Friday, September 17, 2004

週五清晨(個人日記)

學校生活

無論現實生活抑或網上的老友記們都跟我說:希望你來年好好享受
一下校園生活吧!老實講,上了三週的課,跟上班一樣忙碌。這個
課程要讀的和要做的東西很多,加上課程設計係"技術應用"為主導,
理論欠奉,每每係上完三至四小時的課,再閱讀一百幾十頁紙後,
然後去花時間做drafting或presentation。日日如是,一週搞足五至
六天,都幾悶。:-(

同學們方面,女同學跟男同學係2:1之比。我所屬的小組更係4:1。
女權至上呀!近十年八年,大學生女多男少;但想當年我讀書的年
代,女男比例只係6:4, 今天升到2:1!哎也,男同學們都去了那?

----
萬力課程

萬力係他那兒說想花3000大洋去報讀課程,以提升自身的EQ之類,
又話想去學「如何有效將心儀女孩追到手」云云。其實嘛,想學
習後者的話,那用多花錢去學?收買老師建議你,快快去重溫這套
八十年代的經典名片(亦係 Wong Jing 少有的好片):



萬力,加油呀!祝你早日桃花盛放!!

----
克里衰硬

早前係呢度講過克里今屆選舉衰硬(網頁),事實証明佢越來越似
88年俾"老薯"打底的那個民主黨候選人。請看昨天他說過甚麼:

[Quote]
Senator John Kerry, the Democratic Party's presidential nominee,
is claiming, however, that he would take forceful action on Darfur.

Mr. Kerry said the United States should lead an international mili-
tary deployment to disarm Arab militias and protect civilians in
Darfur. "If I were president, I would act now."
[End Quote]

聯合國還沒有明確批授出兵,克里本人己經如是說,真的 "講得出做
得到" 的話,他又跟"薯仔"在海外戰爭的立場有甚麼分別?

克里今回選舉,衰在訊息不清混亂。查實他本人係東岸名校畢業的精
英份子,又係越戰立過功,照道理張CV這麼靚,應該大有作為才是。
可不知怎的,整個選舉工程都搞得非常之顢頇。克里的政治經濟理念,
從未清楚有效的對群眾表達過。(好多記者都說聽不明克里他那些深
奧的經濟理論,那又怎樣叫他們去寫稿去導示群眾呢?)薯仔係好或
係壞,心照啦!但好歹薯仔的"理念"簡單直接,配合Fox,CNN及一眾
右翼名嘴的宣傳攻勢,再加上恐怖分子識做,近來頻頻施襲,遊離票
轉回薯仔強硬鷹派這一邊並不出奇。

說來奇怪,從一開始我就覺得民主黨內部對今屆選舉並不太團結,特
別係"克太"、Edwards(未提名做副總統前)及黨內死硬派等等。我
認為民主黨人有如此舉動並不出奇。一個大黨,派系林立,民主黨自
"克仔"及"歌爾"去後,一時青黃不接,多個派系羽翼未豐,暫不宜出
擊參與選舉;可一旦給克里當選,大伙兒豈不要等多八年?那可真的
係太長遠咯!:-) 因此嘛,今回推克里出來,對這些民主黨人來說,
可謂"輸贏都係贏"咯!

13 comments:

tungpo said...

根據過來人即我舊同學所言,你正在讀那課程基本上一年是不夠時間的,所以安排得很濃縮及緊密,即是很辛苦啦!但捱完後應該有前途喎!

Stannum said...

萬力想去學「如何有效將心儀女孩追到手」?等我仲相信佢真係想「淨係做朋友」添,哼!

Clara said...

嘩,有四個女子日日圍住你,你執到啦!

tungpo said...

所以近期佢咁忙囉!

tim said...

這也許是民主黨的特色,偏向無為而治,畢竟是自由派嘛!
克林頓當年競選時都係得過講字,上台後外交手忙腳亂,經濟問題放手俾魯賓搞,自己就去搞女,結果美國經濟最好係果八年,同時被形容為最和平的八年。

矮肥鈍 said...

收收: 唔通你要我好似爛口發咁充闊佬? 唔係掛!! ^^

stan: 事到如今, 我唯有承認我係一隻披住羊皮既狼啦! =)

寶哥哥&millie: 總之依家d[學生]就令人搖晒頭啦! 歌都有得唱'戀愛大過天'嘛! =)

Stannum said...

講開桃花盛放﹐今日經過花店﹐見到有桃花賣﹐重開得幾好睇。澳洲桃花係中秋節開﹐嘻嘻。

矮肥鈍 said...

stan: 咁你自己d桃花有無料到先? =)

Stannum said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Stannum said...

唉﹐聽日都要去買番棵沖喜下咯……

Anonymous said...

M 妹&寶叔:邊樹有四個女人圍住呀?我個"小小工作組"的兩個拍檔
都係男仔/佬0黎0架。

Tim: 好一個無為而治!大把人以為勤力、親力親為係代表好,其實
就正好相反。當然,日夜搞女的,亦非咩好料。Delegation 呢味
0野,唔係人人都識,更唔係人人肯做。

Stan & 萬力:祝你地早日媾女成功啦!


--- 收買佬

Anonymous said...

師兄:

>你正在讀那課程基本上一年是不夠時間的,所以安排得很濃縮及
>緊密,即是很辛苦啦!

對一個出過來做0野的人來說,呢個課程的workload就唔算辛苦,
不過做的0野有時好細微好仔細,覺得有點煩。同埋成日禮拜六朝
早要"做大戲",幾鬼煩!新東西就無教,反之好似入職前的培訓
班。:)

>但捱完後應該有前途喎!

希望啦,盡其在我咯。~~~




---- Your humble fan, 收買佬

Anonymous said...

"Anybody But Bush" is illogical and dangerous. I wrote about this issue last time, and I want to continue with the theme in this edition of Outlook.

The concept is simple: if you are voting against something but are unaware of what you are voting for in its stead, then you run the risk of replacing one thing you don't like with something else much worse.

ABB means unthinking voters will simply support any anti-Bush ticket, regardless of the specifics of that ticket. In other words, people will vote for Kerry but without knowing or understanding what Kerry has in mind.

It's kind of like the X-Files episode earlier this week on Star TV where Mulder asks a genie for world peace. He gets it, but at the cost of a world empty of all other humans. Get it? Sure you can have world peace, if you're the only person in the world. No problem. Mulder reverses his first request with his second wish.

It's a bit silly, but it's still a succinct comment on unintended consequences and the idea of being careful what you wish for.

The simple concept stated simply:

Let me repeat. "Anybody But Bush" thinking is incredibly naive and potentially disastrous since if you don't really look at what you are subsequently supporting, then you don't know what you will get. It's also flawed in that its supporters do not examine carefully the present position.

Even with this concept clearly spelled out, I received "anybody but" responses which were typically anti-Bush but without any examination of the Kerry alternative and with only half-hearted attempts at looking at the reality of the current situation.

The whole point was to get folks to examine carefully the record and policies of both sides and to then make an informed choice! Yet what I received instead was further criticism of Bush, mostly in the form of flawed or spurious arguments, without any mention of the alternative, Mr. Kerry!

This most notably came from my esteemed colleague, Mr. Tony Measor, whose arguments I am forced to refute as I continue to encourage readers to approach calmly the issue of who would be the better president.

This time, rather than going on to examine Kerry, let's look at some of the common arguments against Bush. We'll resume the Kerry focus later.

The worst president of all time ... is not Bush:

Tony started off saying "George W. Bush has been the worst President in the short history of the United States." Unfortunately, that label belongs to Herbert Hoover.

Hoover was the president (Republican, admittedly) whose policies are widely recognised as causing the Great Depression to be so "Great."

What were some of these policies? Hoover's biggest mistake was to increase the already highly protectionist environment of the time with the passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which sharply raised tariffs on imports. The average tariff was 60%, though tariffs on certain products were in the hundreds of percent.

Then he went and raised taxes in '32 and pretty much cemented his election loss that year. Protectionism and increased taxes - eerily Kerry-like, don't you think?

So to start off, one shouldn't be quite so quick to label the current president as the most or least anything.

Debt ... the big non-issue:

Another common criticism is over the debt, and more specifically, the deficit. First to the issue of debt. It's a non-issue. The total federal debt has increased each and every year since 1960, according to Treasury Dept. debt data.

Debt can be split up into debt held by the public and debt held by intergovernmental agencies - the former is a more relevant measure of a country's financial health as it must be paid off when called in.

This more crucial number, public debt, is not historically high nor low as a percentage (currently 36%) of GDP. Since the early 60's (as far back as the sourced data went) the amount of public debt in the U.S. has been lower than the present level less than half the time, most recently from 2000-2002 and prior to that back in 1984.

Only in the recession-ridden 70's was the public debt significantly lower than today, in the 25-28% range.

The source for this is the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO does estimate that public debt will grow to 37% of GDP for 2004, increase the remainder of the decade, top out at 40%, and then decline again.

That's still about 10 percentage points lower than in the mid-90's.

Debt comparisons ... USA is fiscally responsible:

Let's also make some comparisons. France's public debt was nearly 70% last year, Germany's was 64%, Spain's 63%, Italy's over 100%, and closer to Hong Kong, Japan's 155% of GDP.

How about China? Similar to the U.S. actually - 30%. These figures courtesy of The World Factbook.

The deficit ... much ado about nada:

Now let's look at the deficit. Is this a problem?

Tony said the US deficit is 6% of GDP. Unfortunately, that's about 50% higher than the actual figure for the US but similar to the real figures for France and Germany (both of which, by the way, have blatantly ignored the EU's deficit limit of 3% of GDP).

The actual US deficit figure is 3.5% of GDP, and it is forecast to reach 3.6% in 2004 and then decline for the remainder of the decade, dropping below 2% in 2010 (certainly not "growing like Topsy" - one really should check facts).

The deficit in the early Reagan years - the period that everybody thought would see the U.S. brought to its knees because of massive defense spending and a sharp reduction in taxes - ranged between 4-6% of GDP and averaged 5%.

The vaunted great surplus that Bush inherited and then squandered appeared only in the waning years of the Clinton era, when tax revenues were up due to the bubble economy and through a drop in government spending on the military.

In other words, the deficit is a red herring. It is simply not the issue that many believe, and using historical figures, Bush's deficit record is actually rather modest.

Deficits in the business world ... Hutchison and 3G:

To understand deficits, let's make a real comparison to what happens in the commercial world. Let's take Hutchison as an example. Hutch spent billions on buying up 3G licenses and developing networks.

There were many arguments at the time that Hutch might never be able to recoup the cost, or that for it to achieve operating breakeven would be quite a time in coming. Hutch is not completely out of the woods yet, but it has projected 3G EBITDA breakeven next year.

Deficits are necessary in the commercial world to be able to make the sort of large investments that will offer a larger pay-off in the future.

Unlike governments, companies can't run deficits indefinitely, but to pretend they don't exist, or that the phenomenon is restricted to supposedly reckless Republican governments is, plainly put, silly.

Other spurious claims - Kyoto:

There were other dotty comments such as Bush's not signing the Kyoto Protocol. It's an old argument, so let's deal with it swiftly.

The U.S. first rejected it back in July 1997, for one thing (Congress, including Kerry, batted it down, not Bush, who wasn't President back then).

Second, it has been estimated that passage of Kyoto would decrease GDP growth in industrialized nations by 4-5% (disastrous, at best).

In April, Russian President Putin's economic adviser Andrei Illarionov described Kyoto as an "interstate Gulag" ("in a Gulag, people were at least given the same rations ... but the Kyoto Protocol proposes decreasing rations day by day") and a "death treaty" ("its main purpose is to stifle economic growth and economic activity in countries that assume obligations under this protocol").

Clearly it's not just Bush who has objections!

Third, even the issue of "global warming", which Kyoto is all about, is a tricky issue in the scientific community, which is still debating whether it is a man-made phenomenon or part of a natural earth cycle.

In other words, it's not that clean cut!

Fourth, even Kerry isn't for it anymore. Kerry the flip-flopper originally had (past tense) as part of his campaign platform the statement that "John Kerry will reinsert the United States into international climate negotiations."

It's not there anymore. Kerry has since then dropped his support for Kyoto in favor of domestic environmental policies.

Summary:

That is why the ABB camp is so dangerous. Frivolous arguments are put forth, facts not checked, spurious claims made, and then righteous indignation when someone debunks the fibs with some actual research into the matter. Once again, if one is to take one or another position, it pays to examine the facts and stated platforms.

Let me say it one last time! If you don't examine the issues and make sure the facts are straight, you cannot make an informed decision, let alone comment reasonably about it.

And that is what makes "Anybody But Bush" - emotional at heart - such a fundamentally flawed position.