文章 - - 文章列表 - 全部

人愛做夢，做出版的人卻總想把夢變成真實，把作者的手稿排成鉛字，把知識變成有質感的書本，把書本編成叢書，精神轉成物質，學問形成體系。說起來，這其實仍然是一個夢想。一九八八年董秀玉來香港三聯，那時我叫她董大姐，有幸跟她做出版，一做也快三十年了。

Confronting the MalefactorsBy PAUL KRUGMANPublished: October 6, 2011 New York TimesIs It Effective to Occupy Wall Street?The protesters are getting more attention and expanding outside New York. What are they doing right, and what are they missing?When the Occupy Wall Street protests began three weeks ago, most news organizations were derisive if they deigned to mention the events at all. For example, nine days into the protests, National Public Radio had provided no coverage whatsoever.It is, therefore, a testament to the passion of those involved that the protests not only continued but grew, eventually becoming too big to ignore. With unions and a growing number of Democrats now expressing at least qualified support for the protesters, Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.What can we say about the protests? First things first: The protesters’ indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right.A weary cynicism, a belief that justice will never get served, has taken over much of our political debate — and, yes, I myself have sometimes succumbed. In the process, it has been easy to forget just how outrageous the story of our economic woes really is. So, in case you’ve forgotten, it was a play in three acts.In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending. In the second act, the bubbles burst — but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the bankers’ sins. And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had saved them, throwing their support — and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts — behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath of the crisis.Given this history, how can you not applaud the protesters for finally taking a stand?Now, it’s true that some of the protesters are oddly dressed or have silly-sounding slogans, which is inevitable given the open character of the events. But so what? I, at least, am a lot more offended by the sight of exquisitely tailored plutocrats, who owe their continued wealth to government guarantees, whining that President Obama has said mean things about them than I am by the sight of ragtag young people denouncing consumerism.Bear in mind, too, that experience has made it painfully clear that men in suits not only don’t have any monopoly on wisdom, they have very little wisdom to offer. When talking heads on, say, CNBC mock the protesters as unserious, remember how many serious people assured us that there was no housing bubble, that Alan Greenspan was an oracle and that budget deficits would send interest rates soaring.A better critique of the protests is the absence of specific policy demands. It would probably be helpful if protesters could agree on at least a few main policy changes they would like to see enacted. But we shouldn’t make too much of the lack of specifics. It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details.Rich Yeselson, a veteran organizer and historian of social movements, has suggested that debt relief for working Americans become a central plank of the protests. I’ll second that, because such relief, in addition to serving economic justice, could do a lot to help the economy recover. I’d suggest that protesters also demand infrastructure investment — not more tax cuts — to help create jobs. Neither proposal is going to become law in the current political climate, but the whole point of the protests is to change that political climate.And there are real political opportunities here. Not, of course, for today’s Republicans, who instinctively side with those Theodore Roosevelt-dubbed “malefactors of great wealth.” Mitt Romney, for example — who, by the way, probably pays less of his income in taxes than many middle-class Americans — was quick to condemn the protests as “class warfare.”But Democrats are being given what amounts to a second chance. The Obama administration squandered a lot of potential good will early on by adopting banker-friendly policies that failed to deliver economic recovery even as bankers repaid the favor by turning on the president. Now, however, Mr. Obama’s party has a chance for a do-over. All it has to do is take these protests as seriously as they deserve to be taken.And if the protests goad some politicians into doing what they should have been doing all along, Occupy Wall Street will have been a smashing success.

美国联邦、州及地方政府迅速上涨的赤字，连同社保和医保计划上的长期融资问题，引发了一场围绕财政紧缩问题的斗争。类似的斗争也在全球范围内爆发。最富有的、在经济上最有权势的阶层以及代表他们利益的保守派政客联合在一起，要求通过公共部门紧缩开支来消除赤字，也就是大幅度削减各级政府在补助穷人和中产阶级以及重要公共投资方面的支出。

"儒学"的核心问题是如何为政治社会运行提供一种"道德实践"的方式和目标。一旦"儒学"失去了" 道德实践"的能力，其对实际生活的规范价值和意义也就寿终正寝了。根本不存在什么超越政治和社会层面之上的悬空的儒学价值。"儒学"在近现代的悲剧命运即可为上述观点做出佐证。

一直以来，学术界和媒体习惯于将农民上访与农民维权联系起来，认为农民之所以上访，是因为农民的权利受到了基层政府权力的损害。取消农业税后，国家不再向农民收取税费，且通过乡村体制改革极大地约束和弱化了基层政府的权力，农民权利受到损害的现象理应大量减少，但令人意外的是，农民上访数量不仅没有减少，反而持续增长。

星期一是10月10日，以前的10月10日，台灣的中華民國至少在形式上，尚能以民國的主角身分，在這一天大事慶祝「光輝的10月」這個日子。今年是辛亥百年，照理說台灣的中華民國更應大事慶祝及討論才是。但實際的情形又如何呢？

近日各站转载一篇文章，称农村婚丧仪式中的一些现象为1999年后出现，从城市传到乡村云云。此文另有叙述。

发言录音的记录稿，录音不全，提及广电局对穿越剧的批评，不过显然对此类型剧理解不够全面

占领华尔街抗议运动是否会改变美国的方向还需时日才能确认，但这些抗议已经引发了来自华尔街的歇斯底里反应，也就是来自那些超级富豪，那些为最富有的0.01%阶层忠诚服务的政客和学究

一方面，我还是期待这个社会能够存在许许多多自主的、饱满的创作心灵以及相应的作品；另一方面，我也期待这些作品在社会上能够恰当地被群众所接收，被喜闻乐见。

谈及《伊万的童年》，《安德烈·卢布廖夫》，《索拉里斯》，《镜子》，《潜行者》，《乡愁》，摘自《安德烈·塔可夫斯基》一书，北京大学出版社2011年10月出版，附目录简介。

重庆的第三只手的运作的背后是有竞争机制和动力的。其兴起本身源自市场的第一只手和国家的第二只手的运作中的不足；它既挑战又借助其它两只手。在三只手并存的现实下，第三只手是要和第一、二只手竞争（以及配合）的。

山东济南清真南大寺有一碑铭，名为《来复铭》，作者是明嘉靖七年（1528）该寺世袭掌教陈思。铭文全篇仅155个字，宣传的是伊斯兰教基本教义，而其所用主要的理论根据是北宋理学家张载关于天道心性的定义

通常来说，19世纪初的回回学者把儒教看作与伊斯兰教基本相似。因此在他们评论伊斯兰教教义以及将伊斯兰教教义与儒教教义进行比较附会时，他们在宣教著述中总是采取调和的态度。然而，为了在中国社会中保持一种相对独立的地位，尤其在穆斯林和非穆斯林之间的关系有问题时，虽然不直接指责儒家学说，穆斯林采取了谴责儒生违背了自己信仰的儒家学说的战术，作为回回民族生活在非穆斯林占绝对多数的社会里防卫自身的外交策略。

【3月21日】最近一些朋友和记者问我对"重庆实验"看法有无改变。​我看法不变，理由是我去年"重庆实验的三个理论视角：乔治、米德和葛兰西"​一文中如下一段话（再附上中文版，英文在"Modern China"）

重庆——中国的新实验： 中西方学者对话（四）

塞勒尼（Ivan Szelenyi）认为，在资本主义市场经济和社会主义计划经济之间，没有第三道路的另类可能；这是他根据自己1980年代以来，探索诸种第三道路的经验而得出的结论。本文是对他的两个主要论点的简短点评：一是"房地产泡沫"以及重庆"第三财政"之不可持续，二是鉴于第三道路在东欧和俄国的失败，第三道路的尝试在重庆和中国亦将同样失败。

本文对重庆的"第三只手"模式与东欧社会主义晚期的各种"第三条道路"理论进行了比较。

我讀「異域」是在高中時，作者署名鄧克保(1961年出版)，那時他大概還沒有開始使用柏楊的筆名。書是外省同學借給我看的，再三囑咐我不得外傳，怕惹禍上身，因書裡寫從台灣派去的高級軍官，利用美援（美元），在曼谷過花天酒地的的生活，蔣介石擔心影響台灣軍心，因此查禁。

去年年底，我意外地收到杨厚均先生的信。在信中，他叙述了爱子闻韶溺水身亡的悲剧，同时寄来了闻韶留下的诗文，并问我能否为他的诗文集写序。从杨先生的信中，我才知道2009年的冬天，闻韶曾坐在清华大学第六教学楼的那个教室里，与其他九十九名同学一道听我讲课。