2009年5月24日 星期日

馬英九的謬論


最近在教離散數學,其中的一個單元就是在講述邏輯
在邏輯當中有個蠻有趣的現象就叫做謬論、弔詭或者是悖論
看起來蠻有道理的,但是實際上卻不是這麼一回事,有時候還是個很愚笨的方法
下面就有一個很簡單的例子可以提供給各位參考
這是一個代數的例子,相信只要國二的程度應該就可以瞭解這個謬論到底是在哪裡發生錯誤的
x=1, y=1
x=y
xy = y2
x2-xy = x2-y2
x(x-y) = (x+y)(x-y)
x = x+y
x = 1+1
1 = 2



在514的時候馬英九簽訂的國際人權公約,但是竟然對於外面表達意見的人民做出驅離的動作,這個我認為應該是違反人權的。
在各國使節觀禮當中,就是獨漏日本代表,我想應該是表示對他台灣地位未定論發言的處罰。
馬英九不喜歡未定論,但未定論並不是什麼理論,而是目前國際社會共識和政治現實;更重要的,這一個現實還經常是國民黨追求的外交目標。

假如我們台灣是屬於中華民國,那參加任何的國際組織像是WHO、WHA或者是國際奧會,應該要用中華民國的國號還有正式的國家身份才參與啊!其他的是降低國格的事情,應該要拒絕參加才是。結果在這次的WHA會議上,所有的國家都以會員國的身份參加,而觀察原是屬於非政府的組織,那麼不就是肯定未定論了嗎?而用中華台北的名義而放棄中華民國的稱呼,甚至是連國號都未定論了不是嗎?
共糟糕的是,留學生抗議為什麼WHO會把台灣列為中華人民共和國的一省,葉博士氣急敗壞的說這會被國際認為是一個爛國家而堅決反對抗議,現在這下好了,連為定論都放棄了,而甘願做為中國的一省。這和今天的新聞不謀而合的,認為台灣之所以可以進入WHO,是因為台灣被當成領地,由中國代為申請進入,這樣真的很糟糕。
馬英九又把這個爭端臉不紅氣不喘的轉移到前朝政府不接受中華台北的名稱上面來模糊焦點。並說對於中國的MOU是在2005年簽署的,我記得沒有錯的話,2005雖然是民進黨執政,不過當時,連戰有這首度的破冰之旅,到了北京拜會胡景濤,跳過了政府,最後私底下簽署了這個MOU的,在這個備忘錄當中強調台灣參與WHO任何活動,都必須要透過北京,Taiwan at last won China’s agreement to be invited to the WHO’s World Health Assembly this month, though merely as an observer.葉金川曾表示我國今年參與WHA,「完全突破」2005年備忘錄的模式,真的不知道是如何突破的?

針對未定論馬英九還說,「台灣是ROC一部份,中華民國主權屬於國民全體」,話說得大聲,但馬能回答國民全體是二千三百萬人還是十四億人?當然答不出來,又是一個標準未定論的立場。退出聯合國後,國際現實是:中華民國地位已定,由中華人民共和國繼承,但台灣地位未定;就台灣人民立場則應是:中華民國雖在台灣使用,但地位未定,而台灣屬於台灣人民不接受未定主張(若此台獨的理論基礎不是未定論,而是住民自決);至於馬政府立場則反而是無論中國、中華人民共和國、中華民國、台灣的地位,全屬未定,亂成一團,顛三倒四,但若被拆穿便惱羞成怒暴跳如雷。

最後再來一個弔詭作為結束:『我正在說謊』,你們覺得到底我有沒有在說謊呢?

2009年5月19日 星期二

Dr.Yeh抗煞英雄葉金川??

在2003年的時後,真正的抗煞英雄應該是在和平醫院留下來的第一線醫療人員
像是林重威醫師;陳靜秋護理長;鄭雪慧護理部副主任;林佳鈴護士等人才是啊?
印象當中是因為和平醫院感染科主任與院長的隱匿疫情而造成醫院內部的感染
所以才需要封院隔離,雖然當時候的台北市衛生局長邱淑媞與前局長葉金川才進入醫院
不過如果各位還記得的話,他們是穿著什麼樣的行頭進去的,進去多久,又進去做了些什麼


這樣子的全副武裝我看只比防核輻射的防護衣差一級而已
而且邱只是進去看一看,而葉金川只進去六天出來了
這樣就算是抗煞英雄嗎?
幫當時候的馬市長進去和平醫院擦屁股,所以之後官運亨通,還差一點當選台北市長勒
好漢不提當年勇,更不會令人感到噁心自己稱自己是英雄




在很威風的參加了WHA的會議之後,被女學生問到惱羞成怒,才在外國開記者會
「衛生署長葉金川說,『在SARS期間阿扁的女婿跑去哪裡?你們大家自己想一想嘛!那個時候是誰用生命來保護台灣人啦,這樣不夠愛台灣,誰才是愛台灣啦!』」
大家都很愛台灣啊!我相信胡錦濤、溫家寶與中國人也都很愛台灣啊!


葉署長當年對抗SARS固然很神勇,不過署長大人硬要拿這點,來回應台灣在WHA面臨的主權問題,實在有點不倫不類,難不成我今天bug解不出來被老闆海K一頓,可以回說:當年我國中可是全校第一名黃海寧同學不是在問你是不是有抗煞,而是在問說我們是以什麼名義以什麼名稱來參加這個會議的,在WHO的官方網站,卻找不到中華台北-Chinese Taipei的名稱,反而是以『台灣省』替我國定位,竟然轉移目標、模糊焦點提出當年勇,難道葉署長就只剩下這個可以拿出來獻而已嗎?這種模糊焦點的伎倆,讓人感覺到這好像是一個山寨版的馬區長


2009年5月16日 星期六

A watched frog never boils


Peace is breaking out across the Taiwan Strait. Presumably, that is good for Taiwan

LOCAL gloom holds sway, from Pakistan to North Korea, in so many corners of Banyan’s woods, and an economic pall hangs over nearly all. So it is nice to stumble into a sunlit clearing once in a while.

Taiwan is such a clearing, and the sunlight is its improving relationship with China. Ground-breaking recent agreements on cross-strait travel and investment promise profound consequences for Taiwan. And after a dozen failed attempts to join the World Health Organisation (WHO), Taiwan at last won China’s agreement to be invited to the WHO’s World Health Assembly this month, though merely as an observer.

President Ma Ying-jeou of the Kuomintang (KMT or Nationalist Party) has presided over the change. He came to office a year ago determined to alter the course of his predecessor, Chen Shui-bian of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). For eight years, Mr Chen aired his independence-minded views with increasing abandon. China seethed. It views Taiwan as the last unfinished bit of a civil war in which the Chinese Communist Party drove the KMT off the mainland in 1949. It promises war if Taiwan ever declares independence. The tensions were not all Mr Chen’s doing, since China rebuffed early overtures. Still, by the end of Mr Chen’s term, relations with the United States, Taiwan’s protector, were badly strained, too. It was conceivable that Taiwanese provocation might drag America into a conflict with China, dashing hopes of an Asia-led 21st century.

Mr Ma promised a more conciliatory line. The WHO breakthrough is being celebrated in Taiwan as proof it is paying off. This will be the first delegation to represent Taiwan at a UN event since the island lost its seat to China in 1971. Cross-strait relations are the stuff of debate and disagreement, but most Taiwanese see the deal as gaining the kind of “international space” which China has long sought to constrict. Perhaps China reckoned that obstructing Taiwan did nothing for the image China is polishing for itself as a responsible global power. And without its long-planned gesture, progress on cross-strait ties would be harder. China’s long-term strategy for Taiwan is sometimes likened to boiling a frog in water, over a flame so low the frog does not feel it. But first you have to get the frog to plop into the pan.

And so the cross-strait agreements may prove to be the more far-reaching for Taiwan. Direct flights will more than double, to 270 a week. The two sides agreed on a framework to allow financial firms to set up in each other’s country. And Taiwan agreed to open up to Chinese investment. Until now Taiwan, which has up to $400 billion invested in China, allowed almost nothing in return, citing national security. Now, both companies and fund-managers will be allowed in. Already, China Mobile’s purchase at the end of April of a 12% stake in a Taiwanese telecoms firm, Far EasTone, marks the first big mainland investment in Taiwan since 1949, a harbinger of much more to come (see article).

Of the two sides, Taiwan stands to gain hugely more from all this. Its strengths are in fields such as electronics, information technology and biotechnology. Even with Chinese involvement, these industries will stay in Taiwan, for they depend on decent regulation and copyright protection, both lacking on the mainland. Meanwhile, top Taiwanese brands will get readier access to China’s huge domestic market, so shielding Taiwan’s exports somewhat from the vagaries of the global economy. More mainland Chinese visitors, already running at 3,000 a day, will be a boost to flagging tourism. (Hoteliers report that groups first lock themselves in their rooms, to gawp gobsmacked at politicians being insulted on television chat shows.) Recently a pariah among foreign investors because of poor cross-strait relations, Taiwan has suddenly become the only bull-market story in town.

For some in Taiwan, notably in the DPP, the risks are only beginning as China puts the pan on the heat. Deeper economic integration, they say, will dangerously narrow Taiwan’s options as China moves towards the endgame of unification. Yet Mr Chen’s tenure undermined these arguments. His legacy is very nearly destroyed. Family members have admitted to venality, and Mr Chen himself sits in jail accused of graft and embezzlement. On May 5th prosecutors filed yet more charges of bribe-taking and influence-peddling. The sanctimony of the KMT, once one of the world’s most thuggish and corrupt political parties, but largely spared by the present judicial system, is grotesque. Yet Mr Chen and his approach are discredited, the DPP in tatters.

Enmeshing China too
So at least until 2012, the date of the next presidential election, Mr Ma and his colleagues will make the opposite case. The chairman of his Mainland Affairs Council, Lai Shin-yuan, says that economic integration will increase security by making Taiwan so valuable for China that it will think twice about jeopardising stability. Others argue that an unprovocative island more firmly enmeshed in the global economy will bring about greater American commitment. For now, the United States is delighted at the rapprochement, and at a Beijing-Taipei-Washington triangle that for once is pretty harmonious. Ms Lai promises a “diplomatic truce” with Beijing and an end to a costly (and losing) battle to win diplomatic recognition from tinpot countries. Nor, she says, will political showmanship play any part in Taiwan’s participation in the WHO assembly.

Mr Ma, as it happens, tapped Ms Lai from the pro-independence movement, a sign of the constraints on his policy. Even if he does harbour longings for a closer eventual union with China, its Communist rulers view the 58-year-old upstart as a liberal with ugly habits: advocating human rights and trimming his sails to suit the Taiwanese majority. For now, at least, the desire of that majority is, overwhelmingly, to keep Taiwan’s sovereign arrangements—independent in fact if not law—exactly as they are.
May 7th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Banyan