Articles and postings are about family matters, issues regarding Boston's Chinatown, and the Asian American community. Art, literature, and politics will also be included in the discussions. Both Chinese and English will be used.家事、同胞事、社區事，事事關心。藝人、文學人、政治人，人人著意。中英並用。
Afghani -Saale Nao Mubbarak
Afrikaans - Gelukkige nuwe jaar
Albanian -Gezuar Vitin e Ri
Arabic -Antum salimoun
Armenian -Snorhavor Nor Tari
Assyrian -Sheta Brikhta
Azeri -Yeni Iliniz Mubarek!
Bengali - Shuvo Nabo Barsho
Cambodian -Soursdey Chhnam Tmei
Catalan - FELIÇ ANY NOU
Chinese - Chu Shen Tan / Xin Nian Kuai Le
Corsican -Language Pace e Salute
Croatian - Sretna Nova godina!
Cymraeg (Welsh) - Blwyddyn Newydd Dda
Czechoslovakia -Scastny Novy Rok
Danish- Godt Nytår
Dhivehi -Ufaaveri Aa Aharakah Edhen
Dutch -GELUKKIG NIEUWJAAR!
Eskimo- Kiortame pivdluaritlo
Esperanto - Felican Novan Jaron
Estonians - Head uut aastat!
Ethiopian - MELKAM ADDIS AMET YIHUNELIWO!
Finnish - Onnellista Uutta Vuotta
French - Bonne Annee
Gaelic - Bliadhna mhath ur
German - Prosit Neujahr
Greek - Kenourios Chronos
Gujarati - Nutan Varshbhinandan
Hawaiian - Hauoli Makahiki Hou
Hebrew- L'Shannah Tovah
Hindi - Nav varsh ka shubkamnayein
Hong Kong (Cantonese) - Sun Leen Fai Lok
Hungarian- Boldog Ooy Ayvet
Indonesian - Selamat Tahun Baru
Iranian -Saleh now mobarak
Iraqi - Sanah Jadidah
Irish -Bliain nua fe mhaise dhuit
Italian- Felice anno nuovo
Japanese - Akimashite Omedetto Gozaimasu
Kabyle -Asegwas Amegaz
Kannada -Hosa Varushadha Shubhashayagalu
Kisii- SOMWAKA OMOYIA OMUYA
Khmer -Sua Sdei tfnam tmei
Korea - Saehae Bock Mani ba deu sei yo!
Kurdish - NEWROZ PIROZBE
Lithuanian - Laimingu Naujuju Metu
Laotian -dee pee mai
Macedonian - Srekjna Nova Godina
Malay -Selamat Tahun Baru
Marathi -Nveen Varshachy Shubhechcha
Malayalam - Puthuvatsara Aashamsakal
Maltese - Is-Sena t- Tajba
Nepal- Nawa Barsha ko Shuvakamana
Norwegian - Godt Nyttår
Papua New Guinea - Nupela yia i go long yu
Pashto -Nawai Kall Mo Mubarak Shah
Persian -Saleh now ra tabrik migouyam
Philippines - Manigong Bagong Taon
Polish -Szczesliwego Nowego Roku
Portuguese - Feliz Ano Novo
Punjabi - Nave sal di mubarakan
Romanian - AN NOU FERICIT
Russian - S Novim Godom
Samoa - Manuia le Tausaga Fou
Serbo-Croatian - Sretna nova godina
Sindhi -Nayou Saal Mubbarak Hoje
Singhalese- Subha Aluth Awrudhak Vewa
Siraiki- Nawan Saal Shala Mubarak Theevay
Slovak - A stastlivy Novy Rok
Slovenian - sreèno novo leto
Somali -Iyo Sanad Cusub Oo Fiican!
Spanish -Feliz Ano ~Nuevo
Swahili- Heri Za Mwaka Mpyaº
Swedish -GOTT NYTT ÅR! /Gott nytt år!
Sudanese -Warsa Enggal
Tamil - Eniya Puthandu Nalvazhthukkal
Telegu - Noothana samvatsara shubhakankshalu
Thai - Sawadee Pee Mai
Turkish- Yiliniz Kutlu Olsun
Ukrainian- Shchastlyvoho Novoho Roku
Urdu- Naya Saal Mubbarak Ho
Vietnamese- Chuc Mung Tan Nien
Uzbek - Yangi Yil Bilan
How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the roomAs recriminations fly post-Copenhagen, one writer offers a fly-on-the-wall account of how talks failed --- Guardian's Mark Lynas
Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.
China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.
All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".
Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.
Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.
What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".
Shifting the blame
To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.
China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.
Strong position
So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.
Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.
With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.
China's game
All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".
This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.
Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.
在二月十五號晚的頒獎禮上，他作了一個不卑不亢、有尊嚴的演講，用最積極的方法告訴所有人一個訊息：Always on the side of the egg。
Good evening. I have come to Jerusalem today as a novelist, which is to say as a professional spinner of lies.
各位晚上好，我今天作為一名小說家來到耶路撒冷的，也就是說一名職業謊言製造者。
Of course, novelists are not the only ones who tell lies. Politicians do it, too, as we all know. Diplomats and generals tell their own kinds of lies on occasion, as do used car salesmen, butchers and builders. The lies of novelists differ from others, however, in that no one criticizes the novelist as immoral for telling lies. Indeed, the bigger and better his lies and the more ingeniously he creates them, the more he is likely to be praised by the public and the critics. Why should that be?
My answer would be this: namely, that by telling skilful lies–which is to say, by making up fictions that appear to be true–the novelist can bring a truth out to a new place and shine a new light on it. In most cases, it is virtually impossible to grasp a truth in its original form and depict it accurately. This is why we try to grab its tail by luring the truth from its hiding place, transferring it to a fictional location, and replacing it with a fictional form. In order to accomplish this, however, we first have to clarify where the truth-lies within us, within ourselves. This is an important qualification for making up good lies.
Today, however, I have no intention of lying. I will try to be as honest as I can. There are only a few days in the year when I do not engage in telling lies, and today happens to be one of them.
So let me tell you the truth. In Japan a fair number of people advised me not to come here to accept the Jerusalem Prize. Some even warned me they would instigate a boycott of my books if I came. The reason for this, of course, was the fierce fighting that was raging in Gaza . The U.N. reported that more than a thousand people had lost their lives in the blockaded city of Gaza, many of them unarmed citizens–children and old people.
Any number of times after receiving notice of the award, I asked myself whether traveling to Israel at a time like this and accepting a literary prize was the proper thing to do, whether this would create the impression that I supported one side in the conflict, that I endorsed the policies of a nation that chose to unleash its overwhelming military power. Neither, of course, do I wish to see my books subjected to a boycott.
Finally, however, after careful consideration, I made up my mind to come here. One reason for my decision was that all too many people advised me not to do it. Perhaps, like many other novelists, I tend to do the exact opposite of what I am told. If people are telling me– and especially if they are warning me– “Don’t go there,” “Don’t do that,” I tend to want to “go there” and “do that”. It’s in my nature, you might say, as a novelist. Novelists are a special breed. They cannot genuinely trust anything they have not seen with their own eyes or touched with their own hands.
And that is why I am here. I chose to come here rather than stay away. I chose to see for myself rather than not to see. I chose to speak to you rather than to say nothing.
Please do allow me to deliver a message, one very personal message. It is something that I always keep in mind while I am writing fiction. I have never gone so far as to write it on a piece of paper and paste it to the wall: rather, it is carved into the wall of my mind, and it goes something like this:
“Between a high, solid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on the side of the egg.”
“在一座高大堅實的牆和與之相撞的雞蛋之間，我永遠都站在雞蛋的一側”。
Yes, no matter how right the wall may be and how wrong the egg, I will stand with the egg. Someone else will have to decide what is right and what is wrong; perhaps time or history will do it. But if there were a novelist who, for whatever reason, wrote works standing with the wall, of what value would such works be?
What is the meaning of this metaphor? In some cases, it is all too simple and clear. Bombers and tanks and rockets and white phosphorus shells are that high wall. The eggs are the unarmed civilians who are crushed and burned and shot by them. This is one meaning of the metaphor.
But this is not all. It carries a deeper meaning. Think of it this way. Each of us is, more or less, an egg. Each of us is a unique, irreplaceable soul enclosed in a fragile shell. This is true of me, and it is true of each of you. And each of us, to a greater or lesser degree, is confronting a high, solid wall. The wall has a name: it is “The System.” The System is supposed to protect us, but sometimes it takes on a life of its own, and then it begins to kill us and cause us to kill others–coldly, efficiently, systematically.
I have only one reason to write novels, and that is to bring the dignity of the individual soul to the surface and shine a light upon it. The purpose of a story is to sound an alarm, to keep a light trained on the System in order to prevent it from tangling our souls in its web and demeaning them. I truly believe it is the novelist’s job to keep trying to clarify the uniqueness of each individual soul by writing stories–stories of life and death, stories of love, stories that make people cry and quake with fear and shake with laughter. This is why we go on, day after day, concocting fictions with utter seriousness.
My father passed away last year at the age of ninety. He was a retired teacher and a part-time Buddhist priest. When he was in graduate school in Kyoto , he was drafted into the army and sent to fight in China . As a child born after the war, I used to see him every morning before breakfast offering up long, deeply-felt prayers at the small Buddhist altar in our house. One time I asked him why he did this, and he told me he was praying for the people who had died in the battlefield. He was praying for all the people who died, he said, both ally and enemy alike. Staring at his back as he knelt at the altar, I seemed to feel the shadow of death hovering around him.
My father died, and with him he took his memories, memories that I can never know. But the presence of death that lurked about him remains in my own memory. It is one of the few things I carry on from him, and one of the most important.
I have only one thing I hope to convey to you today. We are all human beings, individuals transcending nationality and race and religion, and we are all fragile eggs faced with a solid wall called The System. To all appearances, we have no hope of winning. The wall is too high, too strong–and too cold. If we have any hope of victory at all, it will have to come from our believing in the utter uniqueness and irreplaceability of our own and others’ souls and from our believing in the warmth we gain by joining souls together.
Take a moment to think about this. Each of us possesses a tangible, living soul. The System has no such thing. We must not allow the System to exploit us. We must not allow the System to take on a life of its own. The System did not make us: we made the System.
I am grateful to have been awarded the Jerusalem Prize. I am grateful that my books are being read by people in many parts of the world. And I would like to express my gratitude to the readers in Israel . You are the biggest reason why I am here. And I hope we are sharing something, something very meaningful. And I am glad to have had the opportunity to speak to you here today.
中共當然知道重判劉曉波不得人心，徒增對台、港統戰困難，但為什麼一意孤行呢？筆者認為，這是國內形勢需要使然。今年是中國的「政治本命年」，但時介歲末，最後一個敏感日子（十一國慶）已過，當局理應可以放鬆對社會的政治監控；不過，監控並未放鬆。事實上，本月十八日，中共中央發出指示，認為明年的政治形勢不寬鬆，重點工作是「維穩」，監控還要加強，具體是在信息系統全面落實「金盾」二期工程，進一步鎖緊互聯網，同時還要大力強化公安隊伍建設（特別是要「加大『從優待警』力度，愛護民警、關心民警、健全民警心理危機預防、最大限度地激發公安隊伍的向心力」，即防止民警造反）。 ① 如此嚴陣以待，官方說是因為中國已進入「社會矛盾高危高發期」；此期間，「維穩」高於一切，其他工作讓路在所不惜，包括對台工作在內。中共關於「維穩」的邏輯是：若生動亂，黨垮台了，統一何用？
在大陸，「維穩」的對立面是「維權」。這很奇怪，在任何國家，一般而言，民權維護了，社會便穩定，「維權」即「維穩」。但是，在中國大陸，情況剛好相反，從黨中央到地方乾部，無不視「維權」為大敵。 ② 律師維權，抓；傳媒維權，封；上訪者自己維權，壓。劉曉波「炮製」的〈○八憲章〉，講的是維權，他的六篇「罪證」文章，要害是主張以非暴力方式改變社會以改變政權，而主要手段，便是在民間累積點滴維權。處於大陸社會主要矛盾的風口上，劉曉波焉能不判重刑？
Senate approves health care reform bill
By Alan Silverleib, CNN
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
NEW: Obama hails "real, meaningful health insurance reform"
Chamber votes 60-39 along party lines to pass health care reform bill
Measure goes to conference committee to reconcile differences with House
Washington (CNN) -- The Senate passed a historic $871 billion health care reform bill Thursday morning, handing President Obama a Christmas Eve victory on his top domestic priority.
The bill passed in a 60-39 party line vote after months of heated partisan debate. Every member of the Democratic caucus backed the measure; every Republican opposed it.
Republican Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky -- a staunch opponent of the bill -- was the lone senator to miss Thursday's vote.
Should it become law, the measure would constitute the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid more than four decades ago. It is expected to extend insurance coverage to 30 million additional Americans.
"We are now finally poised to deliver on the promise of real, meaningful health insurance reform that will bring additional security and stability to the American people," Obama said shortly after the vote.
"If passed, this will be the most important piece of social legislation since the Social Security Act passed in the 1930s."
The bill now must be merged with a $1 trillion plan approved by the House of Representatives in November. Democrats hope to have a bill ready for Obama's signature before the president's State of the Union address early next year.
Senate Republicans failed to stop the bill despite utilizing almost every weapon in their legislative arsenal. GOP leaders have repeatedly warned the measure will raise taxes while doing little to slow spiraling health costs.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, was forced to cut multiple deals in recent weeks to ensure the support of every member of his traditionally fractious caucus. Top Democrats needed the backing of all 60 members in three key procedural votes over the past four days to break a GOP filibuster.
Final passage of the measure, in contrast, only requires a bare majority in the 100-member chamber.
iReport: Share your thoughts on health care reform
An exhausted Senate adjourned for the holidays shortly after passing the measure.
The health care debate is "about life and death in America," Reid said shortly before Thursday's first vote. "It's a question of morality, of right and wrong. It's about human suffering. And given the chance to relieve this suffering, we must take this chance."
Reid ripped the Republicans for their unanimous opposition to the bill, saying he was "sorry to say that for the first time in American history, a political party has chosen to stand on the sidelines rather than participate in great -- and greatly needed -- social change."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, argued it is "clear that even many of the people who support this bill with their votes don't like it." Otherwise, he claimed, "they wouldn't be rushing it through Congress on Christmas Eve."
"There is widespread opposition to this monstrosity," he said. "This fight isn't over."
Passage of the Senate health care bill, which is projected to cut the federal deficit by $132 billion over the next decade, signaled majority agreement in both chambers of Congress on a broad range of changes affecting every American's coverage.
Among other things, the House and Senate have agreed to subsidize insurance for a family of four making up to roughly $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level.
They also have agreed to create health insurance exchanges designed to make it easier for small businesses, the self-employed and the unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage. Both the House plan and the Senate bill would eventually limit total out-of-pocket expenses and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Insurers would also be barred from charging higher premiums based on a person's gender or medical history. However, both bills allow insurance companies to charge higher premiums for older customers.
Medicaid would be significantly expanded under both proposals. The House bill would extend coverage to individuals earning up to 150 percent of the poverty level, or roughly $33,000 for a family of four. The Senate plan ensures coverage to those earning up to 133 percent of the poverty level, or just over $29,000 for a family of four.
Major differences between the more liberal House bill and the more conservative Senate bill will now be the focus of the conference committee that will try to merge them.
Get help with reading through the bills
One of the biggest divides is over how to pay for the plans. The House package is financed through a combination of a tax surcharge on wealthy Americans and new Medicare spending reductions.
Specifically, individuals with annual incomes over $500,000 -- as well as families earning more than $1 million -- would face a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge.
The Senate bill also cuts Medicare by roughly $500 billion. But instead of an income tax surcharge on the wealthy, it would impose a 40 percent tax on insurance companies that provide what are called "Cadillac" health plans valued at more than $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families.
Proponents of the tax on high-end plans argue it's one of the most effective ways to curb medical inflation. However, House Democrats oppose taxing such policies because it would hurt union members who traded higher salaries for more generous health benefits.
Asked in an NPR interview Wednesday if he prefers the income tax surcharge or the tax on high-end plans, Obama predicted the final bill will probably end up with "a little bit of both."
"Cadillac plans ... don't make people healthier, but just take more money out of their pockets," he said.
The Senate bill also would hike Medicare payroll taxes on families making over $250,000; the House bill does not.
Another key sticking point is the dispute over a public option. The House plan includes a public option; the more conservative Senate plan would instead create nonprofit private plans overseen by the federal government.
Given the reality of the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, however, there hasn't been much serious discussion among House leaders about pushing hard to keep the public option.
The Senate "tried to see if they had support for it. There isn't. That's the reality," a top House Democratic leadership aide told CNN. "I think a lot of people are coming to terms with that, and I don't know how productive it would be to bring it out again."
Individuals under both plans would be required to purchase coverage, but the House bill includes more stringent penalties for most of those who fail to comply. The House bill would impose a fine of up to 2.5 percent of an individual's income. The Senate plan would require individuals to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine of up to $750 or 2 percent of his or her income, whichever is greater. Both versions include a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.
Employers face a much stricter mandate under the House legislation, which would require companies with a payroll of more than $500,000 to provide insurance or pay a penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll.
The Senate bill would require companies with more than 50 employees to pay a fee of up to $750 per worker if any of its employees rely on government subsidies to purchase coverage.
Abortion also has been a sticking point for both chambers. A late compromise with Catholic and other conservatives in the House led to the adoption of an amendment banning most abortion coverage from the public option. It would also prohibit abortion coverage in private policies available in the exchange to people receiving federal subsidies.
Senate provisions, made more conservative than initially drafted in order to satisfy Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, would allow states to choose whether to ban abortion coverage in plans offered in the exchanges. Individuals purchasing plans through the exchanges would have to pay for abortion coverage out of their own funds.
Nelson said on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday that he would withdraw his support if the final bill gets changed too much from the Senate version.
Chinese court sentences dissident to 11 years in jail
By Cara Anna, Associated Press | December 25, 2009
BEIJING - A Chinese court sentenced a prominent dissident to 11 years in jail today on subversion charges after he called for sweeping political reforms and an end to Communist Party dominance.
The sentencing of Liu Xiaobo comes despite international appeals for his release, which China sternly rejected as interference in its internal affairs.
Liu was the co-author of an unusually direct appeal for political liberalization in China called Charter 08. He was detained just before it was released last December. More than 300 people, including some of China’s top intellectuals, signed it.
The verdict was issued at the No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court in Beijing after a two-hour trial Wednesday where prosecutors accused Liu of “serious’’ crimes.
The vaguely worded charge of inciting to subvert state power is routinely used to jail dissidents. Liu could have been sentenced for up to 15 years in prison under the charge.
Liu is the only person to have been arrested for organizing the Charter 08 appeal, but others who signed it have reported being harassed.
Abolishing the law on inciting to subvert state power is among the reforms advocated in Charter 08. “We should end the practice of viewing words as crimes,’’ the petition says. The United States and European Union have urged Beijing to free Liu.
“We continue to call on the government of China to release him immediately,’’ Gregory May, first secretary with the US Embassy, told reporters outside the courthouse today. May was one of a dozen diplomats stopped by authorities from attending the trial and sentencing.
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told reporters this week that statements from embassies calling for Liu’s release were “a gross interference of China’s internal affairs.’’
Early this morning, the Senate made history and health reform cleared its most important hurdle yet -- garnering the 60 votes needed to move toward a final vote in that chamber later this week.
This marks the first time in our nation's history that comprehensive health reform has come to this point. And it appears that the American people will soon realize the genuine reform that offers security to those who have health insurance and affordable options to those who do not.
I'm grateful to Senator Harry Reid and every senator who's been working around the clock to make this happen. And I'm grateful to you, and every member of the Organizing for America community, for all the work you have done to make this progress possible.
After a nearly century-long struggle, we are now on the cusp of making health insurance reform a reality in the United States of America.
As with any legislation, compromise is part of the process. But I'm pleased that recently added provisions have made this landmark bill even stronger. Between the time when the bill passes and the time when the insurance exchanges get up and running, insurance companies that try to jack up their rates do so at their own peril. Those who hike their prices may be barred from selling plans on the exchanges.
And while insurance companies will be prevented from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions once the exchanges are open, in the meantime there will be a high-risk pool where people with pre-existing conditions can purchase affordable coverage.
A recent amendment has made these protections even stronger. Insurance companies will now be prohibited from denying coverage to children immediately after this bill passes. There's also explicit language in this bill that will protect a patient's choice of doctor. And small businesses will get additional assistance as well.
These protections are in addition to the ones we've been talking about for some time. No longer will insurance companies be able to drop your coverage if you become sick and no longer will you have to pay unlimited amounts out of your own pocket for treatments that you need.
Under this bill families will save on their premiums; businesses that would see their costs rise if we don't act will save money now and in the future. This bill will strengthen Medicare and extend the life of the program. Because it's paid for and gets rid of waste and inefficiency in our health care system, this will be the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade.
Finally, this reform will extend coverage to more than 30 million Americans who don't have it.
These are not small changes. These are big changes. They're fundamental reforms. They will save money. They will save lives.
And your passion, your work, your organizing helped make all of this possible. Now it's time to finish the job.
Do you hear the people sing? 人群的歌聲高騰 Singing a song of angry men? 難道你竟充耳不聞 It is the music of a people 歌聲裡群情激憤 Who will not be slaves again! 只為不願再沈默為奴 When the beating of your heart 軍鼓的速度急遽 Echoes the beating of the drums 激盪了心跳的韻律 There is a life about to start 呼喚著著新時代將至 When tomorrow comes! 就在明日
Will you join in our crusade? 加入神聖的抗爭 Who will be strong and stand with me? 一起來堅強地獻身 Beyond the barricade 你看柵欄的彼方 Is there a world you long to see? 世界充滿了希望 Then join in the fight 快加入對敵 That will give you the right to be free! 爭取自己的自由權利
Do you hear the people sing? 人群的歌聲高騰 Singing a song of angry men? 難道你竟充耳不聞 It is the music of a people 歌聲裡群情激憤 Who will not be slaves again! 只為不願再沈默為奴
When the beating of your heart 軍鼓的速度急遽 Echoes the beating of the drums 激盪了心跳的韻律 There is a life about to start 呼喚著新時代將至 When tomorrow comes! 就在明日
Will you give all you can give 放下你所有一切 So that our banner may advance 奮力讓這旗幟往前 Some will fall and some will live 就算有人會倒地 Will you stand up and take your chance? 站出來不要退避 The blood of the martyrs 先烈的血液 Will water the meadows of France! 才是滋潤土地的清溪
Do you hear the people sing? 人群的歌聲高騰 Singing a song of angry men? 難道你竟充耳不聞 It is the music of a people 歌聲裡群情激憤 Who will not be slaves again! 只為不願再沈默為奴 When the beating of your heart 軍鼓的速度急遽 Echoes the beating of the drums 激盪了心跳的韻律 There is a life about to start 呼喚著呼喚著新時代將至 When tomorrow comes! 就在明日
Am Brunnen vor dem Tore Da steht ein Lindenbaum Ich träumt in seinem Schatten So manchen süßen Traum Ich schnitt in seine Rinde So manches liebe Wort Es zog in Freud und Leide Zu ihm mich immer fort
Ich musst auch heute wandern Vorbei in tiefer Nacht Da hab ich noch im Dunkeln Die Augen zugemacht Und seine Zweige rauschten Als riefen sie mir zu Komm her zu mir Geselle Hier find'st du deine Ruh
Die kalten Winde bliesen Mir grad ins Angesicht Der Hut flog mir vom Kopfe Ich wendete mich nicht Nun bin ich manche Stunde Entfernt von jenem Ort Und immer hör ich's rauschen Du fändest Ruhe dort Du fändest Ruhe dort
By the fountain, near the gate, There stands a linden tree; I have dreamt in its shadows So many sweet dreams. I carved on its bark So many loving words; I was always drawn to it, Whether in joy or in sorrow.
Today, too, I had to pass it In the dead of night. And even in the darkness I had to close my eyes. And its branches rustled As if calling to me: "Come here, to me, friend, Here you will find your peace!"
The frigid wind blew
Straight in my face,
My hat flew from my head,
I did not turn back.
Now I am many hours
Away from that spot,
And still I hear the rustling:
There you would have found peace!
.jpg)
