先看CNN The Situation Room 栏目评论员Jack Cafferty最近喷出的关于中国的一段话:

“Well, I don’t know if China is any different, but our relationship with China is certainly different. We’re in hawk [sic] to the Chinese up to our eyeballs because of the war in Iraq, for one thing. They’re holding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of our paper. We also are running hundred of billions of dollars worth of trade deficits with them, as we continue to import their junk with the lead paint on them and the poisoned pet food and export, you know, jobs to places where you can pay workers a dollar a month to turn out the stuff that we’re buying from Wal-Mart”.

“So I think our relationship with China has certainly changed. I think they’re basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they’ve been for the last 50 years”.

这段话里面列举两个例子,说明美国和中国的关系确实变了.可是我实在看不出怎么样从这两条得出"他们现在还和过去50年那样是土匪和强盗"的结论.

看看中国人这些年都做了什么对不起美国的事吧:

1. 因为伊拉克战争,使美国不得不欠他们一大笔钱.

2. 美国从他们那里卖垃圾商品却把就业机会送给他们,造成几千亿的贸易逆差.

对不起,我智商是好象有问题了.这两件事好象主动权都在美国手里啊.Jack这不是在骂美国人弱智吗?

让咱们就这两条体会一下Jack的逻辑.唉,不好意思承认,真是大惑不解:

1. 伊拉克战争是中国发动的吗?抢油占地又杀人的好象更符合土匪和强盗的定义呀.中国人借钱给美国人花,怎么成了土匪和强盗呢?那先借别人的钱,又想方设法让这笔债贬值的人是什么?

2. 中国人好象没有逼着美国进口他们的垃圾产品呀.我的理解,土匪和强盗是象以前美国的亲兄弟英国人那样,拿着枪炮逼人家买他们鸦片的家伙.对了,现在是进步了,时兴卖一种精神鸦片.也不那么赤裸裸了.那鸦片外面裹着一层叫做”民主”的外衣.不过推销手段如出一辙.只是枪炮换成导弹了.

等等,Jack是不是说把就业机会输出中国,然后每个月可以只付中国工人一美元啊?我又迷糊了.被剥削的怎么反而成了强盗呢?

以上是根据我这点可怜的英文对Jack的宏论的理解,有点诚惶诚恐的.没想到不光是我,很多中国人似乎也都没明白Jack的逻辑呢.连外交部都被惊动了,三番五次要CNN道歉.

CNN就是爽快,还真道歉了,而且是通过最正式的email方式:

“We are aware of concerns about Jack Cafferty's comments related to China in the context of the upcoming Olympics, which were broadcast on The Situation Room on April 9, 2008”.

潜台词:这都什么破事啊?居然惊动我CNN大老爷.

“CNN would like to clarify that it was not Mr. Cafferty’s, nor CNN’s, intent to cause offense to the Chinese people, and [CNN] would apologize to anyone who has interpreted the comments in this way”.

拉登冤了.要是他911以后就飞机撞楼事件发表声明:”我和我的手下都无意伤害美国人民.如果有人觉得受伤害,我们(凯伊达)愿意向他们道歉”,以美国政府的大度,他现在又怎么会疲于奔命呢?

“CNN is a network that reports the news in an objective and balanced fashion. However, as part of our coverage we also employ commentators who provide robust opinions that generate debate”.

“commentators who provide robust opinions that generate debate”?”无赖和土匪”的国度不缺这个.王朔和宋祖德都是符合CNN标准的不可多得的人才.CCTV不用他们,真是有眼无珠.强烈推荐这两位大爷给CNN,也许可以和Jack一起主持”咣当三人行”什么的.

如果你不知道上面说的”objective and balanced”的报导是什么样子,CNN有现成教材(见下图):

本来咱对自己的英文还有点自信.起码能分清个主谓宾什么的.看了这个解释以后,信心大失,太受打击了.赶紧查字典:

They

Third person plural. Used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified

“前面提到过的或者很容易看出所指的的两个或两个以上的人或东西”.

再查Jack的上下文,既然是goons and thugs,当然指的是人,而且是复数.找遍前面提到的people or things,好象只有the Chinese呢,哪有中国政府啊?

不过我倒是明白为什么是”50年来”.50年前中国人不是goons and thugs.他们是温顺的任人宰割的羔羊.看看南京大屠杀吧.如果日本人杀的是鸡和鸭,几天之内绝对杀不了三十几万.

顺便再学点CNN逻辑:

“It should be noted that over many years, Jack Cafferty has expressed critical comments on many governments, including the U.S. government and its leaders”.

也就是说,Jack之前骂了美国,所以再骂中国也没什么,不必大惊小怪.太好了,邻居家的小孩是个痞子,我早想修理他了.今天先把我们家小孩揍一顿,明天就可以理直气壮地狠抽邻居那小子了.

唉,以前英文真是白学了.现在才知道得跟上CNN的潮流,与时俱进.要是让CNN出托福里面阅读理解的题,估计大多数同学都会玩完,只能在国内爱国了.不过嘛,王千源同学应该能通过.

Jack太有才了.注定青史留名.将来中文字典里关于”强盗逻辑”会有新解: Jack Cafferty 用来把恩人说成强盗的逻辑.而英文字典里,biting the hand that feeds 又因为Jack Cafferty对中国人的评论而多了一个生动的例子.