The English translation reads, "For the practical contents of the suggesting Formula, please refer to the marking".
I wonder if the original Chinese is just as mysterious.
On a related matter, U.N. officials confirmed that the secretary-general approved a decision to use thousands of dollars from Iraqi oil revenues to pay legal fees of former oil-for-food program chief Benon Sevan. In a report issued in February, the Volcker Commission concluded that Mr. Sevan had "seriously undermined the integrity of the United Nations" by improperly steering lucrative oil-for-food contracts to friends.
Iraq's U.N. ambassador Wednesday described the decision to use oil-for-food money for Mr. Sevan's legal fees as "scandalous". In a written statement, Ambassador Samir Sumaidaie said the credibility of the United Nations had been called into question. He urged the Security Council to intervene to reverse the decision.
I say "both sides" because it's true. But here I'm not concerned with them; I want to talk about us, about how we promulgated and enforced a politically correct line on a series of key social-cultural issues that played into right-wing charges that we were out of touch and helped to consolidate our virtual isolation from America's lower-middle and working class.
Enforced! I can almost hear the astonishment as some readers ask derisively, "Who are the enforcers? Have progressives jailed anyone for being politically incorrect?" No, of course not. But if there were no pressure to remain silent, how do we explain the many times we sat at meetings wanting to dissent but didn't for fear of being politically incorrect? Or the times we wished for a fuller, more nuanced discussion of the subject at hand but stilled our thoughts because we knew they would be unacceptable, that our commitment to the cause would be questioned?
My own definition is simple: an act of political violence committed against purely civilian targets is terrorism; attacks on military targets are not. The deadly October 2000 assault on the American destroyer Cole or the devastating suicide bomb that killed 18 American soldiers and 4 Iraqis in Mosul last December may have been heinous, but these were acts of war, not terrorism. Beheading construction workers in Iraq and bombing a market in Jerusalem are terrorism pure and simple.
The fact that the university is a “public institution” raises other issues. In lawsuits about campus persecution of “offensive speech,” courts have repeatedly found that public institutions dependent upon federal money must make every effort to uphold civic freedoms. This means ... that the mere fact that some students take offense at speech does not warrant the punishment of the speaker, since such punishment denies the federally protected right to free speech. But as previously mentioned, the federal guarantee of civic freedom also forbids acts of discrimination by institutions, and the Chief [Illiniwek of the Univeristy of Illinois at Urbana] seemingly results from just such an act.
How would supporters of the Chief feel if, say, the Holy Eucharist were re-enacted as a halftime skit at the Superbowl (admittedly, a rather boring one), or if a mascot dressed as a Bishop chased young boys around during the seventh inning stretch? Many Christians would doubtless find many reasons to be offended by these antics, but I suggest they’d especially dislike the fact that a symbol they hold sacred is functioning as ribald mass entertainment.