据说，渥太华分23个选区，对应23个议员。
2019年3月19日星期二
The Chosen is a dispiriting book for a college professor to read, not only because it recounts a history of anti-Semitism that was blatant, deliberate, and well known, not only because so many intellectual leaders of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were not merely complicit in discrimination, but architects of it, but perhaps most of all, because so much of the system originally designed to keep Jews out of Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale is still in place, at those Ivy League schools and across the country. The Chosen does not make me proud to have taught for nearly 20 years at Princeton and Harvard, schools that have yet to foreswear admissions practices originally designed to keep Jews out. But The Chosen does make me proud to share a discipline with its author.
The book has been widely reviewed in the popular press, and so its main themes are well known. Early in the twentieth century, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale became alarmed at the number of Jews entering each year. At the time, these schools admitted all comers who could pass an entrance examination that was not particularly trying. For the most part, young men from the sorts of backgrounds that the Ivies would not have appreciated did not go to college, and if they did, they knew not to apply to these colleges. That changed as more and more sons of Jewish immigrants from Europe applied for admission. Columbia soon found that 40 percent of its entering class was Jewish. Harvard counted two or three Jews among every ten freshmen.
These schools responded by devising the first modern admissions systems. Before 1910, they did not have offices devoted to admissions; they did not cap the number of people admitted; they did not request letters from headmasters, principals, or teachers to gauge the “character” of students; they did not favor geographic diversity, athletic ability, or alumni sons. They had let anyone in who requested admission and did a credible job on the exam. To deal with the new “Jewish problem,” the Ivies made all of these changes and more. One approach was to impose a quota on Jews. Application materials asked for the religion of the applicant and of his ancestors and asked whether the family name had ever been changed. In those days, the forms were mercifully short, and so the intent of this was not lost on applicants.
Explicit talk of exclusion and quotas ran afoul of the sensibilities of some alumni and faculty—though surprisingly few—and so exclusion of Jews became a stealth operation. “Character” became the euphemism for Protestant (Catholics faced discrimination as well). Yale didn’t advertise it, but up to the early 1960s, it kept Jews to 10 or 12 percent of each freshman class. World War II had not put an end to the system of admissions designed to exclude Jews.
While all three schools heralded a new era of open admissions in the 1960s and 1970s, and while all three actively recruited African-Americans, key elements of the admissions structure designed to minimize the number of Jews in each class survived. That system continued to disadvantage Jews and the growing number of Asian applicants, who were less likely to be from Montana, less likely to be sons (and now daughters) of alumni, less likely to be athletes, less likely to have attended private preparatory schools, and less likely to have buildings named after their forefathers gracing the campus. In the 1980s, a federal probe exonerated Harvard on the charge that it discriminated against Asians, but the verdict was that it admitted fewer Asians, not because of a quota but by dint of the practices originally designed to exclude Jews.
Most mortal writers would have stopped at 1960 and written a second book on what happened next. But the great power of this massive and entirely readable volume (but for moments when the stomach turns or the blood boils) is that it contains so much evidence, so even-handedly presented. Karabel’s overarching theme is that those in power determine the selection criteria and thus that notions of merit vary over time. Why would “character,” the code word for Protestant, and athletic prowess, the code word for intellectually challenged, become important determinants of admission? Because these criteria privileged the children of privilege.
For the reader of the Administrative Science Quarterly, Karabel’s book is a thorough history of how a particular administrative regime evolved in three leading organizations in one field. By tracing the rise, spread, and evolution of the admissions regime across three schools, Karabel provides both a view of institutional inertia and evolution within the organization and a history of learning and imitation across organizations. As such, his book should be read alongside Philip Selznick’s (1949) classic study of the TVA, Zald and Denton’s (1963) classic study of the YMCA, and Burton Clark’s (1960) classic study of the junior college, but also with the recent works of institutionalists studying learning and diffusion across organizations (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Davis, Diekmann, and Tinsley, 1994; Edelman, Uggen, and Erlanger, 1999). In the studies of Selznick, Zald and Denton, and Clark, organizations and administrative programs designed for one end show staying power, such that when the end disappears, the means does not. Administrative programs were given new ends to meet. They were retrofitted to changing circumstances. What kept the programs alive was often individuals, committed to both the organization and its routines.
That is precisely what we see with the history of college admissions. The whole panoply of strategies for reducing the admission of Jews without creating an explicit quota survived. Admissions directors around the country will tell you why athletic preference, alumni offspring (“legacy”) preference, regional distribution, and well-roundedness (the new “character”) remain vital parts of the admission process. They will tell you that without these things, private donations would dry up. Karabel cites the size of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton’s endowments to debunk that assertion. They will tell you that the student body would be too “intellectual” (long the code word for Jewish), not broad enough. The fact is, universities in the other developed nations do not, on the whole, bother with all of these things. In Canada, in France, in Germany, universities may not administer the simple admissions test of old, but neither have they embraced the admissions components that Americans consider to be vital, and which by chance were originally adopted to exclude a particular religious minority.
Karabel’s detective work in the archives of these three universities also lays bare the mechanisms by which new practices were invented, tweaked, and diffused across an organizational field, in this case the field of elite colleges. By the late 1930s, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and their peers had arrived at a quite effective and yet subtle system for limiting the number of Jewish students. Columbia was the institutional entrepreneur for many of these practices because Columbia was the first of the Ivies to have large numbers of Jewish students. Columbia created an office of admissions in 1910, introduced nonacademic criteria for admission (“character” and “leadership”), capped the number of students, and used an explicit quota. Harvard ran into trouble when it tried to impose an explicit quota, and so Harvard backed away from that system, as did Princeton and Yale, which were eagerly awaiting the results of experiments elsewhere. Geographic diversity was an innovation that spread and stuck. So were quotas for the athletic teams. Early in the book, we see a group of college deans and presidents, self-consciously trying to solve the “Jewish problem.” They looked to other schools for strategies to try, took lessons from the bad publicity and failed policies at peer institutions, and together institutionalized much of the complex admissions system we know today. It is organizational sociology’s loss that the book was not framed as an exercise in institutional theory, but nothing stops us from reading it in that way.
In the end, Karabel’s mission is to change the way college admissions works. He views today’s admissions system as built from the ruins of the system designed to exclude and asks what we might change to create the kind of equality of opportunity that some of the better intentioned presidents of these universities championed even in the late 1800s. There are heroes as well as villains in Karabel’s story, some of whom championed the cause of the working-class boy who had made it on merit alone. Karabel himself favors a system that would eliminate the preferences for legacies and athletes but would give an even chance to sons and daughters of the working class. Karabel’s ideal system may be a utopian dream, but since the publication of the book, Harvard has abandoned its early-admission program, which Karabel describes as yet another boost for the children of privilege, who do not have to shop for the best financial aid package and so can commit to a school before looking at the sticker price. Other schools are talking of doing the same. As goes Harvard, so goes America. That is the punch line here, for the system that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton designed can now be found everywhere in America. If Kara bel’s utopia is to be realized, it is clear where the test cases should be.
The book has been widely reviewed in the popular press, and so its main themes are well known. Early in the twentieth century, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale became alarmed at the number of Jews entering each year. At the time, these schools admitted all comers who could pass an entrance examination that was not particularly trying. For the most part, young men from the sorts of backgrounds that the Ivies would not have appreciated did not go to college, and if they did, they knew not to apply to these colleges. That changed as more and more sons of Jewish immigrants from Europe applied for admission. Columbia soon found that 40 percent of its entering class was Jewish. Harvard counted two or three Jews among every ten freshmen.
These schools responded by devising the first modern admissions systems. Before 1910, they did not have offices devoted to admissions; they did not cap the number of people admitted; they did not request letters from headmasters, principals, or teachers to gauge the “character” of students; they did not favor geographic diversity, athletic ability, or alumni sons. They had let anyone in who requested admission and did a credible job on the exam. To deal with the new “Jewish problem,” the Ivies made all of these changes and more. One approach was to impose a quota on Jews. Application materials asked for the religion of the applicant and of his ancestors and asked whether the family name had ever been changed. In those days, the forms were mercifully short, and so the intent of this was not lost on applicants.
Explicit talk of exclusion and quotas ran afoul of the sensibilities of some alumni and faculty—though surprisingly few—and so exclusion of Jews became a stealth operation. “Character” became the euphemism for Protestant (Catholics faced discrimination as well). Yale didn’t advertise it, but up to the early 1960s, it kept Jews to 10 or 12 percent of each freshman class. World War II had not put an end to the system of admissions designed to exclude Jews.
While all three schools heralded a new era of open admissions in the 1960s and 1970s, and while all three actively recruited African-Americans, key elements of the admissions structure designed to minimize the number of Jews in each class survived. That system continued to disadvantage Jews and the growing number of Asian applicants, who were less likely to be from Montana, less likely to be sons (and now daughters) of alumni, less likely to be athletes, less likely to have attended private preparatory schools, and less likely to have buildings named after their forefathers gracing the campus. In the 1980s, a federal probe exonerated Harvard on the charge that it discriminated against Asians, but the verdict was that it admitted fewer Asians, not because of a quota but by dint of the practices originally designed to exclude Jews.
Most mortal writers would have stopped at 1960 and written a second book on what happened next. But the great power of this massive and entirely readable volume (but for moments when the stomach turns or the blood boils) is that it contains so much evidence, so even-handedly presented. Karabel’s overarching theme is that those in power determine the selection criteria and thus that notions of merit vary over time. Why would “character,” the code word for Protestant, and athletic prowess, the code word for intellectually challenged, become important determinants of admission? Because these criteria privileged the children of privilege.
For the reader of the Administrative Science Quarterly, Karabel’s book is a thorough history of how a particular administrative regime evolved in three leading organizations in one field. By tracing the rise, spread, and evolution of the admissions regime across three schools, Karabel provides both a view of institutional inertia and evolution within the organization and a history of learning and imitation across organizations. As such, his book should be read alongside Philip Selznick’s (1949) classic study of the TVA, Zald and Denton’s (1963) classic study of the YMCA, and Burton Clark’s (1960) classic study of the junior college, but also with the recent works of institutionalists studying learning and diffusion across organizations (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Davis, Diekmann, and Tinsley, 1994; Edelman, Uggen, and Erlanger, 1999). In the studies of Selznick, Zald and Denton, and Clark, organizations and administrative programs designed for one end show staying power, such that when the end disappears, the means does not. Administrative programs were given new ends to meet. They were retrofitted to changing circumstances. What kept the programs alive was often individuals, committed to both the organization and its routines.
That is precisely what we see with the history of college admissions. The whole panoply of strategies for reducing the admission of Jews without creating an explicit quota survived. Admissions directors around the country will tell you why athletic preference, alumni offspring (“legacy”) preference, regional distribution, and well-roundedness (the new “character”) remain vital parts of the admission process. They will tell you that without these things, private donations would dry up. Karabel cites the size of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton’s endowments to debunk that assertion. They will tell you that the student body would be too “intellectual” (long the code word for Jewish), not broad enough. The fact is, universities in the other developed nations do not, on the whole, bother with all of these things. In Canada, in France, in Germany, universities may not administer the simple admissions test of old, but neither have they embraced the admissions components that Americans consider to be vital, and which by chance were originally adopted to exclude a particular religious minority.
Karabel’s detective work in the archives of these three universities also lays bare the mechanisms by which new practices were invented, tweaked, and diffused across an organizational field, in this case the field of elite colleges. By the late 1930s, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and their peers had arrived at a quite effective and yet subtle system for limiting the number of Jewish students. Columbia was the institutional entrepreneur for many of these practices because Columbia was the first of the Ivies to have large numbers of Jewish students. Columbia created an office of admissions in 1910, introduced nonacademic criteria for admission (“character” and “leadership”), capped the number of students, and used an explicit quota. Harvard ran into trouble when it tried to impose an explicit quota, and so Harvard backed away from that system, as did Princeton and Yale, which were eagerly awaiting the results of experiments elsewhere. Geographic diversity was an innovation that spread and stuck. So were quotas for the athletic teams. Early in the book, we see a group of college deans and presidents, self-consciously trying to solve the “Jewish problem.” They looked to other schools for strategies to try, took lessons from the bad publicity and failed policies at peer institutions, and together institutionalized much of the complex admissions system we know today. It is organizational sociology’s loss that the book was not framed as an exercise in institutional theory, but nothing stops us from reading it in that way.
In the end, Karabel’s mission is to change the way college admissions works. He views today’s admissions system as built from the ruins of the system designed to exclude and asks what we might change to create the kind of equality of opportunity that some of the better intentioned presidents of these universities championed even in the late 1800s. There are heroes as well as villains in Karabel’s story, some of whom championed the cause of the working-class boy who had made it on merit alone. Karabel himself favors a system that would eliminate the preferences for legacies and athletes but would give an even chance to sons and daughters of the working class. Karabel’s ideal system may be a utopian dream, but since the publication of the book, Harvard has abandoned its early-admission program, which Karabel describes as yet another boost for the children of privilege, who do not have to shop for the best financial aid package and so can commit to a school before looking at the sticker price. Other schools are talking of doing the same. As goes Harvard, so goes America. That is the punch line here, for the system that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton designed can now be found everywhere in America. If Kara bel’s utopia is to be realized, it is clear where the test cases should be.
2019年3月17日星期日
加拿大历史
pretty much 几乎
not so much A as B 与其说是A不如说是B。 Canada was not so much as an isolated country as an isolated colony.
Canada would become a nation, eventually, under its own steam.
It was a repudiation of a senile Conservative administration. 这是对老朽的保守政府的批判。
atavistic animosity. 祖传的敌意。
a series of ingenious, and onerous, burdens. 一系列巧妙而沉重的负担。
He prescribed railways. 他使用铁路作为办法。
He was neither enamoured of private railway companies nor afraid of public regulation. 他既不迷恋私营铁路公司，也不怕公共监管。
That was too tangled a web for the voters to unravel.
as far as be concerned
preferential duties
the requisite contingent
knighthood
proclaim
ignorant
toy with
go around
chartering a ship
the precarious politics
irascible
not so much A as B 与其说是A不如说是B。 Canada was not so much as an isolated country as an isolated colony.
Canada would become a nation, eventually, under its own steam.
It was a repudiation of a senile Conservative administration. 这是对老朽的保守政府的批判。
atavistic animosity. 祖传的敌意。
a series of ingenious, and onerous, burdens. 一系列巧妙而沉重的负担。
He prescribed railways. 他使用铁路作为办法。
He was neither enamoured of private railway companies nor afraid of public regulation. 他既不迷恋私营铁路公司，也不怕公共监管。
That was too tangled a web for the voters to unravel.
as far as be concerned
preferential duties
the requisite contingent
knighthood
proclaim
ignorant
toy with
go around
chartering a ship
the precarious politics
irascible
2019年3月16日星期六
加拿大的外交政策
2017年6月6日弗里兰在全球事务部发表演讲，阐述加外交理念，摘要如下：
参见：https://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/china-chine/highlights-faits/2017/2017-06-06a.aspx?lang=zh-cn
进步的价值观：多元化、人权、法治、女权主义、贸易立国、自由平等
构建和维护基于规则的国际秩序。
加拿大是一个移民国家，尤其是最近几十年，大量来自亚非拉的移民，为建立统一的国家认同，不得不标榜多元。这些新移民到达后，政治家又觊觎他们手中的选票，政治家也得设法讨好他们。
昨天，新西兰两个清真寺遇袭，其中第二个遇袭时，寺里有200人活动，200人是什么概念，是一个大的活动，是一个活动平台，人们聚集在一起可以共同商量事情，而且是跟思想有关的活动。在我的老家，我从没见过有一场活动，一个形式可以组织起200人来。集市当然是不可以算的，因为哪里不涉及人的思想。
要整合混杂的移民，民族主义道路肯定不行，所以加拿大只好高呼普斯价值观。
参见：https://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/china-chine/highlights-faits/2017/2017-06-06a.aspx?lang=zh-cn
进步的价值观：多元化、人权、法治、女权主义、贸易立国、自由平等
构建和维护基于规则的国际秩序。
加拿大是一个移民国家，尤其是最近几十年，大量来自亚非拉的移民，为建立统一的国家认同，不得不标榜多元。这些新移民到达后，政治家又觊觎他们手中的选票，政治家也得设法讨好他们。
昨天，新西兰两个清真寺遇袭，其中第二个遇袭时，寺里有200人活动，200人是什么概念，是一个大的活动，是一个活动平台，人们聚集在一起可以共同商量事情，而且是跟思想有关的活动。在我的老家，我从没见过有一场活动，一个形式可以组织起200人来。集市当然是不可以算的，因为哪里不涉及人的思想。
要整合混杂的移民，民族主义道路肯定不行，所以加拿大只好高呼普斯价值观。
一次谈话
昨日，江与我谈话，指责我对修门事不上心。
从他的话语中，我感受不到真诚，拙劣的狡猾，肤浅的内容，令人恶心的炫耀。
他没有能力理解我的想法，也不真诚，善于破坏不善于建设。他只能和下等的人处事，他不属于精英圈子，尽管极力把自己打扮成精英的样子，妄图走高层。
江第二次提及BMW代表J去年对我的考察，so disgusting, very insulting。🦁️难道需要🐭考察么？
领导的话不能不介意，但也不能太介意。介意是指要往心里去，领导的关切要记住。不介意是指不能给自己造成太大的心理压力。
与人交流，首先需要了解别人真实的想法。J的SB之处在于，他在了解我的想法之前，妄图用我根本看不上的东西收买人心。一个LowB以己度人，以为我希望跟他成为一样的人。至今还在像SB一样的声称给机会，还妄图要挟胁迫。
J的驭人之术就是恐吓与要挟，别无他法。
从他的话语中，我感受不到真诚，拙劣的狡猾，肤浅的内容，令人恶心的炫耀。
他没有能力理解我的想法，也不真诚，善于破坏不善于建设。他只能和下等的人处事，他不属于精英圈子，尽管极力把自己打扮成精英的样子，妄图走高层。
江第二次提及BMW代表J去年对我的考察，so disgusting, very insulting。🦁️难道需要🐭考察么？
领导的话不能不介意，但也不能太介意。介意是指要往心里去，领导的关切要记住。不介意是指不能给自己造成太大的心理压力。
与人交流，首先需要了解别人真实的想法。J的SB之处在于，他在了解我的想法之前，妄图用我根本看不上的东西收买人心。一个LowB以己度人，以为我希望跟他成为一样的人。至今还在像SB一样的声称给机会，还妄图要挟胁迫。
J的驭人之术就是恐吓与要挟，别无他法。
2019年3月14日星期四
责任与主动意识
责任有两个意思，一个是主动意识，觉得有责任做好，另一个是恐惧意识，做不好会有人说，甚至被拉出去顶锅做肉盾。
让我做二期公寓联络员，再不想干那也是我的一块工作，不能拖着不做。比如有人家里漏水淹了楼下住户，物业催要维修费用，我想尽快查明真相，如果该付钱尽快付钱，如果不改那就交涉。拖着不理别人，事情就压在我手里，物业不停催促，哪天我漏了一封邮件一个电话错过了对方的通知，都会造成麻烦，我守土有责，就会变成我的失误。所以，我非常想把问题解决掉，拖延的话，就会把问题堵在我这里，我会承受压力和责任。
拖着不解决，我怕这事会砸在我手里。
被人天天催，我又无力解决，我也难受。
做工作，必须有恐惧意识。
所谓主动意识，就是主动发消息，主动说话。主动联系人，主动发消息。
让我做二期公寓联络员，再不想干那也是我的一块工作，不能拖着不做。比如有人家里漏水淹了楼下住户，物业催要维修费用，我想尽快查明真相，如果该付钱尽快付钱，如果不改那就交涉。拖着不理别人，事情就压在我手里，物业不停催促，哪天我漏了一封邮件一个电话错过了对方的通知，都会造成麻烦，我守土有责，就会变成我的失误。所以，我非常想把问题解决掉，拖延的话，就会把问题堵在我这里，我会承受压力和责任。
拖着不解决，我怕这事会砸在我手里。
被人天天催，我又无力解决，我也难受。
做工作，必须有恐惧意识。
所谓主动意识，就是主动发消息，主动说话。主动联系人，主动发消息。
2019年3月11日星期一
《惊奇队长》观影
I watched "Captain Marvel" last Saturday night at Scotialbank Cinema, that's a good movie, I think it's better than "Wonder Woman". Some people would disagree with me, it's because their Judgment was influenced by the beauty of the heroines.
Brie Larson may not be as beautiful as Gal Gadot, but it's why the movie is more attractive, we're ordinary people with ordinary face, we'd like to see a heroine with some kind of ordinary face, not so beautiful. Brie is pretty, but not too beautiful.
2019年3月9日星期六
大型活动时的人员进出管理
1、要求来宾必须有请柬，请柬对停车位置、入门时间进行明确。避免来客不知道停车地点，过早抵达。
2、其它工作人员，（负责人）谁邀请谁负责，如不能亲自到门口迎接，则必须事先与传达员，请代为开门。并要求来客上报负责人名字。工作人员可能提前到达门口。
3、必须明确，谁负责门口事项，及上岗时间。外来工作人员可能提前到场，必须有人接应。传达员是关键。有效发挥传达员作用。
4、活动时间尽量与上午领事部开放时间错开，与馆员进出高峰时间错开。
5、验柬时应有list，list人名严格按照first name +furname格式，禁止有中文，按字母顺序排序，否则外籍保安没法验柬。
6、至少雇佣2名保安，联系保安公司后，不可以太push，避免过早地得到绝对的不，没有了进退空间。
7、如有外来车辆，须告诫馆员严防车辆尾随入馆。
8、谁邀请宾客，谁必须给宾客留有联系方式，如宾客入馆发生困难，所在处室负全责。
2019年3月8日星期五
《孙子兵法》之九变
一、原文
孫子曰：凡用兵之法，將受命于君，合軍聚眾，圮地無舍，衢地交和，絕地勿留，圍地則謀，死地則戰。途有所不由，軍有所不擊，城有所不攻，地有所不爭，君命有所不受。故將通于九變之利者，知用兵矣；將不通于九變之利，雖知地形，不能得地之利矣；治兵不知九變之朮，雖知地利，不能得人之用矣。
是故智者之慮，必雜于利害。雜于利，而務可信也；雜于害，而患可解也。是故屈諸侯者以害，役諸侯者以業，趨諸侯者以利。
故用兵之法，無恃其不來，恃吾有以待也；無恃其不攻，恃吾有所不可攻也。
故將有五危：必死，可殺也；必生，可虜也；忿速，可侮也；廉潔，可辱也；愛民，可煩也。凡此五者，將之過也，用兵之災也。覆軍殺將，必以五危，不可不察也。
二、逐句分析
（一）屈諸侯者以害，役諸侯者以業，趨諸侯者以利。制胜的关键在于敌人心态的控制，’害‘是让人害怕忌讳的事。’利‘是让人觉得有利可图。’業‘是大木板，指应为、当为、必为之事，让人觉得是其分内之事，让他心甘情愿，觉得应该全力以赴。
（二）必死可殺，他死拼，就可以诱杀；必生可虜，他贪生，就可以俘虏；忿速可侮，爱发脾气，就可激怒；廉潔可辱，爱惜名誉，就可中伤；愛民可煩，标榜爱民，就可用百姓烦扰他。
（三）雜于利，而務可信也；雜于害，而患可解也。在不利的时候看到有利的方面，在有利的时候看到有害的方面。
孫子曰：凡用兵之法，將受命于君，合軍聚眾，圮地無舍，衢地交和，絕地勿留，圍地則謀，死地則戰。途有所不由，軍有所不擊，城有所不攻，地有所不爭，君命有所不受。故將通于九變之利者，知用兵矣；將不通于九變之利，雖知地形，不能得地之利矣；治兵不知九變之朮，雖知地利，不能得人之用矣。
是故智者之慮，必雜于利害。雜于利，而務可信也；雜于害，而患可解也。是故屈諸侯者以害，役諸侯者以業，趨諸侯者以利。
故用兵之法，無恃其不來，恃吾有以待也；無恃其不攻，恃吾有所不可攻也。
故將有五危：必死，可殺也；必生，可虜也；忿速，可侮也；廉潔，可辱也；愛民，可煩也。凡此五者，將之過也，用兵之災也。覆軍殺將，必以五危，不可不察也。
二、逐句分析
（一）屈諸侯者以害，役諸侯者以業，趨諸侯者以利。制胜的关键在于敌人心态的控制，’害‘是让人害怕忌讳的事。’利‘是让人觉得有利可图。’業‘是大木板，指应为、当为、必为之事，让人觉得是其分内之事，让他心甘情愿，觉得应该全力以赴。
（二）必死可殺，他死拼，就可以诱杀；必生可虜，他贪生，就可以俘虏；忿速可侮，爱发脾气，就可激怒；廉潔可辱，爱惜名誉，就可中伤；愛民可煩，标榜爱民，就可用百姓烦扰他。
（三）雜于利，而務可信也；雜于害，而患可解也。在不利的时候看到有利的方面，在有利的时候看到有害的方面。
2019年3月7日星期四
2019年3月5日星期二
关于特鲁多
特鲁多麾下Raybould及Philpott两位女部长的先后辞职给了这位女权主义者重重一击，真是讽刺。
我胡说几句：一是可能女性对政治的理解跟男性有差异，她们会真得相信自由党鼓吹的价值观，使Raybould心理上有反对特鲁多干涉的正义感。二是特鲁多搞小圈子决策，Raybould特立独行遭排挤，不爽搞事情。三是Philpott与Raybould私交不错，同样不爽特鲁多小圈子。
特鲁多有个人魅力，但缺乏政治智慧，无力整合自由党众山头，依赖小圈子做决策，得罪了被边缘化的众大佬。
关于Raybould
一、政治家服务于国家利益，对司法独立、法治的捍卫也要符合国家利益，如果Raybould搞垮兰万灵，导致数千人失业，这不符合人民利益。
二、司法部长也是政治家，若要行事完全不考虑党派利益，全凭个人独断，那就该辞职。人在江湖，身不由己，就是这个道理。就像在现有公务员群体里，全然不考虑部门利益行不通。
我胡说几句：一是可能女性对政治的理解跟男性有差异，她们会真得相信自由党鼓吹的价值观，使Raybould心理上有反对特鲁多干涉的正义感。二是特鲁多搞小圈子决策，Raybould特立独行遭排挤，不爽搞事情。三是Philpott与Raybould私交不错，同样不爽特鲁多小圈子。
特鲁多有个人魅力，但缺乏政治智慧，无力整合自由党众山头，依赖小圈子做决策，得罪了被边缘化的众大佬。
关于Raybould
一、政治家服务于国家利益，对司法独立、法治的捍卫也要符合国家利益，如果Raybould搞垮兰万灵，导致数千人失业，这不符合人民利益。
二、司法部长也是政治家，若要行事完全不考虑党派利益，全凭个人独断，那就该辞职。人在江湖，身不由己，就是这个道理。就像在现有公务员群体里，全然不考虑部门利益行不通。
订阅：
博文 (Atom)
