目前分類:未分類文章 (36)

瀏覽方式: 標題列表 簡短摘要



George Mason University Visitors

January 18, 2018

I was advised two weeks ago

美國「喬治梅森大學」(George Mason University)安全政策研究中心副主任葉麥克(Michael Hunzeker)率團乙行7人來台訪問。H主任曾於美國防部馬提斯(James Mattis)及國安顧問H.R. McMaster麾下服役。

Professor Michael Hunzeker at George Mason University who will arrive in Taiwan with a team of experts on security issues "wishes to visit you and exchange views on related issues."


Today they arrived at our residence saying that this was the first time they went out of Metropolitan Taipei on this trip for meeting, which I thought to mean first time in a private home of someone who does not have an office.


We did have a productive and pleasant session.

林中斌 2018.1.18
Chong-Pin Lin January 18, 2018


林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

U.S. No Longer a Global Force for Good

Susan Rice New York Times, December 20, 2017


accessed December 21, 2017


美國前國家安全顧問(相當於台灣國家安全會秘書長)Susan Rice在紐約時報投書寫道:



  President Trump’s National Security Strategy marks a dramatic departure from the plans of his Republican and Democratic predecessors, painting a dark, almost dystopian portrait of an “extraordinarily dangerous” world characterized by hostile states and lurking threats. There is scant mention of America’s unrivaled political, military, technological and economic strength, or the opportunities to expand prosperity, freedom and security through principled leadership — the foundation of American foreign policy since World War II.

  In Mr. Trump’s estimation, we live in a world where America wins only at others’ expense. There is no common good, no international community, no universal values, only American values. America is no longer “a global force for good,” as in President Obama’s last strategy, or a “shining city on a hill,” as in President Reagan’s vision. The new strategy enshrines a zero-sum mentality: “Protecting American interests requires that we compete continuously within and across these contests, which are being played out in regions around the world.” This is the hallmark of Mr. Trump’s nationalistic, black-and-white “America First” strategy.

  But the world is actually gray, and Mr. Trump’s strategy struggles to draw nuanced distinctions. Throughout, China and Russia are conflated and equated as parallel adversaries. In fact, China is a competitor, not an avowed opponent, and has not illegally occupied its neighbors. Russia, as the strategy allows, aggressively opposes NATO, the European Union, Western values and American global leadership. It brazenly seized Georgian and Ukrainian territory and killed thousands of innocents to save a dictator in Syria. Russia is our adversary, yet Mr. Trump’s strategy stubbornly refuses to acknowledge its most hostile act: directly interfering in the 2016 presidential election to advantage Mr. Trump himself.

  On China and Russia, I suspect the White House realists, to escape the embarrassment of a strategy that ignored Russia’s hostile behavior, agreed to lump China with Russia and almost always mention China first, to placate their nationalist colleagues who hate China but admire Russia. The result is a flawed analysis that may actually drive Russia and China closer together.

  In several respects, including nuclear weapons and arms control, weapons of mass destruction, counterterrorism, intelligence, cyberthreats, space policy, unfair trade practices and theft of intellectual property, the strategy falls within the bipartisan mainstream of United States national security policy, differing little from that of a more traditional Republican president. In other areas, it helpfully corrects this administration’s wavering course, as in its unequivocal embrace of United States allies and partners and reaffirmation of our Article V commitment to defend NATO. The strategy recognizes the threat from pandemics and biohazards and the importance of strengthening global health security. And it maintains at least a nominal commitment to women’s empowerment and providing generous humanitarian assistance.

  But the nationalists around him succeeded in enshrining Mr. Trump’s harsh anti-immigration policies, from the border wall to ending family preferences and limiting refugee admissions. They reprised their paean to bilateral over multi-nation trade agreements and trumpeted the abrogation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would help check China’s economic and strategic expansionism in Asia. The result is an insular, ideological treatment of our complex world, substantially unimpaired by facts and dismissive of United States interests.

  The plan also glaringly omits many traditional American priorities. It fails to mention the words “human rights” or “extreme poverty”; there is no talk of higher education, combating H.I.V.-AIDS or seeking a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Absent, too, is any discussion of people under 30 (who make up over 50 percent of the world’s population), of civil society or of the value of promoting democracy and universal rights. Gone is “climate change” and its threat to American national security. Neither is there any expression of concern for the rights of the oppressed, especially L.G.B.T. people. These omissions undercut global perceptions of American leadership; worse, they hinder our ability to rally the world to our cause when we blithely dismiss the aspirations of others.

  The plan also contains some true howlers. It heralds diplomacy, yet Mr. Trump and his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, have starved the State Department of resources, talent and relevance. The strategy lauds the “free press,” yet Mr. Trump routinely trashes our most respected news outlets as “fake news,” threatening their personnel and operations. And it claims the United States “rejects bigotry and oppression and seeks a future built on our values as one American people”; yet the president has denigrated women, used race-baiting language and been hesitant to criticize anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi extremists. One wonders how seriously to take a document that so starkly diverges from the president’s own words and deeds.

  These contradictions matter, as does the administration’s enthusiastic embrace of a self-serving, confrontational vision of the world. National security strategies do not always leave an enduring legacy, but they are important articulations of an administration’s priorities — signposts to a world that cares deeply about America’s ambitions and interests.

  The United States’s strength has long rested not only on our unmatched military and economy, but also on the power of our ideals. Relinquishing the nation’s moral authority in these difficult times will only embolden rivals and weaken ourselves. It will make a mockery of the very idea of America first.


林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

Some People Want Nothing to Do with Retirement

Claudia Dreifus New York Times, December 16, 2017


accessed December 21, 2017

Jack Weinstein 5:30起床運動。

●7點,汽車接他去紐約市布魯克林Cadman Plaza。他和同僚喝咖非閒話生活。




林中斌摘譯 2017.12.29

  On most mornings, Jack B. Weinstein rises at 5:30 to exercise.

  At 7, a car takes him from his home in Great Neck to Cadman Plaza in Brooklyn, where he is a senior Federal District Court judge for the Eastern District of New York.

  Once at the courthouse, Judge Weinstein has coffee and gossips with colleagues. By 9, he’s at work hearing motions, reviewing filings, sentencing defendants. In the afternoon, he tries cases.

  None of that is so unusual. But Judge Weinstein is 96 — decades past the age when most Americans choose to stop working.

  “Retire? I’ve never thought of retiring,” he declares. Judge Weinstein was first appointed to the bench more than 50 years ago and is still in the thick of hot-button issues in the courts. “I’m a better judge, in some respects, than when I was younger. I don’t remember names. But I listen more. And I’m more compassionate. I see things from more angles. If you are doing interesting work, you want to continue.”

  Judge Weinstein is one of the more than 1.5 million Americans over the age of 75, who are still in the paid work force, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

  While the study does not list their specific jobs, many work at occupations in which skill and brainpower count more than brawn and endurance. Some are self-employed and aren’t subject to mandatory retirement rules. Others are stars in their fields — no one has ever suggested that Warren Buffett, 87, quit investing. And there are others, a growing cohort, who remain at their posts because of financial necessity.

  “The crash of 2008, debt burdens, decreasing income replacement rates and the demise of employer pensions are a few of the trends” that have pushed the number of non-retirees to record levels, said Susan K. Weinstock, vice president for financial resilience at AARP.

  Ms. Weinstock said she expected that this trend would continue into the next decade. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says the labor force participation rate for those 75 and older rose from 6.4 percent in 2006 to 8.4 percent in 2016 and is likely to reach 10.8 percent by 2026.

  For Adolfo Calovini, 82, a New York City high school teacher, the need to earn income is part of his motivation.

  Mr. Calovini married late in life and has a son, 14, and a daughter, 20. The approximately $110,000 annual salary he earns as an English as a Second Language instructor at Park West High School in Manhattan is a necessity. For additional income, he teaches in the summer.

  His job isn’t easy — nor is his daily commute from New Hyde Park on Long Island. At school, his assignment is to instruct teenagers from countries including Haiti and Mexico in English literature and composition and prepare them for college. Each day, he teaches four classes — and then spends two hours on individual coaching.

  As a self-taught linguist who can converse in six languages, Mr. Calovini has skills that make him an asset to his school. When an immigrant teen registers at Park West, Mr. Calovini is usually able to connect with the student in his or her native tongue.

  “I’m an immigrant myself,” the Italian-born teacher said. “In class, I try to make them understand that they are as good as anyone else and have a good life if they’ll improve their English. I say, ‘If I can teach myself all these languages, you can learn English and get into college!’”


  Occasionally, one of Mr. Calovini’s younger colleagues will ask if he’s ready to retire.

  He shakes his head. “To me, teaching is about life. This is what I do. I can’t see a time when I wouldn’t.”

  The Nobel Prize-winning neuroscientist Eric R. Kandel agrees — he works for the sheer joy of it.

  At 88, Dr. Kandel heads his own research laboratory at Columbia University. “I like what I do,” he said. “Keeping engaged keeps you intellectually alive. I wouldn’t be surprised if it enhanced longevity.”

  Every day, Dr. Kandel interacts with much younger scientists, supervising their investigations, teaching and mentoring them. At the laboratory, he says, “people don’t ever speak to me about my age. I think they are surprised that I am 88.”

  As Dr. Kandel has grown older, his research has focused on the neuroscience of aging.

  In one project, he’s been trying to determine if aged-related memory loss might be an early sign of Alzheimer’s disease. “We have very compelling evidence that it is an independent entity,” he said.

  Dr. Kandel, a trained psychiatrist, offers this advice to other non-retirees: “If you are healthy and enjoy your work, continue. At the very least, it gives you additional income. Even if you don’t need it, the money can be for your kids and grandchildren.”

  Dr. Laura Popper, 71, a Manhattan pediatrician, works because her profession is central to her identity.

  “I wanted to be a doctor since I was 4 — why would I give that up?” she said. “If you’re a surgeon and you reach a certain age, you have to stop. With pediatricians, as long as you have your marbles, there’s no reason to.”

  In fact, there’s something about Dr. Popper’s specialization — tending to the health of children — that invigorates her.

  “The wonderful thing about pediatrics,” she said, “is that it’s always about renewal and the future. I hang out with babies, toddlers, young parents and they are always looking forward. Getting old is about a shrinking future, but I don’t spend my days thinking about that because I’m in a different place.”

  Dr. Popper has been able to continue well beyond the age when most of her peers have retired, partly because she’s self-employed. Dr. Popper is the co-owner of her medical practice, and owns her office space. That autonomy gives her the freedom to adjust her working conditions when necessary.

  Over time she’s allowed her patient load to contract. Instead of examining 35 patients in a day, she now sees somewhere between 10 and 20. Her practice partner, who is 25 years younger, has taken up the slack.

  Still, even with the lighter load, Popper puts in a full week, phoning patients in the evenings and being on call for emergencies one weekend a month.

  All of that earns her about $200,000 a year, which, she said, was “less than what it used to be. But my kids are grown. I don’t need as much.”

  Dr. Popper’s husband of 46 years, Edward Shain, 73, retired from his sales and marketing consultancy three years ago. He spends joyful hours exercising their Doberman pinscher, Elizabeth Bennett, in Central Park and blogging. She claims he’d like her to join him.

  However, whenever he raises the subject, “I tell him, ‘You’d have to take me to a psychiatric hospital the next day.’ There’s no part of me that wants to retire. If you have something you love, there’s nothing else.”

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

Dalai Lama: Our Future Is Very Much in Our Hands

When we’re angry, our judgment is one-sided, as we aren’t able to take all aspects of the situation into account. With a calm mind, we can reach a fuller view of whatever circumstances we face.

憤怒讓我們誤判。因為憤怒下 ,我們看不到所有相關方面。

Compassion enhances our calm and self-confidence, allowing our marvelous human intelligence to function unhindered. Empathy is hard-wired in our genes — studies have shown that babies as young as 4 months experience it.


林中斌試簡譯文句 2017.12.13



  This is an article from Turning Points, a magazine that explores what critical moments from this year might mean for the year ahead.


  A crack in a floating ice shelf in Antarctica reached its breaking point and calved a huge iceberg, setting it afloat in the seas. It’s a fitting image for a world that feels under pressure and on the verge of, well, everything — ready to break off and set itself free. The global political temperature is on the rise, the future of truth is under debate and the specter of nuclear conflict hovers. We asked His Holiness the Dalai Lama for his thoughts on how to cope.


  We are facing a time of great uncertainty and upheaval in many corners of our planet. When it comes to making the world a better place, concern for others is tantamount.


  Our future is very much in our hands. Within each of us exists the potential to contribute positively to society. Although one individual among so many on this planet may seem too insignificant to have much of an effect on the course of humanity, it is our personal efforts that will determine the direction our society is heading.


  Wherever I go, I consider myself just one of 7 billion human beings alive today. We share a fundamental wish: We all want to live a happy life, and that is our birthright. There is no formality when we’re born, and none when we die. In between, we should treat each other as brother and sister because we share this commonality — a desire for peace and contentment.




  Sadly, we face all sorts of problems, many of them of our own making. Why? Because we are swayed by emotions like selfishness, anger and fear.


  One of the most effective remedies for dealing with such destructive patterns of thought is to cultivate “loving-kindness” by thinking about the oneness of all the world’s 7 billion humans. If we consider the ways in which we are all the same, the barriers between us will diminish.


  Compassion enhances our calm and self-confidence, allowing our marvelous human intelligence to function unhindered. Empathy is hard-wired in our genes — studies have shown that babies as young as 4 months experience it. Research has shown again and again that compassion leads to a successful and fulfilling life. Why, then, do we not focus more on cultivating it into adulthood? When we’re angry, our judgment is one-sided, as we aren’t able to take all aspects of the situation into account. With a calm mind, we can reach a fuller view of whatever circumstances we face.


  Humanity is rich in the diversity that naturally arose from the wide expanse of our world, from the variety of languages and ways of writing to our different societal norms and customs. However, when we overemphasize race, nationality, faith, or income or education level, we forget our many similarities. We want a roof over our heads and food in our bellies, to feel safe and secure, and for our children to grow and be strong. As we seek to preserve our own culture and identity, we must also remember that we are one in being human, and work to maintain our warmheartedness toward all.



  In the last century, the inclination to solve problems through the use of force was invariably destructive and perpetuated conflict. If we are to make this century a period of peace, we must resolve problems through dialogue and diplomacy. Since our lives are so intertwined, the interests of others are also our own. I believe that adopting divisive attitudes runs counter to those interests.


  Our interdependence comes with advantages and pitfalls. Although we benefit from a global economy and an ability to communicate and know what is happening worldwide instantaneously, we also face problems that threaten us all. Climate change in particular is a challenge that calls us more than ever to make a common effort to defend the common good.


  For those who feel helpless in the face of insurmountable suffering, we are still in the early years of the 21st century. There is time for us to create a better, happier world, but we can’t sit back and expect a miracle. We each have actions we must take, by living our lives meaningfully and in service to our fellow human beings — helping others whenever we can and making every effort to do them no harm.


  Tackling destructive emotions and practicing loving-kindness isn’t something we should be doing with the next life, heaven or nirvana in mind, but how we should live in the here and now. I am convinced we can become happier individuals, happier communities and a happier humanity by cultivating a warm heart, allowing our better selves to prevail.


  The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is the spiritual leader of Tibet and a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Since 1959 he has lived in exile in Dharamsala, in northern India.

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()



2017/11/6 明鏡專訪




林中斌 2017.11.6


林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()




2017/11/6 天下雜誌



● 芬蘭也是在非民主、非自由經濟的蘇聯虎視下保留自由民主和自由經濟的另一小國。但編輯因字數限制決定刪去。有興趣的請參閱撥雲見日
● 在下必須承認不甚明白為何插圖像是大國的廟堂(其實是台灣的國家音樂廳)


林中斌 2017.11.4

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()



accessed November 6, 2017

"我們也許能看到加泰隆尼亞獨立運動的無奈,但我們沒有看到自己,我們自認聰明高喊兩地不同,恐怕只是自我安慰。...如果漸漸地多數台灣人希望成為中國的自治區,那麼也只能這樣了。"(李中志/美國伊利諾州立大學教授、北美台灣人教授協會會長,自由時報 2017.11.6 A14)
"政府高層透露...雖說現在多明尼加是穩住了,但也是暫時的,'老實說,如果對方出重手,我們根本沒辦法。'" (鍾麗華/台北報導,自由時報 2017.11.5 A2)
以上兩段摘錄自 連續兩天的自由時報 言論版及第二版。如此"台獨悲觀"論,及"長他人威風,滅自己志氣"的言論,似乎以前沒有出現於自由時報。



林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

探討「蔡習會」:蔡的克制和善意 北京讀到  


accessed October 20, 2017



林中斌 2017.10.20



林中斌:陸對台將採兩手策略 未來「蔡習會」有可能

2017-10-17 10:28聯合報 記者周佑政╱即時報導
https://udn.com/news/story/6656/2761265 下載 2017.10.20









林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

As U.S. Confronts Internet’s Disruptions, China Feels Vindicated

Steven Lee Myers and Sui-Lee Wee The New York Times, October 16, 2017


accessed October 19, 2017

中國一向嚴格控制網路,還被西方指責。 它現在覺得雪冤了。
紐約時報,自由派大報,以前是批評中國言論不自由最力的媒體。 現在怎麼啦?
1. 被北京買了?

林中斌 試節譯 2017.10.19

HULUNBUIR, China — In the United States, some of the world’s most powerful technology companies face rising pressure to do more to fight false information and stop foreign infiltration.

China, however, has watchdogs like Zhao Jinxu.

From his small town on the windswept grasslands of the Inner Mongolia region of China, Mr. Zhao, 27, scours the internet for fake news, pornography and calls to violence. He is one of a battalion of online “supervisors” whom Weibo, one of China’s biggest social media platforms, announced last month it would hire to help enforce China’s stringent limits on online content.

For years, the United States and others saw this sort of heavy-handed censorship as a sign of political vulnerability and a barrier to China’s economic development. But as countries in the West discuss potential internet restrictions and wring their hands over fake news, hacking and foreign meddling, some in China see a powerful affirmation of the country’s vision for the internet.

“This kind of thing would not happen here,” Mr. Zhao said of the controversy over Russia’s influence in the American presidential election last year.

Besides Communist Party loyalists, few would argue that China’s internet control serves as a model for democratic societies. China squelches online dissent and imprisons many of those who practice it. It blocks foreign news and information, including the website of The New York Times, and promotes homegrown technology companies while banning global services like Facebook and Twitter.

At the same time, China anticipated many of the questions now flummoxing governments from the United States to Germany to Indonesia. Where the Russians have turned the internet into a political weapon, China has used it as a shield.

In fact, when it comes to technology, China has prospered. It has a booming technology culture. Its internet companies rival Facebook and Amazon in heft. To other countries, China may offer an enticing top-down model that suggests that technology can thrive even under the government’s thumb.



“It doesn’t matter how efficient the internet is,” said Zhu Wei, deputy director of the Communications Law Research Center at the China University of Political Science and Law, which advises the government on internet laws. “It won’t work without security.”

China is not resting on its laurels.

In the weeks leading up to the major party congress that opens in Beijing on Wednesday, the country’s internet regulator, the Cyberspace Administration of China, has issued a raft of new regulations.

One, which took effect last week, holds the creators of online forums or group chats responsible for their users’ comments.

Another bans anonymous users, a blow at the bots and deceptive accounts — like those on Facebook and Twitter — that distributed false stories aimed at American voters.

“If our party cannot traverse the hurdle presented by the internet, it cannot traverse the hurdle of remaining in power,” a department of the cyberspace administration wrote in a top party journal last month.

The article was in keeping with President Xi Jinping’s early recognition of the power of the internet. Mr. Xi created and empowered the cyberspace administration, which has subsumed many of the overlapping agencies that once governed content in cyberspace.

The administration is now seen as an institution as important as the defense ministry. Since last year, it has been led by Xu Lin, 54, a party technocrat and former propaganda official, who, like other influential officials who previously worked beside Mr. Xi in Shanghai, has soared through the ranks.

Samm Sacks, a senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the cyberspace administration was a core part of Mr. Xi’s vow to make China a cyber superpower, on par with the United States.

“There’s a recognition that technology has advanced more quickly than the government’s ability to control it,” Ms. Sacks said. Russia’s interference with Facebook, to cite only one example, was “justification for exactly what they are doing here.”

China’s homegrown internet companies are key to its top-down approach. Tech firms are expected to keep content on file for 60 days and report to the police any forbidden content. The government is acquiring small equity stakes in some tech companies in exchange for board seats, giving it a direct role in the governance of new internet titans.

The tech firms also face tight penalties if they fail to keep users in line. In September, the cybersecurity administration imposed fines on social media platforms owned wholly or in part by three of China’s biggest internet companies — Tencent Holdings, the Alibaba Group and Baidu — for failing to stop the circulation of fabricated rumors, violence and pornography. (Companies can be fined up to $76,000 per offense, and have their business licenses canceled, if they cannot prevent the transmission of banned content.)

Human rights observers worry that the crackdown may have a chilling effect on political speech that is already tightly curbed. Last month, for example, the police raided the home of a university professor, Liu Pengfei, who had hosted a current-affairs forum on Tencent’s WeChat software, one of the world’s most popular messaging apps.

In exchange for accepting tight controls, China internet companies have been allowed to grow while their foreign rivals were shut out of the country. They can now claim their own technology successes. Tencent’s WeChat has transformed social life in China: People use it to chat, pay bills, transfer money, book cabs and hook up romantically.

China is now embarking on an ambitious project to dominate fields like artificial intelligence, and some say China could be at an advantage. It has more than 700 million internet users, and it doesn’t have a robust legal framework to deal with data privacy intrusions. That makes it easier for companies to harness user data — which is core to developing A.I. technology.

Still, China’s advantage could be double-edged. Chinese internet companies have struggled to expand abroad, which experts say stems in part from their dependence on their government.

“To a large extent, the competitive advantage is the political relationship they have with the government there and that’s not something you can carry across borders,” said Lokman Tsui, an assistant professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Moreover, not all of the new restrictions have been welcomed here. Some of the companies — and internet users — balked at tightened enforcement of rules requiring users of social media platforms to provide their real identities to the companies (although they may still use online pseudonyms). Weibo’s announcement that it was seeking 1,000 recruits to become supervisors to report illegal content online — the definitions of which can be expansive — was met by derision on its own site.

“Online and offline, Big Brother is watching,” wrote one user, who used the handle mingxinjianxing.

But when it comes to the controversy over Russia’s intervention, there has been little discussion here. Among the few who are discussing it on Weibo, some expressed shock that the United States does not censor information shared on social media platforms.

Mr. Zhao, the young volunteer on Weibo, is typical of those here who believe government control is justified.

In a restaurant called Europa, Mr. Zhao — who declined to disclose details of where and how he works — described China’s system not as “Big Brother” so much as a younger brother, which he is, protecting children, like those of his sister, from harmful material.

“Even though the internet is virtual, it is still part of society,” he added. “So in any space I feel no one should create pornographic, illegal or violent posts.”

In his new capacity, he scours Weibo in search of the lurid and illicit. Some posts, he explained, are thinly veiled solicitations for pornography or prostitution, including one message he reported to the police the other day for using what he said was a euphemism for selling sex.

When he reports abuse, it is the police who follow up. He excitedly displayed his smartphone to show the latest of his more than 3,000 followers on Weibo: the division of the Beijing police that monitors the internet.

“Normally, if you don’t do bad things, you don’t get followed by the police,” he said. “I think this — for someone who has been online for so many years — is really special.”

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()



accessed October 15, 2017




林中斌 2017.10.15

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()


accessed October 15, 2017




來源:八十華嚴:《大方廣佛華嚴經》 (台北:佛陀教育基金會2014年出版)


林中斌 2017.10.15

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()



accessed October 14, 2017


林中斌 2017.10.14


林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()


林中斌 2017.8.22

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()



林中斌、亓樂義, 風傳媒, August 10 2017


accessed August 14, 2017


1478年,義大利北部城邦翡冷翠(Firenze, 佛羅倫斯)與羅馬教廷交惡。教皇組織聯盟大軍壓境,翡冷翠危在旦夕。

孤立無援的翡冷翠君主羅倫佐(Lorenzo de Medici, 144992),年僅29。深沉的外表,掩飾這位君主的年少。大敵當前,他簡從厚禮,前赴教廷盟友之一的城邦拿玻里(Napoli),折衝3個月,成功說服其國王費蘭德(Ferrante, 142394)退出羅馬聯盟,引發骨牌效應,羅馬被迫撤軍。


30年後,他的2個兒子先後當選為羅馬教皇,史稱里奧十世(Leo X))與克里門七世(Clement VII)。翡冷翠不但未被羅馬消滅,反而經由積極參與和侍奉羅馬,反而成了教廷的主人。

羅倫佐一手經略和平環境,一手大倡歐洲失傳已久的古希臘經典文化,宮廷裡古典學者穿梭不止。他還重振比薩大學為世界頂尖學府,鼓勵新穎的科學發明,達文西(Leonardo da Vinci, 14521519)和米開蘭基羅(Michelangelo Buonarroti, 14751564)均受恩於他,從而開創輝煌的文藝復興,由翡冷翠擴散至義大利,再至歐洲,廣傳四海,帶動人類文明,進而改變世界。







美國總統柯林頓(William J. Clinton)上台時,首要之務是減少赤字,刺激經濟,促進繁榮。因此他在外交上就自由、民主、人權的政治立場上妥協,給予非民主的中國最惠國待遇,卸任時他真的做到赤字歸零。到了小布希(George W. Bush)執政,他把自由民主人權列為首要,猛批中共,雙邊關係鬧得很僵。「911」恐怖攻擊發生後,安全反恐列為優先,美中關係轉緩。因此有北京學者稱,恐怖攻擊基本扭轉了911之前中美關係惡化的趨勢。








林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()


中國因應美軍 鬥而不破:《撥雲見日》選摘(2

林中斌、亓樂義, 風傳媒, August 11 2017


accessed August 14, 2017









 1028日《紐約時報》說:拉森號低調的航經中國人工島礁後,「迅速而安靜的離開。」被澳洲學者修.懷特(Hugh White)認為是懦弱(timid)的行為。之後,美國官員對拉森號闖中國人工島礁細節一律封口不提。即使在野黨參議員馬侃(John S. McCain III119日寫信質問美國國防部長:拉森號當時有無打開雷達和火炮?如果是關的,等於美國默認中國人工島礁的12浬領海。但是未得答覆。



 何況2004年萌芽的美國「調適派」現已成型。20157月,美國亞洲協會(Asian Society)美中關係主任夏偉(Orville Schell)主張承認南海是中國勢力範圍,就像加勒比海是美國勢力範圍一樣。同時,美前國務院亞太副助卿柯慶生(Thomas Christensen)出書說,不應遏止中國崛起 




 ●超軍事手段優先(extra-military emphasis)。這是中國外交戰略的特色。它與美國外交戰略特色「軍事手段優先」成為強烈的對比。「超軍事手段優先」有很深的中國戰略文化根源,2,000多年以前就開始了。它包含在今日北京對美所倡議的「新型大國關係」外交政策裡。它也是2004年左右開始浮現的北京大戰略。


林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()



林中斌、亓樂義, 風傳媒, August 12 2017


accessed August 14, 2017







台灣國防最明顯而具體的困境有2。一是經濟疲軟,購買昂貴的高科技武器,錢從哪兒來?二是即使有錢買,賣主(美國)願意出售給台灣嗎?例如,台灣多年來對美要求購買F16 -C&D戰機,但一直無法如願。雖然韓國都從美獲得F16- C&D戰機,台灣就是不能。



因此,台灣必須放棄傳統思維,另找國防的出路。出路有2:一是重訂國防指導原則,由文字累贅、語意軟弱的「防衛固守、有效嚇阻」,調整為「戰略防守、戰術攻擊、多重嚇阻、聚散自如」,減縮版為「戰略防守、多重嚇阻」,為20094月筆者中斌所提出之建議  。二是培養廉價制敵的「水泥叢林的游擊戰」能力。













19631975年間,來台參與「明德專案」的德軍將領奧斯卡.孟澤爾(Oskar Munzel 1899-1992)、庫爾特.考夫曼(Kurt Kauffmann)等早已建議:對抗共軍,台灣以寡擊眾、節約物資應為國軍建軍採取的方向,包括組建山地部隊,加強台灣防衛作戰。可惜歷時3年的谷關山訓和實驗,因陸軍總司令于豪章視察演習墜機重傷後而「人損政息」,谷關山地實驗營最終付諸東流,當初成立山地旅的構想也就不了了之。孟澤爾是身經一次及二次大戰,並曾在閃擊戰名將古德林(Heinz Guderian 1888-1954)麾下歷練的老將。其眼光反映出戰場出生入死務實的經驗,並非標新立異之學說。當時台灣都市化尚未普及,望眼皆為天野和山地。如今台灣,高樓大廈比比皆是。以前以山地為掩體的游擊戰觀念,在今日自然延伸適用於以「水泥叢林」為掩體的另類游擊戰。






林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()


林中斌、亓樂義, 風傳媒, August 13 2017


accessed August 14, 2017





201725日,海基會舉辦大陸台商春節聯誼,全國台企聯榮譽會長郭山輝轉述,蔡英文透露下半年可能會視時機宣示新的兩岸政策  。這時間點是習近平人馬已進駐上海,習在各省市部署人事接近完成的半個月之後。20173月中共兩會期間,如前所述,高層「和平統一」的論調已取代了1年來「武力統一」的聲勢。










林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()



accessed August 11, 2017



(台北市中正區南昌路一段136號 02 2321 6910)

63年前(1954),先父林文奎時以空軍上校出任陸軍總司令孫立人麾下的陸軍中將二署署長。孫立人奉命去職,74日在此,其官邸,宴請新任總司令黃杰及一級主管 。孫臨時赴總統府陪見外賓,敬酒後離席。



林中斌 2017.8.11



《孫立人傳 》作者,沈克勤大使,2015.8.19, 親贈大作,並與孫立人將軍侄孫,孫善維合影於其矽谷住所。沈克勤大使再度告訴我:...當年宴會席上,一堆馬屁精,諂媚新主,迎合蔣家父子,爭相表態,詆毀孫將軍。令尊大怒,拍桌而起,大聲說 「我不幹了。」一座皆驚 !!沈大使說此往事,記憶猶新,眉飛色舞。大讚家父正直剛毅。感懷不已。





林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

A Broken U.S. economy, in one simple chart

David Leonhardt, The New York Times, August 7, 2017


accessed August 11, 2017


林中斌 2017.8.11

Many Americans can’t remember anything other than an economy with skyrocketing inequality, in which living standards for most Americans are stagnating and the rich are pulling away. It feels inevitable.

But it’s not.

A well-known team of inequality researchers — Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman — has been getting some attention recently for a chart it produced. It shows the change in income between 1980 and 2014 for every point on the distribution, and it neatly summarizes the recent soaring of inequality.

The line on the chart (which we have recreated as the red line above) resembles a classic hockey-stick graph. It’s mostly flat and close to zero, before spiking upward at the end. That spike shows that the very affluent, and only the very affluent, have received significant raises in recent decades.

This line captures the rise in inequality better than any other chart or simple summary that I’ve seen. So I went to the economists with a request: Could they produce versions of their chart for years before 1980, to capture the income trends following World War II? You are looking at the result here.

The gray line in the chart above, labeled "1980," shows the change in income from 1946 to 1980. Below, you can watch the change across every 34-year period starting with 1946-1980 and ending with 1980-2014. Each line is labeled with the final year in the period:

    The message is straightforward. Only a few decades ago, the middle class and the poor weren’t just receiving healthy raises. Their take-home pay was rising even more rapidly, in percentage terms, than the pay of the rich.

    The post-inflation, after-tax raises that were typical for the middle class during the pre-1980 period — about 2 percent a year — translate into rapid gains in living standards. At that rate, a household’s income almost doubles every 34 years. (The economists used 34-year windows to stay consistent with their original chart, which covered 1980 through 2014.)

    In recent decades, by contrast, only very affluent families — those in roughly the top 1/40th of the income distribution — have received such large raises. Yes, the upper-middle class has done better than the middle class or the poor, but the huge gaps are between the super-rich and everyone else.

    The basic problem is that most families used to receive something approaching their fair share of economic growth, and they don’t anymore.

     It’s true that the country can’t magically return to the 1950s and 1960s (nor would we want to, all things considered). Economic growth was faster in those decades than we can reasonably expect today. Yet there is nothing natural about the distribution of today’s growth — the fact that our economic bounty flows overwhelmingly to a small share of the population.

    Different policies could produce a different outcome. My list would start with a tax code that does less to favor the affluent, a better-functioning education system, more bargaining power for workers and less tolerance for corporate consolidation.

    Remarkably, President Trump and the Republican leaders in Congress are trying to go in the other direction. They spent months trying to take away health insurance from millions of middle-class and poor families. Their initial tax-reform planswould reduce taxes for the rich much more than for everyone else. And they want to cut spending on schools, even though education is the single best way to improve middle-class living standards over the long term.

   Most Americans would look at these charts and conclude that inequality is out of control. The president, on the other hand, seems to think that inequality isn’t big enough.


林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

Eulogy for Milton Liao

accessed August 9, 2017






林中斌 2017.8.9


As I finally could clean up my desk after having submitted the third and last galley proof of the book manuscript, the eulogy for my late dear friend Milton Liao came to sight. The photo was taken December 12, 2007. Milton is first on the right at the front. Dr. Ocean Lin was the second from right on the back. Milton passed away February 2008.

Chong-Pin Lin August 9, 2017


廖文中先生,文武全才。2003年,才見了兩面,忽然以 軍事計劃,展開行動, 代籌《斌心雕龍》一書的編輯,打字,封面設計,強推學生書局,重商輕士的鮑經理,出版此書。果然應了劉臺柱先生2002年,驚人預言的第一步。事後看來,廖劉兩位高士,可能都是應運(應劫)而來,智行過人的奇人。他們功成驟去,令人感傷,但也讓我們對不可見的手,起更大的敬畏。 因借舊聯,復輓之曰:七海縱橫猶執信。六藝傳承豈忘仁。 敬禮!

林中明 2017.8.9





林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

1 2