Supreme Court Memo
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: May 28, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 27 — When people think, if they ever do, about a Supreme Court justice’s daily routine, many undoubtedly envision a life spent contemplating the great issues: due process, equal protection and other resonant constitutional concepts.
What they probably do not imagine is time spent puzzling over whether the phrase “within 75 miles” in a 1993 federal statute means miles as the crow flies — in a straight line that disregards hill and dale — or miles as a car must actually navigate on the ground: around curves, doubling back to avoid geographic barriers, traveling real roads that rarely mark the shortest distance between two points.
The difference between the two possible definitions of “within 75 miles” usually does not matter much. But when it matters, it matters a lot, as it does to a former insurance executive from Oklahoma, Kelly Hackworth.
If the distance between two of her former employer’s offices is measured by “radius miles,” a straight line on the map, Ms. Hackworth was entitled to the protections of the Family and Medical Leave Act when she lost her job after taking time off to take care of her hospitalized mother. The law applies to companies that employ at least 50 people within 75 miles of the complaining employee’s workplace. If the distance between Ms. Hackworth’s office in Norman, Okla., and a satellite office in Lawton is measured by driving the route along existing roads, she is out of luck by six-tenths of a mile, which is what the federal appeals court in Denver ruled a few months ago.
Her appeal, now awaiting word on whether the justices will accept it for decision, would not appear to be the stuff of a Supreme Court case. But in fact, it is quite typical, more so than people realize. It therefore offers a window on the court’s ordinary life as the 2006-2007 term enters its final, and atypically frantic, month.
More than half the cases the court agrees to hear are not constitutional, but statutory, presenting questions much like the one posed by Hackworth v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, No. 06-1300. To whom does a statute apply? Precisely what behavior does it prohibit? How does it fit with another law on the books that seems to suggest something quite different?
The immigration bill now being fitfully knit together in Congress is a reminder that any major piece of legislation is a result of dozens of big and small compromises. Compromises often leave gaps, and as often as not, the gap itself is part of the compromise.
Many compromises went into the Family and Medical Leave Act, the product of years of Congressional consideration and debate. By the time the final bill passed, there was such a generous exemption for small business that the law covers only about 5 percent of all companies, employing about 40 percent of the work force. Companies with fewer than 50 employees are exempt altogether.
The requirement for 50 employees “within 75 miles” was intended to ensure that an employer would not be too inconvenienced by the need to reassign a worker to cover the duties of one who was out on family or medical leave.
During debates on the bill, as reflected in The Congressional Record, there were several references to a “75-mile radius,” suggesting a straight line. But the word “radius” does not appear in the final text of the statute. Ms. Hackworth’s lawyers argue that Congress should be understood as having had radius in mind nonetheless.
But the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit refused to make that leap. Congress simply “did not define a method of measuring,” the appeals court said, and “therefore left an implicit statutory gap” that the Department of Labor was authorized to fill by regulation. The department adopted a regulation in 1995 providing that the distance should be measured as “surface miles using surface transportation.” That definition was entitled to deference, the 10th Circuit concluded.
The 73 cases the court selected for argument during the current term included 41 statutory cases, 27 that raised chiefly constitutional issues and 5 other kinds that raised issues of retroactivity and jurisdiction. (These calculations are subject to interpretation; at the margins, the categories can easily overlap, as when the court is asked to interpret a statute in such a way as to avoid a potential constitutional problem.)
Statutory cases are not necessarily less challenging for the justices or less important to the country than constitutional cases; whether the Clean Air Act applies to global warming, to recall one statutory case from the current term, is a question with more impact than whether a certain type of appeal in patent cases meets the jurisdictional requirements of Article III of the Constitution, to recall another case, this time a constitutional one.
The court will probably not accept Ms. Hackworth’s case, a safe prediction when the justices accept only about 1 percent of the appeals that reach them. But on any inventory of recent statutory cases, it does not rank noticeably lower than many, including one the court decided in its last term on whether the “negligent transmission” of mail by the Postal Service includes the careless deposit of a package where someone might predictably trip over it. (It does not.)
But the mail delivery case, in which the court ruled that the Postal Service, statutorily immune from suit for “negligent transmission,” could be sued for careless delivery, had a feature that Ms. Hackworth’s case lacks. The lower courts had disagreed on whether “negligent transmission” included careless delivery, and the Supreme Court felt obliged to step in.
But no such lower-court conflict has developed over how to measure the 75 miles, although the regulation has been on the books for 12 years. Fascinating as the justices may find the issue, they are likely to take a pass.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/us/28scotus.html?th&emc=th
Monday, May 28, 2007
The Educated Giant
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/opinion/28kristof.html?th&emc=th
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: May 28, 2007
Taishan, China
With China’s trade surplus with the United States soaring, the tendency in the U.S. will be to react with tariffs and other barriers. But instead we should take a page from the Chinese book and respond by boosting education.
One reason China is likely to overtake the U.S. as the world’s most important country in this century is that China puts more effort into building human capital than we do.
This area in southern Guangdong Province is my wife’s ancestral hometown. Sheryl’s grandparents left villages here because they thought they could find better opportunities for their children in “Meiguo” — “Beautiful Country,” as the U.S. is called in Chinese. And they did. At Sheryl’s family reunions, you feel inadequate without a doctorate.
But that educational gap between China and America is shrinking rapidly. I visited several elementary and middle schools accompanied by two of my children. And in general, the level of math taught even in peasant schools is similar to that in my kids’ own excellent schools in the New York area.
My kids’ school system doesn’t offer foreign languages until the seventh grade. These Chinese peasants begin English studies in either first grade or third grade, depending on the school.
Frankly, my daughter got tired of being dragged around schools and having teachers look patronizingly at her schoolbooks and say, “Oh, we do that two grades younger.”
There are, I think, four reasons why Chinese students do so well.
First, Chinese students are hungry for education and advancement and work harder. In contrast, U.S. children average 900 hours a year in class and 1,023 hours in front of a television.
Here in Sheryl’s ancestral village, the students show up at school at about 6:30 a.m. to get extra tutoring before classes start at 7:30. They go home for a lunch break at 11:20 and then are back at school from 2 p.m. until 5. They do homework every night and weekend, and an hour or two of homework each day during their eight-week summer vacation.
The second reason is that China has an enormous cultural respect for education, part of its Confucian legacy, so governments and families alike pour resources into education. Teachers are respected and compensated far better, financially and emotionally, in China than in America.
In my last column, I wrote about the boomtown of Dongguan, which had no colleges when I first visited it 20 years ago. The town devotes 21 percent of its budget to education, and it now has four universities. An astonishing 58 percent of the residents age 18 to 22 are enrolled in a university.
A third reason is that Chinese believe that those who get the best grades are the hardest workers. In contrast, Americans say in polls that the best students are the ones who are innately the smartest. The upshot is that Chinese kids never have an excuse for mediocrity.
Chinese education has its own problems, including bribes and fees to get into good schools, huge classes of 50 or 60 students, second-rate equipment and lousy universities. But the progress in the last quarter-century is breathtaking.
It’s also encouraging that so many Chinese will shake their heads over this column and say it really isn’t so. They will complain that Chinese schools teach rote memorization but not creativity or love of learning. That kind of debate is good for the schools and has already led to improvements in English instruction, so that urban Chinese students can communicate better in English than Japanese or South Koreans.
After I visited Sheryl’s ancestral village, I posted a video of it on the Times Web site. Soon I was astonished to see an excited posting on my blog from a woman who used to live in that village.
Litao Mai, probably one of my distant in-laws, grew up in a house she could see on my video. Her parents had only a third grade education, but she became the first person in the village to go to college. She now works for Merrill Lynch in New York and describes herself as “a little peasant girl” transformed into “a capitalist on Wall Street.”
That is the magic of education, and there are 1.3 billion more behind Ms. Mai.
So let’s not respond to China’s surpluses by putting up trade barriers. Rather, let’s do as we did after the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik in 1957: raise our own education standards to meet the competition.
You are invited to comment on this column at Mr. Kristof’s blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground.
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: May 28, 2007
Taishan, China
With China’s trade surplus with the United States soaring, the tendency in the U.S. will be to react with tariffs and other barriers. But instead we should take a page from the Chinese book and respond by boosting education.
One reason China is likely to overtake the U.S. as the world’s most important country in this century is that China puts more effort into building human capital than we do.
This area in southern Guangdong Province is my wife’s ancestral hometown. Sheryl’s grandparents left villages here because they thought they could find better opportunities for their children in “Meiguo” — “Beautiful Country,” as the U.S. is called in Chinese. And they did. At Sheryl’s family reunions, you feel inadequate without a doctorate.
But that educational gap between China and America is shrinking rapidly. I visited several elementary and middle schools accompanied by two of my children. And in general, the level of math taught even in peasant schools is similar to that in my kids’ own excellent schools in the New York area.
My kids’ school system doesn’t offer foreign languages until the seventh grade. These Chinese peasants begin English studies in either first grade or third grade, depending on the school.
Frankly, my daughter got tired of being dragged around schools and having teachers look patronizingly at her schoolbooks and say, “Oh, we do that two grades younger.”
There are, I think, four reasons why Chinese students do so well.
First, Chinese students are hungry for education and advancement and work harder. In contrast, U.S. children average 900 hours a year in class and 1,023 hours in front of a television.
Here in Sheryl’s ancestral village, the students show up at school at about 6:30 a.m. to get extra tutoring before classes start at 7:30. They go home for a lunch break at 11:20 and then are back at school from 2 p.m. until 5. They do homework every night and weekend, and an hour or two of homework each day during their eight-week summer vacation.
The second reason is that China has an enormous cultural respect for education, part of its Confucian legacy, so governments and families alike pour resources into education. Teachers are respected and compensated far better, financially and emotionally, in China than in America.
In my last column, I wrote about the boomtown of Dongguan, which had no colleges when I first visited it 20 years ago. The town devotes 21 percent of its budget to education, and it now has four universities. An astonishing 58 percent of the residents age 18 to 22 are enrolled in a university.
A third reason is that Chinese believe that those who get the best grades are the hardest workers. In contrast, Americans say in polls that the best students are the ones who are innately the smartest. The upshot is that Chinese kids never have an excuse for mediocrity.
Chinese education has its own problems, including bribes and fees to get into good schools, huge classes of 50 or 60 students, second-rate equipment and lousy universities. But the progress in the last quarter-century is breathtaking.
It’s also encouraging that so many Chinese will shake their heads over this column and say it really isn’t so. They will complain that Chinese schools teach rote memorization but not creativity or love of learning. That kind of debate is good for the schools and has already led to improvements in English instruction, so that urban Chinese students can communicate better in English than Japanese or South Koreans.
After I visited Sheryl’s ancestral village, I posted a video of it on the Times Web site. Soon I was astonished to see an excited posting on my blog from a woman who used to live in that village.
Litao Mai, probably one of my distant in-laws, grew up in a house she could see on my video. Her parents had only a third grade education, but she became the first person in the village to go to college. She now works for Merrill Lynch in New York and describes herself as “a little peasant girl” transformed into “a capitalist on Wall Street.”
That is the magic of education, and there are 1.3 billion more behind Ms. Mai.
So let’s not respond to China’s surpluses by putting up trade barriers. Rather, let’s do as we did after the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik in 1957: raise our own education standards to meet the competition.
You are invited to comment on this column at Mr. Kristof’s blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Line Up and Pick a Dragon: Bhutan Learns to Vote [NY Times]
J. Adam Huggins for The New York Times
The people of the tiny Buddhist nation of Bhutan undertook a sort of fire drill for democracy over the weekend and set down an important marker on their carefully ordered journey toward modernity. In Thimphu, the nation's capital, they lined up to cast their votes in the country's first round of mock elections
At a polling station in Thimphu, Bhutanese voted Sunday in the first round of a mock election for Parliament. The real election is next year.
Election officials tested a voting machine at a polling station in Thimphu before the polls opened to the public for voting.
King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, who recently announced his plan to abdicate, has ordered parliamentary elections next year. In preparation for the real thing, more than 125,000 citizens lined up at voting booths across the country to take part in mock elections.
The king’s call for elections, along with a constitution that will introduce multiparty democracy, forestalls any ferment for freedom, from inside or outside the country.
Line Up and Pick a Dragon: Bhutan Learns to Vote
By SOMINI SENGUPTA
THIMPHU, Bhutan, April 22 — Can “Desperate Housewives,” free trade and multiparty elections deliver happiness?
The people of Bhutan, the tiny Buddhist nation once known as the hermit kingdom of the Himalayas, pondered these questions this weekend as they undertook a sort of fire drill for democracy and set down an important marker on their carefully ordered journey toward modernity.
King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, who recently announced his plan to abdicate, has ordered parliamentary elections next year.
In preparation for the real thing, more than 125,000 citizens, many with more than a little ambivalence, lined up at voting booths across the country on Saturday to take part in mock elections.
They chose among four “dummy” political parties: Druk Blue, Druk Green, Druk Red and Druk Yellow. The Druk, or thunder dragon, is the national symbol.
Having once sealed itself off from the world, the lair of the Druk has cautiously and deliberately begun opening up. Television, including foreign cable stations, was introduced only in 1999 (and more recently featured an episode of “Desperate Housewives” on election day). The Internet came soon after.
There are no McDonald’s golden arches poking out from the blue pine forests yet, though the influence of global consumer culture can be glimpsed in the Pepe jeans on young men and a convenience store here that calls itself 8-Eleven.
The government is considering joining the World Trade Organization. Foreign tourists are allowed to come in somewhat larger numbers than before, though still chaperoned from one high-priced resort to another. “A cautious approach,” Prime Minister Khandu Wangchuck called it. In an interview here on Friday, he added: “We were conscious of the fact that interaction with the world would only benefit us. We have had no reason to put the brakes on.”
Elections, he said, have been embraced, albeit reluctantly, by the citizenry because the king wanted them.
“The objectives are to ensure national security, national sovereignty, well-being and prosperity, which will lead to gross national happiness also,” the prime minister said. “His Majesty believes this is the best form of government, and the people of Bhutan are ready to launch this.”
How the strange lures of modernity will affect the gross national happiness, the unusual yardstick the king invented to measure his nation’s progress, is a matter of uncertainty and wonder in this country.
Gross national happiness includes criteria like equity, good government and harmony with nature. It apparently does not include harmony with the 100,000 ethnic Nepalis who fled Bhutan after a royal crackdown on their agitation for democratic rights and have languished since 1990 in refugee camps in Nepal.
In any case, the king’s call for elections, along with a constitution that will introduce multiparty democracy, forestalls any ferment for freedom, from inside or outside the country.
But all that is in its infancy. For the moment at least, Bhutan does not resemble a democracy, particularly compared with other countries in the region. Barely two political parties have been formed. It is far from having an outspoken free press or an active civil society. Criticism of government policy is rare, except from abroad.
Not surprisingly, ethnic Nepali dissidents have denounced the elections as a ploy to deflect international attention from the refugee crisis. The government prefers to call them illegal immigrants who had to be forced out because they threatened to swamp a small, fragile country of about 700,000 people.
The Bhutanese monarchy turns 100 this year, and the king apparently decided that this was an auspicious time to further reduce its power. The national elections next year are part of a process that began nearly a decade ago, when the king introduced nonparty elections for Parliament.
Next, day-to-day administration was handed over to the cabinet. The proposed constitution would remove the king as head of the government, set a mandatory retirement age of 65 for the ruler and empower an elected Parliament to oust him from the throne by a two-thirds vote.
Last December, after more than 30 years in power, the current king announced that he was abdicating in favor of his 26-year-old son, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck.
The prospect of self-government seemed to send shivers down many spines here. “Why have politicians?” people wanted to know, expressing doubts about the results of democracy in neighboring countries. Isn’t the king always supposed to know what is best for his people and guide them accordingly?
“I’m a little bit skeptical,” Sonam Wangmo, 38, said as she waited in line Saturday to cast her vote in a neighborhood school with calla lilies blooming in the garden. “I’m not sure whether it will work, or whether it will be better for our country.”
Two long lines formed on the school grounds, one for men, one for women, quiet and well-disciplined, and with only a few grumbles despite waits of up to an hour or more just to reach the voting booth.
Unusually for this part of the world, Bhutan is a very orderly place, where traffic rules are closely obeyed and the color of a shawl denotes social rank. Native dress is mandatory at work and at school. For men that means a knee-length robe, for women a short jacket and long wraparound skirt.
With sustained government spending on health and education in the last several decades, there have been remarkable gains in basic social indicators, from reducing child mortality to increasing school enrollment.
Bhutan remains a poor country, heavily reliant on foreign aid and with little industry. But it is set to reap the latest bounty from the one natural resource that it has in plenty: the water that comes rushing down from the Himalayas, which it has harnessed, with Indian help, to create hydroelectric power. Most of that power will be exported to India.
What clocks are to Switzerland, water can be for Bhutan. According to the World Bank, the country could see up to 14 percent annual economic growth in the coming years, though it will not necessarily create many jobs.
“The going is good,” said Tshering Tobgay, 42, a former civil servant who is working with a former cabinet minister to start the People’s Democratic Party. “We want more of the same.”
This is one reason, he said, that even would-be politicians like himself find it hard to sell their message to the citizenry. “We are not starting a party because we have an ideology,” he said. “We’re not starting a party because we have a vision for a better Bhutan. We are starting a party because the king has ordered us.”
He sat on the patio of a bar, cupping his beer can in a napkin, because it was Friday and alcohol sales were prohibited on the day before the election. “It’s a big compliment to the king that no one’s very enthusiastic.”
Another patron in the bar, Kesang Dorji, 36, said he was puzzled by the royal order to vote, but intended to obey. “We have to stand fast to the wisdom of our monarch,” he said. “He knows what’s best for us. Any normal person would think, ‘Why this, when everything is O.K.?’ ”
Holding on to the way things are seems to have been Bhutan’s choice in the mock elections. Each of the Druk parties presented a platform. Druk Blue promised to fight corruption and extend free health care and education. Druk Green stood for environment-friendly development. Druk Red promised industrialization. And Druk Yellow asked: “Do you believe in the preservation and promotion of our rich cultural heritage and tradition? Vote for Druk Yellow Party.”
On Sunday, Druk Yellow emerged as the hands-down winner, with 44 percent of the vote, according to the Election Commission. Next month it takes on Druk Red, which won about 20 percent, in a mock runoff.
Tilak Pokharel contributed reporting from Katmandu, Nepal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/world/asia/24bhutan.html?ex=1178078400&en=b58c592a16693300&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Prime Minister Khandu Wangchuk with a portrait of the king. Elections, the prime minister said, have been embraced, albeit reluctantly, by the citizenry because the king wanted them.
Long lines formed, one for men, one for women, quiet and well-disciplined, and with only a few grumbles despite waits of up to an hour or more just to reach the voting booth.
J. Adam Huggins for The New York Times
Tshering Tobgay, who is starting the People's Democratic Party, said: "We are not starting a party because we have an ideology. We’re not starting a party because we have a vision for a better Bhutan. We are starting a party because the king has ordered us."
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
A Fight for Democracy: In a Courageous Village, Ballots Bring Bullets [NY Times]
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=88ba4950c3bf2b8a771362fc710a6a7548b541eb
In a Courageous Village, Ballots Bring Bullets
A Fight for Democracy
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Nicholas D. Kristof.
President Bush has become a bosom buddy of President Pervez Musharraf and sealed that friendship with $10 billion in military aid, but any American official who praises Pakistan’s “democracy” might want to visit this bullet-scarred village in the Punjab.
Dummerwala held free local elections here last year. But many people voted the “wrong” way, causing the candidate of the local feudal lord to lose. So a day after the election, a small army of gunmen arrived and began rampaging through the houses of the clan members who opposed the lord’s choice.
Waheed Rahman, a top student, 14 years old, who dreamed of becoming an engineer, was wounded in the opening minutes of the attack.
“When he was shot, Waheed fell down and begged for water,” said his father, Matiullah. “They were surrounding him. But they just laughed and shot at the water tank and destroyed it. Then they ripped the clothes off the women and dragged them around half-naked.”
For the next two hours, the attackers beat the men and abused the women, destroyed homes, and told their victims that the feudal lord had arranged for the police to stay away so he could teach them a lesson.
Indeed, the police did stay away. Even when two of the villagers escaped and ran to the police station, begging the officers to stop the violence, the police delayed moving for three hours.
By the time it was over, a woman was dying, as was Waheed, and many others were wounded.
The attack here in Dummerwala is a reminder that democracy is about far more than free elections. In Pakistan, many rural areas remain under the thumb of feudal lords who use the government to keep themselves rich and everyone else impoverished.
For real democracy to come to Pakistan, we’ll need to see not only free elections and the retirement of President Musharraf, but also a broad effort to uproot the feudal rulers in areas like this, 300 miles south of Islamabad. That’s not easy to do, but promoting education is the best way to combat both feudalism and fundamentalism.
Instead, we’ve been focusing on selling arms and excusing General Musharraf’s one-man rule.
Husain Haqqani of Boston University calculates that the overt and trackable U.S. aid to General Musharraf’s Pakistan amounted to $9.8 billion — of which 1 percent went for children’s survival and health, and just one-half of 1 percent for democracy promotion (and even that went partly to a commission controlled by General Musharraf).
The big beneficiary of U.S. largesse hasn’t been the Pakistani people, but the Pakistani Army.
General Musharraf has done an excellent job of nurturing Pakistan’s economy, but he is an autocrat. As Asma Jahangir, a prominent lawyer in Lahore, told me: “Until now, Pakistanis have hated the American government but not the American people. But I’m afraid that may change. Unless the U.S. distances itself from Musharraf, the way things are going Pakistanis will come to hate the American people as well.”
Just last week, General Musharraf’s secret police goons roughed up and sexually molested Dr. Amna Buttar, an American doctor of Pakistani origin who heads a human rights organization. Dr. Buttar says that she had been warned by a senior intelligence official not to protest against the government and that she was specifically targeted when she protested anyway.
When our “antiterrorism” funds support General Musharraf’s thugs as they terrorize American citizens, it’s time to rethink our approach. Imagine if we had spent $10 billion not building up General Musharraf, but supporting Pakistani schools.
One place we could support a school is here in Dummerwala. After the attack, the victims in the village were so panicky that they pulled all their children out of school.
“They say, ‘If you don’t cooperate with us, we will kill your sons,’ ” said Tazeel Rahman, one of the victims. “This is not democracy. This is a dictatorship. This is terrorism.”
(When I interviewed the attackers, they insisted that the victims had simply killed themselves. They compensated for this wildly implausible version of events by sending an armed mob to persuade me of its merits. There's a video of the encounter.)
We Americans could learn something about democracy from the brave people here. The villagers insist that if they are still alive and allowed to vote, they will again defy their feudal lord in the next election.
We in the West sometimes say that poor countries like Pakistan aren’t ready for democracy. But who takes democracy more seriously: Americans who routinely don’t bother to vote, or peasants in Dummerwala who risk their lives to vote?
You are invited to comment on this column at Mr. Kristof’s blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground.
In a Courageous Village, Ballots Bring Bullets
A Fight for Democracy
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Nicholas D. Kristof.
President Bush has become a bosom buddy of President Pervez Musharraf and sealed that friendship with $10 billion in military aid, but any American official who praises Pakistan’s “democracy” might want to visit this bullet-scarred village in the Punjab.
Dummerwala held free local elections here last year. But many people voted the “wrong” way, causing the candidate of the local feudal lord to lose. So a day after the election, a small army of gunmen arrived and began rampaging through the houses of the clan members who opposed the lord’s choice.
Waheed Rahman, a top student, 14 years old, who dreamed of becoming an engineer, was wounded in the opening minutes of the attack.
“When he was shot, Waheed fell down and begged for water,” said his father, Matiullah. “They were surrounding him. But they just laughed and shot at the water tank and destroyed it. Then they ripped the clothes off the women and dragged them around half-naked.”
For the next two hours, the attackers beat the men and abused the women, destroyed homes, and told their victims that the feudal lord had arranged for the police to stay away so he could teach them a lesson.
Indeed, the police did stay away. Even when two of the villagers escaped and ran to the police station, begging the officers to stop the violence, the police delayed moving for three hours.
By the time it was over, a woman was dying, as was Waheed, and many others were wounded.
The attack here in Dummerwala is a reminder that democracy is about far more than free elections. In Pakistan, many rural areas remain under the thumb of feudal lords who use the government to keep themselves rich and everyone else impoverished.
For real democracy to come to Pakistan, we’ll need to see not only free elections and the retirement of President Musharraf, but also a broad effort to uproot the feudal rulers in areas like this, 300 miles south of Islamabad. That’s not easy to do, but promoting education is the best way to combat both feudalism and fundamentalism.
Instead, we’ve been focusing on selling arms and excusing General Musharraf’s one-man rule.
Husain Haqqani of Boston University calculates that the overt and trackable U.S. aid to General Musharraf’s Pakistan amounted to $9.8 billion — of which 1 percent went for children’s survival and health, and just one-half of 1 percent for democracy promotion (and even that went partly to a commission controlled by General Musharraf).
The big beneficiary of U.S. largesse hasn’t been the Pakistani people, but the Pakistani Army.
General Musharraf has done an excellent job of nurturing Pakistan’s economy, but he is an autocrat. As Asma Jahangir, a prominent lawyer in Lahore, told me: “Until now, Pakistanis have hated the American government but not the American people. But I’m afraid that may change. Unless the U.S. distances itself from Musharraf, the way things are going Pakistanis will come to hate the American people as well.”
Just last week, General Musharraf’s secret police goons roughed up and sexually molested Dr. Amna Buttar, an American doctor of Pakistani origin who heads a human rights organization. Dr. Buttar says that she had been warned by a senior intelligence official not to protest against the government and that she was specifically targeted when she protested anyway.
When our “antiterrorism” funds support General Musharraf’s thugs as they terrorize American citizens, it’s time to rethink our approach. Imagine if we had spent $10 billion not building up General Musharraf, but supporting Pakistani schools.
One place we could support a school is here in Dummerwala. After the attack, the victims in the village were so panicky that they pulled all their children out of school.
“They say, ‘If you don’t cooperate with us, we will kill your sons,’ ” said Tazeel Rahman, one of the victims. “This is not democracy. This is a dictatorship. This is terrorism.”
(When I interviewed the attackers, they insisted that the victims had simply killed themselves. They compensated for this wildly implausible version of events by sending an armed mob to persuade me of its merits. There's a video of the encounter.)
We Americans could learn something about democracy from the brave people here. The villagers insist that if they are still alive and allowed to vote, they will again defy their feudal lord in the next election.
We in the West sometimes say that poor countries like Pakistan aren’t ready for democracy. But who takes democracy more seriously: Americans who routinely don’t bother to vote, or peasants in Dummerwala who risk their lives to vote?
You are invited to comment on this column at Mr. Kristof’s blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground.
Friday, April 6, 2007
"没有死的人员"来办证？派出所恶语通知寒人心！
2007-04-07 06:36:40 来源: 人民图片网
核心提示：江苏省宿迁市宿城区屠园派出所门前的两个告示板上写着紧急通知：“全乡所有15－没有死的人员必须在4月30日前到派出所办理身份证”。用这样的通知来催促当地百姓抓紧办理身份证，让人感觉实在不妥。2007年4月6日，江苏省宿迁市宿城区屠园派出所门前的两个告示板上写着紧急通知：“全乡所有15－没有死的人员必须在4月30日前到派出所办理身份证”。用这样的通知来催促当地百姓抓紧办理身份证，让人感觉实在不妥。
网易浙江杭州网友 ip：218.0.211.*：
2007-04-07 10:07:14 发表
这不是素质低，更不是用词不当。只有当人的骨子里对民众鄙视才会说这样的话。试问：对上级他会这样说吗？
网易山东济南网友 ip：218.56.218.*：
2007-04-07 08:12:14 发表
＂开会了，没来的同志请举手，（扫视一周 没发现举手的）不错，大家都到齐了 ．现在开会＂．
把＂死人＂去掉 就看不懂了吗？
网易浙江网友 ip：125.121.91.*：
2007-04-07 10:23:37 发表
网易浙江温岭网友(220.185.255.*)的原贴:
网易辽宁锦州网友(124.94.37.*)的原贴:
这个派出所的门前有两个牌子，“一个是15岁以上人员来办证，否则罚款500元”这个应该是先做出的牌子，罚款500元是根据《治安法》的规定做出的无可厚非，但是这里面存在什么时间换证完成的问题，4月30日应该是上级规定的，派出所在这一点上应该不承担责任。“15至没有死的人员来办证”应该是第二块牌子，这里面存在这样一个问题，就是按照字面意思这个派出所是处在农村，因为是“全乡”么，在农村有大量的已经死亡但是不注销户口的情况存在，目的就是为了多占地、多获得一些利益，派出所对这些人并不能全部掌握，在办证的过程中会出现各种已经死亡的人由亲属来“代办”的情况，所以这块牌子的后面有很多的“深意”的，不要不了解情况就乱骂了！！！
你的意思是说一定要用"没有死"三个字才能表达出"深意",用其它文明礼貌一点的词语就不能表达"深意"了?看的出你的智商和素质和某些人有的一拼
国家公务员就这种素质！怎不叫咱老百姓心寒！和谐社会就这么体现？？？中国社会的悲哀！！！
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
薛涌:长城之争在为僵化的教育代言
2007-03-11 10:57:13 来源: 国际在线(北京)
即使太空中肉眼能看见长城又怎么样？长城在建造技术上并没有领先于世之处。相反，欧洲在石砖建筑上，在那时候比中国要先进。
薛涌
“中科院确认太空中肉眼无法看到长城”。读了这个新闻，我不免一声长叹，为中国的教育感到悲哀。我并不怀疑中科院的结论。我不解的是，这么一个芝麻大的事情，怎么中科院居然肯拿出资源，由研究员领衔成立课题组进行研究？
毫无疑问，这个问题被媒体无休止地炒作，和极端的民族主义情绪有关。在有些人看来，在太空肉眼是否看得见长城，关系到我们的文化和历史是否伟大，绝不能让步。这就好像郑和的船队比哥伦布的小破船大许多就是长中国人的志气一样。
其实，即使太空中肉眼能看见长城又怎么样？在建造明长城的时代，长城在建造技术上并没有领先于世之处。相反，欧洲在石砖建筑上，在那时候比中国要先进。硕大的长城的存在，倒是说明了几个影响中国未来发展的软肋：第一，中国虽然建立了庞大的帝国，但在军事上却无法应付人口只有自己百分之几的北方民族的威胁。这充分说明了大文明的低效率。第二，皇权无上的帝国，虽然对外不堪一战，对自己的老百姓却有无限的权力进行搜刮，所以才能集中了这么多资源，修了这个防御工事。但是，把钱全集中在国家手里，投入这样的工程，还留下什么给民间发展经济？在同时代的欧洲，这样大的国家工程是不可想象的。比如英王面临外敌入侵，跑到议会求爷爷告奶奶，就是要不出钱，加不了税，哪有咱们的皇帝威风？可是后来怎么样？长城挡不住大明朝的覆亡，郑和的远洋船队没有给中国经济开辟急需的海外市场和资源。但哥伦布的几条“小破船”却改变了世界；穷得叮当响的英国王室，竟成了“日不落”的全球霸主。
绕开这些事实，不去激励学生从历史中探求为什么有限的小政府能够富国强兵，全能的大政府反而让大文明破产，却拼命地和人家比自己是否是世界的老大，这本来就已经荒谬之极。如今，中科院的研究成果，又再次让我们浪费了一次教育机会。
既然这个问题是从课本中引起，涉及我们如何教育下一代的问题，那么何不利用这一争论刺激学生的独立思考？比如，高中的孩子可以根据从课本上学到的知识，自己来论证在太空上是否能看见长城。这里涉及肉眼在多长的距离内能看到多大的物体，空气污染对能见度的影响有多大，航天飞机距离地面的距离是多少等等日常问题，需要光学、生物、环境科学等等多学科的知识和综合分析能力。老实说，这个问题对一个高中生而言，并非太难：认真消化课堂所学的内容，再查一些课外的资料，简单的换算和分析就可以得出结论。
现在可好。中科院勇敢地站出来：大家别吵了，我们组织权威人士进行科研立项，结果已经出来：在太空中肉眼看不到长城！这就好像是在考试的多项选择中，指定了一个标准答案，让大家死记硬背地把握，不要再没完没了地思考讨论了。
这一事件，暴露了我们民族一个根深蒂固的坏习性：面对任何问题，不是鼓励个人的独立思考和创造，一切要依赖国家，依赖权威，乃至从太空能否用肉眼看到长城这样一个高中生自己就能通过研究作出判断的事情，也要等着中科院来下结论。现在，正确的结论出来了，科学胜利了。但是，我们的教育在死记硬背的框架中陷得更深，我们的民族那种服从权威，依赖“上面”而不是自己来解决问题的心理积淀也更厚了。
http://news.163.com/07/0311/10/39A37LUM000121EP.html
即使太空中肉眼能看见长城又怎么样？长城在建造技术上并没有领先于世之处。相反，欧洲在石砖建筑上，在那时候比中国要先进。
薛涌
“中科院确认太空中肉眼无法看到长城”。读了这个新闻，我不免一声长叹，为中国的教育感到悲哀。我并不怀疑中科院的结论。我不解的是，这么一个芝麻大的事情，怎么中科院居然肯拿出资源，由研究员领衔成立课题组进行研究？
毫无疑问，这个问题被媒体无休止地炒作，和极端的民族主义情绪有关。在有些人看来，在太空肉眼是否看得见长城，关系到我们的文化和历史是否伟大，绝不能让步。这就好像郑和的船队比哥伦布的小破船大许多就是长中国人的志气一样。
其实，即使太空中肉眼能看见长城又怎么样？在建造明长城的时代，长城在建造技术上并没有领先于世之处。相反，欧洲在石砖建筑上，在那时候比中国要先进。硕大的长城的存在，倒是说明了几个影响中国未来发展的软肋：第一，中国虽然建立了庞大的帝国，但在军事上却无法应付人口只有自己百分之几的北方民族的威胁。这充分说明了大文明的低效率。第二，皇权无上的帝国，虽然对外不堪一战，对自己的老百姓却有无限的权力进行搜刮，所以才能集中了这么多资源，修了这个防御工事。但是，把钱全集中在国家手里，投入这样的工程，还留下什么给民间发展经济？在同时代的欧洲，这样大的国家工程是不可想象的。比如英王面临外敌入侵，跑到议会求爷爷告奶奶，就是要不出钱，加不了税，哪有咱们的皇帝威风？可是后来怎么样？长城挡不住大明朝的覆亡，郑和的远洋船队没有给中国经济开辟急需的海外市场和资源。但哥伦布的几条“小破船”却改变了世界；穷得叮当响的英国王室，竟成了“日不落”的全球霸主。
绕开这些事实，不去激励学生从历史中探求为什么有限的小政府能够富国强兵，全能的大政府反而让大文明破产，却拼命地和人家比自己是否是世界的老大，这本来就已经荒谬之极。如今，中科院的研究成果，又再次让我们浪费了一次教育机会。
既然这个问题是从课本中引起，涉及我们如何教育下一代的问题，那么何不利用这一争论刺激学生的独立思考？比如，高中的孩子可以根据从课本上学到的知识，自己来论证在太空上是否能看见长城。这里涉及肉眼在多长的距离内能看到多大的物体，空气污染对能见度的影响有多大，航天飞机距离地面的距离是多少等等日常问题，需要光学、生物、环境科学等等多学科的知识和综合分析能力。老实说，这个问题对一个高中生而言，并非太难：认真消化课堂所学的内容，再查一些课外的资料，简单的换算和分析就可以得出结论。
现在可好。中科院勇敢地站出来：大家别吵了，我们组织权威人士进行科研立项，结果已经出来：在太空中肉眼看不到长城！这就好像是在考试的多项选择中，指定了一个标准答案，让大家死记硬背地把握，不要再没完没了地思考讨论了。
这一事件，暴露了我们民族一个根深蒂固的坏习性：面对任何问题，不是鼓励个人的独立思考和创造，一切要依赖国家，依赖权威，乃至从太空能否用肉眼看到长城这样一个高中生自己就能通过研究作出判断的事情，也要等着中科院来下结论。现在，正确的结论出来了，科学胜利了。但是，我们的教育在死记硬背的框架中陷得更深，我们的民族那种服从权威，依赖“上面”而不是自己来解决问题的心理积淀也更厚了。
http://news.163.com/07/0311/10/39A37LUM000121EP.html
钢盔加迷彩服“构建和谐社会”
治安联防队员全副武装上街游行。
2007年3月26日，广东省湛江市赤坎区平安建设先行点（民主街道）动员大会在市法制教育学校举行。民主街道治安协管员上街游行。
ChinaFotoPress3月27日报道 2007年3月26日，广东省湛江市赤坎区平安建设先行点（民主街道）动员大会在市法制教育学校举行，这是该市首个平安建设先行点，湛江市委副书记、政法委书记阮日生及有关单位领导共600多人参加了这次活动。
据市政法委有关人员介绍，参加这次活动的除了有关市领导，另主要有市综治委成员单位领导、赤坎区四套班子领导、区直副科以上单位负责人，区各街道党工委书记、分管政法工作领导、综治办主任，派出所所长，民主街道及社区全体干部，驻民主街道辖区内市、区单位主要领导、分管领导及保卫干部，区治安联防队员及民主街道治安协管员共600多人。动员会结束后，与会代表参加了民主街道幸福路警务室和平安建设活动办公室，治安联防队及治安雷协管员还走上街头巡游。
网易 > 新闻中心 > 国内新闻 > 正文
国人应看的关于日本的文章 /芮成钢
国人应看的关于日本的文章
2007-03-27 来源: 荆楚网(武汉)
作者:芮成钢
这个题目当然是大大夸张了，文章只不过是个人的杂感罢了。之所以这样说，其实是为了东施效颦《东京审判》的电影宣传词。影片的海报上印着这样的字：每一个中国人都应该看的电影。
我觉得这也夸张了，言重了。电影拍的虽然还不错，讲述了一段鲜为人知的历史，但这宣传词，一是有利用中国人的爱国心去多卖电影票的嫌疑，二来，那段痛苦的历史早已铭刻在每一位国人的心里，语言里，生活里，甚至是意识里，好像并不迫切急需更多的提醒。这句宣传词也许用在风在吼／马在叫／黄河在咆哮／黄河在咆哮的年代更为贴切。
国耻我们当然永不能忘，也不会忘。生活中随时随地常会想到。每次运动爬香山，看到被英法联军烧毁的香山寺的断壁残垣，我都会感慨：如此恢宏的大国，当年竟会被如此的侮辱。
我们所有中华民族的子孙，都应该经常去看看香山这样的爱国主义教育基地。去感受，去思考。
但爱国主义教育的目的，应该不是一次又一次的揭开陈年的伤疤，更不是去种下仇恨，传播仇恨。
我们的目的是——记住历史，自强不息。
中国和日本
我们这一代青年人究竟该用什么样的心态来看日本这个国家，来看日本人？这是一个挺难回答的问题。特殊的成长经历让我们对日本有着比较复杂的心理。
小时候，第一次看《小兵张嘎》、《地道战》的时候，我们也许还在哼着《铁臂阿童木》的主题歌。我们在模仿葛优他爸演的日本鬼子说话的时候，山口百惠和高仓建也正在塑造我们心中对男性女性最初的审美。学校包场去电影院看《南京大屠杀》的时候，自己却也许还正收集着《圣斗士星矢》的贴画。第一次听到“靖国神社”这四个字的时候，《东京爱情故事》也正陪着我们度过最艰苦的一段学生生活……
今天，从手机到汽车，从物质到文化，来自日本的点点滴滴，渗透着我们的生活，但打开邮箱，却能看见号召大家抵制日货的邮件。开车的时候一抬头还能看到前车的后屁股上赫然写着：大刀向鬼子们的头上砍去。
究竟什么是日货？
随便出一道考试题：下面的中文词语里哪一个是来自日语的外来语。
服务、组织、纪律、政治、革命、党、方针、政策、申请、解决、理论、哲学、原则、经济、科学、商业、干部、后勤、健康、社会主义、资本主义、封建、共和、美学、美术、抽象、逻辑、证券、总理、储蓄、创作、刺激、代表、动力、对照、发明、法人、概念、规则、反对、会谈、机关、细胞、系统、印象、原则、参观、劳动、目的、卫生、综合、克服、马铃薯。
答案：统统都是，全部来自日语。没想到吧，其实，来自日语的中文还远远不止这些，数不胜数。虽然日语的文字源于中文，但上面这些词语可都是日本人的创作。
随便举例，“经济”在古汉语里的意思是“经世济民”，和现代汉语的“经济”没有任何关系，这是日语对Economy的翻译。“社会”在古汉语中是“集会结社”的意思，日本人拿它来翻译英语的Society。“劳动”在中国的古义是“劳驾”的意思，日语拿它来译英语的Labor。“知识”在古汉语里指的是“相知相识的人”，日语拿它来译英语的Knowledge。而我们又统统把它们变成了中文。
试问想抵制日货的朋友，这些日货词语你也抵制得了吗？中国近代的孙中山、鲁迅、陈独秀、李大钊们无一不是在日本学习生活，把更先进的理念和思想带回当时落后的中国。这些人的思想、文化，你也能抵制得了吗？
作为一个做电视的人，我还想说：今天你看的所有中国电视全部都是用日本的摄像机、编辑机制作播出的。这个，你抵制得了吗？
尊重并熟悉历史的人会告诉我们：中国的确当过一次日本的老师，而日本却曾两次走在我们的前面。古代社会，隋唐开始中日有来往，中国比日本更早进入文明社会，遣唐使们虚心来到中国（中国的电影人们不妨也拍拍遣唐使的题材，说说中日的友好渊源）。
然而，在近代，日本明治维新后，迅速强大。甲午战争，日本不但战胜了中国，之后更是摆脱了西方对日本的控制，远远地走在了中国前面。
迅速崛起的日本给当时的整个东方世界带来了希望，成为亚洲国家摆脱西方控制，独立崛起的样板。当时的交通不便，中国人向西方直接学习难上加难。向日本学习成为惟一选择，像李大钊、陈独秀、孙中山这样的中国政治和知识精英们，纷纷东渡日本学习探索中国自强的道路，有的甚至把日本作为自己的基地。
当然，二战期间，日本对中国犯下了滔天罪行，这是中华民族永远不会忘记的，也是日本必须永远铭记在心的。我们决不允许任何人篡改这段历史，颠倒是非黑白。
但是我们也应该看到：二战之后，日本在一片废墟上又一次崛起，从零到一万。七八十年代，中国迎来改革开放的春天，日本又一次成为我们市场经济的老师。从赔款到投资，中日的贸易也成就了中国今天的繁荣。我们那时候虽然还小，但也应该依稀记得：中日关系当时是非常的好，可以称作是蜜月期。只是进入九十年代，日本的一些政客们的可耻行径才让我们似乎远离了日本。
从中日建交开始，日本的首脑，有过一次次的道歉和谢罪。只是到了小泉这几代领导人才出现了伤害中国人情感的劣迹。我们不能为了几个心怀叵测的日本政治野心家，几股落后可悲的日本政治势力，而忘记中日友好的千秋大计，忘记了从周恩来田中角荣开始的，几代中日领导人苦心经营的中日友谊。
中日那段痛苦的历史，也只是中日交流两千年里的一段阴影，不是全部。未来，更长。
我们不能只念叨着中文是日语的祖宗，恨不得连日本人都是当年秦始皇那找不到长生不老药的三千童男童女的后代，而忘记甚至根本不知道日本对中国的贡献。承认别人的长处，并不意味着妄自菲薄，相反，这是自信的表现。
我们从学校走向社会，在工作中，父母师长常会教育我们：看一个人要多看他的优点。对一个人尚且要多看优点，对一个国家，一个民族，更应如此，不能以偏概全。
前一阵子，诺贝尔文学奖得主大江健三郎在北京签名售书，竟然还有人打着反日的旗号抗议。这是中国人的尴尬，这样的做法，毁的是中国人自己的形象。
但愿我们这一代，在声讨小泉纯一郎参拜靖国神社的可耻行径之后，也不会忘记回家去听听小泽征尔的音乐；在痛斥完东京市长石原生太郎的反华言论之后，也还会去翻翻村上春树的小说……
强大与伟大
李连杰主演的《霍元甲》是一部让我感动得夜不能寐的电影。最重要的原因是：它表面上看起来只不过是一部经典武打片，其实却回答了一个今天无数中国人，特别是正在国际化的中国青年人思考的问题：今天的我们，究竟该以什么样的眼光和胸怀来看自己，来看世界。
影片中，在列强瓜分中国的大背景下，霍元甲走上擂台，面对生死状，第一句话却是：“在擂台上以命相搏，是中国人历来的陋习，可是我们有另一种传统，叫做以武会友”。在那样屈辱的背景下，一上来还能先反省自身的不足，然后再不卑不亢的面对强大的对手，这是何等的境界，何等的自信！
霍元甲战胜每一个对手，都不光是用武力让对方屈服，而是用自己的风范让对方心服口服。他的目的，不是让别人输，而是让别人“服”。服并不意味着谁喊谁一声大哥，服意味着得到他人发自内心的尊重，意味着用人格的魅力去融化他人的偏见和执拗，用人性的光辉去照亮他人内心不曾见过阳光的角落。
影片对日本人的描述也是一分为二，非常客观。和霍元甲比武的日本武士光明磊落，对霍元甲敬佩由衷，而策划毒害霍元甲的日本商会会长却是一个阴谋家。日本武士最后痛斥日本会长为了自己的赌局而侮辱了日本的荣誉，给日本人带来了耻辱。值得一提的是，这部电影也大大方方的在日本放映，而且并没有日本人说它丑化了日本人的形象。
霍元甲在临死前，徒弟们怒不可遏，要去报仇。而他对徒弟们是这样说的：“你们要做的不是去报仇，仇恨只能生出更多的仇恨。我不想看到仇恨。最重要的是——强壮自己。”
归根到底，还是要自强不息，自身的强大才是最硬的道理。短短的几句话，凝聚了无数中国乃至人类历史的经验教训。
我们伟大的中华民族的祖先们，也是用这样的胸怀，来这样期许我们这些后来人的。我们应该把这种精神传承下去，这才是一部每个中国人都值得看的电影。
今天的中国，盛事空前，已经以强大的实力屹立于世界民族之林。这是世人共晓的事实，这也是你走遍世界，所有的外国人都会告诉你的，并不需要我们提供更多的证明。也没有人会因为我们少踢进了几个球，少拿了几块金牌，或是少了几句过激的言语和行为，而觉得我们软弱。
强大，靠的是实力，但是，伟大，靠的是胸怀。
中国和世界的误会：盲人摸象
我们不妨问问自己，也问问周围所有骂“小日本”的朋友，去过日本吗？有过日本的朋友吗？答案大多是No。我自己原来对日本的印象也不好，但扪心自问，除了那段历史之外，也大都是道听途说，没去过日本，没有一个日本朋友，甚至也没有采访过几个日本的政要和企业领袖。
如果是一个美国人，从未来到过中国，没有中国朋友，而只是在媒体上看了一些有关中国的不良言论，就断言中国不好，我肯定不能接受，我会说：没有调查就没有发言权，你对中国人一无所知，你凭什么做这样的判断？
而我们对日本就了解吗？
日本是一个离我们最近，但却最不了解的国家。我们大多数青年人可能对欧美的了解远胜于对日本的关注。当然，日本不是一个容易了解的国家，日本人也的确存在着两面性。但从一个第三者的角度来看，日本并不比中国更难了解。问题不是可不可以了解，而是我们愿不愿意去了解（本尼迪克特著的《菊与刀》，赖孝尔写的《日本人》，都是非常精辟的著作）。
凡是来过中国的外国朋友，几乎无一例外的对我说中国要比他们想象中的精彩得多，优秀得多。一次中国之行，往往会改变他们许多从小积累的对中国的不良或错误印象。而一个真心相交的日本朋友，一次日本之行，往往也能改变许多。正是本着这样的目的，我去了一次日本，改变了我从前许多过于简单，过于主观的判断。
在耶鲁给美国学生讲中国的时候，我经常用盲人摸象这个成语来概括大多数美国人对中国和中国人的误解，以及中国人对美国的曲解。大家往往都是摸到了哪里，就认为哪里是大象的全部，都没有看到相对完整的大画面。甚至一些在中国长期生活的美国朋友和在美国定居的中国朋友，由于生活的圈子相对固定，也都没有能对一个国家有多角度的立体的理解，而是偏执于自己的一些个人经验体会。
中日之间更是如此。我经常听到有些在日本生活过的中国人，痛斥日本人的种种不是，听完之后，往往会激起我的一些反日的情绪。事后想想，这些人如果一直在国内，也许也会连篇累牍的抱怨中国人的种种不是。我也认识很多在日本非常成功的中国人，一些甚至在日本把日本人驾驭的、欺负的连我都看不下去的中国人。
历史上，许多国家之间的冲突和战争，最初都起源于相互的不信任，由于相互不信任，产生对对方行为的误判，以及过分敏感的反应。这种不信任和误判会制造出相互敌视的氛围，继而相互激发，最终使误判产生的预言变成现实。今天的文明人类，应该能够避免不信任和误判酿成的悲剧。为了让中国的和平发展成为可能，我们要努力消除这种不信任，防止误判的发生。
一分为三，为四，立体的，多元的，理性的，自信的看日本，看美国，看世界，这才是我们21世纪的中国青年应该有的胸怀和眼界。
过于敏感
“东亚病夫”这四个字我很反感，这些年除了我们自己经常提起，我从未听外国人提起过，也没有在国外的媒体上看到过。
在国外，我经常提醒自己不要过于敏感。到了一个发达国家，服务员态度不好，司机不老实，朋友说了两句无心快语，等等等等，我首先都会往“歧视”这两个字上去想，接着就仗着自己英语的优势，噼里啪啦的把对方说得无地自容，再仗着自己对西方规则的了解，去找人家的老板投诉一把，然后觉得自己又为中国人出了口气（相比较而言，恰恰日本是我感觉需要投诉几率最小的国家）。
从凡尔赛宫的保安到悉尼机场的检疫，从美国的交警到奥地利的空乘，我记不清有多少次是因为自己或是为其他的中国人受到不正当待遇拍案而起，怒不可遏。
这些投诉，当然有很多是必需做的，也是完全应该做的。但冷静下来，经常发现，有些时候，这些我投诉的当地人，其实对哪里来的人都一样，甚至对本国人的态度也都是一样，并不是专门针对中国人的。就像是我们在国内也经常遇到无礼的人一样。倒是咱们中国人，有时因为特殊的历史背景，容易自我心理暗示，产生联想。同样的事情，如果发生在老挝，或是纳米比亚，自己也许就不会往那个方面去想。
比如，日本人被普遍认为，虽然表面上很懂礼貌，但骨子里很排外。对此，英国人，美国人，和中国人一样有同感，而我们很容易把它理解成是对中国人的歧视。
而日本的这种岛国心态，其他国家也有，比如英国人，直到现在还不把自己看成是欧洲人，对此，法国人深有感触，也意见很大。
另外，必须承认，有些不合理的事，即使是针对中国人的，往往也是因为咱们的一些同胞们，总在不按当地的规则做事，给他们留下了太深刻的不良印象。这个时候，我们需要做的不仅是为中国人“出”口气，更需要用自己的修养为中国人“争”口气。
不卑不亢
不卑不亢是我们常说的待人接物的最高境界。如果问问周围的朋友，走遍世界能够做到不卑不亢吗？很多人说差不多。然后再问为什么呢？通常的答案是：因为我们有几千年的历史和文化，我们是人的时候他们还是猴，我们有九百六十万平方公里的土地，我们的经济增长10％，我们有四大发明、万里长城，我们有56个民族、长江黄河，我们曾经傲视群雄，如今大国崛起。这些事实（人与猴的部分除外）都是我们引以自豪的，但光靠这些还做不到真正的不卑不亢。
反省自己的不足，提醒自己不要沉迷于历史，忽略现在与未来，这固然重要，但也不是关键。
真正的不卑不亢更应该是发自内心的一种根本信念——世界上的人不论种族、肤色、男女、国家大小强弱，作为人，都是平等的。在这个基础上的自信与反省才是坚实的、健康的、和谐的。
如果你早晨醒来发现自己是卢旺达的公民，你的国家贫穷，弱小，全世界都曾把你的国家与种族仇杀连在一起，你，还能让自己阳光吗？如果你是菲律宾公民，殖民的历史让你的名字前面是法语，后面是西班牙语，你的官方语言是英语，你还自信吗？如果你坚信这颗星球上人人平等，那你会依然自信地微笑。
京都国歌
唐朝是中国历史上最辉煌的朝代，我们为之骄傲。但漫步在今天的西安街头，已经很难寻觅到当年长安的清晰轮廓了。
想看看长安大概是个什么样子吗？去日本的京都吧。京都当年就是按照长安的结构、建筑和规划建设起来的城市。我们的长安，如今模糊朦胧，而日本的京都保存完好。这不能不说是我们的一个遗憾。
离开京都的那天，打了一辆车。出租车司机问我是哪里来的。中国，我答道。话音刚落不久，突然，《义勇军进行曲》的旋律冲进了我的耳膜。原来，司机的车载MP3上录了几十个国家的国歌，拉到哪里的客人就给放哪里的国歌。高兴之余，当时的一个想法是：多奇怪啊，咱们国歌产生的背景，恰恰是当年日本侵略中国的时候，如果司机知道这个事实会怎么想呢？他还会放中国的国歌给我听吗？他又是不是应该先替他当年侵略中国的爷爷们和那个几个喜欢作秀的政客们向车里的几个中国人道个歉，再放音乐？
算了算了，想得太多了，太复杂了。看着京都出租车司机脸上朴实简单的微笑，坐着被国歌围绕的出租车穿行在京都的大街小巷，就让我自信地享受这个美妙的瞬间吧。
愿中日世代友好……
http://news.163.com/07/0327/09/3AJ3D2I2000121EP.html
2007-03-27 来源: 荆楚网(武汉)
作者:芮成钢
这个题目当然是大大夸张了，文章只不过是个人的杂感罢了。之所以这样说，其实是为了东施效颦《东京审判》的电影宣传词。影片的海报上印着这样的字：每一个中国人都应该看的电影。
我觉得这也夸张了，言重了。电影拍的虽然还不错，讲述了一段鲜为人知的历史，但这宣传词，一是有利用中国人的爱国心去多卖电影票的嫌疑，二来，那段痛苦的历史早已铭刻在每一位国人的心里，语言里，生活里，甚至是意识里，好像并不迫切急需更多的提醒。这句宣传词也许用在风在吼／马在叫／黄河在咆哮／黄河在咆哮的年代更为贴切。
国耻我们当然永不能忘，也不会忘。生活中随时随地常会想到。每次运动爬香山，看到被英法联军烧毁的香山寺的断壁残垣，我都会感慨：如此恢宏的大国，当年竟会被如此的侮辱。
我们所有中华民族的子孙，都应该经常去看看香山这样的爱国主义教育基地。去感受，去思考。
但爱国主义教育的目的，应该不是一次又一次的揭开陈年的伤疤，更不是去种下仇恨，传播仇恨。
我们的目的是——记住历史，自强不息。
中国和日本
我们这一代青年人究竟该用什么样的心态来看日本这个国家，来看日本人？这是一个挺难回答的问题。特殊的成长经历让我们对日本有着比较复杂的心理。
小时候，第一次看《小兵张嘎》、《地道战》的时候，我们也许还在哼着《铁臂阿童木》的主题歌。我们在模仿葛优他爸演的日本鬼子说话的时候，山口百惠和高仓建也正在塑造我们心中对男性女性最初的审美。学校包场去电影院看《南京大屠杀》的时候，自己却也许还正收集着《圣斗士星矢》的贴画。第一次听到“靖国神社”这四个字的时候，《东京爱情故事》也正陪着我们度过最艰苦的一段学生生活……
今天，从手机到汽车，从物质到文化，来自日本的点点滴滴，渗透着我们的生活，但打开邮箱，却能看见号召大家抵制日货的邮件。开车的时候一抬头还能看到前车的后屁股上赫然写着：大刀向鬼子们的头上砍去。
究竟什么是日货？
随便出一道考试题：下面的中文词语里哪一个是来自日语的外来语。
服务、组织、纪律、政治、革命、党、方针、政策、申请、解决、理论、哲学、原则、经济、科学、商业、干部、后勤、健康、社会主义、资本主义、封建、共和、美学、美术、抽象、逻辑、证券、总理、储蓄、创作、刺激、代表、动力、对照、发明、法人、概念、规则、反对、会谈、机关、细胞、系统、印象、原则、参观、劳动、目的、卫生、综合、克服、马铃薯。
答案：统统都是，全部来自日语。没想到吧，其实，来自日语的中文还远远不止这些，数不胜数。虽然日语的文字源于中文，但上面这些词语可都是日本人的创作。
随便举例，“经济”在古汉语里的意思是“经世济民”，和现代汉语的“经济”没有任何关系，这是日语对Economy的翻译。“社会”在古汉语中是“集会结社”的意思，日本人拿它来翻译英语的Society。“劳动”在中国的古义是“劳驾”的意思，日语拿它来译英语的Labor。“知识”在古汉语里指的是“相知相识的人”，日语拿它来译英语的Knowledge。而我们又统统把它们变成了中文。
试问想抵制日货的朋友，这些日货词语你也抵制得了吗？中国近代的孙中山、鲁迅、陈独秀、李大钊们无一不是在日本学习生活，把更先进的理念和思想带回当时落后的中国。这些人的思想、文化，你也能抵制得了吗？
作为一个做电视的人，我还想说：今天你看的所有中国电视全部都是用日本的摄像机、编辑机制作播出的。这个，你抵制得了吗？
尊重并熟悉历史的人会告诉我们：中国的确当过一次日本的老师，而日本却曾两次走在我们的前面。古代社会，隋唐开始中日有来往，中国比日本更早进入文明社会，遣唐使们虚心来到中国（中国的电影人们不妨也拍拍遣唐使的题材，说说中日的友好渊源）。
然而，在近代，日本明治维新后，迅速强大。甲午战争，日本不但战胜了中国，之后更是摆脱了西方对日本的控制，远远地走在了中国前面。
迅速崛起的日本给当时的整个东方世界带来了希望，成为亚洲国家摆脱西方控制，独立崛起的样板。当时的交通不便，中国人向西方直接学习难上加难。向日本学习成为惟一选择，像李大钊、陈独秀、孙中山这样的中国政治和知识精英们，纷纷东渡日本学习探索中国自强的道路，有的甚至把日本作为自己的基地。
当然，二战期间，日本对中国犯下了滔天罪行，这是中华民族永远不会忘记的，也是日本必须永远铭记在心的。我们决不允许任何人篡改这段历史，颠倒是非黑白。
但是我们也应该看到：二战之后，日本在一片废墟上又一次崛起，从零到一万。七八十年代，中国迎来改革开放的春天，日本又一次成为我们市场经济的老师。从赔款到投资，中日的贸易也成就了中国今天的繁荣。我们那时候虽然还小，但也应该依稀记得：中日关系当时是非常的好，可以称作是蜜月期。只是进入九十年代，日本的一些政客们的可耻行径才让我们似乎远离了日本。
从中日建交开始，日本的首脑，有过一次次的道歉和谢罪。只是到了小泉这几代领导人才出现了伤害中国人情感的劣迹。我们不能为了几个心怀叵测的日本政治野心家，几股落后可悲的日本政治势力，而忘记中日友好的千秋大计，忘记了从周恩来田中角荣开始的，几代中日领导人苦心经营的中日友谊。
中日那段痛苦的历史，也只是中日交流两千年里的一段阴影，不是全部。未来，更长。
我们不能只念叨着中文是日语的祖宗，恨不得连日本人都是当年秦始皇那找不到长生不老药的三千童男童女的后代，而忘记甚至根本不知道日本对中国的贡献。承认别人的长处，并不意味着妄自菲薄，相反，这是自信的表现。
我们从学校走向社会，在工作中，父母师长常会教育我们：看一个人要多看他的优点。对一个人尚且要多看优点，对一个国家，一个民族，更应如此，不能以偏概全。
前一阵子，诺贝尔文学奖得主大江健三郎在北京签名售书，竟然还有人打着反日的旗号抗议。这是中国人的尴尬，这样的做法，毁的是中国人自己的形象。
但愿我们这一代，在声讨小泉纯一郎参拜靖国神社的可耻行径之后，也不会忘记回家去听听小泽征尔的音乐；在痛斥完东京市长石原生太郎的反华言论之后，也还会去翻翻村上春树的小说……
强大与伟大
李连杰主演的《霍元甲》是一部让我感动得夜不能寐的电影。最重要的原因是：它表面上看起来只不过是一部经典武打片，其实却回答了一个今天无数中国人，特别是正在国际化的中国青年人思考的问题：今天的我们，究竟该以什么样的眼光和胸怀来看自己，来看世界。
影片中，在列强瓜分中国的大背景下，霍元甲走上擂台，面对生死状，第一句话却是：“在擂台上以命相搏，是中国人历来的陋习，可是我们有另一种传统，叫做以武会友”。在那样屈辱的背景下，一上来还能先反省自身的不足，然后再不卑不亢的面对强大的对手，这是何等的境界，何等的自信！
霍元甲战胜每一个对手，都不光是用武力让对方屈服，而是用自己的风范让对方心服口服。他的目的，不是让别人输，而是让别人“服”。服并不意味着谁喊谁一声大哥，服意味着得到他人发自内心的尊重，意味着用人格的魅力去融化他人的偏见和执拗，用人性的光辉去照亮他人内心不曾见过阳光的角落。
影片对日本人的描述也是一分为二，非常客观。和霍元甲比武的日本武士光明磊落，对霍元甲敬佩由衷，而策划毒害霍元甲的日本商会会长却是一个阴谋家。日本武士最后痛斥日本会长为了自己的赌局而侮辱了日本的荣誉，给日本人带来了耻辱。值得一提的是，这部电影也大大方方的在日本放映，而且并没有日本人说它丑化了日本人的形象。
霍元甲在临死前，徒弟们怒不可遏，要去报仇。而他对徒弟们是这样说的：“你们要做的不是去报仇，仇恨只能生出更多的仇恨。我不想看到仇恨。最重要的是——强壮自己。”
归根到底，还是要自强不息，自身的强大才是最硬的道理。短短的几句话，凝聚了无数中国乃至人类历史的经验教训。
我们伟大的中华民族的祖先们，也是用这样的胸怀，来这样期许我们这些后来人的。我们应该把这种精神传承下去，这才是一部每个中国人都值得看的电影。
今天的中国，盛事空前，已经以强大的实力屹立于世界民族之林。这是世人共晓的事实，这也是你走遍世界，所有的外国人都会告诉你的，并不需要我们提供更多的证明。也没有人会因为我们少踢进了几个球，少拿了几块金牌，或是少了几句过激的言语和行为，而觉得我们软弱。
强大，靠的是实力，但是，伟大，靠的是胸怀。
中国和世界的误会：盲人摸象
我们不妨问问自己，也问问周围所有骂“小日本”的朋友，去过日本吗？有过日本的朋友吗？答案大多是No。我自己原来对日本的印象也不好，但扪心自问，除了那段历史之外，也大都是道听途说，没去过日本，没有一个日本朋友，甚至也没有采访过几个日本的政要和企业领袖。
如果是一个美国人，从未来到过中国，没有中国朋友，而只是在媒体上看了一些有关中国的不良言论，就断言中国不好，我肯定不能接受，我会说：没有调查就没有发言权，你对中国人一无所知，你凭什么做这样的判断？
而我们对日本就了解吗？
日本是一个离我们最近，但却最不了解的国家。我们大多数青年人可能对欧美的了解远胜于对日本的关注。当然，日本不是一个容易了解的国家，日本人也的确存在着两面性。但从一个第三者的角度来看，日本并不比中国更难了解。问题不是可不可以了解，而是我们愿不愿意去了解（本尼迪克特著的《菊与刀》，赖孝尔写的《日本人》，都是非常精辟的著作）。
凡是来过中国的外国朋友，几乎无一例外的对我说中国要比他们想象中的精彩得多，优秀得多。一次中国之行，往往会改变他们许多从小积累的对中国的不良或错误印象。而一个真心相交的日本朋友，一次日本之行，往往也能改变许多。正是本着这样的目的，我去了一次日本，改变了我从前许多过于简单，过于主观的判断。
在耶鲁给美国学生讲中国的时候，我经常用盲人摸象这个成语来概括大多数美国人对中国和中国人的误解，以及中国人对美国的曲解。大家往往都是摸到了哪里，就认为哪里是大象的全部，都没有看到相对完整的大画面。甚至一些在中国长期生活的美国朋友和在美国定居的中国朋友，由于生活的圈子相对固定，也都没有能对一个国家有多角度的立体的理解，而是偏执于自己的一些个人经验体会。
中日之间更是如此。我经常听到有些在日本生活过的中国人，痛斥日本人的种种不是，听完之后，往往会激起我的一些反日的情绪。事后想想，这些人如果一直在国内，也许也会连篇累牍的抱怨中国人的种种不是。我也认识很多在日本非常成功的中国人，一些甚至在日本把日本人驾驭的、欺负的连我都看不下去的中国人。
历史上，许多国家之间的冲突和战争，最初都起源于相互的不信任，由于相互不信任，产生对对方行为的误判，以及过分敏感的反应。这种不信任和误判会制造出相互敌视的氛围，继而相互激发，最终使误判产生的预言变成现实。今天的文明人类，应该能够避免不信任和误判酿成的悲剧。为了让中国的和平发展成为可能，我们要努力消除这种不信任，防止误判的发生。
一分为三，为四，立体的，多元的，理性的，自信的看日本，看美国，看世界，这才是我们21世纪的中国青年应该有的胸怀和眼界。
过于敏感
“东亚病夫”这四个字我很反感，这些年除了我们自己经常提起，我从未听外国人提起过，也没有在国外的媒体上看到过。
在国外，我经常提醒自己不要过于敏感。到了一个发达国家，服务员态度不好，司机不老实，朋友说了两句无心快语，等等等等，我首先都会往“歧视”这两个字上去想，接着就仗着自己英语的优势，噼里啪啦的把对方说得无地自容，再仗着自己对西方规则的了解，去找人家的老板投诉一把，然后觉得自己又为中国人出了口气（相比较而言，恰恰日本是我感觉需要投诉几率最小的国家）。
从凡尔赛宫的保安到悉尼机场的检疫，从美国的交警到奥地利的空乘，我记不清有多少次是因为自己或是为其他的中国人受到不正当待遇拍案而起，怒不可遏。
这些投诉，当然有很多是必需做的，也是完全应该做的。但冷静下来，经常发现，有些时候，这些我投诉的当地人，其实对哪里来的人都一样，甚至对本国人的态度也都是一样，并不是专门针对中国人的。就像是我们在国内也经常遇到无礼的人一样。倒是咱们中国人，有时因为特殊的历史背景，容易自我心理暗示，产生联想。同样的事情，如果发生在老挝，或是纳米比亚，自己也许就不会往那个方面去想。
比如，日本人被普遍认为，虽然表面上很懂礼貌，但骨子里很排外。对此，英国人，美国人，和中国人一样有同感，而我们很容易把它理解成是对中国人的歧视。
而日本的这种岛国心态，其他国家也有，比如英国人，直到现在还不把自己看成是欧洲人，对此，法国人深有感触，也意见很大。
另外，必须承认，有些不合理的事，即使是针对中国人的，往往也是因为咱们的一些同胞们，总在不按当地的规则做事，给他们留下了太深刻的不良印象。这个时候，我们需要做的不仅是为中国人“出”口气，更需要用自己的修养为中国人“争”口气。
不卑不亢
不卑不亢是我们常说的待人接物的最高境界。如果问问周围的朋友，走遍世界能够做到不卑不亢吗？很多人说差不多。然后再问为什么呢？通常的答案是：因为我们有几千年的历史和文化，我们是人的时候他们还是猴，我们有九百六十万平方公里的土地，我们的经济增长10％，我们有四大发明、万里长城，我们有56个民族、长江黄河，我们曾经傲视群雄，如今大国崛起。这些事实（人与猴的部分除外）都是我们引以自豪的，但光靠这些还做不到真正的不卑不亢。
反省自己的不足，提醒自己不要沉迷于历史，忽略现在与未来，这固然重要，但也不是关键。
真正的不卑不亢更应该是发自内心的一种根本信念——世界上的人不论种族、肤色、男女、国家大小强弱，作为人，都是平等的。在这个基础上的自信与反省才是坚实的、健康的、和谐的。
如果你早晨醒来发现自己是卢旺达的公民，你的国家贫穷，弱小，全世界都曾把你的国家与种族仇杀连在一起，你，还能让自己阳光吗？如果你是菲律宾公民，殖民的历史让你的名字前面是法语，后面是西班牙语，你的官方语言是英语，你还自信吗？如果你坚信这颗星球上人人平等，那你会依然自信地微笑。
京都国歌
唐朝是中国历史上最辉煌的朝代，我们为之骄傲。但漫步在今天的西安街头，已经很难寻觅到当年长安的清晰轮廓了。
想看看长安大概是个什么样子吗？去日本的京都吧。京都当年就是按照长安的结构、建筑和规划建设起来的城市。我们的长安，如今模糊朦胧，而日本的京都保存完好。这不能不说是我们的一个遗憾。
离开京都的那天，打了一辆车。出租车司机问我是哪里来的。中国，我答道。话音刚落不久，突然，《义勇军进行曲》的旋律冲进了我的耳膜。原来，司机的车载MP3上录了几十个国家的国歌，拉到哪里的客人就给放哪里的国歌。高兴之余，当时的一个想法是：多奇怪啊，咱们国歌产生的背景，恰恰是当年日本侵略中国的时候，如果司机知道这个事实会怎么想呢？他还会放中国的国歌给我听吗？他又是不是应该先替他当年侵略中国的爷爷们和那个几个喜欢作秀的政客们向车里的几个中国人道个歉，再放音乐？
算了算了，想得太多了，太复杂了。看着京都出租车司机脸上朴实简单的微笑，坐着被国歌围绕的出租车穿行在京都的大街小巷，就让我自信地享受这个美妙的瞬间吧。
愿中日世代友好……
http://news.163.com/07/0327/09/3AJ3D2I2000121EP.html
Monday, March 26, 2007
东方黑，太阳落!
网易重庆渝中网友(211.158.97.*)的原贴:
东方黑，太阳落
中国钉子户有话说
他为自己争权利
他为自己谋幸福
他教大家这样活
呼儿咳约
他教大家这样活
东方黑，太阳落
中国钉子户有话说
恶人强拆心头烙
官商相护竞抢夺
你还让人民活不活？
屁眼黑哟
你还让人民活不活？
东方黑，太阳落
中国钉子户有话说
与民争利变成官商们的工作
却拿公共利益来盅惑
民脂民膏齐挥霍
屁眼黑哟
民脂民膏齐挥霍
东方黑，太阳落
西方钉子户怎样活
一扇陈旧老磨坊
憋死威廉老国王
风能进，雨能进，国王不能进
西方人给我们上一课
做人就该这样活
呼儿咳哟
做人就该这样活
我爱
我爱重庆的山 我爱重庆的水 我爱重庆这座城
我恨
我恨重庆的官 我恨重庆的吏 我恨生活不如意
恶搞史上最强钉子户(ZT) II
网易重庆渝中网友(211.158.97.*)的原贴:
东方黑，太阳落
中国钉子户有话说
他为自己争权利
他为自己谋幸福
他教大家这样活
呼儿咳约
他教大家这样活
东方黑，太阳落
中国钉子户有话说
恶人强拆心头烙
官商相护竞抢夺
你还让人民活不活？
屁眼黑哟
你还让人民活不活？
东方黑，太阳落
中国钉子户有话说
与民争利变成官商们的工作
却拿公共利益来盅惑
民脂民膏齐挥霍
屁眼黑哟
民脂民膏齐挥霍
东方黑，太阳落
西方钉子户怎样活
一扇陈旧老磨坊
憋死威廉老国王
风能进，雨能进，国王不能进
西方人给我们上一课
做人就该这样活
呼儿咳哟
做人就该这样活
我爱
我爱重庆的山 我爱重庆的水 我爱重庆这座城
我恨
我恨重庆的官 我恨重庆的吏 我恨生活不如意
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)