網路城邦
回本城市首頁 政治符號
市長:古士塔夫  副市長: lukacs
加入本城市推薦本城市加入我的最愛訂閱最新文章
udn城市政治社會其他【政治符號】城市/討論區/
討論區歷史與政治符號 字體:
看回應文章  上一個討論主題 回文章列表 下一個討論主題
新自由主義(Neo-Liberalism) is not for turning
 瀏覽3,113|回應20推薦2

周世瑀
等級:7
留言加入好友
文章推薦人 (2)

fen22179
lukacs

英國的五四運動屆滿三十年

英國新自由主義教主Margaret Thatchercatchphrase the lady's not for turning一語成讖.

自鐵娘子197954日入主唐寧街向社會主義宣戰後, 英國政治漸次成為一個金光黨(二個派系)的遊樂場,自此沒走過回頭路

 “Chatham famously remarked, "I know that I can save this country and that no one else can." It would have been presumptuous of me to compare myself to Chatham. But if I am honest, I must admit that my exhilaration came from a similar inner conviction.”




本文於 修改第 2 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘

引用
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=3418571
 回應文章 頁/共2頁 回應文章第一頁 回應文章上一頁 回應文章下一頁 回應文章最後一頁
卡斯楚評波利維亞總統Evo Morales的改革成就
推薦2


周世瑀
等級:7
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (2)

6PRU_X2
lukacs

A Nobel Prize for Evo by Fidel Castro

If Obama was awarded the Nobel for winning the elections in a racist society despite his being African American, Evo deserves it for winning them in his country despite his being a native, and his having delivered on his promises.

For the first time, in both countries a member of their respective ethnic groups has won the presidency.

I had said several times that Obama is a smart and cultivated man in a social and political system he believes in. He wishes to bring healthcare to nearly 50 million Americans, to rescue the economy from its profound crisis and to improve the US image which has deteriorated as a result of genocidal wars and torture. He neither conceives nor wishes to change his country’s political and economic system; nor could he do it.

The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to three American presidents, one former president and one candidate to the presidency.

The first one was Theodore Roosevelt elected in 1901. He was one of the Rough Riders who landed in Cuba with his riders but with no horses in the wake of the US intervention in 1898 aimed at preventing the independence of our homeland.

The second was Thomas Woodrow Wilson who dragged the United States to the first war for the distribution of the world. The extremely severe conditions he imposed on a vanquished Germany, through the Versailles Treaty, set the foundations for the emergence of fascism and the breakout of World War II.

The third has been Barack Obama.

Carter was the ex-president who received the Nobel Prize a few years after leaving office. He was certainly one of the few presidents of that country who would not order the murder of an adversary, as others did. He returned the Panama Canal, opened the US Interests Section in Havana and prevented large budget deficits as well as the squandering of money to the benefit of the military-industrial complex, as Reagan did.

The candidate was Al Gore – when he already was vice president. He was the best informed American politician on the dreadful consequences of climate change. As a candidate to the presidency, he was the victim of an electoral fraud and stripped of his victory by W. Bush.

The views have been deeply divided with regards to the choice for this award. Many people question ethical concepts or perceive obvious contradictions in the unexpected decision.

They would have rather seen the Prize given for an accomplished task. The Nobel Peace Prize has not always been presented to people deserving that distinction. On occasions it has been received by resentful and arrogant persons, or even worse. Upon hearing the news, Lech Walesa scornfully said: “Who, Obama? It’s too soon. He has not had time to do anything.”

In our press and in CubaDebate, honest revolutionary comrades have expressed their criticism. One of them wrote: “The same week in which Obama was granted the Nobel Peace Prize, the US Senate passed the largest military budget in its history: 626 billion dollars.” Another journalist commented during the TV News: “What has Obama done to deserve that award?” And still another asked: “And what about the Afghan war and the increased number of bombings?” These views are based on reality.

In Rome, film maker Michael Moore made a scathing comment: “Congratulations, President Obama, for the Nobel Peace Prize; now, please, earn it.”

I am sure that Obama agrees with Moore’s phrase. He is clever enough to understand the circumstances around this case. He knows he has not earned that award yet. That day in the morning he said that he was under the impression that he did not deserve to be in the company of so many inspiring personalities who have been honored with that prize.

It is said that the celebrated committee that assigns the Nobel Peace Prize is made up of five persons who are all members of the Swedish Parliament. A spokesman said it was a unanimous vote. One wonders whether or not the prizewinner was consulted and if such a decision can be made without giving him previous notice.

The moral judgment would be different depending on whether or not he had previous knowledge of the Prize’s allocation. The same could be said of those who decided to present it to him.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile creating the Nobel Transparency Prize.

Bolivia is a country with large oil and gas depots as well as the largest known reserves of lithium, a mineral currently in great demand for the storage and use of energy.

Before his sixth birthday, Evo Morales, a very poor native peasant, walked through The Andes with his father tending the llama of his native community. He walked with them for 15 days to the market where they were sold in order to purchase food for the community. In response to a question I asked him about that peculiar experience Evo told me that “he took shelter under the one-thousand stars hotel,” a beautiful way of describing the clear skies on the mountains where telescopes are sometimes placed.

In those difficult days of his childhood, the only alternative of the peasants in his community was to cut sugarcane in the Argentinean province of Jujuy, where part of the Aymara community went to work during the harvesting season.

Not far from La Higuera, where after being wounded and disarmed Che [Guevara] was murdered on October 9, 1967, Evo – who had been born on the 26th of that same month in the year 1959 – was not yet 8 years old. He learned how to read and write in Spanish in a small public school he had to walk to, which was located 3.2 miles away from the one-room shack he shared with his parents and siblings.

During his hazardous childhood, Evo would go wherever there was a teacher. It was from his race that he learned three ethical principles: don’t lie, don’t steal, and don’t be weak.

At the age of 13, his father allowed him to move to San Pedro de Oruro to study his senior high school. One of his biographers has related that he did better in Geography, History and Philosophy than in Physics and Mathematics. The most important thing is that, in order to pay for school, Evo woke up a two in the morning to work as a baker, a construction worker or any other physical job. He attended school in the afternoon. His classmates admired him and helped him. From his early childhood he learned how to play wind instruments and even was a trumpet player in a prestigious band in Oruro.

As a teenager he organized and was the captain of his community’s soccer team.

But, access to the University was beyond reach for a poor Aymara native.

After completing his senior high school, he did military service and then returned to his community on the mountain tops. Later, poverty and natural disasters forced the family to migrate to the subtropical area known as El Chapare, where they managed to have a plot of ground. His father passed away in 1983, when Evo was 23 years old. He worked hard on the ground but he was a born fighter; he organized the workers and created trade unions thus filling up a space unattended by the government.

The conditions for a social revolution in Bolivia had been maturing in the past 50 years. The revolution broke out in that country with Victor Paz Estensoro’s Nationalist Revolutionary Movement (MNR, by its Spanish acronym) on April 9, 1952, that is, before the start of our armed struggle. The revolutionary miners defeated the repressive forces and the MNR seized power.

The revolutionary objectives in Bolivia were not attained and in 1956, according to some well-informed people, the process started to decline. On January 1st, 1959, the Revolution triumphed in Cuba, and three years later, in January 1962, our homeland was expelled from the OAS. Bolivia abstained from voting. Later, every other government, except Mexico’s, severed relations with Cuba.

The divisions in the international revolutionary movement had an impact on Bolivia. Time would have to pass with over 40 years of blockade on Cuba; neoliberalism and its devastating consequences; the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela and the ALBA; and above all, Evo and his MAS in Bolivia.

It would be hard to try summing up his rich history in a few pages.

I shall only say that Evo has prevailed over the wicked and slanderous imperialist campaigns, its coups and interference in the internal affairs of that country and defended Bolivia’s sovereignty and the right of its thousand-year-old people to have their traditions respected. “Coca is not cocaine,” he blurted out to the largest marihuana producer and drug consumer in the world, whose market has sustained the organized crime that is taking thousands of lives in Mexico every year. Two of the countries where the Yankee troops and their military bases are stationed are the largest drug producers on the planet.

The deadly trap of drug-trafficking has failed to catch Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador, revolutionary countries members of ALBA like Cuba which are aware of what they can and should do to bring healthcare, education and wellbeing to their peoples. They do not need foreign troops to combat drug-trafficking.

Bolivia is fostering a wonderful program under the leadership of an Aymara president with the support of his people. Illiteracy was eradicated in less than three years: 824,101 Bolivian learned how to read and write; 24,699 did so also in Aymara and 13,599 in Quechua. Bolivia is the third country free of illiteracy, following Cuba and Venezuela.

It provides free healthcare to millions of people who had never had it before. It is one of the seven countries in the world with the largest reduction of infant mortality rate in the last five years and with a real possibility to meet the Millennium Goals before the year 2015, with a similar accomplishment regarding maternal deaths. It has conducted eye surgery on 454,161 persons, 75,974 of them Brazilians, Argentineans, Peruvians and Paraguayans.

Bolivia has set forth an ambitious social program: every child attending school from first to eighth grade is receiving an annual grant to pay for the school material. This benefits nearly two million students.

More than 700,000 persons over 60 years of age are receiving a bonus equivalent to some 342 dollars annually.

Every pregnant woman and child under two years of age is receiving an additional benefit of approximately 257 dollars.

Bolivia, one of the three poorest nations in the hemisphere, has brought under state control the country’s most important energy and mineral resources while respecting and compensating every single affected interest. It is advancing carefully because it does not want to take a step backward. Its hard currency reserves have been growing, and now they are no less than three times higher than they were at the beginning of Evo’s mandate. It is one of the countries making a better use of external cooperation and it is a strong advocate of the environment.

In a very short time, Bolivia has been able to establish the Biometric Electoral Register and approximately 4.7 million voters have registered, that is, nearly a million more than in the last electoral roll that in January 2009 included 3.8 million.

There will be elections on December 6. Surely, the people’s support for their President will increase. Nothing has stopped his growing prestige and popularity.

Why is he not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?

I understand his great disadvantage: he is not the President of the United States of America.




本文於 修改第 1 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=3655683
金元銀元好
    回應給: lukacs(lukacs) 推薦0


周世瑀
等級:7
留言加入好友

 

有拜(弗利曼)果然有保祐,經神明一加持,東西只要說得出就買得到.

freedom fighters 應該很高興, 衫原海岸和柴山可以買,入學資格可以買.

市場經濟好, 下一步應該把公立學校,圖書館,醫院,國家公園,健保,水庫,警察,軍隊全私有化.讓台灣成為真正的自由寶島.

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=3621554
堅決反對擴大甄試的多「元」入學偽「自由主義」教育政策
    回應給: lukacs(lukacs) 推薦1


lukacs
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

古士塔夫

多元入學/好多窮孩子 被拒甄試門外
【聯合報╱李家同/暨南、清華、靜宜大學榮譽教授(新竹市)】

2009.09.20 04:30 am


一早看報,就看到了一則消息,明年,很多大學的甄試名額將增加到入學名額的百分之六十。這使我心中悲痛不已,因為很多學者不知道,還有眾多孩子,是不能利用甄試管道的。

要參加甄試,先要準備精美的自我宣傳文件,這一定是要彩色的,而且圖文並茂。想想一位中學生,是誰替他寫這種自傳的,通常都是父母,不僅幫他吹噓,也要出錢找人替他編排、印刷和裝訂。

我認識一個孩子,他沒有父母,當然沒人替他準備,即使他能力非常強,也沒有錢找人替他印刷。我要提醒大家的是:這位高中生根本沒電腦可用,他無法做出圖文並茂的自傳。

好吧,假設孩子自傳準備好,他有沒有錢去參加甄試呢?甄試是要東征西討的,因為你不可能只試一所大學,現在坐一次火車從南到北,來回總要上千,住一夜旅館,又要上千,為了趕上口試時間,說不定還要計程車費;當然甄試費也要繳,一所學校,最少要花上幾仟元,三、四所學校加起來,絕對破萬元。對於這位同學而言,這是絕不可能的。

再說,甄試的時候,有口試一關,口試總不能又問物理、數學、化學,教授們只好問問普通常識。這一下,鄉下孩子又吃虧了。試想一位考生的爸爸曾經帶他去遊歷過世界上很多的國家,也常常和他談世界大事;還有一位則是從來沒有出過國,父母也從來沒有和他談過世界大事,考官會欣賞誰呢?

有一所大學的教授在口試的時候,問學生有關半導體的知識,結果表現得最好的全是半導體工程師的孩子,爸爸如果不懂半導體,孩子也就答不出來。事後,那位教授後悔不已,他說他一輩子就做半導體研究,叫他問,他只會問這些;以後他拒絕參加這類口試,不想無意中傷害了弱勢的孩子。

我所說到的那個孩子,好羨慕那些能夠參加甄試的同學,因為他們早就安心了,可以玩耍了;而他還要參加所謂的指定考試,但他仍感激國家有指定考試,使他最後考上了和他程度配得上的大學。他說他班上能參加甄試的同學,沒有一位來自弱勢家庭。

負責教育政策的人士,都是頭腦非常好的人,他們當然知道甄試是要花很多錢的,他們也知道很多孩子是沒錢參加甄試的,但是他們心中就是痛恨聯招制度;因為美國沒有聯招,完全是申請入學,他們都有一個夢想,希望有一天,我們的大學完全申請入學。我只能說,到那一天,弱勢孩子絕對吃大虧。

這項發展,使我感到非常的傷心 ,因為教育界仍然對於弱勢孩子漠不關心。我也非常悲觀,因為教育界是一個一切向美國看齊的教育界,我們的評鑑制度等都是越來越像美國;誰也不敢說,我們應該有我們獨有而美好的教育制度。

在我的心目中,教育界應該思考的是:這種制度是否使弱勢孩子吃了虧。沒有想到的是,大家根本不理會這個問題。

我仍希望當權者知道,很多窮孩子是無法利用甄試入學管道的。

【2009/09/20 聯合報】
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=3621133
改好了
    回應給: 周世瑀(sychou2003) 推薦0


lukacs
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
不好意思.
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=3613888
漏了標題
    回應給: lukacs(lukacs) 推薦0


周世瑀
等級:7
留言加入好友

 
謝謝.標題是 抹滅智利九一一  稽首新自由主義.
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=3612555
已無償轉貼至小站
    回應給: 周世瑀(sychou2003) 推薦0


lukacs
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
先斬後奏,感謝世瑀。
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=3611723
自撰文 悼念智利九一一
    回應給: 周世瑀(sychou2003) 推薦4


周世瑀
等級:7
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (4)

沙包
lukacs
古士塔夫
ray35

原文登載於苦勞網

抹滅智利九一一 稽首新自由主義

             無法參與權力(Participation in power),即無自由。--西塞羅(Marcus Tullius Cicero)

美國為擁新自由主義(neoliberalism)復辟,自公元二千年起在拉丁美洲策動了三個政變。其一為二千零二年顛覆委內瑞拉總統查維斯 (Hugo Chávez)。其二為二千零四年推翻海地民選總統艾理斯地 (Jean-Bertrand Aristide) 。其三為二千零九年推翻宏都拉斯民選總統澤萊亞(Manuel Zelaya)。三人之中,僅有查維斯得以還政。

然而這三場政變遠不及美帝串通皮諾契特(Augusto Pinochet)在一九七三年九月十一日發動的軍事政變血腥。一般咸信,美國因反共才推翻智利總統艾嚴德(Salvador Allende)。解秘的美國官方檔案顯示,反共與智利九一一並無直接關連。早在一九七零年九月十五日,尼克森(Richard Nixon)即指示中情局(the CIA)讓智利經濟嚎天喊地。一九七零年十月十六日,中情局奉美國國家安全顧問季辛吉(Henry Kissinger)之命,指揮位於聖地牙哥的美國特工策動政變。不鼓吹革命的艾嚴德至一九七零年十一月四日始就職。何以艾嚴德領導的左翼民主政府使尼克森如此坐不安席?因為議會民主較諸伏尸流血的革命更能號召第三世界國家(即不與美蘇結盟的中南美洲與非洲國家)起而效尤。再者,美國擔憂社會主義傾向的民主政府順依民意重建社會及經濟正義必然損及美國商業利益。

尼克森徵詢巴西總統梅狄其(Emilio Garrastazú Médici)之意,華府應如何防微杜漸。梅狄其擔憂滿腦子生意經的尼克森在一九七二年訪問中國之後,拉丁美洲政策亦隨之轉向。梅狄其遂建議尼克森對艾嚴德政府比照一九六四年三月十一日美國政變推翻巴西總統古拉特(João Goulart)的模式,快刀斬亂麻,永絕美國後患。梅狄其的軍方親信與智利軍方相熟。梅狄其提議勾結智利軍人以為謀逆內應。兩國為慎重其事,遂由巴西外長巴博沙(Mário Gibson Barbosa) 與季辛吉成立正式溝通管道。時隔三十多年,巴西的「左翼」政府仍對梅狄其串通美帝圖害艾嚴德的檔案諱莫如深。

一九七三年九月十一日,智利軍方以坦克和裝甲部隊包圍位於首都聖地牙哥的總統府並威脅艾嚴德辭職。艾嚴德透過廣播告知智利人民:「若勢所難免,得以身殉國,他會求仁得仁。」廣播過後,皮諾契特指揮戰機在總統府上方低空飛過。艾嚴德堅意以身許國不向叛軍屈膝。他不願殃及池魚,下令安全人員全數徹離。然而二十多名國安人員皆表示願意同進退。皮諾契特遂下令戰機坦客炮擊總統府。叛軍攻破總統府後,艾嚴德再次因不願牽累國安人員,要求部下棄械投降,依序下樓,並明言他隋後及至。叛軍言道,艾嚴德在被捕前舉槍自盡。然而艾嚴德遺孀和故舊無人親睹遺體,因為裝殮艾嚴德的棺木已被軍方釘死了。另一廣為流傳的說法是艾嚴德在總統府內身中十三槍,肝膽塗地。

皮諾契特政權嗣後又刑囚並殺害三千至四千多名艾嚴德支持者。時年七十九歲的左翼詩人聶魯達(Poet Pablo Neruda),即一九七一年諾貝爾文學獎得主,飽受皮諾契特爪牙威脅滋擾,住所亦遭洗劫。聶魯達於同年九月二十三日辭世。他的著作在智利亦成禁書。

皮諾契特與新自由主義教主弗利曼(Milton Friedman)甚為相得。皮諾契特依弗利曼的建議對智利實施「休克療法」(shock therapy)。克萊恩 (Naomi Klein)的「 震撼主義」(Shock Doctrine)一書詳加描述皮諾契特政權的貪殘酷虐。此處略過不談。弗利曼主張獲利(profit making)為民主政治的真諦。政府職責在於確保契約得以履行和維護財產權利。政府職責超出此一範圍皆屬破壞市場機制。弗利曼對艾嚴德政府,敝屣視之。弗利曼認為艾嚴德欠缺「民主」素養,對市場不當干預和管制,家破身亡皆自取其咎。尼克森矢口否認美國密謀智利九一一。較諸尼克森的欲蓋彌彰,弗利曼對於尼季兩人策畫的政變和皮諾契特近二十年槌骨濿髓的「民主」政治倒是十份坦然,僅以美國「撥亂反正」視之。一言蔽之,新自由主義的「市場經濟」得憑藉美國炮「手」而非「看不見的手」(the invisible hand)才得以「自由」運作。

智利九一一和美國九一一的區別有四。美帝國家恐怖主義(state terrorism)憑恃(一)政治學者和經濟學者出謀獻策;(二)軍隊攻城掠地;(三)財團壟斷的媒體信口雌黃;(四)知識分子曲筆遮羞。奉新自由主義為圭臬的開發中民主國家,除了船不堅﹑砲不利,使新自由主義濟富劫貧的條件樣樣齊備。台灣亦不例外。視而不見帝國的戕害不辜和經濟侵略及遺忘美帝一再作踐民主政府至今仍是台灣媒體﹑學界﹑政界的默契。台灣不須覆車繼軌。米蘭.昆德拉(Milan Kundera)曾言道:「對抗權力的奮鬥即是對抗健忘的奮鬥」。前事不忘,後事之師。智利,九一一,一九七三,新自由主義。

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=3609494
新保守主義is not for turning
    回應給: Guoding(Needoak) 推薦1


周世瑀
等級:7
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

lukacs

台灣對原住民.東南亞移民工,外籍配偶和黑人的歧視,完全是racism

Harvey用的圖表都是別人的. 也不針對單一國家. 依照 Harvey對新自由主義的和新保守主義的定義, 極權主義的中國屬後者.加入民間反對運動,對抗新自由主義,或許可能促使它轉向,Marc Blecher我還沒讀過.統計資料世界銀行就有,各國政府自行提供的.有不少政府愛灌水.

民族國家作為民主的條件,解決了誰有權力投票的問題?誰該受到服務的問題?能上街頭就是某種程度的直接民主? 少數民族能投票就有選舉權,就和漢人平起平坐?有待商榷.Gary Goertz (2006) family resemblance挑戰Giovanni Sartori(1970) 提出 Concept Formation一定要有充分必要條件的觀點.什麼是民主的充分必要條件,沒有定於一尊的說法



本文於 修改第 1 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=3526875
for the sake of argument
    回應給: 周世瑀(sychou2003) 推薦1


Guoding
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

lukacs

民族主義的確和種族主義很難區分,所以台灣才會有醫學研究證明台灣漢人有平埔族血統,與中國漢人基因不同。比較高明的民族主義者還是會記得Benedict Anderson,所有民族都是雜種。漢人喜歡拿雜種來罵人的習慣實在該改。

中國現在的情況是,少數民族的投票權並不比漢人少(要請在座的中國問題專家指教)

新自由主義國家成長率的統計問題,就要看中國是不是新自由主義國家了,請參照David Harvey及Marc Blecher

新自由主義的確是在抽掉公民身分的內涵,在澳洲的有些教授是說付錢讓人不工作;能上街頭抗議是不是實現了直接民主?

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=3526699
一起喝台灣水&歌頌新自由主義
    回應給: Guoding(Needoak) 推薦1


周世瑀
等級:7
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

lukacs

民族主義和Racism 很難區分。工黨和保守黨還不至於法西斯到發表吃英國馬鈴薯,喝英國水的高論。

民族國家作為民主的條件,應該適用到有生之年沒有投票權,

也不會被漢人平等對待的中國少數民族。

新自由主義國家的經濟成長率自1973年後遠低於1950-1973.

 Gini coefficient顯示的貧富差距持續增加.

經濟成長率與世界人口成長率相抵,經濟成長率接近為0

再與environmental  degradation相抵,經濟成長率就成了負數。

歐洲不信ballot box ,走上街頭抗議的人越來越多.新自由主義居功厥偉.

反對非法移民和認真查緝非法移民是兩碼事,

corporate economy依賴人肉市場,大家心照不宣.



本文於 修改第 2 次

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=3522760
頁/共2頁 回應文章第一頁 回應文章上一頁 回應文章下一頁 回應文章最後一頁