Friday, October 3, 2014

从香港抗议看“法制”、自由与英文语言的必要 Rule of Law vs. Rule by Law



From Hong Kong Protest to See Rule of Law, British Colonial Tradition and the Importance of English Language

从香港抗议看“法制”、自由与英文语言的必要

By Kai Chen 陈凯, October 3, 2014

As I watched the BBC coverage on Hong Kong student protest, I deeply sensed a very disturbing and sad phenomenon – an entirely opposite interpretation of the British tradition of Rule of Law from its original meaning by a Chinese speaking population.  As some physical altercation broke out between pro-Beijing Chinese speaking mobs and mostly English speaking student protesters, a Beijing’s mouthpiece appearing on BBC accused the student of violating “rule of law”.  And the students on the program somehow are acquiescent of such absurd accusation, using “civil disobedience” as their only defense.  I observed a horrible mal-interpretation of the concept of “rule of law”.  And such misunderstanding of the concept will possibly lead to meaningless actions and negative consequences, even tragedy. 

Under the British rule before 1997, English language is the basis to understanding legal and political terms and concepts.  And the concept of “rule of law” was based on the principle that freedom is God-given and laws are human attempt to safeguard individual freedom by curbing human abuses from the government.  Hong Kong residents, though without election, enjoyed maximum individual freedom with minimum government corruption.  This situation has been gradually reversed with the British departure in 1997.  The influx of Chinese speaking government officials and mainland residents gradually erodes the “rule of law”.  Instead, “rule by law” increasing becomes the norm. 

In Chinese language, there is no difference between “rule of law” and “rule by law”.   They are all mixed together into two characters “Fa Zhi”.  Yet the two concepts are entirely opposite to each other:  “Rule of law” as understood with English language is to ensure that government be not governed by some dictator’s whim to trample on individuals’ freedoms.  “Rule by law” as commonly understood in Chinese is that government has the ultimate authority to make laws to control the individuals and govern the society.  The former is for freedom.  The latter is for slavery and despotism. 

Since 1997, rule of law and individual freedom have been gradually and unmistakably eroded and taken away.  More and more, fear of government, corruption of government officials, self-censorship of the media, toeing government official lines and a Fascist tendency of businesses serving Beijing’s government interests become prevalent.  Now the “White Paper” Beijing issued to blatantly violate the “Basic Law” established to safeguard Hong Kong people’s freedom was the result of more than a decade of cultural erosion.  A despotic culture aimed only to preserve the power of the government and the interests of those who are associated with Beijing gradually stifles the way of life Hong Kong residents enjoyed, even took for granted, under the British rule.  Fear replaces joy and achievement to have become the new norm of Hong Kong.  Lies, falsehood and dead silence in the face of injustice and repression, all in the name of unity, peace, maintaining status quo in order not to offend Beijing masters permeated a culture in which a moral standard of human contact and doing business was a general rule.  Lawlessness from Beijing and the despotic Chinese cultural tradition of parental government and infantile people dependent on the rulers have edged away individual freedom under the British rule.  Now the same rhetoric from those with confused mind and fear of government to defend Beijing’s “rule by law” comes out again and again to attack the student protesters. 

Who has broken the law in the first place?  It is not the students.  It is Beijing and the communist party-dynasty which bases their legitimacy only by the muzzles of guns and by lies and deceptions.  Who will be the ultimate victims of such lawlessness in Hong Kong?  It is not just the students.  It is the entire population of Hong Kong and especially the business community.  Without trust and with a moral code broken down under Beijing’s iron fist, no meaningful transaction of values will happen.  True stability will disappear with Beijing’s irrational orders aimed only to save the communist dynasty.  Instead, stagnation and silence will reign supreme and the population of Hong Kong will be “Zombified” to become soulless walking dead. 

I am glad to have witnessed that most Hong Kong student protesters are English-proficient.  They are able to communicate with the rest of the world with logic and reason, thanks to English language.  There is an unmistakable gap of understanding the world between those who speak English language and those who are stuck with their ancient irrational mother tone.  With a logical language, questioning Beijing’s government and its legitimacy is a natural extension of using the language.  This is probably the most conspicuous difference between Hong Kong protesters and the crowd on Tiananmen Square in 1989. 

In the long run, the student protesters with their goal to ensure a genuine election and democracy in Hong Kong are protecting Hong Kong’s business interest and prosperity, not harming it.  Those who have come out to criticize the student protesters should understand their own mal-interpretation of “rule of law”, confusing with their Chinese despotic tradition of “rule by law”.  They should also understand Hong Kong must go forward toward a future of freedom, not being dragged backward toward a hopeless and soulless existence under the guns of their Beijing masters.  Most of all, they should keenly understand the fundamental premises of “rule of law” – Freedom is God-given, not bestowed upon them by government as some beneficent charity. 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Bartlett: 

Very eloquent and correct. May I forward this to the China-POL list?

Thomas Bartlett
Visitng Professor
Stanford University

Yesterday at 12:31pm · 10/3/14

------------------------------------------

Kai Chen: Absolutely Thomas. Please spread this message. It is very important for HK student and people who support the protest to understand the moral foundation of their argument.
Yesterday at 3:23pm · 10/3/14

------------------------------------------------

Personal bio of Professor Thomas Bartlett: 

Thomas Bartlett has taught modern and classical Chinese at Cambridge (1975-76), Princeton (1977-79), Harvard (1987-94), Johns Hopkins (1995-96), and La Trobe (1996-1999) Universities, and modern Chinese at Middlebury (1973, 1983, 1987), Wellesley (1986), and Swarthmore (1987) Colleges, before coming to Stanford in 2010. He received the BA (cum laude) in Classics at Harvard (1961), with a thesis on Aeschylus' drama "Agamemnon", read in Greek. Five years' residence (1967-72) as a student in Taipei, Taiwan, ROC, led to receipt of the MA (1972) in early Chinese history at National Taiwan University, with a thesis on Confucian historiographical thought. In 1978 Bartlett was a finalist in the Department of State's selection of a full-time Mandarin interpreter. In 1980 he resided in Beijing, PRC, for six months as interpreter and translator for a major international corporation in contract negotiations with various Chinese official and commercial entities. In 1985 he completed the PhD at Princeton, with a dissertation on Gu Yanwu (1613-82), a classical scholar whose encyclopedic record of China's cultural heritage is widely recognized as an invaluable resource by modern researchers, and whose study of poetic rhymes was very influential in the history of Chinese linguistics. In 1987 Bartlett declined the award of a Mellon post-doctoral fellowship, when told by the offering institution that affirmative action guidelines would make him uncompetitive for a subsequent teaching position there. In 1989 his proficiency in Chinese was graded at level 4 (of 5) by the US Foreign Service Institute. From mid-1989 through 1994, Bartlett was Professor of Chinese Language and Director of Harvard's Chinese Language Program. In 1995-96 he was Director of the Language Teaching Center at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. From 1996 to 2010, he lived in Melbourne, Australia, and taught Chinese history at La Trobe University. His published writings have included articles on Gu Yanwu, on early Chinese history and, recently, a survey history of China's Song dynasty (960-1279), in Berkshire Encyclopedia of China. He is currently interested in the history of the word "Zhongguo", meaning "Central State", now usually translated as "China", and looks forward to publishing his doctoral dissertation.

 

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

香港抗议是中共党朝灭亡的开始 Hong Kong Protest Spells the Beginning of the End of CCP Dynasty



香港抗议是中共党朝灭亡的开始 
Hong Kong Protest Spells the Beginning of the End of CCP Dynasty
---------------------------------------
Xi Jinping Could Be China’s Last Communist Ruler

Larry Diamond is Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Director of Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law.

At this point, China can neither negotiate nor repress the mass demonstrations


The recent eruption of popular outrage was prompted by Beijing’s decision, announced at the end of August, to defer indefinitely the dream of democratic self-governance in Hong Kong. China’s rulers have now delivered an Iranian-style interpretation of “universal suffrage”: everyone can vote, but only for candidates approved by the real rulers. Instead of “one country, two systems,” Hong Kong is getting “one country, one autocracy,” with increasing concentration of economic power and shrinking media and academic freedom.

Hong Kong’s youthful demonstrators are economically worried, but even more so, they are politically indignant. Many, like the 17-year-old student protest leader Joshua Wong, were born after the handover and raised in a prosperous, civically vibrant, and open society. They grew up tweeting and texting, and they see democratic self-governance as both their natural right and their constitutional promise. Many older Hong Kongers remember colonial rule, and cherish the civil freedoms and rule of law that they now see eroding under the lengthening shadow of economic and political control from Beijing. No one knows what percentage of Hong Kong’s population is willing to risk prosperity to press democratic demands to the limit. But hundreds of thousands of protestors and sympathizers view Beijing’s political intransigence as an existential threat to Hong Kong’s future.

This was an avoidable crisis. Over the years, many creative ideas have been floated to realize “gradual and orderly progress” toward democracy. China’s Communist leaders could have negotiated with moderate Hong Kong democrats to gradually expand the range of candidates permitted to contest Chief Executive elections, and to move in stages to a fully directly elected legislature (30 of the 70 members are now elected by narrow functional constituencies). Political compromise could have fashioned a popular majority accepting patient progress. What Hong Kong got instead was no negotiations and no progress, but rather an authoritarian imposition thinly masquerading as popular sovereignty.

Beijing’s intransigence was never solely about Hong Kong, and neither are the current protests. This is a struggle for the future of China itself. President Xi and his fellow Party bosses are consumed with fear that they will meet the same fate as Mikhail Gorbachev if they do not maintain tight, centralized political control. Xi will pursue economic reform. He will try to purge the party and state of brazen corruption (while also purging his rivals along the way). But political reform is ruled out. So, even, is discussion (or teaching or tweeting) about such concepts as “universal values,” “freedom of speech,” “civil society” and “judicial independence.

China is changing rapidly in the wake of rapid economic growth. A civil society is slowly rising, alongside a pragmatic and more independent-minded business class. People now debate issues through social media, even with state controls. The middle class is traveling and gaining exposure to democratic ideas and freedoms, most dangerously, in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Ironically, during this long holiday week when China celebrates its National Day (and now the 65th anniversary of the Communist Revolution), many Chinese vacationing in Hong Kong are suddenly watching a very different kind of revolution.

China’s rulers are now stuck in a trap of their own making. If they brutally repress mass demonstrations, as they did a quarter century ago, they will gravely damage their international legitimacy, wreck prospects for closer relations with Taiwan, and destroy the civic fabric of Hong Kong. If they do what they should have done months ago — negotiate — they fear they will look to be capitulating to mass pressure, thereby inviting more of it in a country where hundreds of local-level protests erupt daily. Thus they will probably wait, hoping the protests will ebb, while preserving the option of dumping the current Chief Executive, C.Y. Leung, as a sacrificial lamb.

If the protests persist and grow, China’s Communist rulers will face an awful choice, and they may well repeat the tragic mistake of 1989. But this is not the China of 25 years ago. Xi Jinping can no more will an emergent civil society out of existence than King Canute could command the tides of the sea to recede. But alas, King Canute understood the natural limits to his power. Xi Jinping does not appear to do so, and this is why he could well be China’s last Communist ruler.

Larry Diamond is Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Director of Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law.
 

Thursday, September 25, 2014

陈凯评论/李娜退役 Kai Chen on Li Na's Retirement



陈凯评论/李娜退役  
Kai Chen on Li Na's Retirement
【新唐人2014年09月22日讯】 

随着网坛〝一姐〞李娜的退役,〝娜〞时代画上了一个句号。李娜从战绩、排名、突破程度等各方面来说,是一个〝体坛传奇〞。在她退役之际,她的勇气与她创造的辉煌战绩之间,有什么关系,也引起了人们的关注。 

21号下午1点,网坛〝一姐〞李娜在北京召开了退役新闻发布会。 

李娜:(视频)〝首先来说,很感谢大家在百忙之中、在周末来到这,也很高兴在发布微博以后,第一次可以跟大家这么见面,然后非常感谢中网可以提供这样的场地,让我可以跟大家有机会见面,也可以有机会跟大家说‘再见’!〞 

由于伤痛决定退役的李娜,在赛场上被誉为〝体坛传奇〞。她不仅是中国运动员中捧起女双、女单冠军奖杯的第一人,同时也是唯一获得大满贯女单冠军的亚洲球员,她赢得了两届大满贯冠军。 

在她结束〝娜〞时代之际,外界对她的评价是:无论从战绩、冠军、排名、突破程度来说,她都是毫无争议的亚洲第一人。 

旅美时事评论员蓝述:〝李娜她的体育生涯是非常非常辉煌的。除了她的成功以外,她让很多中国人耳目一新是她的一种独立思考的精神,一种对独立人格的追求。这个是很多运动员技术层面的成功之外,没有做到她那么勇敢去做到的。〞 

2002年底,李娜离开大陆国家队,因为她与当时的队友、后来的丈夫姜山的恋爱,遭到官方反对。而且李娜请求拥有个人教练,而不是共用教练,也被拒绝。2009年,李娜聘请了瑞典籍前国家网球队教练——托马斯.霍格斯泰特(Thomas Hogstedt),当自己的专属技术教练。 

前中国国家篮球队队员陈凯:〝李娜内心的自由的程度,在中国这些运动员里面是相当高的。她自己能够承担的风险,能够找到自己生命的意义。在这个时候,她的运动首先并不是为党争脸面,脑子里想的是,我是不是热爱这个运动,是不是奉献我全部的精力〞,找到我生命的意义。 

在被媒体称为〝单飞〞的2年后,李娜在2011年第一次赢得了澳洲网球公开赛的大满冠亚军。 

前中国国家篮球队队员陈凯:〝这种选择是需要付出相当大的代价的,这就说明,一个人他内在必须是自由的,才能这样做选择。一个人内在是一个奴隶的话,他做不了这种选择。一个奴隶,考虑的首先是安全。一个自由人,考虑的是对生命的热爱。〞 

李娜在体制外获得的成绩,引起外界对大陆的〝举国体制〞的体育制度的关注。近30年来,羽毛球界、乒乓球界中,由组织决定谁当冠军、运动员被迫打假球的潜规则,早已不是秘密。例如原世界女子单打第一号种子选手何智丽,在1987年世乒赛上女单决赛中临阵抗命,拒绝〝让球〞。虽然夺得了世界冠军,却失去了第二年参加奥运会的资格。 

而此前的30年中,中国运动员受到的对待更是令人唏嘘。1949年后第一位世界冠军、乒乓球运动员容国团,在文革不堪受辱,被迫自杀。 

旅美时事评论员蓝述:〝中共这个所谓搞的体育,它的核心就是体育为政治服务,换句话说:体育为党的利益服务。这个和李娜她这种追求独立的人格、独立的思考格格不入。‘让球’,那说到底是党的利益第一。运动员他付出那么多心血,到了最后你不让他放手一搏。很清楚这个体制让她深恶痛绝嘛。〞 

19号,李娜在微博中发出退役告别信,用了21 个〝感谢〞表达了对父母、丈夫、启蒙教练和经纪公司、媒体等的谢意,甚至包括传闻中与她不和的大陆体育界官员,唯独没有提一句〝感谢党〞。 

采访编辑/唐音 后制/肖颜 

Friday, August 15, 2014

新片推荐 - 救世主 New Movie Introduction - The Giver



新片推荐 - 救世主 
New Movie Introduction - The Giver

陈凯一语:Kai Chen's Words: 

"The Giver" is a newly released movie depicting a society where people have given up their freedoms for security.  This is where Obama and the American left want to lead you.  Do you want to live in a perfect society with great harmony like this one?  Think again. 

新片“救世主” 描述了一个全新的完美社会。 在这个社会中人们为了和平与安全放弃了自由与尊严。 这就是奥巴马与美西左派奢望建立的乌托邦社会。 你真想在这种社会中生活吗? 请三思。
------------------------------------------------------
影片简介:
Plot Summary: 

The haunting story of "The Giver" centers on Jonas (Brenton Thwaites), a young man who lives in a seemingly ideal, if colorless, world of conformity and contentment. Yet as he begins to spend time with The Giver (Jeff Bridges), who is the sole keeper of all the community's memories, Jonas quickly begins to discover the dark and deadly truths of his community's secret past. With this newfound power of knowledge, he realizes that the stakes are higher than imagined - a matter of life and death for himself and those he loves most. At extreme odds, Jonas knows that he must escape their world to protect them all - a challenge that no one has ever succeeded at before. "The Giver" is based on Lois Lowry's beloved young adult novel of the same name, which was the winner the 1994 Newbery Medal and has sold over 10 million copies worldwide.

Read more: The Giver Trailer, News, Videos, and Reviews | ComingSoon.net http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=79059#ixzz3AYbsXMdc
Follow us: @ComingSoonNet on Twitter | ComingSoon on Facebook

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Dinesh D'souza vs. Bill Ayers - Why is America so Great?! 假如这个世界没有美国



Dinesh D'souza vs. Bill Ayers - Why is America so Great?!
假如这个世界没有美国

“America is the greatest, freest and most decent society in existence. It is an oasis of goodness in a desert of cynicism and barbarism. This country, once an experiment unique in the world, is now the last best hope for the world.”  
Dinesh D'Souza

“...capitalism satisfied the Christian demand for an institution that channels selfish human desire toward the betterment of society. Some critics accuse capitalism of being a selfish system, but the selfishness is not in capitalism - it is in human nature.”
Dinesh D'Souza, What's So Great About Christianity

“I now want to examine a second major feature of Western civilization that derives from Christianity. This is what philosopher Charles Taylor calls the 'affirmation of ordinary life.' It is the simple idea that ordinary people are fallible, and yet these fallible people matter. In this view, society should organize itself in order to meet their everyday concerns, which are elevated into a kind of spiritual framework. The nuclear family, the idea of limited government, the Western concept of the rule of law, and our culture's high emphasis on the relief of suffering all derive from this basic Christian understanding of the dignity of fallible human beings.”
Dinesh D'Souza, What's So Great About Christianity

“The life of West, Nietzsche said, is based on Christianity. The values of the West are based on Christianity. Some of these values seem to have taken a life of their own, and this gives us the illusion that we can get rid of Christianity and keep the values. This, Nietzsche says, is an illusion...Remove the Christian foundation, and the values must go too.”
Dinesh D'Souza, What's So Great About Christianity

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

陈凯呼吁美国人拒绝中共洗脑 抵制孔子学院 Kai Chen Calls for Abolishing Confucius Institutes in the West







http://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/kejiaowen/ck-07012014095549.html

陈凯呼吁美国人拒绝中共洗脑 抵制孔子学院
Kai Chen Calls for Abolishing Confucius Institutes in the West


2014-07-01

图片: 中国人权关注者陈凯。 (大纪元/记者CK)

近来,美国大学教授协会对中国政府在美国大办孔子学院的动机提出质疑,美国的许多教育界人士也都指出,孔子学院违背了美国大学的办学原则,摧毁美国大学的学术自由。一向抵制孔子学院进入美国的洛杉矶知名华人陈凯近日发出呼吁:有良知的华人站出来,把孔子学院赶出美国的校园。下面是特约记者CK的旧金山——洛杉矶连线报道。

陈凯曾是中国国家篮球队的队员,如今是美国华人中著名的美国价值观捍卫者和中国人权关注者:2008年他曾经在美国进行人权长跑,反对中国政府借举办奥运会侵犯人权;他曾发动洛杉矶华人抗议尼克松图书馆陈列毛泽东雕像;近几年,他多次参加洛杉矶地区的一个校区会议,反对该校区的中学开设孔子学堂。他并且前往美国国会作证,揭露中国政府来美国大办孔子学院、孔子学堂的目的,是企图颠覆美国的价值观。

陈凯近日在接受记者电话采访时表示,孔子学说历来为专制统治者服务。中共统治集团则是借来美国办孔子学院,向美国输出极权专制的理论,洗美国人的脑。他说:“不能把共产党和孔子分开。很多人说共产党反对孔子,我告诉你不是的,共产党是尊孔的。研究中国的朝代,所有朝代,当他去推翻另一个朝代的时候是反孔的,一旦建立了朝代,全部尊孔,因为孔子可以帮助他们给不合法的制度造成合法性。而在美国华人里面,有相当一部分专制文化的卫道士,他们把孔子学院、孔子学堂引进他们的校区。”

中国政府在美国各州兴办的孔子学院已近一百间,未来几年内,中国政府将在全世界各国兴办五百间孔子学院。每间孔子学院都成为中国政府在海外各国大学校园里的一块领地,使用的是中国政府提供的教材,禁止讲授中国政府认为敏感的内容。对此,陈凯说:“一个学术自由的校园,怎么会允许专制政府提供的教材?他们所发的教材里,不准提中国的文化革命,不能提天安门屠杀事件,不能提法轮功,不能提反右,他们讲的历史完全是颠倒的历史。把伪造的历史带到美国的学院里来,带到美国的中学里来,这不是洗脑吗?洗脑不叫言论自由,言论自由不是以牺牲真实为代价,言论自由不是可以任意撒谎。”

因此,陈凯呼吁,美国华人都来抵制中共洗脑,把孔子学院赶出美国的校园。他说:“像我一样,做我所做的事情。每一个人都站出来,作为一个有良知的人站出来,你个人的力量就很大。这就是我所呼吁的事情,也是我用我的行为带动的事情。有良知、有正义感的人,为什么不去做呢?”

另据报道,洛杉矶地区的一些大学,目前正开展关于孔子学院的讨论,几乎没有人相信中国政府在全世界各地办孔子学院,只是为了传播中华文化,教授中国语言文字。有学者指出,在刚刚过去的“六四”屠杀25周年,一些大学拒绝参与纪念活动,原因就是校园里有一所每年为学校提供百万美元的孔子学院。

(特约记者:CK)

----------------------------------------------------------------

My Twilight Years ~ Clint Eastwood

As I enjoy my twilight years, I am often struck by the inevitability that the party must end. There will be a clear, cold morning when there isn't any "more." No more hugs, no more special moments to celebrate together, no more phone calls just to chat.
It seems to me that one of the important things to do before that morning comes, is to let every one of your family and friends know that you care for them by finding simple ways to let them know your heartfelt beliefs and the guiding principles of your life so they can always say, "He was my friend, and I know where he stood."
So, just in case I'm gone tomorrow, please know this: I voted against that incompetent, lying, flip-flopping, insincere, double-talking, radical socialist, terrorist excusing, bleeding heart, narcissistic, scientific and economic moron currently in the White House!
Participating in a gun buy-back program because you think that criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you think your neighbors have too many kids.
Regards,
Clint

Saturday, June 28, 2014

陈凯转载/一个自由人的个体操守 Personal Character of a Free Being



陈凯转载/一个自由人的个体操守 
Personal Character of a Free Being
 

陈凯一语: 

一个自由灵魂的个体道德操守经常体现在他/她要求自己不去/不能做什么,而不是自己做过什么。 他/她是一个依原则而生活的人,而不是一个用利益的考量而定义自身的人。 

Kai Chen's Words: 

Indeed, a free being's moral character is often reflected/revealed on what he/she does not do, rather than what he/she has done. He/she is a principled being of greatness, rather than a moral pervert defined only by calculation of gains and losses in physical world. 

精神强大的人 不会做的13件事: 

精神强大的人会有一些健康的习惯。他们会用各种方式管理他们的情绪,思想,和习惯使得这些行为促使自己在人生中获得成功。提炼出下列的这些是意志坚强的人不会做的事,如果你也能做到这些,你也会成为一个精神强大的人。 

1不在懊恼中浪费时间 

精神强大的人不会无所作为,为他们的现状或者是他人对待自己的方式而深感抱歉,相反,他们为在人生中所扮演的角色负责,明白生活并非时时容易和公平。 

2不炫耀自己 

他们不允许别人控制他们,他们不会让别人觉得超过他们,他们从不说“老板让我觉得好窝囊“,因为他们了解他们有能力控制自己的情绪,选择性的进行回应。 

3不回避变化 

精神强大的人不会刻意去回避变化。相反,他们欢迎积极的的改变,乐意去变得灵敏。他们明白改变无可避免,并且他们有能力去适应那些改变。 

4不浪费精力在他们不能控制的事情上 

你不会听到那些精神强大的人抱怨已经丢失了的行李或者是交通拥堵。相反,他们会关注那些在他们生命中能被自己控制的事情。他们意识到有些时候,他们唯一能控制的东西就是他们自己的态度。 

5不会为取悦每个人而担心 

精神强大的人意识到他们没有必要时时去取悦每一个人。他们不害怕在必要的时候说不或者是把话说明白。他们追求善良和公正,但是如果他们不能使自己快乐,也能使他人同他们一起沮丧。 

6不害怕冒预计的风险 

他们并非鲁莽的去冒显性的危险,而是不介意冒预计的风险。在做重大决定之前,精神强大的人会花时间衡量风险和成本,在采取行动之前他们能充分的预知潜在的风险。 你可能对此方面的信息感兴趣:积极的人不会做的十件事。 

7不会留恋过往 

精神强大的人不会浪费时间留恋过去,静儿希望事情能够有所不同。他们认可他们的过往,并从中学到经验。然而,他们不会经常回想坏的经验或者是沉迷于过去辉煌的时光之中。相反,他们为现在而活并计划未来。 

8不重犯相同的错误 

精神强大的人为他们的习惯负责,并从他们过去的错误中获得经验。因此,他们不会一次又一次的重复犯错,相反,他们在将来会更好的获得进步和做出最明智的决定。 

9不嫉妒他人的成功 

精神强大的人在生命中会欣赏和祝贺他人的成功。当他人超越自己时,他们不会嫉妒他人或者是感到自己被欺骗,相反,他们认识到成功来源于辛苦工作,并且他们愿意把努力工作成为自己成功的筹码。 

10失败一次之后并不放弃 

精神强大的人并不会将一次失败作为放弃的理由,相反,他们会将失败作为一次成长和改进的机会并乐意去不断的尝试直至获得成功。 

11不惧独处 

精神强大的人可以忍受一个人独处不害怕安静,他们不害怕自己思想特立独行并利用以利用空闲时间提高自我。他们喜欢他们的同伴却不在友谊和娱乐上时时依靠他人,相反,他们独处时,充满了喜悦。 

12不觉得世界亏欠他们 

精神强大的人不会觉得在人生中,任何东西都是应该的,他们并非生而认为他们应该照顾他们或者是这个世界应该给予他们什么。相反,他们根据自我优势寻求机会。 

13不期待努力即获成果 

精神强大的人努力的改善他们的健康。 当他们从头开始一项新的事业,他们不会期待马上就能获得成。 相反,他们会发挥其最佳能力使用他们的技能和时间并明白真正的改变需要时间。 


http://www.aboluowang.com/2014/0626/4101...a.tiaanG6E.dpuf

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.lifehack.org/articles/communi...eople-dont.html

13 Things Mentally Strong People Don’t Do 

Mentally strong people have healthy habits. They manage their emotions, thoughts, and behaviors in ways that set them up for success in life. Check out these things that mentally strong people don’t do so that you too can become more mentally strong. 

1. They Don’t Waste Time Feeling Sorry for Themselves 

Mentally strong people don’t sit around feeling sorry about their circumstances or how others have treated them. Instead, they take responsibility for their role in life and understand that life isn’t always easy or fair. 

2. They Don’t Give Away Their Power 

They don’t allow others to control them, and they don’t give someone else power over them. They don’t say things like, “My boss makes me feel bad,” because they understand that they are in control over their own emotions and they have a choice in how they respond. 

3. They Don’t Shy Away from Change 

Mentally strong people don’t try to avoid change. Instead, they welcome positive change and are willing to be flexible. They understand that change is inevitable and believe in their abilities to adapt. 

4. They Don’t Waste Energy on Things They Can’t Control 

You won’t hear a mentally strong person complaining over lost luggage or traffic jams. Instead, they focus on what they can control in their lives. They recognize that sometimes, the only thing they can control is their attitude. 

5. They Don’t Worry About Pleasing Everyone 

Mentally strong people recognize that they don’t need to please everyone all the time. They’re not afraid to say no or speak up when necessary. They strive to be kind and fair, but can handle other people being upset if they didn’t make them happy. 

6. They Don’t Fear Taking Calculated Risks 

They don’t take reckless or foolish risks, but don’t mind taking calculated risks. Mentally strong people spend time weighing the risks and benefits before making a big decision, and they’re fully informed of the potential downsides before they take action. 

You may be interested in this too: 14 Things Positive People Don’t Do 

7. They Don’t Dwell on the Past 

Mentally strong people don’t waste time dwelling on the past and wishing things could be different. They acknowledge their past and can say what they’ve learned from it. However, they don’t constantly relive bad experiences or fantasize about the glory days. Instead, they live for the present and plan for the future. 

8. They Don’t Make the Same Mistakes Over and Over 

Mentally strong people accept responsibility for their behavior and learn from their past mistakes. As a result, they don’t keep repeating those mistakes over and over. Instead, they move on and make better decisions in the future. 

9. They Don’t Resent Other People’s Success 

Mentally strong people can appreciate and celebrate other people’s success in life. They don’t grow jealous or feel cheated when others surpass them. Instead, they recognize that success comes with hard work, and they are willing to work hard for their own chance at success. 

10. They Don’t Give Up After the First Failure 

Mentally strong people don’t view failure as a reason to give up. Instead, they use failure as an opportunity to grow and improve. They are willing to keep trying until they get it right. 

11. They Don’t Fear Alone Time 

Mentally strong people can tolerate being alone and they don’t fear silence. They aren’t afraid to be alone with their thoughts and they can use downtime to be productive. They enjoy their own company and aren’t dependent on others for companionship and entertainment all the time but instead can be happy alone. 

12. They Don’t Feel the World Owes Them Anything 

Mentally strong people don’t feel entitled to things in life. They weren’t born with a mentality that others would take care of them or that the world must give them something. Instead, they look for opportunities based on their own merits. 

13. They Don’t Expect Immediate Results 

Whether they are working on improving their health or getting a new business off the ground, mentally strong people don’t expect immediate results. Instead, they apply their skills and time to the best of their ability and understand that real change takes time.

Sunday, June 8, 2014

BBC纪录片:中国是怎样愚弄世界的 BBC Documentary: How China Fooled The World



China is now the second largest economy in the world and for the last 30 years China's economy has been growing at an astonishing rate. While Britain has been in the grip of the worst recession in a generation, China's economic miracle has wowed the world. 

It is a story of spending and investment on a scale never seen before in human history -- 30 new airports, 26,000 miles of motorways and a new skyscraper every five days have been built in China in the last five years. But, in a situation eerily reminiscent of what has happened in the west, the vast majority of it has been built on credit. 

This has now left the Chinese economy with huge debts and questions over whether much of the money can ever be paid back. Interviewing key players including the former American treasury secretary Henry Paulson, Lord Adair Turner, former chairman of the FSA, and Charlene Chu, a leading Chinese banking analyst, Robert Peston reveals how China's extraordinary spending has left the country with levels of debt that many believe can only end in an economic crash with untold consequences for us all.

Monday, June 2, 2014

A Poem by Bei Ming - I am "Tank Man" 北明 诗 - 我是王维林 (天安门大屠杀二十五年纪念)



A Poem by Bei Ming - I am "Tank Man"  
北明 诗 - 我是王维林 (天安门大屠杀二十五年纪念)

《国歌》译者序
Translator's Forewords - "Anthem" by Ayn Rand

序者:陈凯   Forewords by Kai Chen 
2006-04-02 16:55:45 


1989年5月的一天,当我在天安门广场上抗议示威的人潮中听着人们用国歌-中华人民共和国的国歌去激励他们争取民主的斗志的时候,我不禁慨然自叹了。

有什么能比这情景更自我嘲弄和自我讽刺的了呢? 在一个没有个体概念的文化环境中,人们拿什么去争取民主呢?用一个压迫个体的整体去代替另一个压迫个体的整体吗?“爱国”,去爱一个压迫个人,压迫自身的国家吗?有人半开玩笑的说出了真情:“毛泽东每次用95%的人去整剩下的5%的人,把中国人整了一遍。”“我是为人民服务的,又不是为你服务的”论调在中国到处可闻。“又不是我一个人”和“我一个人有什么用”成了中国几乎每一个人推卸责任与为所欲为的借口。在天安门惨案后的今天,海内外的中国人和关心中国的所有人们都认识到中国应该变。但用什么去变?变向何处?改革的意义在哪?民主的原则又是什么?是用理性之剑去澄清黄河之水,让它为人造福还是再用混浊的感性之泥去给那已经腐朽不堪的黄河之堤修修补补呢?希特勒的国家社会主义,邓小平的中国式现代化,以及中国与世界历代专制者的共同点在哪里呢?

中国人正在选择与拒绝选择的叉路口上:是要以团体为本位的控制型的政治结构,还是要以个体为本位的参与型的政治结构;是要一种个人通过对团体的专权向他人索取的文化心态,还是要一种个人通过对自身的发掘向人类奉献的文化心态;是个体将控制自身的责任推给外界,还是个体将控制自身的责任收归己有;是个人通过对自身的认识,暴露,分析,判断,与调节去想象,创造,完善自身呢,还是个人通过外界给自身贴的标签去做一个一成不变的机器上的螺丝钉呢;是个人用自己的血肉之躯在他人的眼睛中建立存在,还是个人用自己的自知,理性与逻辑给自身的存在下定义;是先形式后内容,先虚后实,先团体后个人的枪赋政权治人,还是先内容后形式,先个人后团体,先实后虚的天赋人权治政;是去追求一个一成不变的完美社会呢,还是去追求一个有自我调节机制,自我追求完善的,道德的但不完美社会呢;总之,是将个人作为一个被动体在混浊的自然与社会环境中拒绝选择,还是将个人作为一个主动体用知觉的武器在澄清自然与社会环境中做出选择。婊子与牌坊是不能并立的。

中国的专制的、大一统的文化是建筑在个人对“国家”(也就是安.兰德女士在“国歌”一书中提到的“我们”)的崇拜上。要击破中国的“朝代”与“人代”的恶性循环,就要击破这个对“国家”,对“我们”的崇拜。否则,中国将来的“民主”也与中国过去的“人民”一样,不过是专制的又一个时髦的代言词罢了。

安-兰德女士(Ayn Rand)在希特勒,斯大林时代的昨天,五十多年以前,就用“国歌”这部神话般美妙的小说一针见血地阐述了“个人与自我是人类社会进步的源泉”这一哲理。她的故事中的许多情节我想是几乎所有的中国人都有其亲身体验的。安.兰德女士用她那富有想象力的,简洁的语言说出了至今大多数中国人(虽然他们已经饱受其害)还没有认识到的简单而又极深刻的哲理。就是那几个简单的字所包融的含义,那几个字:人,个人,我,自我。

“国歌”一书是我在天安门惨案后,在一次为美国的自由党演讲之后,一位关心中国的美国自由党人爱仑.司达所赠送的。我只在此对他深表感谢。

1989年10月
于洛杉矶

【《国歌》(Anthem)是安-兰德(Ayn Rand)创作的小说,最初发表于1938年,陈凯翻译。】


------------------------------------------------------------

“国歌”- 安.兰德 著,陈凯 译 
"ANTHEM" by Ayn Rand (In Chinese) Translation by Kai Chen


请阅读 ”国歌“ 全文 

* Links to all the chapters of "Anthem" 国歌:

Author: Ayn Rand 安. 兰德 Translator: Kai Chen 陈凯 

http://www.youpai.org/read.php?id=524 ”译者序“ 

http://www.youpai.org/read.php?id=558 ”作者前言“ 

http://www.youpai.org/read.php?id=591 ”第一章“ 

http://www.youpai.org/read.php?id=613 ”第二章“ 

http://www.youpai.org/read.php?id=661 ”第三章“ 

http://www.youpai.org/read.php?id=691 ”第四章“ 

http://www.youpai.org/read.php?id=749 ”第五章“ 

http://www.youpai.org/read.php?id=787 ”第六章“ 

http://www.youpai.org/read.php?id=802 ”第七章“ 

http://www.youpai.org/read.php?id=843 ”第八章“ 

http://www.youpai.org/read.php?id=878 ”第九章“ 

http://www.youpai.org/read.php?id=904 ”第十章“ 

http://www.youpai.org/read.php?id=937 ”第十一章“ 

http://www.youpai.org/read.php?id=980 ”第十二章“ 



Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Sir Anthony Hopkins Hears The Waltz He Wrote 50 Years Ago 华尔兹/生命的激情与美好



Sir Anthony Hopkins Hears The Waltz He Wrote 50 Years Ago For The First Time. I’m Left Speechless

一个激情的人首次听到了他五十年前所谱的华尔兹 - 生命的激情与美好。
For the first time in his life, actor Sir Anthony Hopkins hears a waltz piece he wrote 50 years ago called “And The Waltz Goes On”. Played by Dutch violinist Andre Rieu and his Johann Strauss Orchestra, Rieu named one of his albums after the song.

Friday, March 14, 2014

陈凯访谈 - 自由,专制,语言,毛像、、、 Kai Chen Interview on Glazov Gang - Freedom, Despotism, Language, Mao...


The Glazov Gang-Kai Chen's Escape From China's Tyranny.


Jamie wrote: "NEW BLOCKBUSTER Glazov Gang with China's Basketball Superstar Kai Chen Kai shares his journey out of the tyranny of communist China to the liberty of America, explains how language shapes totalitarianism and freedom, how Obama has annihilated America as a moral leader in the world, and much, much more. Don't miss it!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusive: Arabs’ Language Oppression Squelches Intellectual Growth
by DR. SAMI ALRABAA July 31, 2009
We Arabs not only suffer from lack of political and religious freedom, and economic backwardness, but we also suffer from a huge language and thinking problem, which hampers civilized change.  

The Arab countries have two levels of language: local Arabic, i.e. national and regional, called language varieties (dialects) versus Standard Arabic. There is Egyptian spoken Arabic, Syrian Arabic, Saudi Arabic, Moroccan Arabic, etc. These dialects are our mother tongues. They are, however confined to daily spoken conversations. We are not allowed to use them in writing, especially in books, print media, school textbooks, and other official documents.

Standard Arabic is the official language across all Arab states. It is not, though, our mother tongue; actually no one speaks this language as a mother tongue, we begin learning it at school at the age of 6 or 7. It is our second language as opposed to our national and regional spoken Arabic which is indeed our mother tongue.

As Standard Arabic has been the language of literacy in the Arab countries for 1400 years, used in poetry and translating scientific books into Arabic (especially during the so-called golden ages), it developed a huge repertoire of vocabulary. Spoken Arabic (dialects), on the other hand, has been stigmatized, colloquial and remained limited to simple daily conversations. The bulk of its vocabulary stayed poor.   

However, when you ask an Arab what their mother tongue is, they would misleadingly say, “It is Arabic,” meaning Standard Arabic, which is not true. Spoken Arabic is our mother tongue.

Both varieties/levels of Arabic share some vocabulary, which very often are differently pronounced. They also completely differ in terms of grammar and sentence structure.  

Middle Eastern Arabs in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, and Palestine use similar spoken Arabics. When they meet and talk they easily understand each other despite diverse local vocabulary and pronunciation variations.

North African Arabs speak almost a completely different spoken Arabic. A Syrian speaking to a Moroccan or Algerian, for instance, would maybe understand five percent.

Standard Arabic is for all Arabs a lingua franca; it is like Latin to the Spaniards, French, or Italians whose national languages stemmed and developed from Latin. As the Roman Empire ruled Spain, France, Italy, and Portugal, Latin was the language of education and science, but people in these countries, due to widespread illiteracy, used their own spoken dialects of Latin, exactly like Arabs are doing.

As Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula invaded what became today’s modern Arab countries, they imposed Arabic as the official language. Local languages like Aramaic, Pharaohnic, Cananic, and Hebrew were banned. As the majority of people in these countries were illiterate, they managed to learn a kind of Arabic, i.e. spoken Arabic, exactly like the Caribbean natives who learned English; a kind of broken English that is grammatically, and in terms of pronunciation, different from Standard English.
Standard Arabic, the official language across the Arab world is archaic, with an archaic grammar and method of analysis and teaching.

Therefore, Arab students find it extremely difficult to learn this language, struggling with its grammar and rigid structure. Arabic Language Councils and the Muslim religious establishment have been adamant against allowing any language reform. They have claimed that it is the language of the holy Koran and hence it is sacred.

While languages like English, French, and German have gone through linguistic reforms, Standard Arabic has not. While all these other languages have incorporated modern vocabulary and modern structures, Standard Arabic Councils have employed a purist custodian role. 

Sixty percent of Arabs are still illiterate or semi-literate and thus they are ostracized from reading and accessing education. The majority of Arabs sparsely read. They hate the pedantic structure of Standard Arabic. Their lack of command of this language forces them to do so. It is like Latin to Spaniards if they were forced to use it.

Standard Arabic is an artificial language. We Arabs do not identify ourselves with this “language.” We are not native to it.

People around the globe, especially Westerners, enjoy reading books because these use a language which is theirs. It reflects their mother tongue, culture, and mindset. Some books become bestsellers, but in the Arab world we lack this natural phenomenon.

In a comment on an article I posted on an Arab site, Wafa Sultan tells the story of her illiterate mother. An Iranian friend spoke Standard Arabic to her mother, but the lady did not understand a word. He was shocked and asked, “How does she understand the news on TV and the radio (which use Standard Arabic)?” Wafa answered, “She doesn’t.” The man concluded that the poor woman is not only imprisoned within the walls of illiteracy, she is ostracized; she does not know what is going on.

Using one’s mother tongue is a basic human right. The UN Charter stresses that. Humans have the right to use their mother tongue, or at least one that is close to it. The Kurds, for example, have been denied this right for decades. And we Arabs are still denied this right. We are forced to use a second language.
Both the Muslim religious establishment and pan-Arabists insist on preserving Standard Arabic as the official language for religious and political reasons.

The religious establishment insists on using Standard Arabic and its sheikhs sound well read and knowledgeable of a language which the majority of Arabs do not understand. Hence, Muslims clerics sound like scholars, and the language of the Koran sounds like really Godly.   

Pan-Arabists claim that Standard Arabic is a factor of unity among the Arab countries.
The truth of the matter is Arab societies have little in common, maybe backwardness and oppression. They are different in terms of language and culture. They all were colonies of the Muslim empire, subjugated by Islam. 

Linguistic research has shown that language and thought go together. When an Arab wants or has to express themselves in a formal setting, they think in their dialect (spoken Arabic) and try to formulate their thoughts in an alien language (a second language), i.e. Standard Arabic. They stumble. Their dialect is poor. It is not equipped with conceptual terms to explain abstract matters, and their Standard Arabic is poor.

For example, when an Arab politician like Amr Mousa, Chairman of the Arab League, improvises a statement he speaks Standard Arabic as though giving strenuous birth. He tries to accommodate his thoughts, embedded in spoken Arabic, into Standard Arabic formulas which rarely make sense. You have to figure out what he tries to say. The result is hazy statements. More often than not, some Arab politicians say things which they do not mean, but they sound literate.

This is one of the reasons why Arabs, in particular politicians, are so confused and vague. They do not know what to say, and if they say something they are not in command of what they say. They lack command of a rich modern means of expression. Therefore, they use repressive means to govern. They lack a flexible, resourceful, sophisticated means of argument. As they do not possess a persuasive language, they resort to repressive violent measures. 

In an Internet forum in Arabic, the majority of contributors hailed the idea of reforming the language situation in the Arab world.

Among other things I suggested melting both spoken Arabic and Standard Arabic in one language. As times passes by, this new language variety would be internalized by everybody and at the end of the day we would have a literate mother tongue through which we think and express ourselves. We do not need to switch between the language we think in and another that is alien to us. Only then Arab thinking would match the reality on the ground. We will be able to say what we really think.

A person who uses a resourceful means of expression as a mother tongue thinks more clearly. And this is exactly what is missing in Arab societies.  

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Sami Alrabaa, an ex-Muslim, is a professor of Sociology and an Arab-Muslim culture specialist. He has taught at Kuwait University, King Saud University, and Michigan State University. He also writes for the Jerusalem Post.