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！
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)