Jack Cafferty

CNN主持人Jack Cafferty

    近日，美國有線電視新聞網（CNN）主持人卡弗蒂在某節目中發表攻擊中國的言論，稱“中國產品是垃圾”，“在過去50年裏中國人基本上一直是一幫暴民和匪徒”。針對這一言論，我國外交部發言人薑瑜15日在答記者問時表示，中方對CNN主持人卡弗蒂發表惡毒攻擊中國人民的言論表示震驚和強烈譴責，同時嚴正要求CNN和卡弗蒂本人收回其惡劣言論，向全體中國人民道歉。

    卡弗蒂當時在節目中究竟說了些什麽？人民網外文編輯通過Youtube網站提供的視頻資料整理出一下對話實錄。

    對話實錄（譯文）：

    （節目主持人）：剛才談到了一些支持中國的因素。Jack，今日的中國和10年前，20、30年前的中國很不同嗎？今天的共產黨政權幾乎就像是個資本主義製度。他們是一個如此龐大的經濟超級力量，我們也有很多利益在其中。

    Jack（卡弗蒂）：嗯，我不知道中國是否有些不同，但是我們和中國的關係肯定是不同的。因為伊拉克戰爭的原因，我們欠了中國很多債。他們現在持有價值幾千億美元我們的債券，在我們繼續進口他們含鉛顏料的垃圾以及有毒食品的同時，我們和他們之間還存在幾千億美元的貿易逆差。你知道，在那些你可以一個月付工人一美元工資的地方，生產出了你從沃爾瑪買到的東西。因此我認為我們和中國的關係顯然已經改變了。我認為他們基本上是和50年前一樣的，一幫暴民和匪徒。

    （節目主持人）：好吧，Jack，我們還有很多要談，包括一些……

    對話實錄（英文）：

    ——Mentioned said that (the argument) some of the pro-China elements
 is making, Jack, is that this is a very different China today than
 existed 10 years ago, certainly 20 or 30 years ago. This communist
regime today is almost like a capitalist regime. They are a huge economic
 super power that we have a lot at stake in maintaining this economic
 relationship with China.

    Jack：Well, I don’t know if China is any different, but our
relationship with China is certainly different. We're in hock 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 are also running hundreds 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 poisonous 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
Walmart. 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.

    ——All right, Jack, stand by. I want everybody to standby, we
have a lot to talk about, including a battle of what’s some….
http://www.youtube.com/v/2j2bvOq3fLA&hl=en"> name="wmode" value="transparent">http://www.youtube.com/v/2j2bvOq3fLA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355">

Here is some information.
		來源: mengnong

1. This is what I did. I filed a small claim in a county small claim court in Kansas. The defandant is TIME WARNER INC. Address ONE TIME WARNER CENTER NEW YORK, NY 10019 Telephone [phone] My claim: Time Warner employee, Jack Cafferty in a publically broadcasted TV news program (CNN) asserted Chinese are a bunch of "goons". This statement severely damaged my credit, which resulted $500 financial loss to my business. Analysis: 1. why $500? A: In Kansas, $500 or less, the filing fee is $30, otherwise it will be $50. 2. What is the next step? In Kansas, you just need to use registered mail to mail it to the defendant, other states may require you to use law enforcement to serve a sermon, which will cost you $25 to $50. 3. What will happen? a) If the defendant does not show up, the judge will make a default judgment, that means, Time Warner will pay me $500, plus the $30 court fee. b) If the defendant send an attorney to the court at the court date, (which is 3 weeks later, the defendant can request a postpone), then the judge will probably make a judgment to the defendant (I lose) since I can not provide evidence that I had the $500 damage. Then I lose the $30 court fee, that is it. c) The defendant attorney could call me before the court date, try to settle it outside the court, or try to pursuade me to withdraw by threatening counter-suing me, (which I know they can't, I did not do anything to cause them damage, suing them does not count). No matter what, it will cost them a lot of money for the attorney fee. Why not a class-action lawsuit? Can anyone provide evidences that you really suffered material damage? Otherwise, you do not have a case. Will it damage the Chinese image by filing so many lawsuits? I don't know how will other people think. It is a common practice for Americans. If you do not fight the American way, you lose already, what good is your image for? Sorry, written in a hurry, there might be mis-information.