【2015-12-18】 @海德沙龙 《猪肉产业的政治游戏》 直到二战前，美国人吃的猪肉远远多于牛肉，更多于其他肉类，然而从上世纪初开始，猪肉地位一路下滑，到50年代被牛肉超过，70年代起，出于红肉恐惧，许多消费者又转向禽鱼肉，于是从1985年起，猪肉界发起了一场猪肉保卫战，其口号是：猪肉是另一种白肉 @海德沙龙：1985年，国会通过了猪肉复兴法案，据此农业部牵头组织了全国猪肉委员会（NPB），负责向消费者推广猪肉，次年起，它每年投入数百万美元，大力宣传“猪肉是另一种白肉”，然而诡异的是，到2011年，这一口号已经被放弃，而同时农业部官方资料也不承认猪肉是白肉，但这笔每年数百万的费用却仍在照常支付。 @海德沙龙:本文介绍了这件事情里的政治勾当，从中我们可以从一个侧面窥见美国政治的某些运作机制 @whigzhou: 养猪户联合起来，组成行会，向其缴费，委托其推进共同利益，这原本是再平常不过的商业行为，但政府一掺和，性质就变了，入会和缴费都变成了强制性的，而且行会独此一家没得选，结果当然是腐败和权力滥用，以及自由的丧失 @whigzhou: 工会和劳工法的关系也是如此，若仅仅是自愿组织，工会就没什么不好，但那些亲工会的劳工法把它变成了特权垄断组织，只要人数超过某个比例，工会与雇主的议价结果就对非工会成员也有了强制力，于是雇主和非工会成员便丧失了契约自由，同时工会也变得极端腐败 @whigzhou: 全国猪肉委员会实际上体现了联邦政府干预产业和经济的典型模式，和美联储如出一辙，就是在一个私人行会的基础上，通过专项立法将其置于行政部门控制之下，取得其决策机构成员的部分任命权，同时赋予其垄断地位，结果就变成了一个特权垄断性质的半官方组织。 @whigzhou: 此类机构在日常事务上仍是自治的，并且通常也还代表行业利益，前提是必须听政府的话，配合其政策 @whigzhou: 但是因为有了垄断地位，它所代表的行业利益基本上只是行业巨头的利益，虽然在自愿组织的行会中，主导权通常也掌握在行业巨头手里，但小厂商有退出权，可以用脚投票，而只要有竞争，就坏不到哪儿去，对小厂商的压制也很有限，但有了特权垄断，小厂商就惨了  

Why Boston's Sports Fans Rejected the Olympics Boondoggle—and L.A. Said Bring It On 为什么波士顿的体育迷拒绝承办劳民伤财的奥运会——而洛杉矶却说我来办 作者: Garrett Quinn @ 2015-9-15 译者: Who视之(@Who适之) 校对：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 来源: Reason，https://reason.com/archives/2015/09/15/why-bostons-sports-fans-rejected-the-oly The long, sad history of overspending on the international games. 国际性赛事超支的心酸历史 As the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) submits the city of Los Angeles as the country’s official nominee to host the 2024 Summer Games, sports fans in Boston are whooping it up like they did after the Red Sox finally won another World Series. 当美国奥委会正式提名洛杉矶代表美国申办2024年夏季奥运会，波士顿的体育迷欢呼雀跃，好似红袜队又拿下了一场世界系列赛。【译注：美国棒球联盟和全国棒球联盟优胜者之间的年度比赛】 And with good reason. Earlier this year, the USOC had picked Boston to represent America in the Olympics-host sweepstakes. Then the sports-mad fans of the Red Sox, the Bruins, the Celtics, and the Patriots told city fathers—especially Mayor Martin J. Walsh—to pound sand when it came to hosting the Olympic Games with tax dollars. 他们这么高兴是有道理的。今年早些时候，美国奥委会挑选波士顿代表美国参加奥运会主办城市的赌赛。那些红袜队、棕熊队、凯尔特人队和爱国者队的死忠们告诉市府大员们——特别是市长Martin J. Walsh——若是用纳税人的钱来办奥运会，就要把这主意掐死。 How Boston’s rabid sports fans rejected the Olympics—and how chumps in Los Angeles enthusiastically stepped up to potential bankruptcy—is a tale worth understanding, especially the next time your city or state tries selling voters on a new stadium or venue for billionaire sports team owners. 为啥波士顿的狂热体育迷拒绝奥运会，而洛杉矶的呆逼们兴高采烈地踏上潜在的破产之旅，这事值得弄弄明白，特别是下次你的城市或州政府为身家亿万的球队老板们着想，试图向选民们兜售新的体育场馆时。 The Summer Games routinely use billions of taxpayer dollars to throw the equivalent of a three-week-long international party that ends with a trashed house and a financial hangover that lasts for years. Montreal hosted the games in 1976 and built a stadium that was called the Big O. ­­Since it took fully 30 years to pay off the municipal debt that underwrote the Games, locals dubbed it "the Big Owe." 夏奥会一贯会花费纳税人几十上百亿美元，举办为期三周的国际大趴，结局是一地垃圾和延续若干年的财务宿醉症。蒙特利尔1976年承办了夏奥会，建了一座叫Big O的体育场。由于用了整整30年才还清为承办奥运会而发行的市政债，当地居民给这个体育场起了个“Big Owe”的外号【译注：Owe是欠账的意思】。 As sports economist Andrew Zimbalist has noted, the Summer Games might generate $6 billion in total revenue, half of which goes to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) while costing the host city $20 billion (London) or even $40 billion (Beijing). And don’t think that any new stadiums or infrastructure will have much of an economic afterlife. Indeed, the main achievement of the 2004 Athens games was to create modern ruins to match the ancient ones that actually draw tourists to Greece. 体育经济学家Andrew Zimbalist注意到，夏奥会可能产生了60亿美元的总收入，其中一半归国际奥委会，而主办城市会花费200亿美元（伦敦），甚至400亿美元（北京）。不要以为那些新的运动场馆和基础设施在会后能有什么经济效益。实际上，2004年雅典奥运会的主要成就，就是兴建了一批现代废墟来配合真正吸引游客到希腊去的古代废墟。 On top of all that the Olympics have an established reputation for bringing graft, a draconian security state, and horrific traffic and business disruption everywhere they go. "The important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win, but to participate," declared the creator of the modern Games, the Frenchman Pierre de Coubertin, who obviously wasn’t stuck paying any of the bills. 不仅如此，奥林匹克运动已经建立起这样一个名声：它走到哪，哪就会有贪腐、苛刻的安保，以及严重的交通和商务混乱。现代奥林匹克创始人，法国人顾拜旦宣称：“奥运会重在参与而不是取胜。”这人显然不管付账。 Earlier this year, Boston seemed up for the challenge and was selected to be the city that the USOC would put forward to host the 2024 Games. To its slim credit, the IOC had reformed some of its practices after a stunning show of disinterest from western democracies in hosting the 2022 Winter Olympics (an even bigger money-loser than the Summer Games). The reforms, known as Agenda 2020, are designed to make hosting the games less financially burdensome and will be applied for the first time during the bidding for the 2024 Summer Olympics. 今年早间，波士顿看着像要去挑战一下，被美国奥委会选为竞办2024奥运会的城市。得承认，在西方民主国家对举办2022年冬奥会（这是个比夏奥会更能亏钱的玩意）显示了令人震惊的冷淡之后，国际奥委会对其做法进行了一些改革。这些改革称为“2020议程”，将在竞办2024年夏奥会时实施，目的是让承办奥运会的经济负担不至于过分沉重。 After Boston’s bid was initially approved by the USOC, more and more details of the financing started dripping out and the city’s enthusiasm went softer than one of Tom Brady’s footballs. While it’s true that the people of Boston are diehard, always-annoying sports fans you want to punch in the neck, they are not suckers and have a long, proud history of telling team owners and elected official to take a hike when it comes to paying for sports venues. 波士顿的竞办申请被美国奥委会批准后，越来越多的融资细节开始泄露，市民的热情变得比Tom Brady【译注：美式橄榄球四分卫】的某个传球还弱。虽然波士顿人是死硬的、让人讨厌的、欠揍的体育迷，但这些人一点不蠢；如果球队老板和民选官员想让纳税人掏钱建体育场馆，波士顿人对这种想法的回答有着长久的光荣传统：您哪凉快哪呆着去。 In the 1990s the Patriot and Red Sox sought to build waterfront stadiums on the South Boston Waterfront as part of project dubbed the MegaPlex. The plan only required a tiny commitment from taxpayers but it was still too much to placate the dialed-in citizens of Boston. The plan eventually died when late Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino turned against it. 1990年代，爱国者队和红袜队想在波士顿南部滨水地带兴建滨水体育场，作为名为MegaPlex项目的一部分。这个计划只需要纳税人一点微小的承诺，但仍然不能安抚那些打电话反对的市民。该计划在已故市长Thomas M. Menino转而反对后夭折。 Now, the once vacant area is home to a booming innovation district and soaring residential towers. When the Bruins and Celtics replaced the rat infested Boston Garden with a new building in 1995, it was build with private money after much public handwringing. 现如今，那片原先的空地上建起了生机勃勃的创新产业园区和高高的住宅楼。棕熊队和凯尔特人队在1995年把鼠患猖獗的波士顿花园重建，在公众表示很大关注之后，花的是私人老板的钱。 In 2015, a rag-tag group of activists and young professionals organized against the 2024 bid in an extremely effective manner that put pressure on elected officials to stop the games and created a climate of intense negativity around Boston’s Olympic bid. It was a remarkable display of activism. It pitted the city’s captains of industry against a group of activists with little more than pennies to rub together and smartphones. 2015年，一群由活动分子和年轻的专业人士组成的草根组织了一次非常有效的反申奥活动，使民选官员受到阻止赛会的压力，并为波士顿的申办活动创造了极为负面的气氛。这群除了几块钱和智能手机外啥都没有的活动分子，得以和波士顿的行业大佬们叫阵。 The group pushing the bid had their hands tied by various USOC decrees and limitations. They couldn’t respond quickly and effectively to their opponents and they committed all sorts of unforced errors that stoked the anti-Olympics sentiment: Property owners were caught off guard about venue locations, residents were not contacted before the plan was devised, and community stakeholders were only included in the process when it was all but too late. 支持申办的团体受到美国奥委会各种条例和限制的约束。他们未能及时有效地回应反对者，犯下很多本可避免的失误，使得反奥运情绪如火上浇油：业主们被场馆选址弄得猝不及防，居民们在规划设计之前没有得到通知，而利益相关的社区成员直到时机已过才被纳入进程中去。 The bid’s biggest public supporter, Mayor Martin J. Walsh, was often forced to publicly chastise the USOC and bid organizers for not releasing information in a timely or transparent manner. For many, the announcement that former Governor Deval Patrick was being paid $7,500 a day as a consultant on the project was the straw that broke the camel’s back. 申办活动最大的公共部门支持者，市长Martin Walsh，经常被迫公开批评美国奥委会和申办组织者没有及时透明地公开信息。对很多人来说，前任州长Deval Patrick每天可以得到7500美元的项目顾问费这一消息，是压断骆驼的最后一根稻草。 Opinion poll after opinion poll showed the public just did not trust the organizers to be honest about how much it would all cost locals. Boston’s bid conformed to the reforms outlined in the IOC’s reform agenda but the final sticking point was something that is still Olympic policy: Host cities must take a binding pledge that puts taxpayers on the hook for any cost overruns. 一个接一个的民意调查显示，公众就是不相信组织者对当地人需付总价的估算。波士顿的申办符合国际奥委会做出的改革，但最后胶着点仍然是奥林匹克的这个态度：主办城市必须做出有法律约束的保证，让纳税人为任何成本超支付账。 It wasn’t just Boston-area residents who soured. Elected officials across Massachusetts like Governor Charlie Baker and House Speaker Robert DeLeo balked at the idea of being on the hook and said publicly that they would not sign a taxpayer guarantee for the Olympics. Period. The USOC grew tired of the local reluctance and eventually pulled the bid on July 29, after Walsh said he would not sign a taxpayer guarantee at a hastily called city hall press conference carried live on all local TV stations. 不仅仅是波士顿地区的居民对此不开心，马萨诸塞州各处的民选官员，比如州长Charlie Baker和众议院议长Robert DeLeo，都对做出这种承诺迟疑不决，公开说他们不会为奥运会签署纳税人的担保，这事没得谈。在一场面向所有当地电视台直播的匆忙召集的市府新闻发布会上，Walsh说他不会签署纳税人的保证，美国奥委会受不了波士顿的勉强，最后在7月29日撤回了竞办。 Meanwhile, all the way across the continent, a two-time Olympic host city waited in the wings to pick up the torch as soon as Boston threw it down: Los Angeles. 与此同时，横跨美国大陆的另一边，一个曾经两次举办奥运会、伺机而动的城市在波士顿放弃申办后，马上接棒了。洛杉矶来了。 The City of Angels hosted the Summer Games in 1932 and in 1984. Memories of those latter games are especially warm and fuzzy for Angelenos. In many ways, the ’84 Games were the coming-out party for L.A., a city that had grown rich in post-war America while never quite being taken seriously in America, much less the rest of the world. To this day and despite the city’s standing as the second-largest metropolis in the country, it nurses a cultural inferiority complex bigger than the budget of a Hollywood blockbuster. 天使之城在1932和1984举办过夏奥会。后一次的奥运会对洛杉矶人来说尤其感觉温馨可人。在很多方面，1984年奥运会是洛杉矶的成年派对，这座城市在战后美国富裕了起来，却一直没有被美国人认真对待过，更不要说在全世界了。直到今天，尽管洛杉矶是美国第二大城市，它的文化自卑情结比一场好莱坞大片的预算还要大。 In 1984, the tremendous performances of Carl Lewis, Mary Lou Retton, and both the men’s and women’s swim teams—along with a boycott by the Soviet Union, East Germany, and other Eastern bloc countries—resulted in the U.S. winning more than three times as many medals as any other country. More important to the current debate, the games were supervised by Peter Uberroth, who insisted on using existing facilities whenever possible, exercised ultra-rare but effective financial discipline, and leaned hard on local philanthropies to kick in lots of free money. The result was what is still widely hailed as "the most successful games ever," at least from a public accountant’s point of view. 1984年，美国的Carl Lewis，Mary Lou Retton，男女游泳队发挥卓越，加上苏联和东欧国家的抵制，美国得到的奖牌数比第二名的三倍还多。对于当前争议而言，更重要的是，这次运动会由Peter Uberroth主管，他坚持尽量使用现有设施，表现出少有但有效的财务纪律性，依靠当地的慈善力量，省下很多钱。结果是这届奥运会被称为“最成功的奥运会”，至少从会计角度看是这样。 In the ‘80s, L.A. and California were booming. Things are different this time around. The recession was not kind to Los Angeles and the city continues to amass debt, lose jobs, struggle to provide basic services, and hang on to its middle class. California in general is struggling to pay its bills, too, while keeping the lights on. 在80年代，洛杉矶和加州欣欣向荣，可这次情况不同了。经济衰退对洛杉矶毫不客气，该市一直在堆积债务，流失就业机会，忙于提供基本服务，求助于中产阶级。加州基本上也是在让灯亮着的同时挣扎着付清账单。 Yet this time around, the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to support Mayor Eric Garcetti’s pursuit of the Games even though it means putting the city’s taxpayers on the line for any kind of cost overruns. And the state government has a history of coming to the city’s rescue. During their pursuit of the 2016 games, the California legislature set aside $250 million in state funds to help Los Angeles’s bid (it lost out to Rio de Janeiro). California Gov. Jerry Brown has not officially committed to financially backing the games but that did not stop bid organizers in Los Angeles from saying he was on board anyway. 可是这一次，洛杉矶市议会投票一致支持市长Eric Garcetti申办奥运会，尽管这意味着纳税人要为任何成本超支买单。该州政府有搭救市府的传统。在申办2016运动会时，加州议会拨出2.5亿美元州资金来帮助洛杉矶申办（最后不敌里约热内卢）。加州州长没有正式承诺在财务上支持运动会，但这并未阻止洛杉矶的申办者宣称州长和他们站在一起。 The rosy-colored view of the games is not limited to the California political elite. Sports columnists such like Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times tend to be uncritical boosters of Southern California and are enthusiastically on board. In Boston, there was almost uniform opposition to the games in the press and the reception from the sports media was more vicious than the drunks in the Fenway Park bleachers when the Yankees are in town. Even the limited polling on the games shows Los Angeles actually wants the games. Over 81 percent of respondents in a recent poll sponsored by the USOC said they backed the games. 对奥运会玫瑰色的展望并未局限于加州的政治精英，体育专栏作家们，如《洛杉矶时报》的Bill Plaschke，都是南加州不加批评的支持者，对申办全心支持。在波士顿，报界几乎一致反对奥运会，体育媒体的反应，比纽约扬基队来叫阵时，Fenway公园露天看台上醉鬼的骂声更加邪恶。有限的民意测验显示，洛杉矶人确实想申办奥运会。在最近一个美国奥委会组织的调查中，超过81%的受访者说他们支持。 So it seems that Los Angeles and its residents appear far more willing to mortgage their future to host a three-week party in 2024 for the world’s elite than Boston was. Come 2017, when the IOC will announce the winning city from applicants that include Paris, Toronto, Budapest, Hamburg, and Rome, Hollywood may well be breaking ground on yet another boulevard of broken dreams. That is, if Los Angeles is selected to host the game for a third time. 看来洛杉矶和它的居民比波士顿更加愿意把他们的未来抵押在2024年为世界精英们举办一次为时三周的国际派对。2017年奥委会将宣布巴黎、多伦多、布达佩斯特、汉堡、罗马这些申办城市中的胜者。如果洛杉矶第三次获选举办奥运会，好莱坞很可能要为另一条碎梦大道破土动工。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

‘Please Stop Helping Us’ “请不要再帮助我们” 作者：Thomas Sowell @ 2014-6-08 译者：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 校对：小册子（@昵称被抢的小册子） 来源：National Review，http://www.nationalreview.com/article/382135/please-stop-helping-us-thomas-sowell A new book brilliantly explains how policies designed to help blacks end up harming them. 有本新书极为出色地解释了，旨在帮助黑人的政策如何最终反而伤害了他们。 Back in the heyday of the British Empire, a man from one of the colonies addressed a London audience. “Please do not do any more good in my country,” he said. “We have suffered too much already from all the good that you have done.” 在不列颠帝国的鼎盛时期，一位殖民地来客曾在伦敦发表演说。“请不要再到我的国家去做好事了。”他说，“你们之前做的所有那些好事，已经令我们受尽折磨。” That is essentially the message of an outstanding new book by Jason Riley about blacks in America. Its title is Please Stop Helping Us. Its theme is that many policies designed to help blacks are in fact harmful, sometimes devastatingly so. These counterproductive policies range from minimum-wage laws to “affirmative action” quotas. 这实质上就是Jason Riley关于美国黑人的最新杰作所要传达的信息，书名叫做《请不要再帮助我们》。该书的主题是，诸多旨在帮助黑人的政策实际上反而有害，有时甚至是毁灭性的伤害。从最低工资法到“平权行动”配额，在在都能见到这种事与愿违的政策。 This book untangles the controversies, the confusions, and the irresponsible rhetoric in which issues involving minimum-wage laws are usually discussed. As someone who has followed minimum-wage controversies for decades, I must say that I have never seen the subject explained more clearly or more convincingly. 这本书理清了人们讨论最低工资法相关事务时经常遭遇的争议、困惑和不负责任的华丽辞藻。作为一个数十年来一直在跟踪最低工资争议的人，我也必须承认，此前还没有见过任何人曾将这一问题解释得如此清楚、如此令人信服。 Black teenage-unemployment rates ranging from 20 to 50 percent have been so common over the past 60 years that many people are unaware that this was not true before there were minimum-wage laws, or even during years when inflation rendered minimum-wage laws ineffective, as in the late 1940s. 过去60年间，黑人青少年失业率一直徘徊在20%到50%之间。许多人对此已习以为常，以至于都没有留意到：在最低工资法出现之前，情况并非如此，哪怕是在通胀对最低工资法的效用有所抵消的年份，如1940年代末，情况也非如此。 Pricing young people out of work deprives them not only of income but also of work experience, which can be even more valuable. Pricing young people out of legal work, when illegal work is always available, is just asking for trouble. So is having large numbers of idle young males hanging out together on the streets. 为年轻人定价过高，以至令他们失去工作，这种政策不仅剥夺了他们的收入，而且也剥夺了他们的工作经验，而后者价值甚至可能更高。为年轻人定价过高，以至于他们失去合法的工作机会，但又总是可以找到非法工作，这种政策就是自讨苦吃。让大量无所事事的男青年成群结队在街上游荡，也是自讨苦吃。 When it comes to affirmative action, Jason Riley asks the key question: “Do racial preferences work? What is the track record?” Like many other well-meaning and nice-sounding policies, affirmative action cannot survive factual scrutiny. 对于平权行动，Jason Riley提出了如下关键问题：“种族优惠是否行之有效？往绩如何？”跟许多其它好心好意且悦耳动听的政策一样，平权行动经不起事实检验。 Some individuals may get jobs they would not get otherwise, but many black students who are quite capable of getting a good college education are admitted, under racial quotas, to institutions whose pace alone is enough to make it unlikely that they will graduate. （有了平权行动，）某些人也许确实会得到他们本来得不到的工作。但许多黑人学生本来完全有能力得到良好的大学教育，却在种族配额制下被一些不适宜的学校录取，而单是这些学校的教学进度就足以使得他们无望毕业。 Studies that show how many artificial failures are created by affirmative-action admissions policies are summarized in Please Stop Helping Us, in language much easier to understand than in the original studies. 已有许多研究表明，平权行动的录取政策人为制造了许多失败，《请不要再帮助我们》用十分易懂的语言综述了相关研究。 There are many ponderous academic studies of blacks, if you have a few months in which to read them, but there is nothing to match Jason Riley’s book as a primer that will quickly bring you up to speed on the complicated subject of race in a week, or perhaps over a weekend. 如果你愿意花上几个月去读的话，研究黑人的冗长学术著作有很多。不过作为入门读物，Jason Riley的这本书无可匹敌。只要一周，甚至只要一个周末，它就能迅速让你跟上有关种族这一复杂课题的最新研究。 As an experienced journalist, rather than an academic, Riley knows how to use plain English to get to the point. He also has the integrity to give it to you straight, instead of in the jargon and euphemisms too often found in discussions of race. The result is a book that provides more knowledge and insight in a couple of hundred pages than are usually found in books twice that length. Riley是位经验丰富的记者，而不是学者，因此他知道如何用简单易懂的语言表达论点。而且他很诚实，立论坦率直接，不会使用那些在种族问题讨论中常见的行话切口和委婉表达。得益于此，他这本两三百页的书所提供的知识和见解，比一般厚度两倍于它的书还要多。 Unlike academics who just tell facts, Riley knows which facts are telling. 与只知道说明事实的学者不同，Riely知道哪些事实能说明问题。 For example, in response to claims that blacks don’t do well academically because the schools use an approach geared to white students, he points out that blacks from foreign, non-English-speaking countries do better in American schools than black, English-speaking American students. 比如，有人宣称，黑人学业成绩不好是因为学校使用的是适合白人学生的教学方法。针对这种论断，Riley就指出，在美国的学校里，母语非英语的外国黑人比说英语的美国黑人学生表现更优。 Asian students do better than whites in schools supposedly geared to whites. In all three of New York City’s three academically elite public high schools — Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, and Brooklyn Tech — there are more than twice as many Asian students as white students. 在据称特别适合白人的学校里，亚裔学生比白人学生表现更好。纽约市的全部三所学业优异的公立高中——史岱文森高中、布朗士科学高中、布鲁克林技术高中，在校亚裔学生数量是白人学生的两倍以上。 So much for the theory that non-whites can’t do well in schools supposedly geared to whites. 在据称特别适合白人的学校里，不是白人就无法表现良好，这种论调可以休矣。 On issue after issue, Please Stop Helping Us cites facts to destroy propaganda and puncture inflated rhetoric. It is impossible to do justice to the wide range of racial issues — from crime to family disintegration — explored in this book. Pick up a copy and open pages at random to see how the author annihilates nonsense. 针对一个个议题，《请不要再帮助我们》挨个引用事实来推翻那些宣传口号、戳穿那些言过其实的花言巧语。此处不可能一一点到该书所论述的各类种族议题，它们跨度甚大，从犯罪到家庭解体都有。捡起一本，随便翻几页，看看作者是如何灭掉那些胡说八道的吧。 His brief comments pack a lot of punch. For example, “Having a black man in the Oval Office is less important than having one in the home.” 他的简洁评论常常一针见血。比如这句，“白宫椭圆办公室里坐着个黑人，可不如家里坐着个黑人那么重要。” （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

权力积木#1：距离与速度 辉格 2015年11月21日 国家最初源自若干相邻酋邦中的最强者所建立的霸权，而这些酋邦则由专业武装组织发展而来；霸权当然首先来自压倒性的武力优势：霸主能够轻易击败势力范围内的任何对手，并且所有各方都十分确信这一点，因而甘愿向它纳贡称臣，也愿意在自身遭受威胁时向它求助，卷入纠纷时接受其仲裁，发生争霸挑战时站在它那一边。 然而，武力是起落消长多变的，仅凭一时之战斗力而维持的霸权难以长久，要将围绕霸权所建立的多边关系常规化和制度化，需要更多权力要素；要理解这些要素如何起源，以及它们在支撑国家权力中所履行的基础性功能，我们最好从多方博弈的角度出发，考虑其中的利害权衡。 通常，霸主最需要担心的是这样几种情况：1）在属邦遭受攻击时不能及时提供援助，丧失安全感的属邦可能转而投靠其他霸主，2）当一个属邦反叛并攻击其他属邦时，若不能及时加以制止，便可能引发连锁反应，3）当足够多属邦联合协调行动发动叛乱时，霸主的武力优势被联合力量所压过。 无论何种情况，当事方对霸主行动速度的预期都是关键所在，若遭受攻击的弱小属邦预期得不到及时救援，便可能放弃抵抗而选择投降，若邻近敌邦预期能在援兵到达之前得手并及时撤离，便更可能发动攻击，若潜在叛乱者预期自己有能力在霸主赶来镇压之前连克多个属邦并吸引到足够多追随者，便更可能发动叛乱，而当叛乱实际发生时，那些骑墙观望的属邦，若预期霸主无力及时平定叛乱，便更可能加入叛军行列，特别是当他们原本就心怀不满，或与反叛者关系亲密，或早有争霸野心时。 所以，对于维持霸权，仅有强大战斗力是不够的，还要有机动性，能够将兵力及时投送到需要的地方，速度要比对手快；设想这样一种简化的情形：霸主甲位于属邦乙的南方60英里，敌邦丙由北向南进攻乙，位于乙之北60英里的边境哨所得到敌情后向甲和乙汇报，假如所有人的行动速度都是每天10英里，那么丙就会早于甲的援军至少6天到达乙地，假如乙预期撑不过6天，就可能早早选择投降。 但是，假如报信者每天能跑60英里，而甲的行军速度是2倍于敌军的每天20英里，加上一天的集结时间，援军仍可与敌军同时到达，换句话说，上述情境中，只要通信速度6倍于敌军行军速度，己方行军速度2倍于敌方，霸主便能有效保护属邦，若机动优势降至1.5倍，也只需要属邦能抵抗一天，或者，即便机动优势只有1.2倍，霸主也完全来得及在敌军得手撤离之前追上它并实施报复，而及时报复能力是对潜在侵犯者的有力威慑。 这虽然是简化虚构，但离现实并不太远，古代军队的行军速度很慢，晴天陆地行军速度一般不超过每天10英里，雨天则几乎走不动，而无论是青铜时代的城邦霸主，还是铁器时代的大型帝国，机动优势都构成了其霸权的核心要素。 公元前15世纪的埃及战神图特摩斯三世（[[Thutmose III]]）在其成名之战米吉多战役（[[Battle of Megiddo]]）中，在9天内将2万大军投送到250英里之外的加沙，将近3倍于常规速度；从波斯、马其顿到罗马，这些辉煌帝国的一大共同点是：都有能力以2到3倍于对手的速度大规模投送兵力，同时以5至10倍于常规行军的速度传递消息。 古代行军速度慢，不是因为人跑的慢，相反，人类特别擅长超长距离奔跑，大概只有袋鼠、鸵鸟和羚羊等少数动物能与人媲美，长跑也是早期人类狩猎技能的关键，我们的脊柱、骨盆、腿骨、颈部肌肉、脚趾、足弓和汗腺，都已为适应长跑而大幅改造，运动生理学家发现，对于长距离奔跑，两足方式比四足方式更加高效节能，尽管后者能达到更高的瞬间速度。 卡拉哈里的桑族猎人经常在40度高温下连续三四小时奔跑三四十公里直至将猎物累垮，美国西南部的派尤特（[[Paiute]]）印第安人逐猎叉角羚时，澳洲土著追逐大袋鼠时，也采用类似方法；当距离超出100公里时，人的速度便可超过马；居住在墨西哥高原奇瓦瓦州的美洲土著塔拉乌马拉人（[[Tarahumara]]）很好的展示了人类的超长跑能力，在他们的一项传统赛跑活动中，参赛者可以在崎岖山路上两天内奔跑300多公里。 拖慢行军速度的，是后勤补给负担，这一负担因国家起源过程中战争形态的改变而大幅加重，原因有三个：首先，大型政治实体的出现成倍拉大了作战距离，在前国家的群体间战争中，作战者通常可以当天往返，无须携带补给品，在酋邦时代，相邻酋邦之间相距几十公里，军队也最多离家一两天，但广域国家的军队常常需要到数百上千公里外作战，短则几周，长则数月，必须随身携带大量消耗性补给品。 其次，军队的大型化使得就地补给变得不可靠，对于数十上百人的小股部队，只要拥有武力优势，沿路打劫村落便可获得补给，但数千上万人的大部队就很难依靠这种方式，而攻取拥有大量存粮的设防城镇则会大幅拖慢行程，并为任务带来不确定性，所以，尽管古代军队很大程度上利用就地补给（说难听点就是一路抢过去），但在两个可靠补给点之间，不得不携带足够粮草。 据估算，长途行军者粮食补给的最低需求约为每人每天1.5公斤谷物，若穿越水源不足的干旱地区，还需另加2.5公斤水，按携带15天粮食（这是罗马军团的标准配置）和3天饮水算，单兵负重便达30公斤，这还没算上武器装备；因为要在外吃饭过夜，还须携带燃料、灶具、铺盖和帐篷；如此负重之下，奔跑就只能改成行走。 以古代行军效率最高的罗马军团为例，其常规行军模式是，单兵负重20-30公斤，步伐每分钟120步，每步75厘米，每天可走5-6小时（夏天长一些），合计30公里左右；当然，若放弃辎重、不考虑补给，一两天内的短途轻装奔袭可以快得多，然而对于陆地长途行军，每天30公里构成了古代军队机动性的极限，那些强大帝国的优势便在于，它们能够最大程度上接近这一极限。 构成机动障碍的第三个原因是军队的重型化，从青铜时代开始，战争就始终在向重资产方向发展，随着新型武器不断出现，装备也变得越来越重，仍以罗马军团为例，罗马方盾（[[Scutum]]）重达10公斤，重标枪（[[pilum]]）每支3-5公斤，每人配备1-2支，一套锁子甲（[[lorica hamata]]）约16公斤，鳞片甲（[[lorica segmentata]]）9公斤，这样，仅单兵基本装备就占满了20-30公斤的行军负重，其他补给品只能另想办法。 对后勤构成更大压力的是消耗性材料和重型装置，由于投射型武器日益增多，且发射功率越来越大，它们使用的耗材也大幅增加；传统猎人和部落战士虽然也使用弓箭，但通常只携带很少几支箭，重量在30克左右，但在大型阵地战出现后，连续密集齐射成为一种火力压制和近身接战之前的主要杀伤手段，弓箭手在一次战斗中常携带50-100支箭，后勤储备更数倍于此，而随着弩机的使用，箭也增大变重了，出土的秦代青铜弩箭重达100多克。 另一种单兵投射武器是投石索（[[sling]]），用于抛掷鹅卵石，每颗重几百克，投掷者背囊里的几十颗弹丸将为他带来近十公斤负重；从手持式轻弩，脚踏式和腰张式重弩，重型{{床弩}}，到能够发射几十公斤重箭或石块的大型扭力绞盘投射机（[[ballista]]），投射装置和它们所抛掷的耗材都越来越重，所有这些装备和材料，都无法指望由单兵背负。 解决这一运输难题的最初办法是使用驼畜，主要是驴，后来还有骆驼，驴的问题是负重太小，走的也太慢，一头负重50公斤的驴每天能走25公里，但它每天需要消耗3公斤粮草，所以当行程超出15天时，有效负载就接近零了，而且它驼不了太重的东西，所以只适合于轻装队伍短程行军。 有了轮子后，牵畜逐渐取代了驼畜，牵引力最强的是公牛，据色诺芬（[[Xenophon]]）记载，希腊军队中一辆单牛二轮车可以拉650公斤货物，相当于13头驴，而16头公牛合力更可牵引一部6吨多重的攻城塔车；但牛的问题是速度太慢，只能以2英里时速每天走5小时，而且牛的食量很大，约为马的5倍，这就进一步减少了有效负载。 所以大部分古代军队（除了最强大的那些）行军速度难以突破每天10英里的主要原因，就是被辎重牛车拖了后腿，要突破这个瓶颈，必须用马代替牛，据计算，5匹马牵引的四轮马车，负载相当于两头公牛，而速度可提高至每小时4英里，每天走8小时，且食量只相当于一头公牛，这样，辎重车队的速度便可超过步兵。 马的问题是昂贵，特别是在那些缺乏草场的地方，中世纪西欧流行多圃轮作制，草场较充裕，但据一份中世纪后期的价格资料，一头公牛13先令，牵引马10-20先令，按同等牵引力算，马价约3倍于牛价，骑乘马则更贵，约为牵引马的5-10倍；根据公元前17世纪赫梯帝国的一份文献，公牛价7.5谢克尔（[[shekel]]），牵引马10谢克尔，比价与中世纪欧洲相仿。 长途征战的大军对役畜的需求非常大，罗马军团的每个8人小队（[[contubernium]]）共享一个帐篷、一套灶具（包括一个石磨）和一头骡子，外加专门的后勤辎重队伍所需；菲利普二世（[[Philip II of Macedon]]）在改革马其顿军队的后勤系统时，通过清理闲杂人员（家属、仆人、妓女等），并提高单兵负重，将一支5万人军队的役畜削减了6千多头，可见总数之庞大。 因为数量太多价格太贵，只有那些财力最雄厚的军队才能配备足够多马车从而消除牛车瓶颈；同时，为了尽可能避免用牛车，并节约马匹，铁器时代两位著名军事改革家马略（[[Gaius Marius]]）和菲利普二世都十分强调提高单兵负重，而且不约而同的将标准设定在30公斤左右，这差不多就是现代化步兵的标准负重，拿破仑战争期间英军步兵负重80磅，登陆诺曼底的美军步兵是82磅；将负重向单兵转移到倾向表明，机动瓶颈不在士兵行走速度，而是后勤辎重车队。 提高机动性也需要在组织训练和强化纪律上下功夫，像罗马军团那样每天数小时负重30公斤齐步行军，需要严格的训练，每天迅速及时安营和拔营，也需要完备的组织，参加过集体旅游的人都可以想象到，一群乌合之众，哪怕只有数十人，要让他们一致行动起来，有多么困难和耗时，要让五千人的军团趁天黑之前在两小时内井井有条的完成扎营、设岗、侦查、补充燃料和饮用水……，需要很强的纪律性。 克服后勤障碍的另一个手段，是利用水路便利进行快速投送，在火车出现之前，水上运输比陆地快得多，而且负载越大水路优势越明显，波斯帝国动辄在几千公里的跨度上投送数十万大军，便是充分利用了地中海的便利，能够运载如此大军的船队也非常庞大，需要雄厚实力才能供养。 然而，对于一个疆域辽阔的大型帝国，要将其军事控制覆盖境内每个角落，并且对任何要害地点皆可以接近极限的速度投送武力，终极手段是修建高速公路网，这一点只有罗马做到了，在罗马之前，各大帝国也致力于架桥修路等交通基础设施，但通常只限于开路、平整和压实等初级措施，保证道路勉强可用，但远远达不到全天候全速通行。 在公元前312年第二次萨莫奈战争（[[Second Samnite War]]）后的数百年间，罗马共修筑了40万公里道路，其中8万公里是精心铺设的硬化路面，有着土基、灰砂和石块三层铺设，以及路肩和排水系统，沿路设有大量路标、哨所、驿站和旅店，旅行者每隔20多英里便可找到休息和补给点地方，还有为通信兵换马的马栈。 正是这一高速公路网，确保了罗马军队可以在任何条件下以极限速度调往帝国任一角落，它构成了帝国权力的一大支柱，其所带来的陆地机动能力，直到美国南北战争期间才被火车所超越，同时，罗马大道也被商人和平民旅行者所利用，它将帝国疆域内的众多小社会连接成了一个大社会。  

Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy 人类遗传多样性之列万廷的谬误 作者：A.W.F. Edwards 翻译：小聂（@PuppetMaster） 校对：辉格（@whigzhou） 来源：Edwards, A. W. F. (2003). "Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy". BioEssays 25 (8): 798–801. Summary In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations, it is often stated that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors. The underlying logic, which was discussed in the early years of the last century, is here discussed using a simple genetical example. 概要 在那些淡化人类种群遗传差异的流行文章里面，一个常见的说法是：85%的遗传差异来自于种群内的个体间差异，而只有15%是来自于种群或种族间差异。因此，有人认为依靠遗传数据而将智人划分为不同群体，是不合理的。R.C.列万廷在1972年作出的该论断是缺乏根据的，原因在于：用于区分种群的大部分信息隐藏在遗传数据的相关性结构里，而不简简单单体现在单个因子的差异上。这背后的逻辑，在上世纪初就已被讨论，在这里用一个简单的遗传学范例来加以说明。 “When a large number of individuals [of any kind of organism] are measured in respect of physical dimensions, weight, colour, density, etc., it is possible to describe with some accuracy the population of which our experience may be regarded as a sample. By this means it may be possible to distinguish it from other populations differing in their genetic origin, or in environmental circumstances. Thus local races may be very different as populations, although individuals may overlap in all characters; . . .” R.A. Fisher (1925). “在测量「任何一种有机体的」大量个体的物理属性——重量，颜色，密度等——的时候，我们可以以特定的精确度来对该有机体的种群加以描述，虽然在经验上，他们可能只是样本而已。用这种方式，我们有可能把他们和其他种群在遗传起源上，甚至是在环境条件上，加以区分。这样一来，地区亚种之间在种群层面上可以有巨大的差别，尽管个体之间有可能高度重合……”R.A.菲舍尔（1925）。 “It is clear that our perception of relatively large differences between human races and subgroups, as compared to the variation within these groups, is indeed a biased perception and that, based on randomly chosen genetic differences, human races and populations are remarkably similar to each other, with the largest part by far of human variation being accounted for by the differences between individuals. Human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance”. R.C. Lewontin (1972). “很明显，我们对于人类种群或是亚种之间差异大于群内个体差异的理解，是一种偏见。并且，基于随机选定的遗传差异来看，人类种族和种群之间具有显著的相似性，迄今为止人类间差异的最大部分都源于个体差异。种族分类不仅没有社会价值，而且对人和社会的关系有着强烈的破坏性。既然现在看来这样的种族分类毫无遗传学和分类学根据，将其持续下去也是毫无必要的了。”R.C.列万廷（1972）。 “The study of genetic variations in Homo sapiens shows that there is more genetic variation within populations than between populations. This means that two random individuals from any one group are almost as different as any two random individuals from the entire world. Although it may be easy to observe distinct external differences between groups of people, it is more difficult to distinguish such groups genetically, since most genetic variation is found within all groups.” Nature (2001). “对于智人遗传差异的研究表明种群内差异大于种群间差异。这意味着从同一族群中随机挑选的两个个体之间的差异几乎等同于世界上任何两个随机个体间的差异。尽管我们可以观测到族群间分明的外部特征区别，对他们在遗传上加以区分却困难得多，因为大部分遗传差异存在于所有的族群之内。”《自然》（2001）。 Introduction 导言 In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations it is often stated, usually without any reference, that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been suggested that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. People the world over are much more similar genetically than appearances might suggest. 淡化人类种群间遗传差异的流行文章里，一个常见的未加引用的说法是：85%的遗传差异源于种群内的个体间差异，而只有15%的差异来自于种群或是种族。因此以这些种群为智人分类是不被遗传数据支持的。世界各地的人们在遗传上的相似性远大于外表所显示出的那样。 Thus an article in New Scientist reported that in 1972 Richard Lewontin of Harvard University “found that nearly 85 per cent of humanity’s genetic diversity occurs among individuals within a single population.”“In other words, two individuals are different because they are individuals, not because they belong to different races.” In 2001, the Human Genome edition of Nature came with a compact disc containing a similar statement, quoted above. 正如《新科学家》的一篇文章所报道的，哈佛大学的理查德•列万廷在1972年“发现近85%的人类遗传差异产生于种群内的个体之间”、“换句话说，个体之所以不同是因为他们是不同的个体，而不是因为他们属于不同的种族。”2001年，《自然：人类基因组特刊》附带的压缩光盘内也包含类似的引述。 Such statements seem all to trace back to a 1972 paper by Lewontin in the annual review Evolutionary Biology. Lewontin analysed data from 17 polymorphic loci, including the major blood-groups, and 7 ‘races’ (Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, S. Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, Australian Aborigines). The gene frequencies were given for the 7 races but not for the individual populations comprising them, although the final analysis did quote the within-population variability. 类似的陈述貌似都出自列万廷在1972年《进化生物学》年度综述中发表的一篇文章。列万廷分析了出自17个多态基因位点（包括主要的血型）和7个“种族”（高加索人，非洲人，蒙古人，南亚原住民，美洲印第安人，大洋洲人，以及澳洲原住民）的数据。尽管最终的分析引述了种群内多样性，对于基因频率，文章只给出了7个种族的数据，而没有给出组成这些种族的种群数据。 “The results are quite remarkable. The mean proportion of the total species diversity that is contained within populations is 85.4%.... Less than 15% of all human genetic diversity is accounted for by differences between human groups! Moreover, the difference between populations within a race accounts for an additional 8.3%, so that only 6.3% is accounted for by racial classification.” “结果很显著。在种群内包含的总物种多样性的比例平均可以达到85.4%……而只有不到15%的人类遗传多样性能被种群差异所解释！不仅如此，同一种族内部种群的差异在这里占8.3%，所以只有6.3%的差异能归结于种族划分。” Lewontin concluded “Since . . . racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance . . ., no justification can be offered for its continuance” (full quotation given above). 列万廷结论道：“既然如此……种族划分现在看来毫无遗传学或是分类学依据……延续它看来是毫无必要的”（上文已有完整引用）。 Lewontin included similar remarks in his 1974 book The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change “The taxonomic division of the human species into races places a completely disproportionate emphasis on a very small fraction of the total of human diversity. That scientists as well as nonscientists nevertheless continue to emphasize these genetically minor differences and find new ‘scientific’ justifications for doing so is an indication of the power of socioeconomically based ideology over the supposed objectivity of knowledge.” 在他1974年的书《进化改进的遗传学基础》种，列万廷加入了类似的评论。“将人类划分为种族的分类学方法将不成比例的注意力集中在人类总体多样性的零头上。科学家和大众对这种零星遗传差异的重视和坚持，甚至发现新的‘科学’证据来支持这种做法，显示出社会经济学意识形态的力量超越了本该是客观的知识。” The fallacy 谬误 These conclusions are based on the old statistical fallacy of analysing data on the assumption that it contains no information beyond that revealed on a locus-by-locus analysis, and then drawing conclusions solely on the results of such an analysis. The ‘taxonomic significance’ of genetic data in fact often arises from correlations amongst the different loci, for it is these that may contain the information which enables a stable classification to be uncovered. 之所以有以上定论，主要是出于一个陈旧的统计谬误，即认为除了基于单个位点的分析结论之外，数据不包含任何其它信息，并且只考虑基于这个假设的分析和它衍生出的结论。而所谓的“有分类学意义”的遗传数据实际上源自不同位点之间的相关关系，正是这些相关关系中可能包含的信息驱动了对于分类的发掘。 Cavalli-Sforza and Piazza coined the word ‘treeness’ to describe the extent to which a tree-like structure was hidden amongst the correlations in gene-frequency data. Lewontin’s superficial analysis ignores this aspect of the structure of the data and leads inevitably to the conclusion that the data do not possess such structure. The argument is circular. A contrasting analysis to Lewontin’s, using very similar data, was presented by Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards at the 1963 International Congress of Genetics. Making no prior assumptions about the form of the tree, they derived a convincing evolutionary tree for the 15 populations that they studied. Lewontin, though he participated in the Congress, did not refer to this analysis. Cavalli-Sforza和 Piazza创造了“树性”这一词汇，用于描述一个树形结构在基因频率数据的相关关系中的隐匿程度。列万廷的肤浅分析无视了数据在这方面的特性，于是不可避免的得出结论认为该树形结构不存在。这是个循环论证。Cavalli-Sforza和Edwards于1963年的世界遗传大会发表了与之对应的对比分析，并使用了类似的数据。在不对树形做任何先验假设的情况下，他们在研究的15个种群中得出了一个令人信服的进化树结构。列万廷虽然参加了此次会议，但却没有提到这个分析。 The statistical problem has been understood at least since the discussions surrounding Pearson’s ‘coefficient of racial likeness’ in the 1920s. It is mentioned in all editions of Fisher’s Statistical Methods for Research Workers from 1925 (quoted above). A useful review is that by Gower in a 1972 conference volume The Assessment of Population Affinities in Man. As he pointed out, “...the human mind distinguishes between different groups because there are correlated characters within the postulated groups.” 早在围绕皮尔森在1920年代提出的“种族相似性的协同因素”的讨论中，人们就已经理解了相关的统计原理了。在菲舍尔所作的《给研究员的统计方法》的所有版本中，该原理都有被提及（本文开头亦有引用）。高尔于1972年在“人类种群亲缘关系评估”的会议出版物中提出了一个有用的评论，他指出：“……人类心智将人划分为不同的组别，原因在于在这些组别内存在具有相关性的特性。” The original discussions involved anthropometric data, but the fallacy may equally be exposed using modern genetic terminology. Consider two haploid populations each of size n. In population 1 the frequency of a gene, say ‘+’ as opposed to ‘-’, at a single diallelic locus is p and in population 2 it is q, where p + q = 1. (The symmetry is deliberate.) Each population manifests simple binomial variability, and the overall variability is augmented by the difference in the means. 原初的讨论涉及一些人体测量学数据，但是我们用现代遗传学术语也同样可以揭示这个谬误。考虑两个个体数量各为n的单倍体种群。在种群1中某基因在一个单独位点为“+”而不是“-”的频率为p，在种群2中该频率为q，且p + q = 1。（这种对称性是有意设定的。）各种群的多样性为简单二项式分布，且总体多样性由于两个种群间平均值的差异而得到加强。 The natural way to analyse this variability is the analysis of variance, from which it will be found that the ratio of the within-population sum of squares to the total sum of squares is simply 4pq. Taking p = 0.3 and q = 0.7, this ratio is 0.84; 84% of the variability is within-population, corresponding closely to Lewontin’s figure. The probability of misclassifying an individual based on his gene is p, in this case 0.3. The genes at a single locus are hardly informative about the population to which their bearer belongs. 很自然的，我们用方差分析来评估多样性，从中可以得出种群内平方和与总体平方和之比为4pq【译注：对于任一种群，种群方差为npq，种群平方和为n²pq；总和平方和为1/4•n²(p+q)² = 1/4•n²；(n²pq)/( 1/4•n²)=4pq】。如 p = 0.3 而 q = 0.7，该比率为0.84，即84%的多样性来自于种群内，正好对应列万廷的结果。基于该基因对个体的分类误差率为p，即0.3。单个位点的基因几乎不包含关于该基因携带者属于哪个种群的任何信息。 Now suppose there are k similar loci, all with gene frequency p in population 1 and q in population 2. The ratio of the within-to-total variability is still 84% at each locus. The total number of ‘+’ genes in an individual will be binomial with mean kp in population 1 and kq in population 2, with variance kpq in both cases. Continuing with the former gene frequencies and taking k = 100 loci (say), the mean numbers are 30 and 70 respectively, with variances 21 and thus standard deviations of 4.58. With a difference between the means of 40 and a common standard deviation of less than 4.6, there is virtually no overlap between the distributions, and the probability of misclassification is infinitesimal, simply on the basis of counting the number of ‘+’ genes. Fig. 1 shows how the probability falls off for up to 20 loci. 现在假设共有k个相似位点，都在种群1中和种群2中分别具有p和q的基因频率。在每个单个位点上，种群内多样性与总体多样性之比仍是84%。在每个个体上为“+”的基因数将呈二项式分布，其均值在种群1中为kp，在种群2中为kq，方差在两个种群中同为kpq。继续之前关于基因频率的假设【译注：即p = 0.3，q = 0.7】，设k = 100 个位点，则在两个种群中均值各为30和70，方差为21，因此标准差为4.58。在均值相差40的情况下，共同的标准差还不到4.6，因此这两个分布几乎没有任何重叠部分，所以基于“+”基因出现个数所作分类的误差可能性是无限小。图1显示了该分类误差率随位点数增加而下降的曲线，至20个位点。 Figure 1. Graph showing how the probability of misclassification falls off as the number of gene loci increases, for the first example given in the text. The proportion of the variability within groups remains at 84% as in Lewontin’s data, but the probability of misclassification rapidly becomes negligible. 图1. 该图显示分类误差率随基因位点数增加而下降的曲线，用于文本中第一个例证。组内多样性占比依旧为列万廷数据揭示的84%，但分类误差率迅速下降至可以忽略的程度。【图表横轴：基因位点数；图表纵轴：分类误差率】 One way of looking at this result is to appreciate that the total number of ‘+’ genes is like the first principal component in a principal component analysis (Box 1). For this component the between-population sum of squares is very much greater than the within-population sum of squares. For the other components the reverse will hold, so that overall the between-population sum of squares is only a small proportion (in this example 16%) of the total. But this must not beguile one into thinking that the two populations are not separable, which they clearly are. 一种领会该结果的方式是将“+”基因的总数看成主成分分析法中的第一主成分（见框文1【编注：是对主成分分析（Principal components analysis，PCA）方法的介绍，译略，有兴趣可查看原文，或参见维基词条“主成分分析”】）。对于该成分，种群间平方和远大于种群内平方和。对于其他成分则反之，以至于对所有成分来说种群间平方和仅占总体平方和的一小部分（在这个例子里面为16%）。但这个结果不能诱使我们认为两个种群是不可分的，而实际上他们是清晰可分的。 Each additional locus contributes equally to the within-population and between-population sums of squares, whose proportions therefore remain unchanged but, at the same time, it contributes information about classification which is cumulative over loci because their gene frequencies are correlated. 每一个增加的位点都同样的增加种群内和种群间的平方和，导致它们之间的比率不变。但同时，关于分类的信息也增加了，而且这种增加在位点数量上是具有累加性的，因为位点之间的基因频率是相关的。 Classification 分类 It might be supposed, though it would be wrong, that this example is prejudiced by the assumptions that membership of the two populations is known in advance and that, at each locus, it is the same population that has the higher frequency of the ‘+’ gene. In fact the only advantage of the latter simplifying assumption was that it made it obvious that the total number of ‘+’ genes is the best discriminant between the two populations. 人们或可认为——虽然这么想是错的——这是个不太好的例子，因为假设了个体在两个种群的归属事先已知，并且在每个位点都是同一种群拥有较高的获得“+”的基因频率。实际上，后一个简化假设的唯一优势在于使得“+”基因的总数成为种群的明显最优判准。 To dispel these concerns, consider the same example but with ‘+’ and ‘-’ interchanged at each locus with probability 1⁄2, and suppose that there is no prior information as to which population each individual belongs. Clearly, the total number of ‘+’ genes an individual contains is no longer a discriminant, for the expected number is now the same in each group. A cluster analysis will be necessary in order to uncover the groups, and a convenient criterion is again based on the analysis of variance as in the method introduced by Edwards and Cavalli-Sforza. Here the preferred division into two clusters maximises the between-clusters sum of squares or, what is the same thing, minimises the sum of the within-clusters sums of squares. 为解除这些疑虑，设想同样的例子，但“+”和“-”在各个位点以1/2的概率互换，且没有关于个体归属的任何先验信息。显然，个体所拥有的“+”基因总数不能再作为判准，因为该数目的期望值在两组里面是一样的。在这种情况下需要用聚类分析来处理分组，且一个便利的分组条件仍然是基于方差分析的，其方法由Edwards和Cavalli-Sforza提供。这里对于聚类的优先分割会最大化聚类间平方和，或者说是最小化聚类内平方和，在这里是一样的意思。 As pointed out by these authors, it is extremely easy to compute these sums for binary data, for all the information is contained in the half-matrix of pairwise distances between the individuals, and at each locus this distance is simply 0 for a match and 1 for a mismatch of the genes. Since interchanging ‘+’ and ‘-’ makes no difference to the numbers of matches and mismatches, it is clear that the random changes introduced above are irrelevant. 正如这两位作者指出的那样，在二值数据里是很容易计算出这些平方和的，因为所有信息都可以体现为一个成对个体间的距离半矩阵。在每个位点上，配对时距离为0，不配对为1。既然互换“+”和“-”对于配对关系没有影响，那么显然以上引入的随机变化是无关的。 Continuing the symmetrical example, the probability of a match is p² + q² if the two individuals are from the same population and 2pq if they are from different populations. With k loci, therefore, the distance between two individuals from the same population will be binomial with mean k(p² + q²) and variance k(p² + q²)(1 – p² – q²) and if from different populations binomial with mean 2kpq and variance 2kpq(1 – 2pq). These variances are, of course, the same. 继续这个对称性例子，对于来自同一种群的两个个体来说，单一位点配对的机率为p² + q²；若来自不同种群，则为2pq。因此，对于k个位点，同一种群两个个体间距离呈二项式分布，均值为k(p² + q²)，方差为k(p² + q²)(1 – p² – q²)；若来自不同种群，则均值为2kpq，方差为2kpq(1 – 2pq)。这两个方差显然是一样的【译注：p + q = 1 à p² + q² = 1 – 2pq】。 Taking p = 0.3, q = 0.7 and k = 100 as before, the means are 58 and 42 respectively, a difference of 16, the variances are 24.36 and the standard deviations both 4.936. The means are thus more than 3 standard deviations apart (3.2415). The entries of the half-matrix of pairwise distances will therefore divide into two groups with very little overlap, and it will be possible to identify the two clusters with a risk of misclassification which tends to zero as the number of loci increases. 像之前一样，取p = 0.3, q = 0.7 和 k = 100，则均值分别为58和42，相差16。方差为24.36，即两组的标准差都为4.936。这样一来两组均值之间则有超出3个标准差的距离。因此，这个成对个体距离半矩阵中的数值就可以被分成几乎没有重叠的两组，这样就有可能以较小的分类误差来识别两个聚类，且该分类误差率随位点数目增加逐渐趋向于0。 By analogy with the above example, it is likely that a count of the four DNA base frequencies in homologous tracts of a genome would prove quite a powerful statistical discriminant for classifying people into population groups. 同理可知，对于基因组同源区域的四个DNA碱基频率进行计数，这种方法很可能被证明是一个十分有效的进行种群分类的统计判准。 Conclusion 结论 There is nothing wrong with Lewontin’s statistical analysis of variation, only with the belief that it is relevant to classification. It is not true that “racial classification is . . . of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance”. It is not true, as Nature claimed, that “two random individuals from any one group are almost as different as any two random individuals from the entire world”, and it is not true, as the New Scientist claimed, that “two individuals are different because they are individuals, not because they belong to different races” and that “you can’t predict someone’s race by their genes”. Such statements might only be true if all the characters studied were independent, which they are not. 列万廷对于多样性的统计分析本身没错，错的是认为该分析与分类有关。那种认为“人种分类……毫无遗传学和分类学依据”的想法是错误的。类似《自然》杂志所声明的“两个来源于任何组别的个体之间的差异和两个来源于世界上任何地方的个体之间的差异几乎一样大”的想法是错误的。类似《新科学家》声明的“两个个体有区别是因为他们是两个个体，而不是因为他们从属于不同的种族”和“你无法通过基因来判断某人的种族”的想法也是错误的。这类声明唯有在所有被研究的特性都是独立分布的时候才成立，可它们并不是独立分布的。 Lewontin used his analysis of variation to mount an unjustified assault on classification, which he deplored for social reasons. It was he who wrote “Indeed the whole history of the problem of genetic variation is a vivid illustration of the role that deeply embedded ideological assumptions play in determining scientific ‘truth’ and the direction of scientific inquiry”. 列万廷利用他对于多样性的分析对人种分类发起了一场毫无根据的攻击，认为人种分类是社会因素造成的悲剧。正是他写道：“的确，遗传多样性问题的整个研究历史生动的向我们展示了深埋的意识形态假设是如何决定科学的‘真相’和科学探索的方向。” In a 1970 article Race and intelligence he had earlier written “I shall try, in this article, to display Professor Jensen’s argument, to show how the structure of his argument is designed to make his point and to reveal what appear to be deeply embedded assumptions derived from a particular world view, leading him to erroneous conclusions.” 更早之前在一篇发表于1972年的题为“种族与智能”的文章里他写道：“我会努力在本文向你展示詹森教授的论据，以及他如何构筑这些论据以说明他的论点的，并向你揭示那些深埋的假设是如何来自于一种特别的世界观，最终导致他得出一个错误的结论。” A proper analysis of human data reveals a substantial amount of information about genetic differences. What use, if any, one makes of it is quite another matter. But it is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality. One is reminded of Fisher’s remark in Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference “that the best causes tend to attract to their support the worst arguments, which seems to be equally true in the intellectual and in the moral sense.” 对于人类数据的恰当分析揭示了有关遗传差异的大量信息。如何利用这些信息则是另外一回事。但将生物学上的相似性当作人类在道德上平等的前提是一个危险的错误，因为差异一旦被发现，就会被视作道德不平等的论据。我们应当铭记菲舍尔在《统计方法与科学推断》中的话：“最好的主张常常会吸引最差的理由，而这理由在智力上和道德上都一样不靠谱。” Epilogue 后记 This article could, and perhaps should, have been written soon after 1974. Since then many advances have been made in both gene technology and statistical computing that have facilitated the study of population differences from genetic data. The magisterial book of Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza took the human story up to 1994, and since then many studies have amply confirmed the validity of the approach. 这篇文章本可以——且应该——在1974年之后不久就写完。自那时起，基因技术和统计计算方面取得了诸多进展，为研究遗传数据中的种群差异提供了很大帮助。Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi和Piazza的权威著作将人类的故事带到了1994年，从那时起，众多研究广泛的证实了他们的方法。 Very recent studies have treated individuals in the same way that Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards treated populations in 1963, namely by subjecting their genetic information to a cluster analysis thus revealing genetic affinities that have unsurprising geographic, linguistic and cultural parallels. As the authors of the most extensive of these comment, “it was only in the accumulation of small allele-frequency differences across many loci that population structure was identified.” 一些晚近的研究用Cavalli-Sforza和Edwards处理种群的方法对待个体，即，将聚类分析运用到个体遗传信息的分析上，由此所揭示出的地理、语言、以及文化上的遗传亲缘性，并不出乎意料。正如在这些课题上之中涉猎最为广泛的作者所言：“只有当众多微小位点上等位基因的差异逐渐累积，种群结构才得以显现。” （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

Censorship in America 美国的言论审查 作者：John Stossel @2015-10-14 翻译：Drunkplane 校对：小册子 来源：CREATORS.COM，https://reason.com/archives/2015/10/14/censorship-in-america Free speech matters 言论自由很重要 Support for the idea that it's good to hear all opinions, even offensive ones, is thin. A plurality of Americans now support laws against "hate speech." “所有意见都听听是有好处的，哪怕是让人感到被冒犯的意见”——支持这种观点的声音已变得羸弱。如今大多数美国人支持立法针对“仇恨言论”。 Conservatives once wanted to ban Playboy magazine, violent rap lyrics and offensive depictions of Jesus. Leftists then were right to fight such bans, but today leftists encourage censorship in the name of "tolerance." 保守派曾经试图禁止《花花公子》杂志、狂暴的说唱音乐和对耶稣的不敬描写。左派当时站出来与此等禁令作斗争是正确的，但如今他们却以“宽容”之名鼓励言论审查。 Scientist Matt Taylor helped land a probe on a comet for the first time in history. But because he explained his achievement while wearing a T-shirt that had cartoons of sexy women on it (designed by a female friend of his), writer Rose Eveleth of The Atlantic tweeted that Taylor "ruined" the comet landing. The public outcry against him was so great that he cried at an apologetic press conference. 科学家Matt Taylor曾为史上首次探测器降落彗星表面做出贡献，但因为在解释该项成就时，他穿了一件印有性感卡通女郎的T恤（由Taylor的一位女性朋友所设计），《大西洋》杂志的评论员Rose Eveleth发推说Taylor“毁了”这一着陆计划。大众指责的声浪淹没了Taylor，让他在后来的致歉新闻发布会上一度落泪。 Silicon Valley entrepreneur Brendan Eich created JavaScript and helped start Mozilla Firefox. But when activists discovered that he'd once donated $1,000 to support California's Proposition 8 banning gay marriage, they attacked him as "a hater." A year and a half later, Eich still can't find a job. 硅谷企业家Brendan Eich发明了JavaScriptScript语言并协助创建火狐浏览器。但是当活动家们发现他曾为禁止同性婚姻的加州8号提案捐献过1000美元后，他们便攻击他是“仇恨者”。之后一年半的时间里Eich都无法找到工作。 When Eich donated the money, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton opposed gay marriage, too. But in just five years, such opinions have become so "unacceptable" that a tech genius is ostracized by his own industry. Eich捐这笔钱的时候，奥巴马和希拉里同样反对同性婚姻。而仅仅过了五年，这样的反对声音便已如此“不可接受”，以至于一个技术天才竟被自己所在的行业所排斥。 As long as the leftist mobs don't use law or violence, they're still engaged in free speech. Private employers can impose most any speech rule they choose. The First Amendment applies only to government. But now some government officials are as eager to censor as the leftist mobs. 只要左派的暴民们不使用法律和暴力，他们的声讨也算是在行使言论自由。在自己的企业里，私人雇主大可以为言论立下各种规矩。第一修正案仅仅适用于政府，但现在一些政府官员却同左翼暴民一样渴望言论审查。 After the owners of Chick-fil-A said they oppose gay marriage, the mayors of Chicago, San Francisco and Boston said Chick-fil-A is "not welcome" in their cities. San Francisco's mayor said, "The closest Chick-fil-A is 40 miles away and I strongly recommend they not try to come any closer." 当Chick-fil-A【译注：美国的一家快餐连锁店】的老板们表示他们反对同性婚姻后，芝加哥、旧金山和波士顿的市长均表示他们的城市不欢迎Chick-fil-A。旧金山市长说“Chick-fil-A最近的分店离这儿有40英里远，我强烈建议他们不要再靠近了。” Since mayors may influence permits and zoning, their threats aren't idle. And no new Chick-fil-A outlets have opened in those cities. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment, although the politicians seem oblivious to that. 市长们能左右土地规划和经营许可的发放，因此他们的威胁并不仅仅是装腔作势。上述城市后来没有新开一家Chick-fil-A。这是对宪法第一修正案的明显违背，然而政客们却好像意识不到这一点。 Of course, much worse than today's left are those who censor through violence. Al Qaeda's magazine names people who should be killed, chirping, "A bullet a day keeps the infidel away." Writers and artists heed the threats. CNN, NBC and The New York Times will no longer show Mohammed cartoons. 当然，比起今日的左派，那些通过暴力实施“审查”的人要坏得多。基地组织的杂志聒噪着“一天一颗子弹，让异教徒滚蛋”，点出他们认为该杀者的名字。作家和艺术家忌惮这些威胁，CNN、NBC和《纽约时报》都不再刊登穆罕默德的画像了。 I was surprised that liberal commentators were so eager to cave in to the terrorists' threats. Chris Matthews said, "Wanting to pick a fight with Islam is insane." 自由派评论员如此轻易就屈服于恐怖分子的威胁，让我感到惊讶。Chris Matthews【译注：美国著名时事评论员】说，“试图挑起同伊斯兰世界的斗争是疯狂的。” Such cowardice just invites more censorship. 正是这种怯弱导致了更严格的审查。 When the TV series South Park was censored by its own network for depicting Mohammed, a fan of the show, liberal cartoonist Molly Norris, showed her support by drawing her own cartoons of Mohammed. For doing so, she received death threats. Fearing for her safety, she went into hiding. 当电视剧《南方公园》因为描写穆罕默德而遭受自家的有线电视网审查时，该剧的一位影迷——自由主义卡通作者Molly Norris——自行创作穆罕默德卡通形象，以示对该剧的支持，结果她收到死亡威胁。由于担心自己的安全，她躲了起来。 Columnist Mark Steyn was appalled that "Her liberal newspaper—the way they put it in announcing that she'd gone, ceased to exist, was: 'There is no more Molly.'" She hasn't been heard from in five years. 专栏作家Mark Steyn对Molly所在报社的反应感到惊骇。“她那自由派的报社在宣布她离开和人间消失的消息时，说的竟然是‘这里不再有Molly’”，之后五年都没有Molly的消息。 "The only way we're going to move to a real sense of freedom is if every time somebody puts a bullet in a cartoonist for drawing a cartoon of Mohammed," says Steyn, "every newspaper ... displays that picture." Steyn说，“要达到真正的自由只有一条路，那就是每当一个作家因为创作穆罕默德的卡通形象而吃到一颗子弹，每一家报社都刊登这幅作品。” Steyn argues that societies that censor create more violence by driving hate speech underground. "You can have a society with free speech where I call you names, and you do rude drawings of me, and I say you're a hater, and we hatey-hatey-hate each other," said Steyn on my TV special, "Censorship in America," but "the alternative is the Muslim world where there's no open debate, and so there's nothing left to do but kill and bomb and shoot." Steyn认为，一个压制仇恨言论的社会只会制造更多的暴力。“你可以选择一个言论自由的社会，我对你直呼其名，你画漫画丑化我，我骂你是个讨厌鬼，我们就这样嚷嚷着厌恶对方；”Steyn在我的电视特别节目“美国社会里的审查”里说，“你也可以选择穆斯林世界，那里没有公开的辩论，所以只剩下谋杀、爆炸和枪击可干。” Free speech matters. If we give in to those who would shut us up, the censors will push and push until we have no freedom left. If we're going to sort out which ideas are good and which are bad, everyone must be allowed to speak. 言论自由很重要。如果我们屈服于那些想让我们闭嘴的人，那言论审查终将把我们逼向自由丧尽的境地。如果我们要分辨哪些观点是好的，哪些是坏的，我们应该让每个人都可以发声。 【作者John Stossel是 福克斯商业在线 的一位主持人。】 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

A $60 million pork kickback? 一份6千万美金的猪肉回扣？ 作者：Danny Vinik @ 2015-8 译者：陆嘉宾（@晚上不买白天买不到） 校对：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 来源：Politico，http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/08/a-60-million-pork-kickback-000210 Unhappy small farmers detect a racket in a pork branding deal—and the USDA signed off on it. 不幸的小农户们从一桩猪肉品牌服务交易中发现了诈骗行为，并且美国农业部还在这上面签了字。 Pork hasn't been "the other white meat" for years—after a 24-year run as the centerpiece of billboards and the butt of jokes, the slogan was retired in 2011 and replaced with "Pork: Be Inspired," a logo you might have seen on the apron of Ted Cruz as he grilled pork chops at the Iowa State fair last week. 猪肉已经很多年没有被称作“另一种白肉”【校注：1986年，鉴于当时消费者普遍接受了红肉不利健康的观念，全国猪肉委员会发起了一场旨在让消费者相信“猪肉是另一种白肉”的宣传活动】了——在当了24年的广告牌要点以及笑柄之后，这条广告语在2011年退休，取而代之的则是一条新标语：“猪肉，振奋人心”。你可能看过，Ted Cruz【校注：2016年美国共和党总统提名竞争者之一】上周在爱荷华州博览会上烤猪排时穿的围裙上就有这条标语。 But the National Pork Board, a government-sponsored entity funded by a tax on hog farmers, still writes a check for $3 million every year to license the unused slogan—a bewildering payout that only makes sense, critics say, when you realize the money goes straight to an industrial pork lobby that has long been closely tied to the board. Farmers who pay for the board are crying foul, saying the deal amounts to a scheme to let the board skirt anti-lobbying laws and promote an agenda directly against their interests. 但是，“全国猪肉委员会”，这个资金来源于生猪养殖户所缴税收的政府资助实体，为了让这条已不再使用的广告语获得许可，每年仍会开出300万美元的支票。批评者说，这笔支出乍看的确令人困惑，不过当你意识到这些钱其实直接交给了一个和该委员会联系甚密的猪肉工业游说团体时，一切就都说得通了。给委员会付款的农户骂声一片，他们说这笔交易相当于一个阴谋，想要让委员会绕过反游说法，发起一项直接损害他们利益的议程。 “It’s a shell game,” said Hugh Espey, the executive director of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, who has been fighting for years to roll back the mandatory payments to the Pork Board. “这是个骗局，”Hugh Espey说道，他是“爱荷华州社区改善公民组织”的执行主任，多年来一直在努力争取减少缴纳给猪肉委员会的强制性付款。 Saying the U.S. Department of Agriculture should have recognized the deal as corrupt and blocked it, Espey and a group of small hog farmers, along with the Humane Society of the United States, sued the federal government to undo the deal and recoup the millions of dollars already paid for the defunct “other white meat” slogan. Earlier this month a U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit allowed the suit to proceed. 由于认为美国农业部应该认定这笔交易为腐败行为并加以阻止，Espey和一群小型生猪养殖户连同“美国人道协会”一起状告联邦政府，要求撤销这笔交易，并且追回已经花在废弃广告语“另一种白肉”上的数百万美元。本月早些时候，哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院受理了这一上诉。 The deal sends $60 million over 20 years from the nonpartisan Pork Board to the slogan’s legal owner, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), a lobby with which it once shared an office. Small farmers have long been unhappy about the close relationship between the two groups, and see the rich payments for a defunct slogan as an egregious example of the government taking their money and then letting it be siphoned off to an industry group. 20多年间，上述交易将6000万美元从无党派的“全国猪肉委员会”转移到广告语法定所有人“全国猪肉生产者理事会”（NPPC）这一游说团体手上，而双方曾经共用同一个办公室。小型农户早已对这两个组织的过从甚密心存不满，并且他们认为政府收了他们的钱之后任由其被转移到产业集团手中，而用在这条废弃广告语上的巨额花费就是一个非常恶劣的例子。 Many critics also see the deal as symptomatic of a far broader problem with the "checkoff" programs that have become common across the agricultural world, in which the government requires farmers to make regular payments to promotional boards. Checkoffs exist for dairy farmers, mushroom producers, and even popcorn processors. Critics say they violate economic freedom and distort the market; big corporate farmers, they allege, easily find ways to influence the boards and siphon the money off to push their own causes. 许多批评家还认为，这笔交易也反映了一个更为深远的问题，也就是农业界已经司空见惯的“缴款”方案。通过这一程序，政府要求农户们定期为广告牌支付费用。缴款方案涉及奶农，食用菌生产者，甚至还有爆米花生产者。批评者称这些做法违反了经济自由并扭曲了市场；他们还指控，大型农业公司很容易就能找到方法来影响各委员会，并抽取资金以用于他们自己的事业。 “In one sense, it’s a classic case of the larger producers are the more powerful political forces within these organizations,” said Dan Glickman, the Agriculture Secretary at the end of the Clinton administration who largely supports checkoff programs. “从某种意义上说，这是一个反映大型生产商在这些组织内享有更强大政治力量的典型案例，”Dan Glickman说道，他是克林顿政府后期的农业部长，基本上支持缴款制度。 For the unhappy hog farmers, the current problem started with the 1985 Pork Law, when Congress set up the National Pork Board and required all farmers to contribute. Today, hog farmers must hand over 40 cents out of every $100 in revenue from pork sales. The board uses the money, totaling nearly $100 million a year, to conduct research and promote the pork industry, but is not allowed to lobby. 对于那些不爽的生猪养殖户来说，目前的问题开始于1985年《猪肉法案》，当时国会设立了全国猪肉委员会，并要求所有农民作出缴纳。今天，生猪养殖户必须从每100美元的猪肉销售收入中交出40美分。委员会用这笔每年总额将近1亿美元的款项开展调查研究，促进猪肉产业发展，但不允许进行游说。 The main pork lobby is the National Pork Producers Council, which donated nearly a half million dollars to candidates in the 2014 midterms – mainly, its critics say, to press the interests of big corporate hog farms. Legally, it isn’t supposed to use Pork Board money for its lobbying activities. 主要的猪肉游说团体是全国猪肉生产者理事会，在2014年的中期选举中曾捐赠将近50万美元－－根据批评者的说法，这主要是为了推进大型生猪养殖公司的利益。从法律上讲，它不应该将猪肉委员会的资金用于其游说活动。 But critics say the two groups have never been as separate as the law calls for, and now are essentially colluding through a deal that lets the Pork Board funnel money to the NPCC by assigning an absurdly inflated value to the “other white meat” slogan; the money then goes to promote the NPPC’s lobbying agenda. 但是批评者说这两个组织从未像法律规定那样保持分离，而且现在通过这笔为广告语“另一种白肉”设置荒谬天价的交易，猪肉委员会得以向NPPC输送资金，这也使得它们实质上是在串通。NPPC在获取了这笔资金之后便将之用于推动其游说议程。 The Pork Board referred comments about the case to the USDA. A spokesperson for the department said in an email that “the assessments and expenditures by the National Pork Board were proper,” but declined to discuss the case further. 猪肉委员会将关于这桩案件的意见提交给了美国农业部。该部一位发言人在一封电子邮件中表示“由全国猪肉委员会做出的评估和支出是妥当的，”但是他拒绝进一步讨论案情。 The NPPC and NPB have always been very close, so close that a 1999 Inspector General report said that the government had to put more space between the two entities to limit the pork lobby’s influence at the board. NPPC和NPB一直走的很近，以至于1999年的一份监察长报告称，政府需要在这两个实体之间设置更多的隔离，以限制猪肉游说团体对该委员会的影响。 “It's a little bit like these super PACs with campaigns. Same people doing the same thing,” Glickman said about problems with the pork checkoff in the late 1990s. “That wasn't what Congress intended.” “这有一点像竞选中的那些超级政治行动委员会。同样的人做同样的事情，”Glickman谈起1990年代末期的猪肉缴款问题是这么说的。“那并不是美国国会原来设想的。” Espey and Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement have long fought the pork checkoff program, and once came close to eliminating it altogether. In 2000, opponents gathered enough signatures among hog farmers to force a referendum on the checkoff. More than 30,000 hog farmers voted; by 5 percentage points, they chose to kill the program. Espey和爱荷华州社区改善公民组织已经与猪肉缴款方案持续作战很久了，并且曾经一度接近将其彻底消灭。2000年，反对者们从生猪养殖户中收集到了足够的签名，推动发起了一场针对缴款的公投。超过30000名养猪农户参加了投票；以领先5%的优势，他们选择终止这个方案。 Glickman began dismantling it, but the NPPC challenged the referendum in court, and when the Bush administration took office that January, incoming USDA secretary Ann Veneman reversed Glickman’s decision. Instead, she crafted a “separation agreement” that overturned the referendum result but required the NPPC and NPB to adjust their operations so they were independent. Glickman开始着手撤销这个方案，但是NPPC在法庭上质疑了这次公投，而且在那年一月布什政府上台之后，新任农业部长Ann Veneman就推翻了Glickman的决定。相反，她起草了一份“分离协议”，推翻了之前的公投结果，但要求NPPC和NPB必须调整他们的运营方式以保持相互独立。 “It was window dressing. It was bullshit,” Espey said. “Essentially, she was throwing out our vote.” “这根本就是敷衍了事，胡说八道，”Espey说道。“实际上，她完全抛弃了我们的投票。” After the agreement, the NPB and NPPC made some changes. The NPPC could no longer be the NPB’s general contractor, meaning the Board had “to conduct its own programming and coordinate its own activities,” according to the NPB’s own video history. The two groups no longer shared an office and a number of staffers switched from the pork lobby to the board. To the NPB and NPPC, Espey and Co. were simply scapegoating the organizations for their own failures. 在达成协议之后，NPB和NPPC做出了一些改变。根据NPB自己的历史记录片，NPPC不再是NPB的总承包商，这意味着委员会必须“自行进行规划，自行协调其活动”。两个组织不再共用办公室，一部分员工也从猪肉游说团体转到了委员会工作。对于NPB和NPPC来说，Espey及其公司仅仅是在为他们自己的失败寻找替罪羊。 The NPPC, which declined comment for this piece, has always owned the “other white meat” slogan, and as part of the separation agreement, it licensed the slogan to the board for around $1 a year. In 2004, the NPB agreed to increase the annual licensing fee to $818,000 a year. Despite the success of “the other white meat” trademark, an agricultural economist recommended that the board not pay more than $375,000 a year to license the slogan, according to the complaint. 拒绝为本文提供评论的NPPC一直拥有“另一种白肉”这条广告语，根据“分离协议”，它将这条广告语以每年一美元的价格授权给了委员会。到了2004年，NPB同意将每年的授权费用提高到818000美元。控告显示，尽管“另一种白肉”这个标志十分成功，某农业经济学家仍然建议，委员会每年最多只能为这条广告语的授权支付375000美元。 In 2006, the NPB signed a deal to buy the slogan for $3 million a year for 20 years—a four-fold jump in price, even though almost no other group would conceivably have any interest in the slogan. 2006年，NPB签署了一项协议，在几乎没有任何其他组织有可能对这条广告语有任何兴趣的情况下，以每年300万美元——四倍跳价——购买了这条广告语的20年使用授权。 “Are the artichoke producers competing for the slogan "Pork: The Other White Meat"? No, I don't think so.” says Parke Wilde, an associate professor of food science and policy at Tufts University who has written extensively about the $60 million deal and considers it corrupt. “是洋蓟生产商在争夺‘猪肉：另一种白肉’这条广告语吗？不，我不这么认为。”Parke Wilde说道。他是塔夫茨大学的食品科学与政策副教授。关于这一6千万美金的交易，他写了大量文章，并且认为这就是腐败。 According to the plaintiffs, the $60 million valuation came from calculating the cost of creating a new tagline, not on the slogan’s market value. But several specialists contacted for this story suggested that with no other reasonable potential buyers, it’s a mistake to pay the full value. 据原告，这6千万美元的估值，是根据创建一个新的品牌口号的成本来计算的，而不是根据这条广告语的市场价值。但在本文写作过程中联系到的一些专家看来，在没有其他合理的潜在买家的情况下，支付全价是一个错误。 “If you’re the single buyer out there, you’d expect a deep discount and that deep discount would be at least 25 percent, perhaps 50 percent,” said Weston Anson, the chairman of CONSOR Intellectual Asset Management, a firm that specializes in valuing intellectual property. “如果你是市场上的唯一买家，你会期望一个非常高的折扣，而这个折扣至少是25%，或许有50%，”Weston Anson说道，他是CONSOR知识资产管理公司的董事长，这是一家专注知识产权定价的公司。 Even stranger, to observers, is that when the Pork Board retired the slogan five years later, it continued paying the $3 million to the pork lobby—despite having the right to cancel the deal with a year’s notice. 对于观察者来说更奇怪的是，在猪肉委员会将这条广告语停用了将近5年之后，尽管它拥有在提前一年告知的前提下取消这笔交易的权利，它依旧继续支付给了猪肉游说团体3百万美元。 “If they have that out, they should be taking it,” Anson said. “如果他们有抽身的机会，他们应该会把握住的，”Anson说。 The NPB says that the “other white meat” slogan still has value as a “heritage brand,” though Anson disagreed: “As best as we can determine, they are not using this brand at all. If that’s true, then this is not a heritage brand. Then, it’s a fallow brand—one that’s been retired—and would be difficult to value given that it has no income, no market presence and only residual awareness.” NPB表示“另一种白肉”这条广告语依旧具有作为“传承品牌”的价值，但安森并不同意：“即使是往最好的方向揣测，他们也根本没在使用这个品牌。如果这是真的，那这就不是一个传承品牌。这是一个已经退出市场的闲置品牌，给它定价会是一件困难的事情，因为它没有收入，没有市场占有率，只有残留的认知度。” Though the Pork Board is subject to federal oversight, what worries Espey and others is that it really operates like a private organization entitled to take farmers’ money, and then spend it out of view of the public – all with the blessing of the USDA. 虽然猪肉委员会受联邦政府监管，Espey和其他人真正担心的是，它实际上像一个有权收取农民金钱的私人组织那么运作，并且它还在公众的视野之外使用这些资金——这些都拜美国农业部所赐。 “The real problem with all of these check-offs is they depend on strict USDA oversight in order to achieve their purpose,” Matthew Penzer, a lawyer for the Humane Society, said. “In this case, that oversight has failed.” The Humane Society has long been critical of the pork lobby and the farming techniques of large pork producers. “这些缴款方案真正的问题在于，如果想要达到其目标，那将有赖于美国农业部的严格监督，” Matthew Penzer说道，他是人道协会的一名律师。“在这桩案件中，监管失效了。” 人道协会长期以来一直批评猪肉游说活动和大型猪肉生产者的养殖技术。 The suit, filed in 2012, was dismissed for lack of standing in 2013 but the appeals court reversed that dismissal on August 14. The government now has 45 days to appeal the circuit court ruling, before the case returns to the D.C. District Court for a ruling on its substance. In the meantime, the payments continue. 2012年提出的该诉讼在2013年由于缺乏诉讼资格被驳回，但是上诉法院在8月14日推翻了这次驳回。在案件返回到哥伦比亚特区地方法院裁定其实质内容之前，政府现在有45天时间对巡回法院裁决提出上诉。在此期间，支付在继续。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

The fascinating economics behind Playboy's decision to drop nudes from its magazine 花花公子杂志做出取消裸照的决定背后迷人的经济学 作者：Timothy B. Lee @ 2015-10-13 译者：混乱阈值（@混乱阈值） 校对：小册子（@昵称被抢的小册子） 来源：Vox，http://www.vox.com/2015/10/13/9523879/playboy-nudity-no On Monday, the New York Times reported on a development that sounds like an April Fool's joke: Playboy magazine is going to stop publishing images of naked women. 周一，《纽约时报》报道了一条听起来像愚人节笑话的新闻：《花花公子》杂志将不再刊登裸女照片了。 But Playboy CEO Scott Flanders is serious. He believes the Playboy brand can transcend its salacious origins and become a lucrative vehicle for selling mainstream products. There's already a wide variety of Playboy-branded clothing and jewelry out there, and the Playboy brand is particularly popular in China, where pornography is officially illegal. 然而花花公子的CEO Scott Flanders是认真的。他相信花花公子品牌能够超越自己的色情业出身，通过销售主流产品而获利。花花公子品牌的服装和珠宝早就款式繁多了。而且花花公子品牌在中国特别受欢迎，尽管色情业在中国是非法的。 Playboy tested this strategy out with the Playboy.com website, which has been free of explicit nudity since last year. The company says it's been a big success, attracting a much bigger and younger audience. Now it's hoping to expand on that success with what used to be the country's most popular pornographic magazine. 花花公子已经开始在它的网站Playboy.com上试行这一新策略，该网站从去年开始就已经没有露骨的裸体照片了。公司声称此举已经获得了巨大成功，吸引到了比以前多得多且年轻得多的用户。现在公司正希望将成功扩展到这份一度是全国最具人气的色情杂志上。 Playboy is dropping explicit nudity from its flagship magazine 花花公子正把露骨的裸体从它的旗舰杂志中去除 Starting in March 2016, there won't be any explicit nude images of women in the US edition of Playboy magazine. 从2016年3月开始，美国版《花花公子》杂志将不会再有任何露骨裸照了。 In 1953, Playboy made its mark by being one of the first mainstream magazines to feature pictures of nude women. In the pre-internet era, porn was a lot harder to obtain, so there was a big market for pornographic magazines. The magazine grew to more than 5 million subscribers by the 1970s and attracted a bunch of competitors. 在1953年，《花花公子》作为最早以裸女图为特色的主流杂志之一而名留史册。在前互联网时代，获得色情内容比现在要困难得多，因此色情杂志有很大的市场。到1970年代，《花花公子》已拥有超过五百万订户，并吸引了一堆竞争者。 But the internet has totally transformed the pornography industry. Today, any kind of porn you can imagine is just a Google search away, and in most cases is available for free. So over the past couple of decades, the value proposition of paying $19.95 a year to have a few dozen nude images delivered in dead-tree format each month has become less and less compelling. Today the magazine only has around 800,000 subscribers. 然而互联网彻底改变了色情业。如今，只需google搜索一下就能找到各种你能想到的色情内容，而且多数是免费的。因此，为了每月几十张纸质裸体图片而每年花19.95美元这种买卖，在过去几十年里越来越没吸引力了。现在《花花公子》只剩下大约80万订户了。 On the other hand, Playboy has always aspired to be more than just a pornographic magazine. Over the decades, those 5 million subscribers allowed Playboy to do interviews with a wide variety of famous people, including Martin Luther King Jr., Jimmy Carter, and Steve Jobs. 另一方面，一直以来《花花公子》所追求的都不仅仅是做一本色情杂志。过去数十年间，五百万的订户量让《花花公子》得以采访到众多名人，其中包括马丁·路德·金、吉米·卡特和史蒂夫·乔布斯。 There's a long-running joke about people "reading Playboy for the articles," but Playboy's non-pornographic content really has been pretty good over the years. Now it won't be such a joke anymore. Playboy will replace its explicit nude images with the kind of PG-13 images found in men's magazines such as Maxim and Stuff, and will beef up its coverage of other topics, including a new sex column and expanded coverage of the liquor business. “为了读文章而看《花花公子》”是个长盛不衰的老笑话，然而这么多年来《花花公子》的非色情内容确实非常不错。现在这笑话将不再是笑话了。《花花公子》将使用诸如《Maxim》和《Stuff》这样的男士杂志中的PG-13（13岁以下未成年人需在家长指导下阅读）级图片来替代露骨裸照，并将丰富其它话题的内容，这其中包括一个新的性爱专栏和增加对酒水生意的报道。 Cutting nudity from Playboy.com was a big success 将裸体从Playboy.com上移除获得了巨大成功 Playboy used to look like a conventional media company with a stable of magazines, websites, television stations, and so forth. But that business model hasn't done well in the internet age, and it reached its nadir in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. 花花公子曾经看起来像传统的媒体公司一样，拥有一批杂志、网站、电视台等。但这样的商业模式在互联网时代不太玩得转，并随着2008年的金融危机落到最低谷。 So the company began downplaying its media properties and focusing instead on promoting and licensing its iconic brand. And Flanders started to wonder whether distributing pictures of naked women was becoming a business liability. "You could argue that nudity is a distraction for us and actually shrinks our audience rather than expands it," he argued last year. 因此公司开始把重心从媒体资产中转移，转而将注意力集中在推广其偶像品牌及品牌授权使用。Flanders开始怀疑发布裸女图片是否成了公司的商业负累。“可以说，裸体内容让公司分心，事实上还减少而非增大了我们的读者数量”，去年Flanders如是说。 Lots of people are attracted to the risqué vibe of the Playboy brand, but there are situations in which outright pornography isn't allowed. Apple's App Store, for example, doesn't allow apps to have sexually explicit imagery, for example, nor do Facebook and Instagram. 很多人被花花公子品牌性感暧昧的气质吸引，但有些地方禁止直白的色情内容。例如苹果公司的应用商店不允许带有露骨性爱图像的应用上架，Facebook和Instagram也一样。 So last year, Playboy overhauled its primary website, Playboy.com, and took out all the explicit nudity (there are still plenty of racy near-nude shots of the type you'll find in other men's magazines). Playboy executives told the New York Times that this was a huge success: Traffic quadrupled, and the average age of readers fell from 47 to 30. 因此，花花公子去年对其主网站Playboy.com做了次大扫除，移除了所有露骨的裸体内容（网站上依然还有大量那种你会在别的男士杂志里看到的近乎裸体的火爆图片）。花花公子的管理层告诉《纽约时报》，此举获得了巨大成功：网站流量翻了四倍，读者的平均年龄从47岁下降至30岁。 In other words, young people who grew up in the porn-saturated world of the internet aren't that interested in Playboy.com as a place to get porn. And the existence of naked women on the site made it awkward to read Playboy articles at work — where many people spend time goofing off online — or share Playboy content on social media sites. Dropping the naked women dramatically expanded the potential audience for Playboy.com without significantly reducing its appeal. 换句话说，在充斥着色情内容的互联网世界中成长起来的年轻人们对通过Playboy.com获得色情内容这件事不感兴趣。网站上的裸女使得在工作场所阅读网站的文章——很多人在工作的时候偷闲上网——或在社交媒体网站上分享花花公子网站的内容变得很尴尬 。去除裸女这招在不严重影响网站吸引力的同时大幅扩展了Playboy.com的潜在用户群。 Playboy is trying to become a mainstream consumer brand 花花公子正努力成为一个主流消费品牌 More traffic and a younger audience are big successes in their own right, but even more importantly, the shift helps make the Playboy brand more mainstream. There's already a large demand for Playboy-branded merchandise, and Flanders is betting that that demand will grow even more if Playboy becomes less associated with explicit pornography in the minds of the public. 更大的网站流量和更年轻的用户，本身就是一个巨大的成功，而更重要的是，公司的转变使得花花公子品牌更加主流。花花公子品牌的商品本来就拥有很大的市场需求，而Flanders深信，如果在大众心目中花花公子与露骨色情联系不那么紧密的话，市场需求将获得更大增长。 The decision to drop nudity from the magazine is best seen in this light. The goal isn't so much to make the magazine itself more successful — though presumably its owners would like to do that — but to make the magazine a more effective sales tool for the Playboy brand more generally. 最好从这样的角度来看待将裸体从杂志中去除的决定：该举措的主要目标并非为了让杂志本身更成功——尽管杂志的所有人想必希望如此——而是为了使杂志成为更有效的营销工具，在更广范围内推动花花公子品牌商品的销售。 Playboy's magazine hasn't been a big money maker in years. Flanders told the New York Times that the US edition of the magazine lost around $3 million last year. But Playboy's efforts to cash in on its brand — and particularly its famous bunny logo — is paying big dividends. 花花公子的杂志已经有些年头没怎么赚钱了。Flanders告诉《纽约时报》，去年杂志的美国版亏损了大约3百万美元。但花花公子通过品牌——特别是公司著名的兔子商标——创收的努力目前正在带来巨额红利。 Playboy's brand is not only widely known in the West, but it's also surprisingly popular in China. Last year, Playboy-branded products generated $1.5 billion in revenues in China, about a third of the worldwide total. Playboy merchandise is available in 3,500 retail outlets in China — which is particularly remarkable because pornography is officially illegal there. 花花公子品牌不但在西方广为人知，在中国也出乎意料地受欢迎。去年，花花公子品牌产品在中国卖出了15亿美元，大约是其全球总收入的三分之一。花花公子的商品在全中国的3500个零售直营店有售——考虑到色情作品在中国并不合法，该业绩就特别值得称道。 Flanders hopes that making the magazine less porny and more mainstream will help make the Playboy-branded products more mainstream as well — and dramatically expand the market for them. Flanders希望杂志不那么色情并且变得更加主流，能使得花花公子品牌的产品也变得更主流——并为产品大幅扩展市场。 Playboy-branded pornography isn't going away 花花公子品牌的色情产品并未离开 There will no longer be naked ladies in Playboy magazine or at Playboy.com, but that doesn't mean we'll stop seeing explicit imagery distributed under the Playboy brand. 裸女将不再出现在《花花公子》杂志和Playboy.com网站上，但我们依然可以在花花公子的品牌之下，看到露骨图像。 In 2011, Playboy signed a deal with the internet porn company Manwin, since renamed MindGeek, to manage many of the company's online properties and television channels. Playboy later regained control over the Playboy.com site, but the rest of Playboy's pornographic empire, including the Playboy Plus subscription service and Playboy TV, continues to be operated by MindGeek. 2011年，花花公子与互联网色情公司Manwin签约，Manwin自此改名为MindGeek，并负责管理花花公子公司的网上资产和电视频道。后来花花公子又收回了Playboy.com网站的控制权，但花花公子色情帝国的其它资产包括Playboy Plus会员服务和Playboy TV将继续由MindGeek运营。 This might mean that Playboy can have the best of both worlds: It could enjoy the commercial benefits of a more mainstream image while continuing to profit indirectly from its pornography business. 这或许意味着花花公子将鱼与熊掌两者兼得：它将从一个更主流的形象获取商业收益，同时继续从其色情产业上间接获利。 On the other hand, if dropping pornography from its website pays big dividends for its licensing business, it's possible that Playboy will seek to shut down its other pornographic properties as well. That might be tricky, since Playboy's licensing agreement with MindGeek runs for 15 years (meaning Playboy might not get control back until 2026). But if Playboy becomes determined to separate itself fully from the pornography business, it might be able to cut a deal with MindGeek to end the deal early, or to choose a new brand name for its pornographic content. 另一方面，倘若将色情内容从网站去除能为其品牌授权业务带来巨大红利，那花花公子也可能关闭其它的色情产业。但这可能有些棘手，因为花花公子与MindGeek达成的授权协议有效期为15年（意味着花花公子在2026年之前可能无法取回控制权）。但假如花花公子决心剥离色情产业，他们或许可以和MindGeek商量提早终止协议，或者为其色情内容选择一个新品牌。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

Sweden's Populist Surge 瑞典的民粹浪潮 作者：Daniel Pipes @ 2015-8-26 译者：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 校对：小册子（@昵称被抢的小册子） 来源：Washington Times，http://www.danielpipes.org/16073/sweden-populist-surge N.B.: This text differs in minor ways from the Washington Times version. 注意：此处文本与《华盛顿时报》发表版稍有不同。 According to the most recent poll, the innocuously-named but ferociously anti-establishment Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna or SD) has the largest support of any political party in Sweden. This news has potentially momentous implications not just for Sweden but for all Europe. 最近的民意调查显示，在瑞典各政治派别中，名称温和无害、但实际极端反建制的瑞典民主党（Sverigedemokraterna 或SD）获得了最高的支持率。这一消息不仅对瑞典，而且对全欧洲都可能有着极为重大的喻意。

The Sweden Democrats logo with the slogan "Security & Tradition." 瑞典民主党的标志，图中口号是“安全与传统”

Sweden is a special place. One of the richest and most peaceful countries in the world (it has not been engaged in armed conflict for two centuries), until recently it was a remarkably homogenous society where socialism, with its optimistic assumption that people are born good and circumstances make them bad, worked and the government enjoyed great prestige. Swedish pride in the country's accomplishments translates into an ethical superiority symbolized by the oft-heard claim to be a "moral superpower." 瑞典很是独特。它是世界上最富有、最平静的国家之一（已有两百年未卷入任何武装冲突）。直到不久以前，瑞典仍是一个极为同质的社会，政府声望卓著，社会主义制度行之有效，这一制度乐观地假定人性本善，后天学坏。瑞典人对国家的成就极为自豪，这种自豪还转变成为一种道德优越感，其象征就是他们经常自称的“道德超级大国”。 This heritage has also inspired an intolerance of dissent, however; "Be quiet, follow the consensus, let the bureaucrats carry it out." The country has become so notorious for its stifling faux-unanimity that I actually heard a Dane recently ask at a public forum, "Why has Sweden turned into the North Korea of Scandinavia?" 不过，这种传统也导致对异议的不宽容态度。“安静些，随大流，让官员们去做吧。”该国虚假的全民一致令人压抑，这一点早已臭名昭著，我最近还看到一个丹麦人在某公共论坛上问道：“为什么瑞典已经变成斯堪的纳维亚半岛的朝鲜？” Also, Sweden's history creates a no-crisis mentality that militates against the hard-headed, flexible responses needed to cope with current problems the country now faces, especially those connected to waves of mainly Muslim immigrants. As one interlocutor put it to me in Stockholm earlier this month, "Past success has led to current failure." For example, security in Sweden is well below what might find in a country like Bolivia, with few inclinations to make improvements, rendering Islamist violence all but inevitable. 这个国家的历史还塑造了一种不识危机的心性，妨碍了它采取冷静而灵活的回应手段来解决目前所面临的问题，特别是那些跟以穆斯林为主体的移民潮有关的问题。就像是本月初有人在斯德哥尔摩对我说过的那样，“过往的成功导致了今日的失败。”比如，瑞典的安保水平远远不如玻利维亚这类国家，而且看不到什么改善的意愿，所以伊斯兰暴力活动几乎不可避免。 In this stultification, the SD stands out because it offers the only political alternative. Proof of this came in December 2014, when the SD appeared to have the swing vote in a crucial budget vote between the left and right blocs in the country's unicameral legislature, the Riksdag – until all the other seven parties joined together in a grand coalition to deny it any influence. 在这潭无澜死水之中，瑞典民主党因为提供了唯一的政治替代选项而一枝独秀。证据出现于2014年12月，当时该国一院制立法机关瑞典议会的左右两派正在举行一场关键的预算表决，而瑞典民主党似乎掌握了关键的游离选票，最终，其余全部七个党联合起来组成一个超级联盟，以阻止瑞典民主党发挥任何影响。 As this act of desperation suggests, the Sweden Democrats offer a populist – and not, as usually described, a "far right" – brew of policies anathema to all the legacy parties: Foremost, it calls for assimilating legal immigrants, expelling the illegals, and reducing future immigration by at least 90 percent. It also forwards a number of other policies (concerning crime, defense, the European Union, and Israel) far outside the Swedish consensus and utterly obnoxious to the other parties. 这种绝地挣扎的行为表明，瑞典民主党提出的民粹主义——并非通常所说的“极右”——系列政策，令所有老派政党极其生厌：最重要的是，它要求同化合法移民，驱逐非法移民，并将未来的移民数量削减至少90%。它提出的大量其它政策（涉及犯罪、国防、欧盟和以色列）都远远背离瑞典人的既有共识，对其余政党来说面目极为可憎。

A subway ad in Stockholm that illustrates the Sweden Democrats' messaging 斯德哥尔摩地铁站展示瑞典民主党立场的广告

With good reason, the establishment hates and fears the SD, pedantically finding any possible fault with the party, starting with its alleged neo-fascist past (though fascist connections are not unique to SD) and going on to the tiniest foibles of its leadership. 主流当权派理所当然对瑞典民主党既仇视又恐惧，吹毛求疵地寻找该党的错误，开始是拿它过去被指是新法西斯主义说事（尽管并非只有瑞典民主党才跟法西斯主义有关联），然后发展到挑剔其领导人的小毛病。 Supporting the SD remains taboo. The national police commissioner once tweeted about "vomiting" on seeing the SD's leader; naturally, his staff dare not acknowledge their supporting for the party. But one officer estimated for me that 50 percent of the police vote SD. 支持瑞典民主党如今仍属禁忌。国家警察总监曾发表一条推文，称其因为遇到了瑞典民主党领导人而“作呕”；他的下属自然不敢承认支持该党。不过曾有警官跟我说，估计50%的警察把票投给了瑞典民主党。

The future national police chief's tweet about vomiting in response to the Sweden Democrats' leader. 未来的全国警察首脑关于他因瑞典民主党领导人而作呕的推文。

Despite being ostracized, the SD increasingly connects with Swedes (including some immigrants), giving it substantial electoral gains, roughly doubling its parliamentary vote every four years: from 0.4 percent in 1998 to 1.3 percent in 2002, 2.9 percent in 2006, 5.7 percent in 2010, and 12.9 percent in September 2014. And now, less than a year later, a YouGov poll shows it having nearly doubled again, to 25.2 percent, meaning that it leads the governing Social Democrats (who have only 23.4 percent support) and the major (nominally) right-wing party, the Moderates (with 21 percent). 尽管遭到排斥，但是瑞典民主党与瑞典人（包括部分移民）之间的呼应越来越紧密，因而收获了大量选票。它在议会选举中得到的选票大约每四年翻一倍：从1998年的0.4%到2002年的1.3%，2006年的2.9%，2010年的5.7%，再到2014年的12.9%。而现在，才过了不到一年，YouGov的一项民意调查显示这个数字又翻了将近一倍，到了25.2%，这意味着它已领先于执政的社会民主党（支持率仅23.4%）和主要的（有名无实的）右翼政党温和党（支持率21%）。 No less important, I learned in Stockholm, the intellectual and political climate has shifted. Journalists, policy specialists, and politicians all noted that ideas outside the mainstream just a year ago now receive a hearing. For example, four major newspapers have questioned the consensus in favor of high immigration. 同样重要的是，我在斯德哥尔摩发现，思想和政治气氛已然发生转变。记者、政策专家和政治家们都注意到，仅仅一年前都还处于主流之外的一些观念如今已有人倾听。比如，四家主要报纸已针对支持接纳大量移民的共识提出质疑。 Beside the surging SD vote, this shift results from several factors: the shocking rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has altered the debate; continued upset at the December compact that excluded the SD from having its due parliamentary influence; and the receding memory of Anders Behring Breivik's 2011 murderous rampage in Norway. 除了瑞典民主党得票激增之外，这种转变还源于几个其它因素：伊斯兰国（ISIS）的惊人崛起，扭转了争论的态势；对去年12月阻止瑞典民主党在议会发挥其应有影响力的联合行动持续失望；对安德斯·贝林·布雷维克2011年在挪威制造残忍屠杀的记忆不断消退【译注：布雷维克是新纳粹分子】。 In all, it appears that denial and censorship can only continue for so long before the instinct of self-preservation kicks in. The Western country most prone to national suicide is possibly waking up from its stupor. If this change can take place in Sweden, the "North Korea of Scandinavia," it can, and likely will, occur elsewhere in Europe. 总而言之，一旦自我保护的本能开始起作用，看来排拒和审查就难以继续。这个最有可能走向“国家自杀”【译注：指以大量接纳异文化特别是伊斯兰文化移民并不加同化为政治正确】的西方国家可能正从麻木中醒来。如果这种变化可以发生在瑞典这个“斯堪的纳维亚半岛的朝鲜”，那么它就同样可以，而且很可能，出现在欧洲其它地方。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

Snapshots of Connected and Interactive in 2015 数字媒体与互动性报告，2015 作者：Timothy Taylor @ 2015-8-21 译者：路嘉宾（@晚上不买白天买不到） 校对：小册子（@昵称被抢的小册子） 来源：CONVERSABLE ECONOMIST，http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2015/08/snapshots-of-connected-and-interactive.html For 20 years, Mary Meeker--now of the venture capital firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers--has been presenting an annual overview of Internet trends that has become semi-legendary in the industry. If you'd like to listen to a speaker go through 196 Powerpoint slides in 25 minutes, the link to her presentation at the Internet Trends 2015--Code Conference on May 27, 2015 is here. If you just want the slides they are here. For those who like taking a drink from a fire hose of information, this presentation is for you. 20年来，现正供职于风险投资公司KPCB(凯鹏华盈)的玛丽·米克每年都会发布互联网发展趋势的年度报告，这已经成为了业界的半个传奇。如果你想通过扬声器听她用25分钟时间给你过一遍196页的PPT，她在2015年5月27日举行的code conference上关于2015年互联网发展趋势的演讲链接在这里。如果你只是想要幻灯片的话它们在这里。这些演讲资料是为那些喜欢从信息消防龙头里大喝一通的人准备的。 Here, I'll just pass along a few slides that particularly caught my eye, on the general theme of how our interaction with media is evolving. The old model is about turning a station on or off, or going to a certain website to read what's there. The new model is toward greater interactivity. For example, here's a figuring that starts with the VCR and cable television back in the 1970s, as way in which users began to exercise more control over media, and points to the many ways in which this trend has expanded. 在这里，我将展示一些特别吸引我眼球的幻灯片，其宏观主题是关于我们与媒体的互动是如何演变的。旧的模式主要就是打开或者关闭一个电台/电视台，或者去某个网站阅读其中的内容。新的模式则具有更强的互动性。例如，这里有一幅以1970年代的盒式磁带录像机(VCR)及有线电视为起始的图表，说明用户如何开始对媒体有更多的控制，并且指出了这种趋势得以延续的许多途径。 Of course, this change has now gone well beyond the ability to choose which movie to watch. Interactivity involves both individuals posting content, and looking at content posted by others. For example, YouTube reports that 300 hours of video are uploaded to the site every minute, Meeker offers a graph showing that Facebook is now up to 4 billion video views per day. 当然，这种变化早已远远超越了能选择观看哪部电影的程度。交互性既包括独立发布内容，也包括观看其他用户发布的内容。例如，Youtube报称每分钟有300小时时长的视频被上传到其网站上。Meeker则提供了一份图表，显示Facebook现在每天的视频浏览多达40亿次。 Of course, this use of media isn't just about watching cat videos. It's more and more using mobile devices like smartphones or tablets for many purposes: news, directions, events, and more. 当然，如此使用媒体不仅仅是为了观看猫咪视频而已。有越来越多像智能手机和平板电脑这类的移动设备被用于各种各样的用途：新闻、导航、日程等。 Indeed, many of the "millennials" in the 18-34 age bracket are umbilically attached to their smartphones. 的确，许多处于18至34岁年龄段的“千禧一代”就像胎儿对脐带那样依赖他们的智能手机。 The upshot of these kinds of changes is a rapid growth in the time spent each day using digital media---expecially with mobile connections. US adults are now up to more than five hours a day with digital media, double the level of seven years ago. 这种变化带来的结果是每天消耗在数字媒体的时间快速增长，特别是当有移动网络的时候。美国的成年人如今每天接触数字媒体的时间可长达五个小时，是七年前的两倍。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

【2015-12-10】 @baidu冷兵器吧 依靠以自豪感为目的的历史教育和许多义和团知识分子们，总是强调老欧洲粪便垃圾满地污水横流，街道如何狭窄等等，以此制造一种印象——虽然近现代我们是不行了，可是我们祖宗可比西方祖宗阔的多啦，不用去学什么鸟西方！但，中国真能嘲笑古代欧洲脏乱差吗？ http://t.cn/RUsEyYH 中国能嘲笑古代欧洲脏乱差吗？ @战争史研究WHS:汉长安城至北周时“水皆咸卤,不甚宜人”，这个水指的是地下水。八百年间城市粪尿渗入地表，影响地下水质。所以隋朝才放弃汉长安城，在其南边营建大兴城 @whigzhou: 对佛山、汉口等商业城市和都城做个比较研究可能会有点意思，我毫无根据的猜，当行会在城市管理中起较大作用时，卫生条件会更好 @whigzhou: 另外，城市面积越大，屎尿处理越难，因为古代运输条件下，屎尿的市场价格随距离递减得极快，当有效供应半径内农民对屎尿的需求量超出城市生产量时，屎尿收购价格便是正的，无需额外激励，城镇和小城市大概可以满足这一条件，而上百万人的大都市就不好说了。 @whigzhou: 所以，同等人口规模下，居住密度越高，屎尿处理越容易，这可能和一般人都直觉相反  

【2015-12-08】 @吴红波 出席了挪威外交部举办的“眼见为实”北极专题活动。北极正在加速融化已为不争事实。挪威官方讲，北极冰储量如全融化，将使海平面上升7米！不知你家海拔多高？看来治理气候变暖真的可不容缓了！ @南洋富商饱醉豚: 你们这些环保蠢货有多蠢。北极的冰若全化了，俄罗斯加拿大格陵兰可以移民80亿人口。而把沿海堤坝提高7米，实在是太省钱了，也就是到蓝翔找几个挖掘机工人。 @whigzhou: 这种幅度的海平面上升就算真的发生，也需要上千年时间，暖球恐吓党总是假定世人会傻等千年等着被淹死 @whigzhou: 此类忽悠无非利用受众对尺度的不敏感，好像一千年后你的子孙们还会生活在同样的城市，住在同样的房子里，以同样的方式生产粮食，傻等在原地，完全无视因暖化而变得宜居的数千万平方公里土地 @whigzhou: 暖球党最离奇的说法是暖化会导致干旱增加，得烧掉多少历史书才能让人相信这一点啊，可不把地球都给烧热了～ @whigzhou: 真信暖球党的人里面，应该没什么有钱人，否则至少其中一部分早就冲到加拿大冻土带去买土地了吧，我还是那句话，愿赌才是真信  

【2015-12-05】 @朱世巍 日本政府将采取强力措施促进农地集约化经营：对放弃耕种的土地增税；对长期出租的土地减税 @朱世巍:日本所面临的最艰巨问题，1是宪法，2个人口，3是农业。安倍似乎是真心要解决这三大难题——果然不是一个混日子的首相 @李佳苏勒Iridium: 咱大大战后第一相打底儿，千古一相封顶。看能做到哪儿。 @熊也餐厅: 不搞凯恩斯主义更好我得写信提醒他老一下。 @whigzhou: 这条政策比他的凯恩斯主义更蠢～ @whigzhou: 安倍就是个强国家主义者，只不过恰好是右翼国家主义而已 @李佳苏勒Iridium: 在你球村，五分之一的人生活在一个极权政权之下，没有人是能够独善其身的，你不咬蛇并不会保证蛇不咬你。共产党用黑金炸美国政客，关起门来搞自由主义行吗？门能关上吗？埃及之恶不在压榨费拉，而在腐蚀罗马。先发制人好 @whigzhou: 这些跟他愚蠢的经济政策有啥关系？自削国力以先发制人？ @whigzhou: 要让日本恢复活力，有个（说起来）简单的办法：解除一切与土地和住房有关的用途管制、流通管制、租金管制，卖掉全部非军用国有土地，让房价降下来，等宅男宅女都住上大浩斯，就愿意生孩子了，补贴农业，保护耕地，惩罚弃耕，显然都与此背道而驰 @熊也餐厅:弃用雇佣终身制。弃日语讲英语。 @whigzhou: 终身雇佣、不肯破产之类是文化特性，政府管不了也不该管，但管制、补贴、财政政策是政府一手制订的  

【2015-12-03】 @whigzhou: 古代诗歌中大量使用的重复、排比、比兴、衬托等表现手法，都是前文字时代特色，功能在于以信息高冗余率来换取复制传播的保真度和抗干扰性，所以一旦文字和书写介质普及，这些手法的使用率就迅速下降。 @whigzhou: 无文字社会的巫术咒语也大量使用此类手法。  

【2015-12-02】 @海德沙龙 《私立学校与社会成就》在英国，43%的高级律师、54%的行政总监、51%的高级医生以及54%的新闻界领袖念过私立学校，而同时只有7% 的儿童在私校读书，那么私校经历与社会成就之间的关系，究竟是如何产生的？是因为富家子既容易上私校又容易晋身，还是私校帮助了晋身，还是别的原因？ @whigzhou: 作者没给出结论，但综合文章所提供的各方面数据，我得到的印象是：那些从小就表现出有出息迹象的孩子，家长往往勒紧裤带也要送进私校，这一选择机制大概可以解释私校与社会成就之关系的大部分，剩下的小部分由私校经历本身所贡献。 @whigzhou: 果真如此的话，那差不多就是说：童年表现出有出息潜力的孩子，长大了往往真的会有出息，很平凡的事实嘛～