The remote Pacific island state of Nauru had its sole plane seized today, virtually cutting off the island’s residents from the outside world. The tiny island, whose people were once among the richest per capita in the world, had failed to make payments on the aircraft since 2002... The 7,500 residents of Nauru, a 21 square kilometre coral atoll, were once among the world’s wealthiest due to the export of phosphates, mostly from bird droppings. But the reserves are almost exhausted and with earlier wealth squandered through corruption and mismanagement, the country is virtually bankrupt.

A heretical proposal
Dec 8th 2005
From The Economist print edition

Lexington

AS A general rule, Republicans are much happier with American exceptionalism than Democrats. Conservatives celebrate the right of every God-fearing American to carry a semi-automatic in his Kyoto-busting SUV while liberals protest that Europe is greener and safer. But when it comes to abortion, it is the Democrats who are the American exceptionalists.

Most rich countries other than the United States have solved the abortion problem by consulting the electorate—either through the legislature or through referendums. This led to vigorous debates and, broadly, the triumph of abortion rights. Because abortion was legalised democratically, pro-lifers accepted the fact that they had lost and abortion became a settled right. By contrast, in America, abortion is a fundamental right of privacy protected by a 1973 Supreme Court judgment—Roe v Wade.

Few objective outsiders—if it is possible to be such a thing on abortion—would argue that relying on judges rather than popular will has helped American politics: no other comparable country has such destructive culture wars. Roe left a large chunk of the country feeling disenfranchised by the court; it also established a cycle of attack and counter-attack that has debased everything that it has touched, especially the judiciary.

A prime example is the Roe-obsessed confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees. Samuel Alito, Mr Bush's new candidate, claims that the fact that he once advised the Reagan administration on how to overturn Roe will have no bearing on his behaviour on the court. No less disingenuously, liberal senators pretend they are trying to gauge Mr Alito's legal philosophy when they are trying to catch him out on Roe.

All this is bad for America; but, in political terms, Roe has been particularly disastrous for the Democrats. The Republicans have generally had the better of the abortion wars (something most liberals admit as long as nobody from NARAL Pro-Choice America is in the room). Roe has proved a lightning-rod for conservatives; and many moderates dislike the Democrats'Roe-driven defence of partial-birth abortions. So consider a heretical proposition: why on earth don't Democrats disown Roe?

Merely to mention this in public can be dangerous. Yet there are two obvious reasons for the party to do it. First, abortion rights command broad popular support in the United States, just as they do in Europe. Gallup polling since the mid-1970s has consistently shown that about 80% of Americans want abortion to be legal—either in all circumstances (21-31%) or in some circumstances (51-61%). Without Roe, abortion might be slightly restricted, but certainly not banned, as conservatives want.

Second, Roe is a pretty flimsy decision. The idea that the constitution protects “the right to privacy” was already something of a stretch when Justice William Douglas discovered it in the Griswold v Connecticut case in 1965. Ruling that the state government could not stop married couples from purchasing contraception, Douglas wrote that the right to privacy exists because the “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” It was these penumbras and emanations that were stretched still further in 1973 when the court ruled on Roe.

Some Democrats say that they regard “a woman's right to choose” as analogous to a black person's right to vote—a basic human right that cannot be gainsaid by the electorate. This is far from convincing. The constitution is as clear about the right to vote—thanks to the equal protection clause—as it is murky on the right to abortion. And abortion isn't a clear-cut moral issue in the way that the franchise is. Bill Clinton never felt any need to argue that black voting should be “safe, legal and rare”.

A better argument in defence of Roe is that some states might well outlaw abortion. The Centre for Reproductive Rights claimed in 2004 that 21 conservative states were highly likely to do so and nine somewhat likely. But this presumes that public opinion has been frozen in aspic since 1973. Laura Vanderkam of USA Today points out that many of these “anti-Roe” states may well vote in favour of abortion rights: seven have Democratic governors, one (Rhode Island) is firmly in the Democratic column, and many others (Colorado, Ohio) cannot be relied upon to ban it. Moreover, the states that are most likely to vote to ban abortion—such as Mississippi and North Dakota—already have very few abortion clinics in any case: women who want abortions in those states already have to travel huge distances. Crossing state lines would not make that much difference.

Stubborn as a mule

The main reason, alas, why Democrats will stick by Roe is simply because it is a totem in the culture wars. Why should pro-choice forces surrender any ground? That argument makes sense if you want to defend “choice” right into the ninth month, as some zealots do. But for most Democrats who merely want to keep abortion legal under most circumstances, that right would be more secure if it carried democratic legitimacy.

Embracing the democratic process would send a powerful signal that the Party of the People has rediscovered its faith in the people. Relying on judges to advance the liberal agenda allowed conservatives to seize the mantle of populism. Roe has given Republicans a free ride: they can claim to oppose abortion in the comfortable knowledge that it will never be banned. But imagine if Roe were overturned. How many Republicans would vote for a ban on abortion that only one in five Americans support? The conservative coalition would be split asunder.

History is full of great generals who won their wars by staging strategic retreats. Field-Marshal Kutusov allowed Napoleon to occupy Moscow, tempting him to over-extend himself. The Democrats might emulate that aged Russian's wiliness—and stage a strategic retreat to the high ground of popular opinion.

Children should be protected from “terrifying” Santa Claus, and shielded from “alarming” pantomimes, according to a government website for teachers.

The website, which was taken down yesterday by embarrassed officials, also said that staff organising school Christmas parties should take care not to arrange competitive games with winners and losers to avoid upsetting the children and make them feel they had “underperformed”.

Parents’ groups yesterday condemned the advice which they said threatened to destroy the magic of Christmas.

The advice on the website, www.teachernet.gov.uk, said: “For very young children, Father Christmas can be terrifying, and if you are planning a visit from Santa, you’ll need to make sure that fearful children are near an exit.

“Trips to the pantomime can cause alarm, so the same planning applies.

“Younger children in particular have a wide range of fears, many of which seem completely irrational to adults.

“Many children dislike the dark or crowded rooms, so be sensitive to this if you are planning atmospheric lighting.”

The site also had a link to a list of games that could be included in school parties, devised by the “progressive” youth movement, the Woodcraft Folk. The advice said: “Sometimes parties and organised games just reinforce differences and inequalities.

“The last thing you want is for children to get anxious or upset because they feel they have underperformed, or not been successful.

“If you do have games with winners, make sure that all children are given an opportunity to succeed where possible.”

Margaret Morrissey, of the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations, said: said: “It is so sad that we have become so politically correct that we are trying to remove the magic of Christmas.”

Removing the advice yesterday, the Government denied that it represented official policy. A spokesman for the Department of Education said: “We fully support the traditional British Christmas.

“This is not Government policy and was not produced by the department.

“We have now withdrawn it as it does not reflect our views.”

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.
"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

劉備：Newbie
孟德新書：Medicine書
孔明：Homing
姜維：Gary
駱統：Norton
曹丕：Chobit Chubby
徐庶：Tracy
馬騰：Martin
馬超：Marcel / Mature
孟起：Monkey
伯符：Buff
公謹：Cocaine
司馬：Cyber
張飛：Jeffery Jeffrey
趙雲：Chewing
馬謖：Mask
小喬：Secure
魯肅：Lost / Loser
奉先：Foxy
呂蒙 ：Lemon / Raymond / Layman
法正：Fxxking / Fetching
呂布：Label
孟優：Menu
龐德：Panda / Pointer
左慈：George
辛佐治：New George
顏良：Anna / Unlearn
龐統：Pointing
伯約：Bjork
雷薄：Reebok
貂嬋：Deuce
太史慈：Tasks
甘寧：Claiming / Cleaning / Coming
的盧：Dettol / Dino
高順：Cushion
孫堅：Skin
孫權：Squid
陸遜：Lotion
荀攸：Sunoil
李典：Lady
徐盛：Tracing
祖茂：Joe's mom
關平：Cramping
魏延：Iron
樊稠：Franchise
蘇飛：Sophie
張角：Triangle
蔣欽：Jam
公孫瓚：Constrain
程遠志：Change
黃蓋：Wenger Wanker
于吉：Yogurt
馬良：Malone

Thank you Mr. President, I had forgotten how crushingly dull these ceremonies are. Thank you.

My best to the choir. I have to say, that song never grows old for me. Whenever I hear that song, it reminds me of nothing.

I am honored to be here, I do have a confession to make before we get going that I should explain very quickly. When I am not on television, this is actually how I dress. I apologize, but there’s something very freeing about it. I congratulate the students for being able to walk even a half a mile in this non-breathable fabric in the Williamsburg heat. I am sure the environment that now exists under your robes, are the same conditions that primordial life began on this earth.

I know there were some parents that were concerned about my speech here tonight, and I want to assure you that you will not hear any language that is not common at, say, a dock workers union meeting, or Tourrett’s convention, or profanity seminar. Rest assured.

I am honored to be here and to receive this honorary doctorate. When I think back to the people that have been in this position before me from Benjamin Franklin to Queen Noor of Jordan, I can’t help but wonder what has happened to this place. Seriously, it saddens me. As a person, I am honored to get it; as an alumnus, I have to say I believe we can do better. And I believe we should. But it has always been a dream of mine to receive a doctorate and to know that today, without putting in any effort, I will. It’s incredibly gratifying. Thank you. That’s very nice of you, I appreciate it.

I’m sure my fellow doctoral graduates—who have spent so long toiling in academia, sinking into debt, sacrificing God knows how many years of what, in truth, is a piece of parchment that in truth has been so devalued by our instant gratification culture as to have been rendered meaningless—will join in congratulating me. Thank you.

But today isn’t about how my presence here devalues this fine institution. It is about you, the graduates. I’m honored to be here to congratulate you today. Today is the day you enter into the real world, and I should give you a few pointers on what it is. It’s actually not that different from the environment here. The biggest difference is you will now be paying for things, and the real world is not surrounded by three-foot brick wall. And the real world is not a restoration. If you see people in the real world making bricks out of straw and water, those people are not colonial re-enactors—they are poor. Help them. And in the real world, there is not as much candle lighting. I don’t really know what it is about this campus and candle lighting, but I wish it would stop. We only have so much wax, people.

Lets talk about the real world for a moment. We had been discussing it earlier, and I…I wanted to bring this up to you earlier about the real world, and this is I guess as good a time as any. I don’t really know to put this, so I’ll be blunt. We broke it.

Please don’t be mad. I know we were supposed to bequeath to the next generation a world better than the one we were handed. So, sorry.

I don’t know if you’ve been following the news lately, but it just kinda got away from us. Somewhere between the gold rush of easy internet profits and an arrogant sense of endless empire, we heard kind of a pinging noise, and uh, then the damn thing just died on us. So I apologize.

But here’s the good news. You fix this thing, you’re the next greatest generation, people. You do this—and I believe you can—you win this war on terror, and Tom Brokaw’s kissing your ass from here to Tikrit, let me tell ya. And even if you don’t, you’re not gonna have much trouble surpassing my generation. If you end up getting your picture taken next to a naked guy pile of enemy prisoners and don’t give the thumbs up you’ve outdid us.

We declared war on terror. We declared war on terror—it’s not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I’m sure we’ll take on that bastard ennui.

But obviously that’s the world. What about your lives? What piece of wisdom can I impart to you about my journey that will somehow ease your transition from college back to your parents' basement?

I know some of you are nostalgic today and filled with excitement and perhaps uncertainty at what the future holds. I know six of you are trying to figure out how to make a bong out of your caps. I believe you are members of Psi U. Hey that did work, thank you for the reference.

So I thought I’d talk a little bit about my experience here at William and Mary. It was very long ago, and if you had been to William and Mary while I was here and found out that I would be the commencement speaker 20 years later, you would be somewhat surprised, and probably somewhat angry. I came to William and Mary because as a Jewish person I wanted to explore the rich tapestry of Judaica that is Southern Virginia. Imagine my surprise when I realized “The Tribe” was not what I thought it meant.

In 1980 I was 17 years old. When I moved to Williamsburg, my hall was in the basement of Yates, which combined the cheerfulness of a bomb shelter with the prison-like comfort of the group shower. As a freshman I was quite a catch. Less than five feet tall, yet my head is the same size it is now. Didn’t even really look like a head, it looked more like a container for a head. I looked like a Peanuts character. Peanuts characters had terrible acne. But what I lacked in looks I made up for with a repugnant personality.

In 1981 I lost my virginity, only to gain it back again on appeal in 1983. You could say that my one saving grace was academics where I excelled, but I did not.

And yet now I live in the rarified air of celebrity, of mega stardom. My life a series of Hollywood orgies and Kabala center brunches with the cast of Friends. At least that’s what my handlers tell me. I’m actually too valuable to live my own life and spend most of my days in a vegetable crisper to remain fake news anchor fresh.

So I know that the decisions that I made after college worked out. But at the time I didn’t know that they would. See college is not necessarily predictive of your future success. And it’s the kind of thing where the path that I chose obviously wouldn’t work for you. For one, you’re not very funny.

So how do you know what is the right path to choose to get the result that you desire? And the honest answer is this. You won’t. And accepting that greatly eases the anxiety of your life experience.

I was not exceptional here, and am not now. I was mediocre here. And I’m not saying aim low. Not everybody can wander around in an alcoholic haze and then at 40 just, you know, decide to be president. You’ve got to really work hard to try to…I was actually referring to my father.

When I left William and Mary I was shell-shocked. Because when you’re in college it’s very clear what you have to do to succeed. And I imagine here everybody knows exactly the number of credits they needed to graduate, where they had to buckle down, which introductory psychology class would pad out the schedule. You knew what you had to do to get to this college and to graduate from it. But the unfortunate, yet truly exciting thing about your life, is that there is no core curriculum. The entire place is an elective. The paths are infinite and the results uncertain. And it can be maddening to those that go here, especially here, because your strength has always been achievement. So if there’s any real advice I can give you it’s this.

College is something you complete. Life is something you experience. So don’t worry about your grade, or the results or success. Success is defined in myriad ways, and you will find it, and people will no longer be grading you, but it will come from your own internal sense of decency which I imagine, after going through the program here, is quite strong…although I’m sure downloading illegal files…but, nah, that’s a different story.

Love what you do. Get good at it. Competence is a rare commodity in this day and age. And let the chips fall where they may.

And the last thing I want to address is the idea that somehow this new generation is not as prepared for the sacrifice and the tenacity that will be needed in the difficult times ahead. I have not found this generation to be cynical or apathetic or selfish. They are as strong and as decent as any people that I have met. And I will say this, on my way down here I stopped at Bethesda Naval, and when you talk to the young kids that are there that have just been back from Iraq and Afghanistan, you don’t have the worry about the future that you hear from so many that are not a part of this generation but judging it from above.

And the other thing… that I will say is, when I spoke earlier about the world being broke, I was somewhat being facetious, because every generation has their challenge. And things change rapidly, and life gets better in an instant.

I was in New York on 9-11 when the towers came down. I lived 14 blocks from the twin towers. And when they came down, I thought that the world had ended. And I remember walking around in a daze for weeks. And Mayor Giuliani had said to the city, “You’ve got to get back to normal. We’ve got to show that things can change and get back to what they were.”

And one day I was coming out of my building, and on my stoop, was a man who was crouched over, and he appeared to be in deep thought. And as I got closer to him I realized, he was playing with himself. And that’s when I thought, “You know what, we’re gonna be OK.”

Thank you. Congratulations. I honor you. Good Night.

本地「洪佛派」拳術傳人洪錦培及兒子洪樂文，涉嫌因租客遲交租而毆傷對方，父子兩人被控傷人，案件昨日在九龍城裁判法院經審訊後，由於租客證供前後矛盾，父子脫罪。據事主在庭上供稱，案發時遭幾名大漢圍毆，事後被洪氏讚賞「捱得」，不但替他療傷，更欲收他為徒。

報稱任中醫的洪錦培（56歲），是洪佛派國術總會永遠監督，其子洪樂文（25歲）則為總會教練。兩人被指於今年3月31日，在深水砵蘭街萬新大廈21樓一單位襲擊23歲陳姓男子。

事主昨日供稱，今年3月起租住洪氏上述單位，由於租務糾紛，洪氏父子堅稱他欠租，於3月31日在電話爭拗後，兩人與案中其餘兩人到上址要求他交租。事主說， 洪氏父子及其他人對他拳打腳踢至流血，血漬濺到單位地下及各人的衣服。洪錦培當時稱讚事主「你咁捱得打，不如收你為徒﹗」又主動替事主療傷。

事主本來答應成為洪的徒弟，但事後向親友講述事件經過後，決定前往醫院驗傷及報警。裁判官裁決時指出，事主就傷勢的口供前後矛盾，故判兩被告脫罪，但他強調，並非完全相信洪氏父子未曾施襲。案中其餘兩人在逃。