關於 put in danger中文 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Eli Clifton 挖挖挖。

錢是台灣人民納稅，怎麼用卻不被揭露。美國智庫是拿錢辦事，還是以金援為名收受獻金為實？

-----

以下中文新聞內容轉自 旺報：

https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20200619000151-260309?chdtv

華府智庫昆西治安研究所（Quincy Institute）民主外交政策計畫執行人克里夫頓（Eli Clifton）於17日發表《台灣金援智庫：無所不在但很少揭露》（Taiwan funding of think tanks: Omnipresent and rarely disclosed）一文指出，台灣金援了美國五大智庫，促使這些智庫向美國執政者建言，做出有利於台灣綠營執政政府的美國政策。該文發出後，台北經濟文化代表處政治組組長趙怡翔緊急在推特上指出，該文有錯失之處，且並未向台北經濟文化代表處查證置評。

文章稱，台灣金援的五個華府智庫包括布魯金斯學會、美國進步中心（CAP）、新美國安全中心（CNAS）、戰略與國際研究中心（CSIS）以及哈德遜研究所，都有來自於台北經濟文化代表處的資金，但都將其深埋在其年度報告中。這五個華盛頓最著名、看似公正的的智庫一直在發表政策文件，敦促美國與台灣建立更緊密的關係，擴大美國與台灣的武器銷售和貿易協定，卻沒有廣泛披露其背後來自台北經濟文化代表處（TECRO）的高額資金。

支持台有助民主自由

文章詳列台北經濟文化代表處對五大智庫的贊助金額，及這些智庫收到贊助後為台灣做了什麼。文章稱，布魯金斯學會學者於2019年12月為《台北時報》撰文，指出美國兩黨支持在台灣和美國的重要性；美國進步中心研究員在今年3月分《華盛頓月刊》上發表專欄文章稱，加強美台關係將有助民主自由，並在2019年9月發表《如何支持亞洲的民主與人權》報告時，直接向美國決策者「為如何穩固支持台灣」提供直接建議。

而新美國安全中心向華盛頓提供有關2020年《中國崛起的挑戰》報告時，敦促美國決策者優先考慮與台灣的雙邊投資和貿易協定；CSIS在5月發表前美國駐港澳總領事唐偉康（Kurt Tong）的文章，其中主張美台達成貿易協定，將能加強美國在亞洲領導地位。

倡售台集束炸彈抗中

哈德遜研究所則於5月向美國決策者提出售台「集束炸彈」，以便台灣可以威脅對中共具有重大政治價值的非軍事目標及領導人，並建議鼓勵台灣有效威脅中國的非軍事目標。還鼓勵美國決策者「做出直接有利於台灣綠營執政黨的政策」，敦促美國決策者承認「一個自治或獨立的台灣」。

原文請見：

Taiwan funding of think tanks: Omnipresent and rarely disclosed

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2020/06/17/taiwan-funding-of-think-tanks-omnipresent-and-rarely-disclosed/

[節錄]

Why not disclose?

Hudson may be the most extreme in its policy proposals, but the consistent behavior from the five think tanks is unmistakable: General support funding from Taiwan’s government is never disclosed when experts, whose salaries may well be partially funded by TECRO dollars, offer policy recommendations regarding U.S.-Taiwan relations.

“My philosophy is that if you’re producing any report, you should put right up front in an acknowledgment section that lists the specific funders, including general-support funders, that helped make this report possible and list any potential conflict of interest with the funders,” said Freeman of the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative. “Let the reader judge for themself whether there’s a conflict of interest.”

Though the appearance or possibility of a conflict of interest does not mean that the funding flows from Taiwan influenced the work products produced by the think tanks, the decision not to prominently disclose the funding may undermine otherwise valuable analysis and policy proposals.

“It seems like because they hid it, they have something to hide,” said Freeman. “When the public trust in government is at all-time lows and people think D.C. is so corrupt, it’s even more important for think tanks and think tank scholars to put this information out there and try and restore the trust of the American public.”

Indeed, as acceptance of a cold war posture toward China becomes ever more accepted as a foregone conclusion by Washington influencers, one of them actually highlighted the danger of foreign funding going largely undisclosed.

CNAS’s 2020 report that advocated for a U.S.-Taiwan trade agreement warned of think tanks receiving “substantial funding from Beijing that is often targeted at shaping views and discourse on China.” CNAS recommended “higher degrees of transparency” to help “ensure that this funding is not generating hidden forms of foreign lobbying, self-censorship, or other activities that undermine core U.S. democratic principles.”

That self-awareness about the potential influence of foreign funding, and the ethical arguments for greater transparency, does not appear to extend to the omnipresent funding stream from Taipei to think tanks across the Beltway.

小編快報
《柏林脈動》（The Berlin Pulse) 今天出刊了。這是德國一年一度的外交及國際關係專刊。作者群包括學者、智庫專家、政府官員。

這一期談歐洲問題的作者有波蘭外長、Moldova 總理、德國國防部長等等等。

今年《脈動》特別做了中國專題，作者有五位，分別是：
中國的全國人大外事委員會副主任委員傅瑩、日本眾議會議員Minora Kiuchi、巴黎的中國問題專家Francois Godement、曾任澳洲駐華大使，現任外交及貿易秘書長的Frances Adamson，以及台灣的龍應台。

德國編輯在文末放了一個德國的民意調查圖表，提問是：「面對中國，你認為德國應該更強力保護自己的政治利益，即使犧牲經濟利益？」
答案：贊成 76%
反對 19%

小編把龍應台文章翻譯成中文，跟讀者分享。英文原文附在後面。如果嫌我翻譯得不好，那那那，那表示你英文很好，你就看英文吧......
——————————————————————
兩千三百萬人在獨木舟上
——為什麼歐洲應該關切台灣的未來

反對黨公布2020總統候選人名單的那一天，我在台北和知識圈的朋友們午餐。那悲觀的，用問句來表達自己的悲觀，譬如，「你覺得台灣還有多少年?」那樂觀的，用黑色幽默來表達樂觀，譬如，「感謝老天。香港讓他們太忙了，沒時間管台灣。」

跟德國一樣，台灣對中國大陸和香港的貿易順差，在2018年是831億美元。百分之四十一的對外貿易針對中國，中國大陸市場對台灣的重要不言而喻。然而，隨著近年來台灣海峽兩岸的關係緊張，反對黨(國民黨) 憂慮市場的優勢無法持續，而執政黨(民進黨) 則選擇強化選民對北京的不信任來抵制中國的影響力。執政黨最近提出的國安新法可能將任何被認定為為中國宣傳者入罪。

和歐洲一樣，台灣人對中國的感受也是複雜的。 當中國代表的是活躍的經濟機會時，很多台灣人就容易所謂「親中」，當中國代表的是壓迫和可能的入侵時，很多台灣人就是所謂的「反中」。問題是，中國兩者兼備。後果就是，台灣內部的分歧遠遠超過了僅只是政治和經濟的層面。

如果你知道台灣是如何一路走來的，你會覺得它今天變成一個民主社會真是一個不得了的成就。沒有革命，一黨獨裁四十年的國民黨，不管你說它是自願還是被迫，放下了政權，分享權力。沒有流血，昔日牢裡的政治犯變成今日的立法者和政治領袖。1987年解嚴以後，政權的交替基本上公平而有序地進行了三十年。

台灣安靜地進行了三十年的民主，時間幾乎和它的國際孤立一樣長。美國不承認台灣的國家地位，但是，就如同當年對於德國，美國也扮演了安全守護者的角色。令人不安的是，在美國宣布要把軍售台灣常態化的同時，中國也宣布，它在台灣海峽及其領空，要把軍艦和戰機的演習常態化。

所以台灣民主的威脅其實是雙重的。比較明顯的是中國的威脅，這個威脅，往往超出台灣本身的控制能力。一個不那麼明顯的威脅，卻是內部自製的。台灣的政治人物和政黨熱切拿這個威脅做為政治資本，刺激集體恐懼來強化部落式的愛國主義。這種操作的成功，對台灣的民主制度和機構本身，是個真實的危險。

國際上那些純粹為了攻擊中國而故意把台灣捧在手心讚美的人，其實讓我坐立不安。一代又一代的台灣人為民主付出了代價，很大的代價，而得到今天的成果。這個成果，太珍貴了，不可以變成別人或別國為了自己的利益而拿來玩弄的籌碼或棋子。

德國的歷史是特殊的。德國的人民親身目睹了，如果不戒慎恐懼地去維護，一個開放合理的社會制度是如何容易地瓦解，一夜之間可以被獨裁取代。經歷了二戰，又擺脫了共產黨的歷史爭取到自由，德國可能比很多其他國家更容易理解台灣人的困境和追求。道德勇氣的來源往往是歷史的痛苦。身為歐盟的重要成員，德國有責任為世界的和平做出最大的努力，發揮最大的影響力。

但是，歐洲憑什麼一定要關心台灣呢?

首先，如果沒有台灣模式，全世界大概就都得接受一種說法，就是，儒家文化和民主制度是無法相容的，而所謂「中國模式」就是唯一邏輯、不可避免的現代中國。台灣的存在證明了一件事：未必如此。

第二，台灣本身的努力值得世界的尊敬。沒錯，如果中國是一艘航空母艦，那麼台灣只不過是一葉孤零零的獨木舟。可是在這個獨木舟上有兩千三百萬人正在追求一種有自由、有尊嚴的生活方式。如果台灣是歐盟的一個成員，就人口論，台灣就是二十八個成員國(英國脫歐後二十七國)中第七大國，比波蘭稍小，但比荷蘭和比利時大。以經濟購買力來看，台灣更是名列全球第二十二。所以，歐洲可以想像剝奪波蘭人或者荷蘭人對生活方式和政治體制的選擇權利嗎?

23 Million People on a Canoe
—Why Europe should care about Taiwan’s future

Lung Yingtai

On the day when the opposition party announced its presidential candidate for the 2020 election, I was sitting at a lunch table in Taipei listening to my intellectual friends uttering their concerns about the future of Taiwan. The pessimists phrased their pessimism in the form of questions such as “How many years do you think Taiwan has left?” The optimists expressed their optimism with dark humour, “Thank God they will be too busy with Hong Kong and the US for a while.”

Like Germany, Taiwan operates a trade surplus with mainland China and Hong Kong, amounting to $83.1 billion in 2018. With 41% of Taiwan’s exports going to China, Taipei’s economy depends on trade with the mainland. However, given the increasing tension across the Taiwan Strait, the opposition Kuomintang (KMT) in particular has been worrying whether Taiwan will be able to sustain these figures. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party, on the other hand, is capitalizing on voters’ intense distrust of Beijing, stepping up measures to “contain” China’s influence. Taipei recently drafted a national security law that would make it a punishable offense to spread “political propaganda” for China.

As in Europe, Taiwanese feel highly ambivalent about mainland China: When China signifies economic opportunities, most Taiwanese are 23 Million People on a Canoe Why Europe should care about Taiwan’s future “pro-China”; when China represents oppression and potential invasion, most Taiwanese are “anti-China”. The problem is that China resembles both. The result is a deep division among Taiwanese extending far beyond the political and economic spheres.

Given the circumstances under which Taiwan emerged and evolved, its evolution into an authentic democracy represents an extraordinary achievement. It was without a revolution that the KMT, which had ruled Taiwan for more than 40 years, put an end to martial law and, whether convinced or compelled to act, opened the country’s political system to sharing power. Without bloodshed, dissidents who had once sat in jails became legislators and political leaders. Since the lifting of martial law 1987, power has changed hands fairly and orderly, following the results of each election.

Taiwan has been a quiet democracy for more than thirty years, nearly as long as the four decades during which it has been isolated by the international community. The US does not formally recognize Taiwan but, as with Germany, acts as the country’s security guarantor. While Washington has indicated that arms sales to Taiwan will become more of a routine, China has devised a routine of its own by holding long-range combat drills and ordering its fighter jets to cross the maritime line.

However, the threat to Taiwanese democracy is twofold. The obvious one comes from China, and to a large extent lies beyond Taipei’s control. The less obvious threat is home-made, as the looming China threat tempts domestic politicians to mobilize the population’s collective fear to foment a tribal nationalism. Their success would pose a real danger to Taiwan’s democratic institutions.

Those who applaud Taiwanese democracy for the sole purpose of criticizing China make me nervous. Generations of Taiwanese fought and ultimately achieved a democracy – it is simply too precious for other people’s agendas, internal or external.

Germany has a unique history: its people have experienced first-hand how easily democratic institutions may fall apart when not meticulously guarded. Having received democracy as a gift following World War II and struggled to regain their freedom from Communist rule, Germans are in a unique position to understand both the predicament as well as the aspirations of the Taiwanese. Moral courage often comes from past sufferings. As a leading EU member state, Germany has a responsibility to maximize its own efforts as well as to influence others’ efforts for world peace.

But why should the world care about the future of Taiwan? First of all, save the Taiwan model, the world might have to accept the claim that democracy and Confucianism are incompatible, and that a communist China presents the only logical and inevitable path to modernity. Secondly, Taiwan deserves respect on its own merits. True, if China were an aircraft carrier, Taiwan would be a lone canoe. But standing on this canoe are 23 million people aspiring for a life with liberty and dignity. If it were an EU member, Taiwan would be the 7th largest of the Union’s 28 member-states (27 after Brexit), smaller than Poland but larger than the Netherlands or Belgium, with a developed economy ranking 22nd in the world by purchasing power parity. Do we really want to return to a world in which it is imaginable that countries such as Poland or the Netherlands should be deprived of their autonomy to determine their own way of life and political system?

The Berlin Pulse 2019
龍應台專文：https://www.koerber-stiftung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/koerber-stiftung/redaktion/the-berlin-pulse/pdf/2019/3_Koerber_TheBerlinPulse_YingTai.pdf
全本：https://www.koerber-stiftung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/koerber-stiftung/redaktion/the-berlin-pulse/pdf/2019/TheBerlinPulse_2019_FINAL.pdf

Idol

【About the Album】

在90年代的東岸，Jay-Z與Nas正為了Biggie所遺留下來的王冠爭得你死我活，而我也從不否認《Illmatic》和《Reasonable Doubt》是整個嘻哈史上極為傑出的兩張經典之作；但，比起這兩張唱片，我更常把Big L在1995年發行的首張專輯《Lifestylez ov da Poor & Dangerous》拿出來聽。

對我來說，《Lifestylez ov da Poor & Dangerous》雖然比不上《Reasonable Doubt》那樣炫麗奪目，但是它的音樂中擁有陰沉與詭譎的恐怖氛圍；《Lifestylez ov da Poor & Dangerous》雖然不像《Illmatic》那般受到學術界重視（國外有許多學術文章與幾本專書特別探討了《Illmatic》的內容），但是Big L有趣且毫無破綻的「多音節押韻（compouding）」更為吸引我。

專輯名稱「Lifestylez ov da Poor & Dangerous」的靈感，來自於對美國1984到1995年所播出電視系列節目《Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous》的嘲諷，有別於該節目專門呈現富豪與名人的紙醉金迷到極點的奢華生活，Big L特別以Poor & Dangerous凸顯出一般人所不知曉、電視上所看不到的黑人真實生活。

本名Lamont Coleman的Big L，在樂界最為著名的便是他「Horrorcore」之風格。「Horrorcore」，顧名思義便是像恐怖片、驚悚片的那種氣氛，在專輯中的〈Danger Zone〉這首歌曲尤其明顯：

我海扁那些蠢貨直到他們頭殼裂開，然後輕鬆地弄死他們
I beat chumps til they head splits, then break em like bread sticks
我搞那些騷貨，我甚至還搞那些死掉的婊子
I sex chicks, I'll even fuck a dead bitch
沒事就亮出我的傢伙，因為我沒甚麼耐性
Always sprayin Tecs, because I be stayin vexed
有個叫戴克斯的黑鬼，在國宅裡裝模作樣
Some nigga named Dex, was in the projects layin threats
我跳出我的林肯車然後搞定他
I jumped out the Lincoln, left him stinkin
當他的腦漿爆在街上時
Put his brains in the street
你就可以看清楚他頭裡裝甚麼洨
Now you can see what he was just thinkin

普遍的黑幫饒舌大多是在強調自己有多威猛，或是吹噓自己有多大尾，然而Horrocore風格的饒舌歌手卻是用另一種方式講故事，他們用比暴力更上一層樓的「恐怖」，或是血腥驚悚的歌詞來演繹出黑街的另一種樣貌。在這段歌詞中，Big L不僅顯示自己有多狠，同時他的暴力甚至有點變態，像是他用「then break em like bread sticks」來形容他怎麼弄死對手，bread sticks是一種義式的小點心，中文大多以麵包條稱之，而在這邊Big L向大家表示自己幹掉那些人就像是折斷麵包條一樣輕鬆。這一種敘述方式很容易讓人聯想到他折斷敵人的肢體或是軀幹。
而他不只搞女人，他連死掉女人的屍體都拿來搞，藉著這樣的描述顯現自己的瘋狂，同時也表現出比起黑幫饒舌更為讓人膽寒的氣勢。
最後兩句更是兇殘到了一個極致，他詳細地描述要讓別人的腦漿灑在街上，更要大家去看看那個人的腦，以便可以知道那傢伙在「想」甚麼。

這一種風格正是所謂的「Horrorcore」。「Horrorcore」並非由Big L所創，但普遍認為是他將這種風格發揚光大。

Big L的饒舌功力也很高，Nas以及Jay-Z都曾公開表示對於Big L的押韻還有flow非常佩服，Nas甚至講出：「要是我和他battle，我覺得我完全沒有勝算」。而在歌曲〈I Don't Understand It〉中，有一段多音節的押韻我個人很喜歡：

I don't understand, man, how rappers cold transform
One minute you're hardcore and raw
That's what you was known for, but not no more

Big L一口氣、毫不拖泥帶水地噴吐出複合式的押韻，從cold transform到hardcore and raw，然後又接到known for還外加了一個no more作結。到了同一首歌的第三段歌詞，Big L又唱了：

And I wonder how the hell they records sell
They raps are stale and frail
They're false like fairy tales

再一次由多音節的高難度韻腳結合對於文字遊戲掌握的高超功力，從records sell到stale and frail再到fairy tales，一氣呵成。這樣的押韻在這張專輯中屢見不鮮，要舉例的話真的舉不完。

很可惜的是，在《Lifestylez ov da Poor & Dangerous》發行後，在唱片銷售上的表現實在不怎麼樣（根據Nielsen SoundScan的資料顯示，到2000年為止，這張專輯也才賣出了"20萬"張），而在美國告示牌的流行榜也只拿下了第149名，於節奏藍調/嘻哈榜上更是連前20名都沒闖進去；同時，Big L也與哥倫比亞唱片公司衝突不斷（1998年Hip Hop Connection上一篇由Mike Lewis所撰寫的文章中就提到，Big L在生前曾表示：「在哥倫比亞唱片那裡，讓我感覺像是跟一群不懂我音樂的陌生人共事」）。也因此在1996年，哥倫比亞唱片結束了與Big L的合約。

我幾乎每個禮拜都會把《Lifestylez ov da Poor & Dangerous》拿出來聽個兩三遍，然而我總是會想到在1999年，紐約哈林區的139街上，Big L的臉部與胸部遭人駕車連開九槍。之後，這樣一個才華洋溢的街頭吟詩者、一個能以言語製造他人恐懼的悍將、一個年僅24歲的黑人青年就這樣倒下了。

的確如同他的專輯名稱「窮困與凶險的生活方式」，Big L用自己的生命驗證了這一層道理，但，我總覺得這樣的代價實在太大。不過換一個角度想，若不是生活在這樣的街頭，他們能創作出這樣的歌曲嗎？對於這個問題我始終沒有解答。