陳水扁的政績

http://www.taiwanenews.com/doc/20120225106.php

阿扁這八年的政績, 換成馬英九一輩子也無法達成
(被民進黨忘記的事實)
作者： 飆股狩獵者 / 發表日期： 2008/9/14

政治改革:
推動二階段修憲；公布實施公民投票法；推動政治獻金、利益衝突迴避、政府資訊公開等陽光法案；強力查賄肅貪；廢除國統綱領、終止國統會運作。

司法改革：
刑事制度改革（檢察官蒞庭制度），建立被害人保護制度。

政府改造：
推動政府組織改造，建立行政院公報新制，實施公文橫書，落實地方自治，建立中央與地方夥伴關係。

勞工政策：
提高勞工保障，公布實施「大量解僱勞工保護法」、「職業災害勞工保護法」、「就業保險法」、「公共服務擴大就業暫行條例」。實施勞工新退休制度，公布實施勞工退休金條例及

細則，建立可攜式勞工退休金制度。縮短工時、實施隔週休二日。

金融改革：
通過重大金融改革法案、加速不良債權處理，提升銀行資產品質。成立金管會、建立金融監理制度；加速基層金融改革、籌設農業金庫，成立農業金融局。

財政改革：
強化國家資產一元化管理機制；穩定國內物價；招商投資台灣；展開策略聯盟布局。

科技發展：
電子化政府獲世界評比第一名；新增科學工業園區，營造北ic、中奈米、南光電的良好產業環境；推動「兩兆雙星產業發展計畫」；提昇上網普及率。

交通建設：
提昇軌道、公路、航空、港埠服務；推動大高雄捷運計畫；第二高速公路全線通車；興建中部國際機場；完成花蓮、台東航空站擴建工程；雪山隧道通車；台灣高速鐵路興建完成。

經濟發展：
降低失業率；推動中小企業信用保證基金；整頓改革國營事業；建構「低稅率、廣稅基、簡稅制」租稅環境。

社會福利：
333安家福利專案、555安親照顧方案；推動國民年金制度及建構長期照護體系，建構全方位的農漁民福利措施。

整體國力：
提升國家競爭力評比排名。
國防安全：公布實施國防二法（軍政軍令一元化）、兵役制度改革（募兵制及替代役）。建立反恐機制，維護國家安全。

外交工作：
推動元首外交，陳水扁是有史以來第一個訪遍所有邦交國的台灣總統；多元參與國際性組織。2003年5月台韓實施相互免簽證，2005年12月台韓恢復直航。2005年日本給予台灣免

簽證待遇，2007年台日兩國實施駕照相互承認。台日航線現在已由8條增加為10條，台日互訪人數屢創新高。

兩岸關係：
實施兩岸小三通、實施春節包機、開放中國人士來台觀光、開放中國配偶來台工作。

台灣意識：
推展台灣新知識運動，強化台灣主體意識；主張台灣要正名，台灣母親的名字，是我們最美麗、最有力的名字、也是參加聯合國等國際組織最好的名字；高達 77.3％的民眾贊成以台

灣名義申請加入國際組織。2003.8.1護照加註台灣。2007年4月以台灣名義申請加入世界衛生組織。

轉型正義：
積極平反二二八事件；推動正名工作，2006.3.24卸下總統府介壽館牌銜，改掛總統府；2006.9.6中正機場更名為台灣桃園機場； 2007.2.12中國石油更名為台灣中油；

2007.2.12中華郵政更名為台灣郵政；2007.3.3中國造船更名為台灣國際造船公司； 2007.5.19中正紀念堂更名為台灣民主紀念館。

教育發展：
推動母語教學、實施助學貸款方案、推動終身學習。

人權立國：
編撰「國家人權政策白皮書」，建立人權諮詢與推動機制；成立國家人權紀念館籌備處。

族群平等：
成立「行政院客家委員會」，振興客家語言、成立客家電視台，籌設客家文化園區，發揚客家文化。陳水扁與原住民簽署「新伙伴關係協定」，推動多元、正義的原住民族政策，原住

民族由9族增為13族；實施「原住民身分法」，尊重原住民自由選擇回復個人傳統名字；重視原住民族語言，讓原住民說自己的話，成立亞洲第一個原住民族電視台。

青年政策：
獎勵青年參與志願服務，實現「志工台灣」。

婦女政策：
落實兩性平權政策，公布實施「兩性工作平等法」及「性別平等教育法」；提昇女性參政比例；完善家庭暴力及性侵害被害人保護扶助措施；營造保障婦女福祉、安全的社會環境。

農業發展：
加強創新研發，提高競爭力，促進農業升級轉型，設置農業生物科技園區。發展休閒農漁業；農村社區新生活圈建設。

衛生醫療：
擴大健保照護、推動二代健保。

環境保護：
公布實施環境基本法，落實永續發展；生態保育，推動綠建築。台灣資源回收成績在世界名列前茅：包括國人每日垃圾清運量降低；垃圾回收率提升（超越美國）；廢乾電池回收率提

升（超過歐盟目標）；廚餘回收量提升。空氣品質改善：台灣為國際間第一個推動加油站全面裝設油氣回收設備之國家，台灣戴奧辛排放管制範圍較其他國家完整，排放量已逐年遞減，空氣

品質監測結果遠低於日本環境戴奧辛空氣品質基準。

國土保安：
建立災害防救機制，推動國土保育利用。

公共建設：
推動「促進民間參與公共建設法」；建立永續發展生態環境空間；新十大建設；推動「挑戰2008國家發展重點計畫」；離島建設－成立離島建設基金。

災區重建：
公共工程復建振興，社區產業重建。

文化產業：
以「文化扎根、創意起飛、世界發光」為理念推動文化產業；2002-2006年文化創意產業整體營業額從4,353億元成長至5,862億元，每年平均成長率約6.63%。2004-2007年

辦理文化創意產業優惠貸款，核定總金額為新台幣13億2,844萬元。2000年至2007年政府共輔導本土電影長片96部、電影短片53部、金穗獎170部。

阿扁這八年的政績, 換成馬英九一輩子也無法達成!!!

資料來源： 鯨魚網站 2012-02-25


台灣e新聞

《林保華專欄》新加坡狗論闖禍 香港憂心二二八

美國世界日報今年二月七日的「香港瞭望」專欄標題是「以二二八為鑑」。過去香港人並不關心台灣，對台灣發生的二二八歷史事件更不關心，為何現在香港的統派媒體人會把香港與台灣二二八事件掛鉤？顯然，因為香港的族群衝突，就是香港市民與來自中國的民眾彼此間的衝突越演越烈，在「雙非孕婦」之後，不顧香港市民的強烈反對，三月又要開始「自駕遊」。 這篇文章說：「一般市民最關心的是內地司機的駕駛文化，會衝擊香港交通，造成更多意外。其實在目前社會氛圍下，加上貧富懸殊等社會矛盾激化，一旦來一個『李剛的兒子』把路人撞倒，說不定就會引爆社會騷亂。大陸與香港當局應以當年台灣『二二八事件』為鑑，懸崖勒馬。」 文章沒有再說下去的，就是二二八之後，國民黨從中國調兵遣將屠殺台灣社會菁英。中國要屠殺香港的社會菁英更容易了，因為香港就有中國的駐軍，相信也早握有香港的「黑名單」。只要把英國人教育出來的香港菁英殺掉一批，例如那些整天高唱司法獨立的法律界人士，香港人還敢爭取「雙普選」？中國與特區政府對香港族群衝突的不聞不問，也許就是等候騷亂的爆發！ 一九八四年英國與中國簽署香港前途問題的協議，香港的民主派人士都贊成中國收回香港，只是希望「民主回歸」。當時中國總理趙紫陽給中文大學學生的回信，也承諾「民主回歸」。結果卻是六四屠殺與趙紫陽被軟禁至死，香港的民主也被扼殺。現在香港的八○後出來組織本土社團，維護香港核心價值，能否亡羊補牢？ 北大教授孔慶東說香港人是「狗」，也隱含「關門打狗」的意思。中國收回香港，香港就被當作中國的一部分，一切的一切，都是中國內政，包括「關門打狗」在內。敘利亞政府這一年來就是關門打狗，屠殺了幾千人，中國政府運用它在安理會的否決權，擋掉了「外來干涉」，助長殺人魔王的氣焰。 「狗論」蔓延到新加坡，一位從二○○三年到現在拿了新加坡政府全額獎學金的中國學生在社交網站上說，「新加坡狗比人多」。他也把新加坡當作可以關門打狗的中國一部分？只是他的忘恩負義，比狗還不如。有的台灣媒體稱他為「陸生」，難道新加坡與中國的關係也是「一中」或「各表」？ 台灣的國共合作還處於蜜月期，因為還有民進黨的存在，暫時沒有被罵「台灣狗」，一旦台灣如同那些老軍頭所主張的成為中國與「中國軍」的一部分，也就可以「關門打狗」了，那就是台灣的第二次二二八事件，遭殃的將是時下的年輕人。 （作者林保華為資深時事評論員，http://blog.pixnet.net/LingFengComment）

二二八大屠殺死亡人數

外省人與失蹤者

◎ 黃招榮

郝柏村說二二八死亡人數僅千人，統派學者朱浤源硬是要把二二八事件的死亡人數，視為等同申請二二八賠償的人數。吳伯雄曾在電視上公開說：二二八是有殺人，但沒有強暴婦女。

我在2008年2月參加二二八事件61週年國際學術研討會，會中有多國學者提出寶貴的資料。關於二二八死亡人數，學者人口學家陳寬政其專業的統計，估計死亡人數在一萬八千人至二萬八千人。根據
New York Times 的報導：二二八事件與日本、中國共產黨無關。且 New York Times
的記者曾目睹軍人強暴婦女。二二八發生時，紐西蘭人艾倫‧詹姆士‧謝克頓（Allan J
Shackleton）是屬外國籍人士的目擊者，當時他是聯合國「救災及重建署」的在台官員。他在離台後，寫了《福爾摩沙的呼喚》，書中的第35頁至36頁更提到：在北投，街道上的女孩子往往被施以麻醉劑後，帶往軍營讓軍人發洩，然後用船帶往大陸。

根據《大溪檔案》第七九號，第230頁至241頁，監察院的事件調查報告，包括鎮壓前後，各地外省人的死亡人數總收不過三十三人；就算根據警備總部的統計，也不過四十五人。（臺灣省警備總司令部編印《臺灣省「二二八」事變記事》臺灣省警備總司令部，1947，第16頁，本資料收藏於台北二二八紀念館）。這些外省人並非全然受攻擊而死，也有鎮壓期間被軍隊誤殺者。（《大溪檔案》第六七號，第194頁）。

在二二八之後的白色恐怖，中國國民黨對台灣人的「寧可錯殺一百，絕不放過一人」的誅連，就像拉肉粽串似的毫無理法可言。二二八的死難者家屬往往要銷毀其所有的證物，並三緘其口，就好像這個親人從未出現過，以免更多的親族被抓。故在解嚴後平反二二八的同時，能提出賠償的人只有數百人。但二二八事件後的六年，即一九五三年台灣的戶口普查，不明原因失蹤的，竟高達近十二萬人之多。可見郝柏村、朱浤源、吳伯雄等中國統派立場的說法，完全是政治凌駕學術，睜眼說瞎話。

台灣人從熱烈歡迎祖國的到來，到二二八的抗暴，到一九四七年九月廖文毅的以追求台灣獨立為目標的「台灣再解放聯盟」，這其中的轉變，如果不是二二八的大屠殺對台灣人的傷害太大，豈會改變台灣人日治時期朝思暮想的「祖國」情懷？

二二八時任記者的吳濁流在其《無花果》194頁中提到：當憤怒的民眾衝進公賣局搗毀物件洩憤時，國父遺像仍好好的保存著。如果台灣人真如中國國民黨所說的叛亂、不認同祖國，又怎麼會認同孫文遺像？（作者為國小教師，台灣文化所碩士）

就算五百人，他們該死嗎？

◎ 洪世才

郝柏村是不是軍事家我不知道，這要軍事專家去評判。但可肯定的是，他絕對不是歷史學家。從他對二二八死傷人數的發言看來，他更像是一個偏見的種族主義者、中原沙文主義者。或許，無知和冷血這兩個形容詞，對郝柏村的二二八言論批判比較貼切。

郝柏村說二二八只死了五百人，那麼就這死了五百人的問題請教郝柏村，這五百人到底犯了甚麼罪，國民政府軍要將他們殺害？政府以軍警力量將無辜老百姓殺害，這是多麼恐怖的事情，是野蠻國家的不文明行為，難道五百人就不是人嗎？何況血跡斑斑，不知道你郝柏村是不是把老百姓當戰場中的敵人，殺他幾百幾千稀鬆平常呢？

再請教郝柏村，你這五百人是甚麼時間、甚麼地點、甚麼原因死的？請你說說當時的國民政府怎麼下得了手？（作者曾任記者，彰化縣民）

 

郝個戒嚴與二二八

◎ 楊彥騏

先前，郝柏村先生投書指稱二二八事件「死傷逾萬」不是歷史真相；而認為他在行政院長任內「從寬」調查的五百餘人，乃至一再放寬期限資格的一千人左右，才是確實數字。郝先生並認為，這些登記的受害者，從優撫恤六百萬元，已經是政府最大的恩澤。字裡行間，似乎台灣人對當年的政府作為太小氣苛責。

回想郝先生在總統大選期間發表「沒有過去戒嚴，就沒有今天的自由民主。」跟這回投書的論述一樣，是完全建立在不尊重生命的基礎上。

無論當年歷史的時空環境怎樣，沒有一個台灣人是該死的。不論是屠殺一千人或一萬人；無論出自刻意滅殺菁英或無奈出兵鎮壓，無庸置疑的，二二八事件是政府暴力、政府殺人！不能因為出於無奈、人殺得少，而給予政府的暴行合理化、合法化。

奉勸郝先生這一群統治權貴的「新移民」們，無論你們自認過去對台灣的安全防衛、經濟建設等有多麼大的付出與貢獻，別忘了，當時廣大受傷悲痛的台灣人，在二二八事件幾年後，依舊坦然伸手接納、張臂容抱敗逃流亡的國民政府軍民，並一起胼手胝足在台灣安身立命。這是我在這個紀念日看到跟感受到的台灣人精神與價值。

（作者為高中教師，雲林縣民）

 

郝柏村與馬英九的算術

◎ 賴佑哲

郝柏村投書指二二八死亡及失蹤人數為五百餘人，引起風暴；馬英九也曾想引用二二八基金會領補償的人數做為二二八死亡的人數，這是不道德的。

已知所認識的受難家屬，有認為冤仇不能如此了結，金錢無法補償，更不願做國府的宣傳品，不屑出面申請補償。所以，領補償的人數確實不能做為歷史的數字。

二二八事件死傷人數，維基百科整理國內外各方調查數字如下：楊亮功調查報告：死一九○人，傷一七六一人。白崇禧報告書：死傷一八六○人。《紐約時報》霍伯曼南京專電：死二二○○人。台灣警備總司令部：死三二○○人。保安司令部：死六三○○人。監察委員何漢文：至少死七千至八千人。《紐約時報》記者杜爾曼．德丁專電：死一萬人。台灣旅滬六團體一九四七年《台灣事件報告書》：死一萬人以上。民政廳長蔣渭川一九四七年《二二八事件報告書》：死一萬七千人至一萬八千人。日本《朝日新聞》調查研究室：死一萬至數萬人。美國駐台領事館副領事喬治柯爾：死兩萬多人。

還有，楊逸舟的《二二八民變》以行政院一九六○年下令註銷十二萬有籍無人的戶籍，當做二二八罹難人數的一個參考數據。這些數字，比起今日利比亞、埃及和敘利亞都是有過之而無不及，「大屠殺」三個字絕不為過！人民對涉案的中國國民黨政權，理應比照那些中東專制政權辦理。 （作者為旅美台僑）

 

死亡人數成謎 張炎憲：當時政府最該負責

中國時報【陳文信╱台北報導】

二二八事件六十五周年，前行政院長郝柏村日前投書媒體，質疑二二八死亡人數逾萬人恐非歷史真相，引發爭議。前國史館長張炎憲表示，二二八的死亡人數雖然沒有確切的統計數字，但學術界早已公認約為一、二萬人；他認為，死亡人數迄今難清查，最該負責的就是當時的政府。

張炎憲出生於一九四七年，即「二二八事件」發生的那一年，他因投入二二八事件與五○年代白色恐怖的口述歷史訪查工作，被譽為二二八事件研究權威。

張炎憲在接受本報專訪時指出，一九九二年的二二八事件調查研究報告顯示，死亡人數約在一萬八千人至二萬八千人之間；且根據事發當時台灣的新生報，以及上海、南京報業派駐在台記者的報導，死亡人數也都在一萬人左右。

他坦言，無論是研究報告，或是當時的媒體報導，當然多少會跟實際情形有出入，但出入應不會大到太離譜；此外，社會學家也以現代的科學方法，分析一九四七年的死亡率，並根據歷年的人口數、出生率和死亡率推算，二二八事件大約造成一、二萬人喪命，「這算是合理的推測，也是學術界公認的數字。」對於郝柏村稱當時非正常死亡及失蹤人數為五百餘人，放寬期限接受撫慰者也只有一千人左右，張炎憲表示，以申請補償的件數來推估當時的受害人數，不僅不科學，反而更顯示掌權者的傲慢與荒謬。他指出，當時是白色恐怖時代，參與二二八等於反叛政府，多數老百姓都害怕，就算家裡有人因此喪命，也多以外出死亡或其他原因辦理死亡登記。

張炎憲說，根據二二八事件當時的統計及賠償，死亡名單中只有五十七位外省人，竟然沒有本省人；直到五十年後，政府才開始受理賠償申請，可是當年受害的本省人，有些是未審先判、直接槍斃，根本沒有留下資料，還有些人沒有後代、父母已故，無人可代為申請，因此不應以申請撫慰的人數推算受害人數。他感嘆，受害人數至今還查不清楚，應該要先問當時的政府為何不調查？也應該先釐清加害者的責任歸屬。

救命恩人 228槍下亡 蕭萬長感懷潘木枝醫師 〔記者李欣芳、王善嬿／綜合報導〕昨是二二八受難者潘木枝醫師逝世六十五週年，官方與二二八受難者家屬齊聚一堂追思。副總統蕭萬長表示，當年潘木枝遭槍決時，他曾到現場祭拜，當年那支參拜的香至今繚繞心頭，他感懷潘木枝對台灣民主的貢獻，並稱潘醫師是他的救命恩人。 潘木枝在二二八事件發生之際，代表嘉義市二二八事件處理委員會赴嘉義水上機場與國府軍隊談判，竟遭拘留，三月二十五日在嘉義火車站前被槍決身亡。 蕭萬長昨出席二二八基金會舉辦「那『一支香』還在燃燒—六十五年來的懷念」潘木枝醫師紀念特展暨追思會。他表示，小時候常受潘木枝照顧，他媽媽曾說，如果沒有潘木枝，他可能無法順利長大成人；且潘木枝不僅對他好，對所有患者都一視同仁，潘木枝遭槍決在眾人心中留下悲痛、深刻的記憶。 昨下午嘉市也有「愛與和平—二二八事件六十五周年嘉義地區追思遊行」活動，哀悼二二八事件犧牲的十六人。當時受難的陳澄波兒子陳重光、潘木枝兒子潘信行深表感謝，陳重光說父親遺書第一行就說，為十二萬名市民犧牲無悔，過了六十五年還有那麼多人來參加遊行，很感動。 中研院近代史副研究員陳儀深說，當時死亡人數介於一萬八千人到兩萬八千人間，歷史不能被郝柏村等人干擾。

KMT繼續用從台灣人民劫掠得來的黨產破壞台灣的民主

[台灣要有新的、有勇氣、肯犧牲的領導人，帶領人民改變目前傾中、降中的趨勢、保衛台灣人主權、維護台灣人的民主、自由、人權。] 劫掠‧黨產‧二二八 ◎ 雲程 二二八事件發生的一九四七年，是太平洋戰爭從結束到和平條約前的「敵意軍事占領期」。蔣介石元帥與其複委託的陳儀長官都是代表盟軍總部（ＧＨＱ）的占領當局。他們視台灣人為日本國民，屠殺乃戰爭的一部分，難怪戰勝的國府高官總是抗拒道歉。至今部分高階將領仍否定當年造成台灣人民的巨大痛苦與死亡，連民主也無法讓他們釋懷昔日的敵我。 但二二八的痛苦更來自戰後劫掠。 終戰伊始，為了報復、賠償，也為了解除日本帝國主義再起，ＧＨＱ在一九四五年十一月十五日決定實施「中間賠償計劃」（interim reparation plan）︱︱以實物賠償為原則，允許戰勝國在維持日本人民最低生活標準的前提下，立即沒收日本與海外占領區物資與金融資產、拆卸工業設施，做為日本支付占領費用、充當賠償，以重建戰勝國經濟。 為此，一九四六年行政院設置「賠償委員會」，聲稱：中國公私損害達到三一三億美元，台灣為六十億日圓，而日本在華三．八億美元資產中的七十五％屬於侵略所得……。在各國分配比例未定下，各占領區日產沒收與拆卸作業已如火如荼展開，受命來台的蔣介石部隊自不例外。 為因應共產主義擴張，「中間賠償計劃」雖在一九四八年終止，但中國與菲律賓等仍強力反對。嗣後以「舊金山和約」第十四條：日本放棄所有海外公私財產給占領當局當成戰爭賠償做為妥協。其後，戰勝方仍以各種面貌持續著賠償主張。 一個大哉問：一九四五年十二月六日占領南韓的美國軍政府雖透過「第三十三號指令」，沒收了日本公私財產，卻於一九四八年九月十一日依「美韓間財政與財產相關協定」第五條轉讓給大韓民國。而同為日本外地的台灣，其公私日產（當年幣值高達十九億美元以上，折合今日約近七千億新台幣），卻被蔣介石占領當局私納為國民黨產，至今仍被恣意花用左右選舉結果。這不是沒收敵產，也非中間賠償，而是「海牙第四公約」第四十七條所嚴禁的劫掠（Pillage is formally forbidden）。 二二八、黨產與台灣地位，甚至「上海公報」，都是終戰處理的一環或後續。台灣人必須整合個別議題轉而把握整體脈絡，才能揮別歷史傷痛，理性而有效主張被我們遺忘的權利。（作者著有《放眼國際：領土地位變遷與台灣，http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/hoon-ting） 分享在我的 Facebook 分享在我的 Plurk 分享在我的即時通 They are about the pillage: the 228 Incident & KMT properties 1947, the year that 228 Incident occurred, was by all means the "hostile occupation period" of the Allies, which extended from the end of war to the entering into force of the treaty of peace, according to the US Military Codes as well as laws of war. Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (CKS) and his subordinate General Chen Yi, the Administrator of Taiwan, were the proxy occupation authority by the Supreme Command of Allied Powers / General Head Quarter (SCAP/GHQ).  Taiwanese, who spoke Japanese then, were subjects of Japanese Empire.  In this regard, suppression or even massacre of civilians was just a part of war, even if the war had ended.  To many servicepersons, it was nothing odd in the hostile occupation.  No wonder the victorious Chinese Nationalist authority has been reluctant to apologize to Taiwanese victims in the 228 Incident.  A high-ranking general Hau still denies the massive deaths and the sufferings of the Incident 65 years later, and even two decades' democratization could not alter his biased view on who is the victor. The pillage of CKS proxy occupation after the end of war, in fact, has prolonged the 228 sufferings. For revenge, reparation, paying for the occupation expenses and neutralizing Japanese capacity to restart the war, SCAP/GHQ drafted an "Interim Reparation Plan" on November 15, 1945, which allowed the UN allies to confiscate Japanese financial assets and to dissemble their industrial facilities, either public or private, in Japan and its overseas territories under occupation.  The nationalist government of China set up a reparation committee to deal with it.  They claimed the reparation of31.3 billion US dollars damages on Japan, in addition to some 6 billion Yen loss to Taiwan; and three-fourths of 380 million US dollars Japanese assets in China were claimed to have derived from China during the invasion.[1]  As the shares among the UN allies in the Plans were never confirmed, the allies could not wait to split up the massive assets.  The CKS authority was no exception. To counter the ever-growing communists and as a consequence of the Reverse Course in 1947, the Plan was terminated in 1948 under the strong protest of China and the Philippines.  The reparation was finalized in Article 14 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, in which Japan renounced all their private and public assets to the occupation authority and local government as reparation.  However, many UN allies kept claiming reparation on Japan. A big question remains: Taiwan and Korea were two similar foreign territories to Japanese Empire before the War.  The US military government in South Korean issued Directive No. 33 to confiscate all Japanese assets on December 6, 1945, and transferred them to South Korean government on September 11, 1948 according to Article 5 of the Agreement referring to Finances and Assets between the US and South Korea.  According to the case of South Korea, the vast Japanese fortunes should have been transferred to the Taiwanese legitimate government, not proxy occupation authority.  Quite the opposite, CKS confiscated some 1.9 billion US dollars Japanese assets in Taiwan, which was equivalent to some 700 billion NT dollars today[2], and laundered them into the pocket of Kuomintang (KMT), the Chinese Nationalist Party which stayed loyal to CKS personally.  They have been used as a partisan weapon to defeat KMT's political rivals and have thus kept KMT in power with or without the election.  The laundering that occurred around 1947, the year that KMT committed the 228 slaughter, was neither a legitimate confiscation under the laws of war, nor an interim reparation.  In fact, it was against Article 47 of "the Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land," or known as "The IV Hague Convention of 1907," which stipulates "Pillage is formally forbidden." The 228 Incident, the vast KMT assets, Taiwan's undecided status, and even the Shanghai Communiqué on February 28, 1972, which has exactly the 40th anniversary today, are all episodes of WWII aftermath.  We should study and integrate all the relevant issues and master the SFPT system before we claim our legitimate rights and correct these injustices.    revised on 20120229

台灣茉莉花：黨產歸零 ◎ 盧孝治 台灣必須發起「茉莉花運動」，其訴求簡單有力：國民黨黨產歸零（或謂歸公）。 黨產乃國民黨侵占、掠奪二戰後日人在台之產業，此財產應歸台灣全民或公庫所有。黨產不公不義之性質，國民黨亦不敢否認，馬英九也多次信誓旦旦要把「黨產歸零」，然多年來，國民黨堅持歷史之惡，劣根性不改，說歸說，就是不做！ 一個黨坐擁龐大黨產與黨營事業，在全世界民主國家絕無僅有，只要黨產一天存在，台灣絕無公平之選舉可言，台灣社會也絕不可能實現公平正義！ 國民黨之黨產係萬惡之首、弊端之源，多少不可告人之勾當乃因黨產而能實現。靠著此筆天大黨產，多少騙術、賄選、洗腦之醜陋罪行才能進行。 吾人無法期望新國會能逼使國民黨黨產歸零，有志之士應以街頭運動、群眾運動─台灣「茉莉花運動」，逼迫國民黨說到做到，交出黨產，台灣才有公平之選舉可言！台灣正常、健康、合理的民主政治於焉開始！ 推動「台灣茉莉花：黨產歸零」一役，至少讓歷史留下紀錄，至少讓票投馬英九之六九○萬人知道渠等「勝之不武」，甚至「丟臉」之至！ 二○一二總統之役，已讓台民清楚競爭對手不僅是國民黨，更包括背後之中國共產黨。但吾人仍寄希望於中國人民中之良心人士，渠等既然為小英之敗選感言而落淚，更應努力讓中國人民了解：倘再支持國民黨，則不啻是支持不公不義之黑金財團─除非黨產歸零！ （作者為台灣之友會桃園分會會長）

急性細菌性鼻竇炎可能不需要抗生素，不過、、、

Antibiotics May Not Be Needed for
Acute Rhinosinusitis CME

Clinical Context

Sinusitis accounts for approximately
1 in 5 antibiotic prescriptions in the United States, according to the authors
of the current study. This finding is somewhat surprising considering that
antibiotics have demonstrated mixed results in clinical trials of patients with
acute rhinosinusitis. Although objective findings such as radiographic imaging
appear to be improved with antibiotics, antibiotics appear to have a minimal
effect on clinical symptoms, in part because of rates of spontaneous
improvement of rhinosinusitis, which approach 70%.

The current study by Garbutt and
colleagues further examines the efficacy of antibiotics for acute
rhinosinusitis in a randomized trial based in primary care offices.

Study Synopsis and Perspective

Most symptoms of acute sinusitis
resolve just as quickly without antibiotics as they do with antibiotics,
according to results of a new study
in the February 15 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Jane M. Garbutt, MBChB, from the
Division of General Medical Sciences at Washington University School of
Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and colleagues conducted a randomized
controlled trial in which they compared quality of life improvement in patients
given a 10-day course of amoxicillin vs patients given a placebo.

"Considering the public health
threat posed by increasing antibiotic resistance, strong evidence of symptom
relief is needed to justify prescribing of antibiotics for this usually
self-limiting disease," the authors write.

Rhinosinusitis vs Common Cold

The study included 166 adult
patients from 10 primary care offices in St. Louis, Missouri. Patients were
eligible for the study if they met the diagnostic criteria for acute bacterial
rhinosinusitis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and if they
rated their symptoms moderate, severe, or very severe.

Patients also had to have a history
of maxillary pain or tenderness in the face or teeth, purulent nasal discharge,
and rhinosinusitis symptoms for between 7 and 28 days that were neither
improving nor worsening, or rhinosinusitis symptoms for 7 days or fewer that
first improved and then worsened.

"A lot of the other studies are
including people who just have a cold, instead of a real bacterial sinus
infection. They used a more rigorous definition here that corresponds to
guidelines from the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American
College of Physicians," said Richard M. Rosenfeld, MD, MPH, professor and
chairman of otolaryngology at SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New
York, in a telephone interview with Medscape Medical News. Dr. Rosenfeld
was not involved with the study.

"The added twist on this study
is they focused on quality of life," said Dr. Rosenfeld.

Study Medications

Patients assigned to the treatment
group (n = 85) received amoxicillin 1500 mg/day in 3 divided doses for 10 days.
Patients assigned to the control group (n = 81) received a placebo.

All study participants were given a
5- to 7-day supply of symptomatic treatments, unless their physician felt the
treatments were contraindicated. The treatments provided were acetaminophen 500
mg every 6 hours as needed for pain or fever; guaifenesin 600 mg every 12 hours
as needed to thin secretions; dextromethorphan hydrobromide 10 mg/5 mL and
guaifenesin 100 mg/5 mL every 4 to 6 hours as needed for cough;
pseudoephedrine-sustained action 120 mg every 12 hours as needed for nasal
congestion; and 0.65% saline spray, 2 puffs per nostril as needed.

The researchers assessed the effect
of treatment on disease-specific quality of life at day 3 as the primary
outcome. They used the modified Sinonasal Outcome Test-16 (SNOT-16) to measure
severity and frequency of 16 sinus-related symptoms over the prior few days.
Items assessed by the SNOT-16 tool included physical symptoms like runny nose,
cough, and ear fullness, as well as quality-of-life factors including
difficulty sleeping, trouble concentrating, and reduced productivity.

Both study groups reported high use
of symptomatic treatments (92%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 88% - 96%).

Quality-of-Life Improvement

The mean change in SNOT-16 scores
for quality of life was similar in both groups at day 3 (treatment group: 0.59
[95% CI, 0.47 to 0.71]; control group: 0.54 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.67], P =
.69; mean difference between groups, 0.03 [95% CI, −0.12 to 0.19]).

The mean improvement in
quality-of-life scores was similar for both groups at day 10 as well (mean
difference between groups, 0.01 [95% CI, −0.13 to 0.15]). The mean improvement
in quality-of-life scores differed between the groups at day 7, with more
improvement reported by the amoxicillin group (mean difference between groups,
0.19 [95% CI, 0.024 to 0.35]).

Symptom improvement was not
significantly different between the 2 groups at day 3 (37% for the amoxicillin
group vs 34% for the control group; P = .67) or at day 10 (78% for the
amoxicillin group vs 80% for the control group; P = .71). More patients
in the amoxicillin group reported symptom improvement at day 7 (74% for
amoxicillin group vs 56% for control group, P =.02; number needed to
treat = 6 [95% CI, 3 to 34]).

"In this study, retrospective
assessment of change in sinus symptoms suggested that antibiotic treatment may
provide more rapid resolution of symptoms for some patients by day 7. However,
when improvement was assessed as the difference in SNOT-16 scores, the
statistically significant benefit at day 7 was too small to represent any
clinically important change," the authors write.

Resistant Organisms?

Dr. Rosenfeld suggested that the
lack of an antibiotic effect may have been a result of antibiotic-resistant organisms.
He pointed out that amoxicillin is a very common first-line antibiotic for
treating bacterial infections. Two of the 3 main bacteria that cause sinus
infections — Haemophilus influenzae and Moraxella catarrhalis —
can be resistant to penicillin- and amoxicillin-type drugs. Streptococcus
pneumoniae can also be resistant, he explained.

"In the discussion section [the
authors] provide some data that in their community the resistance levels of Streptococcus
pneumoniae to amoxicillin are low. They don't mention anything about
resistance to the other bacteria," Dr. Rosenfeld said.

"[If you] have a sinusitis
caused by one of the penicillin- or amoxicillin-resistant germs, clearly you're
not going to see a benefit of treating with amoxicillin; that's basically the
same as giving a placebo," he added.

If the investigators had used an
antibiotic like amoxicillin clavulanate, which covers a broader spectrum of
bacteria, they may have seen a bigger benefit. "Whether we can extrapolate
this study outside of the St. Louis area or to other antibiotics is very
unclear, and they may have missed the benefit of using a broader spectrum of
antibiotic," he explained.

"Do I think they missed a
dramatic benefit? No, but they may have missed some smaller benefit of using other
antibiotics," said Dr. Rosenfeld.

"Evidence from this study
suggests that treatment with amoxicillin for 10 days offers little clinical
benefit for most patients with clinically diagnosed uncomplicated acute
rhinosinusitis," the authors write. "It is important to note that
patients with symptoms indicative of serious complications were excluded from
this trial and likely need a different management strategy," they
conclude.

One of the study coauthors, Jay F.
Piccirillo, MD, reports that he has grants pending with the National
Institutesof Health, the Department of Defense, and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency; has received honoraria from Emory University and New York
University for invited speaker positions for grand rounds; has received royalties
for the Sinonasal Outcome Test; and is chair of data and safety monitoring
boards for Apnex Medical and the National Institutes of Health, National
Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. No other author
reported potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Rosenfeld has disclosed no
relevant financial relationships.

JAMA. 2012;307:685-692.

Study Highlights

• The study was conducted in 10
  primary care offices in Missouri. Patients eligible for study
  participation were between the 18 and 70 years old and had no history of
  recent exposure to antibiotics or medical history that would predispose
  them to complicated rhinosinusitis.


• Cases of rhinosinusitis in the
  study were supposed to reflect moderate to severe illness. All
  participants had at least 7 days of facial pain and purulent nasal
  drainage, or less than 7 days of symptoms with significant worsening after
  initial improvement.


• Participants were randomly
  assigned to receive amoxicillin 500 mg 3 times daily or matching placebo
  for 10 days.


• All participants also received
  5- to 7-day supplies of multiple medications for symptomatic relief.


• The primary study outcome was
  disease-specific quality of life at day 3 of treatment. This treatment
  point was chosen given the high rate of spontaneous resolution of
  rhinosinusitis. A validated instrument was used to measure the primary
  study outcome.


• Other study outcomes included
  disease-specific quality of life at days 7 and 10 of treatment, patient
  symptoms, patient satisfaction with treatment, rates of relapse and
  recurrence of rhinosinusitis, and adverse events associated with study
  therapy.


• 166 participants underwent
  randomization, and baseline data were similar in comparing the amoxicillin
  group vs the placebo group. The median age of participants was 32 years,
  and 64% were women. The mean duration of rhinosinusitis symptoms exceeded
  11 days, and more than 90% of participants had tried symptomatic treatment
  before coming to the clinician's office.


• Nearly 90% of participants
  completed the study treatment in both randomly assigned groups, and 92% of
  participants used the supplied medications to relieve symptoms during the
  treatment period.


• Disease-related quality of life
  was similar in comparing the amoxicillin group vs the placebo group at 3
  days and at 10 days. There was a small benefit for amoxicillin in this
  outcome at day 7, but the study authors state that this difference is of
  questionable clinical significance.


• Similarly, there was no
  difference between groups in symptom improvement at days 3 and 10. 74% of
  participants receiving amoxicillin reported symptom relief at day 7 vs 56%
  of the placebo group (P = .02).


• Subgroup analysis based on
  treatment completion and the duration of symptoms corroborated the main
  study findings.


• Patient satisfaction with
  treatment and rates of relapse or recurrence of rhinosinusitis were also
  similar between the groups, as was the rate of absence from work.


• Rates of adverse events were
  also similar in the amoxicillin group and the placebo group.


• The only factor associated with
  a higher rate of treatment success at day 7 with amoxicillin vs placebo
  was nasal obstruction.

Clinical Implications

• Although antibiotic
  prescription rates for acute rhinosinusitis are high in the United States,
  antibiotics are more associated with improvement in measurements such as
  sinus radiographic results compared with patient symptoms. Acute
  rhinosinusitis has a high rate of spontaneous improvement.


• The current study by Garbutt
  and colleagues demonstrates that amoxicillin offered limited clinical
  benefit vs placebo among adults with acute rhinosinusitis.

 

醫師如何終結生命? 不驚慌，過有品質的最後一刻

Why Doctors Die Differently

Careers in medicine have taught them the limits of treatment and the need to plan for the end

By KEN MURRAY

Years ago, Charlie, a highly respected orthopedist and a mentor of mine, found a lump in his stomach. It was diagnosed as pancreatic cancer by one of the best surgeons in the country, who had developed a procedure that could triple a patient's five-year-survival odds—from 5% to 15%—albeit with a poor quality of life.

Arthur Giron

What's unusual about doctors is not how much treatment they get compared with most Americans, but how little.

Charlie, 68 years old, was uninterested. He went home the next day, closed his practice and never set foot in a hospital again. He focused on spending time with his family. Several months later, he died at home. He got no chemotherapy, radiation or surgical treatment. Medicare didn't spend much on him.

It's not something that we like to talk about, but doctors die, too. What's unusual about them is not how much treatment they get compared with most Americans, but how little. They know exactly what is going to happen, they know the choices, and they generally have access to any sort of medical care that they could want. But they tend to go serenely and gently.

Doctors don't want to die any more than anyone else does. But they usually have talked about the limits of modern medicine with their families. They want to make sure that, when the time comes, no heroic measures are taken. During their last moments, they know, for instance, that they don't want someone breaking their ribs by performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (which is what happens when CPR is done right).

In a 2003 article, Joseph J. Gallo and others looked at what physicians want when it comes to end-of-life decisions. In a survey of 765 doctors, they found that 64% had created an advanced directive—specifying what steps should and should not be taken to save their lives should they become incapacitated. That compares to only about 20% for the general public. (As one might expect, older doctors are more likely than younger doctors to have made "arrangements," as shown in a study by Paula Lester and others.)

Why such a large gap between the decisions of doctors and patients? The case of CPR is instructive. A study by Susan Diem and others of how CPR is portrayed on TV found that it was successful in 75% of the cases and that 67% of the TV patients went home. In reality, a 2010 study of more than 95,000 cases of CPR found that only 8% of patients survived for more than one month. Of these, only about 3% could lead a mostly normal life.

Unlike previous eras, when doctors simply did what they thought was best, our system is now based on what patients choose. Physicians really try to honor their patients' wishes, but when patients ask "What would you do?," we often avoid answering. We don't want to impose our views on the vulnerable.

The result is that more people receive futile "lifesaving" care, and fewer people die at home than did, say, 60 years ago. Nursing professor Karen Kehl, in an article called "Moving Toward Peace: An Analysis of the Concept of a Good Death," ranked the attributes of a graceful death, among them: being comfortable and in control, having a sense of closure, making the most of relationships and having family involved in care. Hospitals today provide few of these qualities.

Written directives can give patients far more control over how their lives end. But while most of us accept that taxes are inescapable, death is a much harder pill to swallow, which keeps the vast majority of Americans from making proper arrangements.

It doesn't have to be that way. Several years ago, at age 60, my older cousin Torch (born at home by the light of a flashlight, or torch) had a seizure. It turned out to be the result of lung cancer that had gone to his brain. We learned that with aggressive treatment, including three to five hospital visits a week for chemotherapy, he would live perhaps four months.

Torch was no doctor, but he knew that he wanted a life of quality, not just quantity. Ultimately, he decided against any treatment and simply took pills for brain swelling. He moved in with me.

We spent the next eight months having fun together like we hadn't had in decades. We went to Disneyland, his first time, and we hung out at home. Torch was a sports nut, and he was very happy to watch sports and eat my cooking. He had no serious pain, and he remained high-spirited.

One day, he didn't wake up. He spent the next three days in a coma-like sleep and then died. The cost of his medical care for those eight months, for the one drug he was taking, was about $20.

As for me, my doctor has my choices on record. They were easy to make, as they are for most physicians. There will be no heroics, and I will go gentle into that good night. Like my mentor Charlie. Like my cousin Torch. Like so many of my fellow doctors.

—Dr. Murray is retired clinical assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Southern California. Adapted from an article originally published on Zocalo Public Square.

二二八大屠殺死亡了多少人??

---

郝柏村與馬英九的算術 ◎ 賴佑哲 郝柏村投書指二二八死亡及失蹤人數為五百餘人，引起風暴；馬英九也曾想引用二二八基金會領補償的人數做為二二八死亡的人數，這是不道德的。 已知所認識的受難家屬，有認為冤仇不能如此了結，金錢無法補償，更不願做國府的宣傳品，不屑出面申請補償。所以，領補償的人數確實不能做為歷史的數字。 二二八事件死傷人數，維基百科整理國內外各方調查數字如下：楊亮功調查報告：死一九○人，傷一七六一人。白崇禧報告書：死傷一八六○人。《紐約時報》霍伯曼南京專電：死二二○○人。台灣警備總司令部：死三二○○人。保安司令部：死六三○○人。監察委員何漢文：至少死七千至八千人。《紐約時報》記者杜爾曼．德丁專電：死一萬人。台灣旅滬六團體一九四七年《台灣事件報告書》：死一萬人以上。民政廳長蔣渭川一九四七年《二二八事件報告書》：死一萬七千人至一萬八千人。日本《朝日新聞》調查研究室：死一萬至數萬人。美國駐台領事館副領事喬治柯爾：死兩萬多人。 還有，楊逸舟的《二二八民變》以行政院一九六○年下令註銷十二萬有籍無人的戶籍，當做二二八罹難人數的一個參考數據。這些數字，比起今日利比亞、埃及和敘利亞都是有過之而無不及，「大屠殺」三個字絕不為過！人民對涉案的中國國民黨政權，理應比照那些中東專制政權辦理。 （作者為旅美台僑）

 

焦點評論／人數非焦點？ 馬也錯了

[馬先生連這種基本觀念都出錯，可見其無能的程度。其實他的能力，從他的畢業論文錯誤上千，就可看出一端。看不出的人，自認是台灣人，還會投選如此明顯傾中的馬/KMT繼續執政的選民，應該反省! 不過，是太遲了吧。

許多稍有遠見的觀察家認為，以後台灣政局將是溫水煮青蛙，一路走向被專制中國併吞。看這次表面看來和平選舉結果，美國議員要引用台灣關係法替台灣民主人士出聲援助，挽留在民主陣營中，恐怕也很難。台灣人將又會失去取得民主、自由、公平法治的機會。

投錯一次票，卻留得千古恨! 終於見證了民主國被專制國和平併吞的世界史上最荒唐的第一次，原來是如此演變而成。]

焦點評論／人數非焦點？ 馬也錯了

記者鄒景雯／特稿

郝柏村說，高中歷史課本說二二八非正常死亡及失蹤人數「死亡逾萬」不正確。昨天，馬英九在參加二二八紀念活動上，針對郝柏村的錯誤說：焦點不在於受難人數的數字。馬的這句話同樣也錯了。歷史就是歷史，歷史的構成不外人事時地物，人是主體，人數怎麼會不重要呢？

如果馬英九認為歷史事件的人數不是焦點這句話成立，希特勒殘害了多少猶太人，日本在南京屠殺了多少人，中國六四天安門事件中有多少人遇害，是不是也可以任由後世不在場的人依據各種原因隨意解讀？如果馬英九是對的，日本要修改教科書的侵華史實時，中國等東亞國家就是「反應過度」？日前台灣民間社團與學界針對某報老闆的六四失言所做的嚴肅指正，不也是「沒事找碴」？

馬英九做為國家元首，儘管他自市長時代以來每年都在二二八這一天前去道歉，但是在郝柏村事件這個關鍵時刻，針對爭議核心，他卻選擇了鄉愿與閃躲，那麼說再多美麗的詞藻，都是裝飾，甚至是政治的需要，根本沒有內化為一種對歷史誠實的價值信仰，否則，對郝柏村說一句：你錯了，對認同其父言論的郝龍斌也說一句：你錯了。有這麼困難嗎？

馬英九不敢忤逆郝柏村，因為郝柏村言論背後所代表的是中國國民黨自蔣家政權以降的史觀，將之界定為數百或約千人，下一句就是沒有逾萬，其欲建構的概念就是「沒死幾個人」，換句話說，哪裡不死人？一個政權的大遷徙，為了穩定局面，總會死幾個人。這套「合理化」「正當化」歷史悲劇的邏輯，其實與馬英九過去說過的「官逼民反」，都是為殺人者「說項」的代名詞。

郝柏村會在馬英九連任成功後大放厥詞，這是社會的情境氛圍誘發的。「郝柏村們」認為國民黨已經在台灣透過民主程序取得了空白支票，此後四年可以在支票上任意地填寫數字，人民只有點頭兌現的份，因此說瘦肉精沒毒就沒毒，說二二八「只」死千人有何不可？台灣社會要變成這樣嗎？

死多少人很重要!!

◎ 陳頂新

馬英九指出，二二八事件焦點應擺在還原歷史、記取教訓、撫平傷痛、避免重演，焦點不在於其受難人數的數字。

這算哪門子的邏輯？二二八事件的受難人數絕對是重要的真相之一，如果連真相都不明或被惡意扭曲，那要如何還原歷史，記取教訓、撫平傷痛、避免重演？馬英九講了一堆空話其實就是在幫郝柏村緩頰。

二二八事件受難人數各界估計數字不一，若依官方統計資料則高達一萬八千人至兩萬八千人。這是中華民國政府的統計，馬英九身為現任總統又為國民黨主席，有義務反駁郝柏村的說法。（作者為台灣客家後生社社長）

郝柏村為何開「槍」？

二二八是台灣歷史最傷痛的紀念日，二二八前，深藍大老郝柏村藉批判中學教科書內容，對二二八事件開槍、對台灣認同開槍，其論述引證錯誤、觀點偏謬，與時代脫節。應注意的倒是，郝柏村為何此時開槍？此時為何屢屢出現類似反動言論？

這應不是「老軍頭」成「老昏頭」的即興之作，而是馬英九連任成功、國民黨政權鞏固後，出現的保守派大反擊現象。深藍陣營發出兩項強烈政治訊號，一是威權統治重佔核心，另一是國家認同上去除台灣意識、回歸中國意識。

二二八事件，國民黨政權長期掩蓋血腥屠殺人民之事實，受難者家屬在統治暴力下，暗中飲泣，沉冤近五十年，在李登輝主政時代，才逐漸揭開血案真相。

不過，郝柏村等出身國民黨威權統治集團人士，先阻抗二二八真相調查，真相調查報告公布後，仍不承認、不接受，更為蔣介石帶頭的加害集團卸責，他們本就是共犯結構。郝柏村對二二八事件開槍，也暴露馬英九道歉的虛假！

郝柏村還批判「台灣地區」一詞偷渡「台灣、中國，一邊一國」，強調須旗幟鮮明的遵照憲法、認同中華民國。但是，三年多前陳雲林來台時，馬政府下令警察以暴力手段搶走民眾的國旗，郝柏村怎麼不旗幟鮮明的捍衛中華民國國旗及國格？郝龍斌還配合去國旗、迎陳雲林？

馬英九勝選、政權鞏固後，威權幽靈又在台灣飄飛，深藍意圖仗恃權力，重寫一套國民黨威權觀點的二二八事件，並以憲法一中為表，去台歸中為裡，對台灣意識發動反攻，重塑國家認同，實踐終極統一！

這種冷血反動言論，逆反真相、竄改史實、撕裂歷史傷口、違反主流民意，該受最嚴厲的譴責！（作者胡文輝，資深新聞工作者）

殺人滅屍 好大膽子

◎ 劉威良

我們台灣有做轉型正義嗎？如果有，今天郝柏村絕對不敢說這種無恥的話。因為沒有審判，我們再度看到了當年獨裁如同德國納粹的嘴臉，仍在台灣張牙舞爪地耍弄操控台灣人。他至今內心一定仍認為：欺騙台灣精英組協調會，然後針對這些人公開侮辱槍決是光榮的事。他內心絕對贊成：當年出來為了協調國民政府與民眾的人都該死，是嗎？而且死得還不夠多！他甚至要竄改歷史罪行，掩飾殺人的蹤跡，說沒殺那麼多，就沒那麼嚴重，就不那麼大不了。六十五年的今天，他敢講，因為從沒有人被審判過，被審判的人，反而是那些為民喉舌，為爭取民主被無辜入罪的政治犯。台灣的法制，讓犯錯的人在一定的時間過後，無需被審，讓當年勇於任事、爭取正義的人被槍決、被判刑。被政治判刑坐牢者，也無法洗刷罪名，終身背負罪犯之名，合理嗎？

台灣政府至今仍是由過去的獨裁政黨所執政，雖經政黨輪替，卻完全沒有做到轉型正義。過去的獨裁政黨，現在用更精緻細密的選舉策略，有形無形威逼，讓選舉選贏，骨子裡卻仍是百分之百的納粹。郝柏村的兒子郝龍斌，擁有現今的政治實權，身為首府首長，卻對其父的發言毫無愧疚，只用尊重來掩護其父，讓人深覺國民黨第二代根本無人對二二八屠殺感到錯誤而有檢討，在他們的心中，唯一該檢討的是教科書上的數字︱應該向下修正。

司法制度欠缺永久追溯的審判，無法讓當年加害者幫凶知過，也讓他們毫不掩飾罪行，過去白色恐怖政治犯罪行亦無法洗刷，納粹嘴臉隨時都在。

在德國一般人無法想像，德國納粹黨如今仍在德國執政的情景；在台灣卻是的，一個過去的獨裁政權，屠殺人不知過，也不需負責的納粹骨子接班人，仍在台灣執政，對台灣民主絕對無保障。法律追溯年限不能概括屠殺或殺人案，否則我們就是在繼續培養不需負責任的獨裁者在未來產生。

（作者為德國台灣協會中南區會會長）

228座談 學者批郝柏村不敢面對歷史 台灣教授協會會長張炎憲（左二）昨日於台大校友會館主持「二二八65週年紀念─台灣人的覺醒與自救」座談會，邀請中研院近代史研究所副研究員陳儀深（左一）、二二八關懷總會前會長周振才（右一）、台北教育大學教授李筱峰（右二）與會座談。（記者羅沛德攝） 〔記者林恕暉／台北報導〕台教會昨天舉行二二八事件六十五週年紀念「台灣人的自救與覺醒」座談會，對於前行政院長郝柏村質疑死難者人數的說法，前台教會長陳儀深指出，二二八後軍方在高雄稱「匪擊斃五、六百人」，但後來高雄領取補償金僅八十多人，顯示用補償金發放人數來計算死傷人數顯然有問題。 用補償金推算死亡數不恰當 陳儀深表示，行政院曾組二二八事件小組估算死亡人數約一萬八到兩萬多人，當年隨軍隊來台鎮壓二二八的監察委員楊亮功，也曾引述當年紐約時報報導指台灣人有一萬人被殺，並指責地方機關處決人犯不按程序，導致死亡人數無從查考。 陳儀深指出，二二八當時負責鎮壓高雄的軍隊曾提出報告稱高雄暴動「匪擊斃五、六百人」，顯示至少有五、六百人在高雄被殺害，但近年來高雄領取二二八補償金僅八十多人，顯示郝柏村以補償金領取不到一千人來推算死亡人數很有問題。 台北教育大學台文所教授李筱峰指出，死亡人數若因政治立場不同而有不同推斷，但當時媒體報導應該很逼近現實，尤其中國上海、香港等地報紙與雜誌記者、作家也都來台採訪，多篇報導都顯示台灣死傷人數「超過萬人」或「數萬人」，一篇名為「台灣二月革命記」文章更直指「死亡人數萬人以上是謹慎的估計」，顯示郝柏村說法是不敢面對歷史。 李筱峰認為，「一個民族若不知道歷史，是沒有智慧的民族，一個民族若容易遺忘歷史，是無情的民族」，二二八事件不是只有馬英九說「官逼民反」的政治觀點，或「族群衝突」觀點，從歷史文化觀點來看，當年二二八事件是中國、台灣兩個不同社會文化之間的衝突，就像已故歷史學者林衡道曾說的「文化水準較落後的一方統治文化水準較高的一方」，兩個社會彼此適應不良。 李筱峰表示，香港人與中國人發生衝突，也是文化落差所導致，若對岸中國跨海來要統治台灣時，會不會產生衝突？是否從二二八事件記取教訓？這都是台灣人民必須思考的問題，他認為只有走入過去，才能邁向未來。

同一國的

馬總統想沾林書豪的光，反被美國眾議員當面吐槽，指稱林是土生土長的美國人，真是顏面無光。不過，被傷害的是台灣人民，對馬總統而言，他的女兒與林書豪是「同一國」的，自己則擁有至今不敢拿出失效證明的綠卡，也算是一半的美國人，美國眾議員不察他是自己人，真是失禮。

馬英九當選連任，統派氣焰高漲，那些自恃選戰功臣的黨國大老，竟然跳出來清算台灣人民的歷史，企圖再將中國史觀注入台灣歷史。所以，早已退居幕後的軍頭郝柏村投書統派媒體，指控台北二二八紀念碑關於二二八事件「死傷逾萬」不正確，並指申請補償死亡失蹤人數僅約千人，此一翻案之舉絕非偶發個案，而是意味統派已吹起反攻本土派的號角。

馬英九大捧林書豪為台灣之光，只是表面工作，他心目中那道光是中國之光，沒有台灣存在的餘地。因此，不論是王建民、曾雅妮或盧彥勳，只要有人在國際體壇嶄露頭角，他就依例祝福一番，並發表振興某種運動的高論，搶盡了鋒頭。

其實，從他擔任台北市長以來，只有對游泳或路跑有興趣，因此大量興建游泳池，或參加路跑活動。其他運動哪會被他看在眼裡？曾雅妮請政府贊助二億元舉辦ＬＰＧＡ比賽，他一聽到這個數字差點昏倒，立刻打退堂鼓。或許有人會讚賞馬政府的節儉，但看到一齣夢想家音樂劇兩天花二．一億元，就笑不出來了。

---

今天這一課郝伯伯講上古史地 ◎ 李彥賦 去年十月，郝爺爺在公開場合發表「戒嚴是台灣民主的必要條件」言論，要台灣人「還給蔣中正公道的評價」；在今年和平紀念日前夕，郝爺爺再度出擊，拿著孫女的歷史課本表示，二二八死亡及失蹤人數僅五百餘人，郝龍斌受訪時也為父親平反，認為父親只是忠實呈現親身經歷而已。 其實在二次大戰後，也曾經出現「大屠殺否認者（Holocaust deniers）」，認為不可能存在六百萬猶太人被屠殺的事實，試圖為納粹德國平反；也曾有一位德籍「希特勒迷」出書，書中形容希特勒個性高雅、平和。在德國聯邦法院的見解下，猶太公民有權要求受迫害的歷史獲得正視，所以依據德國刑法第一百三十條及一百八十九條規定，這類煽惑對特定族群之憎恨、鼓吹或否認納粹犯行、詆毀死者名譽的行為，被認為是仇恨性言論，最重可處五年以下有期徒刑。面對相同的屠殺事件、相同的鼓吹強人迫害以及否認歷史悲劇的言論，台灣的做法是什麼？郝爺爺的語重心長，究竟反映了什麼樣的問題？ 電影「牽阮的手」呈現出ＢＢＳ上「二二八與吾輩何干」的留言畫面，背後隱藏的是，威權統治對於台灣人民所造成的侵權性損害從未獲得重視及平反，甚至遭到否認。以致即使政府出面道歉、官方報告也確認責任歸屬，受害者及其家屬還是多次受到仇視性言論的傷害。因此，二二八事件處理及賠償條例應做如何調整，才能真正落實屬於台灣的轉型正義，似乎是國定假日留給我們最重要的功課。（作者為國會助理） ◎ 蔡友言 我來自基隆，聽耆老說過他親眼目睹的景象，指出二二八事件、基隆海邊被槍斃者很多，鮮血染紅海邊，驚駭且恐怖。我的岳父和二二八事件相關，當時他就讀高中，路過台北圓環附近，遭軍人開槍掃射。他胸部中彈、生命垂死，多虧好心民眾冒險搶救，用門板將他抬走，急救後才保住生命，五十幾年來，胸膛仍留有許多子彈碎片。擊中人體、彈頭爆裂分散的子彈，手段殘忍被國際禁止使用，竟用來掃射無辜群眾和學生！ 許多受害者沒有後人，誰來幫他申請？不少受害者的家屬移居國外，不再踏上「傷心地」，也不會申請；有些人仍有疑慮，不敢申請。有些家屬對二二八事件，仍有不滿或無法諒解，也會影響申請意願。況且，申請補償要有具體事證，隔了幾十年才做，有些是資料不全、有些是事證難尋，甚至是生死不明。想申請，也難！ 政府拖延那麼久，讓很多人連「申請補償」都落空，已是對不起他們。如今，還用「申請補償者不多」來質疑，實在很過分！將心比心，若是親人受害或生死不明，做何感想？（作者為國小教師）

---

沒有出息的民進黨，給廢了吧!

---

民進黨真的是沒有出息的政黨，辜負台灣選民的託付而輸掉總統與國會的選舉，固然是沒有出息的表現。最不可原諒的是，敗選後民進黨內部湧現一片傾中的言論，竟然要學中國國民黨向中國共產黨靠攏。 民進黨內是不是只有傾中的一種聲音？是不是所有反對向中國輸誠的另類聲音都噤不敢言？還是因為統派藍媒在其中發生了極大推波助瀾的作用，讓傾中聲音一枝獨秀？ 選完之後，藍調統媒大幅報導民進黨內親中的言論與主張，這是完全可以想像與預料的；藍媒正在醞釀民進黨轉向的氣氛，以此達到完全馴化民進黨的目的。值得關注的是，民進黨好像也乖乖地要進入並接受藍媒的論述，連即將卸任的黨主席蔡英文在敗選檢討中承認「反中鎖國」的「印象」。民進黨如果要把中國國民黨加在民進黨身上的標籤，一一釘死在自己的額頭上，老實說，最後只能在國民黨的意識形態下喝咖啡，永遠不可能成為凌駕在中國黨之上的執政黨。 民進黨在選戰過程中，從來不敢亮出能夠致勝的「尺有所長」，卻在國民黨威嚇下，與國民黨爭「寸有所短」。民進黨不敢打「台灣主體牌」，理由是會嚇走中間選民；不敢打「反共的民主牌」，同樣怕嚇走中間選民；打到最後只能向國民黨看齊。結果所謂中間票沒有，本土票也流失，如何會贏？ 現在敗選檢討了，依然脫不了國民黨的陰影，只指出對方「中國經濟牌」的奏效，而沒有檢討己方捨棄民主牌與本土牌，以至於無法激發人民價值取向的熱情而失利。 民進黨要與中國打交道是一回事，但不可迴避兩個基礎的堅持：一是秉持民主與進步的理念；一是以台灣為主體的本質。問題是，民進黨似乎對自己信念全無信心也不尊重，選前避而不說、選後全不著墨。如此沒有出息的民進黨，真的不怕被台灣人民切割出去？ （作者金恒煒，政治評論者） 把民進黨給廢了吧 !! ◎ 鄧蔚偉 選輸一次而已，民進黨的選戰檢討報告，「馬上」變成向中國投降書。這種因為選舉而歪七扭八的政黨，跟另一個歪七扭八的中國國民黨有何不同？在民進黨對中國威脅的認知越來越偏離常識之際，台灣人民要有心理準備—不如把民進黨給廢了吧！ 中國與台灣之間，自從馬英九上台後，兩岸所有的互動也好，交流也罷，全部都或明或暗地帶有政治目的，小英所謂的「經濟恐嚇牌」不就是如此？小英或民進黨既然知曉這個道理的嚴重性，為什麼要在檢討報告中做出—擺脫反中、鎖國等錯誤的刻板印象—這種錯上加錯的結論？ 與中國的交往，尤其是和中國共產黨的交往，要如履薄冰、要嚴謹細密，凡事以台灣的利益為優先，這有什麼不對呢？ 當共產黨說你「鎖國」，當國民黨和吹喇叭媒體說你「鎖國」，你就真的認為這次選舉輸在六○九萬選民的「鎖國」思維？ 小英和民進黨最大的錯誤是，把自己選戰打輸的無能表現，推諉給兩岸的交流與互動不足！ 小英和民進黨最大的錯誤是，把中國共產黨統治的中國視為一個正常、理性的國家與政權！ 小英和民進黨最大的錯誤是，敗選檢討完全是閉門造車，無視六○九萬選民的感情與利益！ 小英和民進黨最大的錯誤是，他們似乎只想維持做一個台灣的「老二政黨」，而缺乏選民隨時會把民進黨廢掉的危機感！（作者為資深新聞工作者） 【金恒煒專欄】民進黨面臨信任崩盤危機 民進黨日前透露敗選檢討初稿的內容，蔡英文主席提綱挈領的把敗選主因歸於中間選民的流失，認為是民眾對民進黨「執政信賴感不夠」所致。然而，她又說，依選舉期間民調，蔡英文曾四度領先對手、一度打平。那麼，要問的是，既有領先又有平手，為什麼會是民眾信賴感不足呢？中間不是有很大矛盾？ 二○一二年大選是馬英九尋求連任之戰，依經驗法則，在位者有很大優勢能夠成功；為什麼台灣社會卻又瀰漫著政黨再輪替可能性很大的氛圍？不正是出於台灣人民對馬英九信賴感不夠之故。馬英九親中、降中，當然引發台灣人的疑懼，但民進黨戰略失敗，沒有大打反統牌而坐失良機。最後拿到六○九萬票，蔡英文解讀是「走在正確的道路上」的結果，可見六○九萬票非中間票，是理念票。此外，馬英九最大的罩門出在他的執政無能上，這是台灣社會的公論，連藍營都不諱言，所以才有「含血、含淚、含憤」的話出籠。 總之，明明是對馬英九信賴感不足，為什麼反而轉嫁到民進黨身上？ 再問下去，為什麼台灣人民不分藍綠都認為馬英九執政無能？其參考點是什麼？當然是與八年民進黨的執政相比！可惜的是，民進黨落入馬英九所操弄的「貪腐」之中，不只與前總統陳水扁切割，連帶也不敢提八年執政成績，於是把對民進黨的信賴感也切割出去，正應了西諺所說：「倒洗澡水，把嬰兒一起倒掉。」最後只好把信賴感一併奉送給中國國民黨。 輸既輸了，民進黨現在要檢討以及擔憂的，不是台灣人民對民進黨的信賴感夠不夠，而是綠營支持者還有沒有信心？有沒有信心崩盤之虞？ ○八年大選，民進黨輸了兩百二十萬票，一二年只輸了八十萬票，為什麼○八年綠營支持者沒有喪志，一二年幾乎潰堤？比較○八年與一二年兩次大選後的親綠電子媒體叩應節目，就知過半了。同樣敗選，○八年叩應節目愈燒愈熱，一二年收視率卻一蹶不振，甚至下午節目應聲關閉。更不必說沒辦法的人已準備當順民，有辦法的準備去移民了。 重要關鍵點，就是台灣人民對民進黨失去信心，對台灣失去信心。一二年民進黨遇到從未有的最弱對手還輸，那麼一六年在美國、中國與國民黨三面夾殺下，還有勝算嗎？再說，民進黨內選後甚至在中國政策上有向國民黨趨近之聲，難怪本土社團也傳出向民進黨說「再見」的聲音；鐵桿深綠的都對民進黨絕望，民進黨還有什麼利基？ 民進黨不要再想如何轉向、如何在一六年討藍票、如何再執政！民進黨要思考的是，如何在四年內阻止馬英九把台灣出賣給中國。與其關起門來做「輪替」的春秋大夢，不如老老實實的做保衛台灣的鐵衛軍！民進黨新主席的任務有三，就是保台！保台！保台！能保台的，才有資格膺此重任。 （作者金恒煒為政治評論者） 協尋民進黨 民進黨在二○○八年總統選舉大敗，黨的士氣掉到谷底，幾乎潰不成軍，多數人並不看好它的再起。 然而，在蔡英文接掌主席後，接踵而來的幾場小型補選，民進黨大有斬獲，得票率節節上升，此次大選又發生「三隻小豬」旋風，而且馬英九聲勢低迷，看來勝券在握，本土陣營應可再度執政。 不料，就像林書豪的故事，在傳奇似的崛起，帶動尼克隊七連勝後，竟然栽在遜咖紐奧良黃蜂隊手中，蔡英文竟然敗於執政成績不佳、滿意度低迷的馬英九，大出所有人意料之外。 尼克隊的落敗，只是讓「林來瘋」的狂熱降溫，應該不至於打垮林書豪的鬥志。不過，蔡英文的敗選，卻似乎讓民進黨完全洩了氣，心理仍無法調適，以致灰心喪志，至今對選後一些重大議題，包括美牛、稅制、中國關係等，均未表達堅定立場，民進黨好像在台灣的政治版圖上消失了。 選後馬英九的債主已經紛紛登門要債，而且態度凶狠，不輸地下錢莊，美國牛肉的問題，似乎沒有討價還價餘地，更重要的是，由一些不符合科學的奇談怪論，如林書豪是吃美國牛肉才能打進ＮＢＡ都出籠了，顯見馬英九有意妥協，準備「割地賠款」了事。 而中國首都市長郭金龍像欽差大臣，直接侵門踏戶，被馬政府待若上賓，根本不睬法輪功、受害台商的抗議。台灣眼看就要中國化了，民進黨卻還為敗選原因議論未定，坐視台灣任人宰割，實在辜負台灣人民的寄望。 〈鏗鏘集〉這樣的民進黨，要他何用？！ 敗選後的民進黨好像神隱了一般，勉強只剩下所謂「敗選檢討」以及爭做黨主席的新聞在媒體露臉。但民進黨在哪裡？ 中國已派人到台灣驗收大選成果了，國台辦兼海協會副會長的鄭立中到南台灣趴趴走，中國北京市長郭金龍率五百人眾在台灣首都與國民黨把手言歡。民進黨在哪裡？ 「我們需要的時候，你在哪裡？」這是美國人指控警察永遠不能出現災難現場的用語；同樣的，台灣人民眼看中國高幹肆無忌憚的在台灣耀武揚威，卻看不到民進黨任何制衡的表現。民進黨在哪裡？ ○九年鄭立中到台中，還受到民進黨人強力的杯葛與抗議，為什麼現在民進黨毫無作為？雲林縣長蘇治芬質疑鄭立中動作頻頻，直指背後有政治動機。質疑有什麼用？口說有什麼用？民進黨坐視鄭立中橫行而毫無抵制的行為，這樣的在野黨對台灣有什麼用？ 北京市長郭金龍是一條惡棍，屠殺圖博人、迫害法輪功、欺壓台商，對雙手染血的屠夫，民進黨可以站在一旁涼快？法輪大法學會理事長張清溪與律師團到高等法院按鈴控告郭金龍觸犯「殘害人權罪」，圖博團體如影隨形的一路抗議，在北京的藝術家艾未未因為郭金龍受邀來台，憤而中止與台北市立美術館出版紀念專冊的合作計畫做為抗議。民進黨在哪裡？ 民進黨是最大的在野黨，也是本土政黨，更重要的是，民進黨是以民主、人權、法治的正義原則當立黨的基礎，現在怎麼啦？民進黨比法輪功團體，比圖博人都不及，在北京的艾未未一人都敢挺身抗議，民進黨在哪裡？ 民進黨似乎只會以論述為尚，選後檢討就是論述，已無行動力可言了。不要忘記，論述的主體是行動，沒有行動只有論述，就是打嘴炮。老實說，民進黨再多的選後檢討不如起而行動，只要民進黨帶領台灣人民用行動抗拒共匪鄭立中、郭金龍，用行動彰顯台灣的主權與普世的價值，有沒有選後檢討、如何檢討，有什麼重要？我們不需要被閹割掉的反對黨！ （作者金恒煒，《當代雜誌》總編輯）

林書豪的成功，不是來自偶然，是苦練的結果

中國時報【尹德瀚／綜合報導】

美國《紐約時報》廿五日報導指出，林書豪在ＮＢＡ竄紅的速度令人驚訝，但他有今天的成就絕不是天上掉下來的僥倖，主要是靠過人的毅力、對自己的信心，以及加倍又加倍的苦練；一路走來，林書豪經歷過無數挫折，每一次挫折都讓他蛻變進化，終於造就今天在球場上光芒萬丈的巨星。

紐時報導說，林書豪在二○一○年的ＮＢＡ選秀會落選，最後選擇與勇士隊簽約。當時勇士隊教練史馬特對林書豪最深刻的印象，就是他強烈的企圖心；他記得林總是在吃完早餐後開始練球，而球隊則要到中午才開始練球。但史馬特也指出，那時候的林書豪球技還不成熟，包括投籃等技巧都不到位。

不過，林書豪從馬索曼教練學到許多，特別是「擋切戰術」的臨場發揮。馬索曼說，林書豪是他所見過最擅長「運球突破」的球員之一，這是教不來的。但林書豪並不以此自滿，去年夏天他找上有卅四年教球經驗的薛普勒教練，在其指導下苦練三分球，從而改善得分能力。

但這時的林書豪還是有個致命缺陷，他的爆發力不夠。經過薛普勒的介紹，由訓練師瓦格納幫林進行對症下藥的訓練，結果林的肌力大幅加強，立定彈跳的高度更增加了九公分。今年初林書豪轉戰尼克隊時，他已經有充分信心，準備大顯身手。

February 24, 2012

The Evolution of a Point Guard

By HOWARD BECK

ORLANDO —
The most captivating strand of the Jeremy Lin mystique is that he came from
nowhere, emerging overnight to become a star, after being underestimated and
overlooked, disregarded by college coaches, ignored in the N.B.A. draft and waived
twice in two weeks.

The
narrative is well-established, factual in its broadest strokes and altogether
flawed, or at least woefully incomplete.

Jeremy
Lin’s rise did not begin, as the world perceived it, with a 25-point explosion
at Madison Square Garden on Feb. 4. It began with lonely 9 a.m. workouts in
downtown Oakland in the fall of 2010; with shooting drills last summer on a
backyard court in Burlingame, Calif.; and with muscle-building sessions at a
Menlo Park fitness center.

It began
with a reworked jump shot, a thicker frame, stronger legs, a sharper view of
the court — enhancements that came gradually, subtly, through study and
practice and hundreds of hours spent with assistant coaches, trainers and
shooting instructors over 18 months.

Quite
simply, the Jeremy Lin who revived the Knicks,
stunned the N.B.A. and charmed the world — the one who is averaging 22.4 points
and 8.8 assists as a starter — is not the Jeremy Lin who went undrafted out of
Harvard in June 2010. He is not even the same Jeremy Lin who was cut by the
Golden State Warriors on Dec. 9.

Beyond
the mystique and the mania lies a more basic story — of perseverance, hard work
and self-belief.

“He’s in
a miracle moment, where everything has come together,” said Keith Smart, the
Sacramento Kings coach, who was Lin’s coach with the Warriors last season.

Smart can
hardly recognize his former pupil these days. Nor can Eric Musselman, who coached
Lin in the N.B.A. Development League for 20 games. Nor can Lamar Reddicks, a
former Harvard assistant coach, who fondly remembers a freshman-year Lin as
“the weakest guy on the team.”

“I look
at him on TV now,” Reddicks said, “and I’m like, I can’t imagine that he’s this
big!”

What
scouts saw in the spring of 2010 was a smart passer with a flawed jump shot and
a thin frame, who might not have the strength and athleticism to defend, create
his own shot or finish at the rim in the N.B.A. The evolution began from there.

Eager
Learner

Lin
earned a free-agent contract with the Warriors after a strong showing in the
2010 summer league, where he surprisingly outplayed John Wall, the No. 1 pick
in the draft.

Smart,
then an assistant under Don Nelson, noticed something in Lin’s first pickup
game against the Warriors’ young stars, Stephen Curry and Monta Ellis.

“He’s
getting to the paint,” Smart recalled. “You say, ‘Man, that’s a unique skill.’
Now he needs to pass the ball, as opposed to trying to get to the rim all the
time.”

Soon,
Smart noticed something else. Lin was the first player at the Warriors’
training center every day, eating breakfast by 8:30 a.m. “Then, all of sudden,
you’d hear a ball bouncing on the floor,” Smart said. Practice typically began
at noon.

Another
assistant, Stephen Silas, began working daily with Lin, and provided him with a
catalog of tapes showing elite point guards in the pick-and-roll: how they got
into the lane, how they kept the defender on their hip, how they drew in the
opposing big man to free up their pick-and-roll partner. Phoenix’s Steve Nash
figured prominently. Silas and Lin worked on drills to give Lin other options,
like a floater in the lane.

Then Lin
would get into a game and try to use what he had learned. But he would
overpenetrate and miss the open man.

“It
wasn’t there yet,” Smart said.

As for
his perimeter game, Smart said, “Jeremy couldn’t shoot at all.”

Lin had a
habit then of pulling the ball behind his head and tucking his feet up under
him — “like he was springing up off a trampoline,” Smart said.

Still,
Lin kept arriving early, leaving late, devouring film and working studiously
with Silas and later Lloyd Pierce. But what Lin really needed was game
repetition. The Warriors sent him to Reno, their D-League affiliate, on three
occasions. That is where the lessons started to take hold.

Stages of
Growth

In Lin’s
first D-League tour, the focus was primarily on developing his pick-and-roll
game.

“He had
no problems scoring for himself,” Musselman said. “It was more seeing the
opposite side of the floor, and using the whole floor, instead of just the side
the pick-and-roll was on. And he kept getting better and better at that.”

Having
yet to harness his aggression, Lin got called for a lot of offensive fouls.
Still, Musselman saw something special immediately, a quality that foretold
possible greatness.

“I
thought he was one of the best dribble-drive guys I ever coached, up there with
Gilbert Arenas,” Musselman said. “Things you can’t teach.”

By Lin’s second
tour, they were working on how to take a blow on the drive and still get off
the shot. Musselman also introduced a middle pick-and-roll — one used
frequently by Chris Paul in New Orleans — set just beyond halfcourt, in
transition, to give the guard maximum room to drive.

“That was
the point when we knew that he was a special player,” Musselman said. “Because
the more wide open the floor was, the better he became.”

They also
worked on how to read and attack defensive double-teams. On traps, Lin learned
how to draw the opposing big man out and set him up before exploding past him.

By Lin’s
third D-League tour, he had also smoothed out his jumper and become more
confident in his 3-point shot, which Musselman said was “probably the most
dramatic change.”

In 20
games, Lin averaged 18 points and 4.4 assists, while shooting .477 percent from
the field and .389 from 3-point range. Throughout the experience, Lin urged
Musselman to treat him like all of the other D-League players, and to push him
just as hard.

Musselman
noticed something else, too. As an N.B.A. player on assignment, Lin got
first-class plane tickets. “He gave them to teammates,” Musselman said.

When
Lin’s rookie season ended, the Warriors saw a player who might grow into a
backup role behind Curry. They could not have foreseen the changes to come
between July and December.

Beating
the Ghost

Doc
Scheppler has coached in Bay Area high schools for 34 years. He first saw Lin
as a scrawny eighth-grader. But even then, “he had the ability to see the
floor, make the right decision, make the correct angle pass. And that is just
not done at 13, 14 years old.”

Last
summer, Lin sought out Scheppler to help him with his 3-point shot. It was
improving, but Lin was still shooting too high and throwing the ball — a
“flying weapon,” Scheppler called it.

Working
mostly in Scheppler’s backyard in Burlingame, Lin learned to begin his shot on
the way up and release it at his peak. They also worked on a variety of in-game
situations: the catch-and-shoot, off-the-dribble shots, and hesitation moves to
create space.

Lin’s
perfectionist tendencies came out in a 3-point-shooting drill called “beat the
ghost,” in which Lin earned 1 point for every shot he made at the arc and the
“ghost” earned 3 points for every shot Lin missed.

On one
occasion, Lin made 17 3-pointers but lost 21-17, then kicked the ball in anger,
Scheppler recalled with a chuckle. He refused to stop until he beat the ghost.
It took 14 games. When Scheppler tallied up all of the scores for the day, Lin
had converted 71 percent of his shots from the arc. “That’s the beauty of
Jeremy Lin,” Scheppler said. “It’s not about moral victories. It’s ‘I have to win.’
”

Yet an
outside shot would not be enough. Lin needed to be able to consistently convert
shots in the lane. And to do that, he needed to withstand the contact.

On
Scheppler’s advice, Lin sought out Phil Wagner, a physician and trainer who
owns Sparta Performance Science in Menlo Park. Wagner saw a player with
enviable athleticism, but who lacked the explosiveness of an elite N.B.A.
player.

“Most
basketball players can create force very quickly,” Wagner said, referring to a
player jumping off the floor. “Jeremy couldn’t.”

He
compared Lin to a stretched-out rubber band — flexible, but lacking that
snap-back quality. The goal was to make him “stiffer,” through a training
program of heavy weights and low repetition, in conjunction with a high-protein
diet. With the added muscle, Lin pushed his weight to 212 pounds from 200,
while increasing his vertical leap by 3.5 inches, Wagner said. The result is
evident every time Lin barrels into the lane this season.

“The
biggest thing I see is when he gets intro traffic, he’s able to maintain his
direction and his balance, because he’s stronger,” Wagner said, adding, “He’s a
physical guard. That’s where I see his hard work and the program he did with us
paying off.”

Wagner
added: “Before, he was a motorcycle: he was maneuverable, but very off-balance.
Now he’s like a Porsche: he’s fast, but he’s stable.”

Unfortunately
for the Warriors, they hardly had a chance to assess Lin’s off-season
transformation. The N.B.A. lockout prevented them from working with him until camps
opened in early December. He was on the court for maybe 90 minutes before the
Warriors cut him in a move to clear payroll room to chase a free-agent center.

Putting
It All Together

The
Knicks picked up Lin on Dec. 27, after training camps had ended, and after the
Houston Rockets cut him, also for payroll reasons. The coaches were impressed
with his solid 6-foot-3 frame and his athleticism. He instantly ranked among
their top players in agility tests.

But the
coaching staff had seen little of Lin since the spring of 2010, when they put
him through a predraft workout. Because of the compressed schedule, practices
were few. Lin was fourth on the point-guard depth chart.

Still,
the same traits Lin showed in Golden State quickly emerged. He was the first to
arrive every day, and the last to leave. He sought and devoured game tapes.
When he requested his own clips, Lin asked to see his turnovers and missed
jumpers, not his assists.

In side
sessions with the assistant Kenny Atkinson, Lin kept working on his jump shot
and his decision making in pick-and-roll situations. The coaches instantly
recognized his ability to blow past defenders, but without much regard for what
he would do once he beat them. So they worked on footwork, judgment and subtle
movements to freeze a defender.

The work
continued, quietly and without much notice, for five weeks, until Feb. 4, when
20 months of lessons coalesced into one eye-opening performance, and then a
string of them.

“He has a
tremendous capacity for processing information,” Smart said. “When you talk to
him, he’s looking you in the eye and he’s analyzing the information. He’s
putting them in the folder in his mind. Now he’s opening the folder and pulling
the things that he needs.”

Now Lin
is an entrenched starter for a quality team, with a jump shot that warrants
respect and a passing touch on par with the league’s best. But the education
continues. Teams are forcing Lin to go left, to his weaker hand. They are
flustering him with multiple defenders. On Thursday, the Miami Heat held Lin to
just 8 points and 3 assists, the worst performance of his otherwise-magical
run.

The box
score shows failure. To Lin, it reads like a teachable moment.

“I’m sure in the next couple weeks, someone’s
going to figure out how to slow him down and stop him,” Reddicks said before
the loss to the Heat. “It’s a chess match. He’s going to figure out how to beat that. That,
to me, is a kind of a testament of who he is.”