何清涟: 周薄之案为何回归政治罪?

choi

VOA Chinese, Mar 21, 2015.
www.voachinese.com/content/heqin ... 150320/2689406.html

My comment:
(a) Skip the first half. Ms 何 knows nothing more about 周薄's 政治罪, than you  and I.
(b) What is intriguing is the second half, about Mr Zeng Qinghong. In fact, Ms 何 does not say anything novel. Rather, she brings developments to our attention.
(i) "中纪委刊发的那篇《大清 '裸官' 庆亲王的作风问题》，据《上海观察》介绍，作者 '习骅同志实际工作地点为中央纪委监察部驻国家新闻出版广电总局纪检组监察局，' 他写的文章并非 '闲笔.'“

洪俊杰, 上海观察, Feb 27, 2015.
web.shobserver.com/news/detail?id=3865
(A) "克罗齐说过，一切历史都是当代史。"  Where does the quotation come from?  What does it mean?
(B) Benedetto Croce (1866－1952; Italian)
(C) Though in the Web it is common to find him as saying, "All history is contemporary history."  The official translation (authorized by Mr Croce) in English is, "[E]very true history is contemporary history."

The latter appeared in
Benedetto Croce, History; Its theory and practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co, 1921 (authorized translation by Douglas Ainslie; the Italian original was published in 1917)

The English quotation was reportedly at p 317.
(D) The meaning of this quotation is quite consistent among many English-language writers in the Web. (It does not mean history is written by a victor.) For example,:

Francis G Couvares et al (eds), Interpretations of American History, Vol I: Patterns and Perspectives. 7th ed. New York: The Free Press, 2000, pages 1-2 and n 1
books.google.com/books?id=DVNhXPy6suoC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=every+true++history+is+contemporary+history+History;+Its+theory+and+practice&source=bl&ots=sL-rKg5OP9&sig=aaZOqgmVfoHDSafFvvLd7Of15gI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mZwNVf_CL4yrNvHXgLgN&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=every true  history is contemporary history History%3B Its theory and practice&f=false
("History rather reflects the need of historians (and readers) to make sense of their [historians'] own worlds. * * * View sof the past vary not only with generations but also because of divergent experiences stemming from ths historian's sex, ethnicity, class, and race. This does not mean that we cannot find out anything solid about the past. But it does mean that no account of the past is free of teh perspectives, prejudices, and priorities of its author")

(ii) "曾庆红前秘书施芝鸿3月5日在两会上就 '庆亲王' 一事发飚"

白梅, 重大信号：曾庆红大秘辟谣声嘶力竭 结果反把主子坑惨了; 施芝鸿情绪激动 为前主子曾庆红辩护 挺习财新网高级黑. 阿波罗新闻网, Mar 6, 2015.
www.aboluowang.com/2015/0306/523946.html
(A) 王和岩, 施芝鸿：打大老虎不是以传说为依据. 财新网, Mar 5, 2015.
topics.caixin.com/2015-03-05/100788504.html
(B) “此 前3月3日中共两会首日，澎湃网发表题为《专访施芝鸿：警惕告别 ‘三个代表’ 迎 ‘四个全面’ 挑拨性言论》的长篇文章，过了不长时间，此标题被改成：《施芝 鸿：习近平“四个全面”对实现第二个百年目标也长期管用》，但此新闻导读和内容都维持原样。在采访中，政协委员施芝鸿多次向澎湃新闻强调，对于来自国外媒体的所谓“告别‘三个代表’、迎来‘四个全面’”的挑拨性言论，务必保持警惕。”

澎湃网, Mar 3, 2015 (written by 澎湃新闻记者 付珊).
www.thepaper.cn/www/resource/jsp/newsDetail_forward_1307161_1

This link can NOT open. I tried the cache of Google, Bing, Yahoo and Baidu, none of which can open, either. The text of the interview mentions 三个代表 only once (right before the heading 对话施芝鸿, that appeared very early in this piece):

"在采访中，施芝鸿更多次向澎湃新闻强调，对于来自国外媒体的所谓“告别‘三个代表’、迎来‘四个全面’”的挑拨性言论，务必保持警惕。"

which is exactly the 导读 in 澎湃网. Many Chinese-language media outlets republished this piece, but none of which republished 导读 (and it is hard to find that paragraph at issue, in the lengthy interview).

The 导读 before and after (at Paper.cn)--both on the same day: Mar 3, 2015--appear in
骆亚, 曾庆红秘书两会罕将 '三个代表' 对阵 '四个全面.' 大纪元, Mar 3, 2015.
m.epochtimes.com/article.php?url=/gb/15/3/3/n4378560