謝謝波士頓老陳在敝blog留言。因為事忙所以近日並無更新網誌﹐希望明年有更多時間。
對我來說﹐成為美國公民是一個讓我感到鬆一口氣的事情。整個過程從申請美國綠卡到在12月17日宣誓成為美國公民﹐擾攘了差不多八年的時間。
當我在二十年前隻身到麻省求學時﹐絕對不能夠相信整個過程會這樣冗長﹐會搞到今時今日﹗不過未知點樣辛苦過﹐又可來會珍惜呢﹖
最後補祝各位網友聖誕快樂﹗
Friday, December 26, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
終於收到獲得公民宣誓通知
在等待了超過兩個月後﹐今天終於受到美國公民與移民局(United States Citizenship & Immigration Service) 的通知﹐我可以在下個星期三在華盛頓會議中心(Washington Convention Center)出席移民宣誓儀式﹐正式成為美國公民。
搞了八年﹐終於等到這一日﹗
搞了八年﹐終於等到這一日﹗
Thursday, November 27, 2008
華盛頓郵報(The Washington Post)一篇有關長毛的文章
華盛頓郵報(The Washington Post)在今日(11月27日)刊登一篇有關梁國雄(長毛)的文章.
在此公諸同好﹗
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/26/AR2008112603853.html?hpid=moreheadlines
A Democracy Activist Beijing Puts Up With
For Hong Kong's 'Long Hair,' Location Makes the Difference
By Maureen Fan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, November 27, 2008; A16
HONG KONG -- As soon as legislator Leung Kwok-hung joined the handful of demonstrators milling outside the Hong Kong Jockey Club on a recent day, their protest sprang to life.
Instantly recognizable by his waist-length ponytail, Leung grabbed a bullhorn and began to harangue the Sichuan provincial government officials gathered inside. The club, once a bastion of British colonial rule, was hosting a VIP luncheon to thank racing fans for their contributions to earthquake relief.
"Release Huang Qi!" Leung shouted under the watchful eye of police and club security guards. He was referring to the Chinese dissident jailed after campaigning for parents who'd blamed their children's deaths in the quake on shoddy school construction. "Respect human rights! Severely punish corrupt officials!"
Such outbursts are not usually tolerated on the Chinese mainland. But here in Hong Kong, the chain-smoking democracy activist and constant thorn in Beijing's side has perfected the art of the drive-by protest. Leung's well-rehearsed demonstrations -- many on behalf of the poor and the working class -- illustrate the differences in political culture that remain between Hong Kong and the mainland, even though both answer to Beijing. More than a decade after the British formally handed the island over to the Chinese, Hong Kong residents still enjoy a greater degree of free speech than mainlanders under China's "one country, two systems" policy.
Authorities here generally treat Leung respectfully. Even members of Hong Kong's famously capitalist middle class have come to appreciate him for daring to say no to the government, although some find his tactics tiresome.
Now, an economic downturn and Beijing's determination to stave off democratization efforts in Hong Kong have combined to make the self-described Marxist revolutionary more relevant than ever. Leung did better than expected in September's Legislative Council elections. He received fewer votes than he did four years ago, but he comfortably kept his seat in a district contested by 29 candidates from seven political parties, just a month after a wave of pro-Beijing Olympic spirit washed over the territory.
Leung's success as a member of the radical League of Social Democrats -- and the success of other grass-roots candidates -- has surprised Hong Kong's establishment. But it comes amid anxiety among the city's 7 million residents over the economy, as well as growing dissatisfaction with the central government.
Leung, 52 and known to everyone as "Long Hair," has vowed not to cut his hair until Beijing apologizes for the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989. His smoke-filled office is filled with Che Guevara paraphernalia, and he is often seen in his trademark T-shirt featuring the Argentine revolutionary.
"I love him so much," said Wong Kingyan, a 26-year-old trading company employee. "He doesn't wear a suit or a tie, he has a kind of modern and free spirit, and he says what he wants. When I see his protests on TV, I feel he really cares for ordinary people and wants to do something for us."
The son of a servant in a colonial British household, Leung learned English by listening to the BBC. His mother took him to participate in left-wing union activities when he was young, and in middle school he joined a Maoist student movement. After graduating from high school, he worked as a bartender, a laborer and a car washer. Leung then joined a political group, the Revolutionary Marxists, which helped him land his first jail term in 1979 for organizing a rally in front of the official New China News Agency. He served a month, for unlawful assembly.
Leung was a well-known street activist for two decades before he decided to run for the council in 2000. He lost that race, but was elected in 2004, an outcome that surprised many. "Leung, with no background or connections to the elite, is neither a tycoon nor a barrister with a degree from a top-tier school in the U.S. or Europe," the Beijing-based intellectual Yu Jie wrote in a recent essay, noting Leung's election by a large margin. "Behind this miracle lies the people's aversion to autocracy."
During the government-led Olympic celebrations, Leung got himself ejected from the main equestrian venue for holding up a sign that read "No Dictatorship" and shouting "End one-party rule!"
Earlier this month, as Leung climbed aboard streetcars and walked through the city's open-air food stalls, people smiled and waved, calling out his nickname and asking for news. Occasionally, they also heckled him. "Some say, 'You're a traitor,' " Leung said. "It's politics."
Many in Hong Kong say they prefer a less antagonistic approach to Beijing than Leung's. Chen Kangsong, 48, a tea-shop owner, said he liked Leung's opinions but disagreed with his tactics.
"It's not easy for us ordinary people to make a living," Chen said. "So I welcome his help. But I don't like his style very much. The protests are superficial, trying to draw people's attention. If I were him, I'd use the time to do something more useful."
Leung is known as a champion of the working class, but "rich and middle-class people also like him," said Chinese University political scientist Ivan Choy Chi-keung. "In addition to the economic crisis, Hong Kong people are less and less satisfied with the politics of the current government."
Polls show a drop in support for Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang, Choy said. This year, Beijing announced its long-awaited decision on Hong Kong's request for expanded democratic rights: no direct popular elections or universal suffrage until at least 2017, and then only after candidates are approved by the central government.
"Most Hong Kong citizens want earlier elections," said Lam Wai-man, an assistant professor of politics and public administration at Hong Kong University. "If the government can't reach consensus on granting democracy, Long Hair will gain many more supporters in the future."
Police and Jockey Club officials understand Leung's appeal. Leung had actually been invited to the Jockey Club lunch Nov. 11 as a member of the Legislative Council. Once it was clear he intended to protest, however, he was barred.
"I am part of the community they should listen to," he said of the mainland visitors. "They want money from the Hong Kong people -- they shouldn't just come here like VIPs having a banquet and ignore our opinions about corruption and political repression."
In the middle of his protest, Leung managed to get a Sichuan representative to come out and accept three written complaints against corruption. Minutes later, the bullhorns and signs were packed up, and the protesters and reporters dispersed. Relieved club officials and security guards retreated into the clubhouse.
Researcher Zhang Jie contributed to this report.
在此公諸同好﹗
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/26/AR2008112603853.html?hpid=moreheadlines
A Democracy Activist Beijing Puts Up With
For Hong Kong's 'Long Hair,' Location Makes the Difference
By Maureen Fan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, November 27, 2008; A16
HONG KONG -- As soon as legislator Leung Kwok-hung joined the handful of demonstrators milling outside the Hong Kong Jockey Club on a recent day, their protest sprang to life.
Instantly recognizable by his waist-length ponytail, Leung grabbed a bullhorn and began to harangue the Sichuan provincial government officials gathered inside. The club, once a bastion of British colonial rule, was hosting a VIP luncheon to thank racing fans for their contributions to earthquake relief.
"Release Huang Qi!" Leung shouted under the watchful eye of police and club security guards. He was referring to the Chinese dissident jailed after campaigning for parents who'd blamed their children's deaths in the quake on shoddy school construction. "Respect human rights! Severely punish corrupt officials!"
Such outbursts are not usually tolerated on the Chinese mainland. But here in Hong Kong, the chain-smoking democracy activist and constant thorn in Beijing's side has perfected the art of the drive-by protest. Leung's well-rehearsed demonstrations -- many on behalf of the poor and the working class -- illustrate the differences in political culture that remain between Hong Kong and the mainland, even though both answer to Beijing. More than a decade after the British formally handed the island over to the Chinese, Hong Kong residents still enjoy a greater degree of free speech than mainlanders under China's "one country, two systems" policy.
Authorities here generally treat Leung respectfully. Even members of Hong Kong's famously capitalist middle class have come to appreciate him for daring to say no to the government, although some find his tactics tiresome.
Now, an economic downturn and Beijing's determination to stave off democratization efforts in Hong Kong have combined to make the self-described Marxist revolutionary more relevant than ever. Leung did better than expected in September's Legislative Council elections. He received fewer votes than he did four years ago, but he comfortably kept his seat in a district contested by 29 candidates from seven political parties, just a month after a wave of pro-Beijing Olympic spirit washed over the territory.
Leung's success as a member of the radical League of Social Democrats -- and the success of other grass-roots candidates -- has surprised Hong Kong's establishment. But it comes amid anxiety among the city's 7 million residents over the economy, as well as growing dissatisfaction with the central government.
Leung, 52 and known to everyone as "Long Hair," has vowed not to cut his hair until Beijing apologizes for the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989. His smoke-filled office is filled with Che Guevara paraphernalia, and he is often seen in his trademark T-shirt featuring the Argentine revolutionary.
"I love him so much," said Wong Kingyan, a 26-year-old trading company employee. "He doesn't wear a suit or a tie, he has a kind of modern and free spirit, and he says what he wants. When I see his protests on TV, I feel he really cares for ordinary people and wants to do something for us."
The son of a servant in a colonial British household, Leung learned English by listening to the BBC. His mother took him to participate in left-wing union activities when he was young, and in middle school he joined a Maoist student movement. After graduating from high school, he worked as a bartender, a laborer and a car washer. Leung then joined a political group, the Revolutionary Marxists, which helped him land his first jail term in 1979 for organizing a rally in front of the official New China News Agency. He served a month, for unlawful assembly.
Leung was a well-known street activist for two decades before he decided to run for the council in 2000. He lost that race, but was elected in 2004, an outcome that surprised many. "Leung, with no background or connections to the elite, is neither a tycoon nor a barrister with a degree from a top-tier school in the U.S. or Europe," the Beijing-based intellectual Yu Jie wrote in a recent essay, noting Leung's election by a large margin. "Behind this miracle lies the people's aversion to autocracy."
During the government-led Olympic celebrations, Leung got himself ejected from the main equestrian venue for holding up a sign that read "No Dictatorship" and shouting "End one-party rule!"
Earlier this month, as Leung climbed aboard streetcars and walked through the city's open-air food stalls, people smiled and waved, calling out his nickname and asking for news. Occasionally, they also heckled him. "Some say, 'You're a traitor,' " Leung said. "It's politics."
Many in Hong Kong say they prefer a less antagonistic approach to Beijing than Leung's. Chen Kangsong, 48, a tea-shop owner, said he liked Leung's opinions but disagreed with his tactics.
"It's not easy for us ordinary people to make a living," Chen said. "So I welcome his help. But I don't like his style very much. The protests are superficial, trying to draw people's attention. If I were him, I'd use the time to do something more useful."
Leung is known as a champion of the working class, but "rich and middle-class people also like him," said Chinese University political scientist Ivan Choy Chi-keung. "In addition to the economic crisis, Hong Kong people are less and less satisfied with the politics of the current government."
Polls show a drop in support for Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang, Choy said. This year, Beijing announced its long-awaited decision on Hong Kong's request for expanded democratic rights: no direct popular elections or universal suffrage until at least 2017, and then only after candidates are approved by the central government.
"Most Hong Kong citizens want earlier elections," said Lam Wai-man, an assistant professor of politics and public administration at Hong Kong University. "If the government can't reach consensus on granting democracy, Long Hair will gain many more supporters in the future."
Police and Jockey Club officials understand Leung's appeal. Leung had actually been invited to the Jockey Club lunch Nov. 11 as a member of the Legislative Council. Once it was clear he intended to protest, however, he was barred.
"I am part of the community they should listen to," he said of the mainland visitors. "They want money from the Hong Kong people -- they shouldn't just come here like VIPs having a banquet and ignore our opinions about corruption and political repression."
In the middle of his protest, Leung managed to get a Sichuan representative to come out and accept three written complaints against corruption. Minutes later, the bullhorns and signs were packed up, and the protesters and reporters dispersed. Relieved club officials and security guards retreated into the clubhouse.
Researcher Zhang Jie contributed to this report.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
祝各位感恩節快樂 (2008)
病了個幾星期﹐無更新這個blog﹐依家終於好返D﹗
明天(11月27日﹐星期四)係美國的感恩節﹐今年因為在月頭已經到過紐約﹐所以不會出外旅行﹐加上星期四需要返工﹐所以就留在華盛頓﹐起碼可以賺holiday paid(相等與多一日的工資)何樂而不為呢﹖留待在星期五的“黑色星期五”(Black Friday)當日到商場搵減價貨﹗
祝各位感恩節快樂﹗﹗
明天(11月27日﹐星期四)係美國的感恩節﹐今年因為在月頭已經到過紐約﹐所以不會出外旅行﹐加上星期四需要返工﹐所以就留在華盛頓﹐起碼可以賺holiday paid(相等與多一日的工資)何樂而不為呢﹖留待在星期五的“黑色星期五”(Black Friday)當日到商場搵減價貨﹗
祝各位感恩節快樂﹗﹗
Monday, November 10, 2008
紐約之行 (Fall 2008)
在大選過後到紐約市渡過剛過去的週末﹐但係今次卻選擇坐巴士從華盛頓北上﹐每程足足坐左五個鐘頭車﹐下次真係咪搞。
選擇巴士的原因係價錢平﹐來回車費唔洗四十美金。與坐火車(Amtrak)比較﹐火車快超過一個鐘頭﹐但係火車來回票價就需要成兩百美金。不過下次有得選擇的話﹐我寧願俾多D錢搭火車﹗始終火車座位舒服﹐我條腰骨唔洗受罪﹗
今次到紐約的其中一個節目就係在星期五傍晚到哥倫比亞大學國際事務學院﹐去聽一個關於維吾爾族的講座。題目叫做"Forgotten Communities of Inner Eurasia-China, Central Asia, and the Uyghurs: Exploring the Challenges of Cultural Hybridity"。講者包括來自喬治華盛頓大學的東亞系教授Sean Roberts、喬治城大學的教授James Millward﹔在全美唯一一所設立有關維吾爾族研究學系的印第安納大學布明頓分校(Indiana University, Bloomington)教授Gardner Bovingdon﹐以及自由亞洲電台(Radio Free Asia)的維吾爾語部編輯Nabijan Tursun。 在坐很多都係哥大的研究生﹐也有不少來自中國大陸的學生﹐講座內容也提及疆獨的成因以及維吾爾族文化面臨中國當局推行漢化的威脅。讓我感到欣慰的是所有人均能在問答環節當中平心靜氣的發問以及討論﹐並無所謂“愛國憤青”到場“宣揚民族大義”等搞事動作。
選擇巴士的原因係價錢平﹐來回車費唔洗四十美金。與坐火車(Amtrak)比較﹐火車快超過一個鐘頭﹐但係火車來回票價就需要成兩百美金。不過下次有得選擇的話﹐我寧願俾多D錢搭火車﹗始終火車座位舒服﹐我條腰骨唔洗受罪﹗
今次到紐約的其中一個節目就係在星期五傍晚到哥倫比亞大學國際事務學院﹐去聽一個關於維吾爾族的講座。題目叫做"Forgotten Communities of Inner Eurasia-China, Central Asia, and the Uyghurs: Exploring the Challenges of Cultural Hybridity"。講者包括來自喬治華盛頓大學的東亞系教授Sean Roberts、喬治城大學的教授James Millward﹔在全美唯一一所設立有關維吾爾族研究學系的印第安納大學布明頓分校(Indiana University, Bloomington)教授Gardner Bovingdon﹐以及自由亞洲電台(Radio Free Asia)的維吾爾語部編輯Nabijan Tursun。 在坐很多都係哥大的研究生﹐也有不少來自中國大陸的學生﹐講座內容也提及疆獨的成因以及維吾爾族文化面臨中國當局推行漢化的威脅。讓我感到欣慰的是所有人均能在問答環節當中平心靜氣的發問以及討論﹐並無所謂“愛國憤青”到場“宣揚民族大義”等搞事動作。
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
大選過後
一如預料﹐奧巴馬成功贏得今屆總統大選。在競選期間的互相攻擊言語也成過去。現在係時候收拾心情重新上路﹐解決美國目前的問題。
共和黨今次大選可謂慘敗當中有點好彩幸運﹐參議員少數黨領袖麥康奈爾(Mitchell McConnell﹐美國勞工部長趙小蘭個老公)在選情一度告急之下獲勝。共和黨也有望阻止民主黨在參議院內獲得60個議席的企圖。在眾議院方面﹐對中國持有鷹派立場的眾議院議長佩洛西﹐來自維吉尼亞州費爾法克斯縣(Fairfax County, VA)的共和黨眾議員沃爾夫(Frank Wolf)、來自新澤西州的共和黨眾議員史密斯(Chris Smith)、國會眾議院內的台灣事務議員團的共同主席韋克斯勒(Robert Wexler)、以及伯克利(Shelley Berkley)均成功連任﹐讓我可以放心。雖然美國外交政府並非由國會主導﹐不過卻起著非常巨大以及重要的監督作用。總算成功連任好過無。
共和黨今次大選可謂慘敗當中有點好彩幸運﹐參議員少數黨領袖麥康奈爾(Mitchell McConnell﹐美國勞工部長趙小蘭個老公)在選情一度告急之下獲勝。共和黨也有望阻止民主黨在參議院內獲得60個議席的企圖。在眾議院方面﹐對中國持有鷹派立場的眾議院議長佩洛西﹐來自維吉尼亞州費爾法克斯縣(Fairfax County, VA)的共和黨眾議員沃爾夫(Frank Wolf)、來自新澤西州的共和黨眾議員史密斯(Chris Smith)、國會眾議院內的台灣事務議員團的共同主席韋克斯勒(Robert Wexler)、以及伯克利(Shelley Berkley)均成功連任﹐讓我可以放心。雖然美國外交政府並非由國會主導﹐不過卻起著非常巨大以及重要的監督作用。總算成功連任好過無。
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
依家係時候出來投票﹗
今日係美國大選的日子﹐無論你(或者妳)是支持民主黨、共和黨、還是支持獨立候選人﹐如果已經登記成為美國選民﹐就應該好好把握今日的機會出來投票。讓主流社會知道﹐亞裔不是政治冷感﹐亞裔非常關心美國的未來﹐亞裔更是美國社會的一份子。投票能夠讓美國政界見到亞裔的參與﹐也提醒從政者不可不理我們的訴求﹔出來投票的原因就是﹕We care!
Sunday, November 2, 2008
麥凱恩在SNL的表演
在星期六晚從電視上看到共和黨總統侯選人麥凱恩以及他的太太仙蒂麥凱恩在Saturday Night Live開場時與“假的佩林”Tina Fey的客串演出﹐感到不是味道。雖然我並非共和黨的“死忠支持者”(die hard fan)﹐不過見到麥凱恩在鏡頭上不自然的表現(模仿在美國購物電視頻道QVC賣infomercial形式的電視競選廣告)﹐以及目前他在選情的表現與民意調查的支持度﹐我認為他是非常感到無奈。
我認為更無奈的就係Tina Fey模仿佩林在這個“競選廣告”內同時推銷“Palin in 2012”的T-shirt。我覺得麥凱恩真係無需要上SNL“獻世”﹗
麥凱恩在Saturday Night Live:
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/mccain-qvc-open/805381/
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-sen-mccain/805401/
我認為更無奈的就係Tina Fey模仿佩林在這個“競選廣告”內同時推銷“Palin in 2012”的T-shirt。我覺得麥凱恩真係無需要上SNL“獻世”﹗
麥凱恩在Saturday Night Live:
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/mccain-qvc-open/805381/
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-sen-mccain/805401/
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
我的退休金投資
過去一個星期實在太累所以無心機寫blog。到下個星期大選期間忙到出煙的情況下﹐真係唔知道點算。好彩有若缺齋老人在蔽blog留言﹐提醒我有需要更新這個blog。謝謝老人﹗﹗
依家紐約個市好似過山車﹐日日上落都閑閑地過百點﹐心臟弱D都唔惦﹗好彩我在舊年年中已經將我的退休金投資內大約七成的組合撥到美國聯邦政府債券基金﹐之後每個月的供款先至買環球股市(美國境外)的投資基金。依家整個退休金組合依然維持大約65%於政府債券基金內。這些基金均由巴克萊銀行屬下的基金公司管理﹐整個美國聯邦政府的僱員退休基金其實都係買巴克萊銀行提供的五種投資基金組合(政府債券基金、私人企業債券基金、標普五百基金、中小企業股基金、以及環球股市基金)。
損失肯定有﹐不過未至於傷到見骨。依家繼續每個月買標普五百基金﹐希望可以撈到底。因為我並非炒家﹐所以就算再大跌﹐因為有債券基金打底﹐應該不會有太大問題掛﹗
依家紐約個市好似過山車﹐日日上落都閑閑地過百點﹐心臟弱D都唔惦﹗好彩我在舊年年中已經將我的退休金投資內大約七成的組合撥到美國聯邦政府債券基金﹐之後每個月的供款先至買環球股市(美國境外)的投資基金。依家整個退休金組合依然維持大約65%於政府債券基金內。這些基金均由巴克萊銀行屬下的基金公司管理﹐整個美國聯邦政府的僱員退休基金其實都係買巴克萊銀行提供的五種投資基金組合(政府債券基金、私人企業債券基金、標普五百基金、中小企業股基金、以及環球股市基金)。
損失肯定有﹐不過未至於傷到見骨。依家繼續每個月買標普五百基金﹐希望可以撈到底。因為我並非炒家﹐所以就算再大跌﹐因為有債券基金打底﹐應該不會有太大問題掛﹗
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
油價繼續下跌
原油價格在星期三終於下跌到每桶66.75美元的價位﹐是16個月以來的低位。 在剛過去的週末從華盛頓開了兩個半鐘頭車﹐向南行到達位於維吉尼亞州威廉斯堡市(Williamsburg, VA)內的威廉斯堡殖民地(Colonial Williamsburg)旅行。在途中到油站加油時見到每加侖普通低硫汽油已經低過三美元﹐回程的時候更見到每加侖$2.64。終於可以唔洗俾超過三美元一加侖的貴油﹗
Friday, October 17, 2008
休息一個週末
今天開始出外渡假一個長週末。
經過一個多星期後﹐麥凱恩終於在昨晚(10月16日)現身大衛利達文(David Letterman)在CBS的清談節目作嘉賓。不過我覺得效果欠佳﹐因為麥凱恩的表現與態度並不自然。
經過一個多星期後﹐麥凱恩終於在昨晚(10月16日)現身大衛利達文(David Letterman)在CBS的清談節目作嘉賓。不過我覺得效果欠佳﹐因為麥凱恩的表現與態度並不自然。
Thursday, October 16, 2008
After the final face-off, 麥凱恩未能挽回頹勢
第三次也是最後一次美國總統候選人辯論會終於在美國時間星期三晚上舉行完畢。今次兩名侯選人在為時90分鐘的辯論當中圍繞美國內政﹐尤其著重目前的美國經濟進行激烈交鋒。辯論還涉及到醫療保健改革﹐貿易政策﹐法官任命﹐墮胎以及教育等問題﹔雙方也對方的競選廣告以及策略出現互相指責。
麥凱恩在今次的辯論中終於採取攻擊姿態﹐企圖挫敗奧巴馬目前在所有民意測驗中的領先優勢。麥凱恩指責奧巴馬提議向美國富有階層的人士增加徵稅是煽動一場“階級鬥爭”。而奧巴馬強調﹐他是為美國中產階級減稅﹐並指麥凱恩的政綱只會延續目前布殊政府的經濟政策。
同前兩次辯論的不同之處﹐麥凱恩和奧巴馬不是各自企在講臺上﹐又或者以市政廳形式(Town Hall meeting)的方式在聽眾前輪流發言。這次兩名候選人坐在同一張檯旁邊面對主持人﹐因此兩人的距離好近﹐這個安排是有意促成辯論雙方直接進行辯論﹐以及難以讓任何一方發表一連串事先準備好的短篇演說。
毫無疑問﹐麥凱恩今次的辯論係三場當中最有攻擊力以及表現算最好的﹐而奧巴馬在今次的辯論當中表現並不出色﹐尤其是在頭20至30分鐘處於挨打的狀態﹐不過麥凱恩依然無法從今次辯論當中獲得任何突破﹐不能夠營造出一個強而有力的領袖形像。而奧巴馬在辯論當中睇上去經常保持冷靜與平和的語氣﹐與麥凱恩面部表情經常表現不耐煩、輕蔑以及輕怒的情緒形成強烈對比。加上奧巴馬競選團隊已經成功地將麥凱恩與布殊聯繫一起﹐以及目前距離大選只有不足三個星期的時間﹐除非有任何突發事件對奧巴馬不利﹐否則麥凱恩根本無足夠時間扭轉目前的頹勢。
麥凱恩在今次的辯論中終於採取攻擊姿態﹐企圖挫敗奧巴馬目前在所有民意測驗中的領先優勢。麥凱恩指責奧巴馬提議向美國富有階層的人士增加徵稅是煽動一場“階級鬥爭”。而奧巴馬強調﹐他是為美國中產階級減稅﹐並指麥凱恩的政綱只會延續目前布殊政府的經濟政策。
同前兩次辯論的不同之處﹐麥凱恩和奧巴馬不是各自企在講臺上﹐又或者以市政廳形式(Town Hall meeting)的方式在聽眾前輪流發言。這次兩名候選人坐在同一張檯旁邊面對主持人﹐因此兩人的距離好近﹐這個安排是有意促成辯論雙方直接進行辯論﹐以及難以讓任何一方發表一連串事先準備好的短篇演說。
毫無疑問﹐麥凱恩今次的辯論係三場當中最有攻擊力以及表現算最好的﹐而奧巴馬在今次的辯論當中表現並不出色﹐尤其是在頭20至30分鐘處於挨打的狀態﹐不過麥凱恩依然無法從今次辯論當中獲得任何突破﹐不能夠營造出一個強而有力的領袖形像。而奧巴馬在辯論當中睇上去經常保持冷靜與平和的語氣﹐與麥凱恩面部表情經常表現不耐煩、輕蔑以及輕怒的情緒形成強烈對比。加上奧巴馬競選團隊已經成功地將麥凱恩與布殊聯繫一起﹐以及目前距離大選只有不足三個星期的時間﹐除非有任何突發事件對奧巴馬不利﹐否則麥凱恩根本無足夠時間扭轉目前的頹勢。
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
麥凱恩的選情 - It's getting desperate & ugly !
隨著美國兩黨總統候選人在星期二(10月7日)結束第二場以Town Hall形式(即市鎮居民大會方式﹐在場聽眾有機會向候選人提問)落幕﹐共和黨候選人麥凱恩未能夠收窄與民主黨候選人奧巴馬在民意測驗當中的距離。很多共和的支持者希望麥凱恩在星期二的辯論當中加強攻擊奧巴馬﹐但可惜他的攻擊力並不顯著﹐麥凱恩提出要增加購買不良資產的計劃更被民主黨有機可乘﹐質疑有關建議是否可行。
麥凱恩未能夠在星期二的辯論過後為自己的選情帶來有利的變化﹐在星期三(10月8日)出席競選集會時﹐竟然心不在焉地向與會群眾講出“My fellow prisoners" 而並非"My fellow citizens"﹐俾美國全國廣播公司旗下的MSNBC有線電視新聞頻道在星期三全晚多個新聞節目內多次重複播出。
http://vodpod.com/watch/1068658-mccain-my-fellow-prisoners
另外﹐多個麥凱恩的電視與電台競選廣告都沖著奧巴馬而來﹐同時質疑他的領導能力﹐甚至他的人格﹐更指奧巴馬與在反對越南戰爭期間被指向美國聯邦政府機構外發動炸彈襲擊的人“稱兄道弟”。同時又再重施故技﹐在提到奧巴馬的名字時再次提到他的中間名字(middle name)﹐也即係Barack Hussein Obama(巴拉克‧侯賽恩‧奧巴馬)﹐有意無意地讓聽眾覺得奧巴馬來自中東或者伊斯蘭國家。再重覆這些手段只是顯示出麥凱恩目前的選情有幾咁desperate(選情危險或絕望)。CNN在星期四下午直播麥凱恩與佩林舉行的Town hall 形式競選集會﹐回答在場支持者的提問。我越來越唔憎這種競選集會形式﹐因為真係好似電視上的infomercials(電視廣告雜誌)。
麥凱恩未能夠在星期二的辯論過後為自己的選情帶來有利的變化﹐在星期三(10月8日)出席競選集會時﹐竟然心不在焉地向與會群眾講出“My fellow prisoners" 而並非"My fellow citizens"﹐俾美國全國廣播公司旗下的MSNBC有線電視新聞頻道在星期三全晚多個新聞節目內多次重複播出。
http://vodpod.com/watch/1068658-mccain-my-fellow-prisoners
另外﹐多個麥凱恩的電視與電台競選廣告都沖著奧巴馬而來﹐同時質疑他的領導能力﹐甚至他的人格﹐更指奧巴馬與在反對越南戰爭期間被指向美國聯邦政府機構外發動炸彈襲擊的人“稱兄道弟”。同時又再重施故技﹐在提到奧巴馬的名字時再次提到他的中間名字(middle name)﹐也即係Barack Hussein Obama(巴拉克‧侯賽恩‧奧巴馬)﹐有意無意地讓聽眾覺得奧巴馬來自中東或者伊斯蘭國家。再重覆這些手段只是顯示出麥凱恩目前的選情有幾咁desperate(選情危險或絕望)。CNN在星期四下午直播麥凱恩與佩林舉行的Town hall 形式競選集會﹐回答在場支持者的提問。我越來越唔憎這種競選集會形式﹐因為真係好似電視上的infomercials(電視廣告雜誌)。
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
美國聯邦法院下令當局釋放17名被扣維吾爾族人
在星期二(10月7日)下午﹐一名聯邦法官下令美國政府需要釋放17名被當局自從美軍在2001年攻入阿富汗後被捕並且一直扣留在位於古巴關塔拿麼灣(Guantanamo Bay)內美軍基地的維吾爾族人(Uighurs 或Uyghurs)。因為美國法庭已經裁定﹐這批維吾爾族人是“非敵方戰鬥人員”(not enemy combatants)﹐美國政府缺乏任何理由繼續無限期將他們監禁。雖然美國司法部將會提出上訴﹐不過成功的機會不大。他們更有可能會留在美國境內﹐因為如果當局將他們遞解出境的話﹐就會將他們遞解到中國。中國當局無論如何就一定會當他們是所謂“恐怖分子”來處理。基於人道原則﹐美國政府不能也不應將他們遞解出境。
其實當初扣留這批人的原因以及理由早已經有人懷疑﹐只不過當局為了面子﹐以及中國方面有理無理都將所有維吾爾族人當成“分裂份子”以及“恐怖分子”來定性﹐搞到成件事膠著。今次法庭只是將錯誤改正。其實關塔拿麼灣究竟扣留了幾多“真正的”恐怖分子﹐真係無人知。
VOA Chinese Branch report:
http://www.voanews.com/chinese/w2008-10-07-voa87.cfm
New York Times report:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/washington/08detain.html?_r=2&ref=asia&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
CNN report:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/10/07/gitmo.chinese.muslims/
Judge orders Chinese Muslims freed from Gitmo
From Terry Frieden
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal judge has ordered the immediate release into the United States of a group of 17 Chinese Muslims who have been held in the U.S. military facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for several years.
U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina on Tuesday ordered the 17 detainees to appear in his Washington courtroom at 10 a.m. Friday and said he would hold a hearing next week to determine under what conditions they will be settled in the United States.
The detainees are ethnic Uighurs, from a mostly Muslim autonomous region in western China.
They have been in government custody for seven years, and have been cleared for release for the past four years to any country willing to take them. No countries have volunteered.
The judge, visibly impatient, told government lawyers he wants no delays.
"There is a pressing need for them to be released," Urbina declared.
When a government lawyer requested one week for authorities to determine how immigration authorities would handle a court-ordered arrival of individuals with no status, Urbina summarily rejected the request.
He angrily demanded Immigration and Customs officials not even consider arresting the Uighurs upon arrival.
"I have issued an order. I do not want these people interfered with in any way," the judge said.
Justice Department lawyers told the judge they will immediately appeal the ruling and seek a stay of the order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Justice officials said they were preparing a statement challenging the judge's decision.
Dozens of colorfully dressed members of the Uighur community from the Washington area beamed as they left the courtroom and began embracing.
"We welcome this. It has been a very long time," said Amy Reger of the Uyghur Human Rights Project.
The U.S. determined in 2004 the 17 Uighurs are not enemy combatants, but has kept them at Guantanamo while trying to persuade other countries to resettle them. Officials said they were not returned to China because of credible fears they could be mistreated if returned.
The Uighurs fled Afghanistan shortly after the U.S.-led bombing campaign began in 2001. They were turned over to U.S. military officials by Pakistani authorities.
U.S. intelligence officials alleged the Uighur detainees are associated with the East Turkmenistan Islamist Movement, which the administration designated a terrorist organization in 2002. Lawyers for the Uighurs dispute any terrorist connections.
Attorneys for the 17 detainees promised the court that if the judge's ruling stands, a Lutheran church group in Maryland and other service groups are prepared to provide both short-term and long-term care and support for the freed prisoners. Seventeen Uighur homes have been identified to initially house the detainees.
Urbina scheduled an October 16 hearing for immigration officials and other government agencies to discuss conditions for the 17 men.
白宮在下午5:45分發表的聲明﹐表示會即晚向聯邦上訴庭提出上訴。
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release October 7, 2008
STATEMENT BY PRESS SECRETARY DANA PERINO
We are deeply concerned by, and strongly disagree with, today's decision by a federal district court ordering the release into the United States -- by this Friday morning -- of 17 Uighurs currently held at Guantanamo Bay. This decision, we believe, is contrary to our laws, including federal immigration statutes passed by Congress. The Department of Justice intends to seek emergency relief tonight to stay the court's order and to request a prompt reversal of the order by the Court of Appeals. The district court’s ruling, if allowed to stand, could be used as precedent for other detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, including sworn enemies of the United States suspected of planning the attacks of 9/11, who may also seek release into our country.
Consistent with the safety of our citizens and the safety of the Uighurs themselves, the United States will continue working to find a country to which these men could be transferred.
# # #
其實當初扣留這批人的原因以及理由早已經有人懷疑﹐只不過當局為了面子﹐以及中國方面有理無理都將所有維吾爾族人當成“分裂份子”以及“恐怖分子”來定性﹐搞到成件事膠著。今次法庭只是將錯誤改正。其實關塔拿麼灣究竟扣留了幾多“真正的”恐怖分子﹐真係無人知。
VOA Chinese Branch report:
http://www.voanews.com/chinese/w2008-10-07-voa87.cfm
New York Times report:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/washington/08detain.html?_r=2&ref=asia&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
CNN report:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/10/07/gitmo.chinese.muslims/
Judge orders Chinese Muslims freed from Gitmo
From Terry Frieden
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal judge has ordered the immediate release into the United States of a group of 17 Chinese Muslims who have been held in the U.S. military facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for several years.
U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina on Tuesday ordered the 17 detainees to appear in his Washington courtroom at 10 a.m. Friday and said he would hold a hearing next week to determine under what conditions they will be settled in the United States.
The detainees are ethnic Uighurs, from a mostly Muslim autonomous region in western China.
They have been in government custody for seven years, and have been cleared for release for the past four years to any country willing to take them. No countries have volunteered.
The judge, visibly impatient, told government lawyers he wants no delays.
"There is a pressing need for them to be released," Urbina declared.
When a government lawyer requested one week for authorities to determine how immigration authorities would handle a court-ordered arrival of individuals with no status, Urbina summarily rejected the request.
He angrily demanded Immigration and Customs officials not even consider arresting the Uighurs upon arrival.
"I have issued an order. I do not want these people interfered with in any way," the judge said.
Justice Department lawyers told the judge they will immediately appeal the ruling and seek a stay of the order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Justice officials said they were preparing a statement challenging the judge's decision.
Dozens of colorfully dressed members of the Uighur community from the Washington area beamed as they left the courtroom and began embracing.
"We welcome this. It has been a very long time," said Amy Reger of the Uyghur Human Rights Project.
The U.S. determined in 2004 the 17 Uighurs are not enemy combatants, but has kept them at Guantanamo while trying to persuade other countries to resettle them. Officials said they were not returned to China because of credible fears they could be mistreated if returned.
The Uighurs fled Afghanistan shortly after the U.S.-led bombing campaign began in 2001. They were turned over to U.S. military officials by Pakistani authorities.
U.S. intelligence officials alleged the Uighur detainees are associated with the East Turkmenistan Islamist Movement, which the administration designated a terrorist organization in 2002. Lawyers for the Uighurs dispute any terrorist connections.
Attorneys for the 17 detainees promised the court that if the judge's ruling stands, a Lutheran church group in Maryland and other service groups are prepared to provide both short-term and long-term care and support for the freed prisoners. Seventeen Uighur homes have been identified to initially house the detainees.
Urbina scheduled an October 16 hearing for immigration officials and other government agencies to discuss conditions for the 17 men.
白宮在下午5:45分發表的聲明﹐表示會即晚向聯邦上訴庭提出上訴。
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release October 7, 2008
STATEMENT BY PRESS SECRETARY DANA PERINO
We are deeply concerned by, and strongly disagree with, today's decision by a federal district court ordering the release into the United States -- by this Friday morning -- of 17 Uighurs currently held at Guantanamo Bay. This decision, we believe, is contrary to our laws, including federal immigration statutes passed by Congress. The Department of Justice intends to seek emergency relief tonight to stay the court's order and to request a prompt reversal of the order by the Court of Appeals. The district court’s ruling, if allowed to stand, could be used as precedent for other detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, including sworn enemies of the United States suspected of planning the attacks of 9/11, who may also seek release into our country.
Consistent with the safety of our citizens and the safety of the Uighurs themselves, the United States will continue working to find a country to which these men could be transferred.
# # #
“非常表面的”觀察!
看到網友Alvin在我昨日(10月6日)的網誌上留言﹐有感而發寫下個人對11月總統大選的一點“非常表面的”觀察。
如果美國唔係出現金融危機﹐麥凱恩的勝算其實可能會高過奧巴馬。始終麥凱恩有口碑﹐是一個共和黨內的特立獨行人物(美國人稱之曰maverick)。出生自軍人家庭﹐祖父與父親均為海軍上將﹐麥凱恩也畢業於美國海軍學院(United States Naval Academy)﹐在越戰期間擔任美國海軍飛行員﹐在1967年10月執行轟炸河內的任務時被北越地面炮火擊落﹐之後六年成為POW(戰俘)。返回美國接受治療康復後擔任美國海軍駐國會參議院的聯絡官(Liaison to Senate)﹐除了結識了現任太太之外﹐也開始接觸政治。之不過麥凱恩長期無涉足於經濟問題﹐在面對這次金融危機當中與奧巴馬比較﹐在對外談論經濟時的表現並不突出。共和黨除了提倡高薪階層減稅以及放寬政府對行業的管制之外﹐我真係見唔到有任何新意。至於在競選團內的經濟智囊﹐好似缺善足陳(請恕我孤陋寡聞﹐真係唔知道)。不過憑麥凱恩在金融危機發生之前對美國經濟唱好的論調﹐恐怕好極有限﹗所以最近的多項民意調查都顯示﹐受訪的美國民眾對於奧巴馬處理經濟問題較為有信心。加上共和黨主政已經八年﹐人心思變這是自然不過的事情, 只是今年大選加多一個“金融危機”的問題要解決﹗
相比之下﹐雖然經濟絕對並非奧巴馬的擅長(其實除了個change這個字之外﹐我都唔知道奧巴馬的擅長究竟在邊度﹗)﹐不過奧巴馬總算係知人善任。在結束了黨內初選後﹐他的競選團其實已經收編了很多克林頓主政白宮時期的班底﹐包括克林頓時期的財政部長魯賓(Robert Rubin)以及薩莫斯(Lawrence Summers)﹔前商務部長戴利(William Daley)﹐以及克林頓的白宮經濟顧問Gene Sperling。奧巴馬也吸收了一些共和黨以及獨立人士擔任競選團的經濟智囊﹐包括在列根總統時期擔任聯邦儲備局主席的沃爾克(Paul Volcker)﹐在發生金融危機後乘機收購高盛證券集團的“股神”畢菲特(Warren Buffett)﹐甚至收編埋小布殊在第一個任期內擔任財政部長﹐之後與布殊因為政策上的分歧搞到不歡而散的奧尼爾(Paul O'Neill)。
雖然奧巴馬這個星級智囊團名單好似“唔打得都睇得”﹐不過就正如八年前小布殊競選總統時﹐在國防外交上的星級智囊名單一樣﹐到底在實戰時能否起到作用就真係只有天知道﹗另外﹐依家的情況就係﹐在發生金融危機後﹐很多競選議題以及美國國內的問題都因為金融危機而搞到靠邊站。這些問題包括全球氣候變暖、伊拉克撤軍、美國國內非法移民、教育等問題。同時﹐我對於圍繞著奧巴馬的東亞事務顧問們能否就有關對華關係等事情提供適當與準確的意見而感到擔憂﹐並且憂慮奧巴馬政府可能會對北京過於軟弱﹐長遠地傷害到爭取中國與香港實行真正民主以及人權的努力﹐這些問題都需要正視。
今晚美國東岸時間九點正﹐麥凱恩與奧巴馬將會進行第二場競選辯論﹐希望在辯論當中可以睇到﹐除了金融危機之外﹐他們對其他問題究竟有乜野策略。
如果美國唔係出現金融危機﹐麥凱恩的勝算其實可能會高過奧巴馬。始終麥凱恩有口碑﹐是一個共和黨內的特立獨行人物(美國人稱之曰maverick)。出生自軍人家庭﹐祖父與父親均為海軍上將﹐麥凱恩也畢業於美國海軍學院(United States Naval Academy)﹐在越戰期間擔任美國海軍飛行員﹐在1967年10月執行轟炸河內的任務時被北越地面炮火擊落﹐之後六年成為POW(戰俘)。返回美國接受治療康復後擔任美國海軍駐國會參議院的聯絡官(Liaison to Senate)﹐除了結識了現任太太之外﹐也開始接觸政治。之不過麥凱恩長期無涉足於經濟問題﹐在面對這次金融危機當中與奧巴馬比較﹐在對外談論經濟時的表現並不突出。共和黨除了提倡高薪階層減稅以及放寬政府對行業的管制之外﹐我真係見唔到有任何新意。至於在競選團內的經濟智囊﹐好似缺善足陳(請恕我孤陋寡聞﹐真係唔知道)。不過憑麥凱恩在金融危機發生之前對美國經濟唱好的論調﹐恐怕好極有限﹗所以最近的多項民意調查都顯示﹐受訪的美國民眾對於奧巴馬處理經濟問題較為有信心。加上共和黨主政已經八年﹐人心思變這是自然不過的事情, 只是今年大選加多一個“金融危機”的問題要解決﹗
相比之下﹐雖然經濟絕對並非奧巴馬的擅長(其實除了個change這個字之外﹐我都唔知道奧巴馬的擅長究竟在邊度﹗)﹐不過奧巴馬總算係知人善任。在結束了黨內初選後﹐他的競選團其實已經收編了很多克林頓主政白宮時期的班底﹐包括克林頓時期的財政部長魯賓(Robert Rubin)以及薩莫斯(Lawrence Summers)﹔前商務部長戴利(William Daley)﹐以及克林頓的白宮經濟顧問Gene Sperling。奧巴馬也吸收了一些共和黨以及獨立人士擔任競選團的經濟智囊﹐包括在列根總統時期擔任聯邦儲備局主席的沃爾克(Paul Volcker)﹐在發生金融危機後乘機收購高盛證券集團的“股神”畢菲特(Warren Buffett)﹐甚至收編埋小布殊在第一個任期內擔任財政部長﹐之後與布殊因為政策上的分歧搞到不歡而散的奧尼爾(Paul O'Neill)。
雖然奧巴馬這個星級智囊團名單好似“唔打得都睇得”﹐不過就正如八年前小布殊競選總統時﹐在國防外交上的星級智囊名單一樣﹐到底在實戰時能否起到作用就真係只有天知道﹗另外﹐依家的情況就係﹐在發生金融危機後﹐很多競選議題以及美國國內的問題都因為金融危機而搞到靠邊站。這些問題包括全球氣候變暖、伊拉克撤軍、美國國內非法移民、教育等問題。同時﹐我對於圍繞著奧巴馬的東亞事務顧問們能否就有關對華關係等事情提供適當與準確的意見而感到擔憂﹐並且憂慮奧巴馬政府可能會對北京過於軟弱﹐長遠地傷害到爭取中國與香港實行真正民主以及人權的努力﹐這些問題都需要正視。
今晚美國東岸時間九點正﹐麥凱恩與奧巴馬將會進行第二場競選辯論﹐希望在辯論當中可以睇到﹐除了金融危機之外﹐他們對其他問題究竟有乜野策略。
Monday, October 6, 2008
大衛．利達文(David Letterman)與天娜．費(Tina Fey)
如果將來的學者要為美國共和黨總統候選人麥凱恩(John McCain)在2008年總統大選落敗找尋原因的話﹐我覺得有兩個人可能會係其中一個主要因素﹕大衛．利達文(David Letterman)以及天娜．費(Tina Fey)。
麥凱恩原本在上個星期(好似係9月29日)接受利達文邀請﹐在哥倫比亞廣播公司(CBS)播出的清談節目“The Late Show with David Letterman"內作現場錄影嘉賓受訪﹐但係好衰唔衰放飛機﹐籍口話要趕回華盛頓處理。點知麥凱恩依然留在紐約市﹐仲在原本上The Late Show的錄影時間內到CBS晚間新聞的錄影室接受主播Katie Couric的專訪﹐麥凱恩明顯地玩大細超﹗這件事俾利達文知道後當然“慶”過火屎﹐於是在節目內踢爆麥凱恩講大話﹐並且在連續多天的節目內搵麥凱恩作為取笑對象﹐加以挖苦。上個星期五(10月3日)的節目更加邀請了NBC晚間新聞的主播Brian Williams作嘉賓。由於NBC以及旗下的有線電視新聞頻度MSNBC長期被共和黨以及美國右翼政界人士攻擊﹐認為他們的新聞報導與評論偏袒民主黨以及自由派﹐所以Brian Williams係美國三大無線電視網的晚間新聞主播之中﹐唯一一個未能夠獲得機會與佩林進行專訪。所以佢地兩個人可以話同病相憐﹐在節目內一唱一和﹐齊齊串爆麥凱恩及佩林﹗有人更係Youtube放上當晚的整個訪問片段。
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puHITWjTc_Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmzeLsj8rbI
至於天娜．費(Tina Fey)﹐有留意美國新聞以及這個blog的讀者網友都知道﹐當佢模仿共和黨副總統候選人佩林的時候﹐無論神情外貌還是聲線語調簡直就好似佩林的雙胞胎姊妹一樣。天娜．費原本係“星期六晚直播”(Saturday Night Live, SNL)的編劇﹐後來先至走到幕前演出﹐本來已經在2007-08電視季度離開了SNL﹐轉到同樣係NBC播出的處境喜劇"30 Rock"擔正。由於在幕前幕後均表現出眾﹐天娜．費也剛剛憑"30 Rock"獲得美國電視艾美獎的最佳喜劇類編劇﹐以及年度最佳喜劇兩個獎項。當佩林正式在共和黨大會上登場的時候﹐CNN的評論員已經話天娜．費的面孔好似佩林﹐在第二日的報章評論也有人提出﹐可能SNL的監製也聽到這段評論﹐所以要急call天娜．費返SNL客串。依照目前的選情來睇﹐如果無任何針對奧巴馬的十月驚起(October surprise)的話﹐共和黨應該無乜運行﹐天娜．費可能忙到下個月頭選舉結束就可以在SNL收工﹗
點解我會話佢地兩個會係其中一個因素呢﹖David Letterman 以及Tina Fey在SNL的節目有好多中產以及青中年人士收睇。Tina Fey的模仿片段更會在美國各大電視新聞節目上從星期日早上到星期一為止重覆又重覆﹐感染力十分巨大﹐也容易引起公眾共鳴。加上今年選舉﹐多個原本屬於共和黨票倉的州都獲得高記錄的新增支持民主黨選民的數目﹐在這個大小氣候之下﹐你話共和黨仲有無運行呢﹖
http://tv.yahoo.com/show/194/news/urn:newsml:tv.reuters.com:20081006:us_snl__ER:48828
麥凱恩原本在上個星期(好似係9月29日)接受利達文邀請﹐在哥倫比亞廣播公司(CBS)播出的清談節目“The Late Show with David Letterman"內作現場錄影嘉賓受訪﹐但係好衰唔衰放飛機﹐籍口話要趕回華盛頓處理。點知麥凱恩依然留在紐約市﹐仲在原本上The Late Show的錄影時間內到CBS晚間新聞的錄影室接受主播Katie Couric的專訪﹐麥凱恩明顯地玩大細超﹗這件事俾利達文知道後當然“慶”過火屎﹐於是在節目內踢爆麥凱恩講大話﹐並且在連續多天的節目內搵麥凱恩作為取笑對象﹐加以挖苦。上個星期五(10月3日)的節目更加邀請了NBC晚間新聞的主播Brian Williams作嘉賓。由於NBC以及旗下的有線電視新聞頻度MSNBC長期被共和黨以及美國右翼政界人士攻擊﹐認為他們的新聞報導與評論偏袒民主黨以及自由派﹐所以Brian Williams係美國三大無線電視網的晚間新聞主播之中﹐唯一一個未能夠獲得機會與佩林進行專訪。所以佢地兩個人可以話同病相憐﹐在節目內一唱一和﹐齊齊串爆麥凱恩及佩林﹗有人更係Youtube放上當晚的整個訪問片段。
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puHITWjTc_Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmzeLsj8rbI
至於天娜．費(Tina Fey)﹐有留意美國新聞以及這個blog的讀者網友都知道﹐當佢模仿共和黨副總統候選人佩林的時候﹐無論神情外貌還是聲線語調簡直就好似佩林的雙胞胎姊妹一樣。天娜．費原本係“星期六晚直播”(Saturday Night Live, SNL)的編劇﹐後來先至走到幕前演出﹐本來已經在2007-08電視季度離開了SNL﹐轉到同樣係NBC播出的處境喜劇"30 Rock"擔正。由於在幕前幕後均表現出眾﹐天娜．費也剛剛憑"30 Rock"獲得美國電視艾美獎的最佳喜劇類編劇﹐以及年度最佳喜劇兩個獎項。當佩林正式在共和黨大會上登場的時候﹐CNN的評論員已經話天娜．費的面孔好似佩林﹐在第二日的報章評論也有人提出﹐可能SNL的監製也聽到這段評論﹐所以要急call天娜．費返SNL客串。依照目前的選情來睇﹐如果無任何針對奧巴馬的十月驚起(October surprise)的話﹐共和黨應該無乜運行﹐天娜．費可能忙到下個月頭選舉結束就可以在SNL收工﹗
點解我會話佢地兩個會係其中一個因素呢﹖David Letterman 以及Tina Fey在SNL的節目有好多中產以及青中年人士收睇。Tina Fey的模仿片段更會在美國各大電視新聞節目上從星期日早上到星期一為止重覆又重覆﹐感染力十分巨大﹐也容易引起公眾共鳴。加上今年選舉﹐多個原本屬於共和黨票倉的州都獲得高記錄的新增支持民主黨選民的數目﹐在這個大小氣候之下﹐你話共和黨仲有無運行呢﹖
http://tv.yahoo.com/show/194/news/urn:newsml:tv.reuters.com:20081006:us_snl__ER:48828
Sunday, October 5, 2008
中國大陸無主教出席世界主教會議 - 咁又點呢﹖
香港電台在2008-10-05 HKT 20:52的報導
“天主教香港教區主教陳日君樞機表示，教廷曾嘗試與北京當局安排神職人員，出席在羅馬舉行的世界主教會議。 會議由今日起至26日舉行，全球230多位主教，包括本港、澳門及台灣主教都有份出席，但並無大陸主教在內。陳日君在出席會議前表示，可能教廷與北京都提出對方不接受的人選，令安排告吹。報道天主教消息的亞洲新聞網，引述教廷發言人指中梵未能達成共識，教廷並無列出先決條件。”
個人並不睇好中國當局與梵蒂岡教廷可以達成建交(或者話“恢復雙方正常關係”)﹐因為彼此之間對真正的宗教自由的見解與意識上的鴻溝可以話是萬丈千里。我覺得與北京當局這個不會真心真意專重宗教自由以及討論人選問題﹐其實同“與虎謀皮”無任何分別﹐根本就係浪費時間與精神。一個政府對民間的宗教經常指手劃腳橫加干涉內部事務﹐其實係非常愚蠢及無聊的做法。現在中國造假事件層出不窮並越來越多﹐歸根究底就是共產主義反對無神論﹐使到中國人民在一黨專制之下缺乏了宗教以及精神上的依靠﹐凡事都向利益以及金錢作為目標。中共目前依然抱著十九世紀的世界觀看待現在二十一世紀的世界﹐更不知道宗教導人向善的性質﹐除了顯示出中國當局的制度輕視個人的價值以及不人道之外﹐同時也顯示出獨裁專制政府的底子其實非常虛弱不堪﹗
“天主教香港教區主教陳日君樞機表示，教廷曾嘗試與北京當局安排神職人員，出席在羅馬舉行的世界主教會議。 會議由今日起至26日舉行，全球230多位主教，包括本港、澳門及台灣主教都有份出席，但並無大陸主教在內。陳日君在出席會議前表示，可能教廷與北京都提出對方不接受的人選，令安排告吹。報道天主教消息的亞洲新聞網，引述教廷發言人指中梵未能達成共識，教廷並無列出先決條件。”
個人並不睇好中國當局與梵蒂岡教廷可以達成建交(或者話“恢復雙方正常關係”)﹐因為彼此之間對真正的宗教自由的見解與意識上的鴻溝可以話是萬丈千里。我覺得與北京當局這個不會真心真意專重宗教自由以及討論人選問題﹐其實同“與虎謀皮”無任何分別﹐根本就係浪費時間與精神。一個政府對民間的宗教經常指手劃腳橫加干涉內部事務﹐其實係非常愚蠢及無聊的做法。現在中國造假事件層出不窮並越來越多﹐歸根究底就是共產主義反對無神論﹐使到中國人民在一黨專制之下缺乏了宗教以及精神上的依靠﹐凡事都向利益以及金錢作為目標。中共目前依然抱著十九世紀的世界觀看待現在二十一世紀的世界﹐更不知道宗教導人向善的性質﹐除了顯示出中國當局的制度輕視個人的價值以及不人道之外﹐同時也顯示出獨裁專制政府的底子其實非常虛弱不堪﹗
始終只有英語世界先至做得到﹗
在星期六晚(10月4日)美國全國廣播公司(NBC)播出的Saturday Night Live的傳統開場笑料﹐簡直笑到唔停得口﹗
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/vp-debate-open-palin-biden/727421/
英美加澳紐的文化先至可以有這些到肉的笑料取笑政客以及時事﹐這個先至係“和諧社會”。究竟幾時中國大陸(包括香港在內)﹐會真正可以領會、懂得欣賞﹐以及獲得同樣機會呢﹖
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/vp-debate-open-palin-biden/727421/
英美加澳紐的文化先至可以有這些到肉的笑料取笑政客以及時事﹐這個先至係“和諧社會”。究竟幾時中國大陸(包括香港在內)﹐會真正可以領會、懂得欣賞﹐以及獲得同樣機會呢﹖
Saturday, October 4, 2008
星期六的午餐﹕星洲炒米 (Singapore Noodles)
星期六要返工﹐因為老細不在﹐在中午搭地鐵到全個華盛頓市內(也係整個大華府地區內的)唯一一間匯豐銀行(HSBC)的分行﹐用自動櫃員機(ATM)入錢(這裡不是紐約市﹐銀行例休星期六)。之後步行五分鐘到全國記者俱樂部(National Press Club)隔離一個名叫"Eat at National Place"的food court﹐到賣中式快餐的鋪頭點了一客星洲炒米以及大可樂﹐連10%銷售稅﹐ 合共8.9美元。
美國副總統電視辯論後感(遲來的感想)
因為私務繁忙﹐所以無時間寫blog。Sorry, sorry!!!!
直至網友笑聽在網上問到有關副總統辯論的問題時﹐才決定寫下一些個人感受(遲來的評論)﹗
毫無疑問﹐拜登(Joseph Biden)對佩林(Sarah Palin)的辯論是超出在較早前的期望﹐因為我這個所謂的“期望”(expectation)係非常非常之低﹐原因是受到佩林在接受ABC News﹐Fox News Channel(一個簡直勁似infomercial的“專訪”)﹐以及CBS News 的訪問表現欠佳﹗加上美國全國廣播公司(NBC)旗下非常受歡迎的電視節目“星期六晚直播”(Saturday Night Live, SNL)的演員Tina Fey模仿佩林的搞笑演技非常出色﹐所以每次在電視上睇到佩林﹐感覺都好似係睇緊SNL。(越來越覺得香港TVB以前的歡樂今宵係抄SNL條橋)
我一向認為這場辯論是“政治老貓對政治新人”(Political old-cat vs. Political neophyte)。刻薄地講﹐我又可以話今次係“jerk against dummy﹗”點解﹖因為個人對拜登毫無好感(拜登對我所屬的工會抱有敵視態度)﹔至於佩林。我就認為她經驗有限﹐懷疑她是否有能力擔任副總統﹐更懷疑在麥凱恩(John McCain)有任何不測時是否有能力接任總統職位。(先旨聲明﹕我對女性擔任美國總統或者副總統絕對持開放態度)。佩林雖然在部份問題上的回答並不出色﹐不過臨場表現總算鎮定及自信﹐而拜登在辯論上並無表現出得勢不饒人的姿態﹐更竟然講到自己成為單親爸爸時一度激動。無論佢是否在公眾面前做戲﹐這些都是出人意外的情況﹐所以我對整個辯論並無任何負面感覺。 At the end of the day, it's just a show!!!
雖然我對拜登無好感﹐不過認為他更有能力擔任副總統或者在奧巴馬(Barack Obama)有任何"大吉利是"的情況下接任總統大位。記著: 美國人在11月4日到投票站投票時﹐始終的選擇是奧巴馬或者麥凱恩﹗美國選民需要選出一個有能力的人﹐而並非選好好先生(或者好好女士)擔任這個重要的職位。
無錯﹐美國在十六年前也有缺乏經驗的人擔任副總統﹐這個就是丹奎爾(Dan Quayle)。不過這是九一一事件之前的世界。在九一一之後﹐美國的政治與外交政策已經完全改變﹐不可能由一個在競選前只到過五隻手指數目都數唔夠的國家到訪過的人擔任國家領導人職位。佩林有無見過當地國家元首並不重要﹐但係到訪當地了解民情﹐與當地平民百姓談話才是最有用及最重要的事情。雖然我不認同太過保守的觀念﹐不過假以時日﹐佩林將來會係一個出色的美國領袖人物﹐但並非在2008年的大選﹗
另外﹐我不認同將奧巴馬與佩林作任何比較。始終在這次選舉當中﹐他們在兩黨的參選ticket分別一個是主(奧巴馬)﹐一個是副(佩林)﹗如果奧巴馬在今年獲勝﹐佩林返回阿拉斯加州繼續做一個稱職的州長﹐也同時增加了從政經驗﹐她的政治前途將會無可限量。如果四年後的總統大選代表GOP(共和黨)出選的係佩林的話﹐將會係一場政治好戲﹗
直至網友笑聽在網上問到有關副總統辯論的問題時﹐才決定寫下一些個人感受(遲來的評論)﹗
毫無疑問﹐拜登(Joseph Biden)對佩林(Sarah Palin)的辯論是超出在較早前的期望﹐因為我這個所謂的“期望”(expectation)係非常非常之低﹐原因是受到佩林在接受ABC News﹐Fox News Channel(一個簡直勁似infomercial的“專訪”)﹐以及CBS News 的訪問表現欠佳﹗加上美國全國廣播公司(NBC)旗下非常受歡迎的電視節目“星期六晚直播”(Saturday Night Live, SNL)的演員Tina Fey模仿佩林的搞笑演技非常出色﹐所以每次在電視上睇到佩林﹐感覺都好似係睇緊SNL。(越來越覺得香港TVB以前的歡樂今宵係抄SNL條橋)
我一向認為這場辯論是“政治老貓對政治新人”(Political old-cat vs. Political neophyte)。刻薄地講﹐我又可以話今次係“jerk against dummy﹗”點解﹖因為個人對拜登毫無好感(拜登對我所屬的工會抱有敵視態度)﹔至於佩林。我就認為她經驗有限﹐懷疑她是否有能力擔任副總統﹐更懷疑在麥凱恩(John McCain)有任何不測時是否有能力接任總統職位。(先旨聲明﹕我對女性擔任美國總統或者副總統絕對持開放態度)。佩林雖然在部份問題上的回答並不出色﹐不過臨場表現總算鎮定及自信﹐而拜登在辯論上並無表現出得勢不饒人的姿態﹐更竟然講到自己成為單親爸爸時一度激動。無論佢是否在公眾面前做戲﹐這些都是出人意外的情況﹐所以我對整個辯論並無任何負面感覺。 At the end of the day, it's just a show!!!
雖然我對拜登無好感﹐不過認為他更有能力擔任副總統或者在奧巴馬(Barack Obama)有任何"大吉利是"的情況下接任總統大位。記著: 美國人在11月4日到投票站投票時﹐始終的選擇是奧巴馬或者麥凱恩﹗美國選民需要選出一個有能力的人﹐而並非選好好先生(或者好好女士)擔任這個重要的職位。
無錯﹐美國在十六年前也有缺乏經驗的人擔任副總統﹐這個就是丹奎爾(Dan Quayle)。不過這是九一一事件之前的世界。在九一一之後﹐美國的政治與外交政策已經完全改變﹐不可能由一個在競選前只到過五隻手指數目都數唔夠的國家到訪過的人擔任國家領導人職位。佩林有無見過當地國家元首並不重要﹐但係到訪當地了解民情﹐與當地平民百姓談話才是最有用及最重要的事情。雖然我不認同太過保守的觀念﹐不過假以時日﹐佩林將來會係一個出色的美國領袖人物﹐但並非在2008年的大選﹗
另外﹐我不認同將奧巴馬與佩林作任何比較。始終在這次選舉當中﹐他們在兩黨的參選ticket分別一個是主(奧巴馬)﹐一個是副(佩林)﹗如果奧巴馬在今年獲勝﹐佩林返回阿拉斯加州繼續做一個稱職的州長﹐也同時增加了從政經驗﹐她的政治前途將會無可限量。如果四年後的總統大選代表GOP(共和黨)出選的係佩林的話﹐將會係一場政治好戲﹗
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Temple研究生的問題問得好﹗
我曾經在費城居住八年﹐也是天普大學(Temple University)的畢業生; 關心社會低下層民眾生活以及國際大事可以話係所有Temple Owls的共同點。這名Temple研究生也不例外﹗
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/28/palincheesesteak.cnn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLHohmFFgXY
共和黨副總統候選人佩林日前在費城進行競選活動。在晚上到南費城一家售賣芝士牛肉三文治(Cheesesteak sandwiches)等待食物的時候與記者談話時﹐冷不提防在身後排隊的其中一名天普大學研究生問他對於美軍是否應該不需要巴基斯坦政府方面同意﹐單方面向恐怖份子在巴基斯坦境內的營地發動進攻。當時佩林回答說 "If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should,"
她的答案立即露出她與麥凱恩在外交政策上無夾口供。因為麥凱恩在上次總統候選人電視辯論上指責奧巴馬不顧反恐同盟成員而作單方面行動。
一句簡單的問題就露底﹐佩林真係要多多學習以及多與競選拍檔“統一口徑”先得喇﹗
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/28/palincheesesteak.cnn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLHohmFFgXY
共和黨副總統候選人佩林日前在費城進行競選活動。在晚上到南費城一家售賣芝士牛肉三文治(Cheesesteak sandwiches)等待食物的時候與記者談話時﹐冷不提防在身後排隊的其中一名天普大學研究生問他對於美軍是否應該不需要巴基斯坦政府方面同意﹐單方面向恐怖份子在巴基斯坦境內的營地發動進攻。當時佩林回答說 "If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should,"
她的答案立即露出她與麥凱恩在外交政策上無夾口供。因為麥凱恩在上次總統候選人電視辯論上指責奧巴馬不顧反恐同盟成員而作單方面行動。
一句簡單的問題就露底﹐佩林真係要多多學習以及多與競選拍檔“統一口徑”先得喇﹗
Monday, September 29, 2008
美國國會救市方案“臨門撻Q”
“777”在美國長期以來代表好運﹐但是在9月29日下午﹐這個數字代表著道瓊斯工業平均指數(Dow Jones Industrial Average Index)有史以來最大的單日下跌數字﹗認真諷刺﹗﹗﹗
布殊政府以及國會領袖滿以為七千億美元的救市方案可以在星期一過關﹐點知竟然在共和黨眾議員強力反對下“臨門撻Q”﹐很多人對此大跌眼鏡﹗因為救市方案經過整個週末民主共和兩黨領袖以及美國財政部談判後達成協議﹐理應代表著府院之間的妥協方案﹐不會被容易擊破。眾議員內的資歷淺的議員也會跟領袖的決定。有邊個會想到今次竟然會撻Q﹗更無人想到竟然有共和黨議員會同被他們長期視為“英雄”的小布殊對著幹呢﹗
共和黨長期相信自由市場經濟以及小政府不干預政策。今次這套救市方案形同全盤否定共和黨長期奉行的信念﹐試問有幾多人會輕易放棄﹖在美國中部的保守州份地區﹐當地的共和黨眾議員辦公室罕見地收到大量選民的電話﹐要求議員反對這項救市方案。認為這個方案只會是Wall Street(指金融業)同Main Street(指一般普羅階層)作對。今年又係大選年﹐除了總統大選之外﹐435個眾議院議席都要改選換屆﹐以及三份之一參議院議席都要改選﹔如果救市方案失敗﹐有任何冬瓜豆腐的話﹐這批國會議員點樣面對江東父老﹖政治生涯仲肯定玩完﹗﹗﹗
當然﹐美國很多人認為以納稅人的錢為華爾街的不負責任而埋單而感到不滿以及不公平﹐認為政府應該要救消費者以及可能失去房地產的小業主。不過唔救華爾街的話﹐美國的信貸市場(credit market)可能會大受影響﹐使到信譽良好的企業以及消費者不能夠獲得正常的貸款購買房地產或者消費。長此下去將影響整個美國以及全世界經濟。
美國國會眾議院最快將會在星期四復會﹐到時就知道是否有另外一項替代的救市方案進行投票。
救又死﹐唔救仲死﹐你話依家這個境況死唔死呢﹖
布殊政府以及國會領袖滿以為七千億美元的救市方案可以在星期一過關﹐點知竟然在共和黨眾議員強力反對下“臨門撻Q”﹐很多人對此大跌眼鏡﹗因為救市方案經過整個週末民主共和兩黨領袖以及美國財政部談判後達成協議﹐理應代表著府院之間的妥協方案﹐不會被容易擊破。眾議員內的資歷淺的議員也會跟領袖的決定。有邊個會想到今次竟然會撻Q﹗更無人想到竟然有共和黨議員會同被他們長期視為“英雄”的小布殊對著幹呢﹗
共和黨長期相信自由市場經濟以及小政府不干預政策。今次這套救市方案形同全盤否定共和黨長期奉行的信念﹐試問有幾多人會輕易放棄﹖在美國中部的保守州份地區﹐當地的共和黨眾議員辦公室罕見地收到大量選民的電話﹐要求議員反對這項救市方案。認為這個方案只會是Wall Street(指金融業)同Main Street(指一般普羅階層)作對。今年又係大選年﹐除了總統大選之外﹐435個眾議院議席都要改選換屆﹐以及三份之一參議院議席都要改選﹔如果救市方案失敗﹐有任何冬瓜豆腐的話﹐這批國會議員點樣面對江東父老﹖政治生涯仲肯定玩完﹗﹗﹗
當然﹐美國很多人認為以納稅人的錢為華爾街的不負責任而埋單而感到不滿以及不公平﹐認為政府應該要救消費者以及可能失去房地產的小業主。不過唔救華爾街的話﹐美國的信貸市場(credit market)可能會大受影響﹐使到信譽良好的企業以及消費者不能夠獲得正常的貸款購買房地產或者消費。長此下去將影響整個美國以及全世界經濟。
美國國會眾議院最快將會在星期四復會﹐到時就知道是否有另外一項替代的救市方案進行投票。
救又死﹐唔救仲死﹐你話依家這個境況死唔死呢﹖
Sunday, September 28, 2008
喬治城(Georgetown)食廉價海鮮
講得太多政治與經濟﹐真係好容易人都顛﹗由今日開始﹐我會不定期介紹在華盛頓的日常生活與不同事物。
今晚與女友以及從內布拉斯加州(Nebraska)來華盛頓旅遊的女友雙親到華盛頓市內的喬治城(Georgetown)行街兼食飯。在一家名叫Tackle Box﹐專門食海鮮的店鋪﹐我點了一客炸生蠔﹐附加French Fries 以及芝士通心粉(Mac & cheese)﹐價格大約15美元。
Friday, September 26, 2008
美國兩黨總統候選人首場電視直播辯論終於開鑼
在金融危機的影響﹐以及麥凱恩一度表示要求推遲舉行的情況下﹐麥凱恩與奧巴馬兩人的首場競選辯論終於在星期五晚上九點(即香港時間星期六早上九點)正式在被美國人稱為Ole Miss的密西西比大學(University of Mississippi)舉行。
推遲辯論是絕對無可能的。兩黨候選人辯論是由一個兩黨人士組成的委員會﹐經過超過一年時間的籌備下舉行的﹐唔係任何一個候選人可以“話來就來﹐話走就走”。麥凱恩一開口話要求推遲其實已經是一大敗筆。如果唔來﹐一來就係不戰而輸﹐俾人覺得麥凱恩害怕在辯論到金融問題時無料到﹔第二﹐在這個時候要求推遲辯論就會顯得麥凱恩不能夠在同一時間內處理多項問題﹐就係無“multi-task”的能力﹐試問一個無“multi-task”能力的人點樣做美國總統﹖第三﹐奧巴馬唔聽麥凱恩支笛繼續出席參加﹐造就了一個不用花費一分一毫的競選活動+競選廣告+個人solo表演。結果就當然係增加曝光時間﹐試問麥凱恩在這個形勢下仲會有著數嗎﹖
觀乎整個候選人辯論﹐奧巴馬強調兩黨合作﹐所以有時讚同麥凱恩的一些觀點。不過麥凱恩並不領情﹐在辯論當中多次“持老賣老”毫不客氣地話“Senator Obama doesn't understand..."﹐語調處處貶低奧巴馬。不過他這種策略可能適得其反。CNN在直播辯論時﹐在電視熒幕下方有一個即時的indicator可以見到民主、共和﹐以及獨立無黨派的focus group對於各個候選人言論的即時反應。麥凱恩批評奧巴馬的時候﹐民主黨以及獨立選民的focus group觀眾並不認同他的言論的居多。
總括而言﹐兩名候選人在今次的辯論內的表現中規中矩﹐並無太多火花出現﹐奧巴馬的表現只是些微優勝於麥凱恩。
推遲辯論是絕對無可能的。兩黨候選人辯論是由一個兩黨人士組成的委員會﹐經過超過一年時間的籌備下舉行的﹐唔係任何一個候選人可以“話來就來﹐話走就走”。麥凱恩一開口話要求推遲其實已經是一大敗筆。如果唔來﹐一來就係不戰而輸﹐俾人覺得麥凱恩害怕在辯論到金融問題時無料到﹔第二﹐在這個時候要求推遲辯論就會顯得麥凱恩不能夠在同一時間內處理多項問題﹐就係無“multi-task”的能力﹐試問一個無“multi-task”能力的人點樣做美國總統﹖第三﹐奧巴馬唔聽麥凱恩支笛繼續出席參加﹐造就了一個不用花費一分一毫的競選活動+競選廣告+個人solo表演。結果就當然係增加曝光時間﹐試問麥凱恩在這個形勢下仲會有著數嗎﹖
觀乎整個候選人辯論﹐奧巴馬強調兩黨合作﹐所以有時讚同麥凱恩的一些觀點。不過麥凱恩並不領情﹐在辯論當中多次“持老賣老”毫不客氣地話“Senator Obama doesn't understand..."﹐語調處處貶低奧巴馬。不過他這種策略可能適得其反。CNN在直播辯論時﹐在電視熒幕下方有一個即時的indicator可以見到民主、共和﹐以及獨立無黨派的focus group對於各個候選人言論的即時反應。麥凱恩批評奧巴馬的時候﹐民主黨以及獨立選民的focus group觀眾並不認同他的言論的居多。
總括而言﹐兩名候選人在今次的辯論內的表現中規中矩﹐並無太多火花出現﹐奧巴馬的表現只是些微優勝於麥凱恩。
It's a pay back time!
布殊政府斥資七千億美元的救市計劃受到國會內的共和黨眾議員反對之後，談判變得充滿火藥味。談判在星期四晚間停止，雙方並無達成任何協議。會談計劃在星期五早上恢復。麥凱恩(John McCain)根岸本一早就已經提出反對任何救市建議﹐為了選舉以及穩著保守派的選票﹐他今次索性採取隔岸觀火的態度﹐在 白宮會議上坐埋一邊只講幾句說話就算數﹐明顯唔睇布殊台戲。今次可謂“有仇報仇”﹐以報八年前在黨內初選時被布殊競選團中傷而失去黨內提名。
在星期四傍晚從CNN睇到以下一幕﹕
在白宮內閣會議廳(Cabinet Room)內的記者photo-call結束﹐在場特工“趕”記者離開的時候﹐CNN記者高聲向問布殊“到依家先至做野﹐你是否感到後悔﹖”當時布殊並無回應﹐鏡頭見到在坐的麥凱恩只是乾笑幾聲。當我看到這個情景﹐覺得非常詭異及不寒而慄, 腦內閃起一句說話﹕“It's a pay back time!”
***
正當美國國會仍然就七千億美元救市計劃爭吵不休的時候，美國規模最大的銀行之一--華盛頓互惠銀行 (華互銀行, Washington Mutual) 卻由于無法承受巨大的次級按歇壞帳而宣佈破產﹐並且被美國聯邦儲蓄保險公司(FDIC)在星期四晚接管﹐然後以將近二十億美元的價格轉售給美國投資銀行摩根大通公司。今次美國歷史上破產倒閉規模最大的一家銀行。華互銀行把很多資產投在高風險的次級按歇房地產貸款(sub-prime mortgage)上，但是由於很多貸款者無法償還貸款而使到銀行本身出現負債高達幾十億美元。多個投資評級機構以及FDIC方面早在一年前就已經將華互銀行列為特別留意的觀察對象。所以今次爆煲都無出現任何失控場面。
美國聯邦儲蓄保險公司為存戶的銀行儲蓄賠償上限是十萬美元，但由於轉售交易已經達成，聯邦儲蓄保險公司不必利用本身的資產向華盛頓互惠銀行的存戶支付任何賠償。
在星期四傍晚從CNN睇到以下一幕﹕
在白宮內閣會議廳(Cabinet Room)內的記者photo-call結束﹐在場特工“趕”記者離開的時候﹐CNN記者高聲向問布殊“到依家先至做野﹐你是否感到後悔﹖”當時布殊並無回應﹐鏡頭見到在坐的麥凱恩只是乾笑幾聲。當我看到這個情景﹐覺得非常詭異及不寒而慄, 腦內閃起一句說話﹕“It's a pay back time!”
***
正當美國國會仍然就七千億美元救市計劃爭吵不休的時候，美國規模最大的銀行之一--華盛頓互惠銀行 (華互銀行, Washington Mutual) 卻由于無法承受巨大的次級按歇壞帳而宣佈破產﹐並且被美國聯邦儲蓄保險公司(FDIC)在星期四晚接管﹐然後以將近二十億美元的價格轉售給美國投資銀行摩根大通公司。今次美國歷史上破產倒閉規模最大的一家銀行。華互銀行把很多資產投在高風險的次級按歇房地產貸款(sub-prime mortgage)上，但是由於很多貸款者無法償還貸款而使到銀行本身出現負債高達幾十億美元。多個投資評級機構以及FDIC方面早在一年前就已經將華互銀行列為特別留意的觀察對象。所以今次爆煲都無出現任何失控場面。
美國聯邦儲蓄保險公司為存戶的銀行儲蓄賠償上限是十萬美元，但由於轉售交易已經達成，聯邦儲蓄保險公司不必利用本身的資產向華盛頓互惠銀行的存戶支付任何賠償。
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
布殊﹕“We are in the midst of a serious financial crisis”
剛看完美國總統布殊在白宮就有關七百億美元救市措施的演說。
綜觀他在發表演說時的神情﹐與以往的表情比較可以話非常落漠﹐可能因為他已經係“跛腳鴨政府”﹐今次演說我認為他已經盡力提出理據解釋救市原因。他也用了很多非常嚴重的字眼﹐好似衰退(recession)﹐嚴重金融危機(serious financial crisis)﹐美國將跌入範圍廣泛的金融震蕩(America could slip into a widespread financial panic)等美國總統一向避免使用的字眼。布殊在演說當中也表示﹐今次救市是為了挽救美國經濟以及美國工人職位﹐而並非挽救華爾街投資銀行的高層的個人利益。
當然我也希望這建議中的七百億救市方案可以成功﹐因為今次的金融風暴影響實在太大﹗也希望這七百億用得其所。以下是布殊演說英語全文:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release September 24, 2008
ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION
State Floor
9:01 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. This is an extraordinary period for America's economy. Over the past few weeks, many Americans have felt anxiety about their finances and their future. I understand their worry and their frustration. We’ve seen triple-digit swings in the stock market. Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending. Credit markets have frozen. And families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money.
We’re in the midst of a serious financial crisis, and the federal government is responding with decisive action. We’ve boosted confidence in money market mutual funds, and acted to prevent major investors from intentionally driving down stocks for their own personal gain.
Most importantly, my administration is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets. Financial assets related to home mortgages have lost value during the housing decline. And the banks holding these assets have restricted credit. As a result, our entire economy is in danger. So I’ve proposed that the federal government reduce the risk posed by these troubled assets, and supply urgently-needed money so banks and other financial institutions can avoid collapse and resume lending.
This rescue effort is not aimed at preserving any individual company or industry -- it is aimed at preserving America's overall economy. It will help American consumers and businesses get credit to meet their daily needs and create jobs. And it will help send a signal to markets around the world that America's financial system is back on track.
I know many Americans have questions tonight: How did we reach this point in our economy? How will the solution I’ve proposed work? And what does this mean for your financial future? These are good questions, and they deserve clear answers.
First, how did our economy reach this point?
Well, most economists agree that the problems we are witnessing today developed over a long period of time. For more than a decade, a massive amount of money flowed into the United States from investors abroad, because our country is an attractive and secure place to do business. This large influx of money to U.S. banks and financial institutions -- along with low interest rates -- made it easier for Americans to get credit. These developments allowed more families to borrow money for cars and homes and college tuition -- some for the first time. They allowed more entrepreneurs to get loans to start new businesses and create jobs.
Unfortunately, there were also some serious negative consequences, particularly in the housing market. Easy credit -- combined with the faulty assumption that home values would continue to rise -- led to excesses and bad decisions. Many mortgage lenders approved loans for borrowers without carefully examining their ability to pay. Many borrowers took out loans larger than they could afford, assuming that they could sell or refinance their homes at a higher price later on.
Optimism about housing values also led to a boom in home construction. Eventually the number of new houses exceeded the number of people willing to buy them. And with supply exceeding demand, housing prices fell. And this created a problem: Borrowers with adjustable rate mortgages who had been planning to sell or refinance their homes at a higher price were stuck with homes worth less than expected -- along with mortgage payments they could not afford. As a result, many mortgage holders began to default.
These widespread defaults had effects far beyond the housing market. See, in today's mortgage industry, home loans are often packaged together, and converted into financial products called "mortgage-backed securities." These securities were sold to investors around the world. Many investors assumed these securities were trustworthy, and asked few questions about their actual value. Two of the leading purchasers of mortgage-backed securities were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk.
The decline in the housing market set off a domino effect across our economy. When home values declined, borrowers defaulted on their mortgages, and investors holding mortgage-backed securities began to incur serious losses. Before long, these securities became so unreliable that they were not being bought or sold. Investment banks such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers found themselves saddled with large amounts of assets they could not sell. They ran out of the money needed to meet their immediate obligations. And they faced imminent collapse. Other banks found themselves in severe financial trouble. These banks began holding on to their money, and lending dried up, and the gears of the American financial system began grinding to a halt.
With the situation becoming more precarious by the day, I faced a choice: To step in with dramatic government action, or to stand back and allow the irresponsible actions of some to undermine the financial security of all.
I’m a strong believer in free enterprise. So my natural instinct is to oppose government intervention. I believe companies that make bad decisions should be allowed to go out of business. Under normal circumstances, I would have followed this course. But these are not normal circumstances. The market is not functioning properly. There’s been a widespread loss of confidence. And major sectors of America's financial system are at risk of shutting down.
The government's top economic experts warn that without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold:
More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically. And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs. Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession.
Fellow citizens: We must not let this happen. I appreciate the work of leaders from both parties in both houses of Congress to address this problem -- and to make improvements to the proposal my administration sent to them. There is a spirit of cooperation between Democrats and Republicans, and between Congress and this administration. In that spirit, I’ve invited Senators McCain and Obama to join congressional leaders of both parties at the White House tomorrow to help speed our discussions toward a bipartisan bill.
I know that an economic rescue package will present a tough vote for many members of Congress. It is difficult to pass a bill that commits so much of the taxpayers' hard-earned money. I also understand the frustration of responsible Americans who pay their mortgages on time, file their tax returns every April 15th, and are reluctant to pay the cost of excesses on Wall Street. But given the situation we are facing, not passing a bill now would cost these Americans much more later.
Many Americans are asking: How would a rescue plan work?
After much discussion, there is now widespread agreement on the principles such a plan would include. It would remove the risk posed by the troubled assets -- including mortgage-backed securities -- now clogging the financial system. This would free banks to resume the flow of credit to American families and businesses. Any rescue plan should also be designed to ensure that taxpayers are protected. It should welcome the participation of financial institutions large and small. It should make certain that failed executives do not receive a windfall from your tax dollars. It should establish a bipartisan board to oversee the plan's implementation. And it should be enacted as soon as possible.
In close consultation with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and SEC Chairman Chris Cox, I announced a plan on Friday. First, the plan is big enough to solve a serious problem. Under our proposal, the federal government would put up to $700 billion taxpayer dollars on the line to purchase troubled assets that are clogging the financial system. In the short term, this will free up banks to resume the flow of credit to American families and businesses. And this will help our economy grow.
Second, as markets have lost confidence in mortgage-backed securities, their prices have dropped sharply. Yet the value of many of these assets will likely be higher than their current price, because the vast majority of Americans will ultimately pay off their mortgages. The government is the one institution with the patience and resources to buy these assets at their current low prices and hold them until markets return to normal. And when that happens, money will flow back to the Treasury as these assets are sold. And we expect that much, if not all, of the tax dollars we invest will be paid back.
A final question is: What does this mean for your economic future?
The primary steps -- purpose of the steps I have outlined tonight is to safeguard the financial security of American workers and families and small businesses. The federal government also continues to enforce laws and regulations protecting your money. The Treasury Department recently offered government insurance for money market mutual funds. And through the FDIC, every savings account, checking account, and certificate of deposit is insured by the federal government for up to $100,000. The FDIC has been in existence for 75 years, and no one has ever lost a penny on an insured deposit -- and this will not change.
Once this crisis is resolved, there will be time to update our financial regulatory structures. Our 21st century global economy remains regulated largely by outdated 20th century laws. Recently, we’ve seen how one company can grow so large that its failure jeopardizes the entire financial system.
Earlier this year, Secretary Paulson proposed a blueprint that would modernize our financial regulations. For example, the Federal Reserve would be authorized to take a closer look at the operations of companies across the financial spectrum and ensure that their practices do not threaten overall financial stability. There are other good ideas, and members of Congress should consider them. As they do, they must ensure that efforts to regulate Wall Street do not end up hampering our economy's ability to grow.
In the long run, Americans have good reason to be confident in our economic strength. Despite corrections in the marketplace and instances of abuse, democratic capitalism is the best system ever devised. It has unleashed the talents and the productivity, and entrepreneurial spirit of our citizens. It has made this country the best place in the world to invest and do business. And it gives our economy the flexibility and resilience to absorb shocks, adjust, and bounce back.
Our economy is facing a moment of great challenge. But we’ve overcome tough challenges before -- and we will overcome this one. I know that Americans sometimes get discouraged by the tone in Washington, and the seemingly endless partisan struggles. Yet history has shown that in times of real trial, elected officials rise to the occasion. And together, we will show the world once again what kind of country America is -- a nation that tackles problems head on, where leaders come together to meet great tests, and where people of every background can work hard, develop their talents, and realize their dreams.
Thank you for listening. May God bless you.
END 9:14 P.M. EDT
綜觀他在發表演說時的神情﹐與以往的表情比較可以話非常落漠﹐可能因為他已經係“跛腳鴨政府”﹐今次演說我認為他已經盡力提出理據解釋救市原因。他也用了很多非常嚴重的字眼﹐好似衰退(recession)﹐嚴重金融危機(serious financial crisis)﹐美國將跌入範圍廣泛的金融震蕩(America could slip into a widespread financial panic)等美國總統一向避免使用的字眼。布殊在演說當中也表示﹐今次救市是為了挽救美國經濟以及美國工人職位﹐而並非挽救華爾街投資銀行的高層的個人利益。
當然我也希望這建議中的七百億救市方案可以成功﹐因為今次的金融風暴影響實在太大﹗也希望這七百億用得其所。以下是布殊演說英語全文:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release September 24, 2008
ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION
State Floor
9:01 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. This is an extraordinary period for America's economy. Over the past few weeks, many Americans have felt anxiety about their finances and their future. I understand their worry and their frustration. We’ve seen triple-digit swings in the stock market. Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending. Credit markets have frozen. And families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money.
We’re in the midst of a serious financial crisis, and the federal government is responding with decisive action. We’ve boosted confidence in money market mutual funds, and acted to prevent major investors from intentionally driving down stocks for their own personal gain.
Most importantly, my administration is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets. Financial assets related to home mortgages have lost value during the housing decline. And the banks holding these assets have restricted credit. As a result, our entire economy is in danger. So I’ve proposed that the federal government reduce the risk posed by these troubled assets, and supply urgently-needed money so banks and other financial institutions can avoid collapse and resume lending.
This rescue effort is not aimed at preserving any individual company or industry -- it is aimed at preserving America's overall economy. It will help American consumers and businesses get credit to meet their daily needs and create jobs. And it will help send a signal to markets around the world that America's financial system is back on track.
I know many Americans have questions tonight: How did we reach this point in our economy? How will the solution I’ve proposed work? And what does this mean for your financial future? These are good questions, and they deserve clear answers.
First, how did our economy reach this point?
Well, most economists agree that the problems we are witnessing today developed over a long period of time. For more than a decade, a massive amount of money flowed into the United States from investors abroad, because our country is an attractive and secure place to do business. This large influx of money to U.S. banks and financial institutions -- along with low interest rates -- made it easier for Americans to get credit. These developments allowed more families to borrow money for cars and homes and college tuition -- some for the first time. They allowed more entrepreneurs to get loans to start new businesses and create jobs.
Unfortunately, there were also some serious negative consequences, particularly in the housing market. Easy credit -- combined with the faulty assumption that home values would continue to rise -- led to excesses and bad decisions. Many mortgage lenders approved loans for borrowers without carefully examining their ability to pay. Many borrowers took out loans larger than they could afford, assuming that they could sell or refinance their homes at a higher price later on.
Optimism about housing values also led to a boom in home construction. Eventually the number of new houses exceeded the number of people willing to buy them. And with supply exceeding demand, housing prices fell. And this created a problem: Borrowers with adjustable rate mortgages who had been planning to sell or refinance their homes at a higher price were stuck with homes worth less than expected -- along with mortgage payments they could not afford. As a result, many mortgage holders began to default.
These widespread defaults had effects far beyond the housing market. See, in today's mortgage industry, home loans are often packaged together, and converted into financial products called "mortgage-backed securities." These securities were sold to investors around the world. Many investors assumed these securities were trustworthy, and asked few questions about their actual value. Two of the leading purchasers of mortgage-backed securities were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk.
The decline in the housing market set off a domino effect across our economy. When home values declined, borrowers defaulted on their mortgages, and investors holding mortgage-backed securities began to incur serious losses. Before long, these securities became so unreliable that they were not being bought or sold. Investment banks such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers found themselves saddled with large amounts of assets they could not sell. They ran out of the money needed to meet their immediate obligations. And they faced imminent collapse. Other banks found themselves in severe financial trouble. These banks began holding on to their money, and lending dried up, and the gears of the American financial system began grinding to a halt.
With the situation becoming more precarious by the day, I faced a choice: To step in with dramatic government action, or to stand back and allow the irresponsible actions of some to undermine the financial security of all.
I’m a strong believer in free enterprise. So my natural instinct is to oppose government intervention. I believe companies that make bad decisions should be allowed to go out of business. Under normal circumstances, I would have followed this course. But these are not normal circumstances. The market is not functioning properly. There’s been a widespread loss of confidence. And major sectors of America's financial system are at risk of shutting down.
The government's top economic experts warn that without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold:
More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically. And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs. Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession.
Fellow citizens: We must not let this happen. I appreciate the work of leaders from both parties in both houses of Congress to address this problem -- and to make improvements to the proposal my administration sent to them. There is a spirit of cooperation between Democrats and Republicans, and between Congress and this administration. In that spirit, I’ve invited Senators McCain and Obama to join congressional leaders of both parties at the White House tomorrow to help speed our discussions toward a bipartisan bill.
I know that an economic rescue package will present a tough vote for many members of Congress. It is difficult to pass a bill that commits so much of the taxpayers' hard-earned money. I also understand the frustration of responsible Americans who pay their mortgages on time, file their tax returns every April 15th, and are reluctant to pay the cost of excesses on Wall Street. But given the situation we are facing, not passing a bill now would cost these Americans much more later.
Many Americans are asking: How would a rescue plan work?
After much discussion, there is now widespread agreement on the principles such a plan would include. It would remove the risk posed by the troubled assets -- including mortgage-backed securities -- now clogging the financial system. This would free banks to resume the flow of credit to American families and businesses. Any rescue plan should also be designed to ensure that taxpayers are protected. It should welcome the participation of financial institutions large and small. It should make certain that failed executives do not receive a windfall from your tax dollars. It should establish a bipartisan board to oversee the plan's implementation. And it should be enacted as soon as possible.
In close consultation with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and SEC Chairman Chris Cox, I announced a plan on Friday. First, the plan is big enough to solve a serious problem. Under our proposal, the federal government would put up to $700 billion taxpayer dollars on the line to purchase troubled assets that are clogging the financial system. In the short term, this will free up banks to resume the flow of credit to American families and businesses. And this will help our economy grow.
Second, as markets have lost confidence in mortgage-backed securities, their prices have dropped sharply. Yet the value of many of these assets will likely be higher than their current price, because the vast majority of Americans will ultimately pay off their mortgages. The government is the one institution with the patience and resources to buy these assets at their current low prices and hold them until markets return to normal. And when that happens, money will flow back to the Treasury as these assets are sold. And we expect that much, if not all, of the tax dollars we invest will be paid back.
A final question is: What does this mean for your economic future?
The primary steps -- purpose of the steps I have outlined tonight is to safeguard the financial security of American workers and families and small businesses. The federal government also continues to enforce laws and regulations protecting your money. The Treasury Department recently offered government insurance for money market mutual funds. And through the FDIC, every savings account, checking account, and certificate of deposit is insured by the federal government for up to $100,000. The FDIC has been in existence for 75 years, and no one has ever lost a penny on an insured deposit -- and this will not change.
Once this crisis is resolved, there will be time to update our financial regulatory structures. Our 21st century global economy remains regulated largely by outdated 20th century laws. Recently, we’ve seen how one company can grow so large that its failure jeopardizes the entire financial system.
Earlier this year, Secretary Paulson proposed a blueprint that would modernize our financial regulations. For example, the Federal Reserve would be authorized to take a closer look at the operations of companies across the financial spectrum and ensure that their practices do not threaten overall financial stability. There are other good ideas, and members of Congress should consider them. As they do, they must ensure that efforts to regulate Wall Street do not end up hampering our economy's ability to grow.
In the long run, Americans have good reason to be confident in our economic strength. Despite corrections in the marketplace and instances of abuse, democratic capitalism is the best system ever devised. It has unleashed the talents and the productivity, and entrepreneurial spirit of our citizens. It has made this country the best place in the world to invest and do business. And it gives our economy the flexibility and resilience to absorb shocks, adjust, and bounce back.
Our economy is facing a moment of great challenge. But we’ve overcome tough challenges before -- and we will overcome this one. I know that Americans sometimes get discouraged by the tone in Washington, and the seemingly endless partisan struggles. Yet history has shown that in times of real trial, elected officials rise to the occasion. And together, we will show the world once again what kind of country America is -- a nation that tackles problems head on, where leaders come together to meet great tests, and where people of every background can work hard, develop their talents, and realize their dreams.
Thank you for listening. May God bless you.
END 9:14 P.M. EDT
三聚氰胺使華人蒙羞
今日中午時間睇CNN﹐見到報導有關大陸乳製品被人加入三聚氰胺的報導。負責報導的醫學記者在鏡頭前拿著一大包中國製造的大白兔糖﹐表示已經有化驗發現大白兔糖含有三聚氰胺﹐所以警告美國消費者小心。
點解堂堂一個五千年歷史﹐崇尚禮義廉恥的文化大國﹐在二十一世紀竟然為了個“利”字就可以不顧道義﹐一而再再而三地生產出口有問題的產品﹐仲要行銷世界各地危害性命﹖這個究竟是什麼制度之下的產品﹖這些事件簡直令所有海內外的華人蒙羞﹗
點解堂堂一個五千年歷史﹐崇尚禮義廉恥的文化大國﹐在二十一世紀竟然為了個“利”字就可以不顧道義﹐一而再再而三地生產出口有問題的產品﹐仲要行銷世界各地危害性命﹖這個究竟是什麼制度之下的產品﹖這些事件簡直令所有海內外的華人蒙羞﹗
Breaking News:麥凱恩以美國經濟為理由暫停競選活動
麥凱恩在美國時間星期三下午以美國面對金融危機為理由﹐宣佈暫停競選活動﹐並且呼籲奧巴馬同意延期舉行原定在星期五晚舉行的首場候選人辯論。
美國總統布殊在美國東岸時間晚上九點正(香港時間星期四早上九點)將從白宮就目前的金融危機向全國發表電視直播演說。
美國聯邦調查局(FBI)著手調查金融風暴
美國聯邦調查局(FBI)對身處於華爾街金融危機中心的四家美國金融機構展開了調查。據美國在星期二以及星期三的新聞報導說﹐FBI正在調查美國兩大房地產按揭機構房利美(Fannie Mae)和房貸美(Freddie Mac, 名稱又譯作房地美)﹑美國國際集團以及雷曼兄弟證券公司。聯邦調查局懷疑這四家公司可能出現詐騙行為﹐調查將集中在四家機構及他們的高層主管﹐這次是FBI進行範圍廣泛的欺詐調查的其中一部份。FBI目前一共有26宗與美國金融領域瀕于崩潰有關的調查案件。在其中一項調查案中﹐貝爾斯登投資銀行(Bear Stearns)的兩名前經理已經被捕。他們在今年六月被美國司法部以證券欺詐等指控而被捕。
另外﹐被譽為股神的巴菲特(Warren Buffett)同意向華爾街大行高盛證券(Goldman Sachs)注資五十億美元﹐這次終於可以俾佢真正涉足華爾街。因為佢個大寶號Berkshire Hathaway其實之前只係擁有富國銀行(Wells Fargo Bank)一間金融機構而已﹗我對於巴菲特投資落本高盛證券感到高興﹐起碼好過巴菲特投資落一些帳目唔清唔楚的中國企業﹗
另外﹐被譽為股神的巴菲特(Warren Buffett)同意向華爾街大行高盛證券(Goldman Sachs)注資五十億美元﹐這次終於可以俾佢真正涉足華爾街。因為佢個大寶號Berkshire Hathaway其實之前只係擁有富國銀行(Wells Fargo Bank)一間金融機構而已﹗我對於巴菲特投資落本高盛證券感到高興﹐起碼好過巴菲特投資落一些帳目唔清唔楚的中國企業﹗
Saturday, September 20, 2008
美國政府下重藥救市
白宮以及美國國會終於出手。布殊政府向國會提出動用七千億美元救市﹐是自從二十世紀三十年代出現的經濟大蕭條後的罕見措施﹗包括成立機構收購不良資產。有關方案已經提交美國國會﹐可望在星期五(9月26日)國會休會前通過。這一天也是美國在11月4日舉行大選前的最後一天舉行會議。
聽起上來好似實行社會主義﹐不過話分兩頭﹐美國假假地都係全球經濟龍頭﹐無論經過今次事件後美國的地位會否動搖或者拱手送出﹐美國的地位無其他國家可以代替。如果今次事件政府見死不救咪可能仲大鑊﹗到時又會俾其他人話“為富不仁”咪仲衰﹗所以我認為今次政府介入是是非不已之舉﹗
至於今後美國的地位以及局勢何去何從﹐我只有一句說話﹕“爛船都有三分釘”﹗美國不會咁容易清袋離場﹐自由市場不會咁容易就瓜柴﹗因為美國有來自世界各地的人才以及智慧﹐制度可能出現問題﹐不過有完善的改善環境與機製﹐更有自我批評與改善的意識主導﹐這些並非強調國族為主體﹐以及獨裁貪污盛行的國家可以想像得到﹗
聽起上來好似實行社會主義﹐不過話分兩頭﹐美國假假地都係全球經濟龍頭﹐無論經過今次事件後美國的地位會否動搖或者拱手送出﹐美國的地位無其他國家可以代替。如果今次事件政府見死不救咪可能仲大鑊﹗到時又會俾其他人話“為富不仁”咪仲衰﹗所以我認為今次政府介入是是非不已之舉﹗
至於今後美國的地位以及局勢何去何從﹐我只有一句說話﹕“爛船都有三分釘”﹗美國不會咁容易清袋離場﹐自由市場不會咁容易就瓜柴﹗因為美國有來自世界各地的人才以及智慧﹐制度可能出現問題﹐不過有完善的改善環境與機製﹐更有自我批評與改善的意識主導﹐這些並非強調國族為主體﹐以及獨裁貪污盛行的國家可以想像得到﹗
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
聯儲局出手打救AIG
今朝六點幾鐘返到辦公室打開電視機以及電腦﹐頭條新聞就係美國聯邦儲備局決定透過紐約聯邦儲備銀行(The Federal Reserve Bank of New York)打救美國國際集團(American International Group)﹐向AIG提供850億美元的貸款，更罕有地以倫敦銀行同業策息(LIBOR)的利率11.31%來計算﹐並且獲得AIG接近八成的股權﹐一夜之間美國政府成為AIG的大股東。也即是﹕美國以及全球的保險業變相地由美國政府話事﹗
雖然有市場人士認為，美國政府再度出手令眼前一個不明朗因素得到解決，但對經濟表現幫助不大。 不過如果俾AIG破產﹐美國以至全世界都唔惦﹗撇開簡單如個人保險唔講﹐AIG做好多“大刁”﹐包括為銀行業務、石油公司在海上的鑽油臺設施、航空公司的飛機﹐美國人買的彩票(lottery)彩池﹐以及荷李活電影製作承擔風險。如果AIG收皮﹐仲有變間保險公司有份量可以擔保﹖AIG破產將影響各行各業﹐不單只美國﹐更會影響全世界﹐到時就真係會見到全球的經濟衰退。今次聯儲局出手打救﹐只許成功﹐不許失敗。現任聯儲局主席伯南克(Ben S. Bernanke)係研究美國經濟大蕭條的學者﹐希望佢真係“學有所用”, 知道自己應該要做D乜喇﹗
聯儲局聲明全文﹕
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/other/20080916a.htm
Release Date: September 16, 2008
For release at 9:00 p.m. EDT
The Federal Reserve Board on Tuesday, with the full support of the Treasury Department, authorized the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to lend up to $85 billion to the American International Group (AIG) under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. The secured loan has terms and conditions designed to protect the interests of the U.S. government and taxpayers.
The Board determined that, in current circumstances, a disorderly failure of AIG could add to already significant levels of financial market fragility and lead to substantially higher borrowing costs, reduced household wealth, and materially weaker economic performance.
The purpose of this liquidity facility is to assist AIG in meeting its obligations as they come due. This loan will facilitate a process under which AIG will sell certain of its businesses in an orderly manner, with the least possible disruption to the overall economy.
The AIG facility has a 24-month term. Interest will accrue on the outstanding balance at a rate of three-month Libor plus 850 basis points. AIG will be permitted to draw up to $85 billion under the facility.
The interests of taxpayers are protected by key terms of the loan. The loan is collateralized by all the assets of AIG, and of its primary non-regulated subsidiaries. These assets include the stock of substantially all of the regulated subsidiaries. The loan is expected to be repaid from the proceeds of the sale of the firm’s assets. The U.S. government will receive a 79.9 percent equity interest in AIG and has the right to veto the payment of dividends to common and preferred shareholders.
雖然有市場人士認為，美國政府再度出手令眼前一個不明朗因素得到解決，但對經濟表現幫助不大。 不過如果俾AIG破產﹐美國以至全世界都唔惦﹗撇開簡單如個人保險唔講﹐AIG做好多“大刁”﹐包括為銀行業務、石油公司在海上的鑽油臺設施、航空公司的飛機﹐美國人買的彩票(lottery)彩池﹐以及荷李活電影製作承擔風險。如果AIG收皮﹐仲有變間保險公司有份量可以擔保﹖AIG破產將影響各行各業﹐不單只美國﹐更會影響全世界﹐到時就真係會見到全球的經濟衰退。今次聯儲局出手打救﹐只許成功﹐不許失敗。現任聯儲局主席伯南克(Ben S. Bernanke)係研究美國經濟大蕭條的學者﹐希望佢真係“學有所用”, 知道自己應該要做D乜喇﹗
聯儲局聲明全文﹕
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/other/20080916a.htm
Release Date: September 16, 2008
For release at 9:00 p.m. EDT
The Federal Reserve Board on Tuesday, with the full support of the Treasury Department, authorized the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to lend up to $85 billion to the American International Group (AIG) under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. The secured loan has terms and conditions designed to protect the interests of the U.S. government and taxpayers.
The Board determined that, in current circumstances, a disorderly failure of AIG could add to already significant levels of financial market fragility and lead to substantially higher borrowing costs, reduced household wealth, and materially weaker economic performance.
The purpose of this liquidity facility is to assist AIG in meeting its obligations as they come due. This loan will facilitate a process under which AIG will sell certain of its businesses in an orderly manner, with the least possible disruption to the overall economy.
The AIG facility has a 24-month term. Interest will accrue on the outstanding balance at a rate of three-month Libor plus 850 basis points. AIG will be permitted to draw up to $85 billion under the facility.
The interests of taxpayers are protected by key terms of the loan. The loan is collateralized by all the assets of AIG, and of its primary non-regulated subsidiaries. These assets include the stock of substantially all of the regulated subsidiaries. The loan is expected to be repaid from the proceeds of the sale of the firm’s assets. The U.S. government will receive a 79.9 percent equity interest in AIG and has the right to veto the payment of dividends to common and preferred shareholders.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
LATE TUESDAY UPDATE﹕巴克萊宣佈收購部份雷曼兄弟控股
CNN以及CNBC在星期二下午五點半(香港時間星期三清晨五點半)分別報導﹐英國巴克萊銀行集團(Barclays PLC)決定收購部份雷曼兄弟控股(Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc)的股權。
希望有關收購可以加快恢復穩定市場﹗
CNN引用美聯社(Associate Press, AP)報導原文﹕
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/16/news/companies/barclays_lehman.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008091617
NEW YORK (AP) -- Barclays PLC will unveil a plan to acquire all or part of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s investment banking and trading operations as early as Tuesday, a person close to the talks said.
The deal could throw a lifeline to more than 9,000 Lehman employees whose future was uncertain after Lehman (LEH, Fortune 500) filed for bankruptcy protection on Monday. Lehman collapsed from massive exposure to risky real estate holdings.
Barclays (BCS) President Robert Diamond has addressed Lehman investment bankers to inform them of his company's intentions, this person said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because a final agreement had yet to be reached.
The third-biggest British bank had withdrawn from weekend talks with Lehman Brothers about a possible outright acquisition. There have been reports that Barclays can pick up the assets it wants for about $2 billion to $3 billion.
The deal must get approval from the bankruptcy court.
A Lehman Brothers request to get initial approval of asset sales from a bankruptcy judge was postponed by one day to a hearing scheduled for Wednesday.
The delay was announced Tuesday, ahead of the company's first hearing in its bankruptcy case. A request to obtain loans to operate while in bankruptcy was also postponed.
A court official did not specify the reason for the delay. The Tuesday agenda had included a motion to start the process of selling certain assets.
The hearing was held at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York, before Judge James Peck.
Also on Tuesday, the House Oversight and Government Reform committee said it would hold a hearing Sept. 25 to examine the "regulatory mistakes and financial excesses" that led to Lehman's bankruptcy filing. It asked Lehman Chief Executive Richard Fuld to testify before the committee.
希望有關收購可以加快恢復穩定市場﹗
CNN引用美聯社(Associate Press, AP)報導原文﹕
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/16/news/companies/barclays_lehman.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008091617
NEW YORK (AP) -- Barclays PLC will unveil a plan to acquire all or part of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s investment banking and trading operations as early as Tuesday, a person close to the talks said.
The deal could throw a lifeline to more than 9,000 Lehman employees whose future was uncertain after Lehman (LEH, Fortune 500) filed for bankruptcy protection on Monday. Lehman collapsed from massive exposure to risky real estate holdings.
Barclays (BCS) President Robert Diamond has addressed Lehman investment bankers to inform them of his company's intentions, this person said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because a final agreement had yet to be reached.
The third-biggest British bank had withdrawn from weekend talks with Lehman Brothers about a possible outright acquisition. There have been reports that Barclays can pick up the assets it wants for about $2 billion to $3 billion.
The deal must get approval from the bankruptcy court.
A Lehman Brothers request to get initial approval of asset sales from a bankruptcy judge was postponed by one day to a hearing scheduled for Wednesday.
The delay was announced Tuesday, ahead of the company's first hearing in its bankruptcy case. A request to obtain loans to operate while in bankruptcy was also postponed.
A court official did not specify the reason for the delay. The Tuesday agenda had included a motion to start the process of selling certain assets.
The hearing was held at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York, before Judge James Peck.
Also on Tuesday, the House Oversight and Government Reform committee said it would hold a hearing Sept. 25 to examine the "regulatory mistakes and financial excesses" that led to Lehman's bankruptcy filing. It asked Lehman Chief Executive Richard Fuld to testify before the committee.
美國宣佈利率不變﹐大出市場意料之外
美國聯邦儲備局公開市場委員會(Federal Open Market Committee, FOMC)在美國東岸時間星期二下午兩點十五分(香港時間星期三凌晨兩點十五分)出乎市場意料之外﹐維持聯邦基金利率兩厘不變。
維持利率兩厘不變後﹐華爾街三大指數全面下跌。道瓊斯指數在十分鐘內就下跌了超過一百點。不過在大半個鐘頭後又止跌回升﹐真係好似坐過山車﹗綜觀聯儲局的聲明﹐不減息的唯一原因就係始終害怕美國的通貨膨脹上升。並且認為近期美國政府推出的救市措施已經足夠﹐不願意在現在這個情況下再加重落藥。
究竟聯儲局這招“以不變應萬變”有無效﹐就真係見仁見智﹗不過除了減息之外﹐聯儲局還可以做乜呢﹖
以下是聯儲局聲明全文:
Release Date: September 16, 2008
For immediate release
The Federal Open Market Committee decided today to keep its target for the federal funds rate at 2 percent.
Strains in financial markets have increased significantly and labor markets have weakened further. Economic growth appears to have slowed recently, partly reflecting a softening of household spending. Tight credit conditions, the ongoing housing contraction, and some slowing in export growth are likely to weigh on economic growth over the next few quarters. Over time, the substantial easing of monetary policy, combined with ongoing measures to foster market liquidity, should help to promote moderate economic growth.
Inflation has been high, spurred by the earlier increases in the prices of energy and some other commodities. The Committee expects inflation to moderate later this year and next year, but the inflation outlook remains highly uncertain.
The downside risks to growth and the upside risks to inflation are both of significant concern to the Committee. The Committee will monitor economic and financial developments carefully and will act as needed to promote sustainable economic growth and price stability.
Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; Christine M. Cumming; Elizabeth A. Duke; Richard W. Fisher; Donald L. Kohn; Randall S. Kroszner; Sandra Pianalto; Charles I. Plosser; Gary H. Stern; and Kevin M. Warsh. Ms. Cumming voted as the alternate for Timothy F. Geithner.
2008 Monetary Policy Releases
Monday, September 15, 2008
雷曼兄弟申請破產
成立了158年歷史的美國雷曼兄弟證券公司(Lehman Brothers)在星期一宣佈向法庭申請破產﹐表示集團虧損額高達六千三百一十億美元。可能因為這個虧損額實在太大﹐所以原本想趁低收購的英國巴克萊銀行集團(Barclays Plc)都在星期日收兵。同時﹐美國銀行(Bank of America)宣佈以收購美林證券(Merrill Lynch)大約價值五百億美元的股票。
前聯邦儲備局主席格林斯潘也在美國時間星期日早上接受美國廣播公司(ABC)的時事節目"This Week"的訪問時也唔睇好目前的經濟前景。格林斯潘話“這是50年﹐或者100年不遇的重大事件。毫無疑問﹐事情的發展將比我所見過的任何情況更加嚴重﹐而且問題還遠遠沒有解決。”(This is a once-in-a-half-century, probably once-in-a-century, type of event. There is no question that this is in the process of outstripping anything I have seen. And it still is not resolved and it still has a way to go.)
格林斯潘認為﹐政府沒完沒了的救助並非上策。他更認為在房地產市場危機﹐能源價格劇烈動蕩﹐失業率上升的情況下﹐美國和整個世界經濟是否能完全避免一次經濟衰退﹐頗感悲觀。他說﹐避免經濟衰退的機率不到50%。
自己以前讀書時的本科是金融財經﹐也曾經在一家美資銀行工作過﹐我也有一位朋友曾經在雷曼兄弟的日本分公司工作﹐對於公司內部的文化有點兒了解。我個人不願意繼續留在銀行金融業的其中一個原因是認為這行是“三更窮﹐五更富”﹐可以搵得多但係洗錢會洗得仲多﹗雖然對於在美國做金融這行裡面某些文化不敢認同﹐所以不過對於目前美國以至全球出現金融動蕩感到非常不安、感慨與無奈。
ABC 訪問格林斯潘的報導
http://www.abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4008041&page=1
前聯邦儲備局主席格林斯潘也在美國時間星期日早上接受美國廣播公司(ABC)的時事節目"This Week"的訪問時也唔睇好目前的經濟前景。格林斯潘話“這是50年﹐或者100年不遇的重大事件。毫無疑問﹐事情的發展將比我所見過的任何情況更加嚴重﹐而且問題還遠遠沒有解決。”(This is a once-in-a-half-century, probably once-in-a-century, type of event. There is no question that this is in the process of outstripping anything I have seen. And it still is not resolved and it still has a way to go.)
格林斯潘認為﹐政府沒完沒了的救助並非上策。他更認為在房地產市場危機﹐能源價格劇烈動蕩﹐失業率上升的情況下﹐美國和整個世界經濟是否能完全避免一次經濟衰退﹐頗感悲觀。他說﹐避免經濟衰退的機率不到50%。
自己以前讀書時的本科是金融財經﹐也曾經在一家美資銀行工作過﹐我也有一位朋友曾經在雷曼兄弟的日本分公司工作﹐對於公司內部的文化有點兒了解。我個人不願意繼續留在銀行金融業的其中一個原因是認為這行是“三更窮﹐五更富”﹐可以搵得多但係洗錢會洗得仲多﹗雖然對於在美國做金融這行裡面某些文化不敢認同﹐所以不過對於目前美國以至全球出現金融動蕩感到非常不安、感慨與無奈。
ABC 訪問格林斯潘的報導
http://www.abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4008041&page=1
Friday, September 12, 2008
美國兩黨總統候選人
在網友黃世澤的Blog內見到佢講麥凱恩﹐所以就有感而發﹐寫下個人感覺。
請見http://martinoei.wordpress.com/
其實今年選舉真係好難作出選擇。奧巴馬(Barack Obama)雖然形像清新﹐不過只有一個change字而已﹗副手拜登(Joseph Biden)係政治老手﹐在國會參議院內已經二十幾年﹐是美國設立自由亞洲電台(Radio Free Asia)的其中一個幕後推動力。拜登擔任奧巴馬的副手應該可以給予奧巴馬很大的幫助﹐不過與奧巴馬出選所提出的change這個字就真係離天萬仗﹗到目前為止﹐我真係唔知道如果奧巴馬當選後﹐究竟會係另一個約翰甘迺迪(John F. Kennedy)﹐還是另外一個占美卡特(Jimmy Carter)。
至於麥凱恩(John McCain)﹐他絕對是在共和黨的特立獨行人物﹐也是一個願意不分黨派﹐合作推動改革的政治人物。不過為了今次選舉﹐他的立場已經開始慢慢地與共和黨內現在的主流派接軌﹔加上他的年紀也有翻咁上下﹐所以邊個成為他的副手就成為公眾關注的目標。所以當他宣佈挑出剛剛擔任阿拉斯加州州長只有一年半的佩林(Sarah Palin)擔任副手時﹐只是看她在GOP黨大會上的演說表現時覺得“耳目一新”。不過昨晚睇ABC World News時﹐她接受主播Charlie Gibson訪問時露出了對外交政策上的認識不足﹐只說堅持布殊目前的政策﹐即所謂的the Bush Doctrine﹐但她卻對這個所謂的the Bush Doctrine卻不能夠在訪問當中解釋一番。加上最近有Youtube影片顯示﹐她在一個基督教集會上表示﹐伊拉克戰爭是“神的旨意”﹐搞到俾Charlie Gibson問佢“依家美國是否搞緊類似十字軍東征的行動”。在被問到格魯吉亞如果在加入北約後受到俄羅斯攻擊時的反應的問題上﹐佩林的回答讓我想起布殊在2000年競選總統時的表現﹐這一點讓我感到有點擔憂﹗觀乎佩林的表現﹐這名美國政壇新進實在有很多需要改進的地方。
大吉利是講句﹕一旦麥凱恩有任何東瓜豆腐﹐究竟佩林有無能力接任總統大位﹖我真係唔敢答﹐更加唔識答﹗但係如果奧巴馬俾人當做JFK來練靶﹐我會對拜登的能力與經驗較為有信心﹐雖然我對拜登這個人並無好感﹗
請見http://martinoei.wordpress.com/
其實今年選舉真係好難作出選擇。奧巴馬(Barack Obama)雖然形像清新﹐不過只有一個change字而已﹗副手拜登(Joseph Biden)係政治老手﹐在國會參議院內已經二十幾年﹐是美國設立自由亞洲電台(Radio Free Asia)的其中一個幕後推動力。拜登擔任奧巴馬的副手應該可以給予奧巴馬很大的幫助﹐不過與奧巴馬出選所提出的change這個字就真係離天萬仗﹗到目前為止﹐我真係唔知道如果奧巴馬當選後﹐究竟會係另一個約翰甘迺迪(John F. Kennedy)﹐還是另外一個占美卡特(Jimmy Carter)。
至於麥凱恩(John McCain)﹐他絕對是在共和黨的特立獨行人物﹐也是一個願意不分黨派﹐合作推動改革的政治人物。不過為了今次選舉﹐他的立場已經開始慢慢地與共和黨內現在的主流派接軌﹔加上他的年紀也有翻咁上下﹐所以邊個成為他的副手就成為公眾關注的目標。所以當他宣佈挑出剛剛擔任阿拉斯加州州長只有一年半的佩林(Sarah Palin)擔任副手時﹐只是看她在GOP黨大會上的演說表現時覺得“耳目一新”。不過昨晚睇ABC World News時﹐她接受主播Charlie Gibson訪問時露出了對外交政策上的認識不足﹐只說堅持布殊目前的政策﹐即所謂的the Bush Doctrine﹐但她卻對這個所謂的the Bush Doctrine卻不能夠在訪問當中解釋一番。加上最近有Youtube影片顯示﹐她在一個基督教集會上表示﹐伊拉克戰爭是“神的旨意”﹐搞到俾Charlie Gibson問佢“依家美國是否搞緊類似十字軍東征的行動”。在被問到格魯吉亞如果在加入北約後受到俄羅斯攻擊時的反應的問題上﹐佩林的回答讓我想起布殊在2000年競選總統時的表現﹐這一點讓我感到有點擔憂﹗觀乎佩林的表現﹐這名美國政壇新進實在有很多需要改進的地方。
大吉利是講句﹕一旦麥凱恩有任何東瓜豆腐﹐究竟佩林有無能力接任總統大位﹖我真係唔敢答﹐更加唔識答﹗但係如果奧巴馬俾人當做JFK來練靶﹐我會對拜登的能力與經驗較為有信心﹐雖然我對拜登這個人並無好感﹗
又來一個颶風(Hurricane)
剛送走了一個颶風古斯塔爾(Hurricane Gustav) 以及漢娜(Hurricane Hanna)﹐現在又來一個艾克(Hurricane Ike)。美國國家颶風中心更罕有地使用“certain death”這個字眼發出颶風警告。對上一次使用這個“certain death”字眼就在三年前橫掃美國南部路易斯安那州﹐搞到新奧爾良市大水浸的卡特里娜颶風(Hurricane Katrina)。
目前艾克颶風正在向德州休斯頓南部的Galveston Bay方向移動。由於這個地區在幾十年前也曾經受過颶風的巨大破壞﹐所以國家颶風中心都幾緊張﹗
目前艾克颶風正在向德州休斯頓南部的Galveston Bay方向移動。由於這個地區在幾十年前也曾經受過颶風的巨大破壞﹐所以國家颶風中心都幾緊張﹗
Thursday, September 11, 2008
9-11事件七週年
時間過得真係好快﹐今日又到九一一恐怖襲擊事件的七週年日子。
當日我在華盛頓的辦公室內看到電視直播﹐簡直不能夠相信﹐尤其是見到我多次到訪過的紐約世界貿易中心(World Trade Center)倒下的一刻。我曾經在99年初曾經到過世貿中心內的紐約商品交易所見工﹐差D就成為這棟辦公大廈內的一員。現在回想起﹐覺得是否冥冥中有註定......
從美國在911後的聲望最高點﹐到現在伊拉克戰爭後的民意支持度﹐只有感到無奈﹗
當日我在華盛頓的辦公室內看到電視直播﹐簡直不能夠相信﹐尤其是見到我多次到訪過的紐約世界貿易中心(World Trade Center)倒下的一刻。我曾經在99年初曾經到過世貿中心內的紐約商品交易所見工﹐差D就成為這棟辦公大廈內的一員。現在回想起﹐覺得是否冥冥中有註定......
從美國在911後的聲望最高點﹐到現在伊拉克戰爭後的民意支持度﹐只有感到無奈﹗
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
新blog開張: 不經不覺在美國已過二十年﹗
1988年9月10日早上九點正﹐在收到中五會考成積後剛好一個月﹐我在舊啟德機場與家人告別後﹐登上西北航空的客機飛往美國麻省求學﹐當時並不知道這一刻就正式展開我在美國的二十年之旅﹗選擇在今天開始寫blog﹐以作紀念這個特別的日子。希望我會繼續有恆心地繼續寫我對所有事情的感受﹗
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
