Issue8 又花掉两个小时，太慢了，质量应该还对得起这么多时间。

galaxysongUID: 152834

Issue 8
"It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."

I agree that it is sometimes preferable for a political leader to hide some hypersensitive information, which requires wisdom, bravery, faith and other precious characteristics to deal with, and keep it confidential until the public grows more mature or less allergic to the truth. But the speaker exaggerates the scope and frequency of such political concealment.

When is a piece of information necessary to be a secret away from public? As far as I see, there are three conditions.

If the information is just for a lead's reference and can't make a systematic significance which is clear enough to be understood by common people, it's best to cover it under the ensuing decision. The reason is not that the public mustn't know it but that they needn't. The leader is the one who is most responsible for and sophisticated in making decision from the information and intelligence. Common people are not equipped with adequate commitment and expertise to discover the truth and value behind the information.

If disclosed, some secret intelligence would be clues to other superior secrets beyond political concern, such as top secrets in national defense, high technologies, the names of intelligence agencies, etc. Citizens could not benefit much from such disclosure, while the nation would pay too expensive a bill. Hostile countries and even a few of international commercial enterprises would study every word in the information. For instance, an airplane manufactory, who finds the secret plan of government to promote airline flights, may start to prepare much earlier than its rivals do, and therefore the plane market will change.

And, if an event is so shocking and complicated that even the leaders can barely manage to cope with it, the public is least likely to face it in a composed and calm way. Usually, information about this event is a mixture of both facts and mistakes.  Letting out the information before some appropriate measures are practiced to control and conduct the situation, would cause chaos and unreasonable responses which would make much more loss than that the event has made itself.

Except for the three conditions, however, a political leader seldom can justify his cloaking of information required by the public. A leader is made a leader by the people and thus is qualified to use his power well on behalf of the people. As a deputy and server of the populace, a leader should know what they concern and how they think, and trust them in their judgment on most political phenomena and affairs. The people, in most cases, have common sense to see whether things around them are going wrong. Moreover, their voices are valuable feedbacks to the leaders. If keeping too many things as secrets, a power user, namely leader, may degrade himself by conceit and deceit, hiding his faults and misleading the public. That would be a betrayal of democracy.

Leaders and officials in government may be troubled with misunderstandings of the public who keep groundlessly complaining and claiming. They may ask, we have already got enough, why should we bother to tell more to the people? In my observation, it is ironically the fact that the people know too little about how the government runs and how the leaders cogitate, that leads to so many misunderstandings. When more open and transparent to the public, the leaders and the people will understand each other better, which will push democracy and society ahead.

wallisUID: 111832

我明天来看，呵呵，我在练打字，我打字不快阿！

galaxysongUID: 152834

谢谢捧场。

methylUID: 139015

Issue 8
"It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."

I agree that it is sometimes preferable for a political leader to hide some hypersensitive information, which requires wisdom, bravery, faith and other precious characteristics to deal with, and keep it confidential until the public grows more mature or(thus?) less allergic to the truth. But the speaker exaggerates the scope and frequency of such political concealment.
主题,但是前面说I agree，后面又but, 最好家一些明显的让步词让重点更明确一些
When is a piece of information necessary to be a secret away(不知道是不是能这么用，be kept?) from public? As far as I see,(记得某本书上说这样的话少用，大家探讨一下) there are three conditions.
（transitional para.）
If the information is just for a lead's（leader’s?） reference and can't make a systematic significance which is clear enough to be understood by common people, it's best(最高级？) to cover it under the ensuing decision. The reason is not that the public mustn't know it but that they needn't. The leader is the one who is most（最高级） responsible for and sophisticated in making decision from the information and intelligence. Common people are not equipped with adequate commitment and expertise to discover the truth and value behind the information.

If disclosed, some secret intelligence would be clues to other superior secrets beyond political concern, such as top secrets in national defense, high technologies, the names of intelligence agencies, etc. Citizens could not benefit much from such disclosure, while the nation would pay too expensive a bill. Hostile countries and even a few of international commercial enterprises would study every word in the information. For instance, an airplane manufactory, who（？） finds the secret plan of government to promote airline flights, may start to prepare much earlier than its rivals do, and therefore the plane market will change.（change好像看不出有什么不好，可以从公平竞争角度或其他？）

And, if an event is so shocking and complicated that even the leaders can barely manage to cope with it, the public is least likely to face it in a composed and calm way. Usually, information about this event is a mixture of both facts and mistakes. Letting out the information before some appropriate measures are practiced to control and conduct the situation, would cause chaos and unreasonable responses which would make much more loss than that the event has made itself.（unwarranted assertion, no eg.）

Except for the three conditions, (maybe some transitional words are needed to emphasis what the three conditions are)however, a political leader seldom can justify his cloaking of information required by the public. A leader is made a leader by the people and thus is qualified to use his power well on behalf of the people. As a deputy and server of the populace, a leader should know what they concern and how they think, and trust them in their judgment on most political phenomena and affairs. The people, in most cases, have common sense to see whether things around them are going wrong. Moreover, their voices are valuable feedbacks to the leaders. If keeping too many things as secrets, a power user, namely leader, may degrade himself by conceit and deceit, hiding his faults and misleading the public. That would be a betrayal of democracy.(这段是转折)没有例子支持

Leaders and officials in government may be troubled with misunderstandings of the public who keep groundlessly complaining and claiming. They may ask, we have already got enough, why should we bother to tell more to the people? In my observation, it is ironically the fact that the people know too little about how the government runs and how the leaders cogitate, that leads to so many misunderstandings. When more open and transparent to the public, the leaders and the people will understand each other better, which will push democracy and society ahead（太困了，这段有点儿没看懂， 好像作者的态度是应该公开秘密？脑子乱了，先睡下了）

galaxysongUID: 152834

是不是开头改为I agree that it is SOMETIMES...会好些？
methyl的评论我在网下再细看。
顺便说一下，The leader is the one who is most...中的most前面没有the，我希望的不是最高级，而是very的意思。
不过methyl太辛苦了，在子夜前看帖，连后面的前后呼应的Except for the three conditions都觉得不清楚呢，^_^。

galaxysongUID: 152834

“a secret away from public”中间还是加个be kept好。
“As far as I see”是为了限制后面的“three conditions”，表示它们未必全面。
“lead's”为笔误。
“it's best to cover it under the ensuing decision.”应该为it has better to be covered with the ensuing decision.
“therefore the plane market will change”后面该加against the government's plan。我本该换个例子的，如保护民族工业的计划的泄密致使外国公司牟利。
我不是善于举例子的人，只有扬长避短。
methyl很注意文章思路和逻辑线索嘛。

galaxysongUID: 152834

imong你看过了吗？
若没有就太可惜了，至少对我而言。

imongUID: 140258

galaxy，我不可能总给你一个人改啊，对吧。^_^

我也有很多的事情，比如说最近两天6个斑竹里面，一个要考试，一个在外面顶着，剩下4个在里面改精华区版面累得半死。而且大家各自也总有很多personal的事情的。

你能这样说我觉得我担待不起哦。坛子里面人很多啊，才不缺乏牛人的呢，而且我最近一直在倡导互相叫板呢 :)

还有我刚才看到你的那个3个小时第一反应就是要给你发个pm，结果看到你在这里找我就干脆发帖子好了。不能总是这样。你前几篇的质量大家有目共睹，可是时间压不下去一切完蛋。我当初也是一样，每次都很追求质量，一开始并不限时，逐渐压缩时间，而且有一次也写了3个小时的。一定要自己好好反思，到底为什么时间长？你的时间都画到哪里去了？你自己要能得出一个非常细致的统计：我x分钟构思，y分钟磨蹭，z分钟写完一个论点干耗着想下一个，等等。这样量化处理，你就知道到底你的时间耗在where，也就可以有针对性地提高速度。我要跟你说的（刚才打算发的pm）就是这个。

其实真的不一定非要我的意见的 ^_^  而且，其实每个人的文章我们都有留意的，真的。
相信你的实力。加油。也多多和大家交流。