首届中国建筑传媒奖揭晓
http://epaper.nddaily.com/A/html/2008-12/28/content_671214.htm
http://www.nddaily.com/cama/default_2858.shtml
94岁高龄的建筑师、教育家冯纪忠获杰出成就奖,最重要奖项爆冷由甘肃一小学夺取
日期：[2008年12月28日] 版次：[AA10] 版名：[城事] 稿源：[南方都市报] 网友评论：条
本报讯全场近400名观众多次起立，向一位94岁的长者一再鼓掌致敬，这是在中国建筑传媒奖现场出现的一幕。12月27日晚7点30分时，由本报和南都周刊举办的首届中国建筑传媒奖颁奖典礼在深圳举行。经过一年的筹备，两个月的提名和评选，最终五项大奖全部揭晓。其中，青年建筑师奖由标准营造团队获得；居住建筑特别奖则颁发给广东南海的土楼公社；组委会特别奖由台湾建筑师谢英俊获得；94岁高龄的建筑师、教育家冯纪忠获得杰出成就奖；压轴的最佳建筑奖大爆冷门，甘肃庆阳的毛寺生态实验小学夺魁。南方报业传媒集团副总编辑江艺平为获奖者颁奖。
甘肃一小学捧走最重要奖项
首届中国传媒建筑奖的口号为“走向公民建筑”，所以此次提名、获奖的团队、个人、建筑都无一例外地表现出关注民生，力图在现代化的居住建筑中找回更多公民权益的特点。
本次颁奖礼的最重要奖项———最佳建筑奖，共有三个作品入围。包括：台湾9·21地震教育园、甘肃庆阳毛寺生态实验小学、香港湿地公园。最终由于香港建筑师吴恩融、穆钧设计的毛寺生态实验小学爆冷，最终捧走大奖。
穆均在致获奖感言时表示，在学校设计的过程中，建筑师并没有去追求所谓的时尚、夸张的形式或任何以自我为中心的设计意念，只是想建一所学校。
而最令现场400多位嘉宾感动的是，毛寺生态实验小学校长带来的那句话：“从现在开始学校不再需要烧煤来取暖，省下来的钱可以为孩子们多买新书。”穆均说：“今天越来越多的建筑师已将目光从光鲜的都市阶层转向极需关注的社会弱势群体。中国建筑传媒奖的设立便是其最好的证明。”
台湾建筑师谢英俊在接受记者采访时说：“最佳建筑奖是本次评奖的最大亮点，它恰如其分地体现了大奖的宗旨和价值取向。可以说，入围的作品都达到了很高的水准，毛寺生态实验小学则属于‘高难度’的设计，外表质朴，规模小，跨度大，就地取材，体现高科技，低技术，使得当地农民也参与到施工当中。放在中国当代的建筑设计中，可以说颠覆了一般的惯性。这个结果非常恰当，也让我很激动。
冯纪忠让现场无比感动
94岁高龄的建筑师、教育家冯纪忠亲自到场领得杰出成就奖，亦成为本次颁奖礼的最大亮点。在主持人宣布冯纪忠获奖时，台下400多名观众集体起立鼓掌，向这位中国建筑界的泰斗致以敬意。
冯纪忠在轮椅上发表了自己的获奖感言。他说：“我领取这个奖，不是为我个人领取的，也是替和我同时代，有着共同思想、价值观的建筑师来领取这个奖。我年纪大了，现在做的工作少了，这是对我前半生工作肯定。我深知我做得还不够。”
冯纪忠老先生也发表了自己对于公民建筑的理解，他认为所有的建筑都应该是为公民服务的，建筑师在进行设计创作时候，更要时刻提醒自己，有责任为改善百姓的生活条件而努力。
首届传媒建筑奖共设有五个奖项目，除了终身成就奖、最佳建筑奖外，其他三个重量级奖项，青年建筑师奖由标准营造团队获得；居住建筑特别奖则颁发给广东土楼公社；组委会特别奖由台湾建筑师谢英俊获得。
标准营造团队的代表在发言时，以年轻人特有的方式表达了自己的建筑理念，他说：“我们对追随和模仿现在流行的大师不感兴趣，对于成为山寨版的库哈斯不感兴趣，对形式上的抄袭和模仿会感到羞耻而不是感到沾沾自喜，对于以建筑设计为工具、追求利益为目的的人有一定的反感。”这正与本次大奖的精神不谋而合。
由都市实践设计的土楼公社则因为致力于关注改善低收入人群居住的环境，而受到评委的一致认可。台湾建筑师谢英俊在四川地震后，赶赴灾区，全力投入灾后重建，并将自己在台湾十多年的经验带到四川，由此获得了组委会特别奖。南方都市报执行总编辑庄慎之出席典礼。
主办方观点
中国建筑传媒奖是侧重建筑的社会评价的奖项。从社会的层面评价建筑，关注建筑的社会意义和人文关怀，是该奖项由南方都市报这样的大众媒体发起的意义所在，也是南方都市报“致力于做公民意识的启蒙者，公民社会的推动者”的办报宗旨的具体体现。
在中国建筑传媒奖之前，中国还没有一个从建筑的社会意义和人文关怀来评价建筑的奖项。中国建筑传媒大奖的举办，将填补这一空白。我们有理由相信，超前的意识及认真的态度，能使这个奖项成为国内最有影响力的建筑奖。
———庄慎之，南方都市报执行总编辑
光荣榜
最佳建筑奖———毛寺生态实验小学
颁奖词：毛寺生态实验小学，它结合地形条件，使用地方材料，营造出丰富、自然的室内外空间环境，并在自然通风采光，保温和粪便处理等方面独具匠心，用适用技术达到了节能和环保的要求。另外，当地工匠的营造，传统技艺和现代设计的结合，也使这个并非引人注目的建筑实践有了积极的社会意义，为新农村建设提供了一个范例。
居住建筑特别奖———土楼公舍
颁奖词：为今日中国城市中低收入人群设计廉租房，将“新土楼”植入当代城市，利用城市快速发展过程中遗留下来的闲散土地建造，试图探索出中国中低收入人群的居住解决之道。作为一种解决快速城市化进程中大量人口迁入产生的居住问题的实践，土楼公舍有积极的社会意义，其内部社区空间的营造具有人文关怀精神。但“土楼”是否能成为一种理性的定式？内封闭式的圆形设计是否会导致使用者与城市互动方面的脱离？还有高密度居住状态下容易产生的相互干扰问题，这些也是值得思考和有待观察的。
杰出成就奖———冯纪忠
颁奖词：冯纪忠先生，是我国著名的建筑师和建筑教育家，是中国现代建筑的奠基者，也是中国城市规划专业的创始人。虽然冯先生的著作和设计作品并不多，但他的论文《空间原理》和设计作品“上海松江方塔园”，却代表了那个时代中国建筑的一种新文人建筑思想和设计理念，其深邃的建筑哲学思想融入建筑教育和文化传播系统中，对当代中国建筑发展具有深远的影响，其意义不可低估。
青年建筑师奖———标准营造事务所（团队）
颁奖词：标准营造，中国目前最优秀的设计团队之一。标准营造的实践超越了传统的设计职业划分，其在一系列重要的设计研究和实践的基础上，发展了在历史文化地段中进行景观与建筑创作的特长和兴趣。标准营造尊重基层、隐藏自我、注意环保的设计理念，在当下社会值得褒扬和肯定。
组委会特别奖———谢英俊
颁奖词：谢英俊，为最具社会关怀之建筑师，以为弱势族群争取居住权及协助其自力造屋为职志之建筑师，为建筑师投入非营利性公共服务工作及关怀社会之典范。汶川地震后，大陆建筑师试图在重建中有所作为，然由于民居设计经验和“入世”经验不足，多半途而终。唯台湾建筑师谢英俊携台湾“9·21”地震重建之经验，积极联系各重建官方、民间组织，以及海内外赞助企业，迅速建立重建工作小组，进驻震区，实地考察和开展大面积重建工作。谢英俊的重建团队长期居住在灾区，实地展开调查和设计，并以重建模式推广为己任，是值得特别关注和奖励的。
声音
“所有的建筑都应该是公民建筑”
“公民建筑是建筑，其他的建筑如果不是为公民服务、作为公民的声音，它就不是建筑。”当满头白发、坐着轮椅的冯老用略微颤抖的声音说出这句话时，台下观众自动全场起立、掌声满堂。
冯纪忠已有94岁高龄，是在家人的陪同下坐着轮椅来到的现场，大会颁给他“杰出成就奖”。这位我国著名的建筑师和建筑教育家、中国现代建筑的奠基者、中国城市规划专业的创始人，在领奖台上一再强调“所有的建筑都应该是公民建筑”，他说：“在我工作当中，我的理念，我所坚持的，其实现在自问就是公民建筑，凡是不是公民建筑的东西我都加以批评或者不满意。我们要认识这个问题，现在得这个奖，我就更加肯定了公民建筑不只是建筑，而是整体的建筑，整体建筑是什么？是整个自然界我们所接触到的都包含在内。”
“我们对形式上的抄袭和模仿会感到羞耻”
“我们对追随和模仿现在流行的大师不感兴趣，对于成为山寨版的库哈斯不感兴趣，对形式上的抄袭和模仿会感到羞耻而不是感到沾沾自喜……”获得青年建筑师奖的标准营造团队代表此番表白，赢得台下一片击掌赞同。
在走向公民建筑的主题之下，此次建筑传媒大奖的青年建筑师们对其自身定位和社会责任多有思考和探讨，标准营造团队代表说出了他们的理想：“我想我们代表一些年轻人，希望给建筑一个更干净的动机，用更平常的心态，认认真真地为普通的老百姓创造建筑的年轻人。”
（更多报道敬请留意12月30日，中国建筑传媒奖颁奖特刊，及中国建筑传媒奖官方网站。）
本版采写：本报记者 赵磊 左娟
本版摄影：本报记者 陈以怀
20081228
Playwright Harold Pinter's last interview reveals his childhood love of cricket and why it is better than sex
* Andy Bull
* guardian.co.uk, Saturday 27 December 2008 00.05 GMT
Harold Pinter, who died on Tuesday, gave his last interview to Andy Bull, of the Guardian, on a subject very dear to the playwright's heart: cricket. Here we publish the interview for the first time
"I tend to think that cricket is the greatest thing that God created on earth," Harold Pinter once said, "certainly greater than sex, although sex isn't too bad either." No harm, then, that the game should be the subject of his last interview, given in late October at his home in London. His health failing, Pinter was in nostalgic mood, recalling a childhood in Hackney, east London, during the blitz and his time as an evacuee. "I first watched cricket during the war. At one point we were all evacuated from our house when there was an air raid. We opened the door and our garden, with this large lilac tree, was alight all along the back wall. We were evacuated straight away. Though not before I took my cricket bat.
"I used to get up at five in the morning and play cricket. I had a great friend who is still going – he lives in Australia – called Mick, Mick Goldstein. He used to live around the corner from me in Hackney, and we were very close to the River Lea, and there were fields. We walked down to the fields; there'd be nobody about – it would really very early in the morning, and there would be a tree we used as a wicket. We would take it in turns to bat and bowl; we would be Lindwall, Miller, Hutton and Compton. That was the life."
Pinter's study was heavy with the clutter of a cricket fan. On one wall was an oil portrait of himself, wearing whites, knocking a drive away to the leg side. The shelves creaked under his cricket library, including all 145 editions of the Wisden Almanack. On the mantelpiece were photographs and memorabilia of the Gaieties, the wandering club side of which Pinter was captain, and, when he gave up playing, chairman. Downstairs, on the wall was a framed copy of WG Grace's autograph.
His favourite, though, was the England great Len Hutton. He first saw him as an evacuee in Yorkshire. "I was sent for a brief period to Leeds, and I went to see some kind of game up at Headingley. I caught Len Hutton, who wa s on leave from the army. I fell in love with him at first sight, as it were. I became passionate about Yorkshire because of Hutton really. It is my great regret that I could have met him, but I was too shy."
Cricket was not in Pinter's family. His father did not play. "I learned about the game at Hackney Downs Grammar. We used to play a lot. A lot of my colleagues at the time were very, very keen on cricket. We felt so intensely about it. I remember going to Lord's, walking through Regent's Park on my way, one early evening. And coming away from Lord's there was another schoolboy, in uniform, and he saw me, and said: "Hutton's out!" I could have killed him. Really. It was very important to me that I was going to see Hutton. So, you see, I have golden memories."
His playing days lapsed after childhood and did not resume until he had a family of his own. "I didn't start playing again until the 60s. I took my son, who was then about nine, to school for nets and I watched him be coached. I suddenly thought 'well why don't I have a net myself?' I hadn't played since school you know, but the next week I got some whites and started to have some coaching from a fellow called Fred Pelozzi, a cricketer of Italian descent but he was a cockney actually, and he was a bloody good player.
"And after a few weeks he said 'why don't you come and play for the club I play for?' So I said 'OK'. I went out for my first game for Gaieties [batting] at I think No 6. He was the only fellow I knew, they were all new to me, and a fellow bowled the first ball at me, and I hit it plumb in the middle of the bat, really a beautiful shot. Straight back to the bowler, who caught it. So I was out first bloody ball. That was my first introduction to Gaieties. But I carried on playing for them, and eventually I became captain."
It was cricket's endless potential for narrative, the games within a game, that appealed most. "Drama happens in big cricket matches. But also in small cricket matches," he said. "When we play, my club, each thing that happens is dramatic: the gasps that follow a miss at slip, the anger of an lbw decision that is turned down. It is the same thing wherever you play, really."
He had been looking forward to seeing England play Australia next summer. "I don't watch as much professional cricket as I used to, because I'm not moving very well these days, but I used to do a lot of it. And there is nothing better really. I had a piece of very good fortune three years ago and I managed to get a box at Lord's. I was there to see South Africa last year, and I shall certainly be there next year to see the Ashes.
"I don't know whether it is the same game these days. But I have a number of step-grandchildren, three boys. And they think of nothing else but cricket. They play cricket in the snow. So it is still very much alive actually. I think the facilities have been denuded, and there are now all the other beguilements of sport, and this obsession with bloody football. But my grandchildren still they get up at five in the morning and play cricket, just as I did myself.
"Cricket, the whole thing, playing, watching, being part of the Gaieties, has been a central feature of my life."
* Andy Bull
* guardian.co.uk, Saturday 27 December 2008 00.05 GMT
Harold Pinter, who died on Tuesday, gave his last interview to Andy Bull, of the Guardian, on a subject very dear to the playwright's heart: cricket. Here we publish the interview for the first time
"I tend to think that cricket is the greatest thing that God created on earth," Harold Pinter once said, "certainly greater than sex, although sex isn't too bad either." No harm, then, that the game should be the subject of his last interview, given in late October at his home in London. His health failing, Pinter was in nostalgic mood, recalling a childhood in Hackney, east London, during the blitz and his time as an evacuee. "I first watched cricket during the war. At one point we were all evacuated from our house when there was an air raid. We opened the door and our garden, with this large lilac tree, was alight all along the back wall. We were evacuated straight away. Though not before I took my cricket bat.
"I used to get up at five in the morning and play cricket. I had a great friend who is still going – he lives in Australia – called Mick, Mick Goldstein. He used to live around the corner from me in Hackney, and we were very close to the River Lea, and there were fields. We walked down to the fields; there'd be nobody about – it would really very early in the morning, and there would be a tree we used as a wicket. We would take it in turns to bat and bowl; we would be Lindwall, Miller, Hutton and Compton. That was the life."
Pinter's study was heavy with the clutter of a cricket fan. On one wall was an oil portrait of himself, wearing whites, knocking a drive away to the leg side. The shelves creaked under his cricket library, including all 145 editions of the Wisden Almanack. On the mantelpiece were photographs and memorabilia of the Gaieties, the wandering club side of which Pinter was captain, and, when he gave up playing, chairman. Downstairs, on the wall was a framed copy of WG Grace's autograph.
His favourite, though, was the England great Len Hutton. He first saw him as an evacuee in Yorkshire. "I was sent for a brief period to Leeds, and I went to see some kind of game up at Headingley. I caught Len Hutton, who wa s on leave from the army. I fell in love with him at first sight, as it were. I became passionate about Yorkshire because of Hutton really. It is my great regret that I could have met him, but I was too shy."
Cricket was not in Pinter's family. His father did not play. "I learned about the game at Hackney Downs Grammar. We used to play a lot. A lot of my colleagues at the time were very, very keen on cricket. We felt so intensely about it. I remember going to Lord's, walking through Regent's Park on my way, one early evening. And coming away from Lord's there was another schoolboy, in uniform, and he saw me, and said: "Hutton's out!" I could have killed him. Really. It was very important to me that I was going to see Hutton. So, you see, I have golden memories."
His playing days lapsed after childhood and did not resume until he had a family of his own. "I didn't start playing again until the 60s. I took my son, who was then about nine, to school for nets and I watched him be coached. I suddenly thought 'well why don't I have a net myself?' I hadn't played since school you know, but the next week I got some whites and started to have some coaching from a fellow called Fred Pelozzi, a cricketer of Italian descent but he was a cockney actually, and he was a bloody good player.
"And after a few weeks he said 'why don't you come and play for the club I play for?' So I said 'OK'. I went out for my first game for Gaieties [batting] at I think No 6. He was the only fellow I knew, they were all new to me, and a fellow bowled the first ball at me, and I hit it plumb in the middle of the bat, really a beautiful shot. Straight back to the bowler, who caught it. So I was out first bloody ball. That was my first introduction to Gaieties. But I carried on playing for them, and eventually I became captain."
It was cricket's endless potential for narrative, the games within a game, that appealed most. "Drama happens in big cricket matches. But also in small cricket matches," he said. "When we play, my club, each thing that happens is dramatic: the gasps that follow a miss at slip, the anger of an lbw decision that is turned down. It is the same thing wherever you play, really."
He had been looking forward to seeing England play Australia next summer. "I don't watch as much professional cricket as I used to, because I'm not moving very well these days, but I used to do a lot of it. And there is nothing better really. I had a piece of very good fortune three years ago and I managed to get a box at Lord's. I was there to see South Africa last year, and I shall certainly be there next year to see the Ashes.
"I don't know whether it is the same game these days. But I have a number of step-grandchildren, three boys. And they think of nothing else but cricket. They play cricket in the snow. So it is still very much alive actually. I think the facilities have been denuded, and there are now all the other beguilements of sport, and this obsession with bloody football. But my grandchildren still they get up at five in the morning and play cricket, just as I did myself.
"Cricket, the whole thing, playing, watching, being part of the Gaieties, has been a central feature of my life."
20081227
Most Likely to Succeed
How do we hire when we can't tell who's right for the job?
by Malcolm Gladwell December 15, 2008
Effective teachers have a gift for noticing—what one researcher calls "withitness."
On the day of the big football game between the University of Missouri Tigers and the Cowboys of Oklahoma State, a football scout named Dan Shonka sat in his hotel, in Columbia, Missouri, with a portable DVD player. Shonka has worked for three National Football League teams. Before that, he was a football coach, and before that he played linebacker—although, he says, "that was three knee operations and a hundred pounds ago." Every year, he evaluates somewhere between eight hundred and twelve hundred players around the country, helping professional teams decide whom to choose in the college draft, which means that over the last thirty years he has probably seen as many football games as anyone else in America. In his DVD player was his homework for the evening's big game—an edited video of the Tigers' previous contest, against the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers.
Shonka methodically made his way through the video, stopping and re-winding whenever he saw something that caught his eye. He liked Jeremy Maclin and Chase Coffman, two of the Mizzou receivers. He loved William Moore, the team's bruising strong safety. But, most of all, he was interested in the Tigers' quarterback and star, a stocky, strong-armed senior named Chase Daniel.
"I like to see that the quarterback can hit a receiver in stride, so he doesn't have to slow for the ball," Shonka began. He had a stack of evaluation forms next to him and, as he watched the game, he was charting and grading every throw that Daniel made. "Then judgment. Hey, if it's not there, throw it away and play another day. Will he stand in there and take a hit, with a guy breathing down his face? Will he be able to step right in there, throw, and still take that hit? Does the guy throw better when he's in the pocket, or does he throw equally well when he's on the move? You want a great competitor. Durability. Can they hold up, their strength, toughness? Can they make big plays? Can they lead a team down the field and score late in the game? Can they see the field? When your team's way ahead, that's fine. But when you're getting your ass kicked I want to see what you're going to do."
He pointed to his screen. Daniel had thrown a dart, and, just as he did, a defensive player had hit him squarely. "See how he popped up?" Shonka said. "He stood right there and threw the ball in the face of that rush. This kid has got a lot of courage." Daniel was six feet tall and weighed two hundred and twenty-five pounds: thick through the chest and trunk. He carried himself with a self-assurance that bordered on cockiness. He threw quickly and in rhythm. He nimbly evaded defenders. He made short throws with touch and longer throws with accuracy. By the game's end, he had completed an astonishing seventy-eight per cent of his passes, and handed Nebraska its worst home defeat in fifty-three years. "He can zip it," Shonka said. "He can really gun, when he has to." Shonka had seen all the promising college quarterbacks, charted and graded their throws, and to his mind Daniel was special: "He might be one of the best college quarterbacks in the country."
But then Shonka began to talk about when he was on the staff of the Philadelphia Eagles, in 1999. Five quarterbacks were taken in the first round of the college draft that year, and each looked as promising as Chase Daniel did now. But only one of them, Donovan McNabb, ended up fulfilling that promise. Of the rest, one descended into mediocrity after a decent start. Two were complete busts, and the last was so awful that after failing out of the N.F.L. he ended up failing out of the Canadian Football League as well.
The year before, the same thing happened with Ryan Leaf, who was the Chase Daniel of 1998. The San Diego Chargers made him the second player taken over all in the draft, and gave him an eleven-million-dollar signing bonus. Leaf turned out to be terrible. In 2002, it was Joey Harrington's turn. Harrington was a golden boy out of the University of Oregon, and the third player taken in the draft. Shonka still can't get over what happened to him.
"I tell you, I saw Joey live," he said. "This guy threw lasers, he could throw under tight spots, he had the arm strength, he had the size, he had the intelligence." Shonka got as misty as a two-hundred-and-eighty-pound ex-linebacker in a black tracksuit can get. "He's a concert pianist, you know? I really—I mean, I really—liked Joey." And yet Harrington's career consisted of a failed stint with the Detroit Lions and a slide into obscurity. Shonka looked back at the screen, where the young man he felt might be the best quarterback in the country was marching his team up and down the field. "How will that ability translate to the National Football League?" He shook his head slowly. "Shoot."
This is the quarterback problem. There are certain jobs where almost nothing you can learn about candidates before they start predicts how they'll do once they're hired. So how do we know whom to choose in cases like that? In recent years, a number of fields have begun to wrestle with this problem, but none with such profound social consequences as the profession of teaching.
One of the most important tools in contemporary educational research is "value added" analysis. It uses standardized test scores to look at how much the academic performance of students in a given teacher's classroom changes between the beginning and the end of the school year. Suppose that Mrs. Brown and Mr. Smith both teach a classroom of third graders who score at the fiftieth percentile on math and reading tests on the first day of school, in September. When the students are retested, in June, Mrs. Brown's class scores at the seventieth percentile, while Mr. Smith's students have fallen to the fortieth percentile. That change in the students' rankings, value-added theory says, is a meaningful indicator of how much more effective Mrs. Brown is as a teacher than Mr. Smith.
It's only a crude measure, of course. A teacher is not solely responsible for how much is learned in a classroom, and not everything of value that a teacher imparts to his or her students can be captured on a standardized test. Nonetheless, if you follow Brown and Smith for three or four years, their effect on their students' test scores starts to become predictable: with enough data, it is possible to identify who the very good teachers are and who the very poor teachers are. What's more—and this is the finding that has galvanized the educational world—the difference between good teachers and poor teachers turns out to be vast.
Eric Hanushek, an economist at Stanford, estimates that the students of a very bad teacher will learn, on average, half a year's worth of material in one school year. The students in the class of a very good teacher will learn a year and a half's worth of material. That difference amounts to a year's worth of learning in a single year. Teacher effects dwarf school effects: your child is actually better off in a "bad" school with an excellent teacher than in an excellent school with a bad teacher. Teacher effects are also much stronger than class-size effects. You'd have to cut the average class almost in half to get the same boost that you'd get if you switched from an average teacher to a teacher in the eighty-fifth percentile. And remember that a good teacher costs as much as an average one, whereas halving class size would require that you build twice as many classrooms and hire twice as many teachers.
Hanushek recently did a back-of-the-envelope calculation about what even a rudimentary focus on teacher quality could mean for the United States. If you rank the countries of the world in terms of the academic performance of their schoolchildren, the U.S. is just below average, half a standard deviation below a clump of relatively high-performing countries like Canada and Belgium. According to Hanushek, the U.S. could close that gap simply by replacing the bottom six per cent to ten per cent of public-school teachers with teachers of average quality. After years of worrying about issues like school funding levels, class size, and curriculum design, many reformers have come to the conclusion that nothing matters more than finding people with the potential to be great teachers. But there's a hitch: no one knows what a person with the potential to be a great teacher looks like. The school system has a quarterback problem.
Kickoff time for Missouri's game against Oklahoma State was seven o'clock. It was a perfect evening for football: cloudless skies and a light fall breeze. For hours, fans had been tailgating in the parking lots around the stadium. Cars lined the roads leading to the university, many with fuzzy yellow-and-black Tiger tails hanging from their trunks. It was one of Mizzou's biggest games in years. The Tigers were undefeated, and had a chance to become the No. 1 college football team in the country. Shonka made his way through the milling crowds and took a seat in the press box. Below him, the players on the field looked like pieces on a chessboard.
The Tigers held the ball first. Chase Daniel stood a good seven yards behind his offensive line. He had five receivers, two to his left and three to his right, spaced from one side of the field to the other. His linemen were widely spaced as well. In play after play, Daniel caught the snap from his center, planted his feet, and threw the ball in quick seven- and eight-yard diagonal passes to one of his five receivers.
The style of offense that the Tigers run is called the "spread," and most of the top quarterbacks in college football—the players who will be drafted into the pros—are spread quarterbacks. By spacing out the offensive linemen and wide receivers, the system makes it easy for the quarterback to figure out the intentions of the opposing defense before the ball is snapped: he can look up and down the line, "read" the defense, and decide where to throw the ball before anyone has moved a muscle. Daniel had been playing in the spread since high school; he was its master. "Look how quickly he gets the ball out," Shonka said. "You can hardly go a thousand and one, a thousand and two, and it's out of his hand. He knows right where he's going. When everyone is spread out like that, the defense can't disguise its coverage. Chase knows right away what they are going to do. The system simplifies the quarterback's decisions."
But for Shonka this didn't help matters. It had always been hard to predict how a college quarterback would fare in the pros. The professional game was, simply, faster and more complicated. With the advent of the spread, though, the correspondence between the two levels of play had broken down almost entirely. N.F.L. teams don't run the spread. They can't. The defenders in the pros are so much faster than their college counterparts that they would shoot through those big gaps in the offensive line and flatten the quarterback. In the N.F.L., the offensive line is bunched closely together. Daniel wouldn't have five receivers. Most of the time, he'd have just three or four. He wouldn't have the luxury of standing seven yards behind the center, planting his feet, and knowing instantly where to throw. He'd have to crouch right behind the center, take the snap directly, and run backward before planting his feet to throw. The onrushing defenders wouldn't be seven yards away. They would be all around him, from the start. The defense would no longer have to show its hand, because the field would not be so spread out. It could now disguise its intentions. Daniel wouldn't be able to read the defense before the snap was taken. He'd have to read it in the seconds after the play began.
"In the spread, you see a lot of guys wide open," Shonka said. "But when a guy like Chase goes to the N.F.L. he's never going to see his receivers that open—only in some rare case, like someone slips or there's a bust in the coverage. When that ball's leaving your hands in the pros, if you don't use your eyes to move the defender a little bit, they'll break on the ball and intercept it. The athletic ability that they're playing against in the league is unbelievable."
As Shonka talked, Daniel was moving his team down the field. But he was almost always throwing those quick, diagonal passes. In the N.F.L., he would have to do much more than that—he would have to throw long, vertical passes over the top of the defense. Could he make that kind of throw? Shonka didn't know. There was also the matter of his height. Six feet was fine in a spread system, where the big gaps in the offensive line gave Daniel plenty of opportunity to throw the ball and see downfield. But in the N.F.L. there wouldn't be gaps, and the linemen rushing at him would be six-five, not six-one.
"I wonder," Shonka went on. "Can he see? Can he be productive in a new kind of offense? How will he handle that? I'd like to see him set up quickly from center. I'd like to see his ability to read coverages that are not in the spread. I'd like to see him in the pocket. I'd like to see him move his feet. I'd like to see him do a deep dig, or deep comeback. You know, like a throw twenty to twenty-five yards down the field."
It was clear that Shonka didn't feel the same hesitancy in evaluating the other Mizzou stars—the safety Moore, the receivers Maclin and Coffman. The game that they would play in the pros would also be different from the game they were playing in college, but the difference was merely one of degree. They had succeeded at Missouri because they were strong and fast and skilled, and these traits translate in kind to professional football.
A college quarterback joining the N.F.L., by contrast, has to learn to play an entirely new game. Shonka began to talk about Tim Couch, the quarterback taken first in that legendary draft of 1999. Couch set every record imaginable in his years at the University of Kentucky. "They used to put five garbage cans on the field," Shonka recalled, shaking his head, "and Couch would stand there and throw and just drop the ball into every one." But Couch was a flop in the pros. It wasn't that professional quarterbacks didn't need to be accurate. It was that the kind of accuracy required to do the job well could be measured only in a real N.F.L. game.
Similarly, all quarterbacks drafted into the pros are required to take an I.Q. test—the Wonderlic Personnel Test. The theory behind the test is that the pro game is so much more cognitively demanding than the college game that high intelligence should be a good predictor of success. But when the economists David Berri and Rob Simmons analyzed the scores—which are routinely leaked to the press—they found that Wonderlic scores are all but useless as predictors. Of the five quarterbacks taken in round one of the 1999 draft, Donovan McNabb, the only one of the five with a shot at the Hall of Fame, had the lowest Wonderlic score. And who else had I.Q. scores in the same range as McNabb? Dan Marino and Terry Bradshaw, two of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play the game.
We're used to dealing with prediction problems by going back and looking for better predictors. We now realize that being a good doctor requires the ability to communicate, listen, and empathize—and so there is increasing pressure on medical schools to pay attention to interpersonal skills as well as to test scores. We can have better physicians if we're just smarter about how we choose medical-school students. But no one is saying that Dan Shonka is somehow missing some key ingredient in his analysis; that if he were only more perceptive he could predict Chase Daniel's career trajectory. The problem with picking quarterbacks is that Chase Daniel's performance can't be predicted. The job he's being groomed for is so particular and specialized that there is no way to know who will succeed at it and who won't. In fact, Berri and Simmons found no connection between where a quarterback was taken in the draft—that is, how highly he was rated on the basis of his college performance—and how well he played in the pros.
The entire time that Chase Daniel was on the field against Oklahoma State, his backup, Chase Patton, stood on the sidelines, watching. Patton didn't play a single down. In his four years at Missouri, up to that point, he had thrown a total of twenty-six passes. And yet there were people in Shonka's world who thought that Patton would end up as a better professional quarterback than Daniel. The week of the Oklahoma State game, the national sports magazine ESPN even put the two players on its cover, with the title "CHASE DANIEL MIGHT WIN THE HEISMAN"—referring to the trophy given to college football's best player. "HIS BACKUP COULD WIN THE SUPER BOWL." Why did everyone like Patton so much? It wasn't clear. Maybe he looked good in practice. Maybe it was because this season in the N.F.L. a quarterback who had also never started in a single college game is playing superbly for the New England Patriots. It sounds absurd to put an athlete on the cover of a magazine for no particular reason. But perhaps that's just the quarterback problem taken to an extreme. If college performance doesn't tell us anything, why shouldn't we value someone who hasn't had the chance to play as highly as someone who plays as well as anyone in the land?
Picture a young preschool teacher, sitting on a classroom floor surrounded by seven children. She is holding an alphabet book, and working through the letters with the children, one by one: " 'A' is for apple. . . . 'C' is for cow." The session was taped, and the videotape is being watched by a group of experts, who are charting and grading each of the teacher's moves.
After thirty seconds, the leader of the group—Bob Pianta, the dean of the University of Virginia's Curry School of Education—stops the tape. He points to two little girls on the right side of the circle. They are unusually active, leaning into the circle and reaching out to touch the book.
"What I'm struck by is how lively the affect is in this room," Pianta said. "One of the things the teacher is doing is creating a holding space for that. And what distinguishes her from other teachers is that she flexibly allows the kids to move and point to the book. She's not rigidly forcing the kids to sit back."
Pianta's team has developed a system for evaluating various competencies relating to student-teacher interaction. Among them is "regard for student perspective"; that is, a teacher's knack for allowing students some flexibility in how they become engaged in the classroom. Pianta stopped and rewound the tape twice, until what the teacher had managed to achieve became plain: the children were active, but somehow the class hadn't become a free-for-all.
"A lesser teacher would have responded to the kids' leaning over as misbehavior," Pianta went on. " 'We can't do this right now. You need to be sitting still.' She would have turned this off."
Bridget Hamre, one of Pianta's colleagues, chimed in: "These are three- and four-year-olds. At this age, when kids show their engagement it's not like the way we show our engagement, where we look alert. They're leaning forward and wriggling. That's their way of doing it. And a good teacher doesn't interpret that as bad behavior. You can see how hard it is to teach new teachers this idea, because the minute you teach them to have regard for the student's perspective, they think you have to give up control of the classroom."
The lesson continued. Pianta pointed out how the teacher managed to personalize the material. " 'C' is for cow" turned into a short discussion of which of the kids had ever visited a farm. "Almost every time a child says something, she responds to it, which is what we describe as teacher sensitivity," Hamre said.
The teacher then asked the children if anyone's name began with that letter. "Calvin," a boy named Calvin says. The teacher nods, and says, "Calvin starts with 'C.' " A little girl in the middle says, "Me!" The teacher turns to her. "Your name's Venisha. Letter 'V.' Venisha."
It was a key moment. Of all the teacher elements analyzed by the Virginia group, feedback—a direct, personal response by a teacher to a specific statement by a student—seems to be most closely linked to academic success. Not only did the teacher catch the "Me!" amid the wiggling and tumult; she addressed it directly.
"Mind you, that's not great feedback," Hamre said. "High-quality feedback is where there is a back-and-forth exchange to get a deeper understanding." The perfect way to handle that moment would have been for the teacher to pause and pull out Venisha's name card, point to the letter "V," show her how different it is from "C," and make the class sound out both letters. But the teacher didn't do that—either because it didn't occur to her or because she was distracted by the wiggling of the girls to her right.
"On the other hand, she could have completely ignored the girl, which happens a lot," Hamre went on. "The other thing that happens a lot is the teacher will just say, 'You're wrong.' Yes-no feedback is probably the predominant kind of feedback, which provides almost no information for the kid in terms of learning."
Pianta showed another tape, of a nearly identical situation: a circle of pre-schoolers around a teacher. The lesson was about how we can tell when someone is happy or sad. The teacher began by acting out a short conversation between two hand puppets, Henrietta and Twiggle: Twiggle is sad until Henrietta shares some watermelon with him.
"The idea that the teacher is trying to get across is that you can tell by looking at somebody's face how they're feeling, whether they're feeling sad or happy," Hamre said. "What kids of this age tend to say is you can tell how they're feeling because of something that happened to them. They lost their puppy and that's why they're sad. They don't really get this idea. So she's been challenged, and she's struggling."
The teacher begins, "Remember when we did something and we drew our face?" She touches her face, pointing out her eyes and mouth. "When somebody is happy, their face tells us that they're happy. And their eyes tell us." The children look on blankly. The teacher plunges on: "Watch, watch." She smiles broadly. "This is happy! How can you tell that I'm happy? Look at my face. Tell me what changes about my face when I'm happy. No, no, look at my face. . . . No. . . ."
A little girl next to her says, "Eyes," providing the teacher with an opportunity to use one of her students to draw the lesson out. But the teacher doesn't hear her. Again, she asks, "What's changed about my face?" She smiles and she frowns, as if she can reach the children by sheer force of repetition. Pianta stopped the tape. One problem, he pointed out, was that Henrietta made Twiggle happy by sharing watermelon with him, which doesn't illustrate what the lesson is about.
"You know, a better way to handle this would be to anchor something around the kids," Pianta said. "She should ask, 'What makes you feel happy?' The kids could answer. Then she could say, 'Show me your face when you have that feeling? O.K., what does So-and-So's face look like? Now tell me what makes you sad. Show me your face when you're sad. Oh, look, her face changed!' You've basically made the point. And then you could have the kids practice, or something. But this is going to go nowhere."
"What's changed about my face?" the teacher repeated, for what seemed like the hundredth time. One boy leaned forward into the circle, trying to engage himself in the lesson, in the way that little children do. His eyes were on the teacher. "Sit up!" she snapped at him.
As Pianta played one tape after another, the patterns started to become clear. Here was a teacher who read out sentences, in a spelling test, and every sentence came from her own life—"I went to a wedding last week"—which meant she was missing an opportunity to say something that engaged her students. Another teacher walked over to a computer to do a PowerPoint presentation, only to realize that she hadn't turned it on. As she waited for it to boot up, the classroom slid into chaos.
Then there was the superstar—a young high-school math teacher, in jeans and a green polo shirt. "So let's see," he began, standing up at the blackboard. "Special right triangles. We're going to do practice with this, just throwing out ideas." He drew two triangles. "Label the length of the side, if you can. If you can't, we'll all do it." He was talking and moving quickly, which Pianta said might be interpreted as a bad thing, because this was trigonometry. It wasn't easy material. But his energy seemed to infect the class. And all the time he offered the promise of help. If you can't, we'll all do it. In a corner of the room was a student named Ben, who'd evidently missed a few classes. "See what you can remember, Ben," the teacher said. Ben was lost. The teacher quickly went to his side: "I'm going to give you a way to get to it." He made a quick suggestion: "How about that?" Ben went back to work. The teacher slipped over to the student next to Ben, and glanced at her work. "That's all right!" He went to a third student, then a fourth. Two and a half minutes into the lesson—the length of time it took that subpar teacher to turn on the computer—he had already laid out the problem, checked in with nearly every student in the class, and was back at the blackboard, to take the lesson a step further.
"In a group like this, the standard m.o. would be: he's at the board, broadcasting to the kids, and has no idea who knows what he's doing and who doesn't know," Pianta said. "But he's giving individualized feedback. He's off the charts on feedback." Pianta and his team watched in awe.
Educational-reform efforts typically start with a push for higher standards for teachers—that is, for the academic and cognitive requirements for entering the profession to be as stiff as possible. But after you've watched Pianta's tapes, and seen how complex the elements of effective teaching are, this emphasis on book smarts suddenly seems peculiar. The preschool teacher with the alphabet book was sensitive to her students' needs and knew how to let the two girls on the right wiggle and squirm without disrupting the rest of the students; the trigonometry teacher knew how to complete a circuit of his classroom in two and a half minutes and make everyone feel as if he or she were getting his personal attention. But these aren't cognitive skills.
A group of researchers—Thomas J. Kane, an economist at Harvard's school of education; Douglas Staiger, an economist at Dartmouth; and Robert Gordon, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress—have investigated whether it helps to have a teacher who has earned a teaching certification or a master's degree. Both are expensive, time-consuming credentials that almost every district expects teachers to acquire; neither makes a difference in the classroom. Test scores, graduate degrees, and certifications—as much as they appear related to teaching prowess—turn out to be about as useful in predicting success as having a quarterback throw footballs into a bunch of garbage cans.
Another educational researcher, Jacob Kounin, once did an analysis of "desist" events, in which a teacher has to stop some kind of misbehavior. In one instance, "Mary leans toward the table to her right and whispers to Jane. Both she and Jane giggle. The teacher says, 'Mary and Jane, stop that!' " That's a desist event. But how a teacher desists—her tone of voice, her attitudes, her choice of words—appears to make no difference at all in maintaining an orderly classroom. How can that be? Kounin went back over the videotape and noticed that forty-five seconds before Mary whispered to Jane, Lucy and John had started whispering. Then Robert had noticed and joined in, making Jane giggle, whereupon Jane said something to John. Then Mary whispered to Jane. It was a contagious chain of misbehavior, and what really was significant was not how a teacher stopped the deviancy at the end of the chain but whether she was able to stop the chain before it started. Kounin called that ability "withitness," which he defined as "a teacher's communicating to the children by her actual behavior (rather than by verbally announcing: 'I know what's going on') that she knows what the children are doing, or has the proverbial 'eyes in the back of her head.' " It stands to reason that to be a great teacher you have to have withitness. But how do you know whether someone has withitness until she stands up in front of a classroom of twenty-five wiggly Janes, Lucys, Johns, and Roberts and tries to impose order?
Perhaps no profession has taken the implications of the quarterback problem more seriously than the financial-advice field, and the experience of financial advisers is a useful guide to what could happen in teaching as well. There are no formal qualifications for entering the field except a college degree. Financial-services firms don't look for only the best students, or require graduate degrees or specify a list of prerequisites. No one knows beforehand what makes a high-performing financial adviser different from a low-performing one, so the field throws the door wide open.
"A question I ask is, 'Give me a typical day,' " Ed Deutschlander, the co-president of North Star Resource Group, in Minneapolis, says. "If that person says, 'I get up at five-thirty, hit the gym, go to the library, go to class, go to my job, do homework until eleven,' that person has a chance." Deutschlander, in other words, begins by looking for the same general traits that every corporate recruiter looks for.
Deutschlander says that last year his firm interviewed about a thousand people, and found forty-nine it liked, a ratio of twenty interviewees to one candidate. Those candidates were put through a four-month "training camp," in which they tried to act like real financial advisers. "They should be able to obtain in that four-month period a minimum of ten official clients," Deutschlander said. "If someone can obtain ten clients, and is able to maintain a minimum of ten meetings a week, that means that person has gathered over a hundred introductions in that four-month period. Then we know that person is at least fast enough to play this game."
Of the forty-nine people invited to the training camp, twenty-three made the cut and were hired as apprentice advisers. Then the real sorting began. "Even with the top performers, it really takes three to four years to see whether someone can make it," Deutschlander says. "You're just scratching the surface at the beginning. Four years from now, I expect to hang on to at least thirty to forty per cent of that twenty-three."
People like Deutschlander are referred to as gatekeepers, a title that suggests that those at the door of a profession are expected to discriminate—to select who gets through the gate and who doesn't. But Deutschlander sees his role as keeping the gate as wide open as possible: to find ten new financial advisers, he's willing to interview a thousand people. The equivalent of that approach, in the N.F.L., would be for a team to give up trying to figure out who the "best" college quarterback is, and, instead, try out three or four "good" candidates.
In teaching, the implications are even more profound. They suggest that we shouldn't be raising standards. We should be lowering them, because there is no point in raising standards if standards don't track with what we care about. Teaching should be open to anyone with a pulse and a college degree—and teachers should be judged after they have started their jobs, not before. That means that the profession needs to start the equivalent of Ed Deutschlander's training camp. It needs an apprenticeship system that allows candidates to be rigorously evaluated. Kane and Staiger have calculated that, given the enormous differences between the top and the bottom of the profession, you'd probably have to try out four candidates to find one good teacher. That means tenure can't be routinely awarded, the way it is now. Currently, the salary structure of the teaching profession is highly rigid, and that would also have to change in a world where we want to rate teachers on their actual performance. An apprentice should get apprentice wages. But if we find eighty-fifth-percentile teachers who can teach a year and a half's material in one year, we're going to have to pay them a lot—both because we want them to stay and because the only way to get people to try out for what will suddenly be a high-risk profession is to offer those who survive the winnowing a healthy reward.
Is this solution to teaching's quarterback problem politically possible? Taxpayers might well balk at the costs of trying out four teachers to find one good one. Teachers' unions have been resistant to even the slightest move away from the current tenure arrangement. But all the reformers want is for the teaching profession to copy what firms like North Star have been doing for years. Deutschlander interviews a thousand people to find ten advisers. He spends large amounts of money to figure out who has the particular mixture of abilities to do the job. "Between hard and soft costs," he says, "most firms sink between a hundred thousand dollars and two hundred and fifty thousand dollars on someone in their first three or four years," and in most cases, of course, that investment comes to naught. But, if you were willing to make that kind of investment and show that kind of patience, you wound up with a truly high-performing financial adviser. "We have a hundred and twenty-five full-time advisers," Deutschlander says. "Last year, we had seventy-one of them qualify for the Million Dollar Round Table"—the industry's association of its most successful practitioners. "We're seventy-one out of a hundred and twenty-five in that élite group." What does it say about a society that it devotes more care and patience to the selection of those who handle its money than of those who handle its children?
Midway through the fourth quarter of the Oklahoma State–Missouri game, the Tigers were in trouble. For the first time all year, they were behind late in the game. They needed to score, or they'd lose any chance of a national championship. Daniel took the snap from his center, and planted his feet to pass. His receivers were covered. He began to run. The Oklahoma State defenders closed in on him. He was under pressure, something that rarely happened to him in the spread. Desperate, he heaved the ball downfield, right into the arms of a Cowboy defender.
Shonka jumped up. "That's not like him!" he cried out. "He doesn't throw stuff up like that."
Next to Shonka, a scout for the Kansas City Chiefs looked crestfallen. "Chase never throws something up for grabs!"
It was tempting to see Daniel's mistake as definitive. The spread had broken down. He was finally under pressure. This was what it would be like to be an N.F.L. quarterback, wasn't it? But there is nothing like being an N.F.L. quarterback except being an N.F.L. quarterback. A prediction, in a field where prediction is not possible, is no more than a prejudice. Maybe that interception means that Daniel won't be a good professional quarterback, or maybe he made a mistake that he'll learn from. "In a great big piece of pie," Shonka said, "that was just a little slice." ♦
How do we hire when we can't tell who's right for the job?
by Malcolm Gladwell December 15, 2008
Effective teachers have a gift for noticing—what one researcher calls "withitness."
On the day of the big football game between the University of Missouri Tigers and the Cowboys of Oklahoma State, a football scout named Dan Shonka sat in his hotel, in Columbia, Missouri, with a portable DVD player. Shonka has worked for three National Football League teams. Before that, he was a football coach, and before that he played linebacker—although, he says, "that was three knee operations and a hundred pounds ago." Every year, he evaluates somewhere between eight hundred and twelve hundred players around the country, helping professional teams decide whom to choose in the college draft, which means that over the last thirty years he has probably seen as many football games as anyone else in America. In his DVD player was his homework for the evening's big game—an edited video of the Tigers' previous contest, against the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers.
Shonka methodically made his way through the video, stopping and re-winding whenever he saw something that caught his eye. He liked Jeremy Maclin and Chase Coffman, two of the Mizzou receivers. He loved William Moore, the team's bruising strong safety. But, most of all, he was interested in the Tigers' quarterback and star, a stocky, strong-armed senior named Chase Daniel.
"I like to see that the quarterback can hit a receiver in stride, so he doesn't have to slow for the ball," Shonka began. He had a stack of evaluation forms next to him and, as he watched the game, he was charting and grading every throw that Daniel made. "Then judgment. Hey, if it's not there, throw it away and play another day. Will he stand in there and take a hit, with a guy breathing down his face? Will he be able to step right in there, throw, and still take that hit? Does the guy throw better when he's in the pocket, or does he throw equally well when he's on the move? You want a great competitor. Durability. Can they hold up, their strength, toughness? Can they make big plays? Can they lead a team down the field and score late in the game? Can they see the field? When your team's way ahead, that's fine. But when you're getting your ass kicked I want to see what you're going to do."
He pointed to his screen. Daniel had thrown a dart, and, just as he did, a defensive player had hit him squarely. "See how he popped up?" Shonka said. "He stood right there and threw the ball in the face of that rush. This kid has got a lot of courage." Daniel was six feet tall and weighed two hundred and twenty-five pounds: thick through the chest and trunk. He carried himself with a self-assurance that bordered on cockiness. He threw quickly and in rhythm. He nimbly evaded defenders. He made short throws with touch and longer throws with accuracy. By the game's end, he had completed an astonishing seventy-eight per cent of his passes, and handed Nebraska its worst home defeat in fifty-three years. "He can zip it," Shonka said. "He can really gun, when he has to." Shonka had seen all the promising college quarterbacks, charted and graded their throws, and to his mind Daniel was special: "He might be one of the best college quarterbacks in the country."
But then Shonka began to talk about when he was on the staff of the Philadelphia Eagles, in 1999. Five quarterbacks were taken in the first round of the college draft that year, and each looked as promising as Chase Daniel did now. But only one of them, Donovan McNabb, ended up fulfilling that promise. Of the rest, one descended into mediocrity after a decent start. Two were complete busts, and the last was so awful that after failing out of the N.F.L. he ended up failing out of the Canadian Football League as well.
The year before, the same thing happened with Ryan Leaf, who was the Chase Daniel of 1998. The San Diego Chargers made him the second player taken over all in the draft, and gave him an eleven-million-dollar signing bonus. Leaf turned out to be terrible. In 2002, it was Joey Harrington's turn. Harrington was a golden boy out of the University of Oregon, and the third player taken in the draft. Shonka still can't get over what happened to him.
"I tell you, I saw Joey live," he said. "This guy threw lasers, he could throw under tight spots, he had the arm strength, he had the size, he had the intelligence." Shonka got as misty as a two-hundred-and-eighty-pound ex-linebacker in a black tracksuit can get. "He's a concert pianist, you know? I really—I mean, I really—liked Joey." And yet Harrington's career consisted of a failed stint with the Detroit Lions and a slide into obscurity. Shonka looked back at the screen, where the young man he felt might be the best quarterback in the country was marching his team up and down the field. "How will that ability translate to the National Football League?" He shook his head slowly. "Shoot."
This is the quarterback problem. There are certain jobs where almost nothing you can learn about candidates before they start predicts how they'll do once they're hired. So how do we know whom to choose in cases like that? In recent years, a number of fields have begun to wrestle with this problem, but none with such profound social consequences as the profession of teaching.
One of the most important tools in contemporary educational research is "value added" analysis. It uses standardized test scores to look at how much the academic performance of students in a given teacher's classroom changes between the beginning and the end of the school year. Suppose that Mrs. Brown and Mr. Smith both teach a classroom of third graders who score at the fiftieth percentile on math and reading tests on the first day of school, in September. When the students are retested, in June, Mrs. Brown's class scores at the seventieth percentile, while Mr. Smith's students have fallen to the fortieth percentile. That change in the students' rankings, value-added theory says, is a meaningful indicator of how much more effective Mrs. Brown is as a teacher than Mr. Smith.
It's only a crude measure, of course. A teacher is not solely responsible for how much is learned in a classroom, and not everything of value that a teacher imparts to his or her students can be captured on a standardized test. Nonetheless, if you follow Brown and Smith for three or four years, their effect on their students' test scores starts to become predictable: with enough data, it is possible to identify who the very good teachers are and who the very poor teachers are. What's more—and this is the finding that has galvanized the educational world—the difference between good teachers and poor teachers turns out to be vast.
Eric Hanushek, an economist at Stanford, estimates that the students of a very bad teacher will learn, on average, half a year's worth of material in one school year. The students in the class of a very good teacher will learn a year and a half's worth of material. That difference amounts to a year's worth of learning in a single year. Teacher effects dwarf school effects: your child is actually better off in a "bad" school with an excellent teacher than in an excellent school with a bad teacher. Teacher effects are also much stronger than class-size effects. You'd have to cut the average class almost in half to get the same boost that you'd get if you switched from an average teacher to a teacher in the eighty-fifth percentile. And remember that a good teacher costs as much as an average one, whereas halving class size would require that you build twice as many classrooms and hire twice as many teachers.
Hanushek recently did a back-of-the-envelope calculation about what even a rudimentary focus on teacher quality could mean for the United States. If you rank the countries of the world in terms of the academic performance of their schoolchildren, the U.S. is just below average, half a standard deviation below a clump of relatively high-performing countries like Canada and Belgium. According to Hanushek, the U.S. could close that gap simply by replacing the bottom six per cent to ten per cent of public-school teachers with teachers of average quality. After years of worrying about issues like school funding levels, class size, and curriculum design, many reformers have come to the conclusion that nothing matters more than finding people with the potential to be great teachers. But there's a hitch: no one knows what a person with the potential to be a great teacher looks like. The school system has a quarterback problem.
Kickoff time for Missouri's game against Oklahoma State was seven o'clock. It was a perfect evening for football: cloudless skies and a light fall breeze. For hours, fans had been tailgating in the parking lots around the stadium. Cars lined the roads leading to the university, many with fuzzy yellow-and-black Tiger tails hanging from their trunks. It was one of Mizzou's biggest games in years. The Tigers were undefeated, and had a chance to become the No. 1 college football team in the country. Shonka made his way through the milling crowds and took a seat in the press box. Below him, the players on the field looked like pieces on a chessboard.
The Tigers held the ball first. Chase Daniel stood a good seven yards behind his offensive line. He had five receivers, two to his left and three to his right, spaced from one side of the field to the other. His linemen were widely spaced as well. In play after play, Daniel caught the snap from his center, planted his feet, and threw the ball in quick seven- and eight-yard diagonal passes to one of his five receivers.
The style of offense that the Tigers run is called the "spread," and most of the top quarterbacks in college football—the players who will be drafted into the pros—are spread quarterbacks. By spacing out the offensive linemen and wide receivers, the system makes it easy for the quarterback to figure out the intentions of the opposing defense before the ball is snapped: he can look up and down the line, "read" the defense, and decide where to throw the ball before anyone has moved a muscle. Daniel had been playing in the spread since high school; he was its master. "Look how quickly he gets the ball out," Shonka said. "You can hardly go a thousand and one, a thousand and two, and it's out of his hand. He knows right where he's going. When everyone is spread out like that, the defense can't disguise its coverage. Chase knows right away what they are going to do. The system simplifies the quarterback's decisions."
But for Shonka this didn't help matters. It had always been hard to predict how a college quarterback would fare in the pros. The professional game was, simply, faster and more complicated. With the advent of the spread, though, the correspondence between the two levels of play had broken down almost entirely. N.F.L. teams don't run the spread. They can't. The defenders in the pros are so much faster than their college counterparts that they would shoot through those big gaps in the offensive line and flatten the quarterback. In the N.F.L., the offensive line is bunched closely together. Daniel wouldn't have five receivers. Most of the time, he'd have just three or four. He wouldn't have the luxury of standing seven yards behind the center, planting his feet, and knowing instantly where to throw. He'd have to crouch right behind the center, take the snap directly, and run backward before planting his feet to throw. The onrushing defenders wouldn't be seven yards away. They would be all around him, from the start. The defense would no longer have to show its hand, because the field would not be so spread out. It could now disguise its intentions. Daniel wouldn't be able to read the defense before the snap was taken. He'd have to read it in the seconds after the play began.
"In the spread, you see a lot of guys wide open," Shonka said. "But when a guy like Chase goes to the N.F.L. he's never going to see his receivers that open—only in some rare case, like someone slips or there's a bust in the coverage. When that ball's leaving your hands in the pros, if you don't use your eyes to move the defender a little bit, they'll break on the ball and intercept it. The athletic ability that they're playing against in the league is unbelievable."
As Shonka talked, Daniel was moving his team down the field. But he was almost always throwing those quick, diagonal passes. In the N.F.L., he would have to do much more than that—he would have to throw long, vertical passes over the top of the defense. Could he make that kind of throw? Shonka didn't know. There was also the matter of his height. Six feet was fine in a spread system, where the big gaps in the offensive line gave Daniel plenty of opportunity to throw the ball and see downfield. But in the N.F.L. there wouldn't be gaps, and the linemen rushing at him would be six-five, not six-one.
"I wonder," Shonka went on. "Can he see? Can he be productive in a new kind of offense? How will he handle that? I'd like to see him set up quickly from center. I'd like to see his ability to read coverages that are not in the spread. I'd like to see him in the pocket. I'd like to see him move his feet. I'd like to see him do a deep dig, or deep comeback. You know, like a throw twenty to twenty-five yards down the field."
It was clear that Shonka didn't feel the same hesitancy in evaluating the other Mizzou stars—the safety Moore, the receivers Maclin and Coffman. The game that they would play in the pros would also be different from the game they were playing in college, but the difference was merely one of degree. They had succeeded at Missouri because they were strong and fast and skilled, and these traits translate in kind to professional football.
A college quarterback joining the N.F.L., by contrast, has to learn to play an entirely new game. Shonka began to talk about Tim Couch, the quarterback taken first in that legendary draft of 1999. Couch set every record imaginable in his years at the University of Kentucky. "They used to put five garbage cans on the field," Shonka recalled, shaking his head, "and Couch would stand there and throw and just drop the ball into every one." But Couch was a flop in the pros. It wasn't that professional quarterbacks didn't need to be accurate. It was that the kind of accuracy required to do the job well could be measured only in a real N.F.L. game.
Similarly, all quarterbacks drafted into the pros are required to take an I.Q. test—the Wonderlic Personnel Test. The theory behind the test is that the pro game is so much more cognitively demanding than the college game that high intelligence should be a good predictor of success. But when the economists David Berri and Rob Simmons analyzed the scores—which are routinely leaked to the press—they found that Wonderlic scores are all but useless as predictors. Of the five quarterbacks taken in round one of the 1999 draft, Donovan McNabb, the only one of the five with a shot at the Hall of Fame, had the lowest Wonderlic score. And who else had I.Q. scores in the same range as McNabb? Dan Marino and Terry Bradshaw, two of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play the game.
We're used to dealing with prediction problems by going back and looking for better predictors. We now realize that being a good doctor requires the ability to communicate, listen, and empathize—and so there is increasing pressure on medical schools to pay attention to interpersonal skills as well as to test scores. We can have better physicians if we're just smarter about how we choose medical-school students. But no one is saying that Dan Shonka is somehow missing some key ingredient in his analysis; that if he were only more perceptive he could predict Chase Daniel's career trajectory. The problem with picking quarterbacks is that Chase Daniel's performance can't be predicted. The job he's being groomed for is so particular and specialized that there is no way to know who will succeed at it and who won't. In fact, Berri and Simmons found no connection between where a quarterback was taken in the draft—that is, how highly he was rated on the basis of his college performance—and how well he played in the pros.
The entire time that Chase Daniel was on the field against Oklahoma State, his backup, Chase Patton, stood on the sidelines, watching. Patton didn't play a single down. In his four years at Missouri, up to that point, he had thrown a total of twenty-six passes. And yet there were people in Shonka's world who thought that Patton would end up as a better professional quarterback than Daniel. The week of the Oklahoma State game, the national sports magazine ESPN even put the two players on its cover, with the title "CHASE DANIEL MIGHT WIN THE HEISMAN"—referring to the trophy given to college football's best player. "HIS BACKUP COULD WIN THE SUPER BOWL." Why did everyone like Patton so much? It wasn't clear. Maybe he looked good in practice. Maybe it was because this season in the N.F.L. a quarterback who had also never started in a single college game is playing superbly for the New England Patriots. It sounds absurd to put an athlete on the cover of a magazine for no particular reason. But perhaps that's just the quarterback problem taken to an extreme. If college performance doesn't tell us anything, why shouldn't we value someone who hasn't had the chance to play as highly as someone who plays as well as anyone in the land?
Picture a young preschool teacher, sitting on a classroom floor surrounded by seven children. She is holding an alphabet book, and working through the letters with the children, one by one: " 'A' is for apple. . . . 'C' is for cow." The session was taped, and the videotape is being watched by a group of experts, who are charting and grading each of the teacher's moves.
After thirty seconds, the leader of the group—Bob Pianta, the dean of the University of Virginia's Curry School of Education—stops the tape. He points to two little girls on the right side of the circle. They are unusually active, leaning into the circle and reaching out to touch the book.
"What I'm struck by is how lively the affect is in this room," Pianta said. "One of the things the teacher is doing is creating a holding space for that. And what distinguishes her from other teachers is that she flexibly allows the kids to move and point to the book. She's not rigidly forcing the kids to sit back."
Pianta's team has developed a system for evaluating various competencies relating to student-teacher interaction. Among them is "regard for student perspective"; that is, a teacher's knack for allowing students some flexibility in how they become engaged in the classroom. Pianta stopped and rewound the tape twice, until what the teacher had managed to achieve became plain: the children were active, but somehow the class hadn't become a free-for-all.
"A lesser teacher would have responded to the kids' leaning over as misbehavior," Pianta went on. " 'We can't do this right now. You need to be sitting still.' She would have turned this off."
Bridget Hamre, one of Pianta's colleagues, chimed in: "These are three- and four-year-olds. At this age, when kids show their engagement it's not like the way we show our engagement, where we look alert. They're leaning forward and wriggling. That's their way of doing it. And a good teacher doesn't interpret that as bad behavior. You can see how hard it is to teach new teachers this idea, because the minute you teach them to have regard for the student's perspective, they think you have to give up control of the classroom."
The lesson continued. Pianta pointed out how the teacher managed to personalize the material. " 'C' is for cow" turned into a short discussion of which of the kids had ever visited a farm. "Almost every time a child says something, she responds to it, which is what we describe as teacher sensitivity," Hamre said.
The teacher then asked the children if anyone's name began with that letter. "Calvin," a boy named Calvin says. The teacher nods, and says, "Calvin starts with 'C.' " A little girl in the middle says, "Me!" The teacher turns to her. "Your name's Venisha. Letter 'V.' Venisha."
It was a key moment. Of all the teacher elements analyzed by the Virginia group, feedback—a direct, personal response by a teacher to a specific statement by a student—seems to be most closely linked to academic success. Not only did the teacher catch the "Me!" amid the wiggling and tumult; she addressed it directly.
"Mind you, that's not great feedback," Hamre said. "High-quality feedback is where there is a back-and-forth exchange to get a deeper understanding." The perfect way to handle that moment would have been for the teacher to pause and pull out Venisha's name card, point to the letter "V," show her how different it is from "C," and make the class sound out both letters. But the teacher didn't do that—either because it didn't occur to her or because she was distracted by the wiggling of the girls to her right.
"On the other hand, she could have completely ignored the girl, which happens a lot," Hamre went on. "The other thing that happens a lot is the teacher will just say, 'You're wrong.' Yes-no feedback is probably the predominant kind of feedback, which provides almost no information for the kid in terms of learning."
Pianta showed another tape, of a nearly identical situation: a circle of pre-schoolers around a teacher. The lesson was about how we can tell when someone is happy or sad. The teacher began by acting out a short conversation between two hand puppets, Henrietta and Twiggle: Twiggle is sad until Henrietta shares some watermelon with him.
"The idea that the teacher is trying to get across is that you can tell by looking at somebody's face how they're feeling, whether they're feeling sad or happy," Hamre said. "What kids of this age tend to say is you can tell how they're feeling because of something that happened to them. They lost their puppy and that's why they're sad. They don't really get this idea. So she's been challenged, and she's struggling."
The teacher begins, "Remember when we did something and we drew our face?" She touches her face, pointing out her eyes and mouth. "When somebody is happy, their face tells us that they're happy. And their eyes tell us." The children look on blankly. The teacher plunges on: "Watch, watch." She smiles broadly. "This is happy! How can you tell that I'm happy? Look at my face. Tell me what changes about my face when I'm happy. No, no, look at my face. . . . No. . . ."
A little girl next to her says, "Eyes," providing the teacher with an opportunity to use one of her students to draw the lesson out. But the teacher doesn't hear her. Again, she asks, "What's changed about my face?" She smiles and she frowns, as if she can reach the children by sheer force of repetition. Pianta stopped the tape. One problem, he pointed out, was that Henrietta made Twiggle happy by sharing watermelon with him, which doesn't illustrate what the lesson is about.
"You know, a better way to handle this would be to anchor something around the kids," Pianta said. "She should ask, 'What makes you feel happy?' The kids could answer. Then she could say, 'Show me your face when you have that feeling? O.K., what does So-and-So's face look like? Now tell me what makes you sad. Show me your face when you're sad. Oh, look, her face changed!' You've basically made the point. And then you could have the kids practice, or something. But this is going to go nowhere."
"What's changed about my face?" the teacher repeated, for what seemed like the hundredth time. One boy leaned forward into the circle, trying to engage himself in the lesson, in the way that little children do. His eyes were on the teacher. "Sit up!" she snapped at him.
As Pianta played one tape after another, the patterns started to become clear. Here was a teacher who read out sentences, in a spelling test, and every sentence came from her own life—"I went to a wedding last week"—which meant she was missing an opportunity to say something that engaged her students. Another teacher walked over to a computer to do a PowerPoint presentation, only to realize that she hadn't turned it on. As she waited for it to boot up, the classroom slid into chaos.
Then there was the superstar—a young high-school math teacher, in jeans and a green polo shirt. "So let's see," he began, standing up at the blackboard. "Special right triangles. We're going to do practice with this, just throwing out ideas." He drew two triangles. "Label the length of the side, if you can. If you can't, we'll all do it." He was talking and moving quickly, which Pianta said might be interpreted as a bad thing, because this was trigonometry. It wasn't easy material. But his energy seemed to infect the class. And all the time he offered the promise of help. If you can't, we'll all do it. In a corner of the room was a student named Ben, who'd evidently missed a few classes. "See what you can remember, Ben," the teacher said. Ben was lost. The teacher quickly went to his side: "I'm going to give you a way to get to it." He made a quick suggestion: "How about that?" Ben went back to work. The teacher slipped over to the student next to Ben, and glanced at her work. "That's all right!" He went to a third student, then a fourth. Two and a half minutes into the lesson—the length of time it took that subpar teacher to turn on the computer—he had already laid out the problem, checked in with nearly every student in the class, and was back at the blackboard, to take the lesson a step further.
"In a group like this, the standard m.o. would be: he's at the board, broadcasting to the kids, and has no idea who knows what he's doing and who doesn't know," Pianta said. "But he's giving individualized feedback. He's off the charts on feedback." Pianta and his team watched in awe.
Educational-reform efforts typically start with a push for higher standards for teachers—that is, for the academic and cognitive requirements for entering the profession to be as stiff as possible. But after you've watched Pianta's tapes, and seen how complex the elements of effective teaching are, this emphasis on book smarts suddenly seems peculiar. The preschool teacher with the alphabet book was sensitive to her students' needs and knew how to let the two girls on the right wiggle and squirm without disrupting the rest of the students; the trigonometry teacher knew how to complete a circuit of his classroom in two and a half minutes and make everyone feel as if he or she were getting his personal attention. But these aren't cognitive skills.
A group of researchers—Thomas J. Kane, an economist at Harvard's school of education; Douglas Staiger, an economist at Dartmouth; and Robert Gordon, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress—have investigated whether it helps to have a teacher who has earned a teaching certification or a master's degree. Both are expensive, time-consuming credentials that almost every district expects teachers to acquire; neither makes a difference in the classroom. Test scores, graduate degrees, and certifications—as much as they appear related to teaching prowess—turn out to be about as useful in predicting success as having a quarterback throw footballs into a bunch of garbage cans.
Another educational researcher, Jacob Kounin, once did an analysis of "desist" events, in which a teacher has to stop some kind of misbehavior. In one instance, "Mary leans toward the table to her right and whispers to Jane. Both she and Jane giggle. The teacher says, 'Mary and Jane, stop that!' " That's a desist event. But how a teacher desists—her tone of voice, her attitudes, her choice of words—appears to make no difference at all in maintaining an orderly classroom. How can that be? Kounin went back over the videotape and noticed that forty-five seconds before Mary whispered to Jane, Lucy and John had started whispering. Then Robert had noticed and joined in, making Jane giggle, whereupon Jane said something to John. Then Mary whispered to Jane. It was a contagious chain of misbehavior, and what really was significant was not how a teacher stopped the deviancy at the end of the chain but whether she was able to stop the chain before it started. Kounin called that ability "withitness," which he defined as "a teacher's communicating to the children by her actual behavior (rather than by verbally announcing: 'I know what's going on') that she knows what the children are doing, or has the proverbial 'eyes in the back of her head.' " It stands to reason that to be a great teacher you have to have withitness. But how do you know whether someone has withitness until she stands up in front of a classroom of twenty-five wiggly Janes, Lucys, Johns, and Roberts and tries to impose order?
Perhaps no profession has taken the implications of the quarterback problem more seriously than the financial-advice field, and the experience of financial advisers is a useful guide to what could happen in teaching as well. There are no formal qualifications for entering the field except a college degree. Financial-services firms don't look for only the best students, or require graduate degrees or specify a list of prerequisites. No one knows beforehand what makes a high-performing financial adviser different from a low-performing one, so the field throws the door wide open.
"A question I ask is, 'Give me a typical day,' " Ed Deutschlander, the co-president of North Star Resource Group, in Minneapolis, says. "If that person says, 'I get up at five-thirty, hit the gym, go to the library, go to class, go to my job, do homework until eleven,' that person has a chance." Deutschlander, in other words, begins by looking for the same general traits that every corporate recruiter looks for.
Deutschlander says that last year his firm interviewed about a thousand people, and found forty-nine it liked, a ratio of twenty interviewees to one candidate. Those candidates were put through a four-month "training camp," in which they tried to act like real financial advisers. "They should be able to obtain in that four-month period a minimum of ten official clients," Deutschlander said. "If someone can obtain ten clients, and is able to maintain a minimum of ten meetings a week, that means that person has gathered over a hundred introductions in that four-month period. Then we know that person is at least fast enough to play this game."
Of the forty-nine people invited to the training camp, twenty-three made the cut and were hired as apprentice advisers. Then the real sorting began. "Even with the top performers, it really takes three to four years to see whether someone can make it," Deutschlander says. "You're just scratching the surface at the beginning. Four years from now, I expect to hang on to at least thirty to forty per cent of that twenty-three."
People like Deutschlander are referred to as gatekeepers, a title that suggests that those at the door of a profession are expected to discriminate—to select who gets through the gate and who doesn't. But Deutschlander sees his role as keeping the gate as wide open as possible: to find ten new financial advisers, he's willing to interview a thousand people. The equivalent of that approach, in the N.F.L., would be for a team to give up trying to figure out who the "best" college quarterback is, and, instead, try out three or four "good" candidates.
In teaching, the implications are even more profound. They suggest that we shouldn't be raising standards. We should be lowering them, because there is no point in raising standards if standards don't track with what we care about. Teaching should be open to anyone with a pulse and a college degree—and teachers should be judged after they have started their jobs, not before. That means that the profession needs to start the equivalent of Ed Deutschlander's training camp. It needs an apprenticeship system that allows candidates to be rigorously evaluated. Kane and Staiger have calculated that, given the enormous differences between the top and the bottom of the profession, you'd probably have to try out four candidates to find one good teacher. That means tenure can't be routinely awarded, the way it is now. Currently, the salary structure of the teaching profession is highly rigid, and that would also have to change in a world where we want to rate teachers on their actual performance. An apprentice should get apprentice wages. But if we find eighty-fifth-percentile teachers who can teach a year and a half's material in one year, we're going to have to pay them a lot—both because we want them to stay and because the only way to get people to try out for what will suddenly be a high-risk profession is to offer those who survive the winnowing a healthy reward.
Is this solution to teaching's quarterback problem politically possible? Taxpayers might well balk at the costs of trying out four teachers to find one good one. Teachers' unions have been resistant to even the slightest move away from the current tenure arrangement. But all the reformers want is for the teaching profession to copy what firms like North Star have been doing for years. Deutschlander interviews a thousand people to find ten advisers. He spends large amounts of money to figure out who has the particular mixture of abilities to do the job. "Between hard and soft costs," he says, "most firms sink between a hundred thousand dollars and two hundred and fifty thousand dollars on someone in their first three or four years," and in most cases, of course, that investment comes to naught. But, if you were willing to make that kind of investment and show that kind of patience, you wound up with a truly high-performing financial adviser. "We have a hundred and twenty-five full-time advisers," Deutschlander says. "Last year, we had seventy-one of them qualify for the Million Dollar Round Table"—the industry's association of its most successful practitioners. "We're seventy-one out of a hundred and twenty-five in that élite group." What does it say about a society that it devotes more care and patience to the selection of those who handle its money than of those who handle its children?
Midway through the fourth quarter of the Oklahoma State–Missouri game, the Tigers were in trouble. For the first time all year, they were behind late in the game. They needed to score, or they'd lose any chance of a national championship. Daniel took the snap from his center, and planted his feet to pass. His receivers were covered. He began to run. The Oklahoma State defenders closed in on him. He was under pressure, something that rarely happened to him in the spread. Desperate, he heaved the ball downfield, right into the arms of a Cowboy defender.
Shonka jumped up. "That's not like him!" he cried out. "He doesn't throw stuff up like that."
Next to Shonka, a scout for the Kansas City Chiefs looked crestfallen. "Chase never throws something up for grabs!"
It was tempting to see Daniel's mistake as definitive. The spread had broken down. He was finally under pressure. This was what it would be like to be an N.F.L. quarterback, wasn't it? But there is nothing like being an N.F.L. quarterback except being an N.F.L. quarterback. A prediction, in a field where prediction is not possible, is no more than a prejudice. Maybe that interception means that Daniel won't be a good professional quarterback, or maybe he made a mistake that he'll learn from. "In a great big piece of pie," Shonka said, "that was just a little slice." ♦
December 19, 2008
2008: The Year in Politics
Here are some highlights from this year’s political writing in The New Yorker.
These rival conceptions of the Presidency—Clinton as executive, Obama as visionary—reflect a deeper difference in how the two candidates analyze what ails the country.
—“The Choice,” by George Packer (January 28, 2008)
One evening this past fall, Barack Obama's Presidential campaign went to Newark, bringing together the two leading figures of what might be called the Oprah Winfrey wing of the Democratic Party. At a downtown rally, the task of firing up the crowd and introducing the candidate fell to Cory Booker, Newark's thirty-eight-year-old mayor, who is Obama's most prominent backer in New Jersey.
—“The Color of Politics,” by Peter J. Boyer (February 4, 2008)
Recently, I spoke with a number of conservatives about their movement. The younger ones—say, those under fifty—uniformly subscribe to the reformist version. They are in a state of glowing revulsion at the condition of their political party.
—“The Fall of Conservatism,” by George Packer (May 26, 2008)
When I asked why he moved to Miami, Stone quoted a Somerset Maugham line: “It’s a sunny place for shady people. I fit right in.”
—“The Dirty Trickster,” by Jeffrey Toobin (June 2, 2008)
Obama seems to have been meticulous about constructing a political identity for himself. He visited churches on the South Side, considered the politics and reputations of each one, and received advice from older pastors. Before deciding on Trinity United Church of Christ, he asked the Reverend Wright about critics who complained that the church was too “upwardly mobile,” a place for buppies.
—“Making It,” by Ryan Lizza (July 21, 2008)
A nose-holding base does not often deliver election victories, but few evangelicals could imagine what McCain might say or do, with any degree of authenticity, that could excite the base.
—“Party Faithful,” by Peter J. Boyer (September 8, 2008)
Recently, people in Ohio have told me that voters there have started to shift toward Obama. Gabe Kramer, of the S.E.I.U., said that, after the first Presidential debate and amid the financial crisis, union members seemed to find Obama’s ideas and manner more persuasive than before. But even if Obama wins he will still have to overcome the deep skepticism of struggling Americans.
—“The Hardest Vote,” by George Packer (October 13, 2008)
How our votes are counted is, generally, a product of twentieth-century technology. (My precinct uses an optical scanner invented in the nineteen-sixties.) It really is patches all the way down. In places—like the Electoral College—the patchwork gets pretty shoddy.
—“Rock, Paper, Scissors,” by Jill Lepore (October 13, 2008)
Biden said that the best model for him is Lyndon Johnson, who, before serving as John F. Kennedy’s Vice-President, was the Majority Leader of the Senate, and who, even in the Kennedy White House, tried to remain something of a Senate man.
—“Biden’s Brief,” by Ryan Lizza (October 20, 2008)
Palin also learned that a number of prominent conservative pundits would soon be passing through Juneau, on cruises sponsored by right-leaning political magazines. She invited these insiders to the governor’s mansion, and even led some of them on a helicopter tour.
—“The Insiders,” by Jane Mayer (October 28, 2008)
In early June, Senators Chuck Hagel and John McCain met in Hagel’s office on Capitol Hill. McCain, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, considered Hagel—a fellow-Republican and the senior senator from Nebraska—among his closest friends in Congress.
—“Odd Man Out,” by Connie Bruck (November 3, 2008)
Much of the Obama campaign was consumed with making the candidate look Presidential.
—“Battle Plans,” by Ryan Lizza (November 17, 2008)
“Change has come to America,” Obama declared, and everyone in a park remembered until now as the place where, forty summers ago, police did outrageous battle with antiwar protesters knew what change had come, and that—how long? too long—it was about damned time.
—“The Joshua Generation,” by David Remnick (November 17, 2008)
Keywords
* Chicago;
* Connie Bruck;
* David Remnick;
* Election;
* George Packer;
* Jane Mayer;
* Jeffrey Toobin;
* Jill Lepore;
* Obama;
* Peter J. Boyer;
* Politics;
* Ryan Lizza;
* Year in Review
Posted by The New Yorker
In
* 2008: The Year in Review
2008: The Year in Politics
Here are some highlights from this year’s political writing in The New Yorker.
These rival conceptions of the Presidency—Clinton as executive, Obama as visionary—reflect a deeper difference in how the two candidates analyze what ails the country.
—“The Choice,” by George Packer (January 28, 2008)
One evening this past fall, Barack Obama's Presidential campaign went to Newark, bringing together the two leading figures of what might be called the Oprah Winfrey wing of the Democratic Party. At a downtown rally, the task of firing up the crowd and introducing the candidate fell to Cory Booker, Newark's thirty-eight-year-old mayor, who is Obama's most prominent backer in New Jersey.
—“The Color of Politics,” by Peter J. Boyer (February 4, 2008)
Recently, I spoke with a number of conservatives about their movement. The younger ones—say, those under fifty—uniformly subscribe to the reformist version. They are in a state of glowing revulsion at the condition of their political party.
—“The Fall of Conservatism,” by George Packer (May 26, 2008)
When I asked why he moved to Miami, Stone quoted a Somerset Maugham line: “It’s a sunny place for shady people. I fit right in.”
—“The Dirty Trickster,” by Jeffrey Toobin (June 2, 2008)
Obama seems to have been meticulous about constructing a political identity for himself. He visited churches on the South Side, considered the politics and reputations of each one, and received advice from older pastors. Before deciding on Trinity United Church of Christ, he asked the Reverend Wright about critics who complained that the church was too “upwardly mobile,” a place for buppies.
—“Making It,” by Ryan Lizza (July 21, 2008)
A nose-holding base does not often deliver election victories, but few evangelicals could imagine what McCain might say or do, with any degree of authenticity, that could excite the base.
—“Party Faithful,” by Peter J. Boyer (September 8, 2008)
Recently, people in Ohio have told me that voters there have started to shift toward Obama. Gabe Kramer, of the S.E.I.U., said that, after the first Presidential debate and amid the financial crisis, union members seemed to find Obama’s ideas and manner more persuasive than before. But even if Obama wins he will still have to overcome the deep skepticism of struggling Americans.
—“The Hardest Vote,” by George Packer (October 13, 2008)
How our votes are counted is, generally, a product of twentieth-century technology. (My precinct uses an optical scanner invented in the nineteen-sixties.) It really is patches all the way down. In places—like the Electoral College—the patchwork gets pretty shoddy.
—“Rock, Paper, Scissors,” by Jill Lepore (October 13, 2008)
Biden said that the best model for him is Lyndon Johnson, who, before serving as John F. Kennedy’s Vice-President, was the Majority Leader of the Senate, and who, even in the Kennedy White House, tried to remain something of a Senate man.
—“Biden’s Brief,” by Ryan Lizza (October 20, 2008)
Palin also learned that a number of prominent conservative pundits would soon be passing through Juneau, on cruises sponsored by right-leaning political magazines. She invited these insiders to the governor’s mansion, and even led some of them on a helicopter tour.
—“The Insiders,” by Jane Mayer (October 28, 2008)
In early June, Senators Chuck Hagel and John McCain met in Hagel’s office on Capitol Hill. McCain, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, considered Hagel—a fellow-Republican and the senior senator from Nebraska—among his closest friends in Congress.
—“Odd Man Out,” by Connie Bruck (November 3, 2008)
Much of the Obama campaign was consumed with making the candidate look Presidential.
—“Battle Plans,” by Ryan Lizza (November 17, 2008)
“Change has come to America,” Obama declared, and everyone in a park remembered until now as the place where, forty summers ago, police did outrageous battle with antiwar protesters knew what change had come, and that—how long? too long—it was about damned time.
—“The Joshua Generation,” by David Remnick (November 17, 2008)
Keywords
* Chicago;
* Connie Bruck;
* David Remnick;
* Election;
* George Packer;
* Jane Mayer;
* Jeffrey Toobin;
* Jill Lepore;
* Obama;
* Peter J. Boyer;
* Politics;
* Ryan Lizza;
* Year in Review
Posted by The New Yorker
In
* 2008: The Year in Review
20081221
今天三十年
北岛=文 2008年12月14日
一九七八年底，《今天》秘密誕生在北京郊區一間狹小的農舍。作為一九四九年後第一份非官方的文學刊物，它張貼在北京的政府機關、出版社和大學區。兩年後被警察查封，一九九○年夏天在海外復刊。三十年過去了。歷史似乎不能前瞻，只能回首，穿過歲月風塵，我們看到那幾個圍着一台破舊油印機忙碌的年輕人。而他們看不到我們。
《今天》在中國出現，無疑與文化革命中成長的那代人有關。他們在迷失中尋找出路，在下沉中獲得力量，在集體失語的沉默中吶喊，為此甚至不惜付出生命的代價。《今天》的影響遠遠超出文學以外，遍及美術、電影、戲劇、攝影等其他藝術門類，成為中國當代先鋒文學與藝術的開端。
三十年以來，中國發生了前所未有的變化。和早期《今天》相比，在海外復刊的《今天》面臨着遠為複雜的局面：權力與商業化的共謀，娛樂的泡沫引導着新時代潮流，知識界在體制陷阱中犬儒化的傾向，以及漢語在解放的狂歡中分崩離析的危險。
我要特別强調的是，一個民族需要的是精神的天空，特別是在一個物質主義的時代。沒有想像與激情，一個再富裕的民族也是貧窮的，一個再强大的民族也是衰弱的。在這個意義上，《今天》又回到它最初的起點：它反抗的絕不僅僅是專制，而是語言的暴力、審美的平庸和生活的猥瑣。
一本油印的中文刊物漂洋過海，在另一種語言的環境中倖存下來，也許這就是所謂的全球化吧。在這個意義上，依我看至少有兩種全球化：一種是權力與資本共同瓜分世界的全球化，還有一種是語言和精神的種子在風暴中四海為家的全球化。
在這裏，我們和朋友們歡聚一堂。這並非為了告別的紀念，而是為了送《今天》遠行，讓我們更勇敢地面對危機迎接挑戰。我相信，在大家的祝願下，《今天》一定會走得更遠，遠到天邊，直到和當年那些年輕人，和明天的孩子的身影合在一起。
北岛=文 2008年12月14日
一九七八年底，《今天》秘密誕生在北京郊區一間狹小的農舍。作為一九四九年後第一份非官方的文學刊物，它張貼在北京的政府機關、出版社和大學區。兩年後被警察查封，一九九○年夏天在海外復刊。三十年過去了。歷史似乎不能前瞻，只能回首，穿過歲月風塵，我們看到那幾個圍着一台破舊油印機忙碌的年輕人。而他們看不到我們。
《今天》在中國出現，無疑與文化革命中成長的那代人有關。他們在迷失中尋找出路，在下沉中獲得力量，在集體失語的沉默中吶喊，為此甚至不惜付出生命的代價。《今天》的影響遠遠超出文學以外，遍及美術、電影、戲劇、攝影等其他藝術門類，成為中國當代先鋒文學與藝術的開端。
三十年以來，中國發生了前所未有的變化。和早期《今天》相比，在海外復刊的《今天》面臨着遠為複雜的局面：權力與商業化的共謀，娛樂的泡沫引導着新時代潮流，知識界在體制陷阱中犬儒化的傾向，以及漢語在解放的狂歡中分崩離析的危險。
我要特別强調的是，一個民族需要的是精神的天空，特別是在一個物質主義的時代。沒有想像與激情，一個再富裕的民族也是貧窮的，一個再强大的民族也是衰弱的。在這個意義上，《今天》又回到它最初的起點：它反抗的絕不僅僅是專制，而是語言的暴力、審美的平庸和生活的猥瑣。
一本油印的中文刊物漂洋過海，在另一種語言的環境中倖存下來，也許這就是所謂的全球化吧。在這個意義上，依我看至少有兩種全球化：一種是權力與資本共同瓜分世界的全球化，還有一種是語言和精神的種子在風暴中四海為家的全球化。
在這裏，我們和朋友們歡聚一堂。這並非為了告別的紀念，而是為了送《今天》遠行，讓我們更勇敢地面對危機迎接挑戰。我相信，在大家的祝願下，《今天》一定會走得更遠，遠到天邊，直到和當年那些年輕人，和明天的孩子的身影合在一起。
20081220
亞視得個呀字
亞視改名做阿視又或呀視可能響口一點,亞州電視也亞州不到那裏,亞視通病是得個"呀"字,用COST CONTROL 成本控制救不了亞視,不拍劇也救不了亞視,亞視要改名,要REBRAND,要有CONTENT內容,才可以有轉機,電視是SUPPLY創造DEMAND的,現在香港電視業最大的困局是SUPPLY的權只在兩個不爭氣的電視台,天天SUPPLY著百年如一日的白痴電視節目。政府若多發牌,多些不同的SUPPLY, 不同個性的節目, 香港巿場說小不小,不可以說不夠大,問題是經營電視人文化水平低社會責任低,低在自由社會不是問題,問題是只是香港只發兩個電視牌,兩個也發給了只要做低級的公司,TVB是多人看的低級, ATV 是少人看的低級. ATV 新領導有期望嗎?沒有,因為王先生和張先生都不是會創造"內容"的人,他們可能公關技巧好一點,管理遊戲玩得好一些,但始終都是不會"內容"的人.香港傳媒現在的特色是沒有內容的內容,不重視"人"的培育,記者,編劇,演員,只是財務報表上的一個項目,控一下就可以DELETE ALL 了,這個天天叫著以人為本的社會,傳媒就最不重視人,人在那些電視裏面,扮好人假情假義一大堆,這些電視臺是香港發牌制度出來的怪物。大氣電波被浪費了, 政府更下流的事就是說這些是商業行為,政府不可干預, 電視不是雜誌,電視是公共空間,只發兩個牌就是最大的干預!
20081203
政策研究更是少之又少
香港的大學制度是八十年代後期衛奕信時期的產物，其概念是把當時各自為政的幾間大專院校收歸在一個統一的架構下運作，當時各大專院校在港府威迫利誘之下，最終也被收歸於政府之下，由研究撥款到收生標準都走向單元化，收生機制也是由以往各自為政到現在統一派位，這個高層單元和權力集中的制度帶來的好處是各大專院校的表現有一個統一的制度去評估。但是，主導大學教育資助委員會的委員都不是全職的，主席也不是全職的，背後真正影響委員會運作的是教育統籌局的政務官。眾所周知，香港的政務官是行政通才，不是教育學者，他們的行政能力很高，處事公正透明，但要他們處理大學教育學術研究這些不可能量化的政策時，其後果是災難性的。大學不是工廠、不是政府部門、不是商業機構。但由政府帶領、商界附和之下，香港各大學的功能被簡化為製造「大學畢業生」提供市場之用的人肉工廠。所以撥款的標準是依據收生人數和畢業生的數量來決定，過去幾年大學業生水平大幅下降也是這種「重量不重質」的必然結果。大學為了生存，只會亂收生，只會隨便讓學生畢業。在這種短視的大學政策之下，學術自由只是一種假象，只要大家分析一下每年大學的研究撥款，大部分資源都是撥進「實際科技項目」上，人文科學社會科學等一向被視為不實際的學科，所獲資源總是比前者少，而和香港發展相關的研究項目尤其政府政策研究更是少之又少。
香港的大學制度是八十年代後期衛奕信時期的產物，其概念是把當時各自為政的幾間大專院校收歸在一個統一的架構下運作，當時各大專院校在港府威迫利誘之下，最終也被收歸於政府之下，由研究撥款到收生標準都走向單元化，收生機制也是由以往各自為政到現在統一派位，這個高層單元和權力集中的制度帶來的好處是各大專院校的表現有一個統一的制度去評估。但是，主導大學教育資助委員會的委員都不是全職的，主席也不是全職的，背後真正影響委員會運作的是教育統籌局的政務官。眾所周知，香港的政務官是行政通才，不是教育學者，他們的行政能力很高，處事公正透明，但要他們處理大學教育學術研究這些不可能量化的政策時，其後果是災難性的。大學不是工廠、不是政府部門、不是商業機構。但由政府帶領、商界附和之下，香港各大學的功能被簡化為製造「大學畢業生」提供市場之用的人肉工廠。所以撥款的標準是依據收生人數和畢業生的數量來決定，過去幾年大學業生水平大幅下降也是這種「重量不重質」的必然結果。大學為了生存，只會亂收生，只會隨便讓學生畢業。在這種短視的大學政策之下，學術自由只是一種假象，只要大家分析一下每年大學的研究撥款，大部分資源都是撥進「實際科技項目」上，人文科學社會科學等一向被視為不實際的學科，所獲資源總是比前者少，而和香港發展相關的研究項目尤其政府政策研究更是少之又少。
WK
我最後一次見到WK是在幾個月前進念董事會的那個晚上，我們在開會之前也在說著香港公務員目前的困局，與及現在的曾班子不敢去改革公務員的短視，我真的沒有想過WK就這樣離開了我們，那麼年輕，那麼可惜, ，香港失去了一個對香港有感情有承擔的人。WK是最可以去當問責局長或者副局長的人才，WK冷靜, 有責任感，和公務員，和商界，和民間都能夠溝通和工作。 第一見到WK 是在 牛棚 的那 個 下午， 那 個討論西九的座談會，WK 溫文 地在提出一些他對政府 處理西九的手法。公務員在七十年代八十年代是腳踏實地的在為香港做事，香港在那個時代是如此青春，一切都是充滿著希望的。公務員成為了一種神話了，香港公務員這是個"神話"，是在肥彭時期創造到了一個高峰。今天的曾特首，也是肥彭一手提攜的。香港公務員的優點有很多，誠實、廉潔、公正，但這些優點也是相對性，公務員能力"下滑"是公開的秘密，培養一個優秀的公務員需要大量的時間、各種各樣的資源，公務員本來就要等同學者，學者就是公務員，像WK的學術背景與及社會經驗，進入政府為市民服務是最合適的。 香港現在的政冶太多 浮燥的語境， 大 家 都在看著眼前的那一秒 ， 也 不 太 關心未來可以怎樣改變 。 怎 樣 去 改 變 這 種 狀 態 ， 是 我 們應該思考和行動的。
我最後一次見到WK是在幾個月前進念董事會的那個晚上，我們在開會之前也在說著香港公務員目前的困局，與及現在的曾班子不敢去改革公務員的短視，我真的沒有想過WK就這樣離開了我們，那麼年輕，那麼可惜, ，香港失去了一個對香港有感情有承擔的人。WK是最可以去當問責局長或者副局長的人才，WK冷靜, 有責任感，和公務員，和商界，和民間都能夠溝通和工作。 第一見到WK 是在 牛棚 的那 個 下午， 那 個討論西九的座談會，WK 溫文 地在提出一些他對政府 處理西九的手法。公務員在七十年代八十年代是腳踏實地的在為香港做事，香港在那個時代是如此青春，一切都是充滿著希望的。公務員成為了一種神話了，香港公務員這是個"神話"，是在肥彭時期創造到了一個高峰。今天的曾特首，也是肥彭一手提攜的。香港公務員的優點有很多，誠實、廉潔、公正，但這些優點也是相對性，公務員能力"下滑"是公開的秘密，培養一個優秀的公務員需要大量的時間、各種各樣的資源，公務員本來就要等同學者，學者就是公務員，像WK的學術背景與及社會經驗，進入政府為市民服務是最合適的。 香港現在的政冶太多 浮燥的語境， 大 家 都在看著眼前的那一秒 ， 也 不 太 關心未來可以怎樣改變 。 怎 樣 去 改 變 這 種 狀 態 ， 是 我 們應該思考和行動的。
20081110
什麼是香港中小企 ?
香港的中小企在八十年代初期的改革開放第一階段, 對協助中國推行經濟上的改革開放產生了十分積極的作用, 香港把工業生產的基地轉移到廣東省一帶,地成就了中國成為世界工廠.三十年後的今天,廠佬加工生產的老模式己經不可行了,全球化經濟模式本身對中小企是十分不利,一切都在追求大,和高增長的利潤模式。
一向以靈活應變為強項的香港中小企根本在資本和人才上不能應付這個新形勢.目前香港政府的中小企政策缺乏一個全面的藍圖和形勢的掌握。中小企本身是有著極多不同的管運模式,
由身体戶的的士司機街邊修理手錶,二樓書店,領溪商場裏面的小文具店,攝影師婁,
修車公司,裝修公司,電影製作公司,書藉出版,都可以是中小企.當我們說要支援中小企的時候,我們必需對"中小企"有著一種全面而深入的論述和分折,才能實質地建立一個真正能夠支援中小企的政策架構, 例如目前食環署在檢討的小販大排擋發牌政策,是不是也是一種中小企政策,而不是單純的食物環境衛生問題.又例如目前偏向保護業主利益的物業租務條例,租金可以大上大落的情況,對中小企的經營條件是否造成更大的不明朗元素。美國一大部分的中小企均是從事科研和創意的知識密集行業,有著一個非常完善的投資文化支持。香港的快錢快回報經濟模式,是不是令香港中小企缺乏轉型和提昇的動力?
香港的中小企在八十年代初期的改革開放第一階段, 對協助中國推行經濟上的改革開放產生了十分積極的作用, 香港把工業生產的基地轉移到廣東省一帶,地成就了中國成為世界工廠.三十年後的今天,廠佬加工生產的老模式己經不可行了,全球化經濟模式本身對中小企是十分不利,一切都在追求大,和高增長的利潤模式。
一向以靈活應變為強項的香港中小企根本在資本和人才上不能應付這個新形勢.目前香港政府的中小企政策缺乏一個全面的藍圖和形勢的掌握。中小企本身是有著極多不同的管運模式,
由身体戶的的士司機街邊修理手錶,二樓書店,領溪商場裏面的小文具店,攝影師婁,
修車公司,裝修公司,電影製作公司,書藉出版,都可以是中小企.當我們說要支援中小企的時候,我們必需對"中小企"有著一種全面而深入的論述和分折,才能實質地建立一個真正能夠支援中小企的政策架構, 例如目前食環署在檢討的小販大排擋發牌政策,是不是也是一種中小企政策,而不是單純的食物環境衛生問題.又例如目前偏向保護業主利益的物業租務條例,租金可以大上大落的情況,對中小企的經營條件是否造成更大的不明朗元素。美國一大部分的中小企均是從事科研和創意的知識密集行業,有著一個非常完善的投資文化支持。香港的快錢快回報經濟模式,是不是令香港中小企缺乏轉型和提昇的動力?
香港投資文化
香港的投資文化，追求的只是高和快，高是高利潤，快是回報期快，所以樓和股是香港“投資”的核心項目，借錢買樓買股？十分容易，借錢作工業實業小生意十分困難，除非有樓或股票作抵押。政府的中小企貨款程序復雜到了一種不可能成功的地步；那是香港由殖民地時代的最後十多年推出”高地價”政策開始，便把香港經濟由？實業工業主導，轉型為短期投機型的樓市股市，後果是香港經濟生態環境單一化，大企業主導一切，中小企經營條件越來越困難，租金大上大落，融？資難，尤其需要知識密集的中小企形式專業，如律師會計設計工程師，與及各種創意產業，如電視電影廣告製作創作，各種類型的設計產業，時裝產品傢俱平面設計，與及各種數碼資訊科技研究產業，大都是”高風儉””收回成本期長“，管理和經營模式相對於樓市股市復雜。”搵快錢“是香港經濟的主流思想，但這個思想在過去幾年中國和全球過熱經濟之下，的確成為致富最有效途徑，但這個泡沫經濟爆破了以後，香港必需要在這個經濟低潮下，重新思考與及建設一個多元的經濟体系。怎樣利用香港的自由和国際綱絡，發展真正的知識型經濟，而投資文化和体制正正是我們需要研究和改革的。而政府的新政策必需推動香港多元投資文化。
香港的投資文化，追求的只是高和快，高是高利潤，快是回報期快，所以樓和股是香港“投資”的核心項目，借錢買樓買股？十分容易，借錢作工業實業小生意十分困難，除非有樓或股票作抵押。政府的中小企貨款程序復雜到了一種不可能成功的地步；那是香港由殖民地時代的最後十多年推出”高地價”政策開始，便把香港經濟由？實業工業主導，轉型為短期投機型的樓市股市，後果是香港經濟生態環境單一化，大企業主導一切，中小企經營條件越來越困難，租金大上大落，融？資難，尤其需要知識密集的中小企形式專業，如律師會計設計工程師，與及各種創意產業，如電視電影廣告製作創作，各種類型的設計產業，時裝產品傢俱平面設計，與及各種數碼資訊科技研究產業，大都是”高風儉””收回成本期長“，管理和經營模式相對於樓市股市復雜。”搵快錢“是香港經濟的主流思想，但這個思想在過去幾年中國和全球過熱經濟之下，的確成為致富最有效途徑，但這個泡沫經濟爆破了以後，香港必需要在這個經濟低潮下，重新思考與及建設一個多元的經濟体系。怎樣利用香港的自由和国際綱絡，發展真正的知識型經濟，而投資文化和体制正正是我們需要研究和改革的。而政府的新政策必需推動香港多元投資文化。
自由經濟與賭場經濟
過去十年的西方式"自由"經濟,free market 的"自由",是相信人有了"自由",便會可以有更大的發揮,這種假設有點像"性善論"即人的本性是善良的。有了自由便會作"好"事。當然這幾個星期全球的經濟危機又再一次引證了free market "自由"不一定帶來更美好的世界. 經濟高速發帶來的種種環境社會生態道德問題,在過去幾年一直在"討論", 全球暖化如此真實,但實際行動很困難,因為這個自由經濟free market 下的得益者不會輕易改變,所以這次大危機是一次重整"經濟"在社會發展角色的機會,過去二十年"自由市場"資本主義獨大, 自私自利被合理化, Me 自我被"市場"化了, 香港年青人成為了"信用卡"的"使徒", 消費,不停的消費成為了這個年代年青人的"理想", 香港這二十年也是走向"賭場"經濟,"地產""股票"成為了投機的賭場式經濟,社會價值錯亂, 政府說"小政府,大市場"其實是"大政府,大商場". 香港"大商場", 真正的"市場"越來越少。我們的"自由"越來組少", 我們只可以成為自由市場的"消費者"。那些一天上落一二千點的股市和賭場有何分別呢? 活在這種"盲目"追求經濟增長而不重視"社會全面發展" 的世界,也許是這個文明終結的開始。
過去十年的西方式"自由"經濟,free market 的"自由",是相信人有了"自由",便會可以有更大的發揮,這種假設有點像"性善論"即人的本性是善良的。有了自由便會作"好"事。當然這幾個星期全球的經濟危機又再一次引證了free market "自由"不一定帶來更美好的世界. 經濟高速發帶來的種種環境社會生態道德問題,在過去幾年一直在"討論", 全球暖化如此真實,但實際行動很困難,因為這個自由經濟free market 下的得益者不會輕易改變,所以這次大危機是一次重整"經濟"在社會發展角色的機會,過去二十年"自由市場"資本主義獨大, 自私自利被合理化, Me 自我被"市場"化了, 香港年青人成為了"信用卡"的"使徒", 消費,不停的消費成為了這個年代年青人的"理想", 香港這二十年也是走向"賭場"經濟,"地產""股票"成為了投機的賭場式經濟,社會價值錯亂, 政府說"小政府,大市場"其實是"大政府,大商場". 香港"大商場", 真正的"市場"越來越少。我們的"自由"越來組少", 我們只可以成為自由市場的"消費者"。那些一天上落一二千點的股市和賭場有何分別呢? 活在這種"盲目"追求經濟增長而不重視"社會全面發展" 的世界,也許是這個文明終結的開始。
20081030
香港公共吹水份子
香港公共吹水分子,天天出入公共吹水空間,支持爭取最低吹水,吹呀吹,到電視吹,到電臺吹,用筆吹,去下政府總部燒下野,叫住吹呀呀!公共吹水分子呀,吹多多扮代表,知少少吹代表,立法吹水會一人可以吹三分鐘,用二十分鐘吹完雷曼兄弟事件,二十分鐘係吹嗎?香港公共吹水分子遍佈全港八大學術快餐連銷店,香港公共吹水份子訓下街叫下叫下,吹水政客,政治吹水家,吹水學者,吹水專家,吹水精英,奧運電視吹水主持人,無野講揭野黎講,包著學者知識分子的皮,裏面都係水,無他啦揭食呀,吾駛甘認真啦, 吹下之麻,又吾會吹死人啦, 無心害你呀爸!駛鬼做研究, 做學問,甘麻煩,吹水又方便,又舒服,吹到幾high 都可以,表面是鬧,實在是在吹,吹下感性,吹下那隻豬,可憐地吹,這種是一種變型吹水金剛,嘩勁吹好野. 個分吹水王名單都會好長,比馬會影響力仲勁,吹水勢力日日狀大,天天進步,in the name of 正義民主自由吹水,無他,吹水成本低效益高,吹吹就ok成明, 又可以吹入垃圾會呀,做下示威呀, feel so good and nice 架 , 香港好勁d核心價值好強! 香港公共吹水分子為香港好,吹好香港呀,吹吹吹吹,你吹我又吹。通識其實就係吹水學啦.
香港公共吹水分子,天天出入公共吹水空間,支持爭取最低吹水,吹呀吹,到電視吹,到電臺吹,用筆吹,去下政府總部燒下野,叫住吹呀呀!公共吹水分子呀,吹多多扮代表,知少少吹代表,立法吹水會一人可以吹三分鐘,用二十分鐘吹完雷曼兄弟事件,二十分鐘係吹嗎?香港公共吹水分子遍佈全港八大學術快餐連銷店,香港公共吹水份子訓下街叫下叫下,吹水政客,政治吹水家,吹水學者,吹水專家,吹水精英,奧運電視吹水主持人,無野講揭野黎講,包著學者知識分子的皮,裏面都係水,無他啦揭食呀,吾駛甘認真啦, 吹下之麻,又吾會吹死人啦, 無心害你呀爸!駛鬼做研究, 做學問,甘麻煩,吹水又方便,又舒服,吹到幾high 都可以,表面是鬧,實在是在吹,吹下感性,吹下那隻豬,可憐地吹,這種是一種變型吹水金剛,嘩勁吹好野. 個分吹水王名單都會好長,比馬會影響力仲勁,吹水勢力日日狀大,天天進步,in the name of 正義民主自由吹水,無他,吹水成本低效益高,吹吹就ok成明, 又可以吹入垃圾會呀,做下示威呀, feel so good and nice 架 , 香港好勁d核心價值好強! 香港公共吹水分子為香港好,吹好香港呀,吹吹吹吹,你吹我又吹。通識其實就係吹水學啦.
的士田野調查
我在過去六個星期,進行了一次有關的士行業運作的田野調查,以”談話“形式一共訪問了共五十位的士司機,當中有十位是以八折黨形式運作, 五位是來自電召的士臺的,其他都是在的士站或街上上車。訪問包抱四個部份,第一是經營狀況,第二是對的士目前在香港交通扮演那種角色與及桃戰,第三是對目前的士發牌制度與及對運輸署的意見, 第四是一些改善的士業經營的意見。
根據訪問, 被訪車機每天工作約十二至十六小時,平均是十二小時左右為一更,每小時約有三至四個乘客,生意“好“的一更大約有上客四十次,生意淡的大約是上客二十至二十五次,當中百分之十至十五是七十元以上的長途客,其餘大都是二十到四十元的中短途客,在十二小時一更的運作下,約四十五分鐘用膳,四十五分鐘排隊入氣, 其中只有五位司機是經常住返機場,當中有幾位的士司機指出,從前舊啟德機場是帶動全港的士中短途客主要客源,在機場最高峰期平均每小時最高可達到八百到一千架次,等候上客的時間約十至三十分鐘, 新機場開幕之後, 只有一些具備車行和八折黨網絡背景的的士集中長途車業務。反對短加長減的大都是”租車”司機,原因是目前車租是加租減租是和起錶價掛勾的。車主可以因起錶價提昇而加車租.
受訪的的士司機,年齡平均都在三十五歲以上,男性為主, 但近年也開始出現一些中年婦女加入的士司機行列。根據部份"司機"的觀察,近年香港經濟轉好,年青人入行成為全職的士司機比較少,工時長,收入低,由於政府打壓小販,的士成為了一種低收入人仕的”熱門行業”,工時雖長,但至少比清潔保安那些薪水高,也比較自由和有專嚴. 被訪司機認為入職超過十五年的的士司機比率是大 下降,估計約兩成左右,的士司機入行容易,但流動性高, 也是一門熱門的"兼職"行業, in between job 行業。由於香港的士業並沒有集團化公司化,的士車行大都是一種收車租方式,所以香港的士大都是一種“個體戶”模式運作. 近年巴士冷氣化,路線全港化,專線小巴全面發展, 對的士形成巨大的壓力,再加上近年香港晚間娛樂事業走下坡。根據被訪的士司機的估計,收入和十年前相比, 實質是下降了百分之三十左右,而"八折黨"的收入通常比“正常“的高出百分之十左右. 根據訪問,司機均認為目前的士業需要“轉型“, 司機均認為八折黨是一種的士業的轉型, 但只是其中一種轉型的可能。否則的士業的服務質素必然下降,目前政府的”高牌價“政策促進了一種不思進取的的士業,的士司機老化情況在下一個二十年將會出現。
我在過去六個星期,進行了一次有關的士行業運作的田野調查,以”談話“形式一共訪問了共五十位的士司機,當中有十位是以八折黨形式運作, 五位是來自電召的士臺的,其他都是在的士站或街上上車。訪問包抱四個部份,第一是經營狀況,第二是對的士目前在香港交通扮演那種角色與及桃戰,第三是對目前的士發牌制度與及對運輸署的意見, 第四是一些改善的士業經營的意見。
根據訪問, 被訪車機每天工作約十二至十六小時,平均是十二小時左右為一更,每小時約有三至四個乘客,生意“好“的一更大約有上客四十次,生意淡的大約是上客二十至二十五次,當中百分之十至十五是七十元以上的長途客,其餘大都是二十到四十元的中短途客,在十二小時一更的運作下,約四十五分鐘用膳,四十五分鐘排隊入氣, 其中只有五位司機是經常住返機場,當中有幾位的士司機指出,從前舊啟德機場是帶動全港的士中短途客主要客源,在機場最高峰期平均每小時最高可達到八百到一千架次,等候上客的時間約十至三十分鐘, 新機場開幕之後, 只有一些具備車行和八折黨網絡背景的的士集中長途車業務。反對短加長減的大都是”租車”司機,原因是目前車租是加租減租是和起錶價掛勾的。車主可以因起錶價提昇而加車租.
受訪的的士司機,年齡平均都在三十五歲以上,男性為主, 但近年也開始出現一些中年婦女加入的士司機行列。根據部份"司機"的觀察,近年香港經濟轉好,年青人入行成為全職的士司機比較少,工時長,收入低,由於政府打壓小販,的士成為了一種低收入人仕的”熱門行業”,工時雖長,但至少比清潔保安那些薪水高,也比較自由和有專嚴. 被訪司機認為入職超過十五年的的士司機比率是大 下降,估計約兩成左右,的士司機入行容易,但流動性高, 也是一門熱門的"兼職"行業, in between job 行業。由於香港的士業並沒有集團化公司化,的士車行大都是一種收車租方式,所以香港的士大都是一種“個體戶”模式運作. 近年巴士冷氣化,路線全港化,專線小巴全面發展, 對的士形成巨大的壓力,再加上近年香港晚間娛樂事業走下坡。根據被訪的士司機的估計,收入和十年前相比, 實質是下降了百分之三十左右,而"八折黨"的收入通常比“正常“的高出百分之十左右. 根據訪問,司機均認為目前的士業需要“轉型“, 司機均認為八折黨是一種的士業的轉型, 但只是其中一種轉型的可能。否則的士業的服務質素必然下降,目前政府的”高牌價“政策促進了一種不思進取的的士業,的士司機老化情況在下一個二十年將會出現。
大中華人文吹水學
中國香港臺灣近十年共同建立了大中華吹水共榮圈,人文科學的實質研究日漸邊沿化,歷史哲學文學藝術社會學在大學被打壓, 學者要成為明星而不是造學問,百家講壇成為了一種學術包裝的吹水大法,在大中華人文圈,書出了很多,真的很多,但作者是越來越多,那些文化吹水明星,本著知小小扮代表的心法,不學無術之大術,以感性的文字包裝,好像很有深度的資勢,好像很有革命精神的語言, 成為公共吹水大王。台灣的大大小小政治talk show 也成為了臺灣特色的吹水大法會,一眾學者記者政客, 想點吹就點吹, 示範臺灣式吹水語言爆炸力. 感性吹水也是令一種強項,也是中國文人傷春悲秋式吹水tradition, 什麼 X 才子,Y才女, 紅樓夢那些無病呻吟,自己"玩死"自己那種自悲自憐,什麼“苦旅”呀!什麼“讀書呀知識分子呀!馬克斯社義呀! 後現代主義呀! 寫寫悲情呀,建制最喜歡這種吹水文人,無傷大雅,又可以提供一種開明而開放的image, 西方也有不少公共吹水分子, 但正統的認真的從事實質學術研究的學者仍然是一種力量,一種真正基於研究和分折的學問,而不是小聰明式心大吹水, 中港台之中,香港最嚴重,完全法西斯吹水獨大,越吹越大,越吹越勁。
中國香港臺灣近十年共同建立了大中華吹水共榮圈,人文科學的實質研究日漸邊沿化,歷史哲學文學藝術社會學在大學被打壓, 學者要成為明星而不是造學問,百家講壇成為了一種學術包裝的吹水大法,在大中華人文圈,書出了很多,真的很多,但作者是越來越多,那些文化吹水明星,本著知小小扮代表的心法,不學無術之大術,以感性的文字包裝,好像很有深度的資勢,好像很有革命精神的語言, 成為公共吹水大王。台灣的大大小小政治talk show 也成為了臺灣特色的吹水大法會,一眾學者記者政客, 想點吹就點吹, 示範臺灣式吹水語言爆炸力. 感性吹水也是令一種強項,也是中國文人傷春悲秋式吹水tradition, 什麼 X 才子,Y才女, 紅樓夢那些無病呻吟,自己"玩死"自己那種自悲自憐,什麼“苦旅”呀!什麼“讀書呀知識分子呀!馬克斯社義呀! 後現代主義呀! 寫寫悲情呀,建制最喜歡這種吹水文人,無傷大雅,又可以提供一種開明而開放的image, 西方也有不少公共吹水分子, 但正統的認真的從事實質學術研究的學者仍然是一種力量,一種真正基於研究和分折的學問,而不是小聰明式心大吹水, 中港台之中,香港最嚴重,完全法西斯吹水獨大,越吹越大,越吹越勁。
20081006
最低工資和外判文化
最低工資立法只能解決一部份香港低收入人士被剝削的情況,目前香港的貧窮問題是香港經濟生態過份著重短期經濟效益所致,再加上香港政府的完全控制管治模式,把香一直存在的民間低收入經濟體系完全破壞,消滅小販大排檔和巿集把原有的社區經濟體系,整個香港都在大商場化,中小型商戶越來越沒有生存空間, 大家到台北,仍然存在著一個讓低收入人士自力更生的市集和小販空間,這種空間,一方面提供了一種自力更生的機會,更是令臺北市有著自身的文化特色和價廉物美的美食生活文化. 香港本來也有著這種文化的, 但這些年政府的各種政策就是要把香港這種市民空間消滅,以衛生理由把小販市集消滅,以經濟效益為理由推動外判制,目前香港政府外判制是一切剝削的病源,因為外判制只是創造了一個只會填表與及處理政府官僚程序的"公司",真正的勞動者在外判制度下成為了被剝削的階級,外判制是一種非常不尊重人不尊重前線的工作人員,是一種不負責社會責任的顧主制度。這個制度若不大力改革和改良,立法最低工資只會帶來更多黑工巿場更多黑暗的運作,香港政府作為最大的外判服務" 使用者"必需以身作則,檢討目前的不合情理的剝削制度,只有一大堆表格和程序,沒有人性沒有考慮實際社會效應的價值系統。
最低工資立法只能解決一部份香港低收入人士被剝削的情況,目前香港的貧窮問題是香港經濟生態過份著重短期經濟效益所致,再加上香港政府的完全控制管治模式,把香一直存在的民間低收入經濟體系完全破壞,消滅小販大排檔和巿集把原有的社區經濟體系,整個香港都在大商場化,中小型商戶越來越沒有生存空間, 大家到台北,仍然存在著一個讓低收入人士自力更生的市集和小販空間,這種空間,一方面提供了一種自力更生的機會,更是令臺北市有著自身的文化特色和價廉物美的美食生活文化. 香港本來也有著這種文化的, 但這些年政府的各種政策就是要把香港這種市民空間消滅,以衛生理由把小販市集消滅,以經濟效益為理由推動外判制,目前香港政府外判制是一切剝削的病源,因為外判制只是創造了一個只會填表與及處理政府官僚程序的"公司",真正的勞動者在外判制度下成為了被剝削的階級,外判制是一種非常不尊重人不尊重前線的工作人員,是一種不負責社會責任的顧主制度。這個制度若不大力改革和改良,立法最低工資只會帶來更多黑工巿場更多黑暗的運作,香港政府作為最大的外判服務" 使用者"必需以身作則,檢討目前的不合情理的剝削制度,只有一大堆表格和程序,沒有人性沒有考慮實際社會效應的價值系統。
20081005
無恥電視白痴臺
若果八婆飯局和"家散人亡"代表了香港電視最高水平的話,香港就是八婆飯局和"家散人亡"的水平了。那就是一種以假為真,以惡為善以低為高的價值, 是一種很單面向式的表達, 香港式的"大眾化",容易明白是不是膚淺,也不一定,但膚淺一定是比較多人"接受",香港常常自稱"多元"但實質是十分單元,越來越法西斯,無恥電視就是十分典型的香港法西斯,任何事件大事如奧運,落在無恥電視手上,也就變成了廢話連篇九吾搭八,那些"家散人亡"劇本意識是"自私最重要,害人無所謂",這種意識的影響下不是在愚民,是在培養暴民,發牌無恥電視的" 講播事務管局"比無恥更無恥,得個講字,口講什麼高質講播,實質在推動白痴內容高清化, 讓無恥電視 培育法西斯拉主義,無恥電視之所以是無恥,是因為無恥地推動一種自閉自大自我的一種思想,香港人天天吸食,政府視而不見,讓香港人天天吸食毒品,這種精神毒品各個城巿都會存在, 但不會像香港那樣完全完全獨大,完全變成一種法西斯拉主義,是殖民地培養出來的so call 精英公務員所推動的,害了香港,也在毒害中國,香港電影玩完因為無恥電視控制了一切,電視不再是培養創新與創意的平臺,那是香港之恥,無恥電視已成為一個失控的怪物,非常可怕。
若果八婆飯局和"家散人亡"代表了香港電視最高水平的話,香港就是八婆飯局和"家散人亡"的水平了。那就是一種以假為真,以惡為善以低為高的價值, 是一種很單面向式的表達, 香港式的"大眾化",容易明白是不是膚淺,也不一定,但膚淺一定是比較多人"接受",香港常常自稱"多元"但實質是十分單元,越來越法西斯,無恥電視就是十分典型的香港法西斯,任何事件大事如奧運,落在無恥電視手上,也就變成了廢話連篇九吾搭八,那些"家散人亡"劇本意識是"自私最重要,害人無所謂",這種意識的影響下不是在愚民,是在培養暴民,發牌無恥電視的" 講播事務管局"比無恥更無恥,得個講字,口講什麼高質講播,實質在推動白痴內容高清化, 讓無恥電視 培育法西斯拉主義,無恥電視之所以是無恥,是因為無恥地推動一種自閉自大自我的一種思想,香港人天天吸食,政府視而不見,讓香港人天天吸食毒品,這種精神毒品各個城巿都會存在, 但不會像香港那樣完全完全獨大,完全變成一種法西斯拉主義,是殖民地培養出來的so call 精英公務員所推動的,害了香港,也在毒害中國,香港電影玩完因為無恥電視控制了一切,電視不再是培養創新與創意的平臺,那是香港之恥,無恥電視已成為一個失控的怪物,非常可怕。
20080928
市區重建檢討
發展局目前進行的市區重建檢討,本意良好,但方法是完全錯誤,以業餘的委員方式進行檢討本身就是不可以深入,背後也是政府公務員在實質操盤,公務員本身也缺乏新思維和新知識,再加上發展局委任了一個根本沒有任何規劃知識的港大社工系負責檢討工作,就好像找牙醫來醫心臟,外行領導外行. 其實香港現時的市區重建策略方向沒有問題,問題出現於市建局演譯這些方向出了問題,巿建局員工大都是公務員背景,缺乏重建的知識,不重視研究,只重視行政方便和金錢上的經濟效益. 單一的重建模式,只有高和大,沒有考慮社會和文化影響。講一套做一套把原來市區重建推到一個極端的地產項目, 所以市建局不重組,不換血,檢討也只是門面功夫。核心問題是全職負責市區重建和城市規劃的公務員和市建局思想太過老化,缺乏學術訓練和以學術的嚴緊方法研究市區重建問題,大家只要看看觀糖和中環的嘉咸街重建, 設計之粗之劣之缺乏創意,其根源在於其設計之前期工作缺乏嚴緊的研究和資料搜集,有的只是從金錢和建最大面積考慮,嘉咸街的超級高樓方案對中環的交通和環境影響是災難性的!但這種不合情不合理的規劃天天在發生。但公務員和目前這個執政班子沒有去阻止,為什麼現在每一個重建項目都是不乎合長遠社會利益的?不通風的 ?不考慮歷史的?
發展局目前進行的市區重建檢討,本意良好,但方法是完全錯誤,以業餘的委員方式進行檢討本身就是不可以深入,背後也是政府公務員在實質操盤,公務員本身也缺乏新思維和新知識,再加上發展局委任了一個根本沒有任何規劃知識的港大社工系負責檢討工作,就好像找牙醫來醫心臟,外行領導外行. 其實香港現時的市區重建策略方向沒有問題,問題出現於市建局演譯這些方向出了問題,巿建局員工大都是公務員背景,缺乏重建的知識,不重視研究,只重視行政方便和金錢上的經濟效益. 單一的重建模式,只有高和大,沒有考慮社會和文化影響。講一套做一套把原來市區重建推到一個極端的地產項目, 所以市建局不重組,不換血,檢討也只是門面功夫。核心問題是全職負責市區重建和城市規劃的公務員和市建局思想太過老化,缺乏學術訓練和以學術的嚴緊方法研究市區重建問題,大家只要看看觀糖和中環的嘉咸街重建, 設計之粗之劣之缺乏創意,其根源在於其設計之前期工作缺乏嚴緊的研究和資料搜集,有的只是從金錢和建最大面積考慮,嘉咸街的超級高樓方案對中環的交通和環境影響是災難性的!但這種不合情不合理的規劃天天在發生。但公務員和目前這個執政班子沒有去阻止,為什麼現在每一個重建項目都是不乎合長遠社會利益的?不通風的 ?不考慮歷史的?
香港新加坡高級公務員培訓
1.新加坡高級公務員培訓
新加坡高級公務員培訓，主要由政策發展學院和管治及政策中心負責。前者提供高級公務員必修科，乃稱為「里程碑必修科」。里程碑必修科一般分為三個部分，第一是基礎的培訓學習，領域包括行政領導培訓、高級管理人員培訓、政府管理和領導力培訓，公共政策研討。第二層次的培訓重點在於討論，參加培訓計劃的公務員須進行有關遠景規劃、經濟及發展策略的研究，以擴闊其管理視野。里程碑必修科的最後階段是論壇和報告，受訓者要就政策進行研究和討論，並撰寫報告，以完成整個訓練。
相管齊下，管治及政策中心對新加坡高級公務員亦會提供一些專業知識為本的訓練，例如舉辦一些學術名人系列的課堂，讓高級公務員以小組的形式參加，透過與講者的交流討論，探討當今政策上有關的問題及未來需面對的挑戰。2006/2007年度為例，管治及政策中心便邀請了聯合國前人口統計學主席Dr. Joseph Chamie和金融時報首席經濟評論家及助理編輯Professor Martin Wolf等全球重要知識分子主持講課，以啟迪新加坡高級公務員學習，提升他們的專業性和知識探討研究能力。
值得一提的是，新加坡公共服務學院下的大部分負責提供培訓服務的單位，都會不時進行研究，關心全球有關政策發展的動向，繼而調整課程內容和方針，尤管治及政策中心的研究最為深入。管治及政策中心每年都會委任權威人士，如現任或前任政策局局長，參與研究員計劃，負責訂出政策研究方向，培訓計劃目標、具體內容，以至兼顧出版工作。公共服務學院會就社會一些議題如人口老化等，邀請學術界和公共行政界有分量的代表撰寫文章，再結集出版學術期刊，名為「Ethos」。
2. 香港高級公務員的培訓
香港高級公務員的培訓，香港高級公務員的培訓公務員培訓處亦設為期1-2天的進階管理工作坊，及為期三周的公共行政領袖實踐課程。工作坊的主題圍繞人才管理和領導策略，而公共行政領袖實踐課程則旨在透過課堂、辯論、角色扮演，和經驗分享，令參加者提升管治能力。總括而言，就加強高級公務員的訓練，香港的情況都是以提升管治和領導技巧為主。
培訓處的課程活動計劃還有一大核心，就是開設針對國家事務及基本法研習的項目，教授的方法除了透過面授和網上研習外，亦會以考察交流的形式進行，包括到訪清華及北京大學參與為期17日的課程、到內地進行大約一星期的專題考察、到廣東省、上海市、杭州市的公務員部門作4-6星期的交流實習等。此國家事務及基本法研習的系列課程，涵蓋的對象非常廣泛，照顧到低級至高級所有職系及職級的公務員，而此系列課程亦為香港公務員培訓計劃的特色之一。
對比於香港的培訓計劃，新加坡的做法顯然是走向知識型的，同樣是以課程、工作坊、研討會、論壇等相類似的方法推行，但內容覆蓋的層面則比香港多元化。新加坡公共服務學院下設8個部門，兩個為支援組，其餘的6個都是對不同類型公務員的發展而設立的。當中以公共行政及管理學院提供的課程最為豐富，參加者亦涉及所有範疇的公務員。由於這部分的培訓是公共服務學院的盈利主體，學院會根據市場需要不斷增加和修訂課程的數目，現時公共行政及管理學院的課程種類，包括公共部門管理技巧、行政、人力資源、溝通以至法律、金融等專門學問。
1.新加坡高級公務員培訓
新加坡高級公務員培訓，主要由政策發展學院和管治及政策中心負責。前者提供高級公務員必修科，乃稱為「里程碑必修科」。里程碑必修科一般分為三個部分，第一是基礎的培訓學習，領域包括行政領導培訓、高級管理人員培訓、政府管理和領導力培訓，公共政策研討。第二層次的培訓重點在於討論，參加培訓計劃的公務員須進行有關遠景規劃、經濟及發展策略的研究，以擴闊其管理視野。里程碑必修科的最後階段是論壇和報告，受訓者要就政策進行研究和討論，並撰寫報告，以完成整個訓練。
相管齊下，管治及政策中心對新加坡高級公務員亦會提供一些專業知識為本的訓練，例如舉辦一些學術名人系列的課堂，讓高級公務員以小組的形式參加，透過與講者的交流討論，探討當今政策上有關的問題及未來需面對的挑戰。2006/2007年度為例，管治及政策中心便邀請了聯合國前人口統計學主席Dr. Joseph Chamie和金融時報首席經濟評論家及助理編輯Professor Martin Wolf等全球重要知識分子主持講課，以啟迪新加坡高級公務員學習，提升他們的專業性和知識探討研究能力。
值得一提的是，新加坡公共服務學院下的大部分負責提供培訓服務的單位，都會不時進行研究，關心全球有關政策發展的動向，繼而調整課程內容和方針，尤管治及政策中心的研究最為深入。管治及政策中心每年都會委任權威人士，如現任或前任政策局局長，參與研究員計劃，負責訂出政策研究方向，培訓計劃目標、具體內容，以至兼顧出版工作。公共服務學院會就社會一些議題如人口老化等，邀請學術界和公共行政界有分量的代表撰寫文章，再結集出版學術期刊，名為「Ethos」。
2. 香港高級公務員的培訓
香港高級公務員的培訓，香港高級公務員的培訓公務員培訓處亦設為期1-2天的進階管理工作坊，及為期三周的公共行政領袖實踐課程。工作坊的主題圍繞人才管理和領導策略，而公共行政領袖實踐課程則旨在透過課堂、辯論、角色扮演，和經驗分享，令參加者提升管治能力。總括而言，就加強高級公務員的訓練，香港的情況都是以提升管治和領導技巧為主。
培訓處的課程活動計劃還有一大核心，就是開設針對國家事務及基本法研習的項目，教授的方法除了透過面授和網上研習外，亦會以考察交流的形式進行，包括到訪清華及北京大學參與為期17日的課程、到內地進行大約一星期的專題考察、到廣東省、上海市、杭州市的公務員部門作4-6星期的交流實習等。此國家事務及基本法研習的系列課程，涵蓋的對象非常廣泛，照顧到低級至高級所有職系及職級的公務員，而此系列課程亦為香港公務員培訓計劃的特色之一。
對比於香港的培訓計劃，新加坡的做法顯然是走向知識型的，同樣是以課程、工作坊、研討會、論壇等相類似的方法推行，但內容覆蓋的層面則比香港多元化。新加坡公共服務學院下設8個部門，兩個為支援組，其餘的6個都是對不同類型公務員的發展而設立的。當中以公共行政及管理學院提供的課程最為豐富，參加者亦涉及所有範疇的公務員。由於這部分的培訓是公共服務學院的盈利主體，學院會根據市場需要不斷增加和修訂課程的數目，現時公共行政及管理學院的課程種類，包括公共部門管理技巧、行政、人力資源、溝通以至法律、金融等專門學問。
樹口調查
香港的種樹政策常把植物當成一種「裝飾品」，市區裡面看到的只是一個一個大大小小的花圃，「死了又換，死了再換」，沒有落地生根的樹，老樹在高地價政策下成為了地產商的「眼中釘」，政府也沒有制訂利誘地產商保護老樹的權制，所以香港老樹在近三十年傷亡慘重。康文署的角色只是「花王」，路政署、地政署、規劃署、環保署、民政署、房屋署、教育署（校舍）、拓展署和區議會、建築署，都好像在從事與種植樹木有關的工作，但都各為其政，沒有指標，也不知道他們之間是如何分工，所以香港的都市空間的樹木比率是眾多國際城市中最低的。中國內地城市的緣化工作極為成功，各市均設立一個統一機制與指標，進行有關植樹的工作，深圳、廣州、北京、上海、成都的緣化比率都比香港高，原因就是政府非常認真和專業，不像香港，只會叫口號，做公關，不做實事，
若果港府真的有誠意落實緣化政策，必須從政府架構著手，委派一個政策局專責全面的政策研究和制訂工作，並與香港大專學院和民間環保團體發展一系列的研究項目，例如進行全港「樹口調查」，比較其他城市的緣化政策，盡快制訂《樹木法》，及制訂一套未來香港種樹的藍圖和指標。
香港的種樹政策常把植物當成一種「裝飾品」，市區裡面看到的只是一個一個大大小小的花圃，「死了又換，死了再換」，沒有落地生根的樹，老樹在高地價政策下成為了地產商的「眼中釘」，政府也沒有制訂利誘地產商保護老樹的權制，所以香港老樹在近三十年傷亡慘重。康文署的角色只是「花王」，路政署、地政署、規劃署、環保署、民政署、房屋署、教育署（校舍）、拓展署和區議會、建築署，都好像在從事與種植樹木有關的工作，但都各為其政，沒有指標，也不知道他們之間是如何分工，所以香港的都市空間的樹木比率是眾多國際城市中最低的。中國內地城市的緣化工作極為成功，各市均設立一個統一機制與指標，進行有關植樹的工作，深圳、廣州、北京、上海、成都的緣化比率都比香港高，原因就是政府非常認真和專業，不像香港，只會叫口號，做公關，不做實事，
若果港府真的有誠意落實緣化政策，必須從政府架構著手，委派一個政策局專責全面的政策研究和制訂工作，並與香港大專學院和民間環保團體發展一系列的研究項目，例如進行全港「樹口調查」，比較其他城市的緣化政策，盡快制訂《樹木法》，及制訂一套未來香港種樹的藍圖和指標。
20080915
香港功夫電影會失傳嗎?
功夫電影是香港最具代表性的電影類型, 六七十年代李小龍是開山老袓, 八九十年代洪金寶,李連杰成龍,程小東,袁和平等等人才輩出,也令香港電影成為了一種CULT的主要理由。但今天二零零八年的香港電影,能拍功夫片拍得有水平也是洪金寶,李連杰成龍,程小東,袁和平等老前輩,新人都沒有出現, 一方面以前師父得弟那種制度的消失,學功夫那種苦和耐性,現在是享樂的年代,誰要這樣受苦.所以功夫片失傳是遲早的事,可借也是應該的,但最可恥的是香港人根本不珍借,政府,電影電視主持人,等等均沒有要好好把功夫片發展, 別說人才培育,關於功夫電影文化的研究和保存也是沒有長期的支持。看見功夫熊貓這部功夫動畫片,也許我們會問,為什麼這部電影不是香港人創作拍攝投資的?這完全是一部關於功夫電影的功夫動畫電影, 功夫片中的師徒關係,英雄正義等等都是來自香港功夫片,美國人吸收了並用“美式英雄人文”類型去把功夫電影再創造,香港主流目前的”跟人口水尾”價值也許就是香港電影不能創新的原因。功夫熊貓的成功,大部份也許又多了一個吹水的題目,但真的好好去反省而作出一些實質行動的, (例如政府和企業)如像不太可能,多出一本八卦週刊也許比較有可能吧!我不是悲觀,我是客觀。
功夫電影是香港最具代表性的電影類型, 六七十年代李小龍是開山老袓, 八九十年代洪金寶,李連杰成龍,程小東,袁和平等等人才輩出,也令香港電影成為了一種CULT的主要理由。但今天二零零八年的香港電影,能拍功夫片拍得有水平也是洪金寶,李連杰成龍,程小東,袁和平等老前輩,新人都沒有出現, 一方面以前師父得弟那種制度的消失,學功夫那種苦和耐性,現在是享樂的年代,誰要這樣受苦.所以功夫片失傳是遲早的事,可借也是應該的,但最可恥的是香港人根本不珍借,政府,電影電視主持人,等等均沒有要好好把功夫片發展, 別說人才培育,關於功夫電影文化的研究和保存也是沒有長期的支持。看見功夫熊貓這部功夫動畫片,也許我們會問,為什麼這部電影不是香港人創作拍攝投資的?這完全是一部關於功夫電影的功夫動畫電影, 功夫片中的師徒關係,英雄正義等等都是來自香港功夫片,美國人吸收了並用“美式英雄人文”類型去把功夫電影再創造,香港主流目前的”跟人口水尾”價值也許就是香港電影不能創新的原因。功夫熊貓的成功,大部份也許又多了一個吹水的題目,但真的好好去反省而作出一些實質行動的, (例如政府和企業)如像不太可能,多出一本八卦週刊也許比較有可能吧!我不是悲觀,我是客觀。
奧林 匹克黃金甲
北京奧運開幕禮李寧先生點燃聖火的那一幕真的是一次高潮,藝高人膽大,一面看一面擔心那個火距。張導演說這個開幕是現代手法表達古老中國, 言重了,開幕那幅畫圈打開是有些古風,但之後那些都是拉斯維加斯式的黃金甲, 其實黃金甲是沒有問題,問題是要把這些算在老袓宗頭上,作為一個Show一個節日式的“開幕”,張導演和那些演員是很努力, 但我們必需承認張導演的藝術品味和中國的古雅是兩碼子事,張導演的風格本來就是農村片的樸素,農村才是張導演的家,也是無產階級的美學.現在無產階級要成為資產階級也是需要一些過程,張導演現像也是一種過渡人物,沒辦法,中國窮了太久,現在富起來也是有點暴發,其實只要有自知之明,不要自欺欺人便可以了,最怕就是要指手劃腳的老袓宗的文化弄錯了,情況就是把紅酒加冰那樣。好事變壞事了。那些煙花的多和缺乏想像,兩個字”要威”“要勁”但是就沒有什麼Details和想法,一次又一次的爆破,奧運成為了一次中國人站起來的Party,我並不反對北京辦奧運,中國是需要奧運令中國更開放,這種決心是重要的,相對於中國求進之決心,香港那種自我感覺良好才是一種墮落,我們可以說北京奧運俗氣,但還是很有大氣的,香港的那種小氣和自閉才是有些可悲,那個在文化中心的奧抓匹克文化廣場的小家格局,真的是難以致信。
20080720
萬年曆十五年
有一次在一個公開場合,有一位企業界的高層看見了我,對我說:“你會怎樣改編萬年曆十五年?”我聽了也只好苦笑一下,”對”, 一萬年的事真的不容易說清楚,另外又有一次,一位內地官員問我的創作是什麼? 我說“裝置藝術“他說現在房地產業那麼興旺,我的創作一定也是大收旺場,這位官員以為裝置藝術就是裝修了,我也嘗試解說一下,但也是徒勞,其實這些話都是客套話,他們在說著時根本也不考慮說對還是說錯。但也反映了一些普遍文化藝術盲的情況,中國本來是藝術大國,人人手中那枝毛筆就已經是一種深厚的美藝基本功了。中國這一百年革命,把這些中國的藝術都革去了,成為社會的一種邊沿,大家追求的美學就一種偽中國唐人街式美學了,中國人由一種高層次的藝術境界隋落到今天這個境界了。這是事實,我們不可以否定,但最有趣的是仍然有很多人唸唸有詞的要去大叫愛中國文化。黃仁宇先生提出了中國過去幾百年積弱的理由,吃人的禮教常常是這一百年掛在咀邊的口號,現在禮教被市場取代了,吃人的市場,吃人的消費,消費好不好吃?市場好不好吃?那就是看誰在吃誰了。市場吃了文化,市場吃了藝術,巿場吃了教育,市場吃了一切。剩下來的是什麼?浪漫一點就是那些已經退色的影像和那些想像的情境了。現實一點就可以是把腦海的海水排放出來,重新把市場的水放到腦海裏去了。
20080713
最後一代文化人?
梁文道認為我們是香港最後一代文化人,我不同意,除非香港明天不再存在,否則我們不可能是最後一代,當然以文道的思想水平,也是知道這個道理,但寫文章有時是要立一些不成理論,才有產生爭論的效果,文道的這篇文章也引起了一些關於香港文化和文化人的討論,香港每一代都有文化人,只是香港本身是殖民地,文化上是斷開的一片片,像創立新亞書院等新儒家文化人大學者,都沒有成為香港的“傳統 “,他們其實也是那個時代”最後一代香港文化人”,因為香港的殖民地文化本質,沒有土讓容許文化上的落地生根,所以香港文化是一種煙花,每一代也是最後一代,弄文化也是在一種邊沿的狀態,政府抗距文化,商界抗距文化,傳媒抗距文化,大學抗拒文化, 像那一篇董橋先生在當明報月刊總篇“喜歡弄點文化的人”, “喜欢弄点文化的人，心情竟都那样无奈。安于那份无奈倒也罢了，偏偏维廉•摩里斯这种人老想把政治、经济、社会问题都铸人他心目中的文化模子里，一度前进得很，最后才慢慢成熟，归于沉寂”William Morris這種英式左傾主義文化人,也是對我這種喜歡弄點文化的人的一種參照。也許我們是香港最後一代殖民地教育文化人,但一定一定香港每一代都有那一代的文化人,只是有不一樣的特色吧!
梁文道認為我們是香港最後一代文化人,我不同意,除非香港明天不再存在,否則我們不可能是最後一代,當然以文道的思想水平,也是知道這個道理,但寫文章有時是要立一些不成理論,才有產生爭論的效果,文道的這篇文章也引起了一些關於香港文化和文化人的討論,香港每一代都有文化人,只是香港本身是殖民地,文化上是斷開的一片片,像創立新亞書院等新儒家文化人大學者,都沒有成為香港的“傳統 “,他們其實也是那個時代”最後一代香港文化人”,因為香港的殖民地文化本質,沒有土讓容許文化上的落地生根,所以香港文化是一種煙花,每一代也是最後一代,弄文化也是在一種邊沿的狀態,政府抗距文化,商界抗距文化,傳媒抗距文化,大學抗拒文化, 像那一篇董橋先生在當明報月刊總篇“喜歡弄點文化的人”, “喜欢弄点文化的人，心情竟都那样无奈。安于那份无奈倒也罢了，偏偏维廉•摩里斯这种人老想把政治、经济、社会问题都铸人他心目中的文化模子里，一度前进得很，最后才慢慢成熟，归于沉寂”William Morris這種英式左傾主義文化人,也是對我這種喜歡弄點文化的人的一種參照。也許我們是香港最後一代殖民地教育文化人,但一定一定香港每一代都有那一代的文化人,只是有不一樣的特色吧!
20080615
是政治不是法治
特首和問責官員會見記者交待薪金是降了溫,也是一種主動的方法化解民間對於副局長和政治助理的言論。這次事件也說明了立法會在審批有共副局長和政治助理之時太草草了事,沒有把薪金和國藉問題弄清楚便批了這個計劃,我們可以批評特首處理此計劃久缺政治智慧,但立法會作為審批撥款的機構也有嚴重失識,田議員在批評特首之時其實也應反省自由黨在當初批出撥款時為什麼沒有提出國藉和薪金的問題,這種事後孔明和落井下石的作風,是目前香港政治和傳媒的一種主流作風。而負上政治責任的問責官員更應小心奕奕, 不可以以為立法通過了,便可以”胡作非為”. 九月立法會選舉的時候,我們作為選民,更應留意候選人的政黨政治操守問題。特首說法治在政治之上,是對但也是錯,對是這次計劃是立法會批出的。錯是這是一次政治問責委任,國藉和薪金公開是一種政治道德的原則問題和法治無關,那位持有新加玻藉但又是香港出生的政治助理,的確令人有著雙重效思的疑問,合同上是不用放某,但現實上是會被人覺得政治道德有問題,當問責局長不可以只是一份”工”, 是一種終身的志業和理想。才能獲得廣大市民的認同。才能建立真正的管治威信,這次事件大大打擊了曾特首的政治威信。也是把政治作為一份“工”的錯誤定位。
特首和問責官員會見記者交待薪金是降了溫,也是一種主動的方法化解民間對於副局長和政治助理的言論。這次事件也說明了立法會在審批有共副局長和政治助理之時太草草了事,沒有把薪金和國藉問題弄清楚便批了這個計劃,我們可以批評特首處理此計劃久缺政治智慧,但立法會作為審批撥款的機構也有嚴重失識,田議員在批評特首之時其實也應反省自由黨在當初批出撥款時為什麼沒有提出國藉和薪金的問題,這種事後孔明和落井下石的作風,是目前香港政治和傳媒的一種主流作風。而負上政治責任的問責官員更應小心奕奕, 不可以以為立法通過了,便可以”胡作非為”. 九月立法會選舉的時候,我們作為選民,更應留意候選人的政黨政治操守問題。特首說法治在政治之上,是對但也是錯,對是這次計劃是立法會批出的。錯是這是一次政治問責委任,國藉和薪金公開是一種政治道德的原則問題和法治無關,那位持有新加玻藉但又是香港出生的政治助理,的確令人有著雙重效思的疑問,合同上是不用放某,但現實上是會被人覺得政治道德有問題,當問責局長不可以只是一份”工”, 是一種終身的志業和理想。才能獲得廣大市民的認同。才能建立真正的管治威信,這次事件大大打擊了曾特首的政治威信。也是把政治作為一份“工”的錯誤定位。
20080506
春天花開
胡恩威
在那條通住機場的大道上,
木棉樹在開花,
橙橙紅紅的長在樹上面。
像真又像假,
像花也下像花
木棉沒有櫻花的溫柔和飛逸。
京都滿山滿地都是櫻花,
粉紅粉粉的各種紅色,
在一起開放時,
像夢境不是真的,
淡淡的風吹,
葉在動,
花,
也在動.
木棉也是英雄的那種獨立.
紅紅獨個兒的美麗,
木棉能和櫻花一樣在一起。
滿山都是滿街都是,
那可以是多麼壯麗的紅色。
春天什麼花開都是美麗的,
春節也是花的季節
桃花,
菊花,
牡丹,
花開富貴,
花樣年華,
花花世界,
花是春天,
春天是花,
那兒的花開,
那兒的花落.
在那不太熱也不冷的春天,
我們呼吸著花的氣味,
我們想念著花的顏色,
清清淡淡濃濃烈烈,
桃花的淡香,
茉莉的貴氣,
菊花的長情。
在春天的空氣飄著。
一口氣深呼吸,
一口氣把花的香把花的美,在花海在腦海。
吃花的人,
吃花的男孩,
愛花的人,
愛花的女孩,
手拿著一枝玻瑰,
紅色的,
一手拿著花,
一手把花解構,
一句一句的話,
愛我,
不愛我,
想我,
不想我,
愛你,
不愛你,
春天的夢,
春天的歌,
春天的愛情,
春天的汗水,
春天的顏色一片片的飄呀飄呀,
無定向風,
抽濕的呼呼,
空氣的淚水。
四月是最美麗的美麗,
生命的美麗,
花的美麗,
看花的人在路上看花,
在路上的人在花中看你。
絕對的看見了那個相對的你。
無限的春天,
花開的春天,
春天的美,
春天的美。
胡恩威
在那條通住機場的大道上,
木棉樹在開花,
橙橙紅紅的長在樹上面。
像真又像假,
像花也下像花
木棉沒有櫻花的溫柔和飛逸。
京都滿山滿地都是櫻花,
粉紅粉粉的各種紅色,
在一起開放時,
像夢境不是真的,
淡淡的風吹,
葉在動,
花,
也在動.
木棉也是英雄的那種獨立.
紅紅獨個兒的美麗,
木棉能和櫻花一樣在一起。
滿山都是滿街都是,
那可以是多麼壯麗的紅色。
春天什麼花開都是美麗的,
春節也是花的季節
桃花,
菊花,
牡丹,
花開富貴,
花樣年華,
花花世界,
花是春天,
春天是花,
那兒的花開,
那兒的花落.
在那不太熱也不冷的春天,
我們呼吸著花的氣味,
我們想念著花的顏色,
清清淡淡濃濃烈烈,
桃花的淡香,
茉莉的貴氣,
菊花的長情。
在春天的空氣飄著。
一口氣深呼吸,
一口氣把花的香把花的美,在花海在腦海。
吃花的人,
吃花的男孩,
愛花的人,
愛花的女孩,
手拿著一枝玻瑰,
紅色的,
一手拿著花,
一手把花解構,
一句一句的話,
愛我,
不愛我,
想我,
不想我,
愛你,
不愛你,
春天的夢,
春天的歌,
春天的愛情,
春天的汗水,
春天的顏色一片片的飄呀飄呀,
無定向風,
抽濕的呼呼,
空氣的淚水。
四月是最美麗的美麗,
生命的美麗,
花的美麗,
看花的人在路上看花,
在路上的人在花中看你。
絕對的看見了那個相對的你。
無限的春天,
花開的春天,
春天的美,
春天的美。
20080412
N個道德問題
胡恩威
和情人合照,非常私密的照片,是私人的事,拍照者的動機是什麼? 是出於一種愛的表現?是一種情場獵人戰利品的成積表? 是一種藝術照片的表達? 拍照的人在按下快門的那一刻, 那種快感是不是不道德的 ? 被拍的人是在什麼狀態下被拍下來的? 那一張一張紅紅的臉,那一面享受的表情, 記錄那一個充滿快感的時刻. 比表演還來得表演。比想像出來的更有想像力。
但是在這個只有面子,沒有太多道德的社會。這些影像被異化為一種不道德,拍攝的人成為罪人,被拍的人成為受害者了。 在這個假道學的社會,性成為了一種”罪行”, 而不是一種愛的表現。被壓抒成一種禁忌,一種傳媒的商品,八卦雜誌封面的頭號標題,一連串的性連想語言暴力。出版這些雜誌的人,有著怎樣的道德標準,市場是做這種事的理由嗎? 這些人和把藝人春宮照上網的人有什麼分別? 那些購賣這些雜誌的人, 動機是什麼? 好奇心?求知慾? 為什麼有些人對誰和誰發生關係這樣有興趣? 其他事情便不太有感覺要去知道。
有些人道德前道德後,但在現實生活,有誰沒有性慾?有誰沒有貪念?有誰沒有那種偷看人私穩的慾望? 偷情的慾望? 我們可以怎樣去面對?怎樣去分折和討論? 不誠實才是最不道德的, 找藉口才是最不道德的。尤其是那些以市場,以香港人喜歡看為藉口的傳媒,才是最惡毒的, 最不道德的。
胡恩威
和情人合照,非常私密的照片,是私人的事,拍照者的動機是什麼? 是出於一種愛的表現?是一種情場獵人戰利品的成積表? 是一種藝術照片的表達? 拍照的人在按下快門的那一刻, 那種快感是不是不道德的 ? 被拍的人是在什麼狀態下被拍下來的? 那一張一張紅紅的臉,那一面享受的表情, 記錄那一個充滿快感的時刻. 比表演還來得表演。比想像出來的更有想像力。
但是在這個只有面子,沒有太多道德的社會。這些影像被異化為一種不道德,拍攝的人成為罪人,被拍的人成為受害者了。 在這個假道學的社會,性成為了一種”罪行”, 而不是一種愛的表現。被壓抒成一種禁忌,一種傳媒的商品,八卦雜誌封面的頭號標題,一連串的性連想語言暴力。出版這些雜誌的人,有著怎樣的道德標準,市場是做這種事的理由嗎? 這些人和把藝人春宮照上網的人有什麼分別? 那些購賣這些雜誌的人, 動機是什麼? 好奇心?求知慾? 為什麼有些人對誰和誰發生關係這樣有興趣? 其他事情便不太有感覺要去知道。
有些人道德前道德後,但在現實生活,有誰沒有性慾?有誰沒有貪念?有誰沒有那種偷看人私穩的慾望? 偷情的慾望? 我們可以怎樣去面對?怎樣去分折和討論? 不誠實才是最不道德的, 找藉口才是最不道德的。尤其是那些以市場,以香港人喜歡看為藉口的傳媒,才是最惡毒的, 最不道德的。
20080213
香港漫画的一些观察
香港漫画和香港电影很相似, 都是不注重剧本的, 都是一种很短线的运作. 都是完官能剌激的一种市井趣味, 黄玉郎也好马荣成也好都是以打斗侠义为主题的, 香港没有像手冢治虫那种知识分子型的漫画家, 小冢作品题材之广, 叙事体的多元, 给日本漫画建立了一个非常完善的基础, 也令漫画成为了一种被社会接受和尊重的行业. 香港漫画和香港的娱乐事业一样, 都被视作为一种”扁”门. 没有成为一种有系统和多元的行业, 长期投资漫画的投资文化未能建立, 教育体制也没有一套完备的视艺培育系统, 香港的漫画市场在日本翻译漫画的多元选择的情况下, 根本没有什么发展的空间. 由于香港主流漫画对剧本的不重视, 香港的主流漫画来来去去都是那些黑道类古惑仔或者是武打的类型. 或者就是改篇一下金镛的小说. 这也是香港漫画工业不能创新的原因. 投资者人文素质太低了, 也影响了创作人和气候。只有李志清先生以中国历史为题的漫画才能有些突破, 但李的成功部份也是日本投资者造就的.
所以香港的非主流漫画很特别, 在自由的社会环境下大家各自修行, 在社会上也没有很大的影响力, 在视觉形式上有着很多的实验, 在没有所谓市场的形响之下各自在造自己喜欢的实验. 欧阳应斉在推动另类漫画上花了很多心思, 由甴甲到春卷到与志海合编的”路漫漫”, 给香港的另类漫画留下了较为有系统的纪录. 而东TOUCH杂志长期连刊的小克和杨学德漫尽作品, 给香港的年青一次接触另类漫画的机会. 一直只出版文化文字书的香港三联书店把小克和扬学德的漫画出版, 也是香港漫画出版的一次突教.当然这些个别的成就也和香港其它的创意模式一样, 有着像放烟火一样后继无人的状况, 核心问题是香港的教育体制完全没有建全的视觉芝术教育与及研究体制, 香港人的视艺经验是在没有任何知识基础上获得的, 传统中国的书法人文画手工艺知识没有了, 西方的也是完全空白, 香港人大都不知道印像派立体派的区别. 没有知识基础, 局限了香港人欣赏的层次和水平. 漫昼本身也是一种视觉艺术的类型. 本身有着立发展的历程, 香港没有历史观念的本质, 也形成了一种后现代的状态. 这也是香港文化艺的一种特色. 在一个不重视艺术作为一种知识的局面下, 普通的香港人只把观赏艺术视作一种非知性的感觉.
日本和香港是完全相反的, 日本人的美艺教育是十分具规模的, 原因是日本有着重视美艺教育的传统. 并以此构成各种各样的美艺行业. 像漫画本身就形成了一个系统, 由纸上出版的漫画, 到动画制作与各种各样计算机游戏和模型玩具幅产品. 已经形成了一个自我更新和创新的工业体系, 投资摸式, 知识产权, 发行零售, 宣传推广, 人才培育各方面均非常成熟和多元. 香港漫画目前仍然是停留在一种非常随意的运作模式, 只能以一种七八十年代的中小型模式运作, 曾经走向企业化的黄玉郎, 最后也是在过份快速扩展中失败了, 当中的故事也活像是大上大落的电视长篇剧情节. 回归以来香港主流漫画可以说是一事无成, 黄玉郎和马荣成仍然是在吃老本的打打杀杀. 唯一能够超越港式漫画的是谢立文和麦家碧的麦唛漫画系列, 其成功之处是谢立文的剧本和麦家碧的漫画形式产生了一种化学作用, 麦唛的设计是一种 snoopy 的格局, snoopy 本身是一种有关美国人的人生价值, 而麦唛本身有着一套非常港人的认命自怜意识, 配合麦家碧那些充满童真和可爱这型, 麦唛成为了港人后九七失落的精神投射. 但麦唛的成功, 最关健的是当年香港电讯网上行video on demand对麦唛动画的投资, 在香港电讯的巨大市场宣传资源下, 麦唛成为了一个不需要在无线电视暴光而成为香港流行文化的一个icon.
香港漫画和香港电影很相似, 都是不注重剧本的, 都是一种很短线的运作. 都是完官能剌激的一种市井趣味, 黄玉郎也好马荣成也好都是以打斗侠义为主题的, 香港没有像手冢治虫那种知识分子型的漫画家, 小冢作品题材之广, 叙事体的多元, 给日本漫画建立了一个非常完善的基础, 也令漫画成为了一种被社会接受和尊重的行业. 香港漫画和香港的娱乐事业一样, 都被视作为一种”扁”门. 没有成为一种有系统和多元的行业, 长期投资漫画的投资文化未能建立, 教育体制也没有一套完备的视艺培育系统, 香港的漫画市场在日本翻译漫画的多元选择的情况下, 根本没有什么发展的空间. 由于香港主流漫画对剧本的不重视, 香港的主流漫画来来去去都是那些黑道类古惑仔或者是武打的类型. 或者就是改篇一下金镛的小说. 这也是香港漫画工业不能创新的原因. 投资者人文素质太低了, 也影响了创作人和气候。只有李志清先生以中国历史为题的漫画才能有些突破, 但李的成功部份也是日本投资者造就的.
所以香港的非主流漫画很特别, 在自由的社会环境下大家各自修行, 在社会上也没有很大的影响力, 在视觉形式上有着很多的实验, 在没有所谓市场的形响之下各自在造自己喜欢的实验. 欧阳应斉在推动另类漫画上花了很多心思, 由甴甲到春卷到与志海合编的”路漫漫”, 给香港的另类漫画留下了较为有系统的纪录. 而东TOUCH杂志长期连刊的小克和杨学德漫尽作品, 给香港的年青一次接触另类漫画的机会. 一直只出版文化文字书的香港三联书店把小克和扬学德的漫画出版, 也是香港漫画出版的一次突教.当然这些个别的成就也和香港其它的创意模式一样, 有着像放烟火一样后继无人的状况, 核心问题是香港的教育体制完全没有建全的视觉芝术教育与及研究体制, 香港人的视艺经验是在没有任何知识基础上获得的, 传统中国的书法人文画手工艺知识没有了, 西方的也是完全空白, 香港人大都不知道印像派立体派的区别. 没有知识基础, 局限了香港人欣赏的层次和水平. 漫昼本身也是一种视觉艺术的类型. 本身有着立发展的历程, 香港没有历史观念的本质, 也形成了一种后现代的状态. 这也是香港文化艺的一种特色. 在一个不重视艺术作为一种知识的局面下, 普通的香港人只把观赏艺术视作一种非知性的感觉.
日本和香港是完全相反的, 日本人的美艺教育是十分具规模的, 原因是日本有着重视美艺教育的传统. 并以此构成各种各样的美艺行业. 像漫画本身就形成了一个系统, 由纸上出版的漫画, 到动画制作与各种各样计算机游戏和模型玩具幅产品. 已经形成了一个自我更新和创新的工业体系, 投资摸式, 知识产权, 发行零售, 宣传推广, 人才培育各方面均非常成熟和多元. 香港漫画目前仍然是停留在一种非常随意的运作模式, 只能以一种七八十年代的中小型模式运作, 曾经走向企业化的黄玉郎, 最后也是在过份快速扩展中失败了, 当中的故事也活像是大上大落的电视长篇剧情节. 回归以来香港主流漫画可以说是一事无成, 黄玉郎和马荣成仍然是在吃老本的打打杀杀. 唯一能够超越港式漫画的是谢立文和麦家碧的麦唛漫画系列, 其成功之处是谢立文的剧本和麦家碧的漫画形式产生了一种化学作用, 麦唛的设计是一种 snoopy 的格局, snoopy 本身是一种有关美国人的人生价值, 而麦唛本身有着一套非常港人的认命自怜意识, 配合麦家碧那些充满童真和可爱这型, 麦唛成为了港人后九七失落的精神投射. 但麦唛的成功, 最关健的是当年香港电讯网上行video on demand对麦唛动画的投资, 在香港电讯的巨大市场宣传资源下, 麦唛成为了一个不需要在无线电视暴光而成为香港流行文化的一个icon.
20080130
我們成為了符號 (2007年12月16日為漫畫”東宮西宮“而寫)
胡恩威
我們都成為了符號
在符號世界裏面的一個符號.
一個角色一種影像
一種交換一種計算
一和零的零和一
一加一是一切
零加一是一切
我成為了你成為了他成為了她也成為了我們他們,
我就是世界世界就是我.
只有我只有我
世界只有我
人生什麼都可以
可以 一定可以
什麼都可以
理想成為一連串的文字
一句句的口号
五講四美
We are the world
我們的歌聲
我們在快跑
我們在跳高
我們在走路
一步又一步
我們在高樓中
我們在大海裏
我們是水我們是火
我們是山我們是風
那個時候
那個場景
那次笑聲
那種風景
一片的藍色
一片一片的已經成為一度淡淡白色的記憶
一場遊戲一度光
Let there be light
政治的政治
政治成為了遊戲,
符號的遊戲,
語言的遊戲
文字和語言成為了一件一件的兵器
不斷在破壞,
不斷在重組
世界變得好了
更好了
好風如水一樣的好
明月如霜一樣的明
不破不立
天下大亂
天下大冶
無法無天
為人民
新世界舊世界
英雄狗雄
天才白痴
沒有一百年的孤寂
也沒有什麼一千年一萬年
一萬年一萬年
只爭朝夕
大江東去上載下載
當机開机
零和一的後後後後現代世界
錯與對的沒有和沒有
一秘鐘太多
只爭朝夕
春花秋月風花說月
慾和望
記和億
道與理
生與死
我們的一切知覺,
我們的笑我們的哭
我們的失落,
我們的淚水
都成為了………
成為故事了成為影像了
成為聲音了成為烈火了
什麼都是沒有什麼是真
什麼也是沒有什麼是假
一切一切的影像
一片一片的記憶
一點一點的幻覺
一生一世今生今世
沒有下雪沒有下雨
沒有涼風沒有落葉
沒有秋天沒有冬天
沒有了………………..
Let us go then
我和你
當太陽變成白色的時候
你給我傳了一個短訊
在今日世界的明日終結的那一刻
我和你成為了那些已經淡化了的影子
在已經不再存在的街道上
那些影子黑黑的
透進了那些灰色的泥土
一步一步我和你
一起來吧
時間是下午的七時零七分七秒
我和你看着那度白色的光
何時了何時了
住事知多少
長江黃河維多利亞港
一杯清水
一口灰白的烟
多少個年頭多少次落葉
風在吹風在吹
手提电話的訊号
我在這裏我在那裏
在原宿和Charing Cross Road
在長安大街的广場
在存在主义的咖啡店
在呼吸的那一剎
如一江逝水記憶的銀河
輕輕的來輕輕的去
鵝毛泰山
那些綠色綠色的竹葉
一片白雲一片白雲
那一双手
那一双眼
淚水和淚光
是千萬年萬萬年
是我在那在黑色筆記本裏面黄黄的書紙上面擦字膠擦走的一度度藍色原子筆的字迹
To Be or Not to Be
I write therefore 我是
音樂盒子的曲色
你已令我太快樂過
Like a Rolling Stone
酒紅色的白水
紅色的墨水筆
行雲流水
他媽的他媽的
良辰美景Fly me to the moon
多少年又多少年
我們回去了我們回去了
我們成為了符号
ABCDEFGHIJKLM
M for Memory
N for Nothing
你什麽都看不見
什麼都不存在
腦海裏面的一点霧氣
烟火裏的一些記憶
Backup 在那本記事簿裹
深深的黑色思憶
色空空色
一萬年石頭
一萬頓海水
一萬擊硬盤
一萬憶光年
一張白紙
一個短訊
你知道嗎?
那一次,那一次
我忘記了是早上還是晚夜
黑色的完全黑色的黑色的
一零八零一零七的解像度
無限的無限的無限
不會永遠不會
這是這是這是自我完成的一次又一次
什麼石頭什麼水
人生就是這種像透明一樣的聲音
沒有一樣
一點點一滴滴
那被稱為一的石頭
像夢像花像雨像血
流著流著那些血AB型的血
紅紅的一片黑
分解結合再分解再結合
我是誰是你是我是那片石頭
一口煙
站在那個月臺上那些光那些汗水
一口氣
就成為了那一年我告訴你的那一種質感
沒有忘記沒有什麼需要忘記
是9677267727
是1677897677
是五元二角
由尖沙咀的山林道到中環牛頭角的那一個地方
歷史是那一個大海那一片石頭
眼睛看見了
我成為了一片石頭
那個符號
世界到了一個盡頭
Restart
Copy and Paste
永遠永遠是對的
永遠永遠是錯的
新世界新的一首歌
重重又重重
萬重山萬重山
世界最高宇宙最高的
最偉大的可憐
一切正義一切英雄
歷史選擇了
歷史消滅了
成為了一個字母
成為了口中的一口煙
美麗的一口煙
去你的那一個moment
煙灰飛滅
胡恩威
我們都成為了符號
在符號世界裏面的一個符號.
一個角色一種影像
一種交換一種計算
一和零的零和一
一加一是一切
零加一是一切
我成為了你成為了他成為了她也成為了我們他們,
我就是世界世界就是我.
只有我只有我
世界只有我
人生什麼都可以
可以 一定可以
什麼都可以
理想成為一連串的文字
一句句的口号
五講四美
We are the world
我們的歌聲
我們在快跑
我們在跳高
我們在走路
一步又一步
我們在高樓中
我們在大海裏
我們是水我們是火
我們是山我們是風
那個時候
那個場景
那次笑聲
那種風景
一片的藍色
一片一片的已經成為一度淡淡白色的記憶
一場遊戲一度光
Let there be light
政治的政治
政治成為了遊戲,
符號的遊戲,
語言的遊戲
文字和語言成為了一件一件的兵器
不斷在破壞,
不斷在重組
世界變得好了
更好了
好風如水一樣的好
明月如霜一樣的明
不破不立
天下大亂
天下大冶
無法無天
為人民
新世界舊世界
英雄狗雄
天才白痴
沒有一百年的孤寂
也沒有什麼一千年一萬年
一萬年一萬年
只爭朝夕
大江東去上載下載
當机開机
零和一的後後後後現代世界
錯與對的沒有和沒有
一秘鐘太多
只爭朝夕
春花秋月風花說月
慾和望
記和億
道與理
生與死
我們的一切知覺,
我們的笑我們的哭
我們的失落,
我們的淚水
都成為了………
成為故事了成為影像了
成為聲音了成為烈火了
什麼都是沒有什麼是真
什麼也是沒有什麼是假
一切一切的影像
一片一片的記憶
一點一點的幻覺
一生一世今生今世
沒有下雪沒有下雨
沒有涼風沒有落葉
沒有秋天沒有冬天
沒有了………………..
Let us go then
我和你
當太陽變成白色的時候
你給我傳了一個短訊
在今日世界的明日終結的那一刻
我和你成為了那些已經淡化了的影子
在已經不再存在的街道上
那些影子黑黑的
透進了那些灰色的泥土
一步一步我和你
一起來吧
時間是下午的七時零七分七秒
我和你看着那度白色的光
何時了何時了
住事知多少
長江黃河維多利亞港
一杯清水
一口灰白的烟
多少個年頭多少次落葉
風在吹風在吹
手提电話的訊号
我在這裏我在那裏
在原宿和Charing Cross Road
在長安大街的广場
在存在主义的咖啡店
在呼吸的那一剎
如一江逝水記憶的銀河
輕輕的來輕輕的去
鵝毛泰山
那些綠色綠色的竹葉
一片白雲一片白雲
那一双手
那一双眼
淚水和淚光
是千萬年萬萬年
是我在那在黑色筆記本裏面黄黄的書紙上面擦字膠擦走的一度度藍色原子筆的字迹
To Be or Not to Be
I write therefore 我是
音樂盒子的曲色
你已令我太快樂過
Like a Rolling Stone
酒紅色的白水
紅色的墨水筆
行雲流水
他媽的他媽的
良辰美景Fly me to the moon
多少年又多少年
我們回去了我們回去了
我們成為了符号
ABCDEFGHIJKLM
M for Memory
N for Nothing
你什麽都看不見
什麼都不存在
腦海裏面的一点霧氣
烟火裏的一些記憶
Backup 在那本記事簿裹
深深的黑色思憶
色空空色
一萬年石頭
一萬頓海水
一萬擊硬盤
一萬憶光年
一張白紙
一個短訊
你知道嗎?
那一次,那一次
我忘記了是早上還是晚夜
黑色的完全黑色的黑色的
一零八零一零七的解像度
無限的無限的無限
不會永遠不會
這是這是這是自我完成的一次又一次
什麼石頭什麼水
人生就是這種像透明一樣的聲音
沒有一樣
一點點一滴滴
那被稱為一的石頭
像夢像花像雨像血
流著流著那些血AB型的血
紅紅的一片黑
分解結合再分解再結合
我是誰是你是我是那片石頭
一口煙
站在那個月臺上那些光那些汗水
一口氣
就成為了那一年我告訴你的那一種質感
沒有忘記沒有什麼需要忘記
是9677267727
是1677897677
是五元二角
由尖沙咀的山林道到中環牛頭角的那一個地方
歷史是那一個大海那一片石頭
眼睛看見了
我成為了一片石頭
那個符號
世界到了一個盡頭
Restart
Copy and Paste
永遠永遠是對的
永遠永遠是錯的
新世界新的一首歌
重重又重重
萬重山萬重山
世界最高宇宙最高的
最偉大的可憐
一切正義一切英雄
歷史選擇了
歷史消滅了
成為了一個字母
成為了口中的一口煙
美麗的一口煙
去你的那一個moment
煙灰飛滅
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)