When addressing politics, we must accustom ourselves to think and speak about the actions and interests of specific, named leaders rather than thinking and talking about fuzzy ideas like the national interest, the common good, and the general welfare.
唔…虽然大概不是一回事但我联想到德媒报道中国的什么决议的时候,不说“中国”而总是说“北京”,报道俄罗斯也不说俄罗斯,而是“克里姆林宫”
High taxes will inevitably drive people to hide their work and profits. This makes monitoring their income difficult. Furthermore, the large bureaucracy required to run a comprehensive tax system […] can be prohibitively expensive. […] To avoid becoming a slave of their own tax collectors, autocrats often use indirect taxation instead. With indirect taxes, the cost of the tax is passed on to someone other than the person actually paying it. For instance, sellers pay sales taxes to municipal governments but sellers pass the cost on to buyers, making sales taxes indirect.
By February 2010 they had captured the number two Taliban leader, but, as we should expect, they have also been careful not to wipe out the Taliban threat. Doing so would just lead to a termination of US funds.
The US government, for its part, is frustrated that even with $1.5 billion in aid, Pakistan is not sufficiently motivated to beat back the Taliban. As a result, the United States has stepped up drone attacks and the use of the American military to pursue the Taliban within Pakistani territory
@unagi 谈论政治的时候似乎有种用首都来代指国家的惯用法?尤其是偏负面/阴暗的用法,间谍故事里不是会见到“华盛顿/北京/伦敦/etc如何如何”这种描述嘛
@unagi 感觉就是中央政府机构的普遍暗指