在沟通过程中，他了解 到译言这次是因为违规而导致ICP备案被注销，于是他们开始准备材料，包括整改方案、资质证明、运营方式说明等等，开始重新申请工信部备案，并打算主动申 请新闻出版总署颁发的《互联网出版许可证》。
另一方面，译言团队没有停下脚步，甚至比以往更忙——大规模改版仍要继续、许多业务在线下仍可继续。有一天，陈七妹发现办公室搬来了一个“面板”，那是译言的一台新服务器，放在角度里调试，发出巨大的吸尘器一样的噪音。
在新一轮网络整顿中，数不清的服务器被IDC机房直接拔线，那些网络公司或者个人站长与网民的连接，从物理上被隔绝了。
和很多被关停的小网站相比，译言更富影响力和创新精神，拥有难以取代的优质内容。即便如此，译言也仍然算得上幸运儿，12月底，申请备案通过，陈昊芝知道，译言真的可以回来了。
1月8日，译言更换域名重新开放，原来的蓝色风格也变成了红色主题。一篇“2010译言感恩”的文章这样写道：“译言的存在，是因为有太多的人像我们一样，想要开阔视野，想要了解差距，想要获得前沿新知。只要这样的努力依然存在，译言就会存在……”
在网站重开后，陈昊芝几乎马不停蹄地接受了数家媒体的采访，他希望媒体能成为沟通上下、消除误会的桥梁。他说，译言的关停，只是大环境中的一个小案 例，“Google尚且如此，我不认为自己有多委屈。”他和他的团队，更愿意将这次事件看作一次涅槃，“我想对我们反而有两个好处，以前一些用户倾向于翻 译时政内容，但通过这次他们知道这些东西对译言没好处，他们反而理解了；我们在和《卫报》的合作中多少有些迷失，时政内容可以吸引眼球，但比较难换取长期 稳定的用户，所以我们会更加注重给用户一个内容导向。”
在一定程度上，这次“涅槃”让译言更加下定决心从纯粹自愿参与的维基百科模式向有收入的“众包”模式转型。“在一个阶段里，我们要通过引导，形成协同生产能力，”陈昊芝说，未来译言会更多地和出版机构合作。
两个月前，译言的十几位译者，只花了3天时间，就翻译出了丹·布朗的新作《失落的秘符》。后来他们发现，人民文学出版社早已买断作者授权，不得不从 网上撤下译稿。有意思的地方在于，在得知译言已译完该书后，对方在一个月内就推出了自己的翻译版本，“正常从引进到出版要半年呢。”陈昊芝笑言，这次发 现，译言的影响力真是挺大的。
温家宝考察新疆雪灾地区(组图)
核心提示：1月23日至24日，温家宝到新疆阿勒泰市、塔城市等地实地察看灾情。温家宝在散德克村考察时，牧民朱马什说“我们一定要搞好生产自救，自力更生，同心同德，战胜大灾”，温家宝说“您讲了我要讲的话，而且讲得比我好”。
1月23日，温家宝在雪灾严重的阿勒泰市郊区的拉斯特乡散德克村察看灾情，看望哈萨克族牧民群众。 新华社记者李学仁摄
1月23日，温家宝在雪灾严重的阿勒泰市郊区察看灾情，看望哈萨克族牧民群众。 新华社记者李学仁摄
1月24日，温家宝来到著名的老风口——托里县多拉特乡冬古列克村看望村民。大风卷起积雪吹打在脸上，眼睛都睁不开。 新华社记者李学仁摄
新华网乌鲁木齐1月25日报道 今年1月以来，新疆阿勒泰、塔城等地连续四次遭受强冷空气袭击，出现60年一遇的寒潮暴雪灾害，降雪持续时间之长、降雪量之大、积雪之厚、气温之低，历史罕见，给群众生活、交通运输、农牧业生产带来巨大影响。
在抗灾救灾的关键时期，1月23日至24日，中共中央政治局常委、国务院总理温家宝带着对新疆各族人民的深情厚意，来到阿勒泰市、塔城市、托里县、额敏县，慰问各族干部群众，实地察看灾情，指导抗灾救灾工作。
我们完全有能力战胜眼前的困难
温家宝总理一直关心着新疆的发展和民生的改善。这次北疆的雪灾，更牵动着他的心，他说：“我惦念着灾区的各族群众，一定要去看看，群众生产生活安置好了才安心。”
从北京启程经过5个小时的飞行，温家宝总理乘坐的专机于23日中午抵达阿勒泰机场。一下飞机，稍事休息，温家宝就在中共中央政治局委员、新疆维吾尔自治区党委书记王乐泉和新疆维吾尔自治区政府主席努尔·白克力等陪同下，前往阿勒泰市郊区的拉斯特乡散德克村。
冒着零下26摄氏度的严寒，温家宝踏着积雪走进散德克村。村子里房顶上覆盖着厚厚的积雪，路旁的雪墙1米多高。来到哈萨克族牧民朱马什家，温家宝在炕头上坐了下来。
一身哈萨克民族装束的朱马什端上一大堆哈萨克族的传统食品招待远道而来的总理。温家宝亲热地抱起他的小孙子。屋内暖意融融。从受灾情况到全年收入，从家里吃穿保障到牲畜饲料储备，总理问得细致，朱马什答得实在。
57岁的朱马什家里有7口人，养了57头牲畜，但仍然沿袭逐水草而居的游牧生活。冬天在散德克村家中过冬，5月份后要驱赶牲畜走280多公里，转到夏季牧场。目前，家里储备的草料已经消耗了一半，估计只能撑到二三月份。温家宝听了朱马什家的情况，思索片刻问道：“国家给一些补助，能够买到草料吗？”当地干部回答说，可以从农区调运。目前，自治区正在从昌吉州调运2．8万吨草料，第一批已经到了。
闻讯而来的牧民们纷纷涌入朱马什家，围在总理身边。70岁的斯哈克老人从外村来看望孩子，恰好碰到总理。他对总理说：“听说您来了，我就不走了。”谈起这场雪灾，斯哈克感叹道：“我这一辈子经历过四场大雪，但从没有见过这么大呀！”
“雪灾发生后，政府给我们很大帮助。我们一定要搞好生产自救，自力更生，同心同德，战胜大灾。”斯哈克挥着拳头坚定地对总理说。
“您讲了我要讲的话，而且讲得比我好。”温家宝夸奖道。这引得屋里的人们都笑了起来。
温家宝接着说，我知道你们有困难。要抓紧调运草料，并通过财政救助、贴息贷款等方式扶持牧民。到开春青黄不接的时候，还要安排一些救济金。我们完全有能力战胜眼前的困难。
斯哈克接过话茬：“您来了之后，我们的决心更大、信心更足了。”老人的回答让大家又开心地笑了起来。
随后，温家宝穿过院子里雪堆中开出的小道，又来到朱马什家后院的牛羊棚圈。这里低矮昏暗、羊粪味呛鼻，朱马什一再劝总理在外面看看就可以了。但温家宝执意弯腰走进去，认真地察看棚圈牲畜和饲草料储备的情况。
走出朱马什家，温家宝又察看了几家牧民的生产生活情况。离开村子时，牧民们自发地聚到村口与总理依依惜别。这时，一位妇女悄悄地在总理的口袋里塞了一小块矿石。温家宝拿在手里看了看，会意地笑了。按照哈萨克族的传统，这是对贵宾的祝福和祈福。
当天下午，温家宝还在阿勒泰市文化路慰问了正在除雪的环卫工人，并到四季青农贸市场了解农副产品供应情况。
政府要把该做的事情办得更好
塔城地区位于新疆西北部，拥有全国第二大连片平原草场，畜牧业发达。23日傍晚，温家宝来到这里，已是冰雪覆盖的塔城又飘起了漫天大雪。
齐巴尔吉迭，哈萨克语的意思是“沙枣花盛开的地方”。去年11月21日，新疆在这里建成了第一座牧民社区。在这个牧民定居点，安置着1000多户原来分散在几百公里远的游牧民。社区里有学校、卫生院、兽医站、活动中心等，牧民们在这里开始他们的新生活。冒着纷纷扬扬的雪花，温家宝走进哈萨克牧民对山别克家。在政府的帮助下，他家盖了70多平方米的定居房以及牲畜暖圈，还承包了50亩的饲料草地。外面天寒地冻，暖圈里60头羊羔活蹦乱跳。温家宝看着说：“如果不是牧民定居工程，今年这样的大雪小羊羔恐怕保不住了。”
温家宝走进对山别克定居房。屋内宽敞明亮，红红的火炉烘烤得格外暖和。温家宝拉着对山别克的手说：“还是定居生活好。一是牧民们脱贫致富了；二是抗灾能力强了；三是孩子们上学稳定，生活也比较方便了。”
当地的负责人告诉总理，牧民定居工程国家给每家补助2．5万元，地区县乡也有补助，牧民每家自筹2万元，一共是10万元。温家宝听后说：“这十万元花得值得！”
对山别克一再对总理说：“今天过上做梦都想不到的日子，谢谢政府！”温家宝回答道：这是我们应该做的。政府要把该做的事情办得更好。
外面的雪下得越来越大。离开对山别克家，沿着社区小路，温家宝一户户看过去。牧民们纷纷在自家门口迎候着总理，温家宝向他们嘘寒问暖，询问生产生活情况。
一位抱着孩子的达斡尔族中年汉子告诉总理，在塔城地区有29个民族。温家宝说：“这里是个多民族大家庭，大家要团结好！”
离开齐巴尔吉迭定居点，已是暮色苍茫。
最关键的是要做到“四保”
24日清晨，温家宝早早起床。塔城市还笼罩在夜色中，总理已走在城市的街道上，看望在公交车站等候早班车的市民，慰问扫雪的环卫工人。
晨曦微露、东方吐白时，温总理赶到了新疆生产建设兵团农九师163团七连，看望那里的农垦职工。宋金风老人家的土坯房因大雪重压成为危房，被临时转 移到这里。温家宝看到她一家生活有保障，十分满意。听说宋金风老家在江苏丹阳，到新疆支边已有50多年了，如今已是四世同堂，温家宝感慨道：“新疆的发展 离不开你们。看到你们的生活越变越好，我心里很高兴！”随后，他还实地察看了连部医务室，以及被大雪压塌的育苗大棚。
塔城市依托口岸优势，建设了万亩绿色蔬菜基地。这次大雪造成塔城市100多座日光温室大棚棚体塌陷。一座座蔬菜大棚整齐排列在雪野里，积雪厚厚地盖 在大棚上。温家宝弯腰钻进一个被大雪压塌的大棚内，察看受灾情况。大棚内西红柿已冻得僵硬如石。大棚承包户闫国勤说，这个大棚的损失有5万元。温家宝鼓励 他，大棚倒了我们再建，你要自己先行动起来，政府会帮助你们的。闫国勤回答道，请总理放心，我们一定要抗灾自救。
地处塔城地区托里县的“老风口”，是世界上罕见的多风地段，一年有200多天刮着大风，最高风力有11级，被过往司机称为“鬼门关”。温家宝特意提出要去看一看那里的群众。
车辆在积雪冰冻的道路上艰难前行，道路两旁是一树树挂雪结冰的“雾凇”。10时许，温家宝来到地处老风口地区的多拉特乡冬古列克村。这里正刮着七级 大风，零下30摄氏度的低温，冷风裹挟着飞雪漫天卷地，寒冷刺骨。迎着扑面的风雪，温家宝走进牧民邵景平家。他脱鞋盘腿上炕，与村民们热烈地聊了起来。他 们中不少人是早年从河南、河北、四川、甘肃等地来支边的，也有当地哈萨克族群众。五湖四海，不同民族，从生活保障、农牧业生产到市场供应、交通畅通情 况……大家与总理谈得十分融洽，不时爆发出爽朗的笑声。
40多岁的袁洪芳激动地说：“哪里有灾，哪里就能看到总理的身影。新疆遭受雪灾后，我想到总理会来，但没有想到您能到我们这里来。”
邵景平会说一口流利的哈萨克语，赢得了总理的称赞。他向总理讲了饲草料的储备情况。温家宝对他说，要从根本上改善牧民的生产生活条件，必须游牧变成 定居，放养变成圈养，同时要建立起饲料生产基地。总理还鼓励村民们说，这里冬天风大，夏天太阳毒，自然条件比较差。但风大可以搞风力发电，太阳毒可以搞太 阳能，要搞好规划发展风能和太阳能，大家的生活就会好起来。总理的一席话，让大家的心里更加亮堂起来。23日夜，温家宝在塔城市主 持召开座谈会，听取新疆维吾尔自治区党委、政府以及灾区有关地市抗灾救灾工作汇报，并作重要讲话。温家宝说，党中央、国务院十分关心新疆的灾情。我们要以 对人民高度负责的精神，进一步动员和行动起来，打好这场抗击严寒暴雪的硬仗。要切实把抗击严寒暴雪灾害摆到当前工作的重要位置，努力做好救灾工作。重点是 保群众生活、保农牧业生产、保市场供应、保交通畅通。要进一步加强对灾区的支持，做好救灾资金、物资等保障工作。做好次生灾害的防治，尽早研究灾后恢复工 作。春节临近，我们一定要认真落实好各项救灾措施，争取在春节前取得明显成效，使灾区群众度过一个平安、祥和的春节。
1月24日，温家宝来到塔城盆地南缘著名的老风口——托里县多拉特乡冬古列克村看望村民。在牧民邵景平家里，他和村民盘腿坐在炕头上拉家常。 新华社记者李学仁摄
(本文来源：新华网 作者：赵承 毛咏 贺占军)
Monday, January 25, 2010
China to dominate IPOs in 2010, say analysts
China to dominate IPOs in 2010, say analysts
By Wu Chong (China Daily)
Updated: 2010-01-18 08:04
NEW YORK: Industry analysts say they are confident that China, among other emerging nations, will continue being the star of initial public offerings (IPOs) in 2010, and the US capital market would still be its first choice.
"I'm optimistic that the trend (that Chinese companies raise more IPOs than others) will rise," said David Y. Wong, managing director of investment banking at Newbridge Securities Corporation, at a panel discussion held on Jan 14 jointly by China Institute, Chinese Business Lawyers Association and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (SASMF).
Wong says he's seen quite a bit of listed activities from Chinese companies in the US capital market since the New Year and is sure that the entire number of transactions will be "more than last year".
"(Companies from) the agricultural industry are quite active and I think the health care sector will be picking up as well," he added.
Dealogic, a UK-based market analysis company, reported that Chinese companies alone sold $50.4 billion of shares, accounting for 45 percent of the global IPO volume, according to the Wall Street Journal. The country is also dominant in the global clean technology capital market, according to another analysis provided by the market research firm The Cleantech Group and Deloitte.
The 2010 IPO market will also begin with the strong performance of Chinese companies - two out of five companies scheduled to make their IPO debuts this week are from China, according to Renaissance Capital, a Connecticut-based market research firm.
Robert Chilstrom, a senior lawyer who has been a consultant to Chinese companies for more than 10 years, pointed out that the emerging markets, particularly China and Brazil, would be winning in the capital market at least in a short run.
"The US companies will have to compete in that space with these emerging markets," said Chilstrom, from SASMF.
Crocker Coulson, president of CCG Investor Relations, was even more optimistic.
"If you look at the data, despite the low market, there's still a sizable inflow (of capital) into the emerging markets," he said. "I think that will be a 10-year trend."
Coulson's company has been helping about 50 Chinese companies listed in the US stock markets, and the president is looking forward to seeing the number of its clients grow to 80 this year.
Not only is the size of Chinese companies entering the US capital market increasing, the panelists added, but also their level of experience is growing.
"They are younger companies, but they're more sophisticated," said Lawrence Wizel, director and audit communication chairman of American Oriental Biotech Co Ltd, 3SBIO Inc and PudaCoal Inc.
But the panelists also suggested Chinese companies carefully pick their consulting partners when they enter the US market and be cautious about risks.
"Everything is very buoyant now," said Chilstrom. "You never know when shocks will come. There's going to be some rise and fall."
By Wu Chong (China Daily)
Updated: 2010-01-18 08:04
NEW YORK: Industry analysts say they are confident that China, among other emerging nations, will continue being the star of initial public offerings (IPOs) in 2010, and the US capital market would still be its first choice.
"I'm optimistic that the trend (that Chinese companies raise more IPOs than others) will rise," said David Y. Wong, managing director of investment banking at Newbridge Securities Corporation, at a panel discussion held on Jan 14 jointly by China Institute, Chinese Business Lawyers Association and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (SASMF).
Wong says he's seen quite a bit of listed activities from Chinese companies in the US capital market since the New Year and is sure that the entire number of transactions will be "more than last year".
"(Companies from) the agricultural industry are quite active and I think the health care sector will be picking up as well," he added.
Dealogic, a UK-based market analysis company, reported that Chinese companies alone sold $50.4 billion of shares, accounting for 45 percent of the global IPO volume, according to the Wall Street Journal. The country is also dominant in the global clean technology capital market, according to another analysis provided by the market research firm The Cleantech Group and Deloitte.
The 2010 IPO market will also begin with the strong performance of Chinese companies - two out of five companies scheduled to make their IPO debuts this week are from China, according to Renaissance Capital, a Connecticut-based market research firm.
Robert Chilstrom, a senior lawyer who has been a consultant to Chinese companies for more than 10 years, pointed out that the emerging markets, particularly China and Brazil, would be winning in the capital market at least in a short run.
"The US companies will have to compete in that space with these emerging markets," said Chilstrom, from SASMF.
Crocker Coulson, president of CCG Investor Relations, was even more optimistic.
"If you look at the data, despite the low market, there's still a sizable inflow (of capital) into the emerging markets," he said. "I think that will be a 10-year trend."
Coulson's company has been helping about 50 Chinese companies listed in the US stock markets, and the president is looking forward to seeing the number of its clients grow to 80 this year.
Not only is the size of Chinese companies entering the US capital market increasing, the panelists added, but also their level of experience is growing.
"They are younger companies, but they're more sophisticated," said Lawrence Wizel, director and audit communication chairman of American Oriental Biotech Co Ltd, 3SBIO Inc and PudaCoal Inc.
But the panelists also suggested Chinese companies carefully pick their consulting partners when they enter the US market and be cautious about risks.
"Everything is very buoyant now," said Chilstrom. "You never know when shocks will come. There's going to be some rise and fall."
In Shift, Obama Decides Big is Bad
In Shift, Obama Decides Big is Bad
Critics pan plan to limit growth and risk as vague and unworkable
January 22, 2010
Populist politics took a sharp turn Thursday.
Recouping bailout costs by imposing a tax on banks is one thing, but the Obama administration's latest proposal would fundamentally alter the business of banking.
On Thursday, President Obama said banks are too big and too concentrated, and he asked Congress to bar banking companies from proprietary trading and from working with hedge funds or private-equity firms. The president also proposed curbing growth by imposing a hard cap on any one banking company's share of the market for nondeposit liabilities.
The president, with former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker at his side, blamed the industry's "irresponsibility."
"My resolve to reform the system is only strengthened when I see a return to old practices at some of the very firms fighting reform," he said, citing "record profits at some of the very firms claiming that they cannot lend more to small business, cannot keep credit card rates low and cannot refund taxpayers for the bailout.
"It is exactly this kind of irresponsibility that makes clear reform necessary."
The president's proposals upend the debate on Capitol Hill over how best to reform the financial regulatory system. The White House outlined its goals last June and the House passed a bill that largely mirrored that in December. The bill is now in the Senate Banking Committee, where Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., is trying to craft a compromise that will attract some Republican votes.
Dodd was with the president when he unveiled the proposals Thursday, but he didn't exactly embrace it, saying in a statement that he looks "forward to studying the president's proposal and will give it careful consideration as the Committee moves forward on financial reform."
Ironically, the panel's ranking Republican sounded more supportive of the president.
"The reality is some banks put themselves at risk," Sen. Richard Shelby said in an interview. "If you look at the banks that just focused on banking, they got themselves into a lot less trouble."
But plenty of people who observe the financial business for a living panned the president's ideas.
"What is being considered here is counterproductive, silly and vindictive," said Robert Albertson, chief strategist at Sandler O'Neill & Partners. "The problem isn't the banks. The banks are fixed. The problem is that credit is dead."
Jamie Cox, managing partner with Harris Financial Group in Richmond, Va., said limiting banks' piece of the nondeposit liability market is impractical and perhaps impossible, because it is a huge and varied global market.
"I don't think they are going to be able to," he said. "It's too big. This is not just U.S. This is global. This crosses lots of borders."
Sean J. Ryan at Wisco Research agreed.
"The proposal to extend market-share caps to liabilities beyond FDIC-insured deposits is extremely vague, and we wonder whether it is even workable," he wrote in a note to clients. "The pool of FDIC-insured deposits is well defined and generally known. Attempting to limit banks' share of other liabilities could quickly devolve into quasi-medieval debates over the nature and size of global debt markets."
Ryan, citing "the high ratio of posturing to specifics in the president's comments," wondered "how seriously these proposals are even meant to be taken."
"One thing about which we have little doubt is that there will be many more such proposals from now until November as politicians play to populist anger at the financial sector," he wrote.
It's true the administration did not release much in the way of specifics. It did not put a number on the cap that would be placed on a company's share of the market for nondeposit liabilities nor did it address the ripple effects such a limitation might have on say the Federal Home Loan Banks or other providers. It also did not define proprietary trading, which many sources said banks do to some degree simply as part of the business they conduct for clients.
Keith B. Davis, an analyst with Farr Miller & Washington, noted that bank profits have relied heavily recently on trading. He said the biggest risk is that regulators will simply target all trading revenues given the blurry line between proprietary and nonproprietary trading.
"The ironic thing is the revenues [large banks] have been able to generate in the last two years in this area have saved them," he said. "They have been able to use these huge revenues in trading" to offset steep credit losses.
Ed Yingling, the president and chief executive of the American Bankers Association, said the plan would force the break-up of large banks.
"If you look at it literally as proposed there are institutions that are engaged in these activities they would have to stop or unwind," he said. "I think that is what the stock market is reacting to now. They are showing the big banks are getting clobbered."
One of the hardest-hit stocks Thursday was Goldman Sachs, falling more than 4%, and it may have the toughest time complying if Obama's plan becomes law. It could escape coverage by getting rid of its bank, but doing so would cost Goldman access to the discount window.
That access is one of the first things the government provided when markets started crumbling in the spring of 2008, so a policy pushing investment banks to dump their banks may seem counterintuitive.
"You can do proprietary trading or you can own a bank, but you can't do both," said a senior administration official who briefed reporters on the president's plan.
The impact on commercial banks could be minimal, Cox said, because they derive most of their investment banking earnings from the fixed-income markets and advisory fees, rather than proprietary trading. "The more levered you are to the consumer, the less levered you are to proprietary trading," he said. "It seems to me this is more of a dare to get Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to give up their bank holding company status."
The administration official did stress that the president does not intend for these policies to be applied retroactively.
"It's designed to restrain future growth," he said. "It's not about reducing liabilities within the … existing structure."
The president definitely struck a chord with some.
"Limiting the size and risk-taking abilities of our nation's largest banks will make the financial sector more accountable and more competitive," Heather McGhee, D.C. director of Demos, said in a statement. "The president has now drawn a line in the sand for Congress — stand with those greedy big banks that got us into this mess or demand transparency and accountability from Wall Street."
Bert Ely, a veteran observer of both the industry and its oversight, connected Obama's announcement Thursday to Republican Scott Brown's winning the Massachusetts Senate seat on Tuesday.
"The administration is trying to rebuild its political fortunes, especially after Brown's victory," the president of Ely & Co. said. "The president and his folks seem to think this big-bank bashing is the way to rebuild their polling numbers."
Paul Davis, Stacy Kaper and Matthew Monks contributed to this story.
Rhodes Scholars (I know of)
Michael Martin
1966
Bill Clinton
1968
Patrick Norton
1969
James Fallows
1970
Nicholas Kristof
1981
1966
Bill Clinton
1968
Patrick Norton
1969
James Fallows
1970
Nicholas Kristof
1981
My So-Called Wife
January 24, 2010
Op-Ed Contributor
My So-Called Wife
By SANDRA TSING LOH
Pasadena, Calif.
I am stricken with the peculiar curse of being a 21st-century woman who makes more than the man she’s living with — first with a husband for 13 years and now with a new partner. It’s an increasingly common situation, according to a recent Pew study that found that the proportion of American marriages in which the wife makes more money rose to 22 percent in 2007 from 4 percent in 1970.
I don’t know how it’s going for my sisters, but as my 40s and Verizon bills and mortgage payments roll on, I seem to have an ever more recurring 1950s housewife fantasy. In this magical Technicolor world, the breadwinner husband, Brad, leaves home (where his duties are limited to mowing the lawn and various minor home repairs) at 7 a.m. When he returns from work at 6 p.m., aside from a savory roast with mashed potatoes, his homemaker wife, Nancy, has pipe, slippers and a tray of Manhattans ready.
The couple sink into easy chairs and get pleasantly soused while Brad recounts his workday battles. Through a dreamy mixed-bourbon haze, Nancy makes gentle cooing sounds like “Ah!” and “Oh!” and “Did the central manager really say that in the meeting? They don’t appreciate all the hard work you do! Oh, Brad!”
Nancy has her active-listener face on for several reasons. One is that her 1950s housewife day (stay with me, I admitted this was a fantasy) was an agreeable roundelay of kitchen puttering and grocery shopping and, once home, the placing of those comestibles in the icebox via the precise — or charmingly imprecise — geometry Nancy favors. She jokes that Brad, poor dear, couldn’t find the icebox if you asked him!
Aside from that, there was a leisurely trip to the hair salon, a spot of tennis and a lively game of bridge, where the girls shared tips on the making of this very roast. If there are children, let us say first they are in school, then afterward they ride their bikes freely around the neighborhood, settling their own disputes and devising their own entertainments. (Here we invoke the curious statistic that working mothers today spend about the same number of hours per week with their children as stay-at-home moms did four decades earlier.)
The point is that Nancy arrives at the end of her day so fully socialized with, she is ready to glaze over amiably during her husband’s evening Work Monologue, and perhaps even later, during their customary five minutes of intimate relations. Being mistress of her own domain much as Brad is master of his, Nancy enjoys total domestic authority and the job satisfaction that comes with it. Even more important, as Brad unambiguously earns all the money, Nancy has the relational contract of sheer gratitude to pull on, due to his clearly measurable value. If the mortgage weren’t paid, Nancy would have to live in the same house as, God forbid, her mother! By contrast, Brad is relatively low maintenance.
Fast forward to 2010. When husbands and wives not only co-work but try to co-homemake, as post-feminist and well-intentioned as it is, out goes the clear delineation of spheres, out goes the calm of unquestioned authority, and of course out goes the gratitude.
Aside from the irritation of never being able to reach the spatula (men tend to place items on shelves that are a foot higher than women can manage), I have found co-homemaking inefficient. With 21st-century technology, it’s a straightforward matter to run a modern home. Sheep don’t need to be sheared; the wash is not done on a board by the creek; nothing needs canning, because we have Costco. Even someone who works 40 hours a week can keep a home standing, and food in the fridge, by himself.
What can turn into a second shift is not just negotiating the splitting of this labor with another person, but the splitting of decision-making authority. Two co-workers in the home also have the opportunity to regularly evaluate each other’s handiwork, not always to a positive effect. (Suffice it to say, stacking food in the fridge with precise geometric elegance is apparently not among my talents.)
In short, as the Tupperware totters lopsidedly about, in the domestic equation, the work I do at home is no longer a gift, but the labor of a mediocre colleague whose performance could be better.
Still, a return to a life more like the 1950s, with one breadwinner and one homemaker, is an unreasonable expectation. It is particularly so since, as the breadwinner, I wish to be the husband, and hence what I’m looking for is a wife — a loyal helpmeet who keeps the home fires burning and offers uncritical emotional support when I, the gladiator, return exhausted from the arena. Who are the (actively listening!) men without money who can adapt to such a role?
One could ask, who are the modern women who are content with such a role? These are times when mothers with newborns watch “Oprah” episodes that feature a harried mom just like you who became entrepreneurial with her jam, and is now head of a multimillion-dollar company in addition to being a great mom!
In the end, we all want a wife. But the home has become increasingly invaded by the ethos of work, work, work, with twin sets of external clocks imposed on a household’s natural rhythms. And in the transformation of men and women into domestic co-laborers, the Art of the Wife is fast disappearing.
So in the meantime, I may need to settle for a man who can simply make a decent tray of Manhattans and, while you’re at it, pussycat, make mine a double.
Sandra Tsing Loh, a contributing editor for The Atlantic and the host of the KPCC radio program “The Loh Down on Science,” is the author of “Mother on Fire.”
Op-Ed Contributor
My So-Called Wife
By SANDRA TSING LOH
Pasadena, Calif.
I am stricken with the peculiar curse of being a 21st-century woman who makes more than the man she’s living with — first with a husband for 13 years and now with a new partner. It’s an increasingly common situation, according to a recent Pew study that found that the proportion of American marriages in which the wife makes more money rose to 22 percent in 2007 from 4 percent in 1970.
I don’t know how it’s going for my sisters, but as my 40s and Verizon bills and mortgage payments roll on, I seem to have an ever more recurring 1950s housewife fantasy. In this magical Technicolor world, the breadwinner husband, Brad, leaves home (where his duties are limited to mowing the lawn and various minor home repairs) at 7 a.m. When he returns from work at 6 p.m., aside from a savory roast with mashed potatoes, his homemaker wife, Nancy, has pipe, slippers and a tray of Manhattans ready.
The couple sink into easy chairs and get pleasantly soused while Brad recounts his workday battles. Through a dreamy mixed-bourbon haze, Nancy makes gentle cooing sounds like “Ah!” and “Oh!” and “Did the central manager really say that in the meeting? They don’t appreciate all the hard work you do! Oh, Brad!”
Nancy has her active-listener face on for several reasons. One is that her 1950s housewife day (stay with me, I admitted this was a fantasy) was an agreeable roundelay of kitchen puttering and grocery shopping and, once home, the placing of those comestibles in the icebox via the precise — or charmingly imprecise — geometry Nancy favors. She jokes that Brad, poor dear, couldn’t find the icebox if you asked him!
Aside from that, there was a leisurely trip to the hair salon, a spot of tennis and a lively game of bridge, where the girls shared tips on the making of this very roast. If there are children, let us say first they are in school, then afterward they ride their bikes freely around the neighborhood, settling their own disputes and devising their own entertainments. (Here we invoke the curious statistic that working mothers today spend about the same number of hours per week with their children as stay-at-home moms did four decades earlier.)
The point is that Nancy arrives at the end of her day so fully socialized with, she is ready to glaze over amiably during her husband’s evening Work Monologue, and perhaps even later, during their customary five minutes of intimate relations. Being mistress of her own domain much as Brad is master of his, Nancy enjoys total domestic authority and the job satisfaction that comes with it. Even more important, as Brad unambiguously earns all the money, Nancy has the relational contract of sheer gratitude to pull on, due to his clearly measurable value. If the mortgage weren’t paid, Nancy would have to live in the same house as, God forbid, her mother! By contrast, Brad is relatively low maintenance.
Fast forward to 2010. When husbands and wives not only co-work but try to co-homemake, as post-feminist and well-intentioned as it is, out goes the clear delineation of spheres, out goes the calm of unquestioned authority, and of course out goes the gratitude.
Aside from the irritation of never being able to reach the spatula (men tend to place items on shelves that are a foot higher than women can manage), I have found co-homemaking inefficient. With 21st-century technology, it’s a straightforward matter to run a modern home. Sheep don’t need to be sheared; the wash is not done on a board by the creek; nothing needs canning, because we have Costco. Even someone who works 40 hours a week can keep a home standing, and food in the fridge, by himself.
What can turn into a second shift is not just negotiating the splitting of this labor with another person, but the splitting of decision-making authority. Two co-workers in the home also have the opportunity to regularly evaluate each other’s handiwork, not always to a positive effect. (Suffice it to say, stacking food in the fridge with precise geometric elegance is apparently not among my talents.)
In short, as the Tupperware totters lopsidedly about, in the domestic equation, the work I do at home is no longer a gift, but the labor of a mediocre colleague whose performance could be better.
Still, a return to a life more like the 1950s, with one breadwinner and one homemaker, is an unreasonable expectation. It is particularly so since, as the breadwinner, I wish to be the husband, and hence what I’m looking for is a wife — a loyal helpmeet who keeps the home fires burning and offers uncritical emotional support when I, the gladiator, return exhausted from the arena. Who are the (actively listening!) men without money who can adapt to such a role?
One could ask, who are the modern women who are content with such a role? These are times when mothers with newborns watch “Oprah” episodes that feature a harried mom just like you who became entrepreneurial with her jam, and is now head of a multimillion-dollar company in addition to being a great mom!
In the end, we all want a wife. But the home has become increasingly invaded by the ethos of work, work, work, with twin sets of external clocks imposed on a household’s natural rhythms. And in the transformation of men and women into domestic co-laborers, the Art of the Wife is fast disappearing.
So in the meantime, I may need to settle for a man who can simply make a decent tray of Manhattans and, while you’re at it, pussycat, make mine a double.
Sandra Tsing Loh, a contributing editor for The Atlantic and the host of the KPCC radio program “The Loh Down on Science,” is the author of “Mother on Fire.”
Sunday, January 24, 2010
赌书消得泼茶香
浣溪沙
纳兰性德
纳兰性德
谁念西风独自凉，萧萧黄叶闭疏窗，沉思往事立残阳。
被酒莫惊春睡重，赌书消得泼茶香，当时只道是寻常。
被酒莫惊春睡重，赌书消得泼茶香，当时只道是寻常。
该从何说起呢?又是一首婉约凄美的诗词。带着淡淡的幽思，浮现出年轻时那个风华正茂的纳兰性德。在秋瑟飒飒的一天，孤影徘徊于西风之中，倍觉凉意袭人，周围是黄叶纷纷，不忍内心的黯然独伤而关闭疏窗，将思绪追忆到曾经的点点滴滴，混合着身后的微微残阳。不禁悲从中来。
往事历历，时光倏忽。
容若醉酒于烂漫的春日，倒下便潇洒而眠。爱妻卢氏怎忍将其扰醒，默默的守在一边，细细观看着他小醉后的憨态，脸颊微红，畅游美梦。多么幸福，浪漫。一觉醒来，也许发现爱妻也酣甜依偎其旁竟也睡着了。他是醉酒而眠，她因幸福而梦，真是春眠不觉晓，春色令人醉。轻轻抚摩她的飘飘长发，他也笑了，带着半分的酒意，将爱融化于漫漫春日。
残阳依旧，人去楼空。
回忆到此，怅然的容若莞而一笑，红晕泛于脸上。
又想到李清照与赵明诚赌书泼茶的情趣生活。两个人在茶余饭后，随手觅得一本书，翻开一页，问着对方某事某人出自何书何句甚至何页，输者，直接泼茶于其胸间，茶香伴着亲昵，雅致而不流俗。（李清照在《〈金石录〉后序》一文中曾追叙她婚后屏居乡里时与丈夫赌书的情景，文中说：“余性偶强记，每饭罢，坐归来堂，烹茶，指堆积书史，言某事在某书、某卷、第几页、第几行，以中否，角胜负，为饮茶先后。中，既举杯大笑，至茶倾覆怀中，反不得饮而起。甘心老是乡矣！”）
容若与爱妻一定也无数次玩过这种游戏，你来我往之中，种下了一份爱恋，一份意趣。
爱妻虽逝，我心依旧。
你我虽然两别，却让我们的心贴得更近了。即便是以前的酒后休憩，还是赌书泼茶，这所有的寻常因你而变得不寻常。无数个日夜，有你我的回忆让我不再寂寞，当时只道寻常，现在却只能化入梦境你我才能得以重逢，人生若只如处见那该多好，我们一定会珍惜在一起的分分秒秒，我也不用在这静谧的夜晚把思念谱成一行行诗词。
爱上一个人也许只需一瞬，却要用一生去忘记。
她，终究还是去了，不知是不是巧合，又是个三年之别。陆游与唐婉三年的甜蜜流于无可奈何，命运弄人；容若和卢氏也是三年，婉约的她为了心爱之人孕育彼此的爱情之果，而磕然长逝，他才知道亏欠得太多太多。
或许她的离世也是一种慈悲，让她永远的活在了他心中，真正得到了圆满。十一年后，他和她在另一个世界团圆，不知是喜是悲，恐怕只有他们才知道。
沉思往事立残阳，当时只道是寻常。呵呵，失去了才懂得曾经拥有的珍贵。
洪博培：我通过女儿的眼睛看中国
http://news.163.com/special/review/hongbopei100125.html
访谈实录
嘉宾：洪博培及夫人
主持：颂杰 晓茵
网易新闻：大使先生和大使夫人好，欢迎来到网易新闻。当你们决定在1999年领养孩子时，是不是就决心要找一个中国女孩？
洪博培：我们知道会是一个中国女婴，因为我们是向中国的一个收养机构申请领养的。我们已经在亚洲呆过两次（注：台湾和新加坡）。在收养中国女孩这个问题上我们考虑过很久。玛丽（大使夫人）待会儿可以告诉你她在一家孤儿院当志愿者的经历。我们决定要去做这件我们一直想做的事情，尤其是在中国。
网易新闻：为什么呢？
洪博培：很多年以来，我们被中国文化深深吸引了。无论从工作的角度，文化的角度，个人兴趣的角度，或者是语言的角度来看，都是如此。我们已经和中国和大中华区的人们建立了一种深深的联系，因此我们都认为，如果在家里加入一部分的中国元素，将会是很棒的一件事，所以决定领养一个中国女孩。（对夫人）对吧？
大使夫人：对。其实并不是我在孤儿院的经历促成了这一决定，之前我没怎么想过这事。那时候，我正怀着第三个孩子，也没有想到会去领养。我以为，也许只有那些没有孩子的人才会去领养。但突然之间我有了一个想法，为什么我们不让一个没有家的孩子加入到我们的家庭中来呢？这个想法在我们的脑子里萦绕了 12 年。但机缘是最重要的，所有领养过孩子的人可能都会和你这么说，这事就得看时机。我感觉冥冥中Gracie Mei(杨乐意的英文名）注定将是我们家的一员，不过那时候她还没有出生呢。当我们在等待领养的时候，我们的想法确实和那些领养到孩子的父母们一样，机缘真的是最重要的。
网易新闻：你第一次看到Gracie时是什么感觉？
大使夫人：我知道，她会成为我们的女儿。我感觉到，她就是我们想找的那一个。我们已就领养一事讨论了12年。而在我们收养她之前，最值得纪念的一天是在1999年 5月 19日的那天晚上，当时我们去外面吃晚餐，我和丈夫还有我们的女儿玛丽•安三人坐在那儿，我丈夫突然说道：“我觉得应该收养一个中国小女孩。”其实要做出领养一个孩子的决定，还是要花点时间来考虑的，因为当时我们已经有五个孩子需要抚养，所以需要时间来确认时机是否已经成熟。那天晚上，我丈夫说想要收养一个来自中国的小女孩。然后他说：“我们应该给她起个什么名字？”我很惊讶，因为12年来，我也没有说就一定要去做这件事。他又接着说：“叫Gracie Mei怎么样？”接下来，他没再谈论这件事，而我是回家后就上网开始搜索有关如何收养孩子的信息，其实我甚至还不知道（收养小孩）从何着手。后来我询问过北京的儿童收养事务中心，知道了要先通过美国的领养机构申请。长话短说吧，我们终于接到电话说孩子已经找了，我就问，这个孩子是什么时候出生的，得到的回答是1999年5月19日。所以对我们来说，我知道，命中注定这孩子就是我们的。
网易新闻：在中国要收养一名孩子，要办一系列的复杂手续。但你们对Gracie的收养手续好像办得非常迅速。你的美国高级官员身份在其中是否有起到作用？
洪博培：当时我并不是什么高级官员，我也不认为我是什么特别人物（笑）。当时大部分收养者在办手续时都很顺利，一般是6到10个月，这取决于当时美中关系的好坏。 如果中美关系出现什么问题，时间就会被拖长。如果一切顺利，收养程序就会办得非常迅速。而我们刚好处在办事顺利的时期。当我们在印度收养孩子时，我是犹他州的州长，级别非常高的官员，但却花了很长时间才办完收养手续。你都想象不到我们得签多少份收养文件。所以我认为我们当时真的很幸运，因为就在我们收养了Gracie不久后，快速办理收养手续的好光景已不复存在了。如今办理收养手续所花费的时间肯定已经大大增加，今天要收养一个孩子可能得花……
大使夫人：大概两年，或许还要更长一些。
网易新闻：我们知道你们是在Gracie刚出生不久就收养了她，而她又是在美国被带大的，所以她的成长经历极富美国色彩。我曾看过一段对你的采访，你曾说Gracie是在美国长大，现在正重新回到中国，她是中美之间的一座桥梁。那么在你看来，Gracie是更像一个美国人，还是更像一个中国人？
洪博培：我想她是一个完美的结合体，不过我认为她身上中国人的成分更多一些。因为她生在中国，我认为身为中国人的思想会伴随她的一生，这是件好事。自从我们收养她以来，我们就一直在给她灌输这种思想。即使是在美国，我们也会尽一切可能向她介绍中国文化，教她学中文，给她做中餐。我们也知道我们会有机会将她带回亚洲。而作为驻华大使，真正激动人心的事情是，我们可以在她出生的国家里看到她以我们所无法想象的方式成长。我们是如此惊讶和荣幸地看到，Gracie与她所出生国家的文化传统以我所无法想象的方式融合起来。她喜欢这儿，她感到自己已深深融入了当地文化。我认为这对于对她来说，回到自己的祖国是非常重要的一段人生经历。作为一名大使，我很高兴能看到Gracie重新融入中国。从她的眼睛中你可以看到，她每天的生活经历都是如此非同寻常。
网易新闻：在另外一次采访中，你说你从自己女儿的眼里看中国，对吗？
洪博培：对，每天我都从女儿的眼里看中国。
网易新闻：那夫人呢？你是怎样从女儿眼里看中国的？
大使夫人：比如说她用筷子的样子，我每天就能从这看到中国。就像他所说，她要更中国化一些，她的行为举止，以及她所做的一切，不是说我们可以去教会的，而就是因为她是一个中国人，我们都为此而感到骄傲。她教给了我们很多东西。我们这次去扬州，能够看通过她的眼睛，看着她如何回到她出生的地方，这种体验是我们一辈子都不会忘记的。她那么高兴，那么满心欢喜。她说，到孤儿院去，是她平生最快乐的事情。
女儿是中美外交“叙事”中的一部分
网易新闻：你们去扬州的时候，我们在网上放了关于你们行程的报道，点击率超过一百万次，反应很热烈。这次旅行是你自己家里的一个计划，还是你的外交行程呢？
洪博培：我得说，这是一个外交计划，但对我家庭而言，这其中也是有不少“私心”的，因为我们很希望尽可能在接近领养她十周年的日子里，和她一起回扬州。其实我们到扬州的那一周，距离我们领养她的日子，正好整十年。当然，这的确也有某种外交目的在内。我没想过我跟玛丽会作为美国的代表来到扬州。但我知道有一天，我们会和Gracie回去，我知道，我们的这次行程会是我们和她的一次骄傲之旅。对我们所有人来说，这是个温情旅程。可能是我一生旅程中最最温情的一个，我看到她去到她的孤儿院，路两边有成百上千的人迎接，看到她的朋友，看到那种按捺不住的脉脉温情，感受到人们的爱，虽然自从她六个月大之后，就没有见过这些人了。
一个孩子被领养后，和故土总是有一种深深的牵挂。而直到我们领养了Gracie，才真正体会到这一点。所以，对我们和我们的家庭来说，这是一个非常快乐的时刻，但我想，就外交关系而言，这也是美中两国的快乐时刻，因为我们两国的关系是由人们推动的，起作用的并不是一些冷冰冰的理念。外交是被人们，被种种人性所驱动的。政治和外交其实都是与人相关的。Gracie成为了中美之间外交“叙事”的一个部分，通过增强两国之间的理解，它成为了中美两国的动人故事。而外交中最重要的事，也就是提升和加强理解。在这一点上，我的女儿做得比任何人都要漂亮。
网易新闻：你曾想过这件事会被媒体大规模曝光，就像现在这样吗？
大使夫人：不，从没想过。Gracie应该也没有想到，这是她从来没有遇到的。但就像我丈夫说的，最重要的是我们感受到了人们的热情和爱。在扬州，开车驶过城中街道，你会看到人们站在街边来看Gracie，在我们来之前，当地报道了这个小女孩。穿过大街我们感受到温暖，好像扬州是我们生命的一部分。而这些情感，将珍藏在Gracie的内心，伴随她度过今后的人生。如此丰富的意义令人无法言表，我们感受到这么多的爱和情感，就像我丈夫说的，这是我们有史以来最温情的一次旅行。
网易新闻：我们的网友对你们扬州之行有一些评论。有人认为Gracie很不幸，因为她的亲生父母遗弃了她。但也有人说Gracie是一个幸运的女孩，因为一个富有的美国家庭收养她。你觉得呢？
洪博培：嗯，我们才是幸运的人。我不知道Gracie和我们一起生活是否幸运，因为我们从Gracie的善良中受益匪浅，她用独特的方式将理解带进我们的家庭。但你也知道，她在某个地方的生母作出了非常困难的决定，我相信，这很难，做出那个决定很不容易，是非常痛苦的。我们爱她的生母，不管那人是谁。因为我们不了解的原因，她那样做了。我们也经常告诉Gracie，在心里始终为她的生母保留一份特别的爱，因为她赋予女儿生命。因为不为人知的情形和现实，她做出了非常非常困难的决定，将女儿抛弃。我们告诉Gracie，要正确看待这件事。我认为她做到了。
网易新闻：你们有没有尝试过去联系孩子的生母呢？
洪博培：没有。
大使夫人：我们没有。游览扬州的街头的时候，Gracie可能想了很多。我们坐在大巴上，我看她望着窗外，不禁想要知道她的感受。就在那时候，她说起了她的名字，如果不是因为当时 “杨乐意”这个名字，现在也不会有人知道她是谁。这让我知道了她内心深处的想法，从她还是个小姑娘的时候起，我们就一直在试图和她交流，告诉她的生母对她的爱。可能正如我丈夫所言，这是她生母一个痛苦的经历。母亲就是母亲，不论她来自世界的哪一个角落。来自母亲的爱是真实的，也是永不消散的。这些观念都已经深深地埋藏在了她的心中。在我看来，我们很幸运，最后能够收养Gracie。我们每天都在想念她的生母。
网易新闻：我听说您曾经学过很长一段时间的中文和儒家思想，看起来您对中国也很着迷。根据您以往的经验，不论是做大使这段时间还是之前的经验，就有可能阻碍两个国家相互了解的方面来说，中国文化中最具挑战性的方面是什么？
洪博培：我想到了几个方面，其中之一就是中国那悠久而复杂的历史，正是中国的历史积淀孕育出了中华文化。没有历史，就不会有文化。和中国相比，美国的历史只是沧海一粟。整个美国历史的长度，和中国历史上中等长度的王朝差不多，清朝持续了300多年，而美国到现在为止还不到300岁。而中国的文明和文化可以一直追朔到至少5000年前。因此对于美国人来说，中国的经历、文明、政治体系、地方及中央政府、以及广袤的国土都充满了巨大的复杂性。这对大多数外国观察者来说都太过于复杂了。
还有一点就是，中华文化倾向于进行很长远的思考。这让大多数美国人以他们的思维方式来理解这些事情很困难。因为美国人大多数是从短期和当下来思考问题的。在商业领域里，是按照季度来核算业绩的，一年有四个季度，你能确切知道自己公司一段时间的运营状况。从某种意义上来讲，政治领域也一样，美国人希望看到立竿见影的结果。随着互联网，还有Facebook、Twitter的出现，每一个年轻人都想要看到即时的结果，获得即时的满足。而这有时候很难契合中国的模式。因为在中国推崇的是有条不紊，长期的模式。中国人做事一步一个脚印，也许做出一个重大决定需要很多很多年。如果你对比东西方人如何抉择以及做决策的理由，就会发现这很不同。所以要解释清其中的不同，并且在两种截然不同的文化体系之间开展工作，非常有挑战性。
网易新闻：在另一次谈到中美关系的访谈中，您提到了今天的情况已经有所不同，今天中美是在相互尊重的前提下来谈各种问题的。如果说中国人最需要了解某些关于美国人的信息，那会是什么呢？
洪博培：美国人是那种极富同情心，极其注重实际的人，非常关心他人。正如我所说的那样，当你一无所有的时候，大多数美国人都会对你伸出援手。美国人说话时也不喜欢拐弯抹角。他们对自己的传统、对自己的文化，以及对自己的出身都倍感骄傲，他们喜欢谈论这些。他们还喜欢对美国制度的积极和阴暗面评头论足，这有时会使人产生误解，他们有时看上去显得骄傲自满，有时显得自私，有时又有些自我主义，或是美国人的优越感，但实际上根本不是这么回事。美国人对他们的生活经历和文化传统感到骄傲，就像中国人一样，只是我们表达的方式不一样。
所以我认为对于中国人来说，理解中美文化之间的差异是很重要的。比如为什么在美国人们会用这种方式来做事，来讨论问题？而对于美国的年轻人来说，理解中国人的价值观和文化传统同样重要。我敢肯定，随着时间的推移，在大洋两岸的这两个国家之间会有更多的相同点。由于美国人正在更积极地学习中文，我们的年轻人有着如此之多的机会去中国旅游，并从互联网上迅速获取有关中国的信息。这种情况放在中国也是一样的，你们与世界其他地方的联系渠道更多了，中国有着 3.5亿互联网用户，几千万博客用户。这个数字正逐月增长，你无法阻止这种趋势，信息也在不断流动，我认为这为中美两国加深彼此之间的了解有着极大好处。
网易新闻：您刚才说，美国文化中的一些方面被中国人误读和误解。我也想到，中国有许多方面也被美国人误解了。因此，您觉得中国文化当中最核心的部分应当让美国人知晓，但是美国人知之甚少？
洪博培：太多了。有很多问题需要澄清。
网易新闻：能不能举几个例子？
洪博培：我举个例子吧，你们的传统还是基于儒家文化。整个文明、整个社区、整个城镇是排在第一位的。在太平洋另一头的我们则更多的是保留了杰弗逊式的传统。托马斯•杰弗逊构筑了我国立国思想，主要内容也就是个人权利，个人畅所欲言、充分表达自己主张的权利，这在美国很常见。而这就是我们经常争执的领域：杰弗逊的个人自由与儒家世界观的论争，儒家讲求的是如何做才对整个集体更有利。我觉得双方在这个领域都应该加深相互理解。我们总是争辩这个比那个好。我感觉事实是，我们双方都没有完全理解对方所代表的根本观点。我们的文化渊源是完全不同的。
网易新闻：有人说，总统提名您担任驻华大使是因为在他的政府中，您最了解中国文化。我的问题是，总统最希望从您那里得到的关于中国的信息是什么？
洪博培：我完全不知道他为什么提名我当大使（笑）。不过能到此上任，既感到欣喜，也深感荣耀。我喜欢当州长，世界上最好的职业就是当美国州长，当大使则是外交官中最体面光鲜的，这是毫无疑问的。所以我们很幸运，天底下最好的几样工作都让我碰上了。他对各种文化差异非常敏感。他小时候在印度尼西亚呆过，后来在夏威夷长大。他与太平洋有着密切的关系。正如他在中国访问时说的，他是第一个真正的太平洋总统，他甚至不需要有人教他认识文化差异问题，我认为他对此问题有清楚的了解。他是他深知我们两国关系的长期性，所以他必须早作筹划。这些筹划未必能立竿见影，但随着时间推移，确实能取得成果。他必须有足够的耐心，这一点对我们两国关系来说至关重要。
不能以季度为尺度来衡量两国关系的好坏，我们在美国纽约证券交易所才这么做。因此，他派我出使构建两国关系前，向我面授机宜：“我希望中美关系积极向上，涵盖广泛、相互协作，而不仅仅局限于双边关系。”中美关系已经有30年，还要继续相处（更多个）30年。所不同的是，如今我们需要解决的更多是全球性问题。因为当今世界仅有两个国家可以在环境、地区安全与稳定，以及全球经济上发挥全面的影响力。这两个国家就是美国和中国。如果我们基于相互、相互理解，就能稳步推进双边关系。
网易新闻：奥巴马总统访华期间，在两国文化差异方面，您向他提出过什么建议？
洪博培：他并不需要我的建议。访华期间，他察看每日动态、各种文献资料与各路专家举行会谈。唯一跟我有关的就是午餐的时候他抢走了我的辣酱（笑）。但是，他对双边关系的重要性有着足够的认识。而且我认为他在执政初期就准确设定了双边关系的框架。随着时间推移，将会有利于中美两国利益，也有利于世界人民的福祉。
今年，在接下来的几个月里，我们可能还会碰到一些不愉快。但这不是说我们两国关系变得不愉快了。每个双边关系都会有波折。（对大使夫人）我们当然也会有。（全场笑）将来也会有。我们不可能事事都达成一致。不过可以在细节上有小摩擦，问题在于如何应对并弥补这些不愉快。这些摩擦让你变得更有力量吗？让双方更加深刻地了解彼此吗？还是这些不愉快最终伤害了双边关系？我觉得从这一年的表现来看，我们双方已经建立了良好巩固的可信赖关系。摩擦必然会有，也有起伏波动。报纸上也会登出来说事。不过我们不把这当回事，继续致力于真正紧要的问题。这样的话，从长期来看，我们就可以受益于美中关系。
网易新闻：您刚才提到媒体对奥巴马访华的报道。我听说您在一次采访中提到：“我需要指出，我看到的一些（美国）媒体报道是不准确的。”您能具体给我们讲讲吗？您认为奥巴马此次访华是成功和富有成果的吗？
洪博培：我想从哪个角度来说，此次访华都是成功的。因为访问巩固了两国关系，确立了双边工作的轻重缓急。比如朝核问题取得了新进展，比如伊朗问题这样艰深复杂而又敏感的问题影响到整个中东的稳定和福祉，我们从未像今天这样密切合作过。再看看气候变化问题，我今天早上正准备同中国主管两国气候谈判的部长会面。这个问题很复杂也很难，看起来，事情一团糟。但实际上，我们确实取得了进展。我们谈的都不是小问题，不可能抛下这个问题不管坐等它自行解决。在贸易以及金融领域，我们也开展了史无前例的合作。我们的双边贸易额达到了4000亿美元，尽管目前还处于第二的位置，但成为世界第一，但这只是时间问题。因此总统确定了这些议题，我们现在做的就是确定轻重缓急。
你提的问题包含两个方面。首先我当时没有提到的一点是，一些报道的内容并不完全准确，比如报道说在某个会议上某论题没有得到讨论，但事实上我们就该议题进行了讨论。遗憾的是，某些会议不对媒体开放，或许他们应该对所有的记者开放。当然，我也被问到这样的问题，就是对于此次访问的批评性报道有何评价。我说，这很好。记者就是要提出不同意见，这才是新闻自由。而且我也从未批评过任何一家发表负面观点的报纸、广播电台、电视台或者任何一个博客。这就是新闻自由的体现，也是言论自由的表现。我们对此表示完全接受。或许从对我的批评当中，还可以学到一些东西。有时候还可能变坏事为好事。所以我从来不对媒体报道的取向作任何评价，让新闻业按照自由市场主义的规则去运作吧。我唯一的评论就是，很多人都以为一些议题没有得到讨论，事实上，我们是讨论了的。
网易新闻：最后一个问题。《纽约时报》专栏作家保罗•克鲁格曼近日撰文表示，贸易保护主义可能有助于保护美国的就业。您对此有什么看法？
洪博培：我曾经担任贸易谈判代表，我也担任过州长。我一直认为对于经济遇到困难的经济体，最好的药方就是保持开放。开放是良药，不过良药必然苦口。因为舆论总是在我们需要开放，为大家提供更多的机会、加强教育和扩大融资的时候，要求关闭交流的通道。未来几个月对美国和中国来说都非常重要。一旦舆论要求关闭，我们就要反其道而行，必须保护开放。天长日久，成效就会显现，只要我们坚持开放市场不动摇，坚持自由贸易、物流通畅、资本人员自由流动不动摇。最终的结果，我认为必然是多赢的局面。让我们回到《凡尔赛条约》签订的1919年，自从第一次世界大战结束之后，长达一个世纪的时间，全球范围里坚持开放市场政策的经济体都取得了经济增长。我们再看看过去一百年里的经济指标，以及某些经济体是如何发展的。中国可能是现代史上，在融入开放的全球环境过程中把人民从贫穷解脱出来最杰出的范例。因此，不少在过去100年中从开放受益最大的国家都反对闭关锁国。
网易新闻：非常感谢您接受我们的采访！
洪博培及夫人：谢谢你。
访谈实录
嘉宾：洪博培及夫人
主持：颂杰 晓茵
我们希望在家里加入一部分的中国元素
网易新闻：大使先生和大使夫人好，欢迎来到网易新闻。当你们决定在1999年领养孩子时，是不是就决心要找一个中国女孩？
洪博培：我们知道会是一个中国女婴，因为我们是向中国的一个收养机构申请领养的。我们已经在亚洲呆过两次（注：台湾和新加坡）。在收养中国女孩这个问题上我们考虑过很久。玛丽（大使夫人）待会儿可以告诉你她在一家孤儿院当志愿者的经历。我们决定要去做这件我们一直想做的事情，尤其是在中国。
网易新闻：为什么呢？
洪博培：很多年以来，我们被中国文化深深吸引了。无论从工作的角度，文化的角度，个人兴趣的角度，或者是语言的角度来看，都是如此。我们已经和中国和大中华区的人们建立了一种深深的联系，因此我们都认为，如果在家里加入一部分的中国元素，将会是很棒的一件事，所以决定领养一个中国女孩。（对夫人）对吧？
大使夫人：对。其实并不是我在孤儿院的经历促成了这一决定，之前我没怎么想过这事。那时候，我正怀着第三个孩子，也没有想到会去领养。我以为，也许只有那些没有孩子的人才会去领养。但突然之间我有了一个想法，为什么我们不让一个没有家的孩子加入到我们的家庭中来呢？这个想法在我们的脑子里萦绕了 12 年。但机缘是最重要的，所有领养过孩子的人可能都会和你这么说，这事就得看时机。我感觉冥冥中Gracie Mei(杨乐意的英文名）注定将是我们家的一员，不过那时候她还没有出生呢。当我们在等待领养的时候，我们的想法确实和那些领养到孩子的父母们一样，机缘真的是最重要的。
命中注定这孩子就是我们的
网易新闻：你第一次看到Gracie时是什么感觉？
大使夫人：我知道，她会成为我们的女儿。我感觉到，她就是我们想找的那一个。我们已就领养一事讨论了12年。而在我们收养她之前，最值得纪念的一天是在1999年 5月 19日的那天晚上，当时我们去外面吃晚餐，我和丈夫还有我们的女儿玛丽•安三人坐在那儿，我丈夫突然说道：“我觉得应该收养一个中国小女孩。”其实要做出领养一个孩子的决定，还是要花点时间来考虑的，因为当时我们已经有五个孩子需要抚养，所以需要时间来确认时机是否已经成熟。那天晚上，我丈夫说想要收养一个来自中国的小女孩。然后他说：“我们应该给她起个什么名字？”我很惊讶，因为12年来，我也没有说就一定要去做这件事。他又接着说：“叫Gracie Mei怎么样？”接下来，他没再谈论这件事，而我是回家后就上网开始搜索有关如何收养孩子的信息，其实我甚至还不知道（收养小孩）从何着手。后来我询问过北京的儿童收养事务中心，知道了要先通过美国的领养机构申请。长话短说吧，我们终于接到电话说孩子已经找了，我就问，这个孩子是什么时候出生的，得到的回答是1999年5月19日。所以对我们来说，我知道，命中注定这孩子就是我们的。
网易新闻：在中国要收养一名孩子，要办一系列的复杂手续。但你们对Gracie的收养手续好像办得非常迅速。你的美国高级官员身份在其中是否有起到作用？
洪博培：当时我并不是什么高级官员，我也不认为我是什么特别人物（笑）。当时大部分收养者在办手续时都很顺利，一般是6到10个月，这取决于当时美中关系的好坏。 如果中美关系出现什么问题，时间就会被拖长。如果一切顺利，收养程序就会办得非常迅速。而我们刚好处在办事顺利的时期。当我们在印度收养孩子时，我是犹他州的州长，级别非常高的官员，但却花了很长时间才办完收养手续。你都想象不到我们得签多少份收养文件。所以我认为我们当时真的很幸运，因为就在我们收养了Gracie不久后，快速办理收养手续的好光景已不复存在了。如今办理收养手续所花费的时间肯定已经大大增加，今天要收养一个孩子可能得花……
大使夫人：大概两年，或许还要更长一些。
杨乐意更像是个中国人
网易新闻：我们知道你们是在Gracie刚出生不久就收养了她，而她又是在美国被带大的，所以她的成长经历极富美国色彩。我曾看过一段对你的采访，你曾说Gracie是在美国长大，现在正重新回到中国，她是中美之间的一座桥梁。那么在你看来，Gracie是更像一个美国人，还是更像一个中国人？
洪博培：我想她是一个完美的结合体，不过我认为她身上中国人的成分更多一些。因为她生在中国，我认为身为中国人的思想会伴随她的一生，这是件好事。自从我们收养她以来，我们就一直在给她灌输这种思想。即使是在美国，我们也会尽一切可能向她介绍中国文化，教她学中文，给她做中餐。我们也知道我们会有机会将她带回亚洲。而作为驻华大使，真正激动人心的事情是，我们可以在她出生的国家里看到她以我们所无法想象的方式成长。我们是如此惊讶和荣幸地看到，Gracie与她所出生国家的文化传统以我所无法想象的方式融合起来。她喜欢这儿，她感到自己已深深融入了当地文化。我认为这对于对她来说，回到自己的祖国是非常重要的一段人生经历。作为一名大使，我很高兴能看到Gracie重新融入中国。从她的眼睛中你可以看到，她每天的生活经历都是如此非同寻常。
网易新闻：在另外一次采访中，你说你从自己女儿的眼里看中国，对吗？
洪博培：对，每天我都从女儿的眼里看中国。
网易新闻：那夫人呢？你是怎样从女儿眼里看中国的？
大使夫人：比如说她用筷子的样子，我每天就能从这看到中国。就像他所说，她要更中国化一些，她的行为举止，以及她所做的一切，不是说我们可以去教会的，而就是因为她是一个中国人，我们都为此而感到骄傲。她教给了我们很多东西。我们这次去扬州，能够看通过她的眼睛，看着她如何回到她出生的地方，这种体验是我们一辈子都不会忘记的。她那么高兴，那么满心欢喜。她说，到孤儿院去，是她平生最快乐的事情。
女儿是中美外交“叙事”中的一部分
网易新闻：你们去扬州的时候，我们在网上放了关于你们行程的报道，点击率超过一百万次，反应很热烈。这次旅行是你自己家里的一个计划，还是你的外交行程呢？
洪博培：我得说，这是一个外交计划，但对我家庭而言，这其中也是有不少“私心”的，因为我们很希望尽可能在接近领养她十周年的日子里，和她一起回扬州。其实我们到扬州的那一周，距离我们领养她的日子，正好整十年。当然，这的确也有某种外交目的在内。我没想过我跟玛丽会作为美国的代表来到扬州。但我知道有一天，我们会和Gracie回去，我知道，我们的这次行程会是我们和她的一次骄傲之旅。对我们所有人来说，这是个温情旅程。可能是我一生旅程中最最温情的一个，我看到她去到她的孤儿院，路两边有成百上千的人迎接，看到她的朋友，看到那种按捺不住的脉脉温情，感受到人们的爱，虽然自从她六个月大之后，就没有见过这些人了。
一个孩子被领养后，和故土总是有一种深深的牵挂。而直到我们领养了Gracie，才真正体会到这一点。所以，对我们和我们的家庭来说，这是一个非常快乐的时刻，但我想，就外交关系而言，这也是美中两国的快乐时刻，因为我们两国的关系是由人们推动的，起作用的并不是一些冷冰冰的理念。外交是被人们，被种种人性所驱动的。政治和外交其实都是与人相关的。Gracie成为了中美之间外交“叙事”的一个部分，通过增强两国之间的理解，它成为了中美两国的动人故事。而外交中最重要的事，也就是提升和加强理解。在这一点上，我的女儿做得比任何人都要漂亮。
网易新闻：你曾想过这件事会被媒体大规模曝光，就像现在这样吗？
大使夫人：不，从没想过。Gracie应该也没有想到，这是她从来没有遇到的。但就像我丈夫说的，最重要的是我们感受到了人们的热情和爱。在扬州，开车驶过城中街道，你会看到人们站在街边来看Gracie，在我们来之前，当地报道了这个小女孩。穿过大街我们感受到温暖，好像扬州是我们生命的一部分。而这些情感，将珍藏在Gracie的内心，伴随她度过今后的人生。如此丰富的意义令人无法言表，我们感受到这么多的爱和情感，就像我丈夫说的，这是我们有史以来最温情的一次旅行。
我们爱她的生母，不管那人是谁
网易新闻：我们的网友对你们扬州之行有一些评论。有人认为Gracie很不幸，因为她的亲生父母遗弃了她。但也有人说Gracie是一个幸运的女孩，因为一个富有的美国家庭收养她。你觉得呢？
洪博培：嗯，我们才是幸运的人。我不知道Gracie和我们一起生活是否幸运，因为我们从Gracie的善良中受益匪浅，她用独特的方式将理解带进我们的家庭。但你也知道，她在某个地方的生母作出了非常困难的决定，我相信，这很难，做出那个决定很不容易，是非常痛苦的。我们爱她的生母，不管那人是谁。因为我们不了解的原因，她那样做了。我们也经常告诉Gracie，在心里始终为她的生母保留一份特别的爱，因为她赋予女儿生命。因为不为人知的情形和现实，她做出了非常非常困难的决定，将女儿抛弃。我们告诉Gracie，要正确看待这件事。我认为她做到了。
网易新闻：你们有没有尝试过去联系孩子的生母呢？
洪博培：没有。
大使夫人：我们没有。游览扬州的街头的时候，Gracie可能想了很多。我们坐在大巴上，我看她望着窗外，不禁想要知道她的感受。就在那时候，她说起了她的名字，如果不是因为当时 “杨乐意”这个名字，现在也不会有人知道她是谁。这让我知道了她内心深处的想法，从她还是个小姑娘的时候起，我们就一直在试图和她交流，告诉她的生母对她的爱。可能正如我丈夫所言，这是她生母一个痛苦的经历。母亲就是母亲，不论她来自世界的哪一个角落。来自母亲的爱是真实的，也是永不消散的。这些观念都已经深深地埋藏在了她的心中。在我看来，我们很幸运，最后能够收养Gracie。我们每天都在想念她的生母。
我们总在争辩，却没有真正理解对方的观点
网易新闻：我听说您曾经学过很长一段时间的中文和儒家思想，看起来您对中国也很着迷。根据您以往的经验，不论是做大使这段时间还是之前的经验，就有可能阻碍两个国家相互了解的方面来说，中国文化中最具挑战性的方面是什么？
洪博培：我想到了几个方面，其中之一就是中国那悠久而复杂的历史，正是中国的历史积淀孕育出了中华文化。没有历史，就不会有文化。和中国相比，美国的历史只是沧海一粟。整个美国历史的长度，和中国历史上中等长度的王朝差不多，清朝持续了300多年，而美国到现在为止还不到300岁。而中国的文明和文化可以一直追朔到至少5000年前。因此对于美国人来说，中国的经历、文明、政治体系、地方及中央政府、以及广袤的国土都充满了巨大的复杂性。这对大多数外国观察者来说都太过于复杂了。
还有一点就是，中华文化倾向于进行很长远的思考。这让大多数美国人以他们的思维方式来理解这些事情很困难。因为美国人大多数是从短期和当下来思考问题的。在商业领域里，是按照季度来核算业绩的，一年有四个季度，你能确切知道自己公司一段时间的运营状况。从某种意义上来讲，政治领域也一样，美国人希望看到立竿见影的结果。随着互联网，还有Facebook、Twitter的出现，每一个年轻人都想要看到即时的结果，获得即时的满足。而这有时候很难契合中国的模式。因为在中国推崇的是有条不紊，长期的模式。中国人做事一步一个脚印，也许做出一个重大决定需要很多很多年。如果你对比东西方人如何抉择以及做决策的理由，就会发现这很不同。所以要解释清其中的不同，并且在两种截然不同的文化体系之间开展工作，非常有挑战性。
网易新闻：在另一次谈到中美关系的访谈中，您提到了今天的情况已经有所不同，今天中美是在相互尊重的前提下来谈各种问题的。如果说中国人最需要了解某些关于美国人的信息，那会是什么呢？
洪博培：美国人是那种极富同情心，极其注重实际的人，非常关心他人。正如我所说的那样，当你一无所有的时候，大多数美国人都会对你伸出援手。美国人说话时也不喜欢拐弯抹角。他们对自己的传统、对自己的文化，以及对自己的出身都倍感骄傲，他们喜欢谈论这些。他们还喜欢对美国制度的积极和阴暗面评头论足，这有时会使人产生误解，他们有时看上去显得骄傲自满，有时显得自私，有时又有些自我主义，或是美国人的优越感，但实际上根本不是这么回事。美国人对他们的生活经历和文化传统感到骄傲，就像中国人一样，只是我们表达的方式不一样。
所以我认为对于中国人来说，理解中美文化之间的差异是很重要的。比如为什么在美国人们会用这种方式来做事，来讨论问题？而对于美国的年轻人来说，理解中国人的价值观和文化传统同样重要。我敢肯定，随着时间的推移，在大洋两岸的这两个国家之间会有更多的相同点。由于美国人正在更积极地学习中文，我们的年轻人有着如此之多的机会去中国旅游，并从互联网上迅速获取有关中国的信息。这种情况放在中国也是一样的，你们与世界其他地方的联系渠道更多了，中国有着 3.5亿互联网用户，几千万博客用户。这个数字正逐月增长，你无法阻止这种趋势，信息也在不断流动，我认为这为中美两国加深彼此之间的了解有着极大好处。
网易新闻：您刚才说，美国文化中的一些方面被中国人误读和误解。我也想到，中国有许多方面也被美国人误解了。因此，您觉得中国文化当中最核心的部分应当让美国人知晓，但是美国人知之甚少？
洪博培：太多了。有很多问题需要澄清。
网易新闻：能不能举几个例子？
洪博培：我举个例子吧，你们的传统还是基于儒家文化。整个文明、整个社区、整个城镇是排在第一位的。在太平洋另一头的我们则更多的是保留了杰弗逊式的传统。托马斯•杰弗逊构筑了我国立国思想，主要内容也就是个人权利，个人畅所欲言、充分表达自己主张的权利，这在美国很常见。而这就是我们经常争执的领域：杰弗逊的个人自由与儒家世界观的论争，儒家讲求的是如何做才对整个集体更有利。我觉得双方在这个领域都应该加深相互理解。我们总是争辩这个比那个好。我感觉事实是，我们双方都没有完全理解对方所代表的根本观点。我们的文化渊源是完全不同的。
对华政策，奥巴马不需要我的建议
网易新闻：有人说，总统提名您担任驻华大使是因为在他的政府中，您最了解中国文化。我的问题是，总统最希望从您那里得到的关于中国的信息是什么？
洪博培：我完全不知道他为什么提名我当大使（笑）。不过能到此上任，既感到欣喜，也深感荣耀。我喜欢当州长，世界上最好的职业就是当美国州长，当大使则是外交官中最体面光鲜的，这是毫无疑问的。所以我们很幸运，天底下最好的几样工作都让我碰上了。他对各种文化差异非常敏感。他小时候在印度尼西亚呆过，后来在夏威夷长大。他与太平洋有着密切的关系。正如他在中国访问时说的，他是第一个真正的太平洋总统，他甚至不需要有人教他认识文化差异问题，我认为他对此问题有清楚的了解。他是他深知我们两国关系的长期性，所以他必须早作筹划。这些筹划未必能立竿见影，但随着时间推移，确实能取得成果。他必须有足够的耐心，这一点对我们两国关系来说至关重要。
不能以季度为尺度来衡量两国关系的好坏，我们在美国纽约证券交易所才这么做。因此，他派我出使构建两国关系前，向我面授机宜：“我希望中美关系积极向上，涵盖广泛、相互协作，而不仅仅局限于双边关系。”中美关系已经有30年，还要继续相处（更多个）30年。所不同的是，如今我们需要解决的更多是全球性问题。因为当今世界仅有两个国家可以在环境、地区安全与稳定，以及全球经济上发挥全面的影响力。这两个国家就是美国和中国。如果我们基于相互、相互理解，就能稳步推进双边关系。
网易新闻：奥巴马总统访华期间，在两国文化差异方面，您向他提出过什么建议？
洪博培：他并不需要我的建议。访华期间，他察看每日动态、各种文献资料与各路专家举行会谈。唯一跟我有关的就是午餐的时候他抢走了我的辣酱（笑）。但是，他对双边关系的重要性有着足够的认识。而且我认为他在执政初期就准确设定了双边关系的框架。随着时间推移，将会有利于中美两国利益，也有利于世界人民的福祉。
今年，在接下来的几个月里，我们可能还会碰到一些不愉快。但这不是说我们两国关系变得不愉快了。每个双边关系都会有波折。（对大使夫人）我们当然也会有。（全场笑）将来也会有。我们不可能事事都达成一致。不过可以在细节上有小摩擦，问题在于如何应对并弥补这些不愉快。这些摩擦让你变得更有力量吗？让双方更加深刻地了解彼此吗？还是这些不愉快最终伤害了双边关系？我觉得从这一年的表现来看，我们双方已经建立了良好巩固的可信赖关系。摩擦必然会有，也有起伏波动。报纸上也会登出来说事。不过我们不把这当回事，继续致力于真正紧要的问题。这样的话，从长期来看，我们就可以受益于美中关系。
开放是良药，不过良药必然苦口
网易新闻：您刚才提到媒体对奥巴马访华的报道。我听说您在一次采访中提到：“我需要指出，我看到的一些（美国）媒体报道是不准确的。”您能具体给我们讲讲吗？您认为奥巴马此次访华是成功和富有成果的吗？
洪博培：我想从哪个角度来说，此次访华都是成功的。因为访问巩固了两国关系，确立了双边工作的轻重缓急。比如朝核问题取得了新进展，比如伊朗问题这样艰深复杂而又敏感的问题影响到整个中东的稳定和福祉，我们从未像今天这样密切合作过。再看看气候变化问题，我今天早上正准备同中国主管两国气候谈判的部长会面。这个问题很复杂也很难，看起来，事情一团糟。但实际上，我们确实取得了进展。我们谈的都不是小问题，不可能抛下这个问题不管坐等它自行解决。在贸易以及金融领域，我们也开展了史无前例的合作。我们的双边贸易额达到了4000亿美元，尽管目前还处于第二的位置，但成为世界第一，但这只是时间问题。因此总统确定了这些议题，我们现在做的就是确定轻重缓急。
你提的问题包含两个方面。首先我当时没有提到的一点是，一些报道的内容并不完全准确，比如报道说在某个会议上某论题没有得到讨论，但事实上我们就该议题进行了讨论。遗憾的是，某些会议不对媒体开放，或许他们应该对所有的记者开放。当然，我也被问到这样的问题，就是对于此次访问的批评性报道有何评价。我说，这很好。记者就是要提出不同意见，这才是新闻自由。而且我也从未批评过任何一家发表负面观点的报纸、广播电台、电视台或者任何一个博客。这就是新闻自由的体现，也是言论自由的表现。我们对此表示完全接受。或许从对我的批评当中，还可以学到一些东西。有时候还可能变坏事为好事。所以我从来不对媒体报道的取向作任何评价，让新闻业按照自由市场主义的规则去运作吧。我唯一的评论就是，很多人都以为一些议题没有得到讨论，事实上，我们是讨论了的。
网易新闻：最后一个问题。《纽约时报》专栏作家保罗•克鲁格曼近日撰文表示，贸易保护主义可能有助于保护美国的就业。您对此有什么看法？
洪博培：我曾经担任贸易谈判代表，我也担任过州长。我一直认为对于经济遇到困难的经济体，最好的药方就是保持开放。开放是良药，不过良药必然苦口。因为舆论总是在我们需要开放，为大家提供更多的机会、加强教育和扩大融资的时候，要求关闭交流的通道。未来几个月对美国和中国来说都非常重要。一旦舆论要求关闭，我们就要反其道而行，必须保护开放。天长日久，成效就会显现，只要我们坚持开放市场不动摇，坚持自由贸易、物流通畅、资本人员自由流动不动摇。最终的结果，我认为必然是多赢的局面。让我们回到《凡尔赛条约》签订的1919年，自从第一次世界大战结束之后，长达一个世纪的时间，全球范围里坚持开放市场政策的经济体都取得了经济增长。我们再看看过去一百年里的经济指标，以及某些经济体是如何发展的。中国可能是现代史上，在融入开放的全球环境过程中把人民从贫穷解脱出来最杰出的范例。因此，不少在过去100年中从开放受益最大的国家都反对闭关锁国。
网易新闻：非常感谢您接受我们的采访！
洪博培及夫人：谢谢你。
In Japan, U.S. Losing Diplomatic Ground to China
January 24, 2010
In Japan, U.S. Losing Diplomatic Ground to China
By MARTIN FACKLER
TOKYO — When Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates visited Japan’s new leaders in October, not long after their historic election, he pressed so hard and so publicly for a military base agreement that the Japanese news media labeled him a bully.
The difference between that visit and the friendly welcome that a high-level Japanese delegation received just two months later in China, Japan’s historic rival, could not have been more stark.
A grinning President Hu Jintao of China took individual photos with more than a hundred visiting Japanese lawmakers, patiently shaking hands with each of them in an impressive display of mass diplomacy.
The trip, organized by the powerful secretary general of Japan’s governing Democratic Party, Ichiro Ozawa, was just one sign of a noticeable warming of Japan’s once icy ties with China. It was also an indication that the United States, Japan’s closest ally, may be losing at least some ground in a diplomatic tug-of-war with Beijing.
Political experts say Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama’s greater willingness to engage Beijing and the rest of Asia reflects a broad rethinking of Japan’s role in the region at a time when the United States is showing unmistakable signs of decline. It also reflects a growing awareness here that Japan’s economic future is increasingly tied to China, which has already surpassed the United States as its largest trading partner.
“Hatoyama wants to use Asia to offset what he sees as the declining influence of the United States,” said Yoshihide Soeya, director of the Institute of East Asia Studies at Keio University in Tokyo. “He thinks he can play China off the United States.”
Mr. Soeya and other analysts say warmer ties with China are not necessarily a bad thing for Washington, which has long worried about Japan’s isolation in the region. But some are concerned that the new openness toward China may also be driven by a simmering resentment within Mr. Hatoyama’s left-leaning government of what some here call the United States’ “occupation mentality.” Those feelings have been stoked by what many Japanese see as the Obama administration’s high-handed treatment in the dispute over the air base on Okinawa.
The White House is pressing Japan to follow through on a controversial deal to keep a base on the island that was agreed to by the more conservative Liberal Democrats who lost control to Mr. Hatoyama’s party last summer after decades of almost uninterrupted power.
“If we’re worrying that the Japanese are substituting the Chinese for the Americans, then the worse thing you could do is to behave the way that we’re behaving,” said Daniel Sneider, a researcher on Asian security issues at Stanford University.
The new emphasis on China comes as Mr. Hatoyama’s government begins a sweeping housecleaning of Japan’s postwar order after his party’s election victory, including challenging the entrenched bureaucracy’s control of diplomatic as well as economic policy.
On security matters, the Liberal Democrats clearly tilted toward Washington. Past governments not only embraced Japan’s half-century military alliance with the United States, but also warned of China’s burgeoning power and regularly angered Beijing by trying to whitewash the sordid episodes of Japan’s 1930s-1940s military expansion.
American experts say the Obama administration has been slow to realize the extent of the change in Japan’s thinking about its traditional protector and its traditional rival.
Indeed, political experts and former diplomats say China has appeared more adept at handling Japan’s new leaders than the Obama administration has been. And former diplomats here warn that Beijing’s leaders are seizing on the momentous political changes in Tokyo as a chance to improve ties with Japan — and possibly drive a wedge between the United States and Japan.
“This has been a golden opportunity for China,” said Kunihiko Miyake, a former high-ranking Japanese diplomat who was stationed in Beijing. “The Chinese are showing a friendlier face than Washington to counterbalance U.S. influence, if not separate Japan from the U.S.”
Some conservative Japan experts in Washington have even warned of a more independent Tokyo becoming reluctant to support the United States in a future confrontation with China over such issues as Taiwan, or even to continue hosting the some 50,000 American military personnel now based in Japan.
Despite such hand-wringing among Japan experts in the United States, Mr. Hatoyama continues to emphasize that the alliance with Washington remains the cornerstone of Japanese security. And suspicions about China run deep here, as does resentment over Japan’s losing its supremacy in Asia, making a significant shift in loyalty or foreign policy unlikely anytime soon, analysts say.
But in the four months since Mr. Hatoyama took office, there has been an unusual flurry of visits back and forth by top-ranking Chinese and Japanese officials, including one last month to Tokyo by China’s heir apparent, Vice President Xi Jinping.
The new mood of reconciliation is also evident in the novel ideas that have been floated recently to overcome the differences over wartime history that have long isolated Japan from the region.
These include a recent report in the Yomiuri Shimbun, a Japanese newspaper, based on unidentified diplomatic sources, of a Chinese initiative for reconciliation that would include a visit by Mr. Hatoyama to Nanjing to apologize for the 1937 massacre of Chinese civilians there by invading Japanese soldiers. President Hu would then visit Hiroshima to proclaim China’s peaceful intentions.
While both countries dismissed the report as speculation, it spurred wide talk here that the report might be a trial balloon by one of the two countries that could signal a new willingness to make some sort of diplomatic breakthrough on the history issues.
And a week after the visit to Beijing by Mr. Ozawa and his parliamentary delegation, which Mr. Hu heralded as the start of a smoother era in Japan-China relations, Tokyo reciprocated with its own display of eager hospitality during a visit to Tokyo by Mr. Xi, the Chinese vice president. Mr. Hatoyama arranged a meeting between Mr. Xi and Emperor Akihito at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo on short notice, breaking protocol that such audiences be arranged more than a month in advance.
Mr. Ozawa, a shadowy kingmaker whose power rivals Mr. Hatoyama’s, is said to have warm feelings for China, where he has often visited, and he is widely seen as the force behind Japan’s latest overtures to Beijing.
Other members of Mr. Hatoyama’s cabinet remain less convinced that any drift away from the United States is a good idea.
One of the skeptics is Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa, who has stressed the need for the American military presence to offset China and a nuclear-armed North Korea. Last month, Mr. Kitazawa brought in Yukio Okamoto, a widely respected former diplomat and adviser to Liberal Democratic prime ministers, to advise Mr. Hatoyama on security issues.
“The Democrats have to realize the threat we have on the Korean Peninsula, and that China is not a friendly country in military matters,” Mr. Okamoto said.
Mr. Soeya, of Keio University, warned that the new Japanese government should at least think hard before sidling closer to China, saying, “Mr. Hatoyama does not have a clear sense of what relying on China would really mean, or whether it is even actually desirable.”
In Japan, U.S. Losing Diplomatic Ground to China
By MARTIN FACKLER
TOKYO — When Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates visited Japan’s new leaders in October, not long after their historic election, he pressed so hard and so publicly for a military base agreement that the Japanese news media labeled him a bully.
The difference between that visit and the friendly welcome that a high-level Japanese delegation received just two months later in China, Japan’s historic rival, could not have been more stark.
A grinning President Hu Jintao of China took individual photos with more than a hundred visiting Japanese lawmakers, patiently shaking hands with each of them in an impressive display of mass diplomacy.
The trip, organized by the powerful secretary general of Japan’s governing Democratic Party, Ichiro Ozawa, was just one sign of a noticeable warming of Japan’s once icy ties with China. It was also an indication that the United States, Japan’s closest ally, may be losing at least some ground in a diplomatic tug-of-war with Beijing.
Political experts say Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama’s greater willingness to engage Beijing and the rest of Asia reflects a broad rethinking of Japan’s role in the region at a time when the United States is showing unmistakable signs of decline. It also reflects a growing awareness here that Japan’s economic future is increasingly tied to China, which has already surpassed the United States as its largest trading partner.
“Hatoyama wants to use Asia to offset what he sees as the declining influence of the United States,” said Yoshihide Soeya, director of the Institute of East Asia Studies at Keio University in Tokyo. “He thinks he can play China off the United States.”
Mr. Soeya and other analysts say warmer ties with China are not necessarily a bad thing for Washington, which has long worried about Japan’s isolation in the region. But some are concerned that the new openness toward China may also be driven by a simmering resentment within Mr. Hatoyama’s left-leaning government of what some here call the United States’ “occupation mentality.” Those feelings have been stoked by what many Japanese see as the Obama administration’s high-handed treatment in the dispute over the air base on Okinawa.
The White House is pressing Japan to follow through on a controversial deal to keep a base on the island that was agreed to by the more conservative Liberal Democrats who lost control to Mr. Hatoyama’s party last summer after decades of almost uninterrupted power.
“If we’re worrying that the Japanese are substituting the Chinese for the Americans, then the worse thing you could do is to behave the way that we’re behaving,” said Daniel Sneider, a researcher on Asian security issues at Stanford University.
The new emphasis on China comes as Mr. Hatoyama’s government begins a sweeping housecleaning of Japan’s postwar order after his party’s election victory, including challenging the entrenched bureaucracy’s control of diplomatic as well as economic policy.
On security matters, the Liberal Democrats clearly tilted toward Washington. Past governments not only embraced Japan’s half-century military alliance with the United States, but also warned of China’s burgeoning power and regularly angered Beijing by trying to whitewash the sordid episodes of Japan’s 1930s-1940s military expansion.
American experts say the Obama administration has been slow to realize the extent of the change in Japan’s thinking about its traditional protector and its traditional rival.
Indeed, political experts and former diplomats say China has appeared more adept at handling Japan’s new leaders than the Obama administration has been. And former diplomats here warn that Beijing’s leaders are seizing on the momentous political changes in Tokyo as a chance to improve ties with Japan — and possibly drive a wedge between the United States and Japan.
“This has been a golden opportunity for China,” said Kunihiko Miyake, a former high-ranking Japanese diplomat who was stationed in Beijing. “The Chinese are showing a friendlier face than Washington to counterbalance U.S. influence, if not separate Japan from the U.S.”
Some conservative Japan experts in Washington have even warned of a more independent Tokyo becoming reluctant to support the United States in a future confrontation with China over such issues as Taiwan, or even to continue hosting the some 50,000 American military personnel now based in Japan.
Despite such hand-wringing among Japan experts in the United States, Mr. Hatoyama continues to emphasize that the alliance with Washington remains the cornerstone of Japanese security. And suspicions about China run deep here, as does resentment over Japan’s losing its supremacy in Asia, making a significant shift in loyalty or foreign policy unlikely anytime soon, analysts say.
But in the four months since Mr. Hatoyama took office, there has been an unusual flurry of visits back and forth by top-ranking Chinese and Japanese officials, including one last month to Tokyo by China’s heir apparent, Vice President Xi Jinping.
The new mood of reconciliation is also evident in the novel ideas that have been floated recently to overcome the differences over wartime history that have long isolated Japan from the region.
These include a recent report in the Yomiuri Shimbun, a Japanese newspaper, based on unidentified diplomatic sources, of a Chinese initiative for reconciliation that would include a visit by Mr. Hatoyama to Nanjing to apologize for the 1937 massacre of Chinese civilians there by invading Japanese soldiers. President Hu would then visit Hiroshima to proclaim China’s peaceful intentions.
While both countries dismissed the report as speculation, it spurred wide talk here that the report might be a trial balloon by one of the two countries that could signal a new willingness to make some sort of diplomatic breakthrough on the history issues.
And a week after the visit to Beijing by Mr. Ozawa and his parliamentary delegation, which Mr. Hu heralded as the start of a smoother era in Japan-China relations, Tokyo reciprocated with its own display of eager hospitality during a visit to Tokyo by Mr. Xi, the Chinese vice president. Mr. Hatoyama arranged a meeting between Mr. Xi and Emperor Akihito at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo on short notice, breaking protocol that such audiences be arranged more than a month in advance.
Mr. Ozawa, a shadowy kingmaker whose power rivals Mr. Hatoyama’s, is said to have warm feelings for China, where he has often visited, and he is widely seen as the force behind Japan’s latest overtures to Beijing.
Other members of Mr. Hatoyama’s cabinet remain less convinced that any drift away from the United States is a good idea.
One of the skeptics is Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa, who has stressed the need for the American military presence to offset China and a nuclear-armed North Korea. Last month, Mr. Kitazawa brought in Yukio Okamoto, a widely respected former diplomat and adviser to Liberal Democratic prime ministers, to advise Mr. Hatoyama on security issues.
“The Democrats have to realize the threat we have on the Korean Peninsula, and that China is not a friendly country in military matters,” Mr. Okamoto said.
Mr. Soeya, of Keio University, warned that the new Japanese government should at least think hard before sidling closer to China, saying, “Mr. Hatoyama does not have a clear sense of what relying on China would really mean, or whether it is even actually desirable.”
The 3 Facebook Settings Every User Should Check Now
January 20, 2010
The 3 Facebook Settings Every User Should Check Now
By SARAH PEREZ of ReadWriteWeb
In December, Facebook made a series of bold and controversial changes regarding the nature of its users' privacy on the social networking site. The company once known for protecting privacy to the point of exclusivity (it began its days as a network for college kids only - no one else even had access), now seemingly wants to compete with more open social networks like the microblogging media darling Twitter.
Those of you who edited your privacy settings prior to December's change have nothing to worry about - that is, assuming you elected to keep your personalized settings when prompted by Facebook's "transition tool." The tool, a dialog box explaining the changes, appeared at the top of Facebook homepages this past month with its own selection of recommended settings. Unfortunately, most Facebook users likely opted for the recommended settings without really understanding what they were agreeing to. If you did so, you may now be surprised to find that you inadvertently gave Facebook the right to publicize your private information including status updates, photos, and shared links.
Want to change things back? Read on to find out how.
1. Who Can See The Things You Share (Status Updates, Photo, Videos, etc.)
Probably the most critical of the "privacy" changes (yes, we mean those quotes sarcastically) was the change made to status updates. Although there's now a button beneath the status update field that lets you select who can view any particular update, the new Facebook default for this setting is "Everyone." And by everyone, they mean everyone.
If you accepted the new recommended settings then you voluntarily gave Facebook the right to share the information about the items you post with any user or application on the site. Depending on your search settings, you may have also given Facebook the right to share that information with search engines, too.
To change this setting back to something of a more private nature, do the following:
1. From your Profile page, hover your mouse over the Settings menu at the top right and click "Privacy Settings" from the list that appears.
2. Click "Profile Information" from the list of choices on the next page.
3. Scroll down to the setting "Posts by Me." This encompasses anything you post, including status updates, links, notes, photos, and videos.
4. Change this setting using the drop-down box on the right. We recommend the "Only Friends" setting to ensure that only those people you've specifically added as a friend on the network can see the things you post.
2. Who Can See Your Personal Info
Facebook has a section of your profile called "personal info," but it only includes your interests, activities, and favorites. Other arguably more personal information is not encompassed by the "personal info" setting on Facebook's Privacy Settings page. That other information includes things like your birthday, your religious and political views, and your relationship status.
After last month's privacy changes, Facebook set the new defaults for this other information to viewable by either "Everyone" (for family and relationships, aka relationship status) or to "Friends of Friends" (birthday, religious and political views). Depending on your own preferences, you can update each of these fields as you see fit. However, we would bet that many will want to set these to "Only Friends" as well. To do so:
1. From your Profile page, hover your mouse over the Settings menu at the top right and click "Privacy Settings" from the list that appears.
2. Click "Profile Information" from the list of choices on the next page.
3. The third, fourth, and fifth item listed on this page are as follows: "birthday," "religious and political views," and "family and relationship." Locking down birthday to "Only Friends" is wise here, especially considering information such as this is often used in identity theft.
4. Depending on your own personal preferences, you may or may not feel comfortable sharing your relationship status and religious and political views with complete strangers. And keep in mind, any setting besides "Only Friends" is just that - a stranger. While "Friends of Friends" sounds innocuous enough, it refers to everyone your friends have added as friends, a large group containing hundreds if not thousands of people you don't know. All it takes is one less-than-selective friend in your network to give an unsavory person access to this information.
3. What Google Can See - Keep Your Data Off the Search Engines
When you visit Facebook's Search Settings page, a warning message pops up. Apparently, Facebook wants to clear the air about what info is being indexed by Google. The message reads:
There have been misleading rumors recently about Facebook indexing all your information on Google. This is not true. Facebook created public search listings in 2007 to enable people to search for your name and see a link to your Facebook profile. They will still only see a basic set of information.
While that may be true to a point, the second setting listed on this Search Settings page refers to exactly what you're allowing Google to index. If the box next to "Allow" is checked, you're giving search engines the ability to access and index any information you've marked as visible by "Everyone." As you can see from the settings discussed above, if you had not made some changes to certain fields, you would be sharing quite a bit with the search engines...probably more information than you were comfortable with. To keep your data private and out of the search engines, do the following:
1. From your Profile page, hover your mouse over the Settings menu at the top right and click "Privacy Settings" from the list that appears.
2. Click "Search" from the list of choices on the next page.
3. Click "Close" on the pop-up message that appears.
4. On this page, uncheck the box labeled "Allow" next to the second setting "Public Search Results." That keeps all your publicly shared information (items set to viewable by "Everyone") out of the search engines. If you want to see what the end result looks like, click the "see preview" link in blue underneath this setting.
Take 5 Minutes to Protect Your Privacy
While these three settings are, in our opinion, the most critical, they're by no means the only privacy settings worth a look. In a previous article (written prior to December's changes, so now out-of-date), we also looked at things like who can find you via Facebook's own search, application security, and more.
While you may think these sorts of items aren't worth your time now, the next time you lose out on a job because the HR manager viewed your questionable Facebook photos or saw something inappropriate a friend posted on your wall, you may have second thoughts. But why wait until something bad happens before you address the issue?
Considering that Facebook itself is no longer looking out for you, it's time to be proactive about things and look out for yourself instead. Taking a few minutes to run through all the available privacy settings and educating yourself on what they mean could mean the world of difference to you at some later point...That is, unless you agree with Facebook in thinking that the world is becoming more open and therefore you should too.
Note: Other resources on Facebook's latest changes worth reading include MakeUseOf's 8 Steps Toward Regaining your Privacy, 17 steps to protect your privacy from Inside Facebook, the ACLU's article examining the changes, and DotRights.org's comprehensive analysis of the new settings. If you're unhappy enough to protest Facebook's privacy update, you can sign ACLU's petition. The FTC is also looking into the matter thanks to a complaint filed by a coalition of privacy groups, led by the Electronic Privacy Information Center. You can add your voice to the list of complaints here.
Copyright 2010 ReadWriteWeb. All Rights Reserved.
The 3 Facebook Settings Every User Should Check Now
By SARAH PEREZ of ReadWriteWeb
In December, Facebook made a series of bold and controversial changes regarding the nature of its users' privacy on the social networking site. The company once known for protecting privacy to the point of exclusivity (it began its days as a network for college kids only - no one else even had access), now seemingly wants to compete with more open social networks like the microblogging media darling Twitter.
Those of you who edited your privacy settings prior to December's change have nothing to worry about - that is, assuming you elected to keep your personalized settings when prompted by Facebook's "transition tool." The tool, a dialog box explaining the changes, appeared at the top of Facebook homepages this past month with its own selection of recommended settings. Unfortunately, most Facebook users likely opted for the recommended settings without really understanding what they were agreeing to. If you did so, you may now be surprised to find that you inadvertently gave Facebook the right to publicize your private information including status updates, photos, and shared links.
Want to change things back? Read on to find out how.
1. Who Can See The Things You Share (Status Updates, Photo, Videos, etc.)
Probably the most critical of the "privacy" changes (yes, we mean those quotes sarcastically) was the change made to status updates. Although there's now a button beneath the status update field that lets you select who can view any particular update, the new Facebook default for this setting is "Everyone." And by everyone, they mean everyone.
If you accepted the new recommended settings then you voluntarily gave Facebook the right to share the information about the items you post with any user or application on the site. Depending on your search settings, you may have also given Facebook the right to share that information with search engines, too.
To change this setting back to something of a more private nature, do the following:
1. From your Profile page, hover your mouse over the Settings menu at the top right and click "Privacy Settings" from the list that appears.
2. Click "Profile Information" from the list of choices on the next page.
3. Scroll down to the setting "Posts by Me." This encompasses anything you post, including status updates, links, notes, photos, and videos.
4. Change this setting using the drop-down box on the right. We recommend the "Only Friends" setting to ensure that only those people you've specifically added as a friend on the network can see the things you post.
2. Who Can See Your Personal Info
Facebook has a section of your profile called "personal info," but it only includes your interests, activities, and favorites. Other arguably more personal information is not encompassed by the "personal info" setting on Facebook's Privacy Settings page. That other information includes things like your birthday, your religious and political views, and your relationship status.
After last month's privacy changes, Facebook set the new defaults for this other information to viewable by either "Everyone" (for family and relationships, aka relationship status) or to "Friends of Friends" (birthday, religious and political views). Depending on your own preferences, you can update each of these fields as you see fit. However, we would bet that many will want to set these to "Only Friends" as well. To do so:
1. From your Profile page, hover your mouse over the Settings menu at the top right and click "Privacy Settings" from the list that appears.
2. Click "Profile Information" from the list of choices on the next page.
3. The third, fourth, and fifth item listed on this page are as follows: "birthday," "religious and political views," and "family and relationship." Locking down birthday to "Only Friends" is wise here, especially considering information such as this is often used in identity theft.
4. Depending on your own personal preferences, you may or may not feel comfortable sharing your relationship status and religious and political views with complete strangers. And keep in mind, any setting besides "Only Friends" is just that - a stranger. While "Friends of Friends" sounds innocuous enough, it refers to everyone your friends have added as friends, a large group containing hundreds if not thousands of people you don't know. All it takes is one less-than-selective friend in your network to give an unsavory person access to this information.
3. What Google Can See - Keep Your Data Off the Search Engines
When you visit Facebook's Search Settings page, a warning message pops up. Apparently, Facebook wants to clear the air about what info is being indexed by Google. The message reads:
There have been misleading rumors recently about Facebook indexing all your information on Google. This is not true. Facebook created public search listings in 2007 to enable people to search for your name and see a link to your Facebook profile. They will still only see a basic set of information.
While that may be true to a point, the second setting listed on this Search Settings page refers to exactly what you're allowing Google to index. If the box next to "Allow" is checked, you're giving search engines the ability to access and index any information you've marked as visible by "Everyone." As you can see from the settings discussed above, if you had not made some changes to certain fields, you would be sharing quite a bit with the search engines...probably more information than you were comfortable with. To keep your data private and out of the search engines, do the following:
1. From your Profile page, hover your mouse over the Settings menu at the top right and click "Privacy Settings" from the list that appears.
2. Click "Search" from the list of choices on the next page.
3. Click "Close" on the pop-up message that appears.
4. On this page, uncheck the box labeled "Allow" next to the second setting "Public Search Results." That keeps all your publicly shared information (items set to viewable by "Everyone") out of the search engines. If you want to see what the end result looks like, click the "see preview" link in blue underneath this setting.
Take 5 Minutes to Protect Your Privacy
While these three settings are, in our opinion, the most critical, they're by no means the only privacy settings worth a look. In a previous article (written prior to December's changes, so now out-of-date), we also looked at things like who can find you via Facebook's own search, application security, and more.
While you may think these sorts of items aren't worth your time now, the next time you lose out on a job because the HR manager viewed your questionable Facebook photos or saw something inappropriate a friend posted on your wall, you may have second thoughts. But why wait until something bad happens before you address the issue?
Considering that Facebook itself is no longer looking out for you, it's time to be proactive about things and look out for yourself instead. Taking a few minutes to run through all the available privacy settings and educating yourself on what they mean could mean the world of difference to you at some later point...That is, unless you agree with Facebook in thinking that the world is becoming more open and therefore you should too.
Note: Other resources on Facebook's latest changes worth reading include MakeUseOf's 8 Steps Toward Regaining your Privacy, 17 steps to protect your privacy from Inside Facebook, the ACLU's article examining the changes, and DotRights.org's comprehensive analysis of the new settings. If you're unhappy enough to protest Facebook's privacy update, you can sign ACLU's petition. The FTC is also looking into the matter thanks to a complaint filed by a coalition of privacy groups, led by the Electronic Privacy Information Center. You can add your voice to the list of complaints here.
Copyright 2010 ReadWriteWeb. All Rights Reserved.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Is China an Enron? (Part 2)
January 20, 2010
Op-Ed Columnist
Is China an Enron? (Part 2)
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Last week, I wrote a column suggesting that while some overheated Chinese markets, like real estate, may offer shorting opportunities, I’d be wary of the argument that China’s economy today is just one big short-inviting bubble, à la Dubai. Your honor, I’d like to now revise and amend my remarks.
There is one short position, one big short, that does intrigue me in China. I am not sure who makes a market in this area, but here goes: If China forces out Google, I’d like to short the Chinese Communist Party.
Here is why: Chinese companies today are both more backward and more advanced than most Americans realize. There are actually two Chinese economies today. There is the Communist Party and its affiliates; let’s call them Command China. These are the very traditional state-owned enterprises.
Alongside them, there is a second China, largely concentrated in coastal cities like Shanghai and Hong Kong. This is a highly entrepreneurial sector that has developed sophisticated techniques to generate and participate in diverse, high-value flows of business knowledge. I call that Network China.
What is so important about knowledge flows? This, for me, is the key to understanding the Google story and why one might decide to short the Chinese Communist Party.
John Hagel, the noted business writer and management consultant argues in his recently released “Shift Index” that we’re in the midst of “The Big Shift.” We are shifting from a world where the key source of strategic advantage was in protecting and extracting value from a given set of knowledge stocks — the sum total of what we know at any point in time, which is now depreciating at an accelerating pace — into a world in which the focus of value creation is effective participation in knowledge flows, which are constantly being renewed.
“Finding ways to connect with people and institutions possessing new knowledge becomes increasingly important,” says Hagel. “Since there are far more smart people outside any one organization than inside.” And in today’s flat world, you can now access them all. Therefore, the more your company or country can connect with relevant and diverse sources to create new knowledge, the more it will thrive. And if you don’t, others will.
I would argue that Command China, in its efforts to suppress, curtail and channel knowledge flows into politically acceptable domains that will indefinitely sustain the control of the Communist Party — i.e., censoring Google — is increasingly at odds with Network China, which is thriving by participating in global knowledge flows. That is what the war over Google is really all about: It is a proxy and a symbol for whether the Chinese will be able to freely search and connect wherever their imaginations and creative impulses take them, which is critical for the future of Network China.
Have no doubt, China has some world-class networked companies that are “in the flow” already, such as Li & Fung, a $14 billion apparel company with a network of 10,000 specialized business partners, and Dachangjiang, the motorcycle maker. The flows occurring on a daily basis in the networks of these Chinese companies to do design, product innovation and supply-chain management and to pool the best global expertise “are unlike anything that U.S. companies have figured out,” said Hagel.
The orchestrators of these networks, he added, “encourage participants to gather among themselves in an ad hoc fashion to address unexpected performance challenges, learn from each other and pull in outsiders as they need them. More traditional companies driven by a desire to protect and exploit knowledge stocks carefully limit the partners they deal with.”
Command China has thrived up to now largely by perfecting the 20th-century model for low-cost manufacturing based on mining knowledge stocks and limiting flows. But China will only thrive in the 21st century — and the Communist Party survive in power — if it can get more of its firms to shift to the 21st-century model of Network China. That means enabling more and more Chinese people, universities and companies to participate in the world’s great knowledge flows, especially ones that connect well beyond the established industry and market boundaries.
Alas, though, China seems to be betting that it can straddle three impulses — control flows for political reasons, maintain 20th-century Command Chinese factories for employment reasons and expand 21st-century Network China for growth reasons. But the contradictions within this straddle could undermine all three. The 20th-century Command model will be under pressure. The future belongs to those who promote richer and ever more diverse knowledge flows and develop the institutions and practices required to harness them.
So there you have it: Command China, which wants to censor Google, is working against Network China, which thrives on Google. For now, it looks as if Command China will have its way. If that turns out to be the case, then I’d like to short the Communist Party.
Op-Ed Columnist
Is China an Enron? (Part 2)
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Last week, I wrote a column suggesting that while some overheated Chinese markets, like real estate, may offer shorting opportunities, I’d be wary of the argument that China’s economy today is just one big short-inviting bubble, à la Dubai. Your honor, I’d like to now revise and amend my remarks.
There is one short position, one big short, that does intrigue me in China. I am not sure who makes a market in this area, but here goes: If China forces out Google, I’d like to short the Chinese Communist Party.
Here is why: Chinese companies today are both more backward and more advanced than most Americans realize. There are actually two Chinese economies today. There is the Communist Party and its affiliates; let’s call them Command China. These are the very traditional state-owned enterprises.
Alongside them, there is a second China, largely concentrated in coastal cities like Shanghai and Hong Kong. This is a highly entrepreneurial sector that has developed sophisticated techniques to generate and participate in diverse, high-value flows of business knowledge. I call that Network China.
What is so important about knowledge flows? This, for me, is the key to understanding the Google story and why one might decide to short the Chinese Communist Party.
John Hagel, the noted business writer and management consultant argues in his recently released “Shift Index” that we’re in the midst of “The Big Shift.” We are shifting from a world where the key source of strategic advantage was in protecting and extracting value from a given set of knowledge stocks — the sum total of what we know at any point in time, which is now depreciating at an accelerating pace — into a world in which the focus of value creation is effective participation in knowledge flows, which are constantly being renewed.
“Finding ways to connect with people and institutions possessing new knowledge becomes increasingly important,” says Hagel. “Since there are far more smart people outside any one organization than inside.” And in today’s flat world, you can now access them all. Therefore, the more your company or country can connect with relevant and diverse sources to create new knowledge, the more it will thrive. And if you don’t, others will.
I would argue that Command China, in its efforts to suppress, curtail and channel knowledge flows into politically acceptable domains that will indefinitely sustain the control of the Communist Party — i.e., censoring Google — is increasingly at odds with Network China, which is thriving by participating in global knowledge flows. That is what the war over Google is really all about: It is a proxy and a symbol for whether the Chinese will be able to freely search and connect wherever their imaginations and creative impulses take them, which is critical for the future of Network China.
Have no doubt, China has some world-class networked companies that are “in the flow” already, such as Li & Fung, a $14 billion apparel company with a network of 10,000 specialized business partners, and Dachangjiang, the motorcycle maker. The flows occurring on a daily basis in the networks of these Chinese companies to do design, product innovation and supply-chain management and to pool the best global expertise “are unlike anything that U.S. companies have figured out,” said Hagel.
The orchestrators of these networks, he added, “encourage participants to gather among themselves in an ad hoc fashion to address unexpected performance challenges, learn from each other and pull in outsiders as they need them. More traditional companies driven by a desire to protect and exploit knowledge stocks carefully limit the partners they deal with.”
Command China has thrived up to now largely by perfecting the 20th-century model for low-cost manufacturing based on mining knowledge stocks and limiting flows. But China will only thrive in the 21st century — and the Communist Party survive in power — if it can get more of its firms to shift to the 21st-century model of Network China. That means enabling more and more Chinese people, universities and companies to participate in the world’s great knowledge flows, especially ones that connect well beyond the established industry and market boundaries.
Alas, though, China seems to be betting that it can straddle three impulses — control flows for political reasons, maintain 20th-century Command Chinese factories for employment reasons and expand 21st-century Network China for growth reasons. But the contradictions within this straddle could undermine all three. The 20th-century Command model will be under pressure. The future belongs to those who promote richer and ever more diverse knowledge flows and develop the institutions and practices required to harness them.
So there you have it: Command China, which wants to censor Google, is working against Network China, which thrives on Google. For now, it looks as if Command China will have its way. If that turns out to be the case, then I’d like to short the Communist Party.
China Is Just Like A Teenage Boy
Leadership
China Is Just Like A Teenage Boy
Shaun Rein, 01.19.10, 5:20 PM ET
China has its share of shortcomings. Far too many families live hundreds of miles apart and are struggling to make ends meet. Soaring medical and housing costs prevent too many from getting adequate medical care. Too many live in cramped, intolerable conditions.
But life is getting better for the average Chinese. Much better. Real poverty is pretty much gone. China has emerged as a net donor to places like Africa, rather than a recipient of aid. Nearly 90% of the people recently interviewed by my firm, the China Market Research Group, said they approved or strongly approved of the government's handling of the financial crisis. The nation buzzes with optimism and can-do attitude, especially among the young, the way America did in the 1950s and 1960s. Despite the furor over censorship Google has unleashed, even the Internet is far freer than ever before.
Seven years ago Chinese citizens couldn't access The New York Times. A year ago Wikipedia, the Huffington Post and WordPress were all blocked. All are accessible now. China's government fears content less than it used to. It fears technology, like Twitter or Facebook, that it believes dangerous elements can use to band together for protests like those that have occurred in Iran. It fears pornography as a polluter of morals. Such fears are undeniably disproportionate to actual risk, but no official wants to get the blame for having let something bad happen under his watch. For them, it is better to overreact than to appear lax at the controls. (See my article "In China, Reputation Rules" for more on this.)
The Chinese people are undoubtedly better off with Google in China than out, as I wrote in "Google's Act of War Against China." Active engagement and promotion of change from within a system always works better than outright isolationism. I fear Google's move will feed China's distrust of foreign Internet companies and make life harder for those that still operate there. And I don't want the Chinese search company Baidu to monopolize the market, since some of its business practices have been found wanting. The result would be bad for the Chinese people. My personal plea to Google: If you really want to improve the quality of life for Chinese, and you're not just looking for an excuse to mask terrible business performance, please follow Chinese law and stay in China.
Despite having a wonderful 5,000-year history, China is in many ways like a teenage boy. It has just gotten its seat at the adults' table and is trying to learn how to deal with other nations as not just a fellow G20 member but as a superpower. (See my article "Yes, China Has Fully Arrived As A Superpower.") Nations and businesses all need to rethink the ways they deal with China. Similarly, China needs to rethink how it deals with the world.
Like a teenage boy, China doesn't always know how to handle its new responsibilities and status. It sometimes lashes out when it doesn't get its way, as happened at the climate summit in Copenhagen. It still sometimes presents itself awkwardly. When addressing Tibet and other politically sensitive topics, it uses outdated Cultural Revolution terminology about cliques, and that language provokes fear, anger and confusion in the rest of the world.
But it is growing up. The way it responded to Google showed a newfound maturity. Rather than act impetuously and shut down Google--or even just threaten to do so--the government issued its first official reaction from the Ministry of Commerce, not the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It tried to calm the situation by insisting foreign Internet firms were welcome in China but simply had to follow the rules of the country.
Conversely, many in the world still look at China as a youngster playing with toy soldiers and cartoon characters. They don't understand how it has grown, and they're unsure how to deal with it. They blame it for things that happened decades ago, which is like yelling at an 18-year-old for having spilled milk when he was 4. So they treat it pedantically and get pushback. Yet they criticize it for not stepping up enough in multilateral situations.
Like many teenage boys, China still has a few pimples. It needs a few more years in college to fully emerge as an adult. It has new muscles, but it also has much to learn from the U.S. and the rest of the world. It needs to vastly improve an outdated education system that doesn't properly train its best and brightest for a globalized world. It needs a system more like the American liberal arts one, which focuses on analysis rather than rote memory and test-taking. It needs to learn to be less fearful. After all, its citizens are happy and support it.
The U.S. and its businesses need to remain actively engaged with China. That will help it mature into the responsible, adult superpower the world needs it to become. The world cannot afford to disenfranchise and push away a nation that is like a powerful teenage boy looking for his place among the grown-ups.
Shaun Rein is the founder and managing director of the China Market Research Group, a strategic market intelligence firm. He writes for Forbes on leadership, marketing and China. Follow him on Twitter at @shaunrein.
China Is Just Like A Teenage Boy
Shaun Rein, 01.19.10, 5:20 PM ET
China has its share of shortcomings. Far too many families live hundreds of miles apart and are struggling to make ends meet. Soaring medical and housing costs prevent too many from getting adequate medical care. Too many live in cramped, intolerable conditions.
But life is getting better for the average Chinese. Much better. Real poverty is pretty much gone. China has emerged as a net donor to places like Africa, rather than a recipient of aid. Nearly 90% of the people recently interviewed by my firm, the China Market Research Group, said they approved or strongly approved of the government's handling of the financial crisis. The nation buzzes with optimism and can-do attitude, especially among the young, the way America did in the 1950s and 1960s. Despite the furor over censorship Google has unleashed, even the Internet is far freer than ever before.
Seven years ago Chinese citizens couldn't access The New York Times. A year ago Wikipedia, the Huffington Post and WordPress were all blocked. All are accessible now. China's government fears content less than it used to. It fears technology, like Twitter or Facebook, that it believes dangerous elements can use to band together for protests like those that have occurred in Iran. It fears pornography as a polluter of morals. Such fears are undeniably disproportionate to actual risk, but no official wants to get the blame for having let something bad happen under his watch. For them, it is better to overreact than to appear lax at the controls. (See my article "In China, Reputation Rules" for more on this.)
The Chinese people are undoubtedly better off with Google in China than out, as I wrote in "Google's Act of War Against China." Active engagement and promotion of change from within a system always works better than outright isolationism. I fear Google's move will feed China's distrust of foreign Internet companies and make life harder for those that still operate there. And I don't want the Chinese search company Baidu to monopolize the market, since some of its business practices have been found wanting. The result would be bad for the Chinese people. My personal plea to Google: If you really want to improve the quality of life for Chinese, and you're not just looking for an excuse to mask terrible business performance, please follow Chinese law and stay in China.
Despite having a wonderful 5,000-year history, China is in many ways like a teenage boy. It has just gotten its seat at the adults' table and is trying to learn how to deal with other nations as not just a fellow G20 member but as a superpower. (See my article "Yes, China Has Fully Arrived As A Superpower.") Nations and businesses all need to rethink the ways they deal with China. Similarly, China needs to rethink how it deals with the world.
Like a teenage boy, China doesn't always know how to handle its new responsibilities and status. It sometimes lashes out when it doesn't get its way, as happened at the climate summit in Copenhagen. It still sometimes presents itself awkwardly. When addressing Tibet and other politically sensitive topics, it uses outdated Cultural Revolution terminology about cliques, and that language provokes fear, anger and confusion in the rest of the world.
But it is growing up. The way it responded to Google showed a newfound maturity. Rather than act impetuously and shut down Google--or even just threaten to do so--the government issued its first official reaction from the Ministry of Commerce, not the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It tried to calm the situation by insisting foreign Internet firms were welcome in China but simply had to follow the rules of the country.
Conversely, many in the world still look at China as a youngster playing with toy soldiers and cartoon characters. They don't understand how it has grown, and they're unsure how to deal with it. They blame it for things that happened decades ago, which is like yelling at an 18-year-old for having spilled milk when he was 4. So they treat it pedantically and get pushback. Yet they criticize it for not stepping up enough in multilateral situations.
Like many teenage boys, China still has a few pimples. It needs a few more years in college to fully emerge as an adult. It has new muscles, but it also has much to learn from the U.S. and the rest of the world. It needs to vastly improve an outdated education system that doesn't properly train its best and brightest for a globalized world. It needs a system more like the American liberal arts one, which focuses on analysis rather than rote memory and test-taking. It needs to learn to be less fearful. After all, its citizens are happy and support it.
The U.S. and its businesses need to remain actively engaged with China. That will help it mature into the responsible, adult superpower the world needs it to become. The world cannot afford to disenfranchise and push away a nation that is like a powerful teenage boy looking for his place among the grown-ups.
Shaun Rein is the founder and managing director of the China Market Research Group, a strategic market intelligence firm. He writes for Forbes on leadership, marketing and China. Follow him on Twitter at @shaunrein.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Google's Earnings Soar
By JESSICA E. VASCELLARO
Google Inc. reported its strongest revenue growth in a year and issued its firmest public statement saying it would like to continue doing business in China, a week after it said it may pull out of the country due to a sweeping cyber attack.
Google reports strong fourth-quarter results, beating Wall Street's expectations on solid advertising growth. WSJ's Julia Angwin and Barron's Eric Savitz join the News Hub with the latest on the search giant's earnings report.
The Mountain View, Calif., company said its revenue rose 17% in the fourth quarter to $6.67 billion from a year earlier, up from only 7% revenue growth in the third quarter and 3% growth in the second quarter.
Meanwhile, Google's profit more than quintupled in the fourth quarter to $1.97 billion, or $6.13 a share, from $382 million, or $1.21 a share, a year ago. During the 2008 quarter, Google took a charge related to investments in AOL Inc. and wireless service provider Clearwire Corp.
The results indicate that Google's online ad business is growing about as fast as it was at the end of 2008 after a several-quarter slump. In particular, Google said it benefited from marketers continuing to shift spending online during the strong online Christmas shopping season. Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt called the results a strong end to "a rollercoaster year by any measure."
Overall, Google's profit and revenue were slightly better than analysts had expected. Still, Google's shares fell in after-hours trading to $558 each, down 4.3% from their 4 p.m. close, as some investors hoped for even stronger growth.
Google announced its results nine days after its disclosure of a major cyber attack it said it traced to China.
In response, Google said it would stop self-censoring its Chinese search engine's results—censoring aimed at placating the Chinese government—and might pull out of the country, pending conversations with Chinese officials. Since then, Google has been vague about its business intentions in China, saying it was examining its operations there.
But in a call with analysts, Mr. Schmidt made it clear the company wants to continue doing business in China, one of the world's largest markets, even though it will stop censoring its results.
He said Google will change its censoring policy "a reasonably short time from now"—he gave no further details—but remains "quite committed to being in China."
He added that "we like the Chinese people and our Chinese employees. We like the business opportunities there and we'd like to do that on somewhat different terms than we have."
Also Thursday, Microsoft Corp. CEO Steve Ballmer said his company must comply with Chinese censorship laws as well as the laws and customs of any country where it does business.
"I think you have to respect sovereign nations to make that decision," Mr. Ballmer told an audience of Houston oil and gas executives and an energy forum organized by the company.
He added that Microsoft would let people know it removed information from its Bing search engine But he said "it's important we comply with the laws and conventions in the countries [where] we do business."
Mr. Ballmer added that other countries exert some sort of control over information; in France, it is illegal to trade Nazi paraphernalia, and the U.S. has strict curbs on child pornography.
In the past week, Google executives have had conversations with government agencies that are investigating the security and potential political implications of the attacks, which security experts say may have affected as many as 34 companies.
Two days after Google announced the attack, Mr. Schmidt went to the White House to discuss the incident with National Security Council staff, a White House official said. The meeting was initiated by Google and Mr. Schmidt provided the briefing "as a courtesy, since he was in Washington on other business," the official said. The CEO was in town to speak to a House Democratic caucus retreat.
In an interview, Mr. Schmidt declined to comment on the meeting. He added that Google has also begun conversations with the Chinese government but declined to comment further.
On Thursday, the back and forth between the U.S. and China over the attacks continued. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei said Google's complaints about cyber attacks and censorship in China shouldn't be "overinterpreted" or linked to Beijing's bilateral relations with the U.S, according to the state-run Xinhua news agency.
In a speech on Internet freedom Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on the Chinese government "to conduct a thorough investigation" of Google's Chinese hacking allegations and to make the results of the probe "transparent." But Mrs. Clinton treaded gently on Google's allegations themselves, avoiding direct criticism of China in the matter.
Mr. Schmidt said Google's business was "strong in every geography" and across its main product lines, from its display-ad businesses and YouTube to its online software businesses. Google is betting on those non-search-ad areas to keep revenue growth up as its search business matures. "I was expecting there to be more variation across our businesses," he said.
He added that he is optimistic that Google will continue to benefit from consumers' shift to more cost-efficient online products as the economy rebounds. "I get up every morning assuming that everything is going to move to the Web or online," he said.
Mr. Schmidt said in the analyst call that Google would continue to invest heavily in promising areas in the coming year, particularly by hiring software engineers. Google added 170 net employees during the quarter, ending the year with 19,835 employees.
—Siobhan Gorman and Sky Canaves contributed to this article.
Write to Jessica E. Vascellaro at jessica.vascellaro@wsj.com
Google Inc. reported its strongest revenue growth in a year and issued its firmest public statement saying it would like to continue doing business in China, a week after it said it may pull out of the country due to a sweeping cyber attack.
Google reports strong fourth-quarter results, beating Wall Street's expectations on solid advertising growth. WSJ's Julia Angwin and Barron's Eric Savitz join the News Hub with the latest on the search giant's earnings report.
The Mountain View, Calif., company said its revenue rose 17% in the fourth quarter to $6.67 billion from a year earlier, up from only 7% revenue growth in the third quarter and 3% growth in the second quarter.
Meanwhile, Google's profit more than quintupled in the fourth quarter to $1.97 billion, or $6.13 a share, from $382 million, or $1.21 a share, a year ago. During the 2008 quarter, Google took a charge related to investments in AOL Inc. and wireless service provider Clearwire Corp.
The results indicate that Google's online ad business is growing about as fast as it was at the end of 2008 after a several-quarter slump. In particular, Google said it benefited from marketers continuing to shift spending online during the strong online Christmas shopping season. Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt called the results a strong end to "a rollercoaster year by any measure."
Overall, Google's profit and revenue were slightly better than analysts had expected. Still, Google's shares fell in after-hours trading to $558 each, down 4.3% from their 4 p.m. close, as some investors hoped for even stronger growth.
Google announced its results nine days after its disclosure of a major cyber attack it said it traced to China.
In response, Google said it would stop self-censoring its Chinese search engine's results—censoring aimed at placating the Chinese government—and might pull out of the country, pending conversations with Chinese officials. Since then, Google has been vague about its business intentions in China, saying it was examining its operations there.
But in a call with analysts, Mr. Schmidt made it clear the company wants to continue doing business in China, one of the world's largest markets, even though it will stop censoring its results.
He said Google will change its censoring policy "a reasonably short time from now"—he gave no further details—but remains "quite committed to being in China."
He added that "we like the Chinese people and our Chinese employees. We like the business opportunities there and we'd like to do that on somewhat different terms than we have."
Also Thursday, Microsoft Corp. CEO Steve Ballmer said his company must comply with Chinese censorship laws as well as the laws and customs of any country where it does business.
"I think you have to respect sovereign nations to make that decision," Mr. Ballmer told an audience of Houston oil and gas executives and an energy forum organized by the company.
He added that Microsoft would let people know it removed information from its Bing search engine But he said "it's important we comply with the laws and conventions in the countries [where] we do business."
Mr. Ballmer added that other countries exert some sort of control over information; in France, it is illegal to trade Nazi paraphernalia, and the U.S. has strict curbs on child pornography.
In the past week, Google executives have had conversations with government agencies that are investigating the security and potential political implications of the attacks, which security experts say may have affected as many as 34 companies.
Two days after Google announced the attack, Mr. Schmidt went to the White House to discuss the incident with National Security Council staff, a White House official said. The meeting was initiated by Google and Mr. Schmidt provided the briefing "as a courtesy, since he was in Washington on other business," the official said. The CEO was in town to speak to a House Democratic caucus retreat.
In an interview, Mr. Schmidt declined to comment on the meeting. He added that Google has also begun conversations with the Chinese government but declined to comment further.
On Thursday, the back and forth between the U.S. and China over the attacks continued. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei said Google's complaints about cyber attacks and censorship in China shouldn't be "overinterpreted" or linked to Beijing's bilateral relations with the U.S, according to the state-run Xinhua news agency.
In a speech on Internet freedom Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on the Chinese government "to conduct a thorough investigation" of Google's Chinese hacking allegations and to make the results of the probe "transparent." But Mrs. Clinton treaded gently on Google's allegations themselves, avoiding direct criticism of China in the matter.
Mr. Schmidt said Google's business was "strong in every geography" and across its main product lines, from its display-ad businesses and YouTube to its online software businesses. Google is betting on those non-search-ad areas to keep revenue growth up as its search business matures. "I was expecting there to be more variation across our businesses," he said.
He added that he is optimistic that Google will continue to benefit from consumers' shift to more cost-efficient online products as the economy rebounds. "I get up every morning assuming that everything is going to move to the Web or online," he said.
Mr. Schmidt said in the analyst call that Google would continue to invest heavily in promising areas in the coming year, particularly by hiring software engineers. Google added 170 net employees during the quarter, ending the year with 19,835 employees.
—Siobhan Gorman and Sky Canaves contributed to this article.
Write to Jessica E. Vascellaro at jessica.vascellaro@wsj.com
Monday, January 18, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
No Longer Their Golden Ticket
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/fashion/17lawyer.html?em
January 17, 2010
No Longer Their Golden Ticket
By ALEX WILLIAMS
THE first-year corporate lawyers of “The Deep End,” a series that has its premiere on ABC this week, inhabit an alternative legal universe, where advancement on the partner track seems measured by their perfect grooming and ability to model designer suits and trade flirtatious banter.
In the sleek offices of the fictional firm Sterling Huddle Oppenheim & Craft, high above the Los Angeles smog canopy, life is a colorful, quip-filled adventure. “This is your lucky chance, your break in the clouds, your four-leaf clover,” a senior lawyer informs Dylan, a fresh Columbia Law School graduate, during his interview.
Associates may grumble that the firm is a pit of back-stabbing, a machine that grinds young lawyers down. But they still find time for laughs over beers, games of basketball on a rooftop court and, of course, sex.
Adventure? Laughter? Among law associates? This must be a period drama.
In fact, “The Deep End” was conceived in 2007, that halcyon era of $160,000 starting salaries and full employment even for law grads who had scored in the 150s on their LSAT’s.
Those days are over. As the profession lurches through its worst slump in decades, with jobs and bonuses cut and internal pressures to perform rising, associates do not just feel as if they are diving into the deep end, but rather, drowning.
Lawyers who entered the field as recently as a few years ago could reasonably expect a life of comfort, security and social esteem. Many are now faced with a different landscape. Firms shed more than 4,600 lawyers last year, according to a blog that tracks the legal industry, Law Shucks. Bonuses for those who survive are shriveling, and an increasing number of firms now compensate associates based on grades for performance — shades of law school — rather than automatically advancing them on the salary scale.
For those just starting out, it’s easy to think that the rules have changed six minutes into the first period.
“I thought, ‘Great, I can afford to buy a house at 23,’ ” said Jacqueline Muna Musiitwa, recalling her first year as an associate in 2006 at Pillsbury in San Francisco. “If I start this way at 23, goodness knows what it will be like when I’m 40.”
She accepted the notoriously grueling workload for the prospect of Caribbean vacations, a convertible and a big loft apartment. But young lawyers now entering the field can feel no such assurance, said Ms. Musiitwa, 27, who left Pillsbury after a year to start a boutique firm. If she were an associate now, she would “have to work a million times harder,” she said, “just to make sure that next time there’s a cut, I’m not on that list.”
One 2008 graduate of a top-10 law school, who worked at a large Chicago firm for a year, said she spent days trying to look busy as business dried up while not billing a single hour, before being laid off last fall along with a quarter of the other first-year hires.
“We used to gather in someone’s office, close the door, and say, ‘I hate my life, why are we doing this?’ ” she said. Like most other young associates interviewed for this article, she asked that her name not be used for fear of jeopardizing her climb up the already rickety ladder of a law career.
The main reason for the squeeze is the Great Recession, which has cut deeply into the kinds of companies — in financial services, real estate, high tech — that are the wellsprings of fees for corporate lawyers. The client companies that survived are doing fewer deals, and driving harder bargains with their lawyers: many negotiate a flat fee for the job, meaning firms can no longer bill by the hour for every legal eagle on the case.
Even associates who find plenty to do worry that outstanding performance is no longer enough to protect them, said Daniel Lukasik, a Buffalo lawyer who runs an information and outreach Web site called Lawyers With Depression, adding that his traffic is up 25 percent since June, to about 25,000 visitors a month.
Mr. Lukasik recently received a call from a man who said he was a fifth-year associate in Manhattan who complained that he felt expendable even though he was a top performer.
“He said to me, ‘What more do I have to do?’ ” Mr. Lukasik recalled. “ ‘I’m billing a large amount of hours, I’m a team player,’ but he said it’s very possible he might lose his job. And he was a Yale graduate, at a top-20 firm.”
Elizabeth Tillinghast, a former lawyer who is now a practicing psychiatrist in Manhattan, said: “Lawyers are famous for having high levels of depression and anxiety, but it has increased. Everybody’s morale is down.”
A recent survey by the New York City bar association found that 50 percent of lawyers seeking counseling from its lawyer-outreach program list mental health as their primary concern, up from 40 percent in 2005.
The life of a law associate may always have been a grind, in which associates got used to exchanging familiar nods with the late-night cleaning crew. But it was not an existential crisis, as many say it is today. People complained — but they did not howl.
A midlevel associate in the New York office of a white-shoe firm, who writes provocatively about law-firm life under the name Legal Tease on her blog, Sweet Hot Justice, described a big law firm as “an absolute torture shack.”
The worst thing about the field’s contraction, she said in an interview, is that it has walled off the traditional escape route — suffering at a law firm for a few years until you pay off your education loans, then moving onto a lower-paying but comfortable gig as in-house lawyer for a company.
“I’m happy to take a huge pay cut, I’d love to get out, but there are no jobs,” she said. “There’s nowhere to go. The revolving door is jammed and everybody is suffering.”
The pain of 26-year-olds earning six figures may not seem great in a country where unemployment hovers around 10 percent. But, Legal Tease argued, that six-figure salary looks a lot smaller when you divide it by the number of hours worked. “If you do the math, you’re making less than a baby sitter — not a nanny even, but an actual baby sitter in high school,” she insisted.
She is one of the lucky ones — definition: employed.
Plenty of recent law school graduates are not finding work at all, said Eileen C. Travis, the director of the New York City bar association’s lawyer assistance program. “There is pretty much a freeze on hiring,” she said.
Some partners say that the next generation may have to expect less from a legal career. “What has come to pass is that a law degree is not a ticket to a six-figure salary and a six-figure bonus,” said Matthew A. Feldman, a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher in New York.
Smart, talented people will still find advancement within firms, he said. But “speaking candidly,” he added, “in the past, associates were a little oblivious” in presuming that if they “simply showed up every day and didn’t offend anyone, they were there indefinitely. They have had a wake-up call.”
It is more than dips in income that are reshaping the law firm culture. The prestige and self-identity of being a lawyer are in play. Pre-shakeout, lawyers could tell themselves that they were, if not exactly Masters of the Universe like investment bankers, perhaps Major-Domos of a Mid-Size Galaxy.
As a young lawyer, you could get through 1 a.m. due-diligence sessions by reminding yourself that you were following in the tradition of Louis Brandeis, Clarence Darrow or, at least, Ally McBeal.
It is harder to maintain that sense of esteem now that your contract work is being farmed out to low-cost lawyers in Bangalore, and your client who is splitting up with her spouse can handle it herself with a $31.99 do-it-yourself divorce kit from Office Depot, said David Lat, the managing editor of Above the Law, a well-read blog about the legal industry.
“There’s a different feeling in the air,” said Mr. Lat, a Yale Law-educated former associate at a major firm. And in some quarters, the sense of outrage is giving way to simple fatigue and resignation.
In 2008 when firms announced cuts in bonuses and office perks, “there was an outcry, a certain sense of entitlement,” he said. Lawyers, being lawyers, had fight. Now, less so.
“That sense of entitlement is so 2007,” he said. With 14,000 lawyer and legal staff jobs lost since the beginning of 2008, “to whine about how your firm no longer has chair massages on Friday seems a little petty.”
January 17, 2010
No Longer Their Golden Ticket
By ALEX WILLIAMS
THE first-year corporate lawyers of “The Deep End,” a series that has its premiere on ABC this week, inhabit an alternative legal universe, where advancement on the partner track seems measured by their perfect grooming and ability to model designer suits and trade flirtatious banter.
In the sleek offices of the fictional firm Sterling Huddle Oppenheim & Craft, high above the Los Angeles smog canopy, life is a colorful, quip-filled adventure. “This is your lucky chance, your break in the clouds, your four-leaf clover,” a senior lawyer informs Dylan, a fresh Columbia Law School graduate, during his interview.
Associates may grumble that the firm is a pit of back-stabbing, a machine that grinds young lawyers down. But they still find time for laughs over beers, games of basketball on a rooftop court and, of course, sex.
Adventure? Laughter? Among law associates? This must be a period drama.
In fact, “The Deep End” was conceived in 2007, that halcyon era of $160,000 starting salaries and full employment even for law grads who had scored in the 150s on their LSAT’s.
Those days are over. As the profession lurches through its worst slump in decades, with jobs and bonuses cut and internal pressures to perform rising, associates do not just feel as if they are diving into the deep end, but rather, drowning.
Lawyers who entered the field as recently as a few years ago could reasonably expect a life of comfort, security and social esteem. Many are now faced with a different landscape. Firms shed more than 4,600 lawyers last year, according to a blog that tracks the legal industry, Law Shucks. Bonuses for those who survive are shriveling, and an increasing number of firms now compensate associates based on grades for performance — shades of law school — rather than automatically advancing them on the salary scale.
For those just starting out, it’s easy to think that the rules have changed six minutes into the first period.
“I thought, ‘Great, I can afford to buy a house at 23,’ ” said Jacqueline Muna Musiitwa, recalling her first year as an associate in 2006 at Pillsbury in San Francisco. “If I start this way at 23, goodness knows what it will be like when I’m 40.”
She accepted the notoriously grueling workload for the prospect of Caribbean vacations, a convertible and a big loft apartment. But young lawyers now entering the field can feel no such assurance, said Ms. Musiitwa, 27, who left Pillsbury after a year to start a boutique firm. If she were an associate now, she would “have to work a million times harder,” she said, “just to make sure that next time there’s a cut, I’m not on that list.”
One 2008 graduate of a top-10 law school, who worked at a large Chicago firm for a year, said she spent days trying to look busy as business dried up while not billing a single hour, before being laid off last fall along with a quarter of the other first-year hires.
“We used to gather in someone’s office, close the door, and say, ‘I hate my life, why are we doing this?’ ” she said. Like most other young associates interviewed for this article, she asked that her name not be used for fear of jeopardizing her climb up the already rickety ladder of a law career.
The main reason for the squeeze is the Great Recession, which has cut deeply into the kinds of companies — in financial services, real estate, high tech — that are the wellsprings of fees for corporate lawyers. The client companies that survived are doing fewer deals, and driving harder bargains with their lawyers: many negotiate a flat fee for the job, meaning firms can no longer bill by the hour for every legal eagle on the case.
Even associates who find plenty to do worry that outstanding performance is no longer enough to protect them, said Daniel Lukasik, a Buffalo lawyer who runs an information and outreach Web site called Lawyers With Depression, adding that his traffic is up 25 percent since June, to about 25,000 visitors a month.
Mr. Lukasik recently received a call from a man who said he was a fifth-year associate in Manhattan who complained that he felt expendable even though he was a top performer.
“He said to me, ‘What more do I have to do?’ ” Mr. Lukasik recalled. “ ‘I’m billing a large amount of hours, I’m a team player,’ but he said it’s very possible he might lose his job. And he was a Yale graduate, at a top-20 firm.”
Elizabeth Tillinghast, a former lawyer who is now a practicing psychiatrist in Manhattan, said: “Lawyers are famous for having high levels of depression and anxiety, but it has increased. Everybody’s morale is down.”
A recent survey by the New York City bar association found that 50 percent of lawyers seeking counseling from its lawyer-outreach program list mental health as their primary concern, up from 40 percent in 2005.
The life of a law associate may always have been a grind, in which associates got used to exchanging familiar nods with the late-night cleaning crew. But it was not an existential crisis, as many say it is today. People complained — but they did not howl.
A midlevel associate in the New York office of a white-shoe firm, who writes provocatively about law-firm life under the name Legal Tease on her blog, Sweet Hot Justice, described a big law firm as “an absolute torture shack.”
The worst thing about the field’s contraction, she said in an interview, is that it has walled off the traditional escape route — suffering at a law firm for a few years until you pay off your education loans, then moving onto a lower-paying but comfortable gig as in-house lawyer for a company.
“I’m happy to take a huge pay cut, I’d love to get out, but there are no jobs,” she said. “There’s nowhere to go. The revolving door is jammed and everybody is suffering.”
The pain of 26-year-olds earning six figures may not seem great in a country where unemployment hovers around 10 percent. But, Legal Tease argued, that six-figure salary looks a lot smaller when you divide it by the number of hours worked. “If you do the math, you’re making less than a baby sitter — not a nanny even, but an actual baby sitter in high school,” she insisted.
She is one of the lucky ones — definition: employed.
Plenty of recent law school graduates are not finding work at all, said Eileen C. Travis, the director of the New York City bar association’s lawyer assistance program. “There is pretty much a freeze on hiring,” she said.
Some partners say that the next generation may have to expect less from a legal career. “What has come to pass is that a law degree is not a ticket to a six-figure salary and a six-figure bonus,” said Matthew A. Feldman, a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher in New York.
Smart, talented people will still find advancement within firms, he said. But “speaking candidly,” he added, “in the past, associates were a little oblivious” in presuming that if they “simply showed up every day and didn’t offend anyone, they were there indefinitely. They have had a wake-up call.”
It is more than dips in income that are reshaping the law firm culture. The prestige and self-identity of being a lawyer are in play. Pre-shakeout, lawyers could tell themselves that they were, if not exactly Masters of the Universe like investment bankers, perhaps Major-Domos of a Mid-Size Galaxy.
As a young lawyer, you could get through 1 a.m. due-diligence sessions by reminding yourself that you were following in the tradition of Louis Brandeis, Clarence Darrow or, at least, Ally McBeal.
It is harder to maintain that sense of esteem now that your contract work is being farmed out to low-cost lawyers in Bangalore, and your client who is splitting up with her spouse can handle it herself with a $31.99 do-it-yourself divorce kit from Office Depot, said David Lat, the managing editor of Above the Law, a well-read blog about the legal industry.
“There’s a different feeling in the air,” said Mr. Lat, a Yale Law-educated former associate at a major firm. And in some quarters, the sense of outrage is giving way to simple fatigue and resignation.
In 2008 when firms announced cuts in bonuses and office perks, “there was an outcry, a certain sense of entitlement,” he said. Lawyers, being lawyers, had fight. Now, less so.
“That sense of entitlement is so 2007,” he said. With 14,000 lawyer and legal staff jobs lost since the beginning of 2008, “to whine about how your firm no longer has chair massages on Friday seems a little petty.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
