All these contemporary trends look irrevocable and they are creating a new and complex working class that is characterized more by their internal differences than any sense of shared collective consciousness. This is particularly dangerous for the future health of social democracy. Historically, the democratic parties of the center-left in Europe won political power in the interwar years, but especially after 1945, through their popular electoral appeal as broad-based “people’s parties” that were also rooted on the once important core of the organized manual working class. They did so by adopting programs and values that were held together strongly by the ideology of socialism and then social democracy. What made social democrats such a dominant intellectual force in European democratic societies was that they stressed and practiced social cohesion, solidarity, and collectivism.
未來的解答？
SO WHAT can be done? A wide-ranging public debate on the future of European social democracy has only just begun and it would be foolish to suggest that any one person or party has found a convincing answer to the problems of political decline in turbulent times.
工忙，回味一篇以前讀過的文章，今日仍有其重要性。Perry Anderson 在 2004 年於 LRB 上以〈台灣僵局〉為題寫了一篇台灣民族主義的 4 段歷史路徑、2 個可能偶然的文章。這篇由「海海移民民族主義」作為思考架構的分析，提出一個基本的問題，至今仍然有效。
So far, however, ‘fundamentalist’ appeals – the local term for such ethnic jingoism – have remained subordinate in the repertoire of the DPP. Specifically cultural claims of difference, though on the rise, are still secondary as discursive themes in Taiwanese nationalism, in part just because they are tactically divisive, tending to split Green from Blue constituencies, but also because they offer little international leverage. The principal definition of national identity lies instead in the contrast between democracy on the island and dictatorship on the mainland. The right of Taiwan to independence follows from its achievement of a democracy that the mainland has signally failed to realise. This is a claim that can both unite the inhabitants of the island, whose attachment to democracy leaves no room for doubt, and rally world opinion to their side.
Benedict Anderson...在Yale上課時的小故事。說到班上有三個長的像Chinese的同學。他問同學們的national identity。結果出乎他的想像。有一個講著west coast accent在加州出生長大的，說自己是Chinese，並認同China。(Well, they are talking about national identity, anyway). 第二個同學，溫吞的說，自己試圖做一個Taiwanese。他是個外省人子弟。第三個同學，來自新加坡。他說：「I am a Singaporean, dammit. I’m so tired of Americans thinking I’m Chinese, I’m not!」Anderson 說：「So it turned out the only Chinese was the American」。
左派的核心價值之一是反帝，反殖，然而，這樣的立場是否錯失了現實政治議程的本質，反而自陷教條主義的危機？這樣的討論在最近的一本書，法國著名公眾知識分子 Bernard-Henri Lévy 的新作《黑暗時代的左派：一個反新野蠻主義的立場》（Left in Dark Times: A Stand Against the New Barbarism）進行深入的討論。這一期的《民主》（Democracy），英國的評論者 Nick Cohen 對這本書作出了評論，以「左派出場」（Left Out）為題，透過歐洲左派的垮台所帶來的教訓，解釋自由派支持者應該面對的問題。
這兩天工作繁忙，無暇對此深論，但是由於這篇文章太吸引人，我還是得寫幾行。
Nick Cohen 的論點很實踐性地闡述了反美教條主條的侷限，也呼應之前《尤斯頓宣言》高舉的民主、自由、平等、國際主義四面大旗，是非常有趣的議論。
我發現下面這段言論很有意思，雖然不是 Cohen 文章的核心：
At first glance, American readers may find it easy to dismiss Lévy. The French leftist culture in which he has flourished will strike most as strange beyond measure. America has no Marxist tradition worth mentioning and no experience of Nazi occupation. The totalitarian temptation of communism which enchanted so many French men and women in the twentieth century never enchanted many Americans. Lévy’s searing assault on the ideology of their successors in twenty-first century France may seem to have little to do with anyone outside Europe.
Lévy adds to the impression of otherness by cutting an exotic figure. I met him when we argued against a motion that "democracy isn’t for everyone" at a debate in London last year. He appeared in the green room in an immaculate white suit, looking every inch the dandy, as beautiful in his way as his wife, the actress Arielle Dombasle, who dazzled by his side. Bob Geldof walked across to talk to him, and as my eyes flitted from Geldof to Lévy and back again, I was hard-pressed to tell which was the rock star and which the philosopher. The audience, exhausted by Iraq, was dead against us when we went on stage, but we swung the meeting around and routed our conservative opponents. I like to think that it was the force of our arguments that won the night, but the spectators may just have been bowled over by Lévy’s glamour.
The celebrity thinker is hardly a feature of American politics–do John McCain and Barack Obama crave the support of the equivalents of Glucksmann and Lévy?
But American readers would be wrong to dismiss Lévy as a glamorous foreigner, for a reason I don’t think many liberals have grasped. Americans on the Left may not thank me for saying so, but they have been lucky in one respect to have had George W. Bush as their enemy. He has united the opposition; he has been the glue that has held men and women with wildly contradictory ideas and aspirations together. Hatred of Bush has given the American Left a new salience and a new power, something it hasn’t had since the early days of the Clinton era, but it has not given it a unified vision.
See this click to learn how the maestro illustrate ongoing financial fiasco of Lehman Brothers. Here is some knowledge of Stiglitz, if someone doesn't know this guy :P
If globalization has acquired a lousy reputation in the US, the external deficit deserves much of the blame. US trade policy has been remarkably resistant to protectionist pressure in recent years. But, regardless of who wins America’s presidency, the world should expect closer scrutiny of imports from China and other low-cost countries as well as of outsourcing of services to places like India.
As the US and other advanced economies become less hospitable to developing-country exports, rapidly growing emerging markets, help as they may, are unlikely to take up the slack and thus provide ample fuel for export-led growth. Import tariffs tend to be higher in developing countries, making it more difficult to gain access to them. Moreover, developing countries compete in similar products – consumer goods of varying levels of sophistication – so that the politics of expanded South-South trade looks even worse than the politics of North-South trade. Anti-dumping action against imports from China, Vietnam, and other Asian exporters is already commonplace in developing countries.
That's pretty easy to answer, too. His name is Phil Gramm. A few days after the Supreme Court made George W. Bush president in 2000, Gramm stuck something called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act into the budget bill. Nobody knew that the Texas senator was slipping America a 262 page poison pill. The Gramm Guts America Act was designed to keep regulators from controlling new financial tools described as credit "swaps." These are instruments like sub-prime mortgages bundled up and sold as securities. Under the Gramm law, neither the SEC nor the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) were able to examine financial institutions like hedge funds or investment banks to guarantee they had the assets necessary to cover losses they were guaranteeing.
This isn't small beer we are talking about here. The market for these fancy financial instruments they don't expect us little people to understand is estimated at $60 trillion annually, which amounts to almost four times the entire US stock market.
And Senator Phil Gramm wanted it completely unregulated. So did Alan Greenspan, who supported the legislation and is now running around to the talk shows jabbering about the horror of it all. Before the highly paid lobbyists were done slinging their gold card guts about the halls of congress, every one from hedge funds to banks were playing with fire for fun and profit.
這是對於美國為何喪失 regulation capacity 的重要解釋，立法單位如何為資本家代言，造成國民資本主義系統性地 biased on capitalists 是馬克思以前就講過的事，Moore 這篇文章解釋了為何今天馬克思命題還是在上演。
The financial meltdown on Wall Street is more than a cyclic correction brought on by a mismanaged business cycle. It is emblematic of a problem at the very foundation of the right wing economic philosophy that became conventional wisdom during the Bush years -- and would be continued in a McCain presidency. [中略] For many years after the Great Depression, most mortgages were provided by banks and savings and loans. Traditionally these institutions would originate their own loans, evaluate the risk, and maintain a relationship with the borrower. It was in the self-interest of the institution to make loans -- that's how it made money. But it was also in the institution's interest to assure that the borrower could pay the loan back, because it was lending its own money.
Over the last thirty years, the mortgage market has fundamentally changed. Now most loans are originated by brokers or other mortgage companies who make their money through "origination fees" and often payments from big, unregulated lenders. Once these loans are made, they are then packaged and sold as securities through the secondary mortgage market.
Mortgage originators had every incentive to make all the loans they could, but absolutely no incentive to assure that the borrowers could pay the loans back. Credit standards were relaxed, new "sub prime" products were introduced, "no-document" loans were issued.
This system provided a great deal of liquidity to the mortgage industry. But it also removed the risk of making the loan from the loan originator and handed it to a huge, diffuse "market." No longer did any individual or institution have any individual incentive to prevent bad loans.
China is secretly spending $300 million of its currency reserves to buy Costa Rica government bonds to reward the central American country for cutting diplomatic ties with Taiwan, the Financial Times reported on Friday.
The FT said it had obtained documents related to the deal after La Nacion, Costa Rica's largest newspaper, won a court case a week ago Friday and a judge ordered the government to release the information to the public.
The State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE), which manages China's $1.8 trillion of reserves, promised to buy the bonds under the terms of a 2007 agreement whereby Costa Rica recognised China and cut links with Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a renegade province.
SAFE included a clause demanding Costa Rica take "necessary measures to prevent the disclosure of the financial terms of this operation and of SAFE as a purchaser of these bonds to the public", according to the documents seen by the FT.
China's Foreign Ministry said in a statement to the FT that the bond purchase and the related procedures abided by international business rules and conformed with related laws in China.
China bought the first $150 million of the bonds in January and is due to buy the second lot next January, the paper said. It said SAFE, which does not comment on its investments, had set up a wholly owned subsidiary with registered capital of just HK$10,000 ($1,280) to receive interest payments on the bonds.
The disclosure comes against a background of concern among Western governments about a lack of transparency in the way some emerging markets' sovereign wealth funds and central banks are investing their growing stockpiles of reserves.
這則新聞真正不合理的地方，其實不是中國國家外匯管理局（State Administration of Foreign Exchange）操作主權基金的不透明性，動機與可能弊端，而是一個威權政體，即使在國民深陷種種嚴重的經社問題下，為了些許非必要的外交利益，也寧可投資鉅款從事外交作戰。如果依照慣例參與者可得至少 10% 以上的回扣，這種交易最大的得利者，並非「中國」或「哥斯大黎加」，而是涉足其中的官員，政客，真正受到傷害的，就是一點發言權也沒有的老百姓。我們可以退一步想，這樣的新聞如果在任何一個享有新聞自由的國家揭露了，負責官員都得引咎下台，但是這樣為了追求外交毛利而犧牲國民幸福的「零和總路線」，不但花掉大筆的金錢，也花掉中國百姓應得的生活改善。
看來，台灣股市破 5000 都還是小問題，真正可怕的是即將到來的長冬，這樣的氛圍勢必影響固有的國民國家經濟姿態，也將影響政治氛圍。不過在討論到那之前，更令人擔心的是努力 8 年都還達不到 BIS 規定的資本適足率必須達到8%以上，如今，為了要解決外資撤離亞洲的困局，大筆銀彈即將投入這個市場，是救急，還是埋下日後金融風暴的引信，令人充滿疑慮。
ps. 最上圖那位仁兄舉的標語應該是Wall Street, Go to hell, Warriors Revolution（華爾街，去死吧，勇士們，革命！），一九三○年代的金融危機，出現了新政，法西斯主義與軍國主義，前幾天有人在講這個時代沒有羅斯福，這樣的革命會是什麼？ Read More......
台灣媒體管道之多，超乎想像，除了美國 CIA 的蘭利本部以外，世界各恐怖組織與台灣的新聞媒體平素亦有密報交換管道，透過 BitTorrent, eMule 與 eDonkey，本地媒體工作者憑藉著高強的科技能力一再作出領先世界的報導，這就是為什麼 2001 年台灣媒體領先美國 CNN, NBC, ABC 等電視網公告九一一恐怖攻擊傷亡人數，蓋達佈署，以及恐怖攻擊的進度；2000, 2004 美國總統大選還在 too close to call，台灣媒體馬上宣佈小布希當選的祕訣。
更有趣的是，Econolog 也排了最受歡迎的文章，結果最受歡迎的一些文章組成是【大宗經濟學家 + 退休的專業經理人】，或許學者可以欣慰一點。至於點閱率較高的文章，多半與油價、食物、金融、美國經濟政策有關，也顯示社會仍有理解經濟現象的需求。台灣的學界大老對於 blog 的態度多為負面，尤其是傳統的學界人士似乎仍想滿足社會大眾「學者」的形象，發言極為謹慎，以免誤踩地雷，如此一來不只造成大家不願意寫的壓抑風，甚至擔心 blog 寫作被拿來當作巷內人評量業績表現的附帶印象，助長「洞穴著書，孤芳自賞」的情形，也不令人意外就是。
台灣的國際關係定位一直是本地國關學界所關係的問題，嚴格說起來，即使是國際關係，各國處理的準則皆有其歷史與考量，即使國際關係研究一直有理論化的野心，但是國際關係史的看重，也說明了在外交實務上，國民國家的區別性還是存在的。私非「台灣國際關係專家」，本不欲對此多作發言，不過網友 important C 很認真的提了一些問題，私只好野人獻曝的提供一些初步的答案。我猜這裡的讀者國關專業的不少，如果私發言錯誤，歡迎糾正。
網路上的專業討論，如果進到巷子裡，不在同一行的人幾乎不容易進行有意義的溝通，不過我們 blogging 的人都是來做溝通的，important C 的提問提醒我知識工作者應該有的謙悲態度，對於台灣的外交姿態問題，別說是網路上吵翻天，即使學者都有相佐的看法，或許誰也不用急著說服誰，如果大家膽子夠大，讓時間來驗證更好。網路交流最大的妒處是刺激另類思考，無論如何都是好的。
事實上，美國 CIA 透過種種管道深入台灣政軍商特幾乎是「說不出的祕密」，藍綠陣營中遭到 CIA 吸收的細胞根本無從查起，如果您有一點印象，台灣一直有密謀製造核彈的舉動，結果後來就被美國特工人員以斬首式的暴力，搞出了張憲義事件，一個極機密的軍事計畫就被美國人這樣輕易的破壞了，台灣有多少能力「脫美」，恐怕得立基於更堅實的證據來討論。
3，私對您所謂的「開始跳脫「後冷戰時代」的模型」比較不解。一般而言的「後冷戰模型」，無論是「一超多強」、「多極體系」或是「大國領導」均同意美國已不佔絕對性優勢，您的意見其實是在提出一個「後後冷戰模型」；近日有不少言論就俄羅斯「進出」格魯吉亞之舉憂心重回冷戰時期，不過這類的說法除了突顯地緣政治在這個案例上的重要性，似乎多了一點危言聳聽的味道，私仍然認為冷戰時代是回不去的，各國之間的關係益形複雜的情況下，complexity theory 或許給我們多一點啟發。
馬先生在競選總統時，曾以「一個SMART的國家安全戰略」為題，提出國家安全 SMART 政策（soft power, missile defence, assuring the status quo, restoring mutual trust），也就是以「國防安全」、「外交安全」、「政治安全」與「經濟文化安全」四大支柱的綜合安全觀念來擬定「國家戰略」。這兩天，聯合報爆料「國安會擬國家戰略 軍方未參與」，企圖由「厚植政經實力」、「尋求兩岸和解」及「建立國際高度」三大主軸來對本國、兩岸、國際三層次定調，結果此一報導一出，總統府立即出稿否認，表示從未要求國安會研擬「國家戰略」及「終戰指導」。不過這種戰略準備肯定是有在做的，依目前揭露的資訊，以及近日府方發言，嶄新的對外態勢隱然成形，沒調查就沒有發言權，或許我們討論台灣的綜合安全定錨上，更需要堅實的硬資料。
ジュリアナ東京是日本泡沫時代後期著名的 Disco 舞廳，當時還沒有夜店這種名稱，不過這家店可以說走在歷史的前端，設了一個高舞台，讓那些敢秀愛秀的舞客上台跳舞。不難想像這樣的舞台，膽敢上台飆舞的辣妹，多半是身材皎好穿著火辣居多。結果，Julia Tokyo 一炮而紅，名聞遐邇，對照當時作風仍然相對保守的台灣，Julia Tokyo 女郎的穿著，可以說是相當的前衛。無怪乎當時所有的東京旅遊報導，都不會跳過這家夜店。那些穿著超短迷你裙、拿著扇子搖來搖去的女郎，就成為泡沫經濟時代酒醉金迷的時代文化表徵。奇怪的是，不知什麼原因，1993 年 12 月以後舞台撤除，人數銳減，到了 1994 年 8 月就宣告倒閉了。這家店也就成為師奶們的共同時代記憶。
網友 important C 花了不小篇幅在我對「格魯吉亞–南塞奧提亞衝突」轉化的「格魯吉亞–俄羅斯戰爭」中留下一篇很長的評論，主張台灣應該予以南塞奧提亞與阿布哈玆兩國外交承認。這個見解很有趣，也很深入，台灣的外交部對這碼事完全沒討論，國關學界也比較討論這個話題，頗為可惜。新政府目前的政策是 diplomatic truce，也就是外交休兵，料想不會淌這坨混水。我們的討論好像已經結束？不過即使是「活路外交」，也應該要有戰略思維。冷戰結束以後，「小國無外交」？倒也不必，台灣的資源並不少，借力使力還是有機會。這次的格魯吉亞–俄羅斯戰爭就是很好的例子，不過這樣出奇招是否有利，倒可以再商榷。
Ali G在北京奧運前錄了一段 take 在談奧運的，長期的老讀者或許記得前年的討論，對於他在 Borat 的演出印象深刻。這樣的爭議演出不一定讓大家喜歡，符不符合 sarcasm 的標準，還是 cross the line，都是饒富爭議的。台灣社會沒有 sarcasm 的傳統，至多只能模仿產生擬式的趣味，少了不少趣味。由於譏諷須得進行符碼操作，又要挑戰政治正確，無畏冒犯，顛覆既有的認知，所以 sarcasm 的扮演，等於在鋼索上討生活，必得搞到名門大戶驚慌失色，百姓小名擊節叫好，才是成功。
ps. 怎麼全文和正妹行車圖無關？非也，畫面儘是幻象，有圖也沒真相。比方旁邊這張圖，一切都是假的，作者安妮拉小姐，還有一系列利用電腦軟體做出的超現實自畫像。近年，外國還有合成相片大競賽。連相片都是假的，電視畫面自然也不少是假的，「設計對白」，「設計畫面」，像是迷幻藥一樣，擾亂這個社會的大腦。尤其是高等知識工作者，被「誘捕」的機會更高，「學者誤判」還真坐實「蛋頭」這兩個字。
4. 國家認同宣告：國民的國家認同有問題並不奇怪，戀愛都不一定長久，國家怎麼能叫國民一直愛他呢。所以這種關鍵時刻才會爆炸的情緒，一定要小心使用，以側安全。要是天天問，答案公式化，就等於和沒問一樣。過往 D 黨過度操作，自食惡果，但是 K 黨拒絕碰觸，一樣誤觸地雷。這檔事是共同體的邊界，不能太多不能太少，有點緊不能太緊，有點黏不能太黏，要貼得剛剛好。女人比男人懂這回事，你看小英怎麼玩這個議題就知道。
下面這個問題比較尷尬，不管我們是否處在一個美國人統治的國家，獨立、統一，通通在美國老鷹的大傘下，台灣有本事不親日、不親中，可是有沒有本事不親美？還是「美國」才是華人認同的最大公約數，自家吵架鬧好玩，拿張綠卡才是真的。千萬別成為「United States of Taiwan」，台灣太小，分國了只能成為格魯吉亞。
