讓我們來看看《世界人權宣言》是怎麼說的
世界人權宣言
序 言
鑒於對人類家庭所有成員的固有尊嚴及其平等的和不移的權利的承認，乃是世界自由、正義與和平的基礎，
鑒於對人權的無視和侮蔑已發展為野蠻暴行，這些暴行玷污了人類的良心，而一個人人享有言論和信仰自由並免予恐懼和匱乏的世界的來臨，已被宣佈為普通人民的最高願望，
鑒於為使人類不致迫不得已鋌而走險對暴政和壓迫進行反叛，有必要使人權受法治的保護，
鑒於有必要促進各國間友好關係的發展，
鑒於各聯合國國家的人民已在聯合國憲章中重申他們對基本人權、人格尊嚴和價值以及男女平等權利的信念，並決心促成較大自由中的社會進步和生活水準的改善，
鑒於各會員國業已誓願同聯合國合作以促進對人權和基本自由的普遍尊重和遵行，
鑒於對這些權利和自由的普遍瞭解對於這個誓願的充分實現具有很大的重要性，
因此現在，
大會，
發佈這一世界人權宣言，作為所有人民和所有國家努力實現的共同標準，以期每一個人和社會機構經常銘念本宣言，努力通過教誨和教育促進對權利和自由的尊重，並通過國家的和國際的漸進措施，使這些權利和自由在各會員國本身人民及在其管轄下領土的人民中得到普遍和有效的承認和遵行；
第一條
人人生而自由，在尊嚴和權利上一律平等。他們賦有理性和良心，並應以兄弟關係的精神相對待。
第二條
人人有資格享有本宣言所載的一切權利和自由，不分種族、膚色、性別、語言、宗教、政治或其他見解、國籍或社會出身、財產、出生或其他身分等任何區別。
並且不得因一人所屬的國家或領土的政治的、行政的或者國際的地位之不同而有所區別，無論該領土是獨立領土、託管領土、非自治領土或者處於其他任何主權受限制的情況之下。
第三條
人人有權享有生命、自由和人身安全。
第四條
任何人不得使為奴隸或奴役；一切形式的奴隸制度和奴隸買賣，均應予以禁止。
第五條
任何人不得加以酷刑，或施以殘忍的、不人道的或侮辱性的待遇或刑罰。
第六條
人人在任何地方有權被承認在法律前的人格。
第七條
法律之前人人平等，並有權享受法律的平等保護，不受任何歧視。人人有權享受平等保護，以免受違反本宣言的任何歧視行為以及煽動這種歧視的任何行為之害。
第八條
任何人當憲法或法律所賦予他的基本權利遭受侵害時，有權由合格的國家法庭對這種侵害行為作有效的補救。
第九條
任何人不得加以任意逮捕、拘禁或放逐。
第十條
人人完全平等地有權由一個獨立而無偏倚的法庭進行公正的和公開的審訊，以確定他的權利和義務並判定對他提出的任何刑事指控。
第十一條
㈠ 凡受刑事控告者，在未經獲得辯護上所需的一切保證的公開審判而依法證實有罪以前，有權被視為無罪。
㈡ 任何人的任何行為或不行為，在其發生時依國家法或國際法均不構成刑事罪者，不得被判為犯有刑事罪。刑罰不得重于犯罪時適用的法律規定。
第十二條
任何人的私生活、家庭、住宅和通信不得任意干涉，他的榮譽和名譽不得加以攻擊。人人有權享受法律保護，以免受這種干涉或攻擊。
第十三條
㈠ 人人在各國境內有權自由遷徙和居住。
㈡ 人人有權離開任何國家，包括其本國在內，並有權返回他的國家。
第十四條
㈠ 人人有權在其他國家尋求和享受庇護以避免迫害。
㈡ 在真正由於非政治性的罪行或違背聯合國的宗旨和原則的行為而被起訴的情況下，不得援用此種權利。
第十五條
㈠ 人人有權享有國籍。
㈡ 任何人的國籍不得任意剝奪，亦不得否認其改變國籍的權利。
第十六條
㈠ 成年男女，不受種族、國籍或宗教的任何限制有權婚嫁和成立家庭。他們在婚姻方面，在結婚期間和在解除婚約時，應有平等的權利。
㈡ 只有經男女雙方的自由和完全的同意，才能締婚。
㈢ 家庭是天然的和基本的社會單元，並應受社會和國家的保護。
第十七條
㈠ 人人得有單獨的財產所有權以及同他人合有的所有權。
㈡ 任何人的財產不得任意剝奪。
第十八條
人人有思想、良心和宗教自由的權利；此項權利包括改變他的宗教或信仰的自由，以及單獨或集體、公開或秘密地以教義、實踐、禮拜和戒律表示他的宗教或信仰的自由。
第十九條
人人有權享有主張和發表意見的自由；此項權利包括持有主張而不受干涉的自由，和通過任何媒介和不論國界尋求、接受和傳遞消息和思想的自由。
第二十條
㈠ 人人有權享有和平集會和結社的自由。
㈡ 任何人不得迫使隸屬於某一團體。
第二十一條
㈠ 人人有直接或通過自由選擇的代表參與治理本國的權利。
㈡ 人人有平等機會參加本國公務的權利。
㈢ 人民的意志是政府權力的基礎；這一意志應以定期的和真正的選舉予以表現，而選舉應依據普遍和平等的投票權，並以不記名投票或相當的自由投票程式進行。
第二十二條
每個人，作為社會的一員，有權享受社會保障，並有權享受他的個人尊嚴和人格的自由發展所必需的經濟、社會和文化方面各種權利的實現，這種實現是通過國家努力和國際合作並依照各國的組織和資源情況。
第二十三條
㈠ 人人有權工作、自由選擇職業、享受公正和合適的工作條件並享受免於失業的保障。
㈡ 人人有同工同酬的權利，不受任何歧視。
㈢ 每一個工作的人，有權享受公正和合適的報酬，保證使他本人和家屬有一個符合人的生活條件，必要時並輔以其他方式的社會保障。
㈣ 人人有為維護其利益而組織和參加工會的權利。
第二十四條
人人有享有休息和閒暇的權利，包括工作時間有合理限制和定期給薪休假的權利。
第二十五條
㈠ 人人有權享受為維持他本人和家屬的健康和福利所需的生活水準，包括食物、衣著、住房、醫療和必要的社會服務；在遭到失業、疾病、殘廢、守寡、衰老或在其他不能控制的情況下喪失謀生能力時，有權享受保障。
㈡ 母親和兒童有權享受特別照顧和協助。一切兒童，無論婚生或非婚生，都應享受同樣的社會保護。
第二十六條
㈠ 人人都有受教育的權利，教育應當免費，至少在初級和基本階段應如此。初級教育應屬義務性質。技術和職業教育應普遍設立。高等教育應根據成績而對一切人平等開放。
㈡ 教育的目的在於充分發展人的個性並加強對人權和基本自由的尊重。教育應促進各國、各種族或各宗教集團間的瞭解、容忍和友誼，並應促進聯合國維護和平的各項活動。
㈢ 父母對其子女所應受的教育的種類，有優先選擇的權利。
第二十七條
㈠ 人人有權自由參加社會的文化生活，享受藝術，並分享科學進步及其產生的福利。
㈡ 人人對由於他所創作的任何科學、文學或美術作品而產生的精神的和物質的利益，有享受保護的權利。
第二十八條
人人有權要求一種社會的和國際的秩序，在這種秩序中，本宣言所載的權利和自由能獲得充分實現。
第二十九條
㈠ 人人對社會負有義務，因為只有在社會中他的個性才可能得到自由和充分的發展。
㈡ 人人在行使他的權利和自由時，只受法律所確定的限制，確定此種限制的唯一目的在於保證對旁人的權利和自由給予應有的承認和尊重，並在一個民主的社會中適應道德、公共秩序和普遍福利的正當需要。
㈢ 這些權利和自由的行使，無論在任何情形下均不得違背聯合國的宗旨和原則。
第三十條
本宣言的任何條文，不得解釋為默許任何國家、集團或個人有權進行任何旨在破壞本宣言所載的任何權利和自由的活動或行為。
2009年2月26日星期四
2009年2月25日星期三
聲音收藏之sad lisa
http://www.likenote.com/note/1649-sad_lisa(cat_stevens)
She hangs her head and cries in my shirt
She must be hurt very badly.
Tell me what's making you sad,Li ?
Open your door, don't hide in the dark.
You're lost in the dark, you can trust me,'
Cause you know that's how it must be.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa.
Her eyes like windows trickly in rain
Upon the pain getting deeper
Though my love wants to relieve her.
She walks alone from wall to wall,
lost in her hall she can't hear me,though
I know she likes to be near me.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa.
She sits in her corner by the door.
There must be more I can tell her.
If she really wants me to help her,
I'll do what I can to show her the way.
And maybe one day I will free her.
Though i know no one can see her.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa....
She hangs her head and cries in my shirt
She must be hurt very badly.
Tell me what's making you sad,Li ?
Open your door, don't hide in the dark.
You're lost in the dark, you can trust me,'
Cause you know that's how it must be.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa.
Her eyes like windows trickly in rain
Upon the pain getting deeper
Though my love wants to relieve her.
She walks alone from wall to wall,
lost in her hall she can't hear me,though
I know she likes to be near me.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa.
She sits in her corner by the door.
There must be more I can tell her.
If she really wants me to help her,
I'll do what I can to show her the way.
And maybe one day I will free her.
Though i know no one can see her.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa....
Can Newspapers Survive?
Cathy Young – Wed Feb 25, 1:30 pm ET
As media giants totter, battered by the Internet and the economic crisis, saving the newspapers has become a hot topic. It is richly ironic that the online media, which have both greatly facilitated the work of journalists and expanded their readership, have also left many unemployed. Many are expressing concern that the death of journalism as we know it will leave our culture ill-informed - blogs are good for opinion and fact-checking, but they are no substitute for original reporting - and endanger democracy by removing a vital part of its checks and balances.
The debate revolves around two key questions. One, does society truly need the professional media? Two, how can professional journalism survive in a new media environment?
On the first question, my answer is a resounding, though possibly self-serving "yes." While I am a fan of blogs, I believe they work best when the "mainstream media" and the blogs complement each other. Otherwise, the blogosphere is all too liable to disintegrate into shrill partisan screaming and irresponsible rumor-mongering.
The responsible media do have a vital role to play in a democracy. However, the mainstream media's defenders would do well to acknowledge some of their failings. A recent editorial in The New Republic laments that "press-bashing" - whether from right-wing media critics such as former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg, or leftists on the Huffington Post site who accuse the media of conformism - has created a "poisonous atmosphere," undermining the authority of the press.
But what if the critiques have merit? Goldberg's anti-media broadsides may be over the top, but his basic argument - that the liberal politics of most journalists influence media coverage, not because journalists don't strive to be objective but because their cultural milieu influences their perceptions of objectivity - has a great deal of truth to it. Few people doubt that Barack Obama got breaks from the press. And there are well-documented instances of media bias leading to sloppy reporting, with journalists all but recycling the press releases of advocacy groups on such issues as domestic violence, homelessness, or the perils of gun ownership. The press has been the target of unfair criticism, but it cannot be absolved of blame for the damage to its reputation.
That said, the media's present financial woes have little to do with its real or perceived lack of balance, and everything to do with the economics of publishing. News corporations have always subsidized serious reporting and commentary with revenues from other functions of the newspapers, such as classified advertising or sports news. Today, most of those functions have been diverted to other media, including the Internet.
Promising solutions include non-profit programs to support investigative reporting and news analysis. Just because we need professional journalism does not mean that it has to come only in the traditional package of the newspaper. Independent journalists, working as individuals or as teams, may thrive if they can have access to resources outside the conventional structure of a media organization.
Far more controversial is the quest to get readers to pay for online content. In fact, there is no good reason that online content should be free, other than "people are used to it." Is it impossible to persuade people to pay for something they are used to getting for free? Not at all. Online music downloads are a good example; so is television. While TV had been free since its inception, large numbers of people proved willing to pay for cable and digital television.
A subscriber-only model for individual websites has repeatedly proven unworkable. (The Wall Street Journal - a notable exception - gets people to pay for financial information while providing most editorial content free of charge.) The main reason it cannot work is that people who read news and commentary on the Internet usually get their content from many different sites. That is the great advantage of the Internet: you can go from The Washington Post to the London Times at the click of a mouse, and follow a link within one story to read another. If every news site started hiding its content behind a pay wall, reader would face either huge bills or greatly restricted choices, and many would seek to circumvent the subscription requirements.
Walter Isaacson, former managing editor of Time, recently got into the fray with a proposal to make web media content available for micropayments similar to iTunes, "a one-click system with a really simple interface." If you see a link to an interesting article on, say, The San Jose Mercury News website, you don't have to buy a $20 subscription to the publication - you can pay a nickel or a dime to read the individual item.
While this is a promising idea, it has substantial drawbacks. Those nickels and dimes can add up, and if your monthly bill is high enough, you may think twice the next time you feel like clicking on a link.
A better approach may be to make news and analysis content available only through media portals or carriers, similar to cable television providers. A subscription to a carrier would give access to any news site (newspaper, magazine, blog) that is a part of its package. The subscription price could vary depending on level of consumption: say, $20 a month for 40 hours of media access, $40 for 100 hours, and so on. Or the cost of a subscription could vary depending on which publications are included, while content outside the customer's standard package could be available for one-time micropayments. Different media portals could experiment with different fee scales. This would allow people to surf the Web without having to ponder each click of a link. Revenues could be distributed to individual websites depending on their readership.
This strategy would still require a drastic departure from Internet business as usual. The migration of participating sites behind media-portal walls would have to be coordinated. Some policing would be needed to ensure that premium content is not reposted on free-access sites. This could make the carriers look like bad guys, at least in the eyes of those for whom free online content has become an entitlement if not an article of faith.
Yet, if there is a will to adopt the media-portal subscription model, there will be a way. Even in the age of celebrity gossip sites and reality shows, millions of Americans still respect real journalism enough to be willing to pay to help keep it alive.
Provided, of course, that the media work harder to deserve and retain that respect.
As media giants totter, battered by the Internet and the economic crisis, saving the newspapers has become a hot topic. It is richly ironic that the online media, which have both greatly facilitated the work of journalists and expanded their readership, have also left many unemployed. Many are expressing concern that the death of journalism as we know it will leave our culture ill-informed - blogs are good for opinion and fact-checking, but they are no substitute for original reporting - and endanger democracy by removing a vital part of its checks and balances.
The debate revolves around two key questions. One, does society truly need the professional media? Two, how can professional journalism survive in a new media environment?
On the first question, my answer is a resounding, though possibly self-serving "yes." While I am a fan of blogs, I believe they work best when the "mainstream media" and the blogs complement each other. Otherwise, the blogosphere is all too liable to disintegrate into shrill partisan screaming and irresponsible rumor-mongering.
The responsible media do have a vital role to play in a democracy. However, the mainstream media's defenders would do well to acknowledge some of their failings. A recent editorial in The New Republic laments that "press-bashing" - whether from right-wing media critics such as former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg, or leftists on the Huffington Post site who accuse the media of conformism - has created a "poisonous atmosphere," undermining the authority of the press.
But what if the critiques have merit? Goldberg's anti-media broadsides may be over the top, but his basic argument - that the liberal politics of most journalists influence media coverage, not because journalists don't strive to be objective but because their cultural milieu influences their perceptions of objectivity - has a great deal of truth to it. Few people doubt that Barack Obama got breaks from the press. And there are well-documented instances of media bias leading to sloppy reporting, with journalists all but recycling the press releases of advocacy groups on such issues as domestic violence, homelessness, or the perils of gun ownership. The press has been the target of unfair criticism, but it cannot be absolved of blame for the damage to its reputation.
That said, the media's present financial woes have little to do with its real or perceived lack of balance, and everything to do with the economics of publishing. News corporations have always subsidized serious reporting and commentary with revenues from other functions of the newspapers, such as classified advertising or sports news. Today, most of those functions have been diverted to other media, including the Internet.
Promising solutions include non-profit programs to support investigative reporting and news analysis. Just because we need professional journalism does not mean that it has to come only in the traditional package of the newspaper. Independent journalists, working as individuals or as teams, may thrive if they can have access to resources outside the conventional structure of a media organization.
Far more controversial is the quest to get readers to pay for online content. In fact, there is no good reason that online content should be free, other than "people are used to it." Is it impossible to persuade people to pay for something they are used to getting for free? Not at all. Online music downloads are a good example; so is television. While TV had been free since its inception, large numbers of people proved willing to pay for cable and digital television.
A subscriber-only model for individual websites has repeatedly proven unworkable. (The Wall Street Journal - a notable exception - gets people to pay for financial information while providing most editorial content free of charge.) The main reason it cannot work is that people who read news and commentary on the Internet usually get their content from many different sites. That is the great advantage of the Internet: you can go from The Washington Post to the London Times at the click of a mouse, and follow a link within one story to read another. If every news site started hiding its content behind a pay wall, reader would face either huge bills or greatly restricted choices, and many would seek to circumvent the subscription requirements.
Walter Isaacson, former managing editor of Time, recently got into the fray with a proposal to make web media content available for micropayments similar to iTunes, "a one-click system with a really simple interface." If you see a link to an interesting article on, say, The San Jose Mercury News website, you don't have to buy a $20 subscription to the publication - you can pay a nickel or a dime to read the individual item.
While this is a promising idea, it has substantial drawbacks. Those nickels and dimes can add up, and if your monthly bill is high enough, you may think twice the next time you feel like clicking on a link.
A better approach may be to make news and analysis content available only through media portals or carriers, similar to cable television providers. A subscription to a carrier would give access to any news site (newspaper, magazine, blog) that is a part of its package. The subscription price could vary depending on level of consumption: say, $20 a month for 40 hours of media access, $40 for 100 hours, and so on. Or the cost of a subscription could vary depending on which publications are included, while content outside the customer's standard package could be available for one-time micropayments. Different media portals could experiment with different fee scales. This would allow people to surf the Web without having to ponder each click of a link. Revenues could be distributed to individual websites depending on their readership.
This strategy would still require a drastic departure from Internet business as usual. The migration of participating sites behind media-portal walls would have to be coordinated. Some policing would be needed to ensure that premium content is not reposted on free-access sites. This could make the carriers look like bad guys, at least in the eyes of those for whom free online content has become an entitlement if not an article of faith.
Yet, if there is a will to adopt the media-portal subscription model, there will be a way. Even in the age of celebrity gossip sites and reality shows, millions of Americans still respect real journalism enough to be willing to pay to help keep it alive.
Provided, of course, that the media work harder to deserve and retain that respect.
2009年2月25日，危機結束。
為時代唏噓。危機終於結束了。看完奧巴馬的演講摘要，我就知道，危機結束了。沒有戰爭，沒有資本主義的滅亡。是的，自由的市場和市場的自由，都活著。因此，這個世界，就有希望。
奧巴馬總統的首次國會演講，不只是給予國民信心那麼簡單。他找到了時代的癥結所在。他拿出了清算資本主義病症的勇氣。他發起了這場資本主義自我改良的偉大“戰爭”。一場21世紀必須要完成的偉大試驗。
我曾擔憂美利堅合眾國大總統奧巴馬的執政能力。我也認為，是危機給了他上臺的機會。我曾經認為，希拉蕊，比他具有更豐富經驗以及更廣大的政治資源。我曾認為希拉蕊夫婦，會比奧巴馬更懂得外交。可是，現在，這一起都不再重要。
奧巴馬勇敢地尋求資本主義的病因。而不是推卸責任。
“財政盈餘成了向富人轉移財富的藉口，而不是為我們的未來進行投資的機會。”
“監管規則遭到破壞，以犧牲市場健康換取短期效益。老百姓明知自己無力承擔貸款卻還是要買房子，而放款的銀行和貸款人不顧實際地大力推銷這些壞帳。”
“算總帳的時候已經來臨，我們為未來負責的時候也已來臨。現在是我們採取大膽和明智行動的時候－我們不但要重振經濟，還要為持續的繁榮奠定新的基礎。”
他指出了，我們每個人的貪婪。資本主義在我們每個人的貪婪裏，差一點點就走到了盡頭。社會主義捲土重來的論調正在蔓延。
資本主義與人性本身的缺陷正被混為一談。那些智者給我們留下的關於市場的建議正被遺忘。
奧巴馬，勇敢地捍衛美國價值觀。他帶來了良知資本家。
“我想到了雷奧納德•阿貝斯(Leonard Abess)，這位邁阿密的銀行總裁賣出了公司的股票，向為他工作的所有399人和以前曾為他工作的72人發放了6,000萬美元的獎金。他沒有告訴任何人，但在當地報紙發現後，他只是說，我從7歲時就認識其中的一些人了。我覺得自己得到這些錢是不對的。”
“如果我們團結一致，把美國從危機的深淵中拯救出來……那麼很多年後的某一天，我們的孩子就能告訴他們的孩子說，那個時刻我們的父輩做了值得人們記住的事，就象這個大廳裏的銘文一樣。”
我不是親美者。但是，要知道，美國還是這個世界的領袖。他們穩定世界的力量不是中國所有的。奧巴馬的堅強，意味著這個世界要少許多恐慌。
恐慌，不只是摧毀市場，還會摧毀人性。
恐慌，可以讓我們忘記世代追求的東西。
奧巴馬的堅定，意味著，市場化的道路不會迷失。這給中國帶來的，是最大的利好。中國現在要做的，不是期待一個虛弱的美國，而是強大的美國，共用世界。中國現在要做的，不是期待國有化的美國銀行系統，而是一個自由的高效率的系統。
中國，必須期待一個更自由的世界，而不是倒退。中國的下一個30年，在一個更開放的世界裏，才有更多機會，更多希望。
延伸閱讀：
Reshaping the World Order
How Washington Should Reform International Institutions
Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth
From Foreign Affairs, March/April 2009
Summary: The current architecture of international institutions must be updated, but skeptics question whether the United States is up to the task. They need not worry: Washington still possesses enough power and legitimacy to spearhead reform.
Stephen G. Brooks is Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College. William C. Wohlforth is Daniel Webster Professor of Government and Chair of the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. This article is adapted from their book World Out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy (Princeton University Press, 2008).
ISSUES 2009
Writing the Rules for a New World
Today's problems ignore national boundaries. The world needs smart management that does the same.
By Fareed Zakaria NEWSWEEK
Published Dec 31, 2008
奧巴馬總統的首次國會演講，不只是給予國民信心那麼簡單。他找到了時代的癥結所在。他拿出了清算資本主義病症的勇氣。他發起了這場資本主義自我改良的偉大“戰爭”。一場21世紀必須要完成的偉大試驗。
我曾擔憂美利堅合眾國大總統奧巴馬的執政能力。我也認為，是危機給了他上臺的機會。我曾經認為，希拉蕊，比他具有更豐富經驗以及更廣大的政治資源。我曾認為希拉蕊夫婦，會比奧巴馬更懂得外交。可是，現在，這一起都不再重要。
奧巴馬勇敢地尋求資本主義的病因。而不是推卸責任。
“財政盈餘成了向富人轉移財富的藉口，而不是為我們的未來進行投資的機會。”
“監管規則遭到破壞，以犧牲市場健康換取短期效益。老百姓明知自己無力承擔貸款卻還是要買房子，而放款的銀行和貸款人不顧實際地大力推銷這些壞帳。”
“算總帳的時候已經來臨，我們為未來負責的時候也已來臨。現在是我們採取大膽和明智行動的時候－我們不但要重振經濟，還要為持續的繁榮奠定新的基礎。”
他指出了，我們每個人的貪婪。資本主義在我們每個人的貪婪裏，差一點點就走到了盡頭。社會主義捲土重來的論調正在蔓延。
資本主義與人性本身的缺陷正被混為一談。那些智者給我們留下的關於市場的建議正被遺忘。
奧巴馬，勇敢地捍衛美國價值觀。他帶來了良知資本家。
“我想到了雷奧納德•阿貝斯(Leonard Abess)，這位邁阿密的銀行總裁賣出了公司的股票，向為他工作的所有399人和以前曾為他工作的72人發放了6,000萬美元的獎金。他沒有告訴任何人，但在當地報紙發現後，他只是說，我從7歲時就認識其中的一些人了。我覺得自己得到這些錢是不對的。”
“如果我們團結一致，把美國從危機的深淵中拯救出來……那麼很多年後的某一天，我們的孩子就能告訴他們的孩子說，那個時刻我們的父輩做了值得人們記住的事，就象這個大廳裏的銘文一樣。”
我不是親美者。但是，要知道，美國還是這個世界的領袖。他們穩定世界的力量不是中國所有的。奧巴馬的堅強，意味著這個世界要少許多恐慌。
恐慌，不只是摧毀市場，還會摧毀人性。
恐慌，可以讓我們忘記世代追求的東西。
奧巴馬的堅定，意味著，市場化的道路不會迷失。這給中國帶來的，是最大的利好。中國現在要做的，不是期待一個虛弱的美國，而是強大的美國，共用世界。中國現在要做的，不是期待國有化的美國銀行系統，而是一個自由的高效率的系統。
中國，必須期待一個更自由的世界，而不是倒退。中國的下一個30年，在一個更開放的世界裏，才有更多機會，更多希望。
延伸閱讀：
Reshaping the World Order
How Washington Should Reform International Institutions
Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth
From Foreign Affairs, March/April 2009
Summary: The current architecture of international institutions must be updated, but skeptics question whether the United States is up to the task. They need not worry: Washington still possesses enough power and legitimacy to spearhead reform.
Stephen G. Brooks is Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College. William C. Wohlforth is Daniel Webster Professor of Government and Chair of the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. This article is adapted from their book World Out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy (Princeton University Press, 2008).
ISSUES 2009
Writing the Rules for a New World
Today's problems ignore national boundaries. The world needs smart management that does the same.
By Fareed Zakaria NEWSWEEK
Published Dec 31, 2008
2009年2月24日星期二
Leonard Abess
“我想到了雷奧納德•阿貝斯(Leonard Abess)，這位邁阿密的銀行總裁賣出了公司的股票，向為他工作的所有399人和以前曾為他工作的72人發放了6,000萬美元的獎金。他沒有告訴任何人，但在當地報紙發現後，他只是說，我從7歲時就認識其中的一些人了。我覺得自己得到這些錢是不對的。”
2009年2月25日，美利堅合眾國總統奧巴馬週二晚間在參眾兩院聯席會議上說。
2009年2月25日，美利堅合眾國總統奧巴馬週二晚間在參眾兩院聯席會議上說。
簡歷
Leonard Abess is CEO of City National Bank of Florida, a subsidiary of Caja Madrid. He is currently serving a three-year term as Miami Branch Director of the Federal Reserve.
Mr. Abess is Vice Chairman of the University of Miami Board of Trustees, chairman of the Academic Affairs committee, chairman elect of the Executive Committee, Former Chairman of the University's Finance and Investments committees where he remains a member, and a member of the Trustee Service committee and the Visiting Committee for the University's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science.
He is a Trustee of Fairchild Tropical Garden and The Nature Conservancy/Florida Chapter; and a former Trustee of the Eaglebrook School in Deerfield, Mass.
He is the former Chairman of the Board of Mount Sinai Medical Center, where he remains a Founder and Trustee; former Chairman of the Mount Sinai Finance Committee, Audit Committee and Nominating Committee; and former Treasurer of the Medical Center's Board of Trustees. He is a Board member of The Greater Miami Jewish Federation.
Mr. Abess is a member of the Orange Bowl Committee; the World Presidents Organization; the Chief Executives Organization; the Cabinet and National Commission of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith; the Miami Business Forum.
A devoted environmentalist, he is a member of the World Wildlife Fund's National Advisory Council, a Fellow of the Palm Society and the Audubon Society. To foster interdisciplinary approaches to environmental management and decision-making on a global level, his family endowed the Leonard and Jayne Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy (CESP) at the University of Miami; founded the Abess Center for Environmental Studies at Miami Country Day School and the Abess Floating Research Station in the Brazilian Amazon.
Mr. Abess is the recipient of the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce 2006 Doc Baker Lifetime Achievement Award and co-recipient with his wife, Jayne, of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce 2007 "Sand in My Shoes" award. He received the Florida Anti-Defamation League's 2002 Distinguished Public and Community Service Award and the 2002 Silver Medallion for Service to Humanity from the National Conference for Community and Justice. A graduate of Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, Mr. Abess was inducted into the South Florida Business Hall of Fame in 2002.
Mr. Abess is Vice Chairman of the University of Miami Board of Trustees, chairman of the Academic Affairs committee, chairman elect of the Executive Committee, Former Chairman of the University's Finance and Investments committees where he remains a member, and a member of the Trustee Service committee and the Visiting Committee for the University's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science.
He is a Trustee of Fairchild Tropical Garden and The Nature Conservancy/Florida Chapter; and a former Trustee of the Eaglebrook School in Deerfield, Mass.
He is the former Chairman of the Board of Mount Sinai Medical Center, where he remains a Founder and Trustee; former Chairman of the Mount Sinai Finance Committee, Audit Committee and Nominating Committee; and former Treasurer of the Medical Center's Board of Trustees. He is a Board member of The Greater Miami Jewish Federation.
Mr. Abess is a member of the Orange Bowl Committee; the World Presidents Organization; the Chief Executives Organization; the Cabinet and National Commission of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith; the Miami Business Forum.
A devoted environmentalist, he is a member of the World Wildlife Fund's National Advisory Council, a Fellow of the Palm Society and the Audubon Society. To foster interdisciplinary approaches to environmental management and decision-making on a global level, his family endowed the Leonard and Jayne Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy (CESP) at the University of Miami; founded the Abess Center for Environmental Studies at Miami Country Day School and the Abess Floating Research Station in the Brazilian Amazon.
Mr. Abess is the recipient of the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce 2006 Doc Baker Lifetime Achievement Award and co-recipient with his wife, Jayne, of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce 2007 "Sand in My Shoes" award. He received the Florida Anti-Defamation League's 2002 Distinguished Public and Community Service Award and the 2002 Silver Medallion for Service to Humanity from the National Conference for Community and Justice. A graduate of Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, Mr. Abess was inducted into the South Florida Business Hall of Fame in 2002.
歷史的麻辣兔頭
小時候，我家有個栓大門的老古董。銅制的。每天晚上，睡覺之前，父親都會叫我：關門。据说，這是爺爺的短煙槍。其實，也算不上老古董吧。現在全家都不在老家了，這個老古董也就不在了。如果，我不知道。可能也不會在意。不知道歷史，也不會知道其意義。
前段時間，周功鑫院長臺北故宮一行遊走北京、上海，談國寶合作。並沒有引起大陸民眾和學界的重視。即便沒有官方招呼，民間也沒有大討論。新浪關於周功鑫登陸消息，也評論寥寥。更別提有什麼媒體發社論了。
而在海峽那邊，就掀起巨大波瀾。臺灣人怕借大陸寶貝之後，無法完璧歸台。民間和政界都極度擔憂。
臺北故宮的寶貝，確實保護得不容易。輾轉到上海，再到臺灣，經歷了歷史塵封，最終以國立故宮博物院命名。
百度“臺北故宮”詞條提到：
故宮博物院於抗日戰爭的前夕，選擇重要文物南遷。
1931年，日本發動九一八事變侵佔東北後，國民政府開始計畫將博物院文物南運。隔年，日軍攻佔熱河、進逼北平，故宮理事會要求博物院選擇院藏文物菁華裝箱儲置，開始南運。
1933年2月6日，北平戒嚴，華北情勢告急，第一批南遷文物抵達上海，期間南遷文物共五批19,557箱，包含古物陳列所、頤和園、國子監等單位文物的6,066箱。
……
無論如何，蔣介石帶領的國民政府輾轉中國，也沒有捨棄這些文物，直到臺灣。他們無法捨棄。這是許多人無法感知的。這是周功鑫之行面帶憂鬱的原因。這也是我們對文物木然的原因。
這次巴黎拍賣圓明園鼠首、兔首。引發了大陸民間和官方的怒火。我分辨不出這怒火裏，幾分是燃燒的對文物和歷史的珍視，幾分是民族的情緒。
我還是希望前者多一點點，而不是後者。前者，可以阻擋我們再像文革時期那樣放火，後者，可以點燃烈火，燒毀一切。
從這個意義上來說，那個兔頭並不那麼重要。重要的是，在我們心裏的，那只關於歷史的麻辣兔頭。
2009年2月23日星期一
“光明星2號”是啥玩意
DailyNK記者鄭在垶，[2009-02-13 15:21 ]
有分析認為，朝鮮當局有可能主張在鹹鏡北道舞水端裏準備發射的“大浦洞2號”不是軍事用，而是衛星發射體。
軍事專門媒體“全球安全體系”的前任技術委員會查理斯比克在上個月26日發表的文章“朝鮮加快開發彈道導彈及宇宙發射體”中說：“朝鮮預計在今年春季或夏季為試驗衛星運輸體或彈道導彈發射1-2枚大浦東2號導彈。”
12日，NK知識聯合也引用鹹鏡北道消息人士的話報導朝鮮官員曾表示：“舞水端裏導彈基地就要發射‘光明星2號’人造衛星。”
消息人士還說：“據悉，‘光明星2號’人造衛星是位於（平安北道）龜城的國防科學院‘電子戰研究所’製作的。”“聽說，此次將發射的‘光明星2號’是‘具備通訊裝備的衛星’。”
衛星發射體與地對地遠距離彈道導彈除了是否裝載了衛星和飛行軌道等不同以外，發射準備過程及發射後的飛行過程都非常相似。
2006年，朝鮮以“宇宙的和平利用權力”為藉口發射導彈及實施核子試驗後，聯合國制定了第1718號對朝制裁決議。如果朝鮮發射“大浦洞2號”後主張發射了衛星，那麼就可以避開違反了這一決議的指責。
而且還可以炫耀導彈技術能力，讓奧巴馬政府認識到美朝對話的緊迫性，使其坐到協商桌前的效果。而且在朝鮮內部可以提高“強盛大國論”加強體制團結。
國防研究院國防現案組組長白承柱跟DailyNK通話時說：“朝鮮可以避開跟美國奧巴馬政府的正面衝突，不使關係更惡化還可以炫耀導彈能力，所以會主張是‘衛星發射體’。”
世宗研究所所長宋大成也說：“朝鮮過去稱‘大浦洞1號’為‘光明星1號’，有可能主張是衛星發射體。”
此前，1998年朝鮮實施2500公里導彈試射後主張說是發射了人造衛星“光明星1號”。可是國際社會認為光明星1號在第三階段推進器點火時失敗，沒能把衛星送入軌道而墜落了。
特別是，7日伊朗利用運載火箭成功發射人造衛星之後，朝鮮勞動新聞就說“行駛了正當權力”。有人認為這也是為主張此次“大浦洞2號”是衛星發射體而打下的基礎。
按慣例來看，朝鮮此次再次主張“衛星發射體”的可能性很大。可是在這期間朝鮮沒有進行有關宇宙產業的研究，考慮到朝鮮對韓和對美的“威脅”，國際社會容忍其行為的可能性不大。
宋所長主張：“考慮到朝鮮沒有追求和平性科學技術發展，國際社會有可能認為他們是‘不正直的集團’。”
白組長說：“朝鮮在1998年發射‘大浦洞1號’時也主張是‘光明星1號’。”“可是在這期間沒有進行有關宇宙產業的研究，所以很難認為是‘衛星發射體’。”
實際上，美國國防部長蓋茨表示：“如果朝鮮繼續進行瞄準美國本土的大浦洞導彈發射準備，我們會做好擊落準備。”美國將視為軍事威脅，採取強硬措施。
11日，國務部代理發言人勞伯特在定期記者招待會上，就國務卿希拉蕊前一天的不能容忍朝鮮威脅行為的言論說：“我們不希望看到朝鮮助長緊張局勢的挑釁行為。”
有分析認為，朝鮮當局有可能主張在鹹鏡北道舞水端裏準備發射的“大浦洞2號”不是軍事用，而是衛星發射體。
軍事專門媒體“全球安全體系”的前任技術委員會查理斯比克在上個月26日發表的文章“朝鮮加快開發彈道導彈及宇宙發射體”中說：“朝鮮預計在今年春季或夏季為試驗衛星運輸體或彈道導彈發射1-2枚大浦東2號導彈。”
12日，NK知識聯合也引用鹹鏡北道消息人士的話報導朝鮮官員曾表示：“舞水端裏導彈基地就要發射‘光明星2號’人造衛星。”
消息人士還說：“據悉，‘光明星2號’人造衛星是位於（平安北道）龜城的國防科學院‘電子戰研究所’製作的。”“聽說，此次將發射的‘光明星2號’是‘具備通訊裝備的衛星’。”
衛星發射體與地對地遠距離彈道導彈除了是否裝載了衛星和飛行軌道等不同以外，發射準備過程及發射後的飛行過程都非常相似。
2006年，朝鮮以“宇宙的和平利用權力”為藉口發射導彈及實施核子試驗後，聯合國制定了第1718號對朝制裁決議。如果朝鮮發射“大浦洞2號”後主張發射了衛星，那麼就可以避開違反了這一決議的指責。
而且還可以炫耀導彈技術能力，讓奧巴馬政府認識到美朝對話的緊迫性，使其坐到協商桌前的效果。而且在朝鮮內部可以提高“強盛大國論”加強體制團結。
國防研究院國防現案組組長白承柱跟DailyNK通話時說：“朝鮮可以避開跟美國奧巴馬政府的正面衝突，不使關係更惡化還可以炫耀導彈能力，所以會主張是‘衛星發射體’。”
世宗研究所所長宋大成也說：“朝鮮過去稱‘大浦洞1號’為‘光明星1號’，有可能主張是衛星發射體。”
此前，1998年朝鮮實施2500公里導彈試射後主張說是發射了人造衛星“光明星1號”。可是國際社會認為光明星1號在第三階段推進器點火時失敗，沒能把衛星送入軌道而墜落了。
特別是，7日伊朗利用運載火箭成功發射人造衛星之後，朝鮮勞動新聞就說“行駛了正當權力”。有人認為這也是為主張此次“大浦洞2號”是衛星發射體而打下的基礎。
按慣例來看，朝鮮此次再次主張“衛星發射體”的可能性很大。可是在這期間朝鮮沒有進行有關宇宙產業的研究，考慮到朝鮮對韓和對美的“威脅”，國際社會容忍其行為的可能性不大。
宋所長主張：“考慮到朝鮮沒有追求和平性科學技術發展，國際社會有可能認為他們是‘不正直的集團’。”
白組長說：“朝鮮在1998年發射‘大浦洞1號’時也主張是‘光明星1號’。”“可是在這期間沒有進行有關宇宙產業的研究，所以很難認為是‘衛星發射體’。”
實際上，美國國防部長蓋茨表示：“如果朝鮮繼續進行瞄準美國本土的大浦洞導彈發射準備，我們會做好擊落準備。”美國將視為軍事威脅，採取強硬措施。
11日，國務部代理發言人勞伯特在定期記者招待會上，就國務卿希拉蕊前一天的不能容忍朝鮮威脅行為的言論說：“我們不希望看到朝鮮助長緊張局勢的挑釁行為。”
不是老頑童
很多人把自己當老頑童。不過，這個世界，老頑童就那麼一個。他叫周伯通。他對女人有極大興趣，但是，只對一個女人。而不是到處渾水摸魚，上下其手。亂搞女人的，是歐陽鋒。如果，能有段王爺的情懷，還有點意思。可是段王爺，對他的每個女人都好。
他是愛捉弄人，但是，不會害人。不會背棄朋友。
他愛武功，但是，他不會像裘千丈，端架勢唬人。被困在桃花島15年，他自創七十二路空明拳及雙手互搏之術，同時也熟讀《九陰真經》上冊經文。
老頑童是不在乎年齡的，也是不在乎輩份的。他和郭靖結拜，而不是虛報年齡。
所以說，拿老頑童來當祖師，還得有老頑童的本領，以及對武功的熱愛，也要有對一個女人的執著。
老頑童，不是把世間最卑鄙的事情聚合起來，而是把最美好的東西，捏在一起。
囚禁在島上15年而本性不變的人，才是老頑童。他沒有向任何人屈服過，更別談獻媚。
订阅：
博文 (Atom)
訂閱
博文
所有评论