山东莱阳千树万树梨花开
17 年前
2011年8月10日星期三
抵制不理智的“抵制”
南洋商报专稿，勿载 近日，中国网上一篇号令大家5月1日不去家乐福购物的帖子被普遍转载和热闹探讨。同时，一条呐喊人们整整17天不去该超市买货色的手机短信也在猖狂传播。这是因为家乐福的大股东路易威登-莫特轩尼诗团体涉嫌赞助达赖，加上巴黎奥运圣火传递时产生的事件，网友们先是开端抵制LV，这多少天则换了“靶子”，抉择了更容易接触到的家乐福。 老外抵制奥运，让中国人很受伤，确然！这一次，西方政客和媒体犯了一个初级毛病，就是没有想到抵制奥运会引发中国一般大众的如斯反弹。而且，这种反弹不仅是中国国内，在西方国度的华人华侨也由于西方的抵制而团结了起来。譬如法国的华人就对法国政客和媒体对华的曲解报道以“支持科西嘉独立”作为反制，如美国的华人租飞机反对达赖在美报告，如澳大利亚的华人冒雨游行支持北京奥运等。 就此而言，因为家乐福的大股东是LV，而LV支撑藏独，中国人再去群体抵制家乐福。从感情上看，这种抵制是能够谅解的。就如外交部发言人姜瑜15日在例行记者会上所表现的，法方应答中公民众公道、正当表白的看法跟情绪进行反思。 不外，从理性和协调共赢的角度讲，抵制奥运和抵制家乐福都是不理智的。 对于抵制奥运的不智，国际奥委会、各国政要和中外媒体已有连篇累牍的宣示，笔者不再赘述。就抵制家乐福而言，就很轻易让人和民族主义联系起来。民族主义是和激动、狭隘相接洽的，既让老外更加曲解中国，也被本人的冤仇捣乱了自己的心智，是一种两败俱伤的情感宣泄。此外，家乐福虽是法资企业，然而立足中国市场经营，所聘员工大都为中国人，所售货物也是中国货。抵制家乐福，在造成企业利润损减的同时，中国海内投资环境、财税收益、供货商、家乐福员工的好处都未免受到波及。打别人一拳伤自己三拳，按鲁迅的说法那是“昏蛋”。“昏蛋”天然是不理智的。一句话，抵制家乐福实际上是用法国人的过错来处分自己。 何况，市场经济的最大特色是花费自在和自主张识确实破。除非法治和权利的强迫，不人会信任一则抵制家乐福的短信和倡导就能左右中国人的消费行动。中国人曾经有过N次抵制“某某国货”的作法，哪一次又胜利了？看看中国的市场，天上飞的，地上跑的，身上穿的，家里用的，嘴里吃的，耳朵上听的，可不到处都充满着入口的东西。须要提示的是，寰球化是不可抑止的时期潮流，而中国偏偏是全球化最大的受益国。在中国输进来万国产品的时候，中国的产品也涌进其余各国。这才干构成互利共赢的国际贸易格式。但凡否认WTO规矩的国家，任何一国一地对某项商品的抵制，就会造成商业争端。2006年，美国作家邦乔妮曾尝试着度过“没有‘中国制作’的一年”，成果证实她一家的生涯变得极为蹩脚。这一实验不仅是证明“中国制造”对世界的不可或缺，也在折射一种全球化的普世准则，本国货对中国普通人的生活同样主要。 奥运不会因为抵制而停办，家乐福也不会因为抵制而歇业。在两种抵制均属做无用功而且徒增双方愤懑的情形下，抵制当然都是愚蠢的。然而，这一次法国人仿佛也正从愚蠢走向笨拙。在中国人抵制家乐福的同时，法国各大主流媒体，如法国晚报、法国《快报》杂志，《新察看家》杂志，也在讨论是否抵制中国货。这无异於火上浇油，倒是家乐福有感同身受，在第一时光表示支持奥运，反对藏独。 看来，越是愚昧的抵制，在某些人看来却是相对的政治准确---抵制奥运者者是以人权做幌子，抵制家乐福者是以爱国做马甲。这两者都是中国古代化过程上的妨碍与困扰。前者，既是中西文化抵触的结果，也是国际政治利益博弈的结果；后者，是对前者前提反射式地应急反映。破解这两大困扰，一是靠中国软硬实力的加强占得博弈先机，持续以开放性姿势融入全球；二是要拓宽中国人视线和修养全球化思维，从狭窄的自我文明倨傲中走出来。 这是一个长期的进程。现阶段，感性的立场是宽容这两种不理智的抵制声音，任由其自生自灭好了。
Stock Market: The Business of Investin
Investors in a bear market promise to sell a stock in the future at a set price. But the investor does not own the stock yet. He or she waits to buy it when the price drops.
The meaning of a bear market is thought to come from an old story about a man who sold the skin of a bear before he caught the bear. An English dictionary of the sixteen hundreds said, "To sell a bear is to sell what one has not."
Stock market investors do not want that to happen to a company. They want a company whose stock they own to earn more profit than expected. This would sharply increase the value of the stock. Investors are hoping for a windfall.
2008-4-19
The first written use of the word with that meaning was in a newspaper in Illinois in eighteen thirty-seven. It said: "The sales on the board were one thousand seven hundred dollars in American gold."
(MUSIC)
People pay brokers to buy and sell stocks for them. If a company earns money, its stock increases in value. If the company does not earn money, the stock decreases in value.
Bells sound. Lighted messages appear. Men and women work at computers. They talk on the telephone. At times they shout and run around.
This noisy place is a stock exchange. Here expert salespeople called brokers buy and sell shares of companies. The shares are known as stocks. People who own stock in a company, own part of that company.
Brokers and investors carefully watch for any changes on the Big Board. That is the name given to a list of stocks sold on the New York Stock Exchange.
This Special English program, Words and Their Stories, was written by Jeri Watson. This is Phil Murray.
Investors are always concerned about the possibility of a company failing. In the modern world, a company that does not earn enough profit is said to go belly up. A company that goes belly up dies like a fish. Fish turn over on their backs when they die. So they are stomach, or belly, up.
Word experts dispute the beginnings of the word bull in the stock market. But some say it came from the long connection of the two animals -- bulls and bears -- in sports that were popular years ago in England.
Instead of obeying, Jim fell on the couch and put his hands under the back of his head and smiled.
There was a tall glass mirror between the windows of the room. Suddenly Della turned from the window and stood before the glass mirror and looked at herself. Her eyes were shining, but her face had lost its color within twenty seconds. Quickly she pulled down her hair and let it fall to its full length.
Jim was never late coming home from work. Della held the silver chain in her hand and sat near the door. Then she heard his step and she turned white for just a minute. She had a way of saying a little silent prayer about the simplest everyday things, and now she whispered: "Please God, make him think I am still pretty."
"Isn't it wonderful, Jim? I looked all over town to find it. You will have to look at the time a hundred times a day now. Give me your watch. I want to see how it looks on it."
Della finished her crying and dried her face. She stood by the window and looked out unhappily at a gray cat walking along a gray fence in a gray back yard. Tomorrow would be Christmas Day, and she had only one dollar and eighty-seven cents to buy her husband Jim a gift. She had been saving every penny she could for months, with this result.
For there were the combs -- the special set of objects to hold her hair that Della had wanted ever since she saw them in a shop window. Beautiful combs, made of shells, with jewels at the edge --just the color to wear in the beautiful hair that was no longer hers. They cost a lot of money, she knew, and her heart had wanted them without ever hoping to have them. And now, the beautiful combs were hers, but the hair that should have touched them was gone.
"You say your hair is gone?" he asked.
(MUSIC)
2008-12-19
ANNOUNCER:
She put on her coat and her old brown hat. With a quick motion and brightness still in her eyes, she danced out the door and down the street.
Then Della jumped up like a little burned cat and cried, "Oh, oh!"
"If Jim does not kill me before he takes a second look at me," she said to herself, "he'll say I look like a song girl. But what could I do--oh! what could I do with a dollar and eighty-seven cents?"
The door opened and Jim stepped in. He looked thin and very serious. Poor man, he was only twenty-two and he had to care for a wife. He needed a new coat and gloves to keep his hands warm.
ANNOUNCER:
"Cut it off and sold it," said Della. "Do you not like me just as well? I am the same person without my hair, right?
"Do not make any mistake about me, Dell," he said. "I do not think there is any haircut that could make me like my girl any less. But if you will open that package you may see why you had me frightened at first."
"Give it to me quick," said Della.
White fingers quickly tore at the string and paper. There was a scream of joy; and then, alas! a change to tears and cries, requiring the man of the house to use all his skill to calm his wife.
(MUSIC)
"You have cut off your hair?" asked Jim, slowly, as if he had not accepted the information even after his mind worked very hard.
Jim had not yet seen his beautiful gift. She happily held it out to him in her open hands. The silver chain seemed so bright.
Within forty minutes her head was covered with tiny round curls of hair that made her look wonderfully like a schoolboy. She looked at herself in the glass mirror long and carefully.
The next two hours went by as if they had wings. Della looked in all the stores to choose a gift for Jim.
Now, for the Christmas Holiday, we present a special story called "The Gift of the Magi" by O. Henry. Here is Shep O'Neal with the story.
The magi were wise men--wonderfully wise men--who brought gifts to the Baby Jesus. They invented the art of giving Christmas gifts. Being wise, their gifts were wise ones. And here I have told you the story of two young people who most unwisely gave for each other the greatest treasures of their house. But in a last word to the wise of these days, let it be said that of all who give gifts, these two were the wisest. Everywhere they are wisest. They are the magi.
Down came the beautiful brown waterfall of hair.
"Will you buy my hair?" asked Della.
"The Gift of the Magi" was written by O. Henry and adapted into Special English by Karen Leggett. Your storyteller was Shep O'Neal. The producer was Lawan Davis.
There was clearly nothing to do but sit down and cry. So Della cried. Which led to the thought that life is made up of little cries and smiles, with more little cries than smiles.
At seven o'clock that night the coffee was made and the pan on the back of the stove was hot and ready to cook the meat.
"I buy hair," said Madame. "Take your hat off and let us have a look at it."
2011年7月11日星期一
赔钱轻判？——莫非这是我们对媒体的“误读”？
都说“杀人偿命，欠债还钱”。随着今年最高法院收回“死刑复核权”，大家起码算达成了这样一个共识：少杀、慎杀，才是真正维护司法尊严的核心理念。 但是最近，发生在广东东莞的一宗刑事案件的判决结果，却引起了人们对另一个问题的思考——在执行死刑的“程序正义”之前，会不会率先引发“不正义”的判罚？ 2005年11月1日，东莞发生了一起抢劫并致人死亡案。当三名案犯被警方逮捕、被公诉机关提起刑事诉讼的同时，被害人的家属，也依法提起了附带民事诉讼。因为在劫案中被歹徒杀害，被害人一家的生活、陷入极为困顿的境地，女儿还面临失学。在得知这样的情况之后，法官多次组织案件的双方当事人进行调解。被告人之一——王某的家属同意先赔偿原告5万元，据说王某本人的悔罪态度也很真诚，表示要“痛改前非”，而原告对这样的民事赔偿，结果也表示“满意”。据报道说，最后法庭“根据双方真实意见表达、并依据法律”，对被告人王某作出一定程度的“从轻处罚”：一审判处死缓。 媒体说到这儿，还特别附带着加了个“说明”：“像这样通过补偿被害人经济损失、从而获得刑事减刑的判例，在这个市的两级法院已经超过三十宗。” 您能想象，面对这样一个“赔钱就可以轻判”的新闻，会激起公众何等义愤——这不等于承认“拿钱可以买命，赔钱可以减刑”吗？这明显是对《刑法》条文的扩大解释，超出了可以自由裁量的范围，违背了“罪刑法定”及“罪刑相适应”的《刑法》基本原则。如果照这样的思路，有钱人犯罪杀人，所承担的刑事责任，肯定比没钱的人要轻！这口子一开，你怎么能保证法院不会根据“潜规则”私下处理呢？你怎么解释，由此可能造成的“法律不公正”和执法人员的渎职呢？想当年，大贪官和珅不就设立过“议罪银制度”吗？你犯罪了，只要不是谋反大逆，就可以靠交钱来赎罪。和珅认为，这一招可是他对大清帝国的巨大贡献啊！我拿钱充实了国库啊！当然，这家伙没敢承认，他自己也没从中少捞“好处”的事实。 我不知道，对于此案中除了“双方就赔钱可以免死罪”协商一致之外，还有没有其他法定酌定的“从轻”情节？在本案中，王某究竟是主犯,还是协从？杀人到底是故意，还是过失？反正新闻报道中全都语焉不详。但这里面，存在两个明显的错误，一，这首先是公诉案件，是“刑事案件附带民事赔偿”，双方当事人只能就民事赔偿达成协议，怎么能把公诉人扔在一边不管呢？二，法律原则是：“刑事不判，民事不赔”，怎么可能根据民事赔偿，就决定刑事处罚程度呢？如果真是如此，不是法院无知，就是记者“瞎写”! 当然，对这个判罚的支持者，也搬出了另一段历史，来加以作证“用钱换命，古已有之”：司马迁以“文辞蛊惑，诬罔主上”而被定为死罪，按照汉朝的刑法，获死罪的犯人有两种方法可以免死：一是缴纳五十万钱，二是接受宫刑。司马迁兜里没钱，于是选择了后者，但好歹算活下来了，这也才有了后来伟大的《史记》。 但是，了解历史的人都知道：封建法律所规定的“议赎制度”——也就是用官职或金钱抵命，可并非人人能用！那是官僚和贵族的护身符，司马迁是谁？他是“太史令”啊！这其实，正是封建社会法律制度严重不平等的例证，与我国《宪法》中“法律面前人人平等”的制度完全背道而驰。拿这个来说事，完全是“驴唇不对马嘴”！ 诚然，在现行司法实践中，也的确有将“经济损失赔偿”作为法定“从轻减轻”的情节，比如受贿、贪污等职务犯罪、或盗窃等财产犯罪，但它的范围，仅仅控制在财产类犯罪量刑之列。 我记得去年3月，北方某个市的区法院，也推出一个《关于刑事自诉及附带民事诉讼案件和解工作的规定》，也指出：“依法判处3年有期徒刑以下的被告人，如果其积极主动赔偿了被害人的经济损失，可以依法适用缓刑或者管制、单处罚金。情节轻微的，还可以免予刑事处罚。”但是，如果涉及到人身伤害，特别是剥夺生命的，诸如“故意杀人，抢劫、绑架”等严重刑事犯罪，谁都清楚，这样的规定不适用！因为人的生命是无价的！是绝对不能拿钱来衡量的！ 据说，该案件还引起某些法学界专家的关注，有人还煞有介事地说，这是“符合潮流的做法”，符合最高法院“少杀、慎杀”的精神！……我尊重专家，但我更注重公正与公平！我不好杀，但是我们必须承认，中国毕竟还没有废除死刑！从轻判罚，总要找到一个合理的解释，而不是不分青红皂白地乱发“慈悲”！ 我宁肯相信，这是由于媒体法律知识匮乏的差错，导致了我们对当地法院判决的一种误读，否则，这简直是中国司法界巨大的悲哀！
订阅：
博文 (Atom)
