The Meaning of Om Mani Padme Hum
April 28, 2013
accessed June 4, 2017
“叭咪”(peme 或 padme)是“智慧”。
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."
20151112文稿 本文字數: 1200 目標字數:1200
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。
Princesses of the Blood: Sex, Royalty and War
Economist, June 3, 2017
accessed June 3, 2017
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.
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
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.
TIME, June 12, 2017
● "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
甘嘉雯、陳世宗、崔慈悌, 中國時報, June 8, 2017
● Are we going through a "learning curve(學習曲線)?"
Chong-Pin Lin June 8, 2017
Inside the Kushner channel to China
2017/05/11 The Washington Post
● 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。
accessed May 10, 2017
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
● 2017年2月5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: "誰? Macron? 我不認為他有機會!"
● 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
China's Xi hails ties with Philippines as Duterte cools on US
accessed May 4,2017
Trump’s Turn Toward China Curtails Navy Patrols in Disputed Zones
2017/5/2 The New York Times
accessed Mar 4, 2017
● 自從2017 年2 月以來，川普政府已經3 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。
accessed May 2,2017
Who's Faking, Trump Or The News?
2017/5/1 Huffington Post
accessed May 2, 2017
● 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