by Paul B. Farrell
Seven reasons a 'good' depression beats a new Great Depression
Yes, a depression. Spelled: D-e-p-r-e-s-s-i-o-n. Wake up America, recessions don't work any more. Why?
Get serious folks. We had a 30-month recession not long ago. Eight years later the market's still barely at its 2000 peak, a loser. Worse, we're back in a new recession. But Washington politicians are keeping it a secret, feeding us doctored feel-good statistics as legendary political historian Kevin Phillips wrote in "Numbers Racket: Why the Economy is Worse Than We Know."
So we blindly refuse to bite the bullet and stop our out-of-control spiral into collapse. America needs a big wake-up call ... and it's coming soon, whether you like it or not!
Last November we posted "17 reasons America needs a recession." Today it's far worse, and getting worse still.
Most economists predict it'll take till 2010 to burn off our excess housing inventory. RGE Monitor say Fannie and Freddie bailouts aren't working; they'll soon be "profoundly insolvent" and need to be "nationalized." Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has no long-term plans, he's a caretaker, plugging holes, anxious to get back to Wall Street's money machine, running out the clock till he turns over the catastrophe he enflamed to a new bunch of politicians and their armies of 42,000 greedy lobbyists.
Lessons learned? Zero. Why? Wall Street, Washington and Corporate America are a one-trick pony with one narrow-minded strategy: Economic g-r-o-w-t-h, bull markets, megabonuses. In good times they tout "free markets." But when greed bombs, these big babies throw free market "principles" under the "Reagan Revolution" bus as their lobbyists go whining to Congress for megabillion taxpayer bailouts and access at the Fed casino's discount window to siphon off more taxpayer money. What hypocritical wimps!
Wall Street and its co-conspirators are doing such a miserable job, America needs a new strategy: Stop all the short-term "hole-plugging." Let go and let an old-fashioned "Good Depression" do the job that our happy-talking leaders refuse to do. Let it clean house and reawaken America to basic values. Otherwise a "Good Depression" will turn into a new "Great Depression."
Here are seven strong reasons favoring this alternative strategy:
1. Yes, an Honest Diagnosis: Soul Sickness in American Capitalism
America's problems are not the economy, not markets, nor even politics. The endless bickering campaign is distracting us from facing our real long-term problems. Yes, our economic pains are real, but they're just symptoms. Since 2000, America has seen a relentless, sickening overdose of bad news: stupidity, deceit, corruption and even evil behavior. Americans are n-u-m-b, suffering post-traumatic shock syndrome.
The real problem is our thinking, our brains -- something deep in our cosmic soul, says Jack Bogle's "The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism." We lost our values, our moral compass.
2. Yes, Time to Admit This Really Is Like the 1930's Great Depression
Comparing today with the Great Depression has become common sport. In a Newsweek special "Seeing Shades of the 1930s," Daniel Gross writes: 75 years ago "Wall Street, after two terms of a business-friendly Republican president, self-immolated on a pyre of greed, incompetence and excessive optimism."
Like Dr. Scott Peck says in "The Road Less Traveled:" "Life is a series of problems. Do we want to moan about them or solve them?" We need to grow up, stop whining, roll our sleeves up and solve real problems.
3. Yes, a Good Depression Would Reveal Self-Destruct Bubble-Thinking
In a recent Atlantic article "Irrational Exuberance" author Robert Shiller warns: "Bubbles are primarily social phenomena. Until we understand and address the psychology that fuels them, they're going to keep forming."
Housing inflated 85% in a decade: "Historically unprecedented ... no rational basis for it." Today there's a huge excess housing inventory, higher-credit mortgages are now in jeopardy, the write-offs are now projected at $2 trillion -- on top of a $3 trillion war, $10 trillion federal budget, and more.
Bubble-thinking is contagious; it will trigger a pandemic. Shiller says "few people seem immune to boom thinking. The recent bubble grew so large partly because the very people responsible for the financial system's oversight came to share the general public's rosy expectations."
Unfortunately our leaders are still ignoring the underlying problem: Nothing is being done about "our psychological vulnerability to bubble-thinking."
Shiller then warns of a new megameltdown: "We recently lived through two epidemics of excessive financial optimism. I believe we are close to a third episode, only this one will spread irrational pessimism and distrust -- not exuberance ... our economic problems will become much worse than they need to be, and our social problems will multiply."
4. Yes, a Good Depression Will Stir Outrage, Force Real Reforms
In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Jim Grant, Forbes columnist and respected editor of the Interest Rate Observer, framed his title as a question: "Why No Outrage?" Why? He notes: "Through history, outrageous financial behavior has been met with outrage. But today Wall Street's damaging recklessness has been met with near-silence, from a too tolerant populace."
Tolerant? No, n-u-m-b! "Human progress seems to be the likeliest culprit." Fear-driven, we prefer the devil we know to a new one. Yet while "Wall Street may be sweating to fill out this year's bonus pool," Grant worries that Wall Street will run "itself and the rest of the American financial system right over a cliff." A Good Depression brings outrage.
5. Yes, Good Depression Forces Wall Street to Think Outside the Box
In a great Bloomberg Markets feature, "No Easy Fix," we're told Wall Street's "profit formula has hit a wall ... Wall Street's money-making machine is broken and efforts to repair it after the biggest losses in history are likely to undermine profits for years to come."
Merrill Lynch is a good example: It is selling 615 million new shares, a 38% dilution, while hanging on to "$30.6 billion in crummy derivatives," says Dennis Berman in the Wall Street Journal. Merrill's stock is about half the 2004 price of $55. Merrill "needs to come up with $2.8 billion in new profit, not sales, to get back to its 2004 per share earnings levels. That's $43,000 in new profit for each of Merrill's 65,000 employees."
Unfortunately, Merrill's cash cows (off-balance sheet gimmicks, derivatives, repackaged asset-backed securitization) that made megabucks the past decade "have largely disappeared. That puts the burden on Merrill's old-line businesses -- brokerage, asset management and investment banking."
Solutions? Cut costs, steal market share or "gradually start to take on more risk on Merrill's trading desks, which produced the bulk of the $30 billion in losses the past 12 months."
Warning: Expect more desperate, high-risk and stupid moves: A new BusinessWeek report says Wall Street's already lobbying Congress to raid America's $2.3 trillion "pension honey pot." Warning: These are the same greed-is-good Gordon Gekkos that brought us the last two rapid-fire meltdowns. Stop them before they turn the next into a Great Depression.
6. Yes, a Good Depression Can Prevent America's Decline and Fall
In "The Price of Liberty: Paying for America's Wars," Robert Hormats, Goldman Sachs international vice chairman, traces America's wartime financing from the Revolutionary War to present. Today we're "relying on faith over experience, hoping that sustained growth will erase deficits and that the ballooning costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be manageable in the coming decades without difficult reforms."
Former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker put it in more ominous terms: "There are striking similarities between America's current situation and that of another great power from the past: Rome." They fell for three reasons "worth remembering: declining moral values and political civility at home, an overconfident and overextended military in foreign lands, and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government."
And Pulitzer Prize winning geographer Jared Diamond takes an even broader historical view in "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Succeed or Fail:" Many "civilizations share a sharp curve of decline. Indeed, a society's demise may begin only a decade or two after it reaches its peak population, wealth and power." He draws historical parallels with America in the past decade.
Warning: Wall Street's next meltdown won't be a mere statistical recession. Our monetary system, our financial system and our tax base are burning out. Like our overextended military, we are handicapped in our ability to face new threats, much as were Rome, the Mayans and other great civilizations.
7. Yes, a Good Depression Will Shock America's Warring Soul
President Bush said he's a "war president." The American economy is a war economy driven by our warring soul. We spend 54% of the tax dollar on war, 47% of the world's total military spending. A half century ago President Eisenhower warned of this "military industrial complex" that's running America into bankruptcy.
Today, our economy thrives on war and disasters, generating such "spectacular profits that many people around the world" are convinced America's "rich and powerful must be deliberately causing catastrophes so that they can exploit them" says Naomi Klein in "Shock Doctrine."
Klein's snapshot of Wall Street's soul is disturbing: "An economic system that requires constant growth, while bucking almost all serious attempts at environmental regulation, generates a steady stream of disasters all on its own, whether military, economical or financial. The appetite for easy, short profits offered by purely speculative investment has turned the stock, currency and real estate markets into crisis-creation machines"
Pray for a Good Depression ... before they trigger another Great Depression.
2008年8月13日 星期三
Some Live Without Credit Cards - Could You?
by LaRita Heet
Is there life without credit cards? And if so, is it worth living?
In today's instant gratification world, the thought of forgoing credit cards in favor of a cash-only lifestyle seems as foreign as mailing a handwritten letter through the post office: We know some people do it, but it's hard to understand why.
Yet there are those who have declared, "Enough is enough!" and dedicated themselves to lives sans credit cards.
According to the Fair Isaac Corp., creator of the popular FICO credit scoring model, about 20 to 25 million people in the United States do not have any credit. An additional 30 to 35 million U.S. residents have a minimal amount of credit history, according to Fair Isaac statistics. These figures mean that approximately one in five Americans do not have access to traditional credit.
The Federal Reserve Board Survey of Consumer Finances of 2004 showed that as many as one in four U.S. consumers live without credit cards. This triennial study of approximately 4,500 respondents showed that 74.9 percent of those surveyed had credit cards. José Garcia, senior researcher at Demos, a national, nonpartisan, public policy research organization, divides noncardholders into two groups: those who are unable to obtain credit cards, and those who choose not to use them.
No Credit, No Choice
According to Garcia, many of those without credit cards simply do not qualify for credit due to bad credit, no credit, immigration status or another reason.
Gail Cunningham, senior director of public relations for the National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC), says such mixed feelings over credit cards are common. When, during NFCC debt-counseling sessions, debt-ridden consumers -- many of whom have already had their charging privileges suspended by the lender due to non-payment -- are asked to cut up their credit cards, the reactions are often extreme. "Some people are like, 'Give me those scissors! I never want to see plastic again,' while others will clutch one of their cards close to their heart and say, 'I loved this card,'" says Cunningham.
No Credit by Choice
Fifty-eight percent of credit cardholding households surveyed in the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finances had balances on their cards, and until a few years ago, J.D. Roth and Ashkan Amouzegar were among them. Roth, 39, of Portland, Ore., has charted his foray into a credit cardless lifestyle on his popular personal finance blog, Get Rich Slowly.
Amouzegar, 30, a Portland, Ore., resident and business consultant in merchant financial services, made the decision to stop using credit cards two years ago. Though the anti-credit card crowd decline plastic for reasons ranging from anti-debt religious convictions to extreme wealth (and lack of "need" for credit), Roth and Amouzegar stopped using credit cards to help rein in their spending habits and control their finances.
Amouzegar -- who once had 12 credit cards -- used to think nothing of using his plastic to buy his friends rounds of drinks and expensive dinners. Once, he confesses, he even took a monthlong trip to Paris with a friend -- and the entire trip was charged on his credit card.
"Through college and after, I used credit cards religiously and part of the problem was my irresponsibility of using it incorrectly. Most people, I think, don't view credit cards as a loan from the bank, but as extra income, and I viewed it as, 'Oh, my Citibank has a $5,000 limit' -- I thought it meant, 'I have $5,000 to spend now,'" says Amouzegar.
Amouzegar, now only two years away from being completely debt-free, chose to not only discontinue using his cards but to cancel all the accounts, including his "emergency card." The downside of no credit cards is that, even though financial experts advise consumers to save from three to six months' worth of income in an emergency savings fund, Amouzegar says, "Well, for a lot of people, that's not realistic. If there is a major car repair or something happens, what do you do if you don't have that emergency card? Knock on wood, I haven't been in that situation yet, but you never know when your refrigerator is going to go out. You never know when your car's going to blow up, or that you need to fly somewhere due to a family emergency."
NFCC's Cunningham agrees. "None of us has a very well-polished crystal ball to know what tomorrow's going to hold, and this person not using credit might think, 'I don't care; I'm not going to need credit in the future,' but we really don't know that," she says.
Like most non-credit cardholders, Amouzegar uses his Visa-logo debit card in those situations that traditionally demand a credit card: renting a car, booking a hotel room, purchasing airline tickets and making online purchases.
He has run into occasional glitches renting cars with his debit card, as on a recent vacation. "The downside was, when I went to Maui, they would have done a charge authorization on a credit card, but since I didn't have a credit card, they did it on my debit card, so they basically held $250 until I returned the car. So that tied up $250 out of my checking account."
Turned Off
In 1998, GetRichSlowly's Roth paid off his high-interest credit card debts with a lower interest rate home equity loan and now pays a single monthly payment. "When I did that, I made a vow to myself -- and I promised my wife -- that I was going to cut up my credit cards, and I did," says Roth. "It's perfectly possible to live a happy life without credit cards. They're not a requirement. It seems to me that in our society, we get hung up on the fact that we must have credit cards, but it's just not true."
"The reality is that the practices of credit card issuers can be harsh on individuals," Demos' Garcia says. "It is those types of practices -- tricks and traps -- that I think will stop consumers. I think we're seeing it more now due to that -- that people, after a bad experience with a credit card, have stopped using them."
Although it's easy to blame the banks for high credit card bills, skyrocketing interest rates, and never-decreasing card balances, Amouzegar says that while card-issuing banks may be "crafty," they are not dishonest. Instead, it's the fault of the cardholder when debts get out of control. "Those people might just be making minimum payments on a really high interest rate. I would question, 'How did that interest rate get sky-high?' Did they make a late payment before? Interest rates don't just automatically go to 18 percent or 24 percent -- there has to be something done by the cardholder to trigger the rate to go from a preferred rate all the way up."
Revolving vs. Nonrevolving Credit
Before canceling credit card accounts, stop to consider the long-term implications on your credit score, says NFCC's Cunningham, noting that both revolving credit (in the form of credit cards) and nonrevolving credit (in the form of installment loans, such as auto loans, mortgages or other fixed-rate loans) are factored into a person's credit score. "The elements that are weighed to create your credit score include a review of different types of credit, and how you handle those. For instance, a credit card is going to demonstrate how, if you pretty much have an open-end except for a credit ceiling, you can charge varying amounts each month, thus your payment each month is going to be different, and they like to see how you handle that, versus a fixed-rate loan," she says.
Those who have paid off and then canceled their credit card account may end up "hamstringing" future efforts to obtain credit, because that old account will eventually rotate off your credit report after a period of time (usually seven years), says Cunningham. "It's better to leave it open, because this is another element that is weighed in the credit-scoring model: They like to see longevity. They like to see that you've had an account open for a long time and handled it responsibly."
Closing a credit card account can also adversely impact your credit rating by changing your debt utilization ratio -- the amount of money you owe as compared to your available credit. For example, if you close an account with a $1,000 credit limit, your overall available credit number will lower, consequently skewing your debt utilization ratio.
The Bottom Line
Ask any personal finance expert, and she will agree that credit cards themselves are not the cause of anyone's debt. Instead, it's the misuse of credit that is to blame. Cunningham jokes about a sticker some debtors apply to their mirrors, which states simply: "You're looking at the problem."
Many people, once they've paid off their debts, are anxious to jump back on the credit card express to Debtville, says Cunningham. "A lot of people want to re-enter the world of credit simply because we live in a credit-dominated society."
"I think the most important thing is, get your credit card and pay it off at the end of the month," Garcia says.
According to Demos' research, many of those who don't pay off their balance in full every month simply cannot afford to, says Garcia. An increased cost of living, a set income and the lack of a financial safety net lead a lot of people into deepening debt, Garcia says. "So it's not as simple as wanting to pay your credit card off. But if you can, pay it off. That way, you have a revolving line of credit, which is very useful. It's short-term loans. Take the money upfront and then pay later so you don't pay any interest rate or fees. But again, that's not necessarily the reality with a lot of Americans and low-income individuals now that we're close to a recession."
Will Amouzegar rejoin the Land of the Plastic once he's paid off his debt? "No," he says without hesitation. "I personally don't have the restraint to not view credit as extra income. I think that after the process of having been in debt and paid it off, I think I've learned my lesson, but still the temptation is there."
"Ultimately, credit card companies are really a game, and you really have to be an educated consumer, and I think, be aggressive with them, because they bank on you not having knowledge," says Amouzegar.
The Alternatives to Credit Cards:
* Visa or MasterCard debit cards: Though a MasterCard or Visa debit card is typically a good credit card substitute, the downside is that, when it comes time to reserve a hotel room or rent a car, there's a good chance that the hotel or rental card agency will create a $200-$500 or more "hold" on the debit card, and leave you with significantly less available cash in the bank.
* Emergency fund: Financial experts recommend saving an emergency fund of three to six months' worth of living expenses in case you face an unexpected job or financial crisis.
* Installment loans from banks or credit unions: There are different installment loans available for different situations. The interest rates will be is fixed, with a set payoff date.
Is there life without credit cards? And if so, is it worth living?
In today's instant gratification world, the thought of forgoing credit cards in favor of a cash-only lifestyle seems as foreign as mailing a handwritten letter through the post office: We know some people do it, but it's hard to understand why.
Yet there are those who have declared, "Enough is enough!" and dedicated themselves to lives sans credit cards.
According to the Fair Isaac Corp., creator of the popular FICO credit scoring model, about 20 to 25 million people in the United States do not have any credit. An additional 30 to 35 million U.S. residents have a minimal amount of credit history, according to Fair Isaac statistics. These figures mean that approximately one in five Americans do not have access to traditional credit.
The Federal Reserve Board Survey of Consumer Finances of 2004 showed that as many as one in four U.S. consumers live without credit cards. This triennial study of approximately 4,500 respondents showed that 74.9 percent of those surveyed had credit cards. José Garcia, senior researcher at Demos, a national, nonpartisan, public policy research organization, divides noncardholders into two groups: those who are unable to obtain credit cards, and those who choose not to use them.
No Credit, No Choice
According to Garcia, many of those without credit cards simply do not qualify for credit due to bad credit, no credit, immigration status or another reason.
Gail Cunningham, senior director of public relations for the National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC), says such mixed feelings over credit cards are common. When, during NFCC debt-counseling sessions, debt-ridden consumers -- many of whom have already had their charging privileges suspended by the lender due to non-payment -- are asked to cut up their credit cards, the reactions are often extreme. "Some people are like, 'Give me those scissors! I never want to see plastic again,' while others will clutch one of their cards close to their heart and say, 'I loved this card,'" says Cunningham.
No Credit by Choice
Fifty-eight percent of credit cardholding households surveyed in the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finances had balances on their cards, and until a few years ago, J.D. Roth and Ashkan Amouzegar were among them. Roth, 39, of Portland, Ore., has charted his foray into a credit cardless lifestyle on his popular personal finance blog, Get Rich Slowly.
Amouzegar, 30, a Portland, Ore., resident and business consultant in merchant financial services, made the decision to stop using credit cards two years ago. Though the anti-credit card crowd decline plastic for reasons ranging from anti-debt religious convictions to extreme wealth (and lack of "need" for credit), Roth and Amouzegar stopped using credit cards to help rein in their spending habits and control their finances.
Amouzegar -- who once had 12 credit cards -- used to think nothing of using his plastic to buy his friends rounds of drinks and expensive dinners. Once, he confesses, he even took a monthlong trip to Paris with a friend -- and the entire trip was charged on his credit card.
"Through college and after, I used credit cards religiously and part of the problem was my irresponsibility of using it incorrectly. Most people, I think, don't view credit cards as a loan from the bank, but as extra income, and I viewed it as, 'Oh, my Citibank has a $5,000 limit' -- I thought it meant, 'I have $5,000 to spend now,'" says Amouzegar.
Amouzegar, now only two years away from being completely debt-free, chose to not only discontinue using his cards but to cancel all the accounts, including his "emergency card." The downside of no credit cards is that, even though financial experts advise consumers to save from three to six months' worth of income in an emergency savings fund, Amouzegar says, "Well, for a lot of people, that's not realistic. If there is a major car repair or something happens, what do you do if you don't have that emergency card? Knock on wood, I haven't been in that situation yet, but you never know when your refrigerator is going to go out. You never know when your car's going to blow up, or that you need to fly somewhere due to a family emergency."
NFCC's Cunningham agrees. "None of us has a very well-polished crystal ball to know what tomorrow's going to hold, and this person not using credit might think, 'I don't care; I'm not going to need credit in the future,' but we really don't know that," she says.
Like most non-credit cardholders, Amouzegar uses his Visa-logo debit card in those situations that traditionally demand a credit card: renting a car, booking a hotel room, purchasing airline tickets and making online purchases.
He has run into occasional glitches renting cars with his debit card, as on a recent vacation. "The downside was, when I went to Maui, they would have done a charge authorization on a credit card, but since I didn't have a credit card, they did it on my debit card, so they basically held $250 until I returned the car. So that tied up $250 out of my checking account."
Turned Off
In 1998, GetRichSlowly's Roth paid off his high-interest credit card debts with a lower interest rate home equity loan and now pays a single monthly payment. "When I did that, I made a vow to myself -- and I promised my wife -- that I was going to cut up my credit cards, and I did," says Roth. "It's perfectly possible to live a happy life without credit cards. They're not a requirement. It seems to me that in our society, we get hung up on the fact that we must have credit cards, but it's just not true."
"The reality is that the practices of credit card issuers can be harsh on individuals," Demos' Garcia says. "It is those types of practices -- tricks and traps -- that I think will stop consumers. I think we're seeing it more now due to that -- that people, after a bad experience with a credit card, have stopped using them."
Although it's easy to blame the banks for high credit card bills, skyrocketing interest rates, and never-decreasing card balances, Amouzegar says that while card-issuing banks may be "crafty," they are not dishonest. Instead, it's the fault of the cardholder when debts get out of control. "Those people might just be making minimum payments on a really high interest rate. I would question, 'How did that interest rate get sky-high?' Did they make a late payment before? Interest rates don't just automatically go to 18 percent or 24 percent -- there has to be something done by the cardholder to trigger the rate to go from a preferred rate all the way up."
Revolving vs. Nonrevolving Credit
Before canceling credit card accounts, stop to consider the long-term implications on your credit score, says NFCC's Cunningham, noting that both revolving credit (in the form of credit cards) and nonrevolving credit (in the form of installment loans, such as auto loans, mortgages or other fixed-rate loans) are factored into a person's credit score. "The elements that are weighed to create your credit score include a review of different types of credit, and how you handle those. For instance, a credit card is going to demonstrate how, if you pretty much have an open-end except for a credit ceiling, you can charge varying amounts each month, thus your payment each month is going to be different, and they like to see how you handle that, versus a fixed-rate loan," she says.
Those who have paid off and then canceled their credit card account may end up "hamstringing" future efforts to obtain credit, because that old account will eventually rotate off your credit report after a period of time (usually seven years), says Cunningham. "It's better to leave it open, because this is another element that is weighed in the credit-scoring model: They like to see longevity. They like to see that you've had an account open for a long time and handled it responsibly."
Closing a credit card account can also adversely impact your credit rating by changing your debt utilization ratio -- the amount of money you owe as compared to your available credit. For example, if you close an account with a $1,000 credit limit, your overall available credit number will lower, consequently skewing your debt utilization ratio.
The Bottom Line
Ask any personal finance expert, and she will agree that credit cards themselves are not the cause of anyone's debt. Instead, it's the misuse of credit that is to blame. Cunningham jokes about a sticker some debtors apply to their mirrors, which states simply: "You're looking at the problem."
Many people, once they've paid off their debts, are anxious to jump back on the credit card express to Debtville, says Cunningham. "A lot of people want to re-enter the world of credit simply because we live in a credit-dominated society."
"I think the most important thing is, get your credit card and pay it off at the end of the month," Garcia says.
According to Demos' research, many of those who don't pay off their balance in full every month simply cannot afford to, says Garcia. An increased cost of living, a set income and the lack of a financial safety net lead a lot of people into deepening debt, Garcia says. "So it's not as simple as wanting to pay your credit card off. But if you can, pay it off. That way, you have a revolving line of credit, which is very useful. It's short-term loans. Take the money upfront and then pay later so you don't pay any interest rate or fees. But again, that's not necessarily the reality with a lot of Americans and low-income individuals now that we're close to a recession."
Will Amouzegar rejoin the Land of the Plastic once he's paid off his debt? "No," he says without hesitation. "I personally don't have the restraint to not view credit as extra income. I think that after the process of having been in debt and paid it off, I think I've learned my lesson, but still the temptation is there."
"Ultimately, credit card companies are really a game, and you really have to be an educated consumer, and I think, be aggressive with them, because they bank on you not having knowledge," says Amouzegar.
The Alternatives to Credit Cards:
* Visa or MasterCard debit cards: Though a MasterCard or Visa debit card is typically a good credit card substitute, the downside is that, when it comes time to reserve a hotel room or rent a car, there's a good chance that the hotel or rental card agency will create a $200-$500 or more "hold" on the debit card, and leave you with significantly less available cash in the bank.
* Emergency fund: Financial experts recommend saving an emergency fund of three to six months' worth of living expenses in case you face an unexpected job or financial crisis.
* Installment loans from banks or credit unions: There are different installment loans available for different situations. The interest rates will be is fixed, with a set payoff date.
2008年8月12日 星期二
A Cold, Hard Fact: Prepare for Higher Heating Costs Now
by Suze Orman, MONEY MATTERS
There's another big housing bill in your future. No, I'm not talking about your potential taxpayer share of the recently passed federal housing bill if we ultimately get stuck with the tab for bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Prices Heat Up
What's on my radar right now -- and should be on yours -- is what it's going to cost to stay warm this winter. I realize it's probably sweltering where you live right now, but, as with all financial matters, you need to look down the road to see what might be coming up. And the news is not good, my friends: The same pain at the gas pump you've been dealing with for months is going to play out in your home heating bills.
According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a gallon of heating oil this winter could be 40 percent more expensive than it was last winter. And it's not as if last winter's heating bill was cheap; if the EIA forecast plays out as expected, a gallon of heating oil will be about 85 percent higher this coming February than it was two years ago.
Not worried because you use natural gas? The news is just as bleak, as prices are forecast to be about 45 percent higher this coming winter. Those of you relying on propane could face an even steeper increase. Electricity? Well, it's going to be a relative deal: The forecast is for retail electricity to be just 10 percent higher this winter compared to last. But let's face it, that's still a steep climb.
Clearly, it's time to get serious about a strategy for managing this winter's higher heating costs. Here are some steps to take:
• Get On a Manageable Payment Plan
Check in with your utility company now to see if there are any special payment plans available to avoid bill shock in the depth of winter. You may be able to switch to a plan that spreads out your payments across the entire year rather than having a big hike in the winter.
Of course, that means a higher average monthly bill in the temperate months. But the idea is that your budget can handle that easier than a huge hike in the winter.
• Winter-Proof Your House
Spend a day getting your home ready for winter to trim a few hundred dollars off your energy bills. I'm not going to suggest big-ticket projects such as re-insulating the roof; that's a great cost-saver over time that makes tremendous sense if you have the money to do it, of course, but your budget is probably already pretty stressed right now. I'm talking about small outlays that can net you big savings.
Start with the programmable thermostat. If you get strategic about lowering the temperature in the day when you're not around and late at night when you're tucked under the comforter, you may be able to cut your heating costs by 20 percent. That can go a long way toward offsetting this year's higher utility bills. You can pick up a programmable thermostat at any home-improvement store for $50 or so.
While you're at the store, pick up some caulking and weather-stripping supplies. Spend a few hours plugging up any gaps in your heating ducts and blocking out window and door drafts. These steps will save some serious money.
• Look for Hidden Savings Opportunities
I'm not a big fan of penny-by-penny budget-watching -- life is too short and free time too fleeting to spend it poring over a spreadsheet. But I do think everyone should take a serious look at their spending patterns at least once or twice a year and reevaluate their position, especially right now, when living costs are through the roof.
You know where I'm going with this: A cell phone plan or cable plan that may have been affordable a year or two ago could be a great place to find some hidden savings to deal with today's budget crunch. I bet many of you could easily reduce these bills by a combined $100 a month if you shifted to a less-inclusive plan. So no more inertia, no more excuses: Go online or brace yourself for an annoying call to customer service and get the switch done today.
If you have an emergency savings account to handle any unexpected costs, I'd also recommend you look into raising the deductibles on all your insurance coverage. It's a great way to reduce your premium costs by at least 10 percent. Again, it takes one call to lock in permanent savings.
• Give Yourself a Break for the Holidays
Talking about winter gets me thinking about the holidays and the gift trap I see so many of you fall into. Invariably, in January and February I'm inundated with calls and emails from people with an expensive gift-giving hangover: They're staring at big credit card bills they have no way of paying off.
If you wait until December to start thinking about holiday gifts, chances are you'll just whip out the card and make plenty of last-minute purchases. An alternative is to rope your family (and friends) into a conversation now about how you can all come up with a more manageable gift-giving plan.
Having a talk now, months before the holiday frenzy, makes for an easier conversation. Don't be shy or apologetic -- living within your means is something to be proud of. One obvious move is for all adults to agree that they don't need to exchange gifts. Keep the focus on the kids. But really, does every aunt, uncle, and grandparent have to shower every kid with a gift? I don't think so. How about one special group gift to each child instead?
Don't worry about what the kids will think. Spending more money than you can afford on gifts for them isn't a sign of love. Besides, instituting a new family-wide tradition that takes planning and thought and involves everyone is the sort of positive energy that should define the holidays. To say nothing of the financial benefit it will produce this winter, when energy costs are sky high.
There's another big housing bill in your future. No, I'm not talking about your potential taxpayer share of the recently passed federal housing bill if we ultimately get stuck with the tab for bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Prices Heat Up
What's on my radar right now -- and should be on yours -- is what it's going to cost to stay warm this winter. I realize it's probably sweltering where you live right now, but, as with all financial matters, you need to look down the road to see what might be coming up. And the news is not good, my friends: The same pain at the gas pump you've been dealing with for months is going to play out in your home heating bills.
According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a gallon of heating oil this winter could be 40 percent more expensive than it was last winter. And it's not as if last winter's heating bill was cheap; if the EIA forecast plays out as expected, a gallon of heating oil will be about 85 percent higher this coming February than it was two years ago.
Not worried because you use natural gas? The news is just as bleak, as prices are forecast to be about 45 percent higher this coming winter. Those of you relying on propane could face an even steeper increase. Electricity? Well, it's going to be a relative deal: The forecast is for retail electricity to be just 10 percent higher this winter compared to last. But let's face it, that's still a steep climb.
Clearly, it's time to get serious about a strategy for managing this winter's higher heating costs. Here are some steps to take:
• Get On a Manageable Payment Plan
Check in with your utility company now to see if there are any special payment plans available to avoid bill shock in the depth of winter. You may be able to switch to a plan that spreads out your payments across the entire year rather than having a big hike in the winter.
Of course, that means a higher average monthly bill in the temperate months. But the idea is that your budget can handle that easier than a huge hike in the winter.
• Winter-Proof Your House
Spend a day getting your home ready for winter to trim a few hundred dollars off your energy bills. I'm not going to suggest big-ticket projects such as re-insulating the roof; that's a great cost-saver over time that makes tremendous sense if you have the money to do it, of course, but your budget is probably already pretty stressed right now. I'm talking about small outlays that can net you big savings.
Start with the programmable thermostat. If you get strategic about lowering the temperature in the day when you're not around and late at night when you're tucked under the comforter, you may be able to cut your heating costs by 20 percent. That can go a long way toward offsetting this year's higher utility bills. You can pick up a programmable thermostat at any home-improvement store for $50 or so.
While you're at the store, pick up some caulking and weather-stripping supplies. Spend a few hours plugging up any gaps in your heating ducts and blocking out window and door drafts. These steps will save some serious money.
• Look for Hidden Savings Opportunities
I'm not a big fan of penny-by-penny budget-watching -- life is too short and free time too fleeting to spend it poring over a spreadsheet. But I do think everyone should take a serious look at their spending patterns at least once or twice a year and reevaluate their position, especially right now, when living costs are through the roof.
You know where I'm going with this: A cell phone plan or cable plan that may have been affordable a year or two ago could be a great place to find some hidden savings to deal with today's budget crunch. I bet many of you could easily reduce these bills by a combined $100 a month if you shifted to a less-inclusive plan. So no more inertia, no more excuses: Go online or brace yourself for an annoying call to customer service and get the switch done today.
If you have an emergency savings account to handle any unexpected costs, I'd also recommend you look into raising the deductibles on all your insurance coverage. It's a great way to reduce your premium costs by at least 10 percent. Again, it takes one call to lock in permanent savings.
• Give Yourself a Break for the Holidays
Talking about winter gets me thinking about the holidays and the gift trap I see so many of you fall into. Invariably, in January and February I'm inundated with calls and emails from people with an expensive gift-giving hangover: They're staring at big credit card bills they have no way of paying off.
If you wait until December to start thinking about holiday gifts, chances are you'll just whip out the card and make plenty of last-minute purchases. An alternative is to rope your family (and friends) into a conversation now about how you can all come up with a more manageable gift-giving plan.
Having a talk now, months before the holiday frenzy, makes for an easier conversation. Don't be shy or apologetic -- living within your means is something to be proud of. One obvious move is for all adults to agree that they don't need to exchange gifts. Keep the focus on the kids. But really, does every aunt, uncle, and grandparent have to shower every kid with a gift? I don't think so. How about one special group gift to each child instead?
Don't worry about what the kids will think. Spending more money than you can afford on gifts for them isn't a sign of love. Besides, instituting a new family-wide tradition that takes planning and thought and involves everyone is the sort of positive energy that should define the holidays. To say nothing of the financial benefit it will produce this winter, when energy costs are sky high.
2008年8月11日 星期一
China and the IOC are a match made in heaven
By Marina Hyde, THE GUARDIAN, BEIJING
By the time you read this, world peace should have broken out. It should have broken out at precisely 8:08pm Beijing time on Friday, because International Olympic Committee (IOC) president Jacques Rogge made his traditional plea for a worldwide military truce for the duration of the Games. Yet on the off chance that the Taliban are not laying in supplies of popcorn and preparing for two weeks on the sofa, and US and British soldiers are not garlanding their tanks with flowers, now might be the time to question the IOC’s preposterously idealized version of itself.
There’s nothing wrong with calling for world peace, of course — beauty queens do it all the time. But you do need to follow it up with something special in the swimsuit round, and one can’t help feeling that the more of itself the IOC bares, the more hideous it appears.
The little guy
Strip away the grandiose statements, and an examination of how it treats the little guy should tell you all you need to know. Joey Cheek is the former US speedskating gold medallist who cofounded Team Darfur, the international athletes’ coalition that highlights the crisis in Sudan. Hours before he was due to travel to Beijing last week, his visa was summarily revoked by the Chinese government. Asked to comment on this blatant attempt to suppress an Olympic hero, an IOC droid explained “non-accredited persons do not fall within the IOC’s remit.”
Isn’t it amazing how swiftly one passes from being the winner of the Olympic Spirit Award to the status of “non-accredited person?” Two years ago Cheek won the honor following the winter Games in Turin, Italy, after donating his medal bonuses to a sport aid organization. Today, he lacks the requisite paperwork to merit even an IOC platitude.
The decision to award the Games to Beijing was always morally compromised — luminously so — and yet again the IOC find themselves highlighting their own absurdity. You can’t call for an immediate cessation of hostilities around the globe and in the next breath decline to get involved in a serious humanitarian issue because a former gold medallist doesn’t have the right accreditation pass. It’s like demanding an end to poverty then refusing to give tuppence to a beggar on the basis that he isn’t wearing a club tie.
Amazingly, it’s not even the IOC’s most unedifying moment of the past two weeks. That honor belongs to their decision to suspend the entire Iraqi Olympic team on the basis that the country’s National Olympic Committee (NOC) had not been properly recognized by the IOC. Clearly, Iraq’s real crime was not having the right paperwork, though before rescinding the ban on some (but not all) of the athletes, the IOC muttered that it was because of suspicions of “political interference in the Olympic movement.”
Two weeks ago I asked them to clarify why they had never suspected political interference when Uday Hussein was chairman of the NOC. Unfortunately, they were far too grand to comment, but having since read senior IOC member Dick Pound’s book, I discover that they couldn’t be sure that Uday was a political placeman. Thank God they didn’t put two and two together and make five.
Questionable Politics
Instead, they focus on issuing directives forbidding athletes from making any political statements. Surely it’s time the IOC re-examined their definition of what it means to be political. It seems entirely acceptable for states to politicize the Games by using them as propaganda, and for corporations to do the same (22 years of McDonald’s sponsorship feels faintly agenda-driven). Only the athletes are warned not to step out of line.
Priorities being what they are, the IOC did not bother to issue similar directives instructing China not to bulldoze homes to make way for the new Beijing. And yet they must have known this would happen, as so many Games have been preceded by what we might euphemistically describe as a tidying away of humans who don’t match the decor. Consider Mexico City, where police opened fire and killed hundreds of student protesters; or Atlanta, Georgia, where the organizing committee actually built the jail to which many people who committed new offences on the city statute book — like lying down in the street — were dispatched.
This is not “peace through sport.” These things happen precisely because the Olympic Games are coming to town, and it should be the IOC’s job to ensure that what is an amazing, inspiring world event does not come at the expense of the vulnerable.
Perhaps the most chillingly revelatory moment in Pound’s book is a quote from former IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch, explaining why it was preferable for Games to be staged in closed societies or dictatorships.
“‘Leesten, Deek,’ he said to me at one point. ‘For [the Olympics], it is much better to go to these countries. There will never be security problems,’” Pound quoted Samaranch as saying.
Now some Beijing street signs bear the instruction “Stay in to make space for foreign friends.” Stay in, stay grateful, stay schtum (quiet).
Watching the IOC grease up to the Chinese government, one can only wonder sarcastically what on earth attracted this one set of appalling old waxworks to the other — apart from a straightforward Narcissus complex.
By the time you read this, world peace should have broken out. It should have broken out at precisely 8:08pm Beijing time on Friday, because International Olympic Committee (IOC) president Jacques Rogge made his traditional plea for a worldwide military truce for the duration of the Games. Yet on the off chance that the Taliban are not laying in supplies of popcorn and preparing for two weeks on the sofa, and US and British soldiers are not garlanding their tanks with flowers, now might be the time to question the IOC’s preposterously idealized version of itself.
There’s nothing wrong with calling for world peace, of course — beauty queens do it all the time. But you do need to follow it up with something special in the swimsuit round, and one can’t help feeling that the more of itself the IOC bares, the more hideous it appears.
The little guy
Strip away the grandiose statements, and an examination of how it treats the little guy should tell you all you need to know. Joey Cheek is the former US speedskating gold medallist who cofounded Team Darfur, the international athletes’ coalition that highlights the crisis in Sudan. Hours before he was due to travel to Beijing last week, his visa was summarily revoked by the Chinese government. Asked to comment on this blatant attempt to suppress an Olympic hero, an IOC droid explained “non-accredited persons do not fall within the IOC’s remit.”
Isn’t it amazing how swiftly one passes from being the winner of the Olympic Spirit Award to the status of “non-accredited person?” Two years ago Cheek won the honor following the winter Games in Turin, Italy, after donating his medal bonuses to a sport aid organization. Today, he lacks the requisite paperwork to merit even an IOC platitude.
The decision to award the Games to Beijing was always morally compromised — luminously so — and yet again the IOC find themselves highlighting their own absurdity. You can’t call for an immediate cessation of hostilities around the globe and in the next breath decline to get involved in a serious humanitarian issue because a former gold medallist doesn’t have the right accreditation pass. It’s like demanding an end to poverty then refusing to give tuppence to a beggar on the basis that he isn’t wearing a club tie.
Amazingly, it’s not even the IOC’s most unedifying moment of the past two weeks. That honor belongs to their decision to suspend the entire Iraqi Olympic team on the basis that the country’s National Olympic Committee (NOC) had not been properly recognized by the IOC. Clearly, Iraq’s real crime was not having the right paperwork, though before rescinding the ban on some (but not all) of the athletes, the IOC muttered that it was because of suspicions of “political interference in the Olympic movement.”
Two weeks ago I asked them to clarify why they had never suspected political interference when Uday Hussein was chairman of the NOC. Unfortunately, they were far too grand to comment, but having since read senior IOC member Dick Pound’s book, I discover that they couldn’t be sure that Uday was a political placeman. Thank God they didn’t put two and two together and make five.
Questionable Politics
Instead, they focus on issuing directives forbidding athletes from making any political statements. Surely it’s time the IOC re-examined their definition of what it means to be political. It seems entirely acceptable for states to politicize the Games by using them as propaganda, and for corporations to do the same (22 years of McDonald’s sponsorship feels faintly agenda-driven). Only the athletes are warned not to step out of line.
Priorities being what they are, the IOC did not bother to issue similar directives instructing China not to bulldoze homes to make way for the new Beijing. And yet they must have known this would happen, as so many Games have been preceded by what we might euphemistically describe as a tidying away of humans who don’t match the decor. Consider Mexico City, where police opened fire and killed hundreds of student protesters; or Atlanta, Georgia, where the organizing committee actually built the jail to which many people who committed new offences on the city statute book — like lying down in the street — were dispatched.
This is not “peace through sport.” These things happen precisely because the Olympic Games are coming to town, and it should be the IOC’s job to ensure that what is an amazing, inspiring world event does not come at the expense of the vulnerable.
Perhaps the most chillingly revelatory moment in Pound’s book is a quote from former IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch, explaining why it was preferable for Games to be staged in closed societies or dictatorships.
“‘Leesten, Deek,’ he said to me at one point. ‘For [the Olympics], it is much better to go to these countries. There will never be security problems,’” Pound quoted Samaranch as saying.
Now some Beijing street signs bear the instruction “Stay in to make space for foreign friends.” Stay in, stay grateful, stay schtum (quiet).
Watching the IOC grease up to the Chinese government, one can only wonder sarcastically what on earth attracted this one set of appalling old waxworks to the other — apart from a straightforward Narcissus complex.
2008年8月5日 星期二
2008年8月3日 星期日
Four Habits of Financially Peaceful People
by Laura Rowley
Last week, I reported on the results of a new survey by Yahoo! Finance and Decipher, which found many Americans struggling with anxiety in their financial lives. This week, I'll take a look at some people who have found financial peace -- and the habits they share.
1. They know exactly where their money goes.
Danny Kofke, 32, has been a special education teacher in suburban Atlanta for a decade. He wrote the book "How to Survive (and Perhaps Thrive) on a Teacher's Salary" based on his experience supporting a family of four on $37,000 a year.
"The number-one reason people are so far into debt is they don't know where the money is going," says Kofke, who is married with two daughters, ages four and one. "When we got married, we walked around with a pad for a month and wrote down everything we spent. After that we used a cash system -- we pulled $200 a week out of the ATM and left it in jar in our apartment. It's so much harder to spend the green stuff than swiping a piece of plastic through a machine."
When friends ask for advice, Kofke shows them how their money evaporates in drips and drops. "It's not the huge purchases, it's everyday occurrences they don't think twice about -- eating lunch out every day, going to the movies every week, or getting overdraft charges because they don't balance their checkbooks," he says.
Keep it simple: Write down every penny you spend for one or two months, examining those numbers and setting priorities. I use online software called Mvelopes to track my spending electronically; other people like Quicken or Microsoft Money. Find the method that works for you and stick with it.
2. They know what they want their money to do.
Financially peaceful people focus on two or three big goals they value, set a timeline, and then break the goal into smaller steps. They automate their savings through a weekly or monthly electronic transfer to a savings account, or by participating in a 401(k) plan. Meanwhile, focusing intensely on your own goals helps you avoid competing with the Joneses.
"I had a plan to retire," says Nicholas Fiduccia, a former computer hardware designer in Silicon Valley who recently left the workforce at age 50 and now lives in Oregon. "Sometime around 2000, I decided it was time to think about hanging up my career. I made plans by reading investment books, talking to money-wise friends and professionals, and attending retirement classes. Today, my philosophy is pretty simple: low-cost, diversified index funds, rebalanced every two years."
Similarly, several years before they had children, Kofke and his wife decided she would quit teaching and stay home with them full time. "We worked four years on one salary and put as much of her salary away as we could," he says. "We never got used to that second salary, so the loss of her income doesn't affect us as much."
3. They either don't carry revolving debt, or have a specific plan to pay it down.
"Plan your work and work your plan," says Mary Lena Anderegg, 65, a retired teacher who lives in Georgia with her spouse of 33 years. "Our first goal was to own a home outright in fifteen years, and in seven years we did. You have a lot more freedom to stamp your foot and say, 'This is how it shall be' if you own the land you're stamping your foot on."
Anderegg's husband was a homebuilder, and together they bought and flipped real estate back in the '80s, moving five times. That enabled her to get a Ph.D. with no debt. They lived on 30 to 40 percent of their income -- growing vegetables, hosting kids' clothing swaps, cutting utility bills, buying and maintaining used cars, and doing part-time or consulting work, putting the extra toward long-term goals.
In 1992, Anderegg's husband had a heart attack that left him unable to work -- and $40,000 in medical bills their health insurance didn't cover. "We wiped our savings clean because didn't want to incur debt," she recalls. Because they lived on less than half their earnings, they were able to make it on her salary -- and pay off the medical bills in just three years.
In 2000, they retired; they bought and fixed up a home near the ocean, and have traveled to Europe and Japan -- all with no debt. "Our rule is ‘If you want it badly enough to save for it, it's probably worth having,'" she says.
Small changes make a huge difference in banishing debt. If you put $1,000 on a credit card at 18 percent and make just minimum payments, it will take 12 years to pay off and cost $1,100 in interest. Put $20 more a month toward that card and it would be paid off in two years and a few months, with only $226 in interest. (Check out this calculator to see how an extra payment affects your payoff time.)
4. They invest in their job skills, and don't expand their lifestyles as fast as their salaries.
Rodger Oren was laid off in 2000 from an information technology position with a large manufacturing firm. "With my wife working, we had structured our expenses to live on the lesser of the two salaries," he says. "I could have bought a bigger house and better car, but I didn't. As a result, we didn't lose our house, auto, or incur debt from the ordeal."
Oren says he has always lived below his means thanks to the inspiration of his parents, who endured the Depression, and by watching manufacturing jobs disappear in his native Pennsylvania.
"I remember guys who were fifty-five years old coming out of McDonalds at shift changes" because it was the only job they could find after the steel mills closed, he recalls. "You can't live paycheck to paycheck -- you can't do that to yourself. I don't have as much as I would like, but I do sleep well at night regarding finances."
Oren banked his severance pay and jumped almost immediately into a college teaching job. By consulting on the side, he made 60 to 80 percent of his old salary, and kept hunting for IT positions. "I probably sent out thousands of resumes; I lost count," he says.
Ultimately, maintaining his career did require a temporary adjustment: He lives in Tennessee; his wife and two sons -- one starting medical school, the other in high school -- live in Georgia. "I'm ex-military, and sometimes you have to make sacrifices," says Oren, who served four years in the U.S. Air Force. "It's no different than if I was deployed somewhere." In the meantime, they visit back and forth on weekends and plan to reunite in two years, when his younger son graduates.
Oren shifted from manufacturing to the health-care sector and is working on his doctorate at night. When the IT security officer left last year, Oren volunteered to take on his duties for the learning opportunity.
"It increased my marketability; you always have to keep contemporary skills, look at the marketplace, and know where the trends are moving," he says. "With globalization, we have no idea what's going to happen -- you have to be fleet of foot, nimble, and adaptable."
For more habits of financially peaceful people, see my blog.
Last week, I reported on the results of a new survey by Yahoo! Finance and Decipher, which found many Americans struggling with anxiety in their financial lives. This week, I'll take a look at some people who have found financial peace -- and the habits they share.
1. They know exactly where their money goes.
Danny Kofke, 32, has been a special education teacher in suburban Atlanta for a decade. He wrote the book "How to Survive (and Perhaps Thrive) on a Teacher's Salary" based on his experience supporting a family of four on $37,000 a year.
"The number-one reason people are so far into debt is they don't know where the money is going," says Kofke, who is married with two daughters, ages four and one. "When we got married, we walked around with a pad for a month and wrote down everything we spent. After that we used a cash system -- we pulled $200 a week out of the ATM and left it in jar in our apartment. It's so much harder to spend the green stuff than swiping a piece of plastic through a machine."
When friends ask for advice, Kofke shows them how their money evaporates in drips and drops. "It's not the huge purchases, it's everyday occurrences they don't think twice about -- eating lunch out every day, going to the movies every week, or getting overdraft charges because they don't balance their checkbooks," he says.
Keep it simple: Write down every penny you spend for one or two months, examining those numbers and setting priorities. I use online software called Mvelopes to track my spending electronically; other people like Quicken or Microsoft Money. Find the method that works for you and stick with it.
2. They know what they want their money to do.
Financially peaceful people focus on two or three big goals they value, set a timeline, and then break the goal into smaller steps. They automate their savings through a weekly or monthly electronic transfer to a savings account, or by participating in a 401(k) plan. Meanwhile, focusing intensely on your own goals helps you avoid competing with the Joneses.
"I had a plan to retire," says Nicholas Fiduccia, a former computer hardware designer in Silicon Valley who recently left the workforce at age 50 and now lives in Oregon. "Sometime around 2000, I decided it was time to think about hanging up my career. I made plans by reading investment books, talking to money-wise friends and professionals, and attending retirement classes. Today, my philosophy is pretty simple: low-cost, diversified index funds, rebalanced every two years."
Similarly, several years before they had children, Kofke and his wife decided she would quit teaching and stay home with them full time. "We worked four years on one salary and put as much of her salary away as we could," he says. "We never got used to that second salary, so the loss of her income doesn't affect us as much."
3. They either don't carry revolving debt, or have a specific plan to pay it down.
"Plan your work and work your plan," says Mary Lena Anderegg, 65, a retired teacher who lives in Georgia with her spouse of 33 years. "Our first goal was to own a home outright in fifteen years, and in seven years we did. You have a lot more freedom to stamp your foot and say, 'This is how it shall be' if you own the land you're stamping your foot on."
Anderegg's husband was a homebuilder, and together they bought and flipped real estate back in the '80s, moving five times. That enabled her to get a Ph.D. with no debt. They lived on 30 to 40 percent of their income -- growing vegetables, hosting kids' clothing swaps, cutting utility bills, buying and maintaining used cars, and doing part-time or consulting work, putting the extra toward long-term goals.
In 1992, Anderegg's husband had a heart attack that left him unable to work -- and $40,000 in medical bills their health insurance didn't cover. "We wiped our savings clean because didn't want to incur debt," she recalls. Because they lived on less than half their earnings, they were able to make it on her salary -- and pay off the medical bills in just three years.
In 2000, they retired; they bought and fixed up a home near the ocean, and have traveled to Europe and Japan -- all with no debt. "Our rule is ‘If you want it badly enough to save for it, it's probably worth having,'" she says.
Small changes make a huge difference in banishing debt. If you put $1,000 on a credit card at 18 percent and make just minimum payments, it will take 12 years to pay off and cost $1,100 in interest. Put $20 more a month toward that card and it would be paid off in two years and a few months, with only $226 in interest. (Check out this calculator to see how an extra payment affects your payoff time.)
4. They invest in their job skills, and don't expand their lifestyles as fast as their salaries.
Rodger Oren was laid off in 2000 from an information technology position with a large manufacturing firm. "With my wife working, we had structured our expenses to live on the lesser of the two salaries," he says. "I could have bought a bigger house and better car, but I didn't. As a result, we didn't lose our house, auto, or incur debt from the ordeal."
Oren says he has always lived below his means thanks to the inspiration of his parents, who endured the Depression, and by watching manufacturing jobs disappear in his native Pennsylvania.
"I remember guys who were fifty-five years old coming out of McDonalds at shift changes" because it was the only job they could find after the steel mills closed, he recalls. "You can't live paycheck to paycheck -- you can't do that to yourself. I don't have as much as I would like, but I do sleep well at night regarding finances."
Oren banked his severance pay and jumped almost immediately into a college teaching job. By consulting on the side, he made 60 to 80 percent of his old salary, and kept hunting for IT positions. "I probably sent out thousands of resumes; I lost count," he says.
Ultimately, maintaining his career did require a temporary adjustment: He lives in Tennessee; his wife and two sons -- one starting medical school, the other in high school -- live in Georgia. "I'm ex-military, and sometimes you have to make sacrifices," says Oren, who served four years in the U.S. Air Force. "It's no different than if I was deployed somewhere." In the meantime, they visit back and forth on weekends and plan to reunite in two years, when his younger son graduates.
Oren shifted from manufacturing to the health-care sector and is working on his doctorate at night. When the IT security officer left last year, Oren volunteered to take on his duties for the learning opportunity.
"It increased my marketability; you always have to keep contemporary skills, look at the marketplace, and know where the trends are moving," he says. "With globalization, we have no idea what's going to happen -- you have to be fleet of foot, nimble, and adaptable."
For more habits of financially peaceful people, see my blog.
2008年7月3日 星期四
Solution to Stagflation
Stagflation is a term describing an economy with both stagnation, which is basically recession and inflation at the same time.
It's a tricky situation for governments because the monetary tools available cannot solve both problems at the same time, and more so, using one tool to relieve the effects of one condition exacerbates the other.
Raising interest rates is believed to exacerbate stagnation, and the primary stagnation-fighting tool of lowering interest rates will exacerbate inflation.
According to Mr. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell, there is one, and only one, solution to stagflation which is to raise interest rates to cure inflation and increase deficit spending to cure stagnation.
Will the solution stated here be the course of action governments partake?
It's a tricky situation for governments because the monetary tools available cannot solve both problems at the same time, and more so, using one tool to relieve the effects of one condition exacerbates the other.
Raising interest rates is believed to exacerbate stagnation, and the primary stagnation-fighting tool of lowering interest rates will exacerbate inflation.
According to Mr. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell, there is one, and only one, solution to stagflation which is to raise interest rates to cure inflation and increase deficit spending to cure stagnation.
Will the solution stated here be the course of action governments partake?
2008年6月30日 星期一
8 Big Mistakes You Could Be Making At Work
By Liz Wolgemuth
By now, everyone knows the basic mistakes to avoid at work: no flip-flops, no swearing, no offensive downloads, and no irate E-mails. But there are plenty of other faux pas that can do harm to an employee's or manager's reputation in the office or with clients. Sometimes, these lesser-known errors are tough to learn to avoid. Luckily, the careers bloggers who contribute to U.S. News's On Careers: Outside Voices have come to the rescue. Here are eight mistakes they've spotted that you might not have known you were making:
Talking about politics:
Political opinions uttered around the water cooler can hurt office relations--especially if you're the boss, says G.L. Hoffman, chairman of JobDig and author of What Would Dad Say. Bosses who openly favor a particular candidate will appear to be taking sides with employees who favor the same one, Hoffman says. Even for nonmanagers, politics is a quick way to damage relationships with clients or vendors.
Quietly absorbing the increased price of gas:
You're paying through the nose to get to the office every morning, so why not take advantage of it? Blogger Andrew G.R. of Jobacle says this is a great time to ask for a raise. You might not get it, but you will have laid the groundwork for future negotiations, he says. Also, if you get turned down, you can take the opportunity to lobby for a telecommuting day each week.
Writing modest self-appraisals:
There is plenty of reason to show humility at the office--most of the time. When it comes to writing your self-appraisal, however, modesty is ill-placed, says Suzanne Lucas of Evil HR Lady. Your boss is almost certainly too busy to keep tabs on all your accomplishments throughout the year. The self-appraisal is an ideal time to show off all the terrific projects you've helmed and clients you've brought on. Just be honest, Lucas says.
Spending too little time listening:
It's easy to think that your job is to be a big thinker and a great achiever. But much of the time, the people around you just need to be heard. A good listener can stand out in an office of big shots. Michael Wade, author of Execupundit, writes that he once knew an executive "whose career success was widely attributed to his extraordinary ability to listen. When he was with you, he was with you."
Downplaying your mistakes:
Sure, you're nervous in the face of your error, but acting like it's nothing won't make it nothing. Your boss might very well end up more concerned with your blasé attitude than with the mistake itself, says Alison Green of Ask A Manager.
Not using your vacation time:
You think you're too busy and you think it's too expensive, but take a vacation anyway. "Vacation is given for a reason--you're not impressing people by failing to take it," writes Grant Harmon, who blogs at Newly Corporate. "In fact, you're proving that you're not able to balance work/life." Use the time to restore your energy. Then head back to the office looking refreshed and ready for work.
Talking yourself out of dreaming: Sure, dreaming can lead to wildly ridiculous ideas and outrageous goals, but outrageous goals get achieved all the time. Still, most people shut their dreams down pretty quickly. Curt Rosengren of The M.A.P. Maker suggests, instead, that you assume "the only possible outcome is success, and then challenge yourself to prove how that can happen." You're talking away the critic and forcing yourself to get creative.
Blindly accepting a promotion: Most people tend to think that it's better to get ahead, but many find that a promotion is no improvement on their previous job and barely--or not at all--worth the new title. Before you accept a promotion, ask some key questions, suggests Jobacle's Andrew G.R.: How much more work would be involved? How much more money? What kind of staff would you be inheriting? Also, get an idea of what the next career step would be, he says. You don't want to make a leap--and find out you're at a dead end.
By now, everyone knows the basic mistakes to avoid at work: no flip-flops, no swearing, no offensive downloads, and no irate E-mails. But there are plenty of other faux pas that can do harm to an employee's or manager's reputation in the office or with clients. Sometimes, these lesser-known errors are tough to learn to avoid. Luckily, the careers bloggers who contribute to U.S. News's On Careers: Outside Voices have come to the rescue. Here are eight mistakes they've spotted that you might not have known you were making:
Talking about politics:
Political opinions uttered around the water cooler can hurt office relations--especially if you're the boss, says G.L. Hoffman, chairman of JobDig and author of What Would Dad Say. Bosses who openly favor a particular candidate will appear to be taking sides with employees who favor the same one, Hoffman says. Even for nonmanagers, politics is a quick way to damage relationships with clients or vendors.
Quietly absorbing the increased price of gas:
You're paying through the nose to get to the office every morning, so why not take advantage of it? Blogger Andrew G.R. of Jobacle says this is a great time to ask for a raise. You might not get it, but you will have laid the groundwork for future negotiations, he says. Also, if you get turned down, you can take the opportunity to lobby for a telecommuting day each week.
Writing modest self-appraisals:
There is plenty of reason to show humility at the office--most of the time. When it comes to writing your self-appraisal, however, modesty is ill-placed, says Suzanne Lucas of Evil HR Lady. Your boss is almost certainly too busy to keep tabs on all your accomplishments throughout the year. The self-appraisal is an ideal time to show off all the terrific projects you've helmed and clients you've brought on. Just be honest, Lucas says.
Spending too little time listening:
It's easy to think that your job is to be a big thinker and a great achiever. But much of the time, the people around you just need to be heard. A good listener can stand out in an office of big shots. Michael Wade, author of Execupundit, writes that he once knew an executive "whose career success was widely attributed to his extraordinary ability to listen. When he was with you, he was with you."
Downplaying your mistakes:
Sure, you're nervous in the face of your error, but acting like it's nothing won't make it nothing. Your boss might very well end up more concerned with your blasé attitude than with the mistake itself, says Alison Green of Ask A Manager.
Not using your vacation time:
You think you're too busy and you think it's too expensive, but take a vacation anyway. "Vacation is given for a reason--you're not impressing people by failing to take it," writes Grant Harmon, who blogs at Newly Corporate. "In fact, you're proving that you're not able to balance work/life." Use the time to restore your energy. Then head back to the office looking refreshed and ready for work.
Talking yourself out of dreaming: Sure, dreaming can lead to wildly ridiculous ideas and outrageous goals, but outrageous goals get achieved all the time. Still, most people shut their dreams down pretty quickly. Curt Rosengren of The M.A.P. Maker suggests, instead, that you assume "the only possible outcome is success, and then challenge yourself to prove how that can happen." You're talking away the critic and forcing yourself to get creative.
Blindly accepting a promotion: Most people tend to think that it's better to get ahead, but many find that a promotion is no improvement on their previous job and barely--or not at all--worth the new title. Before you accept a promotion, ask some key questions, suggests Jobacle's Andrew G.R.: How much more work would be involved? How much more money? What kind of staff would you be inheriting? Also, get an idea of what the next career step would be, he says. You don't want to make a leap--and find out you're at a dead end.
2008年6月26日 星期四
Graduating to a Happy, Financially Secure Future
by Laura Rowley of Money & Happiness
Every year around this time, the New York Times prints a roundup of commencement addresses. I always find a little inspiration there to cut out and stick on my office wall. This year, its author J.K. Rowling's address to Harvard grads about the benefits of failure -- although if I were to nominate a group for the "least likely to fail" award, it would probably be that audience.
In any case, I had some thoughts for my own commencement address. Here's what I would tell the class of 2008 about money.
Believe the Clichés
Personal finance advice is so similar, and so often repeated, it's become a cliché:
• Live within your means.
• Set up an emergency fund with three months of living expenses.
• Stay out of debt.
• Join your company's 401(k) plan or open an individual retirement account; set aside at least 10 percent of your pre-tax income every year.
• Invest in a diversified portfolio of mutual funds to help your money grow over time, and make sure you're not paying too much in fees.
Clichés are easy to take for granted and easy to tune out. But here's the truth: Believe these clichés. Because if you actually follow the advice, it will transform your life.
The Roaring 20s
I'm convinced that real happiness comes from identifying your values, and then being brave enough to expend your strongest talents and best energy in their service. I think genuine happiness comes from naming what you care about most deeply, setting priorities around those values, and then translating them into real, concrete goals. Money is one instrument in the toolbox of resources and people and experiences that help you journey down that path toward the person you were meant to be.
Your 20s represent a personal finance paradox: You have the most financial power that you may ever have because of the phenomenon of compounding. (Someone who saves $2,000 a year for retirement between age 21 and 30 and then stops will have a bigger nest egg than someone who starts at 31 and saves until they're 65.) At the same time, your 20s can be a bit of a bust in terms of figuring out why you were put on the planet.
It's a confusing decade -- you charge out of college knowing everything and ready to rule the world, and spend the next decade realizing you know almost nothing at all. Then, in your 30s and 40s, you recognize that it's OK to know almost nothing -- and is actually a finer way to approach life, because you really listen to and learn from other people, take risks, and benefit from mistakes and failure. (If you continue to simply know everything, you don't grow and become an arrogant bore.)
The Ghosts of Purchases Past
So here's the problem: Many people lurch around in their 20s trying to establish their identities. One day, you pick up a magazine or see a television show that suggests one can establish an identity by buying $500 designer shoes. Or $900 designer golf clubs. Or some other stupid thing that costs a whole lot less to manufacture than you paid for it. Because you weren't just paying for straps of leather or sticks of iron but for an identity attached to a lifestyle that somebody made up in a brainstorming session in an advertising firm somewhere in New York, or in a scriptwriting meeting in Los Angeles.
And this isn't entirely your fault. You're bombarded with signals to buy in a way previous generations were not. There are 1,000 cable channels telling you on a daily basis that your face, body, home, and possessions are in need of an extreme makeover. Technology and credit card companies have made it effortless to act on those impulses.
And then you get into your 30s and 40s and have a better understanding of who you are and why you were put on the planet. You're now ready to use money as a tool to help walk down that road. That's when your 20s can come back to haunt you. Maybe you're still paying the credit card for the $500 shoes and the $900 golf clubs (or for all the money spent in chic bars showing off the shoes, and at golf courses showing off the clubs).
Reality Bites
So you had some fun, but now you're playing catch up. That's usually when the magical thinking starts. You do things like buy a house with an adjustable rate mortgage (because you didn't save up a home down payment). Or you listen to some guru who tells you to put everything you have in gold or oil, or to buy stocks on margin or speculative real estate with no money down.
And maybe you have a couple of kids, and the media that told you to buy the shoes and golf clubs is now suggesting you invest in Suzuki violin lessons, private tutors, and traveling sports teams.
You're scrambling to save for retirement, scrambling to meet your rising mortgage payments, getting in deeper on that credit card to take a few fun vacations with your kids before they grow up and leave you, and God knows how you'll pay for college (since the gold-oil-stocks-real estate thing didn't work for you the way it did for the guru).
And it's really hard to follow your deepest values, and pursue that thing you were meant to do and become that person you were meant to be, because you're really stressed out about money.
Happiness Gained
I was a naïve kid from the Midwest living in New York City in my 20s -- naïve enough to believe all those clichés my father told me about staying out of debt and saving for retirement. So I did both -- it was just something I made a requirement, as routine as brushing my teeth. (And I had a lot of fun at the same time; I just bought my shoes at sample sales, frequented bars with free happy-hour buffets, and traveled to Europe on a shoestring.)
And when I was 37 (which happened a hell of lot sooner than I expected) and working 14 hours a day in television with two kids under age three, I could walk away from my full-time job and start my own thing. My values had shifted, and I knew I had to find a better balance between work and family. I had the luxury of using money to journey down the road in pursuit of my values -- not because I had a big win in oil or gold or sold a bazillion get-rich-quick books, but because I had stayed out of debt and consistently saved for almost two decades.
And that has made me happy.
Commence with Being Happy
So here's my advice:
• Live within your means.
• Set up an emergency fund with three months of living expenses.
• Stay out of debt.
• Join your company's 401(k) plan or open an individual retirement account, and save at least 10 percent of your pre-tax income every year.
• Invest in a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds to help your money grow over time, and make sure you're not paying too much in fees.
Believe in the clichés. Follow the advice, make it as routine as brushing your teeth. Because one day it will open up a world of options, and transform money from a potentially huge source of stress into a resource to help you follow your values -- and hopefully figure out why you're on the planet.
Every year around this time, the New York Times prints a roundup of commencement addresses. I always find a little inspiration there to cut out and stick on my office wall. This year, its author J.K. Rowling's address to Harvard grads about the benefits of failure -- although if I were to nominate a group for the "least likely to fail" award, it would probably be that audience.
In any case, I had some thoughts for my own commencement address. Here's what I would tell the class of 2008 about money.
Believe the Clichés
Personal finance advice is so similar, and so often repeated, it's become a cliché:
• Live within your means.
• Set up an emergency fund with three months of living expenses.
• Stay out of debt.
• Join your company's 401(k) plan or open an individual retirement account; set aside at least 10 percent of your pre-tax income every year.
• Invest in a diversified portfolio of mutual funds to help your money grow over time, and make sure you're not paying too much in fees.
Clichés are easy to take for granted and easy to tune out. But here's the truth: Believe these clichés. Because if you actually follow the advice, it will transform your life.
The Roaring 20s
I'm convinced that real happiness comes from identifying your values, and then being brave enough to expend your strongest talents and best energy in their service. I think genuine happiness comes from naming what you care about most deeply, setting priorities around those values, and then translating them into real, concrete goals. Money is one instrument in the toolbox of resources and people and experiences that help you journey down that path toward the person you were meant to be.
Your 20s represent a personal finance paradox: You have the most financial power that you may ever have because of the phenomenon of compounding. (Someone who saves $2,000 a year for retirement between age 21 and 30 and then stops will have a bigger nest egg than someone who starts at 31 and saves until they're 65.) At the same time, your 20s can be a bit of a bust in terms of figuring out why you were put on the planet.
It's a confusing decade -- you charge out of college knowing everything and ready to rule the world, and spend the next decade realizing you know almost nothing at all. Then, in your 30s and 40s, you recognize that it's OK to know almost nothing -- and is actually a finer way to approach life, because you really listen to and learn from other people, take risks, and benefit from mistakes and failure. (If you continue to simply know everything, you don't grow and become an arrogant bore.)
The Ghosts of Purchases Past
So here's the problem: Many people lurch around in their 20s trying to establish their identities. One day, you pick up a magazine or see a television show that suggests one can establish an identity by buying $500 designer shoes. Or $900 designer golf clubs. Or some other stupid thing that costs a whole lot less to manufacture than you paid for it. Because you weren't just paying for straps of leather or sticks of iron but for an identity attached to a lifestyle that somebody made up in a brainstorming session in an advertising firm somewhere in New York, or in a scriptwriting meeting in Los Angeles.
And this isn't entirely your fault. You're bombarded with signals to buy in a way previous generations were not. There are 1,000 cable channels telling you on a daily basis that your face, body, home, and possessions are in need of an extreme makeover. Technology and credit card companies have made it effortless to act on those impulses.
And then you get into your 30s and 40s and have a better understanding of who you are and why you were put on the planet. You're now ready to use money as a tool to help walk down that road. That's when your 20s can come back to haunt you. Maybe you're still paying the credit card for the $500 shoes and the $900 golf clubs (or for all the money spent in chic bars showing off the shoes, and at golf courses showing off the clubs).
Reality Bites
So you had some fun, but now you're playing catch up. That's usually when the magical thinking starts. You do things like buy a house with an adjustable rate mortgage (because you didn't save up a home down payment). Or you listen to some guru who tells you to put everything you have in gold or oil, or to buy stocks on margin or speculative real estate with no money down.
And maybe you have a couple of kids, and the media that told you to buy the shoes and golf clubs is now suggesting you invest in Suzuki violin lessons, private tutors, and traveling sports teams.
You're scrambling to save for retirement, scrambling to meet your rising mortgage payments, getting in deeper on that credit card to take a few fun vacations with your kids before they grow up and leave you, and God knows how you'll pay for college (since the gold-oil-stocks-real estate thing didn't work for you the way it did for the guru).
And it's really hard to follow your deepest values, and pursue that thing you were meant to do and become that person you were meant to be, because you're really stressed out about money.
Happiness Gained
I was a naïve kid from the Midwest living in New York City in my 20s -- naïve enough to believe all those clichés my father told me about staying out of debt and saving for retirement. So I did both -- it was just something I made a requirement, as routine as brushing my teeth. (And I had a lot of fun at the same time; I just bought my shoes at sample sales, frequented bars with free happy-hour buffets, and traveled to Europe on a shoestring.)
And when I was 37 (which happened a hell of lot sooner than I expected) and working 14 hours a day in television with two kids under age three, I could walk away from my full-time job and start my own thing. My values had shifted, and I knew I had to find a better balance between work and family. I had the luxury of using money to journey down the road in pursuit of my values -- not because I had a big win in oil or gold or sold a bazillion get-rich-quick books, but because I had stayed out of debt and consistently saved for almost two decades.
And that has made me happy.
Commence with Being Happy
So here's my advice:
• Live within your means.
• Set up an emergency fund with three months of living expenses.
• Stay out of debt.
• Join your company's 401(k) plan or open an individual retirement account, and save at least 10 percent of your pre-tax income every year.
• Invest in a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds to help your money grow over time, and make sure you're not paying too much in fees.
Believe in the clichés. Follow the advice, make it as routine as brushing your teeth. Because one day it will open up a world of options, and transform money from a potentially huge source of stress into a resource to help you follow your values -- and hopefully figure out why you're on the planet.
2008年6月11日 星期三
馬英九政權倒台後的台中美三國關係
Very interesting POV.
馬英九政權倒台後的台中美三國關係
一個人想要自由選擇自己的前途，還會因為自己是不是權貴而不同，難道選擇的自由，只限於這些權貴嗎？
康建淽2008/06/11
康建淽暑假獲得美國華府智庫的獎學金，到智庫擔任訪問研究員的暑期工作，因此這個暑假就不回台灣了。
康建淽這次獲邀研究的主體是『馬英九政權倒台後的台中美三國關係』，重點在分析從美國的觀點，分析馬英九政權是否會倒台，何時倒台，與倒台的速度，美國政府應該如何因應，確保美國在東亞的勢力與利益。
就像康建淽2007年11月所寫的『台灣共和國第一任總統: 馬英九總統』。美國透過讓馬英九當選，有效控制台灣國內政治的局勢，讓馬英九押著國內外省少數族群，與泛藍媒體，透過壓制住這一群過去影響台灣過去 8年穩定的因素，讓馬英九成為台灣繼續保持獨立的公僕與拉車狗。
諸位網友不見，馬英九當選與就職後，過去在陳水扁時代『許多媒體，紛紛透過假資料與特定立場的學者，看壞台灣，並藉此製造民進黨政府執政不佳的印象，營造出國民黨輪替的正當性，或是，台灣一定要與中國整合或統一的言論。馬英九在2008當上總統後，媒體從此不敢看壞台灣，甚至紛紛製造出台灣一定好的言論，鼓勵台灣人消費，與外資進入。』
這些用新聞自由與人民知的權利為名，卻去進行政治鬥爭陳水扁政權的媒體與名嘴，現在紛紛站在支持馬政權的一邊，新聞報導避重就輕，不敢太過批評，以免傷了自己的嘔像。可笑的，自己卻忘了過去所宣稱『媒體是第三權，要一直監督政府』的說法與大旗。
七月4日，開放中國觀光客來台灣國內觀光，卻反而讓一般沒有與中國人接觸過的台灣人，經過與中國人互動的第一手經驗，感受到中國人的水準與不同，因此更深化台灣人不是中國人，台灣不想與中國統一的政治發展。許多中國觀光客，更分享自己住在中國共產黨政權下的經驗，讓台灣人更了解中國經濟與政治發展的內幕。
好笑的，七月4日不僅是美國獨立紀念日，未來更因為馬英九的開放中國觀光客的政策，讓台灣更進一步與中國分離，邁向永久法理獨立的發展。可能成為台灣共和國的獨立紀念日。
台灣人一方面對中國觀光客，『來一個打一個』，口袋賺的飽飽，與中共事與願違的，台灣經濟越好，台灣意識持續升高，台灣人越不想與中國統一。
美國的長期戰略是，先透過外省人馬英九與國民黨政權安住台灣內部，讓台灣國民將台灣意識，逐漸深化到台灣人每一個人的心中，讓台灣獨立成為每一個台灣人，每天生活呼吸的一部份等。國際政治環境許可，美國才用最少的成本，讓台灣獨立，確保美國在東亞的利益可以保持。
套在馬英九政權頸上的國際與國內的繩索，讓馬英九與其代表的政黨，變成一群替台灣人民服務的拉車狗，只可以在台灣人民許可的保持實質獨立的情況下執政。民主發展的台灣，讓馬英九政權動輒得疚，不過過度往中國傾斜。
許多網友都已觀察到，馬英九政權在短命的蜜月期時間，所發生的物價上漲，『台灣郵政』改名爭議，『訪華』與『訪台』的政策急轉彎，高級官員的綠卡事件，可以看出馬英九政權，如果馬英九政權做出不符合台灣人民集體利益可以隨時倒台。
過去在國府蔣家政權時代，只可以當國民黨外省權貴奴隸的台灣人，現在終於享受到讓外省權貴吹喇叭的服務，透過台灣幾十年所發展的民主機制，馴服一群權貴，替台灣人做牛作馬。
美國隨時可以透過釋放出馬英九政權高官的綠卡與國籍資訊，以及馬英九政權高官在美國的『人質』[如馬維中等人] 與所持有財產的相關資訊，控制住馬英九政權，可以讓他在美國利益為主，當美國政府的代理人，繼續保持台灣繼續獨立，並在符合美國的利益下與中國接觸，讓美國透過台灣，牽制住中國。
諸位網友們不是看到，在美國洩漏出馬英九政權高官擁有綠卡的消息之後，稍稍試一下勒馬索的強度與力道後，馬英九政權高官雞飛狗跳的窘態，馬英九在總統府幾週不出來，好像在思考『燒炭』一般 【引自一位泛藍名嘴，曾經笑話陳水扁選戰失敗的名言】。
This is what baggage brings you.
台灣人民本來就可有自由遷襲的選擇國籍的自由，可悲的是，這些馬英九政權高官，口口聲聲捍衛中華民國，要和中國統一，用台灣不好，要用【中華】。但輪到他們自己可以自由選擇『統一』的地點，卻都只是美國與加拿大等民主國家統一，先透過持有這些國家的綠卡與楓葉卡，未來可以喪自己去自由選擇的去入藉這些國家，宣誓效忠這些國家。
相反的，台灣人想要自己建立起新國家，想要維持自己民主自由生活方式，不想要自己與子孫被一個共產不自由不民主的國家，強佔與統一，就要受中國武器威脅，以及『背叛中華民國』等大帽子污衊。
一個人想要自由選擇自己的前途，還會因為自己是不是權貴而不同，難道選擇的自由，只限於這些權貴嗎？
馬英九政權會不會倒台，何時倒台，倒台的方式是4年一次的政黨輪替，或是因台灣國內問題被人民推翻，美國政府現在看到一個綠卡事件，就可以整的馬英九政權雞飛狗跳，威信盡失。
美國政府可以知道馬英九政權的容易掌控。
本來擁有綠卡與楓葉卡，不一定代表對中華民國不忠誠，但是政府官員本來就和一般老百姓與企業ceo 不同。政府官員掌握國家機器與龐大預算分配，甚至國家機密。哪一個國家可以允許其政府高官擁有另外其他國家的居留權，去享有治理國家與管理人民的權利。台灣的國民，願意被一群『八國聯軍』式的外國買辦來管理。難道台灣的人才都死光了？台灣本地人才不夠資格來管理自己。難道現在台灣是美國與加拿大的租借地。
擁有這些綠卡與楓葉卡馬英九政權的高官，難道不會因為想保有居留權，受美國與加拿大政府的威脅，做出背叛中華民國與台灣人民的事情?
擁有這些綠卡與楓葉卡馬英九政權的高官，難道不會因為想在綠卡事件中脫身，說出一些可笑的綠卡『自動失效』，『辦過美國簽證就失效』說法的，受美國與加拿大政府的威脅要說出綠卡與楓葉卡失效的正當法律程序，做出出賣中華民國與台灣人民的事情？
全台灣2千3百萬人之中，難道找不到一群乾乾淨淨，正正當當的政府官員，來當我們的公僕？
馬英九政權的脆弱性，在台灣的執政可以不可以符合美國的國家利益，繼續作為美國在東亞的買辦，美國會考量自己的國家利益下，密切觀察。康建淽本次所進行的研究計劃，就是協助發展出不同的SCENARIOS [劇本] ，協助美國智庫作出正確的建議。詳細情況，康建淽在研究進行過程中，再和網友報告了。
〔 資料來源： 油雞不落-康建淽 | 引用網址 〕
馬英九政權倒台後的台中美三國關係
一個人想要自由選擇自己的前途，還會因為自己是不是權貴而不同，難道選擇的自由，只限於這些權貴嗎？
康建淽2008/06/11
康建淽暑假獲得美國華府智庫的獎學金，到智庫擔任訪問研究員的暑期工作，因此這個暑假就不回台灣了。
康建淽這次獲邀研究的主體是『馬英九政權倒台後的台中美三國關係』，重點在分析從美國的觀點，分析馬英九政權是否會倒台，何時倒台，與倒台的速度，美國政府應該如何因應，確保美國在東亞的勢力與利益。
就像康建淽2007年11月所寫的『台灣共和國第一任總統: 馬英九總統』。美國透過讓馬英九當選，有效控制台灣國內政治的局勢，讓馬英九押著國內外省少數族群，與泛藍媒體，透過壓制住這一群過去影響台灣過去 8年穩定的因素，讓馬英九成為台灣繼續保持獨立的公僕與拉車狗。
諸位網友不見，馬英九當選與就職後，過去在陳水扁時代『許多媒體，紛紛透過假資料與特定立場的學者，看壞台灣，並藉此製造民進黨政府執政不佳的印象，營造出國民黨輪替的正當性，或是，台灣一定要與中國整合或統一的言論。馬英九在2008當上總統後，媒體從此不敢看壞台灣，甚至紛紛製造出台灣一定好的言論，鼓勵台灣人消費，與外資進入。』
這些用新聞自由與人民知的權利為名，卻去進行政治鬥爭陳水扁政權的媒體與名嘴，現在紛紛站在支持馬政權的一邊，新聞報導避重就輕，不敢太過批評，以免傷了自己的嘔像。可笑的，自己卻忘了過去所宣稱『媒體是第三權，要一直監督政府』的說法與大旗。
七月4日，開放中國觀光客來台灣國內觀光，卻反而讓一般沒有與中國人接觸過的台灣人，經過與中國人互動的第一手經驗，感受到中國人的水準與不同，因此更深化台灣人不是中國人，台灣不想與中國統一的政治發展。許多中國觀光客，更分享自己住在中國共產黨政權下的經驗，讓台灣人更了解中國經濟與政治發展的內幕。
好笑的，七月4日不僅是美國獨立紀念日，未來更因為馬英九的開放中國觀光客的政策，讓台灣更進一步與中國分離，邁向永久法理獨立的發展。可能成為台灣共和國的獨立紀念日。
台灣人一方面對中國觀光客，『來一個打一個』，口袋賺的飽飽，與中共事與願違的，台灣經濟越好，台灣意識持續升高，台灣人越不想與中國統一。
美國的長期戰略是，先透過外省人馬英九與國民黨政權安住台灣內部，讓台灣國民將台灣意識，逐漸深化到台灣人每一個人的心中，讓台灣獨立成為每一個台灣人，每天生活呼吸的一部份等。國際政治環境許可，美國才用最少的成本，讓台灣獨立，確保美國在東亞的利益可以保持。
套在馬英九政權頸上的國際與國內的繩索，讓馬英九與其代表的政黨，變成一群替台灣人民服務的拉車狗，只可以在台灣人民許可的保持實質獨立的情況下執政。民主發展的台灣，讓馬英九政權動輒得疚，不過過度往中國傾斜。
許多網友都已觀察到，馬英九政權在短命的蜜月期時間，所發生的物價上漲，『台灣郵政』改名爭議，『訪華』與『訪台』的政策急轉彎，高級官員的綠卡事件，可以看出馬英九政權，如果馬英九政權做出不符合台灣人民集體利益可以隨時倒台。
過去在國府蔣家政權時代，只可以當國民黨外省權貴奴隸的台灣人，現在終於享受到讓外省權貴吹喇叭的服務，透過台灣幾十年所發展的民主機制，馴服一群權貴，替台灣人做牛作馬。
美國隨時可以透過釋放出馬英九政權高官的綠卡與國籍資訊，以及馬英九政權高官在美國的『人質』[如馬維中等人] 與所持有財產的相關資訊，控制住馬英九政權，可以讓他在美國利益為主，當美國政府的代理人，繼續保持台灣繼續獨立，並在符合美國的利益下與中國接觸，讓美國透過台灣，牽制住中國。
諸位網友們不是看到，在美國洩漏出馬英九政權高官擁有綠卡的消息之後，稍稍試一下勒馬索的強度與力道後，馬英九政權高官雞飛狗跳的窘態，馬英九在總統府幾週不出來，好像在思考『燒炭』一般 【引自一位泛藍名嘴，曾經笑話陳水扁選戰失敗的名言】。
This is what baggage brings you.
台灣人民本來就可有自由遷襲的選擇國籍的自由，可悲的是，這些馬英九政權高官，口口聲聲捍衛中華民國，要和中國統一，用台灣不好，要用【中華】。但輪到他們自己可以自由選擇『統一』的地點，卻都只是美國與加拿大等民主國家統一，先透過持有這些國家的綠卡與楓葉卡，未來可以喪自己去自由選擇的去入藉這些國家，宣誓效忠這些國家。
相反的，台灣人想要自己建立起新國家，想要維持自己民主自由生活方式，不想要自己與子孫被一個共產不自由不民主的國家，強佔與統一，就要受中國武器威脅，以及『背叛中華民國』等大帽子污衊。
一個人想要自由選擇自己的前途，還會因為自己是不是權貴而不同，難道選擇的自由，只限於這些權貴嗎？
馬英九政權會不會倒台，何時倒台，倒台的方式是4年一次的政黨輪替，或是因台灣國內問題被人民推翻，美國政府現在看到一個綠卡事件，就可以整的馬英九政權雞飛狗跳，威信盡失。
美國政府可以知道馬英九政權的容易掌控。
本來擁有綠卡與楓葉卡，不一定代表對中華民國不忠誠，但是政府官員本來就和一般老百姓與企業ceo 不同。政府官員掌握國家機器與龐大預算分配，甚至國家機密。哪一個國家可以允許其政府高官擁有另外其他國家的居留權，去享有治理國家與管理人民的權利。台灣的國民，願意被一群『八國聯軍』式的外國買辦來管理。難道台灣的人才都死光了？台灣本地人才不夠資格來管理自己。難道現在台灣是美國與加拿大的租借地。
擁有這些綠卡與楓葉卡馬英九政權的高官，難道不會因為想保有居留權，受美國與加拿大政府的威脅，做出背叛中華民國與台灣人民的事情?
擁有這些綠卡與楓葉卡馬英九政權的高官，難道不會因為想在綠卡事件中脫身，說出一些可笑的綠卡『自動失效』，『辦過美國簽證就失效』說法的，受美國與加拿大政府的威脅要說出綠卡與楓葉卡失效的正當法律程序，做出出賣中華民國與台灣人民的事情？
全台灣2千3百萬人之中，難道找不到一群乾乾淨淨，正正當當的政府官員，來當我們的公僕？
馬英九政權的脆弱性，在台灣的執政可以不可以符合美國的國家利益，繼續作為美國在東亞的買辦，美國會考量自己的國家利益下，密切觀察。康建淽本次所進行的研究計劃，就是協助發展出不同的SCENARIOS [劇本] ，協助美國智庫作出正確的建議。詳細情況，康建淽在研究進行過程中，再和網友報告了。
〔 資料來源： 油雞不落-康建淽 | 引用網址 〕
2008年6月4日 星期三
Five Tips for 20-Somethings to Save for Retirement
by Lauren Tara LaCapra
Legend has it that Albert Einstein once called compounding interest the most powerful force in the universe. Unfortunately, that concept has escaped many of those who would benefit most from it: the 20-somethings who have entered the work force but aren't saving up for retirement.
While it can be hard to justify saving for something that will occur decades into the future, financial advisors say its importance can't be understated.
One reason is that Social Security is far from guaranteed: Without reform, the program will not be able to pay out benefits at current levels, starting in 2041. People who are 22 years old now would typically still have at least 10 years to go until retirement at that point.
Another reason is that compounding interest makes saving early far more profitable than starting late.
As an example, Vincent Barbera, director of financial planning at TGS Financial Advisors, offers two different scenarios: Person X deposits $2,000 into an IRA each year from the ages of 22 to 31, then stops, while Person Y deposits $2,000 each year from the ages of 31 to 65. Both have the same interest rate and allow interest to accrue. Person X will earn nearly $50,000 more than Person Y by age 65, even though the latter contributed $50,000 more to the account over 25 additional years.
With that in mind, here are five helpful tips for 20-somethings who want to start preparing for the future:
• Put "surprise" cash into an IRA. Instead of spending that $100 birthday present or $600 rebate check, pretend you never received the money and stick it into your retirement savings account.
• If your company offers a 401K plan, enroll -- even if you put the minimum amount that will be matched. If not, start contributing to your own individual account.
Joseph Birkofer, a financial planner at Legacy Asset Management in Houston, suggests putting at least 7% of your gross pay into such an account to match your contribution to Social Security and Medicare.
• Use automatic deposits from your check or bank into your IRA. That way, you don't have to put in the effort of manually depositing funds and won't be tempted to use them toward another purchase.
• Put yourself in their shoes. Find it hard to justify saving money for something so far off in the future? Imagine yourself as a retiree and how it will affect your family and lifestyle. Birkofer suggests thinking about how your grandma, great-uncle or local retirees pay for lunch.
"There's only three places to get money besides stealing it or winning the lottery: the government, whatever you did yourself or from your family and your kids," he says.
If you don't want to rely on Social Security's shaky outlook or the unattractive option of burdening your family, being financially independent through your golden years can only come from the initiatives you take now.
• Don't get burned. When choosing a fund, make sure to balance risk.
Some want to chase higher returns with riskier funds, but starting out slow might make more sense -- especially for those who are hesitant to start saving in the first place.
Birkofer suggests young investors build up a core of $15,000 to $20,000 in a balanced retirement fund, then start exploring funds that are weighted in international or emerging-market investments.
"We lost almost a generation of investors because of the dot-com bomb and it's taken them years to come back to the market," he notes.
Legend has it that Albert Einstein once called compounding interest the most powerful force in the universe. Unfortunately, that concept has escaped many of those who would benefit most from it: the 20-somethings who have entered the work force but aren't saving up for retirement.
While it can be hard to justify saving for something that will occur decades into the future, financial advisors say its importance can't be understated.
One reason is that Social Security is far from guaranteed: Without reform, the program will not be able to pay out benefits at current levels, starting in 2041. People who are 22 years old now would typically still have at least 10 years to go until retirement at that point.
Another reason is that compounding interest makes saving early far more profitable than starting late.
As an example, Vincent Barbera, director of financial planning at TGS Financial Advisors, offers two different scenarios: Person X deposits $2,000 into an IRA each year from the ages of 22 to 31, then stops, while Person Y deposits $2,000 each year from the ages of 31 to 65. Both have the same interest rate and allow interest to accrue. Person X will earn nearly $50,000 more than Person Y by age 65, even though the latter contributed $50,000 more to the account over 25 additional years.
With that in mind, here are five helpful tips for 20-somethings who want to start preparing for the future:
• Put "surprise" cash into an IRA. Instead of spending that $100 birthday present or $600 rebate check, pretend you never received the money and stick it into your retirement savings account.
• If your company offers a 401K plan, enroll -- even if you put the minimum amount that will be matched. If not, start contributing to your own individual account.
Joseph Birkofer, a financial planner at Legacy Asset Management in Houston, suggests putting at least 7% of your gross pay into such an account to match your contribution to Social Security and Medicare.
• Use automatic deposits from your check or bank into your IRA. That way, you don't have to put in the effort of manually depositing funds and won't be tempted to use them toward another purchase.
• Put yourself in their shoes. Find it hard to justify saving money for something so far off in the future? Imagine yourself as a retiree and how it will affect your family and lifestyle. Birkofer suggests thinking about how your grandma, great-uncle or local retirees pay for lunch.
"There's only three places to get money besides stealing it or winning the lottery: the government, whatever you did yourself or from your family and your kids," he says.
If you don't want to rely on Social Security's shaky outlook or the unattractive option of burdening your family, being financially independent through your golden years can only come from the initiatives you take now.
• Don't get burned. When choosing a fund, make sure to balance risk.
Some want to chase higher returns with riskier funds, but starting out slow might make more sense -- especially for those who are hesitant to start saving in the first place.
Birkofer suggests young investors build up a core of $15,000 to $20,000 in a balanced retirement fund, then start exploring funds that are weighted in international or emerging-market investments.
"We lost almost a generation of investors because of the dot-com bomb and it's taken them years to come back to the market," he notes.
2008年3月23日 星期日
Some Suggestions for Ma Ying-Jeou
By Bruce Jacobs 家博
'If Ma pushes a Taiwan-centric, reformist agenda, the people of Taiwan will unite behind him. If, on the other hand, he is weak toward China and relies on Beijing's good will, the future of Taiwan will be bleak.'
Chinese Nationalist Party presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) landslide victory confirms Taiwan's democracy is thriving. Many citizens who voted for President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in 2000 and 2004 blamed Chen and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for the perceived failures of the past eight years. Thus, they quite rationally decided to vote for Ma. In many ways, this voter dissatisfaction with the DPP government continues the trends shown in the legislative election two months ago.
Ma must realize that his massive victory does not come from his cross-strait policies such as the "cross-strait common market." In fact, the most successful part of DPP candidate Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) campaign was his dismantling of vice-presidential candidate Vincent Siew's (蕭萬長) "cross-strait common market" idea, a fact Ma realized as he repeatedly retreated on the common market policy. Tibet also showed the naivete of Ma's cross-strait policy.
Rather, Ma's victory was a defeat for the DPP's economic policies and for its perceived corruption. Ma must bear this in mind as he goes forward.
Ma faces some difficult decisions ahead of his inauguration date on May 20. His most difficult heritage is his reputation for making contradictory statements at different times. For example, when running for re-election as mayor of Taipei in 2002, he told me personally and then said in a major press conference that Taiwan's future should be decided by the 23 million people of Taiwan. Recently, he reiterated this stance. Yet, on Feb. 12, 2006, and at other times, he said the future of Taiwan should be decided by the peoples on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
Ma has also emphasized the threats posed by China and has even declared that the withdrawal of China's missiles is a precondition for cross-strait talks. Yet, at other times, he has expressed the opinion that if Taiwan is friendly to China, Beijing will in turn demonstrate friendship for Taiwan and give Taiwan more international space.
Clearly, China's repeated repression in Tibet, including the recent crackdown, has made a mockery of its original 1951 Treaty of Amity with Tibet. This clearly has lessons for Taiwan.
The KMT that Ma leads is very divided. On one hand there are the old, China-centric conservatives, many of whom go back to the dictatorial period. On the other hand, there are the more Taiwan-centric reformers. Ma is a bridge between these groups and frequently leaves both unhappy. Thus, the old conservatives refused to accept Ma's suggestion that the KMT publicly accept defeat in 2004 and they criticized him when he sold the old KMT party headquarters and old party-run enterprises.
So far, he has also proved insufficiently reformist for the younger members of the KMT. Bringing People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) back into the KMT is not a reform move. Neither is giving prominence to former vice president and KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰). And putting such recent criminals as KMT Legislator Chiu Yi (邱毅) high on the party ticket for the legislature does not send a reform message either
I recommend to Ma that he ally with the reformers in the KMT. Thus, for example, he should not appoint KMT Vice Chairman Chiang Pin-kun (江丙坤), a former minister of economic affairs, as premier. Chiang, who is already 75 years old, lacks a reformist spirit. As deputy speaker of the legislature, he had a military honor guard snap to attention every time he or his guests entered his chambers. Such behavior belongs in a dictatorship, not a democracy. In addition, Chiang lacks any notion of reform or of a global world.
Rather, Ma should appoint a younger Taiwan-centric, reformist administrator as premier. One such person would be Taoyuan County Commissioner Chu Li-lun (朱立倫), who has led a large county and implemented a reformist strategy. Chu speaks excellent English, has traveled widely and would present an excellent face for Taiwan to the world. In addition, domestically he would push reform in Taiwan's bureaucratic administrative system. Provided he is healthy, Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強) might be another possible premier.
In the KMT itself, Ma must also push reform. For example, he must implement separation of the party and government. Thus, the president and Cabinet ministers should not be members of the KMT's Central Standing Committee. Such reforms are essential to reforming the KMT and turning it into a genuine democratic party.
Ma should remember his statement in the second TV debate, when he said he regretted that the KMT in its eight years in opposition had failed to reform. This statement was never followed up in the campaign, but he should also make party reform a matter of priority.
If Ma pushes a Taiwan-centric, reformist agenda, the people of Taiwan will unite behind him. If, on the other hand, he is weak toward China and relies on Beijing's goodwill, the future of Taiwan will be bleak. Only with a genuinely reformist agenda can Ma fulfill his major campaign slogan of "going forward."
Bruce Jacobs is professor of Asian languages and studies and director of the Taiwan Research Unit at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.
'If Ma pushes a Taiwan-centric, reformist agenda, the people of Taiwan will unite behind him. If, on the other hand, he is weak toward China and relies on Beijing's good will, the future of Taiwan will be bleak.'
Chinese Nationalist Party presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) landslide victory confirms Taiwan's democracy is thriving. Many citizens who voted for President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in 2000 and 2004 blamed Chen and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for the perceived failures of the past eight years. Thus, they quite rationally decided to vote for Ma. In many ways, this voter dissatisfaction with the DPP government continues the trends shown in the legislative election two months ago.
Ma must realize that his massive victory does not come from his cross-strait policies such as the "cross-strait common market." In fact, the most successful part of DPP candidate Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) campaign was his dismantling of vice-presidential candidate Vincent Siew's (蕭萬長) "cross-strait common market" idea, a fact Ma realized as he repeatedly retreated on the common market policy. Tibet also showed the naivete of Ma's cross-strait policy.
Rather, Ma's victory was a defeat for the DPP's economic policies and for its perceived corruption. Ma must bear this in mind as he goes forward.
Ma faces some difficult decisions ahead of his inauguration date on May 20. His most difficult heritage is his reputation for making contradictory statements at different times. For example, when running for re-election as mayor of Taipei in 2002, he told me personally and then said in a major press conference that Taiwan's future should be decided by the 23 million people of Taiwan. Recently, he reiterated this stance. Yet, on Feb. 12, 2006, and at other times, he said the future of Taiwan should be decided by the peoples on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
Ma has also emphasized the threats posed by China and has even declared that the withdrawal of China's missiles is a precondition for cross-strait talks. Yet, at other times, he has expressed the opinion that if Taiwan is friendly to China, Beijing will in turn demonstrate friendship for Taiwan and give Taiwan more international space.
Clearly, China's repeated repression in Tibet, including the recent crackdown, has made a mockery of its original 1951 Treaty of Amity with Tibet. This clearly has lessons for Taiwan.
The KMT that Ma leads is very divided. On one hand there are the old, China-centric conservatives, many of whom go back to the dictatorial period. On the other hand, there are the more Taiwan-centric reformers. Ma is a bridge between these groups and frequently leaves both unhappy. Thus, the old conservatives refused to accept Ma's suggestion that the KMT publicly accept defeat in 2004 and they criticized him when he sold the old KMT party headquarters and old party-run enterprises.
So far, he has also proved insufficiently reformist for the younger members of the KMT. Bringing People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) back into the KMT is not a reform move. Neither is giving prominence to former vice president and KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰). And putting such recent criminals as KMT Legislator Chiu Yi (邱毅) high on the party ticket for the legislature does not send a reform message either
I recommend to Ma that he ally with the reformers in the KMT. Thus, for example, he should not appoint KMT Vice Chairman Chiang Pin-kun (江丙坤), a former minister of economic affairs, as premier. Chiang, who is already 75 years old, lacks a reformist spirit. As deputy speaker of the legislature, he had a military honor guard snap to attention every time he or his guests entered his chambers. Such behavior belongs in a dictatorship, not a democracy. In addition, Chiang lacks any notion of reform or of a global world.
Rather, Ma should appoint a younger Taiwan-centric, reformist administrator as premier. One such person would be Taoyuan County Commissioner Chu Li-lun (朱立倫), who has led a large county and implemented a reformist strategy. Chu speaks excellent English, has traveled widely and would present an excellent face for Taiwan to the world. In addition, domestically he would push reform in Taiwan's bureaucratic administrative system. Provided he is healthy, Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強) might be another possible premier.
In the KMT itself, Ma must also push reform. For example, he must implement separation of the party and government. Thus, the president and Cabinet ministers should not be members of the KMT's Central Standing Committee. Such reforms are essential to reforming the KMT and turning it into a genuine democratic party.
Ma should remember his statement in the second TV debate, when he said he regretted that the KMT in its eight years in opposition had failed to reform. This statement was never followed up in the campaign, but he should also make party reform a matter of priority.
If Ma pushes a Taiwan-centric, reformist agenda, the people of Taiwan will unite behind him. If, on the other hand, he is weak toward China and relies on Beijing's goodwill, the future of Taiwan will be bleak. Only with a genuinely reformist agenda can Ma fulfill his major campaign slogan of "going forward."
Bruce Jacobs is professor of Asian languages and studies and director of the Taiwan Research Unit at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.
2008年3月20日 星期四
The West and Beijing Must Share Shame Over the Tibet Crisis
By Simon Tisdall, of The Guardian, London.
Western governments have focused too much on Beijing's economic clout and not enough on its illegitimacy, which helps to explain their meek responses
China's anger and embarrassment over the Tibet protests is keenly felt and will not be easily assuaged. Its sense of betrayal is as striking as its inability to comprehend the cause of it. But Beijing's shame is widely shared. The unrest has confronted Western governments with inconvenient truths for which they plainly have no answers.
In the short term the hosts of the Beijing Olympics know they must act cautiously as the world watches, its running shoes in hand. Having been forced belatedly to acknowledge the scale of the trouble, Beijing cannot afford an even wider, more brutal public crackdown, its instinctive reaction to similar situations in the past.
State retaliation in the weeks and months ahead is likely to be stealthy and silent. For those who dared to make a stand, vengeance will come by night, in an unmarked car or an unheralded knock on the door.
This is typically how China deals with dissent, as Hu Jia (胡佳), a prominent human rights activist who went on trial for subversion on Tuesday, could testify.
Yet in blaming the Dalai Lama and his "clique" for organizing a conspiracy of sabotage, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) missed the mark. Tibet's exiled spiritual leader has long promoted an autonomous accommodation with, not independence from, China. It is younger generations of Tibetans, inside and outside the country, who increasingly call the shots and pursue more robust tactics.
An editorial in the Communist Party mouthpiece the Tibet Daily appeared to acknowledge this shift -- while revealing the true extent of Chinese fury.
`LAWLESS ELEMENTS'
"These lawless elements have insulted, beaten, and wounded duty personnel, shouted reactionary slogans, stormed vital departments, and gone to all lengths in beating, smashing, looting, and burning," it said. "Their atrocities are appalling and too horrible to look at and their frenzy is inhuman. Their atrocities of various kinds teach and alert us to the fact that this is a life-and-death struggle between the enemy and ourselves."
This official "us versus them" view implies there will be no quick end to the disturbances or the retaliation. Horrific photographs of 13 people allegedly killed at Kirtii monastery in Aba (Ngawa) town, Sichuan Province, by Chinese security forces and released on Tuesday by the Free Tibet campaign will meanwhile stoke opposition fires.
The next flashpoint could be Beijing's plan to relay the Olympic torch through Lhasa and other ethnic Tibetan areas on its journey from Greece to Beijing.
Another so-called Chinese "renegade province," Taiwan, has already refused to take part. Tibet was not given a choice.
The broader prospect now, unnerving for a Chinese leadership that has staked so much on a showpiece, self-validating Games, is of trouble continuing right through until August.
This is a worrying prospect for Western leaders, too. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said that he will meet the Dalai Lama when he visits Britain in May. If so, it will enrage Beijing, even more than German Chancellor Angela Merkel's recent meeting with the Tibetan leader.
All Brown's commercial and business networking during his China trip earlier this year could be undone.
Earlier, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband tied himself up in knots when asked about a possible meeting, refusing to say whether the government would welcome it while insisting that the issue would be dealt with "in a very straightforward and appropriate way." It's a safe bet that London hopes the Dalai Lama won't come after all.
Brown's decision to attend the Olympics opening ceremony, not normally an essential requirement despite the expected presence of US President George W. Bush, is also beginning to look like a big potential embarrassment. Steven Spielberg and Mia Farrow, attacking China over Darfur, triggered the first round of pre-Olympic, anti-Beijing media frenzy.
ROUND TWO
Tibet is round two. There are more bouts, and many more similar issues, in the pipeline, waiting to trip up an accident-prone prime minister.
European Parliament President Hans-Gert Pottering on Tuesday urged politicians to reconsider going to Beijing if violence and repression in Tibet continued. Such calls are likely to become more voluble.
Nearly all Western governments have found themselves in the same leaky boat this week, calling meekly for more information, restraint and dialogue in Tibet and knowing their advice will be ignored. All insist that a boycott of the Games is not contemplated. All worry too much about the Chinese government's economic power and not enough about its basic political illegitimacy.
All now face a growing body of international and domestic public opinion that is increasingly questioning what has been dubbed their pre-Olympics "three monkeys policy." See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil could have worked in 1904, when a power-grabbing British expeditionary force butchered thousands of Tibetans without a second thought.
But in the present-day interconnected, globalized world that Brown and Miliband talk about and China perforce inhabits, that dog won't hunt.
Western governments have focused too much on Beijing's economic clout and not enough on its illegitimacy, which helps to explain their meek responses
China's anger and embarrassment over the Tibet protests is keenly felt and will not be easily assuaged. Its sense of betrayal is as striking as its inability to comprehend the cause of it. But Beijing's shame is widely shared. The unrest has confronted Western governments with inconvenient truths for which they plainly have no answers.
In the short term the hosts of the Beijing Olympics know they must act cautiously as the world watches, its running shoes in hand. Having been forced belatedly to acknowledge the scale of the trouble, Beijing cannot afford an even wider, more brutal public crackdown, its instinctive reaction to similar situations in the past.
State retaliation in the weeks and months ahead is likely to be stealthy and silent. For those who dared to make a stand, vengeance will come by night, in an unmarked car or an unheralded knock on the door.
This is typically how China deals with dissent, as Hu Jia (胡佳), a prominent human rights activist who went on trial for subversion on Tuesday, could testify.
Yet in blaming the Dalai Lama and his "clique" for organizing a conspiracy of sabotage, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) missed the mark. Tibet's exiled spiritual leader has long promoted an autonomous accommodation with, not independence from, China. It is younger generations of Tibetans, inside and outside the country, who increasingly call the shots and pursue more robust tactics.
An editorial in the Communist Party mouthpiece the Tibet Daily appeared to acknowledge this shift -- while revealing the true extent of Chinese fury.
`LAWLESS ELEMENTS'
"These lawless elements have insulted, beaten, and wounded duty personnel, shouted reactionary slogans, stormed vital departments, and gone to all lengths in beating, smashing, looting, and burning," it said. "Their atrocities are appalling and too horrible to look at and their frenzy is inhuman. Their atrocities of various kinds teach and alert us to the fact that this is a life-and-death struggle between the enemy and ourselves."
This official "us versus them" view implies there will be no quick end to the disturbances or the retaliation. Horrific photographs of 13 people allegedly killed at Kirtii monastery in Aba (Ngawa) town, Sichuan Province, by Chinese security forces and released on Tuesday by the Free Tibet campaign will meanwhile stoke opposition fires.
The next flashpoint could be Beijing's plan to relay the Olympic torch through Lhasa and other ethnic Tibetan areas on its journey from Greece to Beijing.
Another so-called Chinese "renegade province," Taiwan, has already refused to take part. Tibet was not given a choice.
The broader prospect now, unnerving for a Chinese leadership that has staked so much on a showpiece, self-validating Games, is of trouble continuing right through until August.
This is a worrying prospect for Western leaders, too. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said that he will meet the Dalai Lama when he visits Britain in May. If so, it will enrage Beijing, even more than German Chancellor Angela Merkel's recent meeting with the Tibetan leader.
All Brown's commercial and business networking during his China trip earlier this year could be undone.
Earlier, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband tied himself up in knots when asked about a possible meeting, refusing to say whether the government would welcome it while insisting that the issue would be dealt with "in a very straightforward and appropriate way." It's a safe bet that London hopes the Dalai Lama won't come after all.
Brown's decision to attend the Olympics opening ceremony, not normally an essential requirement despite the expected presence of US President George W. Bush, is also beginning to look like a big potential embarrassment. Steven Spielberg and Mia Farrow, attacking China over Darfur, triggered the first round of pre-Olympic, anti-Beijing media frenzy.
ROUND TWO
Tibet is round two. There are more bouts, and many more similar issues, in the pipeline, waiting to trip up an accident-prone prime minister.
European Parliament President Hans-Gert Pottering on Tuesday urged politicians to reconsider going to Beijing if violence and repression in Tibet continued. Such calls are likely to become more voluble.
Nearly all Western governments have found themselves in the same leaky boat this week, calling meekly for more information, restraint and dialogue in Tibet and knowing their advice will be ignored. All insist that a boycott of the Games is not contemplated. All worry too much about the Chinese government's economic power and not enough about its basic political illegitimacy.
All now face a growing body of international and domestic public opinion that is increasingly questioning what has been dubbed their pre-Olympics "three monkeys policy." See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil could have worked in 1904, when a power-grabbing British expeditionary force butchered thousands of Tibetans without a second thought.
But in the present-day interconnected, globalized world that Brown and Miliband talk about and China perforce inhabits, that dog won't hunt.
Two Rivers, Two Mayors and A Very Clear Choice
By Matthew Lien
The recent election of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak was attributed in part to his restoration of a river running through Seoul. When Lee was elected mayor of Seoul in 2001, one of his key campaign promises was to remove the freeway covering the Cheonggyecheon River and to restore the waterway as a symbol of the city's beauty.
This caused me to reflect on Taiwan's presidential election and the first time I met Kaohsiung environmental activists and academics involved in the clean-up of the Kaoping River.
In 1999, I was appointed "Ambassador to the Aboriginal Cultures of the Kaoping River" by the Kaohsiung County Government and was given a tour of the most beautiful and most polluted sections of the river. I was also shown what efforts were being made to improve it and Kaohsiung City's Love River.
Years later, the results are impressive and the credit must go partly to the commitment of Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), who was at the time mayor of Kaohsiung.
Both of these rivers are widely known success stories, illustrating the importance of environmentalism and community development.
By contrast, I was invited several years ago by the Taipei City Government when Chinese Nationalist Party presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was mayor to tour the Tamsui River. The Department of Cultural Affairs director at the time, Lung Ying-tai (龍應台), and I took a one-hour tour of the river. Infamous for its severe pollution, a stench rose from the water as we climbed into small boats.
Accompanied by reporters, we saw dead pigs float by in the water, which can fairly be described as toxic. This was clearly an atrocity against the environment and allowing it to continue unchecked was a grievous failure of government at all levels.
Lung asked for my recommendations, which I enthusiastically provided based on my river conservation work in Canada with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Yukon Conservation Society and Friends of Yukon Rivers.
I described in detail an annual river festival that should be held on the banks of the Tamsui River, featuring original music and works by local artists portraying their impressions of the river. A CD and a coffee-table book could be published annually to help fund the festival and educate more people about the issue.
I also suggested that academics and water specialists be involved in the festival, updating the public on the pollution and its causes and documenting any changes in water quality.
They would also suggest which government departments should take responsibility for enforcing laws that penalize offenders and correct the problem. They could issue "report cards" to those departments.
I felt this would bring media attention, increase government accountability and inspire government action.
Lung supported my proposals and we presented the plan to the media.
Years later, the Tamsui River remains one of the most polluted in the country. All the talk of improvements seem to have been nothing more than a media exercise. It looked great on TV, but it resulted in little or nothing being done by Ma's administration.
As Taiwan goes to the polls, I can't help but recall my personal experiences with the two candidates and the adage: "By their fruits will you know them."
As one who believes that government officials bear the responsibility for the entire community and environment in their jurisdiction, I trust in the rivers to endorse the candidate who is best to navigate the currents of change facing Taiwan.
Matthew Lien is an environmentalist and musician from Canada.
The recent election of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak was attributed in part to his restoration of a river running through Seoul. When Lee was elected mayor of Seoul in 2001, one of his key campaign promises was to remove the freeway covering the Cheonggyecheon River and to restore the waterway as a symbol of the city's beauty.
This caused me to reflect on Taiwan's presidential election and the first time I met Kaohsiung environmental activists and academics involved in the clean-up of the Kaoping River.
In 1999, I was appointed "Ambassador to the Aboriginal Cultures of the Kaoping River" by the Kaohsiung County Government and was given a tour of the most beautiful and most polluted sections of the river. I was also shown what efforts were being made to improve it and Kaohsiung City's Love River.
Years later, the results are impressive and the credit must go partly to the commitment of Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), who was at the time mayor of Kaohsiung.
Both of these rivers are widely known success stories, illustrating the importance of environmentalism and community development.
By contrast, I was invited several years ago by the Taipei City Government when Chinese Nationalist Party presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was mayor to tour the Tamsui River. The Department of Cultural Affairs director at the time, Lung Ying-tai (龍應台), and I took a one-hour tour of the river. Infamous for its severe pollution, a stench rose from the water as we climbed into small boats.
Accompanied by reporters, we saw dead pigs float by in the water, which can fairly be described as toxic. This was clearly an atrocity against the environment and allowing it to continue unchecked was a grievous failure of government at all levels.
Lung asked for my recommendations, which I enthusiastically provided based on my river conservation work in Canada with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Yukon Conservation Society and Friends of Yukon Rivers.
I described in detail an annual river festival that should be held on the banks of the Tamsui River, featuring original music and works by local artists portraying their impressions of the river. A CD and a coffee-table book could be published annually to help fund the festival and educate more people about the issue.
I also suggested that academics and water specialists be involved in the festival, updating the public on the pollution and its causes and documenting any changes in water quality.
They would also suggest which government departments should take responsibility for enforcing laws that penalize offenders and correct the problem. They could issue "report cards" to those departments.
I felt this would bring media attention, increase government accountability and inspire government action.
Lung supported my proposals and we presented the plan to the media.
Years later, the Tamsui River remains one of the most polluted in the country. All the talk of improvements seem to have been nothing more than a media exercise. It looked great on TV, but it resulted in little or nothing being done by Ma's administration.
As Taiwan goes to the polls, I can't help but recall my personal experiences with the two candidates and the adage: "By their fruits will you know them."
As one who believes that government officials bear the responsibility for the entire community and environment in their jurisdiction, I trust in the rivers to endorse the candidate who is best to navigate the currents of change facing Taiwan.
Matthew Lien is an environmentalist and musician from Canada.
US Deploys Two Aircraft Carriers Close to Taiwan
By Charles Snyder, additional reporting by Jenny W. Hsu
'RESPONSIBLY POSITIONED': Washington was mum on whether the violent Chinese crackdown in Tibet would have an impact on the presidential election
Two US aircraft carriers, the USS Kitty Hawk and the USS Nimitz, have been sent to the Taiwan region for training exercises during tomorrow's election, a US defense official said on Wednesday.
The two carriers were "responsibly positioned" in the Pacific Ocean somewhere east of Taiwan and would remain in place through Saturday's presidential election and referendum on UN membership, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
He declined to elaborate on the positions of the two vessels.
"We feel we are responsibly positioned at this time," the defense official said, adding that the two carriers were not close enough to Taiwan to provoke China, but would be able to "respond if there's a provocative situation."
Navy officials said the Kitty Hawk left its base in Japan en route to Hawaii on Tuesday and would continue on to the continental US later for decommissioning.
In Taipei, the Ministry of National Defense did not comment on the deployment.
American Institute in Taiwan Director Stephen Young said that the vessels were merely making a routine patrol in the Strait and that it had nothing to do with tomorrow's election.
Meanwhile, high-level US State Department officials on Wednesday refused to speculate on how the uprising in Tibet and the violent response by Beijing authorities might affect tomorrow's election in Taiwan, but the officials once again criticized the planned referendum on UN membership.
The officials were responding to a flurry of interest in the Taiwanese elections by journalists in Washington in view of reports from Taiwan about the local impact of the Tibetan uprising and repeated comments by department officials on the referendum.
Meanwhile, four Taiwan supporters in the House of Representatives wrote a letter to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday, urging her to support the referendum.
Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Christopher Hill sidestepped a question about whether events in Tibet could have "unexpected implications" for the Taiwanese election and "negative implications" for cross-strait relations.
"I'm not going to handicap ... make judgements ... about how the people in Taiwan are going to make their vote. They have information. They'll look at information and I'm not going to start predicting what things that happen in the world can affect their vote," he said.
"Obviously ... we look forward to a free and fair election in Taiwan. We have every reason to expect it to be. But I am not really in a position to tell you what is affecting the vote and what is not affecting the vote," Hill said.
He also said he had nothing to add to the criticism that Rice has leveled at the referendum recently.
"How [the elections] are conducted is a matter for the people of Taiwan to accomplish. I'm not going to give them advice on what to do in their elections," he said.
US State Department spokesman Tom Casey, however, took the opportunity to level yet one more barb at the referendum.
"As we've indicated," he told a reporter at the department's regular daily briefing, "the United States is opposed to the specific referendum [on UN entry under the name `Taiwan']. We believe it is unnecessary and unhelpful and will not have an effect on Taiwan's ability to join the UN or other organizations requiring statehood."
Casey also said the US "does look forward to a free and fair election in Taiwan. And we will work within the parameters of our existing relationship with whoever is elected by the Taiwan [sic] people."
The congressional letter to Rice was signed by representatives Robert Andrews, a Democrat, and Scott Garrett of New Jersey, John Linder of Georgia and Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan, who are Republicans. Andrews and Garrett have been among Taiwan's biggest champions on Capitol Hill.
"We strongly urge the United States to support the referendum," the lawmakers said.
"The Taiwanese people have the right -- as all people do -- to self-determination," the letter said. "However, the ability to exercise that right is severely compromised when a nation's largest ally turns its back."
"For too long Taiwan has stood its ground as a bulwark of democracy against the encroaching aspirations of an authoritarian communist regime. We should not condemn or oppose the dreams of those who want only to remain free and take their place in the international community," the letter said.
'RESPONSIBLY POSITIONED': Washington was mum on whether the violent Chinese crackdown in Tibet would have an impact on the presidential election
Two US aircraft carriers, the USS Kitty Hawk and the USS Nimitz, have been sent to the Taiwan region for training exercises during tomorrow's election, a US defense official said on Wednesday.
The two carriers were "responsibly positioned" in the Pacific Ocean somewhere east of Taiwan and would remain in place through Saturday's presidential election and referendum on UN membership, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
He declined to elaborate on the positions of the two vessels.
"We feel we are responsibly positioned at this time," the defense official said, adding that the two carriers were not close enough to Taiwan to provoke China, but would be able to "respond if there's a provocative situation."
Navy officials said the Kitty Hawk left its base in Japan en route to Hawaii on Tuesday and would continue on to the continental US later for decommissioning.
In Taipei, the Ministry of National Defense did not comment on the deployment.
American Institute in Taiwan Director Stephen Young said that the vessels were merely making a routine patrol in the Strait and that it had nothing to do with tomorrow's election.
Meanwhile, high-level US State Department officials on Wednesday refused to speculate on how the uprising in Tibet and the violent response by Beijing authorities might affect tomorrow's election in Taiwan, but the officials once again criticized the planned referendum on UN membership.
The officials were responding to a flurry of interest in the Taiwanese elections by journalists in Washington in view of reports from Taiwan about the local impact of the Tibetan uprising and repeated comments by department officials on the referendum.
Meanwhile, four Taiwan supporters in the House of Representatives wrote a letter to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday, urging her to support the referendum.
Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Christopher Hill sidestepped a question about whether events in Tibet could have "unexpected implications" for the Taiwanese election and "negative implications" for cross-strait relations.
"I'm not going to handicap ... make judgements ... about how the people in Taiwan are going to make their vote. They have information. They'll look at information and I'm not going to start predicting what things that happen in the world can affect their vote," he said.
"Obviously ... we look forward to a free and fair election in Taiwan. We have every reason to expect it to be. But I am not really in a position to tell you what is affecting the vote and what is not affecting the vote," Hill said.
He also said he had nothing to add to the criticism that Rice has leveled at the referendum recently.
"How [the elections] are conducted is a matter for the people of Taiwan to accomplish. I'm not going to give them advice on what to do in their elections," he said.
US State Department spokesman Tom Casey, however, took the opportunity to level yet one more barb at the referendum.
"As we've indicated," he told a reporter at the department's regular daily briefing, "the United States is opposed to the specific referendum [on UN entry under the name `Taiwan']. We believe it is unnecessary and unhelpful and will not have an effect on Taiwan's ability to join the UN or other organizations requiring statehood."
Casey also said the US "does look forward to a free and fair election in Taiwan. And we will work within the parameters of our existing relationship with whoever is elected by the Taiwan [sic] people."
The congressional letter to Rice was signed by representatives Robert Andrews, a Democrat, and Scott Garrett of New Jersey, John Linder of Georgia and Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan, who are Republicans. Andrews and Garrett have been among Taiwan's biggest champions on Capitol Hill.
"We strongly urge the United States to support the referendum," the lawmakers said.
"The Taiwanese people have the right -- as all people do -- to self-determination," the letter said. "However, the ability to exercise that right is severely compromised when a nation's largest ally turns its back."
"For too long Taiwan has stood its ground as a bulwark of democracy against the encroaching aspirations of an authoritarian communist regime. We should not condemn or oppose the dreams of those who want only to remain free and take their place in the international community," the letter said.
It's Use It or Lose It on Saturday
Anyone who believed that China respects Taiwanese people should have been roused from their stupor after Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) on Tuesday reiterated Beijing's line that Taiwan is an inseparable part of China.
The timing of Wen's comments -- concurrent with Beijing's bloody crackdown on protesting Tibetans -- drives home the need for Taiwanese to vote in Saturday's referendum and make it known that Taiwan is not a province of China.
Whether one supports the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) proposal on joining the UN under the name "Taiwan," or the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) version of rejoining the UN with the official title of the Republic of China or any other "practical" title -- or both -- the public should make its voice heard by participating in the referendum process.
The more Taiwanese democracy draws the attention of the international community, the better it can demonstrate that Taiwan is a sovereign nation.
Wen also said that Taiwan's referendums on UN membership would threaten peace and stability for the Pacific region and deliver a major strike against Taiwan's interests.
Look who's talking. Which government has hundreds of missiles aimed across the Taiwan Strait, creating a situation that has been called a potential flashpoint by international observers? Which government is "threatening peace and stability in the region" with a massive military build-up that draws concern not only from neighboring countries but also from those on the other side of the globe, such as the US and the UK?
And how could a simple exercise in basic human rights in a democratic country constitute a strike against its interests?
Taiwan has come a long way since the days of authoritarian rule. Perhaps some people have started to take democracy for granted, just as one might forget the oxygen in the air. But how miserable it would be if the air of freedom was suddenly sucked away.
Taiwanese know that democracy must be respected, perhaps with the exception of those politicians who urge the public to abandon their privileges and boycott referendums even as people in other corners of the world die for freedom.
Clinging to Wen's coattails, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Thomas Christensen also spoke on Tuesday against the referendums, branding them "pointless and destabilizing" and "unnecessary and unhelpful."
Wen and Christensen simply will not concede that Taiwanese democracy is an issue for Taiwanese.
On Saturday, Taiwan has the opportunity to show the world just how different it is from autocratic China.
The issue is all the more important after the UN Office of Legal Affairs on Tuesday again snubbed an expression of support by Taiwan's allies for the nation's admission into the world body.
The new government to be formed on May 20 may very well give up on the UN bid if neither referendum succeeds. Indeed, how can Taiwan ask its allies to speak for it if the nation doesn't stand up for itself on Saturday?
Taipei Times Editorial, March 20, 2008.
The timing of Wen's comments -- concurrent with Beijing's bloody crackdown on protesting Tibetans -- drives home the need for Taiwanese to vote in Saturday's referendum and make it known that Taiwan is not a province of China.
Whether one supports the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) proposal on joining the UN under the name "Taiwan," or the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) version of rejoining the UN with the official title of the Republic of China or any other "practical" title -- or both -- the public should make its voice heard by participating in the referendum process.
The more Taiwanese democracy draws the attention of the international community, the better it can demonstrate that Taiwan is a sovereign nation.
Wen also said that Taiwan's referendums on UN membership would threaten peace and stability for the Pacific region and deliver a major strike against Taiwan's interests.
Look who's talking. Which government has hundreds of missiles aimed across the Taiwan Strait, creating a situation that has been called a potential flashpoint by international observers? Which government is "threatening peace and stability in the region" with a massive military build-up that draws concern not only from neighboring countries but also from those on the other side of the globe, such as the US and the UK?
And how could a simple exercise in basic human rights in a democratic country constitute a strike against its interests?
Taiwan has come a long way since the days of authoritarian rule. Perhaps some people have started to take democracy for granted, just as one might forget the oxygen in the air. But how miserable it would be if the air of freedom was suddenly sucked away.
Taiwanese know that democracy must be respected, perhaps with the exception of those politicians who urge the public to abandon their privileges and boycott referendums even as people in other corners of the world die for freedom.
Clinging to Wen's coattails, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Thomas Christensen also spoke on Tuesday against the referendums, branding them "pointless and destabilizing" and "unnecessary and unhelpful."
Wen and Christensen simply will not concede that Taiwanese democracy is an issue for Taiwanese.
On Saturday, Taiwan has the opportunity to show the world just how different it is from autocratic China.
The issue is all the more important after the UN Office of Legal Affairs on Tuesday again snubbed an expression of support by Taiwan's allies for the nation's admission into the world body.
The new government to be formed on May 20 may very well give up on the UN bid if neither referendum succeeds. Indeed, how can Taiwan ask its allies to speak for it if the nation doesn't stand up for itself on Saturday?
Taipei Times Editorial, March 20, 2008.
Tibet Riots A Meter of Beijing's Rot
By Sushil Seth
First Myanmar and then China. It is quite a coincidence that Buddhist monks in both countries have been leading protests against repression.
It is not surprising, though, that when all other avenues of peaceful protest are denied, people should turn to their church or monasteries for leadership.
It happened in communist Poland. It is happening in Myanmar and now in Tibet, where China exercises a stifling grip over the local population. (Xinjiang is also proving troublesome, though Beijing attributes the trouble there to Islamic terrorism.)
Poland, though, had a happy ending with the Solidarity Movement and the Catholic Church providing inspirational leadership.
And when the time was right and the Soviet Union was heading toward collapse, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe reclaimed their freedom and independence.
Could this happen to China and its so-called autonomous regions, most notably Tibet?
The generals in Myanmar seem secure, with their international flank covered by China's support.
And the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) oligarchy seems quite self-assured that it is on the right track to make China into a superpower.
Beijing believes that with China's new international status it will be able to ignore or ride out any criticism abroad about its politics and policies.
The hosting of the Beijing Olympics in August seemed a surefire way of introducing a self-confident and powerful China to the world. But it is not all going according to script.
First, there is continuing criticism that Beijing is not opening up, as it promised, to international media, and is suppressing internal dissent before the Olympics.
Second, there is international condemnation of its indifference to the suffering of people of Darfur at the hands of the Sudanese government.
Sudan is a prime example of China's policy of fraternizing with unpalatable regimes to access their oil, gas and other natural resources.
Third, the eruption of Tibetan protests led by Buddhist monks has focused the international spotlight on Tibet. China has brought out the heavy artillery, reminiscent of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre.
According to exiled Tibetan sources, there have been, at the time of writing, 80 to 100 fatalities from China's heavy-handed response to a popular movement against what the Dalai Lama has called "cultural genocide."
Tibet is proving again and again that Beijing needs to start a dialogue with the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people to accommodate their aspirations as a distinct ethnic and cultural entity.
The CCP's one-size-fits-all approach of swamping outlying regions with Han Chinese and obliterating minority cultures is not conducive to creating a "harmonious society," a buzz word in the Chinese political lexicon.
The Soviets tried this and it eventually failed because the entire system was top-heavy with the Communist Party controlling levers of power within Russia proper and its outlying regions.
China's leaders believe that they have learnt from the Soviet Union's mistakes and are, therefore, doing things differently.
Late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) believed that former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev's perestroika was a crucial factor in the Soviet Union's collapse. Deng wasn't going to make the same mistake -- hence the tanks let loose on students during the 1989 democracy movement.
Deng looked for economic growth to make China a powerful country. And the prerequisite for this was the CCP's monopoly of power to maintain and ensure political and social stability.
For him, the Western model of democracy was a recipe for chaos and disaster. His successors continue to follow him on this course.
China's guiding mantra is economic growth at all costs to build up the military capability to throw its weight around.
It is as if all China's problems will somehow be resolved once its economic, political and military power make it a force to be reckoned with.
It is as if all the humiliations suffered under Western tutelage and Japanese aggression will be washed away with China's rebirth as the new Middle Kingdom.
Only then might its communist rulers attend to issues of social equity and some form of political participation. But it is a decision the CCP will make on its own schedule.
But as the events in Tibet show, things have a way of getting out of control unless channels and institutions are created to involve people in their own governance.
It is not that the Tibetans are asking for separation. Indeed, the Dalai Lama is advocating only genuine autonomy, with China remaining the sovereign power.
But Beijing doesn't trust the Dalai Lama. They are waiting for him to die so they can appoint their own Dalai Lama, having outlawed the process of reincarnation as traditionally practiced in the selection of a new Dalai Lama.
It is the arrogance of the system and its leaders, whether it is in relation to Tibet or China proper, which is at the root of China's problems. This will be their undoing, as happened with the Soviet Union.
Beijing believes that by choosing economic growth as its priority it has managed to avoid the fate of the Soviet Union after Gorbachev sought to push relative political liberalism.
But it collapsed largely because it was too late for Gorbachev or any other leader to save it.
The rot that consumed the Soviet Union over the years had much to do with the lack of a connection between its political system (a monopoly of power wielded by the Communist Party) and the people.
Its leadership thought it knew best, and people had virtually no input into the decision-making process of a narrow cabal that was dismally ignorant, indifferent and brutal.
China and the former Soviet Union are not comparable in all respects, but their Leninist political system, where the Communist Party exercises a monopoly on power, is a common thread.
And if the Soviet Union eventually collapsed because its leadership had no use for political diversity and popular participation, China is unlikely to fare any better over time.
The developments in Tibet are a barometer of things to come. All of China is racked by social unrest, with thousands of reported and unreported incidents of popular protest every year.
According to official figures, there were 87,000 cases of social unrest involving 15 or more people in China in 2006.
And this despite all the machinery of repression available to the authorities.
Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.
First Myanmar and then China. It is quite a coincidence that Buddhist monks in both countries have been leading protests against repression.
It is not surprising, though, that when all other avenues of peaceful protest are denied, people should turn to their church or monasteries for leadership.
It happened in communist Poland. It is happening in Myanmar and now in Tibet, where China exercises a stifling grip over the local population. (Xinjiang is also proving troublesome, though Beijing attributes the trouble there to Islamic terrorism.)
Poland, though, had a happy ending with the Solidarity Movement and the Catholic Church providing inspirational leadership.
And when the time was right and the Soviet Union was heading toward collapse, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe reclaimed their freedom and independence.
Could this happen to China and its so-called autonomous regions, most notably Tibet?
The generals in Myanmar seem secure, with their international flank covered by China's support.
And the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) oligarchy seems quite self-assured that it is on the right track to make China into a superpower.
Beijing believes that with China's new international status it will be able to ignore or ride out any criticism abroad about its politics and policies.
The hosting of the Beijing Olympics in August seemed a surefire way of introducing a self-confident and powerful China to the world. But it is not all going according to script.
First, there is continuing criticism that Beijing is not opening up, as it promised, to international media, and is suppressing internal dissent before the Olympics.
Second, there is international condemnation of its indifference to the suffering of people of Darfur at the hands of the Sudanese government.
Sudan is a prime example of China's policy of fraternizing with unpalatable regimes to access their oil, gas and other natural resources.
Third, the eruption of Tibetan protests led by Buddhist monks has focused the international spotlight on Tibet. China has brought out the heavy artillery, reminiscent of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre.
According to exiled Tibetan sources, there have been, at the time of writing, 80 to 100 fatalities from China's heavy-handed response to a popular movement against what the Dalai Lama has called "cultural genocide."
Tibet is proving again and again that Beijing needs to start a dialogue with the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people to accommodate their aspirations as a distinct ethnic and cultural entity.
The CCP's one-size-fits-all approach of swamping outlying regions with Han Chinese and obliterating minority cultures is not conducive to creating a "harmonious society," a buzz word in the Chinese political lexicon.
The Soviets tried this and it eventually failed because the entire system was top-heavy with the Communist Party controlling levers of power within Russia proper and its outlying regions.
China's leaders believe that they have learnt from the Soviet Union's mistakes and are, therefore, doing things differently.
Late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) believed that former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev's perestroika was a crucial factor in the Soviet Union's collapse. Deng wasn't going to make the same mistake -- hence the tanks let loose on students during the 1989 democracy movement.
Deng looked for economic growth to make China a powerful country. And the prerequisite for this was the CCP's monopoly of power to maintain and ensure political and social stability.
For him, the Western model of democracy was a recipe for chaos and disaster. His successors continue to follow him on this course.
China's guiding mantra is economic growth at all costs to build up the military capability to throw its weight around.
It is as if all China's problems will somehow be resolved once its economic, political and military power make it a force to be reckoned with.
It is as if all the humiliations suffered under Western tutelage and Japanese aggression will be washed away with China's rebirth as the new Middle Kingdom.
Only then might its communist rulers attend to issues of social equity and some form of political participation. But it is a decision the CCP will make on its own schedule.
But as the events in Tibet show, things have a way of getting out of control unless channels and institutions are created to involve people in their own governance.
It is not that the Tibetans are asking for separation. Indeed, the Dalai Lama is advocating only genuine autonomy, with China remaining the sovereign power.
But Beijing doesn't trust the Dalai Lama. They are waiting for him to die so they can appoint their own Dalai Lama, having outlawed the process of reincarnation as traditionally practiced in the selection of a new Dalai Lama.
It is the arrogance of the system and its leaders, whether it is in relation to Tibet or China proper, which is at the root of China's problems. This will be their undoing, as happened with the Soviet Union.
Beijing believes that by choosing economic growth as its priority it has managed to avoid the fate of the Soviet Union after Gorbachev sought to push relative political liberalism.
But it collapsed largely because it was too late for Gorbachev or any other leader to save it.
The rot that consumed the Soviet Union over the years had much to do with the lack of a connection between its political system (a monopoly of power wielded by the Communist Party) and the people.
Its leadership thought it knew best, and people had virtually no input into the decision-making process of a narrow cabal that was dismally ignorant, indifferent and brutal.
China and the former Soviet Union are not comparable in all respects, but their Leninist political system, where the Communist Party exercises a monopoly on power, is a common thread.
And if the Soviet Union eventually collapsed because its leadership had no use for political diversity and popular participation, China is unlikely to fare any better over time.
The developments in Tibet are a barometer of things to come. All of China is racked by social unrest, with thousands of reported and unreported incidents of popular protest every year.
According to official figures, there were 87,000 cases of social unrest involving 15 or more people in China in 2006.
And this despite all the machinery of repression available to the authorities.
Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.
Whatever China Does, Tibet Will Demand Freedom
By Ed Douglas of The Observer, London
Putting the Olympic flame on the summit of Mount Everest must have seemed a great idea to the planning committee of the Beijing Olympics. What better expression of China's inexorable rise to superpower status could there be? Everest was the crowning glory for Queen Elizabeth II's coronation in 1953. So it would be for China's political elite.
Now the game is up. On Friday, a friend who organizes expeditions to Everest called me on his way to Kathmandu for the start of the climbing season. He had just heard that the Nepalese authorities, at China's request, had decided to stop climbers going on the mountain until after those carrying the Olympic flame had been and gone.
It was, on China's part, an act of frantic paranoia. Beijing had only just banned foreign climbers from China's side of the mountain, fearing pro-Tibet demonstrations. Now Beijing was bullying Nepal, distracted by a chaotic election campaign, to do China's bidding. China recently offered Nepal more than US$200 million for two new hydroelectric dams and increasingly calls the tune in Kathmandu, so there wasn't much argument.
With people dying in Lhasa and Tibetan exiles agitating in India and Nepal, what happens to a bunch of Western tourists may not seem so important. True, people living around Everest will lose a lot of money, but that's no big deal in the scheme of things.
It's what this says about China's position in Tibet that is so revealing. In a matter of days, the self-assurance of a regime that promised to light a beacon to the world on the summit of Everest has been utterly undermined.
For the last 60 years of Chinese occupation and colonialism, the Tibetan people have been starved, murdered, tortured, imprisoned and marginalized in their own land.
But even now, after decades of effort to subjugate Tibet, the Chinese authorities couldn't guarantee that they wouldn't be humiliated in Tibet's most remote, and easily controlled, location -- the slopes of the peak Tibetans call Chomolungma.
Dreadful abuses
Rather than have Western climbers unfurling banners to demand a free Tibet during a live broadcast beamed around the world, they have preferred the embarrassment of closing the peak to outsiders, as they did until 1980, four years after the death of Mao Zedong (毛澤東).
It's an admission of failure. It must be galling for Beijing. Following violence in the late 1980s and another period of dreadful human-rights abuses, the Chinese Communist Party had embarked on a policy of colossal capital investment in Tibet to develop its sclerotic economy. If old-school oppression didn't work, why not try consumerism?
Leaving aside the inequalities between Tibetans and migrant Han Chinese, there's no question that the Chinese have done a huge amount to improve the economic conditions of the indigenous population. Drive along the highway between Lhasa and Shigatse, seat of the disputed Panchen Lama, No. 2 in the Tibetan Buddhist hierarchy, and you can see bright new houses being built to replace the smoky hovels many Tibetans used to occupy.
True, part of this resettlement program is aimed at settling nomadic herders whose mobility threatens China's grip. China recalls how nomads in eastern Tibet put up strong resistance following the invasion in 1950. But it would be a gross caricature to deny China's attempts to bring economic development to a disadvantaged region.
China says it rehoused 10 percent of Tibet's population by 2006, building 279,000 new homes. Now that's progress. The high-tech, high-altitude railway, opened in 2006 and tying China more firmly to its Tibetan fiefdom, has brought a wave of new investment along with more migration. When I first visited Lhasa in 1993, people still defecated in the street. Now it is a modern and much bigger city, albeit a largely Chinese one.
Tibet campaigners often argue that this combination of investment and migration will swamp Tibetan's ancient culture and snuff out resistance to China's annexation. If that was the plan, it seems to have failed.
Beijing predictably blamed the Dalai Lama and his "splittist clique" for masterminding the riots that gripped Lhasa last week. But reports filtering out from the Jokhang temple area, the holiest of holies for Tibetan Buddhists, suggest the anger on the streets is real and instinctive. It is the resentment Tibetans feel at the inequality they face in their day-to-day lives.
Han migrants
Life might have got better for some Tibetans, but they see Han Chinese migrants doing a whole lot better and at their expense. The new railway might bring more money to Lhasa, but it is also carrying back Tibet's vast mineral deposits and timber to feed China's galloping economic growth.
It's inevitable, given his huge profile and the popularity of his cause, that many Westerners see the Dalai Lama and Tibet as synonymous. The Dalai Lama remains a source of hope for many Tibetans, but beneath the charm and exoticism of his story, Tibet's agonies should be familiar ground to any student of colonialism. It is that inequality, and the despair it brings, that feeds Tibet's resistance.
But Beijing is fixated by a personal and bitter campaign against a man regarded as an icon around the world. Rather than allow the possibility that he has influence inside Tibet, and affection outside it, China courts ridicule by peddling transparently false statements about him. An example. In November, the Dalai Lama used his prerogative as a reincarnate lama to suggest his rebirth wouldn't take place within Tibet.
He has said this before, but the statement launched a typically petulant response from Beijing, suggesting the Dalai Lama's statement "violated [the] religious rituals and historical conventions of Tibetan Buddhism."
Given the wholesale destruction of monasteries in the 1950s and 1960s, and renewed efforts in the 1990s to crack down on religious freedoms and the strict controls placed on monks within Tibet, the idea that atheist Beijing should offer advice on the traditions of Tibetan Buddhism was understandably laughed off by the Dalai Lama's office.
China must hope, and friends of Tibet must fear, that when the Dalai Lama dies, much of the momentum toward Tibet's eventual freedom will die with him. Don't count on it. Tibet will still be a country that is ethnically and culturally very different from China. It's not a question of preserving Tibet's ancient culture -- that hangs on in remote villages -- but it's mostly gone in Lhasa. It would have changed anyway. Mobile phones and the Internet would have undermined Tibet's oppressively religious polity, already being reformed by the current Dalai Lama, just as they are doing to China's version of communism.
It's a question of identity. The fact remains that Tibetans feel Tibetan. No amount of economic development will change that. It's also true that China is implacable in its determination to stay put. Only a settlement that allows Tibetans genuine freedoms and economic equality will bring lasting peace. And that means meaningful agreements with the Dalai Lama. Only then will Tibetans begin to trust the Chinese.
Right now, China is stoking a future of ethnic conflict that will take generations and huge resources to solve. That conflict is deeply damaging to China's image abroad as a progressive and modern country.
The real question is what does China have to fear from a more independent Tibet?
It is the risk of difference, of heterogeneity that frightens China -- a fear of multiculturalism.
Putting the Olympic flame on the summit of Mount Everest must have seemed a great idea to the planning committee of the Beijing Olympics. What better expression of China's inexorable rise to superpower status could there be? Everest was the crowning glory for Queen Elizabeth II's coronation in 1953. So it would be for China's political elite.
Now the game is up. On Friday, a friend who organizes expeditions to Everest called me on his way to Kathmandu for the start of the climbing season. He had just heard that the Nepalese authorities, at China's request, had decided to stop climbers going on the mountain until after those carrying the Olympic flame had been and gone.
It was, on China's part, an act of frantic paranoia. Beijing had only just banned foreign climbers from China's side of the mountain, fearing pro-Tibet demonstrations. Now Beijing was bullying Nepal, distracted by a chaotic election campaign, to do China's bidding. China recently offered Nepal more than US$200 million for two new hydroelectric dams and increasingly calls the tune in Kathmandu, so there wasn't much argument.
With people dying in Lhasa and Tibetan exiles agitating in India and Nepal, what happens to a bunch of Western tourists may not seem so important. True, people living around Everest will lose a lot of money, but that's no big deal in the scheme of things.
It's what this says about China's position in Tibet that is so revealing. In a matter of days, the self-assurance of a regime that promised to light a beacon to the world on the summit of Everest has been utterly undermined.
For the last 60 years of Chinese occupation and colonialism, the Tibetan people have been starved, murdered, tortured, imprisoned and marginalized in their own land.
But even now, after decades of effort to subjugate Tibet, the Chinese authorities couldn't guarantee that they wouldn't be humiliated in Tibet's most remote, and easily controlled, location -- the slopes of the peak Tibetans call Chomolungma.
Dreadful abuses
Rather than have Western climbers unfurling banners to demand a free Tibet during a live broadcast beamed around the world, they have preferred the embarrassment of closing the peak to outsiders, as they did until 1980, four years after the death of Mao Zedong (毛澤東).
It's an admission of failure. It must be galling for Beijing. Following violence in the late 1980s and another period of dreadful human-rights abuses, the Chinese Communist Party had embarked on a policy of colossal capital investment in Tibet to develop its sclerotic economy. If old-school oppression didn't work, why not try consumerism?
Leaving aside the inequalities between Tibetans and migrant Han Chinese, there's no question that the Chinese have done a huge amount to improve the economic conditions of the indigenous population. Drive along the highway between Lhasa and Shigatse, seat of the disputed Panchen Lama, No. 2 in the Tibetan Buddhist hierarchy, and you can see bright new houses being built to replace the smoky hovels many Tibetans used to occupy.
True, part of this resettlement program is aimed at settling nomadic herders whose mobility threatens China's grip. China recalls how nomads in eastern Tibet put up strong resistance following the invasion in 1950. But it would be a gross caricature to deny China's attempts to bring economic development to a disadvantaged region.
China says it rehoused 10 percent of Tibet's population by 2006, building 279,000 new homes. Now that's progress. The high-tech, high-altitude railway, opened in 2006 and tying China more firmly to its Tibetan fiefdom, has brought a wave of new investment along with more migration. When I first visited Lhasa in 1993, people still defecated in the street. Now it is a modern and much bigger city, albeit a largely Chinese one.
Tibet campaigners often argue that this combination of investment and migration will swamp Tibetan's ancient culture and snuff out resistance to China's annexation. If that was the plan, it seems to have failed.
Beijing predictably blamed the Dalai Lama and his "splittist clique" for masterminding the riots that gripped Lhasa last week. But reports filtering out from the Jokhang temple area, the holiest of holies for Tibetan Buddhists, suggest the anger on the streets is real and instinctive. It is the resentment Tibetans feel at the inequality they face in their day-to-day lives.
Han migrants
Life might have got better for some Tibetans, but they see Han Chinese migrants doing a whole lot better and at their expense. The new railway might bring more money to Lhasa, but it is also carrying back Tibet's vast mineral deposits and timber to feed China's galloping economic growth.
It's inevitable, given his huge profile and the popularity of his cause, that many Westerners see the Dalai Lama and Tibet as synonymous. The Dalai Lama remains a source of hope for many Tibetans, but beneath the charm and exoticism of his story, Tibet's agonies should be familiar ground to any student of colonialism. It is that inequality, and the despair it brings, that feeds Tibet's resistance.
But Beijing is fixated by a personal and bitter campaign against a man regarded as an icon around the world. Rather than allow the possibility that he has influence inside Tibet, and affection outside it, China courts ridicule by peddling transparently false statements about him. An example. In November, the Dalai Lama used his prerogative as a reincarnate lama to suggest his rebirth wouldn't take place within Tibet.
He has said this before, but the statement launched a typically petulant response from Beijing, suggesting the Dalai Lama's statement "violated [the] religious rituals and historical conventions of Tibetan Buddhism."
Given the wholesale destruction of monasteries in the 1950s and 1960s, and renewed efforts in the 1990s to crack down on religious freedoms and the strict controls placed on monks within Tibet, the idea that atheist Beijing should offer advice on the traditions of Tibetan Buddhism was understandably laughed off by the Dalai Lama's office.
China must hope, and friends of Tibet must fear, that when the Dalai Lama dies, much of the momentum toward Tibet's eventual freedom will die with him. Don't count on it. Tibet will still be a country that is ethnically and culturally very different from China. It's not a question of preserving Tibet's ancient culture -- that hangs on in remote villages -- but it's mostly gone in Lhasa. It would have changed anyway. Mobile phones and the Internet would have undermined Tibet's oppressively religious polity, already being reformed by the current Dalai Lama, just as they are doing to China's version of communism.
It's a question of identity. The fact remains that Tibetans feel Tibetan. No amount of economic development will change that. It's also true that China is implacable in its determination to stay put. Only a settlement that allows Tibetans genuine freedoms and economic equality will bring lasting peace. And that means meaningful agreements with the Dalai Lama. Only then will Tibetans begin to trust the Chinese.
Right now, China is stoking a future of ethnic conflict that will take generations and huge resources to solve. That conflict is deeply damaging to China's image abroad as a progressive and modern country.
The real question is what does China have to fear from a more independent Tibet?
It is the risk of difference, of heterogeneity that frightens China -- a fear of multiculturalism.
Beijing's Not Bringing Cookies
Lee Long-Hwa of New York
As Taiwan goes to the presidential polls, it is imperative the nation notes and understands the situation in Tibet. For those Taiwanese who dream of becoming an integral part of China, it is important to understand that the treatment of Tibet and Tibetans is only a small sample of what lies in store for Taiwan should it become part of China.
For those Taiwanese who believe that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) represents a new day for big money in Taiwan, where Taiwan can co-exist with China in peace and prosperity, it is important to understand that there is no "co-existence" in Beijing's vocabulary.
The only definition of "co-existence" for Beijing is "undying loyalty to the Communist Party, upon pain of death."
Ma talks about 30 years of peace with Beijing. But Beijing has murdered Tibet's culture and autonomy over a period of 50 years.
Are you skeptical? Fifty years of Beijing's relationship with the Dalai Lama should have proved this point to the world already.
If a nation cannot co-exist with the Dalai Lama, a leader who personifies peace, just who in the world can they co-exist with?
Nor will Beijing march into Taipei with guns drawn. Its annexation of Taiwan is being planned in far more subtle ways, with or without the KMT's full complicity.
Wearing grins on their faces and talking about social harmony, cross-strait peace and a "one-China market," politicians on both sides are misrepresenting the underlying predatory nature of Beijing to the Taiwanese public.
The plans call for peace, but as soon as the guard is down, as soon as someone decides there is no immediate threat, the dam will burst and the flood of China's overwhelming tide will overwhelm Taiwan.
It will first come from the sheer numbers of Chinese visitors and then immigrants, money, millions of workers, hollowing out invaluable industries, and -- when Taiwan is utterly cowed and dependent on Beijing's succor -- blackmail.
Once overwhelmed, all hope is lost.
Beijing will not treat Taiwan like Hong Kong (which is bad enough), but rather like Tibet, where right now, today, at this very moment, soldiers are conducting house-to-house searches for monks supporting the Dalai Lama, looking for pictures of him or any other evidence of loyalty.
How long before Chinese soldiers are running from house to house in Taipei searching for "splittists"? Where will Ma be then? Standing in front, protecting those houses? Or running along beside the soldiers, aiding and abetting?
You decide.
With President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) at least I know they would die fighting.
They've already sacrificed themselves for Taiwan's democracy before.
I haven't heard anything from Ma that would convince me he wouldn't be on the first plane to Hong Kong (or New York or Beijing)
For those going to the polls, Tibet should serve as a loud and blaring wake up call. For those who think things have changed and that Beijing is a kinder and gentler adversary, wake up.
The predatory neighbor is not coming to visit Taiwan bearing cookies. It is coming bearing dictatorship and tyranny. Vote for anything less than complete vigilance against it, and you are inviting the beast to a dinner where you are the main dish.
And if you doubt that, if you are skeptical that Beijing could do that, just read about Tibet right now.
It's real. It's happening. The actions of Beijing in Tibet are no different than its attitude toward Taiwan.
And it's coming, unless you vote to keep it out.
You decide.
As Taiwan goes to the presidential polls, it is imperative the nation notes and understands the situation in Tibet. For those Taiwanese who dream of becoming an integral part of China, it is important to understand that the treatment of Tibet and Tibetans is only a small sample of what lies in store for Taiwan should it become part of China.
For those Taiwanese who believe that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) represents a new day for big money in Taiwan, where Taiwan can co-exist with China in peace and prosperity, it is important to understand that there is no "co-existence" in Beijing's vocabulary.
The only definition of "co-existence" for Beijing is "undying loyalty to the Communist Party, upon pain of death."
Ma talks about 30 years of peace with Beijing. But Beijing has murdered Tibet's culture and autonomy over a period of 50 years.
Are you skeptical? Fifty years of Beijing's relationship with the Dalai Lama should have proved this point to the world already.
If a nation cannot co-exist with the Dalai Lama, a leader who personifies peace, just who in the world can they co-exist with?
Nor will Beijing march into Taipei with guns drawn. Its annexation of Taiwan is being planned in far more subtle ways, with or without the KMT's full complicity.
Wearing grins on their faces and talking about social harmony, cross-strait peace and a "one-China market," politicians on both sides are misrepresenting the underlying predatory nature of Beijing to the Taiwanese public.
The plans call for peace, but as soon as the guard is down, as soon as someone decides there is no immediate threat, the dam will burst and the flood of China's overwhelming tide will overwhelm Taiwan.
It will first come from the sheer numbers of Chinese visitors and then immigrants, money, millions of workers, hollowing out invaluable industries, and -- when Taiwan is utterly cowed and dependent on Beijing's succor -- blackmail.
Once overwhelmed, all hope is lost.
Beijing will not treat Taiwan like Hong Kong (which is bad enough), but rather like Tibet, where right now, today, at this very moment, soldiers are conducting house-to-house searches for monks supporting the Dalai Lama, looking for pictures of him or any other evidence of loyalty.
How long before Chinese soldiers are running from house to house in Taipei searching for "splittists"? Where will Ma be then? Standing in front, protecting those houses? Or running along beside the soldiers, aiding and abetting?
You decide.
With President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) at least I know they would die fighting.
They've already sacrificed themselves for Taiwan's democracy before.
I haven't heard anything from Ma that would convince me he wouldn't be on the first plane to Hong Kong (or New York or Beijing)
For those going to the polls, Tibet should serve as a loud and blaring wake up call. For those who think things have changed and that Beijing is a kinder and gentler adversary, wake up.
The predatory neighbor is not coming to visit Taiwan bearing cookies. It is coming bearing dictatorship and tyranny. Vote for anything less than complete vigilance against it, and you are inviting the beast to a dinner where you are the main dish.
And if you doubt that, if you are skeptical that Beijing could do that, just read about Tibet right now.
It's real. It's happening. The actions of Beijing in Tibet are no different than its attitude toward Taiwan.
And it's coming, unless you vote to keep it out.
You decide.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
