By Juliana Barbassa of AP, DAVIS, CALIFORNIA
The first time Jose Freeman heard his tribe's lost language through the crackle of a 70-year-old recording, he cried.
"My ancestors were speaking to me," Freeman said of the sounds captured when American Indians still inhabited California's Salinas Valley. "It was like coming home."
The last native speaker of Salinan died almost 50 years ago, but today many indigenous people are finding their extinct or endangered tongues, one word or song at a time, thanks to a linguist who died in 1961 and academics at the University of California, Davis, who are working to transcribe his life's obsession.
Linguist John Peabody Harrington spent four decades gathering more than 1 million pages of phonetic notations on languages spoken by tribes from Alaska to South America. When the technology became available, he supplemented his written records with audio recordings -- first using wax cylinders, then aluminum discs. In many cases his notes provide the only record of long-gone languages.
Martha Macri, who teaches California Indian Studies at UC Davis and is one of the principal researchers on the J.P. Harrington Database Project, is working with American Indian volunteers to transcribe Harrington's notations. Researchers hope the words will bridge the decades of silence separating the people Harrington interviewed from their descendants.
Freeman hopes his four-month-old great-granddaughter will grow up with the sense of heritage that comes with speaking her ancestors' language.
"When we lose our language, we're getting cut off from our roots," he said. "The world view that our ancestors carried is quite different from the Euro-American world view. And their language can carry that world view back to us."
Although it will be years before all the material can be made available, some American Indians connected to the Harrington Project have already begun putting it to use. Members of Freeman's tribe gather on their ancestral land every month to practice what they have learned -- a few words, some grammar, old songs.
"The ultimate outcome is to get it back to the communities it came from," Macri said.
By all accounts, Harrington was a devoted, if somewhat eccentric, scholar. Sometimes he spent 20 or 30 minutes on one word, saying it over and over until the person he was interviewing agreed he had gotten the pronunciation correct, said Jack Marr, who met Harrington as a 12-year-old and worked as his assistant into his 20s.
"They trusted him," Marr said of the Indians they worked with.
"A lot of people, if they tried to walk in and say `I want to record you,' they'd get thrown out. But not Harrington. I think people recognized that we were doing this for posterity."
Harrington's sense of urgency animates the letters he sent to Marr nearly every day.
"Rain or no rain, rush," Harrington said in one letter. "Dying languages depend on you."
However, that same drive has confounded efforts to pass the words down to new generations.
For instance, Harrington was so focused on gathering information that he spent little time polishing his work for publication, according to Marr. He hated wasting precious time being cooped up in an office.
And he was so deeply mistrustful of other researchers that he stashed much of his research as he traveled, deliberately keeping it out of reach of his colleagues. He kept even his employers at the Bureau of American Ethnology -- now the National Anthropological Archives -- in the dark about where he was and what he was doing, routing his mail through Marr's mother to cover his tracks.
After his death, the federal archives received boxes of Harrington's notes, recordings and other material from people who found them in barns and basements across the West. It took the archives until 1991 to transfer the voluminous notes to microfilm.
While linguists, archeologists, botanists and others have spent the years since combing through the files, Macri says the trove of information has remained all but inaccessible to members of the tribes themselves.
The Harrington Project was created with the goal of returning the words to the people who can imbue them with life again, as well as making the material more accessible to academics.
The researchers are teaching tribal members across California how to read Harrington's cramped handwriting and decipher his notation system.
Macri's team focuses on the more than 100 California languages Harrington catalogued, such as Wiyot, Serrano and Luiseno, for which there are few other records.
"It would be hard to exaggerate the linguistic diversity that existed at one time in California," Macri said. "It was more common to be multilingual than not."
Jacob Gutierrez, a member of the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians -- Pipiimaram, in the tribe's own language -- has decoded all the material Harrington gathered on his people -- over 6,000 pages, and is now working on information about their linguistic neighbors.
"I find it to be the most rewarding work I have ever done," he said. "Every new word, story or song is an absolute treasure for me and my people."
Karen Santana, who started working on Harrington's notes about her Central Pomo tribe while she was a student at UC Davis, is drawing plans for a dictionary with phonetic spellings.
"I want to develop a system that will make sense to others," Santana said. "It's a lifelong goal, publishing something ... that my tribe can refer to."
Marr said Harrington would have been satisfied to see languages born again from his notes and recordings.
"But he would have felt very sad he didn't get more. He always wanted to do more," Marr said.
2008年2月28日 星期四
Forgetting What 228 Is Really About
"I have tried to keep the memory alive. I have tried to fight those who would forget. Because if we forget, we are guilty ... not to remember would turn us into accomplices of the killers, to remember would turn anyone into a friend of the victims."
So said Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor and renowned author, in his 1986 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.
Yesterday marked the 61st anniversary of the 228 Incident, and to this day some of the victims' families still do not know why their loved ones were killed or where their remains lie.
Tens of thousands of society's elite -- ethnic Taiwanese and Mainlander alike -- were arrested, tortured and murdered during the brutal military crackdown that began in late February 1947. The Incident began a tragic page in Taiwan's history and ushered in the White Terror era.
Sadly, the commemoration of this catastrophic event has seemingly become a formality. Politicians visit the families of victims, hold memorial services, give speeches and all the rest of it, but what most of them will not tell their listeners is that increasing numbers of people -- and especially the younger generations -- are doing exactly what Wiesel so eloquently warned against: forgetting.
Talk to young people today and many, if not most, would be unable to offer even a brief account of what took place 61 years ago.
Some may dismiss this as inevitable, but this need not be the case -- if the government and people of high standing care enough about their history and its unjust legacy.
Schools in many Western nations include The Diary of Anne Frank in school curriculums. Other than a comic book treatment of Taiwanese history that was released some years ago, there is no material in local school curriculums that performs the corresponding function of educating young people about the 228 Incident and humanizing its victims.
Young Taiwanese may shed the odd tear while watching Schindler's List, yet how many would feel a sense of connection when stories of the 228 Incident are told at commemorative services?
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) yesterday pledged to increase documentation of the 228 Incident to serve as a historical lesson for future generations if he is elected.
This is a welcome suggestion, but a fairly token one in the context of the ongoing lack of accountability of the KMT in relation to its stolen assets, ideological scars and autocratic residue -- the survival of which owes everything to the 228 Incident and what followed.
If Ma felt for the 228 Incident's victims and the agony suffered by their families, then he would have castigated his party for once again blocking a budget in the legislature that would have provided more support for the victims and their families.
We hear a lot from self-congratulatory Taiwanese about our democracy. But the meaning of "Taiwanese democracy" and its citizens' ability to defend it are tempered by the reality that more and more Taiwanese know nothing about -- and sometimes cruelly rationalize -- this nation's dirty history.
The last thing any person of conscience would hope to see is 228 Memorial Day following in the footsteps of other holidays, in which people vaguely do the "right thing" out of sheer habit and lack understanding of what the day represents.
As ordinary Taiwanese increasingly seek to depoliticize their lives, and as politicians turn the crimes of their fathers into their own political capital, this may turn out to be little more than a pipe dream.
Taipei Times Editorial, Feb. 29, 2008.
So said Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor and renowned author, in his 1986 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.
Yesterday marked the 61st anniversary of the 228 Incident, and to this day some of the victims' families still do not know why their loved ones were killed or where their remains lie.
Tens of thousands of society's elite -- ethnic Taiwanese and Mainlander alike -- were arrested, tortured and murdered during the brutal military crackdown that began in late February 1947. The Incident began a tragic page in Taiwan's history and ushered in the White Terror era.
Sadly, the commemoration of this catastrophic event has seemingly become a formality. Politicians visit the families of victims, hold memorial services, give speeches and all the rest of it, but what most of them will not tell their listeners is that increasing numbers of people -- and especially the younger generations -- are doing exactly what Wiesel so eloquently warned against: forgetting.
Talk to young people today and many, if not most, would be unable to offer even a brief account of what took place 61 years ago.
Some may dismiss this as inevitable, but this need not be the case -- if the government and people of high standing care enough about their history and its unjust legacy.
Schools in many Western nations include The Diary of Anne Frank in school curriculums. Other than a comic book treatment of Taiwanese history that was released some years ago, there is no material in local school curriculums that performs the corresponding function of educating young people about the 228 Incident and humanizing its victims.
Young Taiwanese may shed the odd tear while watching Schindler's List, yet how many would feel a sense of connection when stories of the 228 Incident are told at commemorative services?
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) yesterday pledged to increase documentation of the 228 Incident to serve as a historical lesson for future generations if he is elected.
This is a welcome suggestion, but a fairly token one in the context of the ongoing lack of accountability of the KMT in relation to its stolen assets, ideological scars and autocratic residue -- the survival of which owes everything to the 228 Incident and what followed.
If Ma felt for the 228 Incident's victims and the agony suffered by their families, then he would have castigated his party for once again blocking a budget in the legislature that would have provided more support for the victims and their families.
We hear a lot from self-congratulatory Taiwanese about our democracy. But the meaning of "Taiwanese democracy" and its citizens' ability to defend it are tempered by the reality that more and more Taiwanese know nothing about -- and sometimes cruelly rationalize -- this nation's dirty history.
The last thing any person of conscience would hope to see is 228 Memorial Day following in the footsteps of other holidays, in which people vaguely do the "right thing" out of sheer habit and lack understanding of what the day represents.
As ordinary Taiwanese increasingly seek to depoliticize their lives, and as politicians turn the crimes of their fathers into their own political capital, this may turn out to be little more than a pipe dream.
Taipei Times Editorial, Feb. 29, 2008.
2008年2月26日 星期二
Counting the Cost of the Viagra Revolution
By Amelia Hill and Robin McKie of The Observer, London
The blue pill that can cure male impotence was a startling discovery when it was launched in 1998. But while it has changed the relationships of millions of people, it has also played a major role in many breakups
It was the drug that transformed the sexual landscape. Before Viagra, impotence meant shame and often the collapse of all but the most committed relationships. The discovery of its startling ability to restore men's faded sexual function triggered a social revolution as monumental as that caused by the contraceptive pill.
Today Viagra -- launched in the US 10 years ago this month -- is the world's most ubiquitous medical brand name. Type it into Google and a search throws up more than 4 million references: 10 times more than Prozac and 20 times as many as Botox, its nearest competitors.
The drug has also spawned its own catalog of jokes and become a byword for efficacy and impact. Nicole Kidman's nude scene in the play The Blue Room was famously described as "pure theatrical Viagra," for example, while in the US the Survivor TV series was labeled "CBS' Viagra," a magic pill that made the network virile.
But just how much of all this publicity is hype? Has the "wonder pill" really lived up to its promise? Has it been a universal force for good?
From the financial perspective there can be little doubt. In the decade since Viagra first went on sale, more than 30 million men in 120 countries have been prescribed it. In addition, many millions more have bought it illegally on the Internet, or taken a few from their mates in bars for recreational use.
Indeed, the take-off of Viagra was one of the fastest that a new drug has ever seen. Almost immediately after its launch in the US, it was being prescribed at the rate of at least 10,000 a day.
In Atlanta, urologist John Stripling wrote out 300 prescriptions on the day it became available.
And there is no doubt much of this proliferation has been to the good of men and women, as Graham Jackson, a consultant cardiologist in London and an expert on sexual problems, explained.
"More than 20 percent of breakdowns of relationships are caused because a man has erectile problems. It can cause agony for a man when he cannot perform as he feels he should," he said.
"A lot of partners are kind and supportive. A few are cruel. And when you have huge great men crying like babies in your clinic, you get pretty desperate for something that will put their problems to right as soon as possible. Viagra has done that in a great many cases that have come to my clinic, I am glad to say," Jackson said.
Certainly, the drug has brought joy to many relationships. However, it has also had -- in many cases -- a destructive impact.
"Now men have a drug to help them get it up and get going, they have also shown a worrying tendency to get up and leave -- for younger women," as one sex counselor put it.
In the process, Viagra has become the third party in many marriage splits, increasingly cited in celebrity divorce cases, most recently with Wendy and Johnny Kidd, parents of supermodel Jodie and makeup guru Jemma.
"Older men are more able to perform again, so they're going elsewhere -- to younger, greener pastures," said New York divorce lawyer Raoul Felder, who recently acted for the wife of a 70-year-old man who began cheating on her days after taking Viagra.
In Florida's retirement communities, rates of sexually transmitted diseases among elderly men -- who have started visiting prostitutes after taking Viagra -- are soaring, it emerged recently.
Nor is this phenomenon restricted to the US.
"I have seen an exponential rise in divorce cases sparked by Viagra-fueled adultery,' said James Stewart, of the London law firm Manches.
So widespread and common is the use of Viagra that male clients now talk to him about taking it as openly and willingly as they would admit to taking Disprin for a headache, he said.
"The problem is that Viagra widens the age period in which men can commit adultery and that is the catalyst for most relationship breakdowns. On the other hand, Viagra has saved as many, if not more, marriages than it destroys," Stewart said.
"If a couple's sex life is bad, then that can give rise to all sorts of other problems. By improving a couple's intimate relationship, Viagra strengthens the marital bond," he said.
This point was backed by David Ralph, a consultant at the University College London's Institute of Urology.
"Viagra has transformed the lives not only of millions of patients with erectile dysfunction but the lives of their partners as well," he said.
In addition, media coverage means that after generations of taboo and refusing to talk about sexual failure, erectile dysfunction has become a subject that can be discussed openly, a point stressed by the author Erica Jong.
"Impotence was the great secret. Now suddenly, you can't go to a dinner party without having people talk about erections," she said.
This disappearance of sexual reticence has been particularly beneficial for the general health of the population, and is one of the major benefits of the Viagra revolution, say doctors. In making men less afraid to talk about their sexual problems, it is becoming easier to make diagnoses of more serious illnesses, as Ralph pointed out.
"The circulation problems that create erectile dysfunction can also be a sign of vascular blockage and diabetes," he said.
This point is supported by Jackson, who said that erectile problems are often the first symptoms of a general failing of a man's blood circulation and that this could go on to trigger heart attacks or other cardiac problems.
"So if men are more willing to come forward, then we can pick them up more speedily. That is why it is important that men don't just take Viagra -- or its partner drugs Levitra or Cialis -- when they first experience erectile problems but consult their doctors," he said.
"If they don't tell their GP [general practitioner] and just take Viagra to compensate, they will be heading into danger. To be fair to the drug companies involved, however, they have gone to great lengths to make sure these drugs are administered by GPs," he said.
Nevertheless, the widespread availability of Viagra has posed its own problems, not just for patients suffering circulation problems but for men of all ages who use it as a recreational drug.
"Viagra is spawning a nation of men who are dependent on the drug, particularly young men who develop the expectation that they should be able to just pop a pill and have sex, regardless of how they feel emotionally," psychotherapist Paula Hall said.
Talk show host Jerry Springer was one of the first to go public with a claim of dependency, while over-use of Viagra was blamed for turning the 66-year-old Earl of Shaftesbury from a kindly old man to someone who stalked the Riviera nightclubs for high-class prostitutes, it was claimed during the trial of his murderers two years ago.
Last year, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation launched a lawsuit accusing Pfizer of recklessly advertising Viagra, and turning it into a "party drug" whose use is fueling the AIDS epidemic. There are also concerns about those taking the drug on a non-prescription basis, but there is no documented evidence of any major loss of life involving recreational use.
"That is one of the great things about Viagra," Jackson said. "It has no really life-threatening side effects."
Roger Kirby, director of the Prostate Centre, London, agreed.
"Nothing much happens if someone without erectile dysfunction takes the drug," he said.
Indeed, Viagra can even make some illegal drugs safer, he said.
"For example, cocaine is a very dangerous drug because it causes coronary arteries to close and can sometimes give you a heart attack," Kirby explained. "Viagra has the opposite effect and so can help the cocaine user."
Such an effect is generally accidental, however. Most clubbers take cocaine-Viagra mixes -- known as "coconut pokes" -- to get high while still being able to perform sexually. Protection against heart attacks is not the prime concern here, needless to say.
Nor would it be correct to assume that the drug lacks significant side-effects, as consultant gynecologist David Glenn has warned. His research indicates that the drug is linked to infertility.
"Men who use it recreationally for long periods could be building up trouble for themselves in later years. They could find it difficult to father children," he said.
"We need to do a lot more research on the subject to find out. In the meantime, young men need to be careful. Viagra could have a cumulative impact on their fertility and on their chances of fathering children in the future," he said.
Another key issue concerns the idea that a drug that restores sexual ability to a man is sufficient on its own to put a threatened relationship back on track, as Susanna Abse, director of the Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships, said.
"I regularly sit opposite couples who tell me that their problem is caused by his inability to get or to maintain an erection and that they think the answer is so simple. It would seem a straightforward course of Viagra is all that they need. But when I suggest it, they either refuse to try it, or they do try it and it still doesn't work," she said.
"The problem is that erectile dysfunction can become a defense for a couple against having to share sexual intimacy. It can be very frightening when the curtain is whisked away and you are forced to confront that issue," she said.
In general, however, Viagra has been a success story both for its manufacturer, Pfizer -- which has made more than US$2 billion from the drug, it is estimated -- and for users, many of whom have regained lost sexual prowess and have had their marriages and relationships revitalized.
"We've always been waiting for the magic bullet and this is pretty close," David Ralph said. "The one, accidental discovery leading to the wonder drug that is Viagra has transformed the lives not only of millions of patients with erectile dysfunction but the lives of their partners and their families too."
Or as Rafael Wurzel, a US physician, has put it: "Viagra opened the door to an honest and uninhibited discussion about issues pertaining to sexual dysfunction, for men, for women, and for couples. I think it has been wonderful."
Others, however, have taken a more jaundiced view of this new sexual revolution, of course -- as one letter, published by the syndicated Ann Landers advice column in US newspapers, made abundantly and poignantly clear: "I am 62 years old and the mother of six grown children and I was thrilled when my 64-year-old husband began to slow down about two years ago. So now what happens? A pill called Viagra is invented and the old goat is back in the saddle. I do love my husband but I believe I have earned a rest. Besides, these pills cost US$10 a piece. Last week he had four."
The blue pill that can cure male impotence was a startling discovery when it was launched in 1998. But while it has changed the relationships of millions of people, it has also played a major role in many breakups
It was the drug that transformed the sexual landscape. Before Viagra, impotence meant shame and often the collapse of all but the most committed relationships. The discovery of its startling ability to restore men's faded sexual function triggered a social revolution as monumental as that caused by the contraceptive pill.
Today Viagra -- launched in the US 10 years ago this month -- is the world's most ubiquitous medical brand name. Type it into Google and a search throws up more than 4 million references: 10 times more than Prozac and 20 times as many as Botox, its nearest competitors.
The drug has also spawned its own catalog of jokes and become a byword for efficacy and impact. Nicole Kidman's nude scene in the play The Blue Room was famously described as "pure theatrical Viagra," for example, while in the US the Survivor TV series was labeled "CBS' Viagra," a magic pill that made the network virile.
But just how much of all this publicity is hype? Has the "wonder pill" really lived up to its promise? Has it been a universal force for good?
From the financial perspective there can be little doubt. In the decade since Viagra first went on sale, more than 30 million men in 120 countries have been prescribed it. In addition, many millions more have bought it illegally on the Internet, or taken a few from their mates in bars for recreational use.
Indeed, the take-off of Viagra was one of the fastest that a new drug has ever seen. Almost immediately after its launch in the US, it was being prescribed at the rate of at least 10,000 a day.
In Atlanta, urologist John Stripling wrote out 300 prescriptions on the day it became available.
And there is no doubt much of this proliferation has been to the good of men and women, as Graham Jackson, a consultant cardiologist in London and an expert on sexual problems, explained.
"More than 20 percent of breakdowns of relationships are caused because a man has erectile problems. It can cause agony for a man when he cannot perform as he feels he should," he said.
"A lot of partners are kind and supportive. A few are cruel. And when you have huge great men crying like babies in your clinic, you get pretty desperate for something that will put their problems to right as soon as possible. Viagra has done that in a great many cases that have come to my clinic, I am glad to say," Jackson said.
Certainly, the drug has brought joy to many relationships. However, it has also had -- in many cases -- a destructive impact.
"Now men have a drug to help them get it up and get going, they have also shown a worrying tendency to get up and leave -- for younger women," as one sex counselor put it.
In the process, Viagra has become the third party in many marriage splits, increasingly cited in celebrity divorce cases, most recently with Wendy and Johnny Kidd, parents of supermodel Jodie and makeup guru Jemma.
"Older men are more able to perform again, so they're going elsewhere -- to younger, greener pastures," said New York divorce lawyer Raoul Felder, who recently acted for the wife of a 70-year-old man who began cheating on her days after taking Viagra.
In Florida's retirement communities, rates of sexually transmitted diseases among elderly men -- who have started visiting prostitutes after taking Viagra -- are soaring, it emerged recently.
Nor is this phenomenon restricted to the US.
"I have seen an exponential rise in divorce cases sparked by Viagra-fueled adultery,' said James Stewart, of the London law firm Manches.
So widespread and common is the use of Viagra that male clients now talk to him about taking it as openly and willingly as they would admit to taking Disprin for a headache, he said.
"The problem is that Viagra widens the age period in which men can commit adultery and that is the catalyst for most relationship breakdowns. On the other hand, Viagra has saved as many, if not more, marriages than it destroys," Stewart said.
"If a couple's sex life is bad, then that can give rise to all sorts of other problems. By improving a couple's intimate relationship, Viagra strengthens the marital bond," he said.
This point was backed by David Ralph, a consultant at the University College London's Institute of Urology.
"Viagra has transformed the lives not only of millions of patients with erectile dysfunction but the lives of their partners as well," he said.
In addition, media coverage means that after generations of taboo and refusing to talk about sexual failure, erectile dysfunction has become a subject that can be discussed openly, a point stressed by the author Erica Jong.
"Impotence was the great secret. Now suddenly, you can't go to a dinner party without having people talk about erections," she said.
This disappearance of sexual reticence has been particularly beneficial for the general health of the population, and is one of the major benefits of the Viagra revolution, say doctors. In making men less afraid to talk about their sexual problems, it is becoming easier to make diagnoses of more serious illnesses, as Ralph pointed out.
"The circulation problems that create erectile dysfunction can also be a sign of vascular blockage and diabetes," he said.
This point is supported by Jackson, who said that erectile problems are often the first symptoms of a general failing of a man's blood circulation and that this could go on to trigger heart attacks or other cardiac problems.
"So if men are more willing to come forward, then we can pick them up more speedily. That is why it is important that men don't just take Viagra -- or its partner drugs Levitra or Cialis -- when they first experience erectile problems but consult their doctors," he said.
"If they don't tell their GP [general practitioner] and just take Viagra to compensate, they will be heading into danger. To be fair to the drug companies involved, however, they have gone to great lengths to make sure these drugs are administered by GPs," he said.
Nevertheless, the widespread availability of Viagra has posed its own problems, not just for patients suffering circulation problems but for men of all ages who use it as a recreational drug.
"Viagra is spawning a nation of men who are dependent on the drug, particularly young men who develop the expectation that they should be able to just pop a pill and have sex, regardless of how they feel emotionally," psychotherapist Paula Hall said.
Talk show host Jerry Springer was one of the first to go public with a claim of dependency, while over-use of Viagra was blamed for turning the 66-year-old Earl of Shaftesbury from a kindly old man to someone who stalked the Riviera nightclubs for high-class prostitutes, it was claimed during the trial of his murderers two years ago.
Last year, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation launched a lawsuit accusing Pfizer of recklessly advertising Viagra, and turning it into a "party drug" whose use is fueling the AIDS epidemic. There are also concerns about those taking the drug on a non-prescription basis, but there is no documented evidence of any major loss of life involving recreational use.
"That is one of the great things about Viagra," Jackson said. "It has no really life-threatening side effects."
Roger Kirby, director of the Prostate Centre, London, agreed.
"Nothing much happens if someone without erectile dysfunction takes the drug," he said.
Indeed, Viagra can even make some illegal drugs safer, he said.
"For example, cocaine is a very dangerous drug because it causes coronary arteries to close and can sometimes give you a heart attack," Kirby explained. "Viagra has the opposite effect and so can help the cocaine user."
Such an effect is generally accidental, however. Most clubbers take cocaine-Viagra mixes -- known as "coconut pokes" -- to get high while still being able to perform sexually. Protection against heart attacks is not the prime concern here, needless to say.
Nor would it be correct to assume that the drug lacks significant side-effects, as consultant gynecologist David Glenn has warned. His research indicates that the drug is linked to infertility.
"Men who use it recreationally for long periods could be building up trouble for themselves in later years. They could find it difficult to father children," he said.
"We need to do a lot more research on the subject to find out. In the meantime, young men need to be careful. Viagra could have a cumulative impact on their fertility and on their chances of fathering children in the future," he said.
Another key issue concerns the idea that a drug that restores sexual ability to a man is sufficient on its own to put a threatened relationship back on track, as Susanna Abse, director of the Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships, said.
"I regularly sit opposite couples who tell me that their problem is caused by his inability to get or to maintain an erection and that they think the answer is so simple. It would seem a straightforward course of Viagra is all that they need. But when I suggest it, they either refuse to try it, or they do try it and it still doesn't work," she said.
"The problem is that erectile dysfunction can become a defense for a couple against having to share sexual intimacy. It can be very frightening when the curtain is whisked away and you are forced to confront that issue," she said.
In general, however, Viagra has been a success story both for its manufacturer, Pfizer -- which has made more than US$2 billion from the drug, it is estimated -- and for users, many of whom have regained lost sexual prowess and have had their marriages and relationships revitalized.
"We've always been waiting for the magic bullet and this is pretty close," David Ralph said. "The one, accidental discovery leading to the wonder drug that is Viagra has transformed the lives not only of millions of patients with erectile dysfunction but the lives of their partners and their families too."
Or as Rafael Wurzel, a US physician, has put it: "Viagra opened the door to an honest and uninhibited discussion about issues pertaining to sexual dysfunction, for men, for women, and for couples. I think it has been wonderful."
Others, however, have taken a more jaundiced view of this new sexual revolution, of course -- as one letter, published by the syndicated Ann Landers advice column in US newspapers, made abundantly and poignantly clear: "I am 62 years old and the mother of six grown children and I was thrilled when my 64-year-old husband began to slow down about two years ago. So now what happens? A pill called Viagra is invented and the old goat is back in the saddle. I do love my husband but I believe I have earned a rest. Besides, these pills cost US$10 a piece. Last week he had four."
Freedom Must Win on March 22
By Li Thian-hok 李天福
On March 22, the Taiwanese should vote for freedom, not servitude. Vote for hope, do not stay away in despair.
Taiwan's presidential race pitting the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) against Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been sharply negative.
With less than one month to voting day on March 22 there has been no substantive debate on the real issues challenging Taiwan's survival as a de facto independent country. What is at stake in the upcoming presidential election is no less than Taiwan's sovereignty and democracy.
The KMT now controls three-quarters of the Legislative Yuan, giving the party virtually unrestrained power to pass any laws it chooses. If Ma is elected president, he will control the Executive Yuan as well, thus giving the KMT the authority to adopt policies that will deliver Taiwan irretrievably into China's grasp.
On March 22, 2006, Ma gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a prestigious think tank in Washington. He promised then that if elected, he would negotiate a peace accord with Beijing right away. The prerequisite is, of course, that the Taiwanese government accepts China's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan.
Yet a great majority of the Taiwanese people reject Beijing rule.
This is evident in the popular support for President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) proposed referendum to apply for UN membership under the name "Taiwan." Nevertheless such a referendum is useful in demonstrating the people's desire for an independent, democratic state, which is recognized as a full and equal member of the international community.
Before such a goal can be realized, however, the Taiwanese people must build the foundation of a viable nation including the following six elements: strong national defense, a self-reliant economy, deft diplomacy, a consensus on national identity, a new constitution and finally, when the time is ripe, a formal declaration of independence.
The first four elements are interrelated and must be achieved before the last two steps become feasible.
To bolster national defense, the defense budget should be increased from 2.85 percent of GDP to 5 percent in two years. Israel enjoys military superiority over its Arab neighbors and strong support from the US. Its defense budget is 9.6 percent of GDP. The conscript's service should be lengthened to 18 months. Modern warfare requires longer training periods to master high-tech weapons and joint force operations. Readiness needs to be improved, for example, by stocking at least one month of strategic oil reserve, ammunition and other war materiel. A civil defense system should be established so as to avoid panic and reduce casualties.
To build a self-reliant economy, the Taiwanese government should encourage the return of businesses from China and diversification into other countries, such as Vietnam. Taiwanese investment in China as a percentage of GDP is about 90 times the equivalent figure for the US and Japan. It is excessive and detrimental to Taiwan's national and economic security.
Good relations with the US are vital to Taiwan's survival as a democratic state. There needs to be better high level communication between the two democratic allies and advanced consultation whenever Taipei decides to take any action which Beijing or Washington may perceive as provocative. After new presidents are in the White House and in Taipei, there could be a new beginning to restore mutual trust and to foster closer political and economic and cooperation. The report just published by the AEI and Armitage International Taiwan Policy Working Group contains many helpful proposals.
To build solid relations with the US, Taiwan must demonstrate by deeds that it is serious about national defense and that it loves freedom more than money.
With the pan-blue camp's super majority in the Legislative Yuan, the agenda proposed above may seem beyond reach. This is where national unity based on allegiance to Taiwan becomes relevant. Except for the old guard elements of the pan-blue parties, a great majority of the public identifies with Taiwan. They also prefer democracy and reject autocracy.
The pan-blue minority that pledges allegiance to China and opposes Taiwanese independence actually works against the welfare of the 1.3 billion Chinese people. China is at a crossroads in history. It is pursuing military aggrandizement and territorial expansion, heading ultimately toward conflict with the US, Japan and the Western democracies. Taiwan's capitulation will accelerate China's confrontation with the West.
Alternatively, China can pursue peaceful development, diverting its vast military expenditures to alleviate poverty, improve the badly degraded environment and provide a social safety net for the masses.
China can embark on political reform, by allowing political opposition, a free press and religious freedom and try to end the endemic official corruption. By becoming a responsible stakeholder in the global community, China can earn respect as a great and humane power. Taiwan can help steer China in this direction by serving as a beacon of freedom to the Chinese people.
Hsieh must address the critical issue of how to maintain Taiwan's fragile "status quo" by outlining a concrete agenda. Only by offering his green base and middle-of-the-road voters a vision of Taiwan's future that is firmly anchored in irreconcilable freedom can Hsieh hope to win the presidency. Time is short. Let us hope Hsieh has managed to convey a sense of crisis to voters and make them understand that the choice is between life with freedom and dignity or servitude under the repressive rule of the Chinese Communist Party in the near future.
Regarding Taiwan's future, Ma asserts that the choice between independence and unification is a false issue. He appears to believe his three noes policy -- no independence, no unification and no war -- will maintain the "status quo" indefinitely.
This is a deceptive slogan.
The People's Liberation Army (PLA) is already capable of launching a multi-pronged assault on Taiwan and occupying the island in a short time, absent US intervention. Beijing has declared that China will resort to nonpeaceful means to annex Taiwan if the island drags its feet in accepting China's terms of surrender. So Ma can guarantee no war only if he is ready to accept unification.
Ma has deeply ingrained anti-democratic instincts as a result of his KMT upbringing.
The 81-day red shirt protest in the fall of 2006 was an attempt to unseat President Chen Shui-bian through the extralegal means of unruly, massive street demonstrations. As mayor of Taipei, Ma not only fanned the flames of the protests, he said at the height of the crisis: "If Chen doesn't resign, he will die an ugly death. The bullet is in the chamber. The gun is cocked. The next step is to pull the trigger."
If Ma wins the presidency, the KMT could install a Singapore-type political system, that is, a one-party autocracy.
Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
On March 22, the Taiwanese should vote for freedom, not servitude. Vote for hope, do not stay away in despair.
Taiwan's presidential race pitting the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) against Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been sharply negative.
With less than one month to voting day on March 22 there has been no substantive debate on the real issues challenging Taiwan's survival as a de facto independent country. What is at stake in the upcoming presidential election is no less than Taiwan's sovereignty and democracy.
The KMT now controls three-quarters of the Legislative Yuan, giving the party virtually unrestrained power to pass any laws it chooses. If Ma is elected president, he will control the Executive Yuan as well, thus giving the KMT the authority to adopt policies that will deliver Taiwan irretrievably into China's grasp.
On March 22, 2006, Ma gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a prestigious think tank in Washington. He promised then that if elected, he would negotiate a peace accord with Beijing right away. The prerequisite is, of course, that the Taiwanese government accepts China's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan.
Yet a great majority of the Taiwanese people reject Beijing rule.
This is evident in the popular support for President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) proposed referendum to apply for UN membership under the name "Taiwan." Nevertheless such a referendum is useful in demonstrating the people's desire for an independent, democratic state, which is recognized as a full and equal member of the international community.
Before such a goal can be realized, however, the Taiwanese people must build the foundation of a viable nation including the following six elements: strong national defense, a self-reliant economy, deft diplomacy, a consensus on national identity, a new constitution and finally, when the time is ripe, a formal declaration of independence.
The first four elements are interrelated and must be achieved before the last two steps become feasible.
To bolster national defense, the defense budget should be increased from 2.85 percent of GDP to 5 percent in two years. Israel enjoys military superiority over its Arab neighbors and strong support from the US. Its defense budget is 9.6 percent of GDP. The conscript's service should be lengthened to 18 months. Modern warfare requires longer training periods to master high-tech weapons and joint force operations. Readiness needs to be improved, for example, by stocking at least one month of strategic oil reserve, ammunition and other war materiel. A civil defense system should be established so as to avoid panic and reduce casualties.
To build a self-reliant economy, the Taiwanese government should encourage the return of businesses from China and diversification into other countries, such as Vietnam. Taiwanese investment in China as a percentage of GDP is about 90 times the equivalent figure for the US and Japan. It is excessive and detrimental to Taiwan's national and economic security.
Good relations with the US are vital to Taiwan's survival as a democratic state. There needs to be better high level communication between the two democratic allies and advanced consultation whenever Taipei decides to take any action which Beijing or Washington may perceive as provocative. After new presidents are in the White House and in Taipei, there could be a new beginning to restore mutual trust and to foster closer political and economic and cooperation. The report just published by the AEI and Armitage International Taiwan Policy Working Group contains many helpful proposals.
To build solid relations with the US, Taiwan must demonstrate by deeds that it is serious about national defense and that it loves freedom more than money.
With the pan-blue camp's super majority in the Legislative Yuan, the agenda proposed above may seem beyond reach. This is where national unity based on allegiance to Taiwan becomes relevant. Except for the old guard elements of the pan-blue parties, a great majority of the public identifies with Taiwan. They also prefer democracy and reject autocracy.
The pan-blue minority that pledges allegiance to China and opposes Taiwanese independence actually works against the welfare of the 1.3 billion Chinese people. China is at a crossroads in history. It is pursuing military aggrandizement and territorial expansion, heading ultimately toward conflict with the US, Japan and the Western democracies. Taiwan's capitulation will accelerate China's confrontation with the West.
Alternatively, China can pursue peaceful development, diverting its vast military expenditures to alleviate poverty, improve the badly degraded environment and provide a social safety net for the masses.
China can embark on political reform, by allowing political opposition, a free press and religious freedom and try to end the endemic official corruption. By becoming a responsible stakeholder in the global community, China can earn respect as a great and humane power. Taiwan can help steer China in this direction by serving as a beacon of freedom to the Chinese people.
Hsieh must address the critical issue of how to maintain Taiwan's fragile "status quo" by outlining a concrete agenda. Only by offering his green base and middle-of-the-road voters a vision of Taiwan's future that is firmly anchored in irreconcilable freedom can Hsieh hope to win the presidency. Time is short. Let us hope Hsieh has managed to convey a sense of crisis to voters and make them understand that the choice is between life with freedom and dignity or servitude under the repressive rule of the Chinese Communist Party in the near future.
Regarding Taiwan's future, Ma asserts that the choice between independence and unification is a false issue. He appears to believe his three noes policy -- no independence, no unification and no war -- will maintain the "status quo" indefinitely.
This is a deceptive slogan.
The People's Liberation Army (PLA) is already capable of launching a multi-pronged assault on Taiwan and occupying the island in a short time, absent US intervention. Beijing has declared that China will resort to nonpeaceful means to annex Taiwan if the island drags its feet in accepting China's terms of surrender. So Ma can guarantee no war only if he is ready to accept unification.
Ma has deeply ingrained anti-democratic instincts as a result of his KMT upbringing.
The 81-day red shirt protest in the fall of 2006 was an attempt to unseat President Chen Shui-bian through the extralegal means of unruly, massive street demonstrations. As mayor of Taipei, Ma not only fanned the flames of the protests, he said at the height of the crisis: "If Chen doesn't resign, he will die an ugly death. The bullet is in the chamber. The gun is cocked. The next step is to pull the trigger."
If Ma wins the presidency, the KMT could install a Singapore-type political system, that is, a one-party autocracy.
Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
But Are They Really Friends of Taiwan?
By J. Michael Cole 寇謚將
Time and again, a handful of individuals in US academia have accused the Bush administration of either abandoning Taiwan or not doing enough to protect it. Again last week, the same pundits issued a report, Strengthening Freedom in Asia: A Twenty-First Century Agenda for the US-Taiwan Partnership, that at first glance seemed to indicate that Taiwan has friends in high places.
But are they really friends? Is the "freedom" they refer to the universal human right, or is it instead the word cynically used by the Bush administration to justify wars in the Middle East and elsewhere? To put it differently, do these experts really care about a democratic Taiwan, or is their penultimate goal rather the containment of China to ensure that, as envisioned by Paul Wolfowitz in 1992, no power ever manages to rival US hegemony?
For the most part, these "defenders" of Taiwan are hawks at think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Heritage Foundation, the Project for a New American Century and Armitage International. One thing these organizations have in common is their intimate ties to the US defense establishment. In their view, international security is best served through further militarization -- greater investment in weapons, more reliance on force to solve problems and preemptive military action. All, furthermore, tend to ridicule the UN and have served as proponents of a "Pax Americana."
Case in point was former US Air Force officer and current president of the Project 2049 Institute Mark Stokes' contention, during an AEI forum last week, that Taiwan must tap into its technological base and turn fully private firms into global security companies based on the "US defense supply chain" model. In other words, what was best for Taiwan was a military-industrial complex of the kind that has led to the very military adventurism that, in the opinion of many, has made the world more dangerous for all and would likely result in an arms race with China, out of which no good can come.
We must remember that it was AEI (where Wolfowitz now works after being forced to leave the World Bank) and its likes that orchestrated the invasion of Iraq and the disastrous occupation that followed. It was their reliance on biased intelligence that supported their preconceptions, their support for the long-discredited Ahmed Chalabi and their indifference to the suffering of Iraqis that allowed the occupation to sink into a deadly insurgency. It is also they who are calling for Iran to be next.
These hawks do not really care about democracy; what matters to them, rather, is preserving US hegemony. If that means supporting Taiwan as a hedge -- or an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" -- against China, so be it. But it is hard to imagine these same experts clamoring for Taiwan's democracy absent a China that, at some point in the future, could threaten US primacy.
AEI and its kind are nothing more than poster boys for the US arms industry and the hardliners who seek to contain China. To them, Taiwan provides a convenient cover. Nothing more.
We cannot, however, blame the hawks for getting so much air time. The liberal think tanks in the US, such as the Brookings Institution and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, have largely failed to engage the public or to publicize their views to the extent AEI and others have.
Until left-leaning think tanks add their voices to the chorus and come to Taiwan's assistance for principles that are truly based on a belief in the value of democracy, hawks in China and experts the world over will have good reason to doubt that US voices pretending to care for Taiwan are not doing this for cynical, if not more obscure, reasons.
J. Michael Cole is a writer based in Taipei.
Time and again, a handful of individuals in US academia have accused the Bush administration of either abandoning Taiwan or not doing enough to protect it. Again last week, the same pundits issued a report, Strengthening Freedom in Asia: A Twenty-First Century Agenda for the US-Taiwan Partnership, that at first glance seemed to indicate that Taiwan has friends in high places.
But are they really friends? Is the "freedom" they refer to the universal human right, or is it instead the word cynically used by the Bush administration to justify wars in the Middle East and elsewhere? To put it differently, do these experts really care about a democratic Taiwan, or is their penultimate goal rather the containment of China to ensure that, as envisioned by Paul Wolfowitz in 1992, no power ever manages to rival US hegemony?
For the most part, these "defenders" of Taiwan are hawks at think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Heritage Foundation, the Project for a New American Century and Armitage International. One thing these organizations have in common is their intimate ties to the US defense establishment. In their view, international security is best served through further militarization -- greater investment in weapons, more reliance on force to solve problems and preemptive military action. All, furthermore, tend to ridicule the UN and have served as proponents of a "Pax Americana."
Case in point was former US Air Force officer and current president of the Project 2049 Institute Mark Stokes' contention, during an AEI forum last week, that Taiwan must tap into its technological base and turn fully private firms into global security companies based on the "US defense supply chain" model. In other words, what was best for Taiwan was a military-industrial complex of the kind that has led to the very military adventurism that, in the opinion of many, has made the world more dangerous for all and would likely result in an arms race with China, out of which no good can come.
We must remember that it was AEI (where Wolfowitz now works after being forced to leave the World Bank) and its likes that orchestrated the invasion of Iraq and the disastrous occupation that followed. It was their reliance on biased intelligence that supported their preconceptions, their support for the long-discredited Ahmed Chalabi and their indifference to the suffering of Iraqis that allowed the occupation to sink into a deadly insurgency. It is also they who are calling for Iran to be next.
These hawks do not really care about democracy; what matters to them, rather, is preserving US hegemony. If that means supporting Taiwan as a hedge -- or an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" -- against China, so be it. But it is hard to imagine these same experts clamoring for Taiwan's democracy absent a China that, at some point in the future, could threaten US primacy.
AEI and its kind are nothing more than poster boys for the US arms industry and the hardliners who seek to contain China. To them, Taiwan provides a convenient cover. Nothing more.
We cannot, however, blame the hawks for getting so much air time. The liberal think tanks in the US, such as the Brookings Institution and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, have largely failed to engage the public or to publicize their views to the extent AEI and others have.
Until left-leaning think tanks add their voices to the chorus and come to Taiwan's assistance for principles that are truly based on a belief in the value of democracy, hawks in China and experts the world over will have good reason to doubt that US voices pretending to care for Taiwan are not doing this for cynical, if not more obscure, reasons.
J. Michael Cole is a writer based in Taipei.
2008年2月25日 星期一
12 People Who Are Changing Your Retirement
By Kelly Greene
These pioneers are shaping the way Americans will live, work and play later in life.
Joseph Coughlin describes his work as "trying to get people to 'age cool.' " More specifically, as director of AgeLab, a research program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he is pushing advances in transportation, health care and housing off drawing boards and into older adults' lives.
And he can't do it quickly enough.
"If we don't hurry," he says, "the products being designed now aren't going to be there when the [baby] boomers need them."
Prof. Coughlin is one of hundreds of people across the country whose work, in effect, is shaping the future of retirement. The motives may vary -- educators, entrepreneurs, philanthropists and policy makers are all involved in the effort -- but the goals are much the same: to learn about, and improve the quality of, later life.
Demographics, of course, explain the sense of urgency. Each day, on average, almost 8,000 people in the U.S. turn 60. Just last month, the first of 78 million baby boomers reached age 62 and became eligible for Social Security.
Which "change agents" are having the biggest impact on retirement? We put that question to experts in aging nationwide. From dozens of candidates, we selected the following 12 people. If you want to know what your future might look like -- how Americans will live, work and play in later life -- these individuals are designing some of the answers.
William Bengen
The Numbers Guy
It's the most frequent question, and biggest concern, for many people approaching retirement: How big a nest egg will I need, and how do I make it last?
William Bengen is working on that.
Mr. Bengen, a certified financial planner in El Cajon, Calif., has already achieved what amounts to rock-star status in the retirement-planning business. His pioneering research in the 1990s gave rise to the "4% rule": Withdraw no more than about 4% a year from your nest egg, and it's highly likely that your savings will last 30 years. That finding has already helped to establish budgets and spending patterns for numerous retirees.
Today, Mr. Bengen, age 60, continues to refine his research. In 2006, he introduced a method of withdrawing funds from nest eggs that tailors the 4% rule to individual circumstances. (It's online at www.fpanet.org/journal. Click on "Past Issues & Articles," then on "Past Issues," and go to August 2006.) And now, he is researching, he says, "the possibility that dividend-paying stocks, particularly those that increase dividends over time, might provide a better retirement resource than the S&P 500." As Mr. Bengen explains: "The thesis is that those have at least as high a total return as S&P 500 stocks, and they have lower volatility.... If you have stocks that don't go down as much in the bear markets, you're better off."
Mr. Bengen doesn't see himself as shaping baby boomers' financial future. He says he simply wants to help his 60 or so clients.
"I was starting to get some clients who were planning for retirement," he recalls, "and they were asking me, 'How much can I take out, and how should I set up my investments?' And I couldn't find a thing substantiated by any research."
Joseph Coughlin
Harnessing Technology
In the mid-1990s, before joining MIT, Prof. Coughlin was working for a federal contractor, studying the aging population's potential impact on transportation.
"It was like unwrapping an onion," he remembers. "We hadn't thought about housing, [or] the future of work. And we certainly hadn't thought about transportation."
That epiphany led to the creation, in 2000, of AgeLab, where Prof. Coughlin and his colleagues are designing -- and pushing companies to embrace -- technology that will enhance older adults' daily lives.
One of his favorite breakthroughs is a "personal adviser" that Procter & Gamble Co. has licensed, based on AgeLab research, to help food shoppers identify products that are healthy for them. The device, to be attached by supermarkets to their grocery carts, is like a minicomputer with a scanner. Shoppers insert smart cards that contain their dietary particulars. Then, as they shop, they swipe products past the scanner to get the device's opinion. Let's say you're prehypertensive and scan a box of crackers; after reading the bar code, Prof. Coughlin says, the adviser may suggest trying a different product with a lot less salt.
Eric Dishman
Helping People Stay Home
For no small number of people, aging means losing their independence -- and, eventually, leaving their homes.
Someday, technology being developed by Eric Dishman and his staff at Intel Corp. may help people stay in their homes longer.
Mr. Dishman has focused on ways to assist the elderly since he was a teenager helping care for a grandparent with Alzheimer's disease. Years later, he was working for Microsoft Corp. co-founder Paul Allen on a "nursing home of the future," he says, when someone made an observation that helped alter his approach to the matter completely.
"Someone said, 'I think we asked the wrong question,' " he recalls. " 'It's not how can we make the nursing home better through technology, but how can technology keep people independent?' "
Mr. Dishman, 39, is general manager in charge of product research and innovation for Intel's Digital Health Group. Prototypes emerging from his group's offices and labs have a Jetsons-like feel: a carpet with sensors that may reduce the risk of a fall; a "caller ID on steroids," which shows and tells you who is at the front door and when you last spoke; a system that helps people with memory problems cook for themselves.
John Erickson
Helping People Leave Home
In contrast to Mr. Dishman, John Erickson sees a future where millions of Americans leave their homes in later life. And he's preparing your accommodations.
Mr. Erickson, 63, is chairman and chief executive of closely held Erickson Retirement Communities, one of the country's largest developers of continuing-care retirement communities. In a CCRC, residents are guaranteed access to different levels of long-term care as they age.
Starting in Maryland in 1983 with a single facility (a renovated seminary), Mr. Erickson began developing retirement "campuses," where residents, among other activities, can produce their own TV shows. Today, the company has 20 CCRCs with 21,000 residents in 11 states. Mr. Erickson hopes to nearly double that number in five years.
Why should we leave our homes in later life? "Accidents, falls, depression, isolation," Mr. Erickson answers. "That's not what was meant for the last half of retirement."
Beyond housing, Mr. Erickson also may have a hand in shaping what older adults watch on television. In the past two years, he has spent an estimated $100 million building Retirement Living TV, a cable network focused on later life. He also donated $5 million in 2004 to start a professional program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, that combines management, policy and aging issues.
Charles Feeney
A Life of Purpose
If you find yourself, in your 60s and 70s, immersed in a new career and a new passion -- teaching children to read, for instance, or helping an environmental organization -- you may have Charles Feeney to thank.
Mr. Feeney, 76, is the founding chairman of Atlantic Philanthropies, an international foundation that is committed to disbursing its entire $4 billion endowment by 2020. A large chunk will go to help older adults "live healthier, independent lives with dignity, purpose and meaning," says Brian Hofland, director of Atlantic's international aging program.
The foundation, for instance, has helped fund the Purpose Prize, awards of $100,000 given each year to five "social entrepreneurs" age 60 or older who are tackling some of society's biggest challenges. Civic Ventures, the San Francisco nonprofit that created the Purpose Prize, last year received $10 million from Atlantic Philanthropies in part to stimulate development of "encore careers" for people 50 and older.
Mr. Feeney himself is a bit of a recluse. (He declined to be interviewed for this article.) He doesn't own a house or a car, and when flying, he typically travels coach, says Conor O'Clery, an Irish journalist and biographer of Mr. Feeney. It wasn't until 1997, after Mr. Feeney sold the company he founded (DFS Group, a chain of airport stores), that his sizable charitable efforts became public.
"A lot of what Chuck likes doing is building buildings at universities and hospitals," Mr. O'Clery says. "But more and more, he became concerned with health issues, and I think his interest in aging grew out of that."
Katherine Freund
Staying Mobile
For millions of people, driving at some point will become impractical. How, then, to get to the supermarket, or to friends' homes?
A near-tragedy 20 years ago in the life of Katherine Freund is yielding some answers.
In 1988, Ms. Freund's 3-year-old son was hit by a car and nearly killed. The driver was 84 years old. That event sparked an interest in transportation issues that led, in the mid-1990s, to the development of the Independent Transportation Network.
The program offers rides -- round the clock, seven days a week -- to older adults in the Portland, Maine, area. Fees average $8 a trip. Riders can trade in their cars and get credit for travel; volunteer drivers can bank their hours on the road to use later for themselves or family.
Ms. Freund, 57, serves as president and executive director of ITNAmerica, which has grown into a national organization. While in Portland the program provides nearly 17,000 rides a year to about 1,000 members age 65 and older, ITNAmerica now has nine affiliates, which provided almost 26,000 rides last year, and expects to have 40 affiliates by 2010.
Sheryl Garrett
Spreading Financial Literacy
Sheryl Garrett is on a mission to bring financial planning to the masses.
In the late 1990s, Ms. Garrett, a certified financial planner in Shawnee Mission, Kan., says she came to realize that many middle-class families knew little about managing money and retirement finances -- and couldn't afford to pay for help. Accordingly, instead of tying her fees to commissions or the size of a client's assets (common practices among financial advisers), she decided to charge by the hour.
"It's sort of like going to the dentist," says Ms. Garrett, who is 45. "You don't pay your dentist a retainer -- you pay him for time and expertise."
She soon found herself profiled in financial publications and fielding requests from consumers as far away as Massachusetts and California who wanted to hire her. In response, in July 2000, she launched Garrett Planning Network Inc., which now has almost 300 advisers across the U.S. The certified financial planners pay $7,500 to license the business model. They are required to offer their services exclusively as fiduciaries (meaning they are legally obligated to put their clients' interests first) and on a fee-only basis. Hourly rates are about $175.
Ms. Garrett is also seeking ways to raise financial literacy among the wider public, including possibly through electronic games, a nighttime soap opera or a personal-finance makeover TV show.
Michael Merzenich
Keeping Minds in Shape
Michael Merzenich is working to make "brain exercise" as much a part of your routine in retirement as walking or jogging.
As chief scientific officer at Posit Science Corp., a San Francisco software maker, Dr. Merzenich, age 65, is at the forefront of efforts to improve mental health in later life. His interest in the field dates to the mid-1980s, when he was involved in experiments training animals at the University of California, San Francisco.
"We were watching [the animals'] brains change as they acquired skills and abilities," he remembers. Consequently, he began investigating tools that could promote and measure mental fitness in humans.
His first company, Scientific Learning Corp., started in 1996, created software for children struggling with language problems. Posit Science, which Dr. Merzenich founded in 2003, is focused on older adults. Its first product was designed to improve memory and cognition (thinking and processing speed), mainly through listening exercises; this spring, the company plans to release a new brain-training program focused on vision.
Dr. Merzenich, still a neuroscience professor at UCSF and an inventor with more than 50 patents, is working on exercises that support decision making, fine motor control (playing musical instruments, for example), and gross motor control (to help restore balance).
Bernard Osher
Senior School Master
Returning to school, in some fashion, is high on many people's to-do lists in retirement. Bernard Osher is helping to build the classrooms and programs you might enter.
Mr. Osher helped his family start Golden West Financial Corp. in the 1960s and created a personal foundation in the 1970s. Today, he is pouring nearly $200 million into what has become known as lifelong learning, or college-based education for older adults.
A native of Biddeford, Maine, Mr. Osher had his first significant exposure to the practice in 2000 during a visit to the Fromm Institute for Lifelong Learning at the University of San Francisco. "I came away very impressed," he says, particularly with "the joy of learning" that he witnessed.
Several months later, a trip to the Senior College at the University of Southern Maine in Portland sealed his interest. The Bernard Osher Foundation made a $2.2 million gift to the Maine program in 2001, allowing the university to expand its peer-taught courses and workshops to more than 1,000 students ages 50 and older. Since then, the foundation has donated $73 million to nearly 120 lifelong-learning institutes on university campuses from Maine to Hawaii. Future grants will be used primarily to augment those programs.
John Rother
Advocate for the Aging
John Rother, AARP's policy director, is ultimately responsible for everything that the largest membership group for older Americans advocates at the state and national levels. He is constantly in motion, making about 80 speeches a year around the world and lobbying lawmakers nationwide.
"I've got the best job in Washington," says Mr. Rother, 60, who joined AARP in 1984 after serving as staff director and chief counsel to the Senate Special Committee on Aging.
Health care is his primary focus today. "It's too expensive, and we aren't getting our money's worth," he says. Fixing it "is going to take everything we know how to do -- prevention, better management of chronic care, improving quality, being smarter purchasers as the government and individuals."
In recent years, Mr. Rother has played a role in helping to pass -- or block -- some of the most significant legislation in Congress: the Medicare prescription-drug benefit (not "everything we had hoped it would be, but...certainly better than nothing"); Social Security privatization; and the national do-not-call registry.
John P. Stewart
Urban Planner
John P. Stewart is working on a blueprint for making city services receptive to all of the needs of older Americans -- whether in health care, transportation, safety, employment or continuing education. To date, 16 cities have joined in the effort, including Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Atlanta.
"I was really struck by the fact that we needed to change the way we look at aging services," says Mr. Stewart, who for 32 years worked as a Maryland state health and education administrator, and is now executive director of the Commission on Aging and Retirement Education for the city of Baltimore.
More than 25% of the U.S. work force is over 60 and living healthier lives, Mr. Stewart says. "A lot of people are going to have to work longer."
To focus on the question of what a senior-friendly city should look like, Mr. Stewart helped create a nonprofit think tank, the Baltimore City Center for Urban Aging Services and Policy Development. Issues under study include how to help grandparents who are raising their grandchildren; upgrading community senior centers with fitness equipment and personal trainers; and providing counseling to help cope with poverty and social isolation.
"This 'declinist' theory that people get old and should be put away is insane," says Mr. Stewart, 63. "We can be an asset."
William Thomas
Reinventing the Nursing Home
The spark for William Thomas's work came in 1991 while treating a patient in an upstate New York nursing home. "She grabbed my arm, pulled me down over the bed, looked in my eyes and said, 'I'm so lonely,' " he recalls.
To revitalize the place, he opened the doors to children, brought in parakeets, cats and dogs, and plowed up the grounds for a garden. The effort grew into the Eden Alternative, a nonprofit that has helped more than 500 nursing homes across the country shift their focus to their residents' emotional well-being and away from institutional scheduling.
Today, Dr. Thomas is widely regarded as a leader in efforts nationwide to bring humanity to the end of life. In 1999, while touring the country to promote the Eden Alternative's work and a novel about aging, "I realized that America's nursing homes are getting older faster than we are," he says.
Accordingly, he developed the idea of replacing traditional nursing homes with "Green Houses," cozier facilities centered on big kitchens with technology-laden bedrooms and nursing aides who also serve as housekeepers and companions. To date, there are 35 Green House projects; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is helping fund an expansion of the program.
For his next act, Dr. Thomas, 48, wants to become "the Dr. Spock of aging."
"The boomers are creeping toward elderhood, and I aim to help explain [the] terrain," he says. "The 'new' old age [is] a time of strength and growth and development and engagement."
Ms. Greene is a staff reporter for The Wall Street Journal in Atlanta.
These pioneers are shaping the way Americans will live, work and play later in life.
Joseph Coughlin describes his work as "trying to get people to 'age cool.' " More specifically, as director of AgeLab, a research program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he is pushing advances in transportation, health care and housing off drawing boards and into older adults' lives.
And he can't do it quickly enough.
"If we don't hurry," he says, "the products being designed now aren't going to be there when the [baby] boomers need them."
Prof. Coughlin is one of hundreds of people across the country whose work, in effect, is shaping the future of retirement. The motives may vary -- educators, entrepreneurs, philanthropists and policy makers are all involved in the effort -- but the goals are much the same: to learn about, and improve the quality of, later life.
Demographics, of course, explain the sense of urgency. Each day, on average, almost 8,000 people in the U.S. turn 60. Just last month, the first of 78 million baby boomers reached age 62 and became eligible for Social Security.
Which "change agents" are having the biggest impact on retirement? We put that question to experts in aging nationwide. From dozens of candidates, we selected the following 12 people. If you want to know what your future might look like -- how Americans will live, work and play in later life -- these individuals are designing some of the answers.
William Bengen
The Numbers Guy
It's the most frequent question, and biggest concern, for many people approaching retirement: How big a nest egg will I need, and how do I make it last?
William Bengen is working on that.
Mr. Bengen, a certified financial planner in El Cajon, Calif., has already achieved what amounts to rock-star status in the retirement-planning business. His pioneering research in the 1990s gave rise to the "4% rule": Withdraw no more than about 4% a year from your nest egg, and it's highly likely that your savings will last 30 years. That finding has already helped to establish budgets and spending patterns for numerous retirees.
Today, Mr. Bengen, age 60, continues to refine his research. In 2006, he introduced a method of withdrawing funds from nest eggs that tailors the 4% rule to individual circumstances. (It's online at www.fpanet.org/journal. Click on "Past Issues & Articles," then on "Past Issues," and go to August 2006.) And now, he is researching, he says, "the possibility that dividend-paying stocks, particularly those that increase dividends over time, might provide a better retirement resource than the S&P 500." As Mr. Bengen explains: "The thesis is that those have at least as high a total return as S&P 500 stocks, and they have lower volatility.... If you have stocks that don't go down as much in the bear markets, you're better off."
Mr. Bengen doesn't see himself as shaping baby boomers' financial future. He says he simply wants to help his 60 or so clients.
"I was starting to get some clients who were planning for retirement," he recalls, "and they were asking me, 'How much can I take out, and how should I set up my investments?' And I couldn't find a thing substantiated by any research."
Joseph Coughlin
Harnessing Technology
In the mid-1990s, before joining MIT, Prof. Coughlin was working for a federal contractor, studying the aging population's potential impact on transportation.
"It was like unwrapping an onion," he remembers. "We hadn't thought about housing, [or] the future of work. And we certainly hadn't thought about transportation."
That epiphany led to the creation, in 2000, of AgeLab, where Prof. Coughlin and his colleagues are designing -- and pushing companies to embrace -- technology that will enhance older adults' daily lives.
One of his favorite breakthroughs is a "personal adviser" that Procter & Gamble Co. has licensed, based on AgeLab research, to help food shoppers identify products that are healthy for them. The device, to be attached by supermarkets to their grocery carts, is like a minicomputer with a scanner. Shoppers insert smart cards that contain their dietary particulars. Then, as they shop, they swipe products past the scanner to get the device's opinion. Let's say you're prehypertensive and scan a box of crackers; after reading the bar code, Prof. Coughlin says, the adviser may suggest trying a different product with a lot less salt.
Eric Dishman
Helping People Stay Home
For no small number of people, aging means losing their independence -- and, eventually, leaving their homes.
Someday, technology being developed by Eric Dishman and his staff at Intel Corp. may help people stay in their homes longer.
Mr. Dishman has focused on ways to assist the elderly since he was a teenager helping care for a grandparent with Alzheimer's disease. Years later, he was working for Microsoft Corp. co-founder Paul Allen on a "nursing home of the future," he says, when someone made an observation that helped alter his approach to the matter completely.
"Someone said, 'I think we asked the wrong question,' " he recalls. " 'It's not how can we make the nursing home better through technology, but how can technology keep people independent?' "
Mr. Dishman, 39, is general manager in charge of product research and innovation for Intel's Digital Health Group. Prototypes emerging from his group's offices and labs have a Jetsons-like feel: a carpet with sensors that may reduce the risk of a fall; a "caller ID on steroids," which shows and tells you who is at the front door and when you last spoke; a system that helps people with memory problems cook for themselves.
John Erickson
Helping People Leave Home
In contrast to Mr. Dishman, John Erickson sees a future where millions of Americans leave their homes in later life. And he's preparing your accommodations.
Mr. Erickson, 63, is chairman and chief executive of closely held Erickson Retirement Communities, one of the country's largest developers of continuing-care retirement communities. In a CCRC, residents are guaranteed access to different levels of long-term care as they age.
Starting in Maryland in 1983 with a single facility (a renovated seminary), Mr. Erickson began developing retirement "campuses," where residents, among other activities, can produce their own TV shows. Today, the company has 20 CCRCs with 21,000 residents in 11 states. Mr. Erickson hopes to nearly double that number in five years.
Why should we leave our homes in later life? "Accidents, falls, depression, isolation," Mr. Erickson answers. "That's not what was meant for the last half of retirement."
Beyond housing, Mr. Erickson also may have a hand in shaping what older adults watch on television. In the past two years, he has spent an estimated $100 million building Retirement Living TV, a cable network focused on later life. He also donated $5 million in 2004 to start a professional program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, that combines management, policy and aging issues.
Charles Feeney
A Life of Purpose
If you find yourself, in your 60s and 70s, immersed in a new career and a new passion -- teaching children to read, for instance, or helping an environmental organization -- you may have Charles Feeney to thank.
Mr. Feeney, 76, is the founding chairman of Atlantic Philanthropies, an international foundation that is committed to disbursing its entire $4 billion endowment by 2020. A large chunk will go to help older adults "live healthier, independent lives with dignity, purpose and meaning," says Brian Hofland, director of Atlantic's international aging program.
The foundation, for instance, has helped fund the Purpose Prize, awards of $100,000 given each year to five "social entrepreneurs" age 60 or older who are tackling some of society's biggest challenges. Civic Ventures, the San Francisco nonprofit that created the Purpose Prize, last year received $10 million from Atlantic Philanthropies in part to stimulate development of "encore careers" for people 50 and older.
Mr. Feeney himself is a bit of a recluse. (He declined to be interviewed for this article.) He doesn't own a house or a car, and when flying, he typically travels coach, says Conor O'Clery, an Irish journalist and biographer of Mr. Feeney. It wasn't until 1997, after Mr. Feeney sold the company he founded (DFS Group, a chain of airport stores), that his sizable charitable efforts became public.
"A lot of what Chuck likes doing is building buildings at universities and hospitals," Mr. O'Clery says. "But more and more, he became concerned with health issues, and I think his interest in aging grew out of that."
Katherine Freund
Staying Mobile
For millions of people, driving at some point will become impractical. How, then, to get to the supermarket, or to friends' homes?
A near-tragedy 20 years ago in the life of Katherine Freund is yielding some answers.
In 1988, Ms. Freund's 3-year-old son was hit by a car and nearly killed. The driver was 84 years old. That event sparked an interest in transportation issues that led, in the mid-1990s, to the development of the Independent Transportation Network.
The program offers rides -- round the clock, seven days a week -- to older adults in the Portland, Maine, area. Fees average $8 a trip. Riders can trade in their cars and get credit for travel; volunteer drivers can bank their hours on the road to use later for themselves or family.
Ms. Freund, 57, serves as president and executive director of ITNAmerica, which has grown into a national organization. While in Portland the program provides nearly 17,000 rides a year to about 1,000 members age 65 and older, ITNAmerica now has nine affiliates, which provided almost 26,000 rides last year, and expects to have 40 affiliates by 2010.
Sheryl Garrett
Spreading Financial Literacy
Sheryl Garrett is on a mission to bring financial planning to the masses.
In the late 1990s, Ms. Garrett, a certified financial planner in Shawnee Mission, Kan., says she came to realize that many middle-class families knew little about managing money and retirement finances -- and couldn't afford to pay for help. Accordingly, instead of tying her fees to commissions or the size of a client's assets (common practices among financial advisers), she decided to charge by the hour.
"It's sort of like going to the dentist," says Ms. Garrett, who is 45. "You don't pay your dentist a retainer -- you pay him for time and expertise."
She soon found herself profiled in financial publications and fielding requests from consumers as far away as Massachusetts and California who wanted to hire her. In response, in July 2000, she launched Garrett Planning Network Inc., which now has almost 300 advisers across the U.S. The certified financial planners pay $7,500 to license the business model. They are required to offer their services exclusively as fiduciaries (meaning they are legally obligated to put their clients' interests first) and on a fee-only basis. Hourly rates are about $175.
Ms. Garrett is also seeking ways to raise financial literacy among the wider public, including possibly through electronic games, a nighttime soap opera or a personal-finance makeover TV show.
Michael Merzenich
Keeping Minds in Shape
Michael Merzenich is working to make "brain exercise" as much a part of your routine in retirement as walking or jogging.
As chief scientific officer at Posit Science Corp., a San Francisco software maker, Dr. Merzenich, age 65, is at the forefront of efforts to improve mental health in later life. His interest in the field dates to the mid-1980s, when he was involved in experiments training animals at the University of California, San Francisco.
"We were watching [the animals'] brains change as they acquired skills and abilities," he remembers. Consequently, he began investigating tools that could promote and measure mental fitness in humans.
His first company, Scientific Learning Corp., started in 1996, created software for children struggling with language problems. Posit Science, which Dr. Merzenich founded in 2003, is focused on older adults. Its first product was designed to improve memory and cognition (thinking and processing speed), mainly through listening exercises; this spring, the company plans to release a new brain-training program focused on vision.
Dr. Merzenich, still a neuroscience professor at UCSF and an inventor with more than 50 patents, is working on exercises that support decision making, fine motor control (playing musical instruments, for example), and gross motor control (to help restore balance).
Bernard Osher
Senior School Master
Returning to school, in some fashion, is high on many people's to-do lists in retirement. Bernard Osher is helping to build the classrooms and programs you might enter.
Mr. Osher helped his family start Golden West Financial Corp. in the 1960s and created a personal foundation in the 1970s. Today, he is pouring nearly $200 million into what has become known as lifelong learning, or college-based education for older adults.
A native of Biddeford, Maine, Mr. Osher had his first significant exposure to the practice in 2000 during a visit to the Fromm Institute for Lifelong Learning at the University of San Francisco. "I came away very impressed," he says, particularly with "the joy of learning" that he witnessed.
Several months later, a trip to the Senior College at the University of Southern Maine in Portland sealed his interest. The Bernard Osher Foundation made a $2.2 million gift to the Maine program in 2001, allowing the university to expand its peer-taught courses and workshops to more than 1,000 students ages 50 and older. Since then, the foundation has donated $73 million to nearly 120 lifelong-learning institutes on university campuses from Maine to Hawaii. Future grants will be used primarily to augment those programs.
John Rother
Advocate for the Aging
John Rother, AARP's policy director, is ultimately responsible for everything that the largest membership group for older Americans advocates at the state and national levels. He is constantly in motion, making about 80 speeches a year around the world and lobbying lawmakers nationwide.
"I've got the best job in Washington," says Mr. Rother, 60, who joined AARP in 1984 after serving as staff director and chief counsel to the Senate Special Committee on Aging.
Health care is his primary focus today. "It's too expensive, and we aren't getting our money's worth," he says. Fixing it "is going to take everything we know how to do -- prevention, better management of chronic care, improving quality, being smarter purchasers as the government and individuals."
In recent years, Mr. Rother has played a role in helping to pass -- or block -- some of the most significant legislation in Congress: the Medicare prescription-drug benefit (not "everything we had hoped it would be, but...certainly better than nothing"); Social Security privatization; and the national do-not-call registry.
John P. Stewart
Urban Planner
John P. Stewart is working on a blueprint for making city services receptive to all of the needs of older Americans -- whether in health care, transportation, safety, employment or continuing education. To date, 16 cities have joined in the effort, including Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Atlanta.
"I was really struck by the fact that we needed to change the way we look at aging services," says Mr. Stewart, who for 32 years worked as a Maryland state health and education administrator, and is now executive director of the Commission on Aging and Retirement Education for the city of Baltimore.
More than 25% of the U.S. work force is over 60 and living healthier lives, Mr. Stewart says. "A lot of people are going to have to work longer."
To focus on the question of what a senior-friendly city should look like, Mr. Stewart helped create a nonprofit think tank, the Baltimore City Center for Urban Aging Services and Policy Development. Issues under study include how to help grandparents who are raising their grandchildren; upgrading community senior centers with fitness equipment and personal trainers; and providing counseling to help cope with poverty and social isolation.
"This 'declinist' theory that people get old and should be put away is insane," says Mr. Stewart, 63. "We can be an asset."
William Thomas
Reinventing the Nursing Home
The spark for William Thomas's work came in 1991 while treating a patient in an upstate New York nursing home. "She grabbed my arm, pulled me down over the bed, looked in my eyes and said, 'I'm so lonely,' " he recalls.
To revitalize the place, he opened the doors to children, brought in parakeets, cats and dogs, and plowed up the grounds for a garden. The effort grew into the Eden Alternative, a nonprofit that has helped more than 500 nursing homes across the country shift their focus to their residents' emotional well-being and away from institutional scheduling.
Today, Dr. Thomas is widely regarded as a leader in efforts nationwide to bring humanity to the end of life. In 1999, while touring the country to promote the Eden Alternative's work and a novel about aging, "I realized that America's nursing homes are getting older faster than we are," he says.
Accordingly, he developed the idea of replacing traditional nursing homes with "Green Houses," cozier facilities centered on big kitchens with technology-laden bedrooms and nursing aides who also serve as housekeepers and companions. To date, there are 35 Green House projects; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is helping fund an expansion of the program.
For his next act, Dr. Thomas, 48, wants to become "the Dr. Spock of aging."
"The boomers are creeping toward elderhood, and I aim to help explain [the] terrain," he says. "The 'new' old age [is] a time of strength and growth and development and engagement."
Ms. Greene is a staff reporter for The Wall Street Journal in Atlanta.
2008年2月20日 星期三
The Parties Are Failing to Deal with a Dark Past
By Yang Wei-chung 楊偉中, translated by Eddy Chang
Professional students and informants were the products of Taiwan's past authoritarian era. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) used to accuse the opposition's young cadres of being professional students for the Chinese Communist Party or the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). The KMT also accused the young supporters of the opposition movement of disguising revolution with student status, or carrying out such activities by using schools as bases.
During the student movement in the 1980s, both student leaders and supporters like myself were labeled as professional students by school administrations.
Informants, for their part, were spies placed by the KMT within the opposition camp to "push them in, pull them out." They were feared, worried over and hated by opposition activists. Through this fear of informants, the KMT aroused mutual suspicion among activists in order to create internal conflict.
Such authoritarian products did not completely disappear following Taiwan's superficial democratization. They have, in fact, turned into tools of the pan-blue and plan-green camps to influence elections. The former opposition camp repaid the KMT in kind by labeling presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) a professional student. Even more ridiculously, the former authoritarian rulers have called DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) a KMT informant.
Which begs the question: If being an informant is a sin, then how can the government or a party that created informants justify itself and its activities? If the KMT is basically politically and morally upright, what's wrong with being one of its informants?
The issue of professional students and informants has turned the election campaign into a mud-slinging war. More serious issues, such as the control of government violence and promotion of human rights, have not appeared on the parties' to-do list. Certainly, Ma and Hsieh's pasts should be exposed. But even if they really were professional students or informants, the whole thing is merely a selective exposure of the political darkness that characterized the nation's past. From the public's perspective, none of them should avoid the following questions.
For the KMT: If being an informant should be condemned, why does the party avoid discussing the past crimes committed by the intelligence service? Shouldn't the great number of files in the KMT cabinets be made public? Since the KMT claims to be "establishing links to Taiwan," why doesn't it link itself to historical responsibility as well?
The DPP, on the other hand, has always used "transitional justice" and the KMT's dark history as electoral tools. Yet, in its eight years in office, the party never released the intelligence service's records of public surveillance and human rights abuses. A reform of the intelligence apparatus has yet to be made, and government-sponsored violence continues.
To the Ma and Hsieh camps, we could ask whether they are ready to pledge to work with the rival camp no matter who is elected president, if they are prepared to uncover the human rights abuses during the authoritarian era, review past mistakes and seek reconciliation with society through dialogue.
Today, the perpetrators of past crimes have done nothing more than deflect accusations onto others. Some are enjoying great wealth and high positions in the DPP government
Our leaders have not only taken historical tragedies as cheap tools for power struggle, but have also gone down the same road as the KMT by abusing national power, threatening antagonists with media control or even hinting at the imposition of martial law.
Yang Wei-chung is spokesman for the Third Society Party.
Professional students and informants were the products of Taiwan's past authoritarian era. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) used to accuse the opposition's young cadres of being professional students for the Chinese Communist Party or the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). The KMT also accused the young supporters of the opposition movement of disguising revolution with student status, or carrying out such activities by using schools as bases.
During the student movement in the 1980s, both student leaders and supporters like myself were labeled as professional students by school administrations.
Informants, for their part, were spies placed by the KMT within the opposition camp to "push them in, pull them out." They were feared, worried over and hated by opposition activists. Through this fear of informants, the KMT aroused mutual suspicion among activists in order to create internal conflict.
Such authoritarian products did not completely disappear following Taiwan's superficial democratization. They have, in fact, turned into tools of the pan-blue and plan-green camps to influence elections. The former opposition camp repaid the KMT in kind by labeling presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) a professional student. Even more ridiculously, the former authoritarian rulers have called DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) a KMT informant.
Which begs the question: If being an informant is a sin, then how can the government or a party that created informants justify itself and its activities? If the KMT is basically politically and morally upright, what's wrong with being one of its informants?
The issue of professional students and informants has turned the election campaign into a mud-slinging war. More serious issues, such as the control of government violence and promotion of human rights, have not appeared on the parties' to-do list. Certainly, Ma and Hsieh's pasts should be exposed. But even if they really were professional students or informants, the whole thing is merely a selective exposure of the political darkness that characterized the nation's past. From the public's perspective, none of them should avoid the following questions.
For the KMT: If being an informant should be condemned, why does the party avoid discussing the past crimes committed by the intelligence service? Shouldn't the great number of files in the KMT cabinets be made public? Since the KMT claims to be "establishing links to Taiwan," why doesn't it link itself to historical responsibility as well?
The DPP, on the other hand, has always used "transitional justice" and the KMT's dark history as electoral tools. Yet, in its eight years in office, the party never released the intelligence service's records of public surveillance and human rights abuses. A reform of the intelligence apparatus has yet to be made, and government-sponsored violence continues.
To the Ma and Hsieh camps, we could ask whether they are ready to pledge to work with the rival camp no matter who is elected president, if they are prepared to uncover the human rights abuses during the authoritarian era, review past mistakes and seek reconciliation with society through dialogue.
Today, the perpetrators of past crimes have done nothing more than deflect accusations onto others. Some are enjoying great wealth and high positions in the DPP government
Our leaders have not only taken historical tragedies as cheap tools for power struggle, but have also gone down the same road as the KMT by abusing national power, threatening antagonists with media control or even hinting at the imposition of martial law.
Yang Wei-chung is spokesman for the Third Society Party.
Taiwan's Desinicization
Samuel Yang of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
In a Feb. 8 article in the Yale Daily News titled "Taiwan's desinicization policy pulls at seams of One China," Xiaochen Su criticized the desinicizing policy of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration as unjustified and an obstacle to peace and cooperation for prosperity across the Taiwan Strait.
The author also cited the recent revision of the primary and secondary school textbooks as additional evidence of desinicization, since the new textbooks emphasized Taiwanese over Chinese history.
Finally, the author argued that the lack of communication across the strait is primarily the responsibility of the Taiwanese government, whose policies is preventing many Taiwanese from visiting China.
Fifty-two responses to the article were posted in the following week. The first one criticized the author as biased. Since China has the political upper hand, the writer argued, it is Beijing that should initiate communication and it should do so without imposing preconditions. The great majority of comments also highlighted the flawed reasoning behind the article, which was interpreted as reflecting the People's Republic of China orthodoxy, if not its propaganda. Many commentators were sympathetic to the DPP and the plights of Taiwanese.
In his comment, Taiwan-based Michael Turton wrote that no ethnic Han emperor had ever ruled Taiwan. Only the Qing Dynasty, a Manchu empire of non-Chinese origin, had ever occupied Taiwan and only did so for a short period of time before ceding it to Japan with some relief.
China's claim that Taiwan is "sacred national territory," therefore, is nothing but a post-World War II invention. When dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) unified China in 1927, nobody in his regime believed that Taiwan was part of China.
Turton also observes that the emergence of a local Taiwan identity predated the DPP. Its seeds, rather, were sown under the Japanese occupation.
The succeeding Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime after World War II reinforced colonialism by resorting to its own oppressive practices. Turton correctly points out that the DPP's "desinicization" policies are aimed strictly at KMT policies that attempted to suppress the local identity by introducing a fictional and idealized version of Chinese culture in Taiwan.
Another writer, named Chris, drew our attention to the presence of deep cultural and social differences between Taiwanese and Chinese populations in spite of ethnic similarities. He said that should China maintain its oppressive and belligerent policies in dealing with Taiwan, the Chinese-Taiwanese identity gap would only widen.
Canadian Politico, meanwhile, suggested that the whole issue was about communism versus freedom and liberty, authoritarianism versus democratic representation and judicial interference versus the rule of law.
Ben wrote that Taiwanese democracy was the best model China could emulate because of the close ethnic relationship that exists between the two nations and that democratic transformation of China would promote peace in Asia and in the entire world. To advance democracy, Taiwan must "Westernize" and desinicize, as did Japan and South Korea. It is interesting to note that the mention of Japan in the comment engendered a wild emotional response from pro-Beijing respondents.
The debate concluded with Eddie G from Sweden, who suggested that supporters of China visit Taiwan and experience Taiwanese culture for themselves. The readers were also reminded that in the court of civilized international opinion, the destiny of Taiwan should be decided by the people who truly love and identify themselves with Taiwan. The reason an undemocratic regime continues to exist in China, the writer argued, was the result of the ignorance Chinese have about the dismal human rights record in their country.
Although the desinicization program received the support of the majority of commentators in the publication, it has been maliciously misrepresented by KMT-controlled media in Taiwan. Thus, the public has been misled into believing that Taiwanese are discriminating against the minority Chinese and that desinicization would intensify discrimination.
Facing a reversal of democratization, Taiwanese must wake up at this critical juncture in their history and use their votes to reject the undemocratic KMT on March 22, lest many find themselves joining the ranks of innumerable exiled Tibetans and Chinese dissidents.
In a Feb. 8 article in the Yale Daily News titled "Taiwan's desinicization policy pulls at seams of One China," Xiaochen Su criticized the desinicizing policy of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration as unjustified and an obstacle to peace and cooperation for prosperity across the Taiwan Strait.
The author also cited the recent revision of the primary and secondary school textbooks as additional evidence of desinicization, since the new textbooks emphasized Taiwanese over Chinese history.
Finally, the author argued that the lack of communication across the strait is primarily the responsibility of the Taiwanese government, whose policies is preventing many Taiwanese from visiting China.
Fifty-two responses to the article were posted in the following week. The first one criticized the author as biased. Since China has the political upper hand, the writer argued, it is Beijing that should initiate communication and it should do so without imposing preconditions. The great majority of comments also highlighted the flawed reasoning behind the article, which was interpreted as reflecting the People's Republic of China orthodoxy, if not its propaganda. Many commentators were sympathetic to the DPP and the plights of Taiwanese.
In his comment, Taiwan-based Michael Turton wrote that no ethnic Han emperor had ever ruled Taiwan. Only the Qing Dynasty, a Manchu empire of non-Chinese origin, had ever occupied Taiwan and only did so for a short period of time before ceding it to Japan with some relief.
China's claim that Taiwan is "sacred national territory," therefore, is nothing but a post-World War II invention. When dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) unified China in 1927, nobody in his regime believed that Taiwan was part of China.
Turton also observes that the emergence of a local Taiwan identity predated the DPP. Its seeds, rather, were sown under the Japanese occupation.
The succeeding Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime after World War II reinforced colonialism by resorting to its own oppressive practices. Turton correctly points out that the DPP's "desinicization" policies are aimed strictly at KMT policies that attempted to suppress the local identity by introducing a fictional and idealized version of Chinese culture in Taiwan.
Another writer, named Chris, drew our attention to the presence of deep cultural and social differences between Taiwanese and Chinese populations in spite of ethnic similarities. He said that should China maintain its oppressive and belligerent policies in dealing with Taiwan, the Chinese-Taiwanese identity gap would only widen.
Canadian Politico, meanwhile, suggested that the whole issue was about communism versus freedom and liberty, authoritarianism versus democratic representation and judicial interference versus the rule of law.
Ben wrote that Taiwanese democracy was the best model China could emulate because of the close ethnic relationship that exists between the two nations and that democratic transformation of China would promote peace in Asia and in the entire world. To advance democracy, Taiwan must "Westernize" and desinicize, as did Japan and South Korea. It is interesting to note that the mention of Japan in the comment engendered a wild emotional response from pro-Beijing respondents.
The debate concluded with Eddie G from Sweden, who suggested that supporters of China visit Taiwan and experience Taiwanese culture for themselves. The readers were also reminded that in the court of civilized international opinion, the destiny of Taiwan should be decided by the people who truly love and identify themselves with Taiwan. The reason an undemocratic regime continues to exist in China, the writer argued, was the result of the ignorance Chinese have about the dismal human rights record in their country.
Although the desinicization program received the support of the majority of commentators in the publication, it has been maliciously misrepresented by KMT-controlled media in Taiwan. Thus, the public has been misled into believing that Taiwanese are discriminating against the minority Chinese and that desinicization would intensify discrimination.
Facing a reversal of democratization, Taiwanese must wake up at this critical juncture in their history and use their votes to reject the undemocratic KMT on March 22, lest many find themselves joining the ranks of innumerable exiled Tibetans and Chinese dissidents.
One World, One Farce
When Chinese Olympic officials said in a statement last week that politics doesn't belong on the sports field we were reminded of words spoken by International Olympic Committee (IOC) vice president Thomas Bach back in 2001: "All the members [of the IOC] are well aware that this election has a political significance and for all the members I have spoken to, human rights is an issue."
Bach thought at the time that the Olympics would have a positive influence on China's human rights record. But for a while it seemed the reverse was happening, as Olympic organizations in some Western countries seemed to be taking a page from China's totalitarian notebook.
The New Zealand Olympic Committee added a clause to athlete contracts a while ago banning them from making political statements or demonstrating while in Beijing -- whether protesting on their own or responding to questions from journalists. It reneged on that position yesterday, however, in a U-turn that opposition Green MP Keith Locke welcomed, saying it would give New Zealand athletes the right to speak freely about what they saw in China.
This development followed on the heels of the British Olympic Association backing down last week from plans to add their own clauses to athlete's contracts limiting free speech.
Olympic Charter Rule 51 forbids any kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda within any Olympic sites, venues or other areas. Protesting outside "designated areas," however, is allowed and this is what the UK and New Zealand Olympic committees were attempting to curb by forcing their athletes to sign the contracts. At stake is the fear that Olympians are going to use Beijing as a venue to criticize China over its human rights abuses in Darfur and Tibet, among a host of other issues.
But it wasn't only organizations that sought to muzzle athletes. Milan Zver, sports minister for Slovenia, told athletes not to raise human rights and other sensitive political issues during the Olympics because "sports are too important to use as a political instrument."
This is really no different than doing business in China: Make any kind of investment you want, but don't discuss any political issues while doing so. In this sense, the Olympics are business as usual.
Jonathan Edwards and Matthew Pinsent, two respected British Olympic champions, said they supported the right of athletes to condemn China's record on human rights and foreign policy. American gold medalist Joey Cheek agrees. Last week the Team Darfur member said that countries choose to stage the Games not just because they like sports but also because they want to showcase their country, people, culture and political systems.
There will be a predictable backlash by athletes complaining that they don't want to feel pressured to answer questions of a political nature posed by the international media. And they shouldn't feel compelled to do so. Athletes are as free to comment on human rights abuses as they are to keep silent.
Meanwhile, ordinary Chinese are appalled that athletes from other countries would want to protest against China, or that a celebrity as famous as Steven Spielberg would boycott the Games -- assuming that they have heard the news at all.
Beijing's theme for the Olympics is "One world, one dream." As countries begin to abandon the "see no evil" policy for athletes, Beijing is about to discover that while we may inhabit one world, the dreams are many.
Taipei Times Editorial, February 21, 2008.
Bach thought at the time that the Olympics would have a positive influence on China's human rights record. But for a while it seemed the reverse was happening, as Olympic organizations in some Western countries seemed to be taking a page from China's totalitarian notebook.
The New Zealand Olympic Committee added a clause to athlete contracts a while ago banning them from making political statements or demonstrating while in Beijing -- whether protesting on their own or responding to questions from journalists. It reneged on that position yesterday, however, in a U-turn that opposition Green MP Keith Locke welcomed, saying it would give New Zealand athletes the right to speak freely about what they saw in China.
This development followed on the heels of the British Olympic Association backing down last week from plans to add their own clauses to athlete's contracts limiting free speech.
Olympic Charter Rule 51 forbids any kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda within any Olympic sites, venues or other areas. Protesting outside "designated areas," however, is allowed and this is what the UK and New Zealand Olympic committees were attempting to curb by forcing their athletes to sign the contracts. At stake is the fear that Olympians are going to use Beijing as a venue to criticize China over its human rights abuses in Darfur and Tibet, among a host of other issues.
But it wasn't only organizations that sought to muzzle athletes. Milan Zver, sports minister for Slovenia, told athletes not to raise human rights and other sensitive political issues during the Olympics because "sports are too important to use as a political instrument."
This is really no different than doing business in China: Make any kind of investment you want, but don't discuss any political issues while doing so. In this sense, the Olympics are business as usual.
Jonathan Edwards and Matthew Pinsent, two respected British Olympic champions, said they supported the right of athletes to condemn China's record on human rights and foreign policy. American gold medalist Joey Cheek agrees. Last week the Team Darfur member said that countries choose to stage the Games not just because they like sports but also because they want to showcase their country, people, culture and political systems.
There will be a predictable backlash by athletes complaining that they don't want to feel pressured to answer questions of a political nature posed by the international media. And they shouldn't feel compelled to do so. Athletes are as free to comment on human rights abuses as they are to keep silent.
Meanwhile, ordinary Chinese are appalled that athletes from other countries would want to protest against China, or that a celebrity as famous as Steven Spielberg would boycott the Games -- assuming that they have heard the news at all.
Beijing's theme for the Olympics is "One world, one dream." As countries begin to abandon the "see no evil" policy for athletes, Beijing is about to discover that while we may inhabit one world, the dreams are many.
Taipei Times Editorial, February 21, 2008.
2008年2月19日 星期二
Eight Ways to Save on Engagement Rings
By Kelli B. Grant of SmartMoney.com
Deciding to get married is the easy part — at least, compared with the expense and effort that shopping for the engagement ring entails.
These sparkly manifestations of committed relationships will set shoppers back an average of $5,795 this year, according to market researcher The Wedding Report. And thanks to a combination of a weak dollar and high consumer demand, which has sent gold and diamond prices skyrocketing, engagement rings are only getting more expensive.
Inflated expectations (mostly on the part of the bride-to-be) about that all-important ring have also pushed prices higher, says Elena Mauer, a senior associate editor at Bridal Guide magazine. Today, most women expect at least a one-carat diamond, while just five years ago a half-carat stone would have sufficed. (Such factors aren't to be ignored: 28% of women say they would turn down a proposal if they didn't like the ring, according to the market research division of Clerical Medical Investment Group, a U.K.-based investment advisor.)
The general spending rule is to expect to pay the equivalent of two months' salary — or at least that's what the jewelry makers advise. "Affordability is different for every couple, so that's just a starting point," explains Jerry Ehrenwald, president of the International Gemological Institute, a nonprofit industry group.
The challenge of putting a price on their priceless love leads many consumers to overspend. But there are plenty of ways to cut costs without sacrificing quality. Here's how:
Reassess the rock
It's impossible to shop for a diamond without knowing the four Cs. But educating yourself (visit the Gemological Institute of America) has the added advantage of helping you figure out where to splurge, and where to save:
Clarity. Look for a stone of VS2 or better, which means none of the inclusions are visible to the naked eye. The stone is a far cry from flawless, concedes Ehrenwald, but who will ever know?
Color. Even a stone on the less-favorable end of the color scale can look stunning in a ring, says Antoinette Matlins, author of "Engagement & Wedding Rings: The Definitive Buying Guide for People in Love." You'll typically notice less color while looking at the stone from the top down anyway (appraisers grade by looking at the side), and the metal of the setting further masks the tones.
Carat. Stones jump in price at the carat mark. Look for so-called light carats — those just a little below, say, a 0.95 instead of a one carat. "Visually, you wouldn't be able to see a difference," says Ehrenwald. Pricewise, you will. At Union Diamond, a loose 0.95-carat stone (ideal cut, F, VVS2) is $8,075. The one-carat equivalent costs $11,294.
Cut. The way a stone is cut largely determines its final appearance, and so has the least wiggle room of any of the four Cs. Get the best cut you can, advises David Levi, owner of David Levi Diamonds in La Jolla, Calif. Trading up yields the most improvement in a diamond's value.
Consider other shapes
Round, brilliant-cut diamonds are the most popular shape for engagement rings — and perhaps not coincidentally, the most expensive per carat, says Matlins. Opt for a significantly less expensive oval, marquis or pear cut, which carry more of the carat weight at the top, thereby appearing larger. At Diamonds.com, you'd pay $8,209 for a round diamond (1.01 carats, F, VS1, very good cut) set in white gold. In comparison, you'd pay $5,717 for the same ring set with a pear-shaped stone of the same attributes; $6,174 for a marquis, or $5,803 for an oval.
Not all shapes offer such a great deal, though. Steer clear of radiant and princess stones if you don't want to stretch your budget. "These shapes, though popular, tend to have a lot of carat weight at the bottom, which can make them look smaller," she says.
Go generic
Tiffany & Co. boasts of its "Lucida" stones, Kay Jewelers showcases the "Leo Diamond" from Leo Schachter Diamonds, and Hearts on Fire's eponymous diamonds are sold by independent jewelers nationwide. Such branded diamonds employ trademarked precision cuts to maximize brilliance. As a result, these stones cost 15% to 20% more than a generic (i.e. unbranded) diamond of the same attributes, says Martin D. Fuller, an independent jewelry appraiser based in McLean, Va. You're paying for the name, not necessarily a better stone. And should that brand lose favor with fickle consumers, there's no added value down the line.
Cut loose
Buying a loose diamond from a wholesaler can save you hundreds of dollars. The savings will more than make up for what you'd pay to have the stone put in a setting. A half-carat stone (G, VS2, very good cut), for example, has an average retail price of $2,238, but could cost as little as $1,272 when purchased through a wholesaler, according to Diamond Review, an independent diamond education and pricing web site. Shenoa & Co. in New York City's famed diamond district has several that fit the bill, ranging in price from $1,140 to $1,458.
Skimp on the setting
No one will be ogling your fiancé's ring for the band, says Mauer. "Focus your spending on the center stone, rather than the setting," she says. At Diamonds.com, a platinum setting with a half-carat in accent diamonds is $2,205, while a simple cathedral setting in platinum is $875. If you have your heart set on a fancy setting, consider swapping pricey platinum for white gold or palladium (a member of the platinum family), which offer a similar look for less than half the price. In 18K white gold, those same Diamonds.com bands would be $1,107 and $490, respectively.
Hone your haggling skills
The markup on engagement rings can easily be 300% over wholesale costs, so there's plenty of wiggle room when it comes to negotiating a lower price, says Matlins. "Mall chain stores have the highest markup, ironically because they're so competitive," she says. "To afford the occasional 50%-off sale, the regular retail price has to be much steeper." Independent jewelers tend to have slimmer profit markups, as well as more leeway to offer discounts. In such a competitive market, many jewelers will give you a deal for buying the whole ring (instead of having them set a loose stone you bought elsewhere), or for agreeing to come back later to purchase wedding bands. Because credit-card merchant fees are high, some stores will even give a 3% discount if you pay by cash instead.
Mine online retailers
Prices can be up to 40% cheaper when you buy online. But you'll have to be more vigilant about which sites you buy from, says Levi. Price compare at several stores, and steer clear of sites where prices are significantly less than others you've seen. That's a good indication you're looking at low-value, lab-enhanced stones or outright fakes, complete with a fraudulent appraisal report.
Buck tradition
Diamonds are still a girl's best friend, serving as the centerpiece stone in 90% of engagement rings, according to The Wedding Report. But there's something to be said for going the nontraditional route. Rings set with colored gemstones are very trendy right now — and very affordable, too, says Mauer. "Colored gems are less expensive [than diamonds], which means you can get a larger, better-quality stone for your budget," she says. At Blue Nile, a three-stone white gold ring set with an oval-cut sapphire (just shy of one carat, good color, no visible flaws) and flanked by two 0.15-carat diamonds goes for $1,575. If you opted for a white diamond of comparable quality instead, that price would get you a 0.30-carat center stone, max. (For a diamond the same size as the sapphire, you'd pay $4,313.) One caveat: Knowing the four Cs of diamonds won't help you here. Our shopping guides for colored pearls can help you figure out what to look for.
Useful article for "later", BTW, what about artificial diamonds?
Deciding to get married is the easy part — at least, compared with the expense and effort that shopping for the engagement ring entails.
These sparkly manifestations of committed relationships will set shoppers back an average of $5,795 this year, according to market researcher The Wedding Report. And thanks to a combination of a weak dollar and high consumer demand, which has sent gold and diamond prices skyrocketing, engagement rings are only getting more expensive.
Inflated expectations (mostly on the part of the bride-to-be) about that all-important ring have also pushed prices higher, says Elena Mauer, a senior associate editor at Bridal Guide magazine. Today, most women expect at least a one-carat diamond, while just five years ago a half-carat stone would have sufficed. (Such factors aren't to be ignored: 28% of women say they would turn down a proposal if they didn't like the ring, according to the market research division of Clerical Medical Investment Group, a U.K.-based investment advisor.)
The general spending rule is to expect to pay the equivalent of two months' salary — or at least that's what the jewelry makers advise. "Affordability is different for every couple, so that's just a starting point," explains Jerry Ehrenwald, president of the International Gemological Institute, a nonprofit industry group.
The challenge of putting a price on their priceless love leads many consumers to overspend. But there are plenty of ways to cut costs without sacrificing quality. Here's how:
Reassess the rock
It's impossible to shop for a diamond without knowing the four Cs. But educating yourself (visit the Gemological Institute of America) has the added advantage of helping you figure out where to splurge, and where to save:
Clarity. Look for a stone of VS2 or better, which means none of the inclusions are visible to the naked eye. The stone is a far cry from flawless, concedes Ehrenwald, but who will ever know?
Color. Even a stone on the less-favorable end of the color scale can look stunning in a ring, says Antoinette Matlins, author of "Engagement & Wedding Rings: The Definitive Buying Guide for People in Love." You'll typically notice less color while looking at the stone from the top down anyway (appraisers grade by looking at the side), and the metal of the setting further masks the tones.
Carat. Stones jump in price at the carat mark. Look for so-called light carats — those just a little below, say, a 0.95 instead of a one carat. "Visually, you wouldn't be able to see a difference," says Ehrenwald. Pricewise, you will. At Union Diamond, a loose 0.95-carat stone (ideal cut, F, VVS2) is $8,075. The one-carat equivalent costs $11,294.
Cut. The way a stone is cut largely determines its final appearance, and so has the least wiggle room of any of the four Cs. Get the best cut you can, advises David Levi, owner of David Levi Diamonds in La Jolla, Calif. Trading up yields the most improvement in a diamond's value.
Consider other shapes
Round, brilliant-cut diamonds are the most popular shape for engagement rings — and perhaps not coincidentally, the most expensive per carat, says Matlins. Opt for a significantly less expensive oval, marquis or pear cut, which carry more of the carat weight at the top, thereby appearing larger. At Diamonds.com, you'd pay $8,209 for a round diamond (1.01 carats, F, VS1, very good cut) set in white gold. In comparison, you'd pay $5,717 for the same ring set with a pear-shaped stone of the same attributes; $6,174 for a marquis, or $5,803 for an oval.
Not all shapes offer such a great deal, though. Steer clear of radiant and princess stones if you don't want to stretch your budget. "These shapes, though popular, tend to have a lot of carat weight at the bottom, which can make them look smaller," she says.
Go generic
Tiffany & Co. boasts of its "Lucida" stones, Kay Jewelers showcases the "Leo Diamond" from Leo Schachter Diamonds, and Hearts on Fire's eponymous diamonds are sold by independent jewelers nationwide. Such branded diamonds employ trademarked precision cuts to maximize brilliance. As a result, these stones cost 15% to 20% more than a generic (i.e. unbranded) diamond of the same attributes, says Martin D. Fuller, an independent jewelry appraiser based in McLean, Va. You're paying for the name, not necessarily a better stone. And should that brand lose favor with fickle consumers, there's no added value down the line.
Cut loose
Buying a loose diamond from a wholesaler can save you hundreds of dollars. The savings will more than make up for what you'd pay to have the stone put in a setting. A half-carat stone (G, VS2, very good cut), for example, has an average retail price of $2,238, but could cost as little as $1,272 when purchased through a wholesaler, according to Diamond Review, an independent diamond education and pricing web site. Shenoa & Co. in New York City's famed diamond district has several that fit the bill, ranging in price from $1,140 to $1,458.
Skimp on the setting
No one will be ogling your fiancé's ring for the band, says Mauer. "Focus your spending on the center stone, rather than the setting," she says. At Diamonds.com, a platinum setting with a half-carat in accent diamonds is $2,205, while a simple cathedral setting in platinum is $875. If you have your heart set on a fancy setting, consider swapping pricey platinum for white gold or palladium (a member of the platinum family), which offer a similar look for less than half the price. In 18K white gold, those same Diamonds.com bands would be $1,107 and $490, respectively.
Hone your haggling skills
The markup on engagement rings can easily be 300% over wholesale costs, so there's plenty of wiggle room when it comes to negotiating a lower price, says Matlins. "Mall chain stores have the highest markup, ironically because they're so competitive," she says. "To afford the occasional 50%-off sale, the regular retail price has to be much steeper." Independent jewelers tend to have slimmer profit markups, as well as more leeway to offer discounts. In such a competitive market, many jewelers will give you a deal for buying the whole ring (instead of having them set a loose stone you bought elsewhere), or for agreeing to come back later to purchase wedding bands. Because credit-card merchant fees are high, some stores will even give a 3% discount if you pay by cash instead.
Mine online retailers
Prices can be up to 40% cheaper when you buy online. But you'll have to be more vigilant about which sites you buy from, says Levi. Price compare at several stores, and steer clear of sites where prices are significantly less than others you've seen. That's a good indication you're looking at low-value, lab-enhanced stones or outright fakes, complete with a fraudulent appraisal report.
Buck tradition
Diamonds are still a girl's best friend, serving as the centerpiece stone in 90% of engagement rings, according to The Wedding Report. But there's something to be said for going the nontraditional route. Rings set with colored gemstones are very trendy right now — and very affordable, too, says Mauer. "Colored gems are less expensive [than diamonds], which means you can get a larger, better-quality stone for your budget," she says. At Blue Nile, a three-stone white gold ring set with an oval-cut sapphire (just shy of one carat, good color, no visible flaws) and flanked by two 0.15-carat diamonds goes for $1,575. If you opted for a white diamond of comparable quality instead, that price would get you a 0.30-carat center stone, max. (For a diamond the same size as the sapphire, you'd pay $4,313.) One caveat: Knowing the four Cs of diamonds won't help you here. Our shopping guides for colored pearls can help you figure out what to look for.
Useful article for "later", BTW, what about artificial diamonds?
2008年2月18日 星期一
The Only Winner in Beijing will be Tyranny
By Nick Cohen of THE OBSERVER, LONDON
Pick any dictatorship at random and chances are you'll find China's malign influence at work there somewhere.
At the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympics, spectators will watch as athletes from the worst regimes on the planet parade by. Whether they are from dictatorships of the left or right, secular or theocratic, they will have one thing in common: The hosts of the Games that, according to the mission statement, are striving "for a bright future for mankind" will support their oppressors.
The flag of Sudan will flutter. China supplied the weapons that massacred so many in Darfur. As further sweeteners, it added interest-free loans for a new presidential palace and vetoes of mild condemnations of genocide from the UN. In return, China got most of Sudan's oil.
The Burmese athletes will wave to the crowd and look as if they are representing an independent country. In truth, Burma is little more than a Chinese satellite. In return for the weapons to suppress democrats and vetoes at the UN Security Council, the junta sells it gas at discounted rates far below what its wretched citizens have to pay.
There will be no Tibetan contingent, of course. Chinese immigrants are obliterating the identity of the occupied country, which will soon be nothing more than a memory. Athletes from half-starved Zimbabwe, whose senile despot props himself up with the Zimmer frame of Chinese aid, will be there, however.
As will teams from the Iranian mullahocracy, grateful recipients of Chinese missiles and the prison state of North Korea, for whom China is the sole reliable ally.
BEIJING VS BERLIN
With Steven Spielberg citing China's complicity in the Sudan atrocities as his reason for withdrawing as the Olympics' artistic adviser, comparisons with the 20th century will soon be flowing. Will Beijing be like the 1936 Berlin Olympics Hitler used to celebrate Nazism? Or the 1980 Moscow games the US boycotted in protest at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? I suspect the past won't be a guide because the ideological struggles of the 20th century are over. China's communists are communists in name only. They are not helping dictators because they are comrades who share their ideology. They have no ideology beyond national self-interest and a well-warranted desire to stop the outsiders insisting on standards in Africa or Asia they do not intend to abide by.
Human Rights Watch points out that if, say, Sudan were to change into a peaceful state with a constitutional government, the Chinese would not care as long as the oil still flowed. China's post-communists are like mafiosi. It is not personal, just business.
They are happy to do deals with anyone, as former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recognized when he set himself up to be PR man for so many of the corporations that went on to benefit from the Communist Party's repression of free trade unions.
Campaign groups and governments that want to promote the spread of democracy have been far slower to understand that the emerging power of the 21st century will be every tyrant's first customer and banker of last resort and then adjust their tactics accordingly.
Their failure may be because it is far from clear what fresh tactics are on offer. Take the supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi campaigning for a democratic Burma. Their demonstrations outside Chinese embassies have had no effect.
They persuaded British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to raise Myanmar in meetings with the Chinese leadership, but again Brown was unlikely to have made an impression.
Their other successes look equally fragile. The EU has imposed sanctions, but Western energy companies ask with justice why they should be told not to compete for gas contracts the Chinese will snap up.
More importantly, they are running into a problem familiar to anyone who campaigned against 20th-century dictatorships: where to find allies.
If you are protesting about an aspect of US policy -- Guantanamo Bay or attitudes to global warming -- this is not an issue.
You can ally with and be informed by US activists, journalists, lawyers and opposition politicians. The resources of the civic society of a free country are at your disposal and you can use them to shift US opinion. A subject of the Chinese Communist Party who helps foreign critics put pressure on Beijing risks imprisonment, and none but the bravest do.
PETERING OUT
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband showed he understood the dilemmas of the new century when he gave a lecture in honor of Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Oxford last week. He described how the great wave of democratization, which began with the fall of Franco's dictatorship in the 1970s, moved through South America, the Soviet empire, South Africa and the tyrannies of East Asia, was petering out.
The foreign secretary was undiplomatic enough to continue that the economic success of China had proved that history was not over and he was right. Its combination of communist suppression with market economics is being seen as a viable alternative to liberal freedoms, notably by Putin and his cronies, but also by anti-democratic forces across Asia.
The only justification for the Beijing games is that they will allow connoisseurs of the grotesque to inspect this ghoulish hybrid of the worst of capitalism and the worst of socialism close up. The march of China's bloodstained allies round the stadium will merely be the beginning.
The International Olympic Committee and all the national sports bureaucracies will follow up by instructing athletes not to say a word out of place.
The free-market chief executive officers of Coca-Cola, McDonald's, General Electric and all the other sponsors who have made money out of China will join the communists in insisting that outsiders have no right to criticize. Any Chinese dissident who hasn't been picked up before the world's journalists arrive will face terrifying punishments if he speaks to them.
I know sportsmen and women are exasperated by demands to boycott events they have dreamed of winning for years. Why should they suffer when no business or government is prepared to turn its back on the vast Chinese market? For all that, they still should not go.
The hypocrisy of the 2008 Olympics will make all but the most hard-hearted athletes retch. They will not look back on it not as a high point of their careers, but a nadir.
Pick any dictatorship at random and chances are you'll find China's malign influence at work there somewhere.
At the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympics, spectators will watch as athletes from the worst regimes on the planet parade by. Whether they are from dictatorships of the left or right, secular or theocratic, they will have one thing in common: The hosts of the Games that, according to the mission statement, are striving "for a bright future for mankind" will support their oppressors.
The flag of Sudan will flutter. China supplied the weapons that massacred so many in Darfur. As further sweeteners, it added interest-free loans for a new presidential palace and vetoes of mild condemnations of genocide from the UN. In return, China got most of Sudan's oil.
The Burmese athletes will wave to the crowd and look as if they are representing an independent country. In truth, Burma is little more than a Chinese satellite. In return for the weapons to suppress democrats and vetoes at the UN Security Council, the junta sells it gas at discounted rates far below what its wretched citizens have to pay.
There will be no Tibetan contingent, of course. Chinese immigrants are obliterating the identity of the occupied country, which will soon be nothing more than a memory. Athletes from half-starved Zimbabwe, whose senile despot props himself up with the Zimmer frame of Chinese aid, will be there, however.
As will teams from the Iranian mullahocracy, grateful recipients of Chinese missiles and the prison state of North Korea, for whom China is the sole reliable ally.
BEIJING VS BERLIN
With Steven Spielberg citing China's complicity in the Sudan atrocities as his reason for withdrawing as the Olympics' artistic adviser, comparisons with the 20th century will soon be flowing. Will Beijing be like the 1936 Berlin Olympics Hitler used to celebrate Nazism? Or the 1980 Moscow games the US boycotted in protest at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? I suspect the past won't be a guide because the ideological struggles of the 20th century are over. China's communists are communists in name only. They are not helping dictators because they are comrades who share their ideology. They have no ideology beyond national self-interest and a well-warranted desire to stop the outsiders insisting on standards in Africa or Asia they do not intend to abide by.
Human Rights Watch points out that if, say, Sudan were to change into a peaceful state with a constitutional government, the Chinese would not care as long as the oil still flowed. China's post-communists are like mafiosi. It is not personal, just business.
They are happy to do deals with anyone, as former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recognized when he set himself up to be PR man for so many of the corporations that went on to benefit from the Communist Party's repression of free trade unions.
Campaign groups and governments that want to promote the spread of democracy have been far slower to understand that the emerging power of the 21st century will be every tyrant's first customer and banker of last resort and then adjust their tactics accordingly.
Their failure may be because it is far from clear what fresh tactics are on offer. Take the supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi campaigning for a democratic Burma. Their demonstrations outside Chinese embassies have had no effect.
They persuaded British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to raise Myanmar in meetings with the Chinese leadership, but again Brown was unlikely to have made an impression.
Their other successes look equally fragile. The EU has imposed sanctions, but Western energy companies ask with justice why they should be told not to compete for gas contracts the Chinese will snap up.
More importantly, they are running into a problem familiar to anyone who campaigned against 20th-century dictatorships: where to find allies.
If you are protesting about an aspect of US policy -- Guantanamo Bay or attitudes to global warming -- this is not an issue.
You can ally with and be informed by US activists, journalists, lawyers and opposition politicians. The resources of the civic society of a free country are at your disposal and you can use them to shift US opinion. A subject of the Chinese Communist Party who helps foreign critics put pressure on Beijing risks imprisonment, and none but the bravest do.
PETERING OUT
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband showed he understood the dilemmas of the new century when he gave a lecture in honor of Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Oxford last week. He described how the great wave of democratization, which began with the fall of Franco's dictatorship in the 1970s, moved through South America, the Soviet empire, South Africa and the tyrannies of East Asia, was petering out.
The foreign secretary was undiplomatic enough to continue that the economic success of China had proved that history was not over and he was right. Its combination of communist suppression with market economics is being seen as a viable alternative to liberal freedoms, notably by Putin and his cronies, but also by anti-democratic forces across Asia.
The only justification for the Beijing games is that they will allow connoisseurs of the grotesque to inspect this ghoulish hybrid of the worst of capitalism and the worst of socialism close up. The march of China's bloodstained allies round the stadium will merely be the beginning.
The International Olympic Committee and all the national sports bureaucracies will follow up by instructing athletes not to say a word out of place.
The free-market chief executive officers of Coca-Cola, McDonald's, General Electric and all the other sponsors who have made money out of China will join the communists in insisting that outsiders have no right to criticize. Any Chinese dissident who hasn't been picked up before the world's journalists arrive will face terrifying punishments if he speaks to them.
I know sportsmen and women are exasperated by demands to boycott events they have dreamed of winning for years. Why should they suffer when no business or government is prepared to turn its back on the vast Chinese market? For all that, they still should not go.
The hypocrisy of the 2008 Olympics will make all but the most hard-hearted athletes retch. They will not look back on it not as a high point of their careers, but a nadir.
Collateral Risk for China
By Jonathan Fenby of THE GUARDIAN, LONDON
Beijing is not inclined to bow to foreign pressure. Why should it, one may ask, since ... the outside world is still beating a path to its door?
When China won the right to stage the 2008 Olympics, the outburst of joy around the nation was overwhelming.
This was to be a major sign of global recognition for the way in which China has emerged from its Mao-era shell and become a world player over the last 30 years. Now things are looking rather less rosy, with implications that go beyond the sports events of August.
The announcement by Steven Spielberg, that his conscience about the "unspeakable crimes against humanity that continue to be committed in Darfur" would not allow him to go through with directing Beijing's opening ceremony, brings home the collateral damage that China risks from its association with such regimes.
Mia Farrow's warning that Spielberg risked becoming a modern Leni Riefenstahl if he did for Beijing what she did for the 1936 Berlin Olympics seemed overblown. But the director's decision shows China cannot expect people to slot its behavior into neat little boxes, as it does -- one for trade, one for Confucian culture, one for the propagation of reassurances that China's rise is a peaceful one, one for ensuring the flow of raw material to its industry, and one for the defense of national sovereignty.
China has played such a bad hand in Sudan one can only conclude that it is tone deaf when it comes to international politics. Sudan is a useful supplier of energy, but China has other sources. Its own policies in Sinicizing the vast western territory of Xinjiang may be cloaked from the world, but Darfur is out in the open, and its foot-dragging cannot escape criticism -- sharpened by the latest actions of Khartoum.
Some will dismiss Spielberg's decision as grandstanding by a member of the California elite. Others will wonder why he undertook the job in the first place. But even Chinese critics of the regime hold back from advocating a boycott. Engagement remains, for many of them, still the best way to get Beijing to adopt a more liberal path.
But despite recent signs of a more liberal stance, the system remains oppressive toward anything regarded as an organized threat. The plight of Chinese internal critics has largely been abandoned by the West. Trade and investment opportunities have trumped concern for dissidents.
After Spielberg, the focus will be on Sudan, and the question will be how many others will follow him. Nine Nobel Peace Prize laureates have written to the Communist Party leader, Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) , urging him to uphold Olympic ideals by pressing Sudan to stop the atrocities.
On past form, Beijing is not inclined to bow to foreign pressure. Why should it, one may ask, since it has done so well over the last 30 years and the outside world is still beating a path to its door?
With the Olympics neatly slotted into development plans for the Beijing region and foreign governments taking care not to say anything out of place on the human rights front, decisions such as Spielberg's or the letter from the Nobel laureates will be filed away.
Its stance could lead to a toughening of positions outside China, be it from US politicians veering towards protectionism or from corporate sponsors worried about being associated with China while human rights lobbyists step up the pressure in the West.
Beijing has to learn that engagement is a two-way street -- and that the neat boxes of its policy approach cannot always be separated as it would wish.
Beijing is not inclined to bow to foreign pressure. Why should it, one may ask, since ... the outside world is still beating a path to its door?
When China won the right to stage the 2008 Olympics, the outburst of joy around the nation was overwhelming.
This was to be a major sign of global recognition for the way in which China has emerged from its Mao-era shell and become a world player over the last 30 years. Now things are looking rather less rosy, with implications that go beyond the sports events of August.
The announcement by Steven Spielberg, that his conscience about the "unspeakable crimes against humanity that continue to be committed in Darfur" would not allow him to go through with directing Beijing's opening ceremony, brings home the collateral damage that China risks from its association with such regimes.
Mia Farrow's warning that Spielberg risked becoming a modern Leni Riefenstahl if he did for Beijing what she did for the 1936 Berlin Olympics seemed overblown. But the director's decision shows China cannot expect people to slot its behavior into neat little boxes, as it does -- one for trade, one for Confucian culture, one for the propagation of reassurances that China's rise is a peaceful one, one for ensuring the flow of raw material to its industry, and one for the defense of national sovereignty.
China has played such a bad hand in Sudan one can only conclude that it is tone deaf when it comes to international politics. Sudan is a useful supplier of energy, but China has other sources. Its own policies in Sinicizing the vast western territory of Xinjiang may be cloaked from the world, but Darfur is out in the open, and its foot-dragging cannot escape criticism -- sharpened by the latest actions of Khartoum.
Some will dismiss Spielberg's decision as grandstanding by a member of the California elite. Others will wonder why he undertook the job in the first place. But even Chinese critics of the regime hold back from advocating a boycott. Engagement remains, for many of them, still the best way to get Beijing to adopt a more liberal path.
But despite recent signs of a more liberal stance, the system remains oppressive toward anything regarded as an organized threat. The plight of Chinese internal critics has largely been abandoned by the West. Trade and investment opportunities have trumped concern for dissidents.
After Spielberg, the focus will be on Sudan, and the question will be how many others will follow him. Nine Nobel Peace Prize laureates have written to the Communist Party leader, Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) , urging him to uphold Olympic ideals by pressing Sudan to stop the atrocities.
On past form, Beijing is not inclined to bow to foreign pressure. Why should it, one may ask, since it has done so well over the last 30 years and the outside world is still beating a path to its door?
With the Olympics neatly slotted into development plans for the Beijing region and foreign governments taking care not to say anything out of place on the human rights front, decisions such as Spielberg's or the letter from the Nobel laureates will be filed away.
Its stance could lead to a toughening of positions outside China, be it from US politicians veering towards protectionism or from corporate sponsors worried about being associated with China while human rights lobbyists step up the pressure in the West.
Beijing has to learn that engagement is a two-way street -- and that the neat boxes of its policy approach cannot always be separated as it would wish.
China's Rise Will Mean Turbulence
By Sushil Seth of Australia
China seems to be everywhere these days. Apart from Japan which is seeking to counter it with the US alliance, China's geo-political pre-eminence in Asia-Pacific is now well-established.
True, the US is still the dominant military power regionally and globally. But the Asia-Pacific region is quietly accommodating itself to China's new and rising status.
China is not only looming large in its Asian neighborhood, it is also establishing its presence in Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia and South America, hunting for resources (oil, gas and raw materials) to fuel its economy, selling its wares, making investments and accumulating political capital.
It has emerged as the US' biggest foreign lender, buying its treasury bonds and securities with its more than US$1 trillion in foreign currency reserves (and rising), amassed, in large part, from the US' growing trade deficit.
In other words, it is lending a good part of what it earns from its US exports back to the US, thus enabling its consumers to continue buying Chinese goods.
China is now in a position to bring down the mighty US dollar by shifting its dollar holdings into other currencies, and create panic in international markets.
In practice, it might not do this for fear of losing heavily on its dollars assets. There is no way it can dispose of its dollar assets quickly enough to escape heavy losses.
Besides, a significant depreciation of the US dollar will affect China's exports into the US market by making them dearer.
But that is another story.
The point is that China's rise is a great challenge for the world, especially the US, as the former has ambitions to overtake the latter as the world's only superpower.
With the US mired in Iraq and elsewhere, China has used its time and resources well to expand its political and economic clout, even right into the US backyard of South America.
One would hope that the US is aware of China's rearguard action. But being already over-stretched, the US is keen to maximize the area of political cooperation on Iran, North Korea and elsewhere.
Washington is, therefore, inclined to overstate the mutuality of interest, and underplay differences and concerns from China.
But this situation is unlikely to last as China becomes even more ambitious and the US starts to clearly see the danger.
China believes it can carve out a new role with new strategies to overcome strife and conflict, both internally and externally. In a Foreign Affairs article, Zheng Bijian (鄭必堅) called these strategies China's "three transcendences."
The first strategy, as he puts it, "is to transcend the old model of industrialization and to advance a new one ? based on technology, economic efficiency, low consumption of natural resources ? low environmental pollution, and the optimal allocation of human resources."
Going by the state of China's environmental degradation, this strategy is apparently not working.
The second strategy "is to transcend the traditional ways for great powers to emerge [like Germany and Japan in the past], as well as the Cold War mentality."
China, on the other hand, "will transcend ideological differences to strive for peace, development and cooperation with all countries of the world."
However, if the grab for islands in the South China Sea (the Spratlys, for instance) is any indication, China is behaving no different from the ways of the old powers (Germany and Japan) by seeking to use a mix of coercive strategies to have its way.
The only difference is that China has been relatively successful so far in not having to use military means.
But as its power grows and it faces resistance to its coercive diplomacy, China will be as ruthless in pushing its way (even including the projection and use of power) as the old powers.
Which is already happening with Taiwan, with hundreds of Chinese missiles targeted in that direction.
The third strategy, according to Zheng, "is to transcend outmoded models of social control and to construct a harmonious socialist society."
Again, going by the reports of recurring unrest in different parts of China, the so-called harmonious society is either sheer propaganda or sheer delusion, which is even more disturbing.
Therefore, all these claims that China has somehow found the Holy Grail of peaceful rise and development are fanciful -- to say the least.
In other words, China's rise is bound to cause turbulence and strife in the years to come, with the US seeking to hold its position as the reigning superpower.
There is, however, a view that China can be accommodated peacefully in the world order, because the existing system has been kind to it as evidenced by its economic growth and growing political status. Therefore, it will have no reason to subvert or sabotage it.
But with China's growing ambitions, it is unlikely to be satisfied with incremental benefits accruing to it from a system that was devised by others to maintain and sustain their supremacy.
Beijing will want to put its own stamp on the system and to maximize its own goals and ambitions of global supremacy.
In a recent Foreign Affairs article, Professor G. John Ikenberry argues: "The United States cannot thwart China's rise, but it can help ensure that China's power is exercised within the rules and institutions that the United States and its [European] partners have crafted over the last century."
He adds, "The United States' global position may be weakening, but the international system the United States leads can remain the dominant order of the twenty-first century."
This is based on two implicit assumptions. First, China will continue to see the existing international order as largely to its advantage.
Second, if it doesn't and seeks radical transformation, it will find the US-European order strong enough, by virtue of its combined power, to deter China from challenging it.
As Ikenberry puts it, "The key thing for US leaders to remember is that it may be possible for China to overtake the US, but it is much less likely that China will ever manage to overtake the Western order."
This is assuming that the Western order will generally act together, which is a tall order to make over any period of time.
If China manages to remain stable and continues to grow? (a big if, considering its multiple problems), it will also have the potential to play power politics with the global system, including between the US and Europe.
The idea that China will play its role within an existing international order crafted and controlled by dominant Western powers seems a bit overdrawn, if not an outright case of wishful thinking.
It would make more sense to treat China as a power keen to reshape the global order by putting itself in the center. China will take this directrion as its power grows.
And this will mean strife and turbulence. And countries like the US and others with high stakes in the existing international order will have no option but to confront the new danger from a resurgent China.
China seems to be everywhere these days. Apart from Japan which is seeking to counter it with the US alliance, China's geo-political pre-eminence in Asia-Pacific is now well-established.
True, the US is still the dominant military power regionally and globally. But the Asia-Pacific region is quietly accommodating itself to China's new and rising status.
China is not only looming large in its Asian neighborhood, it is also establishing its presence in Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia and South America, hunting for resources (oil, gas and raw materials) to fuel its economy, selling its wares, making investments and accumulating political capital.
It has emerged as the US' biggest foreign lender, buying its treasury bonds and securities with its more than US$1 trillion in foreign currency reserves (and rising), amassed, in large part, from the US' growing trade deficit.
In other words, it is lending a good part of what it earns from its US exports back to the US, thus enabling its consumers to continue buying Chinese goods.
China is now in a position to bring down the mighty US dollar by shifting its dollar holdings into other currencies, and create panic in international markets.
In practice, it might not do this for fear of losing heavily on its dollars assets. There is no way it can dispose of its dollar assets quickly enough to escape heavy losses.
Besides, a significant depreciation of the US dollar will affect China's exports into the US market by making them dearer.
But that is another story.
The point is that China's rise is a great challenge for the world, especially the US, as the former has ambitions to overtake the latter as the world's only superpower.
With the US mired in Iraq and elsewhere, China has used its time and resources well to expand its political and economic clout, even right into the US backyard of South America.
One would hope that the US is aware of China's rearguard action. But being already over-stretched, the US is keen to maximize the area of political cooperation on Iran, North Korea and elsewhere.
Washington is, therefore, inclined to overstate the mutuality of interest, and underplay differences and concerns from China.
But this situation is unlikely to last as China becomes even more ambitious and the US starts to clearly see the danger.
China believes it can carve out a new role with new strategies to overcome strife and conflict, both internally and externally. In a Foreign Affairs article, Zheng Bijian (鄭必堅) called these strategies China's "three transcendences."
The first strategy, as he puts it, "is to transcend the old model of industrialization and to advance a new one ? based on technology, economic efficiency, low consumption of natural resources ? low environmental pollution, and the optimal allocation of human resources."
Going by the state of China's environmental degradation, this strategy is apparently not working.
The second strategy "is to transcend the traditional ways for great powers to emerge [like Germany and Japan in the past], as well as the Cold War mentality."
China, on the other hand, "will transcend ideological differences to strive for peace, development and cooperation with all countries of the world."
However, if the grab for islands in the South China Sea (the Spratlys, for instance) is any indication, China is behaving no different from the ways of the old powers (Germany and Japan) by seeking to use a mix of coercive strategies to have its way.
The only difference is that China has been relatively successful so far in not having to use military means.
But as its power grows and it faces resistance to its coercive diplomacy, China will be as ruthless in pushing its way (even including the projection and use of power) as the old powers.
Which is already happening with Taiwan, with hundreds of Chinese missiles targeted in that direction.
The third strategy, according to Zheng, "is to transcend outmoded models of social control and to construct a harmonious socialist society."
Again, going by the reports of recurring unrest in different parts of China, the so-called harmonious society is either sheer propaganda or sheer delusion, which is even more disturbing.
Therefore, all these claims that China has somehow found the Holy Grail of peaceful rise and development are fanciful -- to say the least.
In other words, China's rise is bound to cause turbulence and strife in the years to come, with the US seeking to hold its position as the reigning superpower.
There is, however, a view that China can be accommodated peacefully in the world order, because the existing system has been kind to it as evidenced by its economic growth and growing political status. Therefore, it will have no reason to subvert or sabotage it.
But with China's growing ambitions, it is unlikely to be satisfied with incremental benefits accruing to it from a system that was devised by others to maintain and sustain their supremacy.
Beijing will want to put its own stamp on the system and to maximize its own goals and ambitions of global supremacy.
In a recent Foreign Affairs article, Professor G. John Ikenberry argues: "The United States cannot thwart China's rise, but it can help ensure that China's power is exercised within the rules and institutions that the United States and its [European] partners have crafted over the last century."
He adds, "The United States' global position may be weakening, but the international system the United States leads can remain the dominant order of the twenty-first century."
This is based on two implicit assumptions. First, China will continue to see the existing international order as largely to its advantage.
Second, if it doesn't and seeks radical transformation, it will find the US-European order strong enough, by virtue of its combined power, to deter China from challenging it.
As Ikenberry puts it, "The key thing for US leaders to remember is that it may be possible for China to overtake the US, but it is much less likely that China will ever manage to overtake the Western order."
This is assuming that the Western order will generally act together, which is a tall order to make over any period of time.
If China manages to remain stable and continues to grow? (a big if, considering its multiple problems), it will also have the potential to play power politics with the global system, including between the US and Europe.
The idea that China will play its role within an existing international order crafted and controlled by dominant Western powers seems a bit overdrawn, if not an outright case of wishful thinking.
It would make more sense to treat China as a power keen to reshape the global order by putting itself in the center. China will take this directrion as its power grows.
And this will mean strife and turbulence. And countries like the US and others with high stakes in the existing international order will have no option but to confront the new danger from a resurgent China.
Are Private Arms Firms a Concern?
The revelation last week that Taiwan Goal, a private arms company, had been created with an initial investment of NT$200 million (US$6.3 million) -- NT$90 million of which came from the Ministry of National Defense -- raised alarm in some quarters. Why the hush-hush business, some asked, while others seemed shocked to learn that the private sector could get involved in national defense.
But more ink was spilled on the matter than was necessary. A quick look at the US defense establishment, to use one example, shows us that the private sector in democratic societies has always played a role in weapons manufacturing. The private sector's distance from government bureaucracy, for one, as well as the dynamics of the market, gives it more flexibility and effectiveness in the development of weapons.
From Crown Corporations in Canada to the RAND Corp think tank in the US (created by the US Air Force, then a division of Douglas Aircraft), governments have a long history of farming out their work to private companies. Even consumer appliance manufacturers like GE are major weapons manufacturers, a fact that most Americans are unaware of.
Given Taiwan's unusual political situation and how this affects its ability to acquire the weapons it needs to defend itself, the creation of a private firm makes a lot of sense. Such an arrangement will, for one, facilitate contacts at the corporate level and thereby counter the hesitation of states to discuss arms sales with Taiwan at the state level.
The laws of the free market, rather than pure politics, will decide if, when and from whom Taiwan acquires weapons.
This, however, does not mean that all of a sudden Taiwan will be able to acquire whatever weapons it desires, as sensitive technology, even that which is developed by foreign private companies, remains subject to arms control mechanisms that are the remit of governments. Nor does it mean that Beijing will not pressure governments into preventing their private sector from cooperating with Taiwan. Nevertheless, given the greater independence of the private sector and the pull of business interests, it should facilitate Taiwan's efforts to acquire weapons and give it more flexibility as to where it buys them. In other words, it would diminish Taiwan's reliance on US-made weapons.
Where Taiwan Goal promises to be of the greatest benefit to Taiwan, however, is in development, as this will help it circumvent arms control mechanisms altogether, because Taiwan itself would be involved in the development. Such was the case with the "Ching Kuo" Indigenous Defense Fighter -- whose development in Taiwan (a joint US-Taiwan venture) was a compromise, as Washington was loath to sell Taipei the advanced F-20 aircraft it wanted. It will also help it to customize weapons to meet its specific needs.
Still, this new endeavor is not without risks, and the appropriate oversights must be put in place to ensure that a nascent private defense industry in Taiwan does not see arms exports as its raison d'etre, as would a military-industrial complex. There is enough proliferation out there without Taiwan adding to it.
In other words, as long as Taiwan Goal retains the goal of helping Taiwan defend itself, it will be welcome. That the government has a hand in the company could ensure the company doesn't lose sight of that goal.
Taipei Times Editorial, February 19, 2008.
But more ink was spilled on the matter than was necessary. A quick look at the US defense establishment, to use one example, shows us that the private sector in democratic societies has always played a role in weapons manufacturing. The private sector's distance from government bureaucracy, for one, as well as the dynamics of the market, gives it more flexibility and effectiveness in the development of weapons.
From Crown Corporations in Canada to the RAND Corp think tank in the US (created by the US Air Force, then a division of Douglas Aircraft), governments have a long history of farming out their work to private companies. Even consumer appliance manufacturers like GE are major weapons manufacturers, a fact that most Americans are unaware of.
Given Taiwan's unusual political situation and how this affects its ability to acquire the weapons it needs to defend itself, the creation of a private firm makes a lot of sense. Such an arrangement will, for one, facilitate contacts at the corporate level and thereby counter the hesitation of states to discuss arms sales with Taiwan at the state level.
The laws of the free market, rather than pure politics, will decide if, when and from whom Taiwan acquires weapons.
This, however, does not mean that all of a sudden Taiwan will be able to acquire whatever weapons it desires, as sensitive technology, even that which is developed by foreign private companies, remains subject to arms control mechanisms that are the remit of governments. Nor does it mean that Beijing will not pressure governments into preventing their private sector from cooperating with Taiwan. Nevertheless, given the greater independence of the private sector and the pull of business interests, it should facilitate Taiwan's efforts to acquire weapons and give it more flexibility as to where it buys them. In other words, it would diminish Taiwan's reliance on US-made weapons.
Where Taiwan Goal promises to be of the greatest benefit to Taiwan, however, is in development, as this will help it circumvent arms control mechanisms altogether, because Taiwan itself would be involved in the development. Such was the case with the "Ching Kuo" Indigenous Defense Fighter -- whose development in Taiwan (a joint US-Taiwan venture) was a compromise, as Washington was loath to sell Taipei the advanced F-20 aircraft it wanted. It will also help it to customize weapons to meet its specific needs.
Still, this new endeavor is not without risks, and the appropriate oversights must be put in place to ensure that a nascent private defense industry in Taiwan does not see arms exports as its raison d'etre, as would a military-industrial complex. There is enough proliferation out there without Taiwan adding to it.
In other words, as long as Taiwan Goal retains the goal of helping Taiwan defend itself, it will be welcome. That the government has a hand in the company could ensure the company doesn't lose sight of that goal.
Taipei Times Editorial, February 19, 2008.
2008年2月14日 星期四
I'll Buy Your House If You Buy Mine
By Jennifer Levitz
Eager to move closer to their grandchildren in Tennessee, retirees Allen and Wilma Sawtelle put their home in the Southwestern Nevada town of Pahrump up for sale in August. They got nowhere. "The market is just dead," says Mr. Sawtelle. At their open house, he says, "I think one guy came, and he'd been drinking."
Poking around the Internet for home-selling tips, Mr. Sawtelle, a 71-year-old former investigator for a law firm, discovered that anxious sellers like him are trying a new tactic: connecting with other sellers who might agree to "swap" -- or buy one another's property. The Sawtelles found a couple who were looking to move to Nevada, and whose house for sale was within driving distance of their grandchildren.
The concept of trading homes temporarily for vacations has long existed, but now it's being adapted to the slumping real-estate market as people, particularly in the Sunbelt and other slow spots, scout for ways to unshackle themselves from their property. Anecdotal evidence suggests the number of people doing this is still relatively small, but it has popped up from virtually nothing in recent years.
While some form of bartering has been going on since the beginning of time, experts say they aren't aware of house swapping being done in previous down housing markets. The technology and access to it didn't exist several decades ago. The current model is based on new technology that enables computerized matching of a large number of properties and owners' swap criteria.
Fans say swapping is suited to the current down market, where people are extra nervous about buying a new house before selling their old home.
Not everyone is a potential swap candidate, however. Swapping typically requires one party, or both, willing to settle for a new dwelling that is less than their ideal, either in amenities or exact locale. And searching for a swap is much like using a dating service: The odds can be good but the goods can be odd. Before finding his match, Mr. Sawtelle first had to deal with six unsuitable swap propositions, including one involving 450 hectares -- more than 1,000 acres -- in Costa Rica.
Getting Financing
Experts say it's probably best not to get involved with someone who owes more money on their house than what it is worth -- because they could have a tough time getting financing. And the transaction itself isn't without challenges. OnlineHouseTrading.com recommends that both clients use one title company that knows not to complete the deal "until everyone signs off." Daniel Westbrook, the co-founder of the company says, "the scariest thing that could happen is that you buy someone else's house and they don't buy yours."
Both sides of a swap transaction typically close simultaneously -- taking away the risk of being saddled with two mortgages at once, or of having to borrow more after purchasing a new home because your old house didn't sell for as much as you thought it would. When swap partners meet directly online they also save on brokers' sales commissions -- usually 4% to 7% in most markets. If there are homes of unequal value, one buyer provides the cash or gets a mortgage to make up the difference experts say.
Mr. Sawtelle found his swap via a $19.95 listing on OnlineHouseTrading.com, one of at least six swap sites started in the past year. Four have started in just the past seven months, including OnlineHouseTrading.com, GoSwap.org, DaytonaHomeTrader.com and DomuSwap.com. Together the six sites have roughly 16,000 postings. At Craigslist.org, the popular ad site, the number of "home swap" listings -- which includes people trading homes temporarily for vacation -- jumped 56%, to 7,392 in the 12 months ending in December, the company says, and much of the growth came from people trying to permanently sell each other their homes.
Developers in the weak market are getting into the act, trying to unload new homes by offering to buy peoples' older, less expensive ones -- essentially taking trade-ins like car dealers. Developers say that they do have to then worry about selling the trade-in home, but it is more important for them to avoid getting stuck with a new subdivision of empty homes, which is bad for their image and their wallet.
Developer Florida Lifestyle Homes in Daytona Beach says it will buy homes of people who will "trade up" to a new home that has a value at least 20% greater than the one they're in. Patrick Sullivan, the owner of the company, says he has made 21 offers and completed eight trades since early 2007.
Some brokers who don't want to get cut out of the new trend or lose commissions are introducing their own swap strategies. Mapp Realty & Investment Co. in Sarasota, Fla., has launched a Web site where visitors can view a list of properties available for exchange.
Of the 1,919 houses listed on DomuSwap, 13% -- or 250 -- were listed by brokers. Some of them see this as a supplement to their other marketing efforts, since it opens up a new market of potential buyers. Others don't like the intrusion.
David Moskowitz, founder of DomuSwap.com, says "I have been seeing resistance from realtors. .... However, business and technology is moving in this direction."
Walter Molony, spokesman for the National Association of Realtors, says the industry has long experimented with all kinds of business models, and "embraces all kinds of ideas."
Within three days of listing their home in October, the Sawtelles were matched with Amy and Roy Farr, a young Georgia couple who needed to relocate to Southwestern Nevada for Ms. Farr's job with a carpet manufacturer. For a year, the Farrs had been trying to sell their house in Cartersville, Ga. -- which, it turned out, is an hour's drive across the border from the Sawtelles' grandchildren in Chattanooga.
'A Little Mansion'
Looking at photos, the Sawtelles liked the Farrs' house, particularly the pillars out front. "It looked like a little mansion," says Mr. Sawtelle. The Farrs traveled to Pahrump to see the Sawtelles' house. "It wasn't ideal," Mr. Farr says. It was about half the size of the Georgia house. But it was "cute," he says, and "we were just very motivated to do something."
On Nov. 30 in Pahrump, the couples held simultaneous closings, with the Farrs selling their house to the Sawtelles for $285,000, and buying the Sawtelles' house for $140,000. The Farrs walked away from the Georgia house with cash. The Farrs reckon they saved about $20,000 in brokerage commissions, while the Sawtelles calculate their savings at about 3%, or $4,100.
"We're tickled pink," Mr. Sawtelle reports from Georgia. But the Farrs weren't quite ready for the isolation in Pahrump. "You have to drive 60 miles over the mountain to get to things," says Mr. Farr. The Farrs now want to trade their new home for one in Las Vegas -- closer to their jobs and social activities.
Neighborly Swap
Swaps can also work over shorter distances. Lorry Eible, who owns the Foxy Lady clothes boutique in Sarasota, Fla., had built a 4,000-square-foot Mediterranean-style home as a business venture in 2005, but couldn't sell it. "For two years, we didn't really have any legitimate offers," she says. In December, she added a few words to her "for sale" sign: "Will Consider Exchanges."
"I immediately started to get phone calls," she says. She got two offers, and accepted one from a neighbor who wanted to move up to a bigger house. He offered to sell Ms. Eible his smaller house -- plus a rental property. In a closing scheduled for tomorrow, Ms. Eible will sell her house for $1.6 million and buy the neighbors' property for about $1.2 million. She says she's not getting as much money as she'd hoped, but "what this did do is give us the ability to move on."
Eager to move closer to their grandchildren in Tennessee, retirees Allen and Wilma Sawtelle put their home in the Southwestern Nevada town of Pahrump up for sale in August. They got nowhere. "The market is just dead," says Mr. Sawtelle. At their open house, he says, "I think one guy came, and he'd been drinking."
Poking around the Internet for home-selling tips, Mr. Sawtelle, a 71-year-old former investigator for a law firm, discovered that anxious sellers like him are trying a new tactic: connecting with other sellers who might agree to "swap" -- or buy one another's property. The Sawtelles found a couple who were looking to move to Nevada, and whose house for sale was within driving distance of their grandchildren.
The concept of trading homes temporarily for vacations has long existed, but now it's being adapted to the slumping real-estate market as people, particularly in the Sunbelt and other slow spots, scout for ways to unshackle themselves from their property. Anecdotal evidence suggests the number of people doing this is still relatively small, but it has popped up from virtually nothing in recent years.
While some form of bartering has been going on since the beginning of time, experts say they aren't aware of house swapping being done in previous down housing markets. The technology and access to it didn't exist several decades ago. The current model is based on new technology that enables computerized matching of a large number of properties and owners' swap criteria.
Fans say swapping is suited to the current down market, where people are extra nervous about buying a new house before selling their old home.
Not everyone is a potential swap candidate, however. Swapping typically requires one party, or both, willing to settle for a new dwelling that is less than their ideal, either in amenities or exact locale. And searching for a swap is much like using a dating service: The odds can be good but the goods can be odd. Before finding his match, Mr. Sawtelle first had to deal with six unsuitable swap propositions, including one involving 450 hectares -- more than 1,000 acres -- in Costa Rica.
Getting Financing
Experts say it's probably best not to get involved with someone who owes more money on their house than what it is worth -- because they could have a tough time getting financing. And the transaction itself isn't without challenges. OnlineHouseTrading.com recommends that both clients use one title company that knows not to complete the deal "until everyone signs off." Daniel Westbrook, the co-founder of the company says, "the scariest thing that could happen is that you buy someone else's house and they don't buy yours."
Both sides of a swap transaction typically close simultaneously -- taking away the risk of being saddled with two mortgages at once, or of having to borrow more after purchasing a new home because your old house didn't sell for as much as you thought it would. When swap partners meet directly online they also save on brokers' sales commissions -- usually 4% to 7% in most markets. If there are homes of unequal value, one buyer provides the cash or gets a mortgage to make up the difference experts say.
Mr. Sawtelle found his swap via a $19.95 listing on OnlineHouseTrading.com, one of at least six swap sites started in the past year. Four have started in just the past seven months, including OnlineHouseTrading.com, GoSwap.org, DaytonaHomeTrader.com and DomuSwap.com. Together the six sites have roughly 16,000 postings. At Craigslist.org, the popular ad site, the number of "home swap" listings -- which includes people trading homes temporarily for vacation -- jumped 56%, to 7,392 in the 12 months ending in December, the company says, and much of the growth came from people trying to permanently sell each other their homes.
Developers in the weak market are getting into the act, trying to unload new homes by offering to buy peoples' older, less expensive ones -- essentially taking trade-ins like car dealers. Developers say that they do have to then worry about selling the trade-in home, but it is more important for them to avoid getting stuck with a new subdivision of empty homes, which is bad for their image and their wallet.
Developer Florida Lifestyle Homes in Daytona Beach says it will buy homes of people who will "trade up" to a new home that has a value at least 20% greater than the one they're in. Patrick Sullivan, the owner of the company, says he has made 21 offers and completed eight trades since early 2007.
Some brokers who don't want to get cut out of the new trend or lose commissions are introducing their own swap strategies. Mapp Realty & Investment Co. in Sarasota, Fla., has launched a Web site where visitors can view a list of properties available for exchange.
Of the 1,919 houses listed on DomuSwap, 13% -- or 250 -- were listed by brokers. Some of them see this as a supplement to their other marketing efforts, since it opens up a new market of potential buyers. Others don't like the intrusion.
David Moskowitz, founder of DomuSwap.com, says "I have been seeing resistance from realtors. .... However, business and technology is moving in this direction."
Walter Molony, spokesman for the National Association of Realtors, says the industry has long experimented with all kinds of business models, and "embraces all kinds of ideas."
Within three days of listing their home in October, the Sawtelles were matched with Amy and Roy Farr, a young Georgia couple who needed to relocate to Southwestern Nevada for Ms. Farr's job with a carpet manufacturer. For a year, the Farrs had been trying to sell their house in Cartersville, Ga. -- which, it turned out, is an hour's drive across the border from the Sawtelles' grandchildren in Chattanooga.
'A Little Mansion'
Looking at photos, the Sawtelles liked the Farrs' house, particularly the pillars out front. "It looked like a little mansion," says Mr. Sawtelle. The Farrs traveled to Pahrump to see the Sawtelles' house. "It wasn't ideal," Mr. Farr says. It was about half the size of the Georgia house. But it was "cute," he says, and "we were just very motivated to do something."
On Nov. 30 in Pahrump, the couples held simultaneous closings, with the Farrs selling their house to the Sawtelles for $285,000, and buying the Sawtelles' house for $140,000. The Farrs walked away from the Georgia house with cash. The Farrs reckon they saved about $20,000 in brokerage commissions, while the Sawtelles calculate their savings at about 3%, or $4,100.
"We're tickled pink," Mr. Sawtelle reports from Georgia. But the Farrs weren't quite ready for the isolation in Pahrump. "You have to drive 60 miles over the mountain to get to things," says Mr. Farr. The Farrs now want to trade their new home for one in Las Vegas -- closer to their jobs and social activities.
Neighborly Swap
Swaps can also work over shorter distances. Lorry Eible, who owns the Foxy Lady clothes boutique in Sarasota, Fla., had built a 4,000-square-foot Mediterranean-style home as a business venture in 2005, but couldn't sell it. "For two years, we didn't really have any legitimate offers," she says. In December, she added a few words to her "for sale" sign: "Will Consider Exchanges."
"I immediately started to get phone calls," she says. She got two offers, and accepted one from a neighbor who wanted to move up to a bigger house. He offered to sell Ms. Eible his smaller house -- plus a rental property. In a closing scheduled for tomorrow, Ms. Eible will sell her house for $1.6 million and buy the neighbors' property for about $1.2 million. She says she's not getting as much money as she'd hoped, but "what this did do is give us the ability to move on."
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
