2012年12月28日星期五
2012年10月20日星期六
The question with interviews is why we bother
By Lucy Kellaway October 7, 2012 2:33 pm Original from: FT.COMWhen Larry Page interviews people for jobs at Google, he gets so bored listening to their pat responses that he orders them to teach him something he doesn’t know.
I learnt this a few days ago at the Hay Festival in Segovia when a panel of famous writers was asked the same thing. Great question, I thought, but then started to fret: if I found myself interviewed by Mr Page, what on earth would I say?
After much rummaging I came up with two things I know and he probably doesn’t. The first is the best way of killing Japanese knotweed: you cut the plant near the ground and inject glyphosate into the hollow stem using a turkey baster. The second is the ideal mix of animal hair used in traditional upholstery – 80 per cent pig, 20 per cent cattle. I could discourse at length on either but would he be impressed? I have a nasty feeling he might not be.
The panel of writers didn’t fare much better, though one did say that if a puppy is born not breathing, you should put it in a towel and sling it around as if drying a lettuce so that whatever was blocking its lungs would come flying out.
After everyone else had had their go, the last author – whose work is the strangest and most original of the lot – sighed and said he didn’t know anything that other people didn’t know, and that whatever he used to know, he’d forgotten.
Listening to this, I changed my mind. Mr Page’s question isn’t great at all. It is as hopeless as all the other things people ask applicants.
For the past 2,000 years and more we have been interviewing people, but far from getting better at it, we’re getting worse. The earliest example of the genre I can find is in the New Testament where Jesus, who at the time was recruiting for the position of disciple, kept the process short and snappy with a single question: “What do you seek?”
Modern interviewers make much heavier weather of it. In the past decade or so everyone has become hooked on asking things like “tell me about the time you showed courage”. Or “tell me about a time you learnt from failure”. The poor candidate has then to spit out a rehearsed, almost certainly fabricated answer, while the bored interviewer nods sagely, a process that is most unpleasant for both sides and leaves no one any the wiser.
The latest craze for oddball questions is even worse. Why are manhole covers round? How many piano tuners are there in the entire world? Google is also largely to blame for this craze, but now half the big employers in the US are following, figuring that if they ask things that the hapless candidate can’t prepare for, that the answers will somehow be more telling.
The website Glassdoor.com has composed a list of daftest of all daft questions, with Goldman Sachs heading at the top. It asks prospective bankers: if you were shrunk to the size of a pencil and put in a blender how would you get out? Such clever-dick questions can only prove one thing: whether the candidate is any good at clever-dick answers.
By contrast, the question asked at Trader Joe’s – what do you think of garden gnomes? – doesn’t prove anything at all, save the fact that the grocer has lost it altogether.
Jesus never felt the need to ask Matthew, John et al about their taste in gnomes. Neither did he pose the question asked of candidates by a car parts manufacturer: “If you were a Microsoft Office program, which would it be?”
The reason that no one has found a good way to interview is that there isn’t one. Study after study shows this charade to which we are all so addicted is not much better than picking people at random. The only reason we persist is that we are all way overconfident of our ability to judge others.
I rate my own skills in this very highly indeed. But I also remember how I pulled the wool over the eyes of a dozen experienced bankers at JPMorgan long ago, convincing them that what I sought was a career in banking, when it was obvious that I didn’t. Such deceit is a doddle.
There are only two questions in the Glassdoor cupboard that are of any use at all. The first is: “What is 37 times 37?” This can’t be gamed, it’s not embarrassing or vulgar, and if you can answer it without too much counting on your fingers then you are smarter than I am.
More useful still is the question asked at Ernst & Young: “Does life fascinate you?” The answer to this tells the interviewer all they need to know. If the person says yes they should be freed at once from any danger of ever having to work there.
lucy.kellaway@ft.com
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2012. You may share using our article tools.
Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
2012年10月6日星期六
相声：影帝外传
作者: 曹向东
乙：今天啊，我给大家说段相声。
甲：在这演出呢。
乙：是啊。这个节目是相声。
甲：相声节目好啊。
乙：很多观众爱听。
甲：各位观众也许对我们不熟悉，隆重介绍一下。这位（手指向乙），中国最著名的相声演员……
乙：您太过奖。
甲：（拍自己胸）就是我。
乙：这位没羞没臊。哪有自己夸自己“中国最著名”的？
甲：那应该怎么说？
乙：你应该这么说……我知道你是谁呀？
甲：哎呀，感情你不认识我。仔细看看，看我这衣着，这言谈，这举止。
乙：眼熟，好像在哪见过。
甲：说明你呀，不常看电视。家里订报纸吗？那上面也经常有我。
乙：想不起来。您给提个醒。
甲：我有个外号，你肯定听说过。
乙：还有外号？您的外号是？
甲：影帝。
乙：噢，原来您是电影演员。
甲：这位外行，拿我当演电影的了。
乙：不是你自己说的“影帝”嘛。
甲：那是外号。
乙：您到底是干什么的？
甲：跟你一样，相声演员。咱俩是同行。
乙：相声演员？我怎么没看过你演出呀？
甲：晚会呀，小剧场呀，给钱太少，不够挑费，所以我很少参加这类演出。
乙：这位口气还真够大的。那么您一般都在哪演？
甲：我长期在中南海说相声。我是中南海说唱团的。
乙：还真没听说过。
甲：这是国家机密。我经常面对成百上千的记者和外宾，大型演出的时候也可能观众上万，给他们说相声，使出我的拿手绝活，观众那个鼓掌啊：“好！再来一个！”
乙：得，中南海改戏园子了。
甲：《新闻联播》经常给我转播。
乙：还没听说《新闻联播》是曲艺节目呢！听您这么一介绍，我猜出您是大概哪位了。
甲：觉得我的表演怎么样？你给提点意见。不用怕，说说。
乙：没意见。
甲：说说吧，比如我的缺点，我改。
乙：你要真想听，我就从专业的角度说说。我感觉你的表演太做作，语速太慢……（被打断）
甲：没有缺点，难道还没优点么？
乙：噢，原来是想听表扬啊！你最大的优点，我看就是不要脸了。
甲：这什么话！你呀，肯定是五毛！
乙：告诉你，记住了啊，五毛是你自己雇的，得在你身边找。你先把这层关系弄清楚。
甲：我身边？（环视四周）那不就是你么？
乙：还认定我了。告诉你，我，一名普普通通的相声演员，演出挣工资，不是五毛，连自费五毛都不是。
甲：那，那你就是租地下室的“吊丝”，没错吧？嫉妒生恨，瞧不得别人比自己好。我知道一小撮吊丝骂我，我可不怕。古人云：“天变不足畏，祖宗不足法，人言 不足恤”。古人说过：“知之为知之，不知为不知，是知也”。古人又说了：“同行是冤家”。古人还说了：“你哪个单位的？”
乙：这是古人说的么！后边两句不是。
甲：你不喜欢不要紧，我的观众爱听。知道么，热心的观众给我评了八大罪，弄得我都不好意思，呵呵。
乙：八大罪状，我听说过。好像有卖国，连贪带占，封网站什么的。好多人签名。
甲：不许你谣琢我的独立人格。
乙：还“谣琢”呢，这词太老了。
甲：古人云：“你哪个单位的？找你们领导！”
乙：又是这句，没新词啦？
甲：八大最，是说我最好的意思。我也记不清啦，因为大家都知道我为人比较低调。
乙：谁这么不开眼啊！
甲：我记得好像有这么几条，“相声演员里官职最高”，“官员里说相声最好”。
乙：还别说，这两条很符合！
甲：还有“美国人最喜欢的相声演员”，“公知最喜欢的相声演员”，“轮友最喜欢的相声演员”，……
乙：别说了，往后没好东西了。
甲：所以，中国最著名的相声演员，我影帝当之无愧。
乙：这位一点也不谦虚。既然你是相声演员，为什么外号叫影帝呢？
甲：小孩没娘，这说起来话长。
乙：满带俏皮话的。
甲：我生在天津一个相声世家。
乙：这么说，你祖辈都是说相声的。
甲：不，我伯父是说相声的。我遗传了我伯父说相声的基因。
乙：也不知道这家怎么遗传的。
甲：我的伯父，老艺术家，艺德好。解放前长期给日本人说相声。
乙：汉奸啊！
甲：什么话！
乙：那时候投靠日本人的，都是汉奸。
甲：汉奸这个词，早从我的词典里抠掉了。
乙：你的词典也太霸道了。
甲：看来，以后得把“汉奸”设为过滤词。
乙：也就你干的出来。
甲：或者把“汉奸”的定义改一改：汉奸，汉奸，就是说别人是汉奸的人。哎，这个真好！大家鼓掌！
乙：你说晚了，你们中南海说唱团有人说过了。
甲：不可能！从来都是我抢别人戏。
乙：说实话了。
甲：我小时候，学校功课少，放学早。放了学，先不回家，直接去听相声。演出的这个地点在南市，熟悉天津地理历史的观众都知道。
乙：嗯，也叫“三不管”。
甲：说书的，说相声的，唱曲的，拉洋片的，都在这儿。
乙：对。
甲：你想，从我家宜兴埠到南市，这一来回不近了。
乙：可不，最少也得三四个小时。
甲：就爱听相声！我伯父看我是块材料，说：跟我学吧！
乙：你说的不对，我们相声这行有规矩，不收家属做徒弟。
甲：不是收徒。你说的我懂，这不是收徒，就是指点指点我，带我入门。学差不多了，就上台表演。
乙：看来你学的不错啊。
甲：那是。我伯父说：你上台得有个响亮的艺名。我看你学相声勤奋刻苦，四门功课样样都会。艺名就叫秦桧吧！
乙：还是汉奸啊！大汉奸带着小汉奸。
甲：不要瞎说！
乙：秦桧是大奸臣，勾结番邦，出卖国家，害死岳飞，人人都知道。
甲：不一样。我是勤奋的勤，开会的会。
乙：听着都一样。
甲：我也说，秦桧这名不好听啊，换一个吧。我伯父想了想：要不叫禽兽吧，你自己挑一个喜欢的。
乙：禽兽多难听啊。
甲：相声的英文叫Talk Show嘛！勤奋的勤，Talk Show的Show。勤Show，从小就跟国际接轨。
乙：禽兽还不如秦桧呢。
甲：我想想也是，还是叫秦桧吧。秦桧，杰出的青年相声表演艺术家，从此红遍天津“三不管”及周边街区、菜市场和澡堂子一带。
乙：瞧这地方。
甲：可惜呀，解放以后，政府就把我们取缔，不让演了。
乙：对了，汉奸都被镇压了。
甲：什么话！你要再提这茬，我就老太太抹口红——
乙：这话怎么讲？
甲：给你点颜色看看。
乙：咱说相声不带武打的。
甲：不让我演，拉倒！干什么不一样吃饭！于是一咬牙，一跺脚——
乙：怎么样？
甲：我就上大学了。
乙：上大学有这么简单么？
甲：我底子好啊。虽然登台几年，学校的功课也没落下。
乙：哦。那么你在大学学的什么专业？
甲：这可是高科技了，地质。毕业以后，长期在地质队工作，钻穷山沟，受死洋罪了。
乙：等等，听着不像话。你说相声的，怎么跑去研究地质了？
甲：因为地质和相声有密切联系。
乙：地质和相声怎么能扯上关系？
甲：我问你，相声有四门功课，对不对？
乙：对呀，相声有说、学、逗、唱四门功课。
甲：地质属于学。
乙：这我就不懂了。地质怎么是学呢？
甲：你看，野外采集矿石样品，拿小榔头凿矿石，你就当它是敲鼓。一边敲鼓，一边学唱。
乙：噢，你给来来。
甲：（学过门儿，唱）吊炉烧饼扁又圆，那油炸的麻花脆又甜，粳米粥贱卖俩子儿一碗，煎饼大小你老看看，贱卖三天不为把钱赚，所为是传名啊，我的名字叫刘宝全。咚！哗啦！
乙：怎么啦？
甲：石头敲碎啦。
乙：好。这段是相声《八大改行》里边的京韵大鼓。
甲：听这个。再往里边儿再看哪，又一层，大清以上那是大明，大明坐了十六帝，末帝崇祯不太平。三年旱来三年涝，米贵如珠价往上边儿升，有钱的人家卖骡马，没钱的人家卖儿童，男女老少遭了不幸了，嘡嘡次不隆咚仓！哗啦！
乙：怎么啦？
甲：又敲碎一块。
乙：嗬！太糟蹋东西了。不过唱得倒是不错，这段是学《拉洋片》。
甲：还有，再听这个。火红的太阳刚出山，朝霞铺满了半边天，公路上走过来人两个呀，一个老汉一个青年呐，诶~。咚不隆不咚。
乙：好，这段是董湘昆的《送女儿上大学》。京东大鼓你也会。
甲：那是。不光是学唱，我还利用业余时间，自学了古今中外的相声理论。
乙：你等等吧，相声是中国的语言艺术，外国没有。
甲：表演理论都是互通的。我看过亚当•斯密的相声本子《富贵图》。亚老先生那水平真高，就是普通话差点，咱实话实说……
乙：什么呀！别说了。那叫《国富论》，是经济学著作。
甲：对不起，我说错了。我记得是俄国人，对了，叫斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基，写的《论共产党员的修养》。
乙：又错了。那叫《演员的自我修养》。
甲：哪一本书来着？年头太久，记不清了。
乙：你看的哪本书还不知道么？
甲：内容就是，怎么把一个共产党员演得非常像。
乙：共产党员是演的呀？那得处处严格要求自己，提高自己的觉悟。
甲：反正学过以后，优秀共产党员的称号，咱年年能评上。
乙：还是装的。
甲：管它那个！经过长期的野外自学，我的相声表演水平大有长进。后来，托改革开放的福，我的表演才能终于有了用武之地，走出穷山沟，重新登上相声舞台，并且正式拜师。
乙：你的师傅是哪一位？
甲：我师傅的名字不能提。
乙：为什么呢？
甲：因为是徒不言师，说出来太不尊重。
乙：我们说相声的没有这种规矩，你不提出来，别人不知道。
甲：那我说说。我师傅姓赵，道教的居士，道号叫紫阳真人。一位德高望重的老艺术家。人们都说：赵老板好，说的比唱的还好听。
乙：那不是好词儿！
甲：师傅说：你正式从艺，得有个艺名啊。我说：我以前有一个艺名“秦桧”，后来政府不让用了。
乙：你就别提秦桧了！
甲：师傅说：有个说相声的老前辈叫“穷不怕”。
乙：是有这么一位。
甲：咱们演员得紧跟形势，响应号召，带头发家致富。依我看，你就叫“富不怕”吧！我说：这名字好啊，比秦桧可强多了。从此以后，我富不怕在师傅的关怀和指导下，改编和演出了一大批优秀的相声作品。
乙：都有哪些作品？
甲：像传统相声《夸住宅》，我给改了。
乙：你改成？
甲：《夸房市》。房价立刻大涨，房地产商那个乐呀！
乙：那还不乐，房奴就惨了。
甲：《大保镖》，我改了。
乙：改成？
甲：《杀开血路》。《洋药方》，我改成《改革颂》。《天文学》，我改成《仰望星空》。《九艺闹公堂》，我改了，《九长老闹京城》。
乙：这个还结合时事。
甲：《卖布头》，我改成《卖国企》。《卖估衣》，改了，《卖国企》。《卖春联》，改了，《卖国企》。《秦琼卖马》，也改了。
甲、 乙共同：《秦琼卖国企》。
乙：我就知道。咱还会点儿别的么？
甲：还有啊，《报菜名》，那是贯口活，嘡嘡嘡嘡，一气呵成，说好了不容易。
乙：瞧的是真功夫。
甲：我给改了，《蒸蒸脆骨》。
乙：这菜名惨点。
甲：说错了，《粉蒸排骨》？不对！好像是《蒸蒸媚骨》？
乙：也不像话。应该是《铮铮铁骨》。
甲：铁骨？我可得有啊！
乙：对！忘了这茬了。好好的传统段子，你为什么非要改呢？
甲：相声改革不能停，不改没有出路啊。你不光要会正改（政改），还得会歪着改、反着改。不好的段子要改，好的段子你先把它说砸了，也得改。
乙：简直是败家仔儿。
甲：老艺人们给我们留下的传统相声有好几百段，经过我一改，你猜怎么着？
乙：翻了一番？
甲：一段都不剩啦。
乙：对呀，都糟蹋光了。
甲：没了旧相声不要紧，还有新相声呢。
乙：你还会新相声？
甲：对了，新相声我也创作了不少。像歌功颂德的《改革开放就是好》，揭露阴暗面的《制度问题就是糟》，还有批判四人帮，防止文革重演的忆苦思甜相声《你得反思》。
乙：这些名字听着够磕碜的。
甲：从此，在中国相声界，我一炮打响，红了。国内外媒体称赞我是赵派相声的新秀。
乙：怎么出来个赵派相声？
甲：我师傅姓赵啊。
乙：我把这茬给忘了。
甲：我还有一搭档，给我捧哏的。他老站里边，台词很少，除了“嗯”、“啊”、“着”、“是”，就是一句“别挨骂了”，最大的表演特点是严肃，面无表情，能把观众逗乐了。他今天闹嗓子，没带出来。
乙：不怎么样。
甲：现在，我们赵派相声已经传到了第三代。
乙：这么说，你儿子也说相声？
甲：你以为呢？
乙：我记得，……我也以为是说相声的呢。真悬呐！
甲：你知道的事儿太多了。在我的影响和熏陶下，我儿子也走上了艺术道路。他叫云柏，在北京德云社说相声，“云”字科的学员。
乙：以你的年纪，你儿子起码应该弄个“德”字辈啊？
甲：我也这么想，可是人家不让，说我父子俩儿在“德”这方面有些欠缺。
乙：好，人家都看出来了。
甲：现在我也要收徒啦。想跟我学相声吗？
乙：不用，我有师傅。
甲：不拜师也可以，我指点你。我们赵派相声有特点，文哏为主，以说见长。说的天花乱坠，口吐白沫，到最后自己都不知道自己说什么。
乙：抽风啊！实在不怎么样。
甲：学唱方面，我们擅长传统的曲艺形式，学唱歌曲我们不拿手。不过我们说唱团里有唱歌好的，你可能听过。
乙：谁呀？
甲：那位戴宽边的大眼镜，长得跟周立波似的，裤带提到胳肢窝，曾经给美国总统唱《我的太阳》。
乙：知道，太知道了。还会用英语说相声的那位。
甲：对！你要想学，我可以给你引荐。
乙：谢谢，不用。
甲：不学拉倒，我自己的事还忙不过来呢。
乙：你能有什么事？
甲：常言说得好：“不如意事常八九，可与人言无二三”。出名之后，我也有自己的烦恼。
乙：什么烦恼？
甲：知己甚少。你算算吧，茅淤屎，张蚊蝇，还有一个外国人佐利克，就这几个朋友。
乙：太对了！你整天跟它们混一块，臭味儿都把人熏跑了。
甲：你不知道，跟着他们演出，来钱快。
乙：就认钱。
甲：发家致富嘛！
乙：对呀，你的艺名就叫“富不怕”，名副其实。
甲：那天，我师傅叫我了：你来学艺不早咧，钱赚得不少咧，狗仔队都来咬咧，现在大事不好咧。
乙：你师傅说快板呢，怎么说话还赶辙？
甲：师傅说：徒弟，我来问你，你虽然叫“富不怕”，可是你现在这么富，真的不怕么？
乙：你怎么回答的？
甲：我想了想：怕，仇富的太多。师傅说：其实我也怕。
乙：他怕什么呀？
甲：为师我富得就够提心吊胆了，你现在比我还富啊！我说：师傅，您给出个主意吧。师傅掐指一算：一二三四五，金木水火土，你命中缺“德”。
乙：你师傅也瞧出来了。
甲：废话！缺“德”之人，以后演出得多下基层，参加义演，多拉主顾。不要露富，像你现在这身行头就不行，名牌西服太显眼，知道吗？你应该穿旧夹克，再来双旧旅游鞋。
乙：就是今天穿的这身。
甲：我再给你画个符带身上，经常诵念“普世价值”四字箴言，必能逢凶化吉。
乙：你师傅还会画符念咒？
甲：他是道士啊。
乙：对了。
甲：还有，“富不怕”这艺名以后也别叫了，招眼。
乙：那叫什么？
甲：师傅想了一个钟头，没说话。
乙：起个好的艺名真够难的。
甲：师傅睡着了。
乙：我说的呢！
甲：从那以后，我没有艺名了，观众不干呐！
乙：对呀，怎么报幕啊。
甲：有一次下基层演出，张嘴刚说了一句台词“我来晚了”，就有观众叫倒好，把我赶下去了。
乙：就因为没有艺名？
甲：不，那地方刚刚闹灾，死了人。
乙：活该！没揍你算你幸运。谁让你去那里说相声的。
甲：都怪地方上组织得不好，这事儿事先没通知我。
乙：自己出错还怪别人。
甲：正巧，那阵子我接了几个广告，又客串了几部电影。于是热心观众给我起了个代号，“影帝”。
乙：噢，敢情“影帝”的外号就这么来的。这么说你演电影也行？
甲：把“也”字去了。就是行。
乙：嗬！
甲：像感情戏，宫廷戏，武打戏，战争戏，我都拿手。因为我学过《党员的自我修养》。
乙：就别提这本书了。
甲：这不最近嘛，我参演了一部大片，演正派男一号。
乙：还真不简单。
甲：这部电影，集凶杀、悬念、恐怖、搞笑、情色、犯罪推理、帮派争斗于一体，带枪战和武打。高成本，大制作。那车祸，拍得和真的一样。演职员表里，光是名字打黑框的就好几个。
乙：好家伙！
甲：编剧、导演都是从好莱坞请的。
乙：美国好莱坞？
甲：不，一个姓郝的师傅，从莱芜请的。
乙：山东莱芜啊？不一样，差着行势呢。莱芜我知道，那地方出产布鞋，没听说有著名的编剧导演。
甲：对，就是莱芜，我这双旅游鞋就在莱芜定做的。
乙：谁问你啦！
甲：偶尔也得提倡用国货么！
乙：用国货干嘛还偶尔啊？
甲：现在影片已经杀青，马上要公映了。回头我送你票，你看去。
乙：不去。没兴趣。
甲：你要是等不及，美国新瘫人电视台的网站上有剧透，呆会儿下台我给你抄个网址。晚上没人的时候，你上网看看。
乙：看黄色电影啊？怎么非得晚上没人才能看呢？
甲：白天看，容易让人逮着。
乙：还是黄色电影！
甲：怎么你就不明白呢！这么给你解释吧，我最近根据这部电影的剧情，改编了一个化装相声剧，情节上作了简化，所以我一说你就明白了。
乙：那你给说说。
甲：打竹板，响哗楞，（乙插嘴：数来宝。）我是五道杠的三好生。（乙插嘴：装嫩呢。）
五道杠，街上走，看见三道杠的小朋友。
三道杠，学雷锋，帮着军属烈属做卫生。
学雷锋，冒傻气，我看他十有八九在演戏。
你演戏，有野心，抢我的五道杠那是真。
找老师，去汇报，他的劣迹我知道：
逛妓院，骂记者，偷拍老太太上厕所。（乙插嘴：太下三滥了！）
卖毒品，涨物价，李刚是他的干爸爸。（乙插嘴：嚯！）
开赌场，贪公款，聚众冲击中国驻华大使馆。（乙插嘴：这部门哪找去！）
贩军火，炸卫星，还阴谋勾结本拉登。（乙插嘴：行了！够分量了！）
要抓他，很容易，雇佣南京徐老太倒在地。（乙插嘴：杀伤力够猛！）
先抓住，再定罪，搜集罪证我不怕累。（乙插嘴：我听着累了。）
开大会，甭讲理，三道杠给他撸到底。
乙：你损不损啊！
甲：我们这个相声剧，原计划六一儿童节首演。
乙：怎么偏赶在儿童节啊？
甲：拍给小孩看的。
乙：这剧情也就能骗小孩。
甲：后来跳票了。
乙：那叫延期。
甲：都一个意思。因为中间改了几次剧本，有几个临时找的群众小演员说，剧情漏洞太多。
乙：好家伙，连小孩都骗不了，还演个什么劲儿。
甲：你这是不懂艺术，人家懂艺术的都翘首以待呢。前几天，在国家大剧院，我的相声剧终于正式首演了。
乙：是啊。
甲：满座，一万多观众。
乙：有那么多座位吗？
甲：尽是自带板凳的，还有站着听的，蹲着听的，趴着听的，挂墙上听的。
乙：相声《卖挂票》用这了。
甲：连我们相声界的老前辈，乱邦老先生也去了。
乙：谁？
甲：乱邦，长期在青少年中从事相声推广普及工作的老艺术家。（做抓耳挠腮、上蹿下跳的动作）同志们，相声一定要从娃娃抓起。
乙：这是猴啊！
甲：活泼嘛！乱老前辈长期从事青少年工作，所以非常活泼。演出结束，乱老前辈来到后台（上蹿下跳）：您辛苦！恭喜发财。
乙：这问候语老点。怎么让这样的人带小孩呢？
甲：因为《周易》中讲了：“小人勿用，必乱邦也”。就是说，青少年工作非常重要，不要随便用人，只有乱邦同志能担当此任。
乙：这不是胡批嘛！
甲：你说的没错，乱老前辈的本名还真姓胡。
乙：这是哪跟哪啊！
甲：乱老前辈在后台，紧紧握住我的手：你演得真是太好了，真是皮儿薄馅儿大，催人尿下。
乙：什么词儿啊！
甲：为了押韵么！
乙：那叫催人泪下，不是催人尿下。
甲：我们演出把大门都锁了，中间不让上厕所。所以老先生憋不住了。
乙：那还不尿下！怎么连门都锁了？
甲：怕观众跑了不回来。
乙：简直是受罪。
甲：乱老前辈说：敢问阁下是哪位的高足？我说，师傅姓赵，道号紫阳真人是也。学生不才，另有一事相求，不知前辈可愿帮忙？乱老前辈说：哎，你师傅与我是莫逆之交，有事尽管开口。学生尚无艺名，还请前辈给晚生起一个。乱老前辈想了想（继续抓耳挠腮）。
乙：唉，别挠啦！
甲：既然是赵老先生的高足——你的艺名有了！
乙：叫什么？
甲：就叫赵高吧。
乙：还是奸臣啊！
（完）
来源：http://blog.dwnews.com/post-241368.html
2012年9月7日星期五
Life is like riding a bicycle
Albert Einstein riding bicycle in front of Ben Meyer's House; Santa Barbara, California. Feb. 1933.
COURTESY OF THE LEO BAECK INSTITUTE |
“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving.”
On Feb. 5, 1930, Einstein write this in a letter to his son Eduard Einstein: "Beim Menschen ist es wiebeim Velo. Nur wenn er faehrt, kann er bequem die Balance halten." A more literal translation of this German is: "It is the same with people as it is with riding a bike. Only when moving can one comfortably maintain one's balance." At that time Eduard was suffering serious mental illness and almost going to commit suicide. (According to Walter Isaacson's "Einstein: His Life and Universe" ).
This words is both true physically and mentally. Buddha has a similar words recorded in Diamond Sūtra:
“應無所住，行於布施” ---金剛經
2012年9月6日星期四
Hackers embarrass Apple with data leak
Financial Times September 4, 2012 9:50pm
By Tim Bradshaw in San Francisco
Apple faced a major embarrassment on the eve of the launch of its new iPhone when hackers published a trove of sensitive information about 1m Apple devices online.
The hacker group AntiSec, an offshoot of the Anonymous and Lulzsec collectives which last year targeted Sony, News International and others in a high-profile wave of attacks, said it had obtained the database of Apple device-identifiers from an FBI agent’s laptop. The FBI’s long-running international investigation into Anonymous and its associates resulted in several arrests earlier this year.
The bureau said: “The FBI is aware of published reports alleging that an FBI laptop was compromised and private data regarding Apple UDIDs was exposed. At this time, there is no evidence indicating that an FBI laptop was compromised or that the FBI either sought or obtained this data.”
The hackers claim this is just a sample from 12m records, which they say include the full names, street addresses and mobile phone numbers of owners of Apple's iPhones, iPads and iPod touches. Several security researchers verified the published data are genuine, but said they present little risk to the people involved as long as the other details are not released. Apple did not respond to a request for comment.
The leak is ill-timed for Apple ahead of a series of key product launches. On Tuesday Apple announced an event on September 12 in San Francisco, where it is expected to unveil the next version of its iPhone. A new, smaller iPad is also expected to be unveiled soon.
The leaked data centre on Apple’s “unique device identifiers”, which can be used by app developers to send notifications and to track users. Apple is already preparing to phase out UDIDs. Security and privacy campaigners have criticised them over the past year arguing they could be used to hijack associated accounts, such as Facebook or Twitter.
“IPhone and iPad apps gain access to this information so it’s possible it could be coming from an app manufacturer but it would have to be a very popular app,” said Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer at F-Secure, a security firm. “There could be lots of questions about how Apple could do this better but it doesn't look like it was Apple's mistake.”
Aldo Cortesi, a New Zealand-based security consultant who has campaigned against UDID use, said in a blogpost that the leak was a “privacy catastrophe". It was the “worst-case scenario” that could pave the way for further security problems.
In a statement published online, the hackers said they published the information to raise questions about the FBI’s suspected use of device data. These allegations have not been independently verified and may be part of a smear campaign by Anonymous in revenge for the FBI arrests.
Sites including The Next Web are offering tools for concerned Apple customers to check if they are among the victims of the leak.
Peter Kruse, an e-crime specialist with CSIS, a Danish security firm, said he had found three of his own Apple device IDs among the data. “Unfortunately there is every indication that this leak is real,” he wrote in a blogpost on the CSIS site.
Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant at security firm Sophos, said that “so far” the situation was not as serious for Apple as Sony’s breach last year.
“I think this is about hackers embarrassing the FBI rather than hurting individuals,” he said.
原文链接在此
泄露数据在此
The hacker group AntiSec, an offshoot of the Anonymous and Lulzsec collectives which last year targeted Sony, News International and others in a high-profile wave of attacks, said it had obtained the database of Apple device-identifiers from an FBI agent’s laptop. The FBI’s long-running international investigation into Anonymous and its associates resulted in several arrests earlier this year.
The bureau said: “The FBI is aware of published reports alleging that an FBI laptop was compromised and private data regarding Apple UDIDs was exposed. At this time, there is no evidence indicating that an FBI laptop was compromised or that the FBI either sought or obtained this data.”
The hackers claim this is just a sample from 12m records, which they say include the full names, street addresses and mobile phone numbers of owners of Apple's iPhones, iPads and iPod touches. Several security researchers verified the published data are genuine, but said they present little risk to the people involved as long as the other details are not released. Apple did not respond to a request for comment.
The leak is ill-timed for Apple ahead of a series of key product launches. On Tuesday Apple announced an event on September 12 in San Francisco, where it is expected to unveil the next version of its iPhone. A new, smaller iPad is also expected to be unveiled soon.
The leaked data centre on Apple’s “unique device identifiers”, which can be used by app developers to send notifications and to track users. Apple is already preparing to phase out UDIDs. Security and privacy campaigners have criticised them over the past year arguing they could be used to hijack associated accounts, such as Facebook or Twitter.
“IPhone and iPad apps gain access to this information so it’s possible it could be coming from an app manufacturer but it would have to be a very popular app,” said Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer at F-Secure, a security firm. “There could be lots of questions about how Apple could do this better but it doesn't look like it was Apple's mistake.”
Aldo Cortesi, a New Zealand-based security consultant who has campaigned against UDID use, said in a blogpost that the leak was a “privacy catastrophe". It was the “worst-case scenario” that could pave the way for further security problems.
In a statement published online, the hackers said they published the information to raise questions about the FBI’s suspected use of device data. These allegations have not been independently verified and may be part of a smear campaign by Anonymous in revenge for the FBI arrests.
Sites including The Next Web are offering tools for concerned Apple customers to check if they are among the victims of the leak.
Peter Kruse, an e-crime specialist with CSIS, a Danish security firm, said he had found three of his own Apple device IDs among the data. “Unfortunately there is every indication that this leak is real,” he wrote in a blogpost on the CSIS site.
Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant at security firm Sophos, said that “so far” the situation was not as serious for Apple as Sony’s breach last year.
“I think this is about hackers embarrassing the FBI rather than hurting individuals,” he said.
原文链接在此
泄露数据在此
2012年8月18日星期六
“原子杀手”的证词：B29飞行员查尔斯•斯韦尼将军1995美国国会演讲
本文是B29飞行员查尔斯•斯韦尼 将军（1919~2004）1995年5月11日在美国国会发表的听证演讲，目的是为反对斯密森学会（Smithsonian）筹备一题为《艾诺拉·盖(Enola Gay)》的展览（ Enola Gay是1945年执行原子弹轰炸任务的“超级堡垒”轰炸机的名字）。尽管斯密森学会一向威望崇高，但是这个展览却罔顾事实，试图把日本塑造成完全无辜的原子弹受害者，结果激起大批参加过二战的老兵反对，最后被迫取消。中文原载上个世纪某期《世界军事》吕广祥 编译 并非完整翻译，原始英文附后。
我是美国退役空军少将查尔斯.斯文尼。我是唯一一位参加了两次对日本原子轰炸的飞行员。在对广岛的轰炸中，担任驾驶员蒂贝茨上校的右座领航员，在对长崎的轰炸中，任编队指挥员。
作为唯一一个参与两次对日本原子轰炸的飞行员，我将陈述本人亲身经历的往事。我要强调指出，我所陈述的都是无可争辩的事实，而有些人就是无视这些明显的事实，因为这些事实与他们头脑中的偏见不符。
此刻，作为经历了那段历史的人们，我要陈述我的思考、观察和结论。我相信杜鲁门总统作出的对日本使用原子弹的决定不仅符合当时的情况，而且具有压倒其他可能选择的道义上的必要性。象我们这一代绝大多数人一样，我最不希望发生的一件事就是战争。我们作为一个民族不是骑士，我们不渴望那种辉煌。当我国正在大萧条中挣扎时，日本开始了对邻国的征服－－搞什么“大东亚共荣圈”。法西斯总是打着漂亮的旗帜去掩饰最卑鄙的阴谋。
这种“共荣”是通过对中国进行残酷的总体战进行的。日本作为一个国家，认为自己命中注定要统治亚洲，并由此据有亚洲的自然资源和广袤土地。未有丝毫的怜悯和犹豫，日本屠杀无辜的男人、女人和孩子。在惨绝人寰的南京大屠杀中，30万手无寸铁的平民被屠杀。这是犯罪。
这是事实。
日本认为美国是阻止其实现在亚洲的“神授”命运的唯一障碍。于是日本对驻扎于珍珠港的美国海军太平洋舰队进行了精心策划的偷袭。偷袭时间定于一个星期天的早晨，因为此时行动可以最大限度地摧毁舰队实力、消灭人员，给予美国海军以致命的打击。
数千名美国水兵的生命湮灭于仍然沉睡在珍珠港湾底的美海军亚利桑那号军舰里。其中的许多士兵甚至不清楚为什么受到突然袭击。战争就这样强加在美国的头上。
科雷希多的陷落及随后对盟军战俘的屠杀，驱散了对日军兽性的最后一丝怀疑。即使是在战时，日军的残暴也是令人发指的。巴甘省的死亡进军充满恐怖。
日本人认为投降是对自身、对家庭、对祖国、对天皇的污辱。他们对自身和对敌人都不手软。7000名美军和菲律宾战俘惨遭殴打、枪杀、被刺刀捅死，或惨死于疾病和讥饿。
这都是事实。
随着美国在广阔的太平洋向日本缓慢、艰苦、一步一流血地进军，日本显示出自己是冷酷无情、桀骜不逊的杀人机器。无论战事是多么令人绝望，无论机会是多么渺茫，无论结果是多么确定，日本人都战至最后一人。为了取得可能大的光荣，日军全力以赴去杀死尽可能多的美国人。
随着美国在广阔的太平洋向日本缓慢、艰苦、一步一流血地进军，日本显示出自己是冷酷无情、桀骜不逊的杀人机器。无论战事是多么令人绝望，无论机会是多么渺茫，无论结果是多么确定，日本人都战至最后一人。为了取得可能大的光荣，日军全力以赴去杀死尽可能多的美国人。
美军开进的距日本本土越近，日本人的行为就变得越疯狂。
塞班岛：美军阵亡3000人，其中在最后几小时就死了1500人。
硫黄岛：美军阵亡6000人，伤21000人。
冲绳岛：美军阵亡12000人，伤38000人。
这是沉重的事实，凯米卡兹－－即“神风敢死队”，驾驶装载炸弹的飞机撞击美国军舰。
队员认为这是天上人间至高的光荣，是向神之境界的升华。在冲绳海域，神风敢死队的自杀性攻击要了5000名美国海军军人的命。
日本用言语和行动表明，只要第一个美国人蹋上日本本土，他们就处决所有的盟军战俘。日本为大屠杀作准备，强迫盟军战俘为自己挖掘坟墓。即使在投降后，他们仍然处决了一些战俘。
这是事实
《波茨坦公告》要求日本无条件投降。日本人认为这是荒唐可笑而不屑考虑的。我们从截获的密码得知，日本打算拖延时间，争取以可接受的条件经谈判投降。
在8月6日之前的几个月里，美国飞机开始轰炸日本本土。一个个日本城市化为火海，成千上万的日本人死去。但日军发誓决不投降。他们准备牺牲自己的人民，以换取他们所理解的光荣和荣誉－－不管死多少人。
他们拒绝救助平民，尽管我们的飞行员事先已就可能来临的空袭投撒了传单。
在一次为期10天的轰炸行动中，东京、名古屋、神户、大阪的许多地方化为灰烬。
这是事实
即使在用原子弹轰炸了广岛之后，日本军部仍然认为美国只有一枚炸弹，日本可以继续坚持。在 8月6日 之后，他们有3天的时间用于投降，但他们不。只有在长崎受到原子轰炸后，日本天皇才最后宣布投降。即使在这种情况下，军方仍声称他们可以而且应该继续战斗。一个陆军军官团体发起叛乱，试图截获并销毁天皇向日本人宣布投降的诏书。
这是事实
这些事实有助于说明我们所面临的敌人的本质，有助于认清杜鲁门总统在进行各种选择时所要考虑的背景，有助于理解为什么对日本进行原子轰炸是必要的。
像每一个男女军人一样，杜鲁门总统理解这些事实。伤亡不是某种抽象的统计数字，而是惨痛的事实。
－－－原子弹是否结束了战争？
－－－是的。
－－－它们是必须的吗？
－－－对此存在争议。
50年过去了，在某些人看来日本成为受害者，美军成为凶残成性的征服者和报复者；原子弹的使用是核时代的不正义、不道德的起点。自然，为了支撑这种歪曲，他们必然要故意无视事实或者编造新的材料以证明这种论调。其中最令人吃惊的行经之一，就是否认日军曾进行过大屠杀。
事物怎么会弄成这个样子呢？
答案也许会从最近发生的一些事情中找到。
当前关于杜鲁门总统为什么要下达对日本进行原子轰炸的命令的争论，在某些情况下已演变成数字游戏。史密斯策划的“原子轰炸后果”展览，显示了卑劣的论调，这种论调造史学界引起轩然大波。
“原子轰炸后果”展览传递出这样的信息－－日本是受害者，美国是罪恶的侵略者。想象一下如果你的孩子去看展览，他们会留下什么样的印象？他们还会知道事实的真相吗？
在一个全国性的电视辩论中，我听到这样一位所谓的杰出历史学家声称，原子弹是没有必要的，杜鲁门总统是想用原子弹吓唬俄国人，日本本来已经打算投降了。
有些人提出，艾森豪威尔将军曾说过，日本已准备投降，没有必要使用原子弹，然而，基于同样的判断，艾森豪威尔曾严重低估了德国继续战斗的意志，在 1944年就下结论说德国已无力进行攻势作战。这是一个灾难性的错误判断，其结果即是阿登战役的激战。是役，数万盟军毫无必要地牺牲了，并冒着允许德国拖延战争和有条件投降的风险。
一个相当公正的结论是，根据太平洋战争的情况，可以合理地预期日本将是比德国更疯狂的敌人。
最后，有一种理论认为，如果盟军进攻日本本土，我们的伤亡不是100万，而是只要死上46000人就够了。只不过是46000！你能够想象这种论调的冷酷吗？
仅46000人，好象这些是无关紧要的美国人的生命。
在此时此刻，我要承认，我不清楚在对日本本土的部队进攻中美军将会伤亡多少人－－也没有任何人知道。
根据对日本战时行为的判断，我的确认为，一个公正合理的假设是对日本本土的进攻将是漫长而代价高昂的。根据我们所知道的情况，不是根据某些人的臆想，日本不打算无条件投降。
在对硫黄岛－－太平洋中一个8平方英里的岛礁－－的进攻中，6000名海军陆战队官兵牺牲，伤亡总数达27000人。
但对那些认为我们的损失仅是46000人的人，我要问：是哪46000人？谁的父亲？谁的兄弟？谁的丈夫？
是的，我只注意到了美国人的生命。但是，日本的命运掌握造日本人的手中，而美国不是。数以万计的美军部队焦急地在大洋中等待着进攻－－他们的命运取决于日本下一步怎么走。日本可以选择在任何时刻投降，但他们选择了等待。
而就是日本“无所作为”的时候，随着战事的进行，美军每天伤亡900多人。
我曾听到另一种说法，称我们应该与日本谈判，达到一个日本可以接受的有条件投降。
我从来没听任何人提出过与法西斯德国谈判投降。这是一个疯狂的念头，任何有理性的人都不会说出这样的话。与这样一个邪恶的法西斯魔鬼谈判，就是承认其合法性，即使是已经在事实上打败了它。这并不是那个时代空洞的哲学上的原则，而是人类的正义要求，必须彻底、干净地铲除法西斯恶魔的势力，必须粉碎这些邪恶的力量。法西斯的领导者已经无情地打碎了外交的信誉。
为什么太平洋战争的历史这么容易就被遗忘了呢？
也许原因就存在于目前正在进行着的对历史的歪曲，对我们集体记忆的歪曲。
在战败50年后，日本领导人轻率地声称他们是受害者，广岛、长崎与南京大屠杀在实质上是一回事！
整整几代日本人不知道他们的国家在第二次世界大战中都干了些什么。这可以理解为什么他们不理解日本为什么要道歉。
与德国认罪的姿态不同，日本坚持认为它没干任何错事，它的行为是受当时局势的拖累。这种态度粉碎了任何真正弥合创伤的希望。
只有记忆才能带来真正的原谅，而遗忘就可能冒重复历史的危险。
通过精心策划的政治和公关活动，日本现在建议使用“太平洋胜利日”来取代“对日本胜利日”这一术语。他们说，这一术语将会使太平洋战争的结束不那么特别与日本有关。
有些人可能会提出，这些文字能说明什么呢？对日本胜利－－太平洋的胜利－－让我们庆祝一个事件，而不是一个胜利。
我要说，话语就是一切。
庆祝一个事件！类似于庆祝一个商场开业典礼，而不是欢庆战争的胜利。这将分裂整个地球。数以千万计的死者、数以千万计受到身心伤害的人和更多的人将会不知所措。
这种对语言的攻击是颠倒历史、混淆是非的工具。文字或话语可以像任何一种武器一样具有毁灭性：上是下；奴役是自由；侵略是和平。
在某种程度上，通过抹除精确的描述文字而对我们语言所展开的攻击，要比10年前日本对我们进行的真正的侵略更具有危害性，至少在真正的侵略中，敌人是清楚的，威胁是清楚的。
今天日本巧妙地打起种族主义这张牌，以此来宣示其行为的正义性。日本不是进行罪恶的侵略，而只是从白人帝国主义中解放受压迫的亚洲大众。
解放！是的，他们用屠杀“解放”了2000万无辜的亚洲人。我坚信，这2000万无辜的人，他们的家人，他们的后代，永远也不会欣赏日本崇高的行为。
经常有人问我，用原子弹轰炸日本是否是出于报复，是否是蓄意毁灭一个古老而令人尊敬的文明。
对此，有如下事实：其一，在最初的轰炸目标清单上包括京都。虽然京都也是一个合法的目标，在先前的空袭中未曾予以轰炸，国务卿史迪文森把它从目标清单中去掉了，因为京都是日本的古都，也是日本的文化宗教中心。其二，在战时我们受到命令的严格约束，在任何情况下，不得轰炸东京的皇宫－－尽管我们很容易识别皇宫并炸死天皇。毕竟我们不是为了报复。我经常想如果日本有机会轰炸白宫，是否也会像美国这样克制。我认为日本不会。
在此让我澄清一个事实，纠正一个长期以来的偏见，那就是我们故意选择人口密集的城市轰炸。我们要轰炸的每一个目标城市都有重要的军事价值。广岛是日军南方司令部所在地，并集结了实力可观的防御部队。长崎是工业中心，有两个重要的兵工厂。在这两个城市，日本都把兵工厂和部队配置于市区中心。
像在任何一场战争中一样，我们的目标－－理所当然的目标－－是胜利。这是一个不可动摇的目标。
我不想否认双方死了许多人，不仅两国，而且是世界。我不为战争的残酷性而骄傲而欢乐，我不希望我国或敌国的人民受难。每一个生命都是宝贵的。但我的确认为这样一个问题应该去问日本战犯，是他们以日本人民为代价追求自身的辉煌。他们发动了战争，并拒绝停止战争。难道他们不应为所有的苦难、为日本的灾难负最终的责任吗？
也许如果日本人真切地了解过去，认清他们国家在战争中的责任，他们将会看到是日本战犯要负起战争的罪责。日本人民应该给远东人民一个答复，是谁把灾难强加给远东各国，最后强加给日本自己。当然如果我们与日本人一道抹煞历史的真相，那么这一点是永远也做不到的。
如果日本不追询并接受真相，日本怎能安心地与自己相处，与亚洲邻国、与美国相处？
我和我的部属在执行原子轰炸任务时坚信，我们将结束战争。我们并没有感到高兴。而是一种责任感和使命感，而且我们想回到自己的家人身边。
今天，我战在这里作证，并不是庆祝原子弹的使用，而是相反。我希望我的使命是最后一次。我们作为一个民族应该对原子弹的存在感到恐惧。我就感到恐惧。
但这并不意味着回到1945年8月，在战时情况下，在敌人顽固凶残的条件下，杜鲁门总统没有义务使用所有可能的武器结束战争。我同意杜鲁门总统的决定，当时以及现在。
战后几年，有人问杜鲁门总统是否还有其他选择，他响亮地说：没有。接着他提醒提问者：记住，珍珠港的死难者也没有其它选择。
战争总是代价高昂的，正如罗伯特。李将军所说：“战争如此残酷是件好事，否则就会有人喜欢它。”
感谢上帝使我们拥有原子武器，而不是日本和德国。科学有其自身的逻辑，迟早会有人设计出原子弹。科学不能被否定。关于制造原子弹是否明智的问题，终将被原子弹已被制造出来这一事实所压倒。
由于德国和日本法西斯被击败，世界变得更好了。日本和美国的年轻人不再相互杀戮，而是生长、成家立业，在和平中生活。作为10个孩子的父亲和21个孩子的祖父，我可以表明，我很高兴战争这样结束。
我的证词结束。
以下为英文原文节选（全部完整内容在这里）：
[The prepared statement of General Sweeney follows:]
Statement OF Major General Charles W. Sweeney, USAF (Ret.)
I am Maj. Gen. Charles W. Sweeney, United States Air Force,
Retired. I am the only pilot to have flown on both atomic missions. I flew the
instrument plane on the right wing of General Paul Tibbets on the Hiroshima
mission and 3 days later, on August 9, 1945, commanded the second atomic mission
over Nagasaki. Six days after Nagasaki the Japanese military surrendered and
the Second World War came to an end.
The soul of a nation, its essence,
is its history. It is that collective memory which defines what each
generation thinks and believes about itself and its country.
In a free society, such as ours, there is always an ongoing
debate about who we are and what we stand for. This open debate is in fact
essential to our freedom. But to have such a debate we as a society must have
the courage to consider all of the facts available to us. We must have the
courage to stand up and demand that before any conclusions are reached, those
facts which are beyond question are accepted as part of the debate.
As the 50th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
missions approaches, now is an appropriate time to consider the reasons for
Harry Truman's order that these missions be flown. We may disagree on the
conclusion, but let us at least be honest enough to agree on basic facts of the
time, the facts that President Truman had to consider in making a difficult and
momentous decision.
As the only pilot to have flown both missions, and having
commanded the Nagasaki mission, I bring to this debate my own eyewitness
account of the times. I underscore what I believe are irrefutable facts, with
full knowledge that some opinion makers may cavalierly dismiss them because
they are so obvious — because they interfere with their preconceived version of
the truth, and the meaning which they
strive to impose on the missions.
This evening, I want to offer my thoughts, observations, and
conclusions as someone who lived this
history, and who believes that President Truman's decision was not only justified by the
circumstances of his time, but was a moral
imperative that precluded any other option.
Like the overwhelming majority of my generation the last
thing I wanted was a war. We as a nation are not warriors. We are not hell-bent
on glory. There is no warrior class — no Samurai — no master race.
This is true today, and it was true 50 years ago.
While our country was struggling through the great
depression, the Japanese were embarking on the conquest of its neighbors — the
Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. It seems fascism always seeks some
innocuous slogan to cover the most hideous plans.
This Co-Prosperity was achieved by waging total and
merciless war against China and Manchuria. The Japanese, as a nation, saw
itself as destined to rule Asia and thereby possess its natural resources and
open lands. Without the slightest remorse or hesitation, the Japanese Army
slaughtered innocent men, women and children. In the infamous Rape of Nanking
up to 300,000 unarmed civilians were butchered. These were criminal acts.
THESE ARE FACTS.
THESE ARE FACTS.
In order to fulfill its divine destiny in Asia, Japan
determined that the only real impediment to this goal was the United States. It
launched a carefully conceived sneak attack on our Pacific fleet at Pearl
Harbor. Timed for a Sunday morning it was intended to deal a death blow to the
fleet by inflicting the maximum loss of ships and human life.
1,700 sailors are still entombed in the hull of the U.S.S.
Arizona that sits on the bottom of Pearl Harbor. Many if not all, died without
ever knowing why. Thus was the war thrust upon us.
The fall of Corregidor and the resulting treatment of Allied
prisoners of war dispelled any remaining doubt about the inhumaneness of the
Japanese Army, even in the context of war. The Bataan Death March was horror in
its fullest dimension. The Japanese considered surrender to be dishonorable to
oneself, one's family, one's country and one's god. They showed no mercy. Seven
thousand American and Filipino POW's were beaten, shot, bayonetted or left to
die of disease or exhaustion.
THESE ARE FACTS.
As the United States made its slow, arduous, and costly
march across the vast expanse of the Pacific, the Japanese proved to be a ruthless
and intractable killing machine. No matter how futile, no matter how hopeless
the odds, no matter how certain the outcome, the Japanese fought to the death.
And to achieve a greater glory, they strove to kill as many Americans as
possible.
The closer the United States came to the Japanese mainland,
the more fanatical their actions became.
Saipan — 3,100 Americans killed, 1,500 in the first few
hours of the invasion
Iwo Jima — 6,700 Americans killed, 25,000 wounded
Okinawa — 12,500 Americans killed, total casualties,
35,000
These are facts reported by simple white grave markers.
Kamikazes. The literal translation is DIVINE WIND. To
willingly dive a plane loaded with bombs into an American ship was a glorious
transformation to godliness — there was
no higher honor on heaven or earth. The suicidal assaults of the Kamikazes took
5,000 American Navy men to their deaths.
The Japanese vowed that, with the first American to step
foot on the mainland, they would execute every Allied prisoner. In preparation
they forced the POW's to dig their own graves in the event of mass executions.
Even after their surrender, they executed some American POW's.
THESE ARE FACTS.
The Potsdam Declaration had called for unconditional
surrender of the Japanese Armed Forces. The Japanese termed it ridiculous and
not worthy of consideration. We know from our intercepts of their coded
messages, that they wanted to stall for time to force a negotiated surrender on
terms acceptable to them.
For months prior to August 6, American aircraft began
dropping fire bombs upon the Japanese mainland. The wind created by the firestorm
from the bombs incinerated whole cities. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese
died. Still the Japanese military vowed never to surrender. They were prepared
to sacrifice their own people to achieve their visions of glory and honor — no
matter how many more people died.
They refused to evacuate civilians even though our pilots
dropped leaflets warning of the possible bombings. In one 3-day period, 34
square miles of Tokyo, Nagoya, Kobe and Osaka were reduced to rubble.
THESE ARE FACTS.
And even after the bombing of Hiroshima, Tojo, his successor
Suzuki, and the military clique in control believed the United States had but
one bomb, and that Japan could go on. They had 3 days to surrender after August
6, but they did not surrender. The debate in their cabinet at times became
violent.
Only after the Nagasaki drop did the Emperor finally demand
surrender.
And even then, the military argued they could and should
fight on. A group of Army officers staged a coup and tried to seize and destroy
the Emperor's recorded message to his people announcing the surrender.
THESE ARE FACTS.
These facts help illuminate the nature of the enemy we
faced. They help put into context the process by which Truman considered the
options available to him. And they help to add meaning to why the missions were
necessary.
President Truman understood these facts as did every service
man and woman. Casualties were not some abstraction, but a sobering reality.
Did the atomic missions end the war? Yes . . . they . . .
did.
Were they necessary? Well that's where the rub comes.
With the fog of 50 years drifting over the memory of our
country, to some, the Japanese are now the victims. America was the insatiable,
vindictive aggressor seeking revenge and conquest. Our use of these weapons was
the unjustified and immoral starting point for the nuclear age with all of its
horrors. Of course, to support such distortion, one must conveniently ignore
the real facts or fabricate new realities to fit the theories. It is no less
egregious than those who today deny the Holocaust occurred.
How could this have happened?
The answer may lie in examining some recent events.
The current debate about why President Truman ordered these
missions, in some cases, has devolved to a numbers game. The Smithsonian in its
proposed exhibit of the Enola Gay revealed the creeping revisionism which seems
the rage in certain historical circles.
That exhibit wanted to memorialize the fiction that the
Japanese were the victims — we the evil aggressor. Imagine taking your children
and grandchildren to this exhibit.
What message would they have left with?
What truth would they retain?
What would they think their country stood for?
And all of this would have occurred in an American institution
whose very name and charter are supposed to stand for the impartial
preservation of significant American artifacts.
By cancelling the proposed exhibit and simply displaying the
Enola Gay, has truth won out?
Maybe not.
In one nationally televised discussion, I heard a so-called
prominent historian argue that the bombs were not necessary. That President
Truman was intent on intimidating the Russians. That the Japanese were ready to
surrender.
The Japanese were ready to surrender? Based on what?
Some point to statements by General Eisenhower years after
the war that Japan was about to fall. Well, based on that same outlook
Eisenhower seriously underestimated Germany's will to fight on and concluded in
December, 1944 that Germany no longer had the capability to wage offensive war.
That was a tragic miscalculation. The result was the Battle
of the Bulge, which resulted in tens of thousands of needless Allied casualties
and potentially allowed Germany to prolong the war and force negotiations.
Thus the assessment that Japan was vanquished may have the
benefit of hindsight rather than foresight.
It is certainly fair to conclude that the Japanese could
have been reasonably expected to be even more fanatical than the Germans based
on the history of the war in the Pacific.
And, finally, a present-day theory making the rounds
espouses that even if an invasion had taken place, our casualties would not
have been a million, as many believed, but realistically only 46,000 dead.
ONLY 46,000!
Can you imagine the callousness of this line of argument?
ONLY 46,000 — as if this were some insignificant number of American lives.
Perhaps these so-called historians want to sell books.
Perhaps they really believe it. Or perhaps it reflects some
self-loathing occasioned by the fact that we won the war.
Whatever the reason, the argument is flawed. It dissects and
recalculates events ideologically, grasping at selective straws.
Let me admit right here, today, that I don't know how many
more Americans would have died in an invasion— AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE!
What I do know is that based on the Japanese conduct during
the war, it is fair and reasonable to assume that an invasion of the mainland
would have been a prolonged and bloody affair. Based on what we know — not what
someone surmises — the Japanese were not about to unconditionally surrender.
In taking Iwo Jima, a tiny 8 square mile lump of rock in the
ocean, 6,700 marines died — total casualties over 30,000.
But even assuming that those who now KNOW our casualties
would have been ONLY 46.000 I ask
Which 46,000 were to die?
Whose father?
Whose brother?
Whose husband?
And, yes, I am focusing on American lives.
The Japanese had their fate in their own hands, we did not.
Hundreds of thousands of American troops anxiously waited at staging areas in
the Pacific dreading the coming invasion, their fate resting on what the
Japanese would do next. The Japanese could have ended it at any time. They
chose to wait.
And while the Japanese stalled, an average of 900 more
Americans were killed or wounded each day the war continued.
I've heard another line of argument that we should have
accepted a negotiated peace with the Japanese on terms they would have found
acceptable. I have never heard anyone suggest that we should have negotiated a
peace with Nazi Germany. Such an idea is so outrageous, that no rational human
being would utter the words. To negotiate with such evil fascism was to allow
it even in defeat a measure of legitimacy. This is not just some empty philosophical
principal of the time — it was essential that these forces of evil be clearly
and irrevocably defeated — their demise unequivocal. Their leadership had
forfeited any expectation of diplomatic niceties. How is it, then, that the history
of the war in the Pacific can be so soon forgotten?
The reason may lie in the advancing erosion of our history,
of our collective memory.
Fifty years after their defeat, Japanese officials have the
temerity to claim they were the victims. That Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the
equivalent of the Holocaust.
And, believe it or not, there are actually some American
academics who support this analogy, thus aiding and giving comfort to a 50-year
attempt by the Japanese to rewrite their own history, and ours in the process.
There is an entire generation of Japanese who do not know
the full extent of their country's conduct during World war II.
This explains why they do not comprehend why they must
apologize —
•
for the Korean comfort women,
•
for the Medical experimentation on POW's which match the horror of those conducted by the Nazi's,
•
for the plans to use biological weapons against the United States by infecting civilian populations on the West
Coast,
•
for the methodical slaughter of civilians,
•
and for much more.
In a perverse inversion, by
forgetting our own history, we contribute to the Japanese amnesia, to the detriment
of both our nations.
Unlike the Germans who acknowledged their guilt, the
Japanese persist in the fiction that they did nothing wrong, that they were
trapped by circumstances. This only
forecloses any genuine prospect that the deep wounds suffered by both nations
can be closed and healed.
One can only forgive by remembering.
And to forget, is to risk repeating history.
The Japanese in a well orchestrated political and public
relations campaign have now proposed that the use of the term "V-J
Day" be replaced by the more benign "Victory in the Pacific
Day". How convenient.
This they claim will make the commemoration of the end of
the war in the Pacific less "Japan specific."
An op-ed piece written by Dorothy Rabinowitz appearing in
the April 5 Wall Street Journal accurately sums up this outrage:
The reason it appears, is that some Japanese find the
reference disturbing — and one can see why. The term, especially the
"J" part, does serve to remind the world of the identity of the
nation whose defeat millions celebrated in August 1945. In further deference to
Japanese sensitivities, a U.S. official (who wisely chose to remain
unidentified) also announced, with reference to the planned ceremonies. that "our whole effort in this thing is to commemorate
an event, not celebrate a victory."
Some might argue so what's in a word — Victory over Japan,
Victory in the Pacific — Let's celebrate an event, not a victory.
I say everything is in a word. Celebrate an EVENT!
Kind of like celebrating the opening of a shopping mall
rather than the end of a war that engulfed the entire Earth — which left
countless millions dead and countless millions more physically or mentally
wounded and countless more millions displaced.
This assault on the use of language
is Orwellian and is the tool by which history and memory are blurred. Words can
be just as destructive as any weapon.
Up is Down.
Up is Down.
Slavery is Freedom.
Aggression is Peace.
In some ways this assault on our
language and history by the elimination of accurate and descriptive words is
far more insidious than the actual aggression carried out by the Japanese 50
years ago. At least then the threat was clear, the enemy well defined.
Today the Japanese justify their conduct by artfully playing
the race card. They were not engaged in a criminal enterprise of aggression.
No, Japan was simply liberating the oppressed masses of Asia from WHITE
Imperialism.
Liberation!!! Yes, they liberated over 20 million innocent
Asians by killing them. I'm sure those 20 million, their families and the
generations never to be, appreciate the noble effort of the Japanese.
I am often asked was the bomb dropped for vengeance, as was
suggested by one draft of the Smithsonian exhibit. That we sought to destroy an
ancient and honorable culture.
Here are some more inconvenient facts.
One, on the original target list for the atomic missions
Kyoto was included. Although this would
have been a legitimate target, one that had not been bombed previously.
Secretary of State Henry Stimson removed it from the list because it was the
ancient capital of Japan and was also the religious center of Japanese culture.
Two, we were under strict orders during the war that under
no circumstances were we to ever bomb the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, even though
we could have easily leveled it and possibly killed the Emperor. So much for
vengeance.
I often wonder if Japan would have shown such restraint if
they had the opportunity to bomb the White House. I think not.
At this point let me dispel one of many longstanding myths
that our targets were intended to be civilian populations. Each target for the
missions had significant military importance — Hiroshima was the headquarters
for the southern command responsible for the defense of Honshu in the event of
an invasion and it garrisoned seasoned troops who would mount the initial
defense.
Nagasaki was an industrial center with the two large
Mitsubishi armaments factories. In both Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese had
integrated these industries and troops right in the heart of each city.
As in any war our goal was, as it should be, to win. The
stakes were too high to equivocate.
I am often asked if I ever think of the Japanese who died at
Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I do not revel in the idea that so many on both sides died,
not only at those two places but around the world in that horrible conflict. I
take no pride or pleasure in the brutality of war whether suffered by my people
or those of another nation. Every life is precious.
But it does seem to me such a question is more appropriately
directed to the Japanese war lords who so willingly offered up their people to
achieve their visions of greatness. They who started
the war and then stubbornly refused to stop it must be called to account. Don't
they have the ultimate responsibility for all the deaths of their countrymen?
Perhaps if the Japanese came to grips with their past and
their true part in the war they would hold those Japanese military leaders
accountable. The Japanese people deserve an answer from those that brought such
misery to the nations of the Far East and ultimately to their own people. Of
course this can never happen if we collaborate with the Japanese in wiping away
the truth.
How can Japan ever reconcile with itself and the United
States if they do not demand and accept the truth?
My crew and I flew these missions with the belief that they
would bring the war to an end. There was no sense of joy. There was a sense of
duty and commitment that we wanted to get back to our families and loved ones.
Today millions of people in America and in southeast Asia
are alive because the war ended when it did.
I do not stand here celebrating the use of nuclear weapons.
Quite the contrary.
I hope that my mission is the last such mission ever flown.
We as a nation can abhor the existence of nuclear weapons.
I certainly do.
But that does not then mean that, back in August of 1945,
given the events of the war and the recalcitrance of our enemy. President
Truman was not obliged to use all the weapons at his disposal to end the war.
I agreed with Harry Truman then, and I still do today.
Years after the war Truman was asked if he had any second
thoughts. He said emphatically, "No." He then asked the questioner to
remember the men who died at Pearl Harbor who did not have the benefit of
second thoughts.
In war the stakes are high. As Robert E. Lee said, "it
is good that war is so horrible, or we might grow to like it."
I thank God that it was we who had this weapon and not the
Japanese or the Germans. The science was there. Eventually someone would have
developed this weapon. Science can never be denied. It finds a way to
self-fulfillment.
The question of whether it was wise to develop such a weapon
would have eventually been overcome by the fact that it could be done. The
Soviets would have certainly proceeded to develop their own bomb. Let us not
forget that Joseph Stalin was no less evil than Tojo or his former ally Adolf
Hitler. At last count, Stalin committed genocide on at least 20 million of his
own citizens.
The world is a better place because German and Japanese
fascism failed to conquer the world.
Japan and Germany are better places because we were
benevolent in our victory.
The youth of Japan and the United States, spared from
further needless slaughter, went on to live and have families and grow old.
As the father of ten children and the grandfather of 21, I
can state that I am certainly grateful that the war ended when it did.
I do not speak for all veterans of that war. But I believe
that my sense of pride in having served my country in that great conflict is
shared by all veterans. This is why the truth about that war must be preserved.
We veterans are not shrinking violets. Our sensibilities will not be shattered
in intelligent and controversial debate. We can handle ourselves.
But we will not, we cannot allow armchair second guessers to
frame the debate by hiding facts from the American public and the world.
I have great faith in the good sense and fairness of the
American people to consider all of the facts and make an informed judgment
about the war's end.
This is an important debate. The soul of our nation, its
essence, its history, is at stake.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, General. Colonel Cooper?
2012年8月13日星期一
王母桃花千遍紅 彭祖巫咸幾回死
浩歌
李賀 （790～816）
南風吹山作平地，帝遣天吳移海水。
王母桃花千遍紅，彭祖巫咸幾回死。
青毛驄馬參差錢，嬌春楊柳含細煙。
箏人勸我金屈卮，神血未凝身問誰。
不需浪飲丁都護，世上英雄本無主。
買絲繡作平原君，有酒惟澆趙州土。
漏催水咽玉蟾蜍，衛娘髮薄不勝梳。
羞見秋眉換新綠，二十男兒那刺促。
商业严重污染奥运
信报财经新闻 By 占飞 2012-07-23
奥运，愈来愈令人失望，到今届，那即将铺天盖地的报道或直播，占飞简直连看也不想看。不是不喜欢体育运动，刚刚相反，占飞是狂热的马迷、球迷、体育运动迷，连马术这样闷蛋的运动也爱看；可是，真的愈来愈顶不顺奥运！
1896年举办的第一届现代奥运，是带有理想主义色彩的国际运动会：发扬体育运动，标榜体育精神「参与第一，胜利第二」。第一届奥运的冠军运动员没有金牌，更没有众多强国争夺最多金牌。1900年的奥运还首次有女子运动员参赛，支持男女平等。早期的奥运，还像古希腊奥运般有诗歌比赛，「文武兼修」，可见其理想主义。那像今天，美国梦幻篮球队打奥运，根本不是比赛，而是表演做「骚」吸引眼球。
当初，为了保持运动的纯洁，以及维持业余比赛的性质，奥委会拒绝任何商业赞助。1972年开禁，接受电视转播及广告后，奥运愈来愈变成大生意。1996年阿特兰大奥运是奥运商业化的滥觞，自此奥运「钱途无可限量」。主办城市或国家欠下巨债，奥委会却猪笼入水，届届都盘满钵满。
奇货可居
今届，全球电视转播权更是奇货可居，是高达300多亿港元的大生意。为了商业利益，香港奥运的独家转播权闹出个大头佛，商业机构不顾公众利益、政府无心及无力监管，丑态百出！还有奥运赞助权，单单十一个主要赞助商，便给奥委会进账了逾74亿港元。为了保护其商业利益，这些赞助商少不免要搞垄断，今届奥运所有运动场馆便只能用某一信用卡付费。连奥委会也同流合污，使用五环标志，甚至奥运这个字眼，没奥委会批准，也随时出事。至于运动员，由于大多已职业化，参加奥运也不再是纯粹为了比赛那么简单，赢到奖牌，便可成为名牌的代言人及得到商品赞助，全皆发财途径。
奥运受商业污染，当初发扬体育的理想已靠边站。当然，类似「友谊第一，比赛第二」的空话，还是挂在口边，实际上，奥运已成借体育运动搵大钱的「骚」！
年前爆出贪污贿赂丑闻，一点也不令人惊奇。哪里有巨额金钱交易，哪里便有贪腐矣！
商业之外，便是政治。1936年柏林开奥运政治化的先河，运动成为强国角力的场所。冷战时期，美苏在奥运较劲。今天看来，实在无聊：哪个国家金牌拿得多，就代表哪个国家的政治制度较好了吗？然而，今时今日，观众关注奥运、激情地观看直播，真正欣赏体育运动的只是少数，出于爱国主义情绪、想看到自己国家的运动员夺奖牌而自豪的还是占大多数。
威逼利诱
为了穿金戴银，国家出尽各种手段，威逼利诱运动员做争取荣耀的工具，身心备受折磨。服用禁药只是其中之一。大家看前「体操女王」歌曼妮芝的故事，便知道不少金牌背后，有说不尽的不人道虐待。
不少国家为多拿奖牌，更想方设法吸引其他国家的优秀运动员入籍，取代土生土长的次一级运动员。在英国，这些运动员被谑称为「胶英」（plastic Brits），Yamile Aldama 便是个好例子。她曾为出生国古巴、入籍国苏丹及居住国大不列颠出赛并都取得奖牌！
虽然备受批评，奥运还是不肯放弃以国家为单位，还是要在运动员取胜领奖牌时高奏国歌，鼓吹爱国主义。无他，若不如此，奥运哪会有这么多观众收看？没这么多观众收看，奥委会又怎能发大财？
撰文：占飞jimfly@hkej.com
奥运，愈来愈令人失望，到今届，那即将铺天盖地的报道或直播，占飞简直连看也不想看。不是不喜欢体育运动，刚刚相反，占飞是狂热的马迷、球迷、体育运动迷，连马术这样闷蛋的运动也爱看；可是，真的愈来愈顶不顺奥运！
1896年举办的第一届现代奥运，是带有理想主义色彩的国际运动会：发扬体育运动，标榜体育精神「参与第一，胜利第二」。第一届奥运的冠军运动员没有金牌，更没有众多强国争夺最多金牌。1900年的奥运还首次有女子运动员参赛，支持男女平等。早期的奥运，还像古希腊奥运般有诗歌比赛，「文武兼修」，可见其理想主义。那像今天，美国梦幻篮球队打奥运，根本不是比赛，而是表演做「骚」吸引眼球。
当初，为了保持运动的纯洁，以及维持业余比赛的性质，奥委会拒绝任何商业赞助。1972年开禁，接受电视转播及广告后，奥运愈来愈变成大生意。1996年阿特兰大奥运是奥运商业化的滥觞，自此奥运「钱途无可限量」。主办城市或国家欠下巨债，奥委会却猪笼入水，届届都盘满钵满。
奇货可居
今届，全球电视转播权更是奇货可居，是高达300多亿港元的大生意。为了商业利益，香港奥运的独家转播权闹出个大头佛，商业机构不顾公众利益、政府无心及无力监管，丑态百出！还有奥运赞助权，单单十一个主要赞助商，便给奥委会进账了逾74亿港元。为了保护其商业利益，这些赞助商少不免要搞垄断，今届奥运所有运动场馆便只能用某一信用卡付费。连奥委会也同流合污，使用五环标志，甚至奥运这个字眼，没奥委会批准，也随时出事。至于运动员，由于大多已职业化，参加奥运也不再是纯粹为了比赛那么简单，赢到奖牌，便可成为名牌的代言人及得到商品赞助，全皆发财途径。
奥运受商业污染，当初发扬体育的理想已靠边站。当然，类似「友谊第一，比赛第二」的空话，还是挂在口边，实际上，奥运已成借体育运动搵大钱的「骚」！
年前爆出贪污贿赂丑闻，一点也不令人惊奇。哪里有巨额金钱交易，哪里便有贪腐矣！
商业之外，便是政治。1936年柏林开奥运政治化的先河，运动成为强国角力的场所。冷战时期，美苏在奥运较劲。今天看来，实在无聊：哪个国家金牌拿得多，就代表哪个国家的政治制度较好了吗？然而，今时今日，观众关注奥运、激情地观看直播，真正欣赏体育运动的只是少数，出于爱国主义情绪、想看到自己国家的运动员夺奖牌而自豪的还是占大多数。
威逼利诱
为了穿金戴银，国家出尽各种手段，威逼利诱运动员做争取荣耀的工具，身心备受折磨。服用禁药只是其中之一。大家看前「体操女王」歌曼妮芝的故事，便知道不少金牌背后，有说不尽的不人道虐待。
不少国家为多拿奖牌，更想方设法吸引其他国家的优秀运动员入籍，取代土生土长的次一级运动员。在英国，这些运动员被谑称为「胶英」（plastic Brits），Yamile Aldama 便是个好例子。她曾为出生国古巴、入籍国苏丹及居住国大不列颠出赛并都取得奖牌！
虽然备受批评，奥运还是不肯放弃以国家为单位，还是要在运动员取胜领奖牌时高奏国歌，鼓吹爱国主义。无他，若不如此，奥运哪会有这么多观众收看？没这么多观众收看，奥委会又怎能发大财？
撰文：占飞jimfly@hkej.com
2012年8月4日星期六
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信：有关叶诗文的新闻报道
英文原信附后，更多内容见来源链接：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2012.11109
致《自然》杂志总编的信：有关叶诗文的新闻报道
斐尔,
你可能因Ewen Callaway对叶诗文的报道而被email狂炸，过去二十小时，给你email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
如果你奇怪《自然》非本质部分一篇报道 (原点击此处看原文报道) 为何带来这么大的反应，你应该高兴中文读者比世界其他读者更看重你们的新闻报道，与科学相关的（即使关系很小）也可能重于《纽约时报》，中文媒体报道用你们的新闻也远多于一般西方媒体用你们的新闻。
Callaway报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见：1)最初的副标题暗示叶可能舞弊; 2)Callaway用了两件事实说明叶惊人地异常，而两件都错了; 3)Callaway没咨询意见不同的专家，导致报道不平衡，低于公平报道的最低标准。所以，Callaway至少不负责任，可能太快就暗示中国运动员容易舞弊。他肯定没有达到新闻报道的通常标准。
我很高兴看到在我草拟此信的过程中，《自然》可能意识到原副标题的偏见，将之由“成绩追踪记录有助于抓体育舞弊者”更正为“成绩追踪记录有助于驱散疑问”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
Callaway报道用的两个“事实”让叶诗文看起来比真实的要更“异常”：说她比自己在2012年7月的记录要快7秒，说她在最后五十米比男子冠军Ryan Lochte还要快，而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
第一个“事实”错了，第二个误导。1)叶比自己只快5秒，而此前她的记录创于2011年、不是2012年，这位16岁运动员用了一年而不是少于4周刷新自己。2)叶只在混合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快，而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二快的记录，叶在400米丝毫不能接近他（慢了二十多秒)。叶只是自由泳最强，而在前300米落后于好些女选手。虽然Lochte在400米很快，他在最后50米的自由泳慢于五、六位男选手。叶最后五十米自由泳也慢于那些男子。所以，叶只在她自己的强项而他的弱项快于Lochte。如果Callaway多做的功课，他就难以用这些“事实”来使“问题”醒目。如果Callaway多查询，他就能发现其他游泳运动员也曾在十几岁发育阶段显著提高记录。这些事实更正后，Callaway的报道就没基础。
还有好些事实，可以让一般读者更理解叶诗文的成绩，我不在此赘述。可以参见《附件1》，wikipedia对叶的成绩有一个相当快而公平的描述。署名的《自然》报道应该优于Wikipedia。Callaway报道与Wikipedia条目的差别也显示该记者未采访已经公开提出不同意见的专家。
你应该收到了王立铭博士的一封email。他在发表多篇《自然》和《自然神经科学》的第一作者论文后，获加州理工学院的博士，并因此得到有声誉的奖学金到伯克利加州大学做独立的博士后。万一他给你的email埋在你收到的成百上千邮件中，我将其拷贝为《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
Callaway在线报道下面有很多跟帖讨论。有些学生以为有些很有道理（且有实质内容）的讨论被删了，他们寄给了我。我选Lai Jiang的一份为《附件3》，Zhenxi Zhang的为《附件4》。你们可以看到学生和一些更有经历的《自然》读者不高兴是有依据的，而这些为Callaway忽略。
英国人常忘记、而现代华人不易忘记，世界上很多人以为鸦片战争是中国人卖鸦片给英国人。我自己6月份（这确是2012年）又经历一次，我和一位老朋友（麻省理工学院教授）在香港开会时，发现她竟然也是这么认为。
英国人的国际形象好，部分原因是你们的科学和科学家：当全世界中学生都要从教科书学牛顿和达尔文时，英国赢得了世界的尊重。《自然》应该以这些伟大（且客观）的科学家建立的传统和声誉为自豪。他们其中有些曾在《自然》发表过论文，才有《自然》的今天。你们如果采取措施修复你们的新闻记者造成的损害，可以加强你们的声誉。
英国人从来没因鸦片战争对我们道歉，即使在1997年离开香港时也未显示丝毫悔意。而香港是英国在鸦片战争后强迫我们割让的土地。所以，记忆是犹新的，而不仅是1840年代的残余。如果《自然》拒绝承认此报道不公平，可能很难“驱散”英国至上的“疑问”（借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇）。
中国人受形象不佳的牵累。我们也知道我们还有很多感到羞耻的未解决的问题，包括舞弊。越来越多的中国人能接受合理与平衡的批评，我们在伦敦奥运会为我们羽毛球的问题公开道歉就是证据。但我们对缺依据、有偏见的批评还很敏感。叶诗文不过是个16岁的年轻人，本该为自己职业生涯的成就而满心欢喜。当已知她通过了奥运会赛前、赛中多次测试，而毫无证据指责她的时候，还有很多媒体，特别是《自然》这样的刊物，渲染负面舆论多于正面，当然令人深感不平。
我希望你们能澄清记录，发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
毅
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
原文（2012年8月4日1:57am发送）
Dear Phil,
You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20 hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed you.
If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature has brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Naturereport more seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway did not check with experts whose opinions did not support the doping explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible, and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news reporting.
I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50 meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same event for men, with the second fastest record.
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16 year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400 meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters, for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the Callaway report.
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had publicly voiced different opinions.
You should have received an email from Dr. Liming Wang, who obtained a PhD from Caltech after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent postdoc at Berkeley. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the Chinese sold opium to the British. I personally experienced this in June (2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world. Natureshould be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and objective) scientists, some of whom have published inNature to make Nature what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts” about British supremacy.
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases. Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her, it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like Nature.
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance the Callaway report.
Yi
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
Beijing, China
Nature编辑的回应是：
Nature编辑的回应是：
EDITOR’S NOTE
The comments below are a sample of the outrage with which this news story was greeted. We are sorry that it has offended so many readers, but we stand by the piece. We strongly reject suggestions that it was motivated by bias or racism; our intention was to investigate the science behind a controversy arising from the current Olympic Games. The first paragraph states that Ye has never had a positive drug test and notes that much of the discussion of her win “has been tinged with racial and political undertones”.
The article is a fair-minded look at a controversy that we did not initiate. It asks whether new developments in performance monitoring could dispel the unfortunate suspicions that the most extraordinary athletic performance raises these days, whatever the nationality of the athlete.
We are no longer accepting comments on this news story, and because of the volume of comments, some early posts have disappeared. We intentionally deleted only those posts that violated our Community Guidelines.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)