刚在YOUTUBE上看了这段习近平-川普一起散步、谈笑风生的视频。下面一位读者评论到： “The guys with the briefcases carrying the nuclear launch codes behind the two is creepy and scary.” （两人后面提着核武发射密码箱的两人真是诡异吓人） 如果真是这样，确实挺吓人。 倒不是别的。美国的那个个子大一号，如果把中国的打翻把密码箱抢走怎么办？ 小箱子里装的啥呢？
加州占据了前10名中的9名： http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/05/24/california-is-home-to-15-of-20-wealthiest-cities-nationwide-site-finds/ 1. Palo Alto, CA 2. San Ramon, CA 3. Pleasanton, CA 4. Newport Beach, CA 5. Bethesda, Maryland 6. Yorba Linda, California 7. Laguna Niguel, California 8. Redwood City, California 9. Redondo Beach, California 10. Carlsbad, California 11. San Clemente, California 12. Ellicott City, Maryland 13. Thousand Oaks, California 14. San Mateo, California 15. Fremont, California 16. Mission Viejo, California 17. Mountain View, California 18. Flower Mound, Texas 19. Naperville, Illinois 20. Newton, Massachusetts 很多地名比较陌生，在地图上看看：
张锋 CRISPR-Cas9 基因编辑技术 的 专利官司今天出结果了。美国专利局法庭（注一）宣布张锋获胜。 众所周知， Doudna 在2012 年六月发表论文，首次报道运用 CRISPR-Cas9 在试管中实现 DNA片段的切割。6个月后的2013年 一月，张锋的研究小组发表论文，在人类细胞中用 CRISPR-Cas9 实现基因编辑，并很快申请了专利。2016年3月，Doudna 提出专利干扰诉讼，称张锋的发明是在她的专利基础上显然的事情。据报道，双方为了专利诉讼花了千万美元的律师费。 在此之前，我对张锋的了解仅仅是在韩春雨事件中听过其名而已，而且似乎有人对他的名气还存在疑问。在阅读相关资料后，我发现张锋才是 CRISPR -Cas9 技术的集大成者。围绕双方的争议，我写了若干博文。介绍了CRISPR-Cas9 基因编辑技术，也分析了张锋与DOUDNA在 CRISPR-Cas9 的专利官司。相关介绍参见：《 张峰专利官司科普及案情发展-叛逃者将被 UC 传讯 》《 CRISPR 基因编辑技术及张锋的贡献 》《 CRISPR基因编辑技术的显然性分析 》《 CRISPR基因编辑研究秘辛大起底 》《 发自张锋实验室的四封CRISPR邮件 》。 在 CRISPR 基因编辑技术及张锋的贡献 一文中，我结论到 【 张锋首次将 CRISPR-Cas9 成功用于高等生物的基因编辑，其主要成果是基于2011年 Charpentier 的 tracrRNA 发现 】。在2012年初，也就是 Doudna 论文发表前半年，张锋就已经提交了完整的真核细胞基因编辑设计。张后来的论文结果基本是基于这个设计。 事件中，张锋实验室还出了一个中国留学生背叛者，向 DOUDNA 提供内部消息。但这个学生提供的电子邮件等信息恰恰证明张锋在 2012 年初就开始了相关真核细胞的基因编辑研究，并且明显找到了关键。而 DOUDNA 在 其2012年论文发表之后数个月仍未能成功实现真核细胞的基因编辑，直到张锋合作伙伴 CHURCH 提供了真核编辑的数据之后才获得成功。 根据张锋所在布罗德研究院的声明，美国专利局法庭在 2月15日宣布， Doudna 针对张锋的真核细胞 CRISPR-Cas9 基因编辑技术的专利干扰诉求不成立 。美国专利局判决称： Doudna 与 Vilnius 的专利申请只是在试管中剪切DNA片段，没有涉及细胞、基因组，也没有基因编辑.（ The applications filed in 2012 by the Vilnius team and the Berkeley team each showed only that purified Cas9 protein and a certain purified RNA could cut a short piece of DNA in a solution in a test tube. In both cases, the applications in 2012 contained no cells, no genomes, and no editing.） Vilnius 的专利申请只是自然系统不能申请专利 （专利必须是人脑的创造，自然现象不能申请专利） （The USPTO rejected the Vilnius application as not having significantly more than a study of the natural system and failing to describe invention.） 张锋的真核细胞基因编辑专利不受 Doudna 专利影响。 对相关技术感兴趣的读者可以参阅《 CRISPR基因编辑技术的显然性分析 》等博文。另外，科技时代，科学技术是财富。据报道，去年 Doudna 专利官司启动后，张锋的 EDITAS 公司股价从 $ 42 开始大跌，最低只有13。今天 EDITAS 大涨 30%，达到 $ 24。张锋的财富量在10年内可能超过美国总统川普家族。 虽然科学研究的目的是为人类文明做贡献，而不是获取，但能用科技智慧创造财富也许更能够激励人们进行科学探索。 judgement-motions.pdf 注一：读者可能问，专利局怎么有法庭，这个问题我在之前解释过。
刚看到霜天贴 白宫"反歧视华人歌曲"请愿签名，我签名之后，读了一下歌词，觉得这过于 offensive ，而且可能是违法的。但仔细想想，美国华人本身也应该反省。 这首歌的作者是黑人RAP歌手YG。据他说，他曾因入室盗窃坐牢，这首歌是分享他的经验，对于美国西海岸的他们来说，入室盗窃是青少年的文化的一部分，他自己就这么做了（也坐牢了）（ i n 2014 he told FM magazine in that he wrote the song in order to "share the experience (of breaking into houses) with the people, because that's a part of the culture. Especially where I'm from, in L.A., the west coast, that's a big part of the culture of a teenager or someone in their mid-20s, that's what they doin', they breaking into houses. That's what I did ." ） YG歌词写道：【找个中国人居住区，因为他们不信银行账号... 确认没有人在家。他们走了，OK，可以开始了。不要害怕，黑鬼，你进去了...】歌词还描写了怎么偷走电视、笔记本、珠宝等等，偷完之后跑去花十块钱喝点 Icy 吃个麦当劳，等等。歌词还写道：【如果你一辈子偷过东西，制造点噪音。不要羞愧，it is okay，baby。如果你曾经从你妈妈钱包里偷过一块钱，就弄出点声响。】估计这个YG坐牢时得到过母亲的谅解与安慰，年纪轻轻就进了监狱，也可怜。我曾在罗马被吉普赛人偷走至少两千美金，想了想，唉，让他们拿去吃几顿饱饭、喝点酒、PARTY 高兴一下也好，至少没有把我证件给拿走害得我行程陷入困境。 前些天，有个台湾来的、哈佛毕业的、纽约时报记者在大街上被一位白人女士说：“回中国去”（有些人翻成“滚回中国”，我觉得没有这么不文明）。 此人很不爽，说他不是共产中国来的，我出生在美国，为什么要我走啊 ？这个人不知想过没有，白人女士可能对一位黑人男子说这种话吗？ 从政治地位看，美国黑人男性在1870年就获得了投票权 （15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution）。而美国白人女性在半个世纪之后的1920年才获得投票权（19th Amendment），而且这是在俄国革命赋予苏联妇女投票权之后。中国人呢。1882年，美国联邦设立《中国人排除法》，禁止中国人移民美国。《中国人排除法》虽然在1943年因为二战结盟中国的需要被废除，但并没有根本的改变，中国人移民限制在每年105人（一百零五人）。美国是尊重人权的，但人权是给人的。二战后加州《中国人非人》的宪法人权条款依然是加州的最高法律。 当年美军在朝鲜最大的震撼就是在于真正汉人给他们的心理反差。阿尔蒙德给部下若干悍将的训导是："Don't let a bunch of Chinese laundry-men stop you."(别让一帮中国洗衣工拦住你），众将应该大笑。结果接下来，美军发现中国人根本不是唐人街看到的那样，而是非常 aggressive。美军战史记载，很多美军在逃跑中对前进的美军大喊：“快跑，大群老中追杀上来了。” 。。。 加州的《中国人非人》的宪法人权条款是在朝鲜战争之后才得以废除。所以，我们也说 朝鲜战争是一场在国际上确立中国人人权的战争 。而美国第一个以 中国人命名的法案《贺梅法案》到 2007年才出现 。 但是，对于很多老一代的美国民众来说，他们从小受到的耳濡目染已经在他们的心中形成思维定式，他们眼里的中国人还是以前唐人街的那种逆来顺受的形象。这也就难怪还有很多人轻视中国人，轻视中国男人。 那个哈佛中国青年男子被白种女性说“go back to China”尤其应该令中国男性感到沮丧。这说明中国男普遍缺乏 SEX APPEAL，在西方具有相对较低的 MATING OPPORTUNITY 。从照片上看，哈佛男长相还不错、又是哈佛毕业，为什么这么不济呢？也许少了点阳刚之气？ 相比之下，《 湖南农民坐自行车搞定瑞典美女 》故事中，薄瓜瓜读了哈佛开着法拉利也搞不定美国大使领养的女儿，莫言《丰乳肥臀》里的瑞典神父搞得女教徒神魂颠倒；湖南衡山农民杨顺一天坐在朋友的自行车后座上，在校园里看到一位正在跑步的美女， 杨顺感叹了一句：“这个妹子真性感！ ” .... 看来光有钱、有文凭是不够的，得有魅力。 魅力从哪里来？我觉得啊，首先应该有自信、说话算数等等基本品质。 某些华人考试作弊、论文抄袭（像什么拿西方设计图抄抄跑到国内发18篇论文），跟黑人偷东西有什么两样呢？ 可能问题更严重。自己心里有鬼，也就不敢面对 truth。 反对鼓吹盗窃当然没错，但各种作弊行为，华人社区好像并没有强烈的谴责、反对。这是我们应该反思的。 补充：看到YOUTUBE上有华人也模仿黑人搞了个RAP，大骂黑人，这算什么呢？？华人应该学会参与社会，而不是对穷苦的黑人宣战。我的评论是： This is even more stupid than the YG song. The YG song sang about burglary and sad reality of life of the black youth. This song contains more violence and insults. Are you advocating a race war between the Chinese and the blacks? Both the Chinese and the blacks were oppressed people. But today Chinese is the only non-white race that possesses thermo-nuclear weapons and manned space technology. The Chinese should promote civilization and understanding.
民主是好事。毛泽东提出的人民民主专政（People's Democratic Dictatorship）可以说是对民主理论的一个发展。 我对美国的民主制度也是高度评价的，美国这个系统非常稳定，特别是它司法审查制度，把法院的权威提了上来。美国政治下，管钱的、拿枪的、讲理的三个分支相对独立，三足鼎立。当然了，枪杆子里面出政权的原理在美国仍然存在。林肯就是用枪杆子的典型例子。内战期间，美联邦军队对司法、立法都具有控制力。要真正理解美国民主，需要若干方面的知识，包括美国历史，特别是美国内战史，以及美国的法律及法律传统。 我写了这篇《 建造和谐社会与美国警民关系思考 》，提到 2015年有 990 人被美国警察枪杀，华人工程师回屋扫把、华人小孩玩玩具枪被就地枪杀， 有的人还不相信，有的还以为这是在诋毁伟大的美国民主。其实美国警察的生杀大权正是民主制度的产物，是美国民主的体现。否则，通过民主程序修改法律，规定警察不准先开枪不就行了？要知道，绝大部分白人群众都是英语好、守法的良民，一般不会误解警察也不会跟警察争执，警察再怎么不公，事后上法院去解决，广大美国老百姓并不在乎警察执法严苛点。 在网上看到一篇所谓讲美国民主的文章，发现有些人对美国民主完全误解。这样的人如果到了美国，估计会像很多民运分子一样很失望，美国到处是法律，怎么美国不是那个可以无法无天的地方呢？下面我就看到的几个误区讲解一下。 有人称，美国民主不是金钱政治，因为人们的政治捐款数量受到限制，不是有钱就可以左右政治。说这个话显然是一知半解。政治捐款限制只是给个人捐钱时有，但如果是捐给政治团体就是无限的。比如说，你给某候选人直接捐，这是有限制的。但如果是捐给一个支持候选人的团体，就没这个限制了。要是有钱，捐个一亿美金，到处打广告，甚至挨家按户宣传，是可以的。根据这个 华盛顿邮报 的报道，捐得最多的一个人 （TOM STEYER），2014年捐了 七千万美金，2016年已经花了 2500万美金。美国的亿万富翁们如果组成一个小团体，一起捐个几亿美金，是不成问题的。当然有钱也不一定能让谁上台。比尔盖茨就是花100亿美金，估计也无法让美国人民选举一街头流浪汉当总统，但有钱可以在条件差不多的情况下占得优势是毫无疑问的。这样的制度是不是好，我也不做评论。历史上，古代罗马共和国就是根据财产多少决定票的价值。你要说一个美国街头乞丐跟比尔盖茨平等，都只有一票，好像也不合理。盖茨是应该比乞丐更有政治影响力。 有人又称，美国民主下不会强行拆迁。这就是无知了。美国联邦、地方政府都在必要时可以强制拆迁 -- 按合理的市场价格补偿被拆迁者的钱就行了。在美国法律上， 这叫 Eminent domain。我举个例子，也是美国最高法院的一个判例：Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) 。案中，美国康纳迪克州的新伦敦市看中了一块地盘，上面有些房子等等私人财产，新伦敦市采用强征法要将这块地征用，交给私人投资商来开发。那些被强征的屋主不服。但是要知道，在美国这样的法治国家，你不服是不能够抗拒政府的。在美国当钉子户，警察可能把你就地枪决。怎么办？你得上法院。一直打到 康纳迪克州最高法院，输了。一般来说，很多人就算了。这些屋主不服，打到了美国最高法院。注意，最高法院不是审核法院，但美国最高法院受理了。这涉及一个宪法问题，叫做 taking clause。美国最高法判决结果：征收合法，没有侵犯公民权利。相关判决洋洋洒洒，而且根据美国以前的判例，有兴趣的可以自己看。 先写这么多，再根据情况补充。 补充图片：下图是法院裁决房主必须撤出住宅后的镜头（2008获奖照片） 下图：美国的强制拆迁（Chavez）：照片充分体现了的美国法治与言论自由 （警察强制拉走女住户、媒体现场报道） Kelo 判决书： https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZO.html 建议先读读，学学美国民主法治再发言。下面是美国最高法院精神： Petitioners contend that using eminent domain for economic development impermissibly blurs the boundary between public and private takings. Again, our cases foreclose this objection. Quite simply, the government’s pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties. For example, in Midkiff, the forced transfer of property conferred a direct and significant benefit on those lessees who were previously unable to purchase their homes. In Monsanto, we recognized that the “most direct beneficiaries” of the data-sharing provisions were the subsequent pesticide applicants, but benefiting them in this way was necessary to promoting competition in the pesticide market. 467 U.S., at 1014. The owner of the department store in Berman objected to “taking from one businessman for the benefit of another businessman,” 348 U.S., at 33, referring to the fact that under the redevelopment plan land would be leased or sold to private developers for redevelopment. Our rejection of that contention has particular relevance to the instant case: “The public end may be as well or better served through an agency of private enterprise than through a department of government–or so the Congress might conclude. We cannot say that public ownership is the sole method of promoting the public purposes of community redevelopment projects.” Id. 对比中国 (看看 美国人民在这个问题上是多么羡慕中国人民 ） （下面两张图是从美国人 羡慕贴 中摘取，该贴中有美国人贴的美国强拆照）
不知在哪听到过一句话：“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”（有一点知识是危险的）。今天在网上看到有人说：【 美国警方抓人的时候必须有法官签署的通缉令 】。感到一知半解确实危险。 假如你在美国，警察要逮捕你，你去质问警察有没有逮捕令，跟警察争执，甚至发展到对抗，就非常危险了。这种情况下，警察可以根据自己对威胁程度的判断，采取各种行动，包括将你就地枪决。最近发生的一起黑人被枪决的案子就是如此。华人也有被美国警察就地枪决的，只是华人比较怕事，不敢抗议。多年前，一名台湾来的旧金山湾区的电脑工程师高冠仲喝了点酒在自己家门口吵吵闹闹，警察跑来制止，高的妻子前去劝他进屋，警察让高妻让开，然后啪啪啪连发数枪，高当场毙命。这个案子警察没有任何责任。高家孤儿寡母也没有这个闹事的能量。根据网上的报道，高家民事起诉，最后政府支付了100万和解，事情就这么过去了。 回到这个问题，美国警察逮捕人是否必须有逮捕令？ 答案当然是否定的。通常情况下，美国警察逮捕人根本不需要逮捕令。道理也很简单，逮捕人还要去法庭申请，那犯罪嫌疑人早都跑了。 那么什么情况下需要逮捕令呢？ 根据现今的美国联邦案例法，只有去嫌疑人家里逮捕人才需要逮捕令 。1980年以前去家里也是可以无令去家里逮捕的。1980年美国最高法院才在 Payton v. New York 案中裁定，去家里逮捕嫌犯得有逮捕令。注意，这个家必须是嫌疑人住的地方，工作地方就不算。而且必须是在家里面，如果嫌疑人双脚跨出了家门槛，就不需要逮捕令了。甚至只要是门是开着的，也不需要逮捕令。在 U.S. v. Santana 案中，警察去一个贩毒嫌疑人家，嫌疑人门开着，站在门口，一脚在内、一脚在外，看到警察，嫌疑人跑进了屋里，警察追进屋内，将其逮捕（无逮捕令）。下面两级法院都判处警察无令逮捕非法，但美国最高法院推翻了这个结果。美国最高法的判决认为，因为嫌疑人门开始开着的，虽然之后逃进了屋子，这种情况也无须逮捕令(arrest warrant)。 在美国的大多数州，还有一种情况需要逮捕令，那就是涉嫌的是轻罪，而且警察没有目击。换言之，如果是涉嫌重罪，既不需要目击、也不需要逮捕令（除非是去家里）就可以逮捕嫌犯。那么什么是重罪呢？美国的定义是法律规定可能判一年或以上徒刑的就是重罪。注意，这是根据法定可以判的最高刑罚，而不是根据实际判的刑罚。比如说，一件罪行最多可以判1年半，这就是重罪 --- 即使可能法院最后只判了一个月。 有了上述的基本概念，就千万不要以为美国自由世界可以漠视警察，甚至对抗警察的拘捕权。否则后果可能很严重，出了事还被认视为不懂法。 美国警察逮捕人的权限很大，但有一个权限则很可能确实是需要法庭命令的 --- 那就是搜查。这我在之前讲过。不过，即使遇到警察对你进行没有搜查令的搜身，你也不要争执。等上了法院，你可以提出这是非法搜查，如果成立，所有证据都必须被排除。
最近美国最高法院的一个案子（ FISHER v . UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTINET AL.） 值得亚裔（包括华人）高度注意。2008年，案中德州一名白人女学生 FISHER 想 进德州大学 (UT)，由于UT虑种族因素，没被录取。这位女生说： 我班上很多成绩比我差、课外活动比我少的人都进了UT，唯一的差别是我们的肤色 。This is America and this is wrong! 女生于是毅然拿起法律的武器，捍卫自己的权利。案子在联邦最高法院都走了两回，到如今已经是八年抗战了。 中国历史上长期缺乏法制概念，朝廷说了算，朝廷就是法律。美国不同。美国这样的 法治国家是一台依照法律运转的机器。 在美国，总统说话、51%美国民众支持你都没有用，得看法律怎么说-- 包括法院的案例法。 要改变族群命运，只有改变法律。 美国最高法院的判决就是法律。 美国黑人就懂得这一点。有兴趣的可以研究Brown v. Board of Education 这个案子以及其历史。很多人可能都不知道这个案子，更不知道这个案子的重要性，但它却是美国黑人命运的关键转折。如何从 separate but equal （分开但是平等）到 separate is unequal （分开就是不平等），是一个逻辑与事实论证的问题。是法律智慧的较量。 当年，美国国会探讨通过排华法，那时在美国的华人大部分是文盲苦力，英语更不行，可能都不知道有这个法律在酝酿就通过了。华人的种族命运也变了，只是变得很惨。随后，有白人律师借某些案件打官司，结果美国最高法院判决说 排华法没有违宪（ 参见The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 US 581 （1889））。 二战期间，美国废除了联邦的排华法；朝鲜战争后，华人是人的概念被事实确立，加州废除了华人非人法，但美最高法院就排华法的 判决的法律精神至今没有推翻 ，现在还经常被引用（注一）。 现在美国又出现了种族歧视的现象。一位白人女生挺身而出了。为什么没有华人学生去打官司呢？华人怕公堂，不懂得在法治社会走法制道路；再就是缺乏公民使命感，自己打这种官司太麻烦，等于花钱学雷锋 -- 像 FISHER的案子已经8年、她早都在别处大学毕业、结果对她自己来说也早就没有意义了-- 等别人去干好了；还有就是文化隔阂，可能对美国宪法缺乏理解。 什么是歧视？中文里“歧视”这个词主要是贬义的，等于“视为次等”。但是英文 discriminate 一词在很多情况下是一个中性词，其意思仅仅是区别看待。"Discriminate on the basis of race" 一句的意思仅仅是根据种族区别对待。因此，德州大学招生考虑种族因素，如果翻成中文，那就是 racial discrimination。那么美国可不可以种族歧视？ 答案在哪里？法治国家得看法律条款。反歧视的条款是美国内战后才有的，是美国烈士们用鲜血换来的， 这就是宪法第14修正案 。原则性条款是这么写的：【No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.】中文翻译是【任何州不得拒绝给与其管辖范围内的任何人法律的平等保护】。这就是”平等保护”（EQUAL PROTECTION）。这么简单而且相对灵活的一句话，衍生出各种法律及法律解释。 至少到目前为止，遇到歧视的问题，分析基本分三步。 先得看是否涉及政府行为 ，英文称 State Action，然后才能讨论这个平等保护。如果不能证明相关歧视是政府行为（或者有特殊法律 如 Title VII），你当然可以嚷嚷、制造点舆论，但从法律上是没法的。有个华人律师在联邦法院起诉 GOOGLE 搜索排名中存在歧视，法官让他证明涉及 STATE ACTION，结果他证明不了被 RULE 11 制裁了一把。相比之下，莫虎在桑兰案试图启用 Rule 11，数击不中，海明、徐律全身而退（至少就 Rule 11 如此）。如果有人起诉某私人篮球队优先录取黑人球员是种族歧视，估计也会被法院轰出去。 确定是政府行为之后，然后要看是什么类型的歧视，再根据类型进行审查。第一类是最敏感的 “可疑分类”（suspect classification)，如种族歧视属于重点怀疑对象。进行“可疑分类”的法律必须经过“严苛审查”（strict scrutiny)才能通过。政府必须证明这种歧视有强烈的原因，而且是没办法的办法，只能歧视了。绝大部分情况下，严苛审核的结果是相关法律被列入违宪而废掉。另外的非可疑级别的歧视，如年龄歧视，就不需要严苛审查了，政府只需要给出一定的理由。而像性别歧视，就属于中等级别的歧视，在此不做赘述。 有了上面的基础知识，我们有法可依了。德州的案子当然涉及政府行为 -- 因为是公立学校（私立学校如果拿了联邦经费也差不多）。也就是说，EQUAL PROTECTION可以用了。然后看是什么级别：根据种族 -- 所以这是可疑分类。需要什么审核？必须是严苛审核（strict scrutiny)。结果如何？ 4:3 通过了。 这就很令人忧虑了。 从法院组成看，有名共和党任命的资深大法官 Antonin Scalia 在今年初去世了，如果他在，估计是通不过的。 很多华人在评论这个案子或者类似案子的时候，还在说什么“平权”。说黑人可以优惠上大学，我们要优惠进篮球队。把歧视说成平权就有点搞事不清了。按照所谓平权的逻辑，当年在加州淘金，华人脑子比较灵活、手也巧，总是淘得多些，那排华法是不是平权？ 也许看看反对意见的大法官怎么说的更加明白。ALITO大法官写道：【（第五巡回法院）好像亚裔美国学生根本不存在。。。由于名额有限，给非裔与西裔优惠不可避免地减小那些拿不到种族优惠的学生的入学机会而对他们造成伤害。。。德州大学的计划对亚裔美国学生构成歧视。。政府几乎没有解释为什么它需要进行种族歧视】（ Given a “limited number of spaces,” providing a boost to African-Americans and Hispanics inevitably harms students who donot receive the same boost by decreasing their odds of admission.", " UT plan discriminates against Asian-American students ", " the government has provided littleexplanation for why it needs to discriminate based on race"). 作为少数族裔，美国华人是选择与黑人、拉丁群体共进退，还是与白人结盟，在某种程度上取决于民族自信。 注一：Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, 303 F. 3d 681 (6th Cir. 2002) "The Government's broad authority over immigration was first announced more than one-hundred years ago in The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 9 S.Ct. 623, 32 L.Ed. 1068 (1889)... The power to expel or exclude aliens a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control.") (citations omitted). This power was derived not from an express provision of the Constitution, but from powers incident to sovereignty. The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. at 609, 9 S.Ct. 623.
最近在 翰山 案中，美联邦法院（加州）对于EMAIL传票可行性再次进行了确认。无论针对美国国外还是国内的被告，EMAIL传票都是可行的。 针对美国国外被告，如果是海牙传票条约签署国，只要没有明确反对EMAIL传票，那么根据联邦巡回法院的判例，EMAIL传票有效。相关案例大家都应该清楚了。 针对美国国内被告，相关的联邦法院例反而不是不是那么清楚。 在翰山案中，我引用案例提出，针对美国国内被告，根据“ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) and section 413.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure” ，在其他传票送达失败的情况下，可以用EMAIL送达传票。对此， 美国联邦法院法官表示认可。但是法官认为我没有出示无法通过普通邮件送传票的证据，认为应该先“ attempt service by mail pursuant to section 415.40.“ （普通邮件）。如果普通邮件不行，则可EMAIL送达。 杨文彬案中，我曾EMAIL传票问题上法院进行了相当时间的辩论。我认为，在当面送达与挂号信都失败的情况下，可以使用EMAIL。我认为，海牙传票公约是 United States 签订的条约，因此也是 United States 的法律。联邦下级法院（包括巡回法院）在解释 United States 法律的案例虽然对州法院不是 binding （这本身是个有趣的问题），但是相当的persuasive 。对此，州法院法官认为，如果立法部门认为 EMAIL传票可以，应该会在相关条款中写入。州法官没有采纳对海外被告发EMAIL 传票的动议。 最终，杨案以重寄挂号信传票解决。
南海美军入侵，是中国邓小平官僚主义亡国灭种路线的必然结果。但是，广大爱国的人民群众，开启了抗议的序幕。昨天中国左翼爱国人士，在美国驻广州领事馆前愤怒声讨了美国侵略行径，并向美国提交《人民抗议书》。 国家主权没有谈判的余地，只有一个字：打！！！ 人民抗议书 中国是全体中国人民的国家，面对美国军舰今天开进中国南海12海里的侵略行径，全体中国人民绝对不可沉默。强烈抗议美帝国主义对我国南海的侵略。全体中国人民都要发出自己愤怒的吼声，誓死捍卫国家领土领海完整不被侵犯。 We will not attack unless we are attacked; if we are attacked, we will certainly counterattack. 人不犯我,我不犯人; 人若犯我, 我必犯人。 Go out from China South Sea ,US warmonger! 美国战争贩子滚出中国南海! 毛泽东的人民路线是如何处理外国军舰入侵的。爱国的同胞们，清醒吧！ 当年英国军舰闯入中国后，被中方暂时扣押，多数高层领导起初都主张通过外交途径，谈判解决问题，但毛主席斩钉截铁、掷地有声地表示：“不!”，他说： ——如果连中国的主权都不能维护，连中国人最基本的尊严都无法保障，那我们还有什么资格成立中国共产党、中国人民解放军呢? ——他们这是明明不把中国人放在眼里嘛!是觉得，他们生来就是高人一等，我们中国人没有跟他们平等对话的权力。 ——主权问题，是民族的根本利益。中国的主权不容侵犯!这就是我们的底线。人不犯我我不犯人，人若犯我我必犯人。他要是还要来硬的，那就来一艘打一艘!他联合美国、蒋介石一起来，好啊!那就连带着一起打!照打不误!老子就不信这个邪了! 听完毛主席这番慷慨激昂的讲话，朱老总拍案而起，激动地握着毛主席的手说：“好!老毛，我佩服你!” http://video.weibo.com/player/1034:f0a8ec2f311d08d06a9d7102ee224027/v.swf
1. 刚来美国不久，有一漂亮女生上前来，问道：“Excuse me. Where is the restroom?" 我不解地反问： ”restaurant?" 不知为何，女生表情有点怪异，我以为怀疑我不够乐于助人，解释道道 ”Sorry. I don't know where you can find a restaurant ". 女生瞪大了眼睛。。。 2. 刚来美国两天，路上有一漂亮女生（可能那时我刚来美国，看见美国女生都觉得漂亮）走过来，问能否借她几个 coin 打电话， 我很爽快地掏出所有硬币，谁知她问道，能否再给她些钱买早餐。。。。 这件事我当时真是不解。 3. 在教学楼里经常看见一长发女生，见面点个头，算是认识。有一天，我进洗手间，豁然发现她在里面，大吃一惊之余，我以为自己糊涂到搞错了男女。 女生回过头来（但没有转身啊），嫣然一笑，说：【。。。。。。。】 最后这个省略的，大家自己去猜吧。
在美国，不受宪法“言论自由”保护的言论主要有三种：“诽谤”（defamation）、“战语”（fighting words)与“下流语“（obscenity)。这里，我们着重看一下前面两者，诽谤与战语。 诽谤这个我们应该很熟悉。它是指用虚假的事实损害他人名誉。这里的关键是存在虚假的事实陈述。什么样的话可能构成诽谤？ 我举了 桑兰诉海明的例子 。海明说桑兰欠房租不交还偷了他出租房的钥匙（ Lan Sang has defaulted on her rent and stole the keys） ，联邦法官就裁决这里两个事实陈述---欠租与偷钥匙 -- 都可能构成诽谤。从这个例子可以看出，说话中涉及事实的，必须小心，如果发生扭曲事实的情况，那么就可能构成诽谤了。 什么是”战语"呢？ 美国最高法院在 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 案中给出的基本定义是：可能引起听者进行暴力回应的语言。法院写道：” insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"。父母出于保护小孩的目的，一般会教育孩子不要对人说侮辱攻击性言论而遭到暴力对待。因此， 有教养的人不会去对人说单纯侮辱性的话。美国有关“战语”的法律 似乎把是一个简单的教养问题进行了法制化。那些缺乏教养，而有朋友、家人学过美国法律的，通过二手学习美国法律应该可以改善自己的基本素质。
Yet the most chilling aspect of Jiang Dingwen’s account was his description of the reaction of the local civilian population: During this campaign, the unexpected phenomenon was that the people of the mountains in western Henan attacked our troops, taking guns, bullets, and explosives, and even high-powered mortars and radio equipment . . . They surrounded our troops and killed our officers. We heard this pretty often. The heads of the villages and baojia (village mutual-responsibility groups) just ran away. At the same time, they took away our stored grain, leaving their houses and fields empty, which meant that our officers and soldiers had no food for many days.17 Jiang grudgingly admitted that the army’s own behavior may have played a role. “There were certainly a minority of soldiers who did not keep discipline and harassed the villagers,” he conceded, “but it was the lack of civilian administration that meant that they could not compete with the military.” However, Jiang did see how damaging the breakdown of trust had been. “Actually this is truly painful for me to say: in the end the damages we suffered from the attack by the people were more serious than the losses from battles with the enemy.”18 Jiang’s account was self-serving, placing the blame on Tang, Chiang, and anyone but himself. A document submitted to the government indicting the commanders was unsparing in its accusations. The reason for the failure of the campaign in the First War Zone, they declared, was that “Jiang Dingwen and his deputy Tang Enbo paid no attention to political and military matters,” and had instead diverted their time to enriching themselves, thereby encouraging their subordinates to act in the same way. Jiang and Tang’s troops had had various advantages, for instance, Czech weapons that might actually have been superior to some of those used by the enemy, yet they were never properly used. They had taken a cut from the ordinary soldiers’ salaries, the accusation went, and had padded the official rolls with nonexistent soldiers to claim their salaries, so the divisions were actually undermanned. While Jiang Dingwen was nominally in command, most observers believed that Tang Enbo was the real authority, and his accusers aimed their fire squarely at him. Heroics at Taierzhuang six years previously now carried no weight. “Tang Enbo had the major responsibility for defeating the enemy in central China,” declared his critic, Guo Zhonghuai. “But when the enemy were crossing the Yellow River . . . he didn’t himself lead from the front, but retreated . . . relaxing and taking a dip in the hot springs.” With the lead officer taking a long soak some 400 li away (perhaps 800 kilometers) from the battlefront, the troops scattered and ran: “No wonder they didn’t fire even one bullet.” Tang’s troops, supposedly among the elite of the Nationalist forces, were used alongside civilians to carry the baggage of officials who wanted to escape the combat zone. Tang himself fled, taking with him two telegraphists and about 20–30 personal bodyguards, “running like a rat . . . and completely losing contact with his army.” The accusations sharpened: Tang, they said, had faked reports claiming that he had engaged with the enemy, or was going to attack. ... The indictment against Tang and Jiang went on. Because the soldiers lacked supplies, they had to “borrow” grain from the farmers, and they were distracted from training by the need to find the grain and mill it. Even when they had done this, the poor quality of the grain meant that they were undernourished, and “their will to fight was exhausted.”20 The relationship between the population and the military was now utterly hollow. When the northern part of Henan fell to the Japanese, the invaders seized much of the grain that had been left in the official government granaries: the million bags of flour captured could have nourished 200,000 soldiers for five months. Tang’s excuse—that the Henan peasants had been deceived by collaborators and were seizing the Nationalist army’s weapons—was dismissed by Guo Zhonghuai: “Everyone knows that the Henan people are loyal and brave, and even at a time of drought and famine they offered men and grain.” In fact, Tang was right. The locals had simply picked up the weapons that the Nationalist troops had abandoned when they fled, to defend themselves against the Japanese. “Even if there is an Allied victory which changes the war situation, it will still be very difficult to recover the northern provinces and the important area of Henan,” Guo admitted. ... Everett F. Drumright, one of the US embassy staff based in Xi’an (and a future ambassador to Chiang’s government on Taiwan), had sent an account of the battle to Gauss, who in turn forwarded it to the State Department. Some 60,000–70,000 Japanese troops had been met with only “token resistance,” and the First War Zone was now “shattered,” along with the reputations of Jiang Dingwen and Tang Enbo. “Chinese suffered heavy losses in men, material, and crops. Loss of wheat crop, best in years, most serious loss.” Shaanxi, the next province to the west, now lay open.23 Theodore White also observed all the features that had made the defeat in Henan such a rout—commanders absent from the field, officers using military facilities to evacuate their private property, and the seizure of oxen from the peasants—as well as the result: soldiers being disarmed by their fellow Chinese. “Within three weeks the Japanese had seized all their objectives; the railway to the south lay in their hands, and a Chinese army of 300,000 men had ceased to exist.”24 ....
我在 这篇文章中提到 ，加拿大的 Wenbin Yang 在我发出动议要求确认电子传票有效之后，递交了一份QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS 的动议。看罢，我不禁哑然失笑。 iMan 是强烈要求到加州跟我打官司的，他要撰写英文诽谤文（诽谤性英文标题略）， 【 进入美国法律大厦PACER，跟克伦斯·达娄这些美国历史上著名的大律师一起与世长存 。】 我有两天忙没有理他，他破口大骂之余，向我喊话到： 【 你还是尽快把诉状递上来吧。。。。本来也想顺便去加州玩玩的呢，有你资助，何乐不为 。 】（这里省去许多暴力威胁性言论）。类似的话他在各网站大量散发。 这对我而言出现了一个艰难的抉择。 我虽然不是律师，但好歹上过 ABC 全国电视； iMan不过是 新语丝被方舟子封杀流窜出来的一个痞子 ，他现在声称要来加州跟我打官司、在美国法律界扬名立万 ，我起诉他“老人家”对他的在网上追求存在感来说当然是非常有利的； 而且在美国起诉一个加拿大的人士要困难一些。 谁赢了他，也不过是赢了一个网络流痞；他就算输了，也实现了他留名美国法院的人生目标。 这么说来，起诉 iMan 相对费力而且对我没有任何正面的好处，但对于 iMan 倒可能是求之不得的好事。 但如果我不起诉他，那么他的种种基于谎言的诽谤言论就会成为被默认的事实，他可以在他的余生拿着这些谎言在网上到处散发，我只要出现在网上，他就可以跟去闹，我就是从此躲起来、消失于网络，他也可以肆无忌惮的到处散布其谎言。我如果不起诉 iMan，对我损害极大。 从社会效应来说，起诉 iMan 对普及法治观念以及网络文明是有正面效果的；而任其诽谤， 对类似 iMan 的行为是一种纵容与助长；网上不学好、易学坏的人不少 --- 湾外默默赞许其流痞言论、跟在他帖子后面起哄、成为他的粉丝、是非不分为他效忠的伪善者不一而足。 经过 这一系列得失的权衡，我最终艰难地选择了依法维权，选择了起诉。 起诉的对象是杨文彬。我的状纸中对杨文彬的背景介绍是这么写道：【 On information and belief, Yang had college education from Nanjing Chemical Engineering College, Nanjing, China (Chinese: 南京化工学院 ) . He studied as a graduate student in the 1990s at the University of Paderborn in Germany, where he graduated in 1999. No scholarly papers can be found to be authored by Defendant Yang in leading western research journals.... In September 2013, Defendant Yang registered on ZZB as "iMan". Immediately, iMan engaged in wide ranging attacks on other persons on ZZB, often using sexually explicit, violent and insulting language. Acting as the administrator of ZZB, Plaintiff repeatedly deleted iMan's offending posts, and repeatedly augmented the rules of the ZZB to prohibit various expletives, language of bodily violence, and other abuses which ZZB had not foreseen but made necessary by Yang's abusive postings.... On information and belief, prior to Defendant Yang's appearance on ZZB, he was an active poster on the website XYS.ORG ("XYS"), originally with the online identity JFF, whose real identity was later published by the operator of XYS and republished elsewhere on the internet in 2011. While at XYS, Yang gained notoriety for his indecent and obscene language, often making sexual insults on female users and others' female family members. On ZZB and other web sites, Yang's verbal abuses continued and intensified, but English translations of Yang's depraved messages would be too indecent to be included here. Because of Defendant Yang's indecent and violent postings, he was repeatedly banned by ZZB and other websites, yet he kept coming back with more offensive postings. 】（注意这里只是背景，而不是诽谤内容，网上暴力下流语言的民事责任可能是精神伤害，诽谤必须包含虚假事实）。 读者们马上会冒出一个问题，网上诽谤者是 IMAN（及其马甲）， 你起诉杨文彬并且说他是IMAN 。这个在法律上是怎么回事？ 有一个现象，翰山案的起诉书我公布了。公布之后，那些原来喜欢就翰山案大发高论的人们似乎都不再发表高论。但似乎奇怪的是，针对杨文彬诽谤的起诉书我没有公布，其诽谤的具体证据也就没有公开。GAOGAO HAN 的被公布，杨文彬的没有，这个差别是为什么呢？ 被告杨文彬在其给法院的 MOTION TO QUASH 中写道，原告起诉的实际是iMan, 但他不能确认自己是 iMan ( ” the current Defendant Wenbin Yang is unable to confirm that if he is the right and proper party to be named in this suit "）。 这些问题，我会在回应杨文彬的 QUASH 动议时解答，现在留给大家思考好了。 附件：杨文彬给法院的证词
起诉 翰山酷网侵权、诽谤的状纸 中有一个部分 “JURISDICTION”（管辖权），论述联邦法院的管辖权，其中SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ("争议管辖权”）部分写道： This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a), as this action arises out of the laws of the United States of America, specifically, the claims for copyright infringement founded upon the Copyright Act at 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq ., and the claims of false designation of origin and false advertisement founded upon the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq . This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the defamation and state unfair competition claims as they arise out of and relate directly to Defendants' conduct in violation of federal law, as alleged herein. 大家如果仔细读读 美国宪法第三章关于司法分支的条款 ，里面列举了美国联邦法院能管的争议的各种情况，包括当案件涉及美国宪法或者美国联邦法律，以及不同州的公民之间的纠纷，等等。如果相关争议不是宪法里列举的情况，那么对不起，联邦法院没有争议管辖权，你只能去别的法院，比如说州法院。 那么美国联邦法律能管些什么事情呢？这个又被美国宪法给限制了。 读美国宪法要像读计算机手册一样 。只有那些明确写在宪法里属于联邦政府的权力，才是美国联邦政府能够施行的，其余的权力归于各州及人民。宪法第一章第八节规定美国国会有权提倡科学、艺术、鼓励创作、发明，给作者、发明家们专有权 （“ To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”） 。聪明的读者马上知道了，这是指版权（copyright）与专利。版权与专利这两种知识产权不是自然存在，而是法律的产物。我曾经论证到，西方文明的一个重大优势就是这个知识产权的概念，促进了发明、创造与科学的发展。因为知识产权如此重要，美国的创始人们把他们写入了宪法，由美国联邦政府统一管理。任何州法与联邦版权或者专利法冲突都是不行的。 知识产权除了版权、专利之外，还包括商标权。美国国会最初根据上面提到的宪法中赋予的管理版权的权力制订了一部商标法。结果，美国最高法院裁决该法律无效（1879年）：“A trademark is neither an invention, a discovery, nor a writing within the meaning of the eighth clause of the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution... That legislation is void for want of constitutional authority... ” （商标既不是发明，也不是发现，也不是宪法 I.8.8 节所说的作品，国会根据改节授权制订商标法无效）。后来，美国国会根据宪法中的"Commerce Clause"重新制订了商标法。所谓 "Commerce Clause"写道：“ To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." 换言之，联邦政府有权管理美国与外国、不同州之间以及与印第安人部落之间的商务--- 但不包括完全是一个州内部的商务。以这条为依据制订的商标法就符合了美国宪法。 具体到翰山酷网案，它涉及两部联邦法律，一是 Copyright Act, 而是 Lanham Act，联邦法院就有了管辖权。而本来由州法管辖的诽谤、不公平竞争等作为附带诉求就一并加上去了。 新移民不远万里来到法治的美国，应该积极学习法律，做守法公民才是正道。 U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:15-cv-03463-JCS Yue v. Han et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement Date Filed: 07/28/2015 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright Jurisdiction: Federal Question Plaintiff Dongxiao Yue representedby Dongxiao Yue 2777 Alvarado Street., Suite C San Leandro, CA 94577 PRO SE V. Defendant Gaogao Han Defendant Hanshan.Co Defendant Hanshan.Info Date Filed # Docket Text 07/28/2015 1 COMPLAINT with Demand for Jury Trial against Gaogao Han, Hanshan.Co, Hanshan.Info (Filing fee $ 400., Receipt Number 44611012617). Filed by Dongxiao Yue. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Receipt) (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2015) (Entered: 07/29/2015) 07/28/2015 2 Certificate of Interested Entities by Dongxiao Yue (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2015) (Entered: 07/29/2015) 07/28/2015 3 Summons Issued as to Gaogao Han, Hanshan.Co, Hanshan.Info. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2015) (Entered: 07/29/2015) 07/28/2015 4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 10/23/2015. Case Management Conference set for 10/30/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order) (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2015) (Entered: 07/29/2015) 07/29/2015 5 REPORT on the filing of an action regarding Copyrights Infringement. (cc: form mailed to register). (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2015) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
北美中国移民往往带着中国传统封建时代的印记，不明白中西司法系统的区别，往往拿中国的衙门去往美国的法院上套。这就出问题了。 有次有一个人给我看一法庭的命令，说这个命令的全部内容就是对方律师写的，法官只在上面签了个字。这人气愤地说道： （美国）法院又不是对方家开的，他们说了不算。 其实，法官这么做完全可能是对的。美国法院是对抗性的。也就是诉讼双方根据法律与规则对抗，法官基本是一个被动的裁判角色，不会主动去做什么事情。基本的程序是，一方说A，令一方B，法官的任务是判断（1）谁符合程序；（2）谁更有道理。假如对方提出个什么说法，你没有反应，对方自然就赢了。 美国法官的主动性远远低于足球裁判。足球比赛中谁犯了规，裁判会主动吹哨子。但美国法院，对方如果违规，你必须自己去指出来。否则的话，你这个反对权可能就永久放弃了。 中国人思维不是这样，他们脑子里政府、法院应该是皇帝、包青天的角色，会主动去进行调查、分析，自己只要击鼓鸣冤即可。 杨文彬在彼岸网向人提问到，是否可以不理睬加州法院的传唤，到时再在加拿大安大略法院抗拒加州法院的管辖权？ 如果是这样，杨就处于相当被动的地步了。 对我的提醒，杨文彬可能会说，你真是个活雷锋啊。 这又是中国式思维，总是试图对一件事情进行道德性的揣测，而不是从客观角度来分析。 我也许有好为人师的缺点，但是这个讲解却是为了证明我给了杨文彬公平的通知 (fair notice），堂堂正正，而不是试图打伏击，企图 ambush 。在美国法庭上企图伏击对方是 highly prejudicial 的事情，对方会嚷嚷，法官也会认为你做法不公平。珍珠港式偷袭是美国人反感的。 有了给杨文彬的提醒，到了法庭上，我可以告诉法官，你看，我把后果都写得这么清楚，杨文彬也多次声明要来加州法院应诉与反诉，现在他不来，明显是畏惧正义，对他作出不利的裁决非常正当，其情节恶劣，应与严惩，也算 set an example for the society。同理，这个论证拿到加拿大法院也很有说服力。杨文彬都无法装天真，说草民无知请求原谅了。
美国最高法院以 5:4 票数裁决，各州不得禁止同性婚姻。 Obergefell v. Hodges 首席法官 John Roberts: “ Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.... The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to makeState change its definition of marriage. And a State’sdecision to maintain the meaning of marriage that haspersisted in every culture throughout human history canhardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution doesnot enact any one theory of marriage. The people of aState are free to expand marriage to include same-sexcouples, or to retain the historic definition.Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary stepof ordering every State to license and recognize same-sexmarriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and Ibegrudge none their celebration. But for those who believein a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening.... Five lawyers haveclosed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriageas a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue fromthe people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much moredifficult to accept." 翻译：美最高法院首席法官 约翰-罗伯茨：【根据美国宪法，法官可以说法律是什么，而不是法律应该如何 ... 结婚的基本权利不包括让州政府改变“婚姻”定义的权利。各州维持人类历史长期以来对婚姻的定义的决定很难说是非理性的。简单地说，我们的宪法没有制定一种婚姻的理论。各州人民可以自由选择扩展婚姻的定义以包括同性伴侣，或者保持历史传统的定义。今天，可是，最高法院采取了非同寻常的步骤，命令各州承认同性婚姻并发给结婚证。很多人会因此欢呼，我不会嫉恨他们的庆祝。但是，对于那些相信法制而不是人制的人们来说，最高法院多数者的做法令人深感沮丧... 五名律师（指五名法官）终止了人民的辩论，而把他们自己的看法制定为宪法权利。从人民手中窃取这一议题对于很多人来说给同性婚姻投下阴云，使这一社会巨变更加难以接受。】 最高法院大法官 SCALIA： “ I join T HE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy. The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me... It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.... And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine isto violate a principle even more fundamental ... But what really astounds is the hubris reflected intoday’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who composetoday’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135years... " 最高法院大法官 SCALIA：【我完全支持首席法官的意见。我单独写这个反对意见来唤起注意：那就是 这个法院对美国民主的威胁 。今天法院的判决对我个人来说没有太大的重要性.. 但是，具有压倒性重要性的是，谁是我的统治者。今天的判决说，我的统治者，美国从东海岸到西海岸三亿两千万人民的统治者，是最高法院九名律师中的多数.. 允许同性婚姻这种政策问题由任命的、显贵的、高度不具有代表性的九人小组来考虑并决定，违背了最为基本的原则 ... 尤其令人震惊的是今天的 司法暴动 中反应出的狂傲。构成今天多数的五名法官完全心安理得地结论: 过去135年来所有州都（在婚姻上） 违背了宪法 ...】 更多激烈交锋参见最高法的判决书： Supreme-Court-decison-14-556_3204
以前我不觉得自己的博士学位有什么，但后来发现，在美国这样的知识化社会，这个博士头衔其实蛮有用的。 我曾经起诉一家美国科技公司侵犯我的知识产权。被告律师都是名牌法学院的高材生，是硅谷一个著名律师事务所的合伙人、部门主管一级的人物，经常在我面前牛哄哄，总流露出我是从中国来的从美国获利那种口气。美国人对汉人这样看的很多，认为你占了便宜，欠美国的。有一天，我对他们说，以后你们得叫我 Dr. Yue。他们不愿意，说不知道我有博士学位。于是我拿出学位证书作为案件证据。从那以后，他们在所有场合，无论是口头还是书面，都叫我 Dr. Yue 。联邦法院的法官在法庭上，在裁决书中也开始用 Dr. Yue相称，而律师因为不是 Ph.D.，就只能称 Mr. 了。陪审团审判的时候，这个差别很明显，我对被称为 Dr. Yue 也开始听得很顺耳了，感觉不错。后来干脆讲讲自己论文被引用多少次，至今被引用等等。证明这学位货真价实，不管多少，是为 human knowledge 增加了内容的。被告花几十万请了两名博士专家，他们的任务当然是要贬低我的东西。这就发生陪审团相信哪个博士的问题了。最后，我们发掘了他们的背景，发现不如我，我的可信度至少就不会学识而受损。 从那以后，我对提起自己的博士学位也就不那么客气了。有次遇到一教Calculus BC的伯克利数学系毕业的中学数学老师问我懂不懂点微积分，我微笑道 I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics, 那位先生脸上略带的傲慢顿时无影无踪 。有次去医院，医生问我教育程度，一听我是Ph.D.，立刻跟我大谈各种深度的医学知识，甚至到分子生物的层次，估计以为我是生化博士。哈哈。否则，我估计他是懒得跟我多说那么多的。 英特尔以前的CTO名叫Pat Gelsinger（此人后来当了EMC与 VMWare的CEO）。他本来是在斯坦福攻电机系博士的，后来 CTO 工作繁忙没有这个精力。据他说，他跟妈妈打电话，她总要问：“你什么时候能拿到博士学位啊？” 能做到英特尔的技术总监，技术成就算可以了，但家族没有博士头衔，似乎成了这母子的遗憾。另外从这个故事也可以看出，父母不一定要自己有博士学位，培养儿子、女儿就可以了。因为自己不是博士而让后代保持这一教育程度是桎梏性的思维。 中国社会重官职，杜甫当过一个芝麻小官（ 检校工部员外郎） ， 后人也要称他杜工部。美国社会重学问。那些政府要员如果有博士学位的，总要在名字前面挂个 Dr. 像小布什的国务卿赖斯 (C ondoleezza Rice) 每次被提到，都是说赖斯博士。你可以贬低她的政治，但你得尊重她的博士学位。 She has earned it.
黄西是一名毕业于美国赖斯大学 (Rice University)的生物化学博士，看起来十足的书呆子摸样。他 改行搞脱口秀 ，多次出现在 Letterman 与 Ellen show 上。YouTube 上有个2010年的视频是他给美国的头面人物表演。那时我对美国元老院的人物们还比较清楚，一看，这可都是美国民主、共和两党的大佬们啊，副总统拜登被他不断调侃，观众席上就差总统奥巴马了，其余人不时被他逗得爆笑。下面是这段视频的部分： C-SPAN Joe Wong at RTCA Dinner - YouTube.mp4 注意当黄西说到， "'What's the 2nd Amendment?' "I was like, 'Uh, the reason our convenience store gets robbed?' 拜登几乎是拍案叫好。 而他说道："'What is Roe vs . Wade ?' I was like, 'Uh, two ways of coming to the United States?'" 几名女性观众那种表情简直就是出乎意料。 黄西冷幽默的层次有点像比较好的美国电影，具有相当的 intellect 。你需要一定层次的背景知识与一定联想能力才能回味。 黄西这种形式的脱口秀，可能只有在美国这样平均文化程度较高的国家才有市场。
希拉里要把监狱里的人放出来。这不是危害美国平民百姓人身安全吗？她要当选了，还有多少邪恶点子？ 以此换来黑人对她支持？她自己住在宫殿般的房子里，放出罪犯杀我们百姓？这令人联想到毒蛇，恐怖份子！ 杀外卖郎的是14岁的，希拉里想到过外卖郎吗？ "take care of every kid just like our own." 呵，虚伪到家了 ZT 老公在看希拉里今天的演讲，我凑过去听了一会儿。真让人生气。 她说：“美国有世界5%的人口，却有世界上20%在监狱的人口。那些犯了轻罪的人, 在 监狱里，导致父子分离。。。。。。” (脑补一下悲天悯人的语气） 什么是轻罪？她举例说是minor drug offender, 等。我不太懂政治。作为一个母亲， 我反正不想那些那些违法的人在外面晃悠。而且，美国犯罪的人多，为什么？是对低收 入人口不够好吗？看看巴尔的摩的骚乱。 又听到希拉里说： "take care of every kid just like our own." 我只想笑。你信 吗？她“take care" 自己孩子的标准是不是： 在几个孩子中，对自己"喜欢或有用” 的孩子特殊照顾？ 观众居然还热烈鼓掌。 原本觉得有个女总统也不错。但希拉里这个理念。。。实在喜欢不起来。 https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/its-time-end-era-mass-incarceration/
当广大汉人在满人主子面前跪地为奴的时候，美国人却处在一个血性的年代。下面以几例美国历史上名人的决斗予以证明。 1. 美国国父 founding fathers 之一的 Alexander Hamilton死于政敌枪口 Alexander Hamilton是美国国父之一，其对美国建国、美国宪法的贡献巨大。Federalist Papers 的大部分文章就是Hamilton 写的。美国建国后，他曾身任要职。满清嘉庆九年，由于政治观点的分歧， Hamilton 与其政敌进行了决斗。当时的决斗当然不再是用剑，而是手枪。 Hamilton虽然知道对手枪法精良，却毅然赴约。 Hamilton手枪发出的子弹从对方头顶飞过，击中一棵树。对手的子弹却击中了哈密尔顿的腹部。次日，一代英豪就此殒命。 2. 美国总统 Andrew Jackson 忍痛击毙对手 美国总统 Andrew Jackson的夫人与他结婚时，实际上是已婚而且尚未离婚的。这在那个宗教年代自然被当成一件很大的罪过（sin)，经常被 Jackson 对手拿来说三道四。有次有一对头在当地报纸拿这件事攻击Jackson。Jackson于是挑战其进行决斗。决斗对手是一名神枪手，先开枪射击，子弹击中 Jackson 胸部，打断肋骨，离心脏差一点点。Jackson 忍痛开枪，子弹击中对手胸部，后者流血而亡。 3. 林肯也不含糊 Andrew Jackson 给人的印象是脾气火爆的军人，参加决斗不奇怪。但给人印象温和的林肯也曾接受决斗挑战。起因是林肯发表了一篇措辞激烈的文章批评一名伊利诺伊州官员。但在决斗前双方达成了谅解，从而避免了一场枪战。这可能是林肯在成为美国内战北方总指挥前最接近实战的一次。 4. 加州最高法院首席法官枪法不错 加州前最高法院首席法官 David Terry 与一名美国联邦参议员 Broderick 本来关系不错，后者还曾称赞Terry 是唯一诚实的法官。后来两者因为奴隶制等政治问题发生分歧，互相攻击，最后决定一决生死。Terry 为了决斗做了不少功课，进行了手枪射击练习，而 Broderick 没有练。结果最后 Broderick 倒在枪下，三天后不治身亡。这是清咸丰九年之事。数年之后，湘军攻陷天京，灭拜上帝教。
美国法律系统是基于英国普通法传统，其特点是法官判决中的法律精神可以成为法律，所谓法官造法 (judge made law)。我在之前举了美国最高法院一个极为重要的判例， Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)。原告若干家长，被告是一个Kansas 州一个城市的教育局。但这个案子不只是解决这些家长及其子女上学的问题，其判决产生的法律精神成为了美国的法律。具体的说， Brown v. Board of Education 推翻了 separate but equal （隔离但是平等）( Plessy v. Ferguson ) 的原则，确立了 separate is unequal （隔离就是不平等）的原则。这一判决的重要性读者可以想象，因为这个案子建立原则很显然可以推广到教育之外，成为消除美国种族隔离制度的法律基石。 美国法院的判决往往洋洋洒洒、长篇大论，那么一个判决中哪些内容可以成为新的法律精神，成为其控制链中其他法庭必须遵循的法律准绳呢。只有判决书中的所谓 HOLDING 才能成为控制性的法律原则。HOLDING的字典定义与中文翻译如下 holding, n. (15c) : A court's determination of a matter of law pivotal to its decision; a principle drawn from such a decision. Cf. OBITER DICTUM. Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009), holding 。（ 对法庭得出裁决结果至关重要的法律原则的确定；从判决中得出的法律原则） 由这个定义可以看出，holding 是从案件抽象出来的、对逻辑获得判决结果 必要的 基本法律判断。一个判决书中的其他可有可无的内容就不是holding，而是 dicta（顺便提到的内容）。HOLDING对于后续案件是具有控制性的，是后续案件必须遵守的；而dictum 则没有这个法律效力。 上面的定义看似简单，但也有一定的模糊性。因此，很多律师搞不清一个判决里那些是holding，哪些是dicta。有不少案子就是因为这个混淆导致严重的错误。一般来说，只有非常糊涂的律师才会把HOLDING当成DICTUM加以忽略，更普遍的错误是把DICTUM当成了HOLDING。具体例子我就不在这多讲了。 具体到 切诺基案集（The Cherokee Cases) 中的 WORCESTER v. GEORGIA 案 ，其HOLDING是什么呢？ 这个案子我们在之前介绍过，乔治亚州立法对切诺基部落国实施管辖：白人没有乔治亚州颁发的许可证不得在切诺基国居留。依据该法，乔治亚抓捕了一名没有许可证住在切诺基国内的传教士，判处四年徒刑。切诺基给传教士雇佣了律师打到美国最高法院。美国最高法院裁决：切诺基作为印第安部落国享有一定的独立主权，并且受切诺基与美国联邦签订的条约的保护，乔治亚州不得侵犯切诺基，因此乔治亚州企图管辖切诺基的那条法律无效，既然法律无效，因此被依据该法律被判刑的传教士无罪。相关判决的英文全文大家可以在网上搜索。现在问题是，这个案子判决书的HOLDING是什么？ 根据上面的HOLDING的定义，我们应该顺着判决结论的逻辑链倒推回去，看那些是得出那个结论必要的具有一定普适性的（新的）法律原则。为什么案子中的传教士无罪释放？ 乔治亚州企图管辖切诺基的那条法律无效这可以算是HOLDING，但这是一个很窄的holding，除非你再碰到因同一条乔治亚法律引发的案子，这个holding根本用不上。进一步倒推，我们可以看出，为什么乔治亚这条法律无效？应该有另一个必要的法律判断，作为乔治亚这一法律无效的法律基础。因此，这个案子的更为广泛的holding是其关于印第安部落自主权及其与联邦的关系的法律结论。以后乔治亚或者其他州制订新的企图管辖印第安部落的法律，按照这个 holding, 这些新法律也是无效的、违宪的。 怎么验证我们以上逻辑分析的正确性？我们可以看看美国最高法院在之后是怎么引用 WORCESTER v. GEORGIA 案 的。下面我举1973年美国最高法院的一个判例： McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164, 93 S. Ct. 1257, 36 L.Ed.2d 129 (1973)。 McClanahan案的 争议是亚利桑那州是否有权对居住于印第安人保留地的印第安人征收个人所得税。在我们看这个案子的判决之前，不妨先自己逻辑思考一下，按照 WORCESTER v. GEORGIA 的HOLDING 结果应该是怎样？稍微动点脑子应该知道， WORCESTER v. GEORGIA 案说印第安人有自主权，受联邦条约保护，州不得侵扰，这个原则完全可以类推到州政府试图向印第安人征税的情况。美国最高法对 McClanahan 的判决关键内容如下 The principles governing the resolution of this question are not new ... This policy was first articulated by this Court 141 years ago when Mr. Chief Justice Marshall held that Indian nations were " distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive, and having a right to all the lands within those boundaries, which is not only acknowledged, but guarantied by the United States. " Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 557 (1832). It followed from this concept of Indian reservations as separate, although dependent nations, that state law could have no role to play within the reservation boundaries. " The Cherokee nation . . . is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter, but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties, and with the acts of Congress. The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our Constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States ." Id., at 561.... Although Worcester on its facts dealt with a State's efforts to extend its criminal jurisdiction to reservation lands, the rationale of the case plainly extended to state taxation within the reservation as well. 上面我特意把held一字加大。hold, vb. (bef. 12c) 2. (Of a court) to adjudge or decide as a matter of law。正是根据 WORCESTER v. GEORGIA 案关于印第安人部落国的地位及其权利不得被州侵蚀的holding， McClanahan案最终结论：【 In this case, appellant's rights as a reservation Indian were violated when the state collected a tax from her which it had no jurisdiction to impose. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below must be Reversed.】 至于美国最高法院在一系列案件中开始脱离 WORCESTER v. GEORGIA 的精神，这是美国法律的演化，就像 Brown v. Board of Education 开始否定之前 separate but equal 的原则。
我在【 《美国真正的可怕之处在哪儿？》的中国式误区 】一文中写到，提到美国国会通过《印第安人清除法》之后，【 切诺基于是在美国法院起诉，结果美国最高法院还判他们赢了（1832年）。然而，枪杆子里面出政权，依法治国的美国总统杰克逊嘲笑了美国最高法院一番，把美国最高法院判决当成一张废纸。】 中西部网客似乎没有听说过相关历史，还在查维基百科。 我今天本来准备买一本美国初中历史教科书送给中西部网客作为新年礼物的 ，正在亚马逊上查，突然发现网上就有初中历史课，还有多媒体录像。就先给他发过来 http://education-portal.com/academy/course/us-history-middle-school.html 打开第六章，第8课， http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/the-trail-of-tears-and-jacksons-indian-removal-act-of-1830.html 我建议他看相关课程录像并阅读相关文字。 我看了一下，发现这初中课本还讲得蛮透彻。还说杰克逊本是维护联邦权威的，只是在印第安人问题上就变了。 【 At the time Jackson was president, their lands had shrunk, but still they remained in control of sizable swaths of land in northern Georgia, Tennessee, and North Carolina, lands the white settlers wanted for growing cotton... With mounting pressure from all sides, the Cherokee tried to appeal their case to the United States Supreme Court in 1831 but were denied a hearing. In another court case, Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the Supreme Court held that the Cherokee were entitled to legal protection from encroachments by the state of Georgia on their lands. The problem was the Supreme Court gave opinions with no power to back them up. When it came time to enforce the ruling, Georgia and President Jackson, simply ignored it and continued preparations for the removal of the Cherokee.】 怕他英文程度不到美国初中，我翻译一下：【杰克逊执政期间，切诺基的土地已经缩减，但仍然控制了乔治亚北部、田纳西、北卡各州相当的土地，白人想用占据这些土地种棉花。。。面对来自各方日益严重的压力，切诺基在1831年尝试向美国最高法院陈情但被拒绝。在另一个案子（沃彻斯特对乔治亚）中，美国最高法院裁定切诺基领土有权获得法律保护而不受乔治亚州的侵蚀。问题是，美国最高法院可以给出判决，却并没有能力维护其判决。轮到强制执行判决的时候，乔治亚州与杰克逊总统简单地对判决不予理睬，而是继续进行清除印第安人的准备。】 先学学这段初中历史，然后对比本人写的 【枪杆子里面出政权，依法治国的美国总统杰克逊嘲笑了美国最高法院一番，把美国最高法院判决当成一张废纸。】 我干脆还再耐心一点，把我的中文翻成英文： 【'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' (quoting Chairman Mao)U.S. President Jackson, ’under the rule of law‘ (sarcasm), ridiculed the U.S. Supreme Court and treated the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court as a piece of junk paper.】
联邦最高法院的判决就是美国最高的法律，根据宪法第六条Supremacy Clause, 理论上各州不得违反。 最高法院的案子虽然都是具体案件，但其判决往往具有广泛的法律意义，而不是限于解决某个具体案例的争议。 例如，Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)， 原告只是20名家长，被告是一个Kansas 州一个城市的教育局。但这个案子不只是解决这些家长及其子女上学的问题，其判决产生的法律精神是全国性的。具体的说， Brown v. Board of Education 推翻了 separate but equal （隔离但是平等）的原则，确立了 separate is unequal （隔离就是不平等）的原则。 当阿肯色州小石城的九名黑人学生（史称 Little Rock 9) 试图根据美国最高法判决精神进入白人学校的时候，阿肯色州长出动国民卫队，用坦克制止这些学生进入。不服最高法判决的白人群众与黑人群众开始发生暴力冲突。但时代不同了，世界在看。当年林肯为什么宣布解放黑人奴隶？ 主要是为了在内战中获得反对奴隶制的英国与法国的支持。所以国际关系对美国国内政治是具有影响的。 毛泽东就曾亲自撰文支持小石城黑人争取人权，谴责美国种族歧视。 文明世界震惊。美国联邦政府于是出动了正规军准备镇压阿肯色州对联邦权威的违抗。艾森豪威尔警告阿肯色州不得蔑视最高法判决的同时，调动了驻扎于肯塔基州的美101空降师进驻小石城。美联邦军事力量终于维护了最高法的权威。 Brown v. Board of Education 的影响远远不止教育领域，而是扩大了整个Civil Rights领域，因为 separate is unequal法律逻辑也必然被用于其他领域。 WORCESTER v. GEORGIA 案 虽然表面上是他个人判刑的问题 ，但涉及的法律问题却是印第安人的主权、以及美国联邦政府的责任。正是联邦政府对美国最高法判决的蔑视，纵容了各州继续侵犯印第安人，为清除印第安人创造了条件。 切诺基人的不幸在于他们生活在一个孤立无援的时代。美国黑人的幸运在于他们有包括毛泽东思想的指引以及毛泽东的亲自指导。 参见我的旧作《 毛泽东思想与美国黑人的解放 》，《 朝鲜战争：一场确立中国人人权的战争 》 以及《 没有毛泽东，海华根本不被当人 》。
我在【 《美国真正的可怕之处在哪儿？》的中国式误区 】一文中写到，提到美国国会通过《印第安人清除法》之后，【 切诺基于是在美国法院起诉，结果美国最高法院还判他们赢了（1832年）。然而，枪杆子里面出政权，依法治国的美国总统杰克逊嘲笑了美国最高法院一番，把美国最高法院判决当成一张废纸。】 LAO律师我的上述说法提出了反对意见， 他写道：【 起诉人不是切诺基人，是住在切诺基部落（nation) 白人传教士，起因是他拒绝申请居住执照。 这个案件只是要求Georgia 州释放判刑的传教士，对当时联邦政府清除米西西比河以西的印第安部落没有直接约束力，对《印第安清除法案》没有任何影响，根本不存在“把美国最高法院判决当成一张废纸" 的说法。】 （相关讨论参见 ： http://www.bian-wang.com/discuz/home.php?mod=spaceuid=9999do=blogid=974 ） 下面，我针对LAO的上述见解，对 The Cherokee Cases 进行简单的普法与历史介绍。 1. 切诺基案例集 --- The Cherokee Cases 切诺基在美国法院起诉实际上有两个案子，第一个是 The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia （1831)，第二个是 Worcester v. Georgia (1832)。这两个案子在美国法律界统称为 The Cherokee Cases。在第一个案子中，乔治亚州试图对切诺基的土地进行管辖，切诺基在美最高法院起诉乔治亚州，要求停止乔治亚州的侵犯。美国最高法院认为切诺基不是外国（foreignstate), 因此，最高法对切诺基与乔治亚之间的诉讼没有管辖权（参见 A3)。但是，在判决文字中，最高法在很多地方是同情切诺基人的。 第二年，切诺基人通过 Worcester案 回到了最高法院，这次他们得到机会就案件争议进行辩论 （“ The Cherokee returned to the Supreme Court the following year in Worcester , and this time had the opportunity of arguing the merits of the case. ” --- The Cherokee Cases, West's Encyclopedia of American Law 2005)。 LAO 对相关历史可能不清楚，不知道历史背景及诉讼目的。Worcester 实际是一个进入切诺基支持印第安人权利的活动家，乔治亚的法律是专门为他及另外几个人制订的，不准他们未经乔治亚州许可进入居住该州内的印第安领地上，并将 Worcester等人逮捕判处四年徒刑 。乔治亚州长给这几个被判刑的颁布了赦免，但 Worcester与另外一人拒绝接受赦免，以便上最高法院挑战乔治亚州法违宪。 切诺基雇佣了律师为 Worcester上诉 。 请注意， 说【 这个案件只是要求Georgia 州释放判刑的传教士 】犯了不求甚解的错误。 该案子的 issue 不是申辩 Worcester没有违反乔治亚州的法律，而是说乔治亚州对切诺基领地没有管辖权，因此乔治亚的这项法律无效。 通过 Worcester是切诺基 绕过管辖权问题而再论切诺基主权的一招。 果然，最高法利用这个案子就印第安人的地位问题作出了对印第安人有利的裁决。美国最高法院完全赞成切诺基人的观点，认为切诺基的主权不容乔治亚侵犯 ( )。 【 切诺基于是在美国法院起诉，结果美国最高法院还判他们赢了（1832年）】，正是指的 The Cherokee Cases ；而认为 Worcester案【 只是要求Georgia 州释放判刑的传教士 】是不明就里、临时抱佛脚导致的错误。 2. The Cherokee Cases 的意义以及美国政府拒绝执行导致的三权分立制度的危机 LAO写道， Worcester案 【 对当时联邦政府清除米西西比河以西的印第安部落没有直接约束力，对《印第安清除法案》没有任何影响，根本不存在“把美国最高法院判决当成一张废纸" 的说法。】 LAO的【 对当时联邦政府清除米西西比河以西的印第安部落没有直接约束力，对《印第安清除法案》没有任何影响 】的说法表明他对相关法律与历史缺乏理解，英语阅读理解也成问题 （注一）。 LAO【 联邦政府清除米西西比河以西 的印第安部落 】的说法有两个问题：（1） Indian Removal Act 在文字上是印第安人自愿迁移，美国政府与印第安部落签约进行土地置换；（2） Indian Removal Act 中的【 their removal west of the river Mississippi】，不是【 清除米西西比河以西 的印第安部落】，而是将印第安人赶到密西西比河以西。犯这个错误固然是不知美国历史，但也是英文阅读力不行。 如果各州遵守美国最高法的在Worcester 案中的判决、尊重印第安人的主权，或者美国联邦政府遵守最高法的判决，遵守之前与印第安人的条约，承担对印第安人的保护责任，那么印第安人根本不需要选择迁移（注二）。美国政府以及州政府却蔑视最高法的判决，最终实行了强制迁移。【 More ominously, President Andrew Jackson, who favored the removal of the Cherokee nation and other Native American tribes, refused to enforce the Court's decision. His refusal illustrated the problem that occurs when one branch of government refuses to honor the decision of another branch. 】 政府 把美国最高法院判决当成一张废纸。 美国人具体的做法是，州继续侵犯印第安人，联邦政府拒绝保护印第安人，而是强逼处于不安全状态的印第安人签订迁移条约。很多情况下，是找印第安人的少数（根本不能代表其他大部分印第安人）签订一个迁移条约，然后政府军根据所谓条约对大部分不愿迁移的印第安人进行武力强制迁移，很多时候，条约甚至是在政府军的枪杆子逼迫下签订。对于那些拒不离开家园而东躲西藏的印第安人，美国政府军进行了长期的追杀。 相关的法律、制度危机，参见 Berutti, Ronald A. 1992. "The Cherokee Cases: the Fight to Save the Supreme Court and the Cherokee Indians." 我就不在此重复了。 注一：【 清除米西西比河以西的印第安部落】的说法也体现出逻辑能力薄弱；这条河贯穿美国南北，将美国分成两半，如果是清除 米西西比河以西的，怎么清除呢？ 注二：美最高法院判决书写道：【 the acts of Georgia are repugnant to the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. They interfere forcibly with the relations established between the United States and the Cherokee nation, the regulation of which, according to the settled principles of our constitution, are committed exclusively to the government of the union. They are in direct hostility with treaties, repeated in a succession of years, which mark out the boundary that separatesthe Cherokee country from Georgia; guaranty to them all the land within their boundary; solemnly pledge the faith of the United States to restrain their citizens from trespassing on it; and recognize the pre-existing power of the nation to govern itself.】
10 U.S. Code § 332 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion. 18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots 18 U.S. Code § 2102 - Definitions (a) As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual. 18 U.S. Code § 2102 (a)(2)的这个三人或以上集会构成威胁的定义相当灵活.你不需要进行实际暴力行动，只要构成威胁即可镇压. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2069context=vlr The Federal Anti-Riot Act and Political Crime: The Need for Criminal Law Theory
2012-02-19 23:13:48 从上个世纪50年代开始，美国黑人为了推翻可耻的种族隔离制度、争取基本民权进行了前赴后继的斗争。但黑人的争取自由、人权的斗争遭到了强烈的抵制，包括美国地方政府的武力镇压。在此仅举一例。1954年，黑人经过长期的法律斗争，终于在 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka , 347 U.S. 483 (1954)一案中否定了之前的黑白学生隔离制度。但美国最高法院的这一判决却迟迟无法实施。1957年，在阿肯色州，9名黑人中学生试图进入Little Rock中心高中（一所白人中学）就读，结果阿肯色州州长出动国民卫队包围该中学，阻挡黑人学生进入。而当地的白人群众纷纷卷入，与黑人群众发生冲突（参见历史频： http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xERXusiEszs ）。 美国总统艾森豪威尔不得不出动正规军维持秩序，避免了一场流血事件。然而在美国其他地方，黑人的流血斗争不断发生。经过艰苦的斗争，终于在1964年赢得了《民权法案》的通过。 黑人挣脱枷锁、获取自由的抗争需要思想的指引。而毛泽东思想在中国的胜利给美国黑人很大的启发与鼓舞。在许多美国黑人看来，中国革命是一个第三世界有色人种挑战西方种族奴役的成功范例。而毛泽东思想正是这个胜利的思想武器。美国学者Robin D.G. Kelley教授等对这段历史进行了相当完整的回顾与分析。有兴趣的可以参考 ：《 Black Like Mao: Red China Black Revolution 》。
我在《 长津湖战役中美兵力对比 》一文中提到，在长津湖战役中，美第十集团军司令 ALMOND给其师长们的指令是：“Don't let a bunch of Chinese laundrymen stop you." 这句话我在美国人写的朝鲜战争史上看到过两三次，印象很深，联想起美国最高法院关于 Chinese laundryman的一个判例，当时写文章时就写进去了。 今天偶然在GOOGLE上搜索这句话，竟出现上千个链接。点击进去，所看到的评论引入思考。 如果那场战争美国打赢了，这句话肯定会成为美国社会脍炙人口的名言。 下面是ＧＯＯＧＬＥ搜索出结果的部分截屏。
本文作者：刘瑜，博士，清华大学人文社会科学学院政治学系副教授，女。学者，作家，诗人。代表作：《民主的细节：当代美国政治观察》、《余欢》、《送你一颗子弹》 -------------------------- 我在哈佛做一年博士后，除了领钱，基本也没有什么别的任务。为了防止自己整天缩在家里，把薄薄的那一沓钱翻来覆去地数，我决定去旁听几门课。 那天我去学校我所在的机构，跟机构里的秘书表达了此意。她非常干脆地说，没问题啊，只要教授同意，都可以呀。我问，有没有一个什么社科方面的课程清单，我看看有什么课可选。我问的时候，想象的是几页纸，可以站那顺手翻完。结果说时迟那时快，柔弱的女秘书突然掏出一个庞然大物，向我递过来，我伸手一接，胳膊差点因为不堪重负而当场脱臼。 定睛一看，这本1000多页的玩意的封面上，赫然印着几行字： Courses of Instruction 2006-2007 Harvard University. Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Harvard College Graduate School of Arts and Sciens. 就是说，仅仅就本科和文理学院的课程表及课程的简单介绍（一般3－5行的介绍），哈佛就一口气列了1000多页。我估计，把哈佛全校的课程名单一一排列出来，是不是得绕上赤道一周两周啊。 以前在哥大听课，我就觉得自己已经见过世面了。现在，捧着这个庞然大物，我有种金轮法王突然路遇萧峰的悲凉感，过去六年建立起来的牛校感当即化作片片飞屑，随风而逝。 端着它回到自己的办公室，仔细研读起来。如同一个饥饿无比的人，捧着一个写满了各种山珍海味的菜单，边咽着口水边往下读。读到最后，就是《廊桥遗梦》里面女主角遇上男主角的感觉，之前和丈夫风平浪静的婚姻，原来都是不算数的，这才是真正伟大的爱情。 当然，让我产生伟大爱情的，不仅仅是哈佛所提供的课程之多，更重要的，是它所提供的课程之人性化。国内的媒体，时不时地就会把“大学精神”这个话题拿出来讨论一下。基本上大家都会达成一个共识：大学不是职业培训机构，大学精神不应当仅仅是训练工作技能的精神。据说，大学应该熏陶的，是一种人文精神。虽然“人文”这两个字，因为靠“文人”两个字太近，已经臭大街了，我觉得，大家还是应该再给它一次机会。 哈佛大学之所以是一流的大学，当然是因为它最有钱，然后用这些钱买了最先进的设备和雇了最牛的教授。但是同时，也是因为它蕴含了丰富的人文精神，而这一精神，最集中地体现在它的“核心课程”上（哥大也有，但是跟哈佛比，是小巫见大巫）。 所谓“核心课程”，就是学校提供给本科生的一系列基础课，学生必须从中选出几门作为必修课。这些基础课的目的，是让学生在进入知识的细枝末节之前，能够对他所置身的世界有一个框架性的理解和探索。这样当他置身于自己的专业时，能够知道自己所学习的，不过是一个巨大有机体里面的一个毛细血管。 摘抄一段关于“核心课程”的说明： “The philosophy of the Core Curriculum rests on the conviction that every Harvard graduate should be broadly educated, as well as trained in a particular academic specialty or concentration. It assumes that students need some guidance in achieving this goal, and that the faculty has an obligation to direct them toward the knowledge, intellectual skills, and habits of thought that are the hallmarks of educated men and women.” 哈佛的“核心课程”分成七个板块： Foreign Cultures; Historical Study; Literature and Arts; Moral Reasoning; Quantitative Reasoning; Science; Social Analysis. 拿Moral Reasoning这个板块做为例子，所给的课程包括： 1、民主与平等 2、正义 3、国际关系与伦理 4、伦理学中的基本问题 5、儒家人文主义 6、有神论与道德观念 7、自我，自由与存在 8、西方政治思想中的奴隶制 9、社会反抗的道德基础 10、共和政府的理论与实践 11、比较宗教论理 12、传统中国的伦理和政治理论 13、古代与中世纪政治哲学史 14、现代政治哲学史 拿科学这个板块来说，所给课程包括：1。光与物质的性质 2。空气 3。宇宙中的物质 4。观察太阳与恒星 5。时间 6。爱因斯坦革命 7。环境的风险与灾难 8。现实中的物理 9。Cosmic connections 10. 音乐和声音的物理学 11。看不见的世界：科技与公共政策 12。能源、环境与工业发展 13。Life as a Planetary Phenomenon 其它的板块，就不列了，太长。 基本上，“核心课程”的目的，就是让学生们在开始研究树木之前，能够先看一眼森林。最好能够把这个森林地图印在大脑上，以后走到再细小的道路上，也不会迷路。我再列一些“本科新生研讨会”的课程（freshman seminar）――这个freshman seminar是什么宗旨，什么来头，我不大清楚，但是有些课程名称开得非常诱人，因为名单太长，我只列上那些我感兴趣的课程――也就是如果我有三头六臂会去旁听的课程。 1、人的进化 2、翅膀的进化 3、细菌的历史 4、银河与宇宙 5、象棋与数学 6、疾病的话语 7、DNA简史 8、美国的儿童医疗卫生政策 9、道德判断的本质 10、火星上的水 11、医药公司与全球健康 12、传染病对历史的影响 13、非洲的艾滋病 14、关于意识的科学研究 15、什么是大学，它的目的是什么？ 16、俄罗斯小说中的爱情 17、怀疑主义与知识 18、一个社区的研究 19、基督教与美 20、怎样欣赏画 21、浮士德 22、黑人作家笔下的白人 23、香蕉的文化历史 24、乌托邦与反乌托邦 25、苏格拉底及其批评者 26、怎样读中国的诗歌 27、互联网与法律 28、美国的70年代 29、The American Creed Exceptionalism and Nationalism. 30、语言与政治 31、信任与民主 32、美国的总统选举 33、60年代的青春文化 34、盗版 35、全球变暖与公共政策 36、当代印度 37、公共健康与不平等 38、公墓的历史 39、人权 40、政治演讲与美国的民主 41、“犯罪”的概念 42、现代欧洲国家的民族主义 43、烟草的历史 44、酷刑与现代法律 45、大脑的测量：心理学实验的兴起 你看，随便这么一列，就有45个。对于一个求知欲很强的人来说，这些课程简直就是一场饕餮之宴，举着筷子，不知从何下手。不知道清华北大，能给那些刚刚背井离乡的18岁孩子，开出上述45门课中的几门。 我相信， 大学精神的本质，并不是为了让我们变得深奥，而恰恰是恢复人类的天真。天真的人，才会无穷无尽地追问关于这个世界的道理。 关于自然、关于社会。大学要造就的，正是达尔文的天真，爱因斯坦的天真，黑格尔的天真，顾准的天真。也就是那些“成熟的人”不屑一顾的“呆子气”。“成熟的人”永远是在告诉你：存在的就是合理的，而合理的就是不必追究的，不必改变的。 真正的人文教育，是引领一群孩童，突破由事务主义引起的短视，来到星空之下，整个世界，政治、经济、文化、历史、数学、物理、生物、心理，象星星一样在深蓝的天空中闪耀，大人们手把手地告诉儿童，那个星叫什么星，它离我们有多远，它又为什么在那里。 前两天读王璐小友的文章，其中有句话说的挺好玩，说到国内某现象，他说：两个连大学都算不上的什么机构，竟然为自己还算不算一流大学而辩得脸红脖子粗。 这事我没怎么跟踪，所以也不太清楚。好像是香港几个大学挖了几个高考状元走，清华北大就开始捶胸顿足，觉得自己不再“一流”。这种捶胸顿足有点滑稽，仿佛宋祖德为自己不再是一线男星而痛心疾首。其实，清华北大的确应该捶胸顿足，但不该是为了几个高考状元，而应当是为自己与天真的距离。
来美国这么多年，没有参加过六一儿童节，五一劳动节，也没参加过三八妇女节，好像这些“国际”的节日在美国，这些“国际”的东东都没美国的份。周五，有史以来，咱第一次参加了三八国际妇女节的纪念活动。这是由Accenture举办的一次活动，中心会场是在DC。 主会场上有下面这些人。她们都有非常有意思的经历。Linda Singh是美国第一位National Guard的女将军。 Anne Doyle的新书“Power Up”是本很值得一读的。 最有趣的是 Gayle King对 Arianna Huffington 的采访。我一直非常欣赏 Arianna Huffington。我正好刚刚读完她的新书 “Thrive: The Third Metric to Redefining Success and Creating a Life of Well-Being, Wisdom and Wonder”， 又再一次听她有趣地解读这本书，听她讲述她如何帮助她的女儿度过戒毒的日子，听她讲述她人生中的一些经历，回头再读她的书，味道更浓。
加州众议院正在审议一项由Senator Hernandez提出的 宪法修正案，称为 CA SCA5 ，其详细内容可查看这个网页： http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sca_5_bill_20130530_amended_sen_v98.pdf 。 由于其重要性，我截屏附录在博文末尾。下面是该宪法修正案提案的摘要的逐字翻译： 【 加利福尼亚州宪法禁止州政府在公共雇佣、公共教育或者公共合同招标中做出基于种族、性别、肤色、族群或者出生国的歧视或者优待。本宪法修正案将废除这一禁止在公共教育中歧视或者优待的条款 】 （“ This measure would eliminate this prohibition on state discrimination or preference in the operation of public education .”） 也就是说，现有的加州宪法禁止在公共教育中学校录取中种族歧视， 而修改后的宪法将允许在公共教育中进行种族、性别、肤色、出生国别等歧视 。政治评论家称这个 法案将是加州1950年代以来最为种族歧视的法案 。其逆历史潮流而动的恶毒性在于明目张胆的去除加州宪法中禁止歧视的条款，为多数族裔合法歧视少数族裔打开大门。 显然，这个提案针对的对象正是加州高科技赖以生存的亚洲裔种群，特别是华人族群。这些亚裔族群的家庭重视子女教育，遵纪守法，他们辛勤的付出、优良的文化传统使他们在各级教育系统中出类拔萃。而这个宪法修正案将把针对华人的歧视写入加州宪法。华人将因此失去得到平等教育机会的权利。可以预见，如果这个法案不能制止，加州乃至美国很可能掀起一股反华排华的狂潮，华人失去的将不仅是教育机会，接下来受到冲击的完全可能包括华人的其他基本权利。华人在美国被人欺压、迫害的历史很可能重演。 目前上述由民主党提出的歧视性法案已经在加州参议院以27票对9票通过，下一步将由加州众议院投票表决。广大华人可能对美国的立法程序不太了解，往往显得麻木不仁。当年美国的排华法案也是在风平浪静中通过，但通过之后，华人跌入了水深火热之中。 我在《 朝鲜战争：一场确立中国人人权的战争 》写道，【 而美国加州宪法有一部人权法案，有 兴趣的可以查看连接 。就是这部人权法案，却有一章专门只针对CHINESE的EXCEPTION，标题就是CHINESE， 在链接文件的15-16页 。同学们如果懂英语，应该认真读读这部宪法，因为这一章CHINESE，基本用各种形象语言把全体CHINESE定位为不健康的、愚蠢的、犯罪的“COOLIE”，也就不是“人”，因此不享受人权。】 附件是朝鲜战争后才得以废除的加州宪法相关内容第一页：
民主自由的美国更是一个法治国家，很多老中不懂法律，以为美国既然是自由的天堂，什么言论都只管放，等到手铐扣到手上还大骂侵犯人权的大有人在。像有位华人博士研究生电话里说burn down别人的房子，被抓进监狱才以泪洗面知道可能犯法了。一般情况下你说这种话可能没事，但只要听者一口咬定他觉得受到实际威胁，你麻烦可能就来了。 殊不知，美国有很多条款非常广泛甚至模糊的刑事法规，而且惩罚往往相当严厉。以前我讲过工业间谍法。很多华人工程师不明就里，把公司的资料拿回家，后来严重得罪了公司，这个资料拿回家就成了罪行。我在美国联邦法院亲自看见硅谷某某工程师的案子，最后有人是关进了联邦监狱的。这种案子媒体一般不会使劲报道，被告人自己也不会声张，所以不懂法而被抓的人重出不穷。 但美国最容易判重刑的不是工业间谍罪，而应该是儿童色情。相关的联邦刑法条款可见： http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A 。什么是儿童色情，该法律是这么讲的：【any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains— (i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; 】 简言之，就是未成年人进行性活动的图像，注意， 这条法律并不是说一定必须是真的儿童色情，而是只要让人认为是儿童色情即可。有的案例中，图片中的人可能实际年龄已经超过18岁，但看起来18岁以下，下载了这些图片的人就坐牢了。另外，儿童色情明确包括计算机生成的图像---这一条针对计算机合成图像的条款是美国国会特意补充的。参见 18 U.S. Code § 2256 。 又参见： http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography 网页中的儿童色情分类及量刑标准，被判定为儿童色情甚至都不需要是裸体图片。这是英国标准，而美国似乎没有详细的标准。 怎样算违法？ 传播、发布、展示给其他人是违法。但这条法律更具杀伤力的是这一条" knowingly possesses, or knowingly accesses with intent to view"。简言之， 你拥有、查看儿童色情内容就是犯法 。这对很多人来说可能不大好理解，但谁如果觉得不理解而去以身试法就愚蠢了。 犯法的处罚多重？ 大家可以自己看条款，一般至少5年有期徒刑。但是注意，美国讲数罪并罚，拥有一张儿童色情图片可以算一件罪行，拥有100张不同的图片，可能算100次犯罪。在网上一搜查到 这位前乔治亚工学院的副教授 学校办公室的计算机被发现有多张儿童色情图片，被判 76项犯罪，应该就是如此。 如果大家怀疑自由美国的这项法律，可以google "child porn case”，可以搜出一大堆因为拥有儿童色情而坐牢的美军军官、美国大学教授、国会工作人员、公司高管、亿万富翁等等等。 照片这人名叫Ryan Loskarn，是美国元老院元老Lamar Alexander的办公室主任。去年年底因为下载儿童色情被捕面临重刑。面对暗淡的前程，两星期前此人在父母家中上吊自杀。 看到这篇文章的华人应该立刻查一下自己的电脑。
作者：D.O.公共关系主席成员，美国环境医学学会董事会 Dr. Amy L. Dean 堪萨斯州威奇托——美国环境医学研究院今天发布了就转基因食物的意见书声明“转基因食物造成严重的健康风险”并且需要转基因食物的临时禁令。举证了许多动物研究，AAEM认为“转基因食物和不利的健康影响之间不仅仅是偶然的联系”并且“转基因食品造成了毒理、过敏和免疫活动、后代健康、新陈代谢、生理和遗传的健康等方面的健康风险”AAEM呼吁：转基因食物的临时禁令，转基因食品直接长期的安全测试和标识的执行。 医生教育他们的病人、医学协会以及公众来避免转基因食物。 医师会考虑转基因食物在他们病人疾病过程中的作用。 更多的独立的长期科学研究开始收集数据来证实转基因食物对人类健康的作用。 “许多动物实验已经证明转基因食物导致机体不同器官的破坏。利用这些证据，为了我们病人和公众的健康转基因食物的临时禁令是必要的” Amy Dean医生，公共关系主席成员，美国环境医学科学院董事会成员认为。“医生或许正在观察到对他们病人的作用，但是不要知道怎样提出正确的问题” Jennifer Armstrong医生，美国环境医学研究院院长说到，“北美所消费的最普通的食物是转基因的玉米、大豆、油菜和棉花油。”AAEM的转基因食物意见书可以在http:aaemonline.org/gmopost.html下载.AAEM是一个致力于证实对环境健康临床作用的专业人员和医生组成的国际的协会。更多的信息请参阅www.aaemonline.org。 美国环境医学研究院AAEM成立于1965年，并且是是对人类和其环境的临床表现感兴趣的专业人员和医生组成的国际的协会，研究院对于人类个体和他们环境相互作用的知识的扩展感兴趣。AAEM为由暴漏于空气、食物和水中的生物和化学元素诱导的疾病识别、治理和预防提供的研究和教育。 原文如下： http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html Genetically Modified Foods According to the World Health Organization, Genetically Modified Organisms(GMOs) are "organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in such a way that does not occur naturally." 1 This technology is also referred to as "genetic engineering", "biotechnology" or "recombinant DNA technology" and consists of randomly inserting genetic fragments of DNA from one organism to another, usually from a different species. For example, an artificial combination of genes that includes a gene to produce the pesticide Cry1Ab protein (commonly known as Bt toxin), originally found in Bacillus thuringiensis, is inserted in to the DNA of corn randomly. Both the location of the transferred gene sequence in the corn DNA and the consequences of the insertion differ with each insertion. The plant cells that have taken up the inserted gene are then grown in a lab using tissue culture and/or nutrient medium that allows them to develop into plants that are used to grow GM food crops. 2 Natural breeding processes have been safely utilized for the past several thousand years. In contrast, "GE crop technology abrogates natural reproductive processes, selection occurs at the single cell level, the procedure is highly mutagenic and routinely breeches genera barriers, and the technique has only been used commercially for 10 years." 3 Despite these differences, safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of "substantial equivalence" such that "if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food." 4 However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system. There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility. 5 The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies. 2,6,7,8,9,10,11 Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. 6,11 Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). 7,8,10 Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. 6,8,10 A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn. 8 This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth9 and disruption of the intestinal immune system. 6 Regarding biological gradient, one study, done by Kroghsbo, et al., has shown that rats fed transgenic Bt rice trended to a dose related response for Bt specific IgA. 11 Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans. In spite of this risk, the biotechnology industry claims that GM foods can feed the world through production of higher crop yields. However, a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists reviewed 12 academic studies and indicates otherwise: "The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialized major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn." 12 However, it was further stated that this increase is largely due to traditional breeding improvements. Therefore, because GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements. 13 The most commonly used definition is from the 1992 Rio Declaration that states: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." 13 Another often used definition originated from an environmental meeting in the United States in 1998 stating: "When an activity raises threats to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context, the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof (of the safety of the activity)." 13 With the precautionary principle in mind, because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of probable harm, the AAEM asks: Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks. Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food. Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health. For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers. (This statement was reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine on May 8, 2009.) Submitted by Amy Dean, D.O. and Jennifer Armstrong, M.D. Bibliography: Genetically Modified Foods Position Paper AAEM World Health Organization. (Internet).(2002). Foods derived from modern technology: 20 questions on genetically modified foods. Available from: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.php Smith, JM. Genetic Roulette. Fairfield: Yes Books.2007. p.10 Freese W, Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews. Nov 2004. 21. Society of Toxicology. The safety of genetically modified foods produced through biotechnology. Toxicol. Sci. 2003; 71:2-8. Hill, AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceeding of the Royal Society of Medicine 1965; 58:295-300. Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, et al. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON 810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric. Food Chem. 2008; 56(23):11533-11539. Malatesta M, Boraldi F, Annovi G, et al. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean:effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. 2008; 130:967-977. Velimirov A, Binter C, Zentek J. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Report-Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth. 2008. Ewen S, Pustzai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.Lancet. 354:1353-1354. Kilic A, Aday M. A three generational study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008; 46(3):1164-1170. Kroghsbo S, Madsen C, Poulsen M, et al. Immunotoxicological studies of genetically modified rice expression PHA-E lectin or Bt toxin in Wistar rats. Toxicology. 2008; 245:24-34. Gurain-Sherman,D. 2009. Failure to yield: evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops. Cambridge (MA): Union of Concerned Scientists. Lofstedt R. The precautionary principle: risk, regulation and politics. Merton College, Oxford. 2002
美国（政治）可以向中国学习什么？ What America Can Learn From China: In Politics, Competence Matters China’s Communist Party just completed its so-called “third plenum,” where party leaders laid out a series of reforms aimed at addressing medium- to long-term issues in the world’s second-largest economy. In America, meanwhile, 29 members of Congress will meet this week as the latest, greatest 'super-committee' picks up the can that was kicked down the road last month. If the committee isn’t able to come up with a budget deal by Dec. 13, the world’s largest economy could suffer another government shutdown when the current continuing resolution expires Jan. 15, followed by another potential debt ceiling crisis a month later. In other words, China continues to plan years ahead while America is too consumed with partisan battles to successfully deal with issues of immediate importance, much less address long-term issues. “Given the political situation in the U.S. is such that the focus is on just staying in office, that certainly detracts from more urgent issues that this country needs to talk about and do, frankly,” says Ann Lee, adjunct professor at NYU and author of What the U.S. Can Learn from China . "The U.S. now is too focused on short-term reelection so as soon as politicians get into office, the very next day they're thinking about fundraising." Of course, Chinese officials don’t have to worry about reelection – such is the benefit of one-party rule. But Lee says China’s system has more going for it than just the absence of serious political opposition. “Even if they introduce elections…they require people to prove they’ve done something before they can get higher office,” Lee says of China’s political system. “It’s almost like our corporate system where you don’t get the CEO through elections. You basically have to prove yourself through your entire career that you’re capable for that top position.” In other words, China’s political system is more of a meritocracy than America’s where “political rhetoric” often carries the day (and the election). Lee says America becoming more like China in this regard “would be a welcome change to help the U.S. put more competent people in office and align incentives more for what general society needs.” I would vote for that. What about you? Aaron Task is the host of The Daily Ticker and Editor-in-Chief of Yahoo! Finance. You can follow him on Twitter at @aarontask or email him at altask@yahoo.com
见好先收了吧 美国广播公司就辱华言论道歉 承诺杜绝类似事件 美国广播公司(ABC)10日称：针对10月该台播出带有辱华色彩的言论发布“公开道歉”声明，承诺加强审查，今后杜绝类似事件。ABC在声明中承认了错误，承诺将永久清除该内容，永久取消“儿童圆桌会”节目环节。 ABC 十一月八日的道歉信 Friday, November 08, 2013 ABC Television Network PRESS RELEASE - PRESS RELEASE - - Statement on behalf of ABC Entertainment and Jimmy Kimmel Live! Print This Document note : To use this function, upgrade your browser: Quick Download Statement on behalf of ABC Entertainment and Jimmy Kimmel Live! On behalf of everyone at Jimmy Kimmel Live and ABC, please accept our heartfelt, sincere apology for the airing of the “Kids Table” segment of Jimmy Kimmel Live! on October 16, 2013. The simple fact is, the segment should never have been broadcast. Systems we have in place for these types of things did not function properly, and steps have been made to try and prevent this kind of egregious mistake from occurring in the future. We have strengthened our review process and several new safeguards have been put in place to both our Broadcast Standards Practices and Entertainment Programming areas to ensure that segments like this are immediately brought to the attention of appropriate senior executives who can address them appropriately. We have also done everything in our power to ensure that the segment receives no further exposure. We issued a written apology, the offending skit has been edited out of any future broadcast of that episode; we have taken down the clip from all of our online platforms; and the show has decided to forego any future segments of “Kids Table.” In addition, Jimmy Kimmel has apologized on-air, in writing, and has personally met with concerned citizens to hear their viewpoints and to apologize, again, in person. Please know that we take our responsibility to our viewers extremely seriously, and are confident that the steps we’ve taken will prevent this type of issue from happening again. http://www.abcmedianet.com/Web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=pr62214 Jimmy 十一月 一 日的道歉信 Friday, November 01, 2013 ABC Television Network PRESS RELEASE - PRESS RELEASE - - JIMMY KIMMEL APOLOGY LETTER Print This Document note : To use this function, upgrade your browser: Quick Download I am very sorry, and sincerely apologize to the Chinese and Chinese-American communities for any upset the “Kids’ Table” skit that aired on Jimmy Kimmel Live on October 16, 2013 has caused. It was never my intention to upset anyone. The offensive comment, which was made by a six year old child during the non-scripted segment, never should have aired. No one on the team at Jimmy Kimmel Live or at ABC would ever purposely broadcast anything to upset the Chinese community, the Asian community, anyone of Chinese descent or any community at large. Please know that we have edited out that segment from our online and broadcast platforms moving forward. Yesterday, I met in-person with and apologized directly to many distressed individuals from the Chinese-American community. Those conversations were very productive and, as a result, we have also canceled any further "Kids Table" segments from our show. I hope the Chinese and Chinese American communities will accept my deepest, most sincere apology. Jimmy Kimmel http://www.abcmedianet.com/Web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=pr61956
有次，我给正在学习美国政治制度课程的美国高中生出了一个问题。 假设美国出了个Senator Evil, 在他所在的州已经获得极大的民意支持，他认为华人在美国社会侵蚀其他人的机会，决定全面排华以获取选民支持，他在美国国会提案将所有美国华人（包括美国籍华裔）关入集中营并剥夺其财产。 目前这项法案在国会已经有相当多的支持，极个别地区的 mob 群情激奋，电视媒体排华情绪甚嚣尘上，针对华人的随机性攻击不断出现。华人社区惶惶不可终日，持中国护照的已经纷纷卖掉房产准备逃命，巨大的抛压下房价暴跌，硅谷200万的房子跌至其实际价值45万。中国战舰已经受命前往美国海岸协助其公民撤离，但美国公民则不被中国接受。 一旦该法案通过，你将失去一切权力。 假设你是华裔，你的生存面临威胁。请提出解决方案。 Your very survival is at stake, find a solution quick. Note this is not a fantasy nor a doomsdayscenario. It had happened before. Similar things had happened to native Americans and Chinese. It can happen again. 请各位提出解决方案，也可给学生解答一下，看看有什么招。 当然了，行使宪法第二修正案权利应为最后的、不得已的选择，过早exercise这一宪法赋予之基本权力者答案不及格。
i am a very beautiful girl,but there still some you can try:if you are poor ,please more clever . if you are fool,please more handsome .if you are ugly,please more rich. the Buffett have said:"the most important invest is,to marry a right people."i cant agree with him,if i marry a man,that because i think i would live better then. 1,i have visit harvard once,then a newspaper interview me:“do you want marry a man from harvard ?"i said yes . when i am in shanghai ,i buy a newspaper with a lot of company CEO pictures in it .then i see that pictures and ask myself:"do you want this people to be your boss ? ”i said no . I have sit in a bustling street,there walked a lot of men,then i see every men and ask myself :"do you want this people to be your husband ?"i said no. though i only see one handsome man outside the business school . and i am not sure he has a harvard degree . yes, i want my husband Interested in political and Economic/Financial . i mean he want to be the US President or have him own International company one day . at least ,he dont mind me do it.if you dont have harvard degree. you graduate from a Ivy League is ok .yes, you must has a master's degree. 2,I have been a celebrity(star) in china . i do it not because i am Vanity . that because i cant get a good job but i must save myself.(too much young people cant get good job and good income . they cant get Apartment,dont have bank savings ,never dream to get married).i mean if i can get a job to have enough income for my life,i would never do that thing.i Neither Singer nor Actor,never need famous . i am good at marketing, Advertising,and network promotion . thats why i can publicity myself. any way, people know me from a TV SHOW. then a video website Interview me .i am been Spread in internet,about Seventy percent chinese people know me .i have been reported by CHINA Daily,CCTV,xinhua website and other TV,newspaper,Magazine and all the Media. then some company Invite me publicize their Product . after i get enough money which i want . i think i hate this life and went to america to get another life . at that time,i am 25.then the chinese people forget me very soon, i only keep my weibo(chinese twitter)there has two million followers in my page . nobody know me in america.i dont like to come back china any more.i would get my own company there one day , but i must get a husband frist . i get a new job there,and went to work sometimes . i mean sometimes i never work and waste time on Watching TV,play games online,and Travel,Shopping and other thing . that's why i always very poor,i am a Lazy woman. 3,i am 28years old.but still dont have Apartment,no good job,no husband. i am very sorry about it.i was born a very small and poor village from chongqing . for the people there,went a high school and take university is a very far and impracticable dream,a Family income one year about 4000RMB . but the university must cost about 50000RMB . i graduate from a Normal College . one reason is it very cheap,one reason is to be a teacher is a Stable and Enviable job in china.but i dont like to be a teacher though my Parents love it very much. i only do teacher's work 2 years and resign then to went to shanghai,at that time ,i am 22. somebody would said ,if you only from college,how you marry a good educated man? yes,you are right . as the Statue of Liberty always stand in the new york, you can Pursue everything you want . i have said if a man marry me ,that because he love me ,not because i compel him ,i cant compel anybody ,i only can compel myself .that is why i never get marry at this old age. i cant accept AA system of marriage or pay for a man . if i get an AA system of marriage , there is two thing i am worry about,one thing is like he want to buy a $7000000 Apartment,he can take out his $3500000,but i am too poor to take out my own $3500000.the other thing i am worry about is, maybe one day he buy a 10 dollar meat from supermarket . then he said he cost 20 dollar for it and ask me give him 10 dollar . anyway , if you dont want pay for me , please dont say you love me . your love is very cheap. 知道是谁写的吗？ 先卖个关子！
国企收购了美国的最大肉食加工企业 看看YAHOO 上美国人的反应。 不翻译了，(各位可以学点烂英文, 地道美语哟。) 翻天了， 国家战略机密呀。 · Freedom 26 minutes ago Smithfield's no longer going to be an iconic name in MY kitchen. I've been boycotting everything made by Smithfield ever since this news hit the media a few months ago. If the company isn't good enough to be American-owned, then it's not good enough for me and my family to buy from. There ARE other American owned pork companies here in the US. They are just smaller and more localized. Look around. You'll find some in your area. actiontek 1 hour ago The Chinese take over of America is almost complete; next will be all the farms and water reserves. Expand Replies (2) Reply · Fight4Justice 36 minutes ago I bet the Chinese government would never allow a Chinese company to be bought out by an American company. Expand Replies (1) Reply · J 55 minutes ago Shame on each and every shareholder and anyone in the government who thought to authorize this deal. Expand Replies (1) Reply · actiontek 1 hour ago If this is not a matter of national defense, there never has been one. Reply · RICHARD 16 minutes ago 9 Well I will never buy or eat anything made by Smithfield, that's for sure. Reply · h2o4ever 23 minutes ago Coming soon to a grocery store near you: Shanghai River pork soup, straight from the source. · Scuba Dude 2 minutes ago Selling our souls to the Chinese, one company at a time. John 18 minutes ago It makes sense, since the US has excess capacity to produce pork, and China can't produce enough to keep up with demand. The question is, will the Chinese consumer reject saline injected meat. I won't buy it myself. RFJ 18 minutes ago 3 No more Smithfield products in my kitchen. I've already been experimenting with local heritage pork products grown locally. · LG 3 minutes ago It's not Smithfield anymore. They should change the name. The list forever grows of things that once had name value because the product was once good, and its other associations meant things to people. Products like Grundig, Nexxus hair care, the old Sears, etc. are just not what they used to be. You can't fool the people. We'll respond by not buying the product. David 40 minutes ago Now our Pork will have melamine poisoning or trichinosis worms; SELL OUTS; see melamine in Wikipedia and Chinese will sell us bad pork as long as we will eat it. I will never buy any Smithfield or related companies wares. I am getting rid of pork bellies out of my commodity trading. Smooth 6 minutes ago 1 I will buy an acre of land in Montana and I will raised my own pigs, cows and chickens, back to natural basic life. Cosmos 7 minutes ago Can't believe that the United States Government allowed this to happen...We are talking a huge portion of the American food supply...Not only will quality control be affected but what happens when there is a bad drought or other catastrophic event in China, does America actually believe that China will let their people starve, don't think so. Meat that we produced will be shipped to China for them, We will rue this day. Its Me 17 minutes ago No more Smithfield products in my house. Those of you that are so enamored with our Gov and want them controlling and protecting every aspect of your life (in most cases you want them controlling other, more successful people's lives...but I digress) should pay attention to this. We have a Chinese company, a country that tightly controls it's corporations and business and has a terrible history of products and processes that endanger people (and animals, remember the pet food problems) has been allowed to take over one of the largest food producers in the US. Our gov, that is so quick to jump in and control our lives and our businesses has allowed this, with barely a whimper of protest. In my mind, one of two things has taken place....1. A failure of our gov to do it's job or 2. There have been some nice gifts and other benefits to keep the gov from getting involved. Either way, those of you that see the gov as the fix for everything, may want to reconsider that view. Where are these meddling bureaucrats when there is something that they should be meddling in. Equay_30 18 minutes ago Also does anyone know why the same comments keep repeating over and over when you click view more comments? Testing 26 seconds ago Now all they need is a hostile takeover of Amalgamated Noodle. John 2 minutes ago I will never buy Smithfield ever again, if I ever did. Would China let an American company buy one of theirs? Not. Reply
当今世界局势是一个怪圈：日本人蔑视解放军为土八路，辽宁人民正为有了以自己省份命名的航母高兴，日本人却不屑地说日军能三小时击沉辽宁号、全歼中国海军；但日本人怕美国人，两次核爆令日本人对美国人深深的敬畏；美国人呢，则对解放军存充满畏惧，因为朝鲜战争被打得满山跑，撼山易、撼解放军难；而解放军呢，面对日本皇军的挑衅基本是束手无策，离中国固有领土钓鱼岛最近距离200公里，后来派无人机去转了一圈，结果日本人说你进来试试，要击落中国的无人机。。。 目前东亚的局势就是这样被一个怪圈缠绕着。一旦这个怪圈中的一环破裂，将会发生惊天巨变。 美军畏解放军如虎是因为当年湖南人毛泽东、彭德怀毅然出兵朝鲜，而且靠步枪打败了美国的飞机大炮。但其实解放军大部分将领并没有胆识跟美军较量。林彪一听要跟美军打吓得打摆子称病不出门，其他元帅们一听要跟美国人碰也都哑巴了，毛泽东才只好把彭德怀叫回来，并且把志愿军兵团级的司令全部换成湖南人。即使到了朝鲜，38军军长梁兴初听说对面有个黑人团，吓得一个军不敢按命令出击，让对手逃了，差点被彭德怀处斩。 最近30多年，美军几乎年年打仗，东征西讨、灭掉的国家好几个。而解放军已经几十年没有打过仗，最后一次向敌人开过枪的军人现在都已经老迈了。而且据传还有很多腐败现象，有的高级将领贪污上亿。 这种情况下，美军难免对解放军的实力表示怀疑，今天的解放军还跟毛泽东时代那样，敢于亮剑吗？就像那贵州的老虎，它要吃东西前要试一试；如果多试几下发现你没啥本事，它可就主动扑过来了。 根据日本媒体的报道，美军驻琉球的司令对日本人说：“That aircraft has the ability to reach the Senkakus , should we need to support any sort of Japan-U.S. security treaty". 中文的精确翻译是：“那款飞机有能力达到尖阁诸岛，如果我们需要支持任何日美安全条约的话”。这里所说的飞机是美国的鱼鹰直升机，时速略低于400公里，比中国高铁稍微快点。 假设日本人报道准确，这位美国司令官说的很巧妙或者很滑头，他说的是美国的飞机性能足以飞到钓鱼岛，并没有说美军会出动这种飞机。日本人与中国人则会解读为：“如果中国打了日本人，他可能根据需要出动这种运输机。” 但无论如何，如果中国不打日本人，他老美也就不必来了。他可以说：“你们 小日本看看，我老美牛X吧，能罩着你小日本，一句话就吓得老中直哆嗦，你们得继续让我们驻军琉球。” 当年美国跟台湾签订了防卫条约，毛泽东为了搞清这英文条约的准确法律含义，在金门海域对着国民党的军舰万炮齐发，结果旁边护航的美国军舰掉头就跑。台湾人当然不满了，老美这才详细地解释了那几条英文条款，总之不适应这种情况就是了。后来在西沙也是，南越的军舰可都是美国货，美国人撑腰的，结果年迈的毛泽东在去世前两年把问题解决了，击沉、击伤美制军舰若干，夺回西沙，用他老人家最后的生命为中华民族保住了这么点生存空间。 今天，中国要知道美国的底牌，搞清美日安保条约的准确英文含义，得先打日本鬼子。 如果像林彪一样被美国人吓得打摆子，钓鱼岛估计只好认栽了。而且还可能被美军视为战斗力丧失，反而刺激了美军的进攻欲望。 当今中国政治局常委已经没有湖南人了，还敢面对美国吗？
毛泽东说的枪杆子里出政权，Political power grows out of the barrels of guns. 美国谁最希望禁止民间武器？ 当然是美国的行政分支。 因为只有这一分支掌握国家暴力机器，他们手里有枪，如果把美国人民手里的枪拿走，行政分支的权利就逐渐成为绝对权力，总统就会成为皇帝。历史上罗马共和国的颠覆就是如此。所以，当你看到美国总统要求禁枪时就很可以理解了。 美国政府谁不愿看到行政部门成为唯一的持枪者？其他没有枪的两个权利分支：立法与司法。 几年前，德克萨斯州的某些议员为了抵制一项法案的通过，逃到外州拒绝参加投票，结果州长下令出动警察去搜索几名议员，强迫他们来参与投票。可见，枪杆子里出政权，一点没错。 让广大的人民拥有武器正是美国宪法能够自我维持的基础。
昨天意外地收到这样一封电邮，寄信人是女儿母校的两个学妹（分别就读小学部和初中部）的母亲。她的两个女儿曾在暑假开始时参加过我家底蕴作为助教的中文夏令营。这位妈妈希望我女儿大学开学前能抽空辅导她的两个正在该校学习中文的女儿： Hi，宜修！ My daughters met 底蕴 at XXX interschool language camp. They both take Chinese at XXX School with 底蕴 and were wondering if 底蕴 had any time to work on some Chinese before school starts. They really enjoyed meeting her. They are Kate and Catelin XXXXX, rising 8th and 5th graders. Let me know if 底蕴 is interested in helping this week or one of the following for a couple of hours. Both of my daughters have Chinese packets for the summer that they need to review, and feel like talking with 底蕴 would help them get ready for the school year. I am happy to work out something to cover her time as well of course. Thanks for talking with 底蕴 about this. She did a great job with the kids at camp. My girls have really nice things to say about her. All the best, Katie 非常感谢两个低年级学妹和她们的母亲对底蕴的信任，却遗憾时间上已经来不及了。我给这位两个女儿分别为底蕴母校小学部和初中部学生的家长回了这样一封电邮，看她们是否愿意考虑其他人选： Hi, Katie! How delighted it is to get amessage of such kind on a rainy and gloomy day! Ibet it'll also brighten 底蕴's day during which she is busy with her college packing, upon receipt of the message. 底蕴 also had a great time assisting the Chinese teacher at XXX inter-school language camp early this summer, needless to say, through her interaction with children like your daughters. How wonderful it is that they have established such great relationship, especially as alumni of XXX School! While being thankful for your and your family's trust on 底蕴, I wish we had learned this message earlier, as 底蕴 is right about to depart for pre-orientation camp for incoming freshmen. For your information, I have sources of other Mandarin-speaking youngsters who would also be qualified to tutor Chinese mandarin. Yet，given the trust of your girls' on 底蕴, I would leave opportunity of recommendation to her first. Please let me know if an alternate tutor would be an option to you, at all. Again, thanks for your kind thoughts in considering 底蕴 as the Chinese tutor for your daughters! 宜修
(11) 到儿子老师家作客 上 万圣节是美国的鬼节，定在十一月初。十月底的周末，天气晴朗，儿子的老师 Li 夫妇邀请我们一家去他们家作客，作为客人，我们也要准备一份礼物——准备两份菜肴。前天即到超市选购了虾，排骨，儿子主厨，作了一份糖醋排骨，一份葱姜炒大虾。看到儿子忙上忙下的身影，不禁想到他刚出国时，打长途国际电话回来问“茄子怎么弄？”的情景。经过两年多独立生活，尤其是结婚后，他们二位 80 后年轻人的生活能力已大大提高了。菜做好，品尝了一下，味道都不错，算是中国菜。三点半，儿媳赶回家，大家收拾一下，带上礼品即开车前往儿子老师家，老师叫 Li 直呼 Li. Li 的家在安娜堡北边，在安娜堡河边树林深处，一幢外形呈长方形的木板二层别墅，门前一块空地供来人停车，他们的车停放在车库中，一到空地，把车顶上的遥控器一按，车库门即打开，汽车平稳驶进，停好车，再按遥控器，车库门又关上，方便安全。我们是第一次去，儿子也曾去过一次，已记不清密林中的七弯八拐的叉道，只好用 GPS 。在 GPS 引导下，顺利到达 Li 家，车刚到，他们夫妇即打开门迎候我们。 Li 夫妇已是年过花甲的人， Li 是全美天文学会的副主席， Li 夫人是委内瑞那人，今年美国大选才加入美国籍，大学毕业一直在美从事物理研究，也是一位科学家，他们都反对伊拉克战争。身体健康、硬郎，待人热情、友好。儿子向他们夫妇介绍我们，我们仅能用简单的英语问候句回应对方： Nice to meet you. 待大家入座后，我打量了一下房间，大房间简单搞成了两个空间，正对房门自然是客厅，另一边是开放式厨房、餐厅、电视厅、书房，右侧是他们夫妇的卧室，进门后发现房内有一个楼梯通向下面的一层，可能是储藏室，或是另一间客房。房内开有暖气，不感到冷，房间四周窗户明亮，可以看到窗外草坪、树木、花草。我们谈兴正浓，突然听到“嘭”的一声，原来一只小鸟来草坪上觅食，看见窗户有花，误飞过来撞在玻璃窗上。 Li 夫人讲，时常有啄木鸟误将这栋木屋当成大树来啄房板，咚咚直响，朝外看草坪上立着两个鸟餐盘，主人不时放些食物供小鸟来觅取，正好一只小鸟抓住木杆来啄食。房内陈设不复杂，有一个装饰台，台面放有主人收集的工艺品，墙上挂有工艺画，我们今年四月份托儿子送给 Li 夫妇的熊猫蜀绣彩屏，也被他们展示出来，向我们一一介绍，感谢我们的礼物。我们也谢谢他们夫妇对儿子的关心，对儿子母亲接受手术时的关心和问候。我们也和他们交换礼品，我们送他们的是一幅成都带去的蜀锦《鲤鱼与莲花》，意义是年年有余，色采鲜艳，做工精细，大小正适合挂在墙上，他们又赠送我们两幅砖刻画，一幅是安娜堡才有的细鸟，一幅是孔雀羽毛画，他们夫妇花了半天时间选购的。是有美国密歇根州特色的礼物，并用黄、兰两种颜色包装纸作内衬，放在中国产的纸盒中，可见他们的用心之良苦。
前几天我的两个小家伙有一场有趣的对话， 真是同一件事用不同的语言说出来产生完全不同的效果。 前一阵，美国海军航空兵训练时，因失误， 竟然把炸弹投到珊瑚礁上，毁掉了不少珊瑚。大儿子为此愤愤不满， 认为怎么能如此毁坏环境，他就给妹妹讲此事，希望得到强烈支持。 妹妹听了，没有什么反应，她还不大知道珊瑚礁有什么重要性， 不以为然。 哥哥一看，立刻说，他们轰炸了 Nemo (电影 Finding Nemo) 的家。妹妹一听，立马跳了起来，说道： What! How stupid they were. Guilty, guilty, guilty. They should all go jail. 看看，同一件事，说的方式不一样，得到完全不同的效果。
我们都知道 斯诺登是美国正在全球通缉的泄密犯，但是对另一个泄密犯就不好办了。当然了他是总统，他说这不是泄密，别人又有什么办法呢？ ———— http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2013/07/29/obama-was-one-of-the-leakers-of-summers-at-fed-speculation-columnist-says/ Obama was one of the leakers of Summers at Fed speculation, columnist says President Barack Obama was one of the officials who leaked that he was on the verge of naming Larry Summers to succeed Ben Bernanke as chair of the Federal Reserve,according to a column Monday by progressive columnist Robert Kuttner. According to Kuttner, in a follow-up email, a reliable source told him the president mentioned Summers on background to a small group of the press. The carefully orchestrated campaign went awry because of a massive backlash from Senate Democrats, Kuttner said. At the daily press briefing Monday, White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest declined to comment on Obama’s deliberations in picking a Fed chair. Kuttner, who has long decried the influence of Robert Rubin on the Democratic Party , sees the former Treasury secretary as the puppet-master at the center of the race for Fed chairman. In a blog on the Huffington Post , Kuttner said Rubin and his allies would never accept Yelllen as Fed chief because she is too independent and not friendly enough to Wall Street. So with Summers’ candidacy damaged, Rubin will look for another viable candidate. “If Rubin, Summers and their allies run true to form, they will be frantically looking for a plausible woman candidate who is closer to Wall Street than Yellen,” Kuttner said. “It’s increasingly clear that the game here is to block Yellen,” Kuttner said. — Greg Robb
Full Text of Human Rights Record of the United States in 2012 Human Rights Record of the United States in 2012 State Council Information Office of the People's Republic of China Foreword The State Department of the United States recently released its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2012, posing as "the world judge of human rights" again. As in previous years, the reports are full of carping and irresponsible remarks on the human rights situation in more than 190 countries and regions including China. However, the U.S. turned a blind eye to its own woeful human rights situation and never said a word about it. Facts show that there are serious human rights problems in the U.S. which incur extensive criticism in the world. The Human Rights Record of the U.S. in 2012 is hereby prepared to reveal the true human rights situation of the U.S. to people across the world by simply laying down some facts. The human rights situation in the U.S. in 2012 has deeply impressed people in the following aspects: -- Firearms-related crimes posed serious threat to the lives and personal security of citizens in the U.S. Some shootings left astonishing casualties, such as the school shooting in Oakland, the Century 16 theater shooting in Colorado and the school shooting in Connecticut. -- In the U.S., elections could not fully embody the real will of its citizens. Political contributions had, to a great extent, influenced the electoral procedures and policy direction. During the 2012 presidential election, the voter turnout was only 57.5 percent. -- In the U.S., citizens' civil and political rights were further restricted by the government. The government expanded the scope of eavesdropping and censoring on personal telecommunications. The police often abused their power, resulting in increasing complaints and charges for infringement upon civil rights. The proportion of women in the U.S. who fell victims of domestic violence and sexual assault kept increasing. -- The U.S. has become one of the developed countries with the greatest income gap. In 2011, the Gini index was 0.477 in the U.S. and about 9 million people were registered as unemployed; About 16.4 million children lived in poverty and, for the first time in history, public schools reported more than one million homeless children and youth. -- There was serious sex, racial and religious discrimination in the U.S. Indigenous people suffered serious racial discrimination and their poverty rate doubled the national average. A movie produced by a U.S. director and aired online was deemed insulting to the Prophet Mohammed, sparking protests by the Muslims worldwide. -- The U.S. seriously infringed upon human rights of other nations. In 2012, U.S. military operations in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan caused massive civilian casualties. U.S. soldiers had also severely blasphemed against local residents' religion by burning copies of the Muslim holy book, the Koran, and insulting bodies of the dead. There was a huge rise in birth defects in Iraq since the war against Iraq with military actions in which American forces used metal contaminant-releasing white phosphorus shells and depleted uranium bombs. -- The U.S. was not able to effectively participate in international cooperation on human rights. To date, the U.S. remains a country which has not participated in or ratified a series of core UN conventions on human rights, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I. On Life and Personal Security The U.S. was haunted by serious violent crimes in 2012 with frequent occurrence of firearms-related criminal cases. Its people's lives and personal security were not duly protected. According to statistics released by the FBI in September 2012, an estimated 1,203,564 violent crimes occurred in the U.S. in 2011, about 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants. Aggravated assaults accounted for 62.4 percent of violent crimes reported to law enforcement. Robbery reached 29.4 percent of violent crimes, forcible rape accounted for 6.9 percent, and murder amounted to 1.2 percent of estimated violent crimes in 2011. And firearms were used in 67.7 percent of the nation' s murders, 41.3 percent of robberies, and 21.2 percent in all crimes in the U.S. Americans are the most heavily armed people in the world per capita. According to a CNN report on July 23, 2012, there were an estimated 270 million guns in the hands of civilians in the U.S. and more than 100,000 people were shot by guns each year. In 2010, there were more than 30,000 deaths caused by firearms. However, the U.S. government has done little in gun control. In 2008 and 2010 landmark Supreme Court rulings on two firearms-related cases dramatically diminished the authority of state and local governments to limit gun ownership. Roughly half of the 50 U.S. states have adopted laws allowing gun owners to carry their guns openly in most public places. And many states have 'stand your ground' laws that allow people to kill if they come under threat, even, in some cases, if they can escape the threat without violence. According to an article on the website of the Hindu on August 7, 2012, in population-adjusted terms, civilians in some parts of the U.S. are more likely to become the victim of a firearms-related murder than their counterparts in war-torn regions like Iraq or Afghanistan. On January 16, 2013, the U.S. president announced 23 steps on gun control to take immediately without congressional approval. And the president signed three of the measures. But the public opinion generally believes that the gun-control measures will encounter great resistance. According to a report on the USA Today's website on October 17, 2012, the violent crime rate went up 17 percent in 2011. Firearms-related violent crimes posed as one of the most serious threats to the lives and personal security of the U.S. citizens. Statistics showed that an estimated 14,612 people fell victims of murder in 2011 and 9,903 of them were firearms-related murder victims (Website of the Congressional Research service, www.fas.org, November 14, 2012). The U.S. witnessed more firearms-related violent crimes in 2012. According to NYPD statistics published on September 2, 2012, there had been 1,001 shootings so far that year in New York, about 3.4 percent more than the 968 reported at the same time the previous year (NY Daily News, September 9, 2012). According to statistics from the website of Chicago Police Department, there were 2,460 shooting incidents in Chicago in 2012, up 10 percent year on year. Some of the shootings were quite bloody and terrifying, such as the movie theater shooting in Colorado and the school shooting in Connecticut. On July 20, 2012, James E. Holmes, 24, entered a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, carrying an AR-15 rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and at least one handgun. He sprayed people at the theater who were watching a movie, leaving at least 12 dead and 59 wounded. A witness said: "He was just literally shooting everyone, like hunting season." According to a CNN report on July 21, law enforcement documents showed that the weapons were purchased legally by Holmes at sporting goods stores in the Denver area over a six-month period before the shooting happened. According to a CNN report on July 23, in wake of the shooting rampage in Colorado, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said: "I don't think there's any other developed country in the world that has remotely the problem we have." On December 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and six adult staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. He committed suicide after that. But before he came to the school, he had shot and killed his mother. The incident was the second deadliest school shooting in the U.S. history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre which left 32 killed. II. On Civil and Political Rights The recent years have seen closer surveillance of American citizens by the U.S. government. In the country, abuse of suspects and jail inmates is common occurrence, and equal suffrage enjoyable by citizens continues to be undermined. The U.S. government continues to step up surveillance of ordinary Americans, restricting and reducing the free sphere of the American society to a considerable extent, and seriously violating the freedom of citizens. The U.S. congress approved a bill in 2012 that authorizes the government to conduct warrantless wiretapping and electronic communications monitoring, a move that violates people's rights to privacy. According to a report carried on May 4, 2012 by the CNET website, the FBI general counsel' s office has drafted a proposed law requiring that social-networking websites and providers of VoIP, instant messaging, and Web e-mail to alter their code to ensure their products are wiretap-friendly (news.cnet.com, May 4, 2012). Documents released by the American Civil Liberties Union on September 27, 2012, reveal that federal law enforcement agencies are increasingly monitoring American's electronic communications. Between 2009 and 2011, the Justice Department' s combined number of original orders for "pen registers" and "trap and trace devices" used to spy on phones increased by 60 percent, from 23,535 in 2009 to 37,616 in 2011. The number of authorizations the Justice Department received to use these devices on individuals' email and network data increased 361 percent between 2009 and 2011. The National Security Agency collects purely domestic communications of Americans in a "significant and systematic" way, intercepting and storing 1.7 billion emails, phone calls and other types of communications every day. A Wired investigation published in March 2012 revealed the NSA is currently constructing a huge data center in Utah, meant to store and analyze "vast swaths of the world' s communications" from foreign and domestic networks (The Guardian, July 10, 2012). As the American Civil Liberties Union explained in its December 2011 report, the U.S. could potentially use military drones to spy on its citizens (Fars News Agency, June 26, 2012). On September 17, 2012, or the first anniversary of Occupy Wall Street's initial demonstration, confrontations between protesters and police around the Wall Street resulted in the arrests of more than 100 people (The New York Times, September 17, 2012). The U.S. journalist community is worried about the continued toughening up of legislation on mass media. It is frequent that journalists in the U.S. lose their jobs because of "politically incorrect" opinions (www.mid.ru, October 22, 2012). Complaints and allegations of American police violating rights of suspects and jail inmates are going up. A litany of lawsuits was brought against the New York City Police Department, with police officers charged with violating civil rights in law enforcement. According to a report carried by the Chicago Tribune on March 6, 2012, jail inmate Eugene Gruber, 51, was paralyzed a day after he walked into a jail where he was believed to have been maltreated. He died of injury four months after the jail incident. Another report by the Chicago Tribune on March 21, 2012 showed that suspect Darrin Hanna suffered trauma from physical restraint and Taser shocks during a struggle with North Chicago police and died a week later. The CNN reported on May 17, 2012 that some 9.6 percent of the prisoners in state prisons are sexually victimized during confinement, more than double the rate cited in a report on the subject in 2008. In Texas state prisons, many inmates are housed in triple-digit temperatures in Fahrenheit. Four inmates -- Larry Gene McCollum, 58; Alexander Togonidze, 44; Michael David Martone, 57; and Kenneth Wayne James, 52 -- died in summer of 2011 from heat stroke, and at least five others were believed to have died from heat-related causes (www.texascivilrightsproject.org, July 7, 2012). American citizens have never really enjoyed common and equal suffrage. Despite an increase of over eight million citizens in the eligible population in the U.S. presidential election of 2012, voter turnout registered a drop of five million from four years before, with only 57.5 percent of eligible citizens voting (bipartisanpolicy.org, November 8, 2012). A February 2012 report by the Pew Center said America's voter registration system is plagued with errors and inefficiencies that undermine voter confidence and fuel partisan disputes over the integrity of the country's elections (www.pewstates.org). The U.S. election is like money wars, with trends of the country's policies deeply influenced by political donations. The 2012 election had an estimated cost totalling six billion U.S. dollars. The Obama campaign and the Democratic camp raised 1.06 billion dollars, and the Romney campaign and the Republican camp raised a total of 954 million dollars (www.standard.co.uk, November 6, 2012). Both groups have funding support from business giants. An opinion poll showed that nearly 90 percent of Americans believe the 2012 election is marked by too many political donations from business circles, which will mean the increased influence of the rich over the country's policy-making (The International Herald Leader , November 16, 2012). A Harvard professor said America' s political system is sinking into serious crisis as it is under manipulation of interest groups and their sponsors. Election donations give a loose rein to all other defects. American politics are corroding the people, making them increasingly dependent on interest groups (Internationale Politik, November December issue, 2012). Citing a world-known analyst, the Christian Science Monitor website in a report on November 5, 2012 said America's trouble-prone voting machines, the risk of tampering in those machines, the lack of transparency in vote tabulation, and then the Electoral College system, combine to give the country an election system that leaves much to be desired. III. On Economic and Social Rights To date, the U.S. government has not approved the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which was already ratified by 160 countries. Many American citizens could not enjoy the internationally-recognized economic and social rights. Unemployment in the U.S. has long been high. A huge number of Americans newly joined the unemployed population in recent years. Figures released by the U.S. Department of Labor on May 4, 2012 showed that in April 2012 the unemployment rate was 8.1 percent, with 12.5 million people unemployed. Citing a report, the Huffington Post website in a story dated December 3, 2012 said nearly 6.5 million U.S. teens and young adults are neither in school nor working, and the employment rate for teens between the ages of 16 and 19 has fallen 42 percent over the last decade. The Los Angeles Times in a report published on April 27, 2012 said the unemployment rate for veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq is 10.3 percent, and for veterans aged 24 and under, the rate is 29.1 percent. It is also hard for college graduates to find jobs. The Associated Press reported on April 22, 2012 that 53.6 percent of bachelor' s degree-holders under the age of 25 in America were jobless or underemployed in 2011. Of the nearly 20 million people employed by the American food industry, just 40 percent are earning enough to put them over the local poverty line (www.huffingtonpost.com, June 6, 2012). Poverty in the U.S. has increasingly worsened since the economic crisis in 2008. America' s poverty rate in 2011 was 15 percent, with 46.2 million people in poverty, according to the U.S. Census Bureau data released on September 12, 2012. Almost 18 million American homes struggled to find enough to eat in 2011, including 6.8 million households that worried about having enough money to buy food several months out of the year (www.ers.usda.gov, September 5, 2012). A report carried by the Huffington Post on October 30, 2012 indicated that the U.S. has a staggering 22 percent of its children living in poverty. The U.S. is one of those that have the highest child poverty rates of all developed nations. The gap between the rich and poor is growing in the U.S. over the years. The U.S. has the fourth worst income inequality compared to other developed countries, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. America's Gini index was 0.477 in 2011 and income inequality increased by 1.6 percent between 2010 and 2011, indicating a widened rich-poor gap. Between 2010 and 2011, the share of aggregate income increased 1.6 percent for the quintile with the highest household income, and increased 4.9 percent for the top five percent households. The aggregate share of income declined for the middle quintile. The changes in the shares of aggregate income for the lowest two quintiles were not statistically significant (www.census.gov, September 12, 2012). A huge number of people are homeless in the U.S. According to a report released by National Alliance to End Homelessness on January 17, 2012, the nation had 636,017 homeless people in 2011, including 107,148 chronically homeless people. There were 21 homeless people per 10,000 people in the general population. Nearly four in 10 homeless people were unsheltered. The unsheltered population was 243,701 in 2011, up 2 percent from 2009. In April 2012, the New York City homeless shelter population was 10 percent higher than the previous year (www.coalitionforthehomeless.org, June 8, 2012). Homeless people suffer discrimination and assaults. Citing a survey of 234 cities, a USA Today report dated February 15, 2012 said 24 percent of the U.S. cities prohibit begging, 22 percent prohibit loitering, 16 percent labels sleeping in public places as illegal. From 1999 through 2010, the homeless faced 1,184 acts of reported violence resulting in 312 deaths. The U.S. is among the few developed countries without health insurance covering its whole population. A considerable number of Americans have no access to necessary healthcare services when in illness because of having no health insurance. The number of people without health insurance coverage was 48.6 million in 2011, accounting for 15.7 percent of the population (www.census.gov, September 12, 2012). A Huffington Post report on November 13, 2012 said about 115,000 women in the U.S. lose their private health insurance each year in the wake of divorce, largely because they have trouble paying premiums for private insurance. A study, released on June 20, 2012, by the consumer advocacy group Families USA, estimates that a total of 26,100 people aged 25 to 64 died for lack of health coverage in 2010, up 31 percent from 18,000 in 2000 (www.reuters.com, June 20, 2012). IV. On Racial Discrimination The long-existing racial discrimination prevalent in the U.S. society sees no improvements, and ethnic minorities do not enjoy equal political, economic and social rights. Ethnic Americans' rights to vote are limited. During the presidential election in November 2012, some Asian-American voters were obstructed at voting stations and received with discriminations (The China Press, November 8, 2012). The United Nations Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur used to lodge a joint accusation against the U.S. of failing to fully guarantee the rights to vote of African-Americans and Hispanics. The January/February 2013 edition of the Boston Review reported that as of 2010, more than 5.85 million American citizens were disenfranchised because of criminal convictions, and more than two million African-Americans currently are stripped of their right to vote. The U.S. attorney general also acknowledged, as the rights to vote of some ethnic Americans were restricted by laws requiring proof of identity, some people are as a matter of fact stripped of such rights (The Guardian, May. 30, 2012). Ethnic Americans are discriminated against in the job market, and their economic well-being worsens as a result. According to statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor, the unemployment rate of whites was registered 7.0 percent in Oct. 2012, 14.3 percent for African-Americans and 10.0 percent for Hispanics. The average period of unemployment for ethnic minorities is notably longer than that for whites. Asians are unemployed on average for 27.7 weeks, African-Americans for 27 weeks (Desert News, December 4, 2012). According to data from the federal Labor Department, over half of all African-Americans and non-Hispanic blacks in New York city, who were old enough to work, had no jobs in 2012, and it takes them almost a full year on average to find another job (Madame Noire, June 21, 2012). Employment discrimination is the main reason behind income disparity and poverty. According to statistics released by the U.S. Census Bureau on September 12, 2012, the median household income for African-Americans was 32,229 U.S. dollars in 2011, less than 60 percent of that of non-Hispanic whites; and the poverty rate for African-Americans stood at 27.6 percent, almost three times of that of non-Hispanic whites. Racial discrimination is rampant in the field of law enforcement and justice. The Reuters website reported on July 3, 2012, police tend to be more lenient to whites. Out of more than 685,000 police stops in New York City in 2011, more than 85 percent of the stopped were black or Hispanic. Ethnic Americans are often offended by law enforcement authorities. A 21-year-old black man in Arkansas was searched and put into a police car, and later was found shot in the head while handcuffed (www. telegraph.co.uk, August 8, 2012). The incidence where a 28-year-old black man, Mohamed Bah, was shot dead by New York police outraged the black community (NYDailyNews.com, September 26, 2012). An article on the website of Texas Civil Rights Project on July 24, 2012 said the Austin police' excessive use of force had led to two fatal police shootings of minority suspects since 2011. The president of the Texas Civil Rights Project said that the shooting death of a dog even received more thorough and careful investigation than the death of a black victim. The New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow wrote an article on January 14, 2013, saying "the idea that progress toward racial harmony would or should be steady and continuous is fraying. And the pillars of the institution -- the fundamental devaluation of dark skin and strained justifications for the unconscionable -- have proved surprisingly resilient." Religious discrimination is rapidly on the rise, with an increase in insults and attacks against Muslims. Muslims account for less than one percent of the U.S. population, but are involved in 14 percent of religious discrimination cases under investigation of the federal government, and 25 percent of employment-related discrimination cases (www. sinovision.net, March 29, 2011). In September, 2012, a U.S. film director made a film that is insulting to the Prophet Muhammad and posted it online, which triggered waves of protests in the Muslim world. In Houston, a dead pig was left in front of a mosque (abclocal.go.com, December 5, 2012). The U.S. Navy special operations force was reported to use images of gun-holding Muslim women as training targets (www.nydailynews.com, July 3, 2012). The 57-year-old Muslim, Bashir Ahmad, was stabbed and bitten outside a Mosque by a suspect who shouted anti-Muslim expletive during the attack (Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2012). Since the September 11 attacks, the U.S. Justice Department has investigated more than 800 incidents of violence, vandalism and arson against people believed to be Muslim, Arab or South Asian (www. reuters.com, March 29, 2011). Apartheid in fact still exists in the American society. New York Times reported on August 6, 2012 that, the proportion of non-Hispanic black residents on the Upper East Side is only 2.7 percent, and whites 81 percent. Local co-op boards can reject black buyers without giving a reason, and some Upper East Side co-ops have a reputation for rejecting black buyers. A study found that the New York area was the second most segregated for black people and the third most segregated for Hispanic and Asian residents. A superintendent of NASA Real Estate Corporation was sued for refusing to show three African-Americans any openings, claiming no apartments were available for rent, but showing vacancies to white individuals who inquired about the same apartments less than an hour after turning down black renters, saying, "You look like nice people. That's why I show you." (queenscourier.com, December 12, 2012) Furthermore, studies found a rising tide of apartheid in the U.S. workplace. Nineteen out of the 58 surveyed industries showed a trend toward racial re-segregation between white men and black men (www.washingtonpost.com, October 25, 2012). Racial relationship is in tension, and hate crimes take place frequently. The Associated Press reported on October 28, 2012, citing a latest poll, that 51 percent of Americans now express explicit anti-African-American attitudes, three percentage points higher than in 2008. The abc.go.com reported on November 19, 2012, three shop owners of Middle Eastern descent were shot dead in four months in Brooklyn, New York, and the police cannot rule out the possibility of the homicides being racially motivated. Two young white men from Mississippi killed a black man by running a truck over him. The two, since 2011, have frequently assaulted and attacked African-Americans in and around Jackson, Mississippi, using beer bottles, sling shots and motor vehicles, and they often bragged about their exploits (Reuters, December 5, 2012). A white gunman named Wade Michael Page killed six Sikh worshippers at their temple, and his motivation was linked to neo-Nazi propaganda, and he was suspected to be a white supremacist (edition. cnn.com, August 10, 2012). Native Americans' rights are not properly guaranteed. In 2012, the United Nations Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur on racism, Mutuma Ruteere, pointed out Navajos, a branch of Native Americans, faced racial discrimination, including the lack of access to justice and legal remedies (United Nations document number A/67/328). United Nations Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people, James Anaya, said the ability of Native Americans to use and access their sacred places is often curtailed by mining, logging, hydroelectric and other development projects. He cited research figures of relevant institutions, saying Native Americans' poverty rates nearly double the national average, and their life expectancy is 5.2 years less than the national average. Thirteen percent of Native Americans hold a basic university degree, much lower than the national average, 28 percent. Indigenous women are more than twice as likely as all other women to be victims of violence and one in three of them will be raped during her lifetime (United Naitons document number A/HRC/21/47/Add.1). The rights of illegal immigrants are violated. Deaths often occur in immigration detention centers. United Nations Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur Christof Heyns said in his report that deaths occurred in prison-like conditions where detention was neither necessary nor appropriate, and where no proper medical care was provided (United Nations document number A/HRC/20/22/Add.3). U.N human rights experts and South Florida Haitian rights advocates call for the U.S. to suspend all deportations to Haiti, saying the deportations may constitute a human rights violation, and may place the Haitians in a life-threatening position (The Miami Herald, June 6, 2012). V. On the rights of women and children The U.S. remains one of a few countries in the world that have not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women or the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It faces prominent problems in protecting the rights of women and children. Women face discrimination in employment and payment. Women made up about two-thirds of all workers in the U.S. who were paid minimum wage or less in 2011 and 61 percent of full-time minimum wage workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.womensenews.org, December 11, 2012). On average, women have to work as far as April 17 into 2012 to catch up with that men earned in 2011, meaning women earned 77 cents to the male dollar. African American women earn 62 cents to the male dollar, Latinas 54 cents. In some states, women of color earn less than half as their male counterparts. Women in Wyoming, the lowest ranking state, earn just 64 cents on the male dollar (www.womensenews.org, April 30, 2012). Voters in Oklahoma approved an amendment to the state's constitution to end affirmative action programs in state government that had been designed to increase the hiring of minorities and women in the state's 115 agencies (www.articles.chicagotribune.com, November 7, 2012). The problems that pregnant women and new mothers face on the job are very real. Employers routinely ignore mandate in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and are forcing pregnant women out of the workplace (www.edition.cnn.com, November 26, 2012). A Houston mother says she was fired from her job at a collection agency after asking to bring a breast pump into the office so she'd have plenty of fresh breast milk for her newborn. A new Connecticut mom says her new employer asked her to resign after she told them she was pregnant (www.latimes.com, February 8, 2012). The poverty rate among women is higher than males. The National Women's Law Center (NWLC) announced that the poverty rate for women in 2011 was 14.6 percent, compared to men's 10.9 percent. Women are more likely to live in poverty and about 40 percent of women who head families live in poverty, according to the NWLC. Another report on the plight of female retirees also notes that the poverty rate among retired women is 50 percent higher than their male counterparts (womensenews.org, September 17, 2012). Women are the victims of violence and sexual assaults. An average of three women in the U.S. lose their lives every day as a result of domestic violence (www.dccadv.org, October 1, 2012). A national census of domestic violence agencies in September 2011 found that more than 67,000 victims were served in a single day (www.womensenews.org, July 17, 2012). In 2010, the arrest rate for rape was 24 percent in the U.S. (www.thedailybeast.com, April 9, 2012). According to the Report on Violence against Women, its Causes and Consequences, submitted by the Special Rapporteur to the General Assembly in 2012, most prison staff in the U.S. is not adequately trained to prevent or respond to inmate sexual assaults, and prison rape often goes unreported and untreated (United Nations document number A/67/227). Women in the U.S. forces are the victims of widespread sexual abuse, leading to media allegation that the US military has a culture of rape (www.aljazeera.com, August 4, 2012). Around 79 percent of women serving in the military reported experiences of sexual harassment. Military sexual trauma often leads to debilitating conditions such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and major depression (www.servicewomen.org). That Air Force drill instructor Luis Walker was accused of raping and sexually assaulting 10 female trainees is the biggest sex scandal to hit the U.S. military since the 1990s (www.reuters.com, July 21, 2012). In 2011, nearly 3,200 rapes and sexual assaults were officially reported, but the Pentagon admits that represents just 15 percent of all incidents. A military survey revealed that one in five women in the US forces has been sexually assaulted, but most do not report it. Nearly half said that they "did not want to cause trouble in their unit" (www.aljazeera.com, August 4, 2012). The health of female minority groups is worrying. A media report in June 2012 said rate of HIV infection in heterosexual African American women in the poorest neighborhoods of Washington, D.C. nearly doubled the 6.3 percent infection rate two years before. Officials said 90 percent of all women with HIV in the city are black (www.washingtonpost.com, June 21, 2012). Sixty-six percent of the women newly infected with HIV each year are black, even though African-American women represent only 14 percent of the U.S. female population. The national age-adjusted death rate for black women in the U.S. is nearly 15 times higher than that observed for HIV-infected white women (www.newswise.com, March 7, 2012). Minority women in the U.S. are more likely to die during or soon after childbirth than white women, according to a report posted on the website of the Chicago Tribune on August 3, 2012. For every 100,000 babies born to white women, between seven and nine moms die from complications related to pregnancy. In comparison, 32 to 35 black women die for every 100,000 live babies. Deaths among Hispanic and Asian women - born in the U.S. and abroad - are closer to rates for white women at around 10 per 100,000. Children in the U.S. are not blessed with enough protection for their personal safety and freedom. According to a report posted on the website of the Daily Telegraph on December 16, 2012, the slaughter of children by gunfire in the U.S. is 25 times the rate of the 20 next largest industrial countries in the world combined. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children says at least 100,000 children across the country are trafficked each year (www.usatoday.com, September 27, 2012). Child sexual abuse is a widespread public health problem. Research indicates that 20 percent of adult females and 5 to 15 percent adult males experienced sexual abuse in childhood or adolescence, according to a report posted on the website of www.preventchildabuse.org on November 5, 2012. In 2010, 63,527 children in the U.S. were victims of child sexual abuse. According to a report by the CNN on October 18, 2012, 1,247 "ineligible volunteer files" of the Boy Scout released that year identified more than 1,000 leaders and volunteers banned from Boy Scout after being accused of sexual or inappropriate conduct with boys from 1965 to 1985. Priests and leaders of the Boy Scouts had shielded abusers, according to the report. Former Pennsylvania State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was convicted of abusing 10 children over 15 years (www.usatoday.com, October 10, 2012). In 2012, several religious figures were found to have sexually assaulted children. In July 2012, Roman Catholic monsignor William Lynn was sentenced to six years in prison for allowing a priest suspected of sexual misconduct with a minor to have continued contact with children (the Wall Street Journal, July 24, 2012). In September, a Roman Catholic bishop in Kansas City was found guilty of failing to tell authorities about child pornography that was produced by a priest under his supervision (the Wall Street Journal, September 6, 2012). The number of homeless children increases sharply in the U.S. and many children are stricken by poverty. For the first time in history, public schools reported more than one million homeless children and youth, according to data released by the U.S. Department of Education on June 27, 2012. This total does not include homeless children and youth who were not enrolled in public preschool programs and those identified by school officials. Forty-four states reported school year-to-year increases in the number of homeless students, with 15 states reporting increases of 20 percent or more. The number of homeless children enrolled in public schools has increased 57 percent since the 2006-2007 school year. In Michigan, the number of homeless children enrolled in public schools had increased 315 percent between 2008 and 2011 (www.nlchp.org, June 27, 2012). The number of children in New York city's shelters hit 19,000 by September 2012. Francheska Luciano, 14, said living in shelter was "like living in hell." (www.nydailynews.com, September 9, 2012) The U.S. Department of Education said in a report that only 52 percent of identified homeless students who took standardized tests were proficient in reading, and only 51 percent passed the math portion. Homeless students were also found to be more likely to drop out of school and less likely to graduate from high school than their classmates (www.neatoday.org, Nov. 28, 2012). According to "America's Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2012," 22 percent of the children aged 0 to 17, or 16.4 million kids, live in poverty in 2010 (www.csmonitor.com, July 17, 2012). Fourteen states saw increases in child poverty between 2010 and 2011 (usatoday.com, September 23, 2012). Nevada saw a 38 percent increase in child poverty over the past decade (www.csmonitor.com, August 17, 2011). VI. On U.S. Violations of Human Rights against Other Nations Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has waged wars on other countries most frequently. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both started by the U.S., have caused massive civilian casualties. From 2001 to 2011, the U.S.-led "war on terror" killed between 14,000 and 110,000 per year, said an article posted on the website of Stop the War Coalition on June 14, 2012 (stopwar.org.uk, June 14, 2012). The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) tallied at least 10,292 non-combatants killed from 2007 to July 2011. The Iraq Body Count project records approximately 115,000 civilians killed in the cross-fire from 2003 to August 2011. According to the article, beyond the two states under occupation, the "War on Terror" has spilled into a number of neighboring countries including Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, killing a great many civilians there. From 2004 to the time the article was written, a minimum of 484 civilians, including 168 children, were killed in strikes that occurred in Pakistan. It was also reported by the media that strikes resulted in 56 civilian deaths in Yemen, the article added. A news report, posted on BBC's website on September 25, 2012, pointed at recurrent U.S. drone attacks in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan (www.bbc.co.uk, September 25, 2012). "Just one in 50 victims of America's deadly drone strikes in Pakistan are terrorists - while the rest are innocent civilians," said an article posted on September 25, 2012, on the website of the Daily Mail (www.dailymail.co.uk, September 25, 2012). U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan also kill civilians for no reason. U.S. soldier Robert Bales was reported to walk out of a military base in the southern province of Kandahar at 3 o'clock on the night of March 11, 2012 and killed 17 civilians, including nine children. Bales split the slaughter into two episodes, returning to his base after the first attack and later slipping away to kill again. He first came to one family in a nearby village and shot a man dead, which scared others in the family to hide in neighborhood. Then he went to a second family and shot dead three people and injured six. Afterwards, he returned to his base and left for another village after chatting with one soldier at the base. In the village, he broke into a family and shot dead more than 10 people who were sound asleep. After the massacre, he collected some of the bodies and burned them.( The Agence France-Presse, March 23, 2012; The Associated Press, March 24, 2012; The Huffington Post, November, 11, 2012) U.S.-led military operations have also brought forth ecological disasters. An article posted on the website of The Independent on October 14, 2012 cited a study that reported a "staggering rise" in birth defects among Iraqi children conceived in the aftermath of the war (www.independent.co.uk, October 14, 2012). Steve Kretzmann, director of Oil Change International, said that the Iraq war was responsible for at least 141 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) from March 2003 through December 2007, according to a piece posted on December 21, 2009 on coto2.wordpress.com (coto2.wordpress.com, December 21, 2009). "The war emits more than 60 percent of all countries," said Kretzmann. A study, cited by an article posted on the website of The Independent on October 14, 2012, linked a huge rise that Iraq had recorded since the war in birth defects with military actions in which American forces used metal contaminant-releasing white phosphorus shells. It found that in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which saw two of the heaviest battles during the Iraq war, more than half of all babies surveyed were born with a birth defect between 2007 and 2010. Before the war, the figure was more like one in 10. More than 45 percent of all pregnancies surveyed ended in miscarriage in the two years after 2004, up from the previous 10 percent (www.independent.co.uk, October 14, 2012). U.S. soldiers have also severely insulted Afghan people's dignity and blasphemed against their religion. The AFP reported on September 24, 2012 that during a counter-insurgency operation in July 2011, four U.S. Marines urinated on three bloodied bodies of dead Taliban fighters, and one said, "Have a great day, buddy," to one of the dead. A videotape depicting their actions was recorded and later circulated on the Internet (The Agence France-Presse, September 24, 2012). In February 2012, U.S. troops at Bagram air base provoked public indignation by taking a batch of religious materials, including 500 copies of the Koran, to the incinerator, said a news story posted on the website of the Washington Post on August 27, 2012 (www.washingtonpost.com, August 27, 2012). The U.S. army has for long detained foreigners illegally at the Guantanamo prison. By January 2012, 171 people were still held there, said an article posted on the website of Watching America on January 17, 2012. They were denied the rights accorded to prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, and savagely tortured (www.watchingamerica, January 17, 2012). American authorities have revealed that, in order to obtain confessions, some of the few being tried (only in military courts) have been tortured by waterboarding more than 100 times or intimidated with semiautomatic weapons, power drills or threats to sexually assault their mothers, said an article posted on the website of the New York Times on June 24, 2012 (www.nytimes.com, June 24, 2012). Media reported that in September 2012, a 32-year-old Yemeni named Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif died at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, the ninth to have died there while in custody. He had been held at the detention camp since it was established in January 2002, without being charged with any crime (abcnews.go.com). On January 23, 2012, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay spoke out against the failure by the U.S. to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and to ensure accountability for serious violations - including torture - that took place there (www.un.org, January 23, 2012). A noted American wrote in an article that the American government's counterterrorism policies "are now clearly violating at least 10 of the declaration's 30 articles, including the prohibition against 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'" (www.nytimes.com, June 24, 2012). The U.S. refuses to acknowledge "the right to development," which is a common concern among the majority of countries. In September 2012, the 21st session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) adopted a resolution on "the right to development." Except an abstention vote from the U.S., all the HRC members voted for the resolution. The 67th session of the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted the 21st consecutive resolution, by a recorded vote of 188 in favor to three against with two abstentions, calling for an end to the U.S.' 50-plus years of economic blockade against Cuba. One of the three dissenting votes was from the U.S. (United Nations document number GA/11311)
Japan’s Monetary Policies Are Disastrous for U.S. Economy: Peter Schiff By Bernice Napach | Daily Ticker – 19 hours ago Japan's new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is determined to revive the country's faltering economy. Today he announced a $117 billion stimulus package and in less than two weeks the Bank of Japan will consider extending its easy monetary policy for the second meeting in a row—something it hasn’t done since 2003. Under pressure from Abe , the BOJ is expected to expand its purchases of government bonds and double its inflation target to 2%. This move is expected to devalue the yen in an effort to boost exports and the broader Japanese economy. Japan's monetary policies will hurt Japan's economy and the U.S. economy, says Peter Schiff , CEO of Euro Pacific Precious Metals. “Japan doesn’t need more inflation," he says. "They actually need a stronger yen, higher interest rates. They need to allow their economy to restructure…to shrink government. Instead they’re simply going to do more of what’s been failing for the past two decades.” He tells The Daily Ticker that if inflation rises in Japan, Japanese citizens will likely unload low-yielding Japanese bonds in favor of higher yielding precious metals and other assets. That could force the BOJ to buy more Japanese government debt instead of U.S. government debt, says Schiff. Related : "Obscene Stimulus" Will Trigger 'Made in Japan' Crisis in 2013: Mauldin Why is this a big deal? Because Japan is the second biggest foreign owner of U.S. government bonds after China. If the BOJ cuts back on U.S. government bond purchases, the U.S. Treasury will be forced to pick up the slack, says Schiff. “That means more money printing here …so we will have more domestic inflation,” Schiff adds. “Eventually none of the foreign central banks will want to buy more dollars when they figure out the game that we’re playing, continually creating money to buy products we can’t afford.” Related: 2013 Could be the Year Japan's Economy Turns Around: Cumberland's Witherell Former Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner says Japan needs to change policy but not in the way Schiff suggests. In a recent New York Times op-ed he writes, “The highest priority in the economic revival plan of the newly elected prime minister, Shinzo Abe, is to strong-arm the Bank of Japan into acknowledging that it will do simply 'whatever it takes' to reverse deflation there and allow a recovery to take root." Kroszner recommends that the BOJ continue its aggressive Japanese government bond purchases without signaling that the policy is a temporary one, as it did after the Japanese economy fell into recession in the early 1990s. Will Japanese easing hurt the U.S. Treasury market? Tell us what you think! Got a topic you’d like covered? Have a guest you’d like to see interviewed? We’d love to hear from you! Send us an email at thedailyticker@yahoo.com . You can also look us up on Twitter and Facebook .
中国近年出现很多描述抗日战争的电影，浙大有个叫河清的教授看了不舒服，说这是“渲染仇日情绪”，“鼓励中国人民仇日”。为此，他写了篇文章《南京大屠杀有美国一份》，大意是日本的罪行都是美国怂恿的。真是这样吗？ 鉴于此，我先把中日从明朝到今天的历史做一回顾。 中日之间不可调和的民族矛盾从明朝就已经开始，当时的日本就已经明确制定灭亡中国，迁徙到中国大陆的计划。当时美国还不存在。甲午战争之前，美国政要多次 提请清政府防备日本野心，但清政府没有警惕。1931年9月18日，两万日军向30万武装到牙齿的东北军发动进攻，谁知张学良下令不准抵抗，日军缴获东北 军大量武器，东北沦陷。 日军不发一枪，从东北三省缴获的武器包括：两百架飞机（包括轰炸机）， 步枪约15万支，子弹数百万发，迫击炮约6百门，炮弹约40万发，山、野、重炮约250门，炮弹约10万发，火药约40万磅。另外，日军前往东北各大兵工厂，东北军均不做抵抗，静候日军接管。其中， 东北军奉天兵工厂，为中国最先进和规模最大的兵工企业，由欧洲引进， 设立枪、炮弹、炮、轻重机枪厂，有机器8千余部。能够量产轻、重机枪。 占领该兵厂后，日军看到厂内正在制作的240毫米大口径榴弹炮炮身后都惊诧兴奋：“支那人有这等精良武器工业却不敢向日本皇军开炮。”日本人将不少东北缴获的武器投入了后来的战争。 （上图：日军在缴获的东北兵工厂留念） 中国国民党政府于1931年9月19日向国联（League of Nations）状告日本侵略。这个国联是第一次世界大战后成立的一个旨在反对侵略、预防战争的国际性机构。但正如历史学者们后来批评的，国联由于缺乏军事干预的机制，只有经济制裁，实际上对侵略者没有约束力。如意大利侵略埃塞俄比亚虽然遭到国联联合制裁，但意大利勒紧裤带也要侵略，国联无计可施。国联的这一缺陷也使它无法阻止第二次世界大战。1931年10月24日，国联做出决议，要求日本从中国东北撤军。对此，日本断然拒绝。1932年1月，美国国务院发布了 史丁森原则（Stimson Doctrine） ：美国不承认日本通过武力获取的中国领土、也不承认中日政府之间以及其代理人之间签订的损害中华民国主权与独立的条约（ cannot admit the legality of any situation de facto nor does it intend to recognize any treaty or agreement entered into between Governments, or agents thereof, which may impair the treaty rights of the United States or its citizens in China, including those which relate to the sovereignty, the independence, or the territorial and administrative integrity of the Republic of China... it does not intend to recognize any situation, treaty or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the covenants and obligations of the Pact of Paris of August 27, 1928 ) 美国的这个申明一方面是维护美国的利益，反对日本侵略中国对美国造成的威胁，另一方面，似乎也是针对中国的投降派，因为它也不承认中国政府与日本可能签订的出卖中国主权的条约。 美国这个“不承认"的态度当然不能制止日本人的侵略。但是中美不是军事同盟，中国只是美国的一个市场，30万武器精良的东北军都放下武器、不抵抗日本占领自己的老家东北，美国人更没有义务远渡重洋送自己的儿女到中国抗战。 何况，美国在1931年的军队总人数只有东北军的一半 ，约17万人（到1939年，罗斯福才下令将美军扩张到22万7千人）。 当时，美国并非像今天一样是世界头号强权，相反其经济正处于崩溃边缘。几年前有学者分析，美国的大饥荒饿死了八百万人（对此数字，很多亲美人士极力反对）。就在日军继续侵华的1932年，美国数万一战老兵饿得不行前往首都华盛顿要求发放赏钱，结果被美军用坦克、刺刀镇压，美国老兵死伤上千人。当时美军不但人数少于东北军，军费微薄，其装备也非常陈旧。直到二次世界大战前夕，美国人还在用一战时的武器。太平洋战争爆发后，麦克阿瑟的数万大军在菲律宾被日军屠杀原因之一就是因为美军装备落后。 所以，我们不应指望当时的美国像今天的美国一样承担全球性责任。为了走出大萧条的困境，美国国会在1930年代制定了许多中立法案，拒绝参与其他国家的争端，包括欧洲与亚洲个民族之间的争夺，这本身无可非议。早在1924年，美军就已经制订了橙色战争计划（War Plan Orange），准备对日作战。同时考虑到英国与日本签订了条约，美军制订了红色战争计划（War Plan Red），以及红-橙战争计划，准备与日-英同盟作战（参见 《 红色战争计划揭秘大国之道 》）。但计划必须有实力作为后盾，以区区十几万人的军队，美国不可能有什么作为。 美国政府对中国的处境是同情的。1932年11月，美国借给中国1300万美元，1933年6月，美国借给中国5000万美元，1933年7月，美国借给中国4000万美元，用于建造、购买853架军用飞机。1935年，美国经济恢复到了1929年的76%，罗斯福政府对中国的态度也更趋明确。1937年，罗斯福在芝加哥发表演说，要求爱好和平的国家一起反对侵略，但被美国舆论指责为企图把美国卷入战争的战争贩子。罗斯福只得退让。 1937年底，日军进攻南京。为了试探美国的底线， 日军在1937年12月12日击沉美国炮舰PANAY号 ，3名美国艇员丧生、43名艇员受伤。对此，美国政府也只是抗议索赔了事。但美国舆论开始转向反对日本，美国开始扩军备战，也开始军事援助中国。1939年，罗斯福政府将美军扩充至22万人，同时制定了扩建海空军力的决定。在1939年到1940年期间，美国向中国提供了七笔总计三亿美元的贷款。同时，美国将大量军事装备（包括数百门大炮）当做过时物资廉价卖给中国（但国民党政府管理不善，大量物资堆积在码头而未能运往战场）。1940年，美国经济终于恢复到1929年的水平。当年底，罗斯福发表谈话，表示美国要成为民主兵工厂，反对法西斯侵略战争。 同年，罗斯福同意由中国购买约100架战斗机，从现役美国空军中招募飞行员前往中国参加对日作战。这就是著名的飞虎队。第二年，也就是1941年，美国升级对日的经济制裁，与英国与荷兰一道停止对日本的石油出口。美国对日本提出的要求之一是：撤出中国。 日本对于美国的回应众所周知：那就是轰炸珍珠港，试图迫使美国屈服。日本这一行动虽然导致其最后遭受两颗原子弹的核爆，但在最初的几个月内，它在军事上可谓所向披靡。日军迅速占领了美军基地关岛与威克岛。在菲律宾（当时为美国殖民地），几万美军被日本人屠杀，在新加坡，十多万英军投降，世界反法西斯阵营在远东几乎面临全面失败。美军是在后来的对日战争中成长起来的。 美国从1939年开始扩军到22万人，到1941年其军队人数已经达到140万人，虽仍然低于日军的170万人，但也相当可观。即使如此，日本人仅仅是因为美国不肯卖石油、废铁就向美国大打出手，杀死美军数万人，可见日本人的疯狗特性。由此可以推断，假如1937年底日军炸沉美军炮舰之后，美国如果对日采取强硬的对策，势必遭致日本疯狂的攻击，而美国以其当时的军事、经济实力，可能根本不是日本军国主义的对手，反而刺激日本提早发动太平洋战争，而使盟军在太平洋完全失去依据，历史可能完全改写。 从美国的角度，赢得时间，等实力壮大之后再对日本摊牌毫无疑问是正确的选择。即使从中国角度，也不希望自己可能的援军在实力不足之际被敌人打垮。 我们必须承认这么一个历史事实：那就是美国在珍珠港事件之前就已经开始援助中国，而且不顾苏联与英国的强烈反对，建议将中国纳入世界5巨头之一，管理战后国际事务。没有美国的支持，中国就不会有这个联合国常任理事这个地位。无论中美关系如何改变，不应否定这个历史事实。相反，中美两国人民过去的战斗友谊应该作为寻求中美合作与持久和平的参照。 对于美国为中国抗战做出的贡献，特别是在日本偷袭珍珠港之前美国对中国的支持，中国人民不应否定。 日本人在中国犯下的罪恶罄竹难书，中国人仇日是正常的正义感与民族情感。日本屠杀中国平民数千万，在中国广大的土地上杀光、抢光、烧光，强暴、残杀中国妇女数百万，只要不是汉奸或哈日族，都会仇恨日本。 有些亲倭人士知道日本人的罪行很难抵赖，于是就采取转移目标的方法，移花接木，把日本人的罪行转嫁到他人身上，以达到替日本人减罪的目 的。我们见得最多的就是将日本人的罪行转嫁到美国身上。这些倭伥的用心极为险恶：当今的中国灭除倭寇没有问题，可以零伤亡解决，但美国是核武大国，若中国 与美国彼此仇恨而大战，则中美将走向毁灭，日本将坐收渔利。 那种诋毁中国二战的盟友，甚至将日本人的滔天罪恶转嫁到二战盟友的身上的企图是典型的为倭做伥。
Revealed: how the FBI coordinated the crackdown on Occupy New documents prove what was once dismissed as paranoid fantasy: totally integrated corporate-state repression of dissent Police used teargas to drive back protesters following an attempt by the Occupy supporters to shut down the city of Oakland. Photograph: Noah Berger/AP It was more sophisticated than we had imagined: new documents show that the violent crackdown on Occupy last fall – so mystifying at the time – was not just coordinated at the level of the FBI , the Department of Homeland Security, and local police. The crackdown, which involved, as you may recall, violent arrests, group disruption, canister missiles to the skulls of protesters, people held in handcuffs so tight they were injured, people held in bondage till they were forced to wet or soil themselves –was coordinated with the big banks themselves. The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, in a groundbreaking scoop that should once more shame major US media outlets (why are nonprofits now some of the only entities in America left breaking major civil liberties news?), filed this request. The document – reproduced here in an easily searchable format – shows a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector activity so completely merged into one another that the monstrous whole is, in fact, one entity: in some cases, bearing a single name, the Domestic Security Alliance Council. And it reveals this merged entity to have one centrally planned, locally executed mission. The documents, in short, show the cops and DHS working for and with banks to target, arrest, and politically disable peaceful American citizens. The documents, released after long delay in the week between Christmas and New Year, show a nationwide meta-plot unfolding in city after city in an Orwellian world: six American universities are sites where campus police funneled information about students involved with OWS to the FBI, with the administrations' knowledge (p51); banks sat down with FBI officials to pool information about OWS protesters harvested by private security; plans to crush Occupy events, planned for a month down the road, were made by the FBI – and offered to the representatives of the same organizations that the protests would target; and even threats of the assassination of OWS leaders by sniper fire – by whom? Where? – now remain redacted and undisclosed to those American citizens in danger, contrary to standard FBI practice to inform the person concerned when there is a threat against a political leader (p61). As Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the PCJF , put it, the documents show that from the start, the FBI – though it acknowledges Occupy movement as being, in fact, a peaceful organization – nonetheless designated OWS repeatedly as a "terrorist threat": "FBI documents just obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) … reveal that from its inception, the FBI treated the Occupy movement as a potential criminal and terrorist threat … The PCJF has obtained heavily redacted documents showing that FBI offices and agents around the country were in high gear conducting surveillance against the movement even as early as August 2011, a month prior to the establishment of the OWS encampment in Zuccotti Park and other Occupy actions around the country." Verheyden-Hilliard points out the close partnering of banks, the New York Stock Exchange and at least one local Federal Reserve with the FBI and DHS, and calls it "police-statism" : "This production , which we believe is just the tip of the iceberg, is a window into the nationwide scope of the FBI's surveillance, monitoring, and reporting on peaceful protestors organizing with the Occupy movement … These documents also show these federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America." The documents show stunning range: in Denver, Colorado, that branch of the FBI and a "Bank Fraud Working Group" met in November 2011 – during the Occupy protests – to surveil the group. The Federal Reserve of Richmond, Virginia had its own private security surveilling Occupy Tampa and Tampa Veterans for Peace and passing privately-collected information on activists back to the Richmond FBI, which, in turn, categorized OWS activities under its "domestic terrorism" unit. The Anchorage, Alaska "terrorism task force" was watching Occupy Anchorage. The Jackson, Michigan "joint terrorism task force" was issuing a "counterterrorism preparedness alert" about the ill-organized grandmas and college sophomores in Occupy there. Also in Jackson, Michigan, the FBI and the "Bank Security Group" – multiple private banks – met to discuss the reaction to "National Bad Bank Sit-in Day" (the response was violent, as you may recall). The Virginia FBI sent that state's Occupy members' details to the Virginia terrorism fusion center. The Memphis FBI tracked OWS under its "joint terrorism task force" aegis, too. And so on, for over 100 pages. Jason Leopold, at Truthout.org , who has sought similar documents for more than a year, reported that the FBI falsely asserted in response to his own FOIA requests that no documents related to its infiltration of Occupy Wall Street existed at all. But the release may be strategic: if you are an Occupy activist and see how your information is being sent to terrorism task forces and fusion centers, not to mention the "longterm plans" of some redacted group to shoot you, this document is quite the deterrent. There is a new twist: the merger of the private sector, DHS and the FBI means that any of us can become WikiLeaks, a point that Julian Assange was trying to make in explaining the argument behind his recent book. The fusion of the tracking of money and the suppression of dissent means that a huge area of vulnerability in civil society – people's income streams and financial records – is now firmly in the hands of the banks, which are, in turn, now in the business of tracking your dissent. Remember that only 10% of the money donated to WikiLeaks can be processed – because of financial sector and DHS-sponsored targeting of PayPal data. With this merger, that crushing of one's personal or business financial freedom can happen to any of us. How messy, criminalizing and prosecuting dissent. How simple, by contrast, just to label an entity a "terrorist organization" and choke off, disrupt or indict its sources of financing. Why the huge push for counterterrorism "fusion centers", the DHS militarizing of police departments, and so on? It was never really about "the terrorists". It was not even about civil unrest. It was always about this moment, when vast crimes might be uncovered by citizens – it was always, that is to say, meant to be about you. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages,whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. --THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 因为印第安人对我们实施灭族，所以我们也要对他灭族。 表面上是以牙还牙，实际是为了美国和美国人更好地生存！（美国眼里最好最重要的理由）
锅盖写道：美国 “1挑动国共内战，几百万弟兄厮杀，是美国提供的装备吧。2抗美援朝，杀掉的几十万中国人民志愿军。” 对这种侮辱解放军、诋毁解放军辉煌战胜的说法，本人坚决反对。长期以来，日本人喜欢夸大美军在朝鲜对我军造成的损伤，好像是美军屠杀解放军，借此贬低解放军。这我在1999年著有《朝鲜战争常见问题解答》（The Korean War FAQ)进行解答与驳斥。我指出，我军虽然装备落后，但在毛泽东、彭德怀领导下一直是压着美军打，打得联合国军满山跑。统计结果表明，我军与美军伤亡人数相当，我军阵亡、病死人数为13万人， 我军击毙美军5万多人，击毙南朝鲜军20多万，战绩辉煌 。详细统计在 The Korean War FAQ有，至今无人能提出异议。锅盖与倭人一脉相承，夸大美军造成的我军伤亡，好像解放军只是任凭美军屠杀的对象，是违背历史事实的对我军光荣战史的诋毁。 需要指出的是，锅盖曾对叛国未遂、坠机身亡的林彪念念不忘。众所周知，朝鲜战争时林彪畏惧美帝强大的火力不敢上，毛泽东只好找回彭德怀上阵。这一仗，把美帝从鸭绿江边打到汉江，确立了中国在世界的地位。 至于国共内战，罪魁是日本人及其豢养的走狗。抗战期间，蒋介石把美国提供的用来打日本的武器藏起来，不向日本人进攻，留着打内战，这是常识。蒋介石与倭寇的勾结，我在前面有过论述，相关内容重贴于下： ////////////////////// 蒋介石留日，南京大屠杀主犯松井石根是其担保人，抗战期间，蒋介石还与日本人暗通款曲，时常以与日本单独媾和威胁美国；二战结束时，美国两次要把整个冲绳交给中国，蒋介石两次拒绝，而且实行所谓以德报怨，放弃对日索赔。 日本投降时， 侵华日军表示听从蒋介石指挥，参与对中共的内战，蒋介石准备接受150侵华日军参与剿共，但美国对这种无耻行径极为震怒，蒋介石不得不作罢 。 但武装日军直到1947年还留在中国，部分日军仍被蒋介石用来对中共作战 。蒋介石还把一干日本侵略军头子，包括进行三光的侵华日军司令聘为高参打内战。对蒋介石的行为，美国人是极端鄙视。当时的美国总统杜鲁门评论道：”蒋介石、宋美龄等都是贼；他们从我们援助的350亿中偷了7亿5000万美元投资房地产... 我不想再跟这样的人有任何交道”（"Chiang Kai-shek and the Madame and their families, the Soong family and the Kungs were all thieves... They stole seven hundred and fifty million dollars out of the thirty-five billion we sent ... and invested in real estate ... And I don't want anything to do with people like that."）鉴于蒋政府的腐败，在国共内战期间，美国多次拒绝向蒋介石政府提供援助。南京解放时，美国驻华大使司徒雷登没有随同国民党撤退，而是留下与中共接洽（当时的美国政府的报告把中共列为民主力量）。但最后中共选择一边倒向苏联，美国“失去中国”，美国国内政坛一片愤怒，乃至怀疑杜鲁门政府之所以拒绝援助蒋介石是因为美国政府内存在共产党奸细。其实，是蒋介石素质太差。 更早的孙文，就想出卖蒙古给日本换取日本援助北伐。 珍珠湾全球网： 日本人豢养走狗是有一套-珍珠湾全球网-岳东晓 - http://www.zzwave.com/blog-2-10093.html#.UM5Jqm_BFBM#ixzz2FFwxuxFJ
判太轻了吧？ Judge sentences street racers who killed woman in Santa Clara By Tracey Kaplan Posted: 12/04/2012 06:12:26 PM PST Updated: 12/04/2012 09:42:17 PM PST Despite a plea for leniency by the dead victim's parents, a judge Tuesday sentenced two young men who killed Ashley Krieger in a Santa Clara street-racing crash to 364 days in jail each. "Given the circumstances...with the loss of life, (they) deserve time in custody,'' said Judge Rene Navarro, his only comment during the brief hearing in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Krieger, 23, had just left her job at a bowling alley about 10:30 p.m. on March 20, 2011, when her Honda was struck by a Mercedes-Benz CLS 63 driven by Vincent Mergonoto of San Jose. Mergonoto, then 19, was racing a friend, Chandra Purnama, 25, of San Francisco, who was driving a rented Corvette. Both were traveling at speeds of 80-88 mph on Kiely Boulevard, prosecutor Michel Amaral said. The sentence was a compromise of sorts. The men faced a maximum of six years in state prison on charges of felony speeding and causing injury. And the prosecutor wanted at least some prison time. But the men avoided it partly by taking responsibility early for the crash, which involved no alcohol or drugs, and by hiring competent private attorneys. The parties agreed to have the judge decide. The key factor in Navarro's decision was a Feb. 22 letter from Ashley Krieger's parents, Lance and Lori Krieger, Amaral said. The couple were devastated by their only child's sudden, tragic death. But they asked Navarro to sentence Mergonoto, the driver who hit Ashley, to Advertisement probation and community service rather than putting him behind bars. The request came after Mergonoto's family agreed to settle a civil lawsuit with the Kriegers, the terms of which remain confidential. Neither were at the sentencing and declined to comment. The couple wrote that they grieve for their daughter "every day and every night. Her loss and these criminal proceedings have taken a heavy toll on us, physically and emotionally." But they also added that "Vincent and his entire family expressed their sincerest apologies'' and noted the young man accepted responsibility for the tragedy. "We are in the process,'' they said, "of forgiving Vincent in our hearts.'' http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_22125564/judge-sentences-street-racers-who-killed-woman-santa
16年前，我在《 钓鱼岛中日决战 》中写道，【中国应加强与俄国的军事合作，增加互相的信赖感。。。如果 能在未来的中日战争中借重俄国的力量，联合韩国，对倭寇三面围剿，必置军国主义于死地。 对于美国，则晓之以害、诱之以利可矣。 】 也就是说，钓鱼岛问题美国因素通过外交、经济手段即可排除。 两个星期前，针对各种美国是否会介入钓鱼岛争端的讨论，我在《 美国的战略模糊及其底牌 》中写道，【 假如中国自己被吓得软了，老美就可以出来对日本人说，嘿嘿，还不谢谢我罩着？如果中国人真发狠打了，老美可以站在一边， 说这是你们中日之间一衣带血几百年的恩怨，两个民族自己解决，我们美国给你们和平的祝愿 。。。】 中国对日本采取一系列强硬措施，并在联合国宣示立场之后， 美国在联合国发话表态了 ，不再提什么美日安保条约，而是下列容: 【"We have indicated quite clearly that this is a matter for diplomacy between the two countries, and the United States has no intention and we are not playing a mediating role. We have high confidence in the judgment and recognition on both sides of the importance of this relationship. We think it is appropriate. … We think it is a responsible view as well. So the United States is not going to play that kind of role going forward."】 简单翻译如下， 美国认为南中国海与东海的主权争议由来已久 ，日中关系对日中双方都很重要，相信中日双方都能认识到这一点，钓鱼岛争端是中日之间的事情，今后美国不会在中日之间担任调停角色。 http://v.ifeng.com/include/exterior.swf?AutoPlay=falseguid=97d67a11-aecc-4652-839c-9530843e7bb0fromweb=ZHVPlayer
经常看到有人宣称美国私自把钓鱼岛送给日本了？真有这么回事吗？ 钓鱼岛不是美国的，因此美国根本无权把钓鱼岛送给日本，这是一个显然的道理。这就像一个人不能拿邻居家的房子送给他人一样。 那么美国在何时、何地以何种方式号称把钓鱼岛送给日本了呢？我们经常看到所谓美日私相授受钓鱼岛的说法，但是没有任何人能够给出确实的文字证明这个所谓的交易过程。 其实，美国把钓鱼岛给日本的说法是狡诈的日本人自己捏造出来的。根本没有这回事。美日之间的全部条约都可以在这个网页查到 http://aboutusa.japan.usembassy.gov/e/jusa-laws-treaties.html 。无论是旧金山条约（ San Francisco Peace Treaty ）还是1971年的美日琉球、大东协议（ Agreement between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands ）里面都根本没有提到钓鱼岛（或者日本人称的尖阁诸岛--Senkakus） （注一） 。两个条约都只是提到琉球群岛（ Ryukyu Islands)（注二） 。 日本人的逻辑是 （ http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/senkaku.html ）： 因为日本从1895年开始就把钓鱼岛纳入琉球群岛管辖，因此钓鱼岛属于琉球群岛而不属于台湾 。既然琉球群岛给日本管辖，那么钓鱼岛也包含在内。这个逻辑是显然是脆弱不堪的。钓鱼岛在明朝时就是戚继光抗倭的前哨站。 可以这么说，美国与日本的条约中根本没有钓鱼岛的内容，是日本人拐弯抹角狡诈地解释为包含钓鱼岛。 克林顿所谓美日安保条约范围包括钓鱼岛应该是其对条约的错误解读，这种错误的解读可能给美国人民带来灾难性后果。《美日安保条约》第5条写的是“ an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan” 。钓鱼岛目前是个无人岛，上面也没有任何设施，根本谈不上属于日本管理。事实上，中国海监船目前正对钓鱼岛中国领海实施常态巡逻，估计中国相关人员将在适当时机登岛实现全方位管理。 注一：美日之间关于琉球的协议也不涉及主权而只是管理权，琉球主权也不属于日本，对此我之前有过分析 注二：美国曾提出将琉球交给中国，但被国民党政府拒绝
我在 美国会为日本流血？解读《美日安保条约》 一文中解读了美国与日本的这个条约。我指出，这根本不是一个军事同盟条约，因为美国根本没有保证出兵，而是【 根据其宪法规定以及程序对付共同威胁】， 并向联合国安理会汇报。 在钓岛问题上，美国的态度是：对钓岛主权没有立场，但会履行美日安保条约。 显然，这是一种经典的战略模糊，就像玩扑克的不愿意露出底牌，保留见机行事的灵活性。比如说，假如中国自己被吓得软了，老美就可以出来对日本人说，嘿嘿，还不谢谢我罩着？如果中国人真发狠打了，老美可以站在一边，说这是你们中日之间一衣带血几百年的恩怨，两个成熟的民族自己有能力解决，我们美国给你们和平的祝愿。。。 中国要知道底牌在哪， 得像毛泽东炮击金门一样，打几万发炮弹 ，才能炸出来。那时老毛既无核武又无导弹，就用低科技的火炮一打，老美就顾不上美国与台湾的条约，撒腿就跑了。 在钓岛问题上，美国又在模糊。美国【 have refused to elaborate on what circumstances would trigger U.S. military intervention .】就是说，拒绝讲什么情况下会军事支援日本。当然即使是军事支援，也不一定是让美军士兵上阵。 这种模糊使某些胆小的老中惴惴不安，也已经让很多美国人感到惶恐，他们生怕奥巴马政府把美国卷入与中国的军事冲突---解放军给人留下了冷酷无情、为打赢不惜代价的印象。对大部分美国人来说，他们不会因为日本吃点苦头而多愁善感。日本海啸的时候，很多美国人说活该、谁叫你们偷袭珍珠港。 要知道美国的底牌，中国只管对侵略者倭寇大打出手。 人们会发现，奥巴马对《安保条约》的解释与我的相同---just read the plain English.
一名24岁的工人将一艘正在检修的核潜艇纵火焚烧。火势巨大，12小时才扑灭。导致价值24亿人民币的损失。 原因： 前女友发来短信，说起与另一男人的事情，于是想早点下班。 如果被判有罪，该纵火工人将面临150万元罚款以及无期徒刑。 Navy: Nuclear Sub Worker Set Fire So He Could Leave Early Navy Sub Fire: New Hampshire Man Arrested AUTO START: ON | OFF Text Size - / + By CLARKE CANFIELD Associated Press PORTLAND, Maine July 24, 2012 (AP) Navy investigators have determined that a civilian laborer set a fire that caused $400 million in damage to a nuclear-powered submarine because he had anxiety and wanted to get out of work early. Casey James Fury of Portsmouth, N.H., faces up to life in prison if convicted of two counts of arson in the fire aboard the USS Miami attack submarine while it was in dry dock May 23 and a second blaze outside the sub on June 16. The 24-year-old Casey was taking medications for anxiety and depression and told investigators he set the fires so he could get out of work, according a seven-page affidavit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Portland. Fury made his first court appearance Monday afternoon but did not enter a plea. Magistrate Judge John Rich III scheduled a combined detention and probable cause hearing for next month. The U.S. attorney's office has filed a motion asking that Fury be held without bail. Fury's federal public defender, David Beneman, did not speak in court and earlier in the day declined to comment to The Associated Press. People who appeared to be family members attended the hearing but also declined to comment. The Miami was in dry dock at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, for an overhaul when the fire damaged the torpedo room and command area inside the forward compartment. It took more than 12 hours to extinguish. A second fire was reported June 16 on the dry dock cradle on which the Miami rests, but there was no damage and no injuries. Fury, who was working on the sub as a painter and sandblaster, initially denied starting the fires but eventually acknowledged his involvement, the affidavit states. He admitted setting the May 23 fire, which caused an estimated $400 million in damage, while taking a lie-detector test and being told by the examiner he wasn't being truthful. Fury told Timothy Bailey, an agent for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, that "his anxiety started getting really bad," so he grabbed his cigarettes and a lighter, walked up to a bunk room and set fire to some rags on the top bunk. The Navy originally said the fire started when an industrial vacuum cleaner sucked up a heat source that ignited debris inside. Fury said he set the second fire after getting anxious over a text-message exchange with an ex-girlfriend about a man she had started seeing, according to the affidavit. He wanted to leave work early, so he took some alcohol wipes and set them on fire outside the submarine. Fury said he initially lied about setting the fires "because he was scared and because everything was blurry to him and his memory was impacted due to his anxiety and the medication he was taking at the time," according to the affidavit. Fury told NCIS agent Jeremy Gauthier that he was taking three medications for anxiety, depression and sleep, and a fourth for allergies. He checked himself into an in-patient mental health facility on June 21 and checked himself out two days later, the affidavit reads. If convicted of either charge, Fury could face life imprisonment and a fine of up to $250,000 and be ordered to pay restitution, officials said.
喋喋不休 vs. 欲说还休 宜修 北美崔哥的《一旦中美开战，你支持谁》引发了大家的热议。也不由得让我想起了十几年前的一桩往事。 那年适逢江泽民访美，一位当时正在竞选纽约州众议员的候选人跟我打趣儿道：“宜修，你的 President 来了。” 虽然不清楚此话出自玩笑、抑或认真，我还是笑了：“你这话，既对且错。因为江刚当上中国的 President 的时候，我确曾归他管。可现在，我换身份证了。” 不知道是不是喜欢竞选的人都热衷辩论。我的回答不仅没能让我退避三舍，还竟吊起了这哥们儿咄咄逼人的胃口。他不依不饶道：“那我问你，如果中国和美国开战，你站在哪边儿？” 如此饱含挑衅意味的提问一出，周围一帮老外都发现这儿有好戏看，全凑了过来。 诡异凛冽的目光中，我有点儿羊入狼群的感觉 ……恐怕只有火把才能让我突围。 “那，要看双方是为什么起争执，谁是交战中正义的一方。 I go with justice. ”我的话音刚落，周围响起一派哄笑声 …… 只见找茬儿的那哥们儿有点啼笑皆非的语塞。 在场的一位老者当即对那位候选人所作的评论，让我迄今记忆犹新：“Lxxxy, Shame on you!” 对我们这些远离故乡，“嫁作新人妇”的移民，祖国、居住国仿佛手心和手背。媳妇在婆家不把娘家人当回事儿，在婆家能有地位吗？可要是心里只想着娘家，这往后的日子，还怎么过啊？！所以，一如贤惠的媳妇，我们所该做的，是架起一座温情的桥梁，让娘家、婆家和睦相处、世代友好。 追记于二零一二年七月十八日晚
美国号称是一个讲人权的地方，但人权是给人的。美国加州是华工最集中的地方，而美国加州宪法有一部人权法案，有 兴趣的可以查看连接 。就是这部人权法案，却有一章专门只针对CHINESE的例外，标题就是CHINESE， 在链接文件的15-16页 。同学们如果懂英语，应该认真读读这部宪法，因为这一章CHINESE，基本用各种形象语言把全体CHINESE定位为不健康的、愚蠢的、犯罪的“COOLIE”，也就不是“人”，因此不享受人权，宪法规定不允许配偶来美国、不准工作，等等。 美国加州这个不把CHINESE当人的宪法条款是什么时候废除的呢？不是中美作为盟国共同抗击法西斯的二战时期。而是在朝鲜战争之后。朝鲜战争之前， 【 西方对朝鲜人与中国人的对待基于一种根深蒂固的信念，那就是朝鲜人中国人不是像西方人一样的人，而是接近畜生。。】 （ "Western treatment of the Koreans and the Chinese was dictated by a deeply rooted conviction that they were not people like themselves, but near-animals..." ( Hastings p307 ) ) 朝鲜战争中志愿军的 强大武力使美国人民意识到中国人民是值得尊重的“人”，美军将士在回忆录中写道，原来以为CHINESE就是那种逆来顺受的苦力，谁知在这么富有侵略性， 打得他们满山跑，太厉害了。因此他们民主地投票，废除了加州人权法里这个不把中国人当人的条款... 下面是我的翻译，请指正--请注意，下列法案在朝鲜战争后被加州人民投票表决加以废除。 /////////////////////////翻译开始//////////////////////////////////////// 第一款：中国人 1. 立法部门必须制订所有必要的法律保护所辖县、市、城镇，使之不受那些是或者可能变成流浪汉、穷鬼、乞丐、罪犯以及带有传染病的废物之类的外国人，或者对辖区的平安、和平构成其他威胁或危害的外国人的拖累与危害，并且对此类人等在辖区的居住加以限制，并且制定在他们拒绝遵守相关限制时对他们加以清除的方法与模式；本节的内容不限制立法部门制订其他必要的执法或者其他法规。 2. 本宪法生效后，任何本州法律下设立的公司都不得直接或者间接地以任何形式雇佣任何中国人或者蒙古人。立法部门将制订相关法律强制实施此节。 3. 任何中国人都不得被雇佣于任何州、县、市或者其他公共工作，除非是作为对其犯罪的惩罚。 4. 在此宣布，那些没有资格成为美国公民的外国人的存在对这个州的福祉构成危害，立法部门将采取其权利范围内的一切必要手段阻止他们向辖区移民。亚洲苦力是一种奴隶制，本州禁止苦力，所有苦力合同全部无效。任何进口苦力的公司，无论是在本国或者外国法律下建立，都将依法惩处。立法部门将授权下属的县、市清除其所辖区域内外的中国人，并将禁止中国人进入辖区。此节内容将通过相应立法强制实施。 /////////////////////////翻译结束//////////////////////////////////////// 我来导读一下，读西方法律需要一定理科思维 首先，这个法律的标题是《CHINESE》，由此可知是专门针对中国人的。 第一节是大纲精神，是说为了保护辖区不被人渣或者可能成为人渣的外国人危害。注意，这里防范的不仅是已经是人渣的，还包括可能成为人渣的。 如果说立法排除中国人中的流浪汉、乞丐、罪犯、传染病之类，这也许是可以说得过去的。就像某些人错误理解的那样。 但加州的宪法却是写的“who ... may become ..."流浪汉、乞丐、罪犯、传染病。也就是说排除的依据是：中国人也许会变成流浪汉、乞丐、罪犯、传染病之类。 也就是说，在洋人看来，即使你是中国的书香世家、甚至贵族地主，你也可能变成美国社会的人渣。 这才是加州全面排除华人的逻辑基础。因为这个“也许会变为”的“逻辑”，中国人就被不加区分地被排除了。 第二节是禁止私人企业雇佣中国人。注意，这一条没有任何例外。不是说某些中国人可以被雇佣，而是100%禁止雇佣。 第三是禁止政府部门雇佣中国人，这一条的唯一例外是作为惩罚中国人犯罪（比如监狱劳动）。 第四是禁止更多中国人进入与清除已经进入的中国人。
标签: 美国
![[八一比武] 日子如果都能如此过---晒晒美国华人的幸福生活(有图有真相) ... ... ...](data/attachment/album/201207/29/001149d644ld9d3l9jrl4w.jpg.thumb.jpg)
