User Comments - Grambers
Grambers
Posted on: 美国校园枪击案
January 10, 2013 at 10:40 AMNice to debate with you too guolan.
I will try and keep this short (a rare event for me, I know). Your argument that "the people in power aren't going to try to seize more power than is reasonable, because they know they can't get away with it" is a little difficult to accept. Consider, for a moment, the sheer quantity, power and technological advancement of the arms at the disposal of the US military (knowing that the US dropped a bloody H-bomb on Japan (twice) as long ago as 1945, just think what goodies they have now); and then consider the power of the little pocket rocket you might keep under your pillow. To argue what you argue would be to negate the possibility of the US ever invading another sovereign state. However, as we well know, the US (along with its 'coalition' allies) did precisely this as recently as 2003. Moreover, I think it's a fair assumption that Mr S. Hussein possessed more firepower than that which a ragbag US civilian militia could muster if push came to shove.
It's not guns which keep US political power in check - it's the institutional political framework. The same framework, broadly speaking, that a good many other countries successfully use to ensure tyrants are gonna have a very hard time seizing power.
Posted on: 美国校园枪击案
January 10, 2013 at 10:29 AMIf the translation was 'and not at all about the right to bear arms', wouldn't the 都 come before the 不是 (ie 而都不是持有枪支的权利....though, granted, that expression looks a bit ungainly). '而不都是' surely indicates that he didn't speak ALL about gun rights (the subtext being that, though there may have been a bit of that knocking around, his focus was elsewhere), no?
Posted on: 美国校园枪击案
January 10, 2013 at 10:25 AMCan I just clarify this, John. Are you saying that you were aware of a propaganda dept. dictate in Shanghai that the school stabbings should not be discussed publicly? Might I ask how do such messages get delivered to CPod? Do you have to have a Party man sit in the corner of your office while you record? Or was it merely a hunch on the part of CPod staff you might be crossing a line by recording such a dialogue?
America with its guns, China with its red lines - both baffle most of the rest of the world!:)
Posted on: 美国校园枪击案
January 9, 2013 at 5:00 PMFair enough, I'd be wary of assuming that something which some slave-owners wrote on a bit of paper and railroaded through their old boys club counts as 'a right'. I suppose the libertarian perspective is that anyone has the 'right' to do anything, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Which may or may not be true, but calling it a 'right' still sounds wierd to my ear. The only 'rights' any of us have are what we can get away with it in whichever primordial political soup in which we float. You've got a right to own a gun (assuming you are American?), I've got the 'right' to get free health care at the point of use. I don't think either are 'rights' personally. They are what the political establishment has bequeathed to us. And what is bequeathed by man can be rejected, or changed, by man.
Posted on: 美国校园枪击案
January 9, 2013 at 4:01 PMAha - so 这篇文章很折射自己的看法 means that 'this article reflects my views'!?! Gotcha. I think you would need to say '我自己的' as 自己 can be applied to anyone ‘你自己的 - your own - 他自己的 - his own'. Also, I don't think you could then modify that verb - 折射 - with an intensifier like ’很‘, right? I could be wrong on both counts (experts, please?!?), but I think those two points were where my confusion stemmed from.
I was being deliberately flippant in my rather loose - pardon the pun - prostitute comment. I hope you didn't take offense. Glad to hear you are no latter-day Ripper. I suspected not.
But back to the substantive point, sure, I too don't support the wholesale slaughter of innocents through drone strikes (which, like the bombs dropped on Japan in 1945, are politically expedient panaceas which save the lives of people who might vote for you next election - soldiers - while condemning to death those who can't vote for you (and therefore don't matter so much) - Pakistani housewives, children and menfolk). But in a system of representative democracy to - in America's case - some 300 odd million people, you are always gonna have the government doing some things which you think perverse, and some things which are utterly essential. Sadly, you can't pick and choose without going back to Athenian style city states and restarting slavery so that the wise denizens have the freedom to sit on a knoll all day thinking about stuff.
Guns seems entirely irrelevant to this debate - which I guess, in a funny way, is my point. The argument that 'citizens-need-guns-cos-otherwise-you-get-tyranny' - often heard in the US - is a red herring, a total distraction (and, also, ignores the examples of literally scores of other countries where guns are illegal but 'freedom' flourishes)
Posted on: 美国校园枪击案
January 9, 2013 at 2:37 PMApologies in advance for using English to respond - not good form on Media threads, I appreciate. However, time is short today and to have replied in Chinese would, one, risk confusion, and two, take me a LOT longer!
In short, I think the idea that the only reason a denizen of any given jurisdiction does something is because someone is standing over him with a weapon ignores the realities of the modern world; you are describing a feudal landscape. In the 21st century, power is a lot more widely dispersed, and takes many, many more forms. Plus, there is this thing called society which tends to condition one's responses. Anyone who has tried rearing a child will know that just barking orders under the threat of violence/punishment is hardly ever as effective as manipulation. This manipulation need not be Machiavellian in nature (though it might be). Manipulation can be, simply, persuasion on the basis of logic. Or psychological pressure. Or distraction. All useful tools of the modern political leader. He doesn't need guns. Similarly, the reason you don't go out killing prostitutes on an evening (a safe-ish assumption, I am hoping!:)) isn't because, if you do, you'd be punished. It's because you wouldn't want to do cause pain and hurt and suffering to another human being. Surely?
折射 is a new word for me. I looked it up but still not quite sure what it means in the sentence you wrote. Can you clarify?
Posted on: 美国校园枪击案
January 9, 2013 at 12:09 PMThe sentence might translate like this:
"In his comments since last Friday's tragedy, Obama has concentrated more on the grief [being felt across the country] and a need to adopt [new] measures rather than being pre-occupied by the right to carry guns"
Probably a bit more verbose than it needs to be (I'm not a professional translator!) but the 都是 is certainly making clear that, though it's possible he might have mentioned gun control, his comments have not been ALL about gun RIGHTS.
Posted on: 美国校园枪击案
January 9, 2013 at 11:57 AMI should also say that I'd guess no such equivalent expression is likely to exist in mainstream Chinese political discourse. That very wonderful aphorism (which I largely subscribe to) - a product of European enlightenment thinking - is alien to a political culture which has looked to (hopefully) wise, erudite, compassionate and - importantly - all-powerful leaders to solve disputes, minor and major, and bring peace and prosperity to the realm. The separation of powers seems to run counter to so much that is prized within the Chinese political mindset.
Posted on: 美国校园枪击案
January 10, 2013 at 12:10 PMAh, I'm seeing what's happened here. I didn't realise the Chinese was a translation of an original English-language story. Yeah, I can't help but think that the Chinese translator of the English might have just missed that nuance in translating that sentence.
Alternatively, it's more than possible that my Chinese ain't as sharp as I think it is!:)....Jiaojie啊, Jiaojie，你到底在哪里, Jiaojie?