籃球明星姚明、導演李安、張堅庭、奧運跳水金牌得主郭晶晶、中國人大代表丁立國、香港的立法會議議員余若薇、葉劉淑儀、張文光、陳淑莊、歌手林一峰、孫燕姿、藝人郭秀雲、應釆兒、楊千嬅、曹敏莉、宣萓，這些華人，有甚麼共同點？不錯，他們都曾在不同的場合倡議「停吃魚翅、拯救海洋」。（見 http://bit.ly/ChineseCelebSayNoToSharkFinSoup）
不止如此，在香港的不少大企業機關，如匯豐銀行、太古地產、香港大學、甚至香港政府轄下的香港天文台，近年都明確的在內部實行了「不吃魚翅，也不用魚翅奉客」的守則。在中國内地也有王石等百餘企業家公開承諾拒吃魚翅。台灣也有民眾發起拒吃魚翅，令超市要把魚翅年菜下架。
如此一看，加州議員余胤良曾說過「加州議會在討論中的禁售魚翅的第 376 提案（ AB376 ），是對亞州文化的攻擊」，這一說，豈不是十分牽強了嗎？！
其實，魚翅業界和餐館中的部分人士，為了自身的商業利益，希望魚翅買賣可以繼續進行下去，這是可以理解的。但一般的華裔民眾，對魚翅問題有甚麼看法呢？
上個月（2011 年 4 月 12日），香港大學社會科學研究中心和保育團體 BLOOM ，公佈了他們在香港進行的一次嚴謹的 社會科學調查結果，發現雖然有七成人在 2009 年最少進食了一次魚翅（九成是在宴會上），但其實有八成半受訪者，是贊成香港禁止入口魚翅的（注一）。另外，也有八成人接受婚宴中没有魚翅。可以說，一直以來，婚宴主人以為「如果宴會上没有魚翅，將會得失人客」，原來是一個誤解，其實大部份人在婚宴上是「被逼」進食魚翅的（在當場拒吃是需要不少勇氣的）。這也許解釋了為何筆者去年（2010 年）三月發起的「 魚翅婚宴。人情七折」運動廣受注意，在短短一個月內有近二萬人在網上表示支持 ── 也許是因為宴會賓客，終於有機會向宴會主人和酒樓提出「請不要用魚翅來款待我！」這個想法！
香港大學的調査結果說明了為甚麼第 376 法案有其重要性──移風易俗，有時的確要以立法為手段。以前在中國婦女被逼纏小腳、窮家女孩則有可能被賣為「妹仔」（奴婢），這些風俗都是後來用法律行為改變過來的。去除了這些不合時宜的陋習，中華文化可有動搖？没有。
其實，與飲食與文化有關的立法例子，加州還有另一個。2004 年，加州立法通過禁止用「灌食」(Force Feeding) 的方法飼養鴨、鵝和其他家禽來生產法式美食鵝肝醬（Foie Gras），也禁止買賣以上述方法出產的鵝肝醬。這當然也不是甚麼「對法國文法的攻擊」。
也有論者認為，要民眾少吃魚翅，為甚麼不通過加強教育，而要立法強制執行呢？另外，奧巴馬在今年（2011）年初簽署法案，規定鯊魚上岸時魚鰭必須與魚身相連，這不是也能有效阻止最廣為人詬病的「活割魚鰭然後取翅棄魚」(Shark Finning) 的野蠻行為嗎？（情況可以參見 YouTube 片段 http://bit.ly/aOOjnq ）
首先，這裡有一個執法困難的問題。美國海岸線長，要制止非法入境的人都尚且有困難，更何況是非法入境的魚鰭呢？以象牙問題為例，理論上只要禁止捕獵野生大象就可以保護了大象， 但事實上，若象牙貿易一日合法存在，則非法捕獵大象一日不會停止。非洲的大象在 1977 年至 1989 年間，急速下降，各國不得不在 1990 年以《華盛頓公約》的機制禁止了國際間的象牙貿易，這才勉强的保住了非洲的野生大象。其實，當日若不用此非常手段，象牙業也必會隨着大象絕種而走向式微。為了一界的私利，只苟延多幾年的生意，卻把生態推向不可逆轉的大災難，這又何苦呢？！
另外，也有一個改變速度快慢的問題。以濫用膠袋（塑料購物袋）的問題為例。我以前在香港生活，在九十年代初期，已經開始聽到有識之士呼籲大家不要濫用膠袋，政府也在電視播了不少的宣傳廣告。可是，問題不單没有改善，反而更變本加厲，2000 年至 2005 年期間，小小一個香港，膠袋垃圾由五千萬噸升至九千萬噸。拖延了近二十年，在 2009 年時，香港政府才痛下決心，在消費者層面徵收膠袋稅。在這之後，消費者才真正接受了本來是舉手之勞的自携購物袋的習慣（大部份美國人至今仍未有這習慣，可以說是相對落後）。既然最終都要立法來解决的問題，這近二十年的拖延，為地球堆積了接近十億噸的萬年不化的膠袋，這等待是否值得？
鯊魚問題，則是更加嚴重。膠袋垃圾雖是萬年不化，也有化的一天；但若果鯊魚絕種了，則是永不會回頭了。人類依頼海洋而生存，海洋的生態大災難，也就是人類的大災難，我們有條件去等待嗎？！ 我呼籲加州華人認清魚翅業界的利益和地球全人類的利益有時不盡相同。孰先孰後，這是考驗我們華人智慧的時候了！
── 完 ──
注一：2011 年 5 月 6 日，北加州 Monterey 水族館發表在加州進行的有關食用魚翅的 民調結果 ，也得到相近的結果。該民調發現，有 76% 的加州選民支持 AB376 法案（禁售魚翅），其中華裔的 70% 選民也支持該法案。
注二：各位支持第 376 號提案的朋友，請到 Facebook 「全球華人支持加州立法禁售魚翅」專頁，表達您對法案的支持 http://facebook.com/ChineseForAB376 ！
2011年5月8日星期日
2011年5月2日星期一
World Trade Center Building 7 - The mystery of 9/11
Several thousands people were murdered on September 11th, 2001, and I think they deserve an iron-clad theory that explains everything beyond any reasonable doubts. Rushing to conclusion is not a good way to honor them.
For nine years, I believed in the official explanation -- until someone presented me with the evidence and I took a hard look on it ... once I did that, I found many obvious doubts in the official explanation.
Among the doubts, the one surrounding Building 7 is the most obvious. On that fateful day, apart from the twin towers, this relatively unknown, 47-story, Building 7 of World Trade Center also collapsed. This building was NOT hit by any plane and had only a small-scale office fire, yet it collapsed in almost the same manner as the twin towers -- completely symmetrical and in an almost free-fall speed.
Please review 00:01:30-00:02:00 (30 seconds) of this video
"Architect Gage questions the official explanation of the collapse of World Trade Center"
http://bit.ly/ipK0B8
From the video, we could see clearly that, at the moment of collapse, all the support of the building was gone simultaneously, which was not possible if fire was the cause of the structural damage -- the steel beams would not be melted all at the same time, if they would be melted ever (the temperature of office fire is not high enough to melt steel beams). The official explanation is very questionable and has been challenged by more than 1,500 architects and engineers, who think the building was taken down by controlled demolition (see http://AE911Truth.org)
If you still are not convinced, please see this other example. Pay attention to the footage of 00:00:32-00:00:50 (about 18 seconds. Note: the video has no sound)
"Controlled demolition examples"
http://bit.ly/iL7PjK
Notice that in this video, there was a control demolition that was badly done -- where only part of the supporting structure was successfully taken down by explosives. A normal office fire can only achieve worse than this because fire can't take away all supporting structure of a building at the same time.
By comparing this footage to the perfect collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (shown above), it is hard not to conclude that the WTC7 was taken down by a perfectly executed controlled demolition.
I detest conspiracy theory, and I think I am not spreading one. However, I think I have some curiosity and some insistence of justice. They make me think again and again on the above observation. I wish you will also spend some time thinking about it. Ask questions first, don't rush to any conclusion or explanation. I believe the solving of this mystery will be not too much unlike in many scientific discoveries, where observations often precede explanations by many years, if not decades.
For nine years, I believed in the official explanation -- until someone presented me with the evidence and I took a hard look on it ... once I did that, I found many obvious doubts in the official explanation.
Among the doubts, the one surrounding Building 7 is the most obvious. On that fateful day, apart from the twin towers, this relatively unknown, 47-story, Building 7 of World Trade Center also collapsed. This building was NOT hit by any plane and had only a small-scale office fire, yet it collapsed in almost the same manner as the twin towers -- completely symmetrical and in an almost free-fall speed.Please review 00:01:30-00:02:00 (30 seconds) of this video
"Architect Gage questions the official explanation of the collapse of World Trade Center"
http://bit.ly/ipK0B8
From the video, we could see clearly that, at the moment of collapse, all the support of the building was gone simultaneously, which was not possible if fire was the cause of the structural damage -- the steel beams would not be melted all at the same time, if they would be melted ever (the temperature of office fire is not high enough to melt steel beams). The official explanation is very questionable and has been challenged by more than 1,500 architects and engineers, who think the building was taken down by controlled demolition (see http://AE911Truth.org)
If you still are not convinced, please see this other example. Pay attention to the footage of 00:00:32-00:00:50 (about 18 seconds. Note: the video has no sound)
"Controlled demolition examples"
http://bit.ly/iL7PjK
Notice that in this video, there was a control demolition that was badly done -- where only part of the supporting structure was successfully taken down by explosives. A normal office fire can only achieve worse than this because fire can't take away all supporting structure of a building at the same time.
By comparing this footage to the perfect collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (shown above), it is hard not to conclude that the WTC7 was taken down by a perfectly executed controlled demolition.
I detest conspiracy theory, and I think I am not spreading one. However, I think I have some curiosity and some insistence of justice. They make me think again and again on the above observation. I wish you will also spend some time thinking about it. Ask questions first, don't rush to any conclusion or explanation. I believe the solving of this mystery will be not too much unlike in many scientific discoveries, where observations often precede explanations by many years, if not decades.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
文章
