http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhhjEbCAaEZ39Tgqa5
9.30.2008
美國國會制度 續
Bills and resolutions
The House Financial Services committee meets. Committee members sit in the tiers of raised chairs, while those testifying and audience members sit below.A proposal may be introduced in Congress as a bill, a joint resolution, a concurrent resolution, or a simple resolution. Most legislative proposals are introduced as bills, but some are introduced as joint resolutions. There is little practical difference between the two, except that joint resolutions may include preambles but bills may not. Joint resolutions are the normal method used to propose a constitutional amendment or to declare war. On the other hand, concurrent resolutions (passed by both houses) and simple resolutions (passed by only one house) do not have the force of law. Instead, they serve to express the opinion of Congress, or to regulate procedure.
Members of Congress often introduce legislation at the behest of lobbyists. Lobbyists advocate the passage (or rejection) of bills affecting the interest of a particular group (such as a corporation or a labor union). In many cases, the lobbyists write legislation and submit it to a member for introduction. Congressional lobbyists are legally required to be registered in a central database, and are employed by political organizations, corporations, state governments, foreign governments, and numerous other groups. In 2005, there are almost 35,000 registered Congressional lobbyists, representing a doubling since 2000.[12] Some of the most prominent lobbyists are ex-members of Congress, others are family members of sitting members. As an example, Harry Reid, Dennis Hastert, former Representative Tom DeLay, and Roy Blunt all have immediate family members who are (or were) lobbyists.[13]
Bills (and other proposals) may be introduced by any member of either house. However, the Constitution provides that: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills, or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds. Historically, the Senate has disputed the interpretation advocated by the House. However, whenever the Senate originates an appropriations bill, the House simply refuses to consider it, thereby settling the dispute in practice. Nevertheless, while the Senate cannot originate revenue and appropriation bills, it does retain the power to amend or reject them.
Each bill goes through several stages in each house. The first stage involves consideration by a committee. Most legislation is considered by standing committees, each of which has jurisdiction over a particular subject matter, such as Agriculture or Appropriations. The House has twenty standing committees; the Senate has sixteen. In some cases, bills may be sent to select committees, which tend to have more narrow jurisdictions than standing committees. Each standing and select committee is led by a chair (who belongs to the majority party) and a ranking member (who belongs to the minority party). Committees are permitted to hold hearings and collect evidence when considering bills. They may also amend the bill, but the full house holds the power to accept or reject committee amendments. After considering and debating a measure, the committee votes on whether it wishes to report the measure to the full house.
A decision not to report a bill amounts to a rejection of the proposal. Both houses provide for procedures under which the committee can be bypassed or overruled, but they are rarely used. If reported by the committee, the bill reaches the floor of the full house. The house may debate and amend the bill; the precise procedures used by the House of Representatives and the Senate differ. A final vote on the bill follows.
Once a bill is approved by one house, it is sent to the other, which may pass, reject, or amend it. In order for the bill to become law, both houses must agree to identical versions of the bill. If the second house amends the bill, then the differences between the two versions must be reconciled in a conference committee, an ad hoc committee that includes both senators and representatives. In many cases, conference committees have introduced substantial changes to bills and added unrequested spending, significantly departing from both the House and Senate versions. President Ronald Reagan once quipped, "If an orange and an apple went into conference consultations, it might come out a pear."[14] If both houses agree to the version reported by the conference committee, the bill passes; otherwise, it fails.
After passage by both houses, a bill is submitted to the President. The President may choose to sign the bill, thereby making it law. The President may also choose to veto the bill, returning it to Congress with his objections. In such a case, the bill only becomes law if each house of Congress votes to override the veto with a two-thirds majority. Finally, the President may choose to take no action, neither signing nor vetoing the bill. In such a case, the Constitution states that the bill automatically becomes law after ten days (excluding Sundays). However, if Congress adjourns (ends a legislative session) during the ten day period, then the bill does not become law. Thus, the President may veto legislation passed at the end of a congressional session simply by ignoring it; the maneuver is known as a pocket veto, and cannot be overridden by the adjourned Congress.
Every Act of Congress or joint resolution begins with an enacting formula or resolving formula stipulated by law. These are:
Act of Congress: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled."
Joint resolution: "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled."
The House Financial Services committee meets. Committee members sit in the tiers of raised chairs, while those testifying and audience members sit below.A proposal may be introduced in Congress as a bill, a joint resolution, a concurrent resolution, or a simple resolution. Most legislative proposals are introduced as bills, but some are introduced as joint resolutions. There is little practical difference between the two, except that joint resolutions may include preambles but bills may not. Joint resolutions are the normal method used to propose a constitutional amendment or to declare war. On the other hand, concurrent resolutions (passed by both houses) and simple resolutions (passed by only one house) do not have the force of law. Instead, they serve to express the opinion of Congress, or to regulate procedure.
Members of Congress often introduce legislation at the behest of lobbyists. Lobbyists advocate the passage (or rejection) of bills affecting the interest of a particular group (such as a corporation or a labor union). In many cases, the lobbyists write legislation and submit it to a member for introduction. Congressional lobbyists are legally required to be registered in a central database, and are employed by political organizations, corporations, state governments, foreign governments, and numerous other groups. In 2005, there are almost 35,000 registered Congressional lobbyists, representing a doubling since 2000.[12] Some of the most prominent lobbyists are ex-members of Congress, others are family members of sitting members. As an example, Harry Reid, Dennis Hastert, former Representative Tom DeLay, and Roy Blunt all have immediate family members who are (or were) lobbyists.[13]
Bills (and other proposals) may be introduced by any member of either house. However, the Constitution provides that: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills, or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds. Historically, the Senate has disputed the interpretation advocated by the House. However, whenever the Senate originates an appropriations bill, the House simply refuses to consider it, thereby settling the dispute in practice. Nevertheless, while the Senate cannot originate revenue and appropriation bills, it does retain the power to amend or reject them.
Each bill goes through several stages in each house. The first stage involves consideration by a committee. Most legislation is considered by standing committees, each of which has jurisdiction over a particular subject matter, such as Agriculture or Appropriations. The House has twenty standing committees; the Senate has sixteen. In some cases, bills may be sent to select committees, which tend to have more narrow jurisdictions than standing committees. Each standing and select committee is led by a chair (who belongs to the majority party) and a ranking member (who belongs to the minority party). Committees are permitted to hold hearings and collect evidence when considering bills. They may also amend the bill, but the full house holds the power to accept or reject committee amendments. After considering and debating a measure, the committee votes on whether it wishes to report the measure to the full house.
A decision not to report a bill amounts to a rejection of the proposal. Both houses provide for procedures under which the committee can be bypassed or overruled, but they are rarely used. If reported by the committee, the bill reaches the floor of the full house. The house may debate and amend the bill; the precise procedures used by the House of Representatives and the Senate differ. A final vote on the bill follows.
Once a bill is approved by one house, it is sent to the other, which may pass, reject, or amend it. In order for the bill to become law, both houses must agree to identical versions of the bill. If the second house amends the bill, then the differences between the two versions must be reconciled in a conference committee, an ad hoc committee that includes both senators and representatives. In many cases, conference committees have introduced substantial changes to bills and added unrequested spending, significantly departing from both the House and Senate versions. President Ronald Reagan once quipped, "If an orange and an apple went into conference consultations, it might come out a pear."[14] If both houses agree to the version reported by the conference committee, the bill passes; otherwise, it fails.
After passage by both houses, a bill is submitted to the President. The President may choose to sign the bill, thereby making it law. The President may also choose to veto the bill, returning it to Congress with his objections. In such a case, the bill only becomes law if each house of Congress votes to override the veto with a two-thirds majority. Finally, the President may choose to take no action, neither signing nor vetoing the bill. In such a case, the Constitution states that the bill automatically becomes law after ten days (excluding Sundays). However, if Congress adjourns (ends a legislative session) during the ten day period, then the bill does not become law. Thus, the President may veto legislation passed at the end of a congressional session simply by ignoring it; the maneuver is known as a pocket veto, and cannot be overridden by the adjourned Congress.
Every Act of Congress or joint resolution begins with an enacting formula or resolving formula stipulated by law. These are:
Act of Congress: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled."
Joint resolution: "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled."
美國國會制度
Checks and balances
View of the United States Capitol from the United States Supreme Court buildingThe Constitution provides checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government. The authors of the Constitution expected the greater power to lie with Congress and it has been theorized that that is one reason they are described in Article One.[9]
The influence of Congress on the presidency has varied from one period to another; the degree of power depending largely on the leadership of the Congress, political influence by the president, or other members of congress and the boldness of the president's initiatives. Under the first half-dozen presidents, power seems to have been evenly divided between the president and Congress, in part because early presidents largely restricted their vetoes to bills that were unconstitutional.
The impeachment of Andrew Johnson made the presidency much less powerful than Congress. During the late nineteenth century, President Grover Cleveland aggressively attempted to restore the executive branch's power, vetoing over 400 bills during his first term. The twentieth and twenty-first centuries have seen the rise of the power of the Presidency under Theodore Roosevelt (1901–09), Woodrow Wilson (1913–21), Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–45), Richard Nixon (1969–74), Ronald Reagan (1981–89), and George W. Bush (2001–) (see Imperial Presidency).[10] In recent years, Congress has restricted the powers of the President with laws such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the War Powers Resolution; nevertheless, the Presidency remains considerably more powerful than during the nineteenth century.[10]
The Constitution concentrates removal powers in the Congress by empowering and obligating the House of Representatives to impeach federal officials (both executive and judicial) for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The Senate is constitutionally empowered and obligated to try all impeachments. A simple majority in the House is required to impeach an official; however, a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required for conviction. A convicted official is automatically removed from office; in addition, the Senate may stipulate that the defendant be banned from holding office in the future.
Impeachment proceedings may not inflict more than this; however, the party may face criminal penalties in a normal court of law. In the history of the United States, the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen officials, of whom seven were convicted. (Another resigned before the Senate could complete the trial). Only two Presidents of the United States have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999. Both trials ended in acquittal; in Johnson's case, the Senate fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction. In 1974, Richard Nixon resigned from office after impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee indicated he would eventually be removed from office.
The Constitution entrusts certain powers to the Senate alone. The President may only nominate for appointment Cabinet officials, judges, and other high officers with the "by and with the advice and consent" of the Senate. The Senate confirms most presidential nominees, but rejections are not uncommon. Furthermore, treaties negotiated by the President must be ratified by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to take effect. The House of Representatives has no formal role in either the ratification of treaties or the appointment of federal officials, other than filling vacancies in the office of Vice-President.
In 1803, the Supreme Court established judicial review of federal legislation in Marbury v. Madison, holding, however, that Congress could not grant unconstitutional power to the Court itself. The Constitution does not explicitly state that the courts may exercise judicial review; however, the notion that courts could declare laws unconstitutional was envisioned by the founding fathers. Alexander Hamilton, for example, mentioned and expounded upon the doctrine in Federalist No. 78. Originalists on the Supreme Court have argued that if the constitution doesn't say something explicitly it is unconstitutional to infer what it should, might or could have said.[11]
Investigations are conducted to gather information on the need for future legislation, to test the effectiveness of laws already passed, and to inquire into the qualifications and performance of members and officials of the other branches. Committees may hold hearings, and, if necessary, compel individuals to testify by issuing subpoenas. Witnesses who refuse to testify may be cited for contempt of Congress, and those who testify falsely may be charged with perjury. Most committee hearings are open to the public (the House and Senate intelligence committees are the exception); important hearings are widely reported in the mass media.
View of the United States Capitol from the United States Supreme Court buildingThe Constitution provides checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government. The authors of the Constitution expected the greater power to lie with Congress and it has been theorized that that is one reason they are described in Article One.[9]
The influence of Congress on the presidency has varied from one period to another; the degree of power depending largely on the leadership of the Congress, political influence by the president, or other members of congress and the boldness of the president's initiatives. Under the first half-dozen presidents, power seems to have been evenly divided between the president and Congress, in part because early presidents largely restricted their vetoes to bills that were unconstitutional.
The impeachment of Andrew Johnson made the presidency much less powerful than Congress. During the late nineteenth century, President Grover Cleveland aggressively attempted to restore the executive branch's power, vetoing over 400 bills during his first term. The twentieth and twenty-first centuries have seen the rise of the power of the Presidency under Theodore Roosevelt (1901–09), Woodrow Wilson (1913–21), Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–45), Richard Nixon (1969–74), Ronald Reagan (1981–89), and George W. Bush (2001–) (see Imperial Presidency).[10] In recent years, Congress has restricted the powers of the President with laws such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the War Powers Resolution; nevertheless, the Presidency remains considerably more powerful than during the nineteenth century.[10]
The Constitution concentrates removal powers in the Congress by empowering and obligating the House of Representatives to impeach federal officials (both executive and judicial) for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The Senate is constitutionally empowered and obligated to try all impeachments. A simple majority in the House is required to impeach an official; however, a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required for conviction. A convicted official is automatically removed from office; in addition, the Senate may stipulate that the defendant be banned from holding office in the future.
Impeachment proceedings may not inflict more than this; however, the party may face criminal penalties in a normal court of law. In the history of the United States, the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen officials, of whom seven were convicted. (Another resigned before the Senate could complete the trial). Only two Presidents of the United States have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999. Both trials ended in acquittal; in Johnson's case, the Senate fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction. In 1974, Richard Nixon resigned from office after impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee indicated he would eventually be removed from office.
The Constitution entrusts certain powers to the Senate alone. The President may only nominate for appointment Cabinet officials, judges, and other high officers with the "by and with the advice and consent" of the Senate. The Senate confirms most presidential nominees, but rejections are not uncommon. Furthermore, treaties negotiated by the President must be ratified by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to take effect. The House of Representatives has no formal role in either the ratification of treaties or the appointment of federal officials, other than filling vacancies in the office of Vice-President.
In 1803, the Supreme Court established judicial review of federal legislation in Marbury v. Madison, holding, however, that Congress could not grant unconstitutional power to the Court itself. The Constitution does not explicitly state that the courts may exercise judicial review; however, the notion that courts could declare laws unconstitutional was envisioned by the founding fathers. Alexander Hamilton, for example, mentioned and expounded upon the doctrine in Federalist No. 78. Originalists on the Supreme Court have argued that if the constitution doesn't say something explicitly it is unconstitutional to infer what it should, might or could have said.[11]
Investigations are conducted to gather information on the need for future legislation, to test the effectiveness of laws already passed, and to inquire into the qualifications and performance of members and officials of the other branches. Committees may hold hearings, and, if necessary, compel individuals to testify by issuing subpoenas. Witnesses who refuse to testify may be cited for contempt of Congress, and those who testify falsely may be charged with perjury. Most committee hearings are open to the public (the House and Senate intelligence committees are the exception); important hearings are widely reported in the mass media.
9.29.2008
9.27.2008
單音節裝飾句
Melisma, in music, is the technique of changing the note (pitch) of a single syllable of text while it is being sung. Music sung in this style is referred to as melismatic, as opposed to syllabic, where each syllable of text is matched to a single note.
Music of ancient cultures used melismatic techniques to induce a hypnotic trance in the listener, useful for early mystical initiation rites (Eleusinian Mysteries) and religious worship. This quality is still found in much Jewish, Hindu and Muslim religious music today. More particularly in Arabic Music where the scale is said to consist of quarter tones, and in Orthodox Christian chanting. In western music, the term melisma most commonly refers to Gregorian chant. (The first definition of melisma by the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary[1] is "a group of notes or tones sung on one syllable in plainsong".) However, the term melisma may be used to describe music of any genre, including baroque singing and later gospel. Within Jewish liturgical tradition, melisma is still commonly used in the chanting of Torah, readings from the Prophets, and in the body of the service itself. For an examination of the evolution of this tradition, see Idelsohn.
Melisma first appeared in written form in the system of Torah chanting developed by the Masoretes in the 7th or 8th century and then in some genres of Gregorian chant, with the earliest written appearance around AD 900, where it was used in certain sections of the Mass. The gradual and the alleluia, in particular, were characteristically melismatic, for example, while the tract is not, and repetitive melodic patterns were deliberately avoided in the style. The Byzantine rite also used melismatic elements in their music, which developed roughly concurrently to the Gregorian chant.
The French carol tune "Gloria" arranged by Edward Shippen Barnes in 1937, to which the hymn "Angels We Have Heard on High" is usually sung, contains one of the most melismatic sequences in popular Christian hymn music, on the "o" of the word "Gloria". Moreover, the choral work "For Unto Us a Child Is Born" from Handel's Messiah (Part I, No. 12) contains examples of melisma.
Melisma is today commonly used in Arab, Middle Eastern, African, Balkan and various Asian folk and popular musical genres. Melisma is also commonly featured in Western popular music, although this form of melisma usually involves improvising melismas (and melismatic vocalise) over a simpler melody, and is utilized by countless pop artists. Popular artists famous for melisma include Beyonce, Christina Aguilera, Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, and Whitney Houston.
Music of ancient cultures used melismatic techniques to induce a hypnotic trance in the listener, useful for early mystical initiation rites (Eleusinian Mysteries) and religious worship. This quality is still found in much Jewish, Hindu and Muslim religious music today. More particularly in Arabic Music where the scale is said to consist of quarter tones, and in Orthodox Christian chanting. In western music, the term melisma most commonly refers to Gregorian chant. (The first definition of melisma by the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary[1] is "a group of notes or tones sung on one syllable in plainsong".) However, the term melisma may be used to describe music of any genre, including baroque singing and later gospel. Within Jewish liturgical tradition, melisma is still commonly used in the chanting of Torah, readings from the Prophets, and in the body of the service itself. For an examination of the evolution of this tradition, see Idelsohn.
Melisma first appeared in written form in the system of Torah chanting developed by the Masoretes in the 7th or 8th century and then in some genres of Gregorian chant, with the earliest written appearance around AD 900, where it was used in certain sections of the Mass. The gradual and the alleluia, in particular, were characteristically melismatic, for example, while the tract is not, and repetitive melodic patterns were deliberately avoided in the style. The Byzantine rite also used melismatic elements in their music, which developed roughly concurrently to the Gregorian chant.
The French carol tune "Gloria" arranged by Edward Shippen Barnes in 1937, to which the hymn "Angels We Have Heard on High" is usually sung, contains one of the most melismatic sequences in popular Christian hymn music, on the "o" of the word "Gloria". Moreover, the choral work "For Unto Us a Child Is Born" from Handel's Messiah (Part I, No. 12) contains examples of melisma.
Melisma is today commonly used in Arab, Middle Eastern, African, Balkan and various Asian folk and popular musical genres. Melisma is also commonly featured in Western popular music, although this form of melisma usually involves improvising melismas (and melismatic vocalise) over a simpler melody, and is utilized by countless pop artists. Popular artists famous for melisma include Beyonce, Christina Aguilera, Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, and Whitney Houston.
9.26.2008
巴基斯坦人轉向支持塔利班的原因
記者來鴻
歐文﹒班尼特-瓊斯
BBC記者
許多巴基斯坦人增恨倚賴駐扎在境內的美軍方針
最近，美軍空襲巴基斯坦境內的塔利班和基地組織的目標，引發了巴基斯坦人的憤怒情緒。
BBC記者歐文﹒班尼特-瓊斯發現，巴基斯坦人長期對美國在世界舞台上稱王稱霸的做法感到不滿，而這些這些事件只能進一步加深這種情緒。
"我寧愿在塔利班統治下生活在黑暗的中世紀，也不愿屈服于任何外國列強。"
這一表態出自一位彬彬有禮、很有修養的普什圖族律師之口，令我大感意外，因為我一直認為他已經相當西化。
在他身上看不到表現伊斯蘭虔誠的任何標記：例如山羊胡子。他平時總是穿著深藍色西裝外套，而不是當地人穿的傳統長衫長褲。
他來自巴基斯坦人民黨，曾經在政府擔任部長。在巴基斯坦，人民黨自由派色彩最濃。
排斥西方
"自由"這個詞在巴基斯坦這個國度中指的是這樣一些人，他們的思想很現代、受過教育、主張世俗化、反對政教合一、至少在目前看來持有親西方的觀點。
"你肯定不是這個意思。"我對他說。"你知道塔利班政權在阿富汗的所作所為，你每天必須祈禱5次。你真的希望過那種日子嗎？"
"你聽我說，"他希望我聽一聽他的解釋。"我可以對付塔利班，他們同我一樣也是來自普什圖族。他們也是來自這個地區。我對他們很了解。"
"我可以對付塔利班。但是美國人是對付不了他們的，是絕對對付不了他們的。"
由此可以看出，目前美國在巴基斯坦爭奪民心的戰斗是如此糟糕，沒有比現在更糟糕了。
那次對話讓我感到震驚，我于是與另一位巴基斯坦政界資深人物交談了一番。他是一位參議員，也是以自由派觀點著稱。
"我同意那位律師的觀點，"他說。"美國人一直在轟炸巴基斯坦人民，他們從一萬兩千英里之外的美國跑到這里要干什么？"
這位參議員還向我談起了他的四個兒子。
"我把他們送到英國去留學，"他說。"我把自己所有的積蓄都花在孩子受教育上了。
他們在英國寄宿學校已經學習了五、六年。他們還很年輕，這是他們一生中的關鍵時期。"
"他們本來可以留在英國定居，但是他們都決定離開英國。他們確實不想留在那里。現在我的這四個兒子都生活在巴基斯坦，每天都要祈禱5次。"
"我是不會每天祈禱5次的，"這位參議院接著表示。"但是我的兒子們會祈禱5次。
為什么呢? 因為你們西方人把他們推向那一邊，迫使他們去信仰伊斯蘭教。是你們迫使他們這樣做的。"
聽到這番話，再次使我感到震驚。除了人們經常批評的英國外交政策之外，他的四個兒子在英國的寄宿學校到底看到了什么，令他們感到如此不滿呢？
我琢磨了一番。也許是英國社會的酗酒現象、拜金主義。英國孩子不尊敬老人總是讓巴基斯坦人感到看不慣，這也許是原因之一。
我覺得，在一些年輕的巴基斯坦人眼里，我們所作的一些事情，他們很不贊成。
目前在巴基斯坦國內，反美情緒極大。
塔利班利用巴基斯坦的反美情緒正在贏得朋友
每隔几天就會發生自殺炸彈襲擊。毫無疑問，塔利班一直在招募、訓練自殺攻擊者，并向他們提供武器。
最近發生自殺炸彈攻擊之后，報紙引述一名自殺攻擊者的兄弟的表態。
他是否會指責塔利班呢？他沒有這樣做。他說："美國應該對我兄弟的死亡承擔責任。美國人如果回國，這里的形勢就會平靜下來。"
我感到，在巴基斯坦人當中存在一種普遍共識認為，如果美國繼續在阿富汗和巴基斯坦完全依靠軍事力量推進，那么塔利班最終會獲勝。
溫和政策
實際上，在世界其他地區，有跡象顯示美國正在采取謹慎小心，也許更加有效的策略。
例如，在伊拉克首都巴格達郊區的一個美軍基地關押著一些反叛分子。美國用納稅人錢給一些伊拉克教士付工資，讓這些經過審查過關的教士宣傳伊斯蘭溫和派的觀點。
我最近見到其中一個教士。當他無事可做的時候，總穿著一件英格蘭足球俱樂部的運動衫閑逛。
當他工作的時候，就穿上一件鑲著金邊的長袍，以顯示他的神職地位。
他向我講述了他是如何向20多名最近被拘留的伊拉克遜尼派極端分子講道的情況。
這些極端分子絕對沒有寬容之心。他們認為任何人不認同他們對伊斯蘭教的極端觀點，就是異教徒，就應該被處決。
這位教士走進房間，以傳統方式向那些等待他的極端分子問候一句：" 艾薩拉瑪來古姆"(真主保佑你平安) 。
這個組織的頭子第一反應是把他的拖鞋向教士的臉上扔去。
"對于這些家伙，像這樣的事情，你是絕對不能放過的，"這位教士對我說，"否則，你將失去所有的權威。"
依靠智斗
這位教士兩眼怒視那個極端分子頭目問道："我剛才對你說什么了？"
"你說 " 艾薩拉瑪來古姆，"那名男子回答說。
"這句話是什么意思？"教士問道。
那個極端分子頭目感到迷惑不解。教士對他說："薩拉姆是真主99個聖名之一。"
"你剛才是在向真主扔拖鞋。"教士接著對另外19個極端分子說："這個男子是一個異教徒，"他說，"你們是否打算把他殺死？"他說完后轉身離開了房間。
那天晚上，衛兵在凌晨3點叫醒教士，把他送到拘留中心。
那個極端分子頭目萎縮在房間角落，兩只胳膊抱著膝蓋，渾身直哆嗦。"我并不是故意要冒犯您。請您饒恕我吧。我覺得他們要把我殺死，"他一直在求饒。
這位教士最后總結說："我只用了12個小時，就把在伊拉克逮捕的最極端組織領導人給制服了。"
我說："這是一場智斗。"這位教士大笑一番后說："我們等著瞧最后到底是鹿死誰手。"
歐文﹒班尼特-瓊斯
BBC記者
許多巴基斯坦人增恨倚賴駐扎在境內的美軍方針
最近，美軍空襲巴基斯坦境內的塔利班和基地組織的目標，引發了巴基斯坦人的憤怒情緒。
BBC記者歐文﹒班尼特-瓊斯發現，巴基斯坦人長期對美國在世界舞台上稱王稱霸的做法感到不滿，而這些這些事件只能進一步加深這種情緒。
"我寧愿在塔利班統治下生活在黑暗的中世紀，也不愿屈服于任何外國列強。"
這一表態出自一位彬彬有禮、很有修養的普什圖族律師之口，令我大感意外，因為我一直認為他已經相當西化。
在他身上看不到表現伊斯蘭虔誠的任何標記：例如山羊胡子。他平時總是穿著深藍色西裝外套，而不是當地人穿的傳統長衫長褲。
他來自巴基斯坦人民黨，曾經在政府擔任部長。在巴基斯坦，人民黨自由派色彩最濃。
排斥西方
"自由"這個詞在巴基斯坦這個國度中指的是這樣一些人，他們的思想很現代、受過教育、主張世俗化、反對政教合一、至少在目前看來持有親西方的觀點。
"你肯定不是這個意思。"我對他說。"你知道塔利班政權在阿富汗的所作所為，你每天必須祈禱5次。你真的希望過那種日子嗎？"
"你聽我說，"他希望我聽一聽他的解釋。"我可以對付塔利班，他們同我一樣也是來自普什圖族。他們也是來自這個地區。我對他們很了解。"
"我可以對付塔利班。但是美國人是對付不了他們的，是絕對對付不了他們的。"
由此可以看出，目前美國在巴基斯坦爭奪民心的戰斗是如此糟糕，沒有比現在更糟糕了。
那次對話讓我感到震驚，我于是與另一位巴基斯坦政界資深人物交談了一番。他是一位參議員，也是以自由派觀點著稱。
"我同意那位律師的觀點，"他說。"美國人一直在轟炸巴基斯坦人民，他們從一萬兩千英里之外的美國跑到這里要干什么？"
這位參議員還向我談起了他的四個兒子。
"我把他們送到英國去留學，"他說。"我把自己所有的積蓄都花在孩子受教育上了。
他們在英國寄宿學校已經學習了五、六年。他們還很年輕，這是他們一生中的關鍵時期。"
"他們本來可以留在英國定居，但是他們都決定離開英國。他們確實不想留在那里。現在我的這四個兒子都生活在巴基斯坦，每天都要祈禱5次。"
"我是不會每天祈禱5次的，"這位參議院接著表示。"但是我的兒子們會祈禱5次。
為什么呢? 因為你們西方人把他們推向那一邊，迫使他們去信仰伊斯蘭教。是你們迫使他們這樣做的。"
聽到這番話，再次使我感到震驚。除了人們經常批評的英國外交政策之外，他的四個兒子在英國的寄宿學校到底看到了什么，令他們感到如此不滿呢？
我琢磨了一番。也許是英國社會的酗酒現象、拜金主義。英國孩子不尊敬老人總是讓巴基斯坦人感到看不慣，這也許是原因之一。
我覺得，在一些年輕的巴基斯坦人眼里，我們所作的一些事情，他們很不贊成。
目前在巴基斯坦國內，反美情緒極大。
塔利班利用巴基斯坦的反美情緒正在贏得朋友
每隔几天就會發生自殺炸彈襲擊。毫無疑問，塔利班一直在招募、訓練自殺攻擊者，并向他們提供武器。
最近發生自殺炸彈攻擊之后，報紙引述一名自殺攻擊者的兄弟的表態。
他是否會指責塔利班呢？他沒有這樣做。他說："美國應該對我兄弟的死亡承擔責任。美國人如果回國，這里的形勢就會平靜下來。"
我感到，在巴基斯坦人當中存在一種普遍共識認為，如果美國繼續在阿富汗和巴基斯坦完全依靠軍事力量推進，那么塔利班最終會獲勝。
溫和政策
實際上，在世界其他地區，有跡象顯示美國正在采取謹慎小心，也許更加有效的策略。
例如，在伊拉克首都巴格達郊區的一個美軍基地關押著一些反叛分子。美國用納稅人錢給一些伊拉克教士付工資，讓這些經過審查過關的教士宣傳伊斯蘭溫和派的觀點。
我最近見到其中一個教士。當他無事可做的時候，總穿著一件英格蘭足球俱樂部的運動衫閑逛。
當他工作的時候，就穿上一件鑲著金邊的長袍，以顯示他的神職地位。
他向我講述了他是如何向20多名最近被拘留的伊拉克遜尼派極端分子講道的情況。
這些極端分子絕對沒有寬容之心。他們認為任何人不認同他們對伊斯蘭教的極端觀點，就是異教徒，就應該被處決。
這位教士走進房間，以傳統方式向那些等待他的極端分子問候一句：" 艾薩拉瑪來古姆"(真主保佑你平安) 。
這個組織的頭子第一反應是把他的拖鞋向教士的臉上扔去。
"對于這些家伙，像這樣的事情，你是絕對不能放過的，"這位教士對我說，"否則，你將失去所有的權威。"
依靠智斗
這位教士兩眼怒視那個極端分子頭目問道："我剛才對你說什么了？"
"你說 " 艾薩拉瑪來古姆，"那名男子回答說。
"這句話是什么意思？"教士問道。
那個極端分子頭目感到迷惑不解。教士對他說："薩拉姆是真主99個聖名之一。"
"你剛才是在向真主扔拖鞋。"教士接著對另外19個極端分子說："這個男子是一個異教徒，"他說，"你們是否打算把他殺死？"他說完后轉身離開了房間。
那天晚上，衛兵在凌晨3點叫醒教士，把他送到拘留中心。
那個極端分子頭目萎縮在房間角落，兩只胳膊抱著膝蓋，渾身直哆嗦。"我并不是故意要冒犯您。請您饒恕我吧。我覺得他們要把我殺死，"他一直在求饒。
這位教士最后總結說："我只用了12個小時，就把在伊拉克逮捕的最極端組織領導人給制服了。"
我說："這是一場智斗。"這位教士大笑一番后說："我們等著瞧最后到底是鹿死誰手。"
9.24.2008
阿富汗越糟，世界越危險！
阿富汗情報單位在上星期三（1月17日）公布了審問塔利班（Taliban）發言人Dr. Mohammad Hanif的錄音，Hanif供稱塔利班的領袖Mullah Muhammed Omar目前藏身在巴基斯坦Balochistan省的首府Quetta，並由巴國情報單位ISI（Inter-Services Intelligence）提供保護，他的供詞與西方軍事情報單位的判斷相符。在美軍轟炸阿富汗將塔利班逐出之後，他們持續地重建勢力，在阿富汗與巴基斯坦交界處發動相當多次的自殺炸彈攻擊，造成西方聯軍與無辜百姓的傷亡，且情勢越來越不樂觀。塔利班這樣的回教極端派正應該是反恐體系要對付的目標，但基於國際政治的現實考量，加上阿富汗政府本身不爭氣的情況下，恐造成塔利班再度崛起的可能。
巴基斯坦與阿富汗兩個國家的界線，是由英國強行制訂的，大筆一揮把Pashtun族中間隔了一條杜蘭線（Durand Line），雖然被國界分開，但是Pashtun族群一直存在著民族主義，想要結合，巴基斯坦政府相當擔心民族主義發酵，因此對境內的Pashtun相當地寬容。塔利班的成員就是Pashtun所組成，從任何面向來看，巴基斯坦境內的Pashtun對塔利班提供相當多的援助，這也迫使巴基斯坦政府成為少數幾個在塔利班當政時承認其身份的國家。Omar的藏身地Quetta城市的大部分居民都是Pashtun族。
Barnett Rubin曾涉入聯合國對阿富汗的任務，他在本期外交事務（Foreign Affairs）的「Saving Afghanistan」中抨擊美國政府，他認為只要巴基斯坦政府持續提供基地給美軍使用，美國會持續容忍塔利班在巴基斯坦重整他們的勢力。美國政府的目標是賓拉登的「凱達組織」（Al-Qaeda），為了巴國的基地使用權利，布希政府願意容忍獨裁的軍人政府，更默許塔利班的醞釀崛起。在英俄爭霸與冷戰時期，阿富汗的戰略價值僅是作為一個列強的緩衝地區，除此之外，在國際舞台上毫無影響力，現實環境更讓美國政府不願意投注太多的資源，助其重建。但Rubin在文中也強調，若不趕緊拯救這個國家，與各國政府一起解決塔利班問題，將來會付出更大的代價。
除了現實的國際環境之外，阿富汗境內的貧窮與政府的腐敗，讓塔利班對人民的吸引力重現。腐敗的司法體制讓殺人犯能夠買通執法單位而出獄，衰敗的經濟狀況讓貧民願意加入塔利班的陣營，賺取費用，農民為了維生，只好種植大量的鴉片，此舉更提供了塔利班優渥的經濟支柱。若西方盟國願意投注資源截斷讓塔利班茁壯的管道，或能重重打擊塔利班，甚至迫使其加入執政團隊，這也是外界期待的作法，但我們並未看到這些努力，情勢反而越來越糟。
Rubin說：「阿富汗是最應該地方分治的國家，但卻由最中央集權的政府所統治。」正因為複雜的族群被強行劃分，導致內部衝突不斷，國家無法團結，執政的北方聯盟無能又無力，才讓塔利班在世紀之交與現在有了重新崛起的機會。世界各國若將此地情勢當成國際政治來考量，而忽略了族群政治的因素，不願抽絲剝繭、細膩地處理該區域的糾紛，動亂會一直持續下去，並冒著恐怖主義重新席捲的危險，阿富汗也只好繼續在世界國民所得排名中 －除非洲以外－ 敬陪末座。阿富汗越糟，世界就越危險！
巴基斯坦與阿富汗兩個國家的界線，是由英國強行制訂的，大筆一揮把Pashtun族中間隔了一條杜蘭線（Durand Line），雖然被國界分開，但是Pashtun族群一直存在著民族主義，想要結合，巴基斯坦政府相當擔心民族主義發酵，因此對境內的Pashtun相當地寬容。塔利班的成員就是Pashtun所組成，從任何面向來看，巴基斯坦境內的Pashtun對塔利班提供相當多的援助，這也迫使巴基斯坦政府成為少數幾個在塔利班當政時承認其身份的國家。Omar的藏身地Quetta城市的大部分居民都是Pashtun族。
Barnett Rubin曾涉入聯合國對阿富汗的任務，他在本期外交事務（Foreign Affairs）的「Saving Afghanistan」中抨擊美國政府，他認為只要巴基斯坦政府持續提供基地給美軍使用，美國會持續容忍塔利班在巴基斯坦重整他們的勢力。美國政府的目標是賓拉登的「凱達組織」（Al-Qaeda），為了巴國的基地使用權利，布希政府願意容忍獨裁的軍人政府，更默許塔利班的醞釀崛起。在英俄爭霸與冷戰時期，阿富汗的戰略價值僅是作為一個列強的緩衝地區，除此之外，在國際舞台上毫無影響力，現實環境更讓美國政府不願意投注太多的資源，助其重建。但Rubin在文中也強調，若不趕緊拯救這個國家，與各國政府一起解決塔利班問題，將來會付出更大的代價。
除了現實的國際環境之外，阿富汗境內的貧窮與政府的腐敗，讓塔利班對人民的吸引力重現。腐敗的司法體制讓殺人犯能夠買通執法單位而出獄，衰敗的經濟狀況讓貧民願意加入塔利班的陣營，賺取費用，農民為了維生，只好種植大量的鴉片，此舉更提供了塔利班優渥的經濟支柱。若西方盟國願意投注資源截斷讓塔利班茁壯的管道，或能重重打擊塔利班，甚至迫使其加入執政團隊，這也是外界期待的作法，但我們並未看到這些努力，情勢反而越來越糟。
Rubin說：「阿富汗是最應該地方分治的國家，但卻由最中央集權的政府所統治。」正因為複雜的族群被強行劃分，導致內部衝突不斷，國家無法團結，執政的北方聯盟無能又無力，才讓塔利班在世紀之交與現在有了重新崛起的機會。世界各國若將此地情勢當成國際政治來考量，而忽略了族群政治的因素，不願抽絲剝繭、細膩地處理該區域的糾紛，動亂會一直持續下去，並冒著恐怖主義重新席捲的危險，阿富汗也只好繼續在世界國民所得排名中 －除非洲以外－ 敬陪末座。阿富汗越糟，世界就越危險！
9.23.2008
Morgan Stanley 和 J.P Morgan Chase 有什麼不同
2007/12/21 11:05
不少人搞不清楚 Morgan Stanley (摩根士丹利)和 J.P Morgan Chase (摩根大通)二者有什麼關係?
其實二者可以說是有關係 也可以說沒什麼關係?
之所以沒有關係, 這是指二者是各自獨立互不隸屬的公司, 同樣的, 在業務上也不太有重疊的部份 Morgan Stanley 主要從事的是投資銀行業務(也就是協助企業進行"財務顧問"工作, 包括購併、企業融資、上市..等) 而 J.P Morgan Chase的業務則是我們一般熟悉的銀行業務 如存放款、融資借貸等...當然, 在今日金融開放的時代, 其實二者也多有一些重覆, 特別是在Morgan Stanley買下証券公司Dean Witter之後 以及J.P Morgan Chase 買下Jardan Flemin 後在券商端的競爭 以及目前大家競相走向富人的財富管理以及企業投資部份, 二者還是有些競爭關係的.
但是好奇的人一定質疑, 二個都有Morgan, 是不是有什麼關係? 答案是對的. 二個Morgan前身都是屬於美國有史以來最大的金融大亨 J.P.Morgan的 Morgan 集團的. Morgan財團號稱影響了美國央行決策達120年之久, 但是在1935年 美國國會通過了 Glass-Steagall Act 法案要求金融業不得跨業經營(也就是作銀行的不能作保險或証券 反之亦然) Morgan集團被迫分割為從事傳統銀行的J.P Morgan 以及從事投資業務的Morgan Stanley. J.P Morgan 保留了原銀行名, 並在2000年時和當時美國最大銀行Chase Manhattan Bank 合併 而形成 J.P Morgan Chase Bank 台灣稱為摩根大通 香港則有人相對於Morgan Stanley的大摩, 稱摩根大通為"小摩"
相對的Morgan Stanley在1935年分割後 則是由Henry S. Morgan, and Harold Stanley 二人合作成立, 故名為Morgan Stanley. 這家公司則是在1997年要求金融業不得跨業經營的Glass-Steagall Act 法案被修正後, 買下券商Dean Witter 以及原本屬於Sears Roebuck旗下的信用卡公司Discovery 改名為Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Discover & Co." 一直到1998年 才改為 Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co." , 到2001年時為了行銷方便 改名為現在的 Morgan Stanley
2007/12/21 11:05
不少人搞不清楚 Morgan Stanley (摩根士丹利)和 J.P Morgan Chase (摩根大通)二者有什麼關係?
其實二者可以說是有關係 也可以說沒什麼關係?
之所以沒有關係, 這是指二者是各自獨立互不隸屬的公司, 同樣的, 在業務上也不太有重疊的部份 Morgan Stanley 主要從事的是投資銀行業務(也就是協助企業進行"財務顧問"工作, 包括購併、企業融資、上市..等) 而 J.P Morgan Chase的業務則是我們一般熟悉的銀行業務 如存放款、融資借貸等...當然, 在今日金融開放的時代, 其實二者也多有一些重覆, 特別是在Morgan Stanley買下証券公司Dean Witter之後 以及J.P Morgan Chase 買下Jardan Flemin 後在券商端的競爭 以及目前大家競相走向富人的財富管理以及企業投資部份, 二者還是有些競爭關係的.
但是好奇的人一定質疑, 二個都有Morgan, 是不是有什麼關係? 答案是對的. 二個Morgan前身都是屬於美國有史以來最大的金融大亨 J.P.Morgan的 Morgan 集團的. Morgan財團號稱影響了美國央行決策達120年之久, 但是在1935年 美國國會通過了 Glass-Steagall Act 法案要求金融業不得跨業經營(也就是作銀行的不能作保險或証券 反之亦然) Morgan集團被迫分割為從事傳統銀行的J.P Morgan 以及從事投資業務的Morgan Stanley. J.P Morgan 保留了原銀行名, 並在2000年時和當時美國最大銀行Chase Manhattan Bank 合併 而形成 J.P Morgan Chase Bank 台灣稱為摩根大通 香港則有人相對於Morgan Stanley的大摩, 稱摩根大通為"小摩"
相對的Morgan Stanley在1935年分割後 則是由Henry S. Morgan, and Harold Stanley 二人合作成立, 故名為Morgan Stanley. 這家公司則是在1997年要求金融業不得跨業經營的Glass-Steagall Act 法案被修正後, 買下券商Dean Witter 以及原本屬於Sears Roebuck旗下的信用卡公司Discovery 改名為Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Discover & Co." 一直到1998年 才改為 Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co." , 到2001年時為了行銷方便 改名為現在的 Morgan Stanley
何必拯救火星文？
張大春：何必拯救火星文？
【聯合報╱張大春】
2008.09.23 07:52 am
張大春
上了點年紀的人一不小心就會變得憂國憂民，彷彿舉世滔滔，都在發動著令人感覺心有餘而力不足以應付的禍事。文字其一也。
我素所尊敬的長者們和我一向不太尊敬的長者們成立了一個「拯救國文聯盟」，看來是個「準群眾運動團體」，要呼籲全民重視國文教育，因為「我們國民的國語文程度已經低到不能再低的地步了」。他們不能忍受「囧」字在「透明」、「明亮」之外，另有「困窘」、「羞慚」、「被打敗」之別解。就如同香港地區的長者不能忍受「喪」字成為一個比「勁」、「極」、「超」還要用意強烈的副詞；大陸地區的長者也不能忍受：一個「雷」字，明明就是雲層放電所發出的聲響，為什麼會有這麼多年輕人以此字作動詞，意思卻是「驚疑」、「震撼」。
因為隔閡 自曝於長者之林
我在念初中的時候，常和鄰座的梁達年、孫凱相約讀書，我到現在還能順口誦出「鋰鈉鉀銣銫鍅」這一系活潑金屬的原因，正是一塊兒背化學元素表的三個人經常用這六個字形容班上同學的調皮程度。三個人之中，偶有某一人耍調皮，另外兩個還不免脫口而出：「你也太『鍅』了一點吧？」在我們三個人短暫成形的那個小圈子裡，不明白「鍅」意指「調皮之極」或者「過度活潑」，則不啻為智能上的欠缺，也是隔絕於我們那三個人的小圈子之外的具體象徵。
用這個微末細瑣的人生片段為例，我們稍稍有一些年紀的人應該知所覺悟：對於慣用語符的顛倒、訛冒、扭曲、穿鑿……有時並非出於無知，而是搬弄；並非源於誤解，而是諧仿；年輕人—尤其是年輕人—也許根本不在乎其所使用的語言是否能與大多數人溝通；相反地，大多數不能解其語言而無法與之溝通者，反而因為這隔閡而明顯地自曝於長者之林。
青春短暫 長輩也曾「屌」過
相對於掌握了社會上一切有形、無形資源的長者來說，年輕人除了短暫、匆促的青春，還有甚麼足以驕人的成就呢？另一方面，恰恰是令人不忍回顧的青春已經走遠了，長者們大多忘了自己在年輕的時候也曾經嘗試著用些新鮮的語言來標示自己和前一代長者的不同。我三年級的長輩教我使用「屌」字形容「很棒」的那年，我那一字頭的爸爸曾經明令告示：在家中與長者說話，不得使用此字。五年級的人發明「唬爛」這字眼之際，四年級生已經不大敢用「蓋」字作口頭禪了。六年級生以「機車」暗咒他人的時候，還在使用「雞掰」罵人的傢伙所現形的不是粗鄙，而是老朽。
「Orz」是一個用英文字母拼裝而成的會意字，別以為它就是畫面所顯示的「拜服」而已，在許多時候，這個字符被用來表現一種難於言說的無奈，大約等於口語中的：「我敗給你了！」
同樣地，「囧」也可以附會於孟克那張〈吶喊〉而引伸出恐怖、以及overwhelming的意思，但是，更多使用這字符的人很可能祇是在表達一種「無言以對的鄙夷」。
由於廣泛使用而形成的意義分歧恐怕要比「漢字怎麼可以使用英語符號？」或者「古體僻字怎麼可以當作人臉而以象形解之？」諸如此類的問題更為深刻。字義歧出—正是「眾說紛紜」這個成語所顯現的意義—將要證明一點：使用這種新語符的人越多，它就越不能準確地被瞭解和使用。也正是因為「眾說紛紜」，最後會讓使用這種語言的社群自覺無能溝通而崩解。
新流行語會起來 驅逐火星文
從而—無論在網路或其他公共媒體上—使用新創語言的年輕人始終應該明白的是：就在他們的身後，更年輕的孩子們也正在醞釀著令他們無法逆料的語言，換言之：全新的流行語正準備著要趁前一代無從防範之際驅逐他們。
火星文一點兒也不可怕，它們只是會被下一代的火星文驅逐而已。至於長者，請容我不客氣地說：無論長者可敬與否，憂心都不利於餘年，而長者若有可觀可仿可摹寫之文字流傳，也不至於因為年輕人太「鍅」而磨滅。
（本文作者為作家）
【2008/09/23 聯合報】
【聯合報╱張大春】
2008.09.23 07:52 am
張大春
上了點年紀的人一不小心就會變得憂國憂民，彷彿舉世滔滔，都在發動著令人感覺心有餘而力不足以應付的禍事。文字其一也。
我素所尊敬的長者們和我一向不太尊敬的長者們成立了一個「拯救國文聯盟」，看來是個「準群眾運動團體」，要呼籲全民重視國文教育，因為「我們國民的國語文程度已經低到不能再低的地步了」。他們不能忍受「囧」字在「透明」、「明亮」之外，另有「困窘」、「羞慚」、「被打敗」之別解。就如同香港地區的長者不能忍受「喪」字成為一個比「勁」、「極」、「超」還要用意強烈的副詞；大陸地區的長者也不能忍受：一個「雷」字，明明就是雲層放電所發出的聲響，為什麼會有這麼多年輕人以此字作動詞，意思卻是「驚疑」、「震撼」。
因為隔閡 自曝於長者之林
我在念初中的時候，常和鄰座的梁達年、孫凱相約讀書，我到現在還能順口誦出「鋰鈉鉀銣銫鍅」這一系活潑金屬的原因，正是一塊兒背化學元素表的三個人經常用這六個字形容班上同學的調皮程度。三個人之中，偶有某一人耍調皮，另外兩個還不免脫口而出：「你也太『鍅』了一點吧？」在我們三個人短暫成形的那個小圈子裡，不明白「鍅」意指「調皮之極」或者「過度活潑」，則不啻為智能上的欠缺，也是隔絕於我們那三個人的小圈子之外的具體象徵。
用這個微末細瑣的人生片段為例，我們稍稍有一些年紀的人應該知所覺悟：對於慣用語符的顛倒、訛冒、扭曲、穿鑿……有時並非出於無知，而是搬弄；並非源於誤解，而是諧仿；年輕人—尤其是年輕人—也許根本不在乎其所使用的語言是否能與大多數人溝通；相反地，大多數不能解其語言而無法與之溝通者，反而因為這隔閡而明顯地自曝於長者之林。
青春短暫 長輩也曾「屌」過
相對於掌握了社會上一切有形、無形資源的長者來說，年輕人除了短暫、匆促的青春，還有甚麼足以驕人的成就呢？另一方面，恰恰是令人不忍回顧的青春已經走遠了，長者們大多忘了自己在年輕的時候也曾經嘗試著用些新鮮的語言來標示自己和前一代長者的不同。我三年級的長輩教我使用「屌」字形容「很棒」的那年，我那一字頭的爸爸曾經明令告示：在家中與長者說話，不得使用此字。五年級的人發明「唬爛」這字眼之際，四年級生已經不大敢用「蓋」字作口頭禪了。六年級生以「機車」暗咒他人的時候，還在使用「雞掰」罵人的傢伙所現形的不是粗鄙，而是老朽。
「Orz」是一個用英文字母拼裝而成的會意字，別以為它就是畫面所顯示的「拜服」而已，在許多時候，這個字符被用來表現一種難於言說的無奈，大約等於口語中的：「我敗給你了！」
同樣地，「囧」也可以附會於孟克那張〈吶喊〉而引伸出恐怖、以及overwhelming的意思，但是，更多使用這字符的人很可能祇是在表達一種「無言以對的鄙夷」。
由於廣泛使用而形成的意義分歧恐怕要比「漢字怎麼可以使用英語符號？」或者「古體僻字怎麼可以當作人臉而以象形解之？」諸如此類的問題更為深刻。字義歧出—正是「眾說紛紜」這個成語所顯現的意義—將要證明一點：使用這種新語符的人越多，它就越不能準確地被瞭解和使用。也正是因為「眾說紛紜」，最後會讓使用這種語言的社群自覺無能溝通而崩解。
新流行語會起來 驅逐火星文
從而—無論在網路或其他公共媒體上—使用新創語言的年輕人始終應該明白的是：就在他們的身後，更年輕的孩子們也正在醞釀著令他們無法逆料的語言，換言之：全新的流行語正準備著要趁前一代無從防範之際驅逐他們。
火星文一點兒也不可怕，它們只是會被下一代的火星文驅逐而已。至於長者，請容我不客氣地說：無論長者可敬與否，憂心都不利於餘年，而長者若有可觀可仿可摹寫之文字流傳，也不至於因為年輕人太「鍅」而磨滅。
（本文作者為作家）
【2008/09/23 聯合報】
9.22.2008
小"黑膠"來了
SanDisk, record labels announce new music format
The ever-shrinking record album--its latest iteration being the compact disc--just got a lot more compact, or shall we say, micro.
A "SlotMusic" card
(Credit: SanDisk)Backed by four major music labels, SanDisk on Monday announced a new physical music format dubbed "SlotMusic" that's essentially an entire album on a MicroSD compact memory card. Wal-Mart and Best Buy are among the retailers that have already signed on to start selling the cards for the upcoming holiday season.
With CD sales continuing to flounder, this latest effort to boost physical media sales is aimed at users of the millions of cell phones and MP3 players with MicroSD slots. They can insert the card right into the slot and immediately hear the music. The card will also come with a USB sleeve so it can be plugged in directly to any USB-enabled computer.
SlotMusic cards will be sold without digital rights management restrictions and in the form of MP3 files from EMI Music, Sony BMG, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group
The ever-shrinking record album--its latest iteration being the compact disc--just got a lot more compact, or shall we say, micro.
A "SlotMusic" card
(Credit: SanDisk)Backed by four major music labels, SanDisk on Monday announced a new physical music format dubbed "SlotMusic" that's essentially an entire album on a MicroSD compact memory card. Wal-Mart and Best Buy are among the retailers that have already signed on to start selling the cards for the upcoming holiday season.
With CD sales continuing to flounder, this latest effort to boost physical media sales is aimed at users of the millions of cell phones and MP3 players with MicroSD slots. They can insert the card right into the slot and immediately hear the music. The card will also come with a USB sleeve so it can be plugged in directly to any USB-enabled computer.
SlotMusic cards will be sold without digital rights management restrictions and in the form of MP3 files from EMI Music, Sony BMG, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group
選舉制度
The plurality voting system is a single-winner voting system often used to elect executive officers or to elect members of a legislative assembly which is based on single-member constituencies.
The most common system, used in Canada, India, the UK, and the USA, is simple plurality, first past the post or winner-takes-all, a voting system in which a single winner is chosen in a given constituency by having more votes than any other individual representative.
Proportional representation (sometimes referred to as full representation, or PR), is a category of electoral formula aiming at a close match between the percentage of votes that groups of candidates (grouped by a certain measure) obtain in elections and the percentage of seats they receive (usually in legislative assemblies). PR is a democratic principle rather than an electoral system in itself. It is often contrasted to plurality voting systems, where disproportional seat distribution results from the division of voters into multiple electoral districts, especially "winner takes all" plurality ("first past the post" or FPTP) districts.
The most common system, used in Canada, India, the UK, and the USA, is simple plurality, first past the post or winner-takes-all, a voting system in which a single winner is chosen in a given constituency by having more votes than any other individual representative.
Proportional representation (sometimes referred to as full representation, or PR), is a category of electoral formula aiming at a close match between the percentage of votes that groups of candidates (grouped by a certain measure) obtain in elections and the percentage of seats they receive (usually in legislative assemblies). PR is a democratic principle rather than an electoral system in itself. It is often contrasted to plurality voting systems, where disproportional seat distribution results from the division of voters into multiple electoral districts, especially "winner takes all" plurality ("first past the post" or FPTP) districts.
9.13.2008
The Stock Market...
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;/Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
-- William Butler Yeats
-- William Butler Yeats
9.10.2008
沙馬克 愛美食葬仕途
【編譯高國珍／路透9日曼谷電】泰國總理沙馬克歷經數月來的街頭抗爭而不倒，最後卻可能因喜愛美食而葬送仕途。
因他為在私人商業媒體主持電視烹飪節目還收錢，泰國最憲法法院9日已判定他違憲，必須下台。這個烹飪的節目名為「邊罵邊吃」，介紹辣得讓人罵了還是愛吃的泰式咖哩，他本人也的確讓泰國人邊看邊罵。
對下台判決，沙馬克稍早的反應，只是對報導微笑。審判幾小時前，他還在市場採買青菜和豬肉。
【2008/09/10 聯合報】
因他為在私人商業媒體主持電視烹飪節目還收錢，泰國最憲法法院9日已判定他違憲，必須下台。這個烹飪的節目名為「邊罵邊吃」，介紹辣得讓人罵了還是愛吃的泰式咖哩，他本人也的確讓泰國人邊看邊罵。
對下台判決，沙馬克稍早的反應，只是對報導微笑。審判幾小時前，他還在市場採買青菜和豬肉。
【2008/09/10 聯合報】
美抱75兆美元債務炸彈
【經濟日報╱編譯劉道捷／綜合紐約九日電】 2008.09.10 03:04 am
二房慘劇不夠看，美國抱著總額75兆美元的八個債務不定時炸彈，早晚可能爆發。
哥倫比亞廣播公司市場觀察主筆范羅指出，2000年時，美國還有5兆美元的財政剩餘，但政府與國會揮霍無度，目前負債達到9.6兆美元，等於每一個家庭欠債15萬美元，拯救二房又使負債增加幾千億美元，令人驚恐。
這些負債不定時炸彈好比債務癌症，每天還要移轉19億美元的債務，到已經病入膏肓的美國身上，但美國的下列負債更讓人膽戰心驚。
一、驚人的戰費債務。美國人喜歡開戰、喜歡積欠驚人的戰債，把稅收的54%花在伊拉克和阿富汗戰爭上，每個月大約花費120億美元，如果美軍在巴基斯坦或地獄裡找不到賓拉登，美國會轟炸伊朗，以便刺激美國的戰爭經濟。
二、可怕的石油債務。美國人口只占世界人口的5%，卻耗用世界25%石油，預期2050年世界人口會比現在多出68%，從目前的66億人增為96億人，大家會跟美國爭奪石油。
三、貿易逆差與外債。美國已經變成債台高築的第三世界國家，中國大陸和產油國擁有美國一半的債券、購買70%美國新發行的債券，美國已經成為外國人擁有的國家，迫使美國把最好的資產賣給外國人。
四、社會安全與老人健保債務。美國社會安全信託基金是政府推動的大騙局，積欠的應付給付達到75兆美元，未來幾十年內，7,800萬嬰兒潮出生的人退休時，會沒有錢可領，下一代會拒絕出錢撫養退休老人。
五、高消費、零儲蓄債務。美國人主張「貪心是好事」，有錢就花，追求立即的滿足，只注意下一筆薪資、每季盈餘和年終獎金，根本不為未來儲蓄。
六、健保債務快速上升。4,500萬人沒有健保，大藥廠和保險公司吃健保，美國健保成本是其他已開發國家的兩倍，國民壽命和健康卻沒有比較好。
七、差勁教育制度是美國未來的負債。三分之一美國小孩念不完中學，不夠格到速食店工作，如何跟亞洲小孩競爭。
八、領導失職引發債務危機。政治領袖的債務管理失職之至，只有實際或想像中的危機，才能把政治上不可能的良好債務管理，變成無可避免的任務。
【2008/09/10 經濟日報】@
二房慘劇不夠看，美國抱著總額75兆美元的八個債務不定時炸彈，早晚可能爆發。
哥倫比亞廣播公司市場觀察主筆范羅指出，2000年時，美國還有5兆美元的財政剩餘，但政府與國會揮霍無度，目前負債達到9.6兆美元，等於每一個家庭欠債15萬美元，拯救二房又使負債增加幾千億美元，令人驚恐。
這些負債不定時炸彈好比債務癌症，每天還要移轉19億美元的債務，到已經病入膏肓的美國身上，但美國的下列負債更讓人膽戰心驚。
一、驚人的戰費債務。美國人喜歡開戰、喜歡積欠驚人的戰債，把稅收的54%花在伊拉克和阿富汗戰爭上，每個月大約花費120億美元，如果美軍在巴基斯坦或地獄裡找不到賓拉登，美國會轟炸伊朗，以便刺激美國的戰爭經濟。
二、可怕的石油債務。美國人口只占世界人口的5%，卻耗用世界25%石油，預期2050年世界人口會比現在多出68%，從目前的66億人增為96億人，大家會跟美國爭奪石油。
三、貿易逆差與外債。美國已經變成債台高築的第三世界國家，中國大陸和產油國擁有美國一半的債券、購買70%美國新發行的債券，美國已經成為外國人擁有的國家，迫使美國把最好的資產賣給外國人。
四、社會安全與老人健保債務。美國社會安全信託基金是政府推動的大騙局，積欠的應付給付達到75兆美元，未來幾十年內，7,800萬嬰兒潮出生的人退休時，會沒有錢可領，下一代會拒絕出錢撫養退休老人。
五、高消費、零儲蓄債務。美國人主張「貪心是好事」，有錢就花，追求立即的滿足，只注意下一筆薪資、每季盈餘和年終獎金，根本不為未來儲蓄。
六、健保債務快速上升。4,500萬人沒有健保，大藥廠和保險公司吃健保，美國健保成本是其他已開發國家的兩倍，國民壽命和健康卻沒有比較好。
七、差勁教育制度是美國未來的負債。三分之一美國小孩念不完中學，不夠格到速食店工作，如何跟亞洲小孩競爭。
八、領導失職引發債務危機。政治領袖的債務管理失職之至，只有實際或想像中的危機，才能把政治上不可能的良好債務管理，變成無可避免的任務。
【2008/09/10 經濟日報】@
9.06.2008
9.02.2008
泰國前總理丘達新
泰國人喜歡用“溫文爾雅”、“學識豐富”、“能謀善斷”、“長于交際”等詞彙形容他信。
他信的中文名為丘達新。于1949年7月26日出生於泰國北部清邁一個普通商人家庭，是第四代泰國華裔。
秉承客家精神
2001年3月3日，他信準備搭乘的泰國航空公司國際波音737客機，在起飛前35分鐘，突然爆炸，造成一死五傷的慘劇。機場上一位客家老人捋著鬍子說：“客家人命大！他信總理命大啊！”
清光緒年間，他信的太公（曾祖父）從中國廣東梅縣地區來到泰國謀生，定居於清邁府。他信回憶童年生活時自豪地說：“我從小就知道什麼是客家精神。如今我也是靠客家精神，靠客家人的硬氣拼搏的。我希望大家弘揚傳統文化，把客家精神代代傳下去。”
在5年的執政過程中，他信始終表現出他的頑強和堅持。鐵腕禁毒是他執政後做的第一件大事，泰國的毒品產量曾居世界第二，多年沒人敢啃這塊硬骨頭。他信的嚴厲打擊令毒梟在泰國無處藏身。一些毒梟甚至揚言出200萬美元換他的人頭。
不過，果斷作風也時常令他信飽受非議。泰國南部省份暴力衝突不斷。他信的對手就批評說，這正是由於他信採取過於嚴厲的軍事鎮壓而導致的。
ＣＥＯ總理與草根總理
他信的人生可以說是泰國的一個傳奇。他創造了泰國歷史上許多個第一：第一位任滿4年的民選總理；第一位成功連任的總理；第一位實現一黨執政的總理。在2001年以壓倒性優勢當選總理前，身為電信巨子的他信已是泰國首富，個人資產高達10億美元，是《財富》雜誌評選全球最富有的500人中唯一的泰國人。
然而，耀眼的商界經歷卻讓他信在從政後屢受拖累。他信一就任總理就開始將手中股份轉移給家人，逐步脫離家族企業，但有關他“以權謀私”的指責一直不絕於耳。
不過，在泰國，越是有錢的人越反對他信，而普通階層和農民則認為他信時期生活有了提高，因此力挺他信。本報綜合
他信的中文名為丘達新。于1949年7月26日出生於泰國北部清邁一個普通商人家庭，是第四代泰國華裔。
秉承客家精神
2001年3月3日，他信準備搭乘的泰國航空公司國際波音737客機，在起飛前35分鐘，突然爆炸，造成一死五傷的慘劇。機場上一位客家老人捋著鬍子說：“客家人命大！他信總理命大啊！”
清光緒年間，他信的太公（曾祖父）從中國廣東梅縣地區來到泰國謀生，定居於清邁府。他信回憶童年生活時自豪地說：“我從小就知道什麼是客家精神。如今我也是靠客家精神，靠客家人的硬氣拼搏的。我希望大家弘揚傳統文化，把客家精神代代傳下去。”
在5年的執政過程中，他信始終表現出他的頑強和堅持。鐵腕禁毒是他執政後做的第一件大事，泰國的毒品產量曾居世界第二，多年沒人敢啃這塊硬骨頭。他信的嚴厲打擊令毒梟在泰國無處藏身。一些毒梟甚至揚言出200萬美元換他的人頭。
不過，果斷作風也時常令他信飽受非議。泰國南部省份暴力衝突不斷。他信的對手就批評說，這正是由於他信採取過於嚴厲的軍事鎮壓而導致的。
ＣＥＯ總理與草根總理
他信的人生可以說是泰國的一個傳奇。他創造了泰國歷史上許多個第一：第一位任滿4年的民選總理；第一位成功連任的總理；第一位實現一黨執政的總理。在2001年以壓倒性優勢當選總理前，身為電信巨子的他信已是泰國首富，個人資產高達10億美元，是《財富》雜誌評選全球最富有的500人中唯一的泰國人。
然而，耀眼的商界經歷卻讓他信在從政後屢受拖累。他信一就任總理就開始將手中股份轉移給家人，逐步脫離家族企業，但有關他“以權謀私”的指責一直不絕於耳。
不過，在泰國，越是有錢的人越反對他信，而普通階層和農民則認為他信時期生活有了提高，因此力挺他信。本報綜合
首相接連「快閃」 日政壇大地震
【聯合報╱東京特派員陳世昌】 2008.09.02 03:04 am
日本政界一日再度爆發大地震，福田康夫首相無預警宣布辭職，消息立即衝擊日本列島。
「怎麼又這個樣子？」東京街頭，一名拿著公事包正要趕電車回家的一名日本上班族聽到這個消息後，不禁嚇了一大跳說：「半年前安倍晉三首相也是突然宣布下台，福田康夫又搞這種噱頭，政治家的責任感究竟在哪裡？」
七十二歲的福田康夫首相，在去年九月接下了安倍前首相突然宣布下台後的重擔後，媒體紛紛報導說，他跟他已故的父親福田赳夫都出任首相，是日本政界的「父子鷹」，對他多所期待。
但是，這一年以來福田的首相路卻走得非常辛苦，支持率從五成左右暴跌到一度只有兩成，這是造成福田政權再度夭折的主要原因。
觀察福田康夫的突然辭職，其實問題堆積如山，首先要從去年的自民黨在參議院大選失敗談起。過去自民黨為主的政權，都能夠掌握住眾參兩院的過半數，因而政權的運營順利，但是去年安倍主政下的自民黨卻失掉了參議院，成了跛腳政權（或稱扭轉國會）。
福田接棒後，許多的政策都因為在野黨在參議院握有過半席次而無法推動。特別是自民黨打算派遣自衛隊赴波斯灣協助盟軍海上加油的反恐法案，因為參議院遭到反對而只好將自衛隊召回，隨後才又花了另一番工夫，在眾議院強行兩度表決通過方式再派遣出門。
汽油的附加稅也是如此，本來民眾都已經高興附加稅被解除了，每公升油便宜了廿日圓，但是基於政府稅收不足，福田在一個月後又用同樣的手法讓其恢復。政策如此多次的反反覆覆，日本國民對福田政權喪失相當的信賴感。
福田選在這個時候宣布辭職，主要是日本臨時國會將在九月十二日集會，屆時在國會與在野的民主黨攻防戰時，同樣又要遭遇到民主黨黨魁小澤一郎的杯葛，再度陷入苦戰。福田說，他選擇辭職，主要是日前他才提議了一項提升經濟的綜合對策方案，對百姓的經濟生活做了交代，未來在國會會遭遇到什麼情況，最好由接棒的新人來作，也許可以突破困境不會樣樣遭到在野黨的抵制。
一般的分析則說，以一年為期的反恐法案又將到期，將在臨時國會再度表決是否延長。美國為主的盟軍希望日本自衛隊不要撤退，但是福田自己有無法掌握在國會的優勢，結果將會重演去年的尷尬局面。與其造成政治的「真空」，倒不如趕快下台。
當然也有人認為，自民黨政權既然這麼難搞，不如乾脆解散眾議院改選，付諸民意審判。但是，以自民黨現在這種屋漏又逢雨的情況，解散國會改選有可能因此就丟掉政權，對福田來說，他也不願背負這個罪名！
問題是，誰能夠接下福田的爛攤子？現任幹事長麻生太郎目前在自民黨內排名接班人的第一位，他的作風雖然瀟灑，但是情勢並沒有因為首相的換人就會立即有所改變，加上兩任的首相都這樣不名譽的「臨陣脫逃」，選民開始用懷疑的眼光來審視，自民黨真的是遇上了創黨以來最大的危機了。
外交部：不影響台日關係
【記者王光慈／台北報導】日本首相福田康夫昨晚請辭。外交部發言人陳銘政表示，感謝福田在任內時推動台日友好關係。台日關係不會因福田下台受影響，相信新任駐日本代表馮寄台到任後，台日關係能在互利基礎上持續發展。
熟悉對日事務的外交官員說，在可能的接班人選中，自民黨幹事長麻生太郎呼聲最高，若真如此發展，以麻生過去對台灣友好的立場來看，台日關係應可朝樂觀方向看待。
【2008/09/02 聯合報】@
日本政界一日再度爆發大地震，福田康夫首相無預警宣布辭職，消息立即衝擊日本列島。
「怎麼又這個樣子？」東京街頭，一名拿著公事包正要趕電車回家的一名日本上班族聽到這個消息後，不禁嚇了一大跳說：「半年前安倍晉三首相也是突然宣布下台，福田康夫又搞這種噱頭，政治家的責任感究竟在哪裡？」
七十二歲的福田康夫首相，在去年九月接下了安倍前首相突然宣布下台後的重擔後，媒體紛紛報導說，他跟他已故的父親福田赳夫都出任首相，是日本政界的「父子鷹」，對他多所期待。
但是，這一年以來福田的首相路卻走得非常辛苦，支持率從五成左右暴跌到一度只有兩成，這是造成福田政權再度夭折的主要原因。
觀察福田康夫的突然辭職，其實問題堆積如山，首先要從去年的自民黨在參議院大選失敗談起。過去自民黨為主的政權，都能夠掌握住眾參兩院的過半數，因而政權的運營順利，但是去年安倍主政下的自民黨卻失掉了參議院，成了跛腳政權（或稱扭轉國會）。
福田接棒後，許多的政策都因為在野黨在參議院握有過半席次而無法推動。特別是自民黨打算派遣自衛隊赴波斯灣協助盟軍海上加油的反恐法案，因為參議院遭到反對而只好將自衛隊召回，隨後才又花了另一番工夫，在眾議院強行兩度表決通過方式再派遣出門。
汽油的附加稅也是如此，本來民眾都已經高興附加稅被解除了，每公升油便宜了廿日圓，但是基於政府稅收不足，福田在一個月後又用同樣的手法讓其恢復。政策如此多次的反反覆覆，日本國民對福田政權喪失相當的信賴感。
福田選在這個時候宣布辭職，主要是日本臨時國會將在九月十二日集會，屆時在國會與在野的民主黨攻防戰時，同樣又要遭遇到民主黨黨魁小澤一郎的杯葛，再度陷入苦戰。福田說，他選擇辭職，主要是日前他才提議了一項提升經濟的綜合對策方案，對百姓的經濟生活做了交代，未來在國會會遭遇到什麼情況，最好由接棒的新人來作，也許可以突破困境不會樣樣遭到在野黨的抵制。
一般的分析則說，以一年為期的反恐法案又將到期，將在臨時國會再度表決是否延長。美國為主的盟軍希望日本自衛隊不要撤退，但是福田自己有無法掌握在國會的優勢，結果將會重演去年的尷尬局面。與其造成政治的「真空」，倒不如趕快下台。
當然也有人認為，自民黨政權既然這麼難搞，不如乾脆解散眾議院改選，付諸民意審判。但是，以自民黨現在這種屋漏又逢雨的情況，解散國會改選有可能因此就丟掉政權，對福田來說，他也不願背負這個罪名！
問題是，誰能夠接下福田的爛攤子？現任幹事長麻生太郎目前在自民黨內排名接班人的第一位，他的作風雖然瀟灑，但是情勢並沒有因為首相的換人就會立即有所改變，加上兩任的首相都這樣不名譽的「臨陣脫逃」，選民開始用懷疑的眼光來審視，自民黨真的是遇上了創黨以來最大的危機了。
外交部：不影響台日關係
【記者王光慈／台北報導】日本首相福田康夫昨晚請辭。外交部發言人陳銘政表示，感謝福田在任內時推動台日友好關係。台日關係不會因福田下台受影響，相信新任駐日本代表馮寄台到任後，台日關係能在互利基礎上持續發展。
熟悉對日事務的外交官員說，在可能的接班人選中，自民黨幹事長麻生太郎呼聲最高，若真如此發展，以麻生過去對台灣友好的立場來看，台日關係應可朝樂觀方向看待。
【2008/09/02 聯合報】@
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)