John Steinbeck On Giving & Receiving

Perhaps the most overrated virtue in our list of shoddy virtues is that of giving. Giving builds up the ego of the giver, makes him superior and higher and larger than the receiver… It is so easy to give, so exquisitely rewarding.

Receiving, on the other hand, if it is well-done, requires a fine balance of self-knowledge and kindness. It requires humility and tact and great understanding of relationships. In receiving, you cannot appear, even to yourself, better or stronger or wiser than the giver, although you must be wiser to do it well. It requires self-esteem to receive–not self-love but just a pleasant acquaintance and liking for oneself.

John Steinbeck, "America and Americans, and selected nonfiction "

Advertisements

【不能不轉載】西南大旱五十年不遇是個大謊言

西南大旱五十年不遇是個大謊言

作者:石三生

我雖然貴為農民出身,但卻從來不敢說自己會種地。這個世界總是很有意思,農民的事情,自己都說不清楚,可很多不是農民的專家學者知識分子卻好像很明白。

這些年,天災人禍不斷,氣候呈現出相當的不正常。古詩中的「冬雷震震,夏雨雪,天地合,乃敢與君絕。」的「冬雷震震」已經在多個地方好多年都成為了現實。雖然有專家辟謠,但人們還是掩飾不住對氣候異常的擔憂。

東北的許多地方,今年連日的大雪不斷,便有人造謠說用雪水煮雞蛋,吃了可以避邪。

我從去年的北方大旱開始關注老天爺,並因此對農業部所說的連續六年糧食大豐收提出了質疑。奈何人微言輕,允許發表的空間又有限,滿團的疑霧終於化作了無影。

今年,當西南大旱開始後,又引發了我的好奇。當然,依照我一貫的原則,就是誰的都不信,只信自己從主流媒體尋找到的蛛絲馬跡。

通過對數萬字的資料進行梳理,我發現了一個天大的謊言,也正是因為的這個謊言,讓我確信:西南地區的大旱是天災,也是人禍。

這個謊言就是「五十年一遇」的大旱說。

搜索近幾年的媒體,你會發現,每當有大災發生的時候,主流報道幾乎都是用一個強調來描繪。不外是:某某地遭遇了五十年(數字隨意,以五十年為下限)不遇的大災。在黨中央的正確領導下,地方政府和各族人民團結一致,終於戰勝了某某災,奪取了又一個豐收年云云。

文革已經過去三十多年,國人的輿論導向依舊停留在毛爺爺的「與天鬥,其樂無窮」的境界。

一句假大空的術語,就把責任統統的歸罪於了老天爺。諱疾忌醫,一直都是國人的傳統,奈何連國事也都如此呢?

明明是三五年就發生的氣候異常,卻每每被誇大成五十年六十年甚至百年。如此說,固然可以推卸掉了人的責任,政府的責任,吸引民眾的同情和慷慨解囊。瞞過了一時,卻不知來年又是如此。

古人常說:亡羊補牢,猶未為晚。為何我們定要等羊痘跑光了,才想起來修羊圈呢?

政府總是訓導民眾要誠信,總喊狼來了的孩子會被狼吃,卻不自覺的自己年年都在喊。

如果政府能實事求是,直面問題的所在,認真研究氣候異常的規律,未雨綢繆,何至於到今天的慘不忍睹。年年大災,年年大豐收。一句謊話,連老天爺也被糊弄的終於不耐煩。

我聽到廣播裡,溫總理在雲南說要努力保證一個好的收成的時候,新華社還在胡扯什麼要奪取農業的豐收!

豐者,增加也,豐富也。農業都損失上百億了,還能化負為零甚至為正?

有人說中國的漢字有時很無恥,大約也就能無恥到這般的地步吧?

下面,還是按照自己莫須有的慣例,僅舉雲南一地之例說明吧。如果說起天府之國的四川,更荒唐。

2005年,雲南大旱。

人民網發表《雲南:遭遇罕見大旱 農民照樣增收》,雲南省省長徐榮凱對記者說:「遭遇近50年來最大干旱,農民現金收入還能夠穩定增長,上半年首次突破千元。這得益於這幾年全省調結構、推畜牧、勞務輸出,搞冬季農業開發!」

2006年,雲南大旱。

中新社發表《雲南遭遇20年來最嚴重旱情 被指是山火頻襲主因 》說:「雲南省防汛抗旱指揮部官員透露,今年以來,雲南省大部分地區降水為特少,氣溫為偏高到特高。據氣像監測表明,全省有百分之八十七的地區出現干旱,其中不少地區為特大干旱或嚴重干旱。“是自有氣像記錄以來的第六個干旱年,為一九八六年以來旱情最嚴重的一年。」

2009年,雲南大旱。

中國新聞網發表《雲南高溫大旱 滇池水位急降》,說:「二月二十三日,雲南省昆明市高原湖泊滇池水位正在急降,湖底龜裂的土地正從湖邊向湖中心延伸。進入二月份以來,雲南省遭遇五十年一遇的嚴重旱情。」

 2010年,雲南大旱。

中國新聞網發表《雲南五十年一遇大旱旱情持續 各界捐款力挺災區》,說:「千萬民眾受災、近千萬畝秋冬農作物絕收、72.9萬學生無飲用水,昆明、大理、曲靖、香格裡拉等地近日連續發生山火,雲南的嚴重旱情牽動著各界人士的心。目前,雲南省已累計投入抗旱資金4.56億元人民幣。2月20日,雲南省政府辦公廳向全省發出通知,決定於2月20日至3月15日在全省範圍內緊急開展向旱災災區獻愛心捐助活動。」

隨後,雲南大旱由50年轉為60年,今天,經過一個多月的發展,已經成為百年不遇的大旱。

2005年,雲南大豐收。

新華網發表題為《天降大旱 地質科技引來「保苗水」》的文章。說:「雲南省地質調查院有關技術人員介紹,在瀘西進行的地下水開發利用及綜合整治項目,總結了西南地區地下水開發利用的多種模式:開發表層泉、岩溶大泉、表層帶富水塊段、飽水帶富水塊段等不同類型的水源地,解決深切割岩溶高中山區、岩溶丘陵區、岩溶台地區等不同岩溶地質環境條件下岩溶水有效開發的多種技術方案。這些方案能有效解決水資源分布不均的問題,為干旱缺水地區找水從根本上提供了辦法。每年從谷雨到立夏,對於雲南來說似乎總是一個難過的"坎兒",天干地裂,旱情總是影響著春耕,甚至直接導致糧食減產。正如三塘鄉黨委書記李俊所說,抗旱救災,還需要防災在前。依靠科學的方法從根本上解決老百姓吃水難的問題,才是真正急農民之所急,解農民之所難。」

2009年,雲南大豐收。

新華網發表《雲南:災年糧食獲豐收 持續15年增產》的文章。雲南省省長秦光榮7日在省十一屆人大二次會議上說:“去年雲南糧食生產在大災之年再獲豐收,總產量達1588萬噸,增長2.7%,持續15年實現糧食產量增加。”

過去的一年中,雲南先後遭遇低溫雨雪冰凍災害、地震、泥石流和洪澇等自然災害,對全省農業生產造成嚴重不利的影響。面對困難,雲南省沉著應對,堅持把“三農”工作放在首位,農業農村經濟取得較快發展。

秦光榮介紹,去年雲南認真落實強農惠農政策,投入財政支農資金177億元,較上年增長38.7%。全省糧食播種面積超過6300萬畝,新增高產穩產農田和基本農田各100萬畝;加強農村水利建設,興建山區「五小水利」25萬件,實施53件病險水庫除險加固工程;大力推廣農業科技,加快發展農業產業化經營,促進農業提質增效。

據介紹,今年雲南省還將實施「百億斤糧食增產計劃」,確保糧食播種面積穩定在6500萬畝左右,進一步新增高產穩產農田和基本農田各100萬畝,組織實施200個糧食高產示範區建設,力爭糧食產量增加50萬噸。

還是在2009年,一篇《建國六十年來雲南糧食生產成就顯著》高歌了雲南省建國以來,農業生產取得的偉大成就。曰:

1、家庭聯產承包責任制極大地調動了農民的種糧積極性

2、糧食綜合生產能力日新月異

3、從吃飯難、吃不飽到糧食基本自給、豐年有余

4、糧食生產的科技含量不斷增加

5、種植業結構調整成效顯著,農民從溫飽走向小康

可惜啊,這麼偉大的成就,竟然不堪一擊。人民網2010年3月20日,發表了《西南大旱超五千萬人受災 災民吃野菜充飢》。蔗糖價格劇烈波動,災區的大米等商品已經開始漲價了。

還繼續怪罪老天爺嗎?

人都說:聰明的人不會在一個地方絆倒兩次。可我們的主流媒體和政府,咋就被50年絆倒一次之後,再也爬不起來了呢?

總是撒謊的孩子,終究是會被狼吃的嗎?

一堆完全沒有意義的數字

全部來自官方數據。看看就行了,不要吃飽飯沒事干瞎聯想:

湖北省政府正式公布12.06萬億元投資計劃,金額接近該省GDP的10倍,三倍於中央政府的投資

3000萬嬰兒受三鹿奶粉影響,合共撥款20億,人均66元

溫家寶透露中國目前有2億失業人口

西南五省抗旱資金合共1.55億,人均不足1元

重慶去年投入48億元減少上訪

遼寧省2009年「維穩支出」為223.2億,比上年上漲15.5%,是其財政收入的14.9%,相當於4500萬遼寧人每人支出500元

河北省的「國慶安保志願者」佔到人口1%,即多達78.8萬人

人類,非人類

因為某些事情又不得不和國內部門打交道了。

為什麼我無法對中共治下的天朝產生文化上的認同感,很大程度上在於你一旦接觸這個系統,會即刻感受到一種刻骨銘心的無助和絕望。很多年前我因為愚蠢的戶口和檔案問題,打了差不多一萬個電話,動用了所有能動用的「關系」也沒有搞定。所以,各位就會明白,在中國取消罪惡的戶口和檔案制度之前,我是沒辦法回國工作的。

在服務業水准無可置疑的香港,眾所周知最惡心、最變態的地方是中聯辦—中國中央政府駐香港特區聯絡辦公室。你可以把你能夠想象到的所有的某個地方的優良傳統全部累積起來形容他們。不錯,如果你認識其中某個處長之類的,你會發現他們其實還是正常人類。問題在於,多數情況下他們的做法都不像人類,至少他們不把你當作同類。

如果閣下有幸見識過香港的中聯辦的派頭,覺得自己見多識廣,那麼你錯了。

在這個地球上誰最歧視中國人?答案是中國人。最歧視中國人的中國人是誰?答案是天朝在美國的使館工作人員。

天朝駐美國紐約領事館歡迎你!在呵斥中分享呼吸,在白眼中刷新成績!天大地大都是冤家請不用客氣,污濁的空氣和喧囂的广播,還有冷嘲熱諷,只爲等待你!我有幸和他門打過三次交道,全部涉及天朝P民的基本合法需求,可是他們那嘴臉,那架勢,那眼神,还有那得意的笑,得意的笑!活脫脫傳遞著一種鄙夷和不屑:誰讓你是中國人的?下賤民族!你在美國其他任何地方都不會有幸得到如此待遇。恍惚間,你仿佛成了他們的人質,他們則是坐地收錢的索馬裡綁匪,只因為你生在天朝。沒錯,怪就怪你剛好生在了天朝!而他們賜給你那本廢紙一樣、去哪兒也要簽證的破爛護照,居然成了天大的恩惠。

很有意思的是,這些最不像人類的人,其實是人類。更大的問題在於,這個系統上每一個分子都可以說是不壞的、善良的甚至可親近的,可是事情神奇就神奇在他們的合力竟然如此之邪惡而強大,以至於你無法相信他們是人類。

27歲的卡爾·馬克思論新聞自由和審查制度(Censorship)

On Freedom of the Press

[Censorship]

Karl Marx (Age: 27)

We have shown how the press law expresses a right and the censorship law a wrong. The censorship itself, however, admits that it is not an end in itself, that it is not something good in and for itself, that its basis therefore is the principle: "The end justifies the means." But an end which requires unjustified means is no justifiable end, and could not the press also adopt the principle and boast: "The end justifies the means"?

The censorship law, therefore, is not a law, it is a police measure; but it is a bad police measure, for it does not achieve what it intends, and it does not intend what it achieves.

If the censorship law wants to prevent freedom as something objectionable, the result is precisely the opposite. In a country of censorship, every forbidden piece of printed matter, i.e., printed without being censored, is an event. It is considered a martyr, and there is no martyr without a halo and without believers. It is regarded as an exception, and if freedom can never cease to be of value to mankind, so much the more valuable is an exception to the general lack of freedom. Every mystery has its attraction. Where public opinion is a mystery to itself, it is won over from the outset by every piece of writing that formally breaks through the mystical barriers. The censorship makes every forbidden work, whether good or bad, into an extraordinary document, whereas freedom of the press deprives every written work of an externally imposing effect.

If the censorship is honest in its intention, it would like to prevent arbitrariness, but it makes arbitrariness into a law. No danger that it can avert is greater than itself. The mortal danger for every being lies in losing itself. Hence lack of freedom is the real mortal danger for mankind. For the time being, leaving aside the moral consequences, bear in mind that you cannot enjoy the advantages of a free press without putting up with its inconveniences. You cannot pluck the rose without its thorns! And what do you lose with a free press?

The free press is the ubiquitous vigilant eye of a people’s soul, the embodiment of a people’s faith in itself, the eloquent link that connects the individual with the state and the world, the embodied culture that transforms material struggles into intellectual struggles and idealises their crude material form. It is a people’s frank confession to itself, and the redeeming power of confession is well known. It is the spiritual mirror in which a people can see itself, and self-examination is the first condition of wisdom. It is the spirit of the state, which can be delivered into every cottage, cheaper than coal gas. It is all-sided, ubiquitous, omniscient. It is the ideal world which always wells up out of the real world and flows back into it with ever greater spiritual riches and renews its soul.

In the course of our exposal we have shown that censorship and press law are as different as arbitrariness and freedom, as formal law and actual law. But what holds good of the essence, holds good also of the appearance. What rightly holds good of both, holds good also of their application. Just as a press law is different from a censorship law, so the judge’s attitude to the press differs from the attitude of the censor.

Of course, our speaker, whose eyes are fixed on the heavens, sees the earth far below him as a contemptible heap of dust, so that he has nothing to say about any flowers except that they are dusty. Here too, therefore, he sees only two measures which are equally arbitrary in their application, for arbitrariness is acting according to individual discretion, and the latter, he says, is inseparable from spiritual things, etc., etc. If the understanding of spiritual things is individual, how can one spiritual view be more right than another, the opinion of the censor more right than the opinion of the author? But we understand the speaker. It is notable that he goes out of his way to describe both censorship and press law as being without right in their application, in order to prove the right of the censorship, for since he knows everything in the world is imperfect, the only question for him is whether arbitrariness should be on the side of the people or on the side of the government.

His mysticism turns into the licence of putting law and arbitrariness on the same level and seeing only a formal difference where moral and legal opposites are concerned, for his polemic is directed not against the press law, but against law in general. Or is there any law which is necessarily such that in every single case it must be applied as the legislator intended and all arbitrariness absolutely excluded? Incredible audacity is needed to call such a meaningless task the philosopher’s stone, since it could only be put forward by the most extreme ignorance. The law is universal. The case which has to be settled in accordance with the law is a particular case. To include the particular in the universal involves a judgment. The judgment is problematic. The law requires also a judge. If laws applied themselves, courts would be superfluous.

But everything human is imperfect! Therefore, edite, bibite! [A] Why do you want judges, since judges are human? Why do you want laws, since laws can only be executed by human beings, and all human operations are imperfect? Submit yourselves then to the goodwill of your superiors! Rhenish justice, like that of Turkey, is imperfect! Therefore, edite, bibite!

What a difference there is between a judge and a censor!

The censor has no law but his superiors. The judge has no superiors but the law. The judge, however, has the duty of interpreting the law, as he understands it after conscientious examination, in order to apply it in a particular case. The censor’s duty is to understand the law as officially interpreted for him in a particular case. The independent judge belongs neither to me nor to the government. The dependent censor is himself a government organ. In the case of the judge, there is involved at most the unreliability of an individual intellect, in the case of the censor the unreliability of an individual character. The judge has a definite press offense put before him; confronting the censor is the spirit of the press. The judge judges my act according to a definite law; the censor not only punishes the crime, he makes it. If I am brought before the court, I am accused of disobeying an existing law, and for a law to be violated it must indeed exist. Where there is no press law there is no law which can be violated by the press. The censorship does not accuse me of violating an existing law. It condemns my opinion because it is not the opinion of the censor and his superiors. My openly performed act, which is willing to submit itself to the world and its judgment, to the state and its law, has sentence passed on it by a hidden, purely negative power, which cannot give itself the form of law, which shuns the light of day, and which is not bound by any general principles.

A censorship law is an impossibility because it seeks to punish not offenses but opinions, because it cannot be anything but a formula for the censor, because no state has the courage to put in general legal terms what it can carry out in practice through the agency of the censor. For that reason, too, the operation of the censorship is entrusted not to the courts but to the police.

Even if censorship were in fact the same thing as justice, in the first place this would remain a fact without being a necessity. But, further, freedom includes not only what my life is, but equally how I live, not only that I do what is free, but also that I do it freely. Otherwise what difference would there be between an architect and a beaver except that the beaver would be an architect with fur and the architect a beaver without fur?

Our speaker returns superfluously once again to the effects of freedom of the press in the countries where it actually exists. Since we have already dwelt on this subject at length, we shall here only touch further on the French press. Apart from the fact that the defects of the French press are the defects of the French nation, we find that the evil is not where the speaker looks for it. The French press is not too free; it is not free enough. It is true that it is not subject to a spiritual censorship, but it is subject to a material censorship, in the shape of high money sureties. It operates materially precisely because it is taken out of its proper sphere and drawn into the sphere of large trade speculations. Moreover, large trade speculations are a matter for large towns. Hence the French press is concentrated at few points, and if a material force has a demoniac effect when concentrated at few points, why should this not apply to a spiritual force also?

If, however, you are bent on judging freedom of the press not by its idea, but by its historical existence, why do you not look for it where it historically exists? Naturalists seek by experiment to reproduce a natural phenomenon in its purest conditions. You do not need to make any experiments. You find the natural phenomenon of freedom of the press in North America in its purest, most natural form. But if there are great historical foundations for freedom of the press in North America, those foundations are still greater in Germany. The literature of a people, and the intellectual culture bound up with it, are indeed not only the direct historical foundations of the press, but are the latter’s history itself. And what people in the world can boast of these most immediate historical foundations for freedom of the press more than the German people can?

But, our speaker again breaks in, woe to Germany’s morals if its press were to become free, for freedom of the press produces "an inner demoralization, which seeks to undermine faith in man’s higher purpose and thereby the basis of true civilization".

It is the censored press that has a demoralizing effect. Inseparable from it is the most powerful vice, hypocrisy, and from this, its basic vice, come all its other defects, which lack even the rudiments of virtue, and its vice of passivity, loathsome even from the aesthetic point of view. The government hears only its own voice, it knows that it hears only its own voice, yet it harbors the illusion that it hears the voice of the people, and it demands that the people, too, should itself harbor this illusion. For its part, therefore, the people sinks partly into political superstition, partly into political disbelief, or, completely turning away from political life, becomes a rabble of private individuals.

Since the press daily praises the government-inspired creations in the way that God spoke of His Creations only on the Sixth day: "And, behold, it was very good", and since, however, one day necessarily contradicts the other, the press lies continually and has to deny even any consciousness of lying, and must cast off all shame.

Since the nation is forced to regard free writings as unlawful, it becomes accustomed to regard what is unlawful as free, freedom as unlawful and what is lawful as unfree. In this way censorship kills the state spirit.

But our speaker is afraid of freedom of the press owing to his concern for "private persons". He overlooks that censorship is a permanent attack on the rights of private persons, and still more on ideas. He grows passionate about the danger to individual persons, and ought we not to grow passionate about the danger threatening society as a whole?

We cannot draw a sharper distinction between his view and ours than by contrasting his definitions of "bad frames of mind" to ours.

A bad frame of mind, he says, is "pride, which recognizes no authority in church and state". And ought we not to regard as a bad frame of mind the refusal to recognize the authority of reason and law?

"It is envy which preaches abolition of everything that the rabble calls aristocracy."

But we say, it is envy which wants to abolish the eternal aristocracy of human nature, freedom, an aristocracy about which even the rabble can have no doubt.

"It is the malicious gloating which delights in personalities, whether lies or truth, and imperiously demands publicity so that no scandal of private life will remain hidden."

It is the malicious gloating which extracts tittle-tattle and personalities from the great life of the peoples, ignores historical reason and serves up to the public only the scandals of history; being quite incapable of judging the essence of a matter, it fastens on single aspects of a phenomenon and on individuals, and imperiously demands mystery so that every blot on public life will remain hidden.

"It is the impurity of the heart and imagination which is titillated by obscene pictures."

It is the impurity of the heart and imagination which is titillated by obscene pictures of the omnipotence of evil and the impotence of good, it is the imagination which takes pride in sin, it is the impure heart which conceals its secular arrogance in mystical images.

"It is despair of one’s own salvation which seeks to stifle the voice of conscience by denial of God."

It is despair of one’s own salvation which makes personal weaknesses into weaknesses of mankind, in order to rid one’s own conscience of them; it is despair of the salvation of mankind which prevents mankind from obeying its innate natural laws and preaches the necessity of immaturity; it is hypocrisy which shelters behind God without believing in His reality and in the omnipotence of the good; it is self-seeking which puts personal salvation above the salvation of all.

These people doubt mankind in general but canonize individuals. They draw a horrifying picture of human nature and at the same time demand that we should bow down before the holy image of certain privileged individuals. We know that man singly is weak, but we know also that the whole is strong.

Finally, the speaker recalled the words proclaimed from the branches of the tree of knowledge for whose fruits we negotiate today as then:

"Ye shall not surely die, in the day that ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Although we doubt that the speaker has eaten of the tree of knowledge, and that we (the Rhine Province Assembly of the Estates) then negotiated with the devil, about which at least Genesis tells us nothing, nevertheless we concur with the view of the speaker and merely remind him that the devil did not lie to us then, for God himself says: "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil."

We can reasonably let the speaker’s own words be the epilogue to this speech:

"Writing and speaking are mechanical accomplishments."

However much our readers may be tired of these "mechanical accomplishments", we must, for the sake of completeness, let the urban estate, after the princely and knightly estates, also give vent to its feelings against freedom of the press. We are faced here with the opposition of the bourgeois, not of the citoyen.

The speaker from the urban estate believes that he joins Sieyès in making the philistine remark:

"Freedom of the press is a fine thing, so long as bad persons do not meddle in it." "Against that no proven remedy has yet been found", etc., etc.

The point of view which calls freedom of the press a thing deserves praise at least on account of its naively. This speaker can be reproached with anything at all, but not with lack of sobriety or excess of imagination.

So freedom of the press is a fine thing, and something which embellishes the sweet customary mode of life, a pleasant, worthy thing. But there are also bad persons, who misuse speech to tell lies, the brain to plot, the hands to steal, the feet to desert. Speech and thought, hands and feet would be fine things — good speech, pleasant thought, skilful hands, most excellent feet — if only there were no bad persons to misuse them! No remedy against that has yet been found.

"Sympathy for the constitution and freedom of the press must necessarily be weakened when it is seen that they are bound up with eternally changeable conditions in that country" (France) "and with an alarming uncertainty about the future.

When for the first time the discovery in the science of the universe was made that the earth is a mobile perpetuum, many a phlegmatic German must have taken a tight hold of his nightcap and sighed over the eternally changeable conditions of his Fatherland, and an alarming uncertainty about the future must have made him dislike a house that turned upside down at every moment.

Rheinische Zeitung, No. 135, Supplement, May 15 1842

Google事件最好的評論

Google事件最好的評論來自最近遭遇恐嚇的閭丘露薇:
 

RT @roseluqiu 谷歌走了,在我看來只不過是修正之前的錯誤,遵守不做惡的承諾。其它的公司,既然沒有這樣的價值觀和原則,所以也不必苛求他們。但是因為自己要求不高而批評google, 那就是非常卑鄙的行為了。在google問題上,看到了很多小人。

恭喜Google,恭喜所有和我一樣支持Google早日解脫的人。任何不同觀點一概無視,因為在自由的中國互聯網內部已經夠他們盡情發表言論的了。

幸好我們還有香港

Google剛剛公布,即時停止自我閹割,而把Google.cn的訪問自動轉到Google.hk,有種且有創意。那些想罵Google退出中國的人都不好意思開口,除非他們先承認香港是另外一個國家。

拍案叫絕的同時,我暗暗祈禱香港不要淪陷下去了。否則,半身飄零的中文Google,何處藏身?

至於Google和中共孰是孰非?讓我們忘記前者的「不作惡」的信條,且來聽一聽後者的始祖卡爾·馬克思先生怎麼說的吧:

「審查制度(censorship),就像奴隸制一樣,永不可能合法,即便它作為法律存在過一千多遍。」

我不願意去理解一個容不得Google的政權的邏輯,只是期待著—

讓髒水潑得更猛烈一些吧!