The British Squirrel

THE ‘REST OF THE WORLD’ VERSION:

The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building and improving his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he’s a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed. The shivering
grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

THE BRITISH VERSION:

The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building and improving his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he’s a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed.

A social worker finds the shivering grasshopper, calls a press conference and demands to know why the squirrel should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate, like the grasshopper, are cold and starving.

The BBC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper; with cuts to a video of the squirrel in his comfortable warm home with a table laden with food.

The British press inform people that they should be ashamed that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so while others have plenty.

The Labour Party, Greenpeace, Animal Rights and The Grasshopper Council of GB demonstrate in front of the squirrel’s house. The BBC, interrupting a cultural festival special from Notting Hill with breaking news, broadcasts a multi cultural choir singing “We Shall overcome”. Ken Livingstone rants in an interview with Trevor McDonald that the squirrel has got rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the squirrel to make him pay his “fair share” and increases the charge for squirrels to enter inner London.

In response to pressure from the media, the Government drafts the Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti Discrimination Act, retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The squirrel’s taxes are reassessed. He is taken to court and fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as builders for the work he was doing on his home and an additional fine for contempt when he told the court the grasshopper did not want to work. The grasshopper is provided with a council house, financial aid to furnish it and an account with a local taxi firm to ensure he can be socially mobile.

The squirrel’s food is seized and redistributed to the more needy members of society, in this case the grasshopper. Without enough money to buy more food, to pay the fine and his newly imposed retroactive taxes, the squirrel has to downsize and start building a new home. The local authority takes over his old home and utilizes it as a temporary home for asylum seeking cats who had hijacked a plane to get to Britain as they had to share their country of origin with mice. On arrival they have tried to blow up the airport because of Britain’s apparent love of dogs.

The cats had been arrested for the international offence of hijacking and attempt bombing but were immediately released because the police fed them pilchards instead of salmon whilst in custody. Initial moves to then return them to their own country were abandoned because it was feared they would face death by the mice. The cats devise and start a scam to obtain money from people’s credit cards.

A Panorama special shows the grasshopper finishing up the last of the squirrel’s food, though Spring is still months away, while the council house he is in, crumbles around him because he hasn’t bothered to maintain the house. He is shown to be taking drugs. Inadequate government funding is blamed for the grasshoppers drug ‘illness’.

The cats seek recompense in the British courts for their treatment since arrival in UK.

The grasshopper gets arrested for stabbing an old dog during a burglary to get money for his drugs habit. He is imprisoned but released immediately because he has been in custody for a few weeks. He is placed in the care of the probation service to monitor and supervise him. Within a few weeks he has killed a guinea pig in a botched robbery.

A commission of enquiry that will eventually cost £10,000,000 and state the obvious, is set up.

Additional money is put into funding a drug rehabilitation scheme for grasshoppers and legal aid for lawyers representing asylum seekers is increased. The asylum seeking cats are praised by the government for enriching Britain’s multicultural diversity and dogs are criticised by the government for failing to befriend the cats.

The grasshopper dies of a drug overdose. The usual sections of the press blame it on the obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity and his traumatic experience of prison. They call for the resignation of a minister. The cats are paid a million pounds each because their rights were infringed when the government failed to inform them there were mice in the United Kingdom.

The squirrel, the dogs and the victims of the hijacking, the bombing, the burglaries and robberies have to pay an additional percentage on their credit cards to cover losses, their taxes are increased to pay for law and order and they are told that they will have to work beyond 65 because of a shortfall in government funds.

Since this was written, the squirrel has decided that enough is enough and has sold up everything he owned and has sodded off to Spain!

NYT挺有意思的

是中文转载的:纽约时报: 解放军救灾表现一般算不上是一流军队

这些中国军人脚穿帆布鞋、肩负背包

美国人命贵,打仗想要不死人,所以狂研发出不用血拼就置人死地的技术,技术含量很高。我总感觉美国人打仗如果不流血打不赢话就会主动认输(当然这不是事实),他们不会玩命。我看到英国的哈里王子在联合国维和部队还可以听 iPod呢。好多美国大片里的大兵行为不检点,老是抱怨这个抱怨那个,一点军容军貌都没有。

反观中国的部队,当兵前全是农民。而且早早就说清楚了当兵就是去找苦吃的,不苦不光荣,越苦越光荣,要艰苦朴素!哪有什么 iPod?鞋就是解放鞋(即NYT说的帆布鞋),哪有什么步行鞋登山鞋?踩穿了就赤脚!想想当年红军过雪山草地。

美国人就是没长过征,没过过雪山草地,娇气惯了。

从官科到既得利益者再到人才选拔

整天“官科”“民科”地喊,我知道大家都已经有点烦了。可是我找不到其他词来形容两部分人,发现这两个词的人真是天才。

今晚我突然想到一个问题,我们官科是不是“体制内的既得利益者”呢?我们有没有站着说话不腰疼呢?

你看官科们,我有中小学念,上高中,还有钱读大学,读研究生,搞不好还有钱出国,最后成了官科!有很多前辈虽然经历了荒唐的年代,但是恢复高考之后 就走上了学术之路。年轻一点的更是成长在好时光,在浪漫的校园唱完“同桌的你”之后,就变成了新世纪科研弄潮儿。可是民科多没有这种机会,不是农民就是国 企下岗工人,空怀科学的理想,却只能成为他人笑柄。在这样的状态下,官科还老是封杀民科,或者不是封杀,而是促进民科自身悖论的突现,真有点像政治上的什 么“既得利益者制定游戏规则排挤弱势群体”的味道。只是,在这里的“利益”是指“科学理想的实现”,官科有了这个机会,然后利用这个机会,使没有这个机会 的民科继续没有机会?

所以,在民科眼中,很可能那些什么“重复性”“证伪性”之类的东西,或者说整套的科学认识论,无非是官科作为既得利益者所制定的用于排挤他们的规则 而已,因此他们永远不会在我们所坚持的科学方法面前心服,永远站在科学认识论的对立面。这决定了他们永远只能是民科。之前我还谈过是媒体和社会对科学家的 不当宣传导致了民科的出现,现在觉得“既得利益者vs弱势群体”的思维方式才是最根本的导致民科于官科格格不入的原因。民科就是一个宿命式的悲剧。

说到这里,并不是在为官科开脱。虽然科学的认识方法其实不是什么排挤民科的自定规则,但是们官科们还应该反思一下是不是在其他一些方面扮演了既得利益者的角色而不自知?为什么怀有科学理想的人没有受到应用的科研训练如愿成为官科?

前几天我刚得知一个广工的大三师弟喜欢化学。这年头喜欢学习的人不多,喜欢数理化(而不是金融炒股票做成功职业经理人)的小伙子就更少,而在数理化 中喜欢化学的就少之又少。于是和他在QQ上聊了下,知道他是真的感兴趣,能被化学的魅力所打动的人。不过,他不准备考研,他觉得自己不是那块料。我不禁要 问(哦,事实上是禁了的,我没问他,所谓“不禁要问”只是个措词),一个大三学生,能被化学魅力所打动,还不足以认为他适合从事化学研究工作吗?他有没有 分析和解决问题的能力,有没有创新能力,甚至于有没有拉经费管理实验室培养学生的能力,还不是在他大三的时候去考察吧。

他又说,几门化学课也没学好。这就奇怪了,不知道为什么对化学感兴趣的人没学好化学?为什么我们的化学课没使喜欢化学的人学好化学?向学生传授知识 和理论有两步,第一步是引起其对化学的兴趣,第二步是满足其对化学的兴趣。如果第一步做好了,学生有兴趣了,那么知识和理论的传授的结果应该恰恰就是学生 兴趣的满足。引发学生兴趣这件事常常是艺术性技巧性的,也是最困难的,可是在这里,一个学生已经对化学有兴趣了,我们的课程非但没能满足他的兴趣,反倒让 他化学没学好,真是强大。我们国家不管什么教程,全都是一副居高临下的面孔,好像在说:“反正知识就是这些了,你任务要掌握这些这些重点,这些这些难点, 记住这几点,理解这几点,了解这几点。你有兴趣也好,没兴趣也好,一点关系都没有,反正我不管。”学生常常觉得兴趣是一回事,“学好”是另一回事(所谓“ 学好”其实就是成绩好)。有兴趣并没有给学生“学好”提供什么便利,并没有成为常说的“最好的老师”。应试是没兴趣的学生过关的法宝,同时又是有兴趣的学 生实现理想的手段。有没有兴趣都痛苦。整个学生生涯的应试教育并不是高考一道坎的影响能够辐射到的。暗中滋养着应试教育的并不是插在中间的一个高考,而是 贯穿始终的我们的教材,我们的“课程目标”和各种“大纲”。

再看我们考研制度,有两次刷人,第一次是刷笔试不过关的人,第二次才是刷面试不过关的人。然而事实上,许多人在笔试前就跟想考的导师通气,一般要等 导师表态说“只要笔试没把你刷下来,你来我这儿读应该没问题”,才敢报名参加笔试,进行复习。制度与现实的明显反差说明面试考察比笔试考察重要得多,然而 我们的考研制度先用笔试把一堆人吓跑,把另一堆人刷掉,最后拿刷剩下的人给我们的导师们选择,大家都清楚,笔试刷剩下的那些学生都是什么学生,能有多少独 立思考和解决问题的能力。人有时自己有哪方面天赋和特长,自己是知道的,如果一个人觉得自己和化学有种“诡异的亲和力”,却让不着边际的笔试刷了下来,不 成为民科才怪了呢!这个人如果进入了正常的科学圈子,进行正规的科学训练,说不定就是我国的诺奖得主。

课程教育和考试制度的设计者,不就是我们官科吗?就是我们官科一手把怀有科学理想,有科研潜力的人误导了(课程教育)、淘汰了(考试制度)、排挤了 (那一揽子“科学性”判据),留下了一堆平庸的人吃国家俸禄,不挺像“既得利益者”的作风吗?事前百般阻扰人家学习“科学性判据”,目的就是使本来中性 的,正确的“科学性判据”可以成为阻挡这些人的壁垒。有很多导师,本身就平庸没啥创新,你说他敢于招收基础知识薄弱但天马行空的学生吗?有能力塑造这类学 生吗?说穿了,他害怕这类学生!知识都是用来被怀疑的。但我们很多研究生为了解释实验现象,到处找理论来套,把理论当佛脚来抱,这要不是导师们教的话,哪 个学生会情愿啃书套理论而不干脆自己乱想一个?估计没几个导师敢先让学生乱想,先让学生“民科”一番,然后修饰之使其“官科化”吧!无能者对挑战之怕,和 既得利益者对某事之怕何其相似。官科之妒才是存在的,但其形式远没有没有民科所指责的那样笨拙和露骨,民科只是所有受害者之中最不幸的一小部分而已。

有人说民科起码优点在于他们天马行空,有人反观官科认为他们毫无创新骗国家钱。虽然这都是胡扯,但是“自主创新”的口号是一定要喊的。我觉得什么东 西都自主创新,搞这么大的工程,还不如先把我国人才选拔制度“自主创新”一下。光这个创新工程就够大了吧,要敢于不硬性要求学生“掌握什么理解什么遵守什 么”,但又“不知不觉地”达到了这个效果,我看这简直不是在中国能够实现的事情。