★Coffee小组写作讨论贴★(例证总结+论证思考)

Cappuccino☆UID：2155660

大家好,这次作业队员们都完成的很成功,是Coffee小组很好的一个开端:)

不过话有说回来，毕竟gter的路还很长,只有坚持不懈,不停的挑战自我,超越自我才能达到梦想中的目标！

这次作业的修改也进行的比较顺利，大部分文章都得到了及时的修改。大家在修改的文章时，都提出了很多问题，由于贴子沉的太快，使得有些问题没有得到解决，因此开了这个写作讨论贴，希望大家都进来坐坐:)

[ Last edited by 11yaoyao on 2005-12-22 at 14:07 ]

Cappuccino☆UID：2155660

呵呵~~提醒大家一下,这个贴子是我们资料积累,例子讨论的哦

大家有什么好的东东都发上来交流啊~~:victory:

Cappuccino☆UID：2155660

一~~安安也换头像啦~~~很可爱的说:D

安婧UID：2156480

忍不住赞一下！你们的前期准备做的真好。

Cappuccino☆UID：2155660

儿童的社会化

适用题目：130 How children are socialized today determined the destiny of society. Unfortunately, we have not yet learned how to raise children who can help bring about a better society.
我觉得最首要的问题是弄明白socialize到底是什么意思，我最开始就弄错了。讨论孩子的社会化是否与社会的命运有关。第二个就是要讨论我们是否有能力培养出能建设出更好社会的孩子。算是1＋1的题目吧。

Socialization, process by which people, especially children, learn acceptable and unacceptable behaviors for a given environment.社会化的定义。

As they move in different social worlds, older children begin to grasp the informal rules for each setting and manage themselves accordingly. Children act differently at home and in the classroom, for example, calibrating their behavior to the expectations of others in each setting. They also learn to manage their emotions in social settings, looking undisturbed in the face of a peer’s taunting and laughing appropriately at a teacher’s joke. Social understanding develops in other ways also, as older children perceive family members, friends, and others as psychologically complex beings with their own emotions, motives, and perspectives.

Peer relationships become richer and more complicated in middle childhood. Whereas preschoolers master basic social skills as they play with friends, older children begin to face issues of acceptance, fitting in, exclusion, and social comparison in their peer groups. The nature of friendship changes in middle childhood to incorporate psychological closeness as well as shared activities, and friendships thus become more intense and exclusive. Children create a smaller circle of close friends and are more upset when friendships end. Friendships also coalesce into larger peer groups or clubs with their own norms for dress, vocabulary, hair style, activities, and behavior. These norms distinguish those who are included (and excluded) from the group and create strong pressures on group members to conform. At the same time, such groups can help children build self-esteem and social skills.

Socializing in middle childhood requires considerable social understanding and self-awareness, especially when conflict occurs. Older children can negotiate, bargain, cajole, compromise, and redirect conflict—such as through humor—in ways that reflect developing psychological understanding and social maturity. Not all children are so successful, however, and some become rejected by peers because of their aggressive, confrontational behavior. Developmental researchers have found that peers rejected for aggressiveness are impulsive and deficient in social problem-solving skills, often misinterpreting casual social encounters as hostile and considering few alternatives to reacting confrontationally. They also develop negative reputations. A rejected child’s lack of acceptance can, unfortunately, foreshadow long-term social difficulties if these problems are not remedied in childhood.通过这些资料我们可以知道老外说的社会化是指儿童与同龄人的交流interaction，对环境的适应和学习等等的行为。

Parents remain central in the expanding social world of middle childhood. Although it is common to view peers as replacing parents in importance to older children, parents continue to support their children’s self-esteem, define and reinforce values, promote academic success, enable participation in neighborhood and community activities, and offer a sensitive ear and perceptive judgment. They are reliable cheerleaders as their children face the challenges of middle childhood and adolescence家长起到的作用。

Cappuccino☆UID：2155660

资料来自各论坛~~~

美国学校课程安排国家和地方的矛盾
TENSION BETWEEN LOCALISM AND CENTRALIZATION

适用题目： Issue5  A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer.
我的理解是，根本问题在于国家统一和地方安排的问题上。到底国家统一制定的课程有什么好处，而地方政府是否应该享有安排课程的权力呢？另外一个关键的问题就是，为什么要提到是上大学之前的学生呢？这些学生应该属于elementary and secondary education，他们需要的是什么呢？哪种课程安排对于这些学生的学习最有益处呢，最能满足他们的需要呢？

Individual states—rather than the federal government—have primary authority over public education in the United States. In 1794 New York became the first state to establish a board of regents to oversee public education. Eventually, every state developed a department of education and enacted laws regulating finance, the hiring of school personnel, student attendance, and often curriculum. Until the 20th century the degree of regulation varied enormously from state to state.

A  Traditions of Localism

In general, however, states have delegated control over public education matters to local districts, with the exception of licensing requirements and general rules concerning health and safety. Public schools have also relied heavily on local property taxes to meet the vast majority of school expenses. American schools have thus tended to reflect the educational values and financial capabilities of the communities in which they are located. When students move from one community to another, they often encounter entirely different curriculums even though they are in the same grade. Even within a given school district, different neighborhoods often contain very different public schools. 由于要考虑资助的社区的要求，所以在甚至美国不同社区学校的课程都不相同。

In contrast, countries like France, Germany, and Japan have school systems that are financed and regulated on the national level. This has allowed them to maintain a relatively uniform school environment throughout their respective countries, regardless of the values and economies of local communities. They have also accomplished this partly by mandating highly competitive standardized examinations. These exams usually have direct consequences for the students who take them, often by permitting or denying access to higher education or positions of employment. 这种情况和中国的一样，可以把这几个国家作为统一课程的例子。

这两段是从学校由谁资助来讨论的，美国学校由社区资助，法国德国日本由政府资助，所以造成了统一和地方的不同，我觉得是个新鲜的入手点。可以写，理论上是哪个好，但是实际上要考虑经济情况，所以应该政府资助，统一课程/地方资助，地方自行安排。

B  Centralizing Tendencies

As greater numbers of Americans enrolled in schools during the 20th century, education became a powerful social and economic force.这句改一改可以放在教育类文章的开头当作背景。 Efforts to increase the size and efficiency of public schools led to the creation of more centralized school systems. To bring order and efficiency to school systems, American educators had already developed standardized mechanisms of school organization by the end of the 19th century. For example, class placement was determined by a student’s age, each class period was a specified length, and students graduated after a specified number of years in attendance. 上面的论述可以借鉴用作赞成统一课程的原因，统一课程的好处。

Schools also became more centrally organized as education developed into a highly structured profession with a streamlined chain of administrative command.另一个统一的原因 For example, in the late 19th century the position of the school superintendent increased in power and influence. The first public school superintendent began directing the Buffalo, New York, school system in 1837. By 1900 the superintendent had replaced the school principal as the most influential and highest paid figure in public elementary and secondary education.

Also by 1900 specialized teacher training institutions called normal schools were well established, and many had already become four-year degree-granting colleges. Institutions that provided training for teachers developed expertise that often led to standardized practices, ranging from notions about the ideal size of elementary classrooms to the ideal form of a lesson plan. As education became a bigger and more lucrative enterprise, mass-market textbook publishing companies and testing organizations made significant profits by producing materials used in schools throughout the country.

后面的部分是一些有关的事例和法令和数据之类的资料，也许有可以借用作例子的东西。
C  Increased State Involvement

As the 20th century progressed, most states assumed a more active regulatory role than in the past. States consolidated school districts into larger units with common procedures. In 1940 there were over 117,000 school districts in the United States, but by 2000 the number had decreased to fewer than 15,000. The states also became much more responsible for financing education. They helped fund the rapid expansion of state postsecondary institutions after World War II. They sometimes supported efforts to equalize local school district expenditures by using state funds and state laws to ensure more equitable per pupil expenditures regardless of the wealth or poverty of individual districts. In 1940 local property taxes financed 68 percent of elementary and secondary school expenses, while the states contributed 30 percent and the federal government contributed 2 percent. In 1999 state governments contributed 49 percent of elementary and secondary school revenues, local districts contributed 44 percent, and the federal government provided 7 percent.

Since the 1980s, virtually all states have given unprecedented attention to their role in raising education standards. Much of the initiative for greater state involvement in education stemmed from the publication of a report by a federal commission in 1983 that indicated low academic achievement in American schools. This report, entitled A Nation at Risk, presented statistics suggesting that American students were outperformed on international academic tests by students from other industrial societies. Statistics also suggested that American test scores were declining over time. Many parents, educators, and government officials believed that only a concerted, centralized reform effort could overcome these apparent shortcomings of American education. Because the perceived crisis in student performance was based largely on test-score results, most states have implemented reform strategies that emphasize more frequent testing conducted by states, more effective state testing, and more state-mandated curriculum requirements. Some educators have also proposed the introduction of “high-stakes” examinations, in which performance on the examination would have a significant impact on the individual taking the test. Results on a high stakes examination might either permit or restrict a student’s access to higher education or the job market. Despite widespread support for such examinations, few states have introduced them.

D  Increased Federal Involvement

Although educational authority resides ultimately with the states, the federal government has long encouraged and assisted specific educational activities that it considers to be in the national interest. The federal government’s activities in the field of education have further centralized American schooling. The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, for example, helped create vocational programs in high schools, and the GI Bill of 1944 was the first important federal effort to provide financial aid for military veterans to attend college. In addition, federal civil rights laws require all schools and colleges to conform to national standards of educational equality.

The federal commitment to improve and finance public schools expanded enormously when Congress passed the National Defense Education Act of 1958 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. In these two landmark statutes, Congress addressed for the first time such broad problems as expanding educational opportunity for poor children and improving instruction in pivotal but usually neglected subjects, such as science, mathematics, and foreign languages. In addition, these laws strengthened many large universities by providing federal funds for research. They also supported students attending private colleges by providing federal support for financial aid. Because this assistance came from federal sources rather than from state or local governments, it increased centralized control of American education.

Federal involvement in schools during the 1980s and 1990s was expressed less by legislation providing money for new programs than by government reports and proclamations that schools were performing insufficiently. A Nation at Risk and many subsequent federal reports and studies on the condition of schooling sparked a vigorous school reform effort at local and state levels. But aside from espousing ambitious national education goals, the federal government was far less active in shaping education legislation during the 1980s and 1990s than it had been in the 1960s and 1970s.

The role of the federal government in setting education policy increased significantly with the passage by Congress of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, a sweeping education reform law that revised the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Signed by President George W. Bush in 2002, the new law seeks to identify poorly performing public schools by requiring states to test students in grades three through eight annually in reading and math. Schools that fail to make “adequate yearly progress” toward state proficiency standards must allow students to transfer to better-performing public schools. If poor performance continues, schools must offer supplemental services such as private tutoring; persistently failing schools must take corrective actions, such as replacing certain teachers or changing the curriculum, or risk being restructured or taken over by the state. The law also requires all public school teachers to be “highly qualified” in their subject areas by the end of the 2006 school year.

Although the No Child Left Behind Act passed with broad support from both Democratic and Republican members of Congress, the law has stirred considerable controversy in the education community. Some critics argue that federal funding of education is insufficient to accomplish the goals of the law and that the law erodes local control over schools. Additionally, some education officials have warned that under the law’s strict provisions, many schools will be identified as failing even if they are making progress in most areas. However, other officials have praised the law for its goal of improving the academic performance of all students, including poor students, minorities, and students with disabilities.

shielUID：2140229

准备写issue53, 现在来预习, 资料收集中, 一边和大家分享..., 这是关于大学教育与政府资助的一些相关讨论吧,

《中国教育改革发展纲要》针对民办私立学校的发展，提出了“积极鼓励、大力支持、正确引导、加强管理”的发展，充分体现了政府对发展我国民办私立教育事业的重视。在此之后，我国先后颁布了《关于社会力量办学的若干暂行规定》、《社会力量办学条例》等一系列文件，在政策和法规上给予民办私立学校以充分的肯定。但仅仅做到如此还是不够的，特别是在如何“大力支持”上，靠政策支持，不足以激发民办私立学校发展的动力机制。因为，对许多民办私立学校而言，最有效和最有力的支持是实质性的财力支持，它是改善学校办学条件、维持学校正常运行的基本前提和条件。

需要说明的是，这里的财政支持，更确切地表述为财力扶持。它是政府以少量的投入来鼓励和支持民办私立学校发展的一种手段和途径。因为正是民办私立学校极富活力的办学特色和勃勃的生机，才有可能为我国的基础教育引入竞争的机制。同时，通过私立学校学额的增加，相对地减少公立学校中的学额，减轻政府的财政负担。而且通过财政支持，强化政府在民办私立学校办学活动中管理者的角色，切实有效地控制和引导民办私立学校的规范化发展，并通过辅之以其它管理措施，缩小民办私立学校间的分化。

财力支持的基本形式，是建立合理的资助制度，它是政府根据有利、有效和可行的原则，以全面推动民办私立学校的发展和提高民办私立教育的质量为宗旨，而建立起来的一套行之有效的向民办私立学校提供资金支付的制度。

也许有人会认为，在当前我国公立学校财政局面尚且紧张的情况下，奢谈政府对民办私立学校的资助，这有悖常理。我们以为这其实主要是认识和观念问题。原因有三：第一，政府资助是适当的资助，不是包办，它是以少量的投入来争取较大的社会效益甚至较高的经济效益，在上述部分对此已有所阐述，更何况即使是对公立学校的投入，政府也关注的是投入后的产出效益，在总量保持不变的前提下，将部分少量的投入分流到民办私立学校中，来取得更大的效益，这属于理智的选择；第二，我国目前乃至将来民办私立学校的办学特点和办学规模，都决定了民办私立学校只能是作为公立学校的一个补充，以有限的投入促其发展，不会严重地冲击公立教育的正常秩序，而且即使出现一些压力，其利也大于弊。因为它有助于推动公立学校在办学特色的形成和教育质量的提高上寻找突破口；第三，我们所提倡建立的民办私立学校资助制度，并不是划一的和面向全体的模式，而是根据各地区教育发展的情况，各民办私立学校的运作有所区别对待，在以下部分将详细展开。




                                国家投入抬高教育成本？

   
　　美国经济学家威德对政府资助大学的政策提出根本质疑：政府在把经费从花钱最有效率的部门通过税收的方式提取出来，投放到花钱最没有效率的大学里，实际上哄抬了教育成本



　　如今，全球都掀起了大学改革的风潮，样板全是美国的大学。



　　但是，美国的大学体制并非没有问题。美国的大学固然是世界最好的，但也是世界最贵的。一流名校的学费，许多已经上了4万美元，超出了美国家庭的年平均收入。现在美国一个中等家庭为了支付一个孩子的学费，要比上世纪50年代多工作三倍的时间。



　　也正是因为如此，大学教育成为一个烫手的政治问题。最近经济学家理查德·威德(Richard Vedder)出版的《为了学位而破产》，提出了惊人之论。在他看来，大学费用上涨的原因最根本的一条，是大学内职工的劳动生产率降低。在其他产业，生产同样数量的钢铁、汽车、玉米等等所花费的工时不断减少，所用的劳动力数量急剧下降。但在大学，教育同样数量的学生所需的教授和行政人员却越来越多。



　　为什么会如此？因为大学运营的经费，主要靠联邦和州政府的经费以及私人捐助，不是靠学费。如果大学单靠学费活的话，大学就要处处考虑成本。可惜，现在美国大学的生存哲学则完全相反，靠的不是节衣缩食，而是靠“斗富”、“寻租”，看谁能花大价钱请来明星教授，看谁能够建设豪华设施。著名的《美国新闻与世界报道》的大学排名，其实比的是投入(如校友捐助、教师与学生的比例)，而不是产出(如传授知识的总量)。大学弄得越气派，第三方(即政府和捐款人)的投资就越多。在威德笔下，美国的大学经营，多少有点像不靠门票吃饭的中国足球俱乐部。



　　事实上，大学费用的上涨还另有原因。不错，大学费用的上涨超过了家庭收入的上涨，但这并不说明人们承担大学教育的能力越来越低，相反，现在美国大学生在人口中的比率越来越高。原因很简单，知识升值了，受过大学教育的人和没有受过大学教育的人的收入差距越来越大，人们更愿意在教育上投资。



　　比如，根据最近对年龄在18～64岁的宾夕法尼亚州劳动力工资的调查，高中毕业生平均年薪仅为22129美元，大学本科毕业生为44517美元，受过研究生教育的人则高达64597美元。在大学多呆两年，年薪就高出2万美元左右。



　　不过，在威德的书中，提出了极有洞见的主张。其中最关键的是一个道德问题：既然大学教育的奖赏那么丰厚，为什么一个不上大学的穷人要为一个上大学的富人的教育纳税呢？这是对政府资助大学政策的一个根本性的挑战。



　　一般人认为，政府资助大学，是因为从大学教育获益的不仅仅是受教育者，而是社会整体。一个教育水平高的社会，比教育水平低的社会更有竞争力。威德则指出，对高等教育的公共投资的效益实际上是递减的。比如，对大学第一个1000亿美元的公共投资可能收益甚高；而第二个1000亿，收益就平平；第三个1000亿可能就是零收益。



　　建立加州大学体系时，公共投入也许属于第一个1000亿，但现在美国可能是在花第三个1000亿现在美国高等教育经费越多的州，经济发展越慢，人口正从大学密集型的州流出，证明这些州的竞争力在减退。威德的解释是：这些州的政府，在把经费从花钱最有效率的部门通过税收的方式提取出来，投放到花钱最没有效率的大学里。他还用一系列数据展示，追加高等教育经费最终没有扩大老百姓受教育的机会，追加的钱实际上哄抬了教育成本。



　　最近有报道说美国的学生因为学费上涨过猛，开始去加拿大、英国留学。这说明高学费确实开始影响美国教育的竞争力。



　　威德的解决方案很简单：断绝对大学直接的公共资助，把钱直接用教育券的形式发给学生，让学生直接去采购他们的大学教育。这样，大学就会直接面临竞争，就会考虑降低成本，州立大学也应该因此而逐渐私有化。



　　应该说，威德虽然观点过于偏激，但他也确实指出了大学经营的效率问题，不仅为美国的大学改革，也为中国的大学改革提供了一个有益的方案。在改革前，中国的大学靠国家的投入已经有了基本的规模，威德所谓的“第一个1000亿”已经花完。如今的“建设世界一流大学”的运动，确实有盲目强调国家投入、抬高教育成本的恶果。



　　大家如此攀比、寻租，最终会引起学费的全面上涨。中国作为后发展国家，应该有“后知之明”。不要没有达到美国大学的质量，就先攀比人家的费用。-



　　来源：中国新闻周刊总第213期



                                         专访剑桥大学校长：大学教育不是贵族教育　　《参考消息》：您曾经在美国耶鲁大学任教30年，还曾担任过该校的教务长。由于美国和英国教育体制的差别，您觉得您从美国来到英国遇到了哪些问题和挑战呢？比方说，美国大学基本上是私立的，都建立起了工商企业资助的捐赠体系，而英国的大学完全由政府资助，与在耶鲁大学时相比，您在决策时是否有时会感觉到“捉襟见肘”呢？

理查德：剑桥目前面临的最大挑战是如何获得充足的资源，为研究和教学提供更充足的资源，这不仅包括经济上的资助，还有社会资源，人才资源。

　　你讲得很对，美国大学30年前就建立起了完整的捐赠体系，与它们相比，我们的财力确实显得匮乏。我们打算以2009年“剑桥800年校庆”为契机，从明年联系全国各地的大学，开展高校集资运动。我们不能只依靠政府，还要争取从企业、机构，甚至个人获得资助。我们要在10年内建成类似美国的捐赠体系，我对实现这一点有信心。

《参考消息》：您对英国政府正在进行的大学收费改革怎么看？剑桥支持提高大学学费吗？几个月前，《泰晤士报》的一份调查表明，在英国教学和研究实力最强的剑桥大学和牛津大学，在贫困生辍学率排行榜上也排在第一、二位，您对此怎么看？

　　理查德：我认为，大学教育的精华就是让不同阶层的学生都能接受教育，让他们在社会中重新寻找自己的位置。大学教育不是贵族教育，也不是特权教育，否则它就没有任何意义了。因此，我的观点是，首先要保持大学教育的精华所在，然后再谈提高学费的问题。我们会为贫困学生提供更多的资助，剑桥需要的是杰出人才。



                                     美国高校的资金筹措及启示
代蕊华

　　【提要】高校办学资金的筹措在学校的改革与发展中起着越来越重要的作用，美国高校在资金筹措方面积累了大量的值得我们借鉴的经验。我国高校应适应现实的要求，通过成立校友会、建立专门的筹资机构和不断学习与研究筹资的技巧，积极做好高校办学资金的筹措工作。

　　高校办学活动是一项耗资巨大的事业，没有一定的资金投入，高校就难以得到应有的发展。虽然资金的多少并不是高校发展的唯一决定因素，但高校办学资金的多寡在很大程度上决定了高校的发展，事实上，高校发展中所遇到的许多问题都可以从经费不足中找到原因，人们也越来越认识到"哪些大学得到最大数量的金钱，就将有助于决定哪所大学拥有十年或二十年的发展优势"。研究表明，高校资金来源渠道的多元化是一个世界性的趋势。高校依赖单一的政府拨款对高校的生存和发展是不利的，单一的资金来源不仅不能使高校及时地反映社会其它各方面对高校的要求，而且资金的短缺也不能满足高校对经费不断增长的需要，因而，高校要求得更大的发展，在积极主动地争取政府对高校办学支持的同时，更需要主动地向社会筹措办学资金，美国高校的许多做法对我们是有很大启示的。

　　在美国，从由社会人士自发捐资兴建的被称为"先有哈佛、后有美国"的哈佛大学开始，美国人民捐资办大学所体现的"哈佛精神"一直发扬到现在，社会集资办大学成为美国高等教育的重要特色和优良传统。1890年那鲁大学创设了第一个校友基金会，于是大学设立基金会向外界筹资就成为一种普遍的做法，后来成立的公益性的慈善基金会如卡内基基金会、洛克菲勒基金会、福特基金会等逐渐成为大学资金的一项重要来源。

　　在美国的高校，不仅有日常性的年度筹资活动，还有为特定的目的而进行的巨额筹资运动。近年来，开展大规模筹资运动的学校越来越多，各大学特别是著名大学筹集的资金数额也越来越大。据统计，1974--1979大致有9％的公立学校和37％的私立学校进行筹资运动，而1979--1984年的统计表明，公立学校的比例上升为18％，私立学校虽然保持37％不变，但筹资数量却越来越大，许多学校的年度筹资就超过了1亿美元，似乎少于1亿美元的筹资目标有失学校身份。如在1991--1992年度筹资超过1亿美元的大学就有16所，其中前五名为：哈佛大学（2.1亿美元）、斯坦福大学（1.9亿美元）、康乃尔大学（1.8亿美元）、宾夕法尼亚大学（1.6亿美元）、那鲁大学（1.4亿美元）。在学校的筹资运动中，许多学校提出了超过10亿美元甚至更高的筹资目标。提出筹资超过10亿美元最早的大学是斯坦福大学，它们于1987年2月1日提出了筹资11亿美元的5年的筹资运动（这一目标在1991年6月以筹集12.7亿美元提前实现）。随后又有许多学校加入了"十亿美元俱乐部"，波士顿大学和纽约大学在1988年、宾夕法尼亚大学在1989年提出10亿美元的计划，哥伦比亚大学和康乃尔大学在1990年分别提出了目标为11.5亿和12.5亿美元的5年筹资计划，密西根大学和那鲁大学也于1992年提出了10亿和15亿美元的计划，哈佛大学1994年更是提出了一个25亿美元的筹资目标。其它的学校如加利福利亚大学伯克利分校、宾夕法尼亚州立大学、南加利福尼亚大学等也都提出了十亿美元的筹资活动，因而90年代被称为"十亿美元的十年"。

　　据1992年的统计，美国高校所筹集的资金中仅捐赠数超过6500万美元的学校就有187所，下表列出了其中14所超过10亿美元的大学。

　　表一：美国接受捐赠超过10亿美元的学校（单位：亿美元，以1992年价格计算）　

哈佛大学　　　　　　　51.2　　　　马萨诸塞技术学院　　　　15.9

德克萨斯大学（体系）　36.6　　　　华盛顿大学　　　　　　　15.3

普林斯顿大学　　　　　30.0　　　　德克萨斯州机械大学　　　14.8

耶鲁大学　　　　　　　28.3　　　　赖斯大学　　　　　　　　12.5

斯坦福大学　　　　　　24.3　　　　西北大学　　　　　　　　12.0

哥伦比亚大学　　　　　16.8　　　　芝加哥大学　　　　　　　11.5

埃默里大学　　　　　　16.6　　　　康乃尔大学　　　　　　　10.8

　　在我国，社会捐资办学也有优良的传统，如从盛宣怀倡导捐集创办天津北洋西学学堂（现在的天津大学）开始，到后来的张謇创办南通学院、陈嘉庚创办厦门大学、张伯苓创办南开大学、李嘉诚创办汕头大学等，都为捐资办学树立了光辉的典范。而从高校筹资的角度看，与发达国家相比我们这方面做得还很不够，这不仅表现在高校筹措资金数量的差距上，更主要表现在人们筹资的观念和筹资制度的保障上。在美国，人们不仅有捐资兴学的传统，而且政策上的优惠也是对高校筹资的一个重要促进因素，我们知道，美国的税种名目繁多，如个人收入税、房地产税、购物税、遗产税等，并且法律对纳税有严密的规定，人们也有很强的纳税意识，同时，法律也鼓励人们对教育事业或其它社会公益事业的捐赠或成立各种非营利的基金会，规定对这部分资金实行减免税政策，因而，筹集资金不仅成为大学重要的资金来源，而且对捐助人而言，捐助有时还是一种可供选择的理财方式。有时政府还采取对学校的筹款按1：1的比例提供配套资金的政策，这不仅分担了政府的义务，而且通常对于捐资者和大学筹集活动有一种很大的激励作用。我们虽然还没有建立完善的优惠政策与法律保障，但借鉴国外许多高校筹措资金的做法，我们认为，高校在筹资活动中应该做好：

　　1．成立校友会，加强与校友的联系。学校的历届毕业生走上社会，他们的工作成就不仅是学校水平和声誉的重要体现，而且校友本身就是学校的一笔巨大的财富，校友对母校通常都有一种浓厚的感情，因而，有人将大学称为是一种世俗化的教会，甚至有人认为"母校似乎将成为美国后代的主要教会"（7）。美国许多著名大学的校友会都有固定的工作人员和工作场所，建立着校友的档案和跟踪联系制度，并定期发送校刊、召开座谈会等。成立校友会既可以联络校友的感情、加强校友的交流和提高学校的质量与声誉，同时还是筹集资金的一种有效的方法，从有关统计上看，校友在学校筹资中发挥着重要的作用，这从美国高校1991一1992接受捐助的来源构成中很明显地反映出来：

　　表二：美国高校1991--1992接受捐助的来源构成资料来源：The Chronicle of Higher Education：" The Almanac of Higher Education：1994 "，The University of Chicago Press，1994. P67.2．建立专门的筹资机构。在美国，大学一般都设有专门的筹资办公室，专门负责学校的筹资活动，以使学校的筹集活动有组织、有计划、有领导的开展。美国许多大学都建立了由副校长负责的学校发展部，做为学校专门的筹集资金的机构，发展部有若干名全日制工作人员和一些志愿人员组成，下设有企业筹资处、基金会筹资处和个人筹资处，在管理上将实行将筹资的总目标分解到各个院系的做法，并根据其完成情况作为分配学校资金的依据。研究表明，在机构设置上，分散的组织更能提高学校的筹集效果，也就是说，将机构分散给各学院或部门的办法比学校集中管理更为有效，因为分散的筹资机构在不需要增加大多专职人员和费用的情况下就能很快地扩展他们的人员与活动。

　　3．学习和研究筹资的技巧。高校的筹资活动并不是一种简单的活动，它需要在一定理论的指导下，运用科学的方法，选择适当的筹资渠道和方式，科学筹集自己所需要的资金，其实筹集资金也是一门学问，虽然筹资并不是一门"学科"，也没有建立综合的和重要的"资金筹集理论"，但它已是"科学和艺术的绪合"，在美国，筹集办学资金已成为公认的一种专业活动，它们在筹集资金方面的研究内容涉及如何建立信用、如何选择筹资运作的模式、如何确定筹资战略、如何使用筹资专家等，研究涉及公共关系学、营销学、新闻学、广告学、心理学、社会学、法律等多学科的知识领域，如何筹集资金几乎发展成为一门科学。高校应认真分析资金来源的结构、各来源渠道的性质、增减变化以及各筹集方式的成本费用等，争取用最低的资金成本和财务风险筹集到最大的可供使用的资金。

　　从发展的趋势来看，高校的筹资活动对高校变得越来越重要。对高校而言，这不仅是一种锦上添花的行为，有时是高校生存所必备的条件。筹措的资金从开始的主要用于基建及特定的目的，逐渐发展成为高校日常预算的一部分，而且，筹资的多少已不仅仅是钱的多少的问题，它正成为评价校长业绩的重要指标，成为学校知名度和声望的重要体现，甚至已成为学校水平的象征。每个大学都想在筹集资金的数字上战胜自己的同行，尽管仅仅重视一定时间内搞到一定数量的钱也许会对学校的长期发展不利，但似乎金钱的实际应用已经不再是重要方面，大学筹资已经从实际的需要演变成为一种难以抑制的冲动，那鲁大学的一位副校长的话也许正表明了这种冲动，"如果从现在（指1989，笔者注）到大学建校300周年（指2001，笔者注）时不能筹集到20亿美元，这里的人将会很担忧的"。尽管如此，我们仍然可以认为，积极开展学校的资金筹措活动是当今高校发展的一种必然选择，高校应适应形势的需要，切实转变观念，积极创造条件，做好资金的筹措工作。

　　


　　 《全球教育展望》2001年第10期

[ 本帖最后由 shiel 于 2006-1-2 13:47 编辑 ]

shielUID：2140229

AW的学习自然和我们这十多年来的各个科目的学习大同小异, 无非也是多看多练勤思考吧. :)

所以我们的学习方法也同样一步步来...

从最基本的常识说吧,

预习 --> 写作 --> 复习

那我们coffee 就是这样一个过程咯:

预习__★Coffee小组写作讨论贴★(例证总结+论证思考)

写作__★Coffee小组总章程！！！

复习__★Coffee小组作业总结贴★



呵呵, 稍稍感慨一下下----;P;P

[ Last edited by shiel on  at 2006-1-1 17:42 ]

Cappuccino☆UID：2155660

西西~~谢谢安安~~~
快去总贴喝一杯热咖啡哦~~

安婧UID：2156480

支持阿布！做得很好！

Cappuccino☆UID：2155660

我找的例子:

基尔希集团 Kirch group
拜仁慕尼黑俱乐部 FC Bayern Munchen club

拜仁慕尼黑俱乐部和基尔希集团之间暗中签订涉及巨额收入的秘密合同事件将在下周初由德国足球联赛委员会盖棺定论。该委员会称，法律调查正在紧锣密鼓地进行。不过，拜仁俱乐部通过律师施克哈德之口放出风声，拒不接受联赛委员会的任何处罚。这位律师称：“拜仁没有丝毫过错。既没有违反德国足协的规定，也没有触犯联赛委员会的条例。从法律角度看，任何形式的处罚对拜仁来讲都是不可接受的！”




[德甲]拜仁钻尽法律空子 利用一切机会壮大自己
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sports.tom.com 2003年03月05日10时43分??来源:体坛周报??全宏清


拜仁的“基尔希秘密合同事件”被曝光后，引来了众多非议，但拜仁俱乐部的高层们似乎不急不忙。“我们就是要钻尽法律的空子。”这话出自拜仁经理赫内斯之口。难怪拜仁敢与基尔希集团签下秘密合同，如果基尔希集团不破产，这事很难让人发现。然而拜仁干这种事远不止第一次，“钻法律的空子”可是拜仁的“优良传统”，赫内斯经理大可为之自豪，一方面是拜仁的聪明智慧，另一方面是为了他自己。


　　1992年就曾卑鄙挖球员


　　“钻法律空子”的传统可追溯到1992年拜仁要引进前队长赫尔默的时候，当时赫尔莫在多特蒙德踢球，他与多特蒙德的合约有一个附加条款，即在那个赛季末只要有外国球队愿出300万马克转会费，赫尔默就可以转会。赫尔莫按期通知多特蒙德要中断与球队的合约关系，然而不久后，他要去的目的地不是外国而是拜仁的秘密被曝光。但多特蒙德经理迈耶坚决排除他转会德甲其他球队的可能性。


　　赫尔默发誓，即使通过在外国球队短暂停留（法国欧塞尔队），他也要达到最终转会拜仁的目的，假如多特蒙德不让步，拜仁副主席鲁梅尼格则操纵“一种直接转会”的交易。赫内斯将这种策略形容为“周旋模式”。尽管多特蒙德经理大骂对方“卑鄙”，但最后还得与拜仁谈成这笔交易：赫尔默在1992年7月直接转会拜仁，转会费当然不止300万，而是750万马克。


　　拜仁的高层们只要选定目标，至于采取什么手段，那是无关紧要的。他们看得很透：只要能获得好结果，至于手段，过几天后谁还感兴趣、还会去追究呢？


　　对策：辟谣、反击、承认小错


　　与基尔希秘密签合同的事，拜仁的高层们也这么看：德国足球职业联盟处理完之后，这事很快会被遗忘，赫内斯才不为拜仁的形象担心呢。正如2001年拜仁为抢夺凯尔和代斯勒，竟早早地给凯尔和代斯勒分别汇去150万和2000万马克，这是违反转会规定的，当时被曝光后曾引起很大风波，然而今天谁还对之感兴趣呢？


　　拜仁对批评采取的对策总是同一个：在开始被怀疑时，拜仁高层会出来辟谣，要么对之不加评论；然后对来自各方批评四处出击，他们甚至还骂别人是伪君子，装腔作势；但当事情全部被曝光后，在铁的证据面前无可否认之时，他们退一步承认自己犯了一些并无原则问题的小错：称给代斯勒和凯尔的钱是“贷款”，赫尔默转会的事是“钻尽了法律的空子”，与基尔希集团秘密签约之事为“鸡毛蒜皮的、微不足道的形式上的小错”。


　　若把拜仁这种经营哲学称为不讲规矩还谈不上，或者最多只能说他们是在打擦边球。从另一方面说，他们比竞争对手更狡猾、果断，当然这个前提是球队的战绩要多年称雄足坛才行。在强权与道德，在无耻与智慧之间永远也不可能平衡，拜仁的例子远可推广到社会其他领域。


　　利用一切机会壮大自己实力


　　拜仁在这方面的例子远不止以上说的几件大事，赫内斯以“主动出击”出了名。“对道姆我是有意识地发动进攻的。”道姆吸毒的秘密最先由赫内斯捅穿，他现在承认是有意点破的。“勒沃库森一百年也不可能走到拜仁前面去。”在2000年那场拜仁与勒沃库森的大战之前，赫内斯故意这样说，他早就算计到道姆不会反击他，“相反他（道姆）会把火气往球队身上发，比赛开始10分钟后勒沃库森球员连得4张黄牌，最后我们轻松地以2比0拿下对手。在这个时刻我感觉特别好。”赫内斯毫不掩饰自己的得意。


　　另外，拜仁有在德甲专挖墙脚的名声。在过去15年内，拜仁从德甲对手手上直接挖走了18名绝对主力，如1989年从科隆队挖走于尔根·科勒，1991年从凯泽斯劳滕队挖走拉巴迪亚，1995年从不莱梅队挖走赫尔佐格，去年从勒沃库森挖走巴拉克和泽·罗伯托，还有埃芬博格、埃尔伯、卡恩、绍尔、科瓦奇兄弟等等，举不胜举。这一招非常绝，等于双倍强大了自己。


　　同时，拜仁还利用自己的权势从球场外壮大自己的势力，按他们的哲学说：“只有当老大很顺时，老小们才会受益。”贝肯鲍尔是德国足协副主席，也是2006年世界杯组委会主席，鲁梅尼格是欧洲豪门俱乐部同盟G14的喉舌，拜仁靠他们来倡导对自己有利的决策：借德国足球职业联盟来分裂德国足协，把同时上场比赛的非欧盟外援限制从3位上升到5位，等等。


　　最后再回到与基尔希集团秘密签约这事上来。1999－2000赛季，拜仁就反对将德甲电视转播权打包统一卖出，因为他们要向收费电视台直播自己的比赛。“我们要在2000年7月1日以后，自己转卖比赛的电视转播权。”当时赫内斯就对慕尼黑的报纸说。可是上周一，赫内斯却又在巴伐利亚电视台毫不犹豫地说：“我从不反对统一卖出电视转播权。”或许正为因如此，才会有秘密合同之事。但有一点是肯定的，拜仁这样的故事绝不止这一个。







GoGoGo小组的:

每个人都拥有一种基于正义的不可侵犯性，这种不可侵犯性即使崐以社会整体利益之名也不能逾越。因为，正义否认了一些人分享更大利益而剥夺另崐一些人的自由是正当的，不承认许多人享受的较大利益能绰绰有余地补偿强加于少崐数人的牺牲。

[美]约翰·罗尔斯《正义论》第1页。

--------------------------------------

http://www.blogms.com/blog/CommL ... gLogCode=1000311492

实践公民不服从的代表人物苏格拉底、梭罗、甘地、马丁.路德.金在这个问题上的经典言论，又有当代西方最重要的研究成果，如，汉娜.阿伦特、罗尔斯、德沃尔金的理论.

公民不服从是宪政体制下处于少数地位的公民表达异议的一种方式。它是违法行为，但却基于对法律的忠诚，是出于良知、出于对正义的关注而选择的违法。它诉诸于多数的正义感；所违反的对象则如前所说，是不正义的法律或政府政策。可以说，公民不服从是一种体现公民道德理想的行动。基于所要体现的理想，它以公开性和非暴力性为特征。关于公开性，马丁.路德.金作过很好的表述：“违反不公正法律的人，必得公开地违反，心怀爱意地违反，甘愿接受惩罚。”



其二，通过公开违反某项法律，把问题推到公众面前，迫使公众正视问题并吁请公众注意到正义正在遭到破坏，宪政原则正在被侵凌。至于一般采取非暴力方式乃基于对暴力含有的不道德性和破坏性的认识，所以从道德角度看，仍然出于对目的必须与手段相一致的道德理念的执守。对于公开性和非暴力性所依据和展现的道德理念，马丁.路德.金在抨击极权主义的伦理相对主义时提出了很深刻的见解。

二十世纪五六十年代的美国民权运动中，黑人民众以大规模的公民不服从运动去冲击种族隔离制度，用制造危机的尖锐方式把这一制度的罪恶摆在了全社会面前，使人们不能再回避。各阶层、各种族，尤其是许多白人受到强烈震撼，在良知和正义感驱使下加入了声援队伍。这场黑人为争取平等公民权而进行的斗争最终胜利了，种族隔离制度废除了。然而，在决策层面必须遵守多数原则的美国，如果没有在人口中占据绝大多数的白人的支持，这场斗争是不会以胜利告终的。但假如人们良知沉睡，共同正义感这笔集体财富已经荡然无存，即使多数裁决这一民主政治的基本规则仍然生效，正义感的匮乏却使人自私、冷漠，更难以有超越个人或集团私利的胸襟，多数原则只会导向多数暴政。



以公民不服从表达异议的人对法律的忠诚不光体现在违反恶法时所抱的目的上，也体现在甘受惩罚，决不规避惩罚。在这方面，苏格拉底是一个典范。他坚决捍卫了探求真理的自由和言论自由，又泰然接受了由此而招致的死刑，留下了尊重法律的精神。

譬如美国黑人民权运动所反对的种族隔离法这一罪恶的奴隶制的遗留物，作为差别性立法，它直接违背法律必须具普遍性这一基本法治精神，是对美国宪法的公民平等原则的尖锐讽刺。该法赋予一些人优越感，给另一些人以低劣感。正如马丁.路德.金所说，它表现了人的悲剧性分离。被判为低劣的那部分公民不得不夜以继日地纠缠于自己是黑人的事实，不是在忍受歧视中耗尽自尊，就是陷入反社会的极端情绪之中。这样的法律，它的存在本身就是一种罪恶。在黑人民众通过正常诉求渠道要求废止该法而无效的情况下，以公民不服从运动来反抗它便势所必然。运动的最终成功事实上割掉了美国社会的一个毒瘤，使宪法原则真正名致实归。--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.rogerhelmer.com/unjustlaw.asp

"An unjust law is no law at all", said St Augustine, providing the foundation of civil disobedience movements across the globe. If a law is not really a law at all, it is argued, one has a right -- even a duty -- to break it. Martin Luther King articulated this view in his Letter from Birmingham Jail: "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws".

The problem is that while the law is a matter of public record, justice is an intensely personal matter. What one person regards as just may strike another as an unwarranted imposition. This is why we need law; if we all behaved according to our personal standards of morality, anarchy would rule. While we may have our own views about the justice of particular laws, we generally accept that some rules must apply universally. If we are to follow Martin Luther King's exhortation to resist unjust laws, then, there must be an unusual type or degree of injustice to justify that. What kind of injustice might do so?


            To begin, however, I believe it is necessary to define an “unjust” law. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” (King, 3) According to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority compels a minority group to obey, but does not make binding on itself.” (King, 4)

            The definition I will take is a combination of these two. I define an unjust law as one that degrades human personality through the unfair suffering of a minority group at the hands of a majority group. Keep in mind that a majority can be in either power or number. A majority in number can be oppressed by a majority in power. Any law that causes a person to suffer simply because they do not agree with this majority is an incorrect and unjust law.

            Singer gives two typical arguments in favor of obeying these unjust laws. I will address these arguments one at a time. The first argument says that, “By disobeying [a law] I set an example for others that may lead them to disobey too. The effect may multiply and contribute to a decline in law and order. In an extreme case, it may lead to civil war.” (Singer, 297)





King also says, “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” It seems I have arrived at the same conclusion King has. It is not only moral, but a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws. In fact, it seems King uses something similar in meaning to Kant’s Categorical Imperative. King’s quote, as I stated earlier, is, “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey, but does not make binding on itself.” (King, 4) Kant’s Categorical Imperative says, “Act only on the maxim through which you could at the same time will that it should be universal law.” This is also known as the Golden Rule. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” To be a just law, it has to be universal in its application.



King makes a very good distinction between Civil Disobedience and breaking the law. He says, “One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with willingness to accept the penalty.” This brings about some of the stipulations that go along with Civil Disobedience.

King himself says there are four steps to Civil Disobedience: Collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist, negotiation, self-purification, and direct action. (King, 1) King also argues that the direct action must be non-violent, which I believe is an integral part of Civil Disobedience.

The criteria of a valid Civil Disobedience movement, then, are as follows. It must: Have a provable injustice, fail at negotiation before action is taken, be a pure act of true belief, and then take non-violent direct action.

This point begs the question, “What about violent disobedience?” This is a difficult question when confronted with the Revolutionary War, a large act of what could be called violent Civil Disobedience. I would argue that violent Civil Disobedience is never permissible. In an event like the Revolution, where there is no redress and there is no hope of non-violent Civil Disobedience achieving the desired goal, then the acts become a Revolution.



As long as the principle of non-violence is followed, along with the other guidelines, and breaking the law is the last resort, Civil Disobedience should be expected in a Country that was founded on strict moral principles about how a government should run. Any law that is contrary to those principles should be overthrown. The Declaration of Independence makes that abundantly clear. We must maintain Liberty. Thomas Jefferson said it best in a letter to William Smith, 1787; “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time blood of patriots and tyrants.” (Patriots) To maintain liberty, we are obliged to stand up when there is injustice.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In America in 1849, as the Civil War over slavery loomed, Henry David Thoreau wrote his great essay On Civil Disobedience. At its core was the thesis that in the face of unjust law it is not only the right but the duty of good men to resist such law.

The standard moral position is summarised by Professor Ronald Dworkin in Taking Rights Seriously (1977): "In a democracy... each citizen has a general moral duty to obey all the laws... He owes that duty to his fellow citizens, who obey laws that they do not like, to his benefit. But this general duty cannot be an absolute duty, because even a society that is in principle just may produce unjust laws and policies, and a man has duties other than his

An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.
Mohandas Gandhi

One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. Martin Luther King, Jr.


Kito小组的:

============Issue 17法律资料===========

第一编 引论 第二章 恶法亦法
by 杨仁寿

　　法律为社会规范之一种，法官适用法律时，不得以法律规定不明确、不完备或欠缺为借口，而不予受理，更不得以此为拒绝裁判之理由。在刑事审判，采罪刑法定主义，法无明文不为罪；在民事审判，依“民法”第1条规定：“民事，法律未规定者，依习惯，无习惯者依法理”，均有受理、裁判之义务。1977年台再字第42号判例称：“法院不得以法无明文规定而拒绝裁判”云云，洵属的沦。
　　然则，法律之“善”或“恶”，法官有无审查之权？一般而方，法官为一司法者，并非立法者，不得借口法律为一“恶法”，而拒绝适用。盖法官敬动辄以此为理由，拒绝适用法律，将使人民法律生活之安定破坏无遗，甚至侵及立法权，与法治主义之精神有违。惟若贯彻前项主张，即会派生“恶法亦法”，“法律就是法律”等原则，致令法律僵化。
　　如所周知，制定法律或修改法律之程序，至为繁杂，绝非短期间所能完成，因之，法律苟非“恶”至令人无法忍受之程度，法官仍应运用法律之阐释方法，对此“恶法”加以阐释，使之适合社会之要求，俾能贯彻法律目的或社会目的。盖此时“法律”在外表上虽为“恶法”，在实质上则非为恶法也。
　　“恶法”一词，乍见之，令人生厌，仿佛充满惨苛的意味。事实上，基在“法的安定性”上所扮演的角色，厥功至伟。设其不善之程度，人民犹可忍受，尚未抒解，使之合于“法的目的性”。慎子曰：“法虽不善，犹愈于无法”，在此范围内，仍有其下面的意义。换言之，恶法亦法必须具有以下二种性质：
　　其一，必须为法律，亦即法“不善”之程度，尚与正义相悖过甚，运用法律阐释方法加以阐释，仍切合社会之要求，此时“恶法”不过徒具其为恶之处观而已，在实质上仍与其他“善法”无殊。苟法律之恶之程度，忆恶于“无法”，非运用法律阐释方法所能济事，不过徒具“法律”之形貌也，应认“恶法非法”，因此，法官不但应拒绝适用，且一般执法人员亦应拒绝执行，若犹昧著良知，忽视正义，遽予适用或执行，则适用或执行本身就是一种“非正义”的行为。
　　举例言之，第二次世界大战末期，纳粹德国惨无人道、胡作非为，屠杀犹太人，射杀胡为，无所不用其极，其所颁布之“法律”，殆恶于无法，与正义相悖可谓至于极端，故甚多勇气之法官均拒予适用，其下场当然受到各种不同之迫害。有一脍炙人口之案件，迄今为犹太人所津津乐道，在1945年，有位纳粹官员专司“打击敌人”各种任务。有一天侦悉其妇与其夫在家藏匿犹太人，乃将该犹太人逮捕，其夫见状图逃，当场为该纳粹官员击毙。迨纳粹战败，某妇于1951年自诉该纳粹官员杀人，被告虽辩称：纳粹德国于1945年3月曾颁紧急命令，规定每一位德国武装人员，对于逃犯，负有不经审判即加射杀义务，其为执行公务，枪击自诉人之夫，实依“法”行事云云，却为西德联邦最高法院所不采，认紧急命令已与正义相悖，不再是“法律”，仍对被告予以论罪科刑。
　　其二，此种“恶法”须具“法的目的性”。过分强调法律系一种“手段”，虽有违法治主义，惟实质上，法律之定制鲜无目的，其目的为何，一言以蔽之，乃在督促人类朝着“人类本质存在”之“共通善”或“正义”而发展。法官在现实“法律拘束之下，仍有运用法律以达成目的之余地，故谓法律第一种达成目的之手段，实不为过。”苟认为“法律就是法律”，法律本身即有目的，未免忽视法律之本质。法官在解释法律行为时亦复如是，就以当事人所欲达到之目的的合理解释之，并以习惯及任意法规补充之，至诚实信用原则则应自始至终介入其间，作为修正或补充目的、习惯或任意法规等标准所决定之表示内容，庶不失当事人之真实。
　　换言之，法官解释法律行为，应依诚信景当事人这意思表示内容，衡其所欲达到之目的，习惯及任意法规，以探求其表示应有之内容，为合理之解释或补充。法律行为之解释，既在确定构成法律行为要素之意思表示之意义，则于意思表示不明确或不完整时，自须透过解释方法予以阐明或补充，始能获窥当事人已为表示之正确含义，或当事人所为表示之合理的意思。不仅如此，当事人表示行为所具意义，欠缺合理时，亦须变更其表示行为之表示意义，使之合理化。所谓“恶约亦约”云云，自不能任其存在。
　　莎士比亚名作《威尼斯商人》中“法庭”一幕，最足使习法者悸然心动，其故在此。其大意如下：有意大利士绅安东尼，为至友巴萨尼欧与名媛包雪霞结婚，代向犹太人夏洛克高利借贷3000元，约定准时清偿，若逾期不还，愿割肉一磅以示罚。约成，立借据一纸以为凭。讵知，届期安东尼所经营之货舱，迟迟不归，致未能照约履行。后虽愿忆20倍之借款偿还，冀免割肉之痛，仍不为夏洛克所允。夏洛克为逞一时之快，即诉请法院，请求安东尼履行割肉一磅之约。
　　法官讯明原委，力劝夏洛克息事宁人未果，即照约判令安东尼应准夏洛克割取胸肉一磅，夏洛克大喜，操刀拟割安东尼胸肉时，法官语之曰：“夏洛克，汝固可依约割取安东尼胸肉一磅，但不得伤其皮肤或使其流一滴血，盖此为契约所无，设因伤其皮肤使之流神圣血液，当予严办，并没收财产，汝其三思之！”夏洛克闻此，脸色骤变，所操利刀停在半空中，迟迟不能下。
　　以今之法律观点言之，违约割肉之约定，本违背公序良俗，应归于无效，固不言而自明。惟在莎翁时代，能不受“恶约亦约”所拘，进而变更其表示行为之意义，使之合理化，则殊难得。虽威尼斯商人系一戏剧，然戏剧不外人生之反映，此剧多少涉及“诡辩”，但瑕不掩瑜，习法者迄今犹津津乐道，良有以也。

================================================
Martin Luther King（有关just laws，unjust laws的论述）：
    The kind of civil disobedience King had in mind was, in fact, quite different from Thoreau’s view of civil disobedience. Thoreau, like most other transcendentalists, was primarily interested in reform of the individual, whereas King was primarily interested in reform of society. As a protest against the Mexican War, Thoreau（Henry David Thoreau） refused to pay taxes, but he did not hope by his action to force a change in national policy. While he encouraged others to adopt similar protests, he did not attempt to mount any mass protest action against unjust laws. In contrast to Thoreau, King began to advocate the use of mass civil disobedience to effect revolutionary changes within the social system.
Ø  In his book Stride Toward Freedom (1958), King himself stated that Thoreau’s essay was his first intellectual contact with the theory of passive resistance to governmental laws that are perceived as morally unjust.
Ø  However, King’s writings suggest that, without realizing it, he was an incipient transcendentalist. Most transcendentalists subscribed to the concept of “higher law” and included civil disobedience to unjust laws as part of their strategy. They often invoked the concept of higher law to justify their opposition to slavery and to advocate disobedience to the strengthened Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. In his second major book, King’s discussion of   just and unjust laws and the responsibility of the individual is very similar to the transcendentalists’ discussion of higher law. In reference to how one can advocate breaking some laws and obeying others, King notes that there are two types of laws, just and unjust; he describes a just law as a “code that squares with the moral law” and an unjust law as a “code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” Thus, King’s opposition to the injustice of legalized segregation in the twentieth century is philosophically akin to the transcendentalists’ opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law in the nineteenth century.

==================================================
恶法亦法还是恶法非法？

恶法亦法”的形式逻辑结构是“坏人也是人”，然而这不过是对论题望文生义的理解,没有多大意义。“恶法亦法”与“恶法非法”之争的真正意义在于：执法者是否应当执行恶法，守法者是否应当遵守恶法？
所谓恶法，指的是邪恶的法律，并非不科学或有毛病的法律。首先应当将恶法之治与人治区分开来。恶法也是国家制定或认可并由国家强制力保证实施的一条、一组、一部法律或整个法律制度。恶法必须表现为国家力求执行的规则，换句话说，恶法也要求在该法域“有法可依，有法必依”。没有表现为规则的政策、指示、命令，或者制定给外国人看而并不打算严格执行的“法律”，例如某些国家反腐败的法律，是不配称为恶法的。其次还必须把恶法与不科学或有毛病的法律区别开来。一个人可能有许多毛病，可能很愚蠢，但并不见得是一个恶人。任何法律都有毛病，要求法律没有毛病无异于放弃法治.。
判断是否恶法的标准是什么？有人提出三个标准：1是否多数人意志的体现，2、是否符合大多数人的利益，3、是否有利于生产力的发展。
我个人的看法，多数人的意志，多数人的利益均不能作为判断是否恶法的标准，否则发生了世界性影响的古罗马法就会被归入恶法之列，因为它显然没有体现妇女、家子和奴隶的意志，也没有保护这些人的平等权益。同时现代社会那些歧视少数民族的法律却可能因为它们反映了多数人的意志和利益而被归入良法之列。是否有利于生产力的发展同样不能作为判断法律良恶的标准，否则希特勒的告密法和斯大林的古拉格群岛压迫法都成了良法，因为希特勒领导德国走出了经济危机，古拉格群岛则把本来是国家财政包袱的监狱变成了生产场所。以时代精神作为判断法律良恶的标准，则可能导致把不科学的法律归入恶法之列，使法律像流行服饰一样朝令夕改。
判断法律的良恶只能有一个标准，这就是当时当地人的一般道德观念。凡当时当地的一般道德观念认为是剥夺个人基本权利或者显失公平的法律，就是恶法。这里所谓一般道德观念是因时因地而不同的，例如奴隶制基础上的罗马法，按照现在的道德观念不管它的立法技术有多么优越，都是恶法。但是在罗马法生效的时间和地域中，却不妨假设它是良法，因为当时当地的大多数妇女、家子和奴隶可能认为他们的无权是理所当然的，并没有显失公平到残暴或令人不能容忍的程度。在目前世界政治、经济和法律一体化已经大势所趋的情况下，一般道德观念的当地性仍应得到承认；其理论根据决不是什么“内政不容干涉”，而是“被统治者的同意”。正是“被统治者的同意”构成了公民守法的道德基础，这种同意可以是直接的、间接的或者默认的。作为评价法律良恶的标准的一般道德观念之所以必须用“当地性”来限定，就是因为只有当地人才是真正的“被统治者”。自然会有人提出，不同阶级、阶层甚至不同职业、性别、年龄的人有不同的道德标准。一般而言这种说法是不错的。但同时同地的人不可能没有一些共同的道德观念，正是这些共同的道德观念，如贼无死罪、欠债要还等，构成了判断法律良恶的标准。
事实上谁也不会主张恶法多多益善、恶法万岁，同时谁也不会主张任何人有根据一己之好恶反抗法律的权利。真正的分歧在于：是用修改法律的立法手段尽快结束恶法的效力；还是用不执行、不遵守的办法直接抗拒恶法。恶法亦法论认为修改法律是唯一可用的手段；而恶法非法论认为立法修改以前也不应执行，不应遵守，一天也不能让恶法生效。前者强调秩序的价值，强调执法、守法习惯的养成；后者强调正义的价值，强调个人的基本权利不可侵犯。我认为，秩序和正义都是人类生存不可缺少的价值，守法执法习惯的养成和个人基本权利的保护都是法治所追求的极端重要的目标，我们不应当在二者中间进行鱼和熊掌的择决，而应当尽量将二者调和起来，恶法亦法与恶法非法之争，与规则治理和自由裁量之争一样，将是法学争鸣中一个永恒的论题。
究竟恶法应不应当执行和遵守？解决这个问题之前有必要先回答另一个问题：个人为什么必须遵守国家的法律？仅仅因为强制吗？一个仅靠强制维持的法律能长命吗？我们有义务遵守黑社会的规矩以防其惩罚吗？我们遵守法律，其实不过是因为我们愿意遵守，至少是愿意忍受。这就是“被统治者的同意”理论。在当代世界，“同意”理论要求法律由民选的立法机关制定并不得与作为人民意志的宪法相冲突，要求赋予个人以互通声息形成多数从而撤销有效法律的权利，这就要求言论自由和结社自由。
对恶法的直接反抗，包括消极地不执行、不遵守恶法，也包括积极地以和平手段（包括游行、罢工、罢市、罢课、绝食等）或革命的手段反抗恶法，对恶法的批评如果不与直接的反抗相结合，实际上意味着对恶法效力的承认。批评的对象不但可以是恶法，也可以是人治、有毛病的法甚至良法。批评是个人（包括执法者）固有的权利，禁止或限制对法律的批评是政治黑暗和整个法律制度邪恶的证据。因为这样做实际上堵塞了以和平手段修改或撤销恶法的可能。
恶法亦法论者如果不是存心为邪恶辩护，就不应该反对对恶法的批评，为了不冒以腐败的执法者的专横代替恶法统治的危险恶法非法论的真正意义在于：它为遭受恶法损害的人尤其是为了不得已反抗恶法而遭受损害的人，在恶法修改或撤销后得到补救提供了一个充分的理由。这种补救包括恢复名誉，但更重要的是金钱赔偿。

来源：法律人之家



借鉴了一下其他小组的资料~~在此感谢一下GoGoGo小组和Kito小组

shielUID：2140229

把这个帖子翻出来了, 一起来积累吧------

:handshake

Cappuccino☆UID：2155660

感谢shiel共享的资料啊！！！！

收了~~:victory:

shielUID：2140229

Competition vs. Cooperation

Summary

Humans, like all animals, form cooperative groups to compete for limited resources. All life is ultimately competitive, because the natural tendency of any population is to explode, although it is kept in check by the limited food supply (and other factors). Because there are more animals than food, animals must compete to survive. In situations where the food supply is somehow sufficient, deadly competition falls. Liberals therefore advocate the creation of a sustainable economy, where the population is kept constant (through birth control) and resources are used no faster than they can be replaced. The result will be a more cooperative and civil society.

Argument

In the debate over what type of society is best, conservatives generally favor more competitive societies, whereas liberals favor more cooperative ones. Let's attempt to see which side is correct, by reviewing the fundamentals of competition and cooperation:

The origins of competition

Perhaps the first thing to note is that all life is ultimately competitive. For many centuries, biologists have known that the natural tendency of the animal population is to explode, but the limited food supply keeps it in check. (There are also other limiting factors, like space, climate, resources, etc.) Because there are more creatures than food, this means that some will starve to death. Thus, in order to survive, animals must compete for food, killing each other if need be. (1)

The above observation is one of the most firmly proven facts of modern biology. It's implications, however, have been deeply controversial. The 18th century economist Thomas Malthus argued that giving more food to the poor was self-defeating, since it would only expand their population and create more of the same hunger and misery that welfare was designed to alleviate. Malthus therefore argued that welfare programs should be halted. Malthus' proposal sparked a bitter political debate -- the poor charged that he was heartless, while the rich congratulated him for applying science to the issue of welfare. Interestingly, the controversy itself was indicative of the class warfare that rages for society's limited resources.

Likewise, Charles Darwin found the concept of deadly competition important for developing his theories of natural selection and survival of the fittest. Darwin theorized that if animals must compete to survive, then the winners would be those with the strongest traits, which would then be passed on to their offspring. Meanwhile, those with weaker traits would be killed before they could breed, and would be dropped from the gene pool. It is important to note that even if you don't believe in evolution, natural selection indisputably occurs in all other competitive systems. These range from individual firms competing on the free market to individual workers competing for job promotions. Indeed, the fact that natural selection occurs everywhere else is a strong argument that it occurs in biology as well.

Natural selection has developed in humans a natural desire to compete. Those with non-competitive natures would have lost their struggle for survival, and disappeared from the gene pool a long time ago. On the other hand, those with an overly intense desire to compete would have become dead heroes, and likewise failed to pass on their traits. Thus, a reasonable attraction to competition is both healthy and natural.

The competitiveness of humanity has worked itself even into our most basic definitions of the social sciences. Economics is formally defined as the study of "the efficient allocation of scarce resources among competing uses." (2) Politics is defined as the "relations between special interest groups competing for limited resources." (3) War is a violent competition for resources -- especially land -- hence Karl von Clausewitz' famous remark that "War is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means." Because competitions are won by those with the most power, political science is defined as "An academic discipline which studies power and the distribution of power in different types of political systems." (4) Even though these different fields have taken different routes to reach the same conclusion, the idea that humans compete for limited resources is one that elegantly and coherently unites the social sciences.

The origins of cooperation

But imagine what it would be like to live in a society where each individual competes against everyone else, without any cooperation at all. You wouldn't dare walk outside, for your neighbor could shoot you and take all your property. Nor could you rely on the police to protect you, since law enforcement is a form of social cooperation. In a perfectly competitive world, only the strongest or luckiest would survive.

But what if you were fortunate enough to be one of the strongest or luckiest? After killing off most of society, you would only find yourself among survivors who were highly competent killers themselves, and the terror would start anew. And even if you emerged the final victor, the rewards would be slight… how rich and satisfied can you be when you're a hermit?

All species avoid this bleak scenario through cooperation. Among humans, cooperation can be divided into two categories: friendly and hostile. An example of friendly cooperation is the alliances you join to compete more efficiently against other individuals or groups. A good example is the business firm, where employees take specialized, interdependent jobs and work together to compete on the free market. The result is higher quality products and greater work efficiency than if they competed alone.

Hostile cooperation, on the other hand, is what exists between competitors. This may seem paradoxical, yet there is a good reason why competitors often cooperate with each other: the rewards are greater. For example, if everyone fights for a piece of the pie, then the fight may become so costly that the pie will be nearly gone when it comes time to divide it. It's much better to forget the fight and come to an agreement from the very beginning. An example of hostile cooperation is family members who are contesting a million-dollar will. If they fight for the money too hard, then no one will get any, because it will all go to their lawyers' fees. Hence, it's in their interest to strike a deal.

As with competition, a moderated desire to cooperate is natural and healthy. Those with non-cooperative natures would have very low survival rates, as would those who cooperated so much that they did not look out after their own self-interests in a competitive world. It is for this reason that people take a healthy enjoyment in belonging to a group, practicing teamwork, helping others, etc.

The interplay between competition and cooperation

Nature has divided all life into natural alliances that compete for survival: namely, species. Members of the same species generally do not kill each other in their fight for limited resources, but instead work together to kill members of other species.

However, cooperation within species is not as perfect as it would seem. Even in normal times, there is subdued competition within the group, as members vie for positions of power and status. One famous example is primates, who divide themselves into alpha apes, beta apes, etc. It is interesting to note that among primates, male status is acquired through conflict. Among females, however, the opposite occurs: conflicts are resolved by the female's status. Hierarchies are found in countless species, but they are especially extreme in humans.

Competition within the group becomes more severe as resources become scarcer. When the situation becomes desperate enough, members of the same species are perfectly capable of turning on each other and killing each other. Just one example is the preying mantis, a specie which solves the problem of scarcity by allowing the female to eat the male after mating. Another is the chimpanzee, the closest human relative. From her long-term studies in Africa, Jane Goodall has reported that chimps sometimes divide into tribes, whereupon the larger kills the smaller.

Humans are no different. War is an obvious example of deadly competition within the human species, but most people don't realize that the same continues even during times of "peace." In our competitive economy, those who lack the skills, education, talent or opportunity to compete well become poor. And the poor suffer from death rates that are at least six times higher than the rich. (5) This higher death rate is due to a lack of resources: namely, health care, nutritious food, toxic-free environments, winter heating, information and education, and countless other means and devices that would protect and prolong their lives.

Here, critics may object that the above observation is based on a faulty assumption. We do not live in a zero-sum economy (where someone's gain is necessarily someone else's loss). We actually live in a (slightly) positive-sum economy, where the standard of living is rising for everyone. This is certainly true, but our standard of living grows extremely slowly -- whereas the population pressing against it tries to grow much faster. Therefore it's still quite possible for a positive-sum economy to experience deadly competition for limited resources. To understand this even more clearly, let's look at the larger picture:

Carrying capacity is what biologists call the limited ability of the land to sustain a population. This includes the amount of available food, water, resources and space, as well as the hospitality of the climate, the presence of other predators, etc. Needless to say, the greater the land's carrying capacity, the greater the population it can sustain.

Throughout most of human history, the carrying capacity of the land has been quite low, with humans increasing it only slowly and painfully. They accomplished this by inventing new forms of productive technology, like the plow, the mill, the granary, etc. But growth in productivity was far too slow to accommodate all the humans born into the world. The result was frequent starvation, famine and deadly competition for resources. To resolve this, many societies frequently practised birth control, ranging from abortion to infanticide.

But with the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, the land's carrying capacity soared. Through better science and technology, humans have learned how to tap the earth's resources at an ever growing rate. The result has been a population explosion. It took from the dawn of humanity until the year 1800 for the earth's population to reach 1 billion. But by 1960 it had already reached 3 billion, and by 1998 it will reach 6 billion.

This trend has two ominous implications. First, dramatically increasing the land's carrying capacity may have raised the individual's standard of living, but it has also increased the number of individuals competing for these new resources. Therefore, deadly competition remains a problem.

Second, the earth's resources are ultimately limited, and it is absolutely inevitable that our carrying capacity will one day stop growing, and even shrink. What will happen then? Biologists already know the answer, from their historical observations of species that are hit by shrinking resources. The result will be a sickening plunge in the population, as famine, disease, war and other deadly competition take their toll.

As long as birth control keeps the population below the land's carrying capacity, or humans can somehow increase carrying capacity forever, then deadly competition is greatly reduced. People can live their entire lives without resorting to war, murder, or even subjecting the poor to mortal deprivations. Unfortunately, once the population starts pressing against the land's limited resources again, deadly competition resumes.

The solution that leftists propose is the creation of a sustainable economy. This would involve holding the population constant through birth control, and using resources no faster than they could be replaced. We would then use our abundance and technology to allow everyone a good standard of living. There would be no need to compete for survival, and no need to kill anyone to survive. This would tilt the balance towards cooperation, not competition.

Critics charge that humans are naturally competitive animals -- after all, they evolved that way. To create a perfectly cooperative society, they charge, is both impossible and utopian. This is certainly true, but fortunately, there is a way around it. Competition for survival is only one of the many thousands of ways that humans compete. Humans also fulfill their desire to compete through games, sports, contests, social status, career status, academic status, even mating. Eliminating the need to compete for survival would hardly eliminate the countless other ways that humans compete. Competition could still be used to improve society, even a sustainable one.

The "state of nature"

Many political philosophers -- chief among them John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau -- have attempted to describe what humans were like in their original "state of nature." These accounts supposedly describe humans in prehistoric times, before the rise of modern society. Most important was their attempt to explain the rise of human competition and cooperation. These philosophers felt that understanding the "state of nature" would tell us how to run a more enlightened society.

Most of these accounts were scientifically false (which ought to be obvious even to the non-scientist, since these accounts completely disagree with each other). Nonetheless, they continue to be highly regarded by many modern political philosophers. Here is how the "Big Three" described the "state of nature:"

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679): Hobbes correctly identified that humans were locked in a deadly competition for limited resources. But he misdescribed the "state of nature" as an anarchic, chaotic, individualistic world where people were engaged in a "war of everyone against everyone." Thus, Hobbes believed life in the state of nature was "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short." To resolve this, humans agreed to cooperate for survival, by agreeing to surrender some of their freedom in return for peace and stability. They did this by creating a social contract -- that is, a large group agreement to cooperate and abide by the laws of the government. However, Hobbes believed that this government should take the form of a monarchy, not a democracy.

The problem with Hobbes' account, beyond the obvious one, is that humans have never lived in a chaotic, anarchic "war of everyone against everyone." Group behavior predates the rise of humans -- it exists in nearly all species everywhere. This includes the practice of hierarchy within the group as well. Even in the earliest human primates, paleontologists have found evidence of interdependent, cooperative group behavior. Modern society is merely an evolved form of this behavior.

John Locke (1632-1704): By contrast, Locke's "state of nature" was an idyllic world of freedom, equality and consideration of other people's rights. He wrote that the "state of nature" is governed by a "law of nature," which humans can discover through reason. Through his own reasoning, Locke concluded that humans were "by nature free, equal and independent." Furthermore, natural law obligated that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions."

Locke's writings are beset with numerous contradictions and difficulties. One of these is his view of the social contract. On one hand, he presents the social contract as an improvement over the state of nature. However, it is not clear why individuals would want to leave such an idyllic state of nature in the first place. Locke does admit that the state of nature can easily degenerate into a state of war, which some philosophers claim was Locke's justification for the social contract. However, this would still contradict Locke's claim that the state of nature was idyllic.

As an ideal, Locke's state of nature is certainly laudable, but as a description of prehistoric humans, it is flat wrong. All life is a deadly competition for limited resources, which means that humans must violate Locke's proposed "natural rights" of life, liberty and property just to survive. And even within cooperative groups, the natural feature is hierarchy, not equality. It certainly might be possible to engineer societies that increase cooperation and equality, but such perfect ideals are not to be found in nature.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778): The writings of this French philosopher were meant as a rebuttal to Hobbes and Locke, but Rousseau's arguments were no more scientifically accurate. Rousseau argued that humans who lived in the "state of nature" were solitary and non-competitive. They had no need or desire to compete because their population was small, which made the earth's resources relatively plentiful. Indeed, Rousseau would argue that human competition, inequality and misery only increased as the population and modern society grew. He thus evoked the image of the "noble savage," the individual who lives alone in the wild and is more dignified and content than his socialized relatives. Rousseau thus admitted that there was no reason for humans to flee the state of nature for the social contract. Instead, modern society developed naturally, without anyone purposely creating it to fulfill a conscious need. To Rousseau, modern society did have some good points, but they were offset by as many bad ones.

Again, there is little in Rousseau's writing that would withstand the scrutiny of modern scientists. Early humans were less numerous because their survival technology was primitive, and their death rate was phenomenally high. For hundreds of thousands of years, humans were no more than wandering nomads and hunters and gathers. It was only 10,000 years ago that human technology reached the point where they could settle in one place and begin the Agricultural Revolution. It was this event that solved ancient problems of scarcity and allowed the human population to start building to its current explosion.

Rousseau's "noble savage" is also pure fiction. Sociologists know of several documented cases of feral children (or children raised in complete isolation), and all behaved more like wild animals than humans. They could not speak, reacted to humans with fear and hostility, walked hunched or on all fours, tore into their food like wild animals, were apathetic to their surroundings, and were unable to keep even the lowest standards of personal hygiene. (6) This is a remarkable indication of how much the nobility of humans derives from society, not the inherent traits of individuals.

Despite these inaccuracies, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have had a major influence on centuries of political philosophers, including the U.S. Founding Fathers. Many people continue to appeal to them as authorities, and view their teachings as particularly enlightened. But if they reached some correct conclusions (like the call for democracy), it was not because these conclusions flowed logically from their mistaken premises. Given their serious flaws, one should approach their work critically.

Endnotes:

1. Michael Gilpin, " Population Dynamics," The 1995 Grolier Encyclopedia. Gilpin cites the following bibliography: Andrewartha, H.G., and Birch, L.C., The Ecological Web (1986); Begon, M., and Mortimer, M., Population Ecology, 2d rev. ed. (1986); Chapman, D.G., and Gallucci, V.F., eds., Quantitative Population Dynamics(1981); Hutchinson, G. Evelyn, An Introduction to Population Biology (1978); Smith, Robert L., Ecology and Field Biology, 3d ed. (1980); Solomon, Maurice E., Population Dynamics (1976); Whittaker, Robert, Communities and Ecosystems, 2d ed. (1975).

2. Stephen Casler, Introduction to Economics (New York: HarperCollins, 1992), p. 3.

3. The term "politics" is so general that it has inspired countless different definitions, many of them unrelated to each other. I have chosen a composite definition that is based on the most recurring themes. Perhaps the most common is that politics is the "socialization of conflict" (E.E. Schattschneider, The Semi-Sovereign People, 1960). Conflicts are inevitably struggles of power, which are almost always over resources (ultimately). Resources are doubly important, because they are not only the goal of the conflict, but the source of each side's power. This helps us understand the following definition of politics: "The pursuit and exercise of the political power necessary to distribute patronage and other government benefits." (Jay M. Shafritz, "politics," The HarperCollins Dictionary of American Government and Politics (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 1993), p. 368.) Also: "A political system is any persistent pattern of human relationship that involves (to a significant extent) power, rule or authority." (Gordon Marshall, " Political Socialization," The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 401.) In The Group Basis of Politics (1952), Earl Latham famously described politics as the referee of interest group struggle, responsible for "ratifying the victories of the successful coalitions and recording the terms of the surrenders, compromises and conquests in the form of statutes."

4. Gordon Marshall, " Political Science," The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 400.

5. In 1986, researchers studied two groups of men between the ages of 25 and 64: those that made less than $9,000 a year, and those that made more than $25,000. They found that poor white men had 6.7 times the death rate of rich white men, and poor black men had 5.4 times the death rate of rich black men. Robert Pear, "Big Health Gap, Tied to Income, Is Found in U.S." The New York Times, July 8, 1993, pp. A1. For other studies tying higher death rates to poverty, see George Davey Smith and others, "Socioeconomic Differentials in Mortality Risk among Men Screened for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: I. White Men," American Journal of Public Health Vol. 86, No. 4 (April, 1996), pgs. 486-496; George Davey Smith and others, "Socioeconomic Differentials in Mortality Risk among Men Screened for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: II. Black Men," American Journal of Public Health Vol. 86, No. 4 (April, 1996), pgs. 497-504; Gopal K. Singh and Stella M. Yu, "US Childhood Mortality, 1950 through 1993: Trends and Socioeconomic Differentials," American Journal of Public Health Vol. 86, No. 4 (April, 1996), pgs. 505-512; C. Wayne Sells and Robert Wm. Blum, "Morbidity and Mortality among US Adolescents: An Overview of Data and Trends," American Journal of Public Health Vol. 86, No. 4 (April, 1996), pgs. 513-519.

6. R. Brown, Words and Things: An Introduction to Language (New York: Free Press, 1958), Chapter 5; Lucien Malson, Wolf Children and the Problems of Human Nature (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972); Harlan Lane, The Wild Boy of Aveyron (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976); Harlan Lane and R. Pillard, The Wild Boy of Berundi: A Study of an Outcast Child (New York: Random House, 1978); J.A.L. Singh and Robert Zingg, Wolf Children and Feral Man, (New York: Harper and Row, 1942).

:) :) :)

[ Last edited by shiel on 2005-12-30 at 21:03 ]

yangxingUID：2112368

阿布好厉害的说。加油。我们大家一起努力