Leechard,
I really like your article on Khrushchev, one of the important leader of Russia in 20th century, and one of the most controversial figure in that age. I think you have sound knowledge on this gentleman life and how it affected the world. You are right to point out what several important policies and decisions taken by him in both domestic and diplomatic fronts are , and how they changed the world scene at that time, and had laid down the foundation stone for liberalisation of Russia under another great leader, Gorbachev in later 1980s. It really expands my horizon in understanding Russian and world history at that period of time, and i shall be grateful for effort paid by you to study this gentleman biography and write an article on him. I shall be very delighted to introduce my friends to read that article.
I may also like to add a point on this article, which you and your readers shall find it useful. It is his support to Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, the Russian writer and Nobel Laureate in Literature. In 1956, after the Khrushchev Secret Speech, he was freed from imprisonment in Kazakhstan, where he was close to death because the hard work in labor camp deterioated his health. He would then return to his hometown to produce his great literature works.
In 1962, Khrushchev explicitly supported the Noviy Mir magazine to publish One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich in Politburo presidium hearing. He said there is a Stalinist in each of you, there is even a Stalinist in me. We must root out this evil. One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich caused sensation not only in Soviet Union but also the West, like Harry Potter series in 2000s, due to both its theme and background of author. Being a novel attacking the Soviet system of prison labour, it was a work produced with themes other than politics, and by a non-party member who had been sent to prison for libelous speech about the leader. It was so popular at that time that it was sold out instantly everywhere, and Alexander gained the worldwide recognition of being a spokesman of Russian liberials at that time.
During his office tenure, Khrushchev allowed the Russian schools to study One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and three other short novels of Alexander, including the Matryona’s Home, the last work Alexander published in Soviet union before its demise. Only after the fall of Khrushchev did Alexander period of writing in Soviet Russia come to an end quietly. His other work, The Cancer Ward, did not get the Russian authorities permission to publish in public, even though he managed to do so. The Secret police in Russia seized his works, and later he was forced to be in exile.
From this story of Khrushchev and Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn you can see how he supported the healthy growth of Russian literature, just like Gorbachev later did. Alexander was free to publish his literature works critical of Russian authorities and Russian systems, and Russians were granted the right to access to his work when Khrushchev was in office. It was him who saw the value of Alexander in Russian literature and world literature, while his party colleagues, strictly following the principles and rules laid down by Stalin and Lenin, failed to do so. With this understanding on the power of Alexander writings and thought, he is more important than any Russian leaders in Soviet Era, including Gorbachev, who was widely seen as a successor of him following strictly every footstep taken by Khrushchev in office.( Except liberation of East European nations, it was purely Gorbachev initiative to push for the end of Russian military presence at that region since the End of Second World War and brought freedom to these region people)
Khrushchev is a very complicated figure, in every point of view. He was both a liberal and hawk, depending on angles adopted to study his career path spinning from Imperial Russia to Soviet Russia. But one thing is sure, he is a man placeing interests of Russian nation, not his personal interests at his heart. He determined to attempt every means he thought suitable to take Russia into a path to a strong and noble nation in the World stage, with status not inferior to the Strongest nation at that time, the United States of America. However, the system of Soviet Union and the thought of people at that time, and his ignorance of the downward trend of 20th century thinking, provided a great hindrance for him to push through his policies and programs, and made him a thousand miles away from success he fought for.
I think you may like this article on Khrushev and Alexander, and you may find Alexander information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solzhenitsyn#cite_note-22. I wish you may write to me on this subject. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Best wishes,
William
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
On Lincoln and Churchill eloquence in their speech presentation
On Lincoln and Churchill eloquence in their speech presentation
Leechard,
I like your article on Hitler way of speech presentation very much. It has not only served as a guide to study the eloquence of Hitler, but also to study the cause of the bad energy which has been dominating one in 20th century, the century of downward thinking.
Indeed, besides Hitler, Winston Churchill, the great British prime minister in the war with Hitlerism, is also a great orator as well. His speech on 10th May, 1940, when he accepted King’s commission to form the all-party Government to lead the British nation and its Commonwealth and colonies in Second World War, when Germany launched its attack upon France, Netherland, and Belgium, is still electrifying and amazed by many readers and fans. There are so many famous lines in his speech, for example,” I have nothing to offer but blood,toil, tears and sweat”, when he warned his countrymen that they must prepare for a great scarifies in the war, Let us go forward with our united strength, when he asked for the unity of British in the war against that formidable foe. It is his speech which, not only lighten the hope of British, but also the hope of people living in occupied territories, that Britain could and would bring the war with the defeat of aggressors. The spirit of British, after hearing his encouraging words, rose up to a very high level, higher than it had ever achieved at any time when the appeasement policy was carried and the notorious Munich Agreement was signed. I think, using the time-honored word of American journalist, he mobilized the British language and send it into battle.
Apart from Churchill, Lincoln, US President in the Civil War, was also a great orator as well. Do you still remember the Gettysburg Address? In this address, he proclaimed one great idea: Government of the people, for the people, with the people, shall never be perished from the Earth This is one of the most memorable line in his speech, and I think it is the power of this speech that has not only given the energy to the people fighting for the Union Cause in the war, but also given the energy to many other great nationalists after Lincoln.
Here I am very glad to introduce two YouTube video on the great speech of two orators, and indeed politicians in Western World. Winston Churchill speech-Blood, Toil, Tears, and Sweat is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVg7rnRheK8&feature=related. Winston Churchill speech “It was their finest Hour” is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkTw3_PmKtc. Winston Churchill speech:” Address to Joint Session of Congress” in December 1941 is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiVIpZikl-Y&feature=related. Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address is : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvA0J_2ZpIQ. I think these YouTube videos and audios could been a good source for your information. You may also ask bookstores, DVD and tape shops to have other versions of these speeches.
I hope, as a way to inspire all gentleman and ladies in your blogs, you could consider writing an article or a series of article, introducing the eloquence of these great gentleman, who have rendered service not only to their nation, but to the achievement of the human being. In this way could we regain the power, the power which has driven us to the age of Romanticism in 19th Century, that could make our living planet the better place to live in.
I wish I could hear your comments made on this subject.
Best wishes,
William
Leechard,
I like your article on Hitler way of speech presentation very much. It has not only served as a guide to study the eloquence of Hitler, but also to study the cause of the bad energy which has been dominating one in 20th century, the century of downward thinking.
Indeed, besides Hitler, Winston Churchill, the great British prime minister in the war with Hitlerism, is also a great orator as well. His speech on 10th May, 1940, when he accepted King’s commission to form the all-party Government to lead the British nation and its Commonwealth and colonies in Second World War, when Germany launched its attack upon France, Netherland, and Belgium, is still electrifying and amazed by many readers and fans. There are so many famous lines in his speech, for example,” I have nothing to offer but blood,toil, tears and sweat”, when he warned his countrymen that they must prepare for a great scarifies in the war, Let us go forward with our united strength, when he asked for the unity of British in the war against that formidable foe. It is his speech which, not only lighten the hope of British, but also the hope of people living in occupied territories, that Britain could and would bring the war with the defeat of aggressors. The spirit of British, after hearing his encouraging words, rose up to a very high level, higher than it had ever achieved at any time when the appeasement policy was carried and the notorious Munich Agreement was signed. I think, using the time-honored word of American journalist, he mobilized the British language and send it into battle.
Apart from Churchill, Lincoln, US President in the Civil War, was also a great orator as well. Do you still remember the Gettysburg Address? In this address, he proclaimed one great idea: Government of the people, for the people, with the people, shall never be perished from the Earth This is one of the most memorable line in his speech, and I think it is the power of this speech that has not only given the energy to the people fighting for the Union Cause in the war, but also given the energy to many other great nationalists after Lincoln.
Here I am very glad to introduce two YouTube video on the great speech of two orators, and indeed politicians in Western World. Winston Churchill speech-Blood, Toil, Tears, and Sweat is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVg7rnRheK8&feature=related. Winston Churchill speech “It was their finest Hour” is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkTw3_PmKtc. Winston Churchill speech:” Address to Joint Session of Congress” in December 1941 is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiVIpZikl-Y&feature=related. Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address is : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvA0J_2ZpIQ. I think these YouTube videos and audios could been a good source for your information. You may also ask bookstores, DVD and tape shops to have other versions of these speeches.
I hope, as a way to inspire all gentleman and ladies in your blogs, you could consider writing an article or a series of article, introducing the eloquence of these great gentleman, who have rendered service not only to their nation, but to the achievement of the human being. In this way could we regain the power, the power which has driven us to the age of Romanticism in 19th Century, that could make our living planet the better place to live in.
I wish I could hear your comments made on this subject.
Best wishes,
William
Sunday, May 17, 2009
problem of the rats
Leechard,
I cannot agree more with your prophetic words in the article:蟑螂打噴嚏了，怎麼辦？ It has been said long time ago by many experts that the dirtiness of the drainage shall make the drainage an ideal habitat for the cockroaches to live and transform themselves into a super cockroaches with resistance against the insecticide we are now using. However, these words went unheeded by majority of people in many quarters of world, and that it really is the problem for human being nowadays.
As the guardian reports today(15 may 2009), rats in parts of Hampshire, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Swindon and Bristol,were found to undergo mutation that make itself immune to poison towards rodents we used towards them. According to health authorities reports there, 700000 infestations were found in the last year, and an increasing trend to deal with infestation was found. It is very likely, as the authorities there predict that after swine flu, we will soon have to deal with the diseases brought by the rats.
We should not forget that we are presently unprepared towards the threat of these rats diseases. We possess no means to cure patients who get these diseases, and no means to control the rats population in our living places. At present, all our resources is spent on the war with swine flu, which i cannot tell when it will end. But one thing is certain that if this rats threat were to come upon us now, it will, along with swine flu, strike the human beings and its civilization with severest blow. Have you heard of the story of black death in European Middle Ages? High death rate, little economic activities present. It is the time sometimes referred by many later generations as the worst time of the Dark age.
I regard the problem of rat as the very serious one in present time, which i think all the governmental and voluntary bodies should now address and take immediate courses of action towards it. We have to think of new ways to deal with rats, not just killing it with rat killing drugs. This is, i think, the last opportunity to solve rat problem without bringing damages towards our lives and living environment, just like the Munich conference in 1930s to stop the Nazis to conquer the Europe.
I wish i could hear your comments on this.
Best wishes,
william
I cannot agree more with your prophetic words in the article:蟑螂打噴嚏了，怎麼辦？ It has been said long time ago by many experts that the dirtiness of the drainage shall make the drainage an ideal habitat for the cockroaches to live and transform themselves into a super cockroaches with resistance against the insecticide we are now using. However, these words went unheeded by majority of people in many quarters of world, and that it really is the problem for human being nowadays.
As the guardian reports today(15 may 2009), rats in parts of Hampshire, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Swindon and Bristol,were found to undergo mutation that make itself immune to poison towards rodents we used towards them. According to health authorities reports there, 700000 infestations were found in the last year, and an increasing trend to deal with infestation was found. It is very likely, as the authorities there predict that after swine flu, we will soon have to deal with the diseases brought by the rats.
We should not forget that we are presently unprepared towards the threat of these rats diseases. We possess no means to cure patients who get these diseases, and no means to control the rats population in our living places. At present, all our resources is spent on the war with swine flu, which i cannot tell when it will end. But one thing is certain that if this rats threat were to come upon us now, it will, along with swine flu, strike the human beings and its civilization with severest blow. Have you heard of the story of black death in European Middle Ages? High death rate, little economic activities present. It is the time sometimes referred by many later generations as the worst time of the Dark age.
I regard the problem of rat as the very serious one in present time, which i think all the governmental and voluntary bodies should now address and take immediate courses of action towards it. We have to think of new ways to deal with rats, not just killing it with rat killing drugs. This is, i think, the last opportunity to solve rat problem without bringing damages towards our lives and living environment, just like the Munich conference in 1930s to stop the Nazis to conquer the Europe.
I wish i could hear your comments on this.
Best wishes,
william
Saturday, March 21, 2009
quick-to-recharge battery
Leechard,
Welcome to the new phase in the time of quick-to-recharge battery.
For a long time, we have discussed in theory and tried in experiment to actualise the concept of "quick-to-discharge" battery. A lot of power storage products, for instance, the lithium battery,have been developed. Now a discovery of new kind of lithium battery shall mark one of the turning point in the history of battery. On 10th March, A quick-to-recharge battery has been developed by the researchers of MIT's Laboratory for Electromagnetic and Electronic Systems (LEES). Being made of Lithium iron phosphate, this battery would undertake the task of charging and discharging in a very short time,for instance, 5 minutes. The short-time of charging and recharging is mainly attributed to a modification in structure of lithium iron phosphate in the battery. With a glassy surface coated on the tunnels of the lattice of lithium iron phosphate, more ions are found to be transported on and out of cathode, so the speed of recharging a battery has been greatly enhanced, and much faster than any rechargeable battery we are now using.
I am glad, and i am sure you and your friends will be glad, to witness the latest phase of electirical science development. Modified Lithium Iron phosphate battery shall remove one of the barrier of using a hybrid-energy car, the energy storage problem, and thus making us a step closer to the day of hubrid-energy car. Very soon we are to have hybrid-energy car to be massively produced and used in highways, roads in every quarter of the world, which would reduce much of the pollutant gas emissions so generated from the vehicles we now are using. It would also make many electric appliances, the TV, the radio, the mobile phone, to be more popular in the world becuase the power source of these applicances would be recharged quickly. So, i can prophesy that the battery now developed would be a dorminant player in the battery market in a very short time, with the fading away of all battery used in present time. To sum up, the discovery of new battery has been a strong propenent that give us the momentum to move in an unpredecented fast speed, approaching far closer to the world of electricity, where electiricity will take more active role than it does in the present time to influence every aspect of the our life.
I think that i shall let you see the attached article on that topic yourself. I am looking forward to receiving your reply.
Best wishes,
william
ref:
http://www.gizmag.com/lithium-ion-battery-breakthrough-mit/11244/
Welcome to the new phase in the time of quick-to-recharge battery.
For a long time, we have discussed in theory and tried in experiment to actualise the concept of "quick-to-discharge" battery. A lot of power storage products, for instance, the lithium battery,have been developed. Now a discovery of new kind of lithium battery shall mark one of the turning point in the history of battery. On 10th March, A quick-to-recharge battery has been developed by the researchers of MIT's Laboratory for Electromagnetic and Electronic Systems (LEES). Being made of Lithium iron phosphate, this battery would undertake the task of charging and discharging in a very short time,for instance, 5 minutes. The short-time of charging and recharging is mainly attributed to a modification in structure of lithium iron phosphate in the battery. With a glassy surface coated on the tunnels of the lattice of lithium iron phosphate, more ions are found to be transported on and out of cathode, so the speed of recharging a battery has been greatly enhanced, and much faster than any rechargeable battery we are now using.
I am glad, and i am sure you and your friends will be glad, to witness the latest phase of electirical science development. Modified Lithium Iron phosphate battery shall remove one of the barrier of using a hybrid-energy car, the energy storage problem, and thus making us a step closer to the day of hubrid-energy car. Very soon we are to have hybrid-energy car to be massively produced and used in highways, roads in every quarter of the world, which would reduce much of the pollutant gas emissions so generated from the vehicles we now are using. It would also make many electric appliances, the TV, the radio, the mobile phone, to be more popular in the world becuase the power source of these applicances would be recharged quickly. So, i can prophesy that the battery now developed would be a dorminant player in the battery market in a very short time, with the fading away of all battery used in present time. To sum up, the discovery of new battery has been a strong propenent that give us the momentum to move in an unpredecented fast speed, approaching far closer to the world of electricity, where electiricity will take more active role than it does in the present time to influence every aspect of the our life.
I think that i shall let you see the attached article on that topic yourself. I am looking forward to receiving your reply.
Best wishes,
william
ref:
http://www.gizmag.com/lithium-ion-battery-breakthrough-mit/11244/
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Dishonest explanation of American economic system problems
Leechard,
Obama, once seen by many as the saviour of the world, the Second Lincoln in American history, now did something in contrary to what many have believed. In his first address to the Congress, he condemned the policies of his predecessor, Clinton, Bush, and others, on economic, education, energy field was the cause of present problem, the financial crisis.
Though very amazing, Obama's explanation to the economic difficulties experienced by many, including the United States, is not relevant. As the American writer points out, and we are now bearing the witness of, that at the very center of our economic near-depression is a credit bubble, a housing collapse and a systemic failure of the banking industry. The only feasible and effective solution is to clear these bubbles away, and help the banks to reestablish its asset and its image.
However, what Obama presently plan is in the opposite direction. He is preparing to nationalize the health care, education, and energy system in America, the commanding height of post-industrial society. This is something the investors fear most, and is the cause of the recent market precipitous decline, as shown in the recent rapid fall of New york stock market indexes. Apart from investor, the economists surely cannot accept his policy. The greater bureaucratic control over various system of nation, health, education, energy, is not a cure to structural problem in the financial sector of a highly capitalistic society as America. The greater is the government power over the system, the lesser the effectiveness of the system it is. Very soon all systems, which his administration takes over, shall collapse like a falling building. I do not know why Obama and his economic team members, with immense knowledge in American economics, shall think of, and implement such kind of actions. Were Lincoln to be here to make the decision for America now, he may avoid the mistakes made by Obama.
Perhaps Charles article, appeared on March 6 Washington Post, can give you a deep insight into the implication of Obama's first address to the congress.
The Great Non Sequitur
The Sleight of Hand Behind Obama's Agenda
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 6, 2009; A15
You may follow this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/05/AR2009030502951_pf.html to get the online version of this article. I wish to hear from you the comments made on this subject.
Best wishes,
william
Dear William
Thanks for your outline of the Washington post Article on the
US economic matters.
I would not use the word "dishonest" to comment the US policy on
economics. He might be wrong, and he might be "non squitur", but if you say
he is not honest, then you will have to prove it. And what you mention about "nationalization" of the American Education system may not be the actual thoughts of the President, though I had not read his address to the Congress.
your outline is in the 思想資料庫
Leechard
Obama, once seen by many as the saviour of the world, the Second Lincoln in American history, now did something in contrary to what many have believed. In his first address to the Congress, he condemned the policies of his predecessor, Clinton, Bush, and others, on economic, education, energy field was the cause of present problem, the financial crisis.
Though very amazing, Obama's explanation to the economic difficulties experienced by many, including the United States, is not relevant. As the American writer points out, and we are now bearing the witness of, that at the very center of our economic near-depression is a credit bubble, a housing collapse and a systemic failure of the banking industry. The only feasible and effective solution is to clear these bubbles away, and help the banks to reestablish its asset and its image.
However, what Obama presently plan is in the opposite direction. He is preparing to nationalize the health care, education, and energy system in America, the commanding height of post-industrial society. This is something the investors fear most, and is the cause of the recent market precipitous decline, as shown in the recent rapid fall of New york stock market indexes. Apart from investor, the economists surely cannot accept his policy. The greater bureaucratic control over various system of nation, health, education, energy, is not a cure to structural problem in the financial sector of a highly capitalistic society as America. The greater is the government power over the system, the lesser the effectiveness of the system it is. Very soon all systems, which his administration takes over, shall collapse like a falling building. I do not know why Obama and his economic team members, with immense knowledge in American economics, shall think of, and implement such kind of actions. Were Lincoln to be here to make the decision for America now, he may avoid the mistakes made by Obama.
Perhaps Charles article, appeared on March 6 Washington Post, can give you a deep insight into the implication of Obama's first address to the congress.
The Great Non Sequitur
The Sleight of Hand Behind Obama's Agenda
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 6, 2009; A15
You may follow this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/05/AR2009030502951_pf.html to get the online version of this article. I wish to hear from you the comments made on this subject.
Best wishes,
william
Dear William
Thanks for your outline of the Washington post Article on the
US economic matters.
I would not use the word "dishonest" to comment the US policy on
economics. He might be wrong, and he might be "non squitur", but if you say
he is not honest, then you will have to prove it. And what you mention about "nationalization" of the American Education system may not be the actual thoughts of the President, though I had not read his address to the Congress.
your outline is in the 思想資料庫
Leechard
Saturday, February 14, 2009
天主教是否和進化論衝突？
Leechard,
Here comes a present to Darwin, who has his 200th birthday on 12. The presenter, however, is an organization influencing millions of people worldwide, the Vatican. According to 11 February Times report, the Church has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when he claimed that Man descended from apes. The Evolution theory is compatible with the Christian faith and could be traced to St Auguste and St Thomas Aquinas, the leading official said on 10.
Were Charles Darwin to be alive now, he shall be glad to bear the witness of the scene that Catholic Church announced that they accept his thinking on evolution. Since the publication of Origin of Species, there are many debates on whether we should adopt Darwin's Evolution theory or Creationist theory to answer this question :where the organisms come from? Seeing that evolution appeared to be in conflict with Catholic teaching, creationist, at Darwin's time, was very hostile towards Darwin and his fellows. But all these have gone. In recent 50 years, there are increasing number of biological facts, such as the study of DNA between ape and human, the fossil of early man ancestors, that serves as evidence to support Darwin's theory. At the same time the Church slowly changed its attitude. First, it tried to study origin of man in Darwin's perspective in 1950. In 1996, it was Pope John II to proclaim, in his speech, that evolution theory was "more than a hypothesis" In 2009, Catholic Church, under Pope Benedict XIV, prepares to go a step further, that formally recognizes the excellent work of Darwin in evolution, and to agree that what Origin of Species said is in parallel with the first Chapter of Genesis.
The significance of this event, i think, should not be underestimated. It is the second time, in recent years, that the Church attempts to resolves hundred years long dispute between science and Religion, followed by the Galileo's event. Galileo, like Darwin, was condemned by many and the Church as anti-Christian, while he was advocating a theory that Earth was not a centre of univense. But, with many scientific evidences proving Galileo's theory, he is now accepted by the Church. Now Church is prepared to do the same for the father of evolution, Darwin, which should be welcomed and commenced by all. It is a historic, landmark moment in the present time, in World History, and in Catholic’s history that Church agrees that Darwin and Galileo's theory can be linked with Bible teaching. In other words, Science and Religion are not, as many people believed, in antagonism with each other. They are telling us the same things, but in different angles, on what has happened in universe, and where we come from. So, from now onwards, the time for conflict between science and religion arising on matters related on universe and our origin has ended. The time of communication and cooperation between Science and Religion has begun. People can concentrate their effort in understanding the world deeper and broader in scientific and religion context. Scientists would appreciate the value of love in the society, while religion believers would adopt a scientific way to learn the world. To me, and to many worldwide men concerning on human future, it is a good start for rebuilding the strong world culture since divided, fragmented in years long conflict between science and religion, Only when we are united in our thinking can we begin our planning and execute our plan of rebuilding the world culture. In this sense, it is a good present by Church to all of us in year 2009.
We wish to see more and more such kind of events to take place in Church in the present time.
Here attached is Times report which can serve as your reference.
I am looking forward to hear from you.
Best wishes,
William
Dear William,
來信收到，刊在思想資料庫，請參閱。
關於進化論的問題，天主教和基督教的理解，完全不同。請參看以下
路透社的一篇文章。作者是Philip Pullella
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSLG62672220080916?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
部份激進的基督教會，至今堅持「創造論」，以為上帝在
數天之內創造了世界。
但天主教認為，創世紀並非一部歷史書。宗教故事，許多
時候都以寓言方式啟示世人。
所以，創世紀是一個寓言(allegory). 而耶穌也在新約
中多次講過，他的每一句，都是比喻。
因此，天主教是反對聖經直譯主義的。（Biblical literalism)
那麼，問題何在？
問題是：進化論寫成以後，有人把達爾文沒有說過的話，
強加於他。達爾文不反對宗教，但
一：有人「根據」進化論說世上沒有神。
二：更有人「根據」進化論而強調物質。以為
物質比心靈更重要。
三：還有人以為，弱肉強食才是真理。
所以，生存在世上要有竸爭心，因此，愛是多餘的。
來信提到的意見很好。但請注意：宗教和科學，並不是
像部份傳媒的意見那樣「混合」的。更不是天主教接納
了無神論。
李察謹上
二零零九年二月十五日
Here comes a present to Darwin, who has his 200th birthday on 12. The presenter, however, is an organization influencing millions of people worldwide, the Vatican. According to 11 February Times report, the Church has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when he claimed that Man descended from apes. The Evolution theory is compatible with the Christian faith and could be traced to St Auguste and St Thomas Aquinas, the leading official said on 10.
Were Charles Darwin to be alive now, he shall be glad to bear the witness of the scene that Catholic Church announced that they accept his thinking on evolution. Since the publication of Origin of Species, there are many debates on whether we should adopt Darwin's Evolution theory or Creationist theory to answer this question :where the organisms come from? Seeing that evolution appeared to be in conflict with Catholic teaching, creationist, at Darwin's time, was very hostile towards Darwin and his fellows. But all these have gone. In recent 50 years, there are increasing number of biological facts, such as the study of DNA between ape and human, the fossil of early man ancestors, that serves as evidence to support Darwin's theory. At the same time the Church slowly changed its attitude. First, it tried to study origin of man in Darwin's perspective in 1950. In 1996, it was Pope John II to proclaim, in his speech, that evolution theory was "more than a hypothesis" In 2009, Catholic Church, under Pope Benedict XIV, prepares to go a step further, that formally recognizes the excellent work of Darwin in evolution, and to agree that what Origin of Species said is in parallel with the first Chapter of Genesis.
The significance of this event, i think, should not be underestimated. It is the second time, in recent years, that the Church attempts to resolves hundred years long dispute between science and Religion, followed by the Galileo's event. Galileo, like Darwin, was condemned by many and the Church as anti-Christian, while he was advocating a theory that Earth was not a centre of univense. But, with many scientific evidences proving Galileo's theory, he is now accepted by the Church. Now Church is prepared to do the same for the father of evolution, Darwin, which should be welcomed and commenced by all. It is a historic, landmark moment in the present time, in World History, and in Catholic’s history that Church agrees that Darwin and Galileo's theory can be linked with Bible teaching. In other words, Science and Religion are not, as many people believed, in antagonism with each other. They are telling us the same things, but in different angles, on what has happened in universe, and where we come from. So, from now onwards, the time for conflict between science and religion arising on matters related on universe and our origin has ended. The time of communication and cooperation between Science and Religion has begun. People can concentrate their effort in understanding the world deeper and broader in scientific and religion context. Scientists would appreciate the value of love in the society, while religion believers would adopt a scientific way to learn the world. To me, and to many worldwide men concerning on human future, it is a good start for rebuilding the strong world culture since divided, fragmented in years long conflict between science and religion, Only when we are united in our thinking can we begin our planning and execute our plan of rebuilding the world culture. In this sense, it is a good present by Church to all of us in year 2009.
We wish to see more and more such kind of events to take place in Church in the present time.
Here attached is Times report which can serve as your reference.
I am looking forward to hear from you.
Best wishes,
William
Dear William,
來信收到，刊在思想資料庫，請參閱。
關於進化論的問題，天主教和基督教的理解，完全不同。請參看以下
路透社的一篇文章。作者是Philip Pullella
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSLG62672220080916?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
部份激進的基督教會，至今堅持「創造論」，以為上帝在
數天之內創造了世界。
但天主教認為，創世紀並非一部歷史書。宗教故事，許多
時候都以寓言方式啟示世人。
所以，創世紀是一個寓言(allegory). 而耶穌也在新約
中多次講過，他的每一句，都是比喻。
因此，天主教是反對聖經直譯主義的。（Biblical literalism)
那麼，問題何在？
問題是：進化論寫成以後，有人把達爾文沒有說過的話，
強加於他。達爾文不反對宗教，但
一：有人「根據」進化論說世上沒有神。
二：更有人「根據」進化論而強調物質。以為
物質比心靈更重要。
三：還有人以為，弱肉強食才是真理。
所以，生存在世上要有竸爭心，因此，愛是多餘的。
來信提到的意見很好。但請注意：宗教和科學，並不是
像部份傳媒的意見那樣「混合」的。更不是天主教接納
了無神論。
李察謹上
二零零九年二月十五日
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Could Lincoln replace Churchill and Roosewelt?
Leechard,
Churchill, and Roosewelt, both leaders of UK and US, are, in many historians' and general public's view, praised for their excellent performance in World War II. Chruchill, at the fall of Netherland and Belgium, and the surrender of Britain, made many speeches encouraging his countrymen and the Nazi-occupied region people to fight against Germany and Italy, In battle of Britain, when most of British cities were under the heavy fire of German airplanes, it was Churchill who proclaimed"We can take it', and encouraged British to fight. Later his words in this war was being considered to mobilise the English language and send it into battle. Roosewelt, not merely prepared US into war with Axis power, but also tried many means to restore world peace and prosperity. Together with Churchill, Roosewelt had many conference with many ally nations, China, Soviet Union, and Turkey, to discuss a plan to settle all problems in their regions before the war. Atlantic Charter, made after Churchill and Roosewelt, was a draft of United Nation Charter, which gave birth to Unitef Nations organisation. Bretton Woods meeting, attended by economists around the world, defined the structure of world economic system after world war II, the current one, i mean. Their achievements in military, social, economic and political one would be very great in their times.
However, i do not think that they are best people suitable to head the national government in world war 2. It has been well said of Churchill and Roosewelt mistakes in World War 2. Churchill delayed the invansion of France for 2 years(1942-1944) because not only North Africa was in Axis power, but he and his generals were worried of the WW1 trench warfare likely to be happened in France. So, in 1944, while Allies landed at Normandy and moved eastwards, Soviet Union also moved westward, and in a year time, occupied much of Eastern European countries territories, Poland, Czechsolavkia, Hungary, Romania. It was Roosewelt who agreed to give a huge sum of US money in an aid to Soviet Union in the Yalta meeting. Soviet Union then had more resource to develop their military strength and the power to spread communism in every quarter of globe. By making these mistakes during World War 2, Churchill and Roosewelt turned the world onto a path to cold war, which is a dark page in history.
I may want to ask : if Lincoln was in charge of the war, instead of Roosewelt, Churchill, would the world be better? Lincoln may be well-aware of the nature of Soviet government and Stalin, Soviet leader, and could male a better policy towards Soviet Russia, making it strong enough to defeat Germany but not to threaten the world peace. Lincoln may attack France earlier to allow the war to end in the soonest time possible and avoid to use Nuclear bomb in Japan, to prevent bloodshed and death of civilians there.
I think many historians have asked this before, but still no one can get a satisfactory answer for that. Could you answer this for me?
I welcome any comment made on this topic.
Best wishes,
william
Enjoy the year of Ox
Dear William
This is a imaginative question but not a proper question.
Because every one in history has his own position: i.e., his own thinking network and could not be replaced by another imaginated character.
Lincoln is respected by many, but, he is Lincoln in the contest of history, not
in the contest of creativity.
Leechard
Churchill, and Roosewelt, both leaders of UK and US, are, in many historians' and general public's view, praised for their excellent performance in World War II. Chruchill, at the fall of Netherland and Belgium, and the surrender of Britain, made many speeches encouraging his countrymen and the Nazi-occupied region people to fight against Germany and Italy, In battle of Britain, when most of British cities were under the heavy fire of German airplanes, it was Churchill who proclaimed"We can take it', and encouraged British to fight. Later his words in this war was being considered to mobilise the English language and send it into battle. Roosewelt, not merely prepared US into war with Axis power, but also tried many means to restore world peace and prosperity. Together with Churchill, Roosewelt had many conference with many ally nations, China, Soviet Union, and Turkey, to discuss a plan to settle all problems in their regions before the war. Atlantic Charter, made after Churchill and Roosewelt, was a draft of United Nation Charter, which gave birth to Unitef Nations organisation. Bretton Woods meeting, attended by economists around the world, defined the structure of world economic system after world war II, the current one, i mean. Their achievements in military, social, economic and political one would be very great in their times.
However, i do not think that they are best people suitable to head the national government in world war 2. It has been well said of Churchill and Roosewelt mistakes in World War 2. Churchill delayed the invansion of France for 2 years(1942-1944) because not only North Africa was in Axis power, but he and his generals were worried of the WW1 trench warfare likely to be happened in France. So, in 1944, while Allies landed at Normandy and moved eastwards, Soviet Union also moved westward, and in a year time, occupied much of Eastern European countries territories, Poland, Czechsolavkia, Hungary, Romania. It was Roosewelt who agreed to give a huge sum of US money in an aid to Soviet Union in the Yalta meeting. Soviet Union then had more resource to develop their military strength and the power to spread communism in every quarter of globe. By making these mistakes during World War 2, Churchill and Roosewelt turned the world onto a path to cold war, which is a dark page in history.
I may want to ask : if Lincoln was in charge of the war, instead of Roosewelt, Churchill, would the world be better? Lincoln may be well-aware of the nature of Soviet government and Stalin, Soviet leader, and could male a better policy towards Soviet Russia, making it strong enough to defeat Germany but not to threaten the world peace. Lincoln may attack France earlier to allow the war to end in the soonest time possible and avoid to use Nuclear bomb in Japan, to prevent bloodshed and death of civilians there.
I think many historians have asked this before, but still no one can get a satisfactory answer for that. Could you answer this for me?
I welcome any comment made on this topic.
Best wishes,
william
Enjoy the year of Ox
Dear William
This is a imaginative question but not a proper question.
Because every one in history has his own position: i.e., his own thinking network and could not be replaced by another imaginated character.
Lincoln is respected by many, but, he is Lincoln in the contest of history, not
in the contest of creativity.
Leechard
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Has president Bush achieved his education goal
Has president Bush achieved his education goal
Leechard,
In your yesterday article, you have asked this: Has president Bush achieved his education goal set in his 2001 inguaration speech? George Bush has, in this speech, pledged to reclaim America's schools, before ignorance and apathy claim more young lives. Yes, he was right in pointing out the root of the problem: Americans lost their control over their schools. Losing the control over school is a root of many problems. Americans hated each other more, resulting in many serious campus murder cases, leaving many bloodshed and death of young people. American education deteriorated very rapidly that mathematics level rated farr behind those Asian and European countries. This line of speech showed that Bush and his colleagues, the Republicans, were well aware of the issue.
However, during his tenure at office, Mr Bush failed to launch a comprehensive reform to restore American education system. We can see many terrible violence events in schools, most notably the one in Virginia University, where a Korean immigrant student killed many his classmates there two years ago. American youth mathematical, scientific, and linguistic skills deteriorated. A recent study showed that among those aged between 18 and 24, 40% would never read a book, and two-third of them would know nothing of the Iraq location in world map. These are signs of the failures in American education system. Despite Bush and Clinton policies to restore it to normal, education system still has many faults, urgently needed for a repair......
William
.
Leechard,
In your yesterday article, you have asked this: Has president Bush achieved his education goal set in his 2001 inguaration speech? George Bush has, in this speech, pledged to reclaim America's schools, before ignorance and apathy claim more young lives. Yes, he was right in pointing out the root of the problem: Americans lost their control over their schools. Losing the control over school is a root of many problems. Americans hated each other more, resulting in many serious campus murder cases, leaving many bloodshed and death of young people. American education deteriorated very rapidly that mathematics level rated farr behind those Asian and European countries. This line of speech showed that Bush and his colleagues, the Republicans, were well aware of the issue.
However, during his tenure at office, Mr Bush failed to launch a comprehensive reform to restore American education system. We can see many terrible violence events in schools, most notably the one in Virginia University, where a Korean immigrant student killed many his classmates there two years ago. American youth mathematical, scientific, and linguistic skills deteriorated. A recent study showed that among those aged between 18 and 24, 40% would never read a book, and two-third of them would know nothing of the Iraq location in world map. These are signs of the failures in American education system. Despite Bush and Clinton policies to restore it to normal, education system still has many faults, urgently needed for a repair......
William
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
