雷声
2936
6152
2008-05-12 12:12:41
1608034

刚才CNN做了个四川地震的形势分析。猜猜他们采访了谁？《China's Coming Collapse》的作者Gorden Chang。这是个恶毒的笑话吗？在看看Gordon Chang说了什么。Corruption和Widespread Secrecy会造成中国政府unable to react。Gordon Chang还拿美国政府做比较，说美国政府这样的体制才能做出立即的反应！

北京事件3：30分左右截到的图片

我对这个节目的看法：

1.它不是实事报道的一部分，而是所谓《World Business Report》

2.Gordon Chang不是CNN雇员，而是特邀嘉宾。

3.节目的主题是disaster对中国的impact

4.尽管如此，这个节骨眼上邀请这样背景的一位嘉宾是不合适的。

5.Gordon Chang现场谈的东西和business和impact基本上没有直接关系。他实际上是在完全凭自己的印象和speculation贩卖自己的私货！

6.CNN的责任不是不报事实，而是在这这个关头叫这个乌鸦嘴来，是insensitive，是对中国灾民的insult和affront!

厚积薄发
2929
13538
2008-05-13 20:49:08
1611531 复 1608034

除了你后面补充的‘No Hope’ for Children Buried in Earthquake，后面还有更狠的：China Scales Back Torch Relay After Quake。

建议读一读后面的读者评论。注意有人（Lau)在说被标题吸引了过来，却对内容很失望。原因是这篇文章的原始题目不是这样的，而是更耸人听闻的In China, Olympic Torch Protests Follow Quake---《地震后，中国有人抗议奥运火炬》。因为《纽约时报》后来换题目了！用英文Google搜一下“In China, Olympic Torch Protests Follow Quake”，你可以看到如下结果

点开第一个链接之后，你会发现这是同一篇文章，但是标题改了。我注意到这一点是因为我早上就留意这篇文章了，但是下午却发现标题变了。请一定读一读后面读者的评论。读完你就知道我为什么强烈推荐了。

有了这篇文章做背景，最新一篇里面的很多混淆是非的地方就可以理解来龙去脉了A Rescue in China, Uncensored。

现在西方媒体也开始注意从中国的网站上收集消息，根据他们的需要做取舍。不光是海外华人紧盯着西方网站，西方也开始紧盯中国网站了。不要以为他们不懂中文，需要的时候总是有人来翻译的。

正如葡萄所预言，中西的舆论对攻战拉开序幕了。

英国卫报：

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/13/china.naturaldisasters3

现在没空理这些苍蝇，救灾要紧，这笔帐先暂且记着。

他们这样歪曲事实，西方民众无法正视中国的崛起，将来西方媒体将要背负千古骂名的。

现在且不管他。我是看一篇吐血一次。

路边
4028
6860
2008-05-13 21:51:18
1611566 复 1611531

链接出处

OPINION

The Challenge From China

By MARK HELPRIN

May 13, 2008; Page A17

不想全文翻译了，大意是：中国的发展一日千里，在经济和军事两方面给美国带来了挑战。而美国如果不直面这种挑战，将来会面对更大的麻烦。中国经济发展使得中国军事投入越来越多而人均负担没有明显增加，同时中国的军队也在现代化。 中国的领导人可以制定长期目标，而美国领导往往只能制定短期目标。中国的军事技术发展飞快，核武器数量种类不断增加，而美国核武器一直在销毁中，也许有一天我们就要摊牌，而到底是胡锦涛还是Obama先怂可不好说。所以美国必须增加军事支出，加快生产自动化，如果美国军事支出占GDP比例大幅增加，美国的经济也许不会受到影响反而会被刺激增长，让我们多造航母，多造战斗机，确保我们在东亚的盟友们的安全。即使这会让我们花费不小，总比可耻的战败或者甚至不战而败要值得的多。可叹所有的总统候选人没有一个关心这个问题，他们都只会抱怨，安慰，却拿不出魄力胆略。

全文如下：

Even as our hearts go out to the Chinese who have perished in the earthquake, we cannot lose sight of the fact that every day China is growing stronger. The rate and nature of its economic expansion, the character and patriotism of its youth, and its military and technical development present the United States with two essential challenges that we have failed to meet, even though they play to our traditional advantages.

The first of these challenges is economic, the second military. They are inextricably bound together, and if we do not attend to both we may eventually discover in a place above us a nation recently so impotent we cannot now convince ourselves to look at the blow it may strike. We may think we have troubles now, but imagine what they will be like were we to face an equal.

AP

Beijing: Delegates from China's military attend the annual session of the National People's Congress.

China has a vast internal market newly unified by modern transport and communications; a rapidly flowering technology; an irritable but highly capable workforce that as long as its standard of living improves is unlikely to push the country into paralyzing unrest; and a wider world, now freely accessible, that will buy anything it can make. China is threatened neither by Japan, Russia, India, nor the Western powers, as it was not that long ago. It has an immense talent for the utilization of capital, and in the free market is as agile as a cat.

Unlike the U.S., which governs itself almost unconsciously, reactively and primarily for the short term, China has plotted a long course, in which with great deliberation it joins economic growth to military power. Thirty years ago, in what may be called the "gift of the Meiji," Deng Xiaoping transformed the Japanese slogan fukoku kyohei (rich country, strong arms) into China's 16-Character Policy: "Combine the military and the civil; combine peace and war; give priority to military products; let the civil support the military."

Japan was able to vault with preternatural speed into the first ranks of the great powers because it understood the relation of growth to military potential. A country with restrained population increases and a high rate of economic expansion can over time dramatically improve its material lot while simultaneously elevating military spending almost beyond belief. The crux is to raise per-capita income significantly enough that diversions for defense will go virtually unnoticed. China's average annual growth of roughly 9% over the past 20 years has led to an absolute tenfold increase in per-capita GNP and 21-fold increase in purchasing-power-parity military expenditure. Though it could do more, it prudently limits defense spending, with an eye to both social stability – the compass of the Chinese leadership – and assimilable military modernization.

As we content ourselves with the fallacy that never again shall we have to fight large, technological opponents, China is transforming its forces into a full-spectrum military capable of major operations and remote power projection. Eventually the twain shall meet. By the same token, our sharp nuclear reductions and China's acquisitions of ballistic-missile submarines and multiple-warhead mobile missiles will eventually come level. The China that has threatened to turn Los Angeles to cinder is arguably more cavalier about nuclear weapons than are we, and may find parity a stimulus to brinkmanship. Who will blink first, a Barack Obama (who even now blinks like Betty Boop) or a Hu Jintao?

Our reductions are not solely nuclear. Consider the F-22, the world's most capable air dominance aircraft, for which the original call for 648 has been whittled to 183, leaving, after maintenance, training, and test, approximately 125 to cover the entire world. The same story is evident without relief throughout our diminished air echelons, shrinking fleets, damaged and depleted stocks, and ground forces turned from preparation for heavy battle to the work of a gendarmerie.

As the military is frustrated and worn down by a little war against a small enemy made terrible by the potential of weapons of mass destruction, the shift in the Pacific goes unaddressed as if it is unaddressable. But it is eminently addressable. We can, in fact, compete with China economically, deter it from a range of military options, protect our allies, and maintain a balance of power favorable to us.

In the past we have been able to outwit both more advanced industrial economies and those floating upon seas of cheap labor – by innovating and automating. Until China's labor costs equal ours, the only way to compete with its manufactures is intensely to mechanize our own. Restriction of trade or waiting for equalization will only impoverish us as we fail to compete in world markets. The problem is cheap labor. The solution, therefore, is automation. Who speaks about this in the presidential campaign? The candidates prefer, rather, to whine and console.

We must revive our understanding of deterrence, the balance of power, and the military balance. In comparison with its recent history, American military potential is restrained. Were we to allot the average of 5.7% of GNP that we devoted annually to defense in peacetime from 1940-2000, we would have as a matter of course $800 billion each year with which to develop and sustain armies and fleets. During World War II we devoted up to 40% of GNP to this, and yet the economy expanded in real terms and Americans did not live like paupers.

The oceans have been our battlefields since the beginning; we invented powered flight; and our automobiles still await us on the surface of the moon – our métiers are the sea, air and space. Thus, we have been blessed by geography, for with the exception of South Korea our allies in the Pacific are islands. With Japan, Australasia, our own island territories, and Admiral Nimitz's ocean, we can match and exceed indefinitely any development of Chinese strategic power – which, by definition, must take to the sea and air.

* * *

And there we will be, if we are wise, not with 280 ships but a thousand; not eleven carriers, or nine, but 40, not 183 F-22s, but a thousand; and so on. That is, the levels of military potential that traditional peacetime expenditures of GNP have provided, without strain, throughout most of our lives. As opposed either to ignominious defeat without war, or war with a rising power emboldened by our weakness and retirement, this would be infinitely cheaper.

And yet what candidate is alert to this? Who asserts that our sinews are still intact? That we can meet any challenge, especially when it can be answered with our historical strengths? That beneath a roiled surface is a power limitless yet fair, supple yet restrained? Who will speak of these things in time, and who will dare to awaken them?

Mr. Helprin, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, is the author of, among other works, "Winter's Tale" (Harcourt) and "A Soldier of the Great War" (Harcourt). This piece was adapted from a speech given at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

不过下面回贴评论的倒是大部分都很理性，纷纷指出Helprin的可笑之处...

以为还是二战么，以为中国是前苏联么？找作者鼓吹的那样，下一步是世界毁灭。

谢谢提供线索。花一个。

恒光明
1048
1055
2008-05-13 22:28:38
1611586 复 1611576

和平崛起是双向的,为了这俩字,俺们能忍的都忍了,能让的都让了,还要怎么样? 总不能让人骑在头上拉屎拉尿吧!

我的祖国中有这样的歌词

"朋友来了有好酒,若是那豺狼来了,迎接它的有猎枪"

俺再发挥一下,甭等它来糟蹋咱们,直接就把它蹦在狼窝里得了.

厚积薄发
2929
13538
2008-05-13 21:22:04
1611549 复 1611531

这篇文章。

严格意义上讲，我不太确定这是否算是《纽约时报》的文章，因为它是作为博客文章出现的。但是，它是作为头版标题文章在今天早上的网络版出现的，而且是以《地震后，中国有人抗议奥运火炬》这个题目出现的。看看美国读者的留言，“Shame on you， China”。谁说影响不坏？

西方对中国的误解以及成见不是一两天建立起来的。这些总总，注定中国崛起的路会走得特别艰辛。

厚积薄发
2929
13538
2008-05-13 22:12:30
1611579 复 1611574

世界和平，人类向太空进军，这些是我从小的梦想。可有的时候事情就是这样矛盾：没有足以毁灭全人类的力量就不可能实现人类和平。