【雙語】川普執政百日的「成就」──我一些和主流媒體不同的看法
圖片

【本文以中英雙語刊出/編譯:黃維德】

台灣目前已經有許多川普上任百日表現的相關報導,大多數的報導比較負面,這不難理解,因為它們通常是引用 CNN、BBC,或是那些「國際主流」新聞媒體──也就是常被川普批評為「假新聞」的媒體。而這種對「事實」的反芻(它們對此十分自豪),也必定會受制於它們能夠收集的資訊。

川普上任百日的「成就」可能是個十分難堪的失敗,他也當然可以是眾人嘲笑的對象,但在台灣的美國政治討論場域之中,我一直是個「異數」,所以在此我想提出另一種不同的看法。

我不打算依循前述(主流媒體)的脈絡,而會嘗試用另一個不同的角度,來觀察川普從走出川普大樓電梯那一刻開始,「主流媒體」就一直忽視的事物:因為,過度倚賴特定的新聞媒體,是種智性上的怠惰。

我將會以川普與美國選民的「契約」為起點,先從他的內政表現談起,再簡短地談一下他在外交政策上的表現(這方面的討論已經非常多),接著討論我們在批評中見到的邏輯謬誤。

我認為,若從他和選民的「契約」來檢驗,川普儘管在立法方面的表現不佳,他卻確實透過行政命令取得了一些「成功」。此外,他也「成功」在部分公共議題上,取得了主導權。

在這裡我所謂的「成功」,並非出自主觀的意識形態立場,而是單指他「推動了競選承諾」;同理,無法推動政見即為失敗。

川普的「成功」之處:

川普在去年競選之時,提出了許多上任之後立刻就會做的事:例如取消歐巴馬健保、改革稅制、摧毀 ISIS,當然,還有建立高牆等各種各樣的承諾。然而,接近競選後期之時,他也緩和了部分承諾。要了解他最後提出的承諾,我們得將眼光放到去年 10 月 22 日的活動:當時,他前往賓州蓋茨堡,公開「與美國選民的契約」。值得一提的是,林肯也正是在此地發表著名的《蓋茨堡演說》。

「契約」的正面列出了川普會以總統行政權(行政命令)展開的 18 項行動,背後則是 10 項他會送入國會的法案。目前,川普一直倚賴「行政命令」來推動政見:一如其名所示,行政命令是由行政機關提出,以執行和實施國會通過、成為法律的法案。

在當代,由於國會常受制於政黨對立造成的效率不影,行政命令的使用較為頻繁,其目的並非實施新法律,而是由總統按其職權「詮釋」法律。

舉例來說,歐巴馬同樣簽署過許多行政命令,像是暫停遣返非法移民(起因於國會無法通過移民法改革)等。行政令命易於實施,但也可能被法院駁回,或輕易被繼任者推翻:例如一等歐巴馬卸任,川普隨即取消了「暫停遣返非法移民」的行政命令,開始依照法律條文「重新實施」法律。

川普在競選時承諾退出〈跨太平洋戰略經濟夥伴關係協議〉(TPP)、「每增加一項新規範,就要去除兩項現有規範」、移除 Keystone 油管的阻礙,並恢復遣返犯罪的非法移民。他在上任一百日之中,藉由簽署行政命令實現了這些承諾。

除了行政命令外,川普最大的「成就」即為信守承諾,選出取代史卡利亞(Antonin Scalia)的新任大法官。史卡利亞於去年過世,雖然歐巴馬試圖以賈蘭德(Merrick Garland)取代,但共和黨參議院拒絕審核此提名,認為即將卸任的總統不該做出如此重大的決策,因為大法官是終生職。川普實現了他的承諾,讓戈蘇奇(Neil Gorsuch)成為大法官。

值得一提的是,參議院為了通過戈蘇奇提名,使用了「核彈選項」,將核可門檻從 60 席降至簡單多數 51 席——因為所有的民主黨參議員都反對此任命(不過,戈蘇奇在 2006 年獲得提名進入聯邦上訴法院之時,他獲得了一致同意,時為參議員的希拉蕊和歐巴馬也支持他)。

此外,共和黨國會議員決心利用《國會審查法案》,廢除歐巴馬政府制定的規範,川普在這方面也一直扮演要角。有時,外界評估川普在國會的表現之時,會忽視《國會審查法案》。不過,取消前任造成的傷害,絕對是總統權力的合理用途,從支持者的角度來看,這也是功勞一筆。

外交政策方面,川普獲得的評價意外地好,也已經有許多相關討論,在此就不多談。總結而言,共和黨(川普亦參與其中)尚未成功扭轉歐巴馬時代的遺產,但以施展行政權力、立法而言,這是成功的上任百日。此外,在上任百日評斷立法表現實在不切實際,因為國會有自己的時程;如果川普能全面取代歐巴馬健保或是推動大型稅改,以立法而言,那就是表現相當好的上任首年。

川普的「失敗」之處:

另一方面,川普也有信守但無法推動的承諾。其中最重要的,就是他誓言「暫止來自恐怖主義傾向地區的移民」──川普試了兩次,卻只見到他的行政命令卡在法庭。第一次嘗試失敗了,但第二次嘗試有機會熬過法院的審視──川普針對提供難民或非法移民庇護的安全港城市「取消一切聯邦資助」,但為了避免政府停擺,最近的預算法案也保留了安全港城市的資助。

他也打破了部分承諾,其中最受人注意的,就是他承諾將中國列為貨幣操縱國。

總體而言,「契約」中與行政權有關的承諾,川普的表現相當不錯。事實上,川普上任百日最大的兩項成就,就列在「契約」的正面:提名戈蘇奇,以及以行政命令緊縮美墨邊界管控。目前,他單是靠虛張聲勢,就已經讓非法跨境大幅下滑,以川普的角色而言,這非常成功。

至目前為止,「契約」的背面則可說是徹底失敗。他在「契約中」寫道:「我將與國會合作,在上任百日內提出下列邊境立法措施,並全力爭取國會通過它們。」他沒有「撤銷並替代」歐巴馬健保,也沒有推出他承諾的法案,例如「契約」中所寫的《美國能源和基礎設施法案》、《學校選擇與教育機會法案》等。

川普持續努力實現「撤銷並替代」,眾議院亦有可能在幾週內表決,即使如此,我們也能從許多資訊來源發現,共和黨相當破碎,建立共識也十分困難(更新:已於台灣時間週五清晨以 217-213 票通過。但是送參議院後參議院已表示不會針對此案表決而要重新草擬,給人莊孝維的感覺)。川普已提出稅改提案,但距離改革稅制仍舊十分遙遠,在沒有裁減支出的情況下降稅,也很難說服共和黨內的預算鷹派。因此,川普並沒有在上任百日內實現「契約」背面那兩個最重大的承諾。

觀察:川普的策略性模糊

讓我們看看川普的「策略性模糊」。川普在去年表示,願意在任何有可能的領域談定協議。但由於川普是位缺乏政治經驗的總統,對政策亦沒有展現太大的興趣,這樣的模糊性也可能會被解讀為前後缺乏一致性。究竟,川普只是比一般政治人物更有彈性,還是他不太清楚自己在做什麼?

或許有人會說,他是最棒的協商者,不受制於左/右這樣的二元對立。但我常常關注的保守派評論家夏皮羅(Ben Shapiro)認為,務實並不好,因為「務實是種進步主義哲學」。他補充道,「『何者有用』並沒有明確共識,正因為如此,選舉和政治意識形態才有其重要性。這是傲慢政治人物的自大空想──單靠他們,就能依據專家對事實的看法,決定出最棒的解決方案──因為他們不能。」

川普第一次嘗試協商醫療改革之時,以慘烈的失敗收場。他為了協商而協商,不知道決策的諸多細節。他不知道,能否敲定協議,並不是全都與錢有關。自由黨團(Freedom Caucus)成員反對第一版的《美國醫療法案》,是因為價值和意識形識。第二版法案雖然獲得了自由黨團的支持,也失去了有選舉考量的溫和派。許多現任共和黨國會成員是在歐巴馬上任後當選,無論是好是壞,他們能夠當選的主因,也正是激烈反對歐巴馬的政策。

現在,共和黨完全掌控了行政和立法機關,再也無法擔任「只會說不」的政黨,執政經驗不足的問題亦隨之曝露。

但在外交政策上,由於美國仍舊佔有領導地位,川普的務實主義也帶來了令人滿意的成果,畢竟,以協商來說,美國還是握有大多數的籌碼。舉例來說,川普得以與中國一同應對北韓問題,這是過去政府一直無法辦到的事情;不過,如此應對北韓最終會有什麼樣的結果,目前還是無法判斷。

公眾看法與我的想法

最適合做為川普上任百日討論的案例,在川普先前突如其來的外交/軍事決策──特別是對那些「反抗」和「挺身對抗」川普總統的人來說,向敘利亞發射飛彈,等同於終結了川普競選時與俄羅斯政府勾結的討論。不過,深夜喜劇談話節目主持人,依然暗示川普會幫普丁口交

美國與俄羅斯目前的關係十分怪異,這種怪異的關係,卻也正是那些貶低川普的人想要的東西。川普再也不是獨裁者,因為他在醫療改革和移民行政命令上遭遇了挫敗。因此,他現在不再是希特勒再世,反而比較像是個滿口大話的笨拙之人。

川普上任之前就有非常多批評,我也得承認,許多批評是源自川普的行為。批評者想像的情境包括:
1. 他可能會被俄羅斯勒索
2. 可能會出現核子大屠殺,因為在他們的想像中,川普非常瘋狂。
3. 川普無視那些他認為不重要的事實可能會引發的問題。
4. 想像出另一位做著同樣工作、只是速度更快的總統,藉此想像川普的表現不佳。

但這些(彼此矛盾的)想像是否有可能成為現實,我們既無法確認、亦無法否定,或許正如一位台灣政治人物曾言,「有美夢最,希望相隨」,讓我們一同期望這些「美夢成真」吧。

批評川普將經濟置於環境之上不是不行,但強盛的經濟,幾乎必定會讓你更有能力保護環境──在貧窮國家,我們也見不到乾淨的空氣和水。

川普扭轉(髮夾彎)無法達成的承諾,但這算是失敗嗎?川普確實常常推特上說出了許多「狂到不行」、沒有事實根據的說法,以確認事實而言,這或許是失敗,但他也成功地讓我們把焦點轉移到他想要的地方,讓許多記者有工作可做。

白宮內部有著混亂和內鬥,但這有比沒有爭辯更糟嗎?媒體不是曾把(如今已失勢的)巴農描繪成真正的總統嗎?那麼,能有數個諮詢來源難道不是好事?

川普確實沒有公佈他的稅務資料,所以我們想像那一定有問題。

川普錯誤地聲稱幕僚遭到「監聽」,CNN 也立刻斥之為川普在「轉移注意力」,以免眾人繼續將焦點放在他「與俄羅斯的勾結」。結果發現,他們「只是」間接受到監視,川普批評者會說這不是監聽。那底到什麼是監聽?誰知道?

再看看民主黨。現在,他們成為「只會說不」的政黨:激烈的內部選舉之中,民主黨也還是沒有明確的領導者;民主黨過去十年的眾議院領袖裴洛西(Nancy Pelosi)過氣、脫離民意、仍舊以為布希是總統;民主黨目前的 2020 年人選華倫(Elizabeth Warren)、拜登(Joe Biden)和桑德斯(Bernie Sanders,為獨立競選人),全都超過 70 歲。激進派的民主黨支持者,在大學校園發起了言論自由壓制行動,最近一次就是迫使絕非溫和派的庫爾特(Ann Coulter)取消演說。正如歐巴馬強力支持者馬修(Chris Matthews)所言,民主黨在無數社會議題上也太過左傾,這也是民主黨接下來得思考的問題。

近期民調顯示,川普的支持者之中,超過半數仍舊相信川普信守了他的承諾,但不滿也確實在上升。川普的支持率大多在 50% 之下盤施,但從他上任至今並沒有太大變動;這一方面顯示川普擁有穩固的支持,也突顯了美國是多麼地破碎。簡言之,對大多數川普支持者來說,他們再怎麼不喜歡川普,川普總統還是好過希拉蕊總統。

最後,總結而言,川普在上任百日之內簽署了許多行政命令,這對他來說是個勝利,但它們的意義也完全比不上立法成就──但是否喜歡這些行政命令,並不是川普的問題,而是我們的主觀偏好。

外交政策方面,他的彈性大到了易變無常的地步,但他不但投入全球性問題,也擺脫了「普丁的傀儡」這樣的標籤(除非又有進一步的證據)。他再也不是希特勒,而是跌跌撞撞地學習如何通過法案。對他來說,最重要的就是他任命了大法官,而且抑制了非法入境。他確實有些可以向核心支持者吹捧的成就,但這些大多是象徵性的成就。他得加倍努力,才能讓這段總統任期別具意義。

【以下為作者侯智元撰寫之原文】

There has been a lot of coverage in Taiwan on Trump’s performance up to the 100 day mark. Most of them are understandably negative, as they usually cite sources such as CNN, BBC or those “globalist” news outlet whom Trump regularly lambasted as “fake news”. Understandably, these regurgitations of “facts” (which they’re proud of) are constrained by the information they are able to garner. Trump’s 100 day “accomplishment” can be an abject failure, and he can surely be a laughingstock, but as I have been a constant outlier in Taiwan’s discourse on American politics, I would like to propose a different spin.

I rather not adhere to the above contextual framework, but I will propose different looks at the phenomenon that “mainstream media” has missed ever since Trump came down the elevator of Trump Tower since over reliance on selective news outlet is intellectual indolence.

Stemming from Trump’s Contract with American Voter, I will look at his domestic accomplishment first. Then I will briefly talk about his performance on foreign policy, which has already been much discussed, then going over some logical fallacies we see in his criticism.

I will say that he did enjoy some success via executive actions, though legislative wise he has performed poorly. Yet from a level of semantics, he has been successful and dictating public discourse, he has enjoyed some success as well. I define success not from a subjective ideological standpoint, but from whether or not he was able to execute on his campaign promises. In the same vein, failure would mean agenda he was not able to carry out.

Success

During last year's campaign, Trump spoke of all the things he would do almost immediately upon entering the Oval Office such as repealing Obamacare, reforming the tax code, destroying ISIS and of course, building a wall and much, much more. However, as we approached the end of the campaign, he actually dialed back some of his promises. To understand where he ended up, we need to look at his event on October 22, when he traveled to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania to announce his "Contract with the American Voter,". It is worth noting to readers who are not familiar with American history that Gettysburg was where President Abraham Lincoln made his famous Gettysburg Address.

The "Contract" was a single piece of paper that listed 18 actions Trump would take under his executive authority as president, and the back listed ten pieces of legislation he would introduce in Congress. So far he has been relying on executive order to carry out his agenda. Executive orders, as their name implies, are for the executive branch to carry out, literally to “execute,” a bill passed into law as they follow on and implement laws passed by Congress. Executive orders have been used more frequently in modern times as Congress is bogged down by inefficiency due to partisan politics, not to implement new laws, but to "interpret" the law. For example, Obama signed many executive orders such as to halt deportation of illegal immigrants due to the frustration of Congress unable to pass immigration reform. It shows the ease an E.O can be implemented, but once he is out of office, Trump quickly nullified the E.O and begins to "re-implement" the law as it is written.

Beyond Executive Order, Trump's biggest accomplishment comes is keeping his promise to select a Supreme Court Justice to replace Antonin Scalia. Scalia passed away last year, and though Obama sought to replace him with Merrick Garland, the Republican Senate refused to review his nomination, citing that a lame duck President should not make such an important decision as Justices are life time appointments. As president, Trump kept that promise, and Neil Gorsuch is now on the Court. However, it is worth noting that the Senate approved his nomination by employing the “nuclear option”, lowering the confirmation vote from 60 to a simple majority 51 as all Democratic Senator objected the appointment. (Though when Justice Gorsuch was nominated to the Court of Appeals in 2006, he was approved unanimously with the support of then Senator Clinton and Obama).

Candidate Trump promised to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to require that "for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated, to lift “roadblocks” to building the Keystone Pipeline, and to deport criminal illegal immigrants. On these issues, he kept his promises through signing executive orders.
On a different note, the president has been a crucial part of a determined effort by Capitol Hill Republicans to use the Congressional Review Act to abolish rules put in place by the Obama administration. The CRA bills have sometimes been left out of assessments of Trump's record on Capitol Hill. But undoing the damage done by a predecessor is an entirely legitimate use of presidential power, and from the perspective of his supporter, credit ought to be given.

Foreign policy wise, Trump has received surprisingly decent review, and there are ample discussions on this matter so I will not dwell on this area. The bottom line is that Trump has been a 100 day success when it comes to exercising the executive powers and on legislative front, while Trump has been part of a Republican effort to turn back parts of the Obama legacy, which has so far been unsuccessful. Yet it is precisely in the legislative area that the 100 day mark is such an unrealistic measure as Congress acts on its own schedule. If he has passed either a full-scale Obamacare repeal and replace measure or a major tax reform measure, that would be a reasonably good legislative record for a first year.

Failure

On the other hand, there are also promises he kept but unable to execute. The most significant of those is his pledge to "suspend immigration from terror-prone regions." Trump has done it — twice — only to see his executive orders tied up in the courts. His first try was botched, while the second try will likely survive judicial scrutiny. Trump also promised to "cancel all federal funding" for sanctuary cities. Yet in the most recent spending bill, funding for sanctuary cities were kept in order to avoid a government shutdown.

He also broke some promises most notably his promise to label China as a currency manipulator, which I don’t think I need to go into details. The net result of Trump's promises involving executive authority is that he has done well when it comes to keeping the Contract. Indeed, the two biggest successes of Trump's first 100 days are on the front page of the Contract: the Gorsuch nomination and Trump's immigration executive order tightening controls at the Mexico border, so far, border crossing has dropped significantly just by his bluffing, so that is a solid success on his part.

The back page of the Contract is a total failure up to this point. He stated that "I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage with the first 100 days of my administration," he said in the Contract. He has failed to “repeal and replace” Obamacare, and he has not introduced promised legislations like the American Energy and Infrastructure Act, or the School Choice and Education Opportunity Act and many more that he has written in the pledge.

Though he has continued to work on the “repeal and replace” to the extent that that a vote in the House could be just a few weeks away, we have seen from multiple sources that the Republican party is fragmented and building a consensus has been difficult. (The repeal has been voted on and passed around Friday midnight Taiwan time, but the Senate will instead draft its own bill and not vote on the bill passed by the House). Trump has rolled out a tax proposal but movement closer to the goal of reforming the tax code is far, and cutting taxes without curbing spending will be a hard sell to budget hawks within his own party. So on the two biggest items on the back page of the Contract, by the time the actual 100 day mark arrives next Saturday, Trump failed to keep the back page promises of the Contract in his first 100 day.

Observation

Let us take a look at Trump’s method of "strategic ambiguity". Trump promised last year and a willingness to make a deal wherever possible. Yet this ambiguity can also be interpreted as incoherence one might expect from a politically inexperienced President who hasn't shown much interest in policy. Is Trump simply more flexible than your average politician or is he less aware of what he is doing?

One may argue that he is the greatest negotiator who is not confined by left/right binary, but Ben Shapiro, a conservative pundit whom I often read, has stated that pragmatism is bad, because “pragmatism is a progressive philosophy,". He added "There is no clear consensus on 'what works.' This is why elections matter, and why political ideology matters. It's an empty conceit of arrogant politicians that they alone can determine, based on expert reading of facts, the best solution; they can't."”

When he sought to negotiate health care reform the first time, he failed miserably. He negotiated for the sake of negotiation without knowing the ins and outs of policy making. He did not understand how to strike a deal that was only partly about dollars and cents. Freedom Caucus members balked at the first version of the American Health Care Act because of values and ideology, though they are now on board, the moderates are not buying the second version for electoral reasons. Many of the incumbent Republicans were elected since Obama took office and their claim to fame was, for better or worse, being an ardent opponent of Obama's policies. Now they have complete control of both the executive and legislative branches of government, their inexperience in governance are being exposed as they can no longer be the party of no.

Yet on foreign policy, as America still holds its position as a hegemon, Trump’s pragmatism has yielded satisfactory result, after all, the US still holds most of the leverages when it comes to negotiation. For example, Trump is able to engage with China on the problem of North Korea, which is something the previous administrations were not able to accomplish, but to what end will this engagement result is still undiscernible.

Public Perception and my thoughts

As a good lead in to Trump’s first 100 days in the realm of public discourse, especially for people who are “resisting” and “standing up” to his presidency, launching missiles at Syria effectively ended the discussion of Trump campaign’s collusion with the Russian government on the past election though late night comedian still suggest Trump performs oral sex for Putin. The situation with Russia now is awkward, and that’s the awkward relationship Trump’s detractors want. Trump is no longer a dictator because he suffered setbacks in health care reform and immigration executive order. So now rather than being the second coming of Hitler, he is more of a loud mouth bumbler.

There are a lot of criticisms before he even took office, I have to say a lot of them are well deserved due to his own actions, his critics imagined scenarios that 1. he might be blackmailed by Russia, 2. imagined nuclear holocaust that happens because of Trump’s imaginary insanity, 3. Imagined problems caused by his ignoring of facts that don’t matter. 4. Imagined poor performance based on imagining a control case of another imaginary president doing the same job at the same time, but doing it faster. We have no way to confirm or deny whether imagination might turn into reality, but as a Taiwanese politician once stated, "有夢最美希望相隨", let us hope that dreams do come true.

Similarly, one can critique that Trump is putting economics above the environment, yet a stronger economy almost always puts you in a better position to keep the environment clean, we don’t see clean air and water in poor countries. Trump reversed course on unattainable promises, is that failure? He did say a lot of outrageous things on twitter sans fact checking per his daily routine, it might be a failure for the sake of fact checking, but he successfully made us focus on what he wants us to focus on and get a lot of journalists paid.

There are chaos and in fighting within his White House, but is that worse than having no debate at all? Wasn’t the media portraying Bannon as the real President? So Isn’t having multiple sources of consultation a good thing? He did not release his tax returns, so we imagine there are problems there. He incorrectly claimed that his staff had been “wiretapped, which CNN quickly denounced it as “diversion” from his “collusion with Russia”. It turns out that they were only surveilled in an indirect way, which his critics would say is not wiretapping, so what is wiretapping then, who knows?

Looking at the Democrats, they are now the party of no, they do not have a clear leader after wrapping up a fiercely contested internal election, their House Leader for the past decade Nancy Pelosi is archaic, out of touch and still thinks Bush 43 is the President and their current candidates for 2020, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders (who is an Independent) are all above 70 years old. The radical faction of their supporters are engaging in the suppression of free speech across University campuses, most recently forcing the cancellation of an appearance of Ann Coulter, who is also by no means a moderate. As ardent Obama supporter Chris Matthews put it, the Democratic party is also moving too far to the left on numerous social issues, and it is a problem they need to consider going forward.

Recent polls have suggest that amongst Trump supporters, more than half of still believe he is keeping his promise, though dissatisfaction is indeed boiling. While Trump's support has generally hovered below 50%, it has largely stayed the same since his inauguration, which on one hand shows that his support is firm, but also shows how fragmented the US is. Simply put, for most of his supporter, no matter how much they dislike him, a Trump presidency is still better than a Clinton presidency.

Finally, to summarize, over his 100 days, Trump signed a lot of executive orders, which is a win for him though they are not nearly as meaningful as legislative accomplishment, and whether we like these orders or not is not his problem but our own subjective liking. Foreign policy wise he is flexible to the extent of being fickle, but he is engaging global problems while shedding the label as “Putin’s puppet” (until further evidence to indicate otherwise). He is no longer Hitler as he stumbles to learn how to pass legislations, and most importantly for him, he nominated a Supreme Court Justice and curbed border crossing. He does have some accomplishments to tout to his core supporters, but these accomplishments are largely symbolic and he still has a lot of work to do to have a meaningful presidency.

《關聯閱讀》
媒體是全美國人的公敵?──36 年來第一次,美國總統缺席的白宮晚宴
【美國大選】我不是川普鐵粉,我只是反對傲慢地解讀民主(上):川普是怎麼贏的?

《作品推薦》
「秘書長的微笑」──談「川普背後的黑手」巴農,與美國那些你可能不知道的「右派媒體」們
「都是假的!我眼睛業障重啊!」──四大類「假新聞」橫掃全球,我們到底該相信誰?

 

執行編輯:Vincent
核稿編輯:張翔一

Photo Credit:Evan El-Amin@Shutterstock

侯智元/逆襲的田橋仔

侯智元,對許多東西略懂,不學無術,不務正業的黑五類田僑仔。
哥倫比亞大學政治系、哈佛大學東亞研究所畢業。
喜歡看球,打球,運動。
台南製造,溫哥華、台北、紐約、波士頓加工。
讀書時讀了戴季陶、吳濁流的憂國憂民,郁達夫、鐘理和的顛沛流離,畢業後卻改跑砂石廠、工地,現在則在認識電子業,完全跳 tone 的人生。

最新評論