Javamail60

歷史的發展鮮有偶然，而是有長期的合理性可尋。如果的得到結論是少數人的善惡所為，則可能還有更多的材料需要發掘。
不了解儒家思想，則不知中國為何物。

[Javamail60 @javamail60]

李錦記醬油含果葡糖漿...

部分李錦記醬油產品（例如味極鮮特級醬油、錦珍生抽等）的配料表中確實含有果葡糖漿（也稱高果糖玉米糖漿）。

[Javamail60 @javamail60]

@VanessaTaiwanH 見個面吧，有沒有聽過中國人把鴨子烤的皮脆脆的吃法，一般叫“北京烤鴨”，大巨蛋遠東Garden City, 樂天皇朝，不見不散。

[Javamail60 @javamail60]

@rad_capitalist @DarrigoMelanie Sounds like the problem isn't capitalism, but democracy. I bet even Karen won't touch that subject.

[Javamail60 @javamail60]

@VanessaTaiwanH 妳爽就好，其他不用操心， 淚我躲到墻角慢慢流。

[Javamail60 @javamail60]

@peichang_yang 给评审一个发言的机会，看完你应该感到惭愧...
https://t.co/A0V9O8FRn2

[Peter Girnus 🦅 @gothburz]

I am a member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

There are five of us. Five people, appointed by a parliament most of the planet could not find on a map, who decide, once a year, which human being the world has agreed to call good.

I know. I know. I think about it on the tram.

We meet in a building on Henrik Ibsens gate, a street named after a man who wrote almost exclusively about people discovering they are frauds, which nobody on the committee finds funny except me. There is a room with a long table and the portraits of the dead laureates looking down, Mandela, the Dalai Lama, a great many earnest men in spectacles, and one portrait we do not discuss, which is Kissinger, 1973, awarded while the bombs were still falling, after which two of our predecessors resigned and the satirist Tom Lehrer said political satire was now obsolete. We keep him on the wall. A reminder. Every family has the uncle.

It is October in Oslo, which means the sun gives up around four in the afternoon like a civil servant, and it rains the particular Norwegian rain that isn’t quite falling, just hanging there, judging you. I arrive with wet shoes. I always arrive with wet shoes. There is coffee, because this is Norway and there is always coffee, we drink more of it per person than almost anyone alive, and someone’s wife has sent kanelboller, the cinnamon buns, and we sit, five Norwegians, damp, caffeinated, sugared, and we decide the moral standing of the entire species.

Let me tell you how it actually works, because the world imagines a cathedral and it is, I promise you, a book club with a mandate.

287 nominations this year. 208 people, 79 organizations. Anyone can nominate, that’s the secret nobody understands: a professor, a parliamentarian, a former laureate, so the “nominee” list is meaningless, it’s a suggestion box, and every autumn some congressman nominates his own golden retriever and the press writes “SHORTLISTED.” Nobody is shortlisted. There is no short list the public ever sees. There is us, and the coffee, and the rain, and the portraits, and a Norwegian stubbornness that is older than the prize itself.

We read reports. The institute’s advisers write them, thick dull documents, and we argue. Our chairman told the BBC once that in the final meeting “there is a high temperature.” High temperature, for a Norwegian, means someone slightly raised an eyebrow and then apologized for it. We don’t do high temperature. We do a long silence, and then Kristin says “well,” and everyone knows exactly what “well” meant, and it’s settled. That’s our shouting. “Well.” You’d have to be raised here to hear the violence in it.

Now. This year. I will not say the name, because we never say the name, but you know the name.

A certain head of state wanted this prize the way a child wants a thing in a shop window, which is to say loudly, and in public, and with the full belief that wanting it was itself the argument. He said he deserved it. He said he’d ended eight wars, a number that grew most times he said it, like a fish. He had other heads of state phone us. Israel’s prime minister posted it on the internet, “Give him the Nobel.” The leaders of Cambodia and Pakistan announced they’d nominated him, as though announcing it were part of it, as though we tally mentions. A man flew around the globe collecting endorsements for a Norwegian committee the way you’d collect signatures for a petition to the council about a noisy dog.

And here, uff da, is the detail I treasure, the one that makes me smile into my coffee. The nomination deadline is the 31st of January. He took office on the 20th. So for all the phone calls, all the posts, all the gilded lobbying, the only nominations that could possibly count for this year’s prize were filed in the first eleven days of his term, before he had, by his own arithmetic, ended a single one of the eight wars. He campaigned all year for a prize whose window had shut while he was still hanging up his coat. We didn’t have to reject him. The calendar did. We just watched. Norwegians are very good at watching. We have long winters.

People think we sit there weighing his deeds. We don’t. That’s the thing I can’t make the world understand. We’re not grading his homework. We don’t owe anyone the prize for a ceasefire, however real, however loud the announcement. “He made peace” is not a sentence that ends in a medal, the way he believes it does, the way he believes every good thing ends in his name on it. The will of a dead Swede says the prize goes to whoever did the most for fraternity between nations. A dead Swede, I should add, who made his entire fortune inventing dynamite and selling arms, and spent his last years horrified at his own obituary, which called him a merchant of death, and so bought his way to immortality as a man of peace. The whole prize is one guilty arms dealer’s attempt to launder his name. We are, all of us, administering a dead man’s public relations. I find this clarifying. It keeps me humble. It should keep everyone humble, and it keeps, by my count, no one humble at all.

So who did we give it to?

An eighty-five-year-old woman. A judge. Born in Durban, under apartheid, granddaughter of a Tamil man who came to South Africa as indentured labor, a bus driver’s daughter from the poor Indian quarter, who became the first non-white woman to run a law practice in her province, who defended Mandela’s people when defending them was dangerous, who sat on the Rwanda tribunal and the court at the Hague, and who, at eighty-five, is right now a judge weighing whether a genocide is a genocide. When we told the world, our chairman said the rule of law “underpins the system we have set up to ensure peace,” and that “peace requires justice.” She wasn’t even in Oslo. She was in Nuremberg. In courtroom 600. The actual room where they tried the Nazis. You cannot stage that. God staged that, and God, it turns out, is a better satirist than any of us.

She did not phone us. She did not post. No prime minister demanded it for her on the internet. She had, as far as our deliberations are concerned, the one qualification the loud man could never manufacture, which is that she wanted the work and not the medal. The medal finds those people. It flees the ones who chase it. This is not a rule we wrote. It’s just the only pattern the hundred-odd years of our mistakes has ever shown.

The reaction from across the ocean was immediate. His spokesman posted that we “place politics over peace.” Ja. Perhaps. We’re five damp pensioners in a rainy city; of course it’s political, it was always political, it was political when we gave it to a sitting American president nine months into his first term for the promise of things he had not yet done, and we have been quietly embarrassed about that one for fifteen years, so believe me, we had a particular reason this year to prefer a woman with fifty years of verdicts behind her over a man with eight wars in front of him and a deadline already behind him.

Here is what he will never understand, the thing I’d tell him on the tram if he ever took one. We are the one prize he cannot buy, cannot post his way to, cannot have a friendly dictator phone in for him. Not because we’re incorruptible, nei, we’re as vain and wrong and human as the portraits on our wall. But because the entire point of the thing, the only power a small cold country’s book club has ever held, is that it goes to the person not performing the wanting. The moment you demand it, you’ve proven you don’t understand what it’s for, and proving that is itself the disqualification. He ran the most expensive campaign in the history of the prize and the campaign was the reason. He was never losing to Navi Pillay. He was losing to the concept.

It’s dark now. Four o’clock dark. The buns are gone. Kristin said “well” an hour ago and we all went home. I’m on the tram with my wet shoes, and somewhere across the water a very powerful man is explaining to a camera that the prize is rigged, that we’re corrupt, that he’ll win it next year, and he genuinely might, we’re only five idiots and we’ve been wrong before, Kissinger is still on the wall.

But not this year. This year an old woman in Nuremberg, in the room where the law once stared down the exact kind of man who thinks wanting a thing loudly enough should make it his, got a phone call she didn’t ask for.

That’s the job. We don’t reward the man who ends the war and announces it.

We reward the woman who spent fifty years deciding what a war was.

He’ll never see the difference. That’s rather the whole point of him.

Takk for i dag. I have to change trams.

[Javamail60 @javamail60]

@wurenhua 這位香港的明星移民台灣多年，學到了他認為民主制度的最精髓：喜歡投給誰就投給誰！不然呢？😂😂 想學習民主制度，台灣教你啦！

[Javamail60 @javamail60]

@magataotao 匪夷所思！就拿妳愛的川普舉例吧，說“我是美國人，川普不是我的總統”，光這就辯論不完了，更何況妳是舉著Zionist大旗來否定這個Pope，而他可是百來號主教團推舉來的，妳在等一位Zoinism色彩的Pope? 福音派基督教會滿地都是，轉檯吧！

[Javamail60 @javamail60]

@shijinxia 大家說說，這圖是不是把三K黨與白人至上主義者放錯了邊啦？

[Javamail60 @javamail60]

@xin22209 @yuyimei2 你是否在暗示法國這未必不是一個解決問題的方法？

[Javamail60 @javamail60]

这场土改会造成日后中国经济如此爆发。所以中国革命（革农耕文明的命）历时150年，自鸦片战争起，至文革结束止，每一个阶段都有代表人物，包括袁世凯、段祺瑞、吴佩孚等。n/n

[Javamail60 @javamail60]

我尽量简洁。北洋政府主要是奉直皖三系軍閥。軍閥割據從何而來？古中国为农耕文明、人口众多、结构松散，中央与地方如何联系？科举制度提供了管道，勉强的叠床架屋将帝国沾粘起来！光绪末年废科举，中央与地方的管道断了，地方士绅（科举的读书人、有钱有势）纷纷自立门户，这就是军阀割据的由来。1/n

[Javamail60 @javamail60]

最终勉强得到各地军阀的输诚，但军阀真正完全荡平一直要等到1950年代共和国建立之后。
即使孙中山也未提出有效的解决土地问题，共产党在农村进行的暴力土改，这是唯一能使中国脱离小自耕农的经济体的方法，农村释放大量的劳力投入工商业生产。我怀疑中共能想象到，3/n

[Javamail60 @javamail60]

@calibillionare 这场土改会造成日后中国经济如此爆发。所以中国革命（革农耕文明的命）历时150年，自鸦片战争起，至文革结束止，每一个阶段都有代表人物，包括袁世凯、段祺瑞、吴佩孚等。n/n

[Javamail60 @javamail60]

@calibillionare 最终勉强得到各地军阀的输诚，但军阀真正完全荡平一直要等到1950年代共和国建立之后。
即使孙中山也未提出有效的解决土地问题，共产党在农村进行的暴力土改，这是唯一能使中国脱离小自耕农的经济体的方法，农村释放大量的劳力投入工商业生产。我怀疑中共能想象到，3/n

[Javamail60 @javamail60]

这就叫二次伤害。过去的确受到伤害，以为自己日后所有反对的行为都属于正义的伸张、非黑即白，殊不知自己正再次受到无脑判断的伤害。这种现象普遍出现在殖人群中，尤其是受福音教派洗礼的殖人是重灾区！甚至有人把大卫旗帜罩在头上、匪夷所思！

[pony @pony_778]

@liyiping1911 三观很正👍,大陆来的一些在体制内呆过的所谓“文人，学者，专家，受迫害者等”往往非常固执己见，自以为是，非红即黑，喜欢站队。

[Javamail60 @javamail60]

@pony_778 @liyiping1911 这就叫二次伤害。过去的确受到伤害，以为自己日后所有反对的行为都属于正义的伸张、非黑即白，殊不知自己正再次受到无脑判断的伤害。这种现象普遍出现在殖人群中，尤其是受福音教派洗礼的殖人是重灾区！甚至有人把大卫旗帜罩在头上、匪夷所思！