你真的反對民逼官反？

2007/10/07 苦勞社論
緬甸番紅花革命最後以軍政府強勢鎮壓收場，震驚全球。在一連串所謂顏色革命成功的印象下，緬甸原本給予人們樂觀的想像，最後卻以悲劇收場，緬甸軍政府的社會控制和膽大妄為，固然讓人驚訝，但別忘了，類似的機制卻不乏在我們身邊出現。

「鎮壓」與「戡亂」之別，常常只是誰處於掌權的位置詮釋歷史，這也是許多掌權者無視人民抗爭的誘惑來源之一。1989年天安門事件中共以軍隊鎮壓，舉世震驚，但隨之而來的中國經濟高速起飛，至今多少論述在以「穩定社會」之名，對當年的鎮壓化妝，「民逼官反」的論述一取得社會基礎，也就呈現了歷史詮釋的殘酷面貌。

類似的誘惑也出現在所謂的民主社會。別忘了去年紅衫軍抗爭，多少深綠群眾及名嘴要求民進黨政府以「社會動亂」為由實施戒嚴。但藍軍的離譜也不遑多讓，二二八事件難得因為民主化運動進行翻案，也有深藍學者為求對抗，居然提出二二八屠殺是「民逼官反」。為了維護己方的政治權力及意識型態，再殘酷的論述都能出籠進行社會測試，台灣離支撐緬甸軍政府的社會究竟有多遠呢？

其實對於鎮壓的同情也常帶有偽善的成分存在。「顏色革命」之所以被近年來的西方社會稱頌，是因為在非暴力的街頭運動階段，就逼使執政者下台。緬甸軍政府打破「慣例」，全球現在固然對對於手無寸鐵的抗議民眾被武力鎮壓高聲譴責，但國際社會能否允許這些民眾因為軍政府的殘暴而拿起武器反擊。

離台灣近在咫尺的菲律賓就是如此，人民拿起武器反抗，但可惜的是，除了弱勢者拿起武器反抗就沒有同情的價值之外，剛好他們對抗的菲律賓政府親美，把他們打入恐怖份子行列，除了明目張膽的在戰區清繳，更在一般市區對NGO領導人、記者、工會幹部進行暗殺。至今歐美政治界，仍視菲律賓政府為「受害者」，只嫌他們鎮壓的力道不夠。菲律賓和緬甸，又差距多少？國際社會的雙重標準又從何而來？

睜眼四顧，合理化「民逼官反」的機制在許許多多地方出現，小從樂生院抗爭，北縣長周錫偉以新莊民眾及北縣府被逼得不能再等為由以強勢警力暴力清場，大到牽涉一個國家政權更替的革命，卻以國家安全、社會穩定及國際戰略等理由鎮壓，遺憾的是，這樣的過程，卻能經常性地在國際社會良好運作，當你我為緬甸人民掬同情之淚時，也得把眼光看近、看遠。

最近的流水帳

哈 好像一直轉貼文章也不是辦法
不過 最近的生活就是
寫paper 寫paper 寫paper
還有 看MLB棒球 （只好幫紅襪加油）
另外 和老婆一起去跑步 （在Cornell這樣山明水秀的地方跑步 非常舒服）
練練球隊朋友介紹的平甩功 （感覺還不錯 想要養生的可以練練看）
還有看影集 （最近在看The Unit）
不然就是在網路上亂逛 （之前在看大陸的盜墓筆記）

就像在閉關練功
很久沒有可以像這樣 不用TA也不用上山
完完全全可以這樣 看書和寫作
雖然寫作的進度總是緩慢
但是 看書的時候 慢慢有覺得功力在進步
慢慢把以前的東西清倉
不過三老闆 忙碌依舊 稿子們不知道還會在他那裡躺多久才會投出去
但是也沒法就是了

今天跟News在MSN上聊天
講到未來 講一講
覺得好像自己應該還是要去歐洲看一看
目前最想去的是 之前有提過的Kokko小姐在芬蘭
嗯 應該找個機會寫e-mail給他 問他有沒有機會
老婆倒是很乾脆地支持我去歐洲 不管是芬蘭還是英國 ：）
不過 還是要看看情勢怎麼演變囉

好 流水帳結束 繼續努力！

華南虎40多年首次出現中國野外

真是非常酷的大動物
希望不會絕種
不過照片看起來老虎顏色好紅
很近拍的
感覺拍的人一定覺得很恐怖

--------------------------------------
華南虎40多年首次出現中國野外

出自 bbc 中文網 （圖片為新華社）

中國希望在野生華南虎活動區域設立保護區。

被認為已經絕跡的華南虎40多年來首次在陝西省的野外出現，為中國的野生老虎保育帶來曙光。

中國媒體廣泛報道，早些時候陝西省南部鎮坪縣城關鎮文彩村村民周正龍在巴山腹地拍攝到野生華南虎的照片。

這證明野生華南虎在中國沒有滅絕，而且當地極可能存有一個野生華南虎的繁殖小種群。

華南虎被列為中國一級保護動物。

在1950年代初期，中國約有4000隻華南虎，但目前只有十多只被關在全國十多家動物園裡，野生華南虎已基本絕跡。

1996年，華南虎被國際自然與自然資源保護聯盟（IUCU）列為世界最瀕危物種和第一需要保護的老虎品種。

中國媒體指出，這是1964年以來，陝西省首次發現野生華南虎的生存記錄。

中國政府近年來制訂了天然林木保護、封山禁牧、退耕還林等多項生態保護政策。

同時，保護野生動物的觀念已深入人心，村民擯棄了狩獵習慣，這都為野生華南虎的生存和繁殖創造了條件。

中國的專家指出，該國有東北虎、孟加拉虎、印度虎、華南虎４個品種，首三個品種都是從華南虎分化出來的亞種。因此，華南虎一旦滅絕，對物種的完整性和科學研究都會造成無法彌補的損失。

陝西省林業部門表示，將繼續開展對華南虎的研究，並爭取在野生華南虎活動的區域設立特別保護區。

專家指出，巴裡虎（Balinese Tiger）、爪哇虎（Javan Tiger）和裡海虎（Caspian Tiger）在1940年代已經絕種。

環保團體一直批評沒有落實保護瀕臨絕種野生動物，早些時候，中國廣西桂林一間餐館以老虎肉做菜，違反了1993年通過的禁令。

聯合國瀕危野生動植物種國際貿易公約（CITES）的171個締約國也對中國圈養老虎的做法表示關注。

另外，虎骨等是中醫藥的重要構成部分，也引起了國際間的爭議。

壹人壹句 <壹週刊 333期>

《 色 ， 戒 》 是 「 音 樂 片 」 ， 因 為 裡 面 有 梁 朝 偉 的 「 鈴 鐺 」 。

電 影 《 色 ， 戒 》 在 港 賣 座 ， 藝 人 譚 詠 麟 觀 賞 後 拿 梁 朝 偉 的 蛋 蛋 開 玩 笑 。 《 蘋 果 日 報 》

行 政 院 現 在 腳 很 痛 因 為 被 國 民 黨 扯 後 腿 ， 手 很 痠 因 為 忙 著 幫 國 民 黨 擦 屁 股 。

行 政 院 發 言 人 謝 志 偉 針 對 中 國 時 報 〈 被 偷 竊 的 國 家 〉 專 題 反 擊 表 示 ， 全 台 150 多 處 蚊 子 館 絕 大 多 數 都 是 國 民 黨 蓋 的 ， 民 進 黨 已 活 化 了 70 多 處 。 《 中 國 時 報 》

是 不 是 藍 營 嫌 馬 英 九 的 票 太 多 ？

國 民 黨 高 雄 市 議 會 黨 團 在 愛 河 畔 為 馬 英 九 懸 掛 「 他 ， 馬 的 就 是 愛 台 灣 」 文 宣 看 板 ， 遭 藍 綠 營 及 民 眾 同 聲 痛 批 ， 有 媒 體 如 此 質 疑 。 《 聯 合 報 》

以 前 黨 內 「 壞 孩 子 」 看 到 我 會 痛 苦 ， 代 表 黨 還 有 自 省 能 力 ； 現 在 「 壞 孩 子 」 看 到 我 都 沒 感 覺 ， 代 表 我 一 點 殘 餘 功 能 都 沒 有 。

民 進 黨 大 老 沈 富 雄 宣 布 退 出 民 進 黨 ， 他 承 認 他 在 黨 內 功 能 盡 失 。 《 聯 合 報 》

2007 MLB 季後賽

朋友寄給我的
雖然對洋基球迷的我來說 又是傷心的一季
還是 放在版上作為紀念

嚴長壽 也吃過醫師苦頭

【聯合晚報╱記者韋麗文╱台北報導】 2007/09/21

粗魯醫師當場說：準備後事吧

不要以為醫生只對你很兇，連亞都麗緻總裁嚴長壽也曾吃過醫生的苦頭。他今天說，他的岳父罹患末期癌症，醫生當場宣布，「只剩六個月了，準備後事吧！」他不放棄找尋更用心的醫生，在醫生的悉心照顧下，岳父多活了五年。

黃達夫醫學教育促進基金會舉辦「醫學院學生人到醫療工作坊」，分享醫師善行挽救醫師熱誠。會中，嚴長壽說，當初他的岳父被診斷出攝護腺癌，走遍了大小醫院、看遍大小醫生，有一位醫生卻當場宣布，只剩下六個月了，準備後事吧！

他不敢相信，醫生怎麼這麼粗魯、直接，缺乏對病患的愛心。他不放棄，輾轉碰到和信醫院院長黃達夫，經過醫師仔細照護醫療，原本被宣判六個月的岳父，生命得以延續五年之久，事過十年之久，他仍然感動在心。

醫師對待病人 差別在用心

是因為黃達夫的醫術比較高明嗎？嚴長壽不這麼認為，他說，差別在於「用心」，醫生認真對待病人，比什麼都重要。黃達夫說，嚴長壽的岳父當時已經是攝護腺癌症末期，癌細胞已經蔓延到肝臟出現嚴重黃疸，難以將中心點壓力減少，大部分的醫師會選昂貴的藥物，他只用便宜到沒人要用的女性荷爾蒙，壓抑住攝護腺癌的主因男性荷爾蒙，黃疸一到二周就退盡。

醫師看病歷不看病人 缺愛心

嚴長壽認為，現在的醫生看病歷，而不看病人，考卷只能考出考試高手，卻沒測驗出這個人是不是具有當醫生的愛心。徵詢第二意見是病患的權利，但是當他親人住院時，他跟醫師說想尋求第二意見，醫生翻臉，立即要他們出院，當天開出退院單，不願再繼續診療。嚴長壽說，病患將生命交給醫生，取得全然的信任，醫生也要自問，是否有感動人的能力，其實簡單一句問候就能讓病患銘感五內。

名醫現象 嚴長壽放砲有理

早年，村莊裡若有人考上醫學系，眾媒人立刻踏破門檻，提親者絡繹不絕，女兒若能嫁給準醫生，這輩子可就穩啦！如今醫生的平均收入日趨變薄，金光環不再，醫界哀嘆連連，但也可能是醫界道德重生的契機。

考試第一名的考生，不管個性適不適合，有沒有當史懷哲的熱情，只要IQ夠高，就能填志願當醫生，因此醫界長期充斥一群沒有熱情、沒有理想的考試高手。

如今這些聰明的天子驕子發現，初出茅廬的主治醫師月薪可能不過6、7萬，資深醫生也許月薪不過15萬元，遠遠不如電子新貴年終配股，更比不上商業鉅子，為利所趨的動力減少，反而不願意投入醫界。但這對醫界而言未必不是好事。

嚴長壽以自身經驗直指有些醫生對病患「粗魯」，黃達夫基金會醫學教育講座教授賴其萬也表示，知識、技能雖是行醫最基本的工具，醫生最重要的卻不是技能、不是知識，而是對病人的關懷與愛心。

病人願意被一個稱為「醫生」，其實從未謀面的人，開膛剖腹，這是需要多麼大的信任。現在的醫生享有病人付出純然的信任，但可能並未深思，這份信任並非針對他個人，而是醫界百年努力，多少的付出所累積而成。

如今缺乏醫德的醫生，一口口啃食掉這份信任，醫病關係惡化，當有一天，我們生病時，到底能夠依賴誰？

因高收入光環不再，反能讓有心從醫的年輕人誠實審視自己從醫的動機。反能吸引一群願意到偏遠地區行醫的醫生，眼中看到的不是金錢，不是頭銜，他們真正看到了病患，走到需要他們醫學技能的地方。這樣的人，才是醫界需要的人。

「專欄」E-Mail Is Easy to Write (and to Misread) 容易誤會的e-mail

前幾天的專欄了
內容主要是說
根據研究發現
e-mail很容易讓讀的人覺得不友善
也常常會造成誤會
可能的原因是因為 相對於電話或著面對面談
有許多言語以外的資訊 (non-verbal expression)
例如你可以知道對方的表情或著是語氣
所以專家建議
有爭議的事情最好不要用e-mail解決
電話或面對面會比較有效

文章引用某教授的話當結語
“social software” like e-mail “is not better than face-to-face contact; it’s only better than nothing.”
-------
感想：
跟個人經驗蠻符合的
這大概也是BBS上
常常莫名其妙就戰起來的原因吧
------------------------------------
E-Mail Is Easy to Write (and to Misread)


By DANIEL GOLEMAN
Published: October 7, 2007

AS I was in the final throes of getting my most recent book into print, an employee at the publishing company sent me an e-mail message that stopped me in my tracks.

I had met her just once, at a meeting. We were having an e-mail exchange about some crucial detail involving publishing rights, which I thought was being worked out well. Then she wrote: “It’s difficult to have this conversation by e-mail. I sound strident and you sound exasperated.”

At first I was surprised to hear I had sounded exasperated. But once she identified this snag in our communications, I realized that something had really been off. So we had a phone call that cleared everything up in a few minutes, ending on a friendly note.

The advantage of a phone call or a drop-by over e-mail is clearly greatest when there is trouble at hand. But there are ways in which e-mail may subtly encourage such trouble in the first place.

This is becoming more apparent with the emergence of social neuroscience, the study of what happens in the brains of people as they interact. New findings have uncovered a design flaw at the interface where the brain encounters a computer screen: there are no online channels for the multiple signals the brain uses to calibrate emotions.

Face-to-face interaction, by contrast, is information-rich. We interpret what people say to us not only from their tone and facial expressions, but also from their body language and pacing, as well as their synchronization with what we do and say.

Most crucially, the brain’s social circuitry mimics in our neurons what’s happening in the other person’s brain, keeping us on the same wavelength emotionally. This neural dance creates an instant rapport that arises from an enormous number of parallel information processors, all working instantaneously and out of our awareness.

In contrast to a phone call or talking in person, e-mail can be emotionally impoverished when it comes to nonverbal messages that add nuance and valence to our words. The typed words are denuded of the rich emotional context we convey in person or over the phone.

E-mail, of course, has a multitude of virtues: it’s quick and convenient, democratizes access and lets us stay in touch with loads of people we could never see or call. It enables us to accomplish huge amounts of work together.

Still, if we rely solely on e-mail at work, the absence of a channel for the brain’s emotional circuitry carries risks. In an article to be published next year in the Academy of Management Review, Kristin Byron, an assistant professor of management at Syracuse University’s Whitman School of Management, finds that e-mail generally increases the likelihood of conflict and miscommunication.

One reason for this is that we tend to misinterpret positive e-mail messages as more neutral, and neutral ones as more negative, than the sender intended. Even jokes are rated as less funny by recipients than by senders.

We fail to realize this largely because of egocentricity, according to a 2005 article in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Sitting alone in a cubicle or basement writing e-mail, the sender internally “hears” emotional overtones, though none of these cues will be sensed by the recipient.

When we talk, my brain’s social radar picks up that hint of stridency in your voice and automatically lowers my own tone of exasperation, all in the service of working things out. But when we send e-mail, there’s little to nothing by way of emotional valence to pick up. E-mail lacks those channels for the implicit meta-messages that, in a conversation, provide its positive or negative spin.

On the upside, the familiarity that develops between sender and receiver can help to reduce these problems, according to findings by Joseph Walther, a professor of communication and telecommunication at Michigan State University. People who know each other well, it turns out, are less likely to have these misunderstandings online.

These quirks of cyberpsychology are familiar to Clay Shirky, an adjunct professor in New York University’s interactive telecommunications program. His expertise is social computing — software programs through which multiple users interact, ranging from Facebook to Listservs and chat rooms to e-mail. I asked Professor Shirky what all of this might imply for the multitudes of people who work with others by e-mail.

“When you communicate with a group you only know through electronic channels, it’s like having functional Asperger’s Syndrome — you are very logical and rational, but emotionally brittle,” Professor Shirky said.

“I’m part of a far-flung distributed network that at one point was designing a piece of software for sharing medical data; we worked mostly by conference calls and e-mail, and it was going nowhere. So we finally said we’d all fly to Boston and get together for two days, just sit in a room and hash it out.”

During that meeting, the team got an enormous amount of work done. And, Professor Shirky recalls, “because the synchronization by e-mail was so much better after the face-to-face piece, we actually hit the launch date.”

He proposes that work groups whose members are widely dispersed but need to have high levels of coordination — say, a computer security team protecting a global bank — do not have to assemble everyone in one room to reap the same benefit. Instead, he suggests a “banyan model,” after the Asian tree that puts down roots from its branches.

In this approach, he said, “you put down little roots of face-to-face contact everywhere, to strategically augment electronic communications.”

Professor Shirky advised the I.T. head of a global bank to gather together one representative from disparate cities for a day or two and complete tasks. That way, when the security group in Singapore gets e-mail from the security people in London, someone will be more likely to know the sender, and sense how to read the information with less risk of misconstruing or discounting it.

CONSIDER, too, the “e-mail the guy down the hall” effect: as the use of e-mail increases in an organization, the overall volume of other kinds of communication drops — particularly routine friendly greetings. But lacking these seemingly innocuous interactions, people feel more disconnected from co-workers. This was noted in an article in Organizational Science almost a decade ago, just as e-mail was starting to surge. Saying “Hi,” it turns out, really does matter; it’s social glue.

As Professor Shirky puts it, “social software” like e-mail “is not better than face-to-face contact; it’s only better than nothing.”

Daniel Goleman is the author of “Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships” (Bantam). E-mail:
preoccupations@nytimes.com.

Pistol Shrimp （會開槍的蝦 cool!!)

進度檢討

10月2號 來檢討一下進度好了
計畫中要投出兩篇
結果......還是一篇都沒出去
原因？
和三老闆談了 之前很感興趣的 企鵝跳海 的現象
就是一群企鵝 誰都不願意先跳到海裡覓食
因為先跳下去的最有可能被殺人鯨吃了
所以 為什麼會有人先跳呢？
換句話說 這是所謂的 群體行動的謎題(paradox of collective action)
總之 我們弄了個叫Brave Leader的模式 來解釋這現象
覺得非常酷

所以現在正在寫這篇文章
希望再一個禮拜可以寫好
不過也同時正在和三老闆 在修改另一篇已經寫好很久的稿子
有一些進展
目前看來 應該是會有幾篇文章同時出去
--------------------------------------------
1. 8/25-9/5:
a. costly young and tug-of-war synthesis (model)

b. Allostatic load with Dustin (model)

2. 9/6-9/25:
a. Bro family visit

b. BTOW with Kern (model)

3. 9/26-11/25:
General theory of cooperative breeding (review)

「新聞」婚姻中的爭吵與健康

按：既然紐約時報線上版最近剛變成完全免費，
所以決定要強迫自己多看點紐約時報，所以決定要在網誌上
，每個禮拜固定「簡短」介紹幾篇文章（希望至少一篇）給大家。
----------------------
這篇很有趣，說的是在婚姻中吵架的方式會對男女的健康有不同的影響，
結論是 如果女方在吵架的過程中常常壓抑自己的意見，在十年的研究期間，會比勇於表達自己意見的女方，有四倍的高風險得心臟疾病。但是對表不表達意見對男生的健康，卻沒有影響。另外，爭吵的詞語越負面，同樣對女方有不良的健康影響，但是對男方卻沒有。文章甚至提到，爭吵的方式，對女方得心臟病的影響，甚至跟膽固醇含量、是否有抽煙等都是重要的危險因子。舉例來說，在爭論錢的問題時，如果先生常常以類似「你小學算數有沒有及格呀？」（Did you pass elementary school math?”)的負面方式罵太太，會比說「幸好你其他的方面比管理錢厲害」 （ “Bless you, you are not so good with the checkbook, but you’re good at other things.）讓太太心臟病的機會提高四倍。有趣的是，對男生來說，怎麼吵不重要，重點是如果吵架牽涉到決定權例如男方需要說，「這件事你應該聽我的」，比較會提高男性的心臟病風險。另外，研究也發現，調查中自我評估的婚姻品質並不會影響得心臟病的機率。

文章原文詳見如下
October 2, 2007
Marital Spats, Taken to Heart
By TARA PARKER-POPE

Arguing is an inevitable part of married life. But now researchers are putting the marital spat under the microscope to see if the way you fight with your spouse can affect your health.

Recent studies show that how often couples fight or what they fight about usually doesn’t matter. Instead, it’s the nuanced interactions between men and women, and how they react to and resolve conflict, that appear to make a meaningful difference in the health of the marriage and the health of the couple.

A study of nearly 4,000 men and women from Framingham, Mass., asked whether they typically vented their feelings or kept quiet in arguments with their spouse. Notably, 32 percent of the men and 23 percent of the women said they typically bottled up their feelings during a marital spat.

In men, keeping quiet during a fight didn’t have any measurable effect on health. But women who didn’t speak their minds in those fights were four times as likely to die during the 10-year study period as women who always told their husbands how they felt, according to the July report in Psychosomatic Medicine. Whether the woman reported being in a happy marriage or an unhappy marriage didn’t change her risk.

The tendency to bottle up feelings during a fight is known as self-silencing. For men, it may simply be a calculated but harmless decision to keep the peace. But when women stay quiet, it takes a surprising physical toll.

“When you’re suppressing communication and feelings during conflict with your husband, it’s doing something very negative to your physiology, and in the long term it will affect your health,” said Elaine Eaker, an epidemiologist in Gaithersburg, Md., who was the study’s lead author. “This doesn’t mean women should start throwing plates at their husbands, but there needs to be a safe environment where both spouses can equally communicate.”

Other studies led by Dana Crowley Jack, a professor of interdisciplinary studies at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Wash., have linked the self-silencing trait to numerous psychological and physical health risks, including depression, eating disorders and heart disease.

Keeping quiet during a fight with a spouse is something “we all have to do sometimes,” Dr. Jack said. “But we worry about the people who do it in a more extreme fashion.”

The emotional tone that men and women take during arguments with a spouse can also take a toll on their health. Utah researchers have videotaped 150 couples to measure the effect that marital arguing style has on heart risk. The men and women were mostly in their 60s, had been married on average for more than 30 years and had no signs of heart disease. The couples were given stressful topics to discuss, like money or household chores, and the comments made during the ensuing arguments were categorized as warm, hostile, controlling or submissive. The men and women also underwent heart scans to measure coronary artery calcium, an indicator of heart disease risk.

The researchers found that the style of argument detected in the video sessions was a powerful predictor for a man or woman’s risk for underlying heart disease. In fact, the way the couple interacted was as important a heart risk factor as whether they smoked or had high cholesterol, says Timothy W. Smith, a psychology professor at the University of Utah, who presented the study last year to the American Psychosomatic Society.

For women, whether a husband’s arguing style was warm or hostile had the biggest effect on her heart health. Dr. Smith notes that in a fight about money, for instance, one man said, “Did you pass elementary school math?” But another said, “Bless you, you are not so good with the checkbook, but you’re good at other things.” In both exchanges, the husband was criticizing his wife’s money management skills, but the second comment was infused with a level of warmth. In the study, a warm style of arguing by either spouse lowered the wife’s risk of heart disease.

But arguing style affected men and women differently. The level of warmth or hostility had no effect on a man’s heart health. For a man, heart risk increased if disagreements with his wife involved a battle for control. And it didn’t matter whether he or his wife was the one making the controlling comments. An example of a controlling argument style showed up in one video of a man arguing with his wife about money. “You really should just listen to me on this,” he told her.

What’s particularly notable about the study is that the men and women filled out standard questionnaires about the quality of their relationships, but those answers were not a good predictor of cardiovascular risk. The difference in risk showed up only when the quality of the couple’s bickering style was assessed.

“Disagreements in a marriage are inevitable, but it’s how you conduct yourself,” Dr. Smith said. “Can you do it in a way that gets your concerns addressed, but without doing damage at the same time? That’s not an easy mark to hit for some couples.”