The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made it 【Richard Hofstadter 《 美国政治传统 》 1959 年版 】 【黄安年个人藏书书目（美国问题英文部分编号 165 ）】 黄安年文 黄安年的博客 / 2019 年 2 月 08 日 发布（第 20863 篇） 自2019年起，笔者将通过博客陆续发布个人收藏的全部图书书目，目前先发布美国问题英文书目，已经超过164本，每本单独编号，不分出版时间先后与图书类别。 这里发布的是 Richard Hofstadter 著 The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made it （ 《 美国政治传统 》）， Vintage Books, Inc., 1959 年版，381页。 照片14张拍自该书 1 ， 2 ， 3 ， 4 ， 5, 6, 7 ， 8 ， 9 ， 10. 11, 12, 13, 14,
William Safire 1929 - 2009 William Safire, a speechwriter for President Richard M. Nixon and a Pulitzer Prize-winning political columnist for The New York Times who also wrote novels, books on politics and a Malaprop's treasury of articles on language, died on Sept. 27, 2009 . He was 79. Mr. Safire began writing his twice weekly Essay for the Op-Ed Page of The New York Times in 1973. His last Op-Ed column, Never Retire , appeared in 2005. From 1979 until his death he wrote On Language , a New York Times Magazine column that explored written and oral trends, plumbed the origins and meanings of words and phrases, and drew a devoted following, including a stable of correspondents he called his Lexicographic Irregulars. Mr. Safire also wrote four novels, including Full Disclosure (Doubleday, 1977), a best-seller about succession issues after a president is blinded in a freak accident, and nonfiction that included The New Language of Politics (Random House, 1968) and Before the Fall (Doubleday, 1975), a memoir. The columns, many collected in books, made him an unofficial arbiter of usage, and one of the most widely read writers on language. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/william_safire/index.html William Safire, a speechwriter for President Richard M. Nixon and a Pulitzer Prize -winning political columnist for The New York Times who also wrote novels, books on politics and a Malaprop’s treasury of articles on language, died at a hospice in Rockville, Md., on Sunday. He was 79. The cause was pancreatic cancer, said Martin Tolchin, a friend of the family. There may be many sides in a genteel debate, but in the Safire world of politics and journalism it was simpler: There was his own unambiguous wit and wisdom on one hand and, on the other, the blubber of fools he called “nattering nabobs of negativism” and “hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history.” He was a college dropout and proud of it, a public relations go-getter who set up the famous Nixon-Khrushchev “kitchen debate” in Moscow, and a White House wordsmith in the tumultuous era of war in Vietnam, Nixon’s visit to China and the gathering storm of the Watergate scandal, which drove the president from office. Then, from 1973 to 2005, Mr. Safire wrote his twice-weekly “Essay” for the Op-Ed page of The Times, a forceful conservative voice in the liberal chorus. Unlike most Washington columnists who offer judgments with Olympian detachment, Mr. Safire was a pugnacious contrarian who did much of his own reporting, called people liars in print and laced his opinions with outrageous wordplay. Critics initially dismissed him as an apologist for the disgraced Nixon coterie. But he won the 1978 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, and for 32 years tenaciously attacked and defended foreign and domestic policies, and the foibles, of seven administrations. Along the way, he incurred enmity and admiration, and made a lot of powerful people squirm. Mr. Safire also wrote four novels, including “Full Disclosure” (Doubleday, 1977), a best-seller about succession issues after a president is blinded in an assassination attempt, and nonfiction that included “The New Language of Politics” ( Random House , 1968), and “Before the Fall” (Doubleday, 1975), a memoir of his White House years. And from 1979 until earlier this month, he wrote “On Language,” a New York Times Magazine column that explored written and oral trends, plumbed the origins and meanings of words and phrases, and drew a devoted following, including a stable of correspondents he called his Lexicographic Irregulars. The columns, many collected in books, made him an unofficial arbiter of usage and one of the most widely read writers on language. It also tapped into the lighter side of the dour-looking Mr. Safire: a Pickwickian quibbler who gleefully pounced on gaffes, inexactitudes, neologisms, misnomers, solecisms and perversely peccant puns, like “the president’s populism” and “the first lady’s momulism,” written during the Carter presidency. There were columns on blogosphere blargon, tarnation-heck euphemisms, dastardly subjunctives and even Barack and Michelle Obama ’s fist bumps. And there were Safire “rules for writers”: Remember to never split an infinitive. Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixing metaphors. Proofread carefully to see if you words out. Avoid clichés like the plague. And don’t overuse exclamation marks!! Behind the fun, readers said, was a talented linguist with an addiction to alliterative allusions. There was a consensus, too, that his Op-Ed essays, mostly written in Washington and syndicated in hundreds of newspapers, were the work of a sophisticated analyst with voluminous contacts and insights into the way things worked in Washington. Mr. Safire called himself a pundit — the word, with its implication of self-appointed expertise, might have been coined for him — and his politics “libertarian conservative,” which he defined as individual freedom and minimal government. He denounced the Bush administration’s U.S.A. Patriot Act as an intrusion on civil liberties, for example, but supported the war in Iraq. He was hardly the image of a button-down Times man: The shoes needed a shine, the gray hair a trim. Back in the days of suits, his jacket was rumpled, the shirt collar open, the tie askew. He was tall but bent — a man walking into the wind. He slouched and banged a keyboard, talked as fast as any newyawka and looked a bit gloomy, like a man with a toothache coming on. His last Op-Ed column was “Never Retire.” He then became chairman of the Dana Foundation, which supports research in neuroscience, immunology and brain disorders. In 2005, he testified at a Senate hearing in favor of a law to shield reporters from prosecutors’ demands to disclose sources and other information. In 2006, he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President George W. Bush . From 1995 to 2004, he was a member of the board that awards the Pulitzer Prizes. William Safir was born on Dec. 17, 1929, in New York City, the youngest of three sons of Oliver C. and Ida Panish Safir. (The “e” was added to clarify pronunciation.) He graduated from the Bronx High School of Science and attended Syracuse University , but quit after his second year in 1949 to take a job with Tex McCrary, a columnist for The New York Herald Tribune who hosted radio and television shows; the young legman interviewed Mae West and other celebrities. In 1951, Mr. Safire was a correspondent for WNBC-TV in Europe and the Middle East, and jumped into politics in 1952 by organizing an Eisenhower-for-President rally at Madison Square Garden. He was in the Army from 1952 to 1954, and for a time was a reporter for the Armed Forces Network in Europe. In Naples he interviewed both Ingrid Bergman and Lucky Luciano within a few hours of each other. In 1959, working in public relations, he was in Moscow to promote an American products exhibition and managed to steer Vice President Richard M. Nixon and Soviet Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev into the “kitchen debate” on capitalism versus communism. He took a well-known photograph of the encounter. Nixon was delighted, and hired Mr. Safire for his 1960 campaign for the presidency against John F. Kennedy . Starting his own public relations firm in 1961, Mr. Safire worked in Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller ’s 1964 presidential race and on John V. Lindsay ’s 1965 campaign for mayor of New York. Mr. Safire also wrote his first book, “The Relations Explosion” (Macmillan, 1963). In 1962, he married the former Helene Belmar Julius, a model, pianist and jewelry designer. The couple had two children, Mark and Annabel. His wife and children survive him, as does a granddaughter, Lily Safire. In 1968, he sold his agency, became a special assistant to President Nixon and joined a White House speechwriting team that included Patrick J. Buchanan and Raymond K. Price Jr. Mr. Safire wrote many of Nixon’s speeches on the economy and Vietnam, and in 1970 coined the “nattering nabobs” and “hysterical hypochondriacs” phrases for Vice President Spiro T. Agnew . After Arthur Ochs Sulzberger , publisher of The Times, hired Mr. Safire, one critic said it was like setting a hawk loose among doves. As Watergate broke, Mr. Safire supported Nixon, but retreated somewhat after learning that he, like others in the White House, had been secretly taped. Mr. Safire won his Pulitzer Prize for columns that accused President Jimmy Carter ’s budget director, Bert Lance, of shady financial dealings. Mr. Lance resigned, but was acquitted in a trial. He then befriended his accuser. Years later, Mr. Safire called Hillary Clinton a “congenital liar” in print. Mrs. Clinton said she was offended only for her mother’s sake. But a White House aide said that Bill Clinton , “if he were not the president, would have delivered a more forceful response on the bridge of Mr. Safire’s nose.” Mr. Safire was delighted, especially with the proper use of the conditional. This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: Correction: September 29, 2009 An obituary on Monday about the columnist William Safire referred imprecisely to a photograph he took of the “kitchen debate,” the 1959 encounter between Vice PresidentRichard M. Nixon and Nikita S. Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, in Moscow. His picture, though well known, was not “the” one to become “an icon of the encounter.” Another picture, by Elliott Erwitt, showing Nixon poking Khrushchev’s chest, also achieved iconic status. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/us/28safire.html William Safire: Language Legend 说文解字的奇才-威廉．萨菲尔 作者：Paul Sterman 已故专业演讲撰稿人兼专栏作家留给世人丰富的语文瑰宝 讣文形容威廉萨．菲尔是一位作家Author、辞典编纂家Lexicographer、专业演讲撰稿人speechwriter、评论权威Pundit、行家Maven。如果他还在的话，他会喜欢这些字眼，不只因为是赞辞，更因为这些头衔，显示了他在英文造诣上的博学多闻。萨菲尔还能够告诉你每一个字的来源。作家这个字源自拉丁文，辞典编纂者是希腊文，专业演讲撰稿人是盎格鲁撒克逊语-属于德国方言的一种，评论权威是印度语，至于行家则是意第绪语(犹太人使用一种德语与希伯来语的混合语言)。萨菲尔喜爱英语具有的活力、乡土气、延展性和幽默。人们敬爱萨菲尔也正因为他具有这些特质。 演讲会的会员特别赞赏他的文才，任何一个曾搔首捻须苦思一篇能表达明确，蕴含睿智、风格、优雅的讲稿的人，都会了解这位才子了不起的成就。 这位博学多闻土生土长的纽约人，在传播界具有极大的影响力，去年九月逝世，享年七十九岁。他为纽约时报杂志写了卅年的‘谈语言’专栏，机智诙谐、妙趣横生，广受欢迎，使他成为当代最知名的英文字汇和语法权威。 萨菲尔同时也是纽约时报，得过普立兹奖的政治专栏作家，前美国总统尼克松知名演讲撰稿人，再此之前他是高知名度的公关人员。 华尔街日报专栏作家佩琪．努南Peggy Noonan以曾任美国里根和老布什总统的演讲撰稿人闻名，她赞扬萨菲尔重大的贡献，称呼他是媒体界与政治界的‘巨人’。她说萨菲尔也是一位宽宏大度的导师和朋友。 佩琪．努南在一场演讲会杂志的访问中回忆说：“比尔(William的另一种称呼)给一些我所听过的最好的专业建议‘写你所经历的和看到的’。” “他觉得那些活在历史现场的人(在白宫工作的每一个人就是活在历史现场的人)有责任将他们的经历，尽可能正确地、真实地纪录下来，不要任它消逝，沦为茶余饭后的闲话轶闻。”佩琪．努南说，萨菲尔的督促奏效了，她很感激他的鼓励和支持。 ‘他催促我每天写一两个感想。我说这是个好主义，可是我没有时间；我晚上十点才下班已经很累了。他却说：“一个句子就好，每个人都做得到！”我同意了，也试着做了。其实他心知肚明，哪有一个作家只写一个句子的。就这样他得寸进尺地，使我从同意写一个句子，再要我同意写个一页、两页或三页。正因为这样，我才没有把白宫弄丢了，我一直保存着；我尽我所能的记录我知道的事件。’ 萨菲尔在他的语言专栏，以他精明幽默的笔调，谈论语言的发展趋势、文法课题、政治语艺和漫无止境的字词排列组合。他探讨的题材从‘部落格族行话blargon (blog jargon)’到‘真是够了﹗enough already’这个词组细微的文法差别。 其他的专栏文章，还作字源学上的探讨，萨菲尔深入探究俚语的来源和字辞的历史，像‘肥皂soap’这样基本的字也不放过。他有一次追踪‘意气风发地走galumph(注一)’这个字的演进，追溯到它的源头为“galumpher”?出现在刘易斯卡罗尔Lewis Carroll所著的艾丽斯漫游仙境书中。可曾想过‘亲吻拥抱canoodle’这个字吗？萨菲尔发现它可能与德国水饺有关，德语称为‘Knoedel’。 萨菲尔曾经写道：‘我是一个语言“行家”，这个字有好多含意，它有酷爱迷、热爱者、学者、鉴赏家的意思在内’。甚至于橄榄球赛也成笑柄。2006年滚石乐团在美国橄榄球超级杯大赛中作中场表演时，?萨菲尔还是不放过大大有名的主唱米克杰格Mick Jagger，追究他的蹩脚文法。米克杰格向观众介绍他们最受欢迎的一首歌‘满足’时说‘耐心等待,必有斩获Everything comes to he who waits’，萨菲尔指出，中场又出了一个状况，这次是用字不正确。这位专栏作家对米克杰格的语病，提出他教授级的解释：‘因为he是男性第三人称主格，在这句话中不能作为介系词to的受词，正确的代名词应该要用受格代名词him’。 懂了吧？ 想想看，若由萨菲尔当你的演讲会的语法讲评员，毫无疑问的，那将是一个学习经验。 1950年代的后期，萨菲尔开始崭露头角成为全美国的知名人士，当时他是纽约一家公关机构的执行主管。1959年美国与苏联冷战的紧张关系稍趋缓和，两国正享受着解冻的欢愉气氛，双方赞助举办文化交流。那一年，美国国家展览会在莫斯科举行，萨菲尔就在当地，不经意的看到他客户-某住宅建筑公司所建造的样品屋展览品。展览会开幕典礼由当时的美国副总统尼克松Richard Nixon主持，主宾则是苏联总理赫鲁晓夫Nikita Khrushchev；这两位领导者可能会随便浏览一下样品屋就离开了，但是萨菲尔想出一个妙计，让他们不知不觉地成了他的客户的促销者。展览会原先已规划好流畅的、单向进出动线。萨菲尔做了一个小小的改变，重新调整警戒线，使参观的人潮可从两个方向进入会场，而堵住了尼克松和赫鲁晓夫的通路。与他们同行的口译员和达官显贵们，通通被困在样品屋的厨房里头。一事牵引一事也不知怎么地，总之，最后引发尼克松和赫鲁晓夫一场针锋相对的核武激辩。这段插曲后来成为众所周知的‘厨房辩论’事件。这里头还包括了一张令人难忘的、萨菲尔诡谲设计的照片-尼克松用手指戳着赫鲁晓夫的胸膛。那镜头证明了尼克松是个，敢与苏联大胆对抗的人。这位副总统不得不佩服这名机智的公关人员，暗中操控这场偶发事件。萨菲尔赚到了一个新客户。 1968年尼克松当选美国总统，萨菲尔加入行政行列担任演讲撰稿人。讽刺的是，在五年的白宫演讲撰稿人生涯中，萨菲尔最令人难忘的，是他的一句妙语。副总统安格纽担任执政党的辩护者，谴责外界的批评像‘喋喋不休的否定论大佬nattering nabobs of negativism’(注：出自萨菲尔手笔)。独一无二的短语，于当时一般的政治语艺中独树一帜，引起了轰动。反映了萨菲尔语言的才华，和他对押头韵alliteration的喜爱，在他一生的写作生捱中随时都显露着这样的天赋。 离开白宫专业演讲撰稿人的工作后，萨菲尔成为纽约时报一名坚韧犀利的政治评论员，并于1978年荣获人人称羡的普立兹奖。但是除了他政治评论专栏抨击的对象可能引起不安外，大家都知道萨菲尔是个温和儒雅容易相处的人，尤其对从事写作的人特别大方。佩琪努南说，当她开始在白宫当演讲撰稿人时，萨菲尔是她的大贵人。 她指出：‘比尔比我年长一个世代。他以我最需要的也是年轻人最感激的的方式鼓励我，当我们交谈的时候，他注意倾听，称赞我的时候一本正经。职场习于以施恩的态度对待年轻人。比尔萨菲尔却不。他具有全然的平等观念，他能够向每一个人学习，不管他们的年龄或地位，而且每一个人也能够向他学习。’ 萨菲尔对语言的热爱开始得很早。他在纽约长大，常在各种不同的街区闲逛，耳边常听到一大堆不同的语言：意大利语、德语、乌克兰语、华语、意第绪语。即使是普遍讲英语的小区，他们的方言也带着浓浓的爱尔兰腔。 他从1979年起写‘谈语言’专栏，直到去世前的几个星期才停笔。他写的13,000篇专栏文章和许多书籍，奠定他堪为世界最重要评论家的地位(写作语言：英语)。萨菲尔可能会为一些常犯的错误感到懊恼，比如︰将‘碰巧的fortuitous’和‘侥幸的fortunate’两个字搞混；但是他不是一个迂腐的传统主义者。相反的，萨菲尔曾经写道︰‘我欢迎能带给我们更能准确表达的、更能添增色彩的、更具表达力的新字或有新用法的旧字。’ 这位天才的文字师父，是星期天早上脱口秀很受欢迎的权威人士，著作等身，包括小说和一本回忆录。他的著作中有一本是‘请听我说︰历史上的伟大演说集Lend me Your Ears︰Great Speeches in History’。其他的许多书籍则是他‘谈语言’专栏的文集。 比尔萨菲尔于去年秋天逝世。他留给我们他对语言的热爱，作为他的遗产；他留给我们他的才华，为我们立下标竿。
哈佛大学最近又多了一位大学教授，至此其大学教授人数达到23人。科研是其一部分，教学是很重要的部分。 Eric S. Maskin , a Nobel laureate whose work has had widespread impact on economics and aspects of political science, has been named a University Professor, Harvard’s highest honor for a faculty member. Maskin, who helped to lay the foundations of mechanism design theory and has made major contributions to game theory, was recognized for groundbreaking scholarship that crosses academic boundaries and for his dedication to teaching. “An extraordinarily distinguished scholar and educator, Eric Maskin has made contributions across the field of economics, from game theory to intellectual property rights to political economy,” Harvard President Drew Faust said. “As a member of the Harvard faculty, he has distinguished himself not only for his research, but for his outstanding teaching, his skillful mentoring, and his warmth and vitality as a colleague and leader in the University’s intellectual life.” The University Professorships were established in 1935 to recognize individuals whose work on the frontiers of knowledge cross the traditional boundaries of academic disciplines. Maskin’s appointment as the Adams University Professor follows the retirement of musicologist Christoph Wolff, who held the chair for 10 years. There are 23 faculty members who hold the title University Professor.
Foreword T he emergence of China as a global economic and political force is one of the most significant develop ments of our time. We must work together if we are to deal with the major challenges we face. Most pressing is the global economic crisis. We need China to play a full role, in partnership with us, if we are to restore confidence, growth and jobs and make real progress towards creating an open, flexible and robust global economy. I am convinced that Britain, Europe and the rest of the world can benefit from China’s rise – provided we get our response right. Co-operation with China is vital to reduce poverty, to resolve conflict, and to develop an effective framework to address climate change. To achieve all of this we need China and China needs the rest of the world. The UK has a lot to offer China. Our commitment to economic openness, our strength in science and innovation, our cutting edge design and our world-class universities all interest a country engaging with the rest of the international community like never before. We are building a strong and dynamic partnership which allows open dialogue. Our experience of creating a society based on accountability, rule of law and human rights is relevant to China as it goes through massive social change. I urge China to make progress in these areas. But China has much to offer Britain too. Over the next decade it is likely to present more opportunities for our businesses than any other country. It is, like the UK, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and can be our partner in tackling the issues that matter to us. If we are to make the most of our relationship with China, we need to understand China better, through our schools, universities, cultural institutions, our businesses and in Government. I am determined to do just that. The Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP The Prime Minister The logic of this framework is straightforward: over the next four years and beyond, strong relations with China can help create a better Britain, a better China and a better world. There are, of course, major economic benefits from our relationship. In an unstable economic climate, China’s role as a motor of the global economy becomes even more important. But the framework is about more than this. It sets out ambitious aims and outcomes for co-operation with China across the board. And it shows that China’s own sustainability and development are in our national interest as well. Two examples: China’s decisions on its energy, transport and building infrastructure over the next five years will establish the path of its carbon emissions over the next thirty. And China’s growing engagement with Africa has the potential to help African countries make real strides towards the Millennium Development Goals – China itself being one of the biggest global MDG success stories. Promotion of human rights is a fundamental part of this Framework, both because it is the right thing to do, and because we firmly believe that greater respect for human rights will enable China to manage peacefully the internal tensions it will inevitably encounter as it continues to develop. A policy of engagement and co-operation is integral to our promotion of human rights, and will remain an extremely high priority for the Government in the years ahead. We have never before set out publicly our policy on China in this way and this document is intended to begin a broader conversation. I look forward to your views. The Rt Hon David Miliband MP The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 原文见 http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/4103709/5476465/5550005/uk-and-china
【按】这是应西班牙某社会学刊物写的一篇discussion paper。也许算是个评论性的文字，用英文写的，不想译成中文了，好在大家英文都不错，没关系的。有兴趣者就看看吧。 Professor Bruce Bimber gives us a sound description between technology and political power in his Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution of Political Power. It is an interesting topic and as the subtitle of the book shows, he is very much concerned with the evolution of technology. Evolution is a big word that could be employed in any situation. Bimber, however, confined this big word to a small area in the world and in an even narrower manner to political power. America is a young country with advanced technology, especially Internet, which is so popular at present. Bimber’s interests also focus on the new technology with what he called post-bureaucratic pluralism during the information age with its pervasive computing. Actually, politics has to be adapted to changing technology, that is to say, bureaucracy should have an alternative form with respect to previous ones. In this book, Bimber provides a historical framework of the four political information revolutions from the “very birth of the American constitution” to the “technological revolution driven by the Internet” in the United States. And different conventions have their own ways of spreading information, hence political powers have to use these means for their own convenience to achieve their political endeavors. The author argues that political organizations and structures in the United States have adapted over time to the changing opportunities and constraints for managing political information and communication. These changes in the cost and distribution of communication and information have not occurred continuously, but have gone through long periods of stability punctuated by rather rapid moments of transformation arising from technological developments or changes in the economic and institutional complexity of society. These information revolutions advantaged certain kinds of organizations and structures over others in the political marketplace, leading to adaptation in the world of politics. These were not changes in the structure of state institutions, though they have clearly evolved over more than two centuries. Changes associated with information revolutions have been concentrated in the domain of the linkage organizations and intermediaries that connect individuals in a sometimes rapidly changing society to the more slowly evolving structures of the state. The rise of the Internet and the adaptation of political organizations to changing circumstances in the 1990s and 2000s produced the fourth information regime in the US, which is characterized by abundance in information and communication, and which has weakened relationships between the distribution of material resources and the ability to organize certain kinds of political action. Transforming matter into material is certainly a social process. However, nobody would assert that it is fully controlled by society, even less so when material is combined to form complex artifacts and systems. Technology is not a conscious subject; it is not an independent object by itself. It forms visible and often frightening environments, which are enabling and forbidding at the same time. Observations such as are the foundation of the dilemma of technological determinism: Is society the High Priest or the apprentice? Or are both residents within society? Is there agency in technology or only behind it? Nonetheless, Bimber is optimistic about the post-bureaucratic pluralism or information regime as he called for the political engagement of the citizen via Internet. Especially, he concluded that the information revolution will be in the middle. A well informed citizenry is a “well-established tenet of American popular culture.” Good citizenship as the core value can be much better attained in the information revolution, and “the rise of contemporary in information technology raises questions about this ideal of informed citizenship.” What questions? Bimber puts out a few, for example, if the evolution of media and the changing characteristics of information across time lead to changes in the nature of political intermediaries, what about levels of citizen engagement? Is the rise of information abundance and new post-bureaucratic structures for collective action in the contemporary period linked to the broader engagement in politics? In the Preface to the Chinese edition of his book, Bimber observed that two important developments have occurred since the book was written. In the world of technology and politics itself, a new generation of Internet tools that rapidly came to be called “social media” appeared. Beginning in 2003 and 2004, new ways of employing the Internet and cellular telephony gave primacy to people’s ability to create and distribute their own messages, images, and other content, and to organize their communication and sharing of information around social networks – their own networks, the networks of the people within their networks, and networks further removed. A key feature of this development for politics is that boundaries have broken down between these layers of networks of individual citizens on the one hand, and on the other hand the mass media and political organizations. This phenomenon has been global in scale, and through social networking tools has touched politics in other countries. In the US, these collapsing boundaries between citizens in their social networks and formal political organizations have thus far reached their peak during Barack Obama’s successful presidential campaign in 2008 – a campaign that featured the intensive and adept use of technologies that had not existed even a few years before. In the midst of the present information revolution, five or ten years is a very long time. The second development involves advances in research on media and politics. In the world of academic research, five or even ten years is not such a long time, though there has been much new work on digital media and politics. In the US context, and also to some extent in Europe, Asia and other places of the world, a question of central fascination for many people has been whether or not the Internet would precipitate an increase in various kinds of democratic participation. Those findings have been interpreted variously as evidence for and against an effect on participation from Internet use. It is now much clearer that a small positive association does exist between Internet use and participation in some cases, and this can not be explained away as an artifact of political interest. It is likely that the effect is concentrated among younger generations, and it appears increasingly clear that interest in public affairs and other motivational characteristics interact with the use of digital media – something that was not explored in this book. Beyond the lingering question of participation rates, the larger argument in this book was that the real action in politics and technology in the US lies in changing political structures for engagement and in new ways of organizing, not in how many people do or do not engage. Bimber believes that most of that argument is holding up well. The social media revolution has done nothing if not accelerate those processes of information revolution. New structures of political association appear and fade away through social media tools, often focused on specific events such as protests or political decisions. At the same time, long-standing formal organizations are adapting and exploring new strategies. It is said the number of the Internet users in China is the largest in the world. So far as the question of democracy is concerned, it is always a sensitive topic because of the wide and instant spreading of information across the Internet. And the consequence might be drastic in a country with such a large population. In contrast to the information regime, China is trying to adopt a deliberative democracy in order not to trigger the problem as Bimber observed with regard to the Million Mother March, etc. Public forums break through the limits of time and space resulting in direct and indirect communication for citizens to negotiate with the traditional bureaucratic officers, forcing them to encounter the questions in real society, which were often concealed due to the bureaucracy system. Politics is regarded as a topic within the government. However, with the rise of the Internet in China, discussion and engagement beyond the government has come into being. In pluralistic environments many common topics in relation to politics and policies are being debated and communicated. This, in my opinion, provides momentum for the evolution of the political structure on the one hand, and on the other, it dissolves the unstable factors during the process of modernization and stimulates the democratic consciousness of citizens. However, we have to admit there is still a long way ahead in a country that has experienced such an accelerated social transformation in the last 10 years. Bimber’s book is an outstanding mirror for the Chinese scholars in which we can see that the new technology will sooner or later change the political scenario of China.
Associations Between State Economic and Health Systems Capacities and Service Use by Children With Special Health Care Needs Abstract To examine the relationship between measures of state economic, political, health services, and Title V capacity and individual level measures of the well-being of CSHCN. We selected five measures of Title V capacity from the Title V Information System and 13 state capacity measures from a variety of data sources, and eight indicators of intermediate health outcomes from the National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs. To assess the associations between Title V capacity and health services outcomes, we used stepwise regression to identify significant capacity measures while accounting for the survey design and clustering of observations by state. To assess the associations between economic, political and health systems capacity and health outcomes we fit weighted logistic regression models for each outcome, using a stepwise procedure to reduce the models. Using statistically significant capacity measures from the stepwise models, we fit reduced random effects logistic regression models to account for clustering of observations by state. Few measures of Title V and state capacity were associated with health services outcomes. For health systems measures, a higher percentage of uninsured children was associated with decreased odds of receipt of early intervention services, decreased odds of receipt of professional care coordination, and increased odds of delayed or missed care. Parents in states with higher per capita Medicaid expenditures on children were more likely to report receipt of special education services. Only two state capacity measures were associated explicitly with Title V: states with higher generalist physician to population ratios were associated with a greater likelihood of parent report of having heard of Title V and states with higher per capita gross state product were less likely to be associated with a report of using Title V services, conditional on having heard of Title V. The state level measure of family participation in Title V governance was negatively associated with receipt of care coordination and having used Title V services. The measures of state economic, political, health systems, and Title V capacity that we have analyzed are only weakly associated with the well-being of children with special health care needs. If Congress and other policymakers increase the expectations of the states in assuring that the needs of CSHCN and their families are addressed, it is essential to be cognizant of the capacities of the states to undertake that role. 来源： http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/746465
Strange Political Reverse Reaction CAPITALISM (violent revolution) SOCIALISM : October Revolution, Capture of Berlin , Chinese Civil War (Millions of heads chopped off) CAPITALISM (peaceful transition) SOCIALISM : Soviet Union Disintegration, Berlin Wall Fell,Reform and Opening (Not millions of heads chopped off)
标签: political
![[转载]新的哈佛大学大学教授](http://image.sciencenet.cn/album/201209/08/093841wgffgxgkk3wkwggl.jpg.thumb.jpg)
