Kevin Rudd: a complete and utter fraud 陆克文：一个彻彻底底的欺诈

oldrrr

英国银写的关于陆克文的评论员文章。

好深刻。。。好尖锐。

翻译不是我的强项，大家凑合着英文看吧~~~~



Kevin Rudd: a complete and utter fraud

In a perfect world, Kevin Rudd would not be campaigning for election but visiting an analyst. Therapy is the treatment of our age for those the ancient Greeks saw as tragic heroes, personalities at once sparkling and deeply dysfunctional. But an election campaign it is, with the Australian people as the judge and jury, and it is important to keep in mind a key issue at stake: just who is Kevin Rudd?

Much has been made of the shambolic nature of Mr Rudd’s first term as prime minister. But it remains unclear why the 55-year-old former diplomat is such a dysfunctional figure. Most people don’t expect political leaders to have well-adjusted personalities. As Matthew Parris has argued in these pages, most politicians are ‘dreamers, attention-seekers and risk-takers with a dollop of narcissism in their natures’. But even by this standard, Mr Rudd’s character
is really weird.

The centre of the dysfunction is not simply his ruthless political ambition — and the treachery, betrayal and frantic 24-7 mindset that go with it — although that trait certainly explains why so many of his colleagues have resigned from the cabinet ministry and/or parliament (see below).

Nor is the root of his problem his longing to be all things to all people. Most of what depresses and even disgusts people about Mr Rudd now was visible in 2007 when he ran against John Howard. His salient characteristics were trickery and fakery, the chameleon appeal to all sides at once, which helped him persuade the so-called Howard Battlers to come home to Labor without being embarrassed to tell their mates they were doing so.

From the outset, however, his leadership was an exercise in bad faith. From border protection and carbon pricing to economic reform and fiscal policy, Mr Rudd was always trying to say too many things to too many different people, to square circles and reconcile the irreconcilable. Given his recent flip-flops on gay marriage and 457 visas, nothing has changed.

But there is another explanation for the Rudd dysfunction: self-gratification taken to an extreme, an obsession with always being the centre of attention — like a spoiled child — and an addiction to being in the media spotlight. In our therapeutic age, perhaps we could call this pattern of behaviour megalomaniac or sociopathic, but perhaps these words go too far in pretending medical precision. To describe the same phenomenon, the ancient Greeks coined the word hubris.

When we write about Kevin Rudd, we feel like the pub bore. ‘Haven’t we said this before? Or maybe you knew that already.’ Alas, there are none so blind as those who will not see. This magazine has long maintained that Mr Rudd has only ever taken the Australian people for a ride, yet too many voters — how many remains to be seen — continue to be deceived or live in false hope. Despite the risk of appearing too negative, Tony Abbott is obliged to alert the electorate to what many Labor people already know: this bloke is a complete and utter fraud.

Hasluck’s ghost

According to the ABC’s Chris Uhlmann, in 2004 a senior Labor staffer was so captivated by the unflattering portrait of Billy McMahon in Paul Hasluck’s diary in March 1968 (later reprinted in The Chance of Politics in 1997) that he copied it and circulated it among some party colleagues with the question: ‘Who does this remind you of?’ So we thought we’d have fun and adapt Sir Paul’s withering critique of the hapless Billy to the Labor assessment of their dear leader:

‘We confess to a dislike of him. The longer one is associated with him the deeper the contempt for him grows and we find it hard to allow him any merit. Disloyal, devious, dishonest, untrustworthy, petty, cowardly — all these adjectives have been weighed by us and we could not in truth modify or reduce any one of them in its application to him. We find him a contemptible creature and this contempt and the adjectives we have chosen to apply to him sum up defects that cannot be balanced by better qualities.

‘He lost the good opinion of those with whom he is closely associated in politics for very simple reasons. He is disloyal and he can’t be trusted. He works for his own advancement by trying to destroy the reputation of his rivals. He worked against Brereton, against Crean, against Latham, against Beazley and against Gillard. We wonder if he deceives himself or whether in private there come the sad or the infuriating moments when his conceit breaks and he exposes
himself to himself.’

http://www.spectator.co.uk/austr ... -and-utter-fraud-2/

典

from lots of Australia ladies: whatever you say, I love Kevin. I don't care what he has done, what he will do.

红烧鸡翅

看完了

cncsman

民可使由之，不可使知之

echoxinying

yinjiayi88

Kevin Rudd: a complete and utter one turn fraud

商务车

cncsman 发表于 2013-7-24 22:38
民可使由之，不可使知之

老祖宗的话就是精辟&深刻

ayo419

开玩笑

ThinkPader

很想知道工粉们的评论. 如果他们读得懂的话！

博闻

ThinkPader 发表于 2013-8-1 07:44
很想知道工粉们的评论. 如果他们读得懂的话！

不知道你读没读，里边充满了人身攻击，而提到的政策基本上都不是什么重要问题。

luximiss

cncsman 发表于 2013-7-24 22:38
民可使由之，不可使知之

跑题一下，您这句话没看懂，所以随便去搜了下，发现还很复杂

释义一
断句为：民可使由之；不可使知之。由此解读为：“可以让老百姓按照我们指引的道路走，不需要让他们知道为什么。”或者“下民可以驱使他们工作（由字本意与农田，庄稼有关，这里应该指“井田制”的耕作），却不可以让他们知道我们的目的。”[2]
反对意见认为这样的解释是违背孔子提倡的仁义精神的，认为是以讹传讹。
基于此释义的评价：该理论是来自奴役人民的统治论，是过时的[1]理论，现代社会是倡导平等民主的时代，权力应该来自人民，民的义务与责任要共所周知，同时人民的劳动是以劳有所获，劳要有所值来体现社会的公平。
释义二
断句为：民可，使由之；不可，使知之。由此解读为：“对于民，其可者使其自由之，其所不可者亦使知之。”类似观点还有：“舆论所可者则使共由之，其所不可者亦使共知之。”【宦懋庸，《〈论语〉稽》】
然而，仔细分析其意思，“使知之”是为了达成“民可”的目的，若是民知道后还是“不可”，那么当然没必要让民知道，这就是“不可使知之”之意。
释义三
断句为：民可使，由之；不可使；知之。结合上下文的语境理解应为：诗礼乐这三样东西是教育民众的基础，一定要抓好，如果人民掌握了诗礼乐，那就是好事，应该让他们发挥，如果人民还没有掌握的话，我们就要去教化他们，让他们知道和明白这些东西。【刘默，《史上被封杀的幕后真相》】
另一方争议的认为礼乐诗是上等人的事，民只是工作工具，无法掌握，加之孔子曾说过“惟上知下愚不移”，下民是教不来的，这就是可使不可知的原理。
释义四
断句为：民可使，由之；不可使；知之。解释为：一个国家领导人，人民都能够服从，都能够奉行政令，好，随他去；如果人民不听话，他有意见，有排斥，有对抗，这时候怎么办？知之，这是教他。所以“建国君民，教学为先”。

cncsman

luximiss 发表于 2013-8-1 11:35
跑题一下，您这句话没看懂，所以随便去搜了下，发现还很复杂

释义一

我当然知道这句话在几千年里被反复解释了n次。

但这个都要铺开来的话，这里就是百家讲坛不是澳洲时政了。

该用哪个释义，你说呢？

luximiss

cncsman 发表于 2013-8-1 12:05
我当然知道这句话在几千年里被反复解释了n次。

但这个都要铺开来的话，这里就是百家讲坛不是澳洲时政了 ...

不知道啊，我觉得都有道理啊
随便跑题下嘛

Piscator

破骂娘文章有啥好看的，还屁颠屁颠贴上足迹。。。。

通篇都是形容词，没有任何事例来佐证文章对陆的观点。。。

spectator是右派杂志，他们的亲儿子阿宝眼看煮熟的鸭子要飞了当然忍不住要哭骂一番

Piscator

cncsman 发表于 2013-7-24 22:38
民可使由之，不可使知之

你想说什么

cncsman

Piscator 发表于 2013-8-2 14:08
你想说什么

读不懂祖宗的话就闪一边去。

zn7726

看懂标题就行了

Piscator

cncsman 发表于 2013-8-2 15:00
读不懂祖宗的话就闪一边去。

别乱抛书包丢人现眼

cncsman

Piscator 发表于 2013-8-2 16:09
别乱抛书包丢人现眼

黄皮白心、对中华文化缺乏了解的，通常会喷这种话。

情急无奈，就请看17楼吧。

daniello

围观

众禾土生

这也能吵起来

Piscator

cncsman 发表于 2013-8-2 16:35
黄皮白心、对中华文化缺乏了解的，通常会喷这种话。

情急无奈，就请看17楼吧。 ...

请问你在这个帖子里回这句话是想说什么，狗屁不通

cncsman

Piscator 发表于 2013-8-2 18:36
请问你在这个帖子里回这句话是想说什么，狗屁不通

其言如其头像

Piscator

cncsman 发表于 2013-8-2 17:39
其言如其头像

WonsunCoaching

cncsman 发表于 2013-8-2 17:39
其言如其头像

消遣一下 过个好周末

是把刷子

ThinkPader 发表于 2013-8-1 07:44
很想知道工粉们的评论. 如果他们读得懂的话！

我们文化低，连中文都看不明白的

eguan88

找不到人家的要害，就满嘴乱喷的文章