谷歌的事情又被拿出来说。

工信部部长：希望谷歌遵守中国的法律。如果真要做出违背中国法律的事情，就是不负责任的，后果要自己负责。

这段话好像有点逻辑问题。一、已经认定人家不负责任了，怎么还指望人家能够对后果负起责任来呢？二、其实即使不违法，出了事后果还是自负的，政府又不会帮着分担。

华尔街时报：谷歌的创立者布林之所以能这么英勇抗争，他在苏联的成长时目睹和经历的压迫是其主要原因。

不知道这位恐是娱记出身的记者是否忘了了解一下，布先生在苏联长到六岁就移民了。这么英勇抗争，恐怕更多的是六岁以后受的教育所致，觉得普天之下自己的价值观是唯一放之四海而皆准的真理所以一定要推而广之。

The way the Western journalists seem to operate: the Chinese government is guilty until proven innocent, and the applicable standard is somewhere between “absolutely, positively, beyond any doubt” to “just plain impossible”. The recent riot in Xinjiang is yet another example: these journalists’ knee jerk reaction was that the hundreds dead must have been killed by the Chinese military, despite immediately available information that indicated otherwise. The self-contradictary hearsay offered by the exiled dissidents are presumed by these journalists to be more reliable than the account offered by the government based on first hand investigation. It is also amazing how uniform their reportings are when they mention the beating, the burning, the killing in passing but also took care to point out that these minority rioters have legitimate grievances (a point which I do not dispute). On the other hand, to the same journalists, the Han counter-demonstrators are just vigilante mobs looking to kill and destroy, and we don’t get much of a hint of whether they too have their “legitimate grievances.” If the viewpoints were flipped, you’d think this is the work of Xinhua or People’s Daily.

A little over a year ago when the Tibet riot erupted, I was really angry over the biased reporting. now the same pattern repeats itself, and I am not sure if anger is the proper response, because if, as the journalists say, the bias that Han Chinese hold against the Uighurs is deep-rooted, so is the Western journalists’ bias towards China, and I really can’t do to the journalists what the Uighurs did to their perceived racists — bash their heads with bricks, slash their throats in alleyways, or burn their office buildings, and then play the part of an innocent victim in front of others, can I? So I wonder if anything could be done on the Chinese government’s side.

The Chinese government is flush with cash. Not that it should bribe any journalists to violate their so-called professional ethics (if there’s any left of it), but that, with sufficient funding, one could do a lot of legitimate things to improve its own image in the international press. Also, where are our ambassadors, media spokespersons, press secretaries in times of crisis? When the opposition manages to spew venom in an op-ed piece on Wall Street Journal, couldn’t our ambassador write something to set the record straight (and I am sure plenty of US newspapeprs would be willing to publish such a piece in their opinion column). When other countries, such as Israel, face a public relations crisis, their foreign service people in the US from their ambassador down go all out on a media assault: appearing on TV shows, appealing to the American public, writing op-ed articles, etc. So instead of hearing about the events through biased intermediaries, the public get to hear the other side of the story, unfiltered.

I wonder where’s our spokesmen at this time. Keep doing the press conferences, keep issuing press releases, but please, also bypass the intermediary and go straight to the public. Perhaps this is something that our public officials are not used to doing, but to the extent we do care about our international image as a country and as an ethnic group, we must have people who are willing and able to forcefully speak on our behalf directly to the foreign public, especially when the opposition factions are already way ahead in this game.

认真学习美国主流媒体对新疆骚乱的报道, 旧华社二零一一年九月十一日纽约电:

［新闻回顾］十年前的今天，美帝国主义的纽约发生了严重的示威和骚乱，导致建筑物的焚烧和倒塌。据美帝国主义财团控制下的媒体报道（编辑注：很好，称美国为“美帝国主义”，下同。另，“财团控制”四字可否用黑体红字？），死亡人数已经超过千人，然而该财团旗下的媒体没有给出伤亡总数中多少是无辜平民，多少是被美帝国主义军警无情镇压的示威人士。（编辑注：此处插入美国警察在骚乱现场的特写图片，突出他们配带的手枪和脚边的尸体，加配文字说明：美帝国主义警察荷枪实弹虎视眈眈，脚边血流成河尸积如山。）

这场运动（和其他所有反美帝国主义运动一样），开始是和平的，　非暴力的。尽管示威者在驾驶过程中造成了一些乘务人员的伤亡，他们还是非常平稳熟练地驾驶飞机在空中游行并呼喊安拉伟大等口号，但随后两座大楼非但拒绝给示威群众让路，还悍然撞毁了飞机，才导致了人员伤亡惨重。

美帝国主义政府无视自己的过错，却又一次在第一时间指责境外势力，声称本拉登在幕后策划了这一起骚乱。本拉登原籍沙特，是一名富商，后因与美帝国主义政府意见不合，被迫流亡，隐居阿富汗多年，现下落不明。另一位持不同政见人士萨达母侯塞因先生，虽然多次重申他没有参与或策划这场骚乱，却已被美帝国主义政府操纵的伊拉克傀儡政府处决。

我们在阿富汗采访到了一名妇女，她怀抱婴儿，楚楚可怜，她对外国记者控诉道：还我哥哥。据记者了解，这位妇女的兄长被美帝国主义政府扣押至今，生死不明，美帝国主义政府也不允许她探望。（据悉，该人被扣押的理由是他试图引爆一驾民航客机——编辑注：括号内文字务必在出版前删除。另，配发该妇女图片，给怀里的婴儿特写，排版时最好放在上文军警照的旁边以产生对比效应）。

由此我们可以看出，美帝国主义政府历年来的政策是惨无人道的，是注定要失败的，哪里有压迫，哪里就有反抗，所以这场骚乱现在发生，一点都不奇怪（编辑注：此处插入多媒体互动插图一幅，简述美国历史上各次种族骚乱。）本社向来不谴责暴徒，应该受到谴责的是美帝国主义政府和它的帝国主义政策。

请读者务必积极留言，根据本社提供的以上信息发表评论。（编辑注：请本社网络审查办的同志注意：符合本社观点的或体现本民族优越感的优先刊发。）

There are many things I wish I had done differently, but I have often revisited, and never really regretted, my decision not to clerk, much like my decision not to transfer. People now speculate that one particular judge, along with several others, is considered most likely to be nominated to replace the soon-to-retire Justice Souter on the Supreme Court. If that does happen, I’ll probably have to revisit this question again and reach a different conclusion… Not that I would have gotten an offer with this judge (likely not), but at least I would be able to brag that I had once talked to a supreme court justice in person for half an hour.

Ah—-the big, bad Chinese government is at it again, ordering ordinary, helpless and innocent citizens to change their names. Or should I say, the NYT is at it again, reading something into nothing, so long as the something fits their stubbornly narrow-minded way of looking at China.

One thing is for sure — given how much Anna loves horses, she probably wouldn’t have minded such an odd name. But it really takes an incredible amount of affection for horses to be named Horse Triple-Horse.

One reader’s comment (from a Professor at Stanford, no less) is particularly worth a read:

This is a fascinating story which first appeared in the Chinese press about two years ago. It appears that, in this American version, two important features have disappeared, both of which would have undercut the subtle tone of authoritarianism and Orwellianism had they been included.

First, as a number of commenters have pointed out, this policy has precedent in the non-Communist, non-Chinese world. Japan implemented a similar policy more than a decade ago, as have countries whose languages use the Roman alphabet. Let’s not forget that, despite his efforts, the “artist formerly known as Prince” was never successful in changing his name to a non-alphabetic symbol.

Second, this policy did not come as a knee-jerk authoritarian act on behalf of the Chinese state. Before issuing the new law prohibiting parents from naming their children with “rarely used characters” the state teamed up with China’s leading producer of computer fonts in order to remedy the problem (which incidentally, also affected entire towns whose names also contained infrequently used characters). The company, started at Beijing University, was instructed to produce an updated set of fonts for those characters that were not found in standard computer databases. Through this process, hundreds of names that were once impossible to type, digitize, etc., were added to the database. It was only after this first phase of the project that the prohibition was put in place against using other rarely used characters in the future.

How much less uniquely draconian would this whole story sound if readers knew that (a) there are strikingly similar policies in non-Communist countries elsewhere in the world and (b) that prior to promulgating this new law, the Chinese state actually made a great deal of effort to accommodate people and towns whose names contain rarely used characters?

Thomas S. Mullaney
Assistant Professor
Department of History
Stanford University
— Tom Mullaney, Stanford University

据说是个打着自由职业者旗号的作家，好奇地去找来他的文字来念，很是喜欢。