Communist Party rule has been good for Tibetans in a material sense. Herdsmen now use motorcycles to round up their yaks, electricity and satellite television are common, and education is spreading. Tibetans are manifestly better off than in my previous visits, yet unhappiness is growing along with incomes.
紐時的一位記者潛入夏河拉卜楞寺附近的報導。
中國政府憎恨達賴喇嘛的另一個原因在於，他所具有的政治影響力，經常被拿來與曼德拉或甘地等當代的非暴力傳道者相提並論，但他獲得諾貝爾和平獎的光環，加上獲得好來塢影星的支持，並未讓他獲得多大好處。McLeod Ganj的最顯目地標是洗手間，由理察吉爾捐款所建，沒有任何國家承認西藏流亡政府，這個流亡政府為流亡印度的13萬名西藏人籌辦教育、醫療、文化活動和經濟發展計畫。 儘管座落在白雪覆蓋山頭上的西藏流亡政府，仍是西藏人權力象徵，但流亡政府的經費少得可憐。流亡政府的預算多半靠捐獻和對流亡在印度的西藏人的小額課稅而來，每年的預算金額約2千萬美元，紐約西藏基金每年另外支付3百萬美元，中國媒體認為紐約西藏基金是美國政府在幕後策畫，因為該基金部分經費來自於美國國務院。
美國國防部表示，這個稱為「人類知識系統」（ＨＴＳ）的計畫，目的在於減少因為文化隔閡與誤解造成的傷亡，甚至替當地部族解決紛爭，從而更能增進如醫療與教育等方面的幫助。該計畫的經費是四千萬美元，在伊拉克與阿富汗的廿六個旅級部隊，都派有一個ＨＴＳ部隊執行任務。 但人類學界的龍頭單位「美國人類學學會」日前表示反對這個部分人類學家稱為「人類學傭兵」的計畫
其實這樣啦，最近衛生署因為美國的壓力開放瘦肉精在豬肉的殘留標準。基本上，這原本是一個典型的貿易戰格局的東西，但台灣卻搞成卑躬屈膝的奴才戲，大家不要覺得沒什麼，按照這個標準，之後我們會吃下什麼東西還有得瞧。 怎麼說呢？基本上，國與國之間的食品進出口牽涉到許多敏感的問題，但一般來說，都會把架勢擺好，把國家的海關權張牙舞爪一番，然後再上談判桌，看彼此要讓多少。不知道大家記不記得兩年前中國與南韓之間的泡菜大戰，大體就是按照這種方式進行。 先警告一下，如果在吃飯的，請勿往下讀。
The wailing about how the Iraqis are not up to it is not an unfamiliar one from conquerors. Right now, some very interesting work is being done by a former Russian soldier in Afghanistan, on the coverage of the Afghan invasion and occupation in the Soviet press. Very familiar, including distress that the Afghans are just not up to it and have to be held accountable. Colonial administrators, slave masters, and others like them constantly express great irritation at the shiftlessness and irresponsibility of their wards, not properly following commands -- issued for their benefit, of course. How can we help the Iraqi people? By putting them in charge, and doing what they instruct us to do -- which, judging by US-run polls, would mean getting out pretty quickly. And though the question cannot be included in US-run polls for doctrinal reasons, I don't think it is hard to guess how Iraqis would respond if asked whether we ought to pay enormous reparations for crimes of the past half century, including strong US support for Saddam through his worst atrocities, horrendous sanctions that destroyed much of the society, and finally an invasion and occupation which brought about a catastrophe that they compare to the Mongol invasions.
Public opinion was also sampled in 1969. About 70% held that the war was not "a mistake" but was "fundamentally wrong and immoral," a position virtually inexpressible in the mainstream. That persists. Public opinion remained about the same until the most recent polls by the same major polling institution, the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 30 years later. And the position remained (and remains) virtually inexpressible in the mainstream. Consistent results over 30 years have considerable credibility. What do the results mean? The director of the study, a respected political scientist, interpreted the results as meaning that respondents felt that too many Americans were being killed. Possible, but not an obvious interpretation. On that assumption, for example, why did the vast majority hold that the war was not a mistake? Another possibility is that people meant just what they said, and that it cannot be comprehended within the elite intellectual culture. It would have been easy enough to find out through the 30 years of polling on these matters, but no attempt was made, to my knowledge. Polls are of great value, and tell us a lot. Particularly when attitudes are consistent and coherent over long periods, as they typically are; a valuable study on this is Benjamin Page and Marshall Bouton, The Foreign Policy Disconnect (2006). But they always have to be used with caution, particularly when results appear internally contradictory or otherwise obscure.
Noam Chomsky 關於民調的分析看法。
馮內果逝世的相關專題報導
