目前分類:各色評論/newspaper commentaries (332)

瀏覽方式: 標題列表 簡短摘要

 

領帶的「酒窩」

2009年到2017

2017/07/08

2009/10/30

 

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

唵嘛呢叭咪吽的涵義

The Meaning of Om Mani Padme Hum

April 28, 2013

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywwJr8A9IRM

accessed June 4, 2017

● 這是達賴喇嘛用英文對某信徒的回答:
唸咒很好,但光唸咒不夠。要運用我們的智力把我們從痛苦中拔而進入永恆的快樂。
“唵”唸“
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)
“嘛呢”
(mani)是“利他”或“慈悲”。
“叭咪”(
peme padme)是“智慧”。
“吽”
(haum)是以上兩者之結合而達到淨化。

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

https://www.inc.com/ari-zoldan/why-dress-for-success-still-matters-perhaps-more-than-ever.html

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

馬習會外一章:政治衣裝
林中斌
1. 名人堂稿件
20151112文稿 本文字數: 1200 目標字數:1200

習近平的西裝「沉穩大氣,服貼不動」。
馬習會後,長久關注形象穿著的台大外文系教授張小虹在評「馬英九的西裝」文中如此描寫。引發網路上熱烈的討論。可說:無對比,不注意。並肩站,眾評議。
習近平西裝講究在那裡?中共領導人穿著如何演進?為何領導人要重視穿著?穿西裝應注意什麼?理由為何?
 
依拙見,這次會面,與馬對比,習西裝明顯的講究有三:
一、出芽。西裝袖內白襯衫袖口適度外露。二、酒窩。領帶上方近領結處凹下小坑。三、服貼。他舉手時西裝後領未翹離白襯衫後領。
改革開放之初,鄧小平接見外賓的圖象傳為全世界笑柄:除了在茶几前置放令人聯想起東亞病夫的痰盂之外,鄧穿黑皮鞋居然配如中學生般的白線襪(西方外交禮儀要求黑鞋黑襪)
 
進入廿一世紀,中共領袖正式穿著已大有改進。胡錦濤注意到袖口「出芽」。
習近平之前在東南沿海任職時,被國際媒體描寫為「鄉巴佬」
(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。
一位在英國攻讀國際法博士的年輕朋友,最近對我致謝。我曾教他的西裝衣著要點,派上用場了。階級意識深厚的英國教授對他穿著當面讚賞。刮目相待之餘,破格提拔,屢賜良機,如任教、出國開會等。
注意西裝衣著可以為一位留學青年打開機會之門,何況在國際上為國打拼的政治領袖?在外交戰場上,西裝就是盔甲。在心理戰場上,衣著就是軍容。豈能等閒視之?
根據許多隱藏相機的調查,同一個人,衣著隨便或用心,別人的反應可大不同。如果出世修行,另當別論。既然要入世打拼,衣著技巧不得不注意。
這套觀念已經過時了嗎?現在科技新貴的時尚不都是T恤、牛仔褲、跑鞋嗎?誠然,但是一旦他們登上國際舞台,還不都西服革履?臉書的祖克伯、微軟的蓋茲、阿里巴巴的馬雲不都是嗎?何況肩負國家命運的官員?
一九七五年,美國人
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。
衣著有品味不等於衣服昂貴。有眼光的窮學生,依然可以檢二手貨搭配出體面的衣著。權貴穿了名牌絲質西裝,但袖子有如馬褂般淹過襯衫袖口,領帶長過腰帶。他若銜命進出國際場合,別人無言中已扣他分數。在關鍵時刻,他會得不到對方來自內心尊重的助力。
翻閱民初至遷台間的歷史照片,會發現當年領袖、學者著西裝的講究。國父便是典型。可惜,數十年來,台灣與國際禮儀脫節,影響如今大多數人正式服裝的穿著。
以下為野人獻曝的數點建議,敬請卓參:
▉西裝袖口和領口的出芽。依美學對比原則,令人眼睛一亮,看來有精神。▉領帶的酒窩,有如希臘神殿石柱上的凹槽,打破圓柱的呆版。▉西裝服貼於襯衫上,呈現內外配合的一體感。▉在座談的場合,黑襪長度應上達至脛,以免露出腿肉。▉在演講或晚宴場合,配袋巾以突出形象。

請光臨部落格相簿 查看圖片
http://chongpinlin.pixnet.net/album/set/1157737

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

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21722877-european-history-answer-queens-especially-married-ones-who-gets-more-wars-kings

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%

林中斌2017.6.3

  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

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/opinion/russian-revolution-1917-donald-trump.html

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

天使與惡魔
我不知道天使現在在哪裡﹖

但我看到惡魔在滿街亂跑。
你是天使﹖
還是惡魔﹖
他是天使﹖
還是惡魔﹖
我是天使﹖
還是惡魔﹖

很多人在到處喧囂,
更多的人選擇沉默。

福爾摩沙美麗之島,
為什麼陽光顯得如此憂傷﹖
為什麼藍天與綠地,
都變成了爭執的濫觴﹖

為什麼清風不再歡唱﹖﹖
為什麼﹖
鳥不再語!
花不再香!
仇恨、對立、瘋狂與咆哮,
漸漸的掩沒了,
曾經最美麗的風景,
曾經最美麗的人心。

天使們,
請不要再沉默,
天使們,
請出來微微笑,
天使們,
只要你肯變成天使,
惡魔也會,
慢慢消逝。

我們都要,
做別人的天使。

2017.6.7.

 

 

 

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

鄭文燦:和中才能保台挺台

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

林老師您好:看您分析直轄市長和中國心的關係,
讓我想起自己幾日前的貼文,跟老師分享。

忽近忽遠的大中華
本初的一顆心,
習慣被動著矛盾的拉扯,
我愛祂卻又怕著祂,
我怕祂卻還是愛著祂。

近鄉情怯;
近情心怯。
欲迎還拒;
欲拒還迎。

身體上奔騰著一脈的血流,
思想上牽扯著文化的臍帶。
看著我們好像一樣,
想著卻真的是不一樣!

我想聽聽,
黃河長江的濤聲,
如何奔放著詩詞歌賦的緣起,
我想看看,
蘇軾周瑜的赤壁,
如何演繹著愛恨情仇的發跡。

情感上的中華明明很近,
形體上的中華確實離得很遠
忽近忽遠的大中華,
讓飄忽不定的靈魂,
幽幽地不知該如何歸依!

 2017.6.5.FB

  台南市長賴清德日前回答質詢說他「親中愛台」,引發爭議,並在政壇發酵。桃園市長鄭文燦昨面對國民黨市議員林政賢質詢說,「愛台及親中我不反對,要兩邊都好」,用「和中愛台」表達立場;他為賴清德緩頰,認為愛台和親中本不衝突;台中市長林佳龍則說,各種「口號」都不能表達完整的兩岸關係,必須「少說多做」,建立彼此信任感,且不管立場都必須「知中」,了解對岸發展。

   綠骨轉性親中 盼堅持下去

 賴神親中 柯P友中

  繼賴清德說「親中」後,台北市長柯文哲回應他是「友中」,昨桃園市長鄭文燦則強調「和中」立場,林佳龍則表明須「知中」,一時間民進黨突然比國民黨變得更傾中。

  鄭文燦表示,以現況說,「和中」才能保台、挺台,如果把和平當成最高價值,「和中愛台」是好方向。

  鄭文燦進一步說,台灣、大陸仍須善意互動,希望推動「兩岸共好」,而所謂「和中愛台」,對台灣發展很重要,其內涵是不媚中、不抗中,這也是較務實的選項,但不能放棄民主底線,仍要堅持彼此尊重前提,追求和平現狀。

  當鄭文燦得知賴清德用「親中」字眼,略顯訝異,但他緩頰說,「賴應只是想表達對大陸沒敵意,我對此不做任何政治解讀。」

林:知中 尊重與互惠

  此外,林佳龍表示,不管立場親中、和中、反中,首先都須「知中」,了解對岸發展,以同理心透過相互尊重、互惠交流,以「不卑不亢」態度,才能建立長久的兩岸關係;若要透過口號或政治領袖搭建關係,兩岸關係就會走不出迷宮,也無法長久。

  林佳龍強調,兩岸交流須多點同理心,避免言語刺激,透過實際交流累積信任,存異求同,極大化交流範圍;透過城市交流,也可搭建由下而上的兩岸關係。

  面對兩岸立場,高雄市長陳菊也說,兩岸間要和平交流,促進彼此理解與尊重。陳菊算是民進黨縣市首長與陸較和善一位,曾親自登陸行銷高雄世運、亞太城市高峰會。

府:依民意 致力和平

  面對賴清德「親中」被藍營視為「最狂髮夾彎」,總統府發言人林鶴明昨重申,賴所言與政府立場及社會的共同態度「並沒太大差別」,政府一直都是根據普遍民意及國內共識,致力兩岸關係的和平穩定發展。他說,「你們如果去了解賴清德的完整說法,事實上和我們一直以來的說法是一樣的」。

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

https://udn.com/news/story/7340/2498436

 

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(1) 人氣()


川普反中、友中、再反中?

2017/05/12 聯合報 名人堂 林中斌

https://udn.com/news/story/7340/2464960
accessed May 16, 2017

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

Inside the Kushner channel to China

2017/05/11 The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/inside-the-kushner-channel-to-china/2017/04/02/d1a960c6-164f-11e7-833c-503e1f6394c9_story.html?tid=ss_fb-bottom&utm_term=.b8442d2c17d6

● 2016年11月中,季辛吉與川普和女婿庫士納會面。川請季去北京告訴習近平一切都可談。

● 2016年12月2日,川蔡通電話。同日,季見習。

● 2016年12月6日,季建議庫士納與楊潔篪見面。

● 2016年12月9日,崔天凱和楊赴川普大樓庫士納辦公室與庫士納及其他川普重要幕僚見面。楊要求川普接受"新大國關係" (a new model of great power relations)、    支持一帶一路、互不干涉內政,包括台灣西藏等。

● 2017年2月,習川熱線通話,庫士納建議川普接受"一個中國原則",被採用。

● 庫士納認為與中國關係:一切都可商量談判。

                                                         林中斌 2017.5.7

Inside the Kushner channel to China.JPG

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(1) 人氣()

提四不保證 川普擬會金正恩

2017/05/10 旺報

http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20170510000706-260301

accessed May 10, 2017

  同時,北韓小金與美國川普將見面。雙方官員已在挪威磋商。雙方保証:北韓放棄核武和飛彈,美國不過38度線,不改變北韓體制,不急於兩韓統一。請見上方貼文。

北韓難題經習川合作,急轉直下。不只有結果,而且是最好的結果。

週末國際會議中,許多國外貴賓認為中美合作不會持久,因為習近平幫川普處理北韓不會有結果

!!!

This is the danger of using linear extrapolation to predict the future. 這就是用"想當然爾"態度來預判未來發展的危險。                                                                                                                                                                                            林中斌 2017.5.10

 

提四不保證 川普擬會金正恩.JPG

朝鮮將參加一帶一路論壇.JPG

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

2/5 預測馬克宏當選法國總統

2017/5/8

20122月拙作"習近平的七個超越"中第七項終於得到國際回響。記得某紐約時報記者當時訪問我,對此點完全無動於衷。

201725日,已經看好Macron 可能救法國免於民粹右翼之難。當時我的法國鄰居說: "? Macron? 我不認為他有機會!"

林中斌 2017.5.8

On February 5, 2017, I was lucky enough to opine that Macron could save France from falling into the hands of , xenophobic right-wing populism.

At the time, my French neighbor responded to me: "Macron? Who? Oh no, I don't think that he has a chance!"

Chong-Pin Lin May 8, 2017

 

預測Macron當選法國總統.jpg

1.jpg


林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

武統論 趨寂靜 兩岸啟新局

2017/4/21 聯合報

https://udn.com/news/story/7340/2416269

accessed Apr 21,2017

201704021 武統論 趨寂靜 兩岸啟新局 okok.jpg

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

峰會川普 色厲內荏

2017/4/6 聯合報

https://udn.com/news/story/7340/2388227

accessed Apr 6,2017

20170407 峰會川普 色厲內荏 ok edited2.jpg

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(1) 人氣()

學者:川習合作對台灣正面

2017/4/3 聯合報

https://udn.com/news/story/10764/2380694

accessed Apr 3,2017

  對於3天後(4月6日)的川習會,我有說川習會合作多於對抗,我沒有說「川習合作對台灣」。

  事後發展顯示川習合作超過預期。

                                                                     林中斌 2017.4.3

  

學者:川習合作對台灣正面.jpg

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

China's Xi hails ties with Philippines as Duterte cools on US

2017/5/3 AFP

http://newscdn.newsrep.net/h5/nrshare.html?r=3&lan=en_WD&pid=14&id=6Pc54b6f63s_wd&app_lan&mcc=466&declared_lan=en_WD&pubaccount=ocms_0&referrer=200620&showall=1

accessed May 4,2017

  習近平與菲律賓總統熱線通話後,杜特蒂說他可能排不出時間接受川普總統訪美。雖然美方尚未定邀他訪美時間。   

林中斌 2017/5/4

China%5Cs Xi hails ties with Philippines as Duterte cools on US.jpg

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

Trump’s Turn Toward China Curtails Navy Patrols in Disputed Zones

2017/5/2 The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/world/asia/navy-south-china-sea.html?_r=1

accessed Mar 4, 2017

  自從2017 月以來,川普政府已經次否決美太平言總部建議,派軍艦至南海以 "自由航行"之名義挑戰中國擴建島礁而宣稱的12海里領海。

川普在年月川習會之後高度依賴習近平的合作以制約發展核子武器的北韓。這是最主要的原因。

之前多年以來,美國海空軍在南海和東海挑戰中國的作為之後會持續嗎?

最後,美國會逐漸默認中國在東亞和西太平洋的勢力範圍。

林中斌 2017.5.4

Trump’s Turn Toward China Curtails Navy Patrols in Disputed Zones.jpg

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

大勢已去!十九大前四省省委書記被免職 江派各大窩點潰不成軍

2017/4/1 大紀元

http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/17/4/1/n8991233.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ryl1lACqsg&from=singlemessage&app=desktop

  海南、甘肅、山東、黒龍江省委書記一把手同時換人。江派人馬已潰不成軍。被換調的皆為江澤明、曾慶紅提拔人馬,除貪腐女色之外,多與打法輪功有關。

  新派的一把手皆為異地調任,破格任用。

林中斌 2017.5.2

accessed May 2,2017

十九大前清洗江派窝点 四省省委书记被免职.jpg

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

Who's Faking, Trump Or The News?

2017/5/1 Huffington Post

http://newscdn.newsrep.net/h5/nrshare.html?r=3&lan=en_WD&pid=14&id=LXc3fcaf5mN_wd&app_lan&mcc=466&declared_lan=en_WD&pubaccount=ocms_0&referrer=200620&showall=1

accessed May 2, 2017

 超過半數的美國人不信任川普,也不信任媒體。

但不信任川普的多於不信任媒體的。

回顧過去,2003年開始,美國人不信任媒體的大幅增加。那是小布希發動伊拉克戰爭的一年。

 美國未來取決於10%的選民。他們投票給川普,但要看他實際治理成績,再決定下次選他與否。

林中斌 2017.5.2

 Over 50% of American people distrust both Trump and the media.

But more distrust Trump than the media.

Historically, distrust of the media significantly grew after 2003, the year George W. Bush launched the war in Iraq.

 10% of voters who voted for Trump but will judge him by the result of his performance will decide the future of America.

Chong-Pin Lin May 2 2017

Who%5Cs Faking, Trump Or The News.jpg

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

中央電視台首次做佛教專題,釋放出重大信號! ! !

2017/04-17 與心靈有約

http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/PnNpj5xsqSov84lB7KbK1Q

中央電視台首次作佛教專題.JPG

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()

找更多相關文章與討論