issue167（火光的最后十一天）[文章]

laurazhouUID: 155854

It is impossible for an effective political leader to tell the truth all the time. Complete honesty is not a useful virtue for a politician. （题目）

I agree with the statement that an effective political leader is impossible to tell the truth all the time because of different kinds of interests, safety of the country, etc. But when the interests of most people in the country are related, it is necessary for the political leader to inform the people in any case.

First, a political leader often has to confront pressures from the society. Because so many people of different classes are involved in an event and various interests entangled, a political leader is unable to tell the truth. On one hand, the leader in a democratic country should answer for the people who elect and give the power to him or her. Their love and support will decide whether his or her political career is going on prospectively. On the other hand, the political also have to take those who have financed into account. The group of financing is often in the higher class whose interests contradict the most other people. When meeting a conflict of interests, a political leader may always has right but no power to tell the truth about the current situation, cause of a certain affair even his or her own opinion.

Second, a great deal of information about the state has come up to the political leader, some of which concerns the safety, so that the one must keep it a secret. For example, during war period of time, a military plan is drafted with complete secrecy until the military action is taken. The truth of military action cannot be let out to the countrymen, let alone the enemy. Not only the truth should be kept a secret, but it is often made up to confuse the enemy in order to get the better. The moment the political leader is asked about the military plan, the interests of the country should priority over the leader's honesty.

But, as long as the truth is related to the countrymen's interests, especially their lives, the political will have no right to avoid telling it. Last spring, a contagion named SARS hit China and cause death of hundreds of people. At the first, the government did its best to conceal the real situation about the dangerous disease in fear of panic of people. However, with the growth of number of people who got it and the spread between Chinese provinces and even to other countries, the serious situation did not allow the Chinese government to cover the truth. Because the lives and the health of people were hurt the same as the right to be informed of such a terrible disease. In case of such an event, a political leader who keeps silence or even tells a lie for some reason will lead him or her to the costs of both wise and virtue.

In summary, a political leader plays a particular part in state's affairs since his or her decision matters much and affects the whole country from time to time. So what he or she is carrying out cannot be regard as normal work as an ordinary person often does. So it is impossible for an effective political leader to tell the truth, nor practical or effective. He or she has no choice of consideration of the whole state at the cost of virtue of honesty.

zeus_meUID: 157807

I agree with the statement that an effective political leader is impossible to tell the truth all the time because of different kinds of interests, safety of the country, etc. But when the interests of most people in the country are related, it is necessary for the political leader to inform the people in any case.

First, a political leader often has to confront pressures from the society. Because so many people of different classes are involved in an event and various interests entangled, a political leader is unable to tell the truth. On one hand, the leader in a democratic country should answer for(用得好！) the people who elect（elected his/her前后宾语不一致，不能直接用and连接，另外选举在该事之前，应该过去时态） and give(gave) the power to him or her. Their love（？） and support will decide whether his or her political career is going on prospectively（？我猜你的意思是，Their support will decide whether he/she has a promising political career or not. 是否）. On the other hand, the political also have to take those who have financed into account. The group of financing is often in the higher class whose interests contradict the most other people. When meeting a conflict of interests, a political leader may always has right but no power to tell the truth about the current situation, （be）cause of(好像没有这种写法) a certain affair even his or her own opinion.
(该段的主题句不明确，最好能一句话说明，便于考官阅卷，呵呵！)

Second, a great deal of information about the state has come up to the political leader, some of which concerns the safety （of the country说明重要性）, so （that ）the one（he/she） must keep it a secret. For example, during war period of time, a military plan is drafted with complete secrecy until the military action is taken. The truth of military action cannot be let out to the countrymen, let alone the enemy. Not only the truth should be kept a secret(kept in secret可能好些), but it is often made up to confuse the enemy in order to get the better（后半句好像是迷惑敌人之意，但用于此不恰当）. The moment the political leader is asked about the military plan, the interests of the country should （take）priority over the leader's honesty.

But, as long as the truth is related to the countrymen's interests, especially their lives, the political will have no right to avoid telling it. Last spring, a contagion named SARS hit(好词！) China and cause death of hundreds of people. At the first（beginning可否这么说？）, the government did its best to conceal the real situation about the dangerous disease in fear of panic of people. However, with the growth of number of people (infected这样更简洁) who got it and the spread between (over) Chinese provinces and even to other (neighbor加一个词更清晰明确) countries, the serious situation did not allow the Chinese government to cover the truth. Because the lives and the health of people were hurt the same as the right to be informed of such a terrible disease. In case of such an event, a political leader who keeps silence or even tells a lie for some reason will lead him or her to the costs of both wise and virtue.

In summary, a political leader plays a particular part in state's affairs since his or her decision matters much and affects the whole country from time to time. So what he or she is carrying out cannot be regard as normal work as an ordinary person often does. So it is impossible for an effective political leader to tell the truth（all the time这样可以将上一段的内容也包括进来）, nor practical or effective. He or she has no choice of consideration of the whole state at the cost of virtue of honesty.(最后一句没看懂)
文章倒数第二段，写道应该讲实话，但是结尾却有不提此事，结论与文章主体部分不一致！

拙见，拙见，我比你吃几天考试，我的水平可能还不如你。下面一篇我的文章，帮忙也看看.互相指正。

DaffiUID: 18714

BODY中第一段，说POLITICIAN往往会受到来自选民和支持财阀的压力，因此has right but no power to tell the truth；
第二段，说由于国家安全原因，政治家常常不能说出真相（透露机密）；
第三段是CONCESSION，说只要是和民众利益相关的，尤其是和他们相关的，政治家就无权隐瞒。

——呵呵，批驳一下：

第一段虽然从感情上可以理解，但是给人的感觉很糟糕，不能违背选民的意志也就算了，说政治家不能违背财阀意志，分明是傀儡。作为一个政治家，在财阀面前为什么会没有自己的独立性，没有自己的POWER？显然是为了个人而非公共利益。而题目中强调的是"effective" political leader，应该说政治家在为了公共利益的时候为什么不能tell the truth all the time。我觉得这段离题了。
第三段，让步的条件太宽了。有哪项政策是与公众利益无关的？

我觉得题目中比较关键的两个词，EFFECTIVE和USEFUL，楼主都没有关注到。

DaffiUID: 18714

提供个例子：二战时忘了是哪场战役时德军向同盟国发出攻击，这时英军已破获德军的密码，但是丘吉尔为了整场战争的胜利而命令英军不做反应，任其攻击。德军因而继续使用被破获的电码。战争是胜利了，中间那批人也就因为POLITICIAN的隐瞒而牺牲了。

银河英雄传说里也有类似的例子，威斯特敏朗的瞬间被秒杀的200万人口。其实不管是选择说还是不说，一个EFFECTIVE POLITICAL LEADER应该尽量做到的，是使利益最大化。但是，“利益最大化”的标准又是什么？譬如说，是使牺牲的人数最少，使文化最大程度地被保存，还是诸如环保、经济发展之类？威斯特敏朗的CASE，牺牲惨重，但是节约了时间使战争提前结束。那么，是否因此它就是JUSTIFIABLE的？

至于SARS，一定程度的限制知情权可以有效防止可能发生的社会动乱。民众是从个人角度看问题的，而政治家是从社会、国家角度。角度不同，当然存在利益冲突。

为了实现公众利益最大化，个人利益被牺牲是肯定的。但个人利益又是公众利益的基础。所以，呵呵，TO BE OR NOT TO BE，IT IS A QUESTION。

……汗，扯远了。

laurazhouUID: 155854

我是在说“是怎么样”，而非“应该怎么样”。但就个人观点，少数人利益被牺牲不应该是想当然的。