It’s heartbreaking to read through his Wikipedia entry. After some years of success, he was eventually forced out of Garfield High by the entrenched establishment that was being disrupted by his aggressive vision and successes. It was as sad as a body rejecting a heart transplant. With Mr. Escalante’s departure, the math program he created at Garfield quickly collapsed and within a short few years, reverted to the same dismal state as before his arrival.

So what is Mr. Escalante’s legacy? We’re not satisfied to remember Mr. Escalante as a “miracle”. We don’t think that’s what he would have wanted. With his remarkable vision and ganas, he has shown us what is possible. Now how can we repeat his accomplishments across every subject, every school? That is the challenge he leaves to us.

We also saw this article from the Cato Institute on WSJ. It starts with lauding Mr. Escalante’s work but then deftly switches to bashing the teachers unions and calling for the privatization of the education system. As a California voter, I’ve seen those school voucher initiatives on almost every ballet since I’ve been old enough to vote. Time and again, they trot out the same argument that privatization would magically cure all of the education system’s woes. Time and again, they conveniently ignore the opposing argument that the effective result of school vouchers would be a regressive tax that reduces the burden on high income families while providing no benefits to most students, especially the ones with the greatest need… like those at schools like Garfield High.

Why is that the case? It’s just dollars and cents. If you were running a for-profit charter school “business”, do you think you would get the best ROI by entering markets like the inner-city? Not a chance. You’d stick with the lower hanging fruit of the upper- and upper-middle class neighborhoods. Leave the trouble areas for the public system.

If a shift to privatization won’t improve our schools, what will? Let’s find out. We owe it to Jaime Escalante to carry the torch forward.

献给Jaime Escalante

三月三十日。上个星期二。一个非同凡响的人Jamie Escalante去世了。今天我们重温了根据他的真实经历摄制的故事片《Stand and Deliver》。强烈推荐没有看过这部影片的朋友把它加入你的“必看影片列表”中去。Escalante被很多人尊称为“魔法师”。当年他放弃了在计算机公司的高薪工作，来到了洛杉矶市中心平民窟一个面临关闭的高中Garfield High School，接管了一群丧失了信任和希望的学生，决意带领他们攻克最难的一门学科：数学。这些学生奇迹般地在大学预修微积分课程测试获取高分。他们的表现如此超乎寻常，美国教育测试中心甚至设立调查小组追究他们是否集体作弊。在Escalante执教期间，Garfield High的学生在大学预修微积分课程测试中的表现领先全国。对这些学生来说，上大学曾经是个天方夜谭。在微积分课上拔尖，使得他们相信上大学不再是一个荒唐可笑的白日梦。

向Escalante致敬！也向那些在工作艰苦、收入微薄的岗位上贡献了全部身心、造就了我们的老师们致敬！虽然我从来没有遇到过Escalante，但是并不妨碍我被他熊熊燃烧的“ganas”温暖和照亮。ganas在西班牙文中是“渴望、激情”的意思。Escalante要他的学生相信他们可以改变他们的未来，唯一的前提，他说：“只要你们给我一样东西：渴望”。（“There are some people in this world who will assume that you know less than you do, because of your name and your complexion. But math is the great equalizer… You’re gonna work harder than you ever worked before. And the only thing I ask from you is ganas. Desire.” ——Escalante in Stand and Deliver)

Escalante的wikipedia页面上的描述令人伤心。十年之后，Escalante被迫离开了Garfield High。原因？——因为他的成功和远见“扰乱”了教育系统的秩序。就像一个有病的躯体排斥一次成功的心脏移植，Escalante被排斥了。在他离开之后，Garfield High的数学教学项目一落千丈，几年之后，重新回到了Escalante加入之前的无望状态。

Escalante留下了什么样的传奇？我们不甘于把Escalante纪念为纯粹的“奇迹”。我们也不相信那是他所希望的。他以他自己非凡的远见和“ganas”，向我们展示了哪些可能是可以企及的。他留下的挑战是，我们如何能把他的模式复制到所有的学科，所有的学校……？

这篇 来自Cato Institute刊登于《华尔街日报》的评论文章，从赞美Escalante开始，迅速滑入对教师工会的简短批判，最后以教育系统应该被私营化作结。“教育券”制度（如果你决定送你的孩子去私立学校，你可以得到以“教育券”形式的退税）的提议，总是此起彼伏。周而复始地，他们扔出那个让人感到审美疲劳的辩论：私营化将会神奇地解决现有教育系统的所有问题；周而复始地，他们很省心地避免提及教育券制度的实际效应是累退税制度（其结果是穷人的纳税／收入比例比富人的更高），高收入家庭的教育负担减轻，而大部分家庭的教育负担依旧，最需要帮助的学生（像 Garfield High这样的学校的学生）得不到任何帮助。教育券的数额并不足以让原本不能支付私立学校的家庭改变他们的决定，而同时，公共教育基金额却会降低。另一方面，私有基金不会进入最需要投资的社区。在商言商。如果你是一个投资或经营私立学校的生意人，追求经济高回报是你的使命，你会愿意在市中心贫民窟投资吗？你将更乐意驻守在胜利果实随手可得的上层或中上层社区。那些比较麻烦的社区？还是留给公共教育系统去解决吧。

如果教育私营化不是出路，那么我们的出路在哪儿？我们必须不懈地寻找答案。——这是Jaime Escalante应得的回报。

If you haven’t been following this issue, you can just take a look at this August 7th WSJ article, “Nervous Homeowners Await Findings on Chinese Drywall’s Health Effects”.

This article is pretty consistent with the others that have splattered the mainstream news over the last couple months.  Every time we’ve seen this issue come up, the way it has been covered left us feeling both sad and indignant.

The situation is definitely sad.  For most people, their house is the biggest component of their net-worth and the center of their family life.  To find that your home is uninhabitable and the bill to fix it is well beyond your means would simply be devastating.  There are also some reports that point to a possible link to health problems from these defective products.  If found to be true, the cost and suffering for these unfortunate families will be compounded.

What drives us crazy is that every one of these news articles screams about “Chinese drywall” or “another instance of Chinese product safety problems” when what is really happening is another instance of unscrupulous non-Chinese firms going into China to exploit, pollute, and then export sub-standard crap to rip-off consumers everywhere.  It happened with toys, then tires, then cat-food, and now dry-wall.  While all these products carry the sadly tarnished Made-in-China moniker, they were supposedly designed, produced, and quality-checked with the superior high-tech techniques brought to China by well-established US or European firms.  In these cases, what they brought to China was not better technology or techniques, but a desire to cut corners, fatten margins, and to find an unsophisticated fall-guy for when the whole thing crapped out.

Now don’t get us wrong.  Not every foreign firm turning to China for their manufacturing is acting in this manner.  However, the couple rotten apples have really spoilt the pie.  Counter to what the media would have us believe, this is not a case of “Americans getting victimized by Chinese people“.  If we chase the money trail and look for the fat margins, we’ll find that the Chinese workers (and Chinese people if you count the polution) are getting ripped-off just as much as the US consumer.

If the AP has got their figures right, we could be talking about a $10 Billion USD problem just with the defective dry-wall issue (100,000 homes needing $100,000 in repairs on average).  Chinese companies should band together to file an additional $10 Billion USD class-action suit against the scoundrels for the reputational damage so that they can spend it on the marketing needed to rehabilitate the Made-in-China brand.

你被“石灰墙”了吗？——不良产品，不良生意，不良媒体

下笔讨论这个话题是一件尤为困难的事情。几个月之前，当石灰墙事件在美国的主流媒体上刚刚浮现的时候，我们就觉得有义务说些什么。几个月以来，提笔放笔，反复了几次。面对美国主流媒体的失衡报导，我们意在发表一些相对平衡的观点，同时却充分认识到这个话题之微妙复杂，对我们的写作和沟通能力是个很大的挑战；若处理不当可能会使得大家误以为我们试图为不法商家作辩护——而我们丝毫没有如此意愿。现在看起来，在未来不短的时间之内，这个话题将在媒体上反复出现，以他们的方式持续伴随并困扰我们。因此，乐意也好，不乐意也罢，我们觉得必须得挑一挑这根刺。

如果你错过了以前的报导，只需要看看8月7号《华尔街日报》名为《住房业主紧张等待着中国石灰墙对健康影响报告》一文。

这篇文章很能代表过去几个月美国主流媒体对于石灰墙事件的报导。几个月以来，只要看到相关的报导，我们既感到痛心，又感到愤慨。

劣质石灰墙给相关业主造成的伤害令人痛心。对于大多数人来说，住房是家庭净资产中的最大一项，也是他们日常生活的中心。突然得知自己的房子不宜居住，而解决问题所需费用超出自己可支付金额，这是一个毁灭性的打击。有关健康机构怀疑这些劣质石灰墙对业主的身体健康造成危害。如果调查结果表明所怀疑的情况属实，这些不幸的家庭无疑将遭受加倍的伤害。

令我们感到愤慨的是，美国主流媒体大声叫嚷着“中国石灰墙”“中国产品存在安全问题的另一个例子”，毫无公允地避免提及这只是另一家进入中国采掘资源，污染环境，生产次等货，危害世界各地的消费者的不道德的非中国公司：有害玩具，有害轮胎，有害宠物食品，现在是有害石灰墙，无一例外。在这些事件中，这些被贴上 “中国制造”的有害产品，是由号称“向中国输入先进的科技和技术”的颇有建树的美国公司或欧洲公司设计、生产和质检的。这些公司并没有象他们自己承诺的，“向中国输入先进的科技和技术”，相反，他们不惜以诈取胜，扩张利润，一旦丑事败露，他们便拉上一个懵懵懂懂的垫背，使“中国制造” 蒙受更多的耻辱。

读到这里，请大家千万不要误会。我们无意一棍子打翻一船人，并不是所有在中国设立生产加工基地的外国公司都行不义之举，但是，“一粒老鼠屎打坏一锅汤”也是事实。媒体希望人们相信“美国人受害于中国人”，但是事实并非如此。如果我们进一步去追查谁获得了最肥厚的利润，我们会发现那些中国工人（如果算上污染，还包括中国老百姓）跟美国消费者受到同等程度的损害。

如果美联社的数字是对的，劣质石灰墙造成的经济总损失为100亿美金（10万幢住房，每幢平均修复金额10万美金）。中国公司也应该联合起来，集体状告这些不法商贩，索赔100亿美金的名誉损失费，用这笔钱进行市场营销，洗清被污染的“中国制造”之名。

If you have friends or family in China who are planning on watching the eclipse, we strongly urge you to forward them these points. We don’t want the legacy of this spectacular event to be a rash of vision damage or vision loss, especially in the young. As a reader of our blog, you know how strongly we feel about carrying out the duties of our social consciousness. Please help us get the word out, and as you do so, please urge your family and friends to spread the word of caution to the kids they see in the streets or parks around them to make sure they are safe.

Key Cautions:

• The biggest danger is that damage to the eyes is cause mainly by invisible infrared wavelengths. What this means is that even if you are looking through a material that dims the visible portion of the light, you may still be fully exposed to the damaging invisible infrared light. People who try to view the eclipse through sunglasses or other-tinted materials will be putting themselves in great danger of severe and irreversible eye damage
• You can cause very serious eye damage in a short period of exposure (just seconds)
• No pain does not mean no damage. Eye damage from retinal burns do not cause immediate pain and you will not realize the severity of the damage until several hours later… much too late to do anything about it.
• Burns to retina can cause permanent vision loss
• During the “totality” (when the sun is completely obscured by the moon), the eclipse is safe for direct viewing. However, DON’T LOOK UNTIL THE ECLIPSE HAS PASSED. In particular, the “diamond ring” effect (when the sun is just starting to reemerge behind the moon) is particular damaging since your pupils will be dilated and even a small fraction of direct sunlight is strong enough to cause severe burns to the retina.

Please Don’t:

• Please don’t try to take pictures of the partial eclipse. Photographic equipment will focus the light and increase the danger of damaging your eyes. Only attempt to photograph the eclipse if you have purchased and installed the proper filter on your equipment. Same goes for telescopes and binoculars.
• Please don’t use unapproved filters that just dim the light. They WILL NOT PROTECT YOUR EYES. Unapproved filters include:
  • sunglasses
  • photographic neutral density filters
  • smoked glass
  • polarizing filters
  • compact discs
  • floppy disk media
  • all color film
  • black-and-white film that contains no silver
  • any film negatives bearing images.
  • jars of ink

Please Do:

• Pin-hole cameras/projectors are the safest way to view the eclipse. These can be made in just a couple minutes from materials that you have handy. Below are a couple good links we’ve found. If you’re going to make one, please go ahead and make a couple more spares. I’m sure you’ll find a kid outside who will be very grateful to have it.
  • http://www.exploratorium.edu/eclipse/card.html
  • http://westlake.k12.oh.us/LbmsLibrary/8sc/pinhole%20project.pdf
• Shade number 14 welder’s glass
• If you are going to be using a special pair of eclipse viewing “glasses”, please be sure to get it from a source you trust! Don’t put your eyes at risk to save a couple yuan.

Enjoy the eclipse! It is a fabulous expression of nature and one you won’t see again in quite a good many years. And while you’re doing so, please be sure to help and protect the children around you.

安全观看日全食

（今天的讨论将稍微偏离我们通常涉及的话题。今天去观看日全食的国内的亲人和朋友：这是一份安全警告！）

日全食是一个罕见而美丽的自然景观。在长沙的姐姐将带着她的孩子去最佳观测地点之一武汉去欣赏这一罕有景观。今天中午，我们谈起了不安全的观测方法将对眼睛造成极大的伤害，最严重的甚至可能导致永久性失明。我决定花点时间了解一下国内公众所依赖的权威信息来源以及官方或主流媒体提供了什么样的指导 或建议。我去了国家航天局和北京天文馆的网站（两个网站上面都没有太多的信息），又浏览了央视网、人民日报网站、光明日报网站、新浪网的相关文章和视频，接着又查阅了美国国家航天局的网站、BBC在1999年日全食在英国出现时所制作的专题。我发现国内的主流媒体关于日全食的报道及专家的访谈中，对不安全的观测方法对眼睛造成的危害强调得远远不够。某些观测方法从理论上来说是“安全”的，从操作的角度来说却是很不安全的。

我们匆匆忙忙地总结了一些关键注意事项，发送给亲人和朋友，并会在各大网上论坛上发布。如果你的亲人或朋友准备去观看日全食，强烈建议你把这几点注意事项转告给他们。我们不希望因为这次自然奇观的发生，在中国造成大规模范围的视力损伤甚至失明。每个人背负起自己的那份社会责任是这个博客力推的价值观。请帮助我们传递这些注意事项。并请你的亲人和朋友转告他们的邻居、或是 恰好站在他们身边的其他观看日全食的所有孩子。

重要警告:

• 对视力造成伤害的主要来源是肉眼不可见的红外线。也就是说，就算某些工具能够降低肉眼可见光线的强度，并不代表它是安全的。使用太阳眼睛、胶片、或其它有色材料观看日全食将会损害眼睛。
• 在如此的强光直接照射之下，只需几秒钟就会损害眼睛。
• 没有立即感到疼痛并不意味着你的眼睛没有受到损害。视网膜的灼伤并不一定造成立时的疼痛，你可能在几小时之后才察觉到眼睛被损害，而那个时候，已经没有太多补救措施。
• 一旦视网膜被灼伤，将造成永久性失明。
• 理论上来说，日全食（月亮和太阳完全重叠的瞬间）是可以用肉眼观看的。无数见证者都认为这是一个不可错过的美丽景观。如果你是在用肉眼观看，千万不要等着太阳重新出现的一瞬间再收回你的视线，因为那一瞬间足以伤害你的眼睛。在太阳重新出现那一刻，会出现所谓的“钻石光环”，对眼睛的伤害尤其严重。 ——因为日全食的时候的黑暗使得你的眼睛处在散瞳状态，瞬间暴露在强光之下足以灼伤视网膜。

千万不要:

• 月亮和太阳没有完全重叠的时候，不要拍照。镜头的聚光效应将加倍伤害你的眼睛。同样的原因，不要使用任何形式的望远镜。
• 不要使用未经安全验证的滤镜。包括:
  • 墨镜
  • 偏光墨镜或滤镜
  • 摄影用滤光镜
  • 深色玻璃
  • CD
  • 曝光后的底片
  • 彩色底片
  • 不含银的曝光适度的黑白底片（只有少数的黑白底片如柯达Tri-X或Pan-X是含银的，而且需要曝光适度才可以用来观测日食，此方法操作起来太复杂，故不推荐使用）
  • 冲洗后的上有影像的底片
  • 装有墨水的玻璃瓶

安全的工具：

• 小孔成像的工具是最安全的观看日食的工具。几分钟就可以做好，而且材料随手可得。请看
  • http://www.exploratorium.edu/eclipse/card.html
  • http://westlake.k12.oh.us/LbmsLibrary/8sc/pinhole%20project.pdf

• 电焊护目镜（14号镜片）
• 如果你决定购买日全食观测专用镜，请确认商家的信誉。千万不要做得不偿失的不明智的决定。

最后，希望你们好好欣赏这个奇妙的自然景观，同时请留意并保护你周围的孩子。

• Instinctively, I went to Belinda’s FB account and looked for the application she was using to connect Flickr updates to her Facebook feed. Since the crux of social networking is to share cool things with your friends, sharing cool Facebook things should a no-brainer, right? Wrong.
• I went back to Facebook to “browse more applications”, didn’t see anything that looked like what I wanted under “Featured by Facebook” or “Applications you may like”. A category of “Apps Your Friends are Using” was also conspicuously missing.
• Giving up on Facebook, I signed into my Flickr Pro account to continue searching for the tool to connect the two services. They didn’t intend to make it easy for me either. A few (aggravating) minutes later, I gave that up too. It appears that the walls around these “walled gardens” are rather well fortified. Whether that’s by acts of omission or commission is harder to tell.
• When the obvious fails, I turned to Google. My query, “how to share Flickr photos on Facebook?” returned the typical 17,275,865 search results. The first answer they threw at me was a blog entry talking about Flickr2Facebook, which turned out not be the app I wanted. The next couple results were also off target.
• I changed my Google query to “How to upload Facebook and Flickr automatically”. The third link pointed to an app called “Facebook My Flickr” on Facebook’s website so I decided to give that a try. (It must be good since it’s on Facebook’s own site, right?) I installed the application. The installation was a single click, but the application itself had the most user-unfriendly interface I’ve seen in quite a while. I simply couldn’t get it to work.
• I glanced at the clock at it was 35 minutes since I started. That’s way longer than I’d expected to spend to figure out how to install an app on Facebook.

I think I’m pretty darn tech savvy but without a compsci degree, I can’t qualify as a real geek. Would a technie be able to figure it out faster? I had to find out. My guy has a compsci BS from Berkeley and had designed CPUs in his days so that should be enough geek-cred to figure this out. I got him to sit in front of the computer, showed him Belinda’s Facebook newsfeeds with her Flickr photo uploads, and asked him to figure out how to install the same feature on his account. I also told him I was treating it as a bit of “ethnographic research” on user experience and would be timing him.

While he was accessing his FB account, he pitched to me his intended approach to the mission, “Aren’t we talking about ‘open’ social?! I bet I’m going to find a page on how to do this on either Facebook or Flickr (I’m betting Facebook). If I need to use Google, that’s going to be real sad….” He set out with such great hopes that I almost felt bad knowing what he was going to find… 15 minutes later, he threw up his arms in exasperation, “So much for ‘open‘ social.”

With a wry smile, he said he was going to need to fall back on Google. The first search result he found was the same “Facebook My Flickr” app that I had found earlier. Here’s where he did something different. Instead of clicking the install button, he started reading up on the app, checked the submitter and looked through the feedback. He saw that I was also a user of the app and asked me if I had gotten it work. Nope. And then he had a good laugh and asked, “Did you just give your Yahoo login to a junior at the University of Houston?” Doh!

Wait a second! What junior at UH? I’m usually pretty cautious about installing apps. Given the amount of spam, phishing, and malware I come across every day, I usually check and double-check before installing any apps or widgets. In this case, I slipped. Between the frustration of not finding the information readily available on either sites and seeing that a couple friends (including Belinda and three engineers) were already using it, I thought the app must be the right one. The one-click installation also hadn’t point out that this was a third-party app and that I was potentially releasing control of my Flickr account to a third-party.

At the 25-minute point, my technie came across a Google search result which pointed to a page on Flickr’s support page (which neither of us had spotted earlier using their internal search engines). That page outlined a step-by-step process to link up the two services, both from the Flickr side and also provided the necessary link to the Facebook account setup page. The rest was easy.

So it took 30 minutes, a couple Google queries, and a comp-sci degree to enable a no-brainer functionality on Facebook! Makes you wonder what the people over at Facebook and Flickr even imagine an “open platform” to be. An open platform strategy is one that entices third-party developers to add value for your users. It’s not enough to simply ask, “Can they do it?” Whereas the current answer is, “Yes.” However, just because they can do it (e.g. by having APIs) doesn’t mean that you’ve successfully created an ecosystem that would attract the best external-driven innovation and that your users are able to take advantage of all the cool new features.

Instead, an open platform strategy needs to be holistic and considers the needs and benefits of all the stakeholders involved. For example, if you expect developers to spend their time building great apps, you need to consider how contributors can reach the users so that their work will be appreciated (and maybe even monetized). To protect the user, you need to provide mechanisms to ensure quality apps (i.e. a comment thread is not nearly enough). You also need to provide safeguards to protect users from those with malicious intent. These are just some of the basics.

Microsoft’s three decade reign over the PC industry has already demonstrated the power of open platforms. Today, social networking web services still seem to be struggling to get through the “walled garden” phase of mainstream deployment. Instead of focusing on creating the best user experience, they are busy fighting for user-share and finding annoying ways of creating “lock-in“. If past experience is any guide, once the technology becomes commonplace, users will gravitate toward the service that is friendliest to use. Let’s see which web service is actually going to put a true open-platform strategy in place to become the preferred platform for social web services innovation. Yahoo, are you listening?

PS. If I’ve piqued your interests in connecting your Flickr account to Facebook, here is the link

开放平台，能有多开放？

Facebook上的“活动信息通报”时不时地告诉我：Belinda往她的Flickr帐户上传了一张照片。我觉得这个功能挺酷的，让我能及时地欣赏Belinda的最新摄影作品。正好我也有一个Flickr的专业帐户（Flickr的付费服务，愿意付这个费也是因为他们的确比别的图片分享网站做得好）。我觉得把Flickr跟Facebook连接起来是个挺好的主意，于是马上开始了行动。所经过的步骤如下一一：

• 理所当然地，我先来到了Belinda的Facebook页面，期望可以在这儿轻易地找到她所用的插件。既然社交网络的关键是跟朋友之间分享一切“酷”的东西，Facebook分享自己的“酷”的东西不就是拿手一绝吗？事实却并非如此。 我在Belinda的页面上刨来刨去，结果却是一无所获 。
• 我回到自己的Facebook帐号上“浏览更多功能”，在“Facebook推荐插件”以及“也许你会喜欢的插件”的目录下， 看来看去也没看到我想要的功能。此外，显而易见地，他们也缺乏一个类似“你的朋友正在使用的插件”的目录。
• 在Facebook上白白费了些时间之后, 我登录到Flickr，希望他们给我提供连接两个帐户的途径。结果证明他们也没打算让我的日子好过一点儿。折腾了几分钟，我决定另找出路。看来“围墙花园”的围墙还真不低。——很难说这是疏忽还是有意。
• 明修栈道既然不成，只能暗渡陈仓了。我求助于Google。一如既往地，针对我的问题“如何在Facebook帐户分享Flickr的照片”，Google顺手一扔，给了我一个天文数字的“查询结果”——管它们沾边儿还是不沾边儿。第一个链接是一篇谈及Flickr2Facebook的博文。看了一下，发现不是我想要的功能。接下来的几个链接都是八杆子打不着的主儿。
• 把Google查询改为“如何自动更新Flickr和Facebook?” 看到第三个链接的名字就叫“Facebook My Flickr”, 直接指向Facebook的网址，于是决定试一下。（既然在Facebook自己的网站上，应该还会不错吧。）插件安装一键就成。使用界面却是不近的近来我所见过的最不友好的一个。整了半天我就是整不明白怎么个用法。
• 看了一下时间，从我开始试着安装这个插件算起，35分钟已经过去了，远远超过我预想的在Facebook上装一个插件的时间。于是宣告此次安装活动就此告终。

虽然我自认为算是个网络技术老手，但是没有一个计算机科学的学位，我怎么也算不上个合格的技术“极客”。真正的技术“极客”是不是很快就把这事儿搞定？——我必须得给这个问题找到答案。

我LD是伯克利大学的电子工程＋计算机科学专业出身、又曾设计CPU好几年，他应该算得上个“极客”了吧。我把他拉到电脑前，让他看了“活动信息通报”上关于Belinda往她的Flickr帐户上传了照片的信息，请他在他的Facebook上装上同样的功能。我告诉他这是一个关于“用户体验”的调研，整个过程将被严格计时。

在他登录Facebook的同时，他向我解释他完成此项任务的方法论：这不是“开放社交”时代嘛，因此呢，我敢打赌呢，这个插件呢，不在Flickr上就在Facebook上。不过我在Facebook上多放一点赌注……如果我需要启动Google来完成这项任务，那就未免太悲哀了…….” 他就这样信心满满地出发了，让我几乎为他感到难过。

15分钟之后，他近乎抓狂地地两手一摊…… “开放社交”？！！！

他的嘴角浮现一丝嘲讽的微笑，告诉我他也只能求助于Google了。他的第一个搜索结果把他引到了我早先安装的“Facebook My Flickr”。 他没有点击安装，而是查看了程序编写人，阅读了说明和用户反馈。同时他发现我已经下载了这个程序，就问我是不是已经启动了我想要的功能。我说没有。他笑着问我：“那你干吗把你的Yahoo 帐户信息（与我的Flickr帐户同步）提交给一个休斯顿大学的大三学生？！”

什么？！什么休斯顿大学的大三学生？！我通常对安装插件保持非常谨慎的态度。看看我们每天被多少垃圾邮件、网络诈骗、恶意软件轰炸！一般来说，在我安装插件或程序之前，我都要检查了再检查。但是我刚才竟然疏忽了！在抓狂和被误导（看到5个朋友包括Belinda和3个在硅谷工作的工程师安装了此插件的提示）之间，我以为这就是我想要找的插件。“一键安装”甚至没有提醒我这是第三方软件，安装此软件意味着我的Flickr和Facebook帐户信息可能面向第三方开放！

25分钟。我的“极客”在Google查询结果上看到了一条通往Flickr的帮助链接。（但是之前我们俩在Flickr网站上搜索的时候，都没有发现这个页面。）这个页面解说了连接两个帐户的步骤，并提供了通往Facebook相关操作界面的链接。之后的故事就很简单了…….

看来，为了安装一个简单的Facebook插件并使之运行，你需要30分钟、数次Google查询、1个计算机科学学位！你不禁疑惑在Facebook和Flickr的想像中，“开放平台”到底意味着什么。开放平台策略是吸引第三方程序编写人员为你的用户提供更多价值。可是，仅仅提出“他们（第三方程序编写人员）能行吗？”这个简单的问题远远不够。这个问题的回答是肯定的。但是他们能行并不代表你能成功创造一个激励外部开发力量持续创新、方便用户采用最新最酷功能的生态环境。

开放平台需要具备全体意识、考虑到每个利益相关者的需要和需求。比如说，如果你想要第三方程序人员花时间给你编写功能强大的插件，你最好也花点时间想清楚你能如何保证他们的作品／产品被欣赏和采用，甚至，赚点钱。而从用户的角度，你需要提供一个保障插件质量的机制（只是一个反馈信息页面远远不够）。你还需要保护你的用户，防止他们遭受恶意攻击。这些都是基本必需。

微软三十多年来一统电脑工业，身体力行地证实了开放平台的力量。今天，社交网络服务似乎仍然挣扎在主流科技曾经经历的“围墙花园”阶段。他们把更多的精力在花在抢用户、绞尽脑汁用各种招用户烦的手段“锁住”用户，而不是在提供更好的用户体验方面竞争。如果过去的经验可以借鉴，那么有一点可以肯定，那就是，一旦科技不再是稀缺资源，谁能给用户提供更友好的服务，用户就偏向谁。让我们拭目以待，看看哪个网络服务将实行真正意义的“开放平台策略”，创新社交网络服务，赢得用户的偏爱。

Yahoo, 你们在倾听用户的声音吗？

附言：读完此文之后，如果你也想同步你的Flickr和Facebook帐号，请点此链接

The press is already doing a very good job with the stress, unhappiness and finger-pointing so we’ll leave that job in their capable hands.  Let us turn instead to the opportunity in front of us to, first, understand the problem, and then, consider what we can do as members of a democracy to tackle this issue.

This budget crisis is one heck of a wake-up call.  What is more shocking than waking up one morning to find ourselves with a 24-odd BILLION dollar budget deficit, is the sad realization that we really understand very little of how our government is using OUR money.  When I looked through the voter information pamphlet for last week’s special elections, I was truly stumped.  Do they really expect me to be able to make an informed budgetary decision based on the information provided?  If this happened at work and someone came to me to approve a cost-cutting proposal that was heavy with budgetary minutiae, but light on impact analysis and financial modeling, I’d send them packing.

What we have here is not just a budget crisis, but a governance crisis.  With corporate governance, the stockholders (us) elect a board of directors to hire and advise the top executives.  Every quarter, we demand a rigorous reporting (10Q/K) reviewed by external accountants.  If we don’t like what we see, we short the stock.

With our government, we take a completely different approach.  We elect the executives (in the form of government officials), forgo all reporting, and then just hope and pray that they “do the right thing”.  Some might be quick to point out that the government operates very differently from for-profit enterprises.  While corporations can boil down their performance into a set of quantifiable metrics based on profitability and growth (apologies in advance to fans of the balanced scorecard), the performance of the government is much harder to quantify and the demands of each stakeholder (members of the electorate) are unique.  When we attended a talk by SF Mayor Gavin Newsom at the UC Berkeley Haas School of Business last month (embed link), he made the same point.

So where does that put us?  One the one hand, governing our government is harder than governing our for-profit enterprises.  One the other hand, if we add up all the different taxes and fees that we pay, we each contribute close to half of our income to that establishment.  Put it another way, we spend more of our wealth on our government than we spend on any of our other expenditures (e.g. our housing, our car(s), food, clothing, etc) but we spend much less of our time figuring out if we are getting the best bang for our buck.

We need to do more, that much is clear.  What we need to do, unfortunately, is much less clear.  I wish there was a website we could go to that would quickly bring us up to speed on our government, to the point that we can make responsible decisions on things like the special elections.  It would be even nicer if this “magic” website can help me track the performance of my government on the issues I care about the way I can track EPS, revenue growth and margins on the stocks I care about.

The “How-to-Manage-Your-Government-for-Dummies” website doesn’t (yet) exist.  While we wait for it to be created, there are a couple things we can do:

Educate Ourselves – Government websites actually provide a plethora of information regarding current legislation being proposed, the budget, and other areas of government action.  It does take a good amount of effort to go through this information… but heck, we’re paying for it already, right?

Get Involved – Democracy is more than just going out to vote.  Take the time to find the organizations that align with your particular political slant and get involved! Actively engage the causes that you support.  Take the initiative to raise awareness for issues that you feel strongly about.  If you feel sufficiently motivated, please go create the “How-to-Manage-Your-Government” website… you will win the gratitude of millions!

Help Raise a Smarter Electorate – One of the challenges to being a better voter is being able to understand the complex system that is our government.  Most of us went through a K-12 education that taught a very linear, cause-and-effect style of reasoning.  That deeply ingrained linear mentality makes us woefully unprepared to grapple with the multi-sided tradeoffs that are required to make intelligent decisions in a democracy.  One person who has championed a new approach to education… that will hopefully raise a new generation of better thinkers, and, hence, better voters… is Professor Jay Forrester at MIT Sloan.  If you are raising a couple of future voters, I would strongly urge you to take a look at the Creative Learning Exchange and see how you can help promote these concepts at your local schools.

Democracy is a wonderful thing to enjoy… but it also takes a lot of work to earn.  For our friends who hope to spread the seeds of democracy, I urge them to learn all they can about the strengths and weaknesses of the US democratic process.  When we, the people, are given the right to govern ourselves, we also take on the heavy burden of managing our government… a responsibility that many of us in the US have shirked.  Do we want to realize the dreams of those who sacrificed two decades ago?  Only when we fully appreciate the magnitude of the challenge, will we be able to bring those dreams closer to reality.

危难中的机会

在学校念书的时候，有一天一个教授把我叫到讲台上，要我用中文在黑板上写下两个大字“危机”，并在两个字的下方分别注明对应的英文翻译。随后他开始大赞中国人的智慧和乐观精神：从词语构造来看，英文中危难和机会两个词互不相关，事实上，机会跟危难总是结伴而行（ “Wherever there is a crisis, there is an opportunity”），中国人深知此理，所以把两个字放在一起组成“危机”这个词语。

现实生活中，危难往往带来一定程度的压力、不悦、相互指责，可是，乌云背后也总是透出一线光芒，指引人们退居自己的灵魂深处进行反思。

加州政府的这次预算危机，危难中也见机会。我们借此看到了至少两件我们可以做的事：一、进一步理解问题的所在；二、作为这个民主社会的一员，在我们力所能及的范围之内探索问题的解决方案。

请让我先把事情的经过简单叙述一下。2009－2010财年加州政府面临240亿美元的财政赤字。以州长阿诺·施瓦辛格率领的加州政府领导班子面临两个选择：增加可支出经费或者缩减支出。前者意味着加税、发放国债等等，后者意味着取消或压缩部分州政府资助项目。两条都是窄路，都不得民心，谁做这个决定谁就有输掉下一界选举的可能。于是州政府出了一招：让选民自己决定是否愿意交更多的税，是否愿意取消或压缩州政府资助项目，哪些州政府资助项目可以被取消或压缩。如果选民自己做了决定，将来他们谁也不能责怪，不是吗？选民把球接过来一看说，你让我投票我就投啊？我可不上当。你碰到难题就让我给你找答案，那我雇你干什么用？于是他们又把球抛回去了。5月19号的投票结果显示，不到25％的选民参与投票；6个提案中，只有最后一项关于在政府经费出现赤字的年头高级政府官员的工资不得上涨的命名为1F的提案得以通过，其它5项均被否决。（值得一提的是，1F提案涉及的资金大约为50万美金，也就是说，下一年中，受到这个提案影响的一部分高级政府官员的工资保持不变，将节省大约50万美金的政府开支，而根据估计，组织这次选举的花费约为6000万至1亿美金。）

警钟敲醒梦中人。震惊的是某一天我们一觉睡醒发现自己竟然合伙背了24亿美元的债务；而悲哀的是，我们发现自己对政府到底在如何支配我们自己的钱财只是略知皮毛。

在读过上周的特别选举的选民信息手册之后，我们不禁困惑：拥有知情权的我们，得到的就只是这样的情报吗？在工作中，如果有人给我提交一个预算方案，其中堆砌着繁琐的细目和生僻的术语、却不提供任何收益分析和财务模型，我想我会当即请他打包走人。

我们这里面临的不仅仅是预算危机，更多的是监管危机。在商业监管系统中，股东们选举出董事会，董事会雇佣公司的核心管理成员。每一季、每一年我们都要求他们提交经由第三方会计事务所审核的报告（10Q/10K）。如果我们觉得这些报告不具说服力，我们会卖空手上的股票。

在政府监管系统中，我们却采取完全不同的方法。我们选举出核心管理成员之后，把大小事务一揽子全都托付给他们，不要求他们提供任何报告，只是双手合十，祷告他们可以“为我们”做出正确的决定。当然，有人会争论说政府监管和公司监管不尽相同。我们可以制定出盈利率和市场增长率等非常量化的指标来衡量公司的业绩（向推崇平衡记分卡的朋友致歉）；相对而言政府的业绩更难以量化，而且，每个股东（每个选民）都有各自独特的需求。上个月我们去伯克利大学商学院参加了旧金山市市长盖文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）的演讲会，他也强调了这个观点。

看来我们身处困境之中。一方面，监管政府要比监管商业机构困难，另一方面，我们把自己向政府上缴的各种税、费加起来，总额占到我们收入的一半；一方面，我们花在政府的钱远比我们花在房、车、衣服、食物等等的钱要多得多，另一方面，我们却花着少得多的时间琢磨我们如何利用这笔巨额花费给我们创造更大的收益。

清楚的是，我们需要采取行动，不太清楚的是，如何采取行动？真希望政府提供一个网站，让我们快速地了解政府的所作所为，以便我们能对类似这次特别选举的行动做出负责任的回应。当然， 如果这个网站还能提供一系列针对政府业绩表现制定的类似于我们用来衡量公司的每股收益、市场增长率、盈利能力等等的相应指标，那就更好了。

不幸的是，至今为止我们还没有一个这样的 “傻瓜指南：如何管理你自己的政府” 网站。在我们等待这样的网站诞生的时候，其实还有几件事是我们可以同时操作的：

• 自我教育。政府的网站提供了大量关于法案、预算、其它各种举措的信息。一一读过的确需要花费很多的时间，不过，既然我们已经花费了很多金钱，再花费一点时间优化一下收益也是很必要的。
• 积极参与。花点时间找到代表你利益的政治团体，成为其中的一员。积极参与你信仰和支持的事业和活动。如果你有足够的精力和热情，给你所关心的事务建立一个相应的“傻瓜指南：如何管理你自己的政府”网站，千百万人会为之感激你。
• 培养更聪明的选民。成为一个聪明的选民的挑战之一是深切地认识到政府这个系统的复杂性。我们的教育系统传授给我们的是一个线性地分析因果的思考方式。在民主制度生活下的公民享受和服务民主的一个必备能力，是做出多边的成本和利益的交换和取舍的明智决定的能力。而植根于我们头脑中的线性思考方式削弱了这个能力。麻省理工学院的杰·福斯特（Jay Forrester）教授正在推动一项从幼儿园到高中教育的改革运动，有望培养更好的思考者，这些更好的思考者也有望成为更好的选民。如果你有孩子，强烈建议你对福斯特教授的 “创造性学习互换（Creative Learning Exchange）” 项目作些了解，在当地的学校推广相应的概念。

民主非常美妙，但是需要付出很多努力才可以得到。立志传递民主火种的朋友们，希望你们充分理解每一个美国民主进程的优点和弱点。我们被赋予监管自己的权利，但是同时我们也背负了监管政府的重大责任，一个很多人都在逃避的重大责任。我们希望实现二十年前那些牺牲者的梦想吗？——只有更深刻地认识实现这个梦想的挑战性，我们才能更接近地发掘实现这个梦想的可能性。

This week, we take a more serious look at the matter. What is going on here runs a good deal deeper than just another bit of racial insensitivity. When we peel back the onion, we uncover issues that go to the heart of how a Democracy functions. Those of us who took the US government class in high school may enjoy this revisit to the old civics concepts. Those who haven’t studied US government can further their appreciation for the complex system that is necessary to sustain a Democratic form of government.

Let’s start with the skin of the onion, the part with all the dirt. When we first read about Rep. Brown’s comments, we couldn’t help feeling a bit torn. Both of us have English names and, living in the States, use them more often than our Chinese names. But to have a government official suggesting implementing legislation that would take away that choice and compels us to drop our Chinese names in favor of an American one. Who would not be infuriated?

Voltaire famously wrote that, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Now we have that situation in reverse. We don’t really object with the idea of adopting an American name. In fact, many of us have already done so. It is only courteous to our adopted societies to want to be part of it. Picking an American name that makes life a little easier for our non-Chinese friends and colleagues helps to bridge the gap between the different cultures. But to take away from us the choice, of deciding whether or how we would change our names, would be insufferable. Against that, we retort, “I agree with what you have to say, but I’ll fight to the death against your imposing it on me.“ Thankfully, things did get that far out of hand. As yet, Rep. Brown claims a “misunderstanding” and no legislation explicitly targeting Asian-Americans is being proposed.

That brings us to the next layer of the onion. The whole name-changing outcry was perhaps a mere red herring. It turns out that Rep. Brown’s offending comments were made during a deliberation of SB 362, a piece of legislation in the Texas legislature that sought to erect new rules to govern the voting process. Known as “Voter ID” laws, these kinds of legislation have popped up from time to time in various states and it is worth our while to give them a closer look.

On the surface, these proposed laws are rather reasonable and benign. A voter identification law request that voters are required to show their official identification document (e.g. driver license, passport, etc) when they arrive at the polling station on the date of the vote. The document would then be cross-checked with the names on the voter lists to confirm the identity of the voter and prevent people from “stealing” a vote by posing as another person. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Wrong!

Laws cannot be taken at face value. Our sacred duty, as citizens of a Democracy, is to hold our elected officials accountable for the decisions they make in our stead. When we look at the laws that are proposed, we must hold them to two key tests. Firstly, is the law necessary? Unnecessary laws are not just wasteful of the resources of our government, but are dangerous. They could lie dormant and forgotten, and then be misapplied by people in government to do things we would not have intentionally given them permission to do. Secondly, what is the likely result of the law? It’s not about predicting the future, but carefully examining the possible outcomes and deciding if the costs outweigh the benefits. And there are always costs.

Let’s take another look at voter ID laws and we’ll see that they will fail on both tests. First, they are not necessary. There is no credible government study to show that voter impersonation is a significant problem. Even if it has happened in very isolated incidents, it has not proven to be either systemic or statistically significant.

The second test gives an even more unsettling result. Given a voter ID law, the two obvious cases where people would be turned away at the polls are those who forgot to bring their identification and those whose identification had a mismatch with their names on the voter lists. For the first case, a certain number would be willing to fetch their document from home and return to the poll and some will not. Since forgetfulness is pretty much an equal-opportunity affliction, as long as the new requirements are publicized to all voter groups with equal effect (i.e. in native languages where needed) than there the voting results should not be skewed in favor or against any one group.

For the second case, those with a mismatch, the situation is more complicated. Those who grow up in the States, and have been “in the system” since birth, will probably have consistent names registered on all of their documents. Immigrants, on the other hand, are prone to having small mistakes and inconsistencies in their documents, especially when their names needed to be translated from a foreign language and the paperwork was completed over many years. The likelihood is high that the vast majority of those who are turned away from the polls for having mismatched documents will be immigrants. It’s not different from the poll taxes used in the past. In this case, the cost of the law would be borne disproportionately by one group of the citizenry.

That, my friend, is a BIG PROBLEM!

Betty Brown forcing us to change our names pales in comparison to taking away our very right to vote and be represented in our government.

We put this issue to a very non-statistically-sound test the other night when we went to a friend’s house for dinner. When we broached the topic of the post, we did an informal survey around the table to see how many of us had name mismatches in our official documents. Would you believe, 4 out of 4? Two had only phonetic Chinese names on some documents and American names on others. One of us had a “hyphen” that existed in only some documents. Even the friend from France had a mismatched stemming from having the middle name fully spelled out in one document and only initialed on another. Which mistake should result in disenfranchisement? Who should be given the authority to judge?

A law that not only disenfranchises, but disenfranchises selectively, and provides no clear social benefit is a bad law. Why would such legislation even be proposed, you ask? That brings us to the last layer of the onion we will peel today.

In a Democracy, different groups jostle to influence the allocation of resources and preferences. A myriad of laws and checks-and-balances in the government exists to try to safeguard the rights of minority groups from the voting power of majority groups. Between these tensions we hope that the greatest social good is served. But we know that the system has flaws. The disenfranchisement of one group increases the relative power of another. Laws such as SB 362 are attempted because while some people will be harmed, some others will stand to benefit. In a Democracy, your rights could be threatened at any time and you must forever stand vigilant.

This is no condemnation of Democracy. On the contrary! It is this very struggle and vigilance by every member of a Democracy that constantly rejuvenates this form of government and helps to prevent stagnation and decline. But to enjoy the fruits of Democracy, every member needs to bear a burden. We must always be alert to what our elected officials are trying to do. We must make it our business to understand the laws being proposed, and not just prima facie, but to think through to the impact and implications.

If you’re living in Texas, now is the time to speak up. Rep. Brown, on her website, claims that 90% of the electorate supports this bill. If that’s anywhere close to the truth, you’ve got a lot of work to do to help educate the public on this issue. The bill has already passed the Texas Senate on a straight party-line vote, which suggests the strong biases at work. Even if you are not a voter, you can get involved by attending rallies and signing petitions. Closer to home, you can bring up the subject with friends and colleagues and make sure they understand why Voter ID laws are biased and will selectively disenfranchise a portion of the population without yielding any general social gain.

For those of us not in Texas, we need to take this as a reminder that we hold a sacred duty as a member of a Democracy to commit to staying informed, staying involved, and making our votes and voices heard. If you’re not yet a voter, you still want to keep informed. Don’t wait until the morning of your first ballot to open a voter’s information pamphlet. There is a lot to learn and the time to start is now.

Our friends and readers in China, you too are involved. Democracy is not given; it is earned. Many friends in China still see Democracy as simply a right to vote for the people in office. It is not that simple and not that easy. Democracy requires a high level of civic awareness and involvement from every member. Only by making the effort to better understand the actual workings of Democracy will we be making forward progress towards a representative government in China.

Democracy takes a lot more work than just showing up every two years to mark a ballot.

超乎改名之外：关于公民权的讨论

两周之前，在一次相关的立法听证会上，德州州议员贝蒂·布朗（Betty Brown）对当地美籍华裔协会的代表葛怀中（Ramey Ko）说：“与其让大家都去学中文，不如你和你的同胞改一个比较容易辨认的名字…… 如果你们采用让美国人更容易处理的简单名字 ，对你们、对投票站的工作人员岂不都好？”此言既出，激发了在美华人的公愤，大家纷纷谴责贝蒂·布朗“侮辱性的”、“种族性”的言论。稍后贝蒂·布朗为她自己的言辞半心半意地道了歉，但是背后的故事却远远不到结束的时候……

上次我们就这一事件写了篇小讽刺文，这周之所以更严肃地继续这一话题的讨论，是因为它事关重要（That Matters）。——事实上，这件事情的实质远远超出种族问题的范围。我们一层一层地剥开这只洋葱，发现隐藏其中的其实是“民主制度运作的核心问题”。

让我们先来剥开这只洋葱的第一层，带着泥的这一层。刚刚听到布朗议员的言论的时候，我们感觉很矛盾。我们俩不仅有英文名字，而且，我们的英文名字的使用率远比我们的中文名字的使用率要高。但是采用美国名字是我们俩（我们的父母）的选择，如果政府官员建议立法强制我们改名以方便“美国人”，我们就要出离愤怒了。

引用伏尔泰（Voltaire）的名言：“我不同意你的观点，但是我誓死捍卫你说话的权利。”在这里我们却面临着一个相反的情形。我们并不是反对使用美国名字这个建议。 我们中间的很多人的行动显示的是我们接受这个建议。采用美国名字的行为在某种意义上表明了我们愿意成为我们寄居的这个社会的一部分的姿态，而且，这样做也有利于我们和同事、朋友之间的交流、有助于缩短文化距离。但是，剥夺我们选择改不改名或如何改名的权利？“我同意你的观点，但是我誓死反对你把你的观点强加于我。” 好在事情还没有发展到这个地步，布朗稍后澄清说这是个“误会”，她还声明立法会并没有建议针对亚洲人的提案。“误会”看似简单，现在又经澄清，岂不是万事大吉了吗？稍等等，让我们剥开洋葱的第二层看一看吧。

这个改名风波也许纯属转移注意力的障眼法（英文对这种障眼法有一戏称：“红鲱鱼”）。布朗发表此言论的背景是， 德州共和党立法委员正在力推一条名为 SB362（参议院法案 362）的关于管理选举过程的法律提案。 类似的以“选民身份”著称的法案， 时不时地被不同的州立法委提出来，值得我们走近去看看这到底是怎么回事。

从表面上看，这项提案既善意又合理：在选举的当天，每个前往投票站投票的选民必须携带护照、驾照等有效证件。工作人员将核对每个选民携带的证件，确认上面的名字完全符合投票站的选民名单上的名字，以避免选民盗用他人的名字进行投票。听起来没有什么错，不是吗？

错了！

理解法律不能只停留在字面上。我们所选举的政府官员在代表我们作出各项决定， 要求他们对每项决定负责任是民主社会的每个公民的神圣义务。每当看到新的法律提案，我们需要进行两项关键测试。第一项测试：这项立法是否必要？不必要的法律不仅仅浪费政府资源，而且非常危险。这些不必要的法律慢慢地被遗忘，进入休眠状态，而某些政府官员会误用或滥用它们来做一些我们无意要他们做的事情。第二项测试是：这条法律可能导致什么样的结果？我们不是要预言未来，但是我们必须理性评估成本和收益，看看成本是否大于收益。任何事情都是有成本的。——这是无疑的。

“选民身份”法案无法通过这两个测试。首先，没有一项调查表明目前的投票系统存在严重的盗用选民身份的问题。如果盗用选民身份的案例是偶然现象，那这种偶然现象既非系统性，又缺乏统计上的显著性 。

第二项测试的结果更是令人不安。这条法律一旦通过，我们可以预测到造成选民未经投票就离开选票站的两种常见情形：一，选民忘记携带有效证件；二，选民携带的证件跟投票站数据系统里的信息不一致。如果是第一种情形，有的选民仍然愿意回家带上证件返回投票站。既然在得健忘症的机会面前人人平等，只要每个选民群体都以平等的机会了解这项规定（意味着相关的告示被翻译成不同的语言以便新移民阅读），那么投票结果就不会出现偏向于某个投票团体的误差。

而第二种情形导致的结果就要复杂得多。在美国出生的人，从呱呱坠地的第一天起就已经“在系统里”，他们在所有系统里的名字的拼写有可能完全一致。可是，对于新移民来说，他们的名字经常有这样或那样的错误或不一致——在历时数年的移民手续、辗转不同的政府部门之后，无数新移民的名字的拼写出现误差。如果需要把他们的名字从另一种语言转化成英文，出现误差的几率更是大幅提高。去相关政府部门纠正自己的名字的拼写？我们都知道那是多么繁琐而挑战的任务！就实质而言，这项法案跟美国人权改革之前的投票税法案没有两样。新形式的投票税跟过去的投票税造成同样的结果，那就是，一个社会群体将被迫支付运行这条法律的全部成本。

这是个严重的问题！

企图以立法的方式悄悄攫取选民的选举权的行为远比贝蒂·布朗关于立法强制改名的提议影响重大。

在最近的一次朋友晚餐聚会上，我们作了一个“不具统计意义”的调查。我们想看看餐桌上有多少人的名字在不同的官方证件上显示一致。猜猜比例是多少？四个人当中，没有一个人的名字在所有官方证件上显示一致。我们当中的两个人，一部分证件上是音译名字，而另一部分证件上是英文名字；一个人的一部分证件上的中名有横杠，而另一部分证件上没有（几年前他去DMV更新驾照遭到拒绝，理由是他携带的证件与DMV的系统里的名字不一致。直到他去相关部门把相关证件的名字纠正过来，他才能申请新驾照）；还有一个十年前移居到美国的法国朋友，他的中名在一部分证件上是全拼，另一部分证件上只显示首字母。如果有一天加州实行“选民身份”法，我们四个人当中谁将被剥夺投票资格？又是谁将被授权来做这个决定？

如果一条法律剥夺公民权利，而且是选择性地剥夺部分公民的权利，又不但如此，它还并不给整个社会带来任何明显的利益，那么这是一条坏法律。既然如此，为什么还有人作此提议呢？这个问题的答案藏在洋葱的第三层。

在民主制度下，所有不同的群体都争先影响资源和优先权的分配。无数的法律和监督制约机制的存在，就是为了保证少众群体的利益不被多众群体以投票数量的优势剥夺。也正是在这种张力之中，社会利益最大化的希望才可能成为现实。但是，这个制度是有缺陷的。剥夺一个社会群体的公民权提高另一个社会群体的相对权利。类似SB362的法案之所以有诱惑力，是因为一个群体受损，而另一个群体受益。在民主制度下，公民的权利时时可能受到威胁，我们永远需要保持警觉之心。

这不是对民主制度的谴责！恰恰相反！正是民主制度的每个成员的这份挣扎和警觉，才使得这个政治制度保持青春和活力，而不至于停滞不前甚至走向衰落。但是在享受民主果实的同时，每个成员也需要肩负起相应的责任。我们必须时时警觉我们选举的政府代表想要做什么；我们必须把对法案的理解当作自己份内的职责。——理解法律，不仅仅是停留在字面上，我们还要思索它的实际运用所造成的结果和影响。

如果你在德州，你们真的需要站出来。贝蒂·布朗在她的网站上宣称90％的德州选民支持这项提案。如果这个数据稍微靠谱，你们面临的是一个如何教育你们身边的人认识到问题本质的巨大挑战。在德州参议院的投票会上，民主党议员一致投否决票，共和党议员一致投支持票，但是因为德州议会中共和党人数居多，此法案已经得以通过德州参议院。就算你还不是选民，你也可以参加集会或签名请愿书。你还可以跟朋友或同事讨论这件事，让他们也了解德州立法会正在做的事情，向他们解释为什么这是一个有偏见的法案。

我们这些不在德州的人，可以把这件事当作是提醒：我们需要时时保持信息的更新、参与相关的活动、把我们的声音传达出去。如果你还不是选民，从现在就开始阅读关于公民权的材料吧，千万不要等到你投出你神圣第一票的那一天。

在国内的朋友们，这件事也跟你们息息相关。民主不是被赠予的，而需要被争取的。有的人认为民主就是有权选举代表自己的政府官员。但事实是，民主不是那么简单和容易的事情。民主要求高度的公民意识和高度的参与。如果我们不努力去了解民主制度的真正意义、研究民主制度的运作原理，我们就无法进步，从而选举真正意义的政府代表。

民主不仅仅是每两年按时去投票站投票，民主是比那个艰巨得多的任务。

After reading Rep. Betty Brown’s proposal, I was inflamed!  As a problem solver, I hate to see things done in halves.  Let me suggest an even easier proposal.

Rep. Brown tells us that Asian Americans have trouble voting because their names are too “irregular” and are difficult for the natives (Americans, that is) to grasp.  You know what?  I’ve got to agree with her.  However, her proposal, to require Americans of Asian descent to pick an Americanized name is perverse in that it solves only part of the problem.  Why even bother letting them pick it?

I would much rather that she gets to the heart of the problem and advocate a solution that provides even greater simplification to this naming problem.

Rep Brown, you will have my support if we change the proposed legislation in the Texas legislature to be as follows:

People of Chinese descent should henceforth use the American name of Charlie for males and Christy for females.

People of Korean descent should use the American name Karl for males and Kim for females.  (There might be some difficulty since so many of the females will now be named Kim Kim… we may need to further refine this one.)

People of Japanese descent should use the American name Jack for males and Jill for females.

Can you imagine how great this will work for everyone involved?  Non-Asian Americans, when they see an Asian face, will have a one in three odds of correctly guessing the name (if, they can guess the gender).  Immigrants, who struggle to remember their new Americanized name, when they forget, can now just ask their nearest friend.

We should strive to make things simpler.  Life is complicated enough.

Kidding aside, we’ll repost with a more serious take on the subject in our next post.  Have a Good Friday!

一个小小的建议——给贝蒂·布朗

一个好朋友刚刚给我们转发了一条从德州传来的新闻，《立法者提议亚洲人采用更简单的命名》。

读完德州州议员贝蒂·布朗的提议，我大为光火。作为一个立志追求终极解决方案的人，我痛恨这种半心半意的提案。既然要“简单”的方案，让我来提议一个更简单也更有效的。

布朗说美籍亚裔的名字太异常太难懂，给他们的投票选举造成困难。我非常同意她的看法。但是，她却只是提议立法要求美籍亚裔自发选取一个美国化的命名，这个方案不够彻底，所以只能解决部分问题。我们干吗要自找麻烦让他们自己选名字呢？

我认为她应该充分认识到问题的核心所在，从而进一步提供一个更简单的解决方案。

布朗议员，我坚决支持你向立法委作出如下提议：

所有男性美籍华裔（Chinese）须命名为Charlie, 所有女性美籍华裔须命名为Christy。

所有男性美籍韩裔（Korean）须命名为Karl，所有女性美籍韩裔须命名为Kim。（这里可能会出现一点小问题，因为一大批美籍韩裔女士的名字将变成Kim Kim。此处有待进一步斟酌。）

所有男性美籍日裔（Japanese）须命名为Jack, 所有女性美籍日裔须命名为Jill。

你能想像每个人都将怎样地受益于这个方案吗？当非亚裔美国人看到一个亚洲面孔的时候，他们只需要三次机会就可以猜到他／她的名字（当然，前提是他们能正确判断他／她的性别）。 当亚裔新移民忘记自己的美国名字的时候，他们可以随时让自己的朋友提醒他们。

我们应该尽全力使事情简单化，因为生活本身已经够复杂了。

（这篇讽刺小品文仅供调味，我们将在下一篇文章中提供更严肃的回应。周末愉快！）

（标题借用爱尔兰讽刺大师乔纳森·斯威夫特（Jonathan Swift）的经典传世之作《一个小小的建议》。我只找到中译文的一个片断。欢迎你在留言栏提供中译文全篇的链接，以供大家分享。英文原作全文链接在此。）

Remember that old logical fallacy? “Have you stopped beating your wife?  Yes or no?”

Here are a couple more fallacies torn from recent headlines:

• Is China’s currency manipulation continuing to damage the American economy?
• How much has China’s military modernization lessen US security in the Pacific?
• Is China’s hogging up global energy supplies driving the price we pay at the pump to new heights?
• Will China’s economic growth continue to erode American job security?

YES or NO?

As a Chinese-American, not a day goes by that I don’t get stuck-in-the-eye by another piece of anti-China rhetoric in the popular press.  YahooNews, CNN, WSJ, BBC, and don’t even bother to mention our friends at the Economist!  From the muted response of fellow Chinese-Americans, you can’t fail to sense an overpowering feeling of resignation.  What can we do?  If we speak our minds and argue for some balance in perspective, wouldn’t we be acting un-American?  If you’re joining us from Europe or Australia, I bet you’ve lived the same struggle.

Thankfully, the you-are-either-with-us-or-against-us era is finally BEHIND us.  If sanity, reason and optimism are coming back in vogue, let this be a newsflash to all fellow overseas Chinese:  Silence is no longer in fashion!

China’s rapid modernization is a cause for joy, not just for those of Chinese descent, but for people the world over.  Like the protagonists of Horatio Alger’s novels, a scrappy, hardworking China has taken a people ravaged by wars and social unrest, and, in a short two decades, propelled hundreds of millions from abject poverty into a vibrant middle-class.  Along the way, the people of the developed world have enjoyed a tremendous boost in standard-of-living driven by the bonanza of affordable goods gushing from China’s factories.  Even the people from under-developed regions have benefited by trading in their hand-me-down European- or US-made castoffs for new and improved Chinese products.

So why is the West (or at least the press) so fearful?

China is regaining its status as an economic and political power. This will no doubt necessitate a rebalancing of the global social-economic structure.  With the change, it is understandable that some in the West look Eastward with a great degree of unease.  But there are two competing visions of this future, one built on Hope and the other on Despair.

Those who dare to Hope will look at a rising China as the very force which will inspire America towards a renaissance of creativity, freedom, and global goodwill.  The success of America is built on the core belief that aggressive competition tempered by fair play is what drives a person, a company, and a people to greatness.  The biggest driver of Coca Cola’s success was having a great competitor in PepsiCo.  Indeed, one can argue that much of the current US economic malaise is rooted in the self-serving (and now, self-pitying) sense of entitlement that much of America has slipped into since the demise of the Soviet Union.  Without a keen rival to measure itself against, we are losing our way.  With a bit of courage, however, we can dare to Hope for a world where China and America competes vigorously to further the sciences, to solve the energy crisis, to compete for the world’s talent by offer more freedoms and improved standards of living… and together bring all of humanity to new heights.

And the doomsayers?  We already know what they are thinking. Those whose visions are rooted in Despair can only see a zero-sum game.  One country’s rise can only be achieved by another country’s fall.  I can’t disagree more.

I am proudly both pro-China and pro-USA.

Let us find the courage to speak against the Despair.  Let us share our vision of Hope that China’s rise will reinvigorate America and bring both nations to new heights.

What do we need to do?  The phrase, “Think Globally, Act Locally” comes to mind.  Let’s all live this Vision of Hope in our everyday lives.  At work, with friends, at social gatherings, anywhere that you hear a conversation laced with fear and despair, speak up!  We are not putting anyone down.  We just want to share a Hope and a way to see through the fog of mistrust that has enshrouded us for far too long.

Do we dare to hold tight to a Vision based on Hope?  Yes, we can!  Can we, the overseas Chinese, stand up, speak up, and do our part to see that the relationship between China and our adopted countries going forward are built on increased understanding, respect, and optimism?  YES, WE MUST!

Note from the Editor:  Please join us as we develop this Vision of Hope.  It is something that belongs to all of us and, as such, will need everyone’s nurturing for it go grow and thrive.  We look forward to your comments, suggestions, and (hopefully soon) some success stories.

不渝的忠诚

如果有人问你“你还有没有在继续打你老婆？”只要你选择直接回答这个问题，你就中了圈套。因为无论你的答案是“是”还是“不是”，都意味着你默认了问题中隐含的假设：你有打老婆的毛病。

这里还有几个从最近的新闻头条中摘录下来的同类逻辑谬误：

• 中国对货币汇率的操纵将持续损害美国的经济吗？
• 中国对能源的过量消耗是驱动油价上涨的原因吗？
• 中国军事的现代化将进一步削弱美国在太平洋的安全战略地位吗？
• 中国的经济增长将持续侵蚀美国的就业市场吗？

你的答案是什么？是或者不是？

同胞们沉默的背后隐藏着无奈。旅居美国，没有一天我们不被西方媒体上的反中国言辞困扰和刺痛。Yahoo新闻、CNN、《华尔街日报》、BBC，就更别提《经济学家》了……我们这些旅美华人能做些什么？如果我们呼吁一个看待中国问题的平衡视点，我们岂不是很不“美国”？况且，在讲求“含蓄”、“婉转”的中国文化的熏陶之下，不仅是本性驱使我们回避正面冲突，我们也缺乏迎头而上口舌交锋的训练。而“旅美”“华人”的双重身份也置我们于某种尴尬的处境之中——也许我们的慷慨陈词在双方看来都缺乏诚恳、有失忠义。“你到底是爱中国还是爱美国？”——总有人想让我们相信这是一道单选题。相信身在欧洲、澳洲或海外其它地方的同胞也经常面临同样的挣扎。

幸运的是，“你要么就是支持我要么就是反对我”的时代已经落幕。如果清醒、理性和乐观主义重新登场成为美国政治文化的主角，在美同胞也应该拥抱一个新的口号：沉默已经不再流行！

中国的繁荣带来的欢悦并不只是属于中国人，它被世界上所有人们分享。就象美国作家Horatio Alger*笔下的主人公们，饱受战争和动乱摧残的中国，在短短二十年间，显示出无穷的精力和意志，让数以亿计的人们摆脱贫穷、走向富裕。与此同时，中国工厂日夜不停生产输出的产品，使得发达国家的人们的生活水平也进一步提高，他们能够以合理的价格享受前所未有的丰富的物质供应。贫穷国家也能消费得起中国提供的新产品新技术，而不再受限于只使用那些欧美国家淘汰下来的二手或次等货。

那么为什么西方（或者说至少西方的媒体）对中国的发展充满恐惧？

中国正在重拾她的经济和政治力量，毋庸置疑，这必将导致全球社会经济体系的重新调整。因此，西方种种不安的反映其实是可以理解的。但是，关于未来的蓝图可以被呈现为两种全然不同的版本，一个以希望奠基，另一个用绝望打底。

敢于希望的人把兴起的中国看成动力，美国可以借机倡导一场关于创造力、自由、全球声誉的复兴运动。激烈的竞争和公平的规则之间的平衡和制约能够驱使一个人、一个公司、一个民族到达伟大的巅峰，这是促使美国成功的核心信仰。可口可乐公司成功的最大驱动力来自于一个强大的竞争对手百事可乐。事实上，甚至可以说，美国的这场经济灾难的根源在于苏联的解体推动了美国向自私自利（目前已转化为自哀自怜）以及“我想要什么就该有什么”的特权主义的沦陷。没有一个旗鼓相当的竞争对手，我们失去了方向。我们需要多一点勇气让我们敢于对一个崭新的世界充满希望：在推动科技发展、解决能源危机、以制度和生活标准的优越性吸引来自世界各地的人才等方面，中国和美国将进行激烈竞争，而这种竞争的结果最终将施益于整个世界。

悲观主义者呢？我们已经知道他们怎么想了。以绝望的心态对待未来的人看到的是一个零和游戏，他们认为一个国家的崛起只能来源于另一个国家的衰落。对于这种世界观，我实在无法苟同。

我骄傲地宣称我支持中国，也支持美国。

让我们勇敢地拒绝“绝望主义”。让我们分享充满希望的未来世界蓝图：中国的崛起将激励美国的重新振作，最终把两个国家的发展推进到全新的高度。

那么我们应该怎么做？我想起了“思维全球化、行动本土化”这句口号。让我们把“希望主义”带到每日生活中。不管在办公室、在朋友的聚会，还是在社交的场合，如果我们听到“恐惧”或“绝望”色彩的对白，我们应该说出来！我们并不是要打击谁，相反，我们只是想要分享“希望”，让我们的视野得以穿越西方媒体制造的重重浓雾。

我们有勇气执着于一个建立在希望之上的梦想吗？Yes, we can! 我们这些海外华人，能够站起来、说出来、并且尽己之力，推动一个基于更多理解和尊重之上、更为乐观主义的中美关系的发展吗？ YES, WE MUST!

(*注：Horatio Alger，霍雷肖·阿尔杰，成名于十九世纪中期， 盛产青少年励志小说，定义了今人所津津乐道的“美国精神”：勤奋、诚实、善良终将得到回报。)

编者按：我们真诚地邀请你加入我们对“希望的蓝图”的描述，因为只有通过每个人的努力它才有可能成为现实。我们期待你的观点、建议、分享你的或你看到的成功案例。