2010年12月26日星期日

圣经中的十句话(中英对照)

Sent to you by Andy via Google Reader:

via 有意思吧 by webmaster@u148.net ( 有意思吧 - 单身农民 ) on 12/24/10

www.u148.net

1、"生命在他里头,这生命就是人的光。光照在黑暗里,黑暗却不接受光。"(《新约·约翰福音》第1章)
What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. "John 1-4,5"
这是是基督教神学思想的核心。这里的"光"指的是耶稣基督,"生命"指的是永生--战胜死亡,获得真理。

2、"你们要进窄门,因为引到灭亡,那门是宽的,路是大的,进去的人也多;引到永生,那门是窄的,路是小的,找着的人也少。"(《新约·马太福音》第7 章)
Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few wh o find it. "Matthew 7-13,14"
这是耶稣"登山宝训"中最短的一段,但却是整个新教精神的核心。对于清教徒而言,人生就意味着无尽艰险,就意味着走窄门。

3、" 爱是恒久忍耐,又有恩慈;爱是不嫉妒,爱是不自夸,不张狂,不作害羞的事,不求自己的益处,不轻易发怒,不计算人的恶,不喜欢不义,只喜欢真理;凡事包容,凡事相信,凡事盼望,凡事忍耐;爱是永不止息。"(《新约·哥林多前书》第13章)
Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious pr boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or re sentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. I t bears all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.
基督教是"爱的宗教",这就是使徒保罗对爱的诠释。从古到今不知有多少人因这段话而皈依基督教,可见"爱是无可比的"。

4、"死啊,你得胜的权势在哪里?死啊,你的毒钩在哪里?死的毒钩就是罪,罪的权势就是律法。感谢上帝,使我们借着我们的主耶稣基督得胜。"(《新约·哥林多前书》第15章)
Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and. The power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
使徒保罗用优美的语言阐明了基督教的脉络:原罪与堕落,牺牲与救赎,胜利与永生。总体说来就是"用爱战胜死亡"。

5、"草必枯干,花必凋残,因为耶和华的气吹在其上;百姓诚然是草。草必枯干,花必凋残;惟有我们上帝的话,必永远立定!"(《旧约·以赛亚书》第40 章)
The grass withers, the flower fades, when the breath of the LORD blows upon it; surely the people are grass. The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand forever.
旧约的最大特点是"信念"。这句话就是无比坚定的信念,既是相信上帝,又是相信作为上帝选民的自己。以色列人的辉煌,大半缘自信念。

6、"我知道我的救赎主活着,末了必站在地上。我这皮肉灭绝之后,我必在肉体之外得见上帝。"(《旧约·约伯记》第19章)
For I know that my Redeemer lives, and that at the last he will stand up on the earth; and after my skin has been thus destroyed, then in my fles h I shall see God.
这是约伯的信念。无论承受多么巨大的打击、多么绝望的境遇,都不可放弃希望、放弃信仰。亨德尔为此句作的咏叹调也极为感人。

7、 "不可封了这书上的预言,因为日期近了。不义的,叫他仍旧不义;污秽的,叫他仍旧污秽;为义的,叫他仍旧为义;圣洁的,叫他仍旧圣洁。"(《新约·启示录》第22章)
Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is n ear. Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy. 我最开始就是看了《启示录》才倾向于基督教的。《启示录》中有很多让人不能不动容的话,这句只是其中代表而已。

8、"谁能使我们与基督的爱隔绝呢?难道是患难吗?是困苦吗?是逼迫吗?是饥饿吗?是赤身露体吗?是危险吗?是刀剑吗?……然而,靠着爱我们的主,在这一切的事上已经得胜有余了。"(《新约·罗马书》第8章)
Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? No, in al l these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.
圣保罗真是无与伦比的传道者,他的讲道是如此气势磅礴且发人深省。这段话继承了旧约的信心,增加了新约的爱,完美地体现了基督教精神。

9、"我又专心察明智慧、狂妄和愚昧,乃知这也是捕风。因为多有智慧,就多有愁烦;加增知识的,就加增忧伤。"(《旧约·传道书》第1章)
And I applied my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a chasing after wind. For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow.
《传道书》是旧约中我最喜欢的篇章之一,传道者的话虽低沉消极,却又蕴涵着希望。能够用来战胜愁烦和忧伤的,只有一件事:"信仰"。

10、"哈利路亚!因为主我们的上帝,全能者作王了。……世上的国成了我主和主基督的国;他要作王,直到永永远远。……万王之王,万主之主。" (《启示录》第11、19章)
Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns. The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he wil l reign forever and ever.
这也是亨德尔歌剧《弥赛亚》中大合唱《哈利路亚》的歌词,它是至今唯一能让我多次热泪盈眶的歌曲。从这短短的几句话中我们可以看到无穷的胜利喜悦。欢呼吧!因为胜利属于我们。

查看详情评论:圣经中的十句话(中英对照)

本文原始链接:http://www.u148.net/article/30141.html


Things you can do from here:

2010年12月11日星期六

给九十岁的你 文 / 刘若英

陈升《9999滴眼泪》推荐序:给九十岁的你 文 / 刘若英

很久不见了,我不会自讨没趣的问你最近好不好,因为你的答案总是「活着吧!」在这个不耻「冷笑话」的年代,还能坚持这么幽默的冷言冷语,你应该也算奇葩。

我想即使到了九十岁,你应该还是跟现在一样,像个长不大的小老头,有点愤世嫉俗,满头银发,却还穿着短裤拖鞋自以为游走在不知名的星球吧。

还记得你早当年奋力写书的模样,在光复南路的一家小店里,一壶茶,一包烟,握着笔一个一个字的写下。然后固定在傍晚时,身为助理的我去接你,前往录音室,再帮你把一张张的文字打进计算机里……这样的画面,好像是陈年旧事,也彷佛是历历在目的昨天。

自从你传讯息来要我写序之后,我就陷入恐慌,这怎么写啊?我们之间说什么都是多余的。或者就像你说,你决不再为我写歌,因为你已不懂我。我想,可能我早也不懂你了。而这些不懂其实才是真懂得。然而我只要求,如果这序真能帮你多卖两本书,下次我出书时,你也欠我一篇序。

有时我很恨,为什么我的人生到现在还必须跟你的名字扯在一起,但也许我应该感恩,像「奶茶」这样的名字,也只有你想得出来。朋友从西藏回来,说我的歌大街小巷听的到,因为高原同胞天天要喝奶茶,赞叹我的名字取的好。(很冷,但这绝对不是笑话。)
某 些人,在你的生命中经过,留下痕迹,有些是鲜明彩色,有些是灰暗黑白,奇怪的是,不管什么时候的你,都让人觉得既极端又模糊。长时间跟你共事的我,清楚知 道你是故意的,而且乐此不疲。离开你的人离开了你,因为知道你是故意的;留在你身边的人留下来,因为清楚你乐此不疲,但是没有一点心机。

大 多数人都只看见你放荡不羁,自我中心。这我倒可以帮你澄清。如果你真只是他们想的那样,你不会十数年孜孜不倦,笔耕写歌。如果你真是那样的,不可能长久维 持平静而甜美的家庭生活。想起有一天你喝醉了,我开着车送你跟箫言中回家,途中,你突然惊醒大叫, 要言中去便利商店买两颗茶叶蛋跟一个三明治。言中问你:「阿升,你还吃得下吗?」你迷蒙中回答:「夫人交代,买回去给儿子的早餐。」那个倜傥潇洒的陈升不 见了,这一个陈升有些扫兴,但这才是你最应该引以为傲的陈升!

你的确在我生命中扮演了很多角色,我爸爸说了,你住院那时,某个黄昏他独自去看你,坐在病床边,只跟你说了一句:「谢谢你代替了我的角色,比起我,你更是一个称职的父亲。」

你 最爱问我:「你快乐吗?」在我离开新乐园后的第一张唱片完成时,我拿着热腾腾的新歌要你听,电话里的你说:「我不用听,你只告诉我,唱这些歌,你快乐吗? 如果快乐,那就够了!」我知道你是故意的,是老招。但到现在为止,工作中,虽难免会做一些妥协的事,唯有唱歌,师父的话,我谨记在心。

你 说过,大树要在天空交接相会才有意思,那时你的意思是说,我还是颗小苗,别老依附着你,要我自己学着长大!嘿嘿,你总会有九十岁的时候,我也会有八十岁的 时候,到那个时候,我不奢望我的树长的比其他人高,也不需要长的跟他人一般高,我只确定,我的树顶能遥遥见的着你的树顶就够了。

2010年12月10日星期五

张兆和与杨绛的两种爱情 来源网络

来源链接 http://goo.gl/Fn33U

张兆和晚年不识沈从文

      叶圣陶说,九如巷中张家的四个女儿,谁娶了她们都会幸福一辈子。张兆和在这名门望族的“幸福宝典”中排行老三,沈从文称她为“亲爱的三三”。三小姐自小熟 读四书五经,英文讲得比苏州话还溜,通音律习昆曲,皮肤略黑,却五官秀丽,人称“黑牡丹”。这样的女子,自小便在异性眼中散发光与热,自然练就了冷静理 智、不动声色的本领,21岁尚未情窦初开。
  
   在上海中学读书时,她每天都会收到十几封情书。信是从来不回的,是否有时间尽阅皆未可知。后来,每日收信达几十封,其中一半皆来自于那个木讷的乡下男人沈从文。
  
   自古才子才女多佳话。张沈二人的佳话,实则一典型的单恋马拉松。
  
    人人皆知他在追她,人人皆知他爱得疯狂。整整三年,他的痴情已把她逼得无路可退。他顽固地爱她,而她顽固地不爱他,有错吗?当然没有。只是,倘若他得不到 她的爱,就会萎谢甚至死亡,而他又是一位那么有才华的作家。人们便会不满了:你施于那一点点爱,能够拯救一个灵魂,为什么不做做善事呢?
  
  “不管他的热情是真挚的,还是用文字装点的,我总像有我自己做错了一件什么事,因而陷他人于不幸中的难过。”三小姐扛不住了。
  
  女人的聪明一世,糊涂一时多半出现在谈婚论嫁之时。
  
   才女万般好,最大的劣势是不知柴米油盐的难处,而才子最大的优势是不怕失败,愈挫愈勇。

  结婚后,两个成长背景完全不同,爱情只是建立在虚空的情书基础上的人,矛盾日益突出。她不明白他为什么那么好面子,甚至打肿脸充胖子给朋友钱 花,结果弄得自家生活拮据。她也不明白他花那么多钱买些古董瓷器回来,究竟有什么用。她甚至会在书信中很严厉地写道:“你瞧你,每次这个字都写错,我跟你 说了多少次了。”
  
  爱没办法勉强,不爱也没办法勉强。他与她之间,始终是他爱她多一些,而她却并未因此感到幸福。人们总以为女人喜 欢无休止地改造与训斥一个男人,却并不知道,这个过程对于女人本身,更是一场剧烈的摧残。所谓平等才有幸福。如果一个男人娶了你,却整天满腹愁怨。这样的 爱,是会让人火冒三丈的,尤其对于有志气又聪明的女人来说,更甚。
  
   因为在一起矛盾大多,她曾经多次故意制造机会与他分开。甚至有一段时间,两人同住北京,却分居两室,沈从文每天只吃了饭便走。在一起时,彼此不容,一旦分离,双方通起信来又是情意绵绵。
  
   “你爱我,与其说爱我为人,还不如说是爱我写信。”那些信,后来收入《从文家书》,这是本观者欲流泪的书信集,只是,华美的文字往往盛开于不堪的生活,空虚的情感催生丰厚的华章。
  
    张兆和晚年已不识沈从文。尽管沈老师离开她不过三五年光阴,当有人拿着他的照片给她看时,她说,认识,但想不起来是谁了,或许在潜意识里她想将他遗忘。她 曾经粉丝无数,志向远大,最终被一个自己并不看好的男人征服,过起日子来,才切切实实地发现自己依然顽固地不爱他。
  
  “从文同我相处,这一生,究竞是幸福还是不幸?得不到回答。我不理解他,不完全理解他……”沈老师又可曾理解张家三小姐?
  
  这个故事再次告诉我们:强扭的瓜不甜;能够在一起生活一辈子,不一定就是幸福;以白头偕老来衡量伉俪情深实在过于片面。
  
  一个女人,无论多么家世显赫,才高八斗,都无法抵抗男人经年累月的追求,而那些有恒心有毅力的追求者,恰恰是女人人生路上的地雷。
  
  “我本来不喜欢他,可是,他追得太厉害了,他那么爱我……”恒心与毅力往往被我们误解为真爱,其实那不过是因为他性格中具备了偏执与不服输的特质。
  
  所谓日久生情,追根到底,不过是死缠烂打。

 

杨绛:人生感激无尽,抱怨亦是无尽
  
  自古才女多受宠,更何况她是模样端庄的才女。中学 时,据说追求者达72人之多,因为她总是很严肃,于是有人借酒壮胆地送情书,有人欲借朋友之名行恋人之实。对于酒醉者,她说:“你喝醉了吧,快把信拿回 去,免得明天醒了后悔。”而对于要求做朋友者,她说:“做朋友可以,但这是结果而不是过渡。”大半个世纪之后,与她相伴一生的那位先生已经辞世,曾经想要 做“朋友”的人亦成了耄耋老者。那老者来探她,她送他出门,说:“下楼请小心,以后就不要知难而上了。”她叫杨绛,他叫费孝通,她是他苦寻一声而不得的梦 中情人,而她生命中最重要的那个人,名为钱钟书。
  
  作为国宝级才子,钱钟书曾经给她写过许多情书,她自然喜欢,却并不会因一个人情 书写得好而决定去爱他。她爱他的原由,今日看来实在奇异的很。“志气不大,只想贡献一生,做做学问”,这样的志趣,在今日看来,钱钟书无异于承认自己是个 没用的男人,只想过过平常小日子。而这个志趣,在她眼中竟与自己甚为相投。妻凭夫贵这事儿,她以为十二分不靠谱。“夫妻间最重要的是朋友关系,即使不是知 心朋友,至少也该是能做伴侣的朋友或互相尊重的伴侣。”
  
  杨绛所说的“朋友关系”,首要的一条是平等,无论精神还是物质皆不存在依 附与被依附。现实生活里,一位女子,坚持独立、自由与平等并不容易,无论过去还是现在,因为你不依附于他,很可能就要被他依附。男女平等的结果往往是女人 内外都要抓,“上得厅堂,下得厨房,入水能游,出水能跳。”
  
  《围城》一书刚刚出版时,人们谈论作者钱钟书,往往会在前面加上“杨 绛的丈夫”。那时候,杨绛的剧本《称心如意》、《弄假成真》、《游戏人间》等已经被陆续搬上舞台,反响强烈,她的名号成了著名编剧,相当于今天的王海�、 石康。不过,那时候编剧是个请苦活儿,没有一集一万元的价码。
  
  太太编剧事业风生水起,刺激钱钟书想写长篇小说。杨绛并没有说你不如多上几节课,赚点钞票,而是“你写吧,生活不用担心。虽然我们已经比较节俭,但可以更节俭一些”。于是,他减少了上课,在家写作,而她辞掉了女佣,一切家务自己扛。
  
  一起生活的63年,她与他比赛读书,比赛做学问,一起郊游,甚至曾经试图不行绕莱蒙湖一圈,他们的灵魂站在了完全平等的高度,与她的爱情理想一样。
  
  当然,人不仅仅有灵魂,还有沉重的肉身,要吃喝拉撒,要生老病死。
  
   他对她的界定是妻子、情人、朋友,除此之外,应该是有另外一个身份,大约举得不好意思说出口,那就是“母亲”。她第一次做虾,看到虾被刀切时会抽搐,心 有余悸,问他可不可以不吃虾。他撒娇说,不,我要吃虾。于是,她莞尔一笑,继续做虾。她生女儿住院。他第一天来探她,说,我打翻墨水瓶,弄脏了房东太太的 桌布。第二天说,台灯坏了。第三天说,门轴两端的钢珠掉了。她一律回答“不要紧”。果真,她回家后,桌布变白了,台灯、门轴也统统修好。
  
  63年间,她从未拿过任何家务事去烦他,有些麻烦甚至解决了便不告诉他。她习惯了与他分享幸福,而将烦恼交由自己处理,因为幸福经过分享会有双倍的甜蜜,烦恼却并不会因为两人一起分担而变得更少,相反,有时会增添焦虑与争执。
  
  这样的婚姻生活,同样著作等身,事业不输丈夫一分的她,是很有理由抱怨的,她却看透了“人间不会有单纯的快乐,快乐总夹带着烦恼和忧虑”,或许正是因为中间夹着烦恼与忧愁,那点滴的快乐才更为人所珍惜。
  
   无数爱情,从童话走向悲愤怨恨、万劫不复,无不是其中的一方甚至双方,寄希望于永恒的快乐,于是耿耿于怀那些烦恼与忧虑。她不是视爱情为生命的女人,作 品中鲜少有情爱描写,甚至他与她之间很少用“爱”这个字眼。冷静与适度的抽离正是她对待感情的方式。从这一点来说,她是彻头彻尾的实干家,“珍惜得到的每 一分,而那些没有得到的,皆是本应与自己无关的”。
  
  “地狱里尽是不知感激的人。”这是他与她最喜欢的一句话。他感激她的付出,而 她,感激他让自己愿意付出。生命中伤害过我们的人,换个角度来看,都是值得我们去感激的人,更何况那些曾经带给我们或短或长快乐的人。人生感激无尽,抱怨 亦是无尽。感激或者抱怨的有时是同一个人,同一件事,只看你愿意选择哪一种方式。

来源:网络转载

近期新手 推上乱涂 立此存照 #dec10

在千百个柑橘中找个完美它很难//
在万千个女子中找个合适她不易//
既来之,则寻之,守猪待兔中。 #dec8

等�:
等�等到银杏叶全都落了;
等�等到金菊花全都谢了。
酷暑至严冬,乌发变银丝。 #dec8

杯具丢了,可以寻回//
肋骨丢了,哪里寻找//
问题偷偷刻在推特//
沙不能埋风吹不掉//

写给未来的�:
我希望//
我和�读过书卷可以堆满180m2
我给�写信邮票可以厚达18cm
我和�心与心间距离只有18mm

小城笼罩雾色中//
远望楼宇若隐若现//
一片苍茫如梦如幻//
借我借我一双慧眼//
让我看个明明白白//

猜得到有雾,//
猜不到如雨。//
相逢亦如此,//
只猜到开始?//

不可抑止自繁华//
难以挽留自飘零//
离不远,只是另一世界//
别不长,只是一生不见//

Award Ceremony Speech of 2010 Nobel peace prize

Award Ceremony Speech

Presentation Speech by Thorbjørn Jagland, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Oslo, 10 December 2010.


Your Majesties, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2010 to Liu Xiaobo for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has long believed that there is a close connection between human rights and peace. Such rights are a prerequisite for the "fraternity between nations" of which Alfred Nobel wrote in his will."

This was the first paragraph of the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s announcement on the 8th of October of the award of this year’s Peace Prize.

We regret that the Laureate is not present here today. He is in isolation in a prison in north-east China. Nor can the Laureate’s wife Liu Xia or his closest relatives be here with us. No medal or diploma will therefore be presented here today.

This fact alone shows that the award was necessary and appropriate. We congratulate Liu Xiaobo on this year’s Peace Prize.

There have been a number of previous occasions when the Laureate has been prevented from attending. This has in fact been the case with several awards which have proved in the light of history to have been most significant and honourable. Even when the Laureate has come, he or she has several times been severely condemned by the authorities of his or her own country.

There was a great deal of trouble in 1935, when the Committee gave the award to Carl von Ossietzky. Hitler was furious, and prohibited all Germans from accepting any Nobel Prize. King Haakon did not attend the ceremony. Ossietzky did not come to Oslo, and died a little over a year later.

There was considerable outrage in Moscow when Andrej Sakharov received his Prize in 1975. He, too, was prevented from receiving the award in person. He sent his wife. The same thing happened to Lech Walesa in 1983. The Burmese authorities were furious when Aung San Suu Kyi received the Peace Prize in 1991. Once again, the Laureate could not come to Oslo.

In 2003, Shirin Ebadi received the Nobel Peace Prize. She came. Much could be said of the reaction of the Iranian authorities, but the Iranian Ambassador did in fact attend the ceremony.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has given four Prizes to South Africa. All the Laureates came to Oslo, but the awards to Albert Lutuli in 1960 and to Desmond Tutu in 1984 provoked great outrage in the apartheid regime in South Africa, before the applause broke out thanks to the awards to Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk in 1993.


The point of these awards has of course never been to offend anyone. The Nobel Committee’s intention has been to say something about the relationship between human rights, democracy and peace. And it has been important to remind the world that the rights so widely enjoyed today were fought for and won by persons who took great risks.

They did so for others. That is why Liu Xiaobo deserves our support.

Although none of the Committee’s members have ever met Liu, we feel that we know him. We have studied him closely over a long period of time.

Liu was born on the 28th of December 1955 in Changchun in China’s Jilin province. He took a Bachelor’s degree in literature at Jilin University, and a Master’s degree and a PhD at Beijing Normal University, where he also taught. Stays abroad included visits to Oslo, Hawaii, and Columbia University, New York.

In 1989 he returned home to take part in the dawning democracy movement. On the 2nd of June he and some friends started a hunger strike on Tiananmen Square to protest against the state of emergency that had been declared. They issued a six-point democratic manifesto, written by Liu, opposing dictatorship and in favour of democracy. Liu was opposed to any physical struggle against the authorities on the part of the students; he tried to find a peaceful solution to the tension between the students and the government. Non-violence was already figuring prominently in his message. On the 4th of June he and his friends tried to prevent a clash between the army and the students. He was only partially successful. Many lives were lost, most of them outside Tiananmen Square.

Liu has told his wife that he would like this year’s Peace Prize to be dedicated to "the lost souls from the 4th of June." It is a pleasure for us to fulfil his wish.

Liu has said that "The greatness of non-violent resistance is that even as man is faced with forceful tyranny and the resulting suffering, the victim responds to hate with love, to prejudice with tolerance, to arrogance with humility, to humiliation with dignity, and to violence with reason."

Tiananmen became a turning-point in Liu’s life.

In 1996, Liu was sentenced to three years in a labour camp for "rumour-mongering and slander." He was president of the independent Chinese PEN-centre from 2003 to 2007. Liu has written nearly 800 essays, 499 of them since 2005. He was one of the chief architects behind Charter 08, which was made known on the 10th of December 2008, which was, in the words of the document’s Preamble, on the occasion of "the one hundredth anniversary of China’s first Constitution, the 60th anniversary of the promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 30th anniversary of the birth of the Democracy Wall, and the 10th anniversary of the Chinese government’s signature of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." Charter 08 defends fundamental human rights and has in due course been signed by several thousand persons both in China itself and abroad.

On the 25th of December 2009, Liu was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment and two years’ loss of political rights for, in the words of the sentence, "incitement to the overthrow of the state power and socialist system and the people’s democratic dictatorship." Liu has consistently claimed that the sentence violates both China’s own constitution and fundamental human rights.

There are many dissidents in China, and their opinions differ on many points. The severe punishment imposed on Liu made him more than a central spokesman for human rights. Practically overnight, he became the very symbol, both in China and internationally, of the struggle for such rights in China.

Your Majesties, ladies and gentlemen,

During the cold war, the connections between peace and human rights were disputed. Since the end of the cold war, however, peace researchers and political scientists have almost without exception underlined how close those connections are. This is, allegedly, one of the most "robust" findings they have arrived at. Democracies may go to war against dictatorships, and have certainly waged colonial wars, but there is, apparently, not a single example of a democracy having gone to war against another democracy.

The deeper "fraternity between nations" which Alfred Nobel mentions in his will, and which is a prerequisite for real peace, can hardly be created without human rights and democracy.

There are scarcely any examples in world history of a great power achieving such rapid growth over such a long period of time as China. Since 1978, year by year, decade after decade, the country’s growth rate has stood at 10 percent or more. A few years ago the country’s output was greater than Germany’s; this year it exceeded Japan’s. China has thus achieved the world’s second largest gross national product. The USA’s national product is still three times greater than China’s, but while China is continuing its advance, the USA is in serious difficulties.

Economic success has lifted several hundred million Chinese out of poverty. For the reduction in the number of poor people in the world, China must be given the main credit.

We can to a certain degree say that China with its 1.3 billion people is carrying mankind’s fate on its shoulders. If the country proves capable of developing a social market economy with full civil rights, this will have a huge favourable impact on the world. If not, there is a danger of social and economic crises arising in the country, with negative consequences for us all.

Historical experience gives us reason to believe that continuing rapid economic growth presupposes opportunities for free research, thinking and debate. And moreover: without freedom of expression, corruption, the abuse of power, and misrule will develop. Every power system must be counterbalanced by popularly elected control, free media, and the right of individual citizens to criticise.

More or less authoritarian states may have long periods of rapid economic growth, but it is no coincidence that nearly all the richest countries in the world are democratic. Democracy mobilises new human and technological resources.

China’s new status entails increased responsibility. China must be prepared for criticism and regard it as positive – as an opportunity for improvement. This must be the case wherever there is great power. We have all formed opinions on the role of the USA through the years. Friends and allies criticised the country both for the Vietnam War and for the lack of civil rights for the coloured people. Many Americans were opposed to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Martin Luther King in 1964. Looking back, we can see that the USA grew stronger when the African-American people obtained their rights.

Many will ask whether China’s weakness – for all the strength the country is currently showing – is not manifested in the need to imprison a man for eleven years merely for expressing his opinions on how his country should be governed.

This weakness finds clear expression in the sentence on Liu, where it is underlined as especially serious that he spread his opinions on the Internet. But those who fear technological advances have every reason to fear the future. Information technology can not be abolished. It will continue to open societies. As Russia’s President Dmitrij Medvedev put it in an address to the Duma: "The new information technology gives us an opportunity to become connected with the world. The world and society are growing more open even if the ruling class does not like it."

No doubt Medvedev had the fate of the Soviet Union in mind. Compulsory uniformity and control of thought prevented the country from participating in the technological revolution which took place in the 1970s and 80s. The system broke down. The country would have stood to gain a great deal more from entering into a dialogue at an early stage with people like Andrej Sakharov.

Your Majesties, ladies and gentlemen,

Today neither the nation-state nor a majority within the nation-state has unlimited authority. Human rights limit what the nation-state and the majority in a nation-state can do. This must apply to all states that are members of the United Nations and who have acceded to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. China has signed and even ratified several of the UN’s and the ILO’s major international conventions on human rights. It is interesting that China has accepted the supranational conflict-resolving mechanism of the WTO.

China’s own constitution upholds fundamental human rights. Article 35 of the country’s constitution thus lays down that "Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration." Article 41 begins by stating that citizens "…have the right to criticise and make suggestions regarding any state organ or functionary."

Liu has exercised his civil rights. He has done nothing wrong. He must therefore be released!

In the past 100 to 150 years, human rights and democracy have gained an ever-stronger position in the world. And with them, peace. This can be clearly seen in Europe, where so many wars were fought, and whose colonial powers started so many wars around the world. Europe today is on the whole a continent of "peace". Decolonization after the Second World War gave a number of countries, first in Asia and then in Africa, the chance to govern themselves with respect for basic human rights. With India in the lead, many of them seized the opportunity. Over the latest decades, we have seen how democracy has consolidated its position in Latin America and in Central and Eastern Europe. Many countries in the Muslim part of the world are treading the same path: Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia. Several other countries are in the process of opening up their political systems.

The human rights activists in China are defenders of the international order and the main trends in the global community. Viewed in that light, they are thus not dissidents, but representatives of the main lines of development in today’s world.

Liu denies that criticism of the Communist Party is the same as offending China and the Chinese people. He argues that "Even if the Communist Party is the ruling party, it cannot be equated with the country, let alone with the nation and its culture." Changes in China can take time, a very long time: political reforms should, as Liu says, " be gradual, peaceful, orderly and controlled." China has had enough of attempts at revolutionary change. They only lead to chaos. But as Liu also writes, "An enormous transformation towards pluralism in society has already taken place, and official authority is no longer able to fully control the whole society." However strong the power of the regime may appear to be, every single individual must do his best to live, in his words, "an honest life with dignity."

The answer from the Chinese authorities is to claim that this year’s Peace Prize humiliates China, and to give very derogatory descriptions of Liu.

History shows many examples of political leaders playing on nationalist feelings and attempting to demonize holders of contrary opinions. They soon become foreign agents. This has sometimes happened in the name of democracy and freedom, but almost always with a tragic outcome.

We recognise this in the rhetoric of the struggle against terrorism: "You are either for me or against me." Such undemocratic methods as torture and imprisonment without sentence have been used in the name of freedom. This has led to more polarisation of the world and harmed the fight against terrorism.

Liu Xiaobo is an optimist, despite his many years in prison. In his closing appeal to the court on the 23rd of December 2009, he said: "I, filled with optimism, look forward to the advent of a future free China. For there is no force that can put an end to the human quest for freedom, and China will in the end become a nation ruled by law, where human rights reign supreme."

Isaac Newton once said, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." When we are able to look ahead today, it is because we are standing on the shoulders of the many men and women who over the years – often at great risk – have stood up for what they believed in and thus made our freedom possible.

Therefore: while others at this time are counting their money, focussing exclusively on their short-term national interests, or remaining indifferent, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has once again chosen to support those who fight – for us all.

We congratulate Liu Xiaobo on the Nobel Peace Prize for 2010. His views will in the long run strengthen China. We extend to him and to China our very best wishes for the years ahead.

2010年10月14日星期四

中国报道周刊:民国时期的言论自由情况

 1970年10月23日,范长江的遗体在河南省确山县的一个枯井里被发现。他是怎么死的?是自杀的还是被害死的,至今都是一个谜。不过,这已经不重要了,即使是自杀的,也是由于残酷迫害所致。他已经被关押三年了,受尽了折磨。

  范长江在中國新闻史上是个名记,他最早出名是因为他在国民黨统治区里第一个报道红军长征后的情况。

  1935年,26岁的范长江做为《大公报》记者到西北采访,写了几十篇采访通讯,汇编成《中國的西北角》系列报道,其中透漏了红军北上的情况。 1936年西安事变爆发后,他又到了陕北,写了系列通讯《塞上行》,介绍了共產黨和红军在陕北的情况,替共產黨做了宣传。《中國的西北角》和《塞上行》使 他成了全国知名的记者,也成了共產黨的朋友。

  1938年,他离开了大公报,投奔了共產黨,从一个自由的记者变成了组织的喉舌。他先后当过新华社的总编辑,《人民日报》社的社长,为黨的宣传事业兢兢业业地效力,热情讴歌黨。

  范长江的经历与悲惨结局很说明问题。他在国民黨统治区的媒体工作时,可以报道反对政府“分裂国家”的“CCP”的情况,甚至为之做宣传,还可以 在文章中批评政府的剿匪政策,他不仅没有被问罪惩处,还由此成了名人。而他为共產黨做宣传工作,从来没有为对立政黨说话,更没有对自己的组织、政府和领袖 说过一个 “不”字,但最终却难逃杀身之祸,冤死在黨的天下……

  不知是谁的主意,现在中國新闻界的最高奖项是以范长江命名的,这真是莫大的讽刺。不知道“范长江新闻奖”是号召新闻工作者学习他在《大公报》时期与政府保持距离的自由精神,还是要大家记住他在组织内充当喉舌最终被戕害的命运?

  透过范长江和《大公报》,我们可以看到国民黨统治时期的言论自由状况的一个层面。

  国民黨引进了苏联的经验,以黨治国,限制言论自由。孙中山有一个蔑视民众的理论,认为国民素质低下,革命者的要当民众的“保姆”,要对人民进行 教育训导,要实行“训政”。为此国民黨仿照苏共模式成立了负责舆论宣传的中宣部,并在执政后发布了一系列控制舆论的法令,建立了新闻检查制度,建立了由中 央报刊、广播、通讯社和遍及各地的地方黨报所组成的完整系统的黨的宣传体系。国民黨还查禁对立政黨的报纸,迫害报人。由此看来,国民黨在言论自由方面比慈 禧、袁世凯和北洋军阀时期大大倒退了,但要比它以后宽松得多。

  说它宽松主要是指它允许民间办报,报纸不仅不必只唱主旋律,还可以批评政府。

  范长江所在的《大公报》就是民间报纸,它的办报宗旨就是超黨派,要代表人民说话,做人民的喉舌。《大公报》提出了“不黨、不卖、不私、不盲”的四不社训。不做黨派的工具;不以言论做交易;不为自己谋私利;绝不盲从盲信盲动。

  《大公报》每天都会发一篇社评,以敢于揭露社会的黑暗面敢于“骂”驰名。它既骂共產黨,也骂国民黨。共產黨当时属于反政府武装,骂骂无妨,可敢骂执政的国民黨,一方面说明它有胆量,另一方面也说明国民黨有点雅量。

  在国共两黨刚开始北伐时,《大公报》就发表社评反对,认为北伐是苏俄为了自身的利益挑动中國人内斗,给中國四万万人民带来了战祸,尤其对“国民黨自信以武力革命统一中國”表示担忧。

  《大公报》还对国民黨在苏俄的指导下“仿俄式而练黨军”表示极端不满,尖锐地指出:“国军私有,民治沦亡。”军队属于黨,人民还怎么可能治理国家呢?

  1927年蒋介石执政后,《大公报》发表了《呜呼领袖欲之罪恶》《蒋介石之人生观》等文章抨击蒋介石汪精卫等人。并发表《黨祸》一文对国民黨在 四·一二以后以暴力铲除政治对手共產黨的做法表示极大的愤怒。抗战时期,报纸搬到重庆,它也直截了当地抨击官僚们灯红酒绿的生活。对于《大公报》敢骂国民 黨政府,有人说那是属于“小骂大帮忙”,但是,共產黨执政后为什么不需要这样的“大帮忙”呢?为什么不允许“大帮忙”的报纸存在呢?不要说骂,报纸敢给领 导人提意见吗?

  我们再看看《申报》。这家老牌报纸敢于在国民黨执政后“猖狂”向黨进攻,说“国民黨不再是一个革命集团。”“它谄媚帝国主义,背叛民众。”“已 成为革命罪人。” 它还“猖狂”地反对领袖,严厉批评蒋委员长,公开反对蒋的剿匪政策。在蒋介石第四次围剿中 共红军的时候,它连续发表了三篇与中央对着干的时评,《剿匪与造匪》、《再论剿匪与造匪》、《三论剿匪与造匪》,指斥政府:“今日举国之匪,皆黑暗政治所 造成,一面造匪,一面剿匪,匪何时能绝。”“官逼民变,民安能不变。”

  不仅仅是《大公报》和《申报》,其他民办报纸也常常登载批评政府、揭露和讽刺社会丑恶现象的文章,揭发官员的贪污腐败行为;抨击政府的不抵抗政 策,批判蒋介石“先安内,后攘外”的论调。抗战后,《世界日报》还公然向国共两黨提出要求:“国民黨还政于民”“共產黨还军于国”。

  蒋介石也在一定程度上容忍报刊的批评。蒋介石1929年12月28日曾经向报界发出通电,请报界对国民黨政府黨务、政治、军事、财政、外交、司法各方面尽情批评。

  国民黨统治时期除了允许民间办报外,还允许民间办广播和成立通讯社,它没有把所有媒体统统变成权力的附设机构,变成执政黨的喉舌。

  国民黨视共產黨为“匪”,对共產黨采取的是鎮壓政策,在言论自由方面也封堵共產黨的声音。国民黨制定的法律把宣传共產主义和階級斗争定性为反动 宣传。但是,亲共產黨或者干脆就是共產黨员的左翼文人,却可以在国民黨统治区办报,或在媒体上发表文章。国民黨对言论自由的控制远不够严厉、坚决和成熟。

  被称为骨头最硬的鲁迅在国民黨时期发表了大量具有战斗精神的硬骨头文章,仅在《申报》的《自由谈》副刊,就发表了143篇文章。鲁迅一生主编或 参与主办的报刊有十九个,其中一半是在国民黨时期办的。如果那时候蒋介石对舆论进行严格的控制,不准媒体发表鲁迅的文章,或者鲁迅的反黨反政府言论一出笼 就被“右派”被“劳教”被“劳改”甚至被“镇反”,硬骨头要么变成软骨头,要么变成骨灰。我们就会少看到许多硬骨头文章,鲁迅全集就要减掉几册。

  那时候,左翼作家包括共產黨员如瞿秋白、郭沫若、周扬、矛盾、巴金、郁达夫、老舍、叶圣陶等都可以公开在国统区发表作品,共產黨控制的左翼作家联盟还先后办了十几份刊物,如《文化批判》《太阳月刊》等。

  抗战期间国共两黨合作,共產黨办的《新华日报》可以在国民黨统治区出版发行,宣传共產黨的主张。国民黨执政时期有左派、右派和中间派的报纸,但国民黨以后的中國,就只有当权派的报纸了。

  国民黨虽然实行了新闻审查制度,不过,检查得不是很严。1945年8月7日,国民黨统治区发生了“拒检运动”,就是各家报纸联合行动,不送检就出报,国民黨也不在意自己的权威和面子,居然在10月1日废除了新闻检查制度。

  当然,国民黨对于它认为严重出格的媒体也是要耍淫威的,有时限令停刊1天,有时限令停刊3天。对于它认为太过分的,则不惜使用暗杀手段。比如前 面提到的《申报》老板史量才,就是被暗杀的。史量才是个不畏权贵的人,有好心人曾经劝他不要得罪当局,说蒋介石有百万军队得罪不起,史量才回答说,我也不 敢得罪百万读者呀。史量才被暗杀后,蒋介石不敢承认是自己干的,还下令彻底追查,远没有红太阳执政后不许敌人乱说乱动的气魄和气势。

  1946年国共内战爆发后,国民黨查封了共產黨报纸,还杀害了共產黨的报人羊枣。上海的61位新闻记者居然敢于公开提出联合抗议,各报予以登 载。这在我们看来是不可思议的,红太阳时期,别说是鎮壓敌方的报人,就是把自己的国家主席迫害死了,也不会有任何媒体敢吱一声的,不仅不敢吱声,还一个劲 地拥护呢。无论杀谁,舆论都会一致高呼“大快人心”。即使是今天,也不会有哪个报纸敢为政府的敌人被杀而向政府提出抗议。

  不管怎么说,国民黨统治时期是中國近代史上言论自由非常黑暗的时期,但不是最黑暗的时期。

  出处:网易历史 郭老学徒

  作者:郭老学徒

2010年10月13日星期三

(转载)执行宪法第35条,废除预审制,兑现公民的言论出版自由!

原始来源:https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1DaoVdtYIvSfwNLmFbPBPyLMcXRo1v0GcQsXbvtC-OUI

  李锐 胡绩伟 等 10月11日,2010

  全国人民代表大会常务委员会:

  中华人民共和国1982年宪法第35条载明:“中华人民共和国公民有言论、出版、集会、结社、游行、示威的自由。”这一条文28年不兑现,被党政机关制定的“执行”细则所否定。这种原则承认具体否定的假民主,成为世界民主史上的丑闻。

  2003年2月26日,胡锦涛主席上任不久,在中共中央政治局常委与民主党派人士举行的民主协商会上,明确地说:

  新闻解禁、开放人民舆论阵地,是社会的主流意见和诉求,是正常的,要以立法形式解决。共产党自身不改革,不改造,就会失去生命力,走向自然消亡。

  2010年10月3日美国有线电视台CNN播出了访谈节目主持人法瑞德?扎卡利亚对中国总理温家宝的专访。温家宝回答记者提问时说:

  言论自由对任何国家都不可或缺;中国宪法赋予民众享有言论自由;人民对民主自由的诉求不可抗拒。

  根据宪法和胡锦涛主席、温家宝总理讲话精神,我们仅就兑现言论出版自由之宪法权利方面陈情如下:

  关于我国言论出版自由的现状

  我堂堂中华人民共和国公民名义上“当家做主”61年,但我们享有的言论出版自由竟不如回归祖国前的香港,即不如殖民地居民。

  回归前的香港是英国殖民地,女王政府任命总督管理这个地方,但港英当局给香港居民言论出版自由,不是空头的,纸面上的,是落实的,兑现的。

   1949 年建国,人民欢呼解放了,当家做主了,毛泽东宣布“中国人民从此站起来了。”但直到今天,建国61年,搞了30年改革开放,我们还没有得到香港人殖民地时 代就有的言论出版自由。现在有些参政议政的书籍,要拿到香港出版,这不是回归祖国的福荫,是沿袭殖民时代的旧法。大陆人民的“当家作主”地位实在太窝囊。 国家宣称的有中国特色的“社会主义民主”实在太尴尬。

  岂止普通公民,连共产党的高级干部都没有言论出版自由。最近李锐遇到一件事情: 不久前《周小舟纪念文集》出版,原来收进了李锐1981年在《人民日报》发表的纪念周小舟的一篇文章,但出版的书中没有。周小舟夫人打电话向李锐解释: “北京通知,不能用李锐的文章。”连1981年发表在党报上的旧作也不让收进文集,真是荒唐至极!李锐说:“这算什么样的国家?!我大声疾呼:新闻必须自 由!扼杀公民的言论自由是完全违法的!”

  岂止高级干部,连国家总理都没有言论出版自由!2010年8月21日温家宝总理在深圳发表题 为《只有坚持改革开放,国家才有光明前途》的讲话。谈到“不仅要推进经济体制改革,还要推进政治体制改革。没有政治体制改革的保障,经济体制改革的成果就 会得而复失,现代化建设的目标就不可能实现。”新华社21日通稿《开创经济特区的美好明天》,把温家宝讲话中政治体制改革的内容删掉了。

   2010 年9月22日(美国当地时间)温家宝总理在纽约与美国华文媒体和港澳媒体负责人进行座谈,再次强调了“政治体制改革”的重要性。温说:“关于政治体制改 革,我曾经讲过,经济体制改革如果没有政治体制改革的保障,也不会彻底取得成功,甚至已经取得的成果还会得而复失。”温家宝随后在纽约联合国总部出席第 65届联合国大会一般性辩论发表题为《认识一个真实的中国》的讲话,其中也谈及了政治体制改革。9月23日(北京时间)晚间,中央电视台《新闻联播》以及 新华社通稿报导这些活动时,只报导了温家宝谈及海外华人的处境、海外华文媒体的作用等内容,提及政治体制改革的讲话,都被过滤掉了。

   这些事情,如果追究责任,绝对查不到具体人,这是一只看不见的黑手。他们自知理亏违宪,通常以电话通知某人的作品不能发表、某事不能见诸媒体。打电话的官 员不留姓名,叮嘱执行者为其保密,但必须执行他的电话指示。这只看不见的黑手就是中宣部。现在是中宣部凌驾于党中央之上,凌驾于国务院之上。试问中宣部有 什么权力封锁总理的声音?有什么权力剥夺全国人民对总理讲话的知情权?

  我们的核心要求是取消审批制,改行追惩制

  把宪法第35条言论出版自由变成可望而不可及的墙上画饼,是经过《出版管理条例》等具体执行细则来完成的。这些执行细则,槪而言之就是深文周纳的审批制。有数不清的清规戒律限制言论出版自由。制定新闻出版法,废除审批制,已成为当务之急。

   建议全国人大立即着手制定新闻出版法,废除《出版管理条例》和地方当局管制新闻出版的那些条条框框。落实宪法第35条给予公民言论出版自由,从体制上看 就是从党政机关直接控制到媒体相对独立,从“党的喉舌”转变为“社会公器”。因此,新闻出版法的立法基础必须是实行追惩制,而不能再以“加强党的领导”的 名义强化审批制。所谓审批制,就是出版物在出版以前须经党政机关的审查,批准了你才能出版,不批准出了就是非法出版物。所谓追惩制,就是出版物不必向党政 机关报批,总编辑通过了就开印,出版发行完全自由。出版后如有不良后果和纠纷,政府再介入,根据法律判断是非对错。世界各国新闻出版法制的发展,走的是由 审批制向追惩制过渡的道路。无疑,追惩制比起审批制是一个历史性进步,对推动人文科学和自然科学的发展,推动社会和谐历史进步起了伟大的作用。英国早在 1695年即废除了预防检查制。1881年法国废除了预防检查制,报纸、刊物出版前的手续仅仅需要一份简单的声明,由报刊领导人签署,邮寄共和国检察院即 可。我国目前实行的书报审查制度,比英国落后315年,比法国落后129年。

  我们的具体要求

  一、取消媒体的主管单位,由主办单位独立负责;真正落实出版单位的社长、总编辑负责制。

   二、尊重记者,树立记者 “无冕之王”的社会地位。记者报道群体性事件,揭发官员贪污腐败,是为民请命的神圣事业,应受到保护和支持。立即制止某些地方政府和公安机关随意抓捕记者 的违宪行为。追究谢朝平案的幕后操纵者,渭南市委书记梁凤民必须下台,以申党纪,以儆效尤。

  三、取消限制媒体跨省进行舆论监察的禁令,保障中国记者在全中国领土上采访报道的权利。

  四、互联网是社会信息和公民意见的重要交流平台,除确实涉及国家机密的信息和侵犯公民隐私的言论之外,网络管理部门不能随意删除网帖和跟帖,取消网特,取消“五毛党”,取消对“翻墙”的技术限制。

  五、党史无禁区,中国公民有权知道执政党的罪错。

   六、允许《南方周末》和《炎黄春秋》改制为民营报刊作为探路试点。报刊民营化是政治改革的方向。历史的教训是:施政者与评议者高度一体化,政府和媒体都 姓 “党”,自己搭台唱戏,自己鼓掌喝彩,是很难和民意沟通实现正确领导的。从大跃进到文化大革命,大陆所有的报刊杂志、广播电视,从来没有反映过真实的民 意。党和国家领导人耳边听不到不同的声音,就既难发现、更难纠正正在发生的全局性的错误。执政党和政府拿纳税人的钱办媒体为自己歌功颂德,这在民主国家是 不允许的。

  七、允许已经回归中国的香港、澳门的书籍报刊在大陆公开发行。我国加入了WTO,在经济上已经融入世界,企图在文化上闭关锁国,是违背改革开放的既定方针的。港澳文化是送上国门的先进文化,观之于港澳报刊书籍备受群众欢迎而益信。

   八、转变各级宣传部门职能,由制定多少个“不准”,转变为保障信息准确、及时、畅通;由帮助贪官污吏压制封锁批评揭露的稿件,转变为支持媒体对党政机关 发挥监督作用;由封报刊、撤总编、抓记者,转变为对抗强权,保护媒体和记者。宣传部门在党内、在社会上名声很臭,要做几件好事恢复名誉。在适当的时机,可 以考虑宣传部更名,以符合世界潮流。


  迫切陈情,敬希亮察。

  2010年10月1日

  发起人(23人):

  李 锐(前中央组织部常务副部长,中共十二届中央委员,十二、十三届中顾委委员。)

  胡绩伟(前《人民日报》社长、总编辑,第六、七届全国人大常委,全国新闻学会联合会会长)

  江 平(原政法大学校长、终身教授,七届人大常委、人大法律委员会副主任)

  李 普(原新华社副社长)

  周绍明(原广州军区政治部副主任)

  锺沛璋(原中宣部新闻局局长)

  王永成(上海交通大学教授,欧洲科学、艺术与人文研究院通讯院士)

  张忠培(故宫博物院研究员,原院长,中国考古学会理事长)

  杜 光(原中共中央党校教授)

  郭道晖 (原《中国法学》杂志社总编辑)

  萧 默(原中国艺术研究院建筑艺术研究所所长)

  庄浦明(原人民出版社副社长)

  胡甫臣 (原中国工人出版社社长兼总编辑)

  张 定(原中国社会科学院社会科学出版社社长)

  于 友(原《中国日报》社总编辑)

  欧阳劲 (香港《太平洋杂志》总编辑)

  于浩成 (原群众出版社社长)

  张 清(原中国电影出版社社长)

  俞月亭 (原福建电视台台长、高级记者)

  沙叶新 (前上海人民艺术剧院院长,现为回族独立作家)

  孙旭培(原社会科学院新闻研究所所长)

  辛子陵(原国防大学当代中国编辑室主任)

  铁 流(民刊《往事微痕》总编辑)

  法律顾问:

  宋 岳(中国籍公民,美国纽约州执业律师)