Search
【#GS_Fashion】2021 Met Gala 於 9 月 13 日完美落幕，今年主題為「American Independence」，場內亮點依然 滿滿，Kim Kardashian 的黑衣謎樣蒙面造型、Billie Eilish 身上的一襲馬甲式篷紗裙，以及 BLLACKPINK Rosé 的蝴蝶結 Little black dress 造型，都引起不少熱話。
李戡發文指出，某臺大教授的著作有多處抄襲，我看完之後十分駭然。因為張亞中老師曾對蔡英文的論文事件發表評論：「倫敦政經學院不是正規大學」，著實是金玉良言啊！現在張總校長是不是也會發出正義的怒吼：「臺大出這種教授，不是正規大學。」
.
這樣的話，還真的虧大了，因為我才剛拿到畢業證書誒！早知如此，要選最正規的孫文學校就讀。不過似乎不必多慮，前述所指臺大某抄襲教授正是張亞中本人，張總校長是不會自我批評成非正規教授的。心中大石瞬間卸下，所以我拿到的，應該還能算是正規證書吧。
.
———（以下李戡全文）———
.
《張亞中，你抄錯行了！》
.
張亞中1998年出版《兩岸主權論》（台北：生智文化，1998）一書，不止一次抄襲楊永明1996年發表在《政治科學論叢》第七期的論文<民主主權：政治理論中主權概念之演變與主權理論新取向>。關於證明抄襲的方法論、抄襲者慣用的掩蓋手法和心態，我在《蔣介石日記的濫用》（被中共查禁）裡做了充分論證。現在我用這些方法，來還原張亞中怎麼抄襲楊永明，而且還抄錯行。
.
一、《兩岸主權論》第9到10頁，張亞中寫道：
.
國際法百科全書亦將主權定義為「一個國家獨立於其他國家之外，且於法律上不受其他國家的影響，以及國家對其領土和人民的政府權力享有最高性，與排他性的管轄權」。【注釋是「Helmut Steinberger, “Sovereignty”, in Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Installment 10., (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing and Company, 1987), pp.397-418, at pp.403-404.」】
.
這段引文，和楊永明<民主主權>頁144的段落幾乎一模一樣：
.
國際法百科全書定義主權為「一個國家獨立於其他國家之外，且於法律上不受其他國家的滲透影響，以及國家對其領土和人民的政府權力的至高性和排他性的管轄權」【注釋是「Helmut Steinberger, “Sovereignty,” in Encyclopedia of International Law, op.cit., p.404.」】
.
楊永明和張亞中都引用了Encyclopedia of Public International Law的內容，不過楊永明漏寫了書名中的Public一字，我們翻開這本書第404頁，可找到楊永明引文對應的原文：
.
State sovereignty now meant a State's general independence from and legal impermeability in relation to foreign powers, and the State's exclusive jurisdiction and supremacy of governmental powers over the State's territory and inhabitants.
.
這段話明明出現在百科全書第404頁，而非第403-404頁，為什麼張亞中會寫成「pp.397-418, at pp.403-404.」？
.
二、這個「兩段式頁數」的寫法，正好出現在楊永明論文頁143-144：
.
為方便區分起見，學者稱描述國家內部的主權概念為「內部主權」（或「國內主權」），而在國際法上的應用則被稱為「外部主權」（或「國家主權」）。【注釋是「See Helmut Steinberger, “Sovereignty,” in Encyclopedia of International Law, Rudolf L. Bindscdhedler et al eds. (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing and Company, 1987), pp.397-418, at pp.403-404.」】
.
我們翻開百科全書，果然分別在第403和404頁看到「external sovereignty」（外部主權）和「internal sovereignty」（內部主權）的用法，說明楊永明的注釋沒問題。奇怪的是，楊永明這段引文，也出現在張亞中《兩岸主權論》第10頁：
.
有些學者區別主權的概念為「內部主權」與「外部主權」，前者指的是描述國家內部的主權；後者指的是國家主權在國際法的運用。【注釋是「Helmut Steinberger, “Sovereignty”, in Encyclopedia of Public International Law, op.cit., p.404.」】
.
由此可見，張亞中抄錯行了！張亞中根本沒看過Encyclopedia of Public International Law這本書，他這兩個出處，都是直接抄襲楊永明。名詞解釋那段，張亞中為了掩飾抄襲痕跡，故意在楊永明翻譯的引文裡改動數字，例如他省略了「滲透」兩字，殊不知這樣一省略，嚴重扭曲原意。換句話說，如果張亞中親自翻過百科全書，根本沒道理漏掉這個字。張亞中改動完楊永明翻譯的引文後，以為大功告成，在抄注釋的時候，卻不小心抄錯行——他該抄的是頁404，卻抄成了楊永明的另一個注釋頁397-418和頁403-404。另外，「內部主權」和「外部主權」那段，張亞中本來該抄頁397-418和頁403-404，卻抄成頁404。
.
三、除此之外，張亞中《兩岸主權論》頁8的引文「國家在其範圍內有宣稱不受其他限制和控制的自由，則必須同樣承認其他國家在其範圍內也有相同的自由。」【注釋是「F. H. Hinsley, Sovereignty (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1966), p.158.」】這段話和楊永明<民主主權>頁144「國家在其範圍內有宣稱不受其他限制和控制的自由，則必須同樣承認其他國家在其範圍內也具有相同的自由」只有一字之差，在張亞中自稱看過原文的情況下，他的中文翻譯和楊永明翻譯的幾乎一模一樣，只是將「具有」換成「有」，顯然構成抄襲。
.
四、同樣道理，張亞中《兩岸主權論》頁20的段落「國際法學界也開始強調民主制度是一項逐漸成形的國際規範，「民主統治」被強調為國家與政府合法性的構成要件之一。」【注釋是「Thomas Frank, “The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance”, American Journal of International Law, Vol.86, No.1 (Jan. 1992), pp.46-91.」】這段話，張亞中抄自楊永明<民主主權>頁147的段落「國際法學界也開始強調民主制度是一項逐漸成形的國際規範，民主統治（democratic governance）被強調為國家及政府合法性的構成要件之一。」【注釋是「Thomas Franck, “The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance,” American Journal of International Law, Vol.86, No.1 (Jan. 1992), pp.46-91.」】張亞中除了把「及」換成「與」，其他地方一字不漏照抄楊永明。
.
五、同樣道理，張亞中《兩岸主權論》頁20-21的段落「更有學者指出政治參與權已經成為一項普遍性原則，應該受到國際法的保障。」【注釋是「Gregory H. Fox, “The Right to Political Participation in International Law”, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 17(1992), pp.539-607.」】這段話，張亞中抄自楊永明<民主主權>頁147「福斯（Gregory Fox）更指出政治參與權（political participation）已經成為一項普遍性權利，而應該受到國際法的保障。」【注釋是Gregory H. Fox, “The Right to Political Participation in International Law,” Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 17(1992), pp.539-607.」】張亞中除了把「權利」改成「原則」，其他地方幾乎照抄楊永明。
.
凡是引用的文獻不是自己親手翻閱、而是從別人文章看到的，一定要加上「轉引」兩字，否則就是抄襲。這五個案例中，張亞中在注釋裡除了交代文獻來源，後面全都該加上「轉引自楊永明，<民主主權：政治理論中主權概念之演變與主權理論新取向>，頁XX」，但他都沒有。張亞中讀了兩個博士，必定了解學術規範，卻仍故意為之，有何資格動輒以「張老師」姿態教育別人？光是在《兩岸主權論》的其中一章，張亞中就有五個注釋抄自楊永明。有了這項紀錄，我很好奇張亞中在《歐洲統合：政府間主義與超國家主義的互動》（台北：揚智文化，1998）書裡引用的大量英文文獻，以及在《德國問題：國際法與憲法的爭議》（台北：揚智文化，1999）書裡使用的大量艱澀冷僻的德文文獻，其中有多少處可能有類似這樣的行為？
【Met Gala就是要我們好看！】
時尚奧斯卡Met Gala ，2020年在Covid-19影響下停辦一年，2021、2022年舉辦展覽主題為「In America: A Lexicon of Fashion（在美國：時尚的詞彙）」，本屆聯合主席包含：從未出席過Met Gala，被Anna Wintour欽點為主席的甜茶Timothée Chalamet，以及Billie Eilish 、網球名將Naomi Osaka，以及美國史上第一個青年桂冠詩人Amanda Gorman。
開幕晚宴已於美國時間2021年9月13日晚上舉行，American Independence則是今年Met Gala邀請函中列出的指定服裝要求，讓我們看看眾家明星、時尚名流們如何詮釋American Independence～
上一次Lady Gaga直接在紅毯展示三套服裝，今年饒舌歌手Lil Nas X（納斯小子）也在Met Gala華麗換裝給我們看。
每年總是驚艷大家的蕾哈娜、Gigi Hadid、Kendall Jenner、Cara Delevingne等時尚名人今年自然也精采萬分。
#BeautiMode #MetGala #時尚展覽
美國：一部電影，惡搞了獨立建國的一段黑歷史，
慶祝美國國慶，華盛頓變身成大隻佬美國隊長？
集結不同時代傳奇人物通通化身超級英雄，
一起來看看是要如何來推翻大英帝國的腐敗統治…
我的FB粉絲專頁：
https://www.facebook.com/cinema.vievoyage
W追影劇_洛基第1季第4集_重雷心得
https://youtu.be/FVjZPF5c65g
W電影隨便聊_自殺突擊隊：集結_預告分析第2彈
https://youtu.be/MAtHeON4K_k
今天的影片我跟大家分享一下 美國 的 獨立日 跟 台灣 的 國慶節 雙十節 的幾個相似跟不同的地方
你們知道美國的獨立日的歷史嗎?
知道美國人怎麼慶祝嗎?
來看這次的影片看看美國獨立日像台灣的哪三個節日～
#雙十節 #國慶節 #獨立日
🔥支付寶打賞：13581883245
🔥王炳忠今日頭條：搜索「王炳忠台灣」
🔥王炳忠臉書粉專：https://www.facebook.com/bingzhong.wang
♦♦♦
“Are you helping or harming us?” This is my serious question to you American politicians, including those in the Trump administration and in the Congress. As the spokesperson for the New Party, one of Taiwan’s political parties, and also a young man who has lived in Taiwan for more than 32 years since my birth, I should tell you that the answer decides our future without doubt. In other words, the very fact I must confirm is whether you support Taiwan independence instead of the One-China policy or just deploy Taiwan as your pawn to bargain with Beijing. To be honest, as you always take it for granted to sacrifice others for your benefits, it is quite important for us to make sure in advance.
As we all know, the US Congress usually tends to challenge China’s sovereignty over Taiwan because of the impact of the military-industrial complex and the lobbies hired by the Taiwan government. The Taiwan Travel Act and the TAIPEI Act are the late instances. However, without the administration’s implementation, these are only lip service. Thus, the administration’s attitude is crucial indeed. So, let’s see the Department of State. As Secretary Pompeo stated last March, the US is now using every tool in its tool kit to prevent China from isolating Taiwan through diplomatic channels. This year, after shifting blames for its neglect of the pandemic prevention by attacking China and the WHO, the Department of State recently expressed support for Taiwan’s participation in the WHA. The above really triggered my curiosity: The establishment of the US-Taiwan formal diplomatic relations is just the most useful tool, isn’t it? Why does the US not use that? Besides, since Taiwan should become a formal member of the UN before entering the WHO, why does the US not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state or the ROC government in Taiwan as the only legal government of China instead of the PRC?
The answer to my question seems that your real intention is not to support Taiwan’s real independence but only to trouble Beijing. Just as Pompeo said at a congressional hearing, the Trump administration’s way of viewing the US-Taiwan relations can consider the threat of China’s rise more than the predecessors, which reveals that Taiwan is only a chess piece for Washington to play with Beijing. Furthermore, since the US has no will to have Taiwan as a formal ally, Taiwan is just a pawn you can sacrifice anytime. Consequently, Taiwan must suffer the worsening of cross-strait relations at our own cost while the US just plays Taiwan to bargain with Beijing for your own interests. The outcome is so predictable that Taiwan should go through a depression for its large economic dependence on mainland China which you are unable and unwilling to make up. Besides, we should even consider the most serious situation that a war occurs in the Taiwan Strait. The scenario of Taiwan military is holding on alone within two to three weeks in order to wait for the US military aid. Nevertheless, as the former AIT chairman Richard Bush said, the implied commitment of the US to come to Taiwan’s defense has never be absolute. In other words, we should risk engaging a war with Beijing resulted from your dangerous game, sacrificing our lives for your lies.
As I already told you earlier, the real threat to the US is not China’s rise but the loss of your self-confidence. Moreover, you have weakened the stability across the Taiwan Strait by inciting Taiwan to deny the 1992 consensus and intervening in Taiwan’s campaign last year, which destroys the status quo and your interests indeed. Certainly, as what Secretary Pompeo has told us, “We lied, we cheated, we stole,” how can we bet our future on the US “glory” of lying, cheating, and stealing? In fact, as you once betrayed us in 1978 even though the ROC government in Taiwan and your government was formal alliance then, it is much easier for you today to abandon us when the deal has been done.
In conclusion, as your government declared plainly in the U.S.-PRC Joint Communique (1972), the US had its interests in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. Accordingly, since you are not willing to recognize either Taiwan as an independent state or the ROC as the legal government of China, we have no choice but to deal with the question of reunification with Beijing by the Chinese ourselves. Helping instead of harming us, you could stop intervening in the Taiwan question, otherwise it will only strengthen the risk across the Taiwan Strait and put us in jeopardy. Thank you if you release your hands.
The Revolutionary War (1775-83), also known as the American Revolution, arose from growing tensions between residents of Great Britain's 13 North American ... ... <看更多>
American Revolution, also called United States War of Independence or American Revolutionary War, (1775–83), insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain's ... ... <看更多>
american independence 在 American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia 的相關結果
The American Revolutionary War (April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783), also known as the Revolutionary War or American War of Independence, secured a United ... ... <看更多>