Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Plebiscite Issue
Recently, DPP has proposed to lower the minimum number of persons to propose for plebiscite should be changed to 100. This is based on the proposal raised by Mr. Lin Yi-Shiong when he wanted to have a national vote on the construction of No. 4 nuclear power plant. I have quoted a comparison table made by Ms Liu of Taiwan for easy understand of the current law and the impact of DPP's proposal. (See the diagram above)
I do think the number of 100 is TOOooooooo low. Why not come to California and study how we Californians handle is problem?
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Political Disagreement Dispute
Quote from Parade – 4/15/2007
AskMarilyn – by Marilyn vos Savant
Question: I get into a lot of quarrels with people when discussing politics. How can I get my points across without the development of a dispute?
- Gayle Eve McCormick, Lakeland, Fla.
Marilyn's Answer : Judging from my mail, politics is the No. 1 source of intellectual disagreement among Americans. (We don't talk much about religion: The topic has become taboo, to say the least!) For happier, healthier discussions about politics, I suggest these rules of civilized discussion for people all across the political spectrum:
Rule No. 1: Don’t expose weaknesses and flaws in the political beliefs of others. It provokes defensiveness, because everyone believes they are right; it makes people mad, because everyone hates to be called wrong; and people who are both defensive and mad are going to be ready to quarrel. Plus, showing people the error of their ways doesn’t make your ways right.
Rule No. 2: Explain the positive basis and evidence for your own political beliefs. People are more likely to adopt new beliefs than to drop old ones; also, people are more receptive to other ideas when not annoyed, and they will listen longer to pleasant, well-grounded comments and points. Plus, your beliefs needn’t be “right”; they need only to be a better choice.
AskMarilyn – by Marilyn vos Savant
Question: I get into a lot of quarrels with people when discussing politics. How can I get my points across without the development of a dispute?
- Gayle Eve McCormick, Lakeland, Fla.
Marilyn's Answer : Judging from my mail, politics is the No. 1 source of intellectual disagreement among Americans. (We don't talk much about religion: The topic has become taboo, to say the least!) For happier, healthier discussions about politics, I suggest these rules of civilized discussion for people all across the political spectrum:
Rule No. 1: Don’t expose weaknesses and flaws in the political beliefs of others. It provokes defensiveness, because everyone believes they are right; it makes people mad, because everyone hates to be called wrong; and people who are both defensive and mad are going to be ready to quarrel. Plus, showing people the error of their ways doesn’t make your ways right.
Rule No. 2: Explain the positive basis and evidence for your own political beliefs. People are more likely to adopt new beliefs than to drop old ones; also, people are more receptive to other ideas when not annoyed, and they will listen longer to pleasant, well-grounded comments and points. Plus, your beliefs needn’t be “right”; they need only to be a better choice.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
台灣的現況 = 清朝末年
作者切.格瓦拉,男,中市,大學。由東森轉載.
台灣的國情,已經跟清朝末年完完全全是一個樣了,有封閉迂腐和無知的執政者,還有軟弱畏懼的愚民;在野黨呢?在野黨就像是輔佐掌政者的庸臣,只考慮個人利益,完全置百姓福祉於度外。
作為一位政治參與者,應該要對國家有相當程度的了解,假設大部分的人都了解國情、國力,為何還要如此的剝削人民,削減我國之國力?使我這位台灣新人類,百思不得其解,難道,真的是“人類在歷史上學到唯一的東西,就是從來沒有從歷史上學到教訓。"嗎?
拿韓國舉例,依敝人認為,雖然有時此國顯得無理取鬧,但,到了該是人民為自己謀福利的時候到了,他們是不分你我的會強烈爭取的,因為他們知道,人民福祉,要人民自己爭取,在位者,不知其民之苦;反觀台灣,竟是充耳不聞,不聞不問,可悲啊!台灣子民,可悲啊!台灣政客。為了自己的利益,不惜犧牲一切,當要到了為大家利益的時候,卻是要掏越少錢越好,出越少力越好。
台灣的政客,老是操作族群問題,可恥啊!一味的分本土外省,有何意義呢?若要分先來後到而稱自己是"台灣人",非原住民莫屬最有資格了,其他人要論先來後到,都比原住民同胞晚來。所以一直稱自己才是台灣人的人,沒資格說話,應該要有羞恥心,原住民同胞沒有來跟我們爭“台灣人"這個稱呼,自己卻以 “後來"者的姿態,與“後後來者"爭這個稱呼,無意義的爭鬥,殊不知,
在我們這一輩(六年級末七年級生),早就已經沒有本省人,外省人了,我們都是一家人,都是住在福爾摩沙島的“台灣人"。
台灣的政情,完完全全跟清廷末年是同一個徵兆;民不聊生,政客們中飽私囊,在位者只知享福,以“何不食肉糜"的姿態在治國,政客的眼睛,完全被私利矇閉,只知“Take As Many As I Can",卻不會“Help People As Hard As I Can",只要要自己出力就是“I Can’t",到了有自己利益可享的時候就完全是另外一個嘴臉了。
台灣很驕傲的自稱是亞洲第一民主國家,其實,在國外卻是人家的笑話,並沒有想像中的驕傲,人民完完全全的不了解,作為一個民主國家的人,該有如何的文化素養,該有何種義務要盡,該有何種權利要享;台灣的人民,非常仁慈,卻不知,仁慈的後果,就是養肥了政客,艱苦了自己,人民不了解,政府是全民選擇的,但是政府做不好,人民有權利,也有義務,要使政府知道,也要懲罰政府沒有為人民做事,而不是等,等結果,看這個政府到最後做的結果如何;敝人以為,不能等到結果了,覺得政府走偏,就該糾正,覺得政府已經完完全全不符合人民的期望,就該換人做做看了,而不是一味的包容。
總之,台灣人民要有危機意識,不要隨著政客起舞,他們只是把人民當作他獲得利益的一項工具,而不是把我們當作衣食父母一樣的服侍,該是時候教訓教訓政客們了,該是人民團結起義的時候了,台灣需要革命,革什麼命?讓政府知道,你做不好,我們人民有權力讓你下來。水能載舟,亦能覆舟。
台灣的國情,已經跟清朝末年完完全全是一個樣了,有封閉迂腐和無知的執政者,還有軟弱畏懼的愚民;在野黨呢?在野黨就像是輔佐掌政者的庸臣,只考慮個人利益,完全置百姓福祉於度外。
作為一位政治參與者,應該要對國家有相當程度的了解,假設大部分的人都了解國情、國力,為何還要如此的剝削人民,削減我國之國力?使我這位台灣新人類,百思不得其解,難道,真的是“人類在歷史上學到唯一的東西,就是從來沒有從歷史上學到教訓。"嗎?
拿韓國舉例,依敝人認為,雖然有時此國顯得無理取鬧,但,到了該是人民為自己謀福利的時候到了,他們是不分你我的會強烈爭取的,因為他們知道,人民福祉,要人民自己爭取,在位者,不知其民之苦;反觀台灣,竟是充耳不聞,不聞不問,可悲啊!台灣子民,可悲啊!台灣政客。為了自己的利益,不惜犧牲一切,當要到了為大家利益的時候,卻是要掏越少錢越好,出越少力越好。
台灣的政客,老是操作族群問題,可恥啊!一味的分本土外省,有何意義呢?若要分先來後到而稱自己是"台灣人",非原住民莫屬最有資格了,其他人要論先來後到,都比原住民同胞晚來。所以一直稱自己才是台灣人的人,沒資格說話,應該要有羞恥心,原住民同胞沒有來跟我們爭“台灣人"這個稱呼,自己卻以 “後來"者的姿態,與“後後來者"爭這個稱呼,無意義的爭鬥,殊不知,
在我們這一輩(六年級末七年級生),早就已經沒有本省人,外省人了,我們都是一家人,都是住在福爾摩沙島的“台灣人"。
台灣的政情,完完全全跟清廷末年是同一個徵兆;民不聊生,政客們中飽私囊,在位者只知享福,以“何不食肉糜"的姿態在治國,政客的眼睛,完全被私利矇閉,只知“Take As Many As I Can",卻不會“Help People As Hard As I Can",只要要自己出力就是“I Can’t",到了有自己利益可享的時候就完全是另外一個嘴臉了。
台灣很驕傲的自稱是亞洲第一民主國家,其實,在國外卻是人家的笑話,並沒有想像中的驕傲,人民完完全全的不了解,作為一個民主國家的人,該有如何的文化素養,該有何種義務要盡,該有何種權利要享;台灣的人民,非常仁慈,卻不知,仁慈的後果,就是養肥了政客,艱苦了自己,人民不了解,政府是全民選擇的,但是政府做不好,人民有權利,也有義務,要使政府知道,也要懲罰政府沒有為人民做事,而不是等,等結果,看這個政府到最後做的結果如何;敝人以為,不能等到結果了,覺得政府走偏,就該糾正,覺得政府已經完完全全不符合人民的期望,就該換人做做看了,而不是一味的包容。
總之,台灣人民要有危機意識,不要隨著政客起舞,他們只是把人民當作他獲得利益的一項工具,而不是把我們當作衣食父母一樣的服侍,該是時候教訓教訓政客們了,該是人民團結起義的時候了,台灣需要革命,革什麼命?讓政府知道,你做不好,我們人民有權力讓你下來。水能載舟,亦能覆舟。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)