2012年10月23日 星期二

楊志良打馬 張哲琛︰別見不得人家好

繼日前重砲批評馬政府施政後,前衛生署長楊志良再度批評馬英九的用人哲學,「改革就是要得罪人才叫改革」,楊志良說,改革一定會讓某些人不高興,但馬總統 為了所謂的公平正義,「一聲令下要大家往前衝,結果衝到自己頭破血流,卻完全搞不清楚方向在哪」,他建議馬英九,「首要就是先改革自己,先講除弊,再講興 利」。

楊志良22日在中天《台灣顧問團》節目中,痛批台灣藍綠陣營就是歷史上最大的詐騙集團,而且朝野的立委都非常糟糕,「應該把所有立委全部罷免掉,他們的表現完全就是民粹」。

楊志良並以勞保目前保費為例,「哪有這麼笨的政府?政府出1成,雇主要出7成,費率低的時候誰最高興?當然是雇主最高興,但是我們的立委就做這種事。每次只要稍微調高費率時,立委就會跳出來,說為了勞工朋友所以我們要把費率降低一點,然後就造成今天這麼大的窟窿」。

楊志良說,台灣社會保險在民粹和選票的考量下,造成嚴重窟窿,這個窟窿應該由歷任立委來支付,立委開支票叫別人去付錢,勞保要垮了卻要求政府來負終極的支付責任,「但這個錢又從勞工身上剝削下來」。

楊志良也再度批評財政部,他認為台灣稅收低又什麼福利都要做,隨人顧性命拚命發行公債,讓薪資階級來繳付虧空,結果財政部長不但沒有改善,「還到處幫忙有錢人,當然是最爛的部跟最爛的部長」。

楊志良說,現在的執政團隊支持度比景氣還要糟,馬政府再這樣下去,他懷疑台灣未來「會不會再來個黃衫軍、或是什麼綠衫軍走上街頭,抗議台灣這樣一個不公不義的社會」。

軍公教月退俸爭議//張哲琛︰別見不得人家好 立委轟下台 【11:25】

新聞圖片
銓敘部長張哲琛今上午表示,會檢討作出改進,但是希望大家不要造成社會對立,此言論引起民進黨立委姚文智不滿,要求張哲琛下台。(資料照,記者方賓照攝)
〔本報訊〕退休軍公教人員福利多,優渥的退休金羨煞一般勞工,現在甚至連月退俸都能跟著政府調薪,教育部也訂定「軍人子女減免學費辦法」,減免軍公教子女 學雜費,讓網友大喊不公不義,退休軍公教人員福利引起爭議。銓敘部長張哲琛今上午雖表示會檢討作出改進,但也不慎脫口說出要大家不要 「見不得人家好」,此言論引起網友撻伐,更讓民進黨立委姚文智心生不滿,要求張哲琛下台。

 退休軍公教人員各項優渥福利,包括18%優惠存款利息、年終慰問金、隨政府加薪、享有子女教育、水電及健保費補助,連到國家公園風景區遊玩或到博物館看 展覽等,門票都享優惠,引起許多勞工階層朋友不滿,台灣智庫民調也顯示,有68%民眾贊成廢除退休軍公教領取年終慰問金。

 銓敘部長張哲琛今天上午說,政府會檢討公務人員的退休制度,再做適度調整,張哲琛也強調,現在時空環境已經改變,希望大家不要醜化軍公教人員,對社會發展不好,也會造成社會對立。

 雖然張哲琛說會改進,但是隨後他又脫口說出,希望民眾不要 「見不得人家好」,對此言論,網友們批評聲浪不斷,而民進黨立委姚文智表示不滿,認為張哲琛應該要下台,以示道歉負責。

 *****
楊志良轟馬政府 只會A錢、欺壓勞工

前衛生署長楊志良昨火力全開,砲轟馬政府施政腐敗、貪官污吏數不清,中油和台電自肥醜聞不曾間斷,他要求馬政府先解決A錢問題,不要只會欺壓、剝奪勞工。 (資料照,記者林正堃攝)
〔記 者張舒婷、鄭琪芳/台北報導〕前衛生署長、現任亞洲大學健康管理研究所講座教授楊志良昨砲轟,馬政府施政腐敗,近來一心想要調高保費、稅率;不只是貪官污 吏數不清,加上蚊子館太多、中油和台電頻傳自肥醜聞,若不先解決這些A錢問題,民眾當然覺得政府一味要錢,只會欺壓、剝奪勞工。
批李述德張盛和 最爛部長
楊 志良並砲轟財政部是最爛的部會,「史上最爛的部長就是李述德和張盛和」,該降的稅不降,不該降的拚命降。舉例來說,遺贈稅從五十%降至十%,資金回流後炒 作房地產,帶動房價和物價飆升,如今「帝寶」每坪單價高達二七○萬元,豪宅主人要繳的稅金還不如管理費。有錢人荷包更滿,卻有愈來愈多窮苦民眾自殺。
張盛和表示 尊重楊的意見
對於史上最爛財長的罵名,張盛和昨晚表示,尊重楊志良的意見,但社會自有公評。前財長李述德昨晚則未接電話,但去年十月楊志良砲轟李是「最爛部長」時,李述德曾表示,尊重楊志良的言論,但沒辦法接受,他「任勞、任怨、任謗」,社會自有公評。
楊 志良昨天參加「財稅正義圓桌論壇」時火力全開。他說,勞保基金瀕臨破產,現在不少部會首長高喊「勞保一定不會倒」,相當不負責,因為他們不會當十年、十五 年,到時候破產也不關他們的事情。而張盛和說提升勞保基金操盤績效也是方法之一,根本就是空話,如果操盤績效可以預測,勞保基金早就賺翻了,政府的財政問 題也不會像現在如此嚴重。要解決勞保基金財務問題,治本之道還是得調高費率,但不能一次調足,須逐步調整,把衝擊降到最小。
貪官污吏數不清 只顧自肥
楊志良也痛罵馬政府只會A錢,不只是官員貪污、索賄,蚊子館太多,中油和台電自肥傳聞更不曾間斷,可笑的是經濟部長施顏祥明明當過中油董事長,居然不思考如何除弊,加上官員為政策辯護的能力太差勁,也難怪一宣布調漲油價、電費即民怨沸騰。
他表示,由於物價急漲、景氣看壞,對企業主來說,各項營運成本過高,為降低開銷,情願多聘僱臨時工、派遣人員,所以近幾年來台灣勞工平均薪資倒退,連帶更無法接受政府增稅、提高保費。於是勞保、健保的財政漏洞持續擴大,形成惡性循環。
楊志良表示,不只民間企業,政府財政困窘,又不積極解決,提供給各部會預算一直不足,現在連公部門也大力撙節人事成本,增加約聘人員,主張保障勞工權益的勞委會,正是所有部會中最多派遣和約聘員工的單位,相當諷刺。
馬不好好施政 台灣會崩壞
楊志良感嘆,日前他推出新書「台灣大崩壞」,其實他自己也很討厭「崩壞」這種強烈字眼,可以幸福快樂,誰喜歡崩壞?問題是馬政府上任以來,不好好施政,他深切擔憂台灣沒有前景,再這樣下去真的只能走向崩壞。




 2011.4.3
楊志良: You are a小號的 baby! 典出:

楊志良在位時自以為清高
下台之後講些社會上30-40年前習知的弊端 : 似乎可以稱為You are a小號的 baby!


-----
署醫查弊體檢 下週一展開
〔記者王昶閔/台北報導〕因應署立醫院爆發採購弊案,衛生署確定四月十八日起動員六十一人次的委員,分至北、中、南、東四區的廿八家醫院展開為期一個半月的署醫體檢,六月初公布體檢報告,作為署醫改革藍圖。
六月初公布報告
署醫體檢小組共同召集人馬偕醫學院董事長黃俊雄表示,將檢視各醫院採購流程、作業程序是否有瑕疵、漏洞,但如果是「人出了問題」,體檢小組並非檢調單位,恐無能為力。
此 外,署醫獎勵金分配不公傳聞一直甚囂塵上,亦將是衛生署改革重點。依現行規定,各醫院可將盈餘八成分給院內員工,都會區署醫院長每月可領三、四十萬,加上 月薪本俸九萬,年薪可達五百多萬,各院院長都爭破頭,有些護理人員獎勵金卻少得可憐,每月僅領數百元;肩負公共衛生任務的非都會區署立醫院因經營困難,院 長月收入只有十幾萬。
針對外界質疑,衛生署副署長江宏哲表示,不排除改革現行獎勵金的使用與分配方式,例如統一分配,並針對偏遠地區署立醫院提高獎勵金,但坦言恐招致都會區醫院反對聲浪。
前 衛生署長楊志良昨天上午接受電台專訪時則提到,署立醫院弊端並非集體,但確實長期不受重視,風氣敗壞的時間點,多在二○○六到二○○八年間。他在任內發 現,有署醫院長在三年任期結束前夕,竟和業者簽下八年、十年長約,或將公家土地讓民間儀器商蓋癌症治療中心,不合常理,懷疑有弊端。
楊志良表示,署醫弊案不只跟操守有關,也是制度問題,署醫不能廢,但不應要求署醫自給自足,尤其偏遠地區、肩負特殊公共衛生任務的醫院。
針對外界質疑獎勵金分配不公,楊志良在任內曾調降署醫院長獎勵金,拿去分給護士、藥師等基層同仁。他表示,獎勵金應多分給基層員工,以提高士氣。

2012年10月21日 星期日

伍佰




伍佰搖滾南巨蛋 萬人瘋跳花朵舞  連唱55首歌曲 歌迷興奮HIGH翻天  票房熱銷逾九成 吸金近1890萬元
2012/10/21  劉宜函 報導
樂壇教父伍佰昨天晚上在高雄巨蛋開唱,一連唱了55首歌曲 讓歌迷HIGH翻天!上萬名粉絲一起大跳招牌的「花朵舞」,再加上大型的伍佰公仔在台上一起唱唱跳跳,把氣氛帶到最高點。

上萬名粉絲擺動身體 一起大跳花朵舞。
伍佰穿著浪人裝 不間斷帶動唱 一秒都沒讓粉絲停下來。
超大伍佰娃娃突然現身舞台,粉絲們立刻HIGH翻天,還和伍佰在台上互相較勁比舞,把氣氛帶到最高點。
3D大螢幕出現CHINA BLUE陪伴,視覺效果一級棒。
伍佰與CHINA BLUE世界巡迴演唱會,第8站來到高雄巨蛋,4個小時連唱了55首歌,還特地換了7把吉他。
果然 9成的票房就吸金將近1890萬。
南台灣粉絲熱情,把握機會和伍佰一起唱唱跳跳,體驗最熱情的台灣味。


2009.4據說伍佰是"俗又有力"之台客之代表人物之一
---
自二○○七年初《伍佰。風景》出版後,人們從鏡頭下認識了不一樣的創作者伍佰,也窺見了這位搖滾天王內心的另一個角落。原來映照音樂舞台上熱力迸射的另一端,是一片視覺美學上的純粹與靜謐;而這片風景,讓讀者也能探頭踏進,或四處張望,或安心休憩。
書出之後,好友倪重華的一句建議,讓原本不喜拍人的伍佰,開始將觀景窗對準了「人」——這個他一直想逃離的主題。他因著「各種目的,去了這些城市。」有時為了演出,有時為了宣傳,有為了私人旅行,偶爾也搖身一變成為追星時感動落淚的忠實歌迷。他行經倫敦、曼徹斯特,走過東京、大阪,閒晃進北京的舊胡同,並闖入鮮少人遊歷的純樸四國。
旅途中他相機不離手地拍著、照著,將他看到的真實人間直剌剌地拍下來;將他感到新鮮的街頭風景,不管有無邏輯、秩序,統統抓進底片裡。按下快門那瞬間,方框中的每個眼神、每個表情、每個不經意的挑眉與低吟,彷彿都在敘說些什麼……
他說:「我還是喜歡一廂情願地看世界,用自己的角度解讀一切。這是我的熱情,也是我的偏執。」而他的作品,就是他所有感想的來源,或者延伸。

2012年10月15日 星期一

沈家禎(C.T. Chen,1913-2007)松原泰道





說得有理, 你認為呢?

 
 【靜觀】
                                        
真正的養生之道,在於能求得心靈上的安穩自在,無憂無愁。
 
『百歲佛學大師的精神養生法』      
 
松原泰道 是日本的佛學大師,生於1907年。
 
65歲那年,他發表《般若心經入門》,因說法精妙。一舉成名。

從此四方講學,還年年推出新作品,迄今著述超過130部,成為日本佛學界的一個奇跡。
 
松原泰道致力於推廣一種佛教生活哲學,把一般人難以理解的佛學經典與智慧寫成易於理解的著作,也把佛教的理念活學活用,成為一套經世致用、充滿智慧的人生觀。
 
我的人生是從50歲開始的
 
松原泰道說:我的人生是從50歲開始的。以我的經驗來說,五六十歲是人生的轉折點,
由此人生可分為兩段:50歲前,是打基礎階段,在這個階段裡,
我們往往為立足社會、養家糊口而疲於奔命,基本上是為別人活著;
50歲以後,經濟基礎已經奠定,職責也已完成,這才到了實現自我、創造自我的最有價值的階段。
 
有人問他:你的長壽秘訣是什麼?他爽朗地笑起來:“哪有秘訣?我從來不知道自己能活這麼久。”
 
他的長壽並沒有遺傳因素,母親在他3歲時病逝,父親在他30歲那年也因腦溢血辭世。
他自幼到成年都是體弱多病,身體差到連參軍入伍的標准都達不到。
大學時,他還得了一場病,差點命赴黃泉。
 
松原泰道的長壽顯得不可思議。也許,只能從精神層面尋找長壽依據。
果然,他說,他一向看重 精神養生法。
 
親身經歷的三個故事
 
大學那年,他得了腎病,奄奄一息,卻遇到了一位好醫生。
醫生誠懇地對他說:"孩子,你太憂鬱了,你的病很大程度上是心理因素導致的。
我們能不能來個分工合作:外面的病由我來治,心裡的病由你來治
這番溫暖人心的話鼓舞了他,他開始樹立信心,積極樂觀地配合治療,腎病很快就好了。
 
這次康復給了他深刻的啟示:心態健康最重要!
 
他去外地講學,午間到一家餐廳吃了一個便當〈注:盒飯〉,便當裡有一個裝筷子、牙簽的紙袋,
上面印了一首歌詞:“見也難,別也難;有哭泣,有歡笑;時光像秋風匆匆吹過,一生只見了這一回。”
當時,有三個藝伎表演這.短歌,優美而感傷。第二年,他再去這個地方,已經見不到這三個人了,
就像歌裡說的那樣。
 
他意識到:一切稍縱即逝,對人對物都要用心珍惜。
 
1954年,北海道有一所寺廟請他去講經。
臨出發前,天氣預報說台風即將登陸,對方來電話通知他不要上船。於是他退了票。
沒想到,原定的那一班船被台風襲擊,整個船沉沒,死了1200人。
聽說船上有一個美國牧師,自己有救生圈,看到一個女人懷抱孩子卻沒有救生圈時,他把自己的救生圈給了女人,女人和孩子獲救了,他卻被淹死了。
 
這場悲劇震撼靈魂。從那時起,松原泰道覺得,他的生命是別人給的,他要學著多捨少取,回饋他人,
要“用懺悔和布施之心創造萬物共生的世界”。
 
他的精神養生法就這樣形成了。
 
三不原則
 
精神養生法還有個三不原則:不勉強,不浪費,不懶惰。
 
1.不勉強,指的是不好高騖遠,做脫離常規的事;
 
2.不浪費,指的是珍惜時間、珍惜身邊的事物、珍惜他人的善意;
 
3.不懶惰,指的是自己的事不能讓別人去做,不管年齡多大,都要鼓足熱情繼續學習。
中國有個名叫百丈的和尚提出一日不作,一日不食,他認為說得很有道理。
 
終生學習
 
有一位曾探訪松原泰道的人說:原以為,一位百歲老人會枯萎得如同核桃殼一般,
沒想到松原泰道的面容如此潤澤、明朗。他的笑容如冬日陽光般溫暖,
話語間有一種與萬物共生其榮的欣喜和感激。
 
近日,松原泰道在寫一本書《學習死亡》。他說:
死亡像不停行走的鐘,每一秒都存在,也許這是一本寫不完的書。
但寫不完有什麼關係呢?人生總是半途終結的。
我們每天只需盡力做好能做的事,力所不及的事,就交給蒼天吧。
 
他的座右銘是:終生學習,至死方休!



----
翻讀過沈家禎的金剛經的研究



沈家禎C.T. Chen,1913年12月15日-2007年11月27日),一作沈家楨,生於杭州,祖籍浙江紹興人,後歸化美籍,為中國與美國著名實業家、佛教居士,致力於漢傳佛教在美國的推廣,創立美國佛教會

目錄

生平

革命世家

沈家楨居士之父,名沈鈞葉(1884年-1951年),字馥生,15歲中秀才,入紹興府中學堂。1905年,隨革命先烈徐錫麟赴日留學,就讀日本早稻田大學政治經濟系,並加入光復會1907年徐錫麟秋瑾在安徽、浙江起義失敗,遭逮捕處決,鈞葉公也遭通緝,流亡海外。民國建立後,回國任浙江軍政府教育司長、政務廳長,1921年任浙江省議會議長,此後即回到家鄉,致力於公益。
其母親為虔誠的佛教徒,沈家楨於1913年生於杭州,自幼信仰佛教。
1937年,沈家楨畢業於上海交通大學電機科,進入國民政府的資源委員會工作。蘆溝橋事變爆發後,國民政府派遣他至德國柏林採購機器設備,並擔任中國政府與西門子電機公司的交涉代表。

對日抗戰時期

1939年,德國入侵波蘭,歐戰爆發,沈家楨為了讓機器設備順利運到中國,冒險留下,後取道挪威,於1940年才輾轉回到中國,在上海與居和如(1987年-1988年)女士結婚,隨後至昆明擔任中央電工廠工程師,1941年,長女沈梅出生,同年,升任廠長。1942年,為了購買工廠機器,冒險飛往印度加爾各答。1944年至重慶,任資源委員會副組長,次女沈蕙出生。
1945年,日本投降,至上海任資源委員會協調處代表。1947年,與交大校友成立人人企業公司,自美國及巴基斯坦進口糧食和麻布至中國。他並以自己的房子及財產捐助成立民生實驗所,幫助謝毓縉教授在中國首次研製成功白喉疫苗。1947年,自資源委員會辭職,創辦中國貿易暨工業發展公司。1949年,因國共內戰,他將公司遷至香港。1950年,因公至印度,結識張澄基1952年,沈家楨全家由香港經英國倫敦,移民美國紐約。

移民美國

移民至紐約後,沈家楨的全部財產皆因為國共內戰而損失,全家擠居在紐約的狹小公寓中,他開始研發製作冰淇淋的機器設備,準備以此謀生。但是因為一個機會,他與三名友人合資二千元美金,成立大西洋信貸公司,與美國懷特律師及他所在的美國凱德沃德大律師事務所合作,為土耳其政府談成一筆預算2000萬美元的輪船購買案,開始跨足航運業。
1955年,懷特律師邀請美國通用汽車公司副總裁羅傑·凱斯(Roger M. Kyes)、美國律師安德森,與沈家楨一同投資成立特利尼提航運公司,由懷特任董事長兼總裁,沈家楨任副總裁。他們與美國海灣石油公司談成一筆為期15年的合約,公司營運步入正軌。
此時安德森受美國艾森豪總統邀請,進入美國政府任財政部長。凱斯邀請當時剛卸任國防部長的威爾遜入股,將公司改名為奧斯維哥船運公司(Oswego Shipping Company),並兼併了美國海運船務公司(MTL)。
1964年,沈家楨建議公司加入北美五大湖航線業務。1967年,美國輪船公司購併奧斯維哥公司,由凱斯擔任執行長。不久懷特及凱斯過世,1970年,沈家楨成為美國輪船公司董事長兼執行長,主導公司走向。當時五大湖航線由加拿大主導,沈家楨以讓美國得到五大湖航線的主導權為提案主軸,向美國聯邦政府要求擔保,向花旗銀行貸款,以建立新船隊。沈家楨在華盛頓奔走,與美國商務部談判,最終成功取得五大湖航運史上第一筆由聯邦政府擔保的銀行貸款。沈家楨以這筆貸款為基礎,購買了兩艘新船,成功打入了五大湖航線。
因為這個案子的成功,美國通用運輸公司(General American Transportation Corporation,GATC)董事長湯普遜決定以5500萬美元加30萬股該公司股票購買MTL集團旗下的所有公司,但是條件是沈家楨必須留任美國 輪船公司執行長至少五年。沈家楨宣布將他的部份股票,價值185萬美金,捐助美國佛教會、華美協進社、及世界宗教研究院。
沈家楨留任執行長之後,仍然不斷擴大船隊。他提出了新的計劃,將美國中西部的煤礦,利用船隊運至東部,1974年,沈家楨建議通用運輸公司投資1.25億美元,在海灣造船公司建造巨型船塢,並幫助美國輪船購買新船。1976年,中西部煤碼頭正式啟用,讓每噸煤礦價格減少6美元以上,公司獲利豐厚。但是沈家楨婉謝了通用運輸公司力邀他出任MTL集團董事長的請求。
1980年,沈家楨退休,全力投入佛教的推廣。

佛教推廣

沈家楨居士在1960年開始,致力於佛教修行,並將他們在紐約博南郡肯特鎮擁有的大片土地都被用在佛教推廣之上,稱呼它是莊嚴世界園區。
他所建立與推動的宗教組織,有美國佛教會世界宗教研究院譯經院、大莊嚴寺等。

美國佛教會

沈家楨居士自幼信仰佛教,1960年代,佛學家張澄基至紐約演講,沈家楨與其為舊識,受其啟發,決心投入佛教推廣。1964年,與在舊金山弘法的樂渡法師,組織美國佛教會,由樂渡法師任首屆會長。1965年,其妻子居和如女士在紐約布朗區購買了一棟辦公大樓,捐贈給美國佛教會,建立了大覺寺,成為漢傳佛教在美國弘法的重鎮。聖嚴法師在當時也受到沈家楨居士的邀請,得以至美國弘法。1968年,沈家楨居士任美國佛教會副會長。

世界宗教研究院

1970年開始,沈家楨居士在紐約州的威徹斯特郡創立世界宗教研究院,目的在培育發展世界各宗教的學術研究及弘揚其教義。以基督教、佛教、伊斯蘭 教、猶太教及印度教等五大宗教作為優先研究對象,邀請學者研究及收集珍貴宗教手稿,並加以電腦化,建立目錄、微縮膠卷、及CD-ROM,以利於宗教文獻的 研究及保存。1972年,與紐約州立大學合作,把研究院移至州立大學長島石溪校區的梅維爾紀念館五樓。
1987年,居和如女士罹患骨癌,1988年過世。為紀念其妻子,沈家楨將其妻子名下的財產,在莊嚴世界內捐助成立「和如紀念圖書館」。1991年,研究院遷址至紐約州博南郡肯特鎮的「和如紀念圖書館」內。

譯經院

在1970年同時,他開始推動漢傳大乘佛教經典的英譯,經印順導師協助,在台灣福嚴精舍成立譯經院。由沈家楨居士任會長,顧法嚴、戈本捷居士任副院長,李恆戎、許巍文擔任顧問。後由張澄基教授接任會長,英譯《大寶積經》22卷,在美國出版。
1978年,由聖嚴法師出任會長,並將譯經院遷至北投中華佛學研究所內。1979年,譯經院改組,由中華佛學研究所接辦。

大莊嚴寺

1975年,沈家楨夫婦夢見一座莊嚴的寺院,決定將他們在紐約博南郡肯特鎮的土地,撥出一部份捐給美國佛教會,創建大莊嚴寺。1976年由敏智、仁俊聖嚴三位法師,率領紐約大學的學生,開始闢建寺院。大莊嚴寺由沈家楨夫婦捐助,貝聿銘負責設計,美國佛教會出錢出力,慢慢的出現了規模。
1980年退休之後,沈家楨在紐約博南郡肯特鎮這塊土地建立莊嚴世界,並致力於大莊嚴寺的建造。

佛教電腦資訊庫功德會

1994年,朱斐、沈乃宣、於淩波鄭振煌等居士在大莊嚴寺聚會,認為應該致力於推動佛經電腦化。在沈家楨的策劃推動下,由佛學專家顧偉康教授及電腦專家張景全碩士主持,首先將丁福保的《佛學大辭典》及各種《金剛經》的版本、註釋加以電腦數位化。洛杉磯大覺蓮社的創辦人沈乃宣居士繼而加入,號召義工,將《蕅益大師全集》全部數位化。
同年,沈乃宣、張景文,陳君珩居士代表世界宗教研究院至台灣訪問,得到中央研究院謝清俊教授、佛光山慈惠法師、謝玲玲居士,大願基金會楊國屏教授等人的支持,組成中華電子佛典協會。1996年後,逐步將大藏經數位化。

往生

沈家楨居士在2007年11月27日往生,享壽94歲。

家庭

沈家楨妻子為居和如(1987年-1988年),兩人生有三女,沈梅、沈蕙、沈馥,與一子沈傳縉。

2012年10月12日 星期五

Albert Y. C. Yu 虞有澄(1995)Intel Inside



虞有澄(1995)Albert Yu著,程文燕協助整理『我看英代爾華裔副總裁的現身說法 Inside Intel by Albert Yu

《INTEL創新之祕》


 
作者:季安, 虞有澄
出版社:天下文化
出版日:1999-

Intel executive Albert Yu to retire

6/27/2002 11:18 AM EDT

Intel Corp. today announced the retirement of Dr. Albert Y. C. Yu, Intel senior vice president and Strategic Programs director, effective September 5. Albert Y. C. Yu, 61, joined Intel in 1972 and has held a number of senior management positions with the company during his career. Most recently, Yu led Intel's international expansion activity, and has been responsible for driving Intel's strategy in the optoelectronics area. Previously, he served as senior vice president and general manager of the Intel Architecture Group, leading Intel's microprocessor development for 16 years, spanning the development of the Intel 386 processor to the latest Pentium 4 processor.
"Albert Yu is well known and highly respected both within Intel and throughout the semiconductor industry," said Craig Barrett, chief executive officer, in a released statement. "Albert has been a key contributor to Intel's success over the years and we wish him well in retirement."
Prior to joining Intel, Yu was with Fairchild Research and Development Lab, based in Palo Alto, Calif., where he managed semiconductor device research and development activities.



Interview with Albert Yu
September 15, 2005
Atherton, California
RW: Albert Yu obtained his PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University and began his semiconductor career at Palo Alto 's Fairchild R&D. He was later recruited to Intel by Andy Grove and began his distinguished thirty year association with Intel. In this 2005 interview, he recounts how as Senior Vice President, he oversaw the development of the 386, the 486, many of the Pentiums and the revolutionary Itanium.
RW: Welcome.
AY: Thank you.
RW: Could you tell us a little bit about growing up, your childhood, your family?
AY: Sure. I was born in Shanghai in China and moved with my parents To Taiwan. It was kind of interesting as my father was opening a sales office in Taiwan and we were supposed to go back to Shanghai after a couple years. But we couldn't go back because the communists took over mainland China . So I went to high school in Taiwan . And then my father' job moved again to Hong Kong . So I moved with the family to Hong Kong . And then I came to the United States for undergraduate at Cal Tech in Pasadena and then graduate school at Stanford. So that's sort of the early days of my life.

RW: What business was your father in?
AY: My father worked for a British chemical company called Imperial Chemical Industries. And he was really sales. That's why, you know, he went to Taiwan to set up the Regional Sales Office. He was in charge of it. Then he went to Hong Kong which was the Asia headquarter for his company. So he was in sales of chemicals, the dyeing stuff and so forth.

RW: What made you choose electrical engineering for your studies?
AY: That was totally by accident. When I was in high school, I was really interested in music and western music specifically. So I was able to get some RCA records, 33 RPM, to listen to them on an old record changer and amplifier/speakers. And those were not very good. So I tried to fool around with equipment and tried to make it better. And that got me into electronics. So for a long time, I wanted to be an audio engineer but, of course, I never became an audio engineer. And so I was very interested in the electrical stuff from that point of view. And when I went to Cal Tech, it's really more of a science institution, lot of people interested in math and physics, and electrical engineering was sort of secondary at Cal Tech. And I guess I realized that, after I graduate, I need to get a job. And it seemed that I could get a job better as engineer than a physicist. So that's how I got into it. But the early days I was really interested in music in hi-fidelity, that kind of a thing.
RW: That's exciting. Now what was your first job then out of Stanford?
AY: That was quite interesting because when I got out of school at that time with a PhD, most of the jobs were on the East Coast - the classical places, Bell Labs, IBM, RCA and so forth. And I didn't really want to move from California . There's only one company interviewed me. It turned out to be Fairchild. And the interesting part was when I went to Fairchild, I was interviewing with Herb Kroemer who was doing laser stuff, who later on became a Nobel Prize winner. And he was at Fairchild. And my thesis was in optics. So I went to Fairchild to interview to see if I wanted to join his group. But at the same time, Andy Grove was hiring people for his physics department. And he listened to my thesis and thought it was very interesting and we started talking. I told Andy, I said I'd really rather not be doing optical stuff and do something different because I was interested to learn something new. So he said well why don't you come and work on silicon stuff? So, it was kind of an accident that I got involved with silicon and Fairchild IN 1967. I could have easily gone to Bell Labs or IBM.

RW: So what did you develop at Fairchild, what processes?
AY: At Fairchild, I was working on devices. One of the first devices I work on was schottky barriers. In fact, I was working with Carver Mead. He was a consultant of Fairchild and I knew him at Cal Tech. So we worked on that quite a bit and published some very good papers. Then later on, I worked bipolar transistors and MOS devices. That was fairly early days if you will. So it's mostly device research. And I think soon after I joined Fairchild, Andy Grove, Gordon Moore and Bob Noyce left for to found Intel. That was in 1968. So I was still at Fairchild. As time goes on, I got increasingly frustrated because, Fairchild R&D lab was in Palo Alto and the manufacturing in Mountain View and the two never seemed to talk to each other. And I felt I developed a whole bunch of interesting devices but nobody ever wanted to pick it up. What's interesting was that Fairchild had a diode plant in San Rafael and the fellow there Ed Browder was interested in what I was doing. So I actually transferred the process from Palo Alto to San Rafael all by myself. I went there every week to get the product into production. That was the most exciting thing for me to get products into production. So I was pretty frustrated after about four and a half years at Fairchild. Andy Grove called me and said, do you want to join Intel? They're looking for somebody in the manufacturing area. I had no experience in the manufacturing area. I was then more of a device researcher. But I thought that's great because I could work on something that actually would go to the customers and go to the marketplace. So I said I'd be happy to come and work on manufacturing. And that was 1972. So I joined Intel in 1972. Intel was in Mountain View , in one small building and everybody was there. It was just a small place and construction was going on to improve the FAB capabilities all the time. I was responsible for taking two inch wafers to three inch wafers in Fab. That was my very first project. And what struck me was how open and helpful everybody was at Intel versus Fairchild where there was a big gap between R&D and manufacturing. And I didn't really know much about manufacturing but lot the people there were very knowledgeable taught me, tell me what the right thing to do and some of this secrets, of some of these processing. Our team also came up with new processes. It was a phenomenal time for me, that I learned and contributed so much about manufacturing. So that was the beginning of my Intel days.

RW: Well that followed Andy Grove too because -
AY: Right.
RW: - he - he had no manufacturing experience -
AY: That's true.
RW: - until he got there.
AY: Right. And I think that he hired two people, one responsible for fab, the other responsible for assembly tests. So he hired people that knew those areas that reported to him and he learned from them. And I reported to Gene Flath at the time who was responsible for the fabs.

RW: So what else did you do at Intel?
AY: I was in fab for a couple years. And then I think it was a big economic downturn in '73, '74 timeframe and lot of our product ran into trouble in reliability, moisture and stuff like that. So they asked me to go into reliability engineering. And I was not very happy about doing that. I thought, you know, manufacturing our products is where I wanted to be. Reliability seemed to be something that didn't require that much technical knowledge. It turns out I was totally wrong. The technical content of reliability engineering was very high, plus I think that was the first time I began to interface with customers. Before I was the inside person. I dealt with R&D, I dealt with manufacturing. But in reliability, you got to talk to the customers because there were problems. You got to go understand the problems, work with them to solve it. So that turned out to be one of the job I learned the most, both on the technical side as well as the interfacing, talking to customers and understand what their concerns and how to make things better for them. So that was very exciting. And then after that, I became head of Technology Development. Actually Technology Development was the heart of Intel if you will. I was developing EPROMS and the first fast static RAM. Those were really very-very successful products. As you know, Intel was in memory at that time beginning with 1103, a dynamic RAM. That's when I did the two inch to three inch wafer conversion with 1103. And then later on we developed EPROM and the SRAM. So that's what I was doing at Intel. That was until about '77. So it was about five years from '72 to '77.

RW: Could you - thinking back to those days of the two inch and three inch wafers, could you ever envision the size they are now? I mean, if somebody had told you that, what would you have said?
AY: The scale has grown so much, it's unbelievable. Compared with today, running twelve inch wafers with hundreds of people in the fab. When I did the two inch to three inch conversion, I had only three people working for me - two engineers and one technician. The four of us basically did the whole process. Now, it's an army of people doing that. Of course, everything's much more complex. The geometry is much smaller and everything else. I had no concept, at that time how expensive everything would become like today. It was only three, four people on a project at that time.

RW: So how long did you stay then at Intel, that first time?
AY: I stayed until about '77 and I was working on memories and technology development. I saw microprocessor being done as Intel introduced the first microprocessor 4004 in 1971. And I get to know Federico Faggin, the 4004 designer very well and talked with him quite a bit. I got very intrigued by that. And then something kind of clicked in my head in 1976 that we already knew about the Moore's law, that transistor density would double every eighteen months or something of that sort. So if you did a simple extrapolation, you said Oh my God, we're going to make millions of these microprocessors. We were making lots of memory chips, and the application was obvious. You put them in computers as the memory usage in the computer was limitless. But for microprocessor, it is a different picture. Where would you use it for? At that time, they were used for traffic controllers and some industrial controls, pretty mundane application, not particularly of high volume at that time. In 1976, I sort of came to the realization that there's going to be millions of microprocessors produced as time went on. So where was it going to go? Well I thought it was obvious: It's going to go into the home. So home computers were going to come and be in the millions. But remember that's 1976. That's before Apple was founded. I actually got so excited about that and left Intel and got together with a couple of friends and started a company doing home computer. That was really early days, if you will. There's no floppy disk drive. There's no operating system. And, in fact, only thing that's available is BASIC from Microsoft. And so we worked with Bill Gates about having a BASIC running on our machine and developed a whole bunch of software. But we were way ahead of its time. Looking back, home computer didn't really become real until like 1994 or 1995 when the CD ROM came along and Pentium processor came along and hard disc and all that stuff. So I was little crazy and way ahead of its time and did a home computer called Video Brain. And, it was kind of interesting for me because I had to sell the computer through retail channels, Sears Roebuck, Macy's, all these people and I went on the retail counters to sell to the consumers directly. It became very clear to me after a little while that people didn't know what that was. And at that time, about '78, '79, Apple introduced the Apple II computer. That was aimed for a totally different audience. It was for computer enthusiasts and so forth. And the Apple obviously took off from that point on. My home computer never really took off. But I learned so much about it. Would I do that over again given knowing what I know? I think I probably would have done it over again because I learned so much during that period of time on everything - not manufacturing, not R&D but marketing, sales, cash flow, products, getting software put together on the computer that helped me a lot later on. So it was a phenomenal experience but not financially very successful.

RW: Well who else was in there with you at Video Brain?
AY: The couple of Intel people who came with me - the technical guy with me was from Fairchild - was not from Intel. The two other guys left Intel, went with me, Bruce McKay in manufacturing and Rich Melmon in marketing that went with me. I invited Andy Grove to take a look at our system and he was skeptical and said well why anybody would need one. And he was skeptical about Apple also. That was such early days in 1977- '78 timeframe.

RW: Now did - did David Chung - did he -
AY: Yes David Chung was a technical guy that worked with me from Fairchild. Right.
RW: And you - you used the F8?
AY: That's correct. We used the F8
RW: Why did you choose the F8?
AY: Well it's because that was the chip David designed. We should have picked the Intel chip but we didn't. We didn't quite understand at the time the importance of compatibility software and things like that. It was not clear at the time. There was no operating system also at that time. CPM wasn't even quite there yet. So that was before "microcomputer" came along. PC came later but with Apple and the CPM Machines. Rich Melmon was our marketing guy from Intel

RW: Yeah, he recruited one of my guys.
AY: Is that right?
RW: Yeah. Mike Peak .
AY: Oh sure. Of course.
RW: and then about a year late, Mike came back to the…
AY: Right. That's good. I remember Mike really well. He's a terrific guy.
RW: He really is.
AY: Yeah.

RW: So you went back to Intel.
AY: Well not quite. Video Brain was not successful. So in 1979, I became a pioneer again. I decided that home computer was not what people want at the time. However, there was an opportunity in China that was before the relationship with the US got normalized. They were in such a poor state that I talked to some people there and they're very interested to learn about microcomputers because they used Russian mainframe that broke down all the time. So we decided to sell microcomputers in China with CPM operating systems. It was really distributing- as we didn't build the computers. We bought the computers from companies like Dynabyte and Cromemco and sold the computers, totally with software to China . We also trained them how to do programming in FORTRAN and BASIC and all that stuff. So we did that for about a couple years. Again, that was very, very early on. China at that time, was totally different from China today, where the business is just booming now. At that time, they were really a closed communist country. They really didn't understand profit and things of that kind. So it's very difficult actually. But again, I learned a lot during that period of time and I went to China about four or five times a year from 1979 all the way to 1981. That was quite successful and we made some money out of it. But I felt it's not something long term for me because the environment-I was not pro-business. So in 1981, Andy Grove called me and said, “you had your fun now. Maybe it's time to come back". So I did. So I was gone for four years from Intel.

RW: So what did you do when you got back?
AY: At that time in 1981, the major problem was Japanese companies were assaulting Intel's memory business. And the biggest thing I remembered at the time was a fellow Anderson, at HP saying that America 's DRAM quality was much, much worse than that of the Japanese. And so I was put in charge of Quality and Reliability. And that was a major challenge how to get better in quality, not only in reality but also in perception. Very often quality is perception as well. So I did that for about three years and we were able to improve the quality of all the Intel products by a factor of thirty. The defect level got much, much lower. It was something that Intel had to do it and I did it. I feel really proud of it. That was kind of a broadening experience; I became more of a senior manager. Before that, I was really a first line manager. Even at Video Brain, which was a small company, that did not have much of a management structure. But during those times, I learned to be the second and third level manager. And that was a phenomenal experience. Learning management in Intel was probably just about the best place there is to learn and to make mistakes with people help you and grew. And so that was a very good time for me. But eventually, as I got so excited all the way in 1976 about microprocessors and computers, I wanted to go back to microprocessors and work on computers again. And so that's how in 1984, I got together with Dave House who was in charge of the microprocessor group. And I said I really wanted to work in the microprocessor area. And he said sure come on over. So I started in the microprocessor group in 1984 and started out doing product planning and very quickly become Assistant General Manager with Dave. And as time went on, I become “two in the box” with Dave House for a long time. I think we were working together for about seven years. And that was when 386 came out. That was a huge success for Intel. The design of 386 was doing so well it taped out right after the July 4th weekend because nobody else were using the computers. So the computer's available for design. So we were ahead of schedule by several months. And the 386 came out and Compaq jumped on it and product became a phenomenal success. It was 1987 when Intel really hit big time in terms of profit and revenue and everything else. And I was right in the middle of it; I was so happy. Then, of course, after that the a whole bunch of processors that I was responsible for - 486, Pentiums and so on and so forth. So I'd been responsible for microprocessors since basically '84 all the way until year 2000. So that's a long time, like sixteen years. And I worked closely with Dave House, Paul Otellini and Carl Everett and whole bunch of people at Intel. I thought I had the best job in the world.
It was appropriate to add a note here that when the home computer finally emerged in high volume in the '94-'95 time frame with the then power Pentium processors, good graphics and graphical operating system-Windows, new CD-ROM and enough software applications that appealed to home users, it is amazing that our original concept of a home computer in '77 was very similar to what eventual became the real home computer, 17 years earlier. I was happy to be a key player supplying the “Intel Inside” of the home computers.

RW: How about the attempts to obsolete the X86? First there was a 432 and then the - what is it the 860 -
AY: 860, right.

RW: -and then there's now the Itanium. And pretty much these have failed in these attempts.
AY: I think Itanium has not failed. I think the Itanium chapter has not been written yet. My understanding, as I retired from Intel three years ago in end of 2002, it's gaining momentum but not to the volume as the Intel architecture yet. But let me talk about that for a little bit. I think it took Intel a while to realize the power of the franchise of the instruction set that's totally compatible. And IBM did that in their 360 days and I think took Intel a little bit to understand it. And there was always technical ideas coming along. If you do something different, you could have a higher performance, a better processor. 432 was one of those that was supposed to be much better. I was not directly involved with it but I was very close to the team. And that was supposed to be redundant and reliable, all these good features. But it was too complicated and didn't have the performance. And then was the RISC challenge. That was a big battle where Sun was the first one with Sparc and MIPS with their chips and then IBM Power PC. And they were saying the RISC architecture was better than the Intel architecture and they're going to take over the world and so on and so forth. About that period of time, we had two products going on. One was the 486, which was totally instruction compatible with 386. Therefore, all the previous software could run on it. At the same time, there were some technical virtues of RISC and in fact, many of these features were incorporated in the 486, which outperformed some of RISC chips So we decided to do another chip which is not to replace 486 but like a coprocessor if you will. That was the 860, which was a very much a coprocessor, focused on floating point and so forth. And again, the volume was too small. The whole economy of the standard product is volume. And the 386, 486, Pentium – the volume is enormous. So the costs came down and although the chip may be bigger than if you design something specific for the application but the cost of that would be much lower for a high volume processor. A general purpose processor tends to be lower cost than anything that you design specifically. The 860 was successful in the graphics processing area, but the volume was small. The Itanium is a different story, as the idea of going to 64 bits is a very different story. We believed at the time that 16 to 32 bits transition was going to happen by definition because all the mainframes were 32 bits. But 32 to 64 probably would take some time. And that transition takes more than technology. We really need a good partner to make it happen. HP emerged as the leading partner because they have developed this technology that looked very, very good. We signed a deal with them in 1994. Dave House and I were involved with Lou Platt and sorry to hear Lou passed away. He's a really terrific guy. And so we combined a new instruction 64 bit computer but still had built into it compatibility of 32 bit software. So it would be best of both worlds plus HP would be a major computer user who would use the 64 bit computing. So it's really a combination of different things. I didn't think we ever thought about obsoleting the Intel Architecture because we felt that as the market got bigger, the Intel Architecture would continue to go on to the highest volume. But we need something higher end for 64 bit and for high end servers. So that was what it was designed for. I think up to this date, the volume is still relatively small as compared with the main Intel Architecture. So that's in a few minutes, the history of all that stuff.

RW: Well the 64 bit X86, was that done an official Intel effort or was it done in the back room?
AY: It was done in the back room. It just like the 386, you know, where it was done in the back room also. But it was pretty clear. We did not announce that to the outside world. We put in the 64 bit into the Intel Architecture. We put in some other features we didn't typically talk about anyway. But we put it in but don't really announce it until we need to. So that's what we did.

RW: But was there some sense the Itanium was a competitor. Is that one of the reasons it was held back or -
AY: In a way it could be a competitor if we were not clear on the positioning. Itanium was never intended to be a replacement for Intel Architecture. It was never thought of that way. It's always to be for high end servers. And I think there probably some confusion. Some people might think that we're going to take Itanium to replace Intel architecture. That's never been the intention. It will be an additional architecture, and that was the intent. And the intent was also that you could run the 32 bit software without any change. So it had two instruction sets: Intel X86 instruction set as well as the 64 bit instruction set.

RW: How does on these development - how does the Israeli design - they've done several of the Pentiums, have they not?
AY: Right, right.
RW: What - what gives them their edge?
AY: Well the Israel design center started long, long time ago. It's like 1975. They're right next to Technion which is one of the best universities there. So Intel is physically located next door and has been able to attract the best brains out of the university. And so basically the best brains of Israel . So Intel have had a tremendous advantage in that space. Now it took a long time for a team to learn how to do a processor well. It's non- trivial and they had some very successful products on some Pentium variations and also they had some problems with some products that we have to discontinue. But the most successful product which now is biggest of all is Pentium M. Pentium M was a product that was actually got started just before I left the microprocessor group. At the time we said gee, frequency kept going higher, the heat kept on going higher too. You can't go that way. And particularly if you think about anything to do with notebook and something like that. You want the performance but you can't have the heat. So the Israel team came out with some really novel ideas that took the Pentium III architecture and improved it such that the performance was just as good or comparable to Pentium IV but the clock rate was less. The clock was directly proportionate to heat so it turned out to be comparable to performance than Pentium IV but much lower power. And that became a huge success. Not only the Pentium M processor but the combination with Wi-Fi, as Centrino is branding of the processor along with the Wi-Fi THAT become a huge success in the notebook area. I'm out of Intel now but it's very clear going forward the dual processors, quad core processors and so forth going to be based on that Pentium M core which is much lower power than the Pentium IV. So Israel had done phenomenally but it took a long time. It started in 1975 and it took them like twenty-five years to get to where they can do world class designs. It's a phenomenal team.

RW: Well, what do you attribute the success of Intel to overall as a corporation? I mean, they managed so well. And typically promote from within. The - they're not bringing in the people from the outside and like you see so often in American corporations when they need somebody to save the corporation.
AY: Well, that's a very good question. I think there are several factors. One of the factors was the people at the top from the beginning. You know, Gordon, Bob and Andy each had their strengths but they each also had their weaknesses. But the three of them in combination was almost perfect. Andy, in the early days, was a chief operating guy. Gordon was the visionary and Bob was Mr. Outside. And there's very few people can do all three things well. And they worked so cohesively. I've never seen anything like that, in all my years, not only in semiconductor industry but in other industries. And then I think the transition of the leadership has been extremely smooth. Bob passed away and Gordon became Chairman and Andy became CEO. Recently, Craig Barrett became Chairman and Paul Otellini became CEO. But the transition was very smooth. This happened with the transition of leadership of the microprocessor group as well from Dave House to me to others. It's like nothing has changed. So there's no major disruption from a culture and from a leadership point of view. There is one thing that I get so excited about Intel is that I have worked with just about the smartest, the best people I ever worked with. And that is why I went to work every day. It's because it's so fun to work in that environment. The combination of the best people I ever interacted with, the leadership just seemed so consistent and the transitions were so smooth. For every company, the issue is always people. And I think that Intel has, for a long period of time, had some of the strongest people around. And very typical if some people left, it didn't matter because the bench was so strong. People moved up and things went on. I think this is the number one strength of Intel. The other part of Intel that's really strong was, I think that very few companies can do that, was an incredibly strong product line. You need a phenomenal manufacturing operation and you need a phenomenal marketing and sales team. Very few companies have all of them so strong. Intel always was the leader in silicon technology and the product line always has been very strong. And Andy Grove - I credited him for getting the marketing absolutely to the highest level of the hi- tech companies. I still consider Apple doing a very good job in marketing but Intel is probably equal. The sales and marketing teams were really strong. I remember going out in the field all the time with the sales people. Those guys were really knowledgeable about products and have a good relationship with the customers. So if you have all these together, everything shines. Now sometimes not every one of them were at the peak. Sometimes the products were a little less than what it ought to be. Sometimes the manufacturing was not cranking out as many as they should, or some of the marketing programs were not as coherent as they should be. Then you were not as good as you can be. But when all these come together, it's unbelievable. And Intel have a long period of time where all these products, manufacturing, sales, marketing all came together. And that's very rare among companies. I'm currently involved with many small companies and it's really difficult to have all these pieces with excellence all together.

RW: Well what part do you think the Intel University internal training plays in that?
AY: Very, very big role. Intel University offers technical as well as management classes. The technical classes are not unique. You can go to universities and take technical class. But the management classes were really, really good. There are classes about Intel culture; how to do performance management etc. and that's very uniquely Intel. You can't learn that anywhere else. And these were taught mostly by Intel people. I was heavily involved with teaching when I was at Intel and it's phenomenally satisfying because every time I'd teach, I learned something new. And it was always great interacting with people who have zillions of questions that were just really stimulating.

RW: Guess it's really a shame because they - you wouldn't take some MBA guy and say congratulations, you're really doing well. We're going to make you an engineer. But they take an engineer and with - with really no training say, okay, now you're a manager. And how do you learn? And that's what most of us gain.
AY: Absolutely.

RW: We just stumbled onto it. And it was wonderful to be told there are three kind of meetings. And here's the rules. At other companies they don't know. They don't know that.
AY: That's one of the most interesting things. I've been at Intel so long, almost thirty years. And now I am working with a lot of small companies, trying to help them grow. I sit on their boards. I have to tell them a few things you have to do like manage by objective. You have to have a planning process and something simple like a waterfall charts showing how your forecast vs. actual every month. These are intuitive to some of us but a lot of people have no clue. And so I've been trying to help lot of these companies and to instill some of these disciplines in managing. I think Intel's really in a class by itself. And I think a lot had to do with Andy himself. From very early on, he taught the middle management people himself. And later on, he taught a class at Stanford and Intel on strategy. And that's a different level of stuff but he's been a phenomenal teacher. I think many, many people from Intel benefited from the teaching of him. So his influence is just unparalleled.

RW: So you're out now. Are you a venture capitalist or what do you do now?
AY: I'm not a venture capitalist in the sense that I have couple hundred million dollars to invest. That's not what I do. I work with a number of venture capital firms in looking at different investments and if interesting to me, I would put in some of my own money and sit on the boards and things like that. I sit on seven boards right now, three of them are public and four of them are private. And it's really a blast because, like I say, I learned and practiced so much at Intel and I feel I can really benefit these people. And also I'm learning new things. As I mentioned, I've been really in the microprocessor space for a very long time. None of the companies I am involved with are in microprocessors for obvious reasons. I got bored with it. I got to do something different. So I'm learning new things. So that's truly, truly exciting. And the other thing I am doing is non-profit. I have a foundation that supports medical research, biotechnology research, stem cell research at Stanford , Cal Tech and UCLA. And that's lot of fun. I'm learning new things. I interact with some of faculties, students, some of the smartest people around creating new stuff in biotechnology and so forth. I don't know much about it yet. I'm still in the learning process. And it's great fun.

RW: Why is this Silicon Valley area - why is it so innovative and what are the factors that really seem to make it work?
AY: Well I think a lot to do with how do the people with different backgrounds interact: technical people, marketing people, venture capitalists.... You run into people, you're your neighborhood, or in restaurants, with different disciplines and you talk to each other and sparks fly. That's how it goes, right. And we have such a free environment. I'm an immigrant to this country. I never lived outside of California in the US . Lot of people asked me was there any discrimination as I'm not a native born American. I never felt that. I felt I'm just like anybody else. And here you have people from India , from China , from everywhere. So it's really a phenomenal place that you have all these people from different area, different views and the sparks fly and creativity come about when these people interact. I think it's a unique place.

RW: Well you're also allowed to fail.
AY: Absolutely. I've failed many times. It was fine. I think that's another important point. Failure is okay if you learn from it.

RW: Well, in Japan , it's not an option.
AY: In China , it's not so good either. And it's not so good in Europe . People look at you Oh, you failed. Here you fail, you move on and you learn a lot of things. A lot of CEO's that we recruit failed before. But he learned from the failures and say "Oh my God, I'm not going to do these and those again." So in some ways, it's a blessing. So absolutely, you're right. We're not afraid to fail. Learn and move on.

RW: Well thank you so much. Been very interesting.
AY: Great. I want to show you a couple of thing if it's okay.
RW: Yes.
AY: The first one is a plaque that I got when I left the microprocessor group in year 2000. It showed eight chips that I was responsible for from the early 386 all the way to Pentium IV. And if you see the top line reads "1.3 billion served". It was like McDonald, we served so many microprocessors. I'm really proud of that obviously. And the other thing was that I've written two books. I hope you can see them. One of them is in Chinese on the right and it was a best seller in Taiwan and China . It was very interesting because Intel was perceived to be a big, aggressive company in Taiwan and China . And my book humanized Intel to a large extent. They said Oh, you know, these Intel people were hard working people anyway. So it had some pretty positive effects on Intel's image in China and Taiwan . And the others one's a English book on "Creating the Digital Future" to talk about my thirty years at Intel. So anyway, these are the things I just thought I'd brought and show it to you and the audience.

RW: Great. Well thanks again Albert.
AY: Sure. It's a pleasure.


 *******

October 12, 2012 9:02 AM ET

Capital Markets

Company Overview of Tallwood Venture Capital

Executive Profile

Albert Y. C. Yu Ph.D.


AgeTotal Calculated CompensationThis person is connected to 11 Board Members in 11 different organizations across 14 different industries.

See Board Relationships
71--

Background

Dr. Albert Y. C. Yu, Ph.D. served as a Senior Vice President and the General Manager of the core Intel businesses like microprocessors and associated silicon, chipsets, boards, and software for over 16 years. Dr. Yu is employed at Tallwood Venture Capital. He serves as a private venture investor. He has been active in investing and mentoring high technology companies. He was a Venture Partner at Walden International and retired as its Senior Vice President. He was also ...

Corporate Headquarters

3000 Sand Hill Road
Menlo Park, California 94025-7113

United States

Phone: 650-473-6750
Fax: 650-473-6755

Board Members Memberships

Former Director
Former Director
Former Director
Director
Director
1999-N/A
Former Director
2005-Present
Independent Director, Chairman of Nominating Committee and Member of Compensation Committee
2005-2008
Former Independent Director and Member of Compensation Committee
2005-Present
Director and Member of Compensation Committee
2006-2008
Former Independent Non-Executive Director

Education

MS
Stanford University
PhD
Stanford University
BS
California Institute of Technology

2012年10月7日 星期日

Christopher Hitchens



 On the Road to Timisoara
  Christopher Hitchens. 1990
The Best of Granta Travel ,


書評

一個美國公共知識分子肖像


偶爾翻閱嚴肅期刊的讀者都知道,“克里斯托弗·希欽斯”(Christopher Hitchens),這個名字極易引起極端的情緒——要麼欣喜,要麼暴怒,抑或兩者兼得。總而言之,他的文章不可不讀。他是我們的雜食性知識分子,不論你 喜歡他還是討厭他,都不得不承認他的機智。在發表了針對修女特蕾莎(Mother Teresa)大不敬言論之後,他一直以肆意批評上帝及其教徒而聞名。他寫過一篇一本正經的調侃文章,要求以戰犯的罪名審判亨利·基辛格(Henry Kissinger),跟着又被曾經的左派友人打上了“叛徒”的標籤,因為他大張旗鼓支持阿富汗和伊拉克的戰爭。(他以一篇令人難忘的文字——他寫下的許 多文字都當得起“令人難忘”這個形容詞——進行反擊,說那些批評他的反戰人士是“這樣的一類人,這類人如果發現自家孩子的床上有毒蛇,他們的第一反應就是 給動物保護協會打電話。”)他不幸罹患食道癌,生命垂危(譯者按,希欽斯於2011年12月去世,此文寫作時間在此之前),卻以超乎常人的鎮定面對這個事 實。
他的第五本文集——恐怕也是最後一本了——可以告訴我們,究竟是什麼,將使我們在他離世之後仍會對他念念不忘。
按圖放大
Brooks Kraft/Corbis
克里斯托弗·希欽斯

先從最明顯的地方講起吧。他多產得讓人摸不着頭腦。《有待商榷》(Arguably)是一本分量十足的書,共有780多頁,收錄了107篇文章。其 中一些文章提到了他在阿富汗、烏干達和伊朗等艱苦地區的廣泛遊歷;另一些文章雖然出自書齋,也是出自一位飽學之士的書齋。文集當中的文章發表於各種出版 物,同時他還發表了反宗教的暢銷評論《上帝沒什麼了不起》(God Is Not Great)、簡短卻廣受好評的托馬斯·傑斐遜(Thomas Jefferson)傳記、名為《希欽斯22條》(Hitch-22)的回憶錄,以及各式各樣的論辯、閱讀指南、信件和反駁文章。與此同時,他每天喝下的 酒足以讓大多數人步履蹣跚。2006年,伊恩·帕克(Ian Parker)在《紐約客》雜誌發表了一篇一錘定音的希欽斯小傳,其中提到,希欽斯的寫作速度可以媲美有些人的閱讀速度。

博學是希欽斯的第二個不凡特質。他有時也會為此沾沾自喜,不止一次,他一邊從書架上抽出一部有待重評的經典,一邊告訴大家,他第一次讀這部經典是在 12歲。不過,他的博學絕不僅僅是一種人前賣弄的把戲。《有待商榷》當中的一大部分都是他撰寫的書評,他為《大西洋月刊》撰寫的書評則是其中最為志存高遠 的篇章。拿到待評著作——比如關於斯蒂芬·斯彭德、格拉厄姆·格林或者薩默塞特·毛姆的全新文學傳記,以及新出版的菲利普·拉金或者傑西卡·密特福德 (Jessica Mitford)書信集——之後,他會把它們當作大發議論的借口,用他那武斷的洞察力去剖析相關作家的整個生平和全部著作。撰寫書評的時候,他經常都會重 讀幾本相關著作,唯恐自己的驚人記憶有所不足。他在撰寫書評方面的拿手好戲是,不僅可以讓你免除閱讀所評書籍的勞苦,還會讓你覺得自己剛剛聽完了一個暢快 淋漓的學術講座。
非要給這一類的文集編排一個結構的話,我們就得把他的文學評論跟他的政論和國際新聞報道區分開來。然而,他的頭腦並不受這些條條框框的約束。他的魅 力之一就在於他經常用小說和詩歌來佐證自己關於戰爭和政治的評論文字。他有篇文章名義上是在評論布殊一家,其中卻說到了布萊希特、王爾德、奧威爾、狄更 斯、貝克特、金斯利·艾米斯、奧伯龍·沃、伊夫林·沃和喬伊斯·卡里,簡直沒給布殊一家留下什麼篇幅。他還有一篇關於領土分割的權威評論,引述的重點對象 卻是英國詩人奧登,而非歷史學家。(順便提一句,此文記述了英國在簽訂關於領土的城下之盟時,犯下了愚蠢錯誤,令人自慚自警。此文剛好在美國入侵伊拉克的 那個月發表,因此我很想知道,寫作的時候,他是否曾經停筆思忖,美國究竟有沒有能力讓那個國家恢復正常秩序。)

從廣度和高度上來說,他的寫作範圍都堪稱不同凡響。不管是評述黎巴嫩的政治,還是闡述哈利·波特系列中的概念與社會關係,他都同樣自信。他可以從亨 利八世的宮廷寫到巴德爾-邁因霍夫集團(譯者按:Baader-Meinhof gang,二戰後形成的德國左翼武裝組織),跟着又轉入口交是不是一項具有強烈美國特色的性活動的問題。他對《十誡》進行評估,並提出一些頗有見地的修正 意見。他還對各種委婉說辭大加撻伐,最生動的例子便是親身體驗水刑,由此便可以言之鑿鑿地斷言:水刑並不是什麼“強化型訊問技術”,而是不折不扣的“拷 打”。

他的信仰之一就是“無信仰”
儘管我喜歡希欽斯(他跟我妻子是多年好友,他喝了酒之後的言談也堪稱是一種令人迷醉的行為藝術),儘管他生命垂危,但我並不能對他嘴下留情,因為這 樣也違背了他所信奉的精神。有鑒於此,咱們不妨坦白承認,這本文集當中的確有一些極度自以為是的文章。他從來都不怕往別人的傷口上撒鹽,因此就說卡倫·休 斯(Karen Hughes)是一頭“布殊親友團里的無知叫驢”,說肯尼迪總統不僅是“一個道德敗壞的政治災難”,還是“一個長皰流膿的菲羅克忒忒斯(譯者 按:Philoctetes,希臘神話人物,因為身染惡毒而遭奧德修斯遺棄)。”他經常自我重複,有一些文章帶有匆忙拼湊的味道,少數文章還因為雕飾過度 而變得平庸。他曾經為《名利場》寫過一篇題為“女人為何無趣”(Why Women Aren’t Funny)的文章,斷定男人比女人幽默是由進化決定的,因為運氣不佳的男性必須依賴自己的幽默天賦來勸說女性跟他們交配。在文集的導言當中,他稱《女人 為何無趣》為“我最讓人立刻產生誤解的文章”,可我卻覺得,即便進行了正確的解讀,人們仍然可能認為它帶有居高臨下的味道,甚至可說是無趣到了犯罪的程 度。

該批評的都批評了。但我仍然認為,希欽斯是我們這個時代最發人深省的思想者之一,也是最有趣的作家之一,即便是在——興許應該說“尤其是在”——他 讓人惱怒的時候。一方面,他顯然想贏得你的認同,另一方面,你總是能感覺到,他在某種程度上一直在為歷史寫作。正因為此,很多他所謂的“應景文字”——在 罕有的謙遜時刻,他會這樣形容那些文章——才會如此值得彙編成冊。

我認為,儘管希欽斯桀驁不羈,可我們並不能像社會主義左翼陣營中那些他曾經的朋友一樣,把他貶低為投機知識分子、淺薄的業餘學者或者徹頭徹尾的煽動 分子,那是十分不公平的。他是個擁有多種信仰的人,雖然他的信仰往往有待商榷(注意這本文集的書名 《有待商榷》),在我看來他是發自肺腑、前後一致的。

當然,他的信仰之一就是“無信仰”。他認為“上帝”是某些宗教僱傭的一種迷信,目的是實施控制和鎮壓。伊斯蘭極端主義的崛起加劇了他對宗教的敵視, 他往往把伊斯蘭極端主義視為一個私敵,部分是因為伊斯蘭極端主義對他的朋友薩爾曼·拉什迪的追殺令。他的反宗教態度激怒了許多人,就連那些並不虔誠的人也 可能感到受到冒犯,指責他總是對宗教信仰和實踐的有益方面視而不見。不過,總體而言,他的宗教批評體現的更多是深刻的思想,並不是惡意的嘲諷。正如邁克 爾·金斯利在專欄文章中所說:“上帝應該覺得受用才對:希欽斯把他當作成年人來對待,這跟大多數高聲吸引他關注的人不同。”

更重要的是,希欽斯對宗教的警惕並不僅僅是一種摧毀偶像般的嘲弄(他對特蕾莎嬤嬤的貶抑比較接近這個類型),而是出自他的精英意識與階層感。他珍視 世俗統治權、理性論辯、多元主義、寬容(只是容不得沒有幽默感或者無趣的人)和自由,痛恨各種壓抑人性的邪惡“主義”——比如共產主義、帝國主義和種族主 義,最痛恨的則是極權主義。

顯而易見,他的偶像是喬治·奧威爾,在文集中他經常被希欽斯當成描寫對象、道德試金石、文學搗亂分子、腳註或者花邊陪襯。希欽斯對於阿富汗和伊拉克 戰爭的積極支持在文集中只是順便一提,而非主體,比如關於一篇阿富汗婦女解放的文章,或者是來自伊拉克庫爾德斯坦(Kurdistan)的旅行報道。人們 可以看出希欽斯意圖模仿奧威爾,後者曾在西班牙內戰期間支持共和人士抗擊佛朗哥帶領的法西斯主義分子。和平主義也是希欽斯所擯棄的一種“主義”。
天堂會為失去他而失色幾分
人們經常把希欽斯和整整一代絕頂聰明的英國作家相提並論,比如馬丁·艾米斯、伊恩·麥克尤恩、詹姆斯·芬頓,不過,在我看來,希欽斯和他們之間的重 大區別在於他是個美國人。讀這本文集的時候,讓我印象最深的也是這一點。他的出生地和求學地都不在美國(這樣興許更好),他自己選擇成為一個美國人。在美 國居住了25年之後,他於2007年加入了美國籍。對於這個第二祖國帶給自己的影響,他有一些獨特的體會,這在文集當中的許多篇章中都有體現,比如《純粹 美國》系列(All American)的開篇章節。

他的第二祖國似乎只限於狹長的美國沿海地區,跟內陸各州沒多少關係。他住在華盛頓,夏天則會去加利福尼亞度假。作為一名深情關注喀布爾或者胡志明市 的新聞記者,他似乎沒有興趣去報道位於華盛頓和加利福尼亞之間的區域。他很少踏出他自己熟悉的地區,其中一次是到科羅拉多斯普林斯去參觀美國空軍學院。趕 上這樣的時候,他會驚訝不已地發現,那些地方居然住着一些實實在在的人,他們“和氣、坦率而又剛毅”。有趣的是,他居然挖苦約翰·厄普代克,說厄普代克表 現出了“一種智力和審美層面的厭惡……厭惡大部分美國生活的粗鄙和平庸。”厄普代克對普通美國人的看法興許抽象和矯飾,可他好歹是拿出了一個看法。希欽斯 發現了美國的許多可愛之處,然而,就這本文集而言,他的大部分發現似乎都來自書本。
但他的發現出於睿智,因而同樣真切、同樣重要。希欽斯堅持認為,美國是一個基於世俗主義和權力分立的國家,這個國家對待革命分子和不合時宜者有一種值得讚賞的包容,並且堅定不移地支持多元化。
將美國宣布為一個“猶太-基督教國家”的思潮再次湧起之時,希欽斯欣喜不已地找到了大量證據,證明國父們並不是那麼熱心宗教,絕對不曾產生創立一個 教權國家的念頭。他為《旗幟周刊》寫過一篇書評,評述的是布魯克·艾倫的《道德少數派:心存疑慮的國父們》(Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers),其中寫道:“美國革命延續了17世紀40年代英國革命的傳統,英國革命的領袖和代言人無疑都是新教原教旨主義者,然而,這一事實並沒有 束縛我們的開國元勛,說它能束縛我們也不妥當。實際上,我們可以十拿九穩地說,英國既有的新教教會是1776年《獨立宣言》的簽名者們決意擯棄的模式之 一。”絕非巧合的是,文集當中的第一篇文章就是這篇書評。

希欽斯建起了一座屬於自己的美國先賢祠,美國也為他提供了數不清可供膜拜的發明創造者、激進改革者、理想主義者和社會活動家。傑斐遜、本·富蘭克林、托馬斯·潘恩和林肯都得到了他充滿敬慕的獨到評價。不足為奇的是,他支持反奴隸制起義者約翰·布朗,與那些視布朗為英雄的人並肩作戰,反對把布朗看成 恐怖分子。(從道德層面來說,希欽斯關注的重點是目的而非手段;他把自己的文集獻給三個自殺身亡的阿拉伯人,他們都是在“阿拉伯之春”中殉身的,其中一個 在用汽車炸彈襲擊利比亞兵站時身亡。)他鍾愛馬克·吐溫、厄普頓·辛克萊、索爾·貝婁等人的著作,他在這些美國立國以來的作品當中看到了“對於革命和解放 理念的忠誠”。

傑斐遜曾經派遣成立不久的美國海軍去打擊搶奪財物的巴巴裏海盜,希欽斯由此為當今美國對抗伊斯蘭狂熱分子的行動找到了先例,並且找到了一個依據,說 明美國可以在世界範圍內有選擇性地、大膽地使用武力。在其它一些文章當中,他又採用了格拉厄姆·格林的觀點,對美國在冷戰當中扮演的角色進行道義上的嘲諷。

有些時候,這本書給人的感覺就像是一場尚未完結的辯論,辯論的對手則是大西洋對岸的左翼知識分子,他們傾向於將美國視為一個缺乏歷史、文化和道德基礎的國家。
希欽斯為左傾的《衛報》寫過一篇評論馬克思作品的文章,戳到了他那些社會主義老朋友的痛處:“如果你想尋找歷史的諷刺,不妨看看這樣的一個事實:馬 克思和恩格斯都認為俄國是反動勢力的堅固堡壘,美國則是孕育自由和平等的絕好溫床。(兩個國家的)學校可不會拿這種東西來教你。”

他在導言中寫道:“眼下有許多輕浮的言論,說我的第二祖國在信心和資源兩方面都已經‘衰落’。 我可不會附和這樣的詆毀。”

克里斯托弗·希欽斯:屬於美國的愛國者。我們做得比你差遠了。
如果上帝真的存在,假使他不懂何為諷刺,那他就會把希欽斯關進地獄最酷熱的地方。如果上帝懂得何為諷刺,就會把希欽斯打發到一個既沒有酒喝也沒有書讀的小鎮,讓他待到天荒地老。不管怎樣,天堂都會因此失色幾分。

本文最初發表於2011年9月11日。
Bill Keller是《紐約時報》前主編,現為本報專欄作家,也同時為本報雜誌撰稿。
翻譯:李家真
 ****


2011/12/17 晚上在BBC Newsnight 節目看到Christopher Hitchens 的面談
Wiki 的英文版 (English ) 有更完整的介紹

克里斯多福·希欽斯(Christopher Eric Hitchens,1949年4月13日-2011年12月15日 )是英國出生的猶太裔美國人,牛津大學貝利奧爾學院第三級優等(third class honour)畢業。激進左派支持者,無神論者反宗教者,支持墮胎全面合法,以及包括古柯鹼安非他命大麻等藥物的精神藥品合法化。以苛評聞名。他抨擊的對象包括所有美國共和黨人士(例如亨利·季辛吉隆納·雷根)、宗教人士(德肋撒修女天主教會),甚至較為溫和派的美國民主黨人士(例如比爾·柯林頓)。

[编辑] 主要作品






Christopher Hitchens' friends, colleagues and fellow writers pay tribute to the journalist and intellectual.


The Slatest: December 16, 2011

Christopher Hitchens is Dead at 62

Christopher Hitchens is Dead at 62


Iconoclast and public intellectual passes away at a Houston hospital after battle with cancer.

"Herewith, Hope It Serves. As Always, Christopher."

"Herewith, Hope It Serves. As Always, Christopher."


June Thomas, Hitchens' editor at Slate, on the easiest job in journalism.

Hitchens Invites Me to Brunch

Hitchens Invites Me to Brunch


Andrew Sullivan remembers his friend and fellow transplanted Englishman.

Care To Meet for a Cheap Drink?

Care To Meet for a Cheap Drink?


Jacob Weisberg, Slate Group chairman, on Hitch's boozy instruction in radical politics and literature.

"Hitch, Did You Read My Novel?"

"Hitch, Did You Read My Novel?"


Novelist Julian Barnes remembers an excruciating conversation with Christopher Hitchens.

"Eeyorish"

"Eeyorish"


Anne Applebaum on why anyone who believes in the power of words will miss Hitchens.

Hiring Hitchens

Hiring Hitchens


Victor Navasky on how he got him to write for The Nation.

Hitch-10

Hitch-10


The 10 things that publisher Jonathan Karp found most admirable about Christopher Hitchens.

Why Hitchens Became an American

Why Hitchens Became an American


Poet James Fenton explains Hitchens’ great love of the United States.

Hitchens and I Shared an Office

Hitchens and I Shared an Office


Mother Jones' David Corn on what he learned from his office mate.

Hitchens Teaches Me About Every War in the World

Hitchens Teaches Me About Every War in the World


Fred Kaplan on Hitch’s dizzying knowledge of international relations.

Sneaking Into Iraq With Hitchens

Sneaking Into Iraq With Hitchens


The Weekly Standard's Matt Labash: "No secrets are being divulged when I report that Christopher liked a drink every now and then. Preferably now."

Does Alcohol Improve Your Writing?

Does Alcohol Improve Your Writing?


Putting Hitch’s theory to the test.

The Hitch at Hay

The Hitch at Hay


Peter Florence on Hitch's terrible standup comedy routine, along with the greatest performance of his lifetime.

Lamb With Lion

Lamb With Lion


Timothy Garton Ash on a Sunday lunch with Hitchens, poolside in California.



以下的機械翻譯要等我有空再處理

Christopher Hitchens is Dead at 62

Iconoclast and public intellectual passes away at a Houston hospital after battle with cancer.



28
1323823320203
Christopher Hitchens passed away at the age of 62.
Christopher Hitchens is dead.
The prolific journalist, well-known public intellectual and noted contrarian, who is perhaps most famous in the eyes of many Americans for his best-selling exegesis against religion, passed away Thursday at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. He was 62.
Hitchens, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair and The Atlantic, and a regular columnist at Slate, discovered in June 2010 that he had Stage 4 esophageal cancer, a diagnosis that forced the iconoclast to curtail what had once been a full schedule of public appearances but that did little to slow his prodigious output of essays, columns and book reviews up until the very end.
At a rare public appearance in his final months, Hitchens conceded that his time was running short, but said that he had no plans to give up his life's work in the face of his deteriorating health. "I'm not going to quit until I absolutely have to," he said then, drawing an ovation from the crowd.
Hitchens lived up to that promise, authoring articles for a number of publications during his final weeks on everything from American politics to his own mortality. Writing for Vanity Fair in a piece that was published only days before he died, Hitchens reaffirmed that he hoped to be fully conscious and awake as he passed away, "in order to 'do' death in the active and not the passive sense," much as he had previously explained to his readers was his wish even before he learned of his cancer and prognosis.
"I do, still, try to nurture that little flame of curiosity and defiance: willing to play out the string to the end and wishing to be spared nothing that properly belongs to a life span," he wrote.
Born in Portsmouth, England, in 1949, Hitchens studied at Oxford before launching his journalism career in the 1970s with the magazines International Socialism and the New Statesman. In the early 1980s, he emigrated to the United States, where he was a regular columnist at The Nation for two decades before parting ways with the liberal magazine after proudly disagreeing with its editors about the Iraq war.
Hitchens won the National Magazine Award for commentary in 2007, the same year that he became an American citizen on his 58th birthday. Foreign Policy named him to its list of the top 100 public intellectuals the following year, and Forbes magazine labeled him one of the 25 most influential liberals in the U.S. media in 2009, a distinction that took some by surprise given Hitchens's vocal support of George W. Bush's war on terror.
He was a frequent guest on news programs and at public debates, and rarely passed up the opportunity to defend his positions when given the opportunity to do so. He was the author of nearly 20 books, including God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, Hitch-22: A Memoir, and Arguably, a collection of his more recent essays that was published earlier this year.
Hitchens remained steadfast in his criticism of religion even in the face of his grim prognosis. In an August 2010 interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, his colleague at The Atlantic, Hitchens made it known that even if he were to somehow recant his devout atheism on his deathbed, any apparent conversion would be a hollow gesture. "The entity making such a remark might be a raving, terrified person whose cancer has spread to the brain," he said. "I can't guarantee that such an entity wouldn't make such a ridiculous remark. But no one recognizable as myself would ever make such a ridiculous remark."
克里斯托弗希欽斯是62死孤星叛逆者和公共知識分子通過在休斯敦的一家醫院後,與癌症抗爭。喬希福爾希斯 |發表日(星期五),2011年12月16日,在美東時間上午12:20281323823320203克里斯托弗希欽斯在62歲去世。克里斯托弗希欽斯死了。多產記者,著名的公共知識分子,並指出逆勢,也許是最有名在許多美國人他最暢銷的反宗教釋義的眼中,星期四在得克薩斯州休斯敦MD安德森癌症中心逝世他得年62。希欽斯,在名利場和大西洋的特約編輯,並發現,在2010年6月,他第4階段食管癌的診斷,迫使反傳統,以減少什麼曾經是一個公開露面的全時間表,但在板岩定期專欄作家沒有慢直到最後他的散文,列和書評的驚人輸出。在罕見的公開露面,他的最後幾個月中,希金斯承認,他的時間不多,但表示,他不打算放棄他一生的工作,面對他的健康狀況惡化。他說:“我不會退出,直到我絕對要,”那麼,從一個歡呼的人群。希欽斯住在他這一承諾,創作了一些出版物文章的最後幾個星期,一切從美國的政治,以他自己的死亡。 “名利場”的寫作,出版他去世的前幾天片,希欽斯重申,他希望得到充分的自覺和清醒,他去世,“為了”做“主動而不是被動的感死亡,”許多,因為他以前向他的讀者解釋他的願望,甚至在他得知他的癌症和預後。“依然,我這樣做,嘗試培育的好奇心和蔑視的小火苗:願意發揮出字符串的結束,希望倖免沒有正確屬於一個壽命,”他寫道。在樸次茅斯,英國,出生於 1949年,希金斯曾就讀於牛津大學與雜誌的國際社會主義運動和“新政治家”上世紀 70年代才推出他的記者生涯。在20世紀 80年代初,他移居到美國,他在全美二十年前,離別後,自豪地與不同意對伊拉克戰爭它的編輯與自由“雜誌的方式定期專欄作家。希欽斯榮獲國家在2007年進行評論雜誌獎,同年,他成為美國公民,在他的第58個生日。外交政策命名他它的頂部 100公共知識分子列表次年,和“福布斯”雜誌標有他在2009年在美國媒體的25個最有影響力的的自由派一個區別,花了希欽斯的喬治 W ·聲樂支持驚喜一些之一布什的反恐戰爭。他是一個新聞節目,並在公開辯論的常客,而很少通過捍衛自己的立場時,有機會這樣做的機會。他是近20本書,包括神也不是很大的作者:宗教如何毒藥的一切,審判亨利基辛格,希契- 22:一本回憶錄,並可以說,他最近的是今年早些時候發表的散文集合。希金斯仍然堅持他對宗教的批判,甚至在面對他嚴峻的預後。在2010年8月接受採訪時,他的同事在大西洋與杰弗裡戈德堡,希欽斯知道,即使他以某種方式宣布放棄他在臨終前的虔誠的無神論,任何明顯的轉換將是一個空洞的姿態。 “這種說法的實體可能是一個囈語,嚇壞了的人,其癌細胞已經擴散到大腦,”他說。 “我不能保證這樣一個實體將不會作出這樣的荒謬言論。,但沒有一個像我辨認會不斷做出這樣的荒謬言論。”




Christopher Hitchens, a Man of His Words


Anyone who occasionally opens one of our more serious periodicals has learned that the byline of Christopher Hitchens is an opportunity to be delighted or maddened — possibly both — but in any case not to be missed. He is our intellectual omnivore, exhilarating and infuriating, if not in equal parts at least with equal wit. He has been rather famously an aggressive critic of God and his followers, after cutting his sacrilegious teeth on Mother Teresa. He wrote a deadpan argument for trying Henry Kissinger as a war criminal, then was branded an apostate by former friends on the left for vigorously supporting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. (He memorably — a lot of what Hitchens has written merits the adverb — shot back that his antiwar critics were “the sort who, discovering a viper in the bed of their child, would place the first call to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.”) And he is dying of esophageal cancer, a fact he has faced with exceptional aplomb.
This fifth and, one fears, possibly last collection of his essays is a reminder of all that will be missed when the cancer is finished with him.
按图放大
Brooks Kraft/Corbis
Christopher Hitchens
Let’s begin with the obvious. He is unfathomably prolific. “Arguably” is a great ingot of a book, more than 780 pages containing 107 essays. Some of them entailed extensive travel in inconvenient places like Afghanistan and Uganda and Iran; those that are more in the way of armchair punditry come from an armchair within reach of a very well-used library. They appeared in various publications during a period in which he also published his best-selling exegesis against religion, “God Is Not Great”; a short and well-­reviewed biography of Thomas Jefferson; a memoir, “Hitch-22”; as well as various debates, reading guides, letters and rebuttals — all done while consuming daily quantities of alcoholic drink that would cripple most people. As Ian Parker noted in his definitive 2006 New Yorker profile of Hitchens, the man writes as fast as some people read.
The second notable thing about Hitchens is his erudition. He doesn’t always wear it lightly — more than once he remarks, upon pulling out a classic for reconsideration, that he first read the work in question when he was 12 — but it is not just a parlor trick. In the book reviews that make up much of this collection, the most ambitious of them written for The Atlantic, he takes the assigned volume — a new literary biography of Stephen Spender or Graham Greene or Somerset Maugham, or a new collection of letters by Philip Larkin or Jessica Mitford — and uses it as pretext to review, with opinionated insights, the entire life and work of the writer in question, often supplementing his prodigious memory by rereading several books. He is a master of the essay that not only spares you the trouble of reading the book under review, but leaves you feeling you have just completed an invigorating graduate seminar.
Although the necessity of imposing some order on a collection of this type means that his literary reviews are more or less sequestered from his political polemics and foreign reporting, his mind does not observe these boundaries. One of his charms is his habit of pulling in a novel or poem to shore up an argument about war or politics. A piece that is nominally a riff on the Bush family invokes Brecht, Wilde, Orwell, Dickens, Beckett, one Amis (Kingsley), two Waughs (Auberon and Evelyn) and Joyce Cary, leaving scarcely any room for Bushes. A magisterial essay on the subject of partition draws more heavily on Auden than on historians. (That piece, by the way, is a humbling account of all the ways Britain has blundered while mapmaking at gunpoint. I wondered whether the essay, published in the same month as the invasion of Iraq, gave him any pause about our competence to set that country right.)
His range is extraordinary, both in breadth and in altitude. He is as self-­confident on the politics of Lebanon as on the ontology of the Harry Potter books. He can pivot from the court of Henry VIII to the Baader-Meinhof gang, then stoop to the question of whether fellatio is the quintessentially American sex act. He reviews the Ten Commandments, offering some thoughtful revisions. He wages war against euphemism — most vividly by having himself subjected to water­boarding, so that he can report with authority that it is not an “enhanced interrogation” technique but unquestionably “torture.”
It would be antithetical to the Hitchens spirit to cut him slack just because I like him (he’s been a friend of my wife’s for many years, and his alcohol-propelled conversation is a captivating form of performance art) or because he is dying of cancer. So let’s acknowledge that some of the essays in this collection are exceedingly smug. He has no qualms about adding insult to injury: Karen Hughes is a “braying Bush-crony ignoramus”; President Kennedy was not only “a moral defective and a political disaster,” but “a poxed and suppurating Philoctetes.” He repeats himself. Some of his work feels dashed off. A few pieces fall flat from an excess of trying. In a Vanity Fair bit called “Why Women Aren’t Funny,” he posits that men are funnier for Darwinian reasons: hapless males need the gift of humor to persuade women to mate with them. In the introduction to the book, he describes this as “the most instantly misinterpreted of all my articles,” but I think it is possible to interpret it correctly and still find it patronizing and, worse, criminally unfunny.
So, having paid my dues to critical candor, I still find Hitchens one of the most stimulating thinkers and entertaining writers we have, even when — perhaps especially when — he provokes. And while he clearly wants to win you over, you always sense that he is playing in part to the jury of history, which is why so much of what he might, in a rare self-deprecating moment, refer to as hackwork stands up so well to ­anthologizing.
Although he is possessed of a free-range mind, I think it is grossly unfair to charge, as some of his former friends on the socialist left have done, that he is an intellectual opportunist or a dilettante or a mere provocateur. He is a man of beliefs, and while they are often arguable (note the title of the book), they seem to me genuine and coherent.
One of his beliefs, of course, is un­belief. He regards God as a superstition employed by religions for the purpose of control and repression. His hostility to religion has been fortified by the rise of Islamic extremism, which he tends to take personally, in part because of the fatwa against his good friend Salman Rushdie. His aversion to religion has offended many, and even those who are not devout may complain that he tends to overlook benign aspects of religious faith and practice, but his critique is generally more thoughtful than scornful. As Michael Kinsley has written in these pages, “God should be flattered: unlike most of those clamoring for his attention, Hitchens treats him like an adult.”
More important, Hitchens’s wariness of religion is not just an iconoclastic taunt (his denunciation of Mother Teresa falls more into that category), but a component part of an ideology with a fine pedigree. He treasures secular governance, reasoned argument, pluralism, tolerance (except of the humorless or the boring) and freedom, and loathes the wicked isms of oppression — communism, imperialism, racism and above all totalitarianism.
His obvious role model is George Orwell, who recurs often in this volume as subject, moral touchstone, literary kib­itzer, footnote and foil. One senses that in his enthusiasm for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — which arise in this volume more incidentally than frontally, in a piece on the emancipation of Afghan women or a report on a holiday in Iraqi Kurdistan — Hitchens is emulating Orwell’s embrace of the Republican cause against Franco’s fascists in the Spanish Civil War. Another ism he rejects is pacifism.
Hitchens is often grouped with a generation of dazzlingly clever British writers who happen to be his friends — Martin Amis, Ian McEwan, James Fenton — but what sets him apart in important ways, and what struck me forcefully reading this collection, is that he is an American. Not American born or educated (probably just as well), but American by choice. He took citizenship in 2007 after a quarter-century as a resident. Much of this book, including the opening chapter of essays under the heading “All American,” reflects his idiosyncratic take on what his adopted country means to him.
His can seem a narrowly coastal America. The flyover states don’t much exist. A journalist who is such an empathetic observer in Kabul or Ho Chi Minh City seems to have little reportorial curiosity about the space between Washington, where he lives, and California, where he has spent his summers. On the rare occasions when he ventures out of his American comfort zone, as in a visit to the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, he is bemused to learn that real people — “good-humored, outspoken and tough-minded” — reside there. It is interesting that he mocks John Updike for displaying “an intellectual and aesthetic disgust . . . with the grossness and banality of much of American life.” Updike’s view of ordinary Americans may be reductionist or genteel, but at least he has one. Hitchens finds much to love about America, but on the evidence of this collection, he seems to find it mostly in books.
But what he finds is no less genuine and essential for being rather cerebral. Hitchens holds to an America founded on secularism and the separation of powers, a nation with an admirable affection for revolutionaries and misfits, a defining embrace of variety.
At a time when America is experiencing a resurgent campaign to proclaim us a “Judeo-Christian nation,” Hitchens delights in the plentiful evidence that the founders were not all that religious and certainly not interested in creating a sectarian country. “The ancestor of the American Revolution was the English Revolution of the 1640s, whose leaders and spokesmen were certainly Protestant fundamentalists, but that did not bind the framers and cannot be said to bind us, either,” he writes, in a Weekly Standard review of Brooke Allen’s book “Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers,” which is, not coincidentally, the first essay in this book. “Indeed, the established Protestant church in Britain was one of the models which we can be quite sure the signatories of 1776 were determined to avoid emulating.”
Hitchens erects his own pantheon of American heroes, and the country offers no end of inventive, radical, idealistic and activist figures for him to admire. Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine and Lincoln all get loving and refreshing treatment here. Not surprisingly, he takes the side of those who regard the antislavery insurrectionist John Brown as a visionary hero against those who deem him a terrorist. (Morally, Hitchens is more about ends than means; his book is dedicated to three Arab suicides who martyred themselves in the Arab Spring, one by car-bombing a Libyan Army post.) He embraces the literature of Mark Twain, Upton Sinclair, Saul Bellow and others, finding in American writing since the founding “a certain allegiance to the revolutionary and emancipating idea.”
In Jefferson’s decision to send the young American Navy against the extortionist Barbary pirates, Hitchens discovers a precedent for the current American engagements with Islamic fanatics, and an argument for a selective but bold use of American power in the world. Elsewhere, he takes on Graham Greene’s moral cynicism about America’s part in the cold war.
At times the book feels like an ongoing argument with the leftist intellectuals on the other side of the Atlantic, who tend to view America as lacking in history, culture or moral standing.
In an essay on the journalism of Karl Marx, written for the left-leaning Guardian, he puts an elbow in the ribs of his old socialist friends: “If you are looking for an irony of history, you will find it . . . in the fact that he and Engels considered Russia the great bastion of reaction and America the great potential nurse of liberty and equality. This is not the sort of thing they teach you in school (in either country).”
“There is currently much easy talk about the ‘decline’ of my adopted country, both in confidence and in resources,” he writes in his introduction. “I don’t choose to join this denigration.”
Christopher Hitchens: American patriot. We’ve done a lot worse.
If there is a God, and he lacks a sense of irony, he will send Hitchens to the hottest precinct of hell. If God does have a sense of irony, Hitchens will spend eternity in a town that serves no liquor and has no library. Either way, heaven will be a less interesting place.
Bill Keller, formerly The Times’s execu­tive editor, is now a columnist for the newspaper and a writer for The Times Magazine.




 《中英對照讀新聞》Iran foundation boosts bounty to kill Rushdie 伊朗基金會提高追殺魯西迪的懸賞獎金

◎俞智敏
An Iranian foundation has reportedly increased a bounty for the death of Salman Rushdie, saying that if the British writer had previously been killed for blasphemy an anti-Islam film currently enraging Muslims would never have been made.
伊朗一所基金會據說已提高了殺死作家魯西迪的懸賞獎金,聲稱假如這位英國作家先前就因褻瀆神明而被殺,最近惹惱全球穆斯林的一部反伊斯蘭影片根本就不可能會被拍攝。
Iranian media quoted Hassan Sane’i, a cleric heading the 15 of Khordad Foundation, as saying in a statement that he was "adding another $500,000 to the reward for killing Rushdie."
伊朗媒體引述3月15日基金會負責人、伊斯蘭教士哈山.薩內的話說,他要把「殺死魯西迪的懸賞獎金再提高50萬美元。」
With the increase, the foundation was now offering $3.3 million for the death of Rushdie, who since 1989 has been the target of a Iranian fatwa calling for his murder for allegedly blaspheming Islam and its Prophet Mohammed in his book "The Satanic Verses."
加上這筆錢後,該基金會現在懸賞追殺魯西迪的獎金已達330萬美元。魯西迪自1989年就成為伊朗所頒布格殺令的目標,理由是據稱魯西迪在他的小說「魔鬼詩篇」中褻瀆了伊斯蘭及其先知穆罕默德。
The foundation’s statement was quoted saying that, unless Rushdie were killed, "the movie offending the prophet will not be the last contemptuous attempt." It added that "these days are the most appropriate time to carry it (Rushdie’s murder) out."
據媒體引述該基金會聲明指出,除非魯西迪被殺死,「這部冒犯先知的影片絕不會是最後一次有人企圖藐視伊斯蘭。」聲明中還說,「現在正是最適合執行(魯西迪追殺令)的時機。」
Indian-born Rushdie, 65, spent a decade in hiding after Iran’s spiritual leader, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued the 1989 fatwa against him for his book.(AFP)
出生於印度、現年65歲的魯西迪在伊朗已故精神領袖何梅尼於1989年因為他的小說而對他發出追殺令後,曾被迫銷聲匿跡達10年之久。(法新社)



fatwa[fat・wa]
 

  • 発音記号[fǽtwɑː]

[名]((また F-))ファトワー:イスラム法の解釈・適用をめぐって, 権威ある法学者が提出する意見.

網誌存檔