關於 american law ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

#TỪ_VỰNG_IELTS_CHỦ_ĐỀ_FAMILY
➡️ Sách Từ vựng & Ý tuởng cho IELTS Writing: https://ielts-thanhloan.com/san-pham/ebook-luyen-ielts-vocabulary
➡️ Sách Từ vựng & Ý tưởng cho IELTS Speaking: https://ielts-thanhloan.com/san-pham/ebook-ielts-vocabulary-speaking
------------------------------
MỘT SỐ IDIOMS HAY:
- the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree: a child usually has similar qualities to their parents.
Eg: “It’s not unusual that you have the same interests as your mother. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.”

- to follow in someone’s footsteps: to try to achieve the same things that someone else (usually a family member) has already done.
Eg: I decided to go into law instead of medicine. I thought about following in my father’s footsteps and becoming a surgeon, but I don’t think I’d make a great doctor.

- like father, like son: sons tend to be similar to their fathers. We normally use this idiom to talk about personality, interests, and character
Eg: Jimmy is tall just like his father, and they have the same smile. Like father, like son.

- to run in the family: many members of the family have that quality, skill, interest, problem, disease, etc.
Eg: Heart disease runs in my family. I try to have a healthy diet and get plenty of exercise.

- the apple of one’s eye: Someone’s favorite or most cherished person is the apple of their eye. We often use this idiom to talk about a parent and their child.
Eg: Our grandson is the apple of our eye. We absolutely adore him.

- get along with (or get on with): If two people get along with (or get on with) each other, it means that they like each other and have a friendly relationship. (Get along with is American English, and get on with is British English.)
Eg: If you have a large family, there will likely be some people who don’t get along with each other.

- (just) one big happy family: If a group of people is (just) one big happy family, it means that a group of people (often a family) get along and work well together. We sometimes use this idiom sarcastically.
Eg: Our firm has been successful because of our close-knit relationship. We’re one big happy family.

- bad blood: there is anger or hate between people people due to something that happened in the past.
Eg: Are you sure you want to invite all of your cousins to your party? Isn’t there bad blood between two of them?

- Bring home the bacon: kiếm tiền nuôi gia đình
Eg: My mom – as a housewife, she does all the household chores, while my dad – as an officer, works outside and brings home the bacon.

- Black sheep of the family: khác biệt
Being the black sheep of the family, I’m the only one who works as artist, while my parents are both teachers.

- Men make houses, women make homes: đàn ông xây nhà, đàn bà xây tổ ấm
Folks rumoured that men make houses, women make homes. So, in Viet Nam, men often work outside to earn money, while women takes care for home.

CÁC LOẠI GIA ĐÌNH & THÀNH VIÊN TRONG GIA ĐÌNH
- Extended family (noun phrase): gia đình trực hệ
ENG: people who are very closely related to you, such as your parents, children, brothers, and sisters

- nuclear family (noun phrase): gia đình hạt nhân
ENG: a family group consisting of two parents and their children (one or more)

- only child (noun phrase): con một
ENG: a child who has no sisters or brothers

- extended family (noun phrase): đại gia đình, họ
ENG: a family that extends beyond the nuclear family, including grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other relatives, who all live nearby or in one household.

- offspring – a person's child or children: con cái
Eg: My two sisters are coming over later with their offspring so the house is going to be very noisy.

- family man – a man who enjoys being at home with his wife and children: người đàn ông của gia đình
Eg: Deepak used to love partying but now that he has kids he’s become a real family man.

- single parent – a person bringing up a child or children without a partner: cha/mẹ đơn thân
Eg: My sister is a single parent now that her husband has left her.

- stay at home parent / stay at home father/mother – a parent who stays at home to take care of their children rather than going out to work: cha/mẹ không đi làm mà ở nhà chăm con
Eg: These days, it’s far more usual for men to be a stay-at-home parent than when I was young when it was always the mother who looked after the kids.

Download PDF tại đây: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uc9mqGmbJIDV-prrFXp27I5WQQWuUfAn/view?usp=sharing

李戡發文指出，某臺大教授的著作有多處抄襲，我看完之後十分駭然。因為張亞中老師曾對蔡英文的論文事件發表評論：「倫敦政經學院不是正規大學」，著實是金玉良言啊！現在張總校長是不是也會發出正義的怒吼：「臺大出這種教授，不是正規大學。」

.

這樣的話，還真的虧大了，因為我才剛拿到畢業證書誒！早知如此，要選最正規的孫文學校就讀。不過似乎不必多慮，前述所指臺大某抄襲教授正是張亞中本人，張總校長是不會自我批評成非正規教授的。心中大石瞬間卸下，所以我拿到的，應該還能算是正規證書吧。

.

———（以下李戡全文）———

.

《張亞中，你抄錯行了！》

.

張亞中1998年出版《兩岸主權論》（台北：生智文化，1998）一書，不止一次抄襲楊永明1996年發表在《政治科學論叢》第七期的論文<民主主權：政治理論中主權概念之演變與主權理論新取向>。關於證明抄襲的方法論、抄襲者慣用的掩蓋手法和心態，我在《蔣介石日記的濫用》（被中共查禁）裡做了充分論證。現在我用這些方法，來還原張亞中怎麼抄襲楊永明，而且還抄錯行。

.

一、《兩岸主權論》第9到10頁，張亞中寫道：

.

國際法百科全書亦將主權定義為「一個國家獨立於其他國家之外，且於法律上不受其他國家的影響，以及國家對其領土和人民的政府權力享有最高性，與排他性的管轄權」。【注釋是「Helmut Steinberger, “Sovereignty”, in Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Installment 10., (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing and Company, 1987), pp.397-418, at pp.403-404.」】

.

這段引文，和楊永明<民主主權>頁144的段落幾乎一模一樣：

.

國際法百科全書定義主權為「一個國家獨立於其他國家之外，且於法律上不受其他國家的滲透影響，以及國家對其領土和人民的政府權力的至高性和排他性的管轄權」【注釋是「Helmut Steinberger, “Sovereignty,” in Encyclopedia of International Law, op.cit., p.404.」】

.

楊永明和張亞中都引用了Encyclopedia of Public International Law的內容，不過楊永明漏寫了書名中的Public一字，我們翻開這本書第404頁，可找到楊永明引文對應的原文：

.

State sovereignty now meant a State's general independence from and legal impermeability in relation to foreign powers, and the State's exclusive jurisdiction and supremacy of governmental powers over the State's territory and inhabitants.

.

這段話明明出現在百科全書第404頁，而非第403-404頁，為什麼張亞中會寫成「pp.397-418, at pp.403-404.」？

.

二、這個「兩段式頁數」的寫法，正好出現在楊永明論文頁143-144：

.

為方便區分起見，學者稱描述國家內部的主權概念為「內部主權」（或「國內主權」），而在國際法上的應用則被稱為「外部主權」（或「國家主權」）。【注釋是「See Helmut Steinberger, “Sovereignty,” in Encyclopedia of International Law, Rudolf L. Bindscdhedler et al eds. (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing and Company, 1987), pp.397-418, at pp.403-404.」】

.

我們翻開百科全書，果然分別在第403和404頁看到「external sovereignty」（外部主權）和「internal sovereignty」（內部主權）的用法，說明楊永明的注釋沒問題。奇怪的是，楊永明這段引文，也出現在張亞中《兩岸主權論》第10頁：

.

有些學者區別主權的概念為「內部主權」與「外部主權」，前者指的是描述國家內部的主權；後者指的是國家主權在國際法的運用。【注釋是「Helmut Steinberger, “Sovereignty”, in Encyclopedia of Public International Law, op.cit., p.404.」】

.

由此可見，張亞中抄錯行了！張亞中根本沒看過Encyclopedia of Public International Law這本書，他這兩個出處，都是直接抄襲楊永明。名詞解釋那段，張亞中為了掩飾抄襲痕跡，故意在楊永明翻譯的引文裡改動數字，例如他省略了「滲透」兩字，殊不知這樣一省略，嚴重扭曲原意。換句話說，如果張亞中親自翻過百科全書，根本沒道理漏掉這個字。張亞中改動完楊永明翻譯的引文後，以為大功告成，在抄注釋的時候，卻不小心抄錯行——他該抄的是頁404，卻抄成了楊永明的另一個注釋頁397-418和頁403-404。另外，「內部主權」和「外部主權」那段，張亞中本來該抄頁397-418和頁403-404，卻抄成頁404。

.

三、除此之外，張亞中《兩岸主權論》頁8的引文「國家在其範圍內有宣稱不受其他限制和控制的自由，則必須同樣承認其他國家在其範圍內也有相同的自由。」【注釋是「F. H. Hinsley, Sovereignty (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1966), p.158.」】這段話和楊永明<民主主權>頁144「國家在其範圍內有宣稱不受其他限制和控制的自由，則必須同樣承認其他國家在其範圍內也具有相同的自由」只有一字之差，在張亞中自稱看過原文的情況下，他的中文翻譯和楊永明翻譯的幾乎一模一樣，只是將「具有」換成「有」，顯然構成抄襲。

.

四、同樣道理，張亞中《兩岸主權論》頁20的段落「國際法學界也開始強調民主制度是一項逐漸成形的國際規範，「民主統治」被強調為國家與政府合法性的構成要件之一。」【注釋是「Thomas Frank, “The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance”, American Journal of International Law, Vol.86, No.1 (Jan. 1992), pp.46-91.」】這段話，張亞中抄自楊永明<民主主權>頁147的段落「國際法學界也開始強調民主制度是一項逐漸成形的國際規範，民主統治（democratic governance）被強調為國家及政府合法性的構成要件之一。」【注釋是「Thomas Franck, “The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance,” American Journal of International Law, Vol.86, No.1 (Jan. 1992), pp.46-91.」】張亞中除了把「及」換成「與」，其他地方一字不漏照抄楊永明。

.

五、同樣道理，張亞中《兩岸主權論》頁20-21的段落「更有學者指出政治參與權已經成為一項普遍性原則，應該受到國際法的保障。」【注釋是「Gregory H. Fox, “The Right to Political Participation in International Law”, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 17(1992), pp.539-607.」】這段話，張亞中抄自楊永明<民主主權>頁147「福斯（Gregory Fox）更指出政治參與權（political participation）已經成為一項普遍性權利，而應該受到國際法的保障。」【注釋是Gregory H. Fox, “The Right to Political Participation in International Law,” Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 17(1992), pp.539-607.」】張亞中除了把「權利」改成「原則」，其他地方幾乎照抄楊永明。

.

凡是引用的文獻不是自己親手翻閱、而是從別人文章看到的，一定要加上「轉引」兩字，否則就是抄襲。這五個案例中，張亞中在注釋裡除了交代文獻來源，後面全都該加上「轉引自楊永明，<民主主權：政治理論中主權概念之演變與主權理論新取向>，頁XX」，但他都沒有。張亞中讀了兩個博士，必定了解學術規範，卻仍故意為之，有何資格動輒以「張老師」姿態教育別人？光是在《兩岸主權論》的其中一章，張亞中就有五個注釋抄自楊永明。有了這項紀錄，我很好奇張亞中在《歐洲統合：政府間主義與超國家主義的互動》（台北：揚智文化，1998）書裡引用的大量英文文獻，以及在《德國問題：國際法與憲法的爭議》（台北：揚智文化，1999）書裡使用的大量艱澀冷僻的德文文獻，其中有多少處可能有類似這樣的行為？

毋忘五大訴求　公民抗命有理
—10‧20九龍遊行陳情書
（案件編號：DCCC 535/2020）

——————————————————
「毋忘初衷，活在愛和真實之中」
撐阿銘，即訂閱Patreon：
patreon.com/raphaelwong
—————————————————

胡法官雅文閣下：

　　2012年，我第一次站在法庭上承認違反「公安惡法」，述說對普選的盼望，批評公安惡法不義，並因公民抗命的緣故，甘心樂意接受刑罰。當年我說，如果小圈子選舉沒有被廢除，惡法沒有消失，我依然會一如故我，公民抗命，並且我相信將會有更多學生和市民加入這個行列。想不到時至今日，普選仍然遙遙無期，我亦再次被帶到法庭接受審判，但只是短短７年，已經有數十萬計的群眾公民抗命，反對暴政。今日，我承認違反「未經批准的政府」所訂立「未經批准的惡法」之下的「未經批准集結」罪，我不打算尋求法庭的憐憫，但請容許我佔用法庭些微時間陳情，讓法庭在判刑前有全面考慮。

暴力之濫觴

　　在整個反修例運動如火如荼之際，我正承擔另一宗公民抗命案件的刑責。雖然身在獄中，但仍然心繫手足。我在獄中電視機前見證6月9日、6月16日及8月18日三次百萬港人大遊行，幾多熱愛和平的港人冒天雨冒彈雨走上街頭，抗議不義惡法，今日關於10月20日的案件，亦是如此。可能有人會問，政府已在6月暫緩修例，更在9月正式撤回修例，我等仍然繼續示威，豈非無理取鬧？我相信法官閣下肯定聽過「遲來的正義並非正義」（Justice delayed is justice denied）這句格言。當過百萬群眾走上街頭，和平表達不滿的時候，林鄭政府沒有理睬，反而獨行獨斷，粗暴踐踏港人的意願，結果製造出後來連綿不絕的爭拗，甚至你死我活的對抗。經歷眾多衝突痛苦之後，所謂暫緩撤回，已經微不足道，我們只是更加清楚：沒有民主，就連基本人權都不會擁有！

　　在本案之中，雖然我們都沒有鼓動或作出暴力行為，但根據早前8‧18及10‧1兩宗案件，相信在控方及法庭眼中，案發當日的暴力事件仍然可以算在我們頭上，如此，我有必要問：如果香港有一個公平正義的普及選舉，人民可以在立法會直接否決他們不認可的法律，試問2019年的暴力衝突可以從何而來呢？如果我們眼見的暴力是如此十惡不赦，那麼我們又如何看待百萬人遊行後仍然堅持推行惡法的制度暴力呢？如果我們不能接受人民暴力反抗，那麼我們是否更加不能對更巨大更壓逼的制度暴力沈默不言？真正且經常發生的暴力，是漠視人民訴求的暴力，是踐踏人民意見的暴力，是剝奪人民表達權利的暴力。真正憎恨暴力，痛恨暴力的人，不可能一方面指摘暴力反抗，又容忍制度暴力。如果我需要承擔和平遊行引發出來的暴力事件的刑責，那麼誰應該承擔施政失敗所引發出來的社會騷亂的罪責呢？

社會之病根

　　對於法庭而言，可能2019年所發生的事情只是一場社會騷亂，務必追究違法者個人責任。然而，治亂治其本源，醫病醫其病根，我雖然公民抗命，刻意違法，控方把我帶上法庭，但我卻不應被理解為一個「犯罪個體」。2019年所發生的事情，並不是我一個人或我們這幾位被告可以促成，社會問題的癥結不是「犯罪份子」本身，而是「犯罪原因」。我明白「治亂世用重典」的道理，但如果「殺雞儆猴」是解決方法，就不會在2016年發生旺角騷亂及2017年上訴庭對示威者施以重刑後，2019年仍然會爆發出更大規模的暴力反抗。

如果不希望社會動亂，就必須正本清源，逐步落實「五大訴求」，從根本上改革，挽回民心。2019年反修例運動，其實只是2014年雨傘運動的延續而已，縱使法庭可能認為兩個運動皆是「一股歪風」所引起，但我必須澄清，兩個運動的核心就是追求民主普選，人民當家作主。在2019年11月24日區議會選舉這個最類近全民普選的選舉中，接近300萬人投票，民主派大勝，奪得17個區議會主導權，這就是整個反修例運動的民意，民意就是反對政府決策，反對制度暴力，反對推行惡法，不容爭辯，不辯自明。我們作為礦場裡的金絲雀，多次提醒政府撤回修法，並從根本上改革制度，而在10月20日的九龍遊行當然是反映民意的平台契機。如今，法庭對我們施加重刑，其實只不過是懲罰民意，將金絲雀困在鳥籠之內，甚至扼殺於鼓掌之中，窒礙表達自由。

堅持之重要

　　大運動過後的大鎮壓，使我們失去《蘋果日報》，失去教協，失去民陣，不少民主派領袖以及曾為運動付出的手足戰友都囚於獄中，不少曾經熱情投入運動的朋友亦因《國安法》的威脅轉為低調，新聞自由示威自由日漸萎縮，公民社會受到沈重打擊，我亦失去不少摯友，有感傷孤獨的時候，但我仍然相信，2019年香港人的信念，以及所展現人類的光輝持久未變。我不會忘記百萬人民冒雨捱熱抗拒暴政，抵制惡法，展現我們眾志成城；我不會忘記人潮紅海，讓道救護車，展現我們文明精神；我不會忘記年青志士直接行動反對苛政，捨身成仁，展現我們膽色勇氣；我不會忘記銀髮一族走上街頭保護年青人，展現我們彼此關懷；我不會忘記「五大訴求」，不會忘記2019年區議會選舉，展現我們有理有節。

　　法官閣下，我對於當日的所作所為，不感羞恥，毫無悔意。我能夠在出獄後與群眾同行一路，與戰友同繫一獄，實是莫大榮幸。若法治失去民主基石，將使法庭無奈地接受專制政權所訂立解釋的法律限制，隨時變成政治工具掃除異見，因此爭取民主普選，建設真正法治，追求公平正義，仍然是我的理想。在這條路上，如有必要，我仍然會公民抗命，正如終審法院海外非常任法官賀輔明（Lord Hoffmann）所言，發自良知的公民抗命有悠久及光榮的傳統，歷史將證明我們是正確的。我期望，曾與我一起遊行抗命的手足戰友要堅持信念，在艱難歲月裡毋忘初衷，活在愛和真實之中。

　　最後，如9年前一樣，我想借用美國民權領袖馬丁路德金牧師的一番話對我們的反對者說：「我們將以自己忍受苦難的能力，來較量你們製造苦難的能力。我們將用我們靈魂的力量，來抵禦你們物質的暴力。對我們做你們想做的事吧，我們仍然愛你們。我們不能憑良心服從你們不公正的法律，因為拒惡與為善一樣是道德責任。將我們送入監獄吧，我們仍然愛你們。」（We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you.）

　　願慈愛的主耶穌賜我們平安，與我和我一家同在，與法官閣下同在，與香港人同在。沒有暴徒，只有暴政；五大訴求，缺一不可！願榮耀歸上帝，榮光歸人民！

第五被告
黃浩銘
二零二一年八月十九日

Lest we forget the five demands: civil disobedience is morally justified
- Statement on 10‧20 Kowloon Rally
(Case No.: DCCC 535/2020)

Your Honour Judge Woodcock

In 2012, I stood before the court and admitted to violating the "Public Security Evil Law". I expressed my hope for universal suffrage, criticized the evil law as unjust, and willingly accepted the penalty for civil disobedience. Back then, I said that if the small-circle election had not been abolished and the draconian law had not disappeared, I would still be as determined as I was, and I believe that more students and citizens would join this movement. Today, universal suffrage is still a long way off, and I have been brought before the court again for trial. But in just seven years, hundreds of thousands of people have already risen up in civil disobedience against tyranny. Today, I plead guilty to "unauthorised assembly" under an unapproved evil law enacted by an unauthorised government. I do not intend to seek the court's mercy, but please allow me to take up a little time in court to present my case so that the court can consider all aspects before sentencing me.

The roots of violence

At the time when the whole anti-extradition law movement was in full-swing, I was taking responsibility for another civil disobedience case. Although I was in prison, my heart was still with the people. I witnessed the three million-person rallies on 9 June, 16 June and 18 August on television in prison, when many peace-loving people took to the streets despite the rain and bullets, to protest against unjust laws. Some people may ask, "The Government has already suspended the legislative amendments in June and formally withdrew the bill in September, but we are still demonstrating, are we not being unreasonable?" I am sure your Honour has heard of the adage "Justice delayed is justice denied". When more than a million people took to the streets to express their discontent peacefully, the Lam administration ignored them and instead acted arbitrarily, brutally trampling on the wishes of the people of Hong Kong, resulting in endless arguments and even confrontations. After so many conflicts and painful experiences, the so-called moratorium is no longer meaningful. We only know better: without democracy, we cannot even have basic human rights!

In this case, although we did not instigate or commit acts of violence, I believe that in the eyes of the prosecution and the court, the violence on the day of the incident can still be counted against us, based on the August 18 and October 1 case. And now I must ask - If Hong Kong had a fair and just universal election, and the public could directly veto laws they did not approve of at the Legislative Council, then how could the violent clashes of 2019 have come about? If the violence we see is so heinous, how do we feel about the institutional violence that insists on the imposition of draconian laws even after millions of people have taken to the streets? If we cannot accept violent rebellion, how can we remain silent in the face of even greater and more oppressive institutional violence? The true and frequent violence is the kind of violence that ignores people's demands, that tramples on their opinions, that deprives them of their right to express themselves. People who truly hate violence and abhor it cannot accuse violent resistance on the one hand and tolerate institutional violence on the other. If I have to bear the criminal responsibility for the violence caused by the peaceful demonstration, then who should bear the criminal responsibility for the social unrest caused by failed administration?

The roots of society's problems

From a court's point of view, it may be that what happened in 2019 was just a series of social unrest, and that those who broke the law must be held personally accountable. What happened in 2019 was not something that I alone or the defendants could have made possible, and the crux of the social problem was not the 'criminals' but the 'causes of crime'. I understand the concept of " applying severe punishment to a troubled world", but if "decimation" was really the solution, there would not have been more violent rebellions in 2019 after the Mongkok "riot" in 2016 and the heavy sentences handed down to protesters by the Court of Appeal in 2017.

If we do not want social unrest, we must get to the root of the problem and implement the "five demands" step by step, so as to achieve fundamental reforms and win back the hearts of the people. 2019's anti-revision movement is indeed a continuation of 2014's Umbrella Movement, and even though the court may think that both movements are caused by a "perverse wind", I must clarify that the core of both movements is the pursuit of democracy and universal suffrage, and the people being the masters of their own house. In the District Council election on 24 November 2019, which is the closest thing to universal suffrage, nearly 3 million people voted, and the democratic camp won a huge victory, winning majority in 17 District Councils. As canaries in the monetary coal mine, we have repeatedly reminded the government to withdraw the extradition bill and fundamentally reform the system, and the march in Kowloon on 20 October was certainly an opportunity to reflect public opinion. Now, by imposing heavy penalties on us, the court is only punishing public opinion, trapping the canaries in a birdcage, or even stifling them in the palm of their hands, suffocating the freedom of expression.

The importance of persistence

As a result of the crackdown after the mass movement, we lost Apple Daily, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union, and the Civil Human Rights Front. Many of our democratic leaders and comrades who had contributed to the movement were imprisoned, and many of our friends who had been passionately involved in the movement had been forced to lay low under the threat of the National Security Law. I still believe that the faith of Hong Kong people and the glory of humanity seen in 2019 will remain unchanged. I will never forget the millions of people who braved the rain and the heat to resist tyranny and evil laws, demonstrating our unity of purpose; I will never forget the crowds of people who gave way to ambulances, demonstrating our civility; I will never forget the young people who sacrificed their lives, demonstrating our courage and bravery; I will never forget the silver-haired who took to the streets to protect the youth, demonstrating our care for each other; I will never forget the "five demands" and the 2019 District Council election, demonstrating our rationality and decency.

Your Honour, I have nothing to be ashamed of and no remorse for what I did on that day. It is my great honour to be in prison with my comrades and to be able to walk with the public after my release. If the rule of law were to lose its democratic foundation, the courts would have no choice but to accept the legal restrictions set by the autocratic regime and become a political tool to eliminate dissent at any time. As Lord Hoffmann, a non-permanent overseas judge of the Court of Final Appeal, said, civil disobedience from the conscience has a long and honourable tradition, and history will prove us right. I hope that my comrades in arms who walked with me in protests will keep their faith and live in love and truth in the midst of this difficult time.

Finally, as I did nine years ago, I would like to say something to those who oppose us, borrowing the words of American civil rights leader Reverend Martin Luther King: "We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you."

Peace be with me and my family, with Your Honour, and with the people of Hong Kong. There are no thugs, only tyranny; five demands, not one less! To god be the glory and to people be the glory!

The Fifth Defendant
Wong Ho Ming
19 August 2021

I broke the the law in China many times, what were the top 5 illegal things I did in China? Come find out!

Hotel ADVCnina episode:
https://youtu.be/hrqa8FDkRs4

For a deeper dive into China's Propaganda influence and soft power, watch our liveshow ADVPodcasts: https://www.youtube.com/advpodcasts

Support Sasha and I on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/serpentza
Bitcoin - bc1qxfjp2t6x5dpslv59u0jl89m6k643hcn8h2jsvp
Ethereum - 0x6Da150a2A8529110017Ed4db68B3dF0084900280
Paypal: https://paypal.me/serpentza

DOCUMENTARY LINKS:
Conquering Southern China:
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/conqueringsouthernchina

Conquering Northern China:
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/conqueringnorthernchina

Stay Awesome China (my new documentary): https://vimeo.com/ondemand/stayawesomechina

For Motorcycle adventures around the world, and a talk-show on two wheels go to ADVChina every Monday 1pm EST
https://www.youtube.com/advchina

For a realistic perspective on China and world travel from an American father and a Chinese mother with two half-Chinese daughters go to Laowhy86 every Wednesday 1pm EST
https://youtu.be/mErixa-YIJE

For a no-nonsense on the street look at Chinese culture and beyond from China's original YouTuber, join SerpentZA on Friday at 1pm EST
https://www.youtube.com/serpentza

Music used:
Big Bad Beats - Jordans
Big Bad Beats - Candy
Big Bad Beats - Sweet
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5yuBMxvdTrNHhjAJV3uFYw

Join me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/winstoninchina
Twitter: @serpentza
Instagram: serpent_za

It's the rest of the world's fault, we need to work with China..... NOT! The Chinese government has very successfully tricked the world into looking away and turning a blind eye to the facts!

For a deeper dive into China's Propaganda influence and soft power, watch our liveshow ADVPodcasts: https://www.youtube.com/advpodcasts

Support Sasha and I on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/serpentza
Bitcoin - bc1q5xuvp9vpd3dhdaa5qduupdrukpjhg6plhefn0h
Ethereum - 0x4202C2cA9f22C7cC020EdB3cE6A6EeE10A2B8b70

DOCUMENTARY LINKS:
Conquering Southern China:
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/conqueringsouthernchina

Conquering Northern China:
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/conqueringnorthernchina

Stay Awesome China (my new documentary): https://vimeo.com/ondemand/stayawesomechina

For Motorcycle adventures around the world, and a talk-show on two wheels go to ADVChina every Monday 1pm EST
https://www.youtube.com/advchina

For a realistic perspective on China and world travel from an American father and a Chinese mother with two half-Chinese daughters go to Laowhy86 every Wednesday 1pm EST
https://youtu.be/mErixa-YIJE

For a no-nonsense on the street look at Chinese culture and beyond from China's original YouTuber, join SerpentZA on Friday at 1pm EST
https://www.youtube.com/serpentza

Support Sasha and I on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/serpentza
Join me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/winstoninchina
Twitter: @serpentza
Instagram: serpent_za

We’re back at the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) for a second year! This time, Nature N8 chats with Representative Dr. Jasmine Clark of Georgia.
Dr. Clark is a microbiologist who organized the March for Science in Atlanta and was part of the following wave of scientists that ran for office in the United States.
N8 and Dr. Clark discuss Georgia’s challenges in diversifying its energy portfolio, public transportation and infrastructure, and what it actually means to bring scientific expertise into law-making.
Support us on Patreon:
http://patreon.com/wastenotwhynot

Subscribe to our newsletter:
https://wastenotwhynot.substack.com/

Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/wastenotpod

Send your questions to:
ask@wastenotwhynot.com


SHOW CREDIT

Emily Y. Wu (Executive Producer)
https://twitter.com/emilyywu

Nate Maynard (Producer / Host)
https://twitter.com/N8MAY

Yu-Chen Lai (Producer / Editing)
https://twitter.com/aGuavaEmoji

Ghost Island Media (Production Company)
https://twitter.com/ghostislandme

www.ghostisland.media
MB01EIRCTALRY8W