Eternal iNsAniTy

Insanity is relative. It depends on who has who locked in what cage.

Month: July 2014

這是什麼媒體?

這是什麼媒體???標題直接下「瘋了」兩字,那麼內容還能是平衡的嗎?

再來:

原能會指,尚未看到台電計劃,不便表示意見。非核家園大聯盟執行長李卓翰痛批台電「已經瘋了」

所以原能會沒有看到計畫,不便發言,那麼這個非核家園就看到計畫了嗎???這個執行長就能說廢話了?又是沒有科學根據的廢言,什麼台電將台灣人當白老鼠?當白老鼠的話還要讓你知道嗎?請問你做研究的時候會跟白老鼠溝通,說明為什麼要這樣做嗎?!?!?

真是民粹至上!!!!

原文:http://www.appledaily.com.tw/appledaily/article/headline/20140723/35975410/

台灣是病了嗎?還是這才是真正的台灣?

台灣是病了嗎?還是這才是真正的台灣?
首先,我一直很奇怪為什麼這些企業大佬(儘管我很佩服他們的成就以及有些人對社會的貢獻),但是一夫多妻不是「違法」嗎?那麼憑什麼這些人能有二房三房?還可以是公開的????

再者,夠了,蘋果日報跟壹週刊根本是垃圾。標題取完了,內文是:

《壹週刊》致電李玉美女士,詢問有關與張榮發總裁結婚之事,她一開始只說:「沒有啦,哪有…沒有這回事。」問到本周家族聚會宣布登記結婚一事,她笑著回答說:「沒有啦!是傳言,那是大家開玩笑的。」《壹週刊》另致電長榮集團發言人聶國維,他表示:「根據我的了解,沒有要登記結婚的訊息。」……..

所以他媽的根本沒有這件事情,還煞有介事的說「不顧子女反對」,這能不能算是毀謗罪?姑且不說這件新聞到底算不算是新聞,到底有沒有意義,但是這樣寫「新聞」,寫完拍拍屁股射後不理,竟然還有人要消費他們的東西,還要抱怨台灣媒體素質低???真的,有什麼屁用????

http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20140709/430098/

A well-built physique is a status symbol. It reflects you worked hard for it. No money can buy it. You cannot inherit it. You cannot steal it. You cannot borrow it. You cannot hold on to it without constant work. It shows dedication. It shows discipline. It shows self-respect. It shows dignity. It shows patience, work ethic, passion.

– Billy Tam (my high school friend)

George Saunders’ convocation speech at Syracuse University for the class of 2013

If I could be half as eloquent as George Saunders, I’d be super thrilled.

Failures of kindness.  Let’s speed the process along.

 

http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/george-saunderss-advice-to-graduates/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1

 

Down through the ages, a traditional form has evolved for this type of speech, which is: Some old fart, his best years behind him, who, over the course of his life, has made a series of dreadful mistakes (that would be me), gives heartfelt advice to a group of shining, energetic young people, with all of their best years ahead of them (that would be you).

And I intend to respect that tradition.

Now, one useful thing you can do with an old person, in addition to borrowing money from them, or asking them to do one of their old-time “dances,” so you can watch, while laughing, is ask: “Looking back, what do you regret?” And they’ll tell you. Sometimes, as you know, they’ll tell you even if you haven’t asked. Sometimes, even when you’ve specifically requested they not tell you, they’ll tell you.

So: What do I regret? Being poor from time to time? Not really. Working terrible jobs, like “knuckle-puller in a slaughterhouse?” (And don’t even ASK what that entails.) No. I don’t regret that. Skinny-dipping in a river in Sumatra, a little buzzed, and looking up and seeing like 300 monkeys sitting on a pipeline, pooping down into the river, the river in which I was swimming, with my mouth open, naked? And getting deathly ill afterwards, and staying sick for the next seven months? Not so much. Do I regret the occasional humiliation? Like once, playing hockey in front of a big crowd, including this girl I really liked, I somehow managed, while falling and emitting this weird whooping noise, to score on my own goalie, while also sending my stick flying into the crowd, nearly hitting that girl? No. I don’t even regret that.

But here’s something I do regret:

In seventh grade, this new kid joined our class. In the interest of confidentiality, her Convocation Speech name will be “ELLEN.” ELLEN was small, shy. She wore these blue cat’s-eye glasses that, at the time, only old ladies wore. When nervous, which was pretty much always, she had a habit of taking a strand of hair into her mouth and chewing on it.

So she came to our school and our neighborhood, and was mostly ignored, occasionally teased (“Your hair taste good?” — that sort of thing). I could see this hurt her. I still remember the way she’d look after such an insult: eyes cast down, a little gut-kicked, as if, having just been reminded of her place in things, she was trying, as much as possible, to disappear. After awhile she’d drift away, hair-strand still in her mouth. At home, I imagined, after school, her mother would say, you know: “How was your day, sweetie?” and she’d say, “Oh, fine.” And her mother would say, “Making any friends?” and she’d go, “Sure, lots.”

Sometimes I’d see her hanging around alone in her front yard, as if afraid to leave it.

And then — they moved. That was it. No tragedy, no big final hazing.

One day she was there, next day she wasn’t.

End of story.

Now, why do I regret that? Why, forty-two years later, am I still thinking about it? Relative to most of the other kids, I was actually pretty nice to her. I never said an unkind word to her. In fact, I sometimes even (mildly) defended her.

But still. It bothers me.

So here’s something I know to be true, although it’s a little corny, and I don’t quite know what to do with it:

What I regret most in my life are failures of kindness.

Those moments when another human being was there, in front of me, suffering, and I responded . . . sensibly. Reservedly. Mildly.

Or, to look at it from the other end of the telescope: Who, in your life, do you remember most fondly, with the most undeniable feelings of warmth?

Those who were kindest to you, I bet.

It’s a little facile, maybe, and certainly hard to implement, but I’d say, as a goal in life, you could do worse than: Try to be kinder.

Now, the million-dollar question: What’s our problem? Why aren’t we kinder?

Here’s what I think:

Each of us is born with a series of built-in confusions that are probably somehow Darwinian. These are: (1) we’re central to the universe (that is, our personal story is the main and most interesting story, the only story, really); (2) we’re separate from the universe (there’s US and then, out there, all that other junk – dogs and swing-sets, and the State of Nebraska and low-hanging clouds and, you know, other people), and (3) we’re permanent (death is real, o.k., sure – for you, but not for me).

Now, we don’t really believe these things – intellectually we know better – but we believe them viscerally, and live by them, and they cause us to prioritize our own needs over the needs of others, even though what we really want, in our hearts, is to be less selfish, more aware of what’s actually happening in the present moment, more open, and more loving.

So, the second million-dollar question: How might we DO this? How might we become more loving, more open, less selfish, more present, less delusional, etc., etc?

Well, yes, good question.

Unfortunately, I only have three minutes left.

So let me just say this. There are ways. You already know that because, in your life, there have been High Kindness periods and Low Kindness periods, and you know what inclined you toward the former and away from the latter. Education is good; immersing ourselves in a work of art: good; prayer is good; meditation’s good; a frank talk with a dear friend; establishing ourselves in some kind of spiritual tradition — recognizing that there have been countless really smart people before us who have asked these same questions and left behind answers for us.

Because kindness, it turns out, is hard — it starts out all rainbows and puppy dogs, and expands to include . . . well, everything.

One thing in our favor: some of this “becoming kinder” happens naturally, with age. It might be a simple matter of attrition: as we get older, we come to see how useless it is to be selfish — how illogical, really. We come to love other people and are thereby counter-instructed in our own centrality. We get our butts kicked by real life, and people come to our defense, and help us, and we learn that we’re not separate, and don’t want to be. We see people near and dear to us dropping away, and are gradually convinced that maybe we too will drop away (someday, a long time from now). Most people, as they age, become less selfish and more loving. I think this is true. The great Syracuse poet, Hayden Carruth, said, in a poem written near the end of his life, that he was “mostly Love, now.”

And so, a prediction, and my heartfelt wish for you: as you get older, your self will diminish and you will grow in love. YOU will gradually be replaced by LOVE. If you have kids, that will be a huge moment in your process of self-diminishment. You really won’t care what happens to YOU, as long as they benefit. That’s one reason your parents are so proud and happy today. One of their fondest dreams has come true: you have accomplished something difficult and tangible that has enlarged you as a person and will make your life better, from here on in, forever.

Congratulations, by the way.

When young, we’re anxious — understandably — to find out if we’ve got what it takes. Can we succeed? Can we build a viable life for ourselves? But you — in particular you, of this generation — may have noticed a certain cyclical quality to ambition. You do well in high-school, in hopes of getting into a good college, so you can do well in the good college, in the hopes of getting a good job, so you can do well in the good job so you can . . .

And this is actually O.K. If we’re going to become kinder, that process has to include taking ourselves seriously — as doers, as accomplishers, as dreamers. We have to do that, to be our best selves.

Still, accomplishment is unreliable. “Succeeding,” whatever that might mean to you, is hard, and the need to do so constantly renews itself (success is like a mountain that keeps growing ahead of you as you hike it), and there’s the very real danger that “succeeding” will take up your whole life, while the big questions go untended.

So, quick, end-of-speech advice: Since, according to me, your life is going to be a gradual process of becoming kinder and more loving: Hurry up. Speed it along. Start right now. There’s a confusion in each of us, a sickness, really: selfishness. But there’s also a cure. So be a good and proactive and even somewhat desperate patient on your own behalf — seek out the most efficacious anti-selfishness medicines, energetically, for the rest of your life.

Do all the other things, the ambitious things — travel, get rich, get famous, innovate, lead, fall in love, make and lose fortunes, swim naked in wild jungle rivers (after first having it tested for monkey poop) – but as you do, to the extent that you can, err in the direction of kindness. Do those things that incline you toward the big questions, and avoid the things that would reduce you and make you trivial. That luminous part of you that exists beyond personality — your soul, if you will — is as bright and shining as any that has ever been. Bright as Shakespeare’s, bright as Gandhi’s, bright as Mother Teresa’s. Clear away everything that keeps you separate from this secret luminous place. Believe it exists, come to know it better, nurture it, share its fruits tirelessly.

And someday, in 80 years, when you’re 100, and I’m 134, and we’re both so kind and loving we’re nearly unbearable, drop me a line, let me know how your life has been. I hope you will say: It has been so wonderful.

Congratulations, Class of 2013.

I wish you great happiness, all the luck in the world, and a beautiful summer.

真正扭曲的國際觀

在朋友的臉書上看到這篇文章: http://mag.udn.com/mag/news/storypage.jsp?f_ART_ID=522381,無法翻牆的朋友我有摘錄在下面。

看完了以後我卻覺得作者的國際觀也非常扭曲 – 因為他完全忽略現實的國際情況。是的,我非常認同他提到有關我們對東南亞的人的事情,但是扯到兩岸問題的時候怎麼突然又不清楚實質情況了呢?更何況他說的「國際觀」根本就是人品道德(這部份我很認同),但這樣的寫作讓我覺得他是用讓人會點頭的點,來逼你吞下他對中國的厭煩。

再說,我們真的知道伊拉克發生什麼事情了嗎?我們真的知道這次的動亂已經不再是 Shia 跟 Sunni 之間的問題了嗎?那麼既然知道了,我們要如何判斷這會怎麼影響國際形勢,影響我們的民生,包括能源、經濟跟戰略呢?還是說我們只要知道就好,然後這樣就可以站在道德制高點上繼續單方面的批評我們不喜歡的人事物?

作者把自身政治的偏見,用根本沒關連的人品道德(真的,那不是國際觀,是基本的人品道德)包裝起來說這是國際觀,我覺得這才是非常的扭曲。

I’m pretty tired of disingenuous articles like this.

有朋友回說,國際觀如果只是中國的話,那才真是扭曲。

是的,我們可以選擇去了解所有關於(例如)非洲在大西洋那邊的島國 Comoros 發生了什麼事情,也可以去了解位於南高加索地區的 Nagorno-Karabakh Republic 目前的外交窘境,然後呢?這樣才能說我們有世界觀嗎?國際的確不能只有中國,但是可千萬不能對中國只有皮毛上的了解。這跟認不認中華文化或是中國人什麼都沒關係,而是因為這個國家對我們有「最直接」跟「最嚴重」的利害關係。我擔心我們因為盲目的反中,導致政客聯手媒體帶動全國人民「忽略」中國,或是將中國「簡單化」(妖魔化也是簡單化的一種),這樣有沒有國際觀是沒差的。(同樣,將日本美國歐洲簡單化也是有一樣的問題,菲律賓亦然)

Part of 國際觀 is to know how the happenings elsewhere in the world affect us here at home. 也就是在我們要做決定時或遭遇困難時更能拿捏整件事情的來龍去脈,能在哪施力,該在哪退讓,該用什麼名義拉誰下水好解自己的套等… 而不是很簡單的批評幾下中國然後想說這樣就不會被影響。我覺得大家可以不喜歡馬英九,但是我很難想像任何新的領導人能夠選擇忽略中國,而不是積極面對。

 

可憐的台灣人,只配擁有扭曲的國際觀
2014/07/02
【陳夏民/獨立出版人】

在台灣,很多父母總以為孩子學會說英文才是有國際觀(而且是美國腔或是英國腔,如果菲律賓幫傭想要教孩子英語,他們說不定還會嚴厲制止),最近也有些人認定目前世界的趨勢是學中文,所以只要自己會說中文就可以全世界走透透,變成一個國際人才。我們期待孩子說出流利的英文,並且因為外國人(尤其是白種人)願意說中文而感到倍感親切。

2014年金曲獎頒獎典禮上,傑森瑪耶茲遠道重洋來到台灣演出,並且在台上以不流利的國語向群眾打招呼,台下立刻認真鼓掌甚至傳來尖叫聲。但你知道嗎,街角的印尼看護工每天說不定都會和他們照護的阿公阿嬤用台語聊天喔,我們是否也曾以相同的熱情鼓勵她?我們是否會認為這些看護工有國際觀?

身為島國民族,我們在成長的過程當中,總是接收到許多訊息,像是「我們資源不足所以得往外面去闖」、「我們的戰略位置優越所以要用貿易來賺錢」、「我們是海島,如果還鎖國,就會被孤立了」等,然而這些訊息大半與「金錢」或是「國家的安全感」息息相關,甚至扭曲變形,成為一種本質上的焦慮,反覆提醒我們:台灣這一座小島的驕傲,早在多次殖民統治之下給慢慢削去了。

於是 ,對於多數台灣人而言,國際觀就是要在外頭的世界獲得利益或是名聲,要被人瞧得起。所以我們亟欲擁抱「台灣之光」,卻未曾發現這些人當初若留在台灣,只是會被扭曲的制度給壓扁,徹底壞掉。

學習外語能幫你打開世界之窗,在語言轉譯之間帶來財富或是某些價值,但若眼睛不曾留意他人存在,任何語言學得多好,充其量也只是讓自己多了一些技能,根本無助於讓自己成為一個有自覺的世界公民。

真正的國際觀其實呼應了台灣人的「人情味」,那是一種「看見對方需求」的學問。或許是太常在路上聽見台灣人對東南亞族群的刻薄言語,我很難說服自己,台灣人果真如此善良。為什麼如此在意「待客之道」的民族(甚至是政府部門),能夠如此恣意、如此自在地說出帶有歧視的字眼?

提到待客之道,我們不妨先來討論下面這件事:

前幾天,中國國台辦主任張志軍來台,飛機還沒落地,下榻於旅館準備抗議的公民團體便遭到警察破門而入,一行人甚至遭到軟禁。隔沒幾天,當張志軍按照行程要到鹿港天后宮參觀,一樣是在他根本還沒到場(甚至後來取消了行程)之前,便發生了衝突暴力事件,甚至有警察拿著大聲公驅趕宮廟附近小吃攤客人,要求全面淨空的事件。

姑且不論什麼才是待客之道,或是客人是否有自知之明,我們身為自由民主的國家,在政黨輪替兩次之後,竟然還會發生這類侵犯人民隱私、妨礙人民行動自由的事件。根本不需要等客人上門,臉便丟光,根本不需要討論招待之禮,因為沒有一個人希望自己去別人家拜訪(就算對方家裡的人再怎麼不歡迎自己),卻在還沒踩進對方家門,他們家裡就發生血光之災或晦氣之事。

一樣是前幾天的事情:台灣國立故宮博物館兩大人氣收藏品赴日展出,卻因為文宣品遺漏「國立」兩字,而引發了總統府與外交部高度關切並不惜徹展,也要對方尊重我們台灣的國格。不料,事情剛搞定,就在總統府也沾沾自喜自己硬起來的時候,有人發現台灣國立故宮博物館在中國節目中,也遭到移除「國立」貳字,政府卻不痛不癢,悶不吭聲。

相同的爭議,在日本發生,中華民國政府提出高規格的國際抗議,但在中國發生,卻什麼事情也沒有。再看這一次張志軍訪台所發生的維安衝突,我不禁疑問,究竟是什麼樣的「外交研判」,讓政府認定在民間彼此相好的台日情誼,並不值得官方的支持,反倒是拿著飛彈對準我們、阻撓我們進入國際組織的中國,竟然變成了我們亟欲貼上的國際盟友?

當政府鼓勵國民要有國際觀,總統也總是喜愛在國際場合說英語,表示自己有辦法直接與外國人溝通的時候,卻沒有發現他們所作的才是最沒有國際觀的事情:無法看見自己(甚至是否認自己存在了),如何看見外面的世界?

「國」「際」貳字,表示國與國之間的關係。地球上有那麼多國家,如果不能先釐清自己國家的定位,我們如何能夠讓其他國家認識什麼是中華民國,什麼是台灣?身為地球村的一分子,身為世界公民的一分子,我們是否有把握,面對每一個來到這一片土地上的人,都能夠平等對待,就像是我們所期待的,能夠在外國不受歧視、剝削,得以抬頭挺胸地活著、走著?

在台灣仍有許多民眾,對東南亞籍移工或配偶,懷抱著輕蔑態度,一方面享受他們帶來的服務,另一方面卻把他們當作底層人,不認為他們有權利與我們平起平坐。而這些人們,卻又多半在國家尊嚴遭受打擊的時候,選擇沉默,或是把自家藝人被人封殺這一件事情當做娛樂八卦,用一句「他怎麼那麼傻」輕鬆帶過,暗自再笑他人活該才會自斷錢途。

面對用小聰明所認定的弱勢國民,我們蠻橫。
面對刻板印象所認定的強勢國民,我們卑微。

如此矛盾、扭曲的國民性格,就算把官方語言改為英語,也不可能擁有宏觀的國際視野。

你知道非洲正爆發伊波拉病毒嗎?你知道伊拉克最近又發生戰亂了嗎?你知道香港七一遊行嗎?你知道印度最近有大樓發生嚴重倒塌事件嗎?你知道泰國最近發生政變嗎?你知道政府最近又想要偷偷推動自經區嗎?

看不見外國發生什麼事情,也不知道國內發生了什麼問題。到了這樣的節骨眼,如果還以為會說英文或是賺到外國錢,就是擁有國際觀,那我只能說,實在是太可悲了。

「如果我要教我的三歲小孩什麼是國際觀呢?」如果地方上的媽媽這樣問道。

「國際觀就是你知道世界上有一些跟你膚色、種族不一樣的人,他們也是人,他們也會哭。」

原則不清楚,身段極硬就是虛張聲勢。原則清楚,身段極軟則是值得敬畏。

在臉書上看到這篇文章,實在說到我心坎了。值得思考。

我又想到三國演義(這次不是火鳳燎原就是了),最後一回(120回)薦杜預老將獻新謀,降孫皓三分歸一統。東吳陸抗是如何在邊境與羊祜保持和平的?有在爭「國格」嗎?沒有。羊祜有在用武力震攝嗎?也沒有。都在經營人民的生活。人民才有和平,才有生存的機會。吳主孫皓要陸抗出兵晉國,抗回草疏,「…疏中備言晉未可伐之狀,且勸吳主修德慎罰,以安內為念,不當以黷武為事。吳主覽畢,大怒曰:『朕聞抗在邊境與敵人相通,今果然矣!』遂遣使罷其兵權,降為司馬,卻命左將軍孫冀代領其軍。群臣皆不敢諫。」接著,「…丞相萬彧,將軍留平、大司農樓玄三人見皓無道,直言苦諫,皆被所殺。前後十餘年,殺忠臣四十餘人。皓出入常帶鐵騎五萬。群臣恐怖,莫敢奈何。」試問現在誰在不斷的扣帽子,用各種製造與論的霸凌方式「殺掉」理智的聲音?帶著「路過」的「和平」群眾製造「非我類及匪類」的恐懼?但,一旦挑起事情了,我們有陸抗嗎?對面可多的是羊祜、杜預、王濬等人才啊。

要是現在對方仍然用純武力恫嚇,那好解決。但是真的只是這樣嗎?只是銀彈?只是利誘?我們有什麼呢?

原則不清楚,身段極硬就是虛張聲勢。原則清楚,身段極軟則是值得敬畏。

所以,我們的核心思想跟價值觀是什麼?學運的這些人,代表我們要的原則嗎?

你們想讓張志軍看到什麼樣的台灣?
June 29, 2014 at 10:48pm

作者:Peter Hu

原文:https://www.facebook.com/notes/907853069240557/

張志軍,第一位來訪的中國國台辦主任,繼之前台灣陸委會主委王郁琦訪問大陸,開始打破了以往透過「黨對黨」與「民間團體白手套」的兩岸交往模式,開啟了官方對官方的溝通,這對台灣來說,無論你喜不喜歡,都是很重要的一步。

所以,其實對台灣最大的課題是,「你們想讓張志軍看到什麼樣的台灣」。這之所以是個課題,是因為張志軍會是個人物。他的前一任,王毅,現在是中國外交部長。當前大陸的外交體系與兩岸體系已經是一套班子,兩塊招牌,可以想見他對台灣有什麼想法,將會影響未來中國的對台政策與方向,也會影響將來台灣的國際空間。

對於反對者來說,其實他們有很多很多可以做的事情,可以利用這次張志軍擺明要放下身段的契機,做很多很大量的溝通的工作。中國並不是鐵板一塊,也是由許許多多的人組成的,很多人都有不同的想法,不同的觀點,不同的價值認同。不是不能被影響,但是要看你用什麼樣的方式去影響。

但我可以確定的是,無論你想要用什麼方式,最糟最糟的一種,就是用「力量」。潑漆、阻路、威嚇,都是不同方式力量的展現。你到了我的地盤來,給你看看我多有力量,就是這樣的心態。

你想讓中國懼怕台灣嗎?然後,讓中國向台灣妥協?滿足台灣所有的願望?

這個出發點必須要好好思考一下。台灣,有沒有讓中國懼怕的本錢?為什麼台灣要試圖讓中國懼怕?

我想寫點東西,但是又很懶。因為我知道,清楚這個道理的朋友,已經早就清楚了。不想去相信這個現實的,怎麼寫也不會相信。

中國近年來在國際外交上展現出一種姿態,試圖展現出「人畜無害」的姿態。所以,必須要「遇軟則軟」,但是,最近從習上台之後,「遇硬也未必軟」。從對日關係,基本上就是走向一種即使面臨衝突也無所謂的態度,對美國,從斯諾登事件,歐巴馬放了那樣的狠話,中國照樣讓斯諾登走了。對俄羅斯,大手筆兩百多億美元的天然氣預付款,讓高傲的普丁大老遠跑一趟上海,捧了亞信峰會的場面。

張志軍訪台,不會改變些什麼事,也不會有些新鮮事,但是對於張志軍個人的感受,除了場面上的官話,看不出太多端倪,也不是台灣媒體關切的重點。但比較起來,大陸方面對台的態度,是相當成熟的,原則放在前面,但身段極軟。

相反的,台灣的反對者們,看不出任何的原則,但身段硬的不得了。

我看到一種想法,許多人討厭台灣的現狀,認為都是馬英九、財團、中國聯手框起來的,必須要打倒這三者,才能突破。但事實是,台灣的現況,就是整個國際社會合謀的結果,只有你自己不知道而已。你打倒馬英九,只是少了一個最懂得怎麼跟中國拖下去的領袖。

如果連台灣現況形成的根本性原因都不了解,你想要訴求什麼?感覺這些人,把對馬英九那一套,想套用在張志軍身上,套用在中國身上,這要不是一種大無畏的精神,就真是徹徹底底的無知。「總之,你就得照我說的辦,我才是民主,我才是價值。」

馬英九是你選出來的,但張志軍不是。

到現在還在說,中國關我什麼事的,不太適合參與這種討論。對於現實狀況缺乏常識的,我不知道這種人有什麼立場可以來談論是非對錯。

總之,套句胡錦濤以前說過的一句話,「寄希望於台灣人民」,我相信,台灣未來的出路,必須要「寄希望於大陸人民」。

誠然台灣可以在自己將來的道路上,有決定性的重量,但是,絕對無法避免的,必須要爭取同情,爭取理解,爭取認同,來自對岸的大陸人民,甚至是官員們。

這點,我們很多朋友做的很好。在對岸的民眾之間,留下許多佳話,留下了一個深刻鮮明的印象,「台灣最美的風景,是人」。

照現在部分年輕人與極端政客的這種搞法,繼續這樣搞下去,鼓吹台人仇陸,激化兩岸矛盾,我預測一下,如果中國的官方媒體又配合的很好,那就是激起比較大規模的仇台氣氛。大陸民眾就像是欠缺點一把火的乾柴,憤青絕對要比台灣多的多。而且他們恨的到,做的到。他們仇日,連日系車都不買,日本手機也不用,只看A片與蒼井空。但是台灣人呢?仇韓?三爽照樣買,星星照樣看;仇陸?小米機排隊都買不到,甄嬛重播多少次了都不嫌煩。而大陸民眾,拒買所有台灣商品、農產品,抵制赴台旅遊,我相信一點都不會有困難度。甚至政府都完全可以不用出面鼓動。

台灣這個品牌在對岸的價值,是多少人多少年來辛辛苦苦打下來的基礎,而摧毀這一切,只需要一朝一夕的功夫。一個小小玻璃瓶的台灣省農會出品的牛奶,在大陸超市的冰箱裡可以賣到16元人民幣一瓶。維力的張君雅小妹妹,一包可以賣到台灣兩三倍的價格。誰也沒有權利,自己以為自己代表整個台灣,讓太多的人受傷害,只為了成全你們自以為是的意氣,自以為是的正義。

民進黨早就放棄了在街頭去對抗中國的路線,當政過就知道,一點屁用也沒有。現在民進黨,猛力走向對話,從謝長廷,賴清德,陳菊,到蔡英文自己。

在台灣的街頭,對付不了中國。你其實對付的,只是自己的同胞,自己的手足,你正在對付,那個本來應該要成為你所團結的對象。

© 2017 Eternal iNsAniTy

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑