岳母大人分享的一份明報社評, 周全浩(香港浸會大學地理系教授)關於六四事件的意見和分析.
本人對六四事件來龍去脈認識不深, 故此如有錯謬之言, 敬請原諒.
以本人之見, 周教授在文章中有以下的觀點:
1) 中共一直試圖淡化六四事件, 讓"某些人"以他們的六四事件版本壟斷了所謂的真相, 其可信性可爭議.
2) 學生們佔領了天安門, 令中共無法運作，趙紫陽不肯認真處理, 逼使鄧小平下令鎮壓.
3) 同年聖誕節, 柏林圍牆倒塌, 蘇聯領導人戈巴卓夫沒有加以鎮壓, 導致東德倒台, 兩德復合, 91年蘇聯解散.
4）歷史證明, 鄧小平作出了正確的決定, 避免了中共倒台, 讓改革開放得以繼續, 並發展至今時今日的經濟實力.
5) 美國前總統甘乃迪被刺殺後, 調查委員會封存了文件75年(後至1992年已釋放了98%的文件), 美國人並沒有要求極力追究, 乃顧全國家利益的表現.
6) 每年為六四事件舉行紀念及要求平反乃西方國家用以掣肘中國的手法, 港人受人唆擺, 為外人所利用/愚弄, 不顧全國家利益, 不以大局爲重, 是不成熟的民主社會的表現.
以下我嘗試反駁周教授的論點:
1) 中共所謂淡化處理, 其實是逃避, 不肯正視事件, 並對事件真相有所隱瞞. 若"某些人"所散播的所謂真相不正確, 何以中共不加以澄清? 問題不在於民間/官方版本誰是誰非, 乃在於中共根本不肯也不敢說出内部秘密, 透明度等於零.
2) 也就是說手無寸鐵學生們不留餘地, 逼使中共暴力鎮壓了喲? 說得通麽?
3) 柏林圍牆倒塌, 東德解放, 兩德復合, 蘇聯解散, 共產政權下台, 冷戰結束, 東歐國家自由貿易, 都是壞事了?
4) 中共倒台了, 中國就會崩潰咯? 中共倒台了, 中國就不會繁榮咯? 周教授, 你是顧全國家利益還是黨利益?
5) 美國人到現時爲止, 依然有很多人相信甘乃迪被刺殺是有陰謀的, 可國家元首被刺殺和國家元首下令暴力鎮壓人民又有什麽關係呢? 調查委員會發表了調查結果, 美國人接受了, 然後文件封存. 中國又調查過了什麽? 我們反對的是當權者隱瞞事實, 扭曲真相, 為了維護自己的利益打壓同僚, 而人民沒有權力更換領導人, 亦沒有其他政治勢力制衡最高權力.
6) 和平請願是自由民主社會的權利, 動用這個權力就代表自由民主社會不成熟? 保持沉默, 逆來順受就是成熟的自由民主社會表現? 何況中國根本沒有自由民主, 成熟個屁?
在周教授看來, 大概我也不過是一個民主不成熟的西方國家傀儡. 在我看來, 周教授也不過是一個親共親黨的中共奴隸.
續: 我也不認同某些學生領袖當年曾希望籍流血來逼使中共讓步和引起外界關注. 可這是中共所說的"暴亂"麽? 我相信不是的.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Friday, November 28, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Fuming
Was fuming a few days ago about something.
Something.
Can't remember what it was now.
So I'll come back to it when I do.
Something.
Can't remember what it was now.
So I'll come back to it when I do.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Riddle
What activity uses all parts of the body, lasts two hours or more, requires many positions, involves heavy panting, where the ultimate goal is to stick one thing in another over, and over, and over again, cuz it feels so darn good, and afterwards you're all smiles drenched in sweat and you can't wait for it to happen again next weekend?
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Wines
I'm trying to learn more about wine. Thought I'd keep track of the bottles of wine I've got in my possession here.
E. Guigal 2003 Côtes du Rhône Rouge - Great quality for a $15 French red. Could use some decanting.
Louis Jadot 2003 Château des Jacques Moulin-à-vent
June 26, 2007 purchase:
Château Mouton-Rothschild 2003 Réserve Mouton Cadet Médoc
Pére Anselme 2005 Châteauneuf-du-Pape
July 2007 purchase:
Château Mouton-Rothschild 2005 Réserve Mouton Cadet Médoc
Château Cambon la Pelouse 2001 Haut-Médoc
E. Guigal 2003 Châteauneuf-du-Pape
August 2007 gifts:
Deinhard 2006 Piesporter Goldtröpfchen Riesling - Had this with Thanksgiving turkey. Pretty good for its price.
Mission Hill 2005 Late Harvest Vidal - Not too sweet for an icewine. Great sipper. Goat cheese went well with it.
August 2007 purchase:
Morambro Valley 2000 Cabernet Sauvignon - Very sweet, fruity Cab, probably best enjoyed on its own.
September 10, 2007 purchase:
E. Guigal 2001 Châteauneuf-du-Pape
2 x E. Guigal 2003 Côtes du Rhône Rouge
October 2007 gift:
Château de la Gardine 2003(?) Châteauneuf-du-Pape
October 2007 purchase:
Wilhelm Bergmann 2006 Piesporter Goldtröpfchen Auslese Riesling
Louis Jadot 2003 Château des Jacques Moulin-à-vent
Recent purchases:
2 x Château Mouton-Rothschild 2005 Réserve Mouton Cadet Médoc
2 x Château Mouton-Rothschild 2005 Réserve Mouton Cadet Saint-Emilion
2 x Château Mouton-Rothschild 2005 Réserve Mouton Cadet Graves
2 x Château Mouton-Rothschild 2005 Réserve Mouton Cadet Graves Blanc
2 x Château Mouton-Rothschild 2005 Réserve Mouton Cadet Sauternes
Antinori 2003 Villa Antinori Toscana
Miguel Torres 2005(?) Gran Coronas
Peter Lehmann 2003 (?) The Futures Shiraz
Braida 2005(?) Vigna Senza Nome Moscato d'Asti
April 11, 2008 purchase:
Mollydookers 2006 The Boxer Shiraz
Louis Jadot 2003 Château des Jacques Moulin-à-vent
June 26, 2007 purchase:
Pére Anselme 2005 Châteauneuf-du-Pape
July 2007 purchase:
Château Cambon la Pelouse 2001 Haut-Médoc
E. Guigal 2003 Châteauneuf-du-Pape
August 2007 gifts:
August 2007 purchase:
September 10, 2007 purchase:
E. Guigal 2001 Châteauneuf-du-Pape
October 2007 gift:
Château de la Gardine 2003(?) Châteauneuf-du-Pape
October 2007 purchase:
Louis Jadot 2003 Château des Jacques Moulin-à-vent
Recent purchases:
2 x Château Mouton-Rothschild 2005 Réserve Mouton Cadet Médoc
2 x Château Mouton-Rothschild 2005 Réserve Mouton Cadet Saint-Emilion
2 x Château Mouton-Rothschild 2005 Réserve Mouton Cadet Graves
Miguel Torres 2005(?) Gran Coronas
Peter Lehmann 2003 (?) The Futures Shiraz
Braida 2005(?) Vigna Senza Nome Moscato d'Asti
April 11, 2008 purchase:
Monday, June 02, 2008
Truth?
Still scratch my head sometimes over certain things.
For example, all this talk about "global warming" and "climate change".
Global warming has been so widely taught that most would probably be shocked if I confessed that I didn't believe it to be a problem.
But before we get into the details, let's clarify some things.
First, we need to recognize that "global warming" and "climate change" are two different things. Global warming means the Earth's average temperature is on an upward trend from year to year. Climate change just means the Earth's climate is changing, not necessarily equal to "global warming".
Second, we need to recognize that "global warming" and "climate change" may or may not be caused by human factors. Even if "global warming" or "climate change" was real and truly happening, they may not necessarily be caused by human actions. Some believe them to be naturally-occurring phenomena, others believe humans are causing or at least contributing to such changes.
The sticking point is this: environmentalists would have you believe that what you are doing is contributing to the problem. Therefore you need to stop or change whatever you're doing in order to save the Earth and give our children a brighter future.
I find this notion baffling on multiple levels:
1. That humans can be so full of themselves as to think that:
a) they can cause significant or irreparable damage to the Earth as a whole, to the point where it's uninhabitable for themselves.
b) if (a) were true, they can stop themselves from causing such damage.
2. That humans (especially Christians) can care more about saving the environment than saving souls.
a) Yes, I understand that God, when He created man, said man shall rule over the Earth and all creatures. However, with sin and the corruption of the natural order, the fallen man no longer holds such authority over creation. In fact, the whole creation "has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." (Romans 8:22)
b) I also understand that, according to the Book of Revelation, the end of days will see wars, famines, plagues, earthquakes; the sun will turn black, the moon red, stars will fall to the earth, mountains and islands removed from their places; lightning and thunder, hail and fire; a third of the earth utterly destroyed, the Abyss opened, the sky darkened, and locusts swarm the land; half of the earth's population is wiped out in less than 3 years; and at the end of it all, a new heaven and a new earth, a new Jerusalem, where "the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.". All this has been prophesied in the Bible, and yet we still allow ourselves to be concerned with saving this Earth?
3. That we are taught multiple ice ages took place in history and yet we should be concerned about "global warming" or "climate change".
a) If indeed there were one or more ice ages in history (and I'm not arguing that there weren't), then obviously we came out of ice ages by "global warming", which would be a "climate change". Then, are "global warming" or "climate change" necessarily "bad"?
b) How are we certain that "global warming", even if it were truly taking place, would continue irreversibly to the point where the Earth becomes uninhabitable?
c) How are we certain that "climate change", whether it is "global warming" or maybe "global cooling" leading to another ice age, can be stopped or even managed by humans?
d) How are we certain that human activities are causing or contributing to such changes, and that they're not simply naturally-occurring?
I'm not saying that we are justified in being reckless with the environment. I'm saying that there are lots of uncertainties in the supposed "science" on this subject. I'm saying that environmentalists are demanding a lot of resources and actions based on speculation. I'm saying that, given how little we actually know about the Earth, it sounds foolish to proclaim we're going to "preserve" it, much less save it.
Most of all, I'm saying that there are more important things to worry about.
For example, all this talk about "global warming" and "climate change".
Global warming has been so widely taught that most would probably be shocked if I confessed that I didn't believe it to be a problem.
But before we get into the details, let's clarify some things.
First, we need to recognize that "global warming" and "climate change" are two different things. Global warming means the Earth's average temperature is on an upward trend from year to year. Climate change just means the Earth's climate is changing, not necessarily equal to "global warming".
Second, we need to recognize that "global warming" and "climate change" may or may not be caused by human factors. Even if "global warming" or "climate change" was real and truly happening, they may not necessarily be caused by human actions. Some believe them to be naturally-occurring phenomena, others believe humans are causing or at least contributing to such changes.
The sticking point is this: environmentalists would have you believe that what you are doing is contributing to the problem. Therefore you need to stop or change whatever you're doing in order to save the Earth and give our children a brighter future.
I find this notion baffling on multiple levels:
1. That humans can be so full of themselves as to think that:
a) they can cause significant or irreparable damage to the Earth as a whole, to the point where it's uninhabitable for themselves.
b) if (a) were true, they can stop themselves from causing such damage.
2. That humans (especially Christians) can care more about saving the environment than saving souls.
a) Yes, I understand that God, when He created man, said man shall rule over the Earth and all creatures. However, with sin and the corruption of the natural order, the fallen man no longer holds such authority over creation. In fact, the whole creation "has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." (Romans 8:22)
b) I also understand that, according to the Book of Revelation, the end of days will see wars, famines, plagues, earthquakes; the sun will turn black, the moon red, stars will fall to the earth, mountains and islands removed from their places; lightning and thunder, hail and fire; a third of the earth utterly destroyed, the Abyss opened, the sky darkened, and locusts swarm the land; half of the earth's population is wiped out in less than 3 years; and at the end of it all, a new heaven and a new earth, a new Jerusalem, where "the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.". All this has been prophesied in the Bible, and yet we still allow ourselves to be concerned with saving this Earth?
3. That we are taught multiple ice ages took place in history and yet we should be concerned about "global warming" or "climate change".
a) If indeed there were one or more ice ages in history (and I'm not arguing that there weren't), then obviously we came out of ice ages by "global warming", which would be a "climate change". Then, are "global warming" or "climate change" necessarily "bad"?
b) How are we certain that "global warming", even if it were truly taking place, would continue irreversibly to the point where the Earth becomes uninhabitable?
c) How are we certain that "climate change", whether it is "global warming" or maybe "global cooling" leading to another ice age, can be stopped or even managed by humans?
d) How are we certain that human activities are causing or contributing to such changes, and that they're not simply naturally-occurring?
I'm not saying that we are justified in being reckless with the environment. I'm saying that there are lots of uncertainties in the supposed "science" on this subject. I'm saying that environmentalists are demanding a lot of resources and actions based on speculation. I'm saying that, given how little we actually know about the Earth, it sounds foolish to proclaim we're going to "preserve" it, much less save it.
Most of all, I'm saying that there are more important things to worry about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
