Sunday, June 10, 2007

郑小琼:记录流水线上的屈辱与呻吟

郑小琼:记录流水线上的屈辱与呻吟
2007-06-11 09:05:22 来源: 南方报业(广州) 

  四川打工妹郑小琼一边在广东东莞工厂打工,一边写出了“打工诗歌”,作品《铁·塑料厂》获得人民文学奖散文奖。有人说,她的作品充满灰暗与苦涩,但是她说,记录了打工者的真实境况。“来自底层的真切体验给了她沉实的底气。”

打工妹郑小琼作品选:

我不断地试图用文字把打工生活的感受写出来/它的尖锐总是那样的明亮/像烧灼着的铁一样/不断地烧烤着肉体与灵魂———《铁》

在背后我让人骂了一句狗日的北妹/这个玩具化的城市没有穿上内裤/欲望的风把它的裙底飘了起来/它露出的光腚/让我这个北妹想入非非啊!———《人行天桥》

在深夜轰鸣的机器中/夜晚疲惫得如同一个筋疲力尽的鱼/在窗外/在机台上游动着———《塑料厂》

那个疲倦的外乡人/小心而胆怯/你从来没有见过这么胆小的人/像躲在浓荫下的灯光一样———《黄麻岭》

相关报道 郑小琼:在诗人与打工妹之间(南方周末)

郑小琼与诗友结伴爬山被警察拦住,朋友从手提袋里拿出一本书,挥舞着告诉警察,那是他刚出的诗集。警察不耐烦,将诗集打翻在地,把手一伸,“暂住证!”

“我不知道什么叫光明或阴暗,我只看见事实。我的诗歌灰,因为我的世界是灰的。”

“珠江三角洲有4万根以上断指,我常想,如果把它们都摆成一条直线会有多长,而我笔下瘦弱的文字却不能将任何一根断指接起来……”

《南方人物周刊》实习记者 郑廷鑫 李劼婧 发自东莞


是诗人在打工,还是打工妹在写诗?成希/图(南方周末供网易深度图片)

女工们的真实生活怎样?(南方周末供网易深度图片)

见到郑小琼,颇费几番周折。

记者到达东莞南城客运站,郑小琼告知:“我今天要去送货,在长安镇。”

车到长安已是中午。再去电,得知她接下来要去涌头工业区。

到了涌头工业区,太阳曝晒,仍然不见人影。后来终于见到了,这个人民文学奖本年度“新浪潮”散文奖的得主一脸歉意:“上午忙着到处送货,还要赶到朋友那边拿信。我没有固定的住址,信件都是寄到朋友那,我一个月再去拿一次。”

以前在厂里,她的信经常被扣留。每个月要扣她几十块钱才能把信拿走。“一封信要我交一块多,每个月扣四五十块,我一个月就赚几百块,都是血汗钱,心痛死了。”所以,只好让朋友代为收信。

几十封沉甸甸的信,大都是各地的文学刊物寄来的,还有一些读者的信,当然还有汇款。

于是一起到邮局。却被告知无法取款:汇款单上写的是朋友转交给郑小琼,必须有朋友的身份证和签名。她打电话给朋友,朋友却已经出差去了。

没人知道她叫郑小琼

在没来东莞打工之前,郑小琼是四川南充乡下诊所的一个小医士。

1996年,当她考上南充卫校的时候,还是家里的骄傲。“在那个年代,考上卫校,毕业后分配到某个医院,就意味着端起了铁饭碗,吃上了公家饭。”她带着村里人羡慕的眼光,和家里人砸锅卖铁也要供她上学的决心,来到了卫校。

四年毕业后,学校不再包分配了,郑小琼来到了一家乡村诊所。

诊所的经历,她一直都拒绝回忆,因为那是个梦魇。乡村诊所说到底就是个性病医院,“那些地方太黑了,根本就是骗人的,一点效果都没有,害人啊。我真的看不下去,良心不安啊。”

“上学时,我一个月要用两三百,一年学费要两三千,上学欠的那么多钱怎么还?更别提回报父母了!”于是,她不顾家里人反对,南下打工。

“那时候找工作挺难的,要找到一个好的工作就更难。招两三个人,就有两百多人排队。先让你跑步,还要做仰卧起坐啊,看看你体力怎么样。人都没有尊严了,反正他叫你做什么你就得做什么。进去的话,又要收押金,先交一两百块,制服费。”打工多年,见过无数不平事的郑小琼讲起这些,还有些忿忿不平。

在残酷的现实面前,“好像所有的理想一下子全都没有了”。先在一个模具厂工作,没做多久又去了玩具厂、磁带厂,再到家具厂做仓管。

不断转厂换工作的后果,就是生活更加地艰难。“当你连饭都吃不上的时候,那种感觉真叫可怕。”但恐慌之后,生活还得继续,继续挨饿,饿过一顿是一顿。

挨饿之外,暂住证成了郑小琼的另一个梦魇。“有时候老乡把你反锁在出租屋里,查房的就猛敲铁皮房门,看你在不在,外面又下着雨……有些家里带着小孩,‘哇’地一声就吓得哭起来……特别是他那个手电筒‘刷’地一下照着你,那种感觉……”

工厂没有任何休息日,一天工作十二小时。饶是如此,她在家具厂上了一个月班后,月底结算的时候又一次让她彻底地心寒了:工资卡上的数字是284元。

几番辗转,郑小琼来到一个叫黄麻岭的小镇,进了一家五金厂。这里,所有的东西都是冰冷而残酷的,但对她来说,这是一座火山,让她喷发出无尽的灵感。

工厂实行全封闭式管理,一个员工一周只允许出厂门三次,用于购置基本的生活用品或办理私事。有一次老乡来看望她,在门口等了半天,等到她下班,因为那周她已经出去了三次,两个人只能站在铁门的两侧,说上几句话。

在这个封闭得类似于监狱的环境里,她每天早上七点三十分上班,十二点下班,下午一点四十五分上班,五点四十五分下班,六点半加班,一直到九点半下班。每月五号左右,领一千块左右的工资。加班费倒是有,一个小时一块钱。很多工人会争着要加班,为了三个小时三块钱的加班费而争执起来。

在郑小琼看来,“这是挺好的工作了”。她一呆就是四年,在流水线干了两年后,又到办公室做文员。

五金厂的流水线上,所有人都没有名字,只有工号。每天的工作就是在铁片上用超声波轧孔,从机台上取下两斤多重的铁块,摆好、按开关、打轧,然后取下再摆,不断地重复。每天要将一两斤重的铁片起起落落一万多次,第一个月手就磨烂了。等到你的手磨掉了一层皮,长出老茧之后,便开始能适应这种生活。

流水线上,没有我,只有们,人只是流水线上的一种工具。这是郑小琼在东莞最为辛苦的一段日子。在那里,没人知道她叫郑小琼,人们只会说:“哎,245号。”

后来,她在自己一篇名为《流水线》的文章中写下了这段经历。虽然已经时过境迁,语言中的愤懑与辛酸却是无法掩盖的:

作为个体的我们在流水线样的现实中是多么柔软而脆弱,这种敏感是我们痛觉的原点,它们一点一点地扩散,充满了我的内心,在内心深处叫喊着,反抗着,我内心因流水线的奴役感到耻辱,但是我却对这一切无能为力,剩下的是一种个人尊严的损伤,在长期的损伤中麻木下去,在麻木中我们渐渐习惯了,在习惯中我渐渐放弃曾经有过的叫喊与反抗,我渐渐成为了流水线的一部分。

写诗能赚多少钱?

还是在流水线上。有个工友在打轧的时候,手上动作慢了一点,手指立刻被打下来。自己还不知道,还在继续做事。然后就奇怪,这怎么有血呀?一看只有一个指甲盖在流水线上,其它部分都压成了肉酱,看不到了。

工友看着自己的手,等了会,血一下子喷出来了。她按住手,走到郑小琼面前,缓缓地说:手砸了。

郑小琼急了,赶紧去找老板。老板说:哦?严不严重?那就去找厂里的采购吧,坐他的摩托车去医院。

采购在外面,半个小时后才能回来。老板的车就在旁边,但他看到工人流血的手,肯定会弄脏自己的车,又面无表情地摇摇头,让她们继续等采购回来。

十分钟、二十分钟、三十分钟,血已经在地上摊成一大片。采购终于回来了,受伤的人却不愿意住院,因为这样能向工厂要求多赔点钱。好的时候,能有一两千块的赔偿,不走运的时候,老板都没有赔,就从保险里面给,还要扣掉医药费。

伤口简单包扎一下之后,血止住了,彻骨的疼痛却止不住。半夜睡觉时,她一再地痛醒,喊痛的呻吟又吵醒了其他工友。

后来,断指的故事被郑小琼一再提起。她自己也有相似经历,幸好手抽得快,只打掉了一个拇指盖,但也足够痛彻心扉。

在获得人民文学奖“新浪潮”散文奖后,站在领奖台上,她又一次讲起了断指,断指和她的写作:

我在五金厂打工五年时光,每个月我都会碰到机器轧掉半截手指或者指甲盖的事情,我的内心充满了疼痛,当我从报纸上看到在珠三角每年有超过4万根的断指之痛时,我一直在计算着,这些断指如果摆成一条直线,它们将会有多长,而这条线还在不断地、快续地加长之中。此刻,我想得更多的是这些瘦弱的文字有什么用?它们不能接起任何一根断指。

但是,我仍不断告诉自己,我必须写下来,把自己的感受写下来,这些感受不仅仅是我的,也是我的工友们的。我们既然对现实不能改变什么,但是我们已经见证了什么,我想,我必须把它们记录下来。

在家具厂做仓管的时候,郑小琼每天守在很大很凌乱的仓库里,等待有人来领胶布之类的东西。很多时候,都是一个人枯坐在办公桌前。于是她会偷偷地翻看厂里的书和报刊。

在一些打工者的刊物上,看到别人写的诗歌,她觉得有些奇怪:写这些东西有什么困难嘛,我也能写。就是在这里,她偷偷地写下了生平的第一首诗,然后寄给了一家镇报,居然发表了。在那之前,她对诗歌一点也不了解。在那之后,便一发不可收拾地写起来了。

写作都在一个前提下进行:偷偷地。如果被人发现她在上班的时间写作,后果就是罚钱。但写诗的激情总归战胜罚款的忧虑。她在小纸片上,这里写几句那里写几句,回到宿舍再整理起来。因此,曾被人称为“地下党”。

有一天郑小琼突然心血来潮,想跟同住的老乡说说自己写的东西,“正当我很有激情要跟她说这些的时候,她突然就埋下头,不是擦擦鞋,就是整理一下被子,弄一下衣服……虽然也没有离开,但是……你就觉得这样真的很没意思,就不想说了。”

她一直偷偷把诗写在工厂的合格纸上,堆起来有一尺多高。因为居无定所,转厂的时候,这些全部都带不走,扔掉了。

故乡只能是笔下的故乡了

几年的时间,郑小琼把自己的打工生活都写成诗歌。写诗给她带来了意想不到的名声。随着她的诗歌在各种文学媒体上频频发表,引起了文坛的关注,也获得了“打工诗人”的称呼。

但到现在,郑小琼仍然认为,自己“还不明白什么是诗歌的体例”,自己只是在记录一些来自内心的感受,没有经过过多的雕琢,连错别字都没改。

理所当然,有人认为她的诗歌“过于粗糙,堆砌太多”,“写诗还处于无意识状态,宣泄的成分多一些”。

但更多的人,却被她诗歌的大气和对苦难生活的描写所震撼。评论家惊叹,“来自底层的真切体验给了她沉实的底气,苍茫而又富有细节能力的描述,再加上天然的对底层劳动者身份的认同,使她的作品倍添大气、超拔、质朴和纯真的意味。”

所有这些评价都很难与记者面前这个郑小琼联系在一起。她看上去柔弱,腼腆而害羞,说话不多,脸上总是漾着笑意。

“也许你无法想象,打工这么多年,我不敢回家。”因为工资低,郑小琼“到了结婚的年龄,仍身无分文”,也没寄过多少钱回家:“我现在都不敢去流浪,要是流浪一年的话,所有的亲戚都不相信你了,因为你没钱了要去他们那边借……”

今年上半年,转做业务的郑小琼一单没成,还倒贴了三千块。得到的一万块人民文学奖金,只是让她可以缓一口气。

2007年,郑小琼终于回到阔别七年的家乡,却发现“完全没有家乡的感觉,故乡只能是笔下的故乡了”。

“家里都是一些老人孩子,盼着打工的人拿回去更多的钱。萧条的街上没什么人,小时候的玩伴一个都没有了,出来那么久已经完全改变了。

“等我写完这个南方系列,也可能我就不再写,或者不在这个城市了,人生总是有很多可能的。”

仍然奔波于东莞大街小巷的郑小琼,一边祈愿写作的人要“正常一点,良善一点,平静一点,谦和一点”,一边希望“打工的人,大家都越来越好”。(感谢洪湖浪对此文的帮助)


本文来源:南方人物周刊 作者:郑廷鑫 李劼婧
http://news.163.com/07/0611/09/3GMPCVJK00011SM9.html

Corporate Korea Corks the Bottle as Women Rise

June 10, 2007
Corporate Korea Corks the Bottle as Women Rise

By NORIMITSU ONISHI
SEOUL, South Korea — In a time-honored practice in South Korea’s corporate culture, the 38-year-old manager at an online game company took his 10-person team on twice-weekly after-work drinking bouts. He exhorted his subordinates to drink, including a 29-year-old graphic designer who protested that her limit was two glasses of beer.

“Either you drink or you get it from me tomorrow,” the boss told her one evening.

She drank, fearing that refusing to do so would hurt her career. But eventually, unable to take the drinking any longer, she quit and sued.

In May, in the first ruling of its kind, the Seoul High Court said that forcing a subordinate to drink alcohol was illegal, and it pronounced the manager guilty of a “violation of human dignity.” The court awarded the woman $32,000 in damages for the incidents, which occurred in 2004.

The ruling was as much a testament to women’s growing presence in corporate life here as a confirmation of changes already under way. As an increasing number of women have joined companies as professionals in the past half decade, corporate South Korea has struggled to change the country’s thoroughly male-centered corporate culture, starting with alcohol.

An evening out with colleagues here follows a predictable, alcohol-centered pattern: dinner, usually some grilled pork, washed down with soju, Korea’s national vodkalike drink; then a second round at a beer hall; then whiskey and singing at a “norae bang,” a Korean karaoke club. Exhorted by their bosses to drink, the corporate warriors bond, literally, so that the sight of dark-suited men holding hands, leaning on one another, staggering toward taxis, is part of this city’s nighttime streetscape. The next morning, back at the office, they are ready to fight, with reaffirmed unity, for more markets at home and abroad.

Many professional women manage to avoid much of the drinking by adopting well-known strategies. They slip away while their male colleagues indulge in a second or third round of drinking. They pour the drinks into potted plants. They rely on male colleagues, called “knights in shining armor,” to take their turns in drinking games.

Companies, too, have begun to respond. Since 2005, Posco, the steel manufacturer, has limited company outings to two hours at its mill in South Korea’s southwest. Employees can raise a red card if they do not want to drink or a yellow card if they want to go home early. At Woori Bank, one of South Korea’s largest, an alarm rings at 10 p.m. to encourage workers to stop drinking and go home using public transportation, which stops running before midnight.

“My boss used to be all about, ‘Let’s drink till we die!’ ” said Wi Su-jung, a 31-year-old woman employed at a small shipping company.

Ms. Wi, who was out enjoying the sun in downtown Seoul, said the atmosphere began changing as more women joined her company in the past couple of years. “The women got together and complained about the drinking and the pressure to drink,” she said. “So things changed last year. Now we sometimes go to musicals or movies instead.”

Kim Chil-jong, who was taking a walk on his lunch hour, said he owned a nine-person publishing company. In the last couple of years, he hired two women for the first time.

“We drink less because of their presence,” Mr. Kim, 47, said. “Before, I’d encourage my workers to drink whenever we went out, but I don’t do that anymore.”

Still, at least 90 percent of company outings — called “hoishik,” or coming together to eat — still center on alcohol, according to the Korean Alcohol Research Foundation. The percentage of women who drink has increased over all as they have joined companies.

Over all, South Koreans consume less alcohol than, say, most Europeans, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a research organization financed by industrialized nations.

But Cho Sung-gie, the alcohol foundation’s research director, estimates that South Koreans rank first in binge drinking: the goal is to drink as much as possible, as quickly as possible, so that co-workers loosen up.

Companies have awakened to the potential dangers of bingeing: health threats, decreased productivity and, with more women working, the risk of sexual harassment.

The foundation, though financed largely by the alcohol industry, is considered the authority on the country’s drinking culture. It runs programs on responsible drinking and abstinence, and assists companies to organize outings not centered on alcohol. Chang Kih-wung, a manager in the education team, has even joined company outings to the movies.

“Usually, a company decides to do something about drinking after a guest, often a foreigner, visits and makes a comment like, ‘Man, people drink like crazy here!’ ” Mr. Chang said. “So they’ll invite me for a lecture or organize a single activity — then they forget about it and go back to drinking.”

Traditionally, this corporate culture often began at the job interview itself. Asked whether they liked to drink, applicants knew that there was only one correct answer.

“If they said they didn’t drink, we’d think that we couldn’t work closely together,” said Lee Jai-ho, 40, an engineer at a paper mill that was bought by Norske Skog of Sweden in the late 1990s.

Mr. Lee said he was asked whether he was a good drinker during his job interview in 1992, and he asked the same question of job candidates later. The company’s hard-drinking culture changed, however, after it changed to foreign ownership.

It is this fear of not being accepted as full members of the team that has led many women to drink to excess. A 31-year-old lawyer for a telecommunications company, who asked that her name not be used, blacked out during a company outing shortly after she became the first Korean woman to serve as a lawyer in the legal division three years ago. “During my studies, I always competed against men,” she said. “So I didn’t want to lose to men at hoishik.”

She drank so much during dinner at a Chinese restaurant that she remembered nothing past 9 p.m., though the outing lasted until 1 a.m.

However, as more women have joined her division, she said, the emphasis on alcohol has decreased.

“Before it was always grilled pork with soju followed by mixed drinks,” she said. “Now, I can suggest that we go to a Thai or Italian restaurant.”

Not all men were so flexible, though. In the case of the 29-year-old graphic designer, when she was interviewed at the 240-employee online game company in 2004, she was also forced to submit to an “alcohol interview,” according to the court ruling. She could drink only two glasses of beer and no soju at all, she said.

Her boss, though, liked to go out with his 10-person marketing team — six men and four women — at least twice a week until the predawn hours and brooked no excuses.

One time, he told her that if she called upon a “knight in shining armor,” she would have to kiss him. So she drank two glasses of soju. Another time, after she slipped away early, he called her at home and ordered her to come back. She refused.

At the trial, the boss said he was so intent on having his subordinates bond that he sometimes used his own money to take them out drinking. He called the woman a weirdo and said of the lawsuit, “I’m the victim.”

For One Visit, Bush Will Feel Pro-U.S. Glow

For One Visit, Bush Will Feel Pro-U.S. Glow

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/09/world/europe/09albania.html?em&ex=1181620800&en=6c0473e76408e8cd&ei=5087%0A

By CRAIG S. SMITH
Published: June 9, 2007
TIRANA, Albania, June 8 — The highlight of President Bush’s European tour may well be his visit on Sunday to this tiny country, one of the few places left where he can bask in unabashed pro-American sentiment without a protester in sight.

Enlarge This Image

Visar Kryeziu/Associated Press
Women passing the day at a park in Tirana, Albania, where the American and Albanian flags are on display in anticipation of President Bush’s visit Sunday. He will be the first sitting American president to stop by.

The New York Times
The mayor of Tirana calls Albania “the most pro-American country.”
Americans here are greeted with a refreshing adoration that feels as though it comes from another time.

“Albania is for sure the most pro-American country in Europe, maybe even in the world,” said Edi Rama, Tirana’s mayor and leader of the opposition Socialists. “Nowhere else can you find such respect and hospitality for the president of the United States. Even in Michigan, he wouldn’t be as welcome.”

Thousands of young Albanians have been named Bill or Hillary thanks to the Clinton administration’s role in rescuing ethnic Albanians from the Kosovo war. After the visit on Sunday, some people expect to see a rash of babies named George.

So eager is the country to accommodate Mr. Bush that Parliament unanimously approved a bill last month allowing “American forces to engage in any kind of operation, including the use of force, in order to provide security for the president.” One newspaper, reporting on the effusive mood, published a headline that read, “Please Occupy Us!”

There are, to be sure, signs that the rest of Europe is tilting a bit more in America’s direction, narrowing the gap between “old” and “new” Europe that opened with disagreements over the Iraq war.

France’s new president, Nicolas Sarkozy, wants to forget the acrimony that marked his predecessor’s relations with the United States, even appointing a pro-American foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, who supported the United States’ invasion of Iraq.

Shortly after taking office, Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that Germany did “not have as many values in common with Russia as it does with America.” She has since proposed a new trans-Atlantic economic partnership that would get rid of many non-tariff barriers to trade.

And Gordon Brown, who will succeed Tony Blair as Britain’s prime minister this month, has vacationed several times on Cape Cod and befriended a succession of Treasury officials. He is expected to maintain what Britons call the country’s “special relationship” with the United States, ahead of other American allies.

So “old Europe” has warmed toward the United States, although there has been no fundamental shift toward more American-friendly policies. But even in “new Europe,” as the post-Communist states of Central and Eastern Europe have been called, Albania is special.

Much of Eastern Europe has grown more critical of Mr. Bush, worried that the antimissile defense shield he is pushing will antagonize Russia and lead to another cold war. Many Eastern Europeans, Czechs and Poles among them, are also angry that the United States has maintained cumbersome visa requirements even though their countries are now members of the European Union.

But here in Albania, which has not wavered in its unblinking support for American policies since the end of the cold war, Mr. Bush can do no wrong. While much of the world berates Mr. Bush for warmongering, unilateralism, trampling civil liberties and even turning a blind eye to torture, Albania still loves him without restraint.

Mr. Bush will be the first sitting American president to visit the country, and his arrival could not come on a more auspicious day: the eighth anniversary of the start of Serbian troop withdrawals from Kosovo and ratification by the United Nations Security Council of the American-brokered peace accord that ended the fighting. Mr. Bush is pushing the Security Council to approve a plan that would lead to qualified Kosovo independence.

Albanians are pouring into the capital from across the region. Hotel rooms are as scarce as anti-American feelings.

Albanians’ support for the war in Iraq is nearly unanimous, and any perceived failings of American foreign policy are studiously ignored. A two-day effort to find anyone of prominence who might offer some criticism of the United States turned up just one name, and that person was out of the country.

Every school child in Albania can tell you that President Woodrow Wilson saved Albania from being split up among its neighbors after World War I, and nearly every adult repeats the story when asked why Albanians are so infatuated with the United States.

James A. Baker III was mobbed when he visited the country as secretary of state in 1991. There was even a move to hold a referendum declaring the country America’s 51st state around that time.

“The excitement among Albanians over this visit is immeasurable, beyond words,” said Albania’s new foreign minister, Lulzim Basha, during an interview in his office, decorated with an elegant portrait of Faik Konica, who became the first Albanian ambassador to the United States in 1926. “We truly believe that this is a historic moment that people will look back on decades later and talk about what it meant for the country.”

Mr. Bush’s visit is a reward for Albania’s unflinching performance as an unquestioning ally. The country was among the first American allies to support Washington’s refusal to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. It was one of the first countries to send troops to Afghanistan and one of the first to join the forces in Iraq. It has soldiers in both places.

“They will continue to be deployed as long as the Americans are there,” Albania’s president, Alfred Moisiu, said proudly in an interview.

Most recently, the country has quietly taken several former detainees from the base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, off the Bush administration’s hands when sending them to their home countries was out of the question. There are eight so far, and Mr. Moisiu said he is open to accepting more.

Mr. Rama, Tirana’s mayor, says he is offended when Albania’s pro-Americanism is cast as an expression of “provincial submission.”

“It’s not about being blind,” he said, wearing a black T-shirt emblazoned with the Great Seal of the United States. “The U.S. is something that is really crucial for the destiny of the world.”

The pro-American feeling has strayed into government-commercial relations. The Albanian government has hired former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge as a consultant on a range of issues, including the implementation of a national identity card.

Many people questioned the procedures under which a joint venture led by Bechtel won Albania’s largest public spending project ever, a contract to build a highway linking Albania and Kosovo. President Moisiu said state prosecutors were now looking at the deal.

In preparation for Mr. Bush’s six-hour visit, Tirana has been draped in American flags and banners that proclaim, “Proud to be Partners.” A portrait of Mr. Bush hangs on the “Pyramid,” a cultural center in the middle of town that was built as a monument to Albania’s Communist strongman, Enver Hoxha. State television is repeatedly playing a slickly produced spot in which Prime Minister Sali Berisha welcomes Mr. Bush in English.

What Mr. Bush will get in return from the visit is the sight of cheering crowds in a predominantly Muslim nation. When asked by an Albanian reporter before leaving Washington what came to mind when he thought of Albania, Mr. Bush replied, “Muslim people who can live at peace.”

Albania is about 70 percent Muslim, with large Orthodox and Catholic populations. To underscore the country’s history of tolerance, President Moisiu will present Mr. Bush with the reproduction of an 18th-century Orthodox icon depicting the Virgin Mary and baby Jesus flanked by two mosques.

“President Bush is safer in Albania than in America,” said Ermin Gjinishti, a Muslim leader in Albania.

Tim Golden contributed reporting from Tirana, and Alan Cowell from London.

Monday, May 28, 2007

A Devil in the Details, but Not the Constitution

Supreme Court Memo

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: May 28, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 27 — When people think, if they ever do, about a Supreme Court justice’s daily routine, many undoubtedly envision a life spent contemplating the great issues: due process, equal protection and other resonant constitutional concepts.

What they probably do not imagine is time spent puzzling over whether the phrase “within 75 miles” in a 1993 federal statute means miles as the crow flies — in a straight line that disregards hill and dale — or miles as a car must actually navigate on the ground: around curves, doubling back to avoid geographic barriers, traveling real roads that rarely mark the shortest distance between two points.

The difference between the two possible definitions of “within 75 miles” usually does not matter much. But when it matters, it matters a lot, as it does to a former insurance executive from Oklahoma, Kelly Hackworth.

If the distance between two of her former employer’s offices is measured by “radius miles,” a straight line on the map, Ms. Hackworth was entitled to the protections of the Family and Medical Leave Act when she lost her job after taking time off to take care of her hospitalized mother. The law applies to companies that employ at least 50 people within 75 miles of the complaining employee’s workplace. If the distance between Ms. Hackworth’s office in Norman, Okla., and a satellite office in Lawton is measured by driving the route along existing roads, she is out of luck by six-tenths of a mile, which is what the federal appeals court in Denver ruled a few months ago.

Her appeal, now awaiting word on whether the justices will accept it for decision, would not appear to be the stuff of a Supreme Court case. But in fact, it is quite typical, more so than people realize. It therefore offers a window on the court’s ordinary life as the 2006-2007 term enters its final, and atypically frantic, month.

More than half the cases the court agrees to hear are not constitutional, but statutory, presenting questions much like the one posed by Hackworth v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, No. 06-1300. To whom does a statute apply? Precisely what behavior does it prohibit? How does it fit with another law on the books that seems to suggest something quite different?

The immigration bill now being fitfully knit together in Congress is a reminder that any major piece of legislation is a result of dozens of big and small compromises. Compromises often leave gaps, and as often as not, the gap itself is part of the compromise.

Many compromises went into the Family and Medical Leave Act, the product of years of Congressional consideration and debate. By the time the final bill passed, there was such a generous exemption for small business that the law covers only about 5 percent of all companies, employing about 40 percent of the work force. Companies with fewer than 50 employees are exempt altogether.

The requirement for 50 employees “within 75 miles” was intended to ensure that an employer would not be too inconvenienced by the need to reassign a worker to cover the duties of one who was out on family or medical leave.

During debates on the bill, as reflected in The Congressional Record, there were several references to a “75-mile radius,” suggesting a straight line. But the word “radius” does not appear in the final text of the statute. Ms. Hackworth’s lawyers argue that Congress should be understood as having had radius in mind nonetheless.

But the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit refused to make that leap. Congress simply “did not define a method of measuring,” the appeals court said, and “therefore left an implicit statutory gap” that the Department of Labor was authorized to fill by regulation. The department adopted a regulation in 1995 providing that the distance should be measured as “surface miles using surface transportation.” That definition was entitled to deference, the 10th Circuit concluded.

The 73 cases the court selected for argument during the current term included 41 statutory cases, 27 that raised chiefly constitutional issues and 5 other kinds that raised issues of retroactivity and jurisdiction. (These calculations are subject to interpretation; at the margins, the categories can easily overlap, as when the court is asked to interpret a statute in such a way as to avoid a potential constitutional problem.)

Statutory cases are not necessarily less challenging for the justices or less important to the country than constitutional cases; whether the Clean Air Act applies to global warming, to recall one statutory case from the current term, is a question with more impact than whether a certain type of appeal in patent cases meets the jurisdictional requirements of Article III of the Constitution, to recall another case, this time a constitutional one.

The court will probably not accept Ms. Hackworth’s case, a safe prediction when the justices accept only about 1 percent of the appeals that reach them. But on any inventory of recent statutory cases, it does not rank noticeably lower than many, including one the court decided in its last term on whether the “negligent transmission” of mail by the Postal Service includes the careless deposit of a package where someone might predictably trip over it. (It does not.)

But the mail delivery case, in which the court ruled that the Postal Service, statutorily immune from suit for “negligent transmission,” could be sued for careless delivery, had a feature that Ms. Hackworth’s case lacks. The lower courts had disagreed on whether “negligent transmission” included careless delivery, and the Supreme Court felt obliged to step in.

But no such lower-court conflict has developed over how to measure the 75 miles, although the regulation has been on the books for 12 years. Fascinating as the justices may find the issue, they are likely to take a pass.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/us/28scotus.html?th&emc=th

The Educated Giant

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/opinion/28kristof.html?th&emc=th

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: May 28, 2007
Taishan, China

With China’s trade surplus with the United States soaring, the tendency in the U.S. will be to react with tariffs and other barriers. But instead we should take a page from the Chinese book and respond by boosting education.

One reason China is likely to overtake the U.S. as the world’s most important country in this century is that China puts more effort into building human capital than we do.

This area in southern Guangdong Province is my wife’s ancestral hometown. Sheryl’s grandparents left villages here because they thought they could find better opportunities for their children in “Meiguo” — “Beautiful Country,” as the U.S. is called in Chinese. And they did. At Sheryl’s family reunions, you feel inadequate without a doctorate.

But that educational gap between China and America is shrinking rapidly. I visited several elementary and middle schools accompanied by two of my children. And in general, the level of math taught even in peasant schools is similar to that in my kids’ own excellent schools in the New York area.

My kids’ school system doesn’t offer foreign languages until the seventh grade. These Chinese peasants begin English studies in either first grade or third grade, depending on the school.

Frankly, my daughter got tired of being dragged around schools and having teachers look patronizingly at her schoolbooks and say, “Oh, we do that two grades younger.”

There are, I think, four reasons why Chinese students do so well.

First, Chinese students are hungry for education and advancement and work harder. In contrast, U.S. children average 900 hours a year in class and 1,023 hours in front of a television.

Here in Sheryl’s ancestral village, the students show up at school at about 6:30 a.m. to get extra tutoring before classes start at 7:30. They go home for a lunch break at 11:20 and then are back at school from 2 p.m. until 5. They do homework every night and weekend, and an hour or two of homework each day during their eight-week summer vacation.

The second reason is that China has an enormous cultural respect for education, part of its Confucian legacy, so governments and families alike pour resources into education. Teachers are respected and compensated far better, financially and emotionally, in China than in America.

In my last column, I wrote about the boomtown of Dongguan, which had no colleges when I first visited it 20 years ago. The town devotes 21 percent of its budget to education, and it now has four universities. An astonishing 58 percent of the residents age 18 to 22 are enrolled in a university.

A third reason is that Chinese believe that those who get the best grades are the hardest workers. In contrast, Americans say in polls that the best students are the ones who are innately the smartest. The upshot is that Chinese kids never have an excuse for mediocrity.

Chinese education has its own problems, including bribes and fees to get into good schools, huge classes of 50 or 60 students, second-rate equipment and lousy universities. But the progress in the last quarter-century is breathtaking.

It’s also encouraging that so many Chinese will shake their heads over this column and say it really isn’t so. They will complain that Chinese schools teach rote memorization but not creativity or love of learning. That kind of debate is good for the schools and has already led to improvements in English instruction, so that urban Chinese students can communicate better in English than Japanese or South Koreans.

After I visited Sheryl’s ancestral village, I posted a video of it on the Times Web site. Soon I was astonished to see an excited posting on my blog from a woman who used to live in that village.

Litao Mai, probably one of my distant in-laws, grew up in a house she could see on my video. Her parents had only a third grade education, but she became the first person in the village to go to college. She now works for Merrill Lynch in New York and describes herself as “a little peasant girl” transformed into “a capitalist on Wall Street.”

That is the magic of education, and there are 1.3 billion more behind Ms. Mai.

So let’s not respond to China’s surpluses by putting up trade barriers. Rather, let’s do as we did after the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik in 1957: raise our own education standards to meet the competition.

You are invited to comment on this column at Mr. Kristof’s blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Line Up and Pick a Dragon: Bhutan Learns to Vote [NY Times]



J. Adam Huggins for The New York Times
The people of the tiny Buddhist nation of Bhutan undertook a sort of fire drill for democracy over the weekend and set down an important marker on their carefully ordered journey toward modernity. In Thimphu, the nation's capital, they lined up to cast their votes in the country's first round of mock elections



At a polling station in Thimphu, Bhutanese voted Sunday in the first round of a mock election for Parliament. The real election is next year.


Election officials tested a voting machine at a polling station in Thimphu before the polls opened to the public for voting.



King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, who recently announced his plan to abdicate, has ordered parliamentary elections next year. In preparation for the real thing, more than 125,000 citizens lined up at voting booths across the country to take part in mock elections.


The king’s call for elections, along with a constitution that will introduce multiparty democracy, forestalls any ferment for freedom, from inside or outside the country.

Line Up and Pick a Dragon: Bhutan Learns to Vote

By SOMINI SENGUPTA
THIMPHU, Bhutan, April 22 — Can “Desperate Housewives,” free trade and multiparty elections deliver happiness?

The people of Bhutan, the tiny Buddhist nation once known as the hermit kingdom of the Himalayas, pondered these questions this weekend as they undertook a sort of fire drill for democracy and set down an important marker on their carefully ordered journey toward modernity.

King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, who recently announced his plan to abdicate, has ordered parliamentary elections next year.

In preparation for the real thing, more than 125,000 citizens, many with more than a little ambivalence, lined up at voting booths across the country on Saturday to take part in mock elections.

They chose among four “dummy” political parties: Druk Blue, Druk Green, Druk Red and Druk Yellow. The Druk, or thunder dragon, is the national symbol.

Having once sealed itself off from the world, the lair of the Druk has cautiously and deliberately begun opening up. Television, including foreign cable stations, was introduced only in 1999 (and more recently featured an episode of “Desperate Housewives” on election day). The Internet came soon after.

There are no McDonald’s golden arches poking out from the blue pine forests yet, though the influence of global consumer culture can be glimpsed in the Pepe jeans on young men and a convenience store here that calls itself 8-Eleven.

The government is considering joining the World Trade Organization. Foreign tourists are allowed to come in somewhat larger numbers than before, though still chaperoned from one high-priced resort to another. “A cautious approach,” Prime Minister Khandu Wangchuck called it. In an interview here on Friday, he added: “We were conscious of the fact that interaction with the world would only benefit us. We have had no reason to put the brakes on.”

Elections, he said, have been embraced, albeit reluctantly, by the citizenry because the king wanted them.

“The objectives are to ensure national security, national sovereignty, well-being and prosperity, which will lead to gross national happiness also,” the prime minister said. “His Majesty believes this is the best form of government, and the people of Bhutan are ready to launch this.”

How the strange lures of modernity will affect the gross national happiness, the unusual yardstick the king invented to measure his nation’s progress, is a matter of uncertainty and wonder in this country.

Gross national happiness includes criteria like equity, good government and harmony with nature. It apparently does not include harmony with the 100,000 ethnic Nepalis who fled Bhutan after a royal crackdown on their agitation for democratic rights and have languished since 1990 in refugee camps in Nepal.

In any case, the king’s call for elections, along with a constitution that will introduce multiparty democracy, forestalls any ferment for freedom, from inside or outside the country.

But all that is in its infancy. For the moment at least, Bhutan does not resemble a democracy, particularly compared with other countries in the region. Barely two political parties have been formed. It is far from having an outspoken free press or an active civil society. Criticism of government policy is rare, except from abroad.

Not surprisingly, ethnic Nepali dissidents have denounced the elections as a ploy to deflect international attention from the refugee crisis. The government prefers to call them illegal immigrants who had to be forced out because they threatened to swamp a small, fragile country of about 700,000 people.

The Bhutanese monarchy turns 100 this year, and the king apparently decided that this was an auspicious time to further reduce its power. The national elections next year are part of a process that began nearly a decade ago, when the king introduced nonparty elections for Parliament.

Next, day-to-day administration was handed over to the cabinet. The proposed constitution would remove the king as head of the government, set a mandatory retirement age of 65 for the ruler and empower an elected Parliament to oust him from the throne by a two-thirds vote.

Last December, after more than 30 years in power, the current king announced that he was abdicating in favor of his 26-year-old son, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck.

The prospect of self-government seemed to send shivers down many spines here. “Why have politicians?” people wanted to know, expressing doubts about the results of democracy in neighboring countries. Isn’t the king always supposed to know what is best for his people and guide them accordingly?

“I’m a little bit skeptical,” Sonam Wangmo, 38, said as she waited in line Saturday to cast her vote in a neighborhood school with calla lilies blooming in the garden. “I’m not sure whether it will work, or whether it will be better for our country.”

Two long lines formed on the school grounds, one for men, one for women, quiet and well-disciplined, and with only a few grumbles despite waits of up to an hour or more just to reach the voting booth.

Unusually for this part of the world, Bhutan is a very orderly place, where traffic rules are closely obeyed and the color of a shawl denotes social rank. Native dress is mandatory at work and at school. For men that means a knee-length robe, for women a short jacket and long wraparound skirt.

With sustained government spending on health and education in the last several decades, there have been remarkable gains in basic social indicators, from reducing child mortality to increasing school enrollment.

Bhutan remains a poor country, heavily reliant on foreign aid and with little industry. But it is set to reap the latest bounty from the one natural resource that it has in plenty: the water that comes rushing down from the Himalayas, which it has harnessed, with Indian help, to create hydroelectric power. Most of that power will be exported to India.

What clocks are to Switzerland, water can be for Bhutan. According to the World Bank, the country could see up to 14 percent annual economic growth in the coming years, though it will not necessarily create many jobs.

“The going is good,” said Tshering Tobgay, 42, a former civil servant who is working with a former cabinet minister to start the People’s Democratic Party. “We want more of the same.”

This is one reason, he said, that even would-be politicians like himself find it hard to sell their message to the citizenry. “We are not starting a party because we have an ideology,” he said. “We’re not starting a party because we have a vision for a better Bhutan. We are starting a party because the king has ordered us.”

He sat on the patio of a bar, cupping his beer can in a napkin, because it was Friday and alcohol sales were prohibited on the day before the election. “It’s a big compliment to the king that no one’s very enthusiastic.”

Another patron in the bar, Kesang Dorji, 36, said he was puzzled by the royal order to vote, but intended to obey. “We have to stand fast to the wisdom of our monarch,” he said. “He knows what’s best for us. Any normal person would think, ‘Why this, when everything is O.K.?’ ”

Holding on to the way things are seems to have been Bhutan’s choice in the mock elections. Each of the Druk parties presented a platform. Druk Blue promised to fight corruption and extend free health care and education. Druk Green stood for environment-friendly development. Druk Red promised industrialization. And Druk Yellow asked: “Do you believe in the preservation and promotion of our rich cultural heritage and tradition? Vote for Druk Yellow Party.”

On Sunday, Druk Yellow emerged as the hands-down winner, with 44 percent of the vote, according to the Election Commission. Next month it takes on Druk Red, which won about 20 percent, in a mock runoff.

Tilak Pokharel contributed reporting from Katmandu, Nepal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/world/asia/24bhutan.html?ex=1178078400&en=b58c592a16693300&ei=5070&emc=eta1




Prime Minister Khandu Wangchuk with a portrait of the king. Elections, the prime minister said, have been embraced, albeit reluctantly, by the citizenry because the king wanted them.


Long lines formed, one for men, one for women, quiet and well-disciplined, and with only a few grumbles despite waits of up to an hour or more just to reach the voting booth.


J. Adam Huggins for The New York Times
Tshering Tobgay, who is starting the People's Democratic Party, said: "We are not starting a party because we have an ideology. We’re not starting a party because we have a vision for a better Bhutan. We are starting a party because the king has ordered us."

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

A Fight for Democracy: In a Courageous Village, Ballots Bring Bullets [NY Times]

http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=88ba4950c3bf2b8a771362fc710a6a7548b541eb

In a Courageous Village, Ballots Bring Bullets

A Fight for Democracy

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Nicholas D. Kristof.
President Bush has become a bosom buddy of President Pervez Musharraf and sealed that friendship with $10 billion in military aid, but any American official who praises Pakistan’s “democracy” might want to visit this bullet-scarred village in the Punjab.

Dummerwala held free local elections here last year. But many people voted the “wrong” way, causing the candidate of the local feudal lord to lose. So a day after the election, a small army of gunmen arrived and began rampaging through the houses of the clan members who opposed the lord’s choice.

Waheed Rahman, a top student, 14 years old, who dreamed of becoming an engineer, was wounded in the opening minutes of the attack.

“When he was shot, Waheed fell down and begged for water,” said his father, Matiullah. “They were surrounding him. But they just laughed and shot at the water tank and destroyed it. Then they ripped the clothes off the women and dragged them around half-naked.”

For the next two hours, the attackers beat the men and abused the women, destroyed homes, and told their victims that the feudal lord had arranged for the police to stay away so he could teach them a lesson.

Indeed, the police did stay away. Even when two of the villagers escaped and ran to the police station, begging the officers to stop the violence, the police delayed moving for three hours.

By the time it was over, a woman was dying, as was Waheed, and many others were wounded.

The attack here in Dummerwala is a reminder that democracy is about far more than free elections. In Pakistan, many rural areas remain under the thumb of feudal lords who use the government to keep themselves rich and everyone else impoverished.

For real democracy to come to Pakistan, we’ll need to see not only free elections and the retirement of President Musharraf, but also a broad effort to uproot the feudal rulers in areas like this, 300 miles south of Islamabad. That’s not easy to do, but promoting education is the best way to combat both feudalism and fundamentalism.

Instead, we’ve been focusing on selling arms and excusing General Musharraf’s one-man rule.

Husain Haqqani of Boston University calculates that the overt and trackable U.S. aid to General Musharraf’s Pakistan amounted to $9.8 billion — of which 1 percent went for children’s survival and health, and just one-half of 1 percent for democracy promotion (and even that went partly to a commission controlled by General Musharraf).

The big beneficiary of U.S. largesse hasn’t been the Pakistani people, but the Pakistani Army.

General Musharraf has done an excellent job of nurturing Pakistan’s economy, but he is an autocrat. As Asma Jahangir, a prominent lawyer in Lahore, told me: “Until now, Pakistanis have hated the American government but not the American people. But I’m afraid that may change. Unless the U.S. distances itself from Musharraf, the way things are going Pakistanis will come to hate the American people as well.”

Just last week, General Musharraf’s secret police goons roughed up and sexually molested Dr. Amna Buttar, an American doctor of Pakistani origin who heads a human rights organization. Dr. Buttar says that she had been warned by a senior intelligence official not to protest against the government and that she was specifically targeted when she protested anyway.

When our “antiterrorism” funds support General Musharraf’s thugs as they terrorize American citizens, it’s time to rethink our approach. Imagine if we had spent $10 billion not building up General Musharraf, but supporting Pakistani schools.

One place we could support a school is here in Dummerwala. After the attack, the victims in the village were so panicky that they pulled all their children out of school.

“They say, ‘If you don’t cooperate with us, we will kill your sons,’ ” said Tazeel Rahman, one of the victims. “This is not democracy. This is a dictatorship. This is terrorism.”

(When I interviewed the attackers, they insisted that the victims had simply killed themselves. They compensated for this wildly implausible version of events by sending an armed mob to persuade me of its merits. There's a video of the encounter.)

We Americans could learn something about democracy from the brave people here. The villagers insist that if they are still alive and allowed to vote, they will again defy their feudal lord in the next election.

We in the West sometimes say that poor countries like Pakistan aren’t ready for democracy. But who takes democracy more seriously: Americans who routinely don’t bother to vote, or peasants in Dummerwala who risk their lives to vote?

You are invited to comment on this column at Mr. Kristof’s blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground.

Friday, April 6, 2007

"没有死的人员"来办证?派出所恶语通知寒人心!



2007-04-07 06:36:40 来源: 人民图片网 
  核心提示:江苏省宿迁市宿城区屠园派出所门前的两个告示板上写着紧急通知:“全乡所有15-没有死的人员必须在4月30日前到派出所办理身份证”。用这样的通知来催促当地百姓抓紧办理身份证,让人感觉实在不妥。2007年4月6日,江苏省宿迁市宿城区屠园派出所门前的两个告示板上写着紧急通知:“全乡所有15-没有死的人员必须在4月30日前到派出所办理身份证”。用这样的通知来催促当地百姓抓紧办理身份证,让人感觉实在不妥。

网易浙江杭州网友 ip:218.0.211.*:
2007-04-07 10:07:14 发表
这不是素质低,更不是用词不当。只有当人的骨子里对民众鄙视才会说这样的话。试问:对上级他会这样说吗?

网易山东济南网友 ip:218.56.218.*:
2007-04-07 08:12:14 发表
"开会了,没来的同志请举手,(扫视一周 没发现举手的)不错,大家都到齐了 .现在开会".
把"死人"去掉 就看不懂了吗?

网易浙江网友 ip:125.121.91.*:
2007-04-07 10:23:37 发表
网易浙江温岭网友(220.185.255.*)的原贴:
网易辽宁锦州网友(124.94.37.*)的原贴:
这个派出所的门前有两个牌子,“一个是15岁以上人员来办证,否则罚款500元”这个应该是先做出的牌子,罚款500元是根据《治安法》的规定做出的无可厚非,但是这里面存在什么时间换证完成的问题,4月30日应该是上级规定的,派出所在这一点上应该不承担责任。“15至没有死的人员来办证”应该是第二块牌子,这里面存在这样一个问题,就是按照字面意思这个派出所是处在农村,因为是“全乡”么,在农村有大量的已经死亡但是不注销户口的情况存在,目的就是为了多占地、多获得一些利益,派出所对这些人并不能全部掌握,在办证的过程中会出现各种已经死亡的人由亲属来“代办”的情况,所以这块牌子的后面有很多的“深意”的,不要不了解情况就乱骂了!!!

你的意思是说一定要用"没有死"三个字才能表达出"深意",用其它文明礼貌一点的词语就不能表达"深意"了?看的出你的智商和素质和某些人有的一拼

国家公务员就这种素质!怎不叫咱老百姓心寒!和谐社会就这么体现???中国社会的悲哀!!!

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

薛涌:长城之争在为僵化的教育代言

2007-03-11 10:57:13 来源: 国际在线(北京) 

  即使太空中肉眼能看见长城又怎么样?长城在建造技术上并没有领先于世之处。相反,欧洲在石砖建筑上,在那时候比中国要先进。

薛涌

“中科院确认太空中肉眼无法看到长城”。读了这个新闻,我不免一声长叹,为中国的教育感到悲哀。我并不怀疑中科院的结论。我不解的是,这么一个芝麻大的事情,怎么中科院居然肯拿出资源,由研究员领衔成立课题组进行研究?

毫无疑问,这个问题被媒体无休止地炒作,和极端的民族主义情绪有关。在有些人看来,在太空肉眼是否看得见长城,关系到我们的文化和历史是否伟大,绝不能让步。这就好像郑和的船队比哥伦布的小破船大许多就是长中国人的志气一样。

其实,即使太空中肉眼能看见长城又怎么样?在建造明长城的时代,长城在建造技术上并没有领先于世之处。相反,欧洲在石砖建筑上,在那时候比中国要先进。硕大的长城的存在,倒是说明了几个影响中国未来发展的软肋:第一,中国虽然建立了庞大的帝国,但在军事上却无法应付人口只有自己百分之几的北方民族的威胁。这充分说明了大文明的低效率。第二,皇权无上的帝国,虽然对外不堪一战,对自己的老百姓却有无限的权力进行搜刮,所以才能集中了这么多资源,修了这个防御工事。但是,把钱全集中在国家手里,投入这样的工程,还留下什么给民间发展经济?在同时代的欧洲,这样大的国家工程是不可想象的。比如英王面临外敌入侵,跑到议会求爷爷告奶奶,就是要不出钱,加不了税,哪有咱们的皇帝威风?可是后来怎么样?长城挡不住大明朝的覆亡,郑和的远洋船队没有给中国经济开辟急需的海外市场和资源。但哥伦布的几条“小破船”却改变了世界;穷得叮当响的英国王室,竟成了“日不落”的全球霸主。

绕开这些事实,不去激励学生从历史中探求为什么有限的小政府能够富国强兵,全能的大政府反而让大文明破产,却拼命地和人家比自己是否是世界的老大,这本来就已经荒谬之极。如今,中科院的研究成果,又再次让我们浪费了一次教育机会。

既然这个问题是从课本中引起,涉及我们如何教育下一代的问题,那么何不利用这一争论刺激学生的独立思考?比如,高中的孩子可以根据从课本上学到的知识,自己来论证在太空上是否能看见长城。这里涉及肉眼在多长的距离内能看到多大的物体,空气污染对能见度的影响有多大,航天飞机距离地面的距离是多少等等日常问题,需要光学、生物、环境科学等等多学科的知识和综合分析能力。老实说,这个问题对一个高中生而言,并非太难:认真消化课堂所学的内容,再查一些课外的资料,简单的换算和分析就可以得出结论。

现在可好。中科院勇敢地站出来:大家别吵了,我们组织权威人士进行科研立项,结果已经出来:在太空中肉眼看不到长城!这就好像是在考试的多项选择中,指定了一个标准答案,让大家死记硬背地把握,不要再没完没了地思考讨论了。

这一事件,暴露了我们民族一个根深蒂固的坏习性:面对任何问题,不是鼓励个人的独立思考和创造,一切要依赖国家,依赖权威,乃至从太空能否用肉眼看到长城这样一个高中生自己就能通过研究作出判断的事情,也要等着中科院来下结论。现在,正确的结论出来了,科学胜利了。但是,我们的教育在死记硬背的框架中陷得更深,我们的民族那种服从权威,依赖“上面”而不是自己来解决问题的心理积淀也更厚了。

http://news.163.com/07/0311/10/39A37LUM000121EP.html

钢盔加迷彩服“构建和谐社会”


治安联防队员全副武装上街游行。


2007年3月26日,广东省湛江市赤坎区平安建设先行点(民主街道)动员大会在市法制教育学校举行。民主街道治安协管员上街游行。

ChinaFotoPress3月27日报道 2007年3月26日,广东省湛江市赤坎区平安建设先行点(民主街道)动员大会在市法制教育学校举行,这是该市首个平安建设先行点,湛江市委副书记、政法委书记阮日生及有关单位领导共600多人参加了这次活动。

据市政法委有关人员介绍,参加这次活动的除了有关市领导,另主要有市综治委成员单位领导、赤坎区四套班子领导、区直副科以上单位负责人,区各街道党工委书记、分管政法工作领导、综治办主任,派出所所长,民主街道及社区全体干部,驻民主街道辖区内市、区单位主要领导、分管领导及保卫干部,区治安联防队员及民主街道治安协管员共600多人。动员会结束后,与会代表参加了民主街道幸福路警务室和平安建设活动办公室,治安联防队及治安雷协管员还走上街头巡游。

网易 > 新闻中心 > 国内新闻 > 正文

国人应看的关于日本的文章 /芮成钢

国人应看的关于日本的文章
2007-03-27  来源: 荆楚网(武汉) 

作者:芮成钢

这个题目当然是大大夸张了,文章只不过是个人的杂感罢了。之所以这样说,其实是为了东施效颦《东京审判》的电影宣传词。影片的海报上印着这样的字:每一个中国人都应该看的电影。

我觉得这也夸张了,言重了。电影拍的虽然还不错,讲述了一段鲜为人知的历史,但这宣传词,一是有利用中国人的爱国心去多卖电影票的嫌疑,二来,那段痛苦的历史早已铭刻在每一位国人的心里,语言里,生活里,甚至是意识里,好像并不迫切急需更多的提醒。这句宣传词也许用在风在吼/马在叫/黄河在咆哮/黄河在咆哮的年代更为贴切。

国耻我们当然永不能忘,也不会忘。生活中随时随地常会想到。每次运动爬香山,看到被英法联军烧毁的香山寺的断壁残垣,我都会感慨:如此恢宏的大国,当年竟会被如此的侮辱。

我们所有中华民族的子孙,都应该经常去看看香山这样的爱国主义教育基地。去感受,去思考。

但爱国主义教育的目的,应该不是一次又一次的揭开陈年的伤疤,更不是去种下仇恨,传播仇恨。

我们的目的是——记住历史,自强不息。

中国和日本

我们这一代青年人究竟该用什么样的心态来看日本这个国家,来看日本人?这是一个挺难回答的问题。特殊的成长经历让我们对日本有着比较复杂的心理。

小时候,第一次看《小兵张嘎》、《地道战》的时候,我们也许还在哼着《铁臂阿童木》的主题歌。我们在模仿葛优他爸演的日本鬼子说话的时候,山口百惠和高仓建也正在塑造我们心中对男性女性最初的审美。学校包场去电影院看《南京大屠杀》的时候,自己却也许还正收集着《圣斗士星矢》的贴画。第一次听到“靖国神社”这四个字的时候,《东京爱情故事》也正陪着我们度过最艰苦的一段学生生活……

今天,从手机到汽车,从物质到文化,来自日本的点点滴滴,渗透着我们的生活,但打开邮箱,却能看见号召大家抵制日货的邮件。开车的时候一抬头还能看到前车的后屁股上赫然写着:大刀向鬼子们的头上砍去。

究竟什么是日货?

随便出一道考试题:下面的中文词语里哪一个是来自日语的外来语。

服务、组织、纪律、政治、革命、党、方针、政策、申请、解决、理论、哲学、原则、经济、科学、商业、干部、后勤、健康、社会主义、资本主义、封建、共和、美学、美术、抽象、逻辑、证券、总理、储蓄、创作、刺激、代表、动力、对照、发明、法人、概念、规则、反对、会谈、机关、细胞、系统、印象、原则、参观、劳动、目的、卫生、综合、克服、马铃薯。

答案:统统都是,全部来自日语。没想到吧,其实,来自日语的中文还远远不止这些,数不胜数。虽然日语的文字源于中文,但上面这些词语可都是日本人的创作。

随便举例,“经济”在古汉语里的意思是“经世济民”,和现代汉语的“经济”没有任何关系,这是日语对Economy的翻译。“社会”在古汉语中是“集会结社”的意思,日本人拿它来翻译英语的Society。“劳动”在中国的古义是“劳驾”的意思,日语拿它来译英语的Labor。“知识”在古汉语里指的是“相知相识的人”,日语拿它来译英语的Knowledge。而我们又统统把它们变成了中文。

试问想抵制日货的朋友,这些日货词语你也抵制得了吗?中国近代的孙中山、鲁迅、陈独秀、李大钊们无一不是在日本学习生活,把更先进的理念和思想带回当时落后的中国。这些人的思想、文化,你也能抵制得了吗?

作为一个做电视的人,我还想说:今天你看的所有中国电视全部都是用日本的摄像机、编辑机制作播出的。这个,你抵制得了吗?

尊重并熟悉历史的人会告诉我们:中国的确当过一次日本的老师,而日本却曾两次走在我们的前面。古代社会,隋唐开始中日有来往,中国比日本更早进入文明社会,遣唐使们虚心来到中国(中国的电影人们不妨也拍拍遣唐使的题材,说说中日的友好渊源)。

然而,在近代,日本明治维新后,迅速强大。甲午战争,日本不但战胜了中国,之后更是摆脱了西方对日本的控制,远远地走在了中国前面。

迅速崛起的日本给当时的整个东方世界带来了希望,成为亚洲国家摆脱西方控制,独立崛起的样板。当时的交通不便,中国人向西方直接学习难上加难。向日本学习成为惟一选择,像李大钊、陈独秀、孙中山这样的中国政治和知识精英们,纷纷东渡日本学习探索中国自强的道路,有的甚至把日本作为自己的基地。

当然,二战期间,日本对中国犯下了滔天罪行,这是中华民族永远不会忘记的,也是日本必须永远铭记在心的。我们决不允许任何人篡改这段历史,颠倒是非黑白。

但是我们也应该看到:二战之后,日本在一片废墟上又一次崛起,从零到一万。七八十年代,中国迎来改革开放的春天,日本又一次成为我们市场经济的老师。从赔款到投资,中日的贸易也成就了中国今天的繁荣。我们那时候虽然还小,但也应该依稀记得:中日关系当时是非常的好,可以称作是蜜月期。只是进入九十年代,日本的一些政客们的可耻行径才让我们似乎远离了日本。

从中日建交开始,日本的首脑,有过一次次的道歉和谢罪。只是到了小泉这几代领导人才出现了伤害中国人情感的劣迹。我们不能为了几个心怀叵测的日本政治野心家,几股落后可悲的日本政治势力,而忘记中日友好的千秋大计,忘记了从周恩来田中角荣开始的,几代中日领导人苦心经营的中日友谊。

中日那段痛苦的历史,也只是中日交流两千年里的一段阴影,不是全部。未来,更长。

我们不能只念叨着中文是日语的祖宗,恨不得连日本人都是当年秦始皇那找不到长生不老药的三千童男童女的后代,而忘记甚至根本不知道日本对中国的贡献。承认别人的长处,并不意味着妄自菲薄,相反,这是自信的表现。

我们从学校走向社会,在工作中,父母师长常会教育我们:看一个人要多看他的优点。对一个人尚且要多看优点,对一个国家,一个民族,更应如此,不能以偏概全。

前一阵子,诺贝尔文学奖得主大江健三郎在北京签名售书,竟然还有人打着反日的旗号抗议。这是中国人的尴尬,这样的做法,毁的是中国人自己的形象。

但愿我们这一代,在声讨小泉纯一郎参拜靖国神社的可耻行径之后,也不会忘记回家去听听小泽征尔的音乐;在痛斥完东京市长石原生太郎的反华言论之后,也还会去翻翻村上春树的小说……

强大与伟大

李连杰主演的《霍元甲》是一部让我感动得夜不能寐的电影。最重要的原因是:它表面上看起来只不过是一部经典武打片,其实却回答了一个今天无数中国人,特别是正在国际化的中国青年人思考的问题:今天的我们,究竟该以什么样的眼光和胸怀来看自己,来看世界。

影片中,在列强瓜分中国的大背景下,霍元甲走上擂台,面对生死状,第一句话却是:“在擂台上以命相搏,是中国人历来的陋习,可是我们有另一种传统,叫做以武会友”。在那样屈辱的背景下,一上来还能先反省自身的不足,然后再不卑不亢的面对强大的对手,这是何等的境界,何等的自信!

霍元甲战胜每一个对手,都不光是用武力让对方屈服,而是用自己的风范让对方心服口服。他的目的,不是让别人输,而是让别人“服”。服并不意味着谁喊谁一声大哥,服意味着得到他人发自内心的尊重,意味着用人格的魅力去融化他人的偏见和执拗,用人性的光辉去照亮他人内心不曾见过阳光的角落。

影片对日本人的描述也是一分为二,非常客观。和霍元甲比武的日本武士光明磊落,对霍元甲敬佩由衷,而策划毒害霍元甲的日本商会会长却是一个阴谋家。日本武士最后痛斥日本会长为了自己的赌局而侮辱了日本的荣誉,给日本人带来了耻辱。值得一提的是,这部电影也大大方方的在日本放映,而且并没有日本人说它丑化了日本人的形象。

霍元甲在临死前,徒弟们怒不可遏,要去报仇。而他对徒弟们是这样说的:“你们要做的不是去报仇,仇恨只能生出更多的仇恨。我不想看到仇恨。最重要的是——强壮自己。”

归根到底,还是要自强不息,自身的强大才是最硬的道理。短短的几句话,凝聚了无数中国乃至人类历史的经验教训。

我们伟大的中华民族的祖先们,也是用这样的胸怀,来这样期许我们这些后来人的。我们应该把这种精神传承下去,这才是一部每个中国人都值得看的电影。

今天的中国,盛事空前,已经以强大的实力屹立于世界民族之林。这是世人共晓的事实,这也是你走遍世界,所有的外国人都会告诉你的,并不需要我们提供更多的证明。也没有人会因为我们少踢进了几个球,少拿了几块金牌,或是少了几句过激的言语和行为,而觉得我们软弱。

强大,靠的是实力,但是,伟大,靠的是胸怀。

中国和世界的误会:盲人摸象

我们不妨问问自己,也问问周围所有骂“小日本”的朋友,去过日本吗?有过日本的朋友吗?答案大多是No。我自己原来对日本的印象也不好,但扪心自问,除了那段历史之外,也大都是道听途说,没去过日本,没有一个日本朋友,甚至也没有采访过几个日本的政要和企业领袖。

如果是一个美国人,从未来到过中国,没有中国朋友,而只是在媒体上看了一些有关中国的不良言论,就断言中国不好,我肯定不能接受,我会说:没有调查就没有发言权,你对中国人一无所知,你凭什么做这样的判断?

而我们对日本就了解吗?

日本是一个离我们最近,但却最不了解的国家。我们大多数青年人可能对欧美的了解远胜于对日本的关注。当然,日本不是一个容易了解的国家,日本人也的确存在着两面性。但从一个第三者的角度来看,日本并不比中国更难了解。问题不是可不可以了解,而是我们愿不愿意去了解(本尼迪克特著的《菊与刀》,赖孝尔写的《日本人》,都是非常精辟的著作)。

凡是来过中国的外国朋友,几乎无一例外的对我说中国要比他们想象中的精彩得多,优秀得多。一次中国之行,往往会改变他们许多从小积累的对中国的不良或错误印象。而一个真心相交的日本朋友,一次日本之行,往往也能改变许多。正是本着这样的目的,我去了一次日本,改变了我从前许多过于简单,过于主观的判断。

在耶鲁给美国学生讲中国的时候,我经常用盲人摸象这个成语来概括大多数美国人对中国和中国人的误解,以及中国人对美国的曲解。大家往往都是摸到了哪里,就认为哪里是大象的全部,都没有看到相对完整的大画面。甚至一些在中国长期生活的美国朋友和在美国定居的中国朋友,由于生活的圈子相对固定,也都没有能对一个国家有多角度的立体的理解,而是偏执于自己的一些个人经验体会。

中日之间更是如此。我经常听到有些在日本生活过的中国人,痛斥日本人的种种不是,听完之后,往往会激起我的一些反日的情绪。事后想想,这些人如果一直在国内,也许也会连篇累牍的抱怨中国人的种种不是。我也认识很多在日本非常成功的中国人,一些甚至在日本把日本人驾驭的、欺负的连我都看不下去的中国人。

历史上,许多国家之间的冲突和战争,最初都起源于相互的不信任,由于相互不信任,产生对对方行为的误判,以及过分敏感的反应。这种不信任和误判会制造出相互敌视的氛围,继而相互激发,最终使误判产生的预言变成现实。今天的文明人类,应该能够避免不信任和误判酿成的悲剧。为了让中国的和平发展成为可能,我们要努力消除这种不信任,防止误判的发生。

一分为三,为四,立体的,多元的,理性的,自信的看日本,看美国,看世界,这才是我们21世纪的中国青年应该有的胸怀和眼界。

过于敏感

“东亚病夫”这四个字我很反感,这些年除了我们自己经常提起,我从未听外国人提起过,也没有在国外的媒体上看到过。

在国外,我经常提醒自己不要过于敏感。到了一个发达国家,服务员态度不好,司机不老实,朋友说了两句无心快语,等等等等,我首先都会往“歧视”这两个字上去想,接着就仗着自己英语的优势,噼里啪啦的把对方说得无地自容,再仗着自己对西方规则的了解,去找人家的老板投诉一把,然后觉得自己又为中国人出了口气(相比较而言,恰恰日本是我感觉需要投诉几率最小的国家)。

从凡尔赛宫的保安到悉尼机场的检疫,从美国的交警到奥地利的空乘,我记不清有多少次是因为自己或是为其他的中国人受到不正当待遇拍案而起,怒不可遏。

这些投诉,当然有很多是必需做的,也是完全应该做的。但冷静下来,经常发现,有些时候,这些我投诉的当地人,其实对哪里来的人都一样,甚至对本国人的态度也都是一样,并不是专门针对中国人的。就像是我们在国内也经常遇到无礼的人一样。倒是咱们中国人,有时因为特殊的历史背景,容易自我心理暗示,产生联想。同样的事情,如果发生在老挝,或是纳米比亚,自己也许就不会往那个方面去想。

比如,日本人被普遍认为,虽然表面上很懂礼貌,但骨子里很排外。对此,英国人,美国人,和中国人一样有同感,而我们很容易把它理解成是对中国人的歧视。

而日本的这种岛国心态,其他国家也有,比如英国人,直到现在还不把自己看成是欧洲人,对此,法国人深有感触,也意见很大。

另外,必须承认,有些不合理的事,即使是针对中国人的,往往也是因为咱们的一些同胞们,总在不按当地的规则做事,给他们留下了太深刻的不良印象。这个时候,我们需要做的不仅是为中国人“出”口气,更需要用自己的修养为中国人“争”口气。

不卑不亢

不卑不亢是我们常说的待人接物的最高境界。如果问问周围的朋友,走遍世界能够做到不卑不亢吗?很多人说差不多。然后再问为什么呢?通常的答案是:因为我们有几千年的历史和文化,我们是人的时候他们还是猴,我们有九百六十万平方公里的土地,我们的经济增长10%,我们有四大发明、万里长城,我们有56个民族、长江黄河,我们曾经傲视群雄,如今大国崛起。这些事实(人与猴的部分除外)都是我们引以自豪的,但光靠这些还做不到真正的不卑不亢。

反省自己的不足,提醒自己不要沉迷于历史,忽略现在与未来,这固然重要,但也不是关键。

真正的不卑不亢更应该是发自内心的一种根本信念——世界上的人不论种族、肤色、男女、国家大小强弱,作为人,都是平等的。在这个基础上的自信与反省才是坚实的、健康的、和谐的。

如果你早晨醒来发现自己是卢旺达的公民,你的国家贫穷,弱小,全世界都曾把你的国家与种族仇杀连在一起,你,还能让自己阳光吗?如果你是菲律宾公民,殖民的历史让你的名字前面是法语,后面是西班牙语,你的官方语言是英语,你还自信吗?如果你坚信这颗星球上人人平等,那你会依然自信地微笑。

京都国歌

唐朝是中国历史上最辉煌的朝代,我们为之骄傲。但漫步在今天的西安街头,已经很难寻觅到当年长安的清晰轮廓了。

想看看长安大概是个什么样子吗?去日本的京都吧。京都当年就是按照长安的结构、建筑和规划建设起来的城市。我们的长安,如今模糊朦胧,而日本的京都保存完好。这不能不说是我们的一个遗憾。

离开京都的那天,打了一辆车。出租车司机问我是哪里来的。中国,我答道。话音刚落不久,突然,《义勇军进行曲》的旋律冲进了我的耳膜。原来,司机的车载MP3上录了几十个国家的国歌,拉到哪里的客人就给放哪里的国歌。高兴之余,当时的一个想法是:多奇怪啊,咱们国歌产生的背景,恰恰是当年日本侵略中国的时候,如果司机知道这个事实会怎么想呢?他还会放中国的国歌给我听吗?他又是不是应该先替他当年侵略中国的爷爷们和那个几个喜欢作秀的政客们向车里的几个中国人道个歉,再放音乐?

算了算了,想得太多了,太复杂了。看着京都出租车司机脸上朴实简单的微笑,坐着被国歌围绕的出租车穿行在京都的大街小巷,就让我自信地享受这个美妙的瞬间吧。

愿中日世代友好……

http://news.163.com/07/0327/09/3AJ3D2I2000121EP.html

Monday, March 26, 2007

东方黑,太阳落!






网易重庆渝中网友(211.158.97.*)的原贴:
东方黑,太阳落
中国钉子户有话说
他为自己争权利
他为自己谋幸福
他教大家这样活
呼儿咳约
他教大家这样活
  
东方黑,太阳落
中国钉子户有话说
恶人强拆心头烙
官商相护竞抢夺
你还让人民活不活?
屁眼黑哟
你还让人民活不活?
  
东方黑,太阳落
中国钉子户有话说
与民争利变成官商们的工作
却拿公共利益来盅惑
民脂民膏齐挥霍
屁眼黑哟
民脂民膏齐挥霍
  
东方黑,太阳落
西方钉子户怎样活
一扇陈旧老磨坊
憋死威廉老国王
风能进,雨能进,国王不能进
西方人给我们上一课
做人就该这样活
呼儿咳哟
做人就该这样活

我爱
我爱重庆的山 我爱重庆的水 我爱重庆这座城
我恨
我恨重庆的官 我恨重庆的吏 我恨生活不如意

恶搞史上最强钉子户(ZT) II







网易重庆渝中网友(211.158.97.*)的原贴:
东方黑,太阳落
中国钉子户有话说
他为自己争权利
他为自己谋幸福
他教大家这样活
呼儿咳约
他教大家这样活
  
东方黑,太阳落
中国钉子户有话说
恶人强拆心头烙
官商相护竞抢夺
你还让人民活不活?
屁眼黑哟
你还让人民活不活?
  
东方黑,太阳落
中国钉子户有话说
与民争利变成官商们的工作
却拿公共利益来盅惑
民脂民膏齐挥霍
屁眼黑哟
民脂民膏齐挥霍
  
东方黑,太阳落
西方钉子户怎样活
一扇陈旧老磨坊
憋死威廉老国王
风能进,雨能进,国王不能进
西方人给我们上一课
做人就该这样活
呼儿咳哟
做人就该这样活

我爱
我爱重庆的山 我爱重庆的水 我爱重庆这座城
我恨
我恨重庆的官 我恨重庆的吏 我恨生活不如意

恶搞史上最强钉子户(ZT)







引用第13楼人在天涯于2007-03-23 19:13发表的“”:
吴萍杨武赋
  吴萍杨武者,夫妻也,结发于陋市之里,泯然于草民之间。昔者杨武曾以善武闻名,但报国无路,厕身于锱铢之营,只求独善其身也。俟得中年,置微业于九龙坡,以期颐口养家也。不期巨商窥伺此地,勾结衙府,强购此地,当地土著士绅,敢怒而不敢言,签卖家之约,所得微资,尚难以置业,此后众房披靡。唯吴杨二人独守将覆之巢,危楼独立,已近三载。近日衙府昏判,敕令速拆,二人升国旗于楼上,誓与楼共存亡。
  夫家者,人之本也。有人而后有家,有家而后有国。观今者,家财倘不保,国资频为鼠盗。奸人居于庙堂之中,上矫君意,下乱民心。所谓开发商者,以微资驱民于水火,运国库窃利于私缗,实国之蠹也。商官勾结,为民者,足下一寸土不保,八尺之身何托?
  昔有金庸曾文赞郭靖黄蓉守襄阳,侠之大者,为国为民。今观吴杨二人守危楼,心謂为私,实则为国。实有郭黄二人之风。倘使人人皆能戮力维权,贪吏奸商将无地自存,黑匪盗抢将不容于世,天地清明,请看今日之域中,竟是谁家之天下!

In China, Fight Over Development Creates a Star [NY Times]




March 26, 2007
Chongqing Journal

By HOWARD W. FRENCH

CHONGQING, China, March 23 — For weeks a dispute had drawn attention from people all across China as a simple homeowner stared down the forces of large-scale redevelopment that are sweeping this country, blocking the preparation of a gigantic construction site by an act of sheer will.

Chinese bloggers were the first to spread the news of a house perched atop a tall, thimble-shaped piece of land like Mont St. Michel in the middle of a vast excavation. Newspapers dove in next, followed by national television. Then, in a way that is common in China whenever an event begins to take on hints of political overtones, the story virtually disappeared from the news media, bloggers here said, after the government decreed that the subject was suddenly out of bounds.

Still, the “nail house,” as many here have called it because of the homeowner’s tenacity, like a nail that cannot be pulled out, remains the most popular current topic among bloggers in China.

It has a universal resonance in a country where rich developers are seen to be in cahoots with politicians and where both enjoy unchallenged sway. Each year, China is roiled by tens of thousands of riots and demonstrations, and few issues pack as much emotional force as the discontent of people who are suddenly uprooted, told they must make way for a new skyscraper or golf course or industrial zone.

What drove interest in the Chongqing case was the uncanny ability of the homeowner to hold out for so long. Stories are legion in Chinese cities of the arrest or even beating of people who protest too vigorously against their eviction and relocation. In one often-heard twist, holdouts are summoned to the local police station, and return home only to find their house already demolished. How had this owner, a woman no less, managed? Millions wondered.

Part of the answer, which upon meeting her takes only a moment to discover, is that Wu Ping is anything but an ordinary woman. With her dramatic lock of hair precisely combed and pinned in the back, a form-flattering bright red coat, high cheekbones and wide, excited eyes, the tall, 49-year-old restaurant entrepreneur knows how to attract attention — a potent weapon in China’s new media age, in which people leverage public opinion and appeals to the national image to influence the authorities.

“For over two years they haven’t allowed me access to my property,” said Ms. Wu, her arms flailing as she led a brisk walk through the Yangjiaping neighborhood here. It is an area in the throes of large-scale redevelopment, with broad avenues, big shopping malls and a recently built elevated monorail line, from whose platform nearly everyone stops to gawk at the nail house.

Within moments of her arrival at the locked gate of the excavated construction site, a crowd began to gather. The people, many of them workers with sunken cheeks, dressed in grimy clothes, regarded Ms. Wu with expressions of wonderment. Some of them exchanged stories about how they had been forced to relocate, and soothed each other with comments about how it all could not be helped.

From inside the gates, a state television crew began filming.

“If it were an ordinary person, they would have hired thugs and beat her up,” said a woman dressed in a green sweater who was drawn by the throng. “Ordinary people don’t dare fight with the developers. They’re too strong.”

Earlier this month, the National People’s Congress passed a historic law guaranteeing private property rights to China’s swelling ranks of urban, middle-class homeowners, among others. Some here attributed Ms. Wu’s success to that, as well as her knack for generating publicity.

“In the past, they would have just knocked it down,” said an 80-year-old woman who said she used to be a neighbor of Ms. Wu. “Now, that’s forbidden because Beijing has put out the word that these things should be done in a reasonable way.”

Between frenzied telephone calls to reporters and to city officials, Ms. Wu, who stood at the center of the crowd with her brother, a 6-foot-3 decorative stone dealer who wore his brown hair in jerri curls, stated her own case with a slightly different spin.

“I have more faith than others,” she began. “I believe that this is my legal property, and if I cannot protect my own rights, it makes a mockery of the property law just passed. In a democratic and lawful society, a person has the legal right to manage one’s own property.”

Tian Yihang, a local college student, spoke glowingly of her in an interview at the monorail station. “This is a peculiar situation,” he said, with a bit of understatement. “I admire the owner for being so persistent in her principles. In China, such things shock the common mind.”

Ms. Wu will in all likelihood lose her battle. Indeed, developers recently filed administrative motions to allow them to demolish her lonely building. Certainly, the local authorities are eager to see the last of her.

“During the process of demolition, 280 households were all satisfied with their compensation and moved,” said Ren Zhongping, a city housing official. “Wu was the only one we had to dismantle forcibly. She has the value of her house in her heart, but what she has in mind is not practical. It’s far beyond the standards of compensation decided by owners of housing and the professional appraisal organ.”

With the street so choked with onlookers that traffic began to back up, Ms. Wu’s brother, Wu Jian, began waving a newspaper above the crowd, pointing to pictures of Ms. Wu’s husband, a local martial arts champion, who was scheduled to appear in a highly publicized tournament that evening. “He’s going into our building and will plant a flag there,” Mr. Wu announced.

Moments later, as the crowd began to thin, a Chinese flag banner appeared on the roof with a hand-painted banner that read: “A citizen’s legal property is not to be encroached upon.”

Asked how his brother-in-law had managed to get inside the locked site and climb the escarpment on which the house sits perched, he said, with a wink, “Magic.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/world/asia/26cnd-china.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

Emerging Republican Minority [ NY Times Op-Ed ]


March 26, 2007

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Remember how the 2004 election was supposed to have demonstrated, once and for all, that conservatism was the future of American politics? I do: early in 2005, some colleagues in the news media urged me, in effect, to give up. “The election settled some things,” I was told.

But at this point 2004 looks like an aberration, an election won with fear-and-smear tactics that have passed their sell-by date. Republicans no longer have a perceived edge over Democrats on national security — and without that edge, they stand revealed as ideologues out of step with an increasingly liberal American public.

Right now the talk of the political chattering classes is a report from the Pew Research Center showing a precipitous decline in Republican support. In 2002 equal numbers of Americans identified themselves as Republicans and Democrats, but since then the Democrats have opened up a 15-point advantage.

Part of the Republican collapse surely reflects public disgust with the Bush administration. The gap between the parties will probably get even wider when — not if — more and worse tales of corruption and abuse of power emerge.

But polling data on the issues, from Pew and elsewhere, suggest that the G.O.P.’s problems lie as much with its ideology as with one man’s disastrous reign.

For the conservatives who run today’s Republican Party are devoted, above all, to the proposition that government is always the problem, never the solution. For a while the American people seemed to agree; but lately they’ve concluded that sometimes government is the solution, after all, and they’d like to see more of it.

Consider, for example, the question of whether the government should provide fewer services in order to cut spending, or provide more services even if this requires higher spending. According to the American National Election Studies, in 1994, the year the Republicans began their 12-year control of Congress, those who favored smaller government had the edge, by 36 to 27. By 2004, however, those in favor of bigger government had a 43-to-20 lead.

And public opinion seems to have taken a particularly strong turn in favor of universal health care. Gallup reports that 69 percent of the public believes that “it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage,” up from 59 percent in 2000.

The main force driving this shift to the left is probably rising income inequality. According to Pew, there has recently been a sharp increase in the percentage of Americans who agree with the statement that “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.” Interestingly, the big increase in disgruntlement over rising inequality has come among the relatively well off — those making more than $75,000 a year.

Indeed, even the relatively well off have good reason to feel left behind in today’s economy, because the big income gains have been going to a tiny, super-rich minority. It’s not surprising, under those circumstances, that most people favor a stronger safety net — which they might need — even at the expense of higher taxes, much of which could be paid by the ever-richer elite.

And in the case of health care, there’s also the fact that the traditional system of employer-based coverage is gradually disintegrating. It’s no wonder, then, that a bit of socialized medicine is looking good to most Americans.

So what does this say about the political outlook? It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. But at this point it looks as if we’re seeing an emerging Republican minority.

After all, Democratic priorities — in particular, on health care, where John Edwards has set the standard for all the candidates with a specific proposal to finance universal coverage with higher taxes on the rich — seem to be more or less in line with what the public wants.

Republicans, on the other hand, are still wallowing in nostalgia — nostalgia for the days when people thought they were heroic terrorism-fighters, nostalgia for the days when lots of Americans hated Big Government.

Many Republicans still imagine that what their party needs is a return to the conservative legacy of Ronald Reagan. It will probably take quite a while in the political wilderness before they take on board the message of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s comeback in California — which is that what they really need is a return to the moderate legacy of Dwight Eisenhower.


http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/opinion/26krugman.html?pagewanted=print

Saturday, March 24, 2007

有史以来最牛的开发商 ● 张从兴

 最近几天,重庆市内的一栋“孤岛”式的房子,因为户主杨武、吴苹夫妇拒绝搬迁,而成为海内外媒体关注的焦点。而这户人家,也赢得了“中国有史以来最牛的钉子户”的美名。

  可我认为,杨武、吴苹夫妇只不过是尽一切力量来设法保住自己的资产,维护自己的合法权益。以困兽犹斗、背水一战来形容他们倒是十分贴切,说他们牛似乎还谈不上。

  真正牛的不是他们,而是遍布中国各地,通过各种手段来迫迁居民,又不给予合理赔偿的房地产开发商。之所以说他们牛,是因为他们干了中国近现代史上最有钱的富豪和最有权的最高领导人都干不了的事。

  到过杭州的人,都知道杭州城东南角元宝街有座占地10.5亩的豪宅。这座豪宅原来的主人,就是清朝末年大名鼎鼎的“红顶商人”——中国首富胡雪岩。胡雪岩的“红顶商人”可不是花钱买来的,也不是和什么地方官员勾结弄到手的,而是因为协助左宗棠兴办洋务,有功于国家,受到清廷嘉奖,封布政使衔,赐红顶戴,紫禁城骑马,赏穿黄马褂。用当代的语言来说,就是享受副省级政治待遇,能够自由开车进出中南海的民营企业家。

  胡雪岩当年在建造这栋豪宅时,遇到了麻烦事——大宅西北角的一家剃头铺,成了钉子户,原因当然不是胡首富不舍得花银子。事实上,胡首富愿意给剃头铺老板比市价多出好几倍的赔偿,但是人家就是不肯搬走。

  以胡雪岩当年的财力和权势,如果决心要赶走剃头匠,太容易了,只要派几个家丁把铺子烧了就了事。可是,胡老板一直到死都没有去动剃头匠。

  另一个例子是浙江奉化的蒋氏故居。这个蒋家可不是普通的蒋家,其主人是曾经领导国民革命军东征、北伐,曾经领导中华民族全民抗战的中华民国总统、中国国民党总裁、国民政府军事委员会委员长蒋介石!

  蒋介石在南京国民政府成立,当上总统后,想扩建奉化老家的旧房子,于是要让周围的邻居拆迁,好给蒋家腾出地盘。邻居们得知蒋家扩建房子的事后,都纷纷让出自己的宅基地,而蒋家也是给足了赔偿的。

  可是,偏偏有个不识相的邻居周顺房,硬是不肯搬。于是,就有些地方官,背着蒋介石给周顺房施压。开始时,周顺房不为所动,后来实在顶不住压力,只好退让,却心不甘情不愿的说了句:“瑞元(瑞元是蒋介石的小名)当皇帝了,他让我搬,我不得不搬……”远在南京的蒋介石得知此事后,把那些地方官臭骂了一顿,特别交代不要强制周家拆迁。

直到今日,奉化蒋氏故居面临剡溪的大院右侧,还有一个“周顺房千层饼店”,嵌在蒋家大院的一角。这就是周顺房当年留下来的“钉子户”了。
  论钱,估计当代中国没有一个房地产开发商或民营企业家,能阔过“红顶商人”胡雪岩;论权,他们更不可能强过集党政军权力于一身的强人蒋介石,可是他们却能毫不理会户主同不同意,说拆就拆。这一点,是胡首富和蒋总统望尘莫及的,所以说他们是有史以来最牛的开发商。

http://zaobao.com/zg/zg070325_509.html

Lopsided Hong Kong Election Still Draws Interest

March 24, 2007

By KEITH BRADSHER
HONG KONG, Sunday, March 25 — As 796 electors prepared to cast their votes on Sunday in Hong Kong’s first contested election for chief executive, the Beijing-backed incumbent appeared almost certain to win re-election by a wide margin.

But the race has drawn more attention than expected here and across the border in mainland China.

For the first time, a democracy advocate, Alan Leong, has been able to get on the ballot by obtaining nominations from more than 100 of the 796 electors, who are mainly business people and politicians with links to mainland China. Hong Kong has also held its first two debates pitting a leader of the territory against an opponent actively promoting democracy.

The campaign has grown sufficiently contentious that mainland authorities have temporarily blocked signals from CNN even when Beijing’s favored candidate, Donald Tsang, has articulated his position on eventual democracy here.

People in the neighboring Guangdong province can receive television signals from Hong Kong, and have been expressing envy to Hong Kong television crews over this territory’s limited liberties.

“They say, why don’t we have the same thing for the election of our governors?” Mr. Tsang said in an interview Friday, adding that he did not have a position on whether this was good or bad.

Mr. Tsang said in the interview, with five foreign correspondents, that he wanted to introduce in the next five years a democracy plan that would satisfy the 60 percent of Hong Kong’s people who consistently tell pollsters that they want a system of one person, one vote.

But he declined to provide any details. He tried and failed in 2005 to fashion a consensus that would satisfy democracy advocates without upsetting Beijing leaders, who worry about losing control here, and without antagonizing local business leaders, some of whom warn that greater democracy could lead to demands for the introduction of a minimum wage and greater welfare spending.

Michael DeGolyer, the director of the Hong Kong Transition Project, a group of academics studying the evolution of democratic liberties in Hong Kong, said that Mr. Tsang’s comments over the past five months of the campaign showed a discernible shift toward greater enthusiasm for addressing the question of greater democracy here.

Mr. Tsang is considered virtually certain to win because he has Beijing’s backing and was nominated by 641 of the 796 electors. Only 132 electors chose Mr. Leong.

With unemployment falling and the economy booming, polls by Hong Kong University and other groups suggest that if the general public could vote, they would overwhelmingly choose Mr. Tsang. He has four decades of experience in public service while Mr. Leong is a former chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association who emerged as the pro-democracy candidate after better-known politicians decided that it was hopeless to run against Mr. Tsang.

Roughly 200,000 professionals among Hong Kong’s 7 million people were eligible to vote for electors late last year, choosing slightly over half of the electors. The rest of the electors hold their position because of the offices they hold, such as being a member of the legislature here or of the National People’s Congress in Beijing.

Sunday’s elections also represent the first time that a secret ballot has been used to choose the next leader of Hong Kong. This has prompted speculation that some electors, secretly unhappy with Mr. Tsang but obliged to support him publicly to satisfy Beijing, might cast blank ballots while in the privacy of voting booths.

Stanley Ho, an outspoken supporter of Mr. Tsang who controls many of the casinos in nearby Macao, caused controversy two weeks ago by saying there was a way to find out who cast which vote. Mr. Ho later said that he had only meant to cite a local expression that every secret eventually becomes known.

Election officials have been issuing almost daily assurances ever since that ballots will be truly secret, with no photography allowed in the voting area and no serial numbers or other identifying marks on the ballots.

“It will leave some lurking doubt, so unless people have strong views, they will vote for Donald Tsang,” said Margaret Ng, a pro-democracy lawmaker who is an elector and supports Mr. Leong.

Longtime democracy advocates in Hong Kong remain divided over the wisdom of participating in elections with rules that make it certain they will lose. The two most prominent figures in the pro-democracy movement here — Martin Lee, the founding chairman of the Democratic Party, and Anson Chan, a former second-ranking official in the Hong Kong government — each declined to run this spring.

Under the British, who ruled Hong Kong until its return to Chinese rule in 1997, colonial governors were appointed by London with practically no regard for sentiment here. The initial rules drafted by Beijing officials for choosing chief executives were highly restrictive — there were only 400 electors in the first election in late 1996, and each elector’s name and vote were posted on a board, a move that made it impossible to provide secret support for democracy advocates.

With those rules, the democracy movement boycotted chief executive elections in 1996 and 2002, both of which were won by Tung Chee-hwa, a shipping magnate. When Mr. Tung stepped down in 2005 and elections were held for the two years remaining in his second five-year term, the chairman of the Democratic Party, the largest opposition party, tried to run but failed to secure the 100 nominations from electors necessary to obtain a place on the ballot.

The Democratic Party and the similar Civic Party have enthusiastically backed Mr. Leong’s candidacy this year, but other pro-democracy groups continue to boycott the political process, most notably the influential Catholic diocese of Hong Kong, which has the right to name seven electors.

Cardinal Joseph Zen, the leader of the church, said in an interview that while the Vatican would allow church officials to serve as electors, he and other clergy had chosen not to do so because the elections were not a democratic process.

Instead, the diocese has allowed parishioners to apply to fill the seven spots as electors, and has given no instruction to these parishioners on how to vote, Cardinal Zen said.

In a separate development, Cardinal Zen said that the Vatican had just turned down his offer of his resignation as bishop of Hong Kong. It is standard practice in the Catholic Church for bishops to offer their resignation when they turn 75, as Cardinal Zen did in January; he would have remained a cardinal even if he stepped down as bishop, and had said that he would like to be relieved of his duties here so that he could focus more on relations with China.


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/24/world/asia/25hong.html?ref=world&pagewanted=print

For a Europe Remade, a Celebration in Uncertainty

By ROGER COHEN
International Herald Tribune
SEVILLE

It is not easy to think of Spain as Poland. Stroll around this southern city at dusk, beneath the palms, beside the handsome bridges on the Guadalquivir River, past the chic boutiques and the Häagen-Dazs outlet, the Gothic cathedral and the Moorish palace, and it is scarcely Warsaw that comes to mind.

But, insisted Adam Michnik, the Polish writer, "Poland is the new Spain, absolutely." He continued: "Spain was a poor country when it joined the European Union 21 years ago. It no longer is. We will see the same results in Poland."

If history is prologue, Michnik is likely to be right. The EU, which celebrates the 50th anniversary of its founding treaty this weekend, is more often associated with Brussels bureaucrats setting the maximum curvature of cucumbers than with transformational power. But step by step, stipulation by stipulation, Europe has been remade.

What began in limited fashion in 1957 as a drive to remove tariff barriers and to free commercial exchange has ended by banishing war from Europe, enriching it beyond measure, and producing what Michnik called "the first revolution that has been absolutely positive."

Asia, still beset by nationalisms and open World War II wounds, can only envy the EU's conjuring away of agonizing history, a process that involved a voluntary dilution of national sovereignty unthinkable in the United States.

This achievement will be symbolized when leaders from the 27 EU member states gather this weekend in Berlin - the city that stood at the crux of violent 20th-century European division. They will sign a "Berlin Declaration" celebrating the peace, freedom, wealth and democracy that the Treaty of Rome has now helped spread among almost half a billion Europeans.

But it is a celebration in uncertainty. A bigger EU, expanded to include the ex-Communist states of Central Europe, has proved largely ungovernable. A constitution designed to streamline its governance was rejected in 2005. Which bits of it, if any, can be revived remains murky.

Integration has been a European triumph. But it has often failed with large-scale Muslim immigration, creating complex security issues that the Union is struggling to address.

"The EU is on autopilot, in stalemate, in deep crisis," said Joschka Fischer, the former German foreign minister, who seven years ago called for a European federation run by a true European government. "There is a lack of political will to create the efficient institutions enlargement demanded. You can't double the size of a company without changing the way it works."

The founding treaty, signed by the six founding members on March 25, 1957, rested on creative ambiguity. It called for an "ever closer union among the European peoples"; behind it lay dreams of a United States of Europe. The bold politics nestled inside basic economics - making a common market - and was thus rendered unthreatening. A common currency, the euro, emerged in 2002.

Still, the ambiguity persisted; it has proved divisive. Economic power has been built more effectively than political or strategic unity. Military power and integration have lagged. Europeans tend to do peacekeeping these days rather than wars.

Recent disputes - from Iraq to current American plans to install missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic - have shown how hard it is for the EU to speak with one voice or, as Fischer put it, "define what strategic interests it has in common." Nonetheless, "autopilot" in the EU still amounts to a lot.

It will ensure, for example, that over $100 billion is sent to Poland between now and 2013 to upgrade the country's infrastructure and agriculture, a sum that dwarfs American aid. Similarly, more than $190 billion has been devoted to Spain since it joined the EU in 1986, 11 years after the end of Franco's dictatorship.

The result has been Spain's extraordinary transition from a country whose per-capita output stood at 71 percent of the European average in 1985, to 90 percent in 2004, and now stands at 100.7 percent of the median of the 27 members.

In the space of a generation, Spain has moved into the club of the well off. Last year it created 40 percent of the new jobs among countries using the euro. Its EU-stimulated confidence is palpable.

Growth is a terrific trauma dampener. Dictatorship in Spain, 21 years after EU membership, seems utterly remote. Poland under the Kaczynski brothers is far from overcoming the painful legacy of communist tyranny, but by 2025 - its 21-year membership anniversary - it seems safe to say that healing will be advanced. The potential fallout of divisive rule is curtailed by EU membership.

"The EU slashes political risk," said Chris Huhne, a Liberal Democrat member of the British Parliament. "It also exercises a soft power on its periphery that has far more transformational impact than the American neocon agenda in the Middle East. Countries in the Balkans wanting to come into the European democratic family have to adapt."

That adaptation is economic as well as political. The creation of something approximating an American single market has been a powerful force in ending cartels and monopolies, introducing competition, pushing privatizations and generally promoting the market over heavily managed capitalism.

Open skies for freer airline competition, and the slashed fares that go with it, are just one visible expression of this process. "Europe would be immensely less competitive and less prosperous without the single market framework," Huhne said.

Which is not to say, of course, that European capitalism is U.S. capitalism. It is less fluid; it creates fewer jobs. It is also less harsh.

Indeed, defense of what is called the European social model - one of universal health care and extensive unemployment benefits - has become a tenet of European identity in contrast to an America where 45 million citizens (about the population of Spain) lack health insurance.

How far that identity, as opposed to national identities, exists 50 years after the Treaty of Rome is a matter of dispute. Only 2 percent of EU inhabitants of working age live in member states other than their own.

But a survey in the French daily Le Figaro showed that 71 percent of French people now feel some pride in a European identity. The Erasmus program, established by the former EU Commission president, Jacques Delors, has helped about 1.5 million young Europeans spend a year studying in European universities outside their own countries.

The hit movie "L'Auberge Espagnole," or "The Spanish Inn," captured the Erasmus experience: jumbled cultures, linguistic and amorous discovery, and the births of new identities from this mingling. Countless Eurocouples have not been the least of the EU's achievements.

How this generation will deal with the EU's central conundrum - what is often called the issue of its "finality" or end point - remains an open question. It is open geographically: The Union could end at the Iranian and Iraqi borders if Turkey joins. It is also open politically: How much of a federation, with its own executive and legislature, its own president and foreign minister, should Europe be?

The EU has been upended by communism's unexpected demise. The European Economic Community, as established in 1957, did not try to liberate the Continent; it tried to ensure that half of it cohered in freedom.

"Europe was initially built on accepting with more or less equanimity to forget about half of it, including historic centers of European civilization like Prague or Budapest," said Jonathan Eyal, a British strategic analyst. "And the irony is that it is precisely the return of these centers that has thrown the EU into existential crisis today."

That crisis is partly procedural. It is not clear how you get things done in a Europe of 27. It is partly of identity. The rapidly cohering Europe with a Franco- German core is gone, and nobody quite knows what to put in its place. And it is partly political. The conception of Europe in post-Communist countries is simply different.

These differences, which lurked behind the rejection of the EU constitution, have been most apparent of late in the flaring tensions between Germany and Poland, two countries whose reconciliation has been one of the EU's conspicuous miracles.

Germany has been utterly remade by an integrating Europe to the point that more people worry today about German pacifism than expansionism. But Poland is just entering that transformational process; under Lech Kaczynski's conservative presidency its wariness of the pooling of sovereignty inherent in the EU has been clear.

"Poland under Kaczynski is anti-federalist, quite nationalistic, and very conservative," said Karl Kaiser, a German political analyst. "It looks out and tends to see the old Germany and the old expansionist Russia. It has not taken part mentally in the long process of integration."

So Warsaw sees Moscow-Berlin plots of sinister memory when Russia and Germany agree to build a gas pipeline directly between each other, under the Baltic Sea rather than over Poland.

It pushes hard, but unsuccessfully, for references to Europe's Christian roots in the Berlin declaration. It contemplates, as does the Czech Republic, installing part of a new U.S. missile defense system against Iran, and does so despite German unease, Russian fury and the absence of any EU or NATO consensus.

Of course, what Poles and Czechs see beyond Germany or Russia is the America that defeated the Soviet Union and freed them: Poles, as Michnik noted, "tend to be more pro-American than Americans."

Whatever tempering of this sentiment Iraq has brought, Poland and the rest of Central and Eastern Europe remain more pro-American than the Europe of the Treaty of Rome and the Union's first decades. With Britain they now form a club within the club that sees Europe more as market than political force, more as loose alignment than strategic union.

"For Britain, Europe is a convenience rather than a concept," said Karsten Voigt, a German Foreign Ministry official.

This is an intractable division. It seems likely to affect Europe's search for strategic cohesion for many years. The Bush administration has accentuated the split with its ad hoc, treat- NATO-as-a-tool-box approach to its European alliances. That stance was evident at the time of the Iraq invasion and is evident again today over the missile defense system. Coalitions of the willing tend to make the unwilling bristle.

At a deeper level, Homo europeus, formed over 50 years, now lies at some distance from Homo americanus. Because it is process that has delivered answers to long unanswerable European problems like the German question, post-heroic Europeans tend to favor procedure, talk, international institutions and incremental measures to resolve issues where heroic Americans tend to favor resolve backed by force.

Peace is much more of an absolute value today in Europe than in the United States. Opposition to the death penalty and commitment to reversing global warming are also near universal values, where they remain contentious in America. So what? The ties that bind the Atlantic family remain strong.

But, unglued by the Cold War's end, they are not as strong as they were. As Kaiser noted, "the European Union would not exist without American support." It was American forces, not European, that stared down the Soviet Union and delivered the Europe whole and free being celebrated in Berlin.

Yet the celebration is European rather than Euro-American. The EU sees the United States today more through the prism of Baghdad than Berlin. Generations pass; memories fade; perceptions change. That is inevitable. The great achievement of the EU has been to absorb those changes and zigzags within the broader push for unity.

That push, that journey, is incomplete. But Europeans have learned, as Eyal said, that "traveling can be just as good as arriving." Perpetual difficulty has been the EU's perpetual stimulus. A United States of Europe remains a distant, probably unreachable dream. At the same time, continent-wide war has become an unthinkable nightmare.

"The EU is an unfinished project, but so what?" said Voigt. "Why be nervous? We have time."

Time enough even, the 50-year history of the EU suggests, for Turkey to become the new Poland.



http://select.nytimes.com/iht/2007/03/24/world/IHT-24europe.html?pagewanted=1&ref=world