美國國務院對六四事件20週年的特別聲明

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/06/124292.htm

Message on the Twentieth Anniversary of Tiananmen Square

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
June 3, 2009

On this the 20th anniversary of the violent suppression of demonstrations in Tiananmen Square by Chinese authorities, we should remember the tragic loss of hundreds of innocent lives and reflect upon the meaning of the events that preceded that day.

Hundreds of thousands of protesters took to the streets for weeks, in Beijing and around the country, first to honor the late reformist leader Hu Yaobang and then to demand basic rights denied to them.

A China that has made enormous progress economically, and that is emerging to take its rightful place in global leadership, should examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal.

This anniversary provides an opportunity for Chinese authorities to release from prison all those still serving sentences in connection with the events surrounding June 4, 1989. We urge China to cease the harassment of participants in the demonstrations and begin dialogue with the family members of victims, including the Tiananmen Mothers. China can honor the memory of that day by moving to give the rule of law, protection of internationally-recognized human rights, and democratic development the same priority as it has given to economic reform.

美國總統奧巴馬在2月3日美國時間星期二下午(香港時間星期三凌晨)分別接受美國廣播公司(ABC News)、全國廣播公司(NBC News)、哥倫比亞廣播公司(CBS News)、CNN有線電視新聞網﹐以及立場偏向共和黨的霍士新聞網(Fox News Network)的皇牌新聞主播單獨一對一的採訪﹐在這些採訪內帶出來的信息都是承認自己在提名內閣閣員時﹐忽略了他們在過往的私人記錄﹐並且公開承認自己犯下錯誤(I screwed up!)。。

這些訪問其實是在被提名的內閣閣員宣佈退出提名程序之前就已經越好的﹐不過今次剛好造就成為奧巴馬公開承認錯誤的訪談。首先﹐政治人物﹐尤其是政府領袖公開承認錯誤已經不是容易的事﹐除了在政治上的考慮﹐尤其是在承認錯誤後所出現的後果以及效果之外﹐領袖個人的勇氣也是非常重要的。另外﹐無論奧巴馬這次接受訪問的大背景是否公開承認錯誤﹐我們也應該要留意一點﹐就是身為美國總統﹐他(或者她)需要經常面對美國以及全世界的公眾﹐所以他必須要接受傳媒的訪問﹐也必須要面對不友善的問題殺到埋身。奧巴馬用一個下午接受來自五大無線與有線電視新聞的主播採訪﹐可向而知美國政治人物對於新聞界的重視程度﹐起碼他願意花時間﹐無論他心裡認為這是“應酬”也好﹐還是“尊重”﹐起碼他已經做到﹐並且成功地做好。

公開承認犯下錯誤﹐已經向新聞界給予尊重﹐這兩樣事情究竟會在幾時真正降臨到中國以及香港的政府領袖身上呢﹖

NBC 網上影片:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/29002023#29002023

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。

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!

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/

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)。

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.
# # #

“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。

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

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﹖

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﹗

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﹗

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﹖

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。

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。

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

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﹗

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﹗