目前日期文章:201706 (12)

瀏覽方式: 標題列表 簡短摘要


The Meaning of Om Mani Padme Hum

April 28, 2013


accessed June 4, 2017

● 這是達賴喇嘛用英文對某信徒的回答:
A,U,M ”。組成的三個音指"身、口、意"。三者中若有不淨,就是我們痛苦的來源。(不淨應指五毒:貪、嗔、癡、驕慢、嫉妒)
peme padme)是“智慧”。

林中斌 2017.6.4


林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(1) 人氣()

Why 'Dress for Success' Still Matters (Perhaps More Than Ever)

Ari Zoldan, Inc.com, May 30, 2017


accessed June 6, 2017

● 鬆懈隨便的衣著,如果養成習慣,最後導至鬆懈隨便的言行舉止,鬆懈隨便的道德操守,和鬆懈隨便的生產力。"Continually relaxed dress ultimately leads to relaxed manners, relaxed morals and relaxed productivity."

林中斌 2017.6.6

1. 名人堂稿件
20151112文稿 本文字數: 1200 目標字數:1200

(bumpkin)。曾幾何時,由於習的好學加上夫人彭麗媛的調教,今非昔比。他與英國女王晚宴時,穿著看來單調的深藍中山裝。但中排扣遮邊有同色的渦旋花紋(paisley),左胸配有同色的「袋巾」(pocket square)。莊重而細緻,極有創意。
John T. Molloy 根據訪談和調查出版暢銷書Dress for Success(成功穿衣術)至今已售一百萬本。兩年後再為女士們出版Women’s Dress for Success Book。兩本書於是塑造了power dressing(強勢衣著)的觀念。基本衣著原則可參閱此二書。

請光臨部落格相簿 查看圖片

林中斌 2017.6.6

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

Princesses of the Blood: Sex, Royalty and War

Economist, June 3, 2017


accessed June 3, 2017

● 歷史學家發現---從1480年到1913年歐洲國家統治者中皇后發動戰爭的次數比國王高27%


  WOMEN were less likely than men to support the Vietnam war, the Gulf war, or the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. They commit far fewer murders. They are less likely to favour drone strikes. For scholars such as Steven Pinker, a psychologist, and Francis Fukuyama, a political scientist, these are grounds for thinking that a world run by women would be more peaceful.

  But European history suggests otherwise, according to a working paper by political scientists Oeindrila Dube, of the University of Chicago, and S. P. Harish, of McGill University. They studied how often European rulers went to war between 1480 and 1913. Over 193 reigns, they found that states ruled by queens were 27% more likely to wage war than those ruled by kings.

  This was not all the queens’ fault: men, seeing them as soft targets, tended to attack them. After Mary Tudor became queen of England in 1553, the Protestant reformer John Knox declared “the Monstrous Regiment of Women” unfit to rule: “nature...doth paint them forth to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish.” Echoing that sentiment, Frederick the Great of Prussia declared: “No woman should ever be allowed to govern anything.” Within months of reaching the throne in 1740, he fell upon the newly crowned Archduchess of Austria, Maria Theresa, and seized Silesia, her empire’s richest province. Despite years of war, she never recovered it. Indeed, unmarried queens were attacked more often than any other monarchs. Think of Elizabeth I, the historical figure with whom Theresa May most identifies, fending off the Spanish Armada.

  But perceived weakness is not the whole story. Queens, the researchers found, were more likely to gain new territory. After overthrowing her husband, Catherine the Great (pictured) expanded her empire by some 200,000 square miles (518,000 sq km), which is a lot of territory, even for Russia. (She was the first, though not the last, Russian ruler to annex Crimea.) And married queens were more aggressive than single queens or kings, whether single or married.

  The authors suggest several reasons for this. First, married queens may have been able to forge more military alliances, emboldening them to pick fights. While female martial leadership remained taboo, male spouses had often served in the army before they married, and were well placed to cement military ties between their homelands and their wives’ states.

  Second, unlike most kings, queens often gave their spouses a lot of power, sometimes putting them in charge of foreign policy or the economy. Ferdinand II, who ruled Aragon and Castile with Isabella I between 1479 and 1504, led the expulsion of the Moors from Granada. During the 1740s Maria Theresa’s husband, Francis I, overhauled the Austrian economy and raised money for the armed forces while his wife ruled much of central Europe. Prince Albert was Queen Victoria’s most trusted adviser, shaping her foreign policy until his death in 1861. This division of labour, the authors suggest, freed up time for queens to pursue more aggressive policies.

  In the democratic era, too, female leaders have fought their share of wars: think of Indira Gandhi and Pakistan, Golda Meir and the Yom Kippur war, or Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands. The number of countries led by women has more than doubled since 2000, but there is plenty of room for improvement: the current level of 15 represents less than 10% of the total. A world in which more women wielded power might be more egalitarian. Whether it would be more peaceful is a different question.

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

What the Russian Revolution Can Teach Us About Trump: a lot more than you think

Ivan Krastev, New York Time, May 31, 2017


accessed June 5, 2017

"The point that Americans risk missing is that the current revolution in Washington cannot be simply explained by Russia's meddling. It was first and foremost homemade." Ivan Krastev, a scholar in Vienna 
● 一位維也那學者說:今日華府的川普革命,不能用俄國介入來解釋。那最主要是美國國內自己製造的。

林中斌 2017.6.5

Our reading diet these days is filled with anniversaries and scandals. This year, bookstores are being invaded by an army of new books related to the centenary of the Russian Revolution. And on the scandal front, not a day seems to pass without a new disturbing, inflammatory indignity besmirching the Trump administration.

Could the newly published books on the Bolshevik Revolution help us make sense of President Trump’s Russia-centered scandals? You might be surprised.

Many contemporary writings see the 1917 revolution as little more than a German plot. This view is particularly popular now in Russia itself, where “revolution” is considered a dirty word. People are rarely content to explain revolutions by using commonplace political logic. History’s changing events are interpreted as either something inevitable like the work of God or the intervention of a foreign power. And with Communism kaput, many of the popular histories of the Russian Revolution have now focused their attention from the rise of the masses toward espionage narratives that show how the Germans, as Winston Churchill put it, “transported Lenin in a sealed truck like a plague bacillus from Switzerland to Russia.”

Now, as many people see Mr. Trump’s election victory as little more than the effect of a Russian plot, if we understand why the Germans helped the Bolsheviks in 1917 and what happened after, we could get a better grasp on why Moscow might have been tempted to help the Trump campaign in 2016 and what we can expect next.

The 1917 analogy suggests that Russia intervened in American politics because of a Hillary Clinton they loathed rather than a Donald Trump they liked. For sure, the kaiser’s Germany had no sympathy for Vladimir Lenin’s revolutionary dreams. If the maverick Bolshevik had been German, the authorities would have tossed him in jail. But Lenin was Russian, and the German high command saw Russia’s revolution as helpful to Germany in the war. Likewise, it seems that Moscow’s main goal in 2016 was major disruption over all else. To unduly stress ideological or other links between the Kremlin and the American president would be misleading.

Russia’s history also teaches us that for a revolution-minded politician like Lenin, the real enemy is internal. In the way Germany saw the Bolsheviks as instruments for achieving German war aims, Lenin saw Germany as an instrument for achieving his revolution. Something similar is probably true for Mr. Trump. And although it’s unlikely that the president personally conspired with the Russians, he would probably not have objected to others exploiting Russia’s support to win. Mr. Trump’s only other priority aside from “America first” is “electoral victory first.”

This makes me believe that contrary to the fears of many of Mr. Trump’s critics, even if the president and his campaign knowingly or unwittingly collaborated with Moscow during the election, this in no way means the new administration will be friendly to Russia or controlled by it. Among other things, for the Russians to control Mr. Trump, the president would have to have his own degree of self-control — which he doesn’t. Paradoxically, Russia’s alleged interference in the American election in favor of Mr. Trump makes United States-Russia cooperation less likely. The White House’s fear of being perceived as soft on Moscow trumps its willingness to work with Russia. This may indeed become the hallmark of the administration’s foreign policy.

Democrats should especially learn another lesson from 1917 and give up on their impeachment dreams: Exposing Mr. Trump’s alleged Russian connection will not automatically delegitimize the president. The story of Lenin’s path to power via a sealed boxcar was well known to the Russian public — the provisional government even issued an arrest warrant for the leader of the Bolsheviks — but it was not enough to diminish him or the revolution in the eyes of his supporters. In an atmosphere of radical political polarization, leaders are trusted not for who they are but for who their enemies are. And in the eyes of many Republicans, President Trump may have the wrong character but he has the right enemies.

The story of 1917 may be instructive for President Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin as well. Germany’s strategy of helping the revolutionary forces in Russia to achieve German geopolitical goals happened to have an unhappy ending: Revolution in Russia removed the country from World War I, but it spread revolutionary fever all over Europe — and even brought civil war to Germany. Mr. Putin’s Russia faces a similar risk. A recent report by a Kremlin-friendly think tank devoted to the rise of technological populism suggests that the populist wave in vogue throughout Western democracies could soon reach Russia — and become a serious threat to the country’s political order during the next electoral cycle.

The irony of the current situation is that a century after the Bolshevik Revolution, Moscow risks repeating the same mistake Germany made in 1917: believing that revolutions can be a reliable ally in achieving geopolitical results. The point that Americans risk missing is that the current revolution in Washington cannot be simply explained by Russia’s meddling. It was first and foremost homemade.

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

Fighting Words

TIME, June 12, 2017

● 請看民主模範美國標榜的言論自由在美國頂尖學府柏克來大學如何展示給世人:反川普與挺川普惡鬥。混亂,煙霧,仇恨,暴力。

林中斌 2017.6.7

 "A battle in Berkeley over free speech shows how frenzied politics has become."
 "There is a huge faction of the right that is just like the left. They deal in absolutes."(Rich Black, libertarian organizer".
  "At rallies this spring, some protesters have come to Berkeley as if spoiling for a fight."

Time June 12, 2017 pp.32-36

● 以下是尚瑞君(1996-98在中山大學政研所認識的年輕朋友)關於在下所貼美國柏克萊大學學生以言論自由之命暴力對抗事件之感言。敬請卓參。

林中斌 2017.6.9












林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()


甘嘉雯、陳世宗、崔慈悌, 中國時報, June 8, 2017

● 賴清德:親中。林佳龍:知中。鄭文燦:和中。柯文哲:友中。賴與鄭為新潮流。林為正國會。柯非黨員。
Are we going through a "learning curve(學習曲線)?"

Chong-Pin Lin June 8, 2017

● 以下是1996-98在中山大學政研所認識的年輕朋友尚瑞君所寫的感言。敬請卓參。

林中斌 2017.6.9









   綠骨轉性親中 盼堅持下去

 賴神親中 柯P友中





林:知中 尊重與互惠




府:依民意 致力和平


林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

川普:雖陷危機 或免彈劾

2017/06/02 聯合報 名人堂 林中斌



林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(1) 人氣()

China and India Make Big Strides on Climate Change

The Editorial Board, The New York Times, MAY 22, 2017


accessed May 23, 2017

● 中國與印度在環保上突飛猛進。而美國從氣候巴黎協定退出。

● 中國 CO2 排放量比預計早 10 年開始下降。

● 印度將於 2020 年從非化石來源(非石油或媒)獲得 40% 之電力。

 2016 年中國充電汽車販賣量上升 70%。

林中斌 2017.6.2

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

CNN Fires Kathy Griffin For Her 'Decapitated Trump' Photo

Papri Das, The Quint, MAY 31, 2017 


● 原來事事反川普的CNN居然把汙辱川普的主持人革職了!

● 幕後的原因可能是正統猶太人的川普女婿庫什那通過猶太勢力的管道施展影響力。

林中斌 2017.6.2

●  Jared Kushner after being elevated to Trump's most trusted advisor can now tap into the invisible, discreet and powerful Jewish connections behind him to tame the once hostile media toward Trump.

Chong-Pin Lin June 1, 2017


林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

Review: ‘Frantz,’ a Mysterious Frenchman and the Wounds of War

STEPHEN HOLDEN, The New York Times, March 14, 2017


accessed May 28, 2017

許久未看過如此情節引人如勝又細膩感人的佳片。故事發展至少轉彎七次。背景是一次大戰後的德國法國。劇本根據1932的老電影。我們仍可感受到19世紀20世紀初期那"美好時代"(la belle epoch)歐洲社會的教養,人際互動的內斂。


林中斌 2017.5.29

It is gently and sensitively made. It moved me many times during the course of the showing. What makes it stand out from the similar movies is its intriguing development with at least seven turns of the story. Surprise after surprise and more to come. It is a film that touches my soul in way that has not occurred for a long time.

Chong-Pin Lin May 29, 2017


林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

Macron Erupts On World Stage With Trump Snub and a Bromance (1)

Helene Fouquet, Josh Wingrove, Bloomberg, MAY 27, 2017


  accessed May 28, 2017

Bravo, Manual Macron for standing up to Trump and showing friendship and respect to other leaders.

Chong-Pin Lin May 28, 2017



林中斌 2017.5.28

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

Analysis: Macron proves why the Trump handshake matters so much

Chris Cillizza, CNN International, MAY 29, 2017


accessed May 30, 2017



林中斌 試譯 2017.5.30

"My handshake with him, it's not innocent," Macron said. "It's not the alpha and the omega of politics, but a moment of truth."

He added: "One must show that we won't make little concessions, even symbolic ones."

馬克宏除了知曉哲學之外,拉小提琴(音樂),寫詩(文學),編演舞台劇(與老師接近蹦出愛情)。當然還有會賺大錢(Goldman Sachs)。

到現在為止,馬克宏尚只是個空頭總統。國會裡連一席都沒有!!他成立的嶄新的黨還沒有參選進國會呢!!! 然而他已在國際舞台上展露他的信念、軟硬皆具的外交手腕。

林中斌 2017.5.31

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()