Memedia

The most interesting thesis is the idea that China could use international law as a weapon, or “lawfare” for short. The authors argue that citizens of democracies increasingly demand that their countries uphold international rules, particularly ones that govern human rights and the conduct of war. Governments are, therefore, constrained by regional or worldwide organizations, such as the European Union, ASEAN, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the WTO and the United Nations. The authors argue that China should copy the European model of using international law to pin down the USA: “there are far-sighted big powers which have clearly already begun to borrow the power of supra-national, multinational, and non-state players to redouble and expand their own influence.” They think that China could turn the United Nations and regional organizations into an amplifier of the Chinese worldview – discouraging the USA from using its might in campaigns like the Iraq War.

Beijing has been willing to allow the Organization of Islamic States to take the lead in weakening the new Human Rights Council. This subtle diplomacy has been devastatingly effective – contributing to a massive fall in US influence: in 1995 the USA won 50.6 percent of the votes in the United Nations general assembly; by 2006, the figure had fallen to just 23.6 percent. On human rights, the results are even more dramatic: China’s win-rate has rocketed from 43 percent to 82 percent, while the USA’s has tumbled from 57 per cent to 22 percent. The New York Times’ UN correspondent James Traub has detected a paradigm shift in the United Nations’ operations: “it’s a truism that the Security Council can function only insofar as the United States lets it. The adage may soon be applied to China as well.” Traub may be right. China’s capacity to influence the United Nations is increasing, and soon we may be complaining about Chinese behavior on big policy issues

一审青羊区法院认为，借条确是张剑所写，且有证人证言相互印证，因此认定张剑借款43万元的事实成立，张剑应偿还陈芳借款。(记者 易婷)

下一个疑问是金正日急着要见王家瑞的理由。据日本每日新闻的报道，中国政府日前向周边国家通知了金正日健康状况，根据王家瑞的报告所做的通知说，“金正日的头发显得稀疏了些，但是气色很好，说话方面也没有障碍。左手和左腿的活动很自然，看不出任何健康问题。”

蓝颜色会激发人们的创造力，而红色则会促使人们对细节的关注。

美国马萨诸塞州波克夏县就是一个成功的范例。居民花10美元可换得11张“波克夏尔”(BerkShares)，在当地商店都可以通用，此举是为了鼓励居民在本地店铺消费，而不要上网或者在那些大型连锁商店用美元消费。“波克夏尔”在2006年推出，如今仍然通行。

曼谷法政大学（Thammasat University）的经济学家教授Pattamawadee Suzuki深入地研究了这一现象。她说她并不确定像讪滴戌村那样使用本地货币对于经济是否确有明显的好处：“等形势转好后，村民们还是更愿意使用全国货币。”不过她同时表示：“使用本地货币有非常明显的社会效益。讪滴戌村这个地方比泰国其他农村地区要自立，他们不需要依靠曼谷亲戚的汇款过日子。”

于是村民们改掉了货币的名字，如今它的名字在泰语中意为“价值”。此后货币的发行量开始稳步增长。政府对此也不再反对，讪滴戌村自制货币的做法逐步得到了临近村庄居民的认可，并开始逐步传播到了泰国东北部其他地区。Pattamawadee教授说，还有一些村子也不再使用泰国货币，而改用实物交易的方式。

互联网史上的十六个重要时刻

16. 克林顿的白宫性丑闻 1998年1月17日太平洋标准时间晚上11:32，Drudge揭露了前美国总统克林顿与莱温斯基的丑闻。

15. 你雅虎了吗？ 1994年2月， 杨致远和David Filo的网络书签

打开家门全是大单子，“我们不损害任何人，也不威胁任何人”。关上家门全是小单子，全民避运是小单子，地动山摇是小单子，豆腐渣是小单子，网络封锁是小单子，自行车是小单子，俯卧撑是小单子，不明真相是小单子…是的，我羡慕洋人大爷们，我渴望成为大单子，我渴望成为不被损害不被威胁远离羞辱紧靠尊严的大单子。

演讲的时候，盖茨还在会场上放蚊子，他说，“没有理由仅仅是让穷人去体验被蚊子攻击的滋味……”"

On the other hand, I’ve seen no one addressing the questions of actual political and bureaucratic process. What comes first? Elections in major urban centers like Shanghai, a sort of Special Democratic Zone? Loosening of Internet controls? Judiciary reform? Privatization of state media? Releasing political prisoners? Local officials already abuse existing structures, how much more will they abuse transitional processes? If you don’t want a revolution, then there has to be some sort of proposed process that the current government can work with and Chinese citizens can feel both moves reform forward and doesn’t threaten to unravel society. If you don’t say anything about how you might accomplish such a thing, but simply describe the end result in which the government becomes something unrecognizable from the existing one, you may not have explicitly called for its overthrow but you sure didn’t call for something else instead. Not to mention its difficult not to see it as just a wish list. Anybody can make a wishlist - who’s going to do the real work?

I think the commenter who asks whether Charter 08 is really calling for a revolution has a point, and it’s not fair to riposte “well, if this all happened it would be revolutionary”. It wouldn’t be if the changes happened gradually or in a controlled and orderly way (as they did in other countries). The party itself, after all, keeps promising political reform, and many of the people who support it so heartily do so on the assumption that it is serious about eventually keeping that promise. The people I spoke to (and quoted) did not think this was a substitute for tackling concrete real life issues, but thought it important to have a framework within which to do so.

Notice, also that I said a “revolution of the system of government”. Not the government, the system. The problems I’m referring to is that when the system, the way things are done, from paying your electricity bill to detemining holders of public office, changes radically, 180 degrees, then there can be terrible consequences. How should one try to avoid those consequences? How can you make the transition smoothly? These are the things that ought to be discussed, and these are the things that will persuade people that your ideals can actually be realized. That might get you a groundswell of demand for change - abstract philosophical manifestos, though, don’t cut it.

中博真是太有才了，“新京报”居然也设成过滤词，新京报的人要听到这消息，不当场吐血才怪。至于为什么，我知道原因。但无论如何，屏蔽一张仍在国内公开发行的报纸名称，实在是太可笑了。