这无害于存在

姚洋：体制的社会主义与道义的社会主义       

                                                                                                                              
more...

为小强和李老师的组员准备的。
 

Congratulations, dear Annie! I feel really really happy for you. It's the best day I've spent recently. But now there's no person who's gonna marry me when both of us get to thirty, haha:) Kisssssss.

gmail, google.com教育网被封解决办法

见北大未名http://bdwm.net/bbs/bbscon.php?board=Google&file=M.1245891104.A&num=4136&attach=0&dig=0
或手动修改DNS

我本来不喜欢阴谋论的.

"绿坝"作用值得肯定 不良网络文化还应治本 新华网嘛

过滤软件，各国如何用  环球时报嘛

谷歌中国涉嫌传播低俗信息 首家被单独点名
2009年5月19日，工业和信息化部印发了《关于计算机预装绿色上网过滤软件的通知》，要求国内计算机生产销售企业在2009年7月1日后出厂和销售的计算机以硬盘预装或随机光盘两种方式预装“绿坝-花季护航”绿色上网过滤软件。其目的就是为了防止未成年人受到互联网不良信息的影响，保护青少年健康成长。巧合的是，在政府大力提倡“绿坝”的同时，谷歌中国再度因传播低俗信息被曝光。

新华传媒调查之：如何肃清网络淫秽色情与低俗信息  什么叫强奸民意

一、你怎样看待谷歌等网站的低俗之风

1：见利忘义

2：社会责任缺失

二、网络低俗在重拳打击之下，目前的状态是

1：仍然很严重

2：大有好转

3：有所好转

三、网络低俗之风的危害

1：腐蚀社会，特别是未成年人

2：损害社会稳定

3：影响国家形象

四、你对打击、整顿网络色情低俗之风的态度

1：坚决支持

2：严惩不怠

五、如何才能有效抑制网络低俗

1：加强行业自律

2：技术手段保障绿色空间

3：健全法制，严格监管，该罚罚、该关关

事情正在发生变化

谷歌“无辜”姿态蒙蔽了多少人   文革语言天天见

西方社交网站卷入伊朗危机 帮伊反对派搞串联 youtube twitter flicker google gmail 下一个会是谁?

“高也”也敏感了，不信你试试
还有,新入学的北大新生们要被派上国庆阅兵了~~不知"自发"打出什么标语来,关注关注

为五毛党喝彩!

以下来自维基百科,网络评论员辞条 自然被封，需要代理

对于表现突出，引导得力的网评员，党会给予奖励。例如新华网2007年度优秀网评人评选，共有10名评论员获奖，他们分别是：余丰慧，李克杰，亦菲，郭松民，赵志疆，石飞，艾琳（谭浩俊），毛建国，陈一舟，倪洋军（排名不分先后）。 其中获奖人亦菲的“喝彩”系列网评以喝彩而闻名，他表示，发一篇文章可拿四五十元。

五毛党合影

喝彩系列网评(大多发表于“中国共产党新闻网”上，以评论员文章形式出现):
《为墨西哥疫区航班如期抵上海喝彩》 
《为坊间语言入政府工作报告喝彩》 
《为“世界第一坝”简朴庆典喝彩》 
《为刘淇的定力喝彩》 
《为张艺谋又一个100分喝彩》 
《为外交部发言人幽默回答“鞋袭”问题喝彩》 
《为省委书记的“探索观”喝彩》 
《为陈冯富珍当选世卫组织总干事喝彩》 
《为<资本论>搬上舞台喝彩》 
《为五星红旗“飘扬”太空喝彩》 
《为中南海的“问计”喝彩》 
《为毛家第三代无意“政治”喝彩》 
《为法总统的正确决定喝彩》 
《为又一个一百分喝彩》 
《为“没有零就业家庭”喝彩》 
《为政协民主监督“精品意识”喝彩》 
《为“抛头露面”的十七大代表喝彩》 
《秉公碰硬引公众喝彩 发改委成"发火委"有啥不好》 
《从温总理“为双方喝彩”说开去》 
《大部制，“大步”走，人们理所当然为之喝彩，为之击掌！》 


谢谢kot配图

工作 跑步 游泳 睡觉
a little bit tired. 
+u +u

爱德华·R·莫罗（Edward R.Murrow）1958年在芝加哥举办的广播电视新闻主管协会与基金会晚宴上的讲话。供CCTV参考。




Edward R. Murrow 1958 Speech

RTNDA Convention, Chicago
October 15, 1958

This just might do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his own comfortable nest, and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous thoughts. But the elaborate structure of networks, advertising agencies and sponsors will not be shaken or altered. It is my desire, if not my duty, to try to talk to you journeymen with some candor about what is happening to radio and television.

I have no technical advice or counsel to offer those of you who labor in this vineyard that produces words and pictures. You will forgive me for not telling you that instruments with which you work are miraculous, that your responsibility is unprecedented or that your aspirations are frequently frustrated. It is not necessary to remind you that the fact that your voice is amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other does not confer upon you greater wisdom or understanding than you possessed when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other. All of these things you know.

You should also know at the outset that, in the manner of witnesses before Congressional committees, I appear here voluntarily-by invitation-that I am an employee of the Columbia Broadcasting System, that I am neither an officer nor a director of that corporation and that these remarks are of a "do-it-yourself" nature. If what I have to say is responsible, then I alone am responsible for the saying of it. Seeking neither approbation from my employers, nor new sponsors, nor acclaim from the critics of radio and television, I cannot well be disappointed. Believing that potentially the commercial system of broadcasting as practiced in this country is the best and freest yet devised, I have decided to express my concern about what I believe to be happening to radio and television. These instruments have been good to me beyond my due. There exists in mind no reasonable grounds for personal complaint. I have no feud, either with my employers, any sponsors, or with the professional critics of radio and television. But I am seized with an abiding fear regarding what these two instruments are doing to our society, our culture and our heritage.

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word survive literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done--and are still doing--to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizens from anything that is unpleasant.

I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.

Several years ago, when we undertook to do a program on Egypt and Israel, well-meaning, experienced and intelligent friends shook their heads and said, "This you cannot do--you will be handed your head. It is an emotion-packed controversy, and there is no room for reason in it." We did the program. Zionists, anti-Zionists, the friends of the Middle East, Egyptian and Israeli officials said, with a faint tone of surprise, "It was a fair count. The information was there. We have no complaints."

Our experience was similar with two half-hour programs dealing with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Both the medical profession and the tobacco industry cooperated in a rather wary fashion. But in the end of the day they were both reasonably content. The subject of radioactive fall-out and the banning of nuclear tests was, and is, highly controversial. But according to what little evidence there is, viewers were prepared to listen to both sides with reason and restraint. This is not said to claim any special or unusual competence in the presentation of controversial subjects, but rather to indicate that timidity in these areas is not warranted by the evidence.

Recently, network spokesmen have been disposed to complain that the professional critics of television have been "rather beastly." There have been hints that somehow competition for the advertising dollar has caused the critics of print to gang up on television and radio. This reporter has no desire to defend the critics. They have space in which to do that on their own behalf. But it remains a fact that the newspapers and magazines are the only instruments of mass communication which remain free from sustained and regular critical comment. If the network spokesmen are so anguished about what appears in print, let them come forth and engage in a little sustained and regular comment regarding newspapers and magazines. It is an ancient and sad fact that most people in network television, and radio, have an exaggerated regard for what appears in print. And there have been cases where executives have refused to make even private comment or on a program for which they were responsible until they heard'd the reviews in print. This is hardly an exhibition confidence.

The oldest excuse of the networks for their timidity is their youth. Their spokesmen say, "We are young; we have not developed the traditions nor acquired the experience of the older media." If they but knew it, they are building those traditions, creating those precedents everyday. Each time they yield to a voice from Washington or any political pressure, each time they eliminate something that might offend some section of the community, they are creating their own body of precedent and tradition. They are, in fact, not content to be "half safe."

Nowhere is this better illustrated than by the fact that the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission publicly prods broadcasters to engage in their legal right to editorialize. Of course, to undertake an editorial policy, overt and clearly labeled, and obviously unsponsored, requires a station or a network to be responsible. Most stations today probably do not have the manpower to assume this responsibility, but the manpower could be recruited. Editorials would not be profitable; if they had a cutting edge, they might even offend. It is much easier, much less troublesome, to use the money-making machine of television and radio merely as a conduit through which to channel anything that is not libelous, obscene or defamatory. In that way one has the illusion of power without responsibility.

So far as radio--that most satisfying and rewarding instrument--is concerned, the diagnosis of its difficulties is rather easy. And obviously I speak only of news and information. In order to progress, it need only go backward. To the time when singing commercials were not allowed on news reports, when there was no middle commercial in a 15-minute news report, when radio was rather proud, alert and fast. I recently asked a network official, "Why this great rash of five-minute news reports (including three commercials) on weekends?" He replied, "Because that seems to be the only thing we can sell."

In this kind of complex and confusing world, you can't tell very much about the why of the news in broadcasts where only three minutes is available for news. The only man who could do that was Elmer Davis, and his kind aren't about any more. If radio news is to be regarded as a commodity, only acceptable when saleable, then I don't care what you call it--I say it isn't news.

My memory also goes back to the time when the fear of a slight reduction in business did not result in an immediate cutback in bodies in the news and public affairs department, at a time when network profits had just reached an all-time high. We would all agree, I think, that whether on a station or a network, the stapling machine is a poor substitute for a newsroom typewriter.

One of the minor tragedies of television news and information is that the networks will not even defend their vital interests. When my employer, CBS, through a combination of enterprise and good luck, did an interview with Nikita Khrushchev, the President uttered a few ill-chosen, uninformed words on the subject, and the network practically apologized. This produced a rarity. Many newspapers defended the CBS right to produce the program and commended it for initiative. But the other networks remained silent.

Likewise, when John Foster Dulles, by personal decree, banned American journalists from going to Communist China, and subsequently offered contradictory explanations, for his fiat the networks entered only a mild protest. Then they apparently forgot the unpleasantness. Can it be that this national industry is content to serve the public interest only with the trickle of news that comes out of Hong Kong, to leave its viewers in ignorance of the cataclysmic changes that are occurring in a nation of six hundred million people? I have no illusions about the difficulties reporting from a dictatorship, but our British and French allies have been better served--in their public interest--with some very useful information from their reporters in Communist China.

One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news. Each of the three is a rather bizarre and demanding profession. And when you get all three under one roof, the dust never settles. The top management of the networks with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, sales or show business. But by the nature of the coporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this. It is not easy for the same small group of men to decide whether to buy a new station for millions of dollars, build a new building, alter the rate card, buy a new Western, sell a soap opera, decide what defensive line to take in connection with the latest Congressional inquiry, how much money to spend on promoting a new program, what additions or deletions should be made in the existing covey or clutch of vice-presidents, and at the same time-- frequently on the same long day--to give mature, thoughtful consideration to the manifold problems that confront those who are charged with the responsibility for news and public affairs.

Sometimes there is a clash between the public interest and the corporate interest. A telephone call or a letter from the proper quarter in Washington is treated rather more seriously than a communication from an irate but not politically potent viewer. It is tempting enough to give away a little air time for frequently irresponsible and unwarranted utterances in an effort to temper the wind of criticism.

Upon occasion, economics and editorial judgment are in conflict. And there is no law which says that dollars will be defeated by duty. Not so long ago the President of the United States delivered a television address to the nation. He was discoursing on the possibility or probability of war between this nation and the Soviet Union and Communist China--a reasonably compelling subject. Two networks CBS and NBC, delayed that broadcast for an hour and fifteen minutes. If this decision was dictated by anything other than financial reasons, the networks didn't deign to explain those reasons. That hour-and-fifteen-minute delay, by the way, is about twice the time required for an ICBM to travel from the Soviet Union to major targets in the United States. It is difficult to believe that this decision was made by men who love, respect and understand news.

So far, I have been dealing largely with the deficit side of the ledger, and the items could be expanded. But I have said, and I believe, that potentially we have in this country a free enterprise system of radio and television which is superior to any other. But to achieve its promise, it must be both free and enterprising. There is no suggestion here that networks or individual stations should operate as philanthropies. But I can find nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Communications Act which says that they must increase their net profits each year, lest the Republic collapse. I do not suggest that news and information should be subsidized by foundations or private subscriptions. I am aware that the networks have expended, and are expending, very considerable sums of money on public affairs programs from which they cannot hope to receive any financial reward. I have had the privilege at CBS of presiding over a considerable number of such programs. I testify, and am able to stand here and say, that I have never had a program turned down by my superiors because of the money it would cost.

But we all know that you cannot reach the potential maximum audience in marginal time with a sustaining program. This is so because so many stations on the network--any network--will decline to carry it. Every licensee who applies for a grant to operate in the public interest, convenience and necessity makes certain promises as to what he will do in terms of program content. Many recipients of licenses have, in blunt language, welshed on those promises. The money-making machine somehow blunts their memories. The only remedy for this is closer inspection and punitive action by the F.C.C. But in the view of many this would come perilously close to supervision of program content by a federal agency.

So it seems that we cannot rely on philanthropic support or foundation subsidies; we cannot follow the "sustaining route"--the networks cannot pay all the freight--and the F.C.C. cannot or will not discipline those who abuse the facilities that belong to the public. What, then, is the answer? Do we merely stay in our comfortable nests, concluding that the obligation of these instruments has been discharged when we work at the job of informing the public for a minimum of time? Or do we believe that the preservation of the Republic is a seven-day-a-week job, demanding more awareness, better skills and more perseverance than we have yet contemplated.

I am frightened by the imbalance, the constant striving to reach the largest possible audience for everything; by the absence of a sustained study of the state of the nation. Heywood Broun once said, "No body politic is healthy until it begins to itch." I would like television to produce some itching pills rather than this endless outpouring of tranquilizers. It can be done. Maybe it won't be, but it could. Let us not shoot the wrong piano player. Do not be deluded into believing that the titular heads of the networks control what appears on their networks. They all have better taste. All are responsible to stockholders, and in my experience all are honorable men. But they must schedule what they can sell in the public market.

And this brings us to the nub of the question. In one sense it rather revolves around the phrase heard frequently along Madison Avenue: The Corporate Image. I am not precisely sure what this phrase means, but I would imagine that it reflects a desire on the part of the corporations who pay the advertising bills to have the public image, or believe that they are not merely bodies with no souls, panting in pursuit of elusive dollars. They would like us to believe that they can distinguish between the public good and the private or corporate gain. So the question is this: Are the big corporations who pay the freight for radio and television programs wise to use that time exclusively for the sale of goods and services? Is it in their own interest and that of the stockholders so to do? The sponsor of an hour's television program is not buying merely the six minutes devoted to commercial message. He is determining, within broad limits, the sum total of the impact of the entire hour. If he always, invariably, reaches for the largest possible audience, then this process of insulation, of escape from reality, will continue to be massively financed, and its apologist will continue to make winsome speeches about giving the public what it wants, or "letting the public decide."

I refuse to believe that the presidents and chairmen of the boards of these big corporations want their corporate image to consist exclusively of a solemn voice in an echo chamber, or a pretty girl opening the door of a refrigerator, or a horse that talks. They want something better, and on occasion some of them have demonstrated it. But most of the men whose legal and moral responsibility it is to spend the stockholders' money for advertising are removed from the realities of the mass media by five, six, or a dozen contraceptive layers of vice-presidents, public relations counsel and advertising agencies. Their business is to sell goods, and the competition is pretty tough.

But this nation is now in competition with malignant forces of evil who are using every instrument at their command to empty the minds of their subjects and fill those minds with slogans, determination and faith in the future. If we go on as we are, we are protecting the mind of the American public from any real contact with the menacing world that squeezes in upon us. We are engaged in a great experiment to discover whether a free public opinion can devise and direct methods of managing the affairs of the nation. We may fail. But we are handicapping ourselves needlessly.

Let us have a little competition. Not only in selling soap, cigarettes and automobiles, but in informing a troubled, apprehensive but receptive public. Why should not each of the 20 or 30 big corporations which dominate radio and television decide that they will give up one or two of their regularly scheduled programs each year, turn the time over to the networks and say in effect: "This is a tiny tithe, just a little bit of our profits. On this particular night we aren't going to try to sell cigarettes or automobiles; this is merely a gesture to indicate our belief in the importance of ideas." The networks should, and I think would, pay for the cost of producing the program. The advertiser, the sponsor, would get name credit but would have nothing to do with the content of the program. Would this blemish the corporate image? Would the stockholders object? I think not. For if the premise upon which our pluralistic society rests, which as I understand it is that if the people are given sufficient undiluted information, they will then somehow, even after long, sober second thoughts, reach the right decision--if that premise is wrong, then not only the corporate image but the corporations are done for.

There used to be an old phrase in this country, employed when someone talked too much. It was: "Go hire a hall." Under this proposal the sponsor would have hired the hall; he has bought the time; the local station operator, no matter how indifferent, is going to carry the program-he has to. Then it's up to the networks to fill the hall. I am not here talking about editorializing but about straightaway exposition as direct, unadorned and impartial as falliable human beings can make it. Just once in a while let us exalt the importance of ideas and information. Let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey of the state of American education, and a week or two later the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East. Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged? Would the stockholders rise up in their wrath and complain? Would anything happen other than that a few million people would have received a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country, and therefore the future of the corporations? This method would also provide real competition between the networks as to which could outdo the others in the palatable presentation of information. It would provide an outlet for the young men of skill, and there are some even of dedication, who would like to do something other than devise methods of insulating while selling.

There may be other and simpler methods of utilizing these instruments of radio and television in the interests of a free society. But I know of none that could be so easily accomplished inside the framework of the existing commercial system. I don't know how you would measure the success or failure of a given program. And it would be hard to prove the magnitude of the benefit accruing to the corporation which gave up one night of a variety or quiz show in order that the network might marshal its skills to do a thorough-going job on the present status of NATO, or plans for controlling nuclear tests. But I would reckon that the president, and indeed the majority of shareholders of the corporation who sponsored such a venture, would feel just a little bit better about the corporation and the country.

It may be that the present system, with no modifications and no experiments, can survive. Perhaps the money-making machine has some kind of built-in perpetual motion, but I do not think so. To a very considerable extent the media of mass communications in a given country reflect the political, economic and social climate in which they flourish. That is the reason ours differ from the British and French, or the Russian and Chinese. We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture and our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. I would like to see it done inside the existing framework, and I would like to see the doing of it redound to the credit of those who finance and program it. Measure the results by Nielsen, Trendex or Silex-it doesn't matter. The main thing is to try. The responsibility can be easily placed, in spite of all the mouthings about giving the public what it wants. It rests on big business, and on big television, and it rests at the top. Responsibility is not something that can be assigned or delegated. And it promises its own reward: good business and good television.

Perhaps no one will do anything about it. I have ventured to outline it against a background of criticism that may have been too harsh only because I could think of nothing better. Someone once said--I think it was Max Eastman--that "that publisher serves his advertiser best who best serves his readers." I cannot believe that radio and television, or the corporation that finance the programs, are serving well or truly their viewers or listeners, or themselves.

I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us.

We are to a large extent an imitative society. If one or two or three corporations would undertake to devote just a small traction of their advertising appropriation along the lines that I have suggested, the procedure would grow by contagion; the economic burden would be bearable, and there might ensue a most exciting adventure--exposure to ideas and the bringing of reality into the homes of the nation.

To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.

Stonewall Jackson, who knew something about the use of weapons, is reported to have said, "When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival. 

三角眼嘛~~

今天看到上海的高考作文题，大失所望。高考无疑是中国教育的指挥棒.如此题目,毫无复杂性可言,究竟是要把年青学子的精力引向何处，是空泛的议论还是华丽的辞藻，还是把高考作为向学生贯输官方意识形态的工具？请问这种垃圾题有什么角度可选，什么意见可立？高考要底是在考什么？还是我太幼稚了,不能体会考官出题的深意？转型期的中国有这么多问题要去关心，为什么我们就找不到能让考生自由表达自己思想一个题目。问一声，同学，你对这个问题怎么看？

横向对比一下,就是为学子们所不齿的美国研究生成绩记录考试（GRE）,其任何一道作文题(题库公开)都比中国考官的苦思冥起设为国家最高机密的考题要复杂和“有趣”得多.随便举几例:
 
Issue
17.有两种法律：公平的和不公平的。社会中的每个人都应该遵守公平的法律，更重要的是，应该不遵守或者违抗不公平的法律
104.一种文化要想保留它认为好的东西，消除它认为不好的东西，最重要的是通过正规的教育。
161. 在媒体覆盖率很大的当今社会，人们不可能把一个人当作英雄。任何有威望的人在媒体强烈的“关注”下都会名声扫地。
176.科学的目的是打消疑虑，艺术的目的是颠覆。只有这样，它们才有价值。
186. 在任何领域，只有那个领域的专家做出的批评和判断才是有实际价值的


2009上海卷高考作文题。

根据以下材料选取一个角度，自拟题目，写一篇作文。 
　　【要求】①自选角度，自行立意。②除诗歌外，文体不限。③不少于800字。
　　郑板桥的书法，用隶书参以行楷，非隶非楷，非古非今，俗称“板桥体”。他的作品单个字体看似歪歪斜斜，但总体感觉错落有致，别有韵味，有人说“这种作品不可无一，不可有二”。

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
讨论
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L

我觉得这和想要考察的东西不同有关。

高考作文仍算在“语文卷”里，官方欲考察的主要是想象力和表达能力。中国一直很强调写作的想象力这一层面，对于新概念作文思想的沿袭、对于非素质教育的攻击都有推波助澜。各种各样的“作家”得到保送也是重视想象力的证据。另外亦和评卷标准有关。带有价值观取向的题目很难客观评改，故剔除过于主观的立论可能，在官方看来或许是必要的。更不用说这是个连space都要封杀的体系，大部分考生潜移默化之下估计也只敢中庸。

至于GRE，个人理解主要是考逻辑和表达能力。其评改标准不怎么欣赏想象力，这样看来高考作文的体系还更有弹性了。话说回来，很多人倒觉得高考应该愈客观愈好，这样能减少投机取巧的可能性，有投机可能便会有寻租。

我总觉得中国大大小小的制度虽有各种攻击的可能，但它们总是在一个“狭窄的政策走廊”中的折中办法。仔细想想亦有向其妥协的道理。anyway，存在即有理，或许是这样。

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
徐小青

你说的非常有道理,我很同意.尤其同意你说的"相对客观".因为比如圆明园兽首这样的题目,我实在对阅卷人的能力心存疑虑,要是他是个小左,或是小右,或者脑残,启不更埋没英才?可能问题更大.但是我不同意"存在即合理",这是对黑格尔的误读,黑格尔这句话其实是想说,存在的是真实的(real),因为它必会走向灭亡.

我们只能寄希望于"优秀人才"在辞藻(或表达)和虚伪的抒情(或揣摩圣意)方面也能胜人一筹.但这是一个很强的假设.与其说是追求"客观",不如说是愚民,最好你没有观点.转一位尊敬的老师写给我的邮件,我相信这正是我想说的(这位老师是著名的自由主义者,可别误会成他鼓吹皇权哟):

Yiqing，果如你所批评的，同意，主要问题是不能诱发复杂思考。这是我们的高考制度不如古代科举制度的要害之处。因为，科举最终需要与皇帝对话，其中有“策问”这样的治国方略，必须复杂思考。我们的教育部却从来不需要通过考试制度来选择什么国策人才。所以，独裁与独裁，还有区别呢。我们的独裁，是“集体领导”，所以，无人负责，只有官僚化而已。皇帝独裁，却是个人负责，殃及家族，必须选贤任能。

且行且珍惜.