- 据英国BBC网站报道: Thirty-eight US billionaires have pledged at least 50% of their wealth to charity through a campaign started by investor Warren Buffett and Microsoft founder Bill Gates . 新闻说得是,美国38位亿万富豪响应沃伦 巴菲特和比尔 盖茨的号召,承诺至少将自己的50%的财富捐给慈善机构 。 相信大多数国人看到这则消息后,心里肯定不是滋味吧。 当一个国家拥有核武器时,就是玩自爆也足以毁灭地球,外界的威胁就不是有关生死重要了(只要掌权者强硬即可)。这时候,国家之间的最重要的差距,其实就表现在人文素质方面。因为经济、科技与枪炮等东西是不能凝聚人心的,而人文因素则可凝聚全国人心。 所以,笔者认为: 与人的慈善之心相比,所谓的体制主义、意识形态、政治口号等 都不过是狗屁 ! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 有关新闻及其链接: US billionaires pledge 50% of their wealth to charity ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10870361 ) -
自然大学鸟兽学院邀请您参加 国内首部吃猫调查纪录片《三花》系列放映交流会 北京放映会暨如何利用现有法律禁吃猫肉讨论专场 分会主办方:首都爱护动物协会 时间:07/24(周六)13:00-15:30 地点:北京市朝阳区酒仙桥路4号,798艺术区,尤伦斯当代艺术中心报告厅 主持人:张丹(中国动保记者沙龙) 嘉宾:郭可(艾未未工作室) 朱茜(苏州流浪动物救助者、伪造卫生许可证举报人) 安翔(律师,中国现行动物保护法律汇编作者) 上海放映会暨如何科学解决流浪动物讨论专场 分会主办方:上海小动物保护协会 时间:07/27(周二)14:00-17:00 地点:上海市丽园路501号(近制造局路),上海市社会创新孵化园A1楼多功能放映厅 主持人:刘慧莉(达尔问自然求知社) 嘉宾:朱茜(苏州流浪动物救助者、伪造卫生许可证举报人) 张毅(上海小动物保护协会会长) 谢燕(复旦政治学硕士,用公共管理学解决流浪猫狗方法编制人) 广州放映会暨如何在吃猫重镇宣传拒吃猫狗讨论专场 分会主办方:私宠之家 时间:07/31(周六)14:00-17:00 地点:广州市白云大道南788号(广州新体育馆对面),宝云楼会议酒店 主持人:毛毛(私宠之家) 嘉宾:张媛媛(深圳猫创办人、医学硕士) 李燕玲(熙熙森林管理员) 朱斌 (律师,流浪猫救助志愿者) 总协调方:达尔问自然求知社 www.bjep.org.cn 支持机构:艾未未工作室 媒体联系 : 刘慧莉 达尔问自然求知社项目协调人 手机(略) huili.61@gmail.com 特别提醒 《三花》含残害动物镜头,请慎重 片长68分钟,讨论会在该片结束后即开始 (中/英文新闻稿,请见附件) 禁止吃猫,不必等到《动保法》 当我们谈论拒绝吃猫的时候,并不是出于个人爱好,也不仅仅因为养猫人吃不得猫,而是在关注中国动物现状滥杀、滥用、虐待、虐杀。著名上海动保人士刘晓云如是说。这也是为什么,救助猫的人,总是能够和救助黑熊,救助土狗,救助所有生命的人,彼此感应。 在上海江苏饭店边上的一条小胡同里,每天天亮之前,街灯未灭,出入此地的助动车,忽然多了起来。他们往往形单影只,独来独往,助动车或者自行车的后座两边,每每还挂着满当的编织袋。如果不是他们的老朋友上海的救猫者,没有人能认出来,那些编织袋里好似一颗颗卷心菜垒起来的丰满形状,是一只只猫,一只只活猫。 他们是猫贩,既有本地人,也有外乡人。只有等猫贩在交易的时候,袋子被甩到地上,救猫人才能看清,袋子里的猫,还活蹦乱跳。只是袋口被扎紧了,倒到这头,又倒到那头,不松口。直到大猫贩付了钱,收了猫,袋子才会被打开,直接伸到了一个血迹斑斑,毛刺横出的木架子里,猫咪挤在一起,然后上车,上路,直到广东。 这是纪录片《三花》中吃猫链条的起点。 在你的身边,这个链条已经绵延了二十年。它的源头分散在全国各大城市,上海、南京、天津、武汉,但终点大部分在广州,这个全国最大的肉猫集散地。 不要以为吃猫离你很远如果你并不身在广州。在上海,早上刚被猫贩经手的猫,流浪猫也好,家猫也罢,并不完全运往广东。就算是在最为正规的农贸市场,猫肉也被当做兔肉来卖,只不过去了头,剥了皮,顾客已经难以辨认。更不用提冒充羊肉的猫肉了,在大城市的烧烤店或者路边摊,浸泡在羊尿里的猫肉撒上孜然和辣椒粉,味觉彻底被迷惑。甚至有名有姓的火腿肠品牌,都可能掺杂猫肉,在你不知不觉时被咽进了肚子。 这些年来,救猫团体除了正面冲突和苦口婆心,丝毫没有别的办法。当他们想要状告猫贩虐待虐杀流浪猫时,发现中国还没有可依法保障非野生动物福利的《动保法》,而当他们再以猫主人的身份,打算现身说法时,又发现《物权法》也不能出手相救。 最后到法庭,往往是法官一提问,你怎么就证明这猫是你养的,顿时气短口说无凭,家猫逃过了户口关,反倒失去了身份证。 倒是猫贩更理直气壮。只要手拿一张卫生许可证,就可以载着满满一车活猫死猫,家猫和流浪猫,在高速公路上畅通无阻。甚至取道广东省光速公路绿色通道,直奔广州。沿途的公安和动检部门一看到有卫生许可证,立即闭嘴,不管是真心还是假意,统统放行。当拦截猫车的志愿者们要求检查卫生许可证的真假时,猫贩早已逃之夭夭,没了踪影。 有人确实怀疑过,猫饭拿出卫生许可证,必然有假,但假在哪里?即便是一张真的卫生许可证,填上猫肉、肉猫、猫肉制品,有什么问题。答案,也许只有猫自己知道。 历来,中国乃至全世界,从未出现过猫养殖场,这不是巧合。猫是肉食动物,养大一只肉用猫,要喂的肉粮,是它自己体积的许多倍。再加上猫瘟随时发生,集中饲养肉猫,必定是赔钱的买卖,不然,贪吃又贪财的人,怎么能甘愿损失一种经济动物? 这也是为什么,猫,历来都不是官方认可的肉用经济动物。在2010年重新颁布了《动物检疫管理办法》,事无巨细之处,足以斩断吃猫链条的每一处环节。因为所有肉制品都需要动物检疫合格证,才能运输、出售。这个检疫证必须由官方兽医来出具,要符合五项条件方可通过。其中第五项,需要养殖档案相关记录和畜禽标识,符合农业部规定。有了这份标识,才能保证肉制品的安全卫生。 没有肉猫养殖场,吃猫市场只能靠偷家猫和流浪猫来保证货源,也必然不可能拥有卫生检疫证。任何一只所谓的肉猫,不可能作为合法的农产品,完成运输、屠宰、上餐桌的所有程序除非是非法的。 国家农业部动检处最近对三张猫贩手持的卫生许可证作出鉴定,无一例外均为伪造。苏州和上海的猫救助人士即将以此为有利证据,展开一场涉及上海、苏州、无锡三地的举报行动,即便没有《动保法》,仍然能从伪造国家公文罪,依法追究责任人,并依照情节轻重,判处3-10年有期徒刑。 达尔问自然求知社联合京沪穗三地动保团体,邀请您参加国内首部调查吃猫纪录片《三花》系列放映交流会,揭开吃猫链条的黑暗,关注举报行动,从现有法律框架的视角,讨论禁吃猫肉的可能性。 Ban cats eating without Animal Protection Law When we discuss the issue of banning cats eating, we are paying attention to the animal protecting situation in China, which is filled with maltreatment, indiscriminate and merciless killing, summarized by Liu Xiaoyun, the famous animal activists in Shanghai. Its not due to ones personal interests or cat owner cannot eat cat. Thats why the cat rescuers always share the same feeling with their counterparts for bears, dogs, and all lives. In a Hutong near the Jiangsu Restaurant in Shanghai, the number of scooters increases suddenly before the dawn everyday. They usually come alone, with full bags on the backseats. Only cat rescuers who frequents there are able to recognize that in the bags are live cats. Those cat dealers include local residents, as well as strangers. When they trade with the restaurant, bags are dumped to the ground and cats will struggle in it. When the deal is done, the bag will be open to a blood-stained, full of burrs wooden cage where cats huddle together. Then cages are loaded into trucks and transported to Guangdong Province. This is the starting scene describing the beginning of cat eating chain of the documentary San Hua. The chain has existed for twenty years. It starts in all the big cities around China, such as Shanghai, Nanjing, Tianjin and Wuhan, but mostly ends in Guangzhou, the largest cat meat distributing center. However, Guangzhou is not the single case. In Shanghai, no matter stray cats or pet cats, they are just partly transported to Guangdong Province. Even in the most formal farmers market, cat meat is sold as rabbit meat after cutting the head and striping the skin. Another way is to use cat meat as the raw materials for lamb kebabs. In the barbecue restaurant or sidewalk snack booth, cat meat sunken in sheep urine with cumin and pepper can totally confuse ones taste. Worse still, ham sausages with brand names are possibly mixed with cat meat. During the past years, cat rescuers have no legal weapons when they would like to do their job. When expecting to sue the cat dealers of maltreatment of stray cats, they find that China has not have a Animal Protection Law that can guarantee the welfare of non-wild life; When they would rescue the cats as the cat owner, the Property Law cannot provide help, as well. Therefore, when in court, due to lack of Hukou (registered identity), cats cannot be proved to be owned legally in a family, and the lawsuit is lost. On the other hand, cat dealers have reasonable certificates. A piece of Sanitary Permit enables trucks loaded with cats to drive in the expressway, even the green channel to Guangzhou in Guangdong Province without policeman or animal inspection departments investigation. When cat rescuers stop the truck and ask to verify the Sanitary Permit, cat dealers has already escaped. Even if the permit proves to be a real one, can it be used for cat meat, cat meat product? Its not a coincident that in China, even in the world cat farm has never been operated. Cat belongs to carnivores, so raising a cat needs meat amounting to many times of its weight. Plus the frequent cases of cat epidemic, running a cat farm dooms to have deficit. Thats the reason why cats have never been proved officially as an economical animal for flesh. In 2010, China reenacts the Animal Quarantine Measure. It rules that the animal quarantine certificate needed for meat products transportation and sale could only be issued by official veterinarians. Record of raising archives and livestock identification that meet the requirement of Ministry of Agriculture is a must among the five conditions for the acquirement of the certificate, for its the guarantee for meat products hygiene. Resulting from the lack of cat breeding industry, the cat market depending on the single source of stray cats and pet cats inevitably has no animal quarantine certificate. Its illegal to get any cat transported, slaughtered, and served to the table. Animal Quarantine Bureau of the Ministry of Agriculture recently verified three Sanitary Permit held by cat dealers and found them all fake. Cat rescuers in Suzhou and Shanghai use this fact as a proof to launch a whistle-blowing campaign, covering areas of Shanghai, Suzhou, and Wuxi. Without the Animal Protection Law or the Property Law, we could still hold the responsible for forging official document and certificate, and sentence them to three to ten years in prison in accordance with the seriousness of the case. United with animal protection communities in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, Green Beagle invite you to participate the first show of San Hua, concerning cat-eating issue. Lets reveal the darkness of cat-eating chain, concern the whistle-blowing event and discuss the possibility of banning cat-eating with the existing law (译:志愿者郭一) 达尔问自然求知社 www.bjep.org.cn
比尔盖茨2010年4月23日在MIT Kresge Auditorium发表演讲后接受了The Tech(MIT报纸)的采访,讲述了他的慈善事业以及背后鲜为人知的故事。 In interview, Gates describes philanthropic journey Download this video (129MB; 480p H.264) (可以下载) 以下是比尔盖茨接受 The Tech(MIT报纸) 访问的 文本资料,请大家参考 As an ardent supporter of technology, Gates described his foundation as an innovation engine that takes risks and funds research, in addition to offering direct aid to the needy. Though some have criticized the Gates Foundation for investing its endowment in corporate polluters that harm the health of the people it seeks to aid, Gates said that it is the foundations positive actions that have real effect, not its investment practices. The Tech: So youve been on this three-day cross-country college tour, you spoke at Berkeley, Chicago, and youre wrapping up this afternoon at Harvard. Why are you doing this? What is the message youre trying to get out? Bill Gates: Well its an opportunity for me to learn. Im sitting down with scientist at each of the universities also Stanford and then just the questions I get, theyre very interesting. There are people: what are they worried about? You know, what are they disagreeing with? Or what do they see as an opportunity? But you know, were talking about what I call important problems and how we can get the best minds working on those problems. And Im congratulating universities like MIT. Youve done OpenCourseWare, youve got your energy initiative, you have a course on world poverty now, which is a fantastic thing. We have a lot of steps in the direction, but how do we ramp that up even more? Im starting a dialogue about that because I think it will make a huge difference to get minds like those who get to go to MIT even more involved. TT: Right, and the question that you kind of left unanswered during the talk is how does that happen? BG: Yeah, and I dont know the right answer. There are a lot of best practices that MIT and a lot of others have started, but what other ideas are there? And what are the barriers that hold people back? Is it awareness? Is it the economics? And how do we change it? TT: This morning, you met with faculty, and you saw some student projects from the PSC, and from D-Lab. What did you learn? What was really interesting to you? Gates: I saw lots of good projects, and I saw things that really relate to the developing world. What cheap reliable instruments should people have in clinics in the developing world? I saw people working on that. Theres some studies on malaria policies were trying out that students here are looking at the different varieties of how we might get the medicines out there in a better way. I saw six or seven projects, each of which I thought were quite strong. TT: Did anything surprise you? BG: Well, I had known those in advance. You know, theres some like how can we use the cell phone for health care things. You know, nothing has come out of that yet, and this idea of what really can work in these conditions verses whats the technology. That match up you know and I keep thinking about how we can make people more aware of what the needs are and whats practical because some of the ideas may not catch on. But there were really good ones. A lot of them had been out to really understand the tough delivery conditions. TT: Youve been on quite a journey, going from running Microsoft to chairing one of the worlds largest philanthropic organizations. What do you know now that you wish you had known when you were our age? BG: Well certainly I had no awareness of the depredations of poverty. I didnt really understand the health issues, I didnt understand the governance issues, the lack of infrastructure. It just wasnt a focus for me. I was doing software and fortunately that has had positive effects, but I wish I had been more aware; I wish I had been able to take a course like the world poverty course and know about vaccines and know what a magical intervention those are. TT: And having that knowledge, do you think your path would have changed? BG: Not my path in some dramatic way. I would have been giving money to these causes a little bit earlier than when I started really in 1999, the serious philanthropy. And I would have done more. Now some of these projects take a long time, like a malaria vaccine, so you want to get it going. And the research phase, the early phase, is not as expensive as the trial phases, so I feel good that I did in my forties even when I was still full time at Microsoft. I was lucky enough to bring some great scientists in. Then when I moved to full time, the foundation wasnt from scratch. We already had ten years of malaria vaccine work, and we already had a great staff of people, so I did some overlap but I would have done more of that. TT: Youve spoken a lot about the importance of innovation and of taking chances on high-risk, high-reward projects like the malaria vaccine but there are lives that can be saved right now with simple interventions like bed nets and irrigation, so where do you find that balance? BG: In terms of lives saved per dollar, there are a lot of things that we should be delivering, including some existing vaccines and new vaccines that we get here in the US Rotavirus and Pneumococcus all the kids in the US get those, but no kids in the developing world are benefiting from those, yet they have the disease pertinence, not, those things, arent as impactful in the medical environment that we live in. Those need to get out there. There are very few things that are as effective as vaccines. Bed nets are quite effective. Agricultural interventions are less about health but are more about nutrition which has this huge effect on learning ability and freeing up people from subsistence labor, just on small holdings. So the agricultural things there are some things there, but were going to have to invent to really make a dramatic difference. We cant just take the tools that we have today. Our foundation tends to fund more of the upfront discovery work, and were a partner in delivery, but governmental funding is the biggest. Take like delivering AIDS medicine: We did the pilot studies in Botswana to prove that you could deliver ARBs in Africa and then PEPFAR the US government program, which is five billion a year, which is way more than our whole foundation, just that one US government help program, just one country, came in and scaled up based on some of the lessons from that. With the vaccines, we fund, maybe fifteen percent. This government delivery system organization, whereas on the upstream, you know, malaria vaccine research would be a substantial percentage of that. So were playing to our strength, which is picking teams of scientists and sticking with them for over a decade a decade of failures and successes. TT: At Davos in 2008, you spoke of this idea of creative capitalism, which is your vision of corporations working to deliver innovations to those who need it, not necessarily just those who can pay. Could you explain how this works in practice? Some have said that this is an overly optimistic view of how business works. BG: Well certainly the large companies have responded quite well, and weve even done within industries an independent report that will take say the pharmaceutical companies and say are they doing good work in these areas. And thats been a spur for them to look a little bit. Were not saying that they should tilt all their activities. If we can get four percent to the best innovators working on these diseases that arent as remunerative, that can make a huge difference. And in many cases, that will be up from zero percent. So were not asking them to completely go against the economic incentives they live under. We want them to thrive and be successful, and its actually a little unfortunate that the drug industry discovery rate has been low these last eight years. So pharma budgets actually are going down. Now vaccines is a subset of that, and actually has gone well. Some of these new vaccines are quite profitable for these companies. We are seeing an increase in that, which is for many of our things, it is the magic piece. TT: Right, because this is sort of the same message that youre sending to students as well, isnt it? BG: Right, so this creative capitalism is the message at the institutional level for businesses. And what I was talking about today is to get individuals to think about what motivates them: what would have drawn them in, why is it that these issues have appealed to them or have not appealed to them. And we need that individual interest in doing these things and then those institutional opportunities. So creative capitalism will let the people go out and get a great job and work on these things. And you really want those things to be in balance. You know, I wouldnt want the pharma companies to say Hey, nobody wants to work on this stuff. Thats not the problem. I think the institutional side will be a limiting factor. TT: Your foundation has an endowment of over 33 billion dollars is it important to you to invest that money in socially responsible corporations? For instance, the LA Times reported in 2007 that some of the money for the foundation is invested in papermills and oil companies that pollute and harm the health of the people that youre trying to benefit. BG: Yeah, we actually have securities from a country thats at war we have US treasury securities in our foundation portfolio. Oh, its awful. You know, those guys, they polluted, theres a lot of things I think theyve done wrong. Now in terms of have we sort of decided to set up a judicial system that decides which car company, which oil company that kind of duplicates the laws of the various countries. No, we were not doing that. We dont invest in Sudan, and we dont invest in tobacco companies and things like that. But when you take your resources and say okay I want to score companies, you have to say are you saving lives? If, take for example, the fact we dont invest in tobacco companies: I would not claim to you that that has any effect at all. Now we fund anti-tobacco, anti-smoking things in a big way. We encourage the taxes to go up in China, they did that; were funding all these things in Africa. Thats where you save lives. The fact that we put our capital in those companies, you know some people might not feel good about it, but it doesnt save...thats not where it is. No, we have not created this scoring system saying should we own those treasury securities? or not. Our expertise is in vaccines, its in education, and its in working with companies to get them to put energy in. In terms of getting corporations to be positive agents of change, Id say weve done more of that than anyone. And they respond quite well, and thats a million times more powerful per dollar then setting up this scoring system of where we put our money; we wouldnt have any direct effect there. In egregious cases, yes, but in general, thats not our role. Thats more of a governmental role. 资料源: http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N21/gates/interview.html