強制接種疫苗並未侵犯人身自由

The delta surge in COVID-19 seems to be receding. That’s good news, and not just because fewer people are dying. Fear of infection was one reason the economic recovery hit an air pocket in the third quarter. Resuming normal life will be a huge relief.

新冠病毒Delta變異株造成病例激增情況似乎正在消退。這是個好消息，不只因為死亡的人愈來愈少。第3季經濟復甦出現困難的原因之一憂心感染率，恢復正常的生活將是極大的解脫。

But the U.S. right is, in effect, trying to keep the pandemic going. The expressed rationale for all this activity is that it’s about protecting freedom. In reality, while there are several reasons for vaccine resistance, politics is a significant driver of the agitation.

但事實上，美國右翼勢力正試圖讓疫情繼續下去。他們宣稱這些動作的理由是保護自由。實際上，雖然抗拒疫苗有幾個原因，但政治是引發騷動的其中一個重要因素。

A successful vaccination campaign could mean a successful Biden administration, and the right is determined to prevent that, no matter how many avoidable deaths result from vaccine sabotage. It’s noteworthy that Fox has a very strict vaccination policy for its own employees.

一場成功的疫苗接種運動可能代表拜登政府的成功，右翼人士決心要阻止此事，不管破壞疫苗造成多少本可避免的死亡。值得注意的是，福斯電視網對自家員工有非常嚴格的疫苗接種政策。

Still, the case against vaccine mandates, however disingenuous, needs to be answered on the merits. And I think it’s worth spelling out exactly why.

儘管如此，反對強制接種疫苗的理由無論多虛偽，均須根據實情來回應。我認為有必要詳細說明原因。

First, personal choice is fine — as long as your personal choices don’t hurt other people. I may deplore the quality of your housekeeping, but it’s your own business; on the other hand, freedom doesn’t include the right to dump garbage in the street.

首先，個人選擇並沒問題，只要你的個人選擇不傷害他人。我也許會對你的家務管理品質感到惋惜，但這是你自己的事情；另一方面，自由並不包括在街上倒垃圾的權利。

And going unvaccinated during a pandemic does hurt other people — which is why schools, in particular, have required vaccination against many diseases for generations. The unvaccinated are much more likely to contract the coronavirus, and hence potentially infect others, than those who’ve had their shots.

此外，在疫情期間不接種疫苗確實會傷害他人，這就是為什麼好幾個世代以來，特別是學校，都要求接種疫苗來預防許多疾病。未接種疫苗者感染新冠病毒機率比接種疫苗的人大得多，因此有可能會感染其他人。

Vaccination, then, should be considered a public duty, not a personal choice. Medicine, in case you haven’t noticed, is a complex and difficult subject. As a result, it’s an area where it’s a bad idea to leave people entirely to their own devices.

因此，接種疫苗應被視為一種公共責任，而非個人選擇。也許你還沒注意到，醫學是一門複雜而困難的學科。所以，在該領域裡，讓人們完全自行決定是一個壞主意。

Finally, the most contentious area in this whole argument involves vaccine and mask requirements for schools. And in this area, opponents of mandates aren’t making decisions for themselves — they’re making decisions for their children, who have rights of their own and aren’t simply their parents’ property.

最後，整個爭論中最具爭議的方面涉及疫苗接種及學校要求戴口罩。在這方面，反對強制令者不是為自己做決定，而是為小孩做決定，小孩有自己的權利，而不是父母的財產。

Again, I don’t know how many people really believe that vaccine requirements are an attack on freedom. But in any case, it’s important to understand that freedom is no reason to block a potential medical miracle.

再者，我不知道有多少人真的認為疫苗接種要求是對自由的攻擊，但不管如何，重要的是要瞭解到，自由並不是阻止潛在醫學奇蹟的理由。

男方應不應該領取贍養費的悖論

When it comes to alimony, the law is blind to gender. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, that’s how family law works,” said Laura Wasser, the California lawyer representing singer Kelly Clarkson in her high-profile divorce.

談到贍養費，法律在性別上是盲目的。「對母鵝好的事，對公鵝也好，這是家庭法運作的方式。」在歌手凱莉．克萊森備受關注的離婚官司中，為她辯護的加州律師蘿拉．瓦瑟說。

Even though the Supreme Court ruled that alimony is gender neutral in 1979, Wasser said that women have still been surprised to find themselves doling out spousal support. “What amazes me is that many bright and sophisticated women don’t realize they will have to pay,” said Wasser, declining to comment directly on Clarkson’s case.

即使最高法院1979年判決贍養費應該為性別中立，瓦瑟說，女人發現自己要付配偶贍養費時，仍然會感到驚訝。「令我吃驚的是，許多聰明且世故的女人不知道她們必須要付錢。」瓦瑟說，她拒絕直接評論克萊森的案子。

Clarkson and Brandon Blackstock, an entertainment agent, split in 2020 after seven years of marriage. Despite a prenuptial agreement recently upheld in a Los Angeles court, Blackstock has been awarded temporary monthly spousal support of nearly $150,000, half of his initial ask.

克萊森和娛樂經紀人布萊克斯托克結婚七年，2020年離婚。儘管洛杉磯法院近日認可其婚前協議，布萊克斯托克暫時仍可獲得每月近15萬美元的配偶贍養費，是他初始要求金額的一半。

In addition to the monthly spousal support paid by Clarkson, Blackstock also receives child support of around $45,000 per month, despite Clarkson having been awarded primary physical custody of their two children.

除了克萊森每月支付的配偶贍養費，布萊克斯托克也拿到每月約4萬5000美元的子女扶養費，雖然克萊森已取得她們兩個子女的主要人身監護權。

This might seem like a lot, but according to documents filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Clarkson’s monthly income is $1.9 million. She follows in the wake of other female stars whose settlements were way steeper: Madonna, Elizabeth Taylor, Rosanne Barr, Kirstie Alley and Janet Jackson have all paid hugely in their divorces.

這個金額看起來或許很多，但根據洛杉磯高等法院的文件，克萊森的月收入是190萬美元。她加入其他女明星之列，但這些人離婚協議金額更高：瑪丹娜、伊莉莎白泰勒、羅珊巴爾、克絲汀艾莉及珍娜傑克森，全都在離婚時付出巨款。

Public response to the breakup has not been favorable to Blackstock who, on Twitter, has been called out as a “parasite,” and “an opportunist,” among other unprintable names.

大眾對離婚官司的反應並未偏向布萊克斯托克，他在推特上被罵作「寄生蟲」和「投機分子」，還有其他不堪入目的字眼。

Part of the shock over such settlements, according to Alexandra Killewald, a sociology professor at Harvard who studies the effects of unequal earning on relationships, may be influenced by preconceived notions about gender. “Our culture expects men to be the primary breadwinners and there are simply more options for women for part-time work or to take time for child rearing,” Killewald said.

哈佛大學研究感情關係中收入不平等效應的社會學教授亞莉珊卓拉．基里瓦德說，對於這類離婚協議的震驚反應，部分可能受到先入為主性別觀念影響。基里瓦德說，「我們的文化期待男人是主要收入來源，對女人來說，不論是找兼職工作或扶養子女，選擇就是比較多」。

Another reason that men being awarded alimony can come as a surprise is because it doesn’t happen that often.

男人被判獲得贍養費令人驚訝的另一個理由是，這不常發生。

According to a 2019 study of census data by the Urban Institute, a nonprofit research group, half of United States households are headed by women, on average. Despite an increase in stay-at-home husbands, far more women than men seek and receive spousal support.

根據非營利研究組織「都市研究院」2019年以普查數據所作的一項研究，美國家庭平均半數由女人當家。儘管家庭主夫增加，尋求且獲得配偶贍養費的女人遠比男人多。