德国明镜周刊（ Der Spiegel ）报道说尽管 USA 施压欧盟一起经济制裁俄罗斯，自己与俄罗斯的经济贸易在去年却增加了 6% ，与之相对的是欧盟与俄罗斯的经济贸易则下降了近 10% 。甚至位列于被制裁名单上的俄罗斯国有企业集团 Rostec 下属的直升机制造企业最近还和贝尔公司签订了合约。而波音公司依然在俄罗斯首都运营拥有 1200 名雇员的开发中心。明镜周刊不无醋意地说反观德国，西门子本来获得俄罗斯订单的高铁项目却因为乌克兰危机打了水漂。 明镜周刊相关报道新闻链接见： Trotz Sanktionen: Handel zwischen USA und Russland floriert 从这则新闻来看，德国肯定不会再听 USA 政府的忽悠了，在外交和国家经贸上应该会越来越选择一条实质独立于 USA 政府官方意见的路线。此前虽然德国总理默克尔因USA政府施压没有参加莫斯科5月9日的二战纪念活动，却在之后第二天立即赶忙前往莫斯科会面普金，已经释放出来明显的政治信号。可以预见欧盟其他国家即便一时混沌不觉，渐渐也会清醒地认识到 USA 根本不是一个值得信赖的大哥，而是寡廉少耻的大流氓，我们将在不久的将来看到一个更加独立于 USA 政治路线的欧盟。欧洲多国基于自身利益的考量响应中国号召加入 亚洲基础建设投资银行（AIIB） 就是这样一个国际大势的例证。 一心想维持国际霸权地位，自以为精明只把队友当棋子的 USA ，会逐渐意识到自己在国际上会越发被孤立。 丹麦驻华使馆在声明加入中国主导的 AIIB 时发表在新浪微博上的漫画
今天我在英国卫报的网站上看到他们刊发的就澳大利亚前总理 Malcolm Fraser 在国际形势和澳大利亚外交事务的访谈改编的一篇文章： Could Australia stay independent if the US went to war in the Pacific? 在我看来，这是一位坚持原则的值得尊敬的政治家的话语，在英语环境里真是不多见。中国人也应该多倾听这样的声音，这样就会有更多国人了解到我们在国际上并不是立场不合情理而被孤立的，而是因为 USA 的霸权让不支持他们的国家不敢不遵从。认识到这一点将有利于我们团结起来建设我们自己的国家，改变我们巨大的贫富差距的现状，让每一个中国人，不论男女，不论家庭背景，都有机会通过自己的努力既能达成自己的梦想，又能为中国和世界的正面发展做出更多的、积极的贡献。 Malcolm Fraser 1930 年出生， 1975 年当选澳大利亚总理，后执政 8 年。更多关于他个人的生平，可见： https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Fraser 或许是因为人已经到老年，早已经退出政治舞台，不再背负任何（明显的）政治和选举的压力，他才能这样畅谈个人对国际政治的理解，对澳大利亚外交政策的未来走向提出个人看法吧。而且，他也明显比年轻的、并坦诚不了解东亚历史的奥巴马有更强的历史感，对亚洲的客观历史也有更多的尊重，所以才能说出“ The East China Sea islands had been Chinese, but were seized by Japan in the 1895 war. After the second world war, the islands were administered by the US, until their return to Japan around 1971. ”这样的话来，承认钓鱼岛是中国的。不仅如此，他也公正地提到了西方列强和日本在中国羸弱的历史时期犯下的原罪：“ The point to recall however, is that the seizure of those islands was one of the indignities inflicted on China during a period of maximum weakness. The unequal treaties imposed by European powers, by Japan and by the US, before and around the time of the Boxer Rebellion will, in the Chinese view, all be redressed. ” 对于 USA 提出的中国危险论， Malcolm Fraser 也直指这是一个荒唐的观点：“ I have been told by Americans that China is a threat to freedom of the seas in the East and South China Seas. It is an absurd claim. Two-thirds of their own trade goes through those seas, it’s a two way business, and a two way benefit to China and the US, and the countries in between. Nobody would want to upset that trade. ” 在东南亚地区政治稳定的议题上，他也认为 USA 是影响东盟和中国关系正常发展的负面因素：“ Asean counties have demonstrated that if left to themselves, they can form a useful and effective association. They have overcome past enmities and now Asean contributes greatly to stability in the region. Although it may be difficult to achieve, Asean is also negotiating with China for a code of conduct within the South China Sea. The US has had no part in this and US interference now would make agreement harder to achieve. ” Malcolm Fraser 也 直言在东海和南海问题上的真正有挑衅行为的是 USA 而不是中国：“ The US would not regard USS Washington patrolling the East and South China Seas, stationed in a Japanese harbour, as being provocative, even if it sailed within sight of the Chinese mainland. Imagine the American reaction if the Chinese had a carrier and copied that action off the East Coast of the US. It would be regarded as a great provocation. ” 在谁才是危险的问题上，他甚至提出了一个英语环境中一个极其鲜见的观点：“ The evidence available suggests that the US wishes to remain supreme, number one, unchallenged, through this century. Sometimes, great powers during a period of relative decline, can be more dangerous than rising powers. ” 最后，在澳大利亚和 USA的两国关系上 Malcolm Fraser 反对无条件地追随 USA ，认为追求外交政策的独立性才是澳大利亚的最佳选项：“ ...any government that knowingly goes so far as to allow the US the effective power to take Australia to war is abdicating our sovereignty and that is a step much too far. .. An independent Australia would be better respected throughout East and South East Asia. ”
Roger Cohen Damon Winter/The New York Times Roger Cohen joined The New York Times in 1990. He was a foreign correspondent for more than a decade before becoming acting foreign editor on Sept. 11, 2001, and foreign editor six months later. Since 2004, he has written a column for the International New York Times, until 2014 known as the International Herald Tribune, first for the news pages and then, from 2007, for the Op-Ed page. In 2009 he was named a columnist of The New York Times. Mr. Cohen has written “Hearts Grown Brutal: Sagas of Sarajevo” (Random House, 1998), an account of the wars of Yugoslavia’s destruction, and “Soldiers and Slaves: American POWs Trapped by the Nazis’ Final Gamble” (Alfred A. Knopf, 2005). He has also co-written a biography of General Norman Schwarzkopf, “In the Eye of the Storm” (Farrar Straus Giroux, 1991). His family memoir, “The Girl from Human Street: Ghosts of Memory in a Jewish Family,” (Alfred A. Knopf) will be published in January, 2015. 中国把美国的“门罗主义”用到亚洲 越南胡志明市——在他的经典作品《大国政治的悲剧》(The Tragedy of Great Power Politics)最新版中，芝加哥大学的约翰·米尔斯海默(John Mearsheimer)就中国崛起后亚洲出现战事的必然性做出了有力论述： “简而言之，我的看法是如果中国在经济上继续增长下去，它会希望像美国统治西半球那样统治亚洲。而美国会百般阻挠中国实现这种区域霸权。北京的多数邻国，包括印度、日本、新加坡、韩国、俄罗斯和越南，都会和美国联手来遏制中国的势力。这样一来就会有一场激烈的安全竞赛，战争的可能性相当大。” 这是21世纪的核心战略问题。在历史中，我们很少看到权力从一个霸主转向另一个霸主的过程是和平的。中国需要资源。无论是远是近，它都会去寻觅——过程中都会发现美国在碍事。战火的燃起显然是有可能的，问题在于能否通过结盟来巧妙应对，或是在共同毁灭原则的魔影笼罩下防微杜渐，这和苏联的情况是一样的，只不过现在不存在意识形态冲突。 冲突的萌芽显而易见。奥巴马总统在近日访问亚洲时明确表示，日本和中国在尖阁诸岛（北京称钓鱼岛）问题上的对峙，也许会把美国卷进去。他宣称中国东海中由日本管辖的礁石“处在《美日安保条约》(U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security)第5条的规定范围内”，从而激怒了声称对那些岛屿拥有主权的中国。中国向华盛顿传达的讯息，实质上就是在说，少管闲事，冷战已经过去。 越南和中国的海洋冲突近日也出现激化，起因是中国决定在中国南海建一座石油钻井平台。那是一片河内政府宣称拥有主权的海域，可能蕴藏了大量石油和天然气，护送平台的中国船只撞击了前来阻止的越南船只，并发射了水炮。 对于越南这个曾经的敌人、现在的“转向亚洲”合作伙伴，美国给予了坚决的支持：“中国决定在多艘政府船只的护送下首次前往与越南的争端水域架设钻井平台，此举是具有挑衅性的，会加剧紧张气氛，”美国国务院女发言人珍·普萨基(Jen Psaki)在一份声明中说。“此次单边行动似乎符合中国在更大范围内的一种行为规律，它在以破坏该地区和平与稳定的方式，推进其在争端区域的领土主张。” 中国正在维护自己在中国南海的主权，从而激怒了菲律宾和越南。看起来它用行动证明了米尔斯海默的正确，他在书中写到，一个更强大的中国“可能会试图把美国挤出亚太地区，就像美国在十九世纪把欧洲大国挤出西半球那样。我们应该会看到，中国将炮制自己的门罗主义”——也就是19世纪美国向欧洲发出的“别碰这个半球”的告诫。 越南显然在加强与美国的关系，以此来防范中国。去年宣布的“全面伙伴关系”表明两国的战争创伤愈合得有多充分。合作覆盖到了贸易、投资、教育（在美留学生中，越南人的数量排在第八位）和防务等领域。为此提出的贸易协议名叫“跨太平洋战略经济伙伴关系协议”(Trans-Pacific Partnership)，越南是其中一个参与者（但中国不是），它正在把投向中国的制造业投资吸引过来。较低的工资也是一个诱惑。近日美国还和越南海军举行了联合演习。 在越南的眼中，实际上一切问题都是和对中关系有关的。同为一党执政的共产主义兄弟情，不足以消除成为附庸的风险。在东南亚的这个角落，法国和美国是后来者。越南的立国故事，就是一部千百年来摆脱中国统治的斗争史。因此，越南想把美国当成它的离岸制衡者。 随着中国的崛起，其他一些亚洲小国也会效法。这些同盟关系，只要是稳固的，就可以对战争构成有力威慑。在冷战僵持中不曾有过的经济相互依赖，也能防止冲突。竞争性的合作是一个可能的局面。中国看起来一心想要和平发展，至少目前是如此；“和谐”是其国家语汇的核心。但同时，邓小平又有过“韬光养晦”的教诲。 越南的“转向美国”表明它对中国的恐惧何其真切。而围绕着一个中国钻井平台发生的小型海上冲突证明，它的恐惧并非空穴来风。正如米尔斯海默所认识到的，他的预言并非不可避免，但却是有理有据的。美国的开支紧缩令这种可能性愈发加剧。正在崛起的霸主一旦发现弱点就不会放过。威慑远比战争更可取。 作者罗杰·科恩 2014年05月10日。翻译：经雷 The Opinion Pages | OP-ED COLUMNISTChina’s Monroe Doctrine HO CHI MINH CITY, Vietnam — In the new edition of his classic “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,” John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago makes a powerful case for the inevitability of war in Asia as China rises: “My argument in a nutshell is that if China continues to grow economically, it will attempt to dominate Asia the way the United States dominates the Western Hemisphere. The United States, however, will go to enormous lengths to prevent China from achieving regional hegemony. Most of Beijing’s neighbors, including India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Russia and Vietnam, will join with the United States to contain Chinese power. The result will be an intense security competition with considerable potential for war.” This is the core strategic question of the 21st century. History is not rich in peaceful transitions of power from one hegemon to another. China needs resources. It will seek them near and far — and find America in its path. As with the Soviet Union, but without the ideological conflict, the issue will be whether the evident potential for a conflagration can be finessed through alliances or forestalled through the specter of mutual assured destruction. The seeds of conflict are evident. On his recent visit to Asia, President Obama made clear how the tensions between Japan and China over the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands to Beijing) could draw in the United States. His declaration that the Japan-administered rocks in the East China Sea “fall within the scope of Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security” incensed China, which claims the islands. Mind your own business and get over the Cold War was the essence of the Chinese message to Washington. Vietnam and China also have maritime conflicts that have flared in recent days as a result of a Chinese decision to place an oil rig in the South China Sea. Chinese ships escorting the rig rammed and fired water cannons at Vietnamese vessels attempting to stop the move in potentially oil- and gas-rich waters claimed by Hanoi. The U.S. response in support of Vietnam, its erstwhile enemy turned pivot-to-Asia partner, was firm: “China’s decision to introduce an oil rig accompanied by numerous government vessels for the first time in waters disputed with Vietnam is provocative and raises tensions,” Jen Psaki, a State Department spokeswoman, said in a statement. “This unilateral action appears to be part of a broader pattern of Chinese behavior to advance its claims over disputed territory in a manner that undermines peace and stability in the region.” China is asserting sovereignty in the South China Sea, angering the Philippines and Vietnam. Its actions appear to vindicate Mearsheimer, who writes that a more powerful China can “be expected to try to push the United States out of the Asia-Pacific region, much as the United States pushed the European great powers out of the Western Hemisphere in the nineteenth century. We should expect China to devise its own version of the Monroe Doctrine” — the 19th century keep-out-of-this-hemisphere message of the United States to Europe. Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story Advertisement The push here in Vietnam to hedge against China by strengthening ties with the United States is evident. The “comprehensive partnership” announced last year indicates how far the wounds of war have healed. Cooperation extends across trade, investment, education (Vietnam is the eighth-largest provider of foreign students to the United States) and defense areas. The proposed trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership in which Vietnam would be a participant (but not China) is luring manufacturing investment from China. So are lower wages. A joint U.S. exercise with the Vietnamese navy was recently conducted. Vietnam looks at virtually everything through the lens of relations with China. The fraternity of one-party communist systems is seen as insufficient insurance against vassal state status. France and the United States were latecomers to this corner of Southeast Asia. The Vietnamese creation story is one of a 1,000-year struggle to free itself from Chinese rule. So Vietnam looks to the United States as its offshore balancer. Other smaller Asian nations will do the same as China rises. These American alliances, if firm, could be powerful deterrents to war. Economic interdependence, which did not exist during the Cold War standoff, could also prevent conflict. Competitive cooperation is a possible scenario. The Chinese seem bent on peaceful development, at least for now; harmony is at the core of the national vocabulary. But then Deng Xiaoping famously counseled: “Hide our capacities and bide our time.” The Vietnamese pivot to the United States demonstrates how real its fears of China are. The little naval battle being fought around a Chinese rig suggests they have cause. The Mearsheimer prediction is not inevitable, as he acknowledges, but it is plausible. American retrenchment would make it more so. Rising hegemons seize on weakness when they see it. Deterrence is far preferable to war. A version of this op-ed appears in print on May 9, 2014, in The International New York Times. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe The Opinion Pages | OP-ED COLUMNISTIsrael's Sustainable Success APRIL 24, 2014 LONDON — Hearing an Indian official talk the other day about Delhi’s booming arms trade and ever-closer relationship with Israel, I had a thought that also struck me while listening to Israeli businessmen in Beijing. The idea may be summed up in three words: It is sustainable. “Pivot to Asia” is a term that might be applied to Israel. Its trade with China has boomed, reaching more than $8 billion in 2013 from a pittance when diplomatic relations were established in 1992 (the same year as with India). Europe huffs and puffs about the West Bank settlements; Asia does business. India has already bought sea-to-sea missiles, radar for a missile-intercept system and communications equipment from Israel. Tel Aviv, one of the world’s most attractive cities, has a boom-time purr about it. For all the talk of its isolation — and all the efforts of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (B.D.S.) movement — Israel has an economy as creative as it is successful. Yes, it is sustainable. Behind its barriers and wall, backed by military might, certain of more or less unswerving American support, technologically innovative and democratically stable, Israel has the power to prolong indefinitely its occupation of the West Bank and its dominion over several million Palestinians. The Jewish state has grown steadily stronger in relation to the Palestinians since 1948. There is no reason to believe this trend will ever be reversed. Holding onto all the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, while continuing to prosper, is feasible. This, after all, is what Israel has already done for almost a half-century. It is time to retire the unsustainability nostrum. Facile and inaccurate, it distracts from the inconvenient truth of Israel’s sustainable success. Throughout this year the Obama administration has pushed the unsustainability argument to make its case for peace. “Today’s status quo, absolutely to a certainty, I promise you 100 percent, cannot be maintained,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in February. “It is not sustainable. It is illusionary. There’s a momentary prosperity, there’s a momentary peace.” More recently, President Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg of Bloomberg View that his question to Benjamin Netanyahu was: “If not now, when? And if not you, Mr. Prime Minister, then who?” Obama also said of Israel: “There comes a point where you can’t manage this anymore, and then you start having to make very difficult choices. Do you resign yourself to what amounts to a permanent occupation of the West Bank?” Continue reading the main story RECENT COMMENTS The Wifely Person 14 days ago Mr. Cohen,We may actually be on the same page here. Seems like you finally put words to what all Israelis already know, any peace with only... Neil 14 days ago The Jewish state has grown steadily stronger in relation to the Palestinians since 1948. There is no reason to believe this trend will ever... Spirit of Marek Edelman 14 days ago One thing Mr. Cohen says is true. Israel is a very prosperous nation, with an annual GDP per capita that ranks it no. 25 in the world, just... SEE ALL COMMENTS But that “point” of unmanageability is a vanishing one. Permanent occupation is what several ministers in Netanyahu’s coalition government advocate. Backed by the evidence, they are certain it can be managed. They are right. Of course, manageability does not equal desirability. There is no consent of the governed in the West Bank. Dominion over another people is morally corrosive; Jews, of all people, know that. The nationalist-religious credo that the West Bank was land promised to Abraham’s descendants has intensified over the past half-century. Settlers see their work as the culmination of the Zionist idea of settlement. The opposite is true. Israel has undermined its Zionist founders’ commitment to a democratic state governed by laws. The occupation undercuts Israel’s own Founding Charter of 1948, which promised a state based on “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.” Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story Advertisement These, too, are uncomfortable facts. But the evidence is that Israelis, in their majority, prefer to live with them than believe in a sustainable peace with Palestinians. Trust your neighbor? Been there, tried that. Which brings us to the agreement (yet another) reached this week between Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas, the militant Islamist group, to form a unity government and hold elections within six months. Netanyahu leapt on it to inter the already half-buried peace talks: “Does he want peace with Hamas, or peace with Israel? You can have one but not the other.” But Israelis are smarter than that. They know that any peace with only one Palestinian faction would not amount to peace at all; that without elections, eight years after the last vote, Abbas has no real legitimacy; and that bringing a weakened Hamas under Egyptian suasion into a unity government (if that happens) would increase pressure on Hamas to meet international demands that it recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence and accept previous signed agreements. Moving toward a two-state peace — the best outcome for both nations — cannot be based either on the myth that Israel’s current situation is unsustainable or on the myth that the Palestinian Authority, as currently constituted, represents the Palestinian national movement. It can only emerge when a majority on both sides believes, based on the facts, that painful compromise in the name of a better future is preferable to manageable conflict fed by the wounds of the past. A version of this op-ed appears in print on April 25, 2014, in The International New York Times. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe
凤凰网报道一篇 USA 学者的文章，讨论 USA 对大陆和台湾未来的看法——美学者：中国可能会把美国赶出亚洲 台湾只能接受统一，报道连接： http://news.ifeng.com/taiwan/4/detail_2014_02/27/34251068_0.shtml 凤凰这个稿子最赞的地方是给出了这个文章的作者，文章原名，非常方便在网络上查阅原文，见： http://nationalinterest.org/article/say-goodbye-taiwan-9931 文章末，这位芝加哥大学的教授 John J. Mearsheimer 直言“Specifically, all Taiwanese should hope there is a drastic slowdown in Chinese economic growth in the years ahead and that Beijing also has serious political problems on the home front that work to keep it focused inward. If that happens, China will not be in a position to pursue regional hegemony and the United States will be able to protect Taiwan from China, as it does now. ” 这不正是USA对中国所采取的战略吗？——影响中国政治稳定，甚至分裂中国，搞垮中国经济！台湾做不到，USA当然要努力去做啊，否则怎么做世界霸主呢？ 这个论调我是一点不陌生的，但是有的时候我挺好奇，在USA工作的华人，甚至是持中国护照的中国人，怎么看USA在全球的所扮演的角色，尤其是针对中国的USA国家战略？ 就我个人而言，在西方国家生活了7年半，我是越来越讨厌USA，虽然中国做的不好的时候我不吝惜提出自己的批评，我却拜西方媒体所赐，越来越爱国，越来越有一种要为国家强盛添砖加瓦，让中国人生活得更有尊严的使命感，乃至我已经放弃博士毕业后从事基础学术研究的人生规划，而要投身到中国实体经济的建设中去。 ----------------- 相关阅读：我为什么不喜欢美国 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3503-683039.html
最近国内教育改革的话题颇受社会关注，而我个人亦认为教育是立国之本，所以想写写教育的话题。因为我个人有多国留学生活的背景，掌握了英语和瑞典语，而我又看到瑞典和 USA 在教育理念上存在一些鲜明的特征，于是想在这里做一些粗浅的对比。应该说，各个国家都有自己在教育问题上面临的挑战，面临的问题不尽相同，然而看看别人怎么做的，或许能促使自己做一些思考。这是我写此文的一个初衷。 试图对教育做一个全面的对比，会是一个困难而耗时的尝试，我只求能够在有限的时间和空间（文章长度）里浅尝辄止，若是激起一些思考便算做是抛砖引玉了吧。我以为教育规划本身，最能反映教育的目标和方向，其他的具体措施和做法，都是为了确保目标可以达成而设计的。在讨论应该具体怎么教育之前，我以为，更重要的，是讨论我们要把教育办成什么样的。这是我选取两国教育规划文件来做对比的原因。 我先谈瑞典这个大多数人并不太了解的北欧国家。 在瑞典 2010 年修订的最新教育规划《 Läroplan för förskolan Lpfö 98, Reviderad 2010 》（小学教育 98 规划 ,2010 年修订稿）正文中，最先谈到的，是教育的基本价值观( grundläggande värden )。规划的第一句话是 Förskolan vilar på demokratins grund (小学教育立足于民主的根基)。对于教育的目的，规划中写道：“ Skollagen slår fast att utbildningen i förskolan syftar till att barn ska inhämta och utveckla kunskaper och värden. Den ska främja alla barns utveckling och lärande samt en livslång lust att lära. En viktig uppgift för förskolan är att förmedla och förankra respekt för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande demokratiska värderingar som det svenska samhället vilar på. Var och en som verkar inom förskolan ska främja aktningen för varje människas egenvärde och respekten för vår gemensamma miljö. ” 意指教育法是为了确保小学教育以孩子能够获取和拓展其知识以及价值观。它着力于推进所有孩子的发展以及养成终身学习的兴趣。小学教育的一个重要目标是传播和确保孩子们对作为瑞典社会构建基石的，对人权，民主基础价值的尊重。小学教育工作一重点是要传播孩子们对每一个个人自身价值和对我们共同环境的尊重。作为进一步的阐述，他们写道：“ Människolivets okränkbarhet, individens frihet och integritet, alla människors lika värde, jämställdhet mellan könen samt solidaritet med svaga och utsatta är värden som förskolan ska hålla levande i arbetet med barnen. ”意思是说，人类生命不可践踏，每个人的自由和正直，所有人都同样重要，不同性别的平等，对弱势贫困群体的同理心，这些理念，都应该在小学教育的工作中得到生动的体现。 在该规划文件接下来的内容里，他们进一步详述了上述内容，并对教育者和学校的角色和任务做了更详细的阐述，我偷懒就不再粘贴和翻译，以及一一介绍了。然而，我们已经可以感受到瑞典的教育理念是首先要培养具有同理心，尊重个体，具有平等观念，尊重民主价值的社会公民这样一个目的。 而宣称以民主，自由民主价值观的 USA在他们的教育规划中又是如何写的呢？ 让人有些吃惊(对 USA 了解较少的人)，或者又不感到多稀奇(对 USA 有一定了解)的是， USA 的教育规划中，侧重的却是别的内容——在 USA 的官方文件，《 A Blue print for reform：The reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act 》中，正文的第一段话是：“ Every child in America deserves a world-class education. Today, more than ever, a world-class education is a prerequisite for success. America was once the best educated nation in the world. A generation ago, we led all nations in college completion, but today, 10 countries have passed us. It is not that their students are smarter than ours. It is that these countries are being smarter about how to educate their students. And the countries that out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow. ” 我们可以从这些文字当中首先感受到的，是竞争的概念—— USA 做中小学的基础教育，也是出于为了保证国家在全世界的领导地位的。这在接下来的段落中，也得到进一步的强化：“ We must do better. Together, we must achieve a new goal, that by 2020, the United States will once again lead the world in college completion. We must raise the expectations for our students, for our schools, and for ourselves – this must be a national priority. We must ensure that every student graduates from high school well prepared for college and a career. ” 当然， USA 也提到了平等，公正的重要性，接下来的第一段就提到了：“ A world-class education is also a moral imperative – the key to securing a more equal, fair, and just society. We will not remain true to our highest ideals unless we do a far better job of educating each one of our sons and daughters. We will not be able to keep the American promise of equal opportunity if we fail to provide a world-class education to every child. ” 在这之后，规划转而谈教师，校长等的意义和责任：“ This effort will require the skills and talents of many, but especially our nation’s teachers, principals, and other school leaders. Our goal must be to have a great teacher in every classroom and a great principal in every school.. .” 我不再粘贴，我想 USA 中小学教育为国家服务的目的已经很清晰了。而我们在现实生活中，也能够体会到这种教育理念对 USA 的行为方式的影响 。 我不谈孰优孰劣，我只想说，我个人更欣赏瑞典的教育理念。而本文的读者们，你们怎么看呢？你们以为教育的出发点应该是什么呢？
极权官僚阶层正在美国诞生（美国国会发表) 张永和 美国惠林研究院 http://www.amhuilin.com 他们打着各种好听的旗号通过增加职工工作量机构及经费，以此增加自己的权利进行种族歧视和伤害美国民主的行径。一个主任经常在言语中使用 “fuck” 诬蔑手下职工，甚至女性，当告到顶头上级（女）时，回答是：“什么大不了的事，我也经常 “fuck” 别人！” A fashionable word, SOP, is popping in some government agencies. SOP is “the Agency-wide program of quality assurance and Standard Operating Procedures” suggested and issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in April, 2007. It might be interesting for some government agencies because its benefits of a valid SOP are reduced work effort, along with improved comparability, credibility, and legal defensibility. But its disadvantages have some strong temptations to give those bureaucratic organizations and individuals a chance to strength their power and greed to become a totalitarian bureaucrat to achieve some purposes such as to shirk responsibility, resist complain from employees or make a personal discrimination. Nevertheless, the cost is huge for not only increasing more management system wasting a lot of assets and resources ， but also for challenging a democracy where all employees brought into full play of a initiative enthusiasm and activity of ethics and talents of human nature instead of laying on the stress of SOP provisions, being treated as a part of machines or tools . Here is a example. The former New York City DEP deputy commissioner has been accused by some minorities of DWQ Operation Lab, when he was in his post. Before his resign he assigned his trust to the DWQO Manager in 2003. Under the cover of SOP ， the Manager is performing the approach as follows : First increase workload of the SOP provisions ： A person , who has a poor and strange idea and was once involved in a discrimination case, was a ssigned Lab Director to write the lab SOPs to increase the wrong and unnecessary lab SOP provisions which violate the USEPA methods, resulting in the water quality of NYC not assured since 2007. Then there would be the reason to set up an additional QA agency which has same function as that of the New York State QA agency and thus violates the normal administrative mechanism, This year, when State QA agency found the important QA issues, Labs QA agency has identified only unimportant things, causing endless workloads and more problems, and wasting several millions dollars. And so Manager would remove her own responsibility to the additional QA agency and made her into a totalitarian, strengthening the power for personal discrimination against the minority employees The most of the white-people in this lab were promoted for office positions in short term even in 1 or 2 years. A lot of minority employees are not raised for a long term, for example, a minority chemist who has developed important methods for the lab but 17 years without a raise. Moreover, he has been subjected a long-term retaliation that caused him to suffered several diseases as he criticized that the lab SOP is wrong and can not assured water quality. The increase workload of the SOP provisions and the additional QA agency weakened and hurt the enthusiasm sense of responsibility and initiative of supervisors and the chemists, and causes some staff couldn’t endure and physically and emotionally damaged. When staff complained, Director roared: “If somebody couldn’t endure here, the door is opening!” The Director always rebukes his subordinates (even some female) with language of sexual nature, “fuck”. When complain to Manager, the answer was “it was not a big deal and I also said ‘fuck’!” Where is here? Here is a Government of the United States! We must not turn a deaf ear or a blind eye to what is wrong with the Government! We can not tolerate in order to bear a totalitarian bureaucrat to evade responsibility to the care of a duplicate organization, he/she can not guarantee the water quality of New York City and hurt American democracy, tax-payers pay more millions dollars!
A bureaucracy is hurting American democracy and economic Congress.org. Published on March 14, 2011 Yonghe Zhang American Huilin Institute http://www.amhuilin.com/ A fashionable word, SOP, is popping in some government agencies. SOP is “the Agency-wide program of quality assurance and Standard Operating Procedures” suggested and issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in April, 2007. It might be interesting for some government agencies because its benefits of a valid SOP are reduced work effort, along with improved comparability, credibility, and legal defensibility. But its disadvantages have some strong temptations to give those bureaucratic organizations and individuals a chance to strength their power and greed to become a totalitarian bureaucrat to achieve some purposes such as to shirk responsibility, resist complain from employees or make a personal discrimination. Nevertheless, the cost is huge for not only increasing more management system wasting a lot of assets and resources ， but also for challenging a democracy where all employees brought into full play of a initiative enthusiasm and activity of ethics and talents of human nature instead of laying on the stress of SOP provisions, being treated as a part of machines or tools . Here is a example. The former New York City DEP deputy commissioner has been accused by some minorities of DWQ Operation Lab, when he was in his post. Before his resign he assigned his trust to the DWQO Manager in 2003. Under the cover of SOP ， the Manager is performing the approach as follows : First increase workload of the SOP provisions ： A person , who has a poor and strange idea and was once involved in a discrimination case, was a ssigned Lab Director to write the lab SOPs to increase the wrong and unnecessary lab SOP provisions which violate the USEPA methods, resulting in the water quality of NYC not assured since 2007. Then there would be the reason to set up an additional QA agency which has same function as that of the New York State QA agency and thus violates the normal administrative mechanism, This year, when State QA agency found the important QA issues, Labs QA agency has identified only unimportant things, causing endless workloads and more problems, and wasting several millions dollars. And so Manager would remove her own responsibility to the additional QA agency and made her into a totalitarian, strengthening the power for personal discrimination against the minority employees The most of the white-people in this lab were promoted for office positions in short term even in 1 or 2 years. A lot of minority employees are not raised for a long term, for example, a minority chemist who has developed important methods for the lab but 17 years without a raise. Moreover, he has been subjected a long-term retaliation that caused him to suffered several diseases as he criticized that the lab SOP is wrong and can not assured water quality. The increase workload of the SOP provisions and the additional QA agency weakened and hurt the enthusiasm sense of responsibility and initiative of supervisors and the chemists, and causes some staff couldn’t endure and physically and emotionally damaged. When staff complained, Director roared: “If somebody couldn’t endure here, the door is opening!” The Director always rebukes his subordinates (even some female) with language of sexual nature, “fuck”. When complain to Manager, the answer was “it was not a big deal and I also said ‘fuck’!” Where is here? Here is a Government of the United States! We must not turn a deaf ear or a blind eye to what is wrong with the Government! We can not tolerate in order to bear a totalitarian bureaucrat to evade responsibility to the care of a duplicate organization, he/she can not guarantee the water quality of New York City and hurt American democracy, tax-payers pay more millions dollars!
The Fourth International Conference on the Applications of Digital Information and Web Technologies (ICADIWT 2011) is a forum for scientists, engineers, and practitioners to present their latest research results, ideas, developments and applications in the areas of Computer Communications, Communication networks, Communication Software Communication Technologies and Applications, and other related themes. http://www.dirf.org/diwt/index.asp
How Christian Were the Founders? Montage by Carin Goldberg Original Image: Declaration of Independence, by John Trumbull/The Bridgeman Art Library function getSharePasskey() { return 'ex=1423717200&en=10909ba0c57f529f&ei=5124';} function getShareURL() { return encodeURIComponent('http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html'); } function getShareHeadline() { return encodeURIComponent('How Christian Were the Founders?'); } function getShareDescription() { return encodeURIComponent('Conservative activists on the Texas Board of Education say that the authors of the Constitution intended the United States to be a Christian nation. And they want America’s history textbooks to say so.'); } function getShareKeywords() { return encodeURIComponent('Education and Schools,Religion and Belief,Christians and Christianity,Textbooks'); } function getShareSection() { return encodeURIComponent('magazine'); } function getShareSectionDisplay() { return encodeURIComponent('Magazine'); } function getShareSubSection() { return encodeURIComponent(''); } function getShareByline() { return encodeURIComponent('By RUSSELL SHORTO'); } function getSharePubdate() { return encodeURIComponent('February 14, 2010'); } Sign in to Recommend Twitter comments (1007) E-Mail Send To Phone Print Single Page Share Close Linkedin Digg Facebook Mixx MySpace Yahoo! Buzz Permalink By RUSSELL SHORTO Published: February 11, 2010 LAST MONTH, A WEEK before the Senate seat of the liberal icon Edward M. Kennedy fell into Republican hands, his legacy suffered another blow that was perhaps just as damaging, if less noticed. It happened during what has become an annual spectacle in the culture wars. Skip to next paragraph Enlarge This Image Larry Kolvoord/Austin American-Statesman A rally outside of the Texas State Board of Education hearings on textbooks in Austin, Tex., on Jan. 13, 2010. Readers' Comments Share your thoughts. Post a Comment Read All Comments (1007) Over two days, more than a hundred people Christians, Jews, housewives, naval officers, professors; people outfitted in everything from business suits to military fatigues to turbans to baseball caps streamed through the halls of the William B. Travis Building in Austin, Tex., waiting for a chance to stand before the semicircle of 15 high-backed chairs whose occupants made up the Texas State Board of Education. Each petitioner had three minutes to say his or her piece. Please keep Csar Chvez was the message of an elderly Hispanic man with a floppy gray mustache. Sikhism is the fifth-largest religion in the world and should be included in the curriculum, a woman declared. Following the appeals from the public, the members of what is the most influential state board of education in the country, and one of the most politically conservative, submitted their own proposed changes to the new social-studies curriculum guidelines, whose adoption was the subject of all the attention guidelines that will affect students around the country, from kindergarten to 12th grade, for the next 10 years. Gail Lowe who publishes a twice-a-week newspaper when she is not grappling with divisive education issues is the official chairwoman, but the meeting was dominated by another member. Don McLeroy, a small, vigorous man with a shiny pate and bristling mustache, proposed amendment after amendment on social issues to the document that teams of professional educators had drawn up over 12 months, in what would have to be described as a single-handed display of archconservative political strong-arming. McLeroy moved that Margaret Sanger, the birth-control pioneer, be included because she and her followers promoted eugenics, that language be inserted about Ronald Reagan s leadership in restoring national confidence following Jimmy Carter s presidency and that students be instructed to describe the causes and key organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation , the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association . The injection of partisan politics into education went so far that at one point another Republican board member burst out in seemingly embarrassed exasperation, Guys, youre rewriting history now! Nevertheless, most of McLeroys proposed amendments passed by a show of hands. Finally, the board considered an amendment to require students to evaluate the contributions of significant Americans. The names proposed included Thurgood Marshall , Billy Graham , Newt Gingrich , William F. Buckley Jr. , Hillary Rodham Clinton and Edward Kennedy. All passed muster except Kennedy, who was voted down. This is how history is made or rather, how the hue and cry of the present and near past gets lodged into the long-term cultural memory or else is allowed to quietly fade into an inaudible whisper. Public education has always been a battleground between cultural forces; one reason that Texas school-board members find themselves at the very center of the battlefield is, not surprisingly, money. The states $22 billion education fund is among the largest educational endowments in the country. Texas uses some of that money to buy or distribute a staggering 48 million textbooks annually which rather strongly inclines educational publishers to tailor their products to fit the standards dictated by the Lone Star State. California is the largest textbook market, but besides being bankrupt, it tends to be so specific about what kinds of information its students should learn that few other states follow its lead. Texas, on the other hand, was one of the first states to adopt statewide curriculum guidelines, back in 1998, and the guidelines it came up with (which are referred to as TEKS pronounced teaks for Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) were clear, broad and inclusive enough that many other states used them as a model in devising their own. And while technology is changing things, textbooks printed or online are still the backbone of education. The cultural roots of the Texas showdown may be said to date to the late 1980s, when, in the wake of his failed presidential effort, the Rev. Pat Robertson founded the Christian Coalition partly on the logic that conservative Christians should focus their energies at the grass-roots level. One strategy was to put candidates forward for state and local school-board elections Robertsons protg, Ralph Reed , once said, I would rather have a thousand school-board members than one president and no school-board members and Texas was a beachhead. Since the election of two Christian conservatives in 2006, there are now seven on the Texas state board who are quite open about the fact that they vote in concert to advance a Christian agenda. They do vote as a bloc, Pat Hardy, a board member who considers herself a conservative Republican but who stands apart from the Christian faction, told me. They work consciously to pull one more vote in with them on an issue so theyll have a majority. This years social-studies review has drawn the most attention for the battles over what names should be included in the roll call of history. But while ignoring Kennedy and upgrading Gingrich are significant moves, something more fundamental is on the agenda. The one thing that underlies the entire program of the nations Christian conservative activists is, naturally, religion. But it isnt merely the case that their Christian orientation shapes their opinions on gay marriage, abortion and government spending. More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians and according to biblical precepts. This belief provides what they consider not only a theological but also, ultimately, a judicial grounding to their positions on social questions. When they proclaim that the United States is a Christian nation, they are not referring to the percentage of the population that ticks a certain box in a survey or census but to the countrys roots and the intent of the founders. 1
The inch is a standard of measurement. Money is a standard of exchange. Words are standards of communication. Traffic lights are safety standards. Octane numbers of gasoline are quality standards. No more than 1% shrinkage is a performance standard. Standardization has a major impact on our lives, yet most people know little about the process or about the standards themselves.They know that camera film marked ISO 100 is likely to give good results in a camera with the film speed set at 100.But few understand that the ISO 100 marking on the package means that the film conforms to a standard established by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), an international organization that writes standards. Few people question that their ATM card works at every money machine in the world, but this confidence could not be possible without standards.While driving we are on the lookout for hexagonal, not round or square-shaped stop signs, just as we know that inverted triangles indicate where traffic should yield.These are just a few of the thousands of standards that impact on our lives. What is a standard? A standard was defined by the National Standards Policy Advisory Committee as: A prescribed set of rules, conditions, or requirements concerning definitions of terms; classification of components; specification of materials, performance, or operations; delineation of procedures; or measurement of quantity and quality in describing materials, products, systems, services, or practices. In layman's terms, a standard is a rule or requirement that is determined by a consensus opinion of users and that prescribes the accepted and (theoretically) the best criteria for a product, process, test, or procedure.The general benefits of a standard are safety, quality, interchangeability of parts or systems, and consistency across international borders. Why do we use standards? We use standards to achieve a level of safety, quality, and consistency in the products and processes that affect our lives.In short, standards make our lives safer, easier, and better.Standards are also vital tools of industry and commerce.They often provide the basis for buyer-seller transactions, hence they have tremendous impact on companies and nations, and even on the economic fabric of the world market. For example, as global trade increases and companies sell their products on foreign markets, they must ensure that their products comply with standards from those foreign countries.The variety of different standards for different markets means that some manufacturers must create dozens of variations of their products, each complying with slightly different standards.For the sake of shrinking these barriers to trade, international standards have been developed for use throughout the world. How are standards developed today? Most standards are developed by committees of volunteers, which can include members of industry, government, and the public.In the U.S., the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) acts as a parent organization, helping to coordinate volunteers and ensure that the development process emphasizes four main issues:requirements for due process, appeals procedures, the mandatory consideration of negative votes or comments, and for committee balance. Balance is achieved when all parties having an interest in the outcome of a standard have an opportunity to participate and where no single interest can dominate the outcome. In the United States alone, approximately 30,000 current voluntary standards have been developed by more than 400 organizations. These do not include a much greater number of procurement specifications (developed and used by Federal, State, and local procurement authorities), as well as mandatory codes, rules and regulations containing standards developed and adopted at Federal, State, and local levels. In addition, numerous foreign national, regional and international organizations produce standards of interest and importance to U.S. manufacturers and exporters. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) probably produces the largest number of International Standards, having issued over 10,000 standards.ISO's work is carried out through some 2,300 technical bodies in which more than 20,000 experts from all over the world participate annually in the development of ISO standards. History of standards Standards are known to have existed as early as 7000 B.C. when cylindrical stones were used as units of weight in Egypt.One of the first known attempts at standardization in the Western world occurred in 1120.King Henry I of England ordered that the ell, the ancient yard, should be the exact length of his forearm, and that it should be used as the standard unit of length in his kingdom. History also notes that, in 1689, the Boston city fathers recognized the need for standardization when they passed a law making it a civic crime to manufacture bricks in any size other than 9x4x4. The city had just been destroyed by fire, and the city fathers decided that standards would assure rebuilding in the most economic and fastest way possible. Probably the most significant standard ever developed in the United States, however, was the railroads' standard track gage. This standard, now used in Great Britain, the U.S., Canada and much of continental Europe, enables railroad rolling stock to cross the country. *From NBSIR 87-3576, The ABC's of Standards-Related Activities in the United States, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, May 1987.
标签: USA
