dilettante

1. 十二学者上广场的背景

《天安门文件》据称是中共当时的官方记录，与许多当事人事后的回忆也相当吻合。而官方文件与民间记述吻合 这一点，常被用作论证《文件》可靠性的依据。不过，这一流行的逻辑并不严密，没有排除《文件》根据当事人回忆编排加工的可能性。

《文 件》抄回忆？有证据吗？单从「戴晴和十一位知识份子上广场斡旋」一段来看，就有五大疑点。这些疑点并不能用英文翻译、用词等来解释，因爲都是结构性问题。 也就是说，当事人的回忆整段在《文件》中重复，语句一样、遗漏一样、删改一样、最严重的是连错误都一样。

说有删改和错误，因爲有三种当 时的录影和录音爲凭据。一个见于资料片《天安门》，另一个出自当事人包遵信的《六四的内情 — 未完成的涅磐》 (台北：风云时代，1996)，另外我也得到一盘当时的录音带，已整理发表在《北京之春》。此处要考察的这一段见《文件》英文版页165-169；主要对 照的当事人回忆见戴晴：「斡旋失败学生仍然绝食」，香港《百姓》，1992年9月16日号，页30－33(同文又见戴晴《在秦城坐牢》，香港：明 报，1995，页67－88)。本文限于篇幅，只能略谈重点，许多详情只好从略，有兴趣者可以到我们刚筹建的六四网站(64memo.com)资料库中查 询。更详细的讨论，将另有专文。

下面就这些疑点的大要，按时序一一说明。

一九八九年五月十四日，十二学者来广场斡 旋。那是绝食第二天，政府与学生相持不下。一方面，政府特别紧张。因爲翌日戈巴契夫就要访华，重续中苏中断三十年的高峰会议，世界各地上千记者早已蜂拥而 至。按惯例，戈氏要到天安门广场献花，而广场却被上千绝食学生占据，加上支持者少说也有十万人。另一方面，学生则极度悲愤。学运已经一个月了，政府完全不 理睬学生的请愿。请愿七条打官倒、除腐败、争民主的口号深入人心，从下跪到游行，几百万人次日复一日。政府就是不理，先有「四二六社论」的威胁，后用假对 话来搪塞。悲愤之下，几个同学不顾学运组织的决议，毅然发起绝食，要求直播对话，就是要让李鹏或赵紫阳亲口说一句：「学生是爱国的」。

这个要求，根据我得到的录音，广场学生都以爲「很快就会有结果」，确实太天真了。不说别的，单看本文主角戴晴的回忆和《文件》的记录，阎明复和她密商的底 盘就是：赵李可以见学生，但不说什麽。戴晴那天下午两点，受中共政治局常委胡啓立的特允，组织学者在《光明日报》社开研讨会，当中草拟了一份《我们对今天 局势的紧急呼吁》，即所谓「学者三点」，于次日刊出。阎明复呢，外界一直以爲是赵紫阳的嫡系，但《文件》却把他列入「李鹏的心腹」(这是题外话，值得以后 考究)。他当时是中共统战部长，五一四下午正好代表中共与学生对话。按学生对话团正副团长和王超华、柴玲等人的回忆，对话前他还承诺「现场实况转播」。学 生从要求直播让步到转播，底线压到最低。但中共毁约，从四点到七点一刻，三个小时过去了，统战部里的对话场面毫无转播，于是”对话”在广场绝食同学的强烈 要求下暂停。

2. 戴晴密商和苏晓康演讲 句式和缺漏惊人相似

戴晴和阎明复的密商，就在这个时候。戴晴见阎，据 她和《文件》说，是「被推举」与政府谈判的。然而，学者们的共识是呼吁中的「学者三点」，即要求中央领导人亲自出面宣布，承认爱国民主运动，学生自治组织 合法，以及不秋后算帐，比绝食学生的要求还高。阎当即说不行，戴就一退千里，没有任何底线，变成了只要赵李到广场，不用宣布学生爱国，即下文「戴晴两条」 的核心。戴晴如何「被推举」，「被推举」时有没有底线，谈判将「学者三点」变爲「戴晴两条」之后有没有向学者们汇报，她回忆中完全隐晦，只有轻轻松松一句 话：「还有什麽可讨价还价的呢？我不知道，我从来没谈判过。」按当事人苏炜的回忆，事后李洪林和大家都很反感戴晴「藏著和政府交涉的『底牌』」和自封的代 表性。整个「谈判」过程，戴晴回忆同《文件》纪录惊人相似，顺序、句式都一样，篇幅限制，这里不能细谈，大家可以对照戴晴的文章。　如果说这一惊人相似可 能是巧合，各自准确复述了同一真实故事，那　，接下来第二个惊人相似就需要斟酌了。出问题的地方是苏晓康的演讲，与民衆本来是三问三答，充分展现其演讲天 才，影片《天安门》中有清楚的表现，这里也不能细谈。包遵信书中将第三个问句改爲陈述句，衆人的回答以及苏晓康最后一句则被删除，语气于是大变，上下文也 不通。这里的问题是，包书怎　改动和遗漏，《文件》也怎　改动和遗漏，同样变问句爲陈述，同样没有衆人回答，同样删去苏晓康的最后一句，上下文也不通。本 来，从影片可以看出，苏的演讲最能凸显学生的「非理性」，这　一改，程度就轻了。包书用的是别人给的录音稿，不排除整理者同情学运而稍作删改的可能。但中 共文件爲何也要去删改凸显「学生非理性」的地方？难道也同情学运不成？更重要的是，爲什麽《文件》的缺漏，同包书中的一模一样呢？这是《文件》五一四这段 的第二大疑点。

3. 戴晴两条的时序 错误惊人相似

第三大疑点，是「戴晴两条」提出的时间。这两条，一是将她组 织的「十二名学者今天在光明日报发表的对时事的看法全文见报」，二是「李鹏或赵紫阳来看望大家，同学们就撤出广场」，实际上是偷换了呼吁书中的「学者三 点」。根据现有各种文字和音像材料可以确定，学者们发言顺序的大框架是：戴晴念呼吁－－－－温元凯演讲－－－－苏晓康演讲－－－－戴晴最后发言。再根据包 遵信书中的录音稿，戴晴两条是在苏晓康演说之后提出的，紧接苏的演说，录音稿清楚地写道：

最后是戴晴讲话。她向学生们提出了撤离广场的 具体条件，实际是跟学生谈判。(下面三段戴晴原话很长，从略)

然而，戴晴回忆和《文件》则异口同声地说，第二条非苏晓康之后，而是在温 元凯之前，且是念完呼吁就提出了的。戴晴回忆说：

读毕，由我宣布撤出条件：「总理和总书记来看望大家，同学们就撤出广场，哪怕是暂时撤 到中山公园，爲明天的国事访问腾出地方。」

《文件》则是：

读毕，戴晴就宣布学者们建议学生撤出广场的条件：「赵紫阳 和李鹏来看望大家，同学们就撤出广场，哪怕是暂时撤到中山公园，爲明天的国事访问腾出地方。」

这里，语句的相似还不是重点，关键是二者 都将戴晴第二条的时间前移，把发言顺序记错(二者都在这之后才描述温、苏的演讲)。二者和包书录音稿，两较只能一真。会不会是包书录音稿误记了呢？可能性 极低。王超华在《百姓》紧跟著戴晴回忆的专文中，还曾针对性地说：「我不记得在戴晴之后还有学者发言。」印证了包书录音稿说「最后是戴晴讲话」的可靠性。 虽然我们前面看到包书录音稿有细微删改，但发言顺序总不至于颠倒，尤其是考虑到包先生本人是历史学家。总之，可以判定错在戴晴回忆，她将第二条挪到前面 了。那《文件》呢？《文件》自称当时的纪录，又爲何弄错了顺序？错又爲何错得跟几年后的戴晴回忆一模一样？实在令人费解。

4. 弄错时序的连带问题

费解之下的一个解读是：《文件》中学者上广场这一段，很有可能主要是根据戴晴回忆和包书录音稿等综合整理而成。采 用这一解读，我们才比较容易理解爲什麽《文件》与戴晴回忆那　多的雷同，也才较易解释爲何它与包书录音稿的删改如出一辙，又爲何跟二者错得都一模一样。不 仅于此，下面还有两点也都得依靠这一解读才会释然。

第四大疑点，是弄错时序连带出来的问题。《文件》先跟著戴晴回忆弄错时序，将赵李来 广场那条提前。戴晴回忆中没有录音材料，于是《文件》采用了跟包书一模一样的录音稿，当中戴晴最后演讲两次提过两条。《文件》一综合，就会成三次，破绽也 就太明显，于是《文件》乾脆删掉戴晴最后演讲的头一段，减少一次，又将第一条用省略号代替。问题是编撰者在省略号之前，爲了保持上下文的连贯性，保留了 「我现在再重复刚才的两条」这句话，误以爲可以指到来自戴晴回忆的那次，却没留意那里只有一条。结果，读者无论如何也找不到两条。也就是说，因爲先已跟著 戴晴回忆弄错时序，现在爲了整合两个材料，《文件》只好去削包书录音稿之「足」去适戴晴回忆之「履」，却又忽略了二材料的内在不一致性，结果自相矛盾而不 自知。从这一细节来看，我们除了将学者上广场这段《文件》看作是戴、包回忆之拼凑，还能有别的解释吗？

关于「刚才的两条」这句话，还有 一个细节也很有意思，那就是「编撰者」张良大约也感到有问题，于是加了一个注。但他也只注了赵李来广场那一条，似乎自己都不清楚「两条」是指什麽。这是不 是说明，张良并非原初的编撰者？换言之，或许在张良之前，《文件》还有不知几手的加工？

5. 念三遍「绝食宣言」 又一个惊人相似

最后，第五大疑点，是所谓「念三遍《绝食宣言》」。如果广场上有人带领学生念三遍《绝食宣言》，领一遍，跟一遍，总共六遍就得一个小时(柴玲录音一人就 念了十分钟)，十几万人齐声吼，那将是何等的壮观！这样的壮观场面，我不记得，王超华、柴玲也不记得，而我得到的录音带中也没有，尤其是至今我们也没看到 任何电台、电视台的音像材料。

但戴晴说有，《文件》也说有。戴晴说得还活灵活现：

果然，没过多久、一个瘦瘦的、带副 眼镜、学生模样的人从人群中挤过来　对谁都没有打招呼，直接从我手里一把夺过话筒，以无比的激情喊道：「同学们，同学们，现在，跟我念三遍《绝食宣 言》！……鲜血……生命……民主……」

下面齐声喊起来，声势起码比刚才大十倍。

《文件》也跟著说：

一个戴眼镜的学生冲过人群，喊道：「同学们！同学们！谁来跟我念三遍《绝食宣言》！」

戴晴后来还 考证出，那个「戴眼镜的学生」名叫封从德。她说是九二年到美国「读民运人士的文章」读来的。所谓「民运人士的文章」，源于苏晓康。上面的故事，蔡崇国说 「到巴黎后，苏晓康给我讲过」，也就是八九年七八月。到九○年六月，苏晓康主持的《民主中国》第二期上就有「舒明」的文章指名道姓讲同样的故事，而且更传 神，说是柴玲「写了一个条子传递上讲台，递到了学生领袖封从德手中」，且是苏晓康「斜眼看到此纸条上写到：『请在广播里重读《绝食宣言》。』」

这个编造的故事不值一驳，因爲当时广播站根本没有什麽「讲台」，「纸条」一说更系子虚乌有。我自己就在广播站，也不可能「从人群中挤过来」。上述王超华紧 跟著戴晴回忆的专文中，又在这里明确反驳过戴晴：「虽然好几个人都证实过，我也不记得封从德领著念《绝食宣言》的事。」从我得到的现场录音分析，可能苏晓 康、戴晴等人把当时播放的柴玲绝食书录音带误记成有人领著念《绝食宣言》，男声女声没分清，独唱合唱也没分清。而「舒明」们再添油加醋驰骋想像，于是这个 故事越编越圆，我至少读到过七个版本，而今又有了《文件》的版本第八，这又当如何解释？

小结：请教美国专家

解释 还得请专家。《文件》英文版早于中文版，真僞验证的责任于是落到几位英译者身上。他们不是普通的翻译，而是美国著名的中国问题专家，也都是美国一流大学的 教授，因此他们对该书的真实性认证可谓举足轻重。黎安友教授在序言中说，「经过好几年，通过不同的管道和方法，我个人在本书材料的真实性上感到满意。」夏 伟(Orville Schell)教授在书尾更有长达十五页的「真实性考量」。林培瑞教授最近还到港台宣传这本书，进一步确认他们关于真实性的认证。

本文上述的几个疑点，主要采用的都是早已出版过的回忆和录影，想必三位教授已有过目。因此，作者特别感兴趣的是，三位教授经过好几年认证，是否对此早有研 究，并排除了《文件》抄回忆的可能性？具体而言，对五一四学者上广场这一段文件，是否已经排除过综合戴晴回忆和包遵信书中录音稿的可能？若已排除，上述五 大疑点有无解释？

我们注意到，《文件》在这段前注明：根据五月十四日当晚或次日三家机构的情报整理的「综合汇报」(五一五信访局「接待 要情」、五一四统战部「情况通报」和五一五国安部致中共中央和国务院的电传)。这样一来，只要我们相信《文件》没有做僞，就势必非解释上述五大疑点不可。

来源： http://www.duping.net/XHC/show.php?bbs=11&post=1071130

新华网陕西频道5月12日电(记者梁娟　谢方芳)陕西省南郑县一幼儿园12日上午8时左右发生一起砍伤儿童事件,已造成7人死亡,20多人受伤。目前,伤 者被送往汉中市的3201医院等地抢救。 (完)

译者：棒棒儿

按：看了杨恒均先生的读后感后，在网上搜出另外一片读后评论。试图翻译了一下。希望有人喜欢读。

Why China’s Megatrends is a Disappointment

为什么《中国大趋势》令人失望（译文）

By Mark L. Clifford

It’s bad timing that the glowing, indeed craven, China’s Megatrends appears just as the world is rethinking China’s rise. Google’s threat to pull out of China, friction over the Dalai Lama, problematic international access to China’s domestic market, the country’s flawed regulatory environment, its voracious hunger for resources, its geopolitical manoeuvres in Africa and Asia: all have lent urgency to worries about the country’s ascendancy. But not for John and Doris Naisbitt. To them, China is an unalloyed success, one whose virtues are too little understood. Take Internet censorship: “Actually, most of the concerns about the Internet are in Westerners’ heads.”

正当全世界都在重新思考中国崛起的时候，这本充满盈美之辞，实则怯懦的《中国大趋势》面世的时机实在是不好。人们对中国取得的优势地位忧心忡忡，再加上谷歌威胁要退出中国，中国和达赖之间的抵牾，中国国内管理环境的缺陷，中国对资源的强烈需求，中国在非洲和亚洲的地理政治花招，所有这些增加了（人们的）紧迫感。但是这些对于John 和 Doris Naisbitt来说无所谓。在他们眼里中国是一个不折不扣的成功国家，她的许多优点还远远地没有被理解。举一个关于因特网审查的例子就是：“实际上，对因特网（审查）的关注往往是西方人的想法（译者注：这句话可能出现在《中国大趋势》里面）。”

China’s Megatrends is the latest addition to John Naisbitt’s Megatrends franchise, a series of middlebrow works that offer extremely generalized social and economic predictions. The first Megatrends (1982) was a publishing phenomenon that sold over 9 million copies and spent two years on the New York Times best-seller list. It was followed by Megatrends 2000 (1990), Megatrends for Women (1992) and Megatrends Asia (1996). But although almost 30 researchers worked on China’s Megatrends, it has all the hallmarks of a glib, bolt-on extension to the juggernaut. It is breathtaking in its simplistic, groveling and ill-informed treatment of the world’s next superpower. (See pictures of China mourning the potential loss of Google.)

《中国大趋势》是John Naisbitt拥有特许经销权《大趋势》系列丛书最新增加的一部书，这个系列立意平庸，却在社会经济方面提供极端概括化的预言。第一部《大趋势》(1982)的销售量是震撼性的，卖出了超过九百万本，连续两年被《纽约时报》列在最佳销售书名单内。接着先后出版了《大趋势2000》(1990), 《女性大趋势》（1992），《亚洲大趋势》（1996）。但是，尽管有接近30名研究者致力于编写《中国大趋势》，这本书在各方面显示出它的（虎头蛇尾）特质，好比是在重型卡车上连接了一些花里胡哨的改装零件。在论述这个即将成为一个超级力量的国家的时候，这本书显得过于简单，曲意奉承，信息不灵，实在让人瞠目结舌。

（中国人对谷歌可能离去表示深切遗憾）

The Naisbitts posit eight future developments for China; none are insightful. There’s “Crossing the River by Feeling the Stones,” which meant something when Deng Xiaoping uttered this maxim of pragmatic, step-by-step reform, but has become little more than a cliché three decades on. “Emancipation of the Mind” also looks tired after an entire generation of Chinese has grown up with an openness unimaginable to their parents.

Naisbitt夫妇假设了8个中国未来发展动向，没有一个体现了洞见力。“摸着石头过河”是邓小平对务实，循序渐进改革原则的阐述，但是三十年以后，已经变成了陈词滥调。新的一代中国人已经成长起来，他们思想的开放性让他们的父母辈难以想象，“解放思想”也变得过时了。

As ideas, “Artistic and Intellectual Ferment” and “Joining the World” are hardly the product of much brainstorming and betray the Naisbitts’ tone-deafness. Do we really believe that what the Naisbitts call “Chinese country music” will soon become a “moneymaking machine” simply because one peasant group’s original composition, Song of Sanitation Workers got some favorable notice in the provincial press? (See pictures of China at 60.)

作为思想来说，“艺术和知识狂热”和“和世界接轨”很难说是群策群力商讨问题（头脑风暴）的产物，暴露了Naisbitt夫妇不能辨别时代的声音。Naisbitt夫妇声称“中国乡村音乐”马上会成为“挣钱机器”，只是因为一个农民团体的原声作品“清洁工之歌”得到了一个地方新闻舆论的好评，我们真的相信这会事情吗？（见中国照片）

If some predictions are well-worn, others are downright dubious. “Freedom and Fairness” is the most problematic. This is a country where dissidents disappear and where the legal system can be twisted. Yet China’s brutally efficient machinery of repression and state capitalism is, in the Naisbitts’ gushing parlance, “a new form of governance and development, never before seen in modern history.” Really? Is an autocracy grimly determined to keep itself in power all that unique?

一些预言渐渐已失去说服力， 而另外的预言则完全是不靠谱。“自由和公正”的提法大有问题。在这个国家里，不同政见者被消失，法律系统被扭曲。但是中国这个 高效且残忍的压迫机器和国家资本主义在Naisbitt夫妇热情澎湃的语调里面是：“现代史上从未有过的新型的治理和发展。”真的吗？一个坚决冷酷地独霸权力的独裁政权真的那么独特吗？

Compounding the book’s ham-fisted nature is its tendency to sound like an apologia for the Chinese government. For instance, the Naisbitts blame “the Western press” for stoking fear about the 2003 SARS epidemic and contend that “Chinese media broke the news of official suppression of information about the SARS outbreak” in Beijing in 2003. In fact, the cover-up was revealed by Jiang Yanyong, a courageous Communist Party doctor whose statement on the subject was first published in TIME. The Naisbitts’ claim that Hong Kong people “never really demanded” democracy is also nonsense, given the massive demonstrations that took place in 1989 and 2003, and opinion polls that consistently show that most Hong Kong people are in favor of it. (Read “China at 60: The Road to Prosperity.”)

这本书看起来倾向于为中国政府辩解，凸显了它笨拙的本质。比如说，Naisbitt夫妇责怪“西方新闻媒体”煽起对2003年SARS流行病的恐惧，声称2003年在北京“中国媒体披露了关于SARS爆发的信息被官方压制的事件”。事实上，是一个叫蒋彦永的勇敢共产党员医生揭露了被掩盖的真相，他对此的申明最先发表在TIME上。Naisbitt夫妇声称香港人“从未真正地要求”民主也是胡说八道，考虑到在1989年和2003年发生的大规模游行抗议，也考虑到民意测试一直表明香港人赞同民主。

（请读“中国：走向繁荣”）

Ultimately, the one place this book should do well is China itself. The country’s leaders will hardly believe their good fortune at so totally blindsiding the authors, and the ever growing ranks of nationalists will lap up the endorsements of such a famous American commentator as John Naisbitt. But for everyone else, China’s Megatrends is puzzling and shameful reading.

这本书最终仅可能在一个地方卖得好，那就是在中国本土。这个国家的领导会难以相信他们有这样好的运气，完全蒙蔽了这本书的作者们；而且越来越多的民族主义者会欣然接受像John Naisbitt这样著名美国评论家的认同。但是对于其他人来说的，《中国大趋势》是本充满困惑，令人不齿的读物（注2）。

Clifford is the co-author of China and the WTO: Changing China, Changing World Trade

Clifford是《中国与世贸组织：改变中国，改变世界贸易》的合著者

原文处出：http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1971287,00.html

注1：bolt-on extension原意是指在摩托等车上进行改装的固定零件，这是很多机动车爱好者的嗜好，这样使得车辆更加时尚，符合自己的个性，而juggernaut是大型车辆，两者是不配的。这个链接是bolt-on extension图示http://www.exoticycle.com/ecom/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=16

注2：最后一段根据寻正的提醒已作修改，感谢。

Ai Weiwei: ‘I have to speak for people who are afraid’

This autumn, Ai Weiwei, China’s most outspoken artist, will take over Tate Modern’s Turbine Hall. He talks about how his art and politics are indistinguishable

When you first meet him, Ai Weiwei seems as solid and impassive as a pillar of granite. He leads the way into his home without a word, then sits silently at the head of a long wooden table. But on the wall of his elegant, open-plan home, in the outskirts of Beijing, hangs a single image: of a hand with its middle finger raised. Ai has plenty to say.

Indeed he has so much to say that the 53-year-old is not only China‘s most famous living artist, but also a constant irritant to its authorities. When Tate Modern announced recently that it had commissioned him to fill its Turbine Hall later this year, it was a welcome reminder of his work, which in recent times has become almost overshadowed by his social and political criticism. Ai is now perhaps best known for his angry and sustained denunciations of officialdom through interviews, documentaries and above all the internet.

Around 26,000 people follow his volley of outrage and satire, facts and aphorisms, on Twitter: “No outdor sports can be more elegant than throwing stones at autocracy; no melees can be more exciting than those in cyber space,” read one recent missive.

“People often say I started to become too outspoken after a certain period. It’s all because of the internet – if we didn’t have this technology I would be same as everybody else; I couldn’t really amplify my voice,” he says.

But the voice itself was forged in his earliest childhood. “I experienced humanity before I should. When I was very young,” he says. If that sounds grandiloquent, consider his history: Ai spent years of his childhood in a labour camp in the far north-west of China, on the edge of the Gobi desert. His father, Ai Qing, was an artist and one of China’s most revered modern poets, but fell foul of the late 1950s anti-rightist campaign. Life was precarious, and his parents had little time to spare for their offspring. “It was like being a little boy in the centre of a storm. Just always scared or surprised by surroundings that you cannot make sense of. And you have no comparisons because you have no memory of what another life can be,” he says.

Ai Qing, a cosmopolitan intellectual who had translated symbolist poets, spent years cleaning toilets. “Sometimes he shared stories with us, like his early [years] in Paris and the kind of paintings and artworks he liked – always things full of joy,” says Ai Weiwei. “But it had nothing to do with our surroundings – they were very tough. For years he wouldn’t take one day off. We always saw him as this very tired worker coming home with no energy; just having to lay down and sleep.”

On a good day, Ai Qing would rouse himself and amuse his children by sketching for them. His ability to depict a scene in a few simple lines captured his son’s imagination, but he never encouraged his offspring to take up art. “I guess that’s kind of the way he tried to protect us, because hundreds of thousands of artists and writers were being punished, severely,” says Ai.

Instead, a family friend pushed Ai into applying to the Beijing Film Academy. It was 1978 and the cultural revolution was over, and the students flocking through its reopened doors included the now celebrated film directors Zhang Yimou and Chen Kaige. For many it was a heady, inspiring atmosphere in which they could embrace creativity and explore western culture. To Ai, it seemed stifling and doctrinaire. “All I wanted was freedom, because my life had always been under these circumstances of strong repression and pressure,” he says.

So in his early 20s he packed up and moved to New York for good – or so he thought. “That was quite a shock. I was a young person from the Gobi desert, who grew up almost having no electricity, who was suddenly dropped into this city full of energy and speed and all kinds of craziness,” he says. His hazy image of the US had been largely derived from Walt Whitman’s poetry and other early Americana. “I loved New York – every inch of it. It was a little bit scary at that time, but still, the excitement was so strong – visually and intellectually. It was like a monster.”

But 12 years later, when his father fell ill, he moved back to Beijing. He did so with little to show for his time in the US, at least to the outside eye. “I hadn’t become very rich or got status or become part of the American dream – I had no success. I hadn’t got my school diploma [or] American citizenship – that’s unique for the early Chinese students in the US; those are two things they all got. I was unmarried, didn’t have a real job, couldn’t drive. So my mother really thought I’d never been there. She was shy to even introduce me to her friends,” he says jokingly.

Ai’s father sensed his discomfort on returning and offered some advice: don’t be courteous. Treat this country as your home. Do whatever you want. The artist is still grateful for those words, though one feels the Chinese government may be less so. Ai helped to design the “Bird’s Nest” national stadium for the 2008 Olympics – then blasted the country’s “disgusting” political conditions and the use of the games as propaganda. Since then he has championed a number of sensitive causes, notably internet freedom and justice for children who died when shoddy schools collapsed in the devastating Sichuan earthquake. Others have fallen foul of the government for far less, and supporters fear Ai’s position and his father’s reputation will only shield him for so long. Certainly, the authorities seem to regard him, increasingly, as a problem. His China-based blog has been closed down, his email account hacked into, and security officials have made inquiries at his bank. In Chengdu last year, police detained him and fellow activists to prevent them attending the trial of a campaigner investigating schoolchildren’s deaths. In the furore, a policeman punched him in the head, leaving him with painful headaches; weeks later, while working in Germany, he underwent surgery after doctors spotted internal bleeding.

“Life is never guaranteed to be safe so we better use it when we are still in good condition,” he says now. “I always think that incident shouldn’t have happened that way. Other than that . . . I don’t want the bad memories, bad incidents, to stop me or have an effect on me.”

But he acknowledges a “strong increase in danger” from a state that seems increasingly intolerant of criticism. In December, a court jailed the well-known author Liu Xiaobo for 11 years for inciting subversion, one of the harshest punishments given to a dissident in recent years. Many had thought him relatively insulated from pressure, but his co-authorship of a call for political reforms proved unacceptable.

“The state is taking action against people who have peacefully demonstrated their ideas. They are writers – all they did is to express their minds through the internet. So the pattern is very clear. The state tries to maintain stability by crushing any thought of making change,” Ai says. “It could happen to me, because I did the same thing and in many cases I went much further and deeper. But I always think the government can learn from their mistakes – they should learn and should understand; they should be just as intelligent as anyone else. I have to be wishful [optimistic] in that sense.”

His father’s experiences have left him, he says, with a sense of duty “to speak for the generation, or generations, who didn’t have a chance to speak out”. “And I also have to speak out for people around me who are afraid, who think it is not worth it or who have totally given up hope. So I want to set an example: you can do it and this is OK, to speak out,” he says.

And then, of course, there’s his art. Ai’s growing profile as a government critic has come swift on the heels of artistic acclaim for works such as his photographic series “Dropping a Han dynasty urn”, which captures his destruction of an ancient vessel. But to Ai there is no meaningful distinction between his art and the rest of his life: “I’m not worried viewers will be distracted [by my activism] – I am worried they will not,” he says. “I would never say I am just an artist or have some higher aesthetic values.”

In recent years even his work for galleries has become overtly political, blurring the boundary between art and activism – at a recent show in Munich, his Remembering installation comprised 9,000 children’s backpacks, in reference to the death toll of pupils in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Attached to the outside of the Haus der Kunst, they spelled out a grieving mother’s words: “She lived happily for seven years in this world.”

Ai thinks the casual jobs he did in New York, babysitting and housecleaning, were as formative as the visual education or western culture he experienced there. In those days he hungered for success, he says, but it arrived long after he realised “that it’s not so important – that life can be much bolder and stronger without that kind of recognition”. Fame is a kind of burden, he thinks, giving him the responsibility to speak out as well as a certain space to do so. “China’s rise affects everyone, not just its citizens,” he says. “China still cannot offer any real value to the world except cheap labour, manufacturing and its own so-called stability. Besides that, I don’t see any creative values and creative minds – thinking – that can be announced from China. It [needs] to have a more reasonable political structure which allows this kind of development to happen.”

But he says his relationship with the country has been strengthened by his struggles with it. He makes a noise somewhere between a laugh and a sigh when asked if he fears the authorities might bar him from returning to China one day. “People have said, if you leave, you may never come back. Or they may not even let you leave. So this is always a cost you may have to pay,” he says. “But I don’t want to restrict myself: when it happens, it happens. I have to deal with it, but not to prepare for it, because it is a kind of stupidity. If you prepare for it too much, you become a part of it.”

                              谈《民主杀害韩寒，民主强奸徐静蕾》和《德赛请自重》

饱醉豚写了一个帖子， 寻正看了很生气，不知道后果严重不严重。我看了这个帖子的感受是：这不是一个很完整的帖子， 至少看不出来这个帖子的观点的倾向性。因为这个帖子看起来有点像寓言一类的东西，但是寓言的末尾多半会说moral的，但是这个帖子没有。所以这个帖子有很多让人想象的空间，由于这个帖子的观点犹犹豫豫地，模模糊糊，所以也不是好的帖子，而是一个失败的帖子。

这个帖子之所以这样，大概和饱醉豚的写作风格有关，饱醉豚好像从来没有正面写过什么东西，而是颇像“解构”的方式来反讽或嘲笑。但是这次很不到位，立意，结构都不好。

饱醉豚谈的民主就不是民主， 现代的民主大概不是说三分之二的人就可以通过表面形式掠夺剩下这部分人的财产和法律赋予的东西了吧。现代的民主对于少数人的利益已经考虑得很仔细了，何况三分之一也不算少了。从这个角度来说，饱醉豚的帖子算是个烂帖子了。

寻正对于这个帖子的反驳的地方已经很到位了， 举的例子也很有说服力。但是我不同意的地方是寻正说“…属于正宗五毛佳作”,我并不是说饱先生不可能是五毛， 而是可能写了一个不太好的帖子，自己并没有意识到而已。

另外寻正的帖子的题目《德赛请自重》并不恰当，其实德赛并没有做什么，何需自重？ 一个帖子好不好， 需不需要删去，博主要不要驱逐，要经过慎重考量才好。管理人员需要判断帖子是否违反了网站的相关规定，如果是规定的漏洞造成的， 就需要再修改规定，然后再谈违规问题。

其实到底是怎么回事，我们应该看看饱醉豚的辩护，因为有好多东西并没有看得很清楚，而且民主并不是阻止对方说话，而是通过合理的程序让人说话。

译者按：白宫的圣诞树挂了毛泽东的画像，中国的真的毛左和假的毛左兴奋得象吃了伟哥一样。估计看了真实的报道以后马上就后悔，又要大骂资本主义及其走狗居心叵测了。（注：不会贴图像，请到文章来源网址看图像。来源：http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/12/a-warhol-christmas-at-the-white-house.html）

                             白宫Warhol圣诞节

翻译：棒棒儿

当谈及艺术话题时，反对欧巴马的右派群体今年就过得非常的不爽。他们炮制出文化战争试图激起公愤， 不料他们的多次努力不是期望落空，就是结果让他们十分尴尬。

最近的一次惨败就是“圣诞装饰大丑闻”。

星期二，Andrew Breitbart 在他的Big Government 博客中对欧巴马白宫五光十色的圣诞树大惊小怪，过度兴奋。（Big Government 是Breitbart 的博客Big Hollywood 的姊妹博客，几个月前，Big Hollywood就对“国家艺术捐赠机构”疑神疑鬼，大放不实之辞。）这篇发出刺耳声音的“独家报道”前面部分有张模糊的圣诞剪纸装饰图片，图片上用作装饰的是中国共产党独夫毛泽东的头像。

 “当然，毛在白宫有他的一席之地，”他在 Big Government 博客里对“圣诞装饰大丑闻”大呼小叫， 特意选取“欧巴马是传承左倾文化因子（Obama-as-socialist meme）”形象作为圣诞季节的偏好题目。

只不过，这并非完全意义上的毛， 而是Andy Warhol 的“毛”

这个图像是一位已故流行艺术家（Andy Warhol）用丝网印刷制成关于毛（泽东）的大量图画和印制品中的一件。Warhol的滑稽模仿作品把这个全世界人口最多国家领袖变成了一个无趣的超级明星形象——著名明星中最著名的（译者注：猜猜是谁） 。这个从毛的红宝书得来的画像用玛丽莲.梦露风格的口红，眼影和其它花里胡哨的东西装饰而成的。

这个圣诞装饰是从何处而来？

 “我们 拿到的这些大概800件饰品是以往的行政部门得到剩下的，”第一夫人米歇尔.欧巴马在早些关于白宫是如何准备节日的新闻发布会上解释道，“我们向全国的60个社区团体寄发了这些饰品， 然后他们把这些东西寄回来摆在白宫作展示。

这件Warhol 的装饰品的准确来源并不清楚。但是Warhol关于毛的作品在美国各个海岸的艺术博物馆都有收藏，包括纽约现代艺术博物馆，芝加哥艺术学院（这里的收藏最像那张装饰画）和洛杉矶的郡艺术博物馆和现代艺术博物馆。匹兹堡的Andy Warhol博物馆也理所当然的有几件。

哦，在白宫外宾夕法尼亚大道的地球另外一端，国家艺术馆, （the National Gallery of Art）收藏了21件不同版本Warhol 的“毛”（泽东）画像。二十一件。（我们）等等就可以看到Big Government的博主们会发现国家艺术馆被共产党占据了。

在这个政治时代，这些政治偏激分子一直不留情面地把这位美国总统的形象怪诞化，描绘成一个左倾分子。而在美国某地一位装饰设计师显然地认为把一个讽刺社会主义者的画像当作完美的 “最好的当地 里程碑。”当我想指责他/她的时候，我无语了。

但是在这个“圣诞装饰大丑闻”下，还弥漫着另外一种层次的喜剧色彩：不知情。一大帮声嘶力竭的右倾网站和博客很快炒作这个“丑闻”。随后被“公正平和”的Fox News兢兢业业地折腾成一团糟。

Warhol 是在1972年美国保守党英雄尼克松对北京进行划时代意义的访问以后开始一系列的创作的。（水门入室偷拍案是四个月以前的事情。）共和党竭力使用种族问题打开局面，吸引更多的南方白人为他们投票。利用南方战略选举成功， 尼克松窃取了总统位置。在第一位非洲美国裔总统住处白宫找到一个尼克松时代的毛像让不少人刺激得昏了头。

是哪位勇敢的记者负责写的“圣诞装饰大丑闻”假新闻？这个 帖子下面署名是“Capitol Confidential”（国会山机密），这个耸人听闻的绰号连Warhol本人都会佩服得五体投地的。“Capitol Confidential”（国会山机密）被视为是“在联邦，州和地方层次高官云集地方的匿名消息来源，Big Government博客站反复核查了故事的真实性，给他们（提供消息的人）需要的隐身衣，以便让他们揭露事实的真相。”

不，这不是一个滑稽模仿作品。这是一个Drudge（另外一个爱传播耸人听闻小道小心的电视新闻人）时代的探索性报道。你晓得下一个Capitol Confidential（国会山机密）揭露的让人激动的喘不过气来的“独家！惊耸！真相！”报道就是欧巴马的圣诞树也是用橡子装饰的。：）

假日快乐

– Christopher Knight

申明：在翻译该文章时，没有取得文章版权所有者的许可。如果侵犯了该版权，请告知，本人将及时删除本文。

A Warhol Christmas at the White House

December 24, 2009 | 10:10 am

When it comes to art, the right-wing anti-Obama crowd hasn’t had a very good year. Repeated efforts to gin up outrage in a manufactured culture war have either fallen flat or proved downright embarrassing.

The latest fiasco is the Great Christmas Ornament Scandal.

On Tuesday, Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government blog got its knickers in a twist over one of the Obama White House’s myriad Christmas trees. (Big Government is a sibling to Breitbart’s Big Hollywood blog, which cranked up a paranoid fantasy about the National Endowment for the Arts a few months back.) The blaring “EXCLUSIVE” led with a blurry photo of a decoupage Christmas ornament adorned with the face of Chinese Communist dictator, Mao Zedong.、

“Of course, Mao has his place in the White House,” Big Government wailed about the GCOS, taking the Obama-as-socialist meme out for a yuletide spin.

Except, it wasn’t exactly Mao. It was Andy Warhol’s “Mao.”

The image is one of a very large series of silkscreen paintings and prints the late Pop artist made of Mao. Warhol’s parody transformed the leader of the world’s most populous nation into a vapid superstar — the most famous of the famous. The portrait photo from Mao’s Little Red Book is tarted up with lipstick, eye-shadow and other Marilyn Monroe-style flourishes.

Where did the Christmas decoration come from?

“We took about 800 ornaments left over from previous administrations,” First Lady Michelle Obama explained in an earlier press release about getting the White House ready for the holidays, “we sent them to 60 local community groups throughout the country, and asked them to decorate them to pay tribute to a favorite local landmark and then send them back to us for display here at the White House.”

The precise source of the Warhol ornament is not known. But Warhol’s Maos are in art museum collections from coast to coast, including the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Art Institute of Chicago (whose painting most resembles the ornament image) and both the County Museum of Art and the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles. Not surprisingly, Pittsburgh’s Andy Warhol Museum has several.

Oh, and at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, the National Gallery of Art has 21 different versions of Warhol’s “Mao.” Twenty-one. Wait until Big Government bloggers find out about the Communist takeover of the National Gallery.

In a political era when the lunatic fringe has relentlessly caricatured the president of the United States as a pinko, an ornament-maker somewhere in America apparently thought a satirical painting of a socialist was an ideal “favorite local landmark.” I can’t say as I blame him or her.

But still another layer of unwitting comedy percolates beneath the Great Christmas Ornament Scandal, which was immediately picked up by a host of hyperventilating right-wing Internet sites and blogs and then dutifully flogged into total incoherence by fair-and-balanced Fox News.

Warhol began the series in 1972 in the wake of an epochal visit to Beijing by conservative hero Richard M. Nixon. (The Watergate burglary was four months off.) President Nixon had squeaked into office on the electoral success of the Southern Strategy — Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue to appeal to white Southern voters. Finding a Nixon-era Mao in a White House now occupied by our first African American president seems to have shoved some folks over the edge.

Who is the intrepid reporter responsible for the GCOS pseudo-scoop? The post is signed by “Capitol Confidential,” a tabloid moniker Warhol himself would have adored. Capitol Confidential is identified as “anonymous sources in the halls of power at the federal, state, and local levels. Big Government double-checks their stories and provides them the cloak they need to reveal the truth.”

No, that’s not a parody. That’s investigative reporting in the age of Drudge. Next thing you know Capitol Confidential will breathlessly uncover the exclusive! shocking! truth! that the Obamas’ Christmas tree is also decorated with acorns.

Happy holidays.

– Christopher Knight

来源：http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/12/a-warhol-christmas-at-the-white-house.html

记者: ANDREW JACOBS

发行日期：2009年12月24日

翻译：棒棒儿

北京_一个中国法庭于星期五判处一位中国最著名不同政见者11年监禁，罪名为颠覆罪，这是对那些追求政治改革的人来说是一次毫不含糊的叱责。

现年53岁的刘晓波曾是文学教授，一位执著批评一党专政体制的批评家。在他帮助撰写被称之为《08宪章》的请愿书之后，于2008年12月被捕。这个请愿书要求自由言论的权利， 公开选举和法治。

Nicholas Bequelin 是位于香港的“人权观察组织”（Human Rights Watch）亚洲部高级研究员，他把刘先生描述为“用作献祭的羔羊”。并且说中共领导试图恐吓批评他们的人。这个人权组织称这次审判是“对公正的嘲弄”。

Bequelin 先生和其他人说刘先生因违反中国宪法赋予的权利而被起诉（译者注：这句让人有些迷惑不解，原句为“Mr. Bequelin and others said Mr. Liu’s prosecution for violating rights enshrined in China’s Constitution suggested a political hardening,”），显示了（中共）政治立场/行为强硬化，这个趋势在2008奥运之前开始了。

这表明了（中共）领导日趋保守，越来越限制基本的自由权利，”Bequelin 先生说，“他们也向世界上其他人传达了一个强烈的信号：当中国在谈人权的时候，他们并不真心实意。”

Joshua Rosenzweig 是“对话基金”的高级研究员， 他为中国政治囚犯说话。他说刘先生是在十年内因颠覆罪被起诉而获刑最长的人。

在2005年，一位记者兼诗人，师涛，在他把党内备忘录寄给海外网站以后，被判处泄露国家机密罪，获刑十年。去年，胡佳，一位艾滋病患权利运动者兼环保主义者， 被控在网上写鼓动颠覆政府的帖子， 被判入狱三年半。

刘先生被秘密拘捕超过一年，而他的律师只有不到两周的时间准备辩护。星期三的庭审持续了两个小时，然后结束。他的妻子刘霞和来自于美国，加拿大和欧盟超过24个外交官不准进入法庭听审。

星期四，一位 （中国）外交部女发言人愤怒地反驳国外对刘先生被起诉事件的批评，她称这些批评者“粗暴干涉中国司法内政的行为。”

这次案件并不是刘先生第一次和中国严酷的司法系统打交道。由于参与了1989年 天安门支持民主抗议， 他在狱中度过了21个月。于1996年， 他要求对那些因参与了那次示威 而还在服刑的人进行宽大处理，

除了涉嫌帮助创作《08宪章》，对刘先生的起诉还有“鼓动颠覆政权”，这基于在中国以外互联网上发表的六篇文章。

《08宪章》发布与2008年十二月十日，国际人权日。在被政府的审查官员把它从网页上删除之前，收集了一万个签名。时至今日，知道它的中国人为数不多。

在星期三短暂的审判中，刘先生的律师不同意起诉方的论点，即这些文件试图推翻中共。张祖华，政治学学者，曾经是共产党官员，和刘先生一起合写了这个宣言，把颠覆政权的起诉视为“荒谬”，称它“违反了中国宪法对自由言论的保障。”张先生去年被短暂地拘留，从此处于国保局24小时监视。

除了新华社这个中国官方的新闻机构星期五发布了简短的消息描述判刑，并且说法庭“已经在这次案件中严格地遵从了法律程序，充分地保护了刘的讼诉权利。”，那些被国家控制的媒体没既有报道刘晓波的审判案件——也不让提到任何《08宪章》的字眼。

他被判刑的消息很快地通过推特传播开来，推特在中国被所谓的“大防火墙”封锁，但是一些人能够绕过并使用它。很多用推特发出信息，显示了黄丝带的图片，以此表示同情。其他人以公开反抗的态度把当庭法官的个人资料展示出来。

星期三在刘先生被审的时候，至少有二十几个站在法庭外边的支持者随后被盘问，并被释放。

刘荻，《08宪章》签名者之一，和一小部分人公开宣称愿意和刘晓波一起受审。

“为了宪法和法律的尊严，也为了未来的人们不再因为自由言论和独立主张而入狱，本人情愿与刘晓波先生共案同罚。”刘小姐写道。她是一名博客，在网上名叫“不锈钢老鼠”，这个id比现实中的她有名多了。

星期五，有关官员允许被告和他的妻子在小房间里会面十分钟，虽然被一个玻璃挡住。这是去年他被拘禁后第三次见面。

事后她谈到政府的时候说， “人们总说他们（政府）没有人性，但是我想他们还是想表现出一点点人性。”

来源于

网址：http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/world/asia/25china.html?_r=1&hp

申明：在翻译该文章时，没有取得文章版权所有者的许可。如果侵犯了该版权，请告知，本人将及时删除本文。

Chinese Dissident Gets 11-Year Prison Term

Top of Form

By ANDREW JACOBS

Published: December 24, 2009

BEIJING — In an unequivocal rebuke to those pursuing political reforms, a Chinese court on Friday sentenced one of the country’s best-known dissidents to 11 years in prison for subversion.

Police watch supporters of one of China’s most prominent dissidents, Liu Xiaobo, as they stand outside the courthouse where Liu is on trial in Beijing Friday.

Liu Xiaobo, 53, a former literature professor and a dogged critic of China’s single-party political system, was detained in December 2008 after he helped draft a petition known as Charter 08 that demanded the right to free speech, open elections and the rule of law.

The 11-page verdict, largely a restatement of his indictment, was read out Friday morning at the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, said Mr. Liu’s lawyer, Shang Baojun. In addition to his prison term, Mr. Liu will be deprived of his political rights for an additional two years, a penalty that will prevent him from writing or speaking out on a wide range of issues.

 “We are just extremely disappointed,” said Mr. Shang, who added that Mr. Liu intended to appeal the verdict.

Gregory May, first secretary with the U.S. Embassy who stood outside the courthouse Friday morning, called on the authorities to immediately release Mr. Liu.

 “Persecution of individuals for the peaceful expression of political views is inconsistent with internationally recognized norms of human rights,” he said.

Although Mr. Liu had faced a 15-year sentence, legal experts and human rights advocates said the punishment was very harsh and was meant to send a message to others who might agitate for political reform in one of the world’s longest-running authoritarian governments.

Nicholas Bequelin, a senior Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch in Hong Kong, described Mr. Liu as “a sacrificial lamb” and said that the Communist Party leadership was trying to intimidate its critics. The rights group called the trial “a travesty of justice.”

Mr. Bequelin and others said Mr. Liu’s prosecution for violating rights enshrined in China’s Constitution suggested a political hardening, a trend that began before the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

“It shows that the leadership is increasingly conservative and restrictive of basic freedoms,” Mr. Bequelin said, “and it also sends a strong message to the rest of the world that China is not really serious when it talks about human rights.”

Joshua Rosenzweig, a senior researcher at the Dui Hua Foundation, which advocates on behalf of Chinese political prisoners, said Mr. Liu’s sentence was the longest for subversion charges in more than a decade.

In 2005, Shi Tao, a journalist and poet, was convicted of leaking state secrets and given a 10-year term after he sent an internal party memo to an overseas Web site. Last year, Hu Jia, an AIDS activist and environmentalist, was imprisoned for three and a half years on charges that his Internet writings incited subversion.

Mr. Liu has been held in secret for more than a year and his lawyers were given less than two weeks to prepare their defense. The trial on Wednesday lasted two hours and was closed; his wife, Liu Xia, and more than two dozen diplomats from the United States, Canada and the European Union were barred from the courtroom.

On Thursday, a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman angrily dismissed foreign criticisms of Mr. Liu’s prosecution, calling them a “gross interference of China’s internal affairs.”

This is not Mr. Liu’s first brush with China’s harsh judicial system. He spent 21 months in detention for taking part in the 1989 pro-democracy protests at Tiananmen Square. And in 1996, after demanding clemency for those still imprisoned for their roles in the demonstrations, he was sent to a labor camp for three years.

In addition to helping create Charter 08, Mr. Liu’s charge for “inciting subversion of state power” was based on six articles he wrote that were published on the Internet outside of China.

Released on Dec. 10, 2008, International Human Rights Day, Charter 08 garnered some 10,000 signatures before it was removed from the Web by government censors. To this day, it is virtually unknown in China.

During the brief trial on Wednesday, Mr. Liu’s lawyers rejected the prosecution’s contention that the document sought to overthrow the Communist Party. Zhang Zuhua, a former party official and political scholar who co-authored the manifesto with Mr. Liu, described the subversion charge as “absurd,” calling it “a violation of the Chinese Constitution’s guarantee of free speech.” Mr. Zhang was briefly detained last year and has since been under 24-hour surveillance by security personnel.

The state-controlled media has not covered Mr. Liu’s trial — nor has it allowed any mention of Charter 08 — but Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency, published a brief item Friday that described the sentence and said the court “had strictly followed the legal procedures in this case and fully protected Liu’s litigation rights.”

News of his sentencing quickly spread via Twitter, which is blocked in China but can be accessed by those able to circumvent the so-called Great Firewall. Many of those who sent messages displayed the image of a yellow ribbon as a declaration of their sympathies. Others defiantly listed personal details about the presiding judge in the case.

At least two dozen supporters who stood outside the courthouse during Mr. Liu’s trial on Wednesday were later questioned and released.

Liu Di, a signer of Charter 08, was among a handful of people who publicly declared their desire to stand trial with Liu Xiaobo.

“For the dignity of the Constitution and the law, and for no more imprisonment of people for their independent opinions, I would prefer to share with Mr. Liu Xiaobo the same case with the same penalty,” wrote Ms. Liu, a blogger better known by her online identity, the Stainless Steel Mouse.

On Friday, officials allowed the defendant and his wife to meet for 10 minutes in a small room, although they were divided by a glass barrier. It was the third time they had seen each other since his detention last year.

 “People always say they’re so inhumane,” she said of the government afterward, “so I think they just wanted to show a little humanity.”

今天看到一个BBC新闻电视节目（http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00nw01y/BBC_News_at_Ten_10_11_2009/），这是英国首相戈登布朗给一位死于阿富汗士兵的母亲道歉的场景，不由感慨一个民主国家的领袖，面对公民的问责，放下架子，真正地做到了像”人民公仆”那样工作。这一段报道 大概讲了戈登布朗首相给死亡士兵的母亲写了一封慰问信， 但是把该士兵的姓拼错了， 把Jamie Janes的姓Janes拼成James，这位母亲就不干了，就向媒体公布写错的信 ， 当戈登布朗为此道歉， 她还不依不饶，认为没有诚意， 布朗不得不再次郑重道歉， 这才让她满意了。

反过来看中国的领导人….

下面是从这个视频节目编辑的英文， 每一段之后有我的译文。（可能有不少错误的地方，请多多指教）。如果看不明白我的翻译就请看英文，如果看不明白英文就请看视频， 赫赫。

…..（one host of BBC）the Prime Minister says he will personally review the case of Jamie Janes, one of the British soldiers killed last week, the guardsman’ mother accused Mr. Brown of misspelling his son’s name in his letter of condolence. She now says she accepts his apology and sincerity after he said he knew how it felt to lose a child, political editor Nick Robinson has the story.

(BBC主持人) 首相说他将以个人的身份把涉及Jamie Janes 这个事件再检讨一遍。Jamie Janes 是一名上周被枪杀的英国士兵，他的母亲曾指责布朗（首相）先生在写给她的慰问信中拼错了她儿子的名字。现在她说她接受了首相的诚恳道歉，在他说他知道了失去一个孩子之痛后。政治部编辑Nick Robinson在做节目报告。

This is the day the nation’s anguish about the war in Afghanistan got painfully personal, the day the Prime Minister addressing a funereal, voice husky, eyes glistening, tries to limit the damage done by a careless written letter to a grieving mother.

（Nick Robinson的声音？）今天，阿富汗战争给这个国家人民带来的痛楚之情变得非常的个人化， 今天，首相声音沙哑， 泪眼婆娑地在葬礼上讲话，试图减少（形象的）损失：是由一封他粗心大意写给一位有丧子之痛的母亲造成的。

“I want to say during that conversation with her, but I, I thought I couldn’t really do so because I didn’t know her ah, when there is a personal loss as deep and immediate as she has experienced. It takes time to recover. The loss can never be replaced. You have to take every day at a time…”

“（首相布朗）我想说的是，在我和她交谈的时候…我，我想我真的谈不下去，因为我并不了解她，嗯，而她又经历那样突然而来的丧子之痛。这需要时间来恢复。这种损失永远也不能被弥补。你不得不在一段时间里天天面对（这种痛苦）。”

And emotional Gordon Brown had to apologize to Jacqui Janes for a letter brought her not comfort but offence.

(Nick Robinson) 心情激动的布朗不得不给Jacqui Janes道歉，因为那封信没有带给她安慰，而是伤害。

“I think people who know me well enough, to know it never be my intension by carelessness or failure to cause any grief to a grieving mother….”

“(首相布朗) 我想那些清楚我为人的人知道，这绝不是我的本意去给一位丧子之痛的母亲添加痛苦，而是我的粗心大意或失误（造成的）…”

This is the Prime Minister’s hand writing letter of condolence. It contains errors including misspelling his family name with an “m” not an “n”. The 21 year old Jamie Janes’ mother, first released the letter to the Sun and then recording of a phone call made to her by the Prime Minister when he heard she had gone to a press.

(Nick Robinson把画面移到了那封信上) 这就是首相的安慰信。信里有拼写错误，包括把（士兵）的姓（Janes）拼错为James。这位21岁士兵的母亲先把这封信展示给《太阳报》（Sun），然后播放了首相给她的电话的录音。当首相得知她要和媒体谈话时曾给她打过电话。

“How would you like it if one of your children, God forbid, went to a war, doing something he’s helping protect his Queen and country? And because of lack, lack of helicopters, lack of equipment, your child bled to death…”

“（Jacqui Janes的面孔出现）你怎么可能喜欢这个（事实），如果你的一个孩子，参军打仗，帮助保卫女王和国家，由于缺乏直升机，缺乏装备，你的孩子流血而死…上帝不容啊！”

In his reply, Gordon Brown insists he does understand, and stresses he had not meant this to cause offence. Mrs Janes says she fought for all those died in Afghanistan. She has not been paid and used to make political points. She insists the Prime Minister didn’t apologize to her directly, but she is happy what he said today.

戈登.布朗在回应中坚持说他确实理解(这些)，并且强调道他没有意图造成伤害。Janes 夫人说，她为那些死在阿富汗的战士据争。 她没有受雇于人， 也没有被人利用来表达政治观点。她坚持说首相（先前）没有直接向她道歉，但是对于首相今天说的话很高兴。

。

“..He didn’t sound apologetic, and very cool. He didn’t actually apologize. He said sorry an awfully lot, he did not understand his writing, sorry that by this and I doubt, referring to me, today, he looked sincere, he looked humbled. And he is now going to get a record on my son’s death, the day of event. I ‘d hoped he has sleepless nights I have had for the past five days…”

“他的话听起来没有歉意，没有感情（在里面）。实际上就是没有道歉。当提到我时，他说了不少的对不起，说他没有看清楚他写的字，为此深表歉意，我怀疑（并没有诚意）。今天，他看起来很真诚，很卑谦，并且他准备记录我儿子的死亡情况和事件日期。我曾希望他也经历那些无眠之夜，正如我在过去五天经历的那样…”

The Sun prides on itself standing up for what it calls our boy, but its website shows many of its readers sympathized with Gordon Brown. Messages sent to BBC are overwhelmingly in his favour. The all emotional debate between the grieving mother and the man who sent the son to fight and died in Afghanistan risks masking the true debate. It is of cause not about letters or handwriting, not even about helicopters, it is about whether a man like guardsman Janes had died in vain or died a vital struggle to protect British national Security.

（Nick Robinson） 《太阳报》把他（Jamie Janes） 称之为”我们”的孩子，并为维护他而骄傲，但是它的网站表明，它的大多数读者同情戈登.布朗。在给BBC绝大多数信都是支持他（布朗）的。这个围绕有丧子之痛的母亲和把孩子送往战场并死亡的男人之间的充满感情色彩的争论，可能导致我们不能够真正地进行讨论。当然，这和笔迹没有多大关系，甚至和直升飞机也没有多大关系，重要的是（要弄清）像Janes这样的士兵，是白白送死呢，还是死于保卫英国安全的重要付出中。

Nick Robinson, BBC News, Donning Street.

最近因为孩子得了流感，所以对甲流非常的关注，生怕自己孩子也染上了。有趣的是，我发现了一个现象是， 对于甲流疫苗的安全性， 网上有很不一样的观点。仔细搜了一下， 觉得比较典型的有三种：

1，质疑甲流疫苗的安全性，比如《大纪元》的一些文章提到北京的一些学校学生接种了疫苗后，发生了类似得上甲流才有的反应。还有社会上有很多说中国的甲流疫苗很不安全。当然，这些消息来源好像可以用以下的文章《“甲流”疫苗安全吗？》似乎可以间接地确认。

2，不质疑甲流疫苗的安全性，基本上把甲流当作一般的流感对待。比如《甲型H1N1流感》http://www.blogchina.com/20091109836258.html。

3，肯定甲流疫苗的安全性，这个cctv网站的文章好像比较多，在一篇文章里面《“甲流”疫苗安全吗？》http://space.tv.cctv.com/act/article.jsp?articleId=ARTI1257641630184731&nowpage=0 ，那个回答记者问题的负责人很大气。

·       记者：“我们为什么成为全球第一个生产出甲型流感疫苗，况且首例并不是在我们国    家？”

·       北京科兴生物制品有限公司董事总经理尹向东：“你的这个问题是提得非常好的一个问题，那么我们在疫苗研制的时候，我 们已经具备了什么样的基础条件？第一个基础条件，季节性流感疫苗的生产工艺我们已经是完全具备是成熟的，SARS疫苗的研究，我们是全球唯一一个完成一期 临床的公司，那么禽流感，我们也是在全球大概在前几位吧，就是做人用禽流感H5N1疫苗研发的这个水平，那么到甲流就我们处在最早报告，最早完成临床研究 的，也是第一个获得生产批文，生产文号的公司。”

·       记者：“可是公众还是有一种怀疑，因为效率和安全往往是一对很难解决的矛盾。”

·       尹向东：“提出疑问我认为很正常，我们作为一名研制者很理解，但是我们唯一能做的是  我们按照程序，按照质量做好我们 的研究，给出你最科学的数据和结果来，这才是唯一的答案，这个不仅仅是一个厂家的效率问题，不仅仅是一个疫苗研制者的效率问题，还有是政府审批的效率问 题，这两个是互动的，所以你看看我们中国疫苗研制的时间表，基本上是研制者提交的研制时间送到国家食品药品监督管理局检定的时间和审核的时间基本上是锁得 很紧的，就一天都不耽误，这样的话我们在后续进入临床的时间和完成临床的时间都加快了，所以我们是世界上最早批准甲流疫苗上市的国家。”

作为一个不懂医学网民，恳请各位有医学专业知识或者有经验的人士， 谈谈你们的意见，那个几个月就研制出的药到底敢不敢用？（2009年3月，墨西哥首现全球第一例甲型流感病例，并导致上百人感染。引自《“甲流”疫苗安全吗？》）。

老父四五年以前得过脑梗塞，发作后半身不能移动，幸亏抢救及时，后来恢复到接近以前状态。因老父这几天血压上升，行动迟缓，赶紧送到一家中西结合医院住院治疗(    我不主张去中医院治疗，无奈这是医保指定医院)。老父住院以后我因为还在感冒发烧就回家了。
       
 

第二天来医院，看了一下缴费单，发现有一项中成药叫“疏血通”的是所有注射液当中最贵的，大概接近50元一只，一共用了六只。我回家一查，大吃一惊，百度出来的“疏血通”的成分是“水蛭”和“地龙”，再没有标明其它成份了。查了一下关于中医水蛭、地龙的功效，水蛭大概是活血化瘀的，而地龙主要有清热、镇痉等功效。
        
 

再到“上海研发公共服务平台” http://www.sgst.cn/ 提供的文献资料里面去查，里面有中华医学会数字化期刊群 和 中国医药专利全文数据库（发明专利）等，里面的文章无不是对这个针剂充满了溢美之词，至少没有看到什么副作用的描述。
         
 

请各位专家评评看，这种针剂好不好，是不是有骗人的成分在里面。