懷聿心斋

十里平湖霜满天,寸寸青丝逝（愁)华年.
对月形单望相护,只羡鸳鸯不羡仙.

旧作翻新，诗意更胜一筹！　

 在“倩女幽魂”版诗作的基础上改了一个字，似更能传其意旨。

白衣卿相《别思》

 
十里长亭霜满天，青丝白发度何年？
今生无悔今生错，来世有缘来世迁。
笑靥如花堪缱绻，容颜似水怎缠绵？
情浓渺恰相思淡，自在蓬山舞复跹。

唐－卢照邻《长安古意》

借问吹萧向紫烟，曾经学舞度芳年。
得成比目何辞死，顾作鸳鸯不羡仙。

鹊桥仙 秦观

纤云弄巧，

飞星传恨，

银汉迢迢暗度。

金风玉露一相逢，

便胜却、

人间无数。

柔情似水，

佳期如梦，

忍顾鹊桥归路。

两情若是久长时，

又岂在、

朝朝暮暮。

就像宇宙中划过的流星　各自有它的轨道和终极

是命运让我们相遇撞击　绽放友谊的光亮

就像大海中漂流的细砂　不停地忍受潮水的沖洗

是緣份让我们相知相悉　从此展开長远的情谊

溫暖在心里与我长相聚　从此生命不再孤寂

不管我得意还是不如意　总会給我勇气鼓励

就像是一盞长明的火炬　溫暖了本是淒冷的心底

纵然有如许时空的隔离　永不变的是默契

ＭＴＶ视频：

http://www.56.com/u81/v_MjQ1MzUxNzQ.html

US ambassador to the UN John Bolton:

"The United States is of the firm view that a prerequisite for ending this conflict is that the governments of Syria and Iran end their role as state sponsors of terror and unequivocally condemn the actions of Hamas, including Shalit's kidnapping,” Bolton said.

"We call on all parties to avoid action that can escalate this situation or harm innocent civilians while acknowledging Israel's unequivocal right to defend itself and the lives of its citizens," the US envoy said.

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the United States places the blame for the Israeli military action squarely on Hamas.

"We want the cease-fire to be restored, but we understand that Israel is reacting to the hundreds of rockets that have been fired upon the innocent people of Israel over the last few days," he said. "Hamas must end its terrorist activities if it wishes to play a role in the future of the Palestinian people." Watch Johndroe comment on the attacks »

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also called for the cease-fire to be restored.

"We strongly condemn the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and hold Hamas responsible for breaking the cease-fire and for the renewal of violence there. The cease-fire must be restored immediately and fully respected," she said. iReport.com: Are you there?

U.S. revokes 3 Gaza students' visas

Citing security concerns, the U.S. State Department has revoked the visas it recently issued to three Gaza students who were awarded Fulbright scholarships to study in the United States.

There is no surprise that US sided with Israel again in the Gaza conflict. According to the golden rule of US imperialism - MIght is Right - such responses are fully rational and justified. The long acclaimed respect for human rights and human lives? Surely that's not a concern for those "terrorists."  "Give a dog a bad name and kill it!" One may only wonder if the shamelessness of some US officials have reached a new apex.

摘自黄永玉《比我老的老头》 - 很逗。圣诞节到了，决定要向钱老学习，好好忙活忙活，也写出一篇像样的论文来 :-)

“四人帮”覆亡之后，钱先生和季康夫人从干面胡同宿舍搬到西郊三里河的住处，我有幸也搬到那里，正所谓“夫子宫墙”之内。打电话给他这么说，他哈哈大笑：“缘分!缘分!又绑在一起了!”

房子是好的，名气难听。“资本主义复辟楼”。后简称为“复辟楼”，这是因为那时大家的居住条件不好，而一圈高高的红围墙圈着可望而不可及的十八幢漂亮的楼房，恰好冲着来往于西郊必经之路上，大家见了有气。那时时兴这样一种情绪：“够不着，骂得着。”后来缓和点了，改称“部长楼”，也颇令人难堪。

院子大，路也好，每个门口都可以泊车。有不少绿阴。早上，一对对的陌生和面熟的老夫妇绕着院子散步，互问早安。钱先生和季康夫人都能见得到；还有金山夫妇，俞平伯夫妇……天气好，能走得动的都出来了，要都叫得出名字的话，可算是一个盛景。

二十多年来，相距二百米的路我只去探访过钱家一两次。我不是不想去，只是自爱，只是珍惜他们的时间。有时南方家乡送来春茶或者春笋，先打个电话，东西送到门口也就罢了。

钱先生一家四口四副眼镜，星期天四人各占一个角落埋头看书，这样的家我头一次见识。

家里四壁比较空，只挂着一幅很普通的清朝人的画，可能画家与钱家有值得纪念的事。钱先生仿佛讲过，我忘记了。

书架和书也不多，起码没有我多，问钱先生：你的书放在哪里?他说：图书馆有，可以去借。(!!!)

有权威人士年初二去拜年，一番好意也是人之常情，钱家都在做事，放下事情走去开门，来人说了春节好跨步正要进门，钱先生只露出一些门缝说：“谢谢!谢谢!我很忙!我很忙!谢谢!谢谢!”

那人当然不高兴，说钱钟书不近人情。

事实上，钱家夫妇是真在忙着写东西，有他们的工作计划，你是个富贵闲人，你一来，打断了思路，那真是伤天害理到家。人应该谅解和理会的。

“四人帮”横行的时候，忽然大发慈悲通知学部要钱先生去参加国宴。办公室派人去通知钱先生。钱先生说：“我不去，哈!我很忙，我不去，哈!”

“这是江青同志点名要你去的!”

“哈!我不去，我很忙，我不去，哈!”

“那么，我可不可以说你身体不好，起不来?”

“不!不!不!我身体很好，你看，身体很好!哈!我很忙，我不去，哈!”

钱先生没有出门。

钱先生和季康夫人光临舍下那是无边地欢迎的，因为起码确信我没有打扰他们。于是就喝茶，就聊天。

(Source: http://news.guoxue.com/article.php?articleid=19273)

这是一个美丽的故事。

小说的文笔，构思与立意都花了一些功夫。

前面的三节借用了一些广为流传的佛学公案与小故事，并作了一定的加工与美化，很适合现代读者的口味。

最后两节是全文的高潮，表现了小说主人公在色与戒，魔与佛的纠缠中的挣扎，抉择与宿命。

方丈大师的手上长长的青丝，佛果丹田里那个灰影和飘忽的针指的都是佛果最终所未能摆脱的色欲的魔障。

心经说 “色不异空，空不异色。色即是空，空即是色。”

其实佛家说色，并不专指女色，而是指代世间万象而言。 在佛家看来，人们所看到的形形色色的 事物都不过是宇宙间奔腾不息的洪流的载体，它们的存在是自然界微小粒子随机组合以及人世间因缘和合的结果。所以犹如镜花雪月，沙器冰雕，转瞬即逝。人生烦恼的根源，就是对种种世间形象的无谓的执著。释氏说女色，常以皮囊盛血作比喻，就是要断绝常人对美色的执迷。

虽然色并不专指女色，但对色欲的执著的确是常人最大的困惑。而对色欲的经验与超脱又是佛教修行中难以回避的考验。德国大文家 Hermann Hesse 的小说 Siddhartha, 以及前几年有一部讲藏传佛教的电影叫”色戒” samsara (直译作“轮回”) 中，都有所揭示。

中国有句古话，叫做 “道高一尺，魔高一丈。”有人觉得这句话不对劲，便把它改作“魔高一尺，道高一丈。”魔与道，究竟谁更高呢？其实道是不能与魔争高下的。因为魔由心生，你越是执意得要战胜魔障，你就越是陷入它的掌控之中。所以佛教修行的重点不是要刻意与魔障争斗以战胜，而在于培养自身的与隐忍与包容的能力，以期达到一种豁达坦荡而清明的心境。

与佛学进修相比，小说作者在文学上的趣味显然更多些。但小说神秘化的结尾的总显得有些仓促与突然，没有给读者留下充分的回味的空间。

有学生问起一篇叫“佛裂”的网文，读后觉得还蛮有意思，贴出来供大家观赏，另附点评 :-)

http://culture.163.com/partner/rongshuxia/item/010424/010424_49611.html

Fantastic Composition, Fantastic Performance

Program:

Cello Suite No.1 in G Major, BWV 1007  (J.S. Bach)

Lachrimae  (John Dowland)

Queen Elizabeth's Galliard

Here, There and Everywhere (John Lennon & Paul MaCartney)

Across the Universe

                                      Intermission

Eleanor Rigby  (John Lennon & Paul McCartney)

The Long and Winding Road

Lady Hunsdon's Puffe (John Dowland)

Tarleton's Reserrectione

A Piece Without Title

The Shoemaker's Wife

Cello Suite No. 2 in d Minor, BWV 1008

                                     Encore

Aria (Baren (?) )

Sarabande, Menuet & Gigue (BWV1007)

This is an innovative program, with baroque music centered around Beetles!

We were fifteen minuets late - Richard, the guitar professor at Georgia College, got lost a couple of times. But when we arrived, the performance was just about to start - so fortunately we did not miss anything :-)

Sollscher started the first piece a little "cold." The sound is great and the technique is superb. But he played as if he had just managed to finish the piece technically. There are not much variation with regard to the tempo, the volume and the tone. I had a feeling that he kind of rushing through the piece without careful attention to the subtlety of expression. The performance of the same piece as posted on Youtube sounds much better.

Sollscher used a rare guitar with 11 strings, which seems to be quite appropriate for the style of baroque. Dowland's Lachrimae (tears) is my favorite. His elaboration was pertinent - balanced and graceful. Queen Elizabeth's Galliard is a lively but short piece - no much impression.

The Beetle's piece "Here, There, and Everywhere" seemed to be skipped, though Richard believed otherwise - he must be more familiar with the Beetles with which he grew up.

Here, There, and Everywhere

In any case, the Beetle's music was a wonderful hit. The capacity of the 11 string guitar was fully brought out. The sound was fabulous. While Sollshcer is conservative and cautious in his interpretation of Baroque music, his treatment of modern Beetle's music is imaginative and spectacular. He certainly played the across the guitar to play "across the universe." It is so interesting to see these two seemingly radically different styles of musical expression integrated into one performer and one program!

The second part of the performance moved on nicely. The interpretation of the BWV 1008 was just great. Sollscher had now completely warmed up and relaxed. The piece develops with a graceful pace and many subtle variations - satisfying!

Encore is an aria by a Baroque composer Baren (?) Richard told me later that Baren was a big name for late Baroque music as he studies the period before. The small piece is melodious and serene.

There was a reception after the performance, with wine and delicious refreshments :-)

Richard chatted with Sollscher for one or two minuets and we both had him signed the program for the concert.

That is a wonderful night!

对金融危机最普遍的官方解释是次贷问题，然而次贷总共不过几千亿，而美国政府救市资金早已到了万亿以上，为什么危机还是看不到头？

有文章指出危机的根源是金融机构采用“杠杆”交易；另一些专家指出金融危机的背后是62万亿的信用违约掉期（Credit Default Swap, CDS）。那么，次贷，杠杆和CDS之间究竟是什么关系？它们之间通过什么样的相互作用产生了今天的金融危机？

为通俗易懂起见，我们使用了几个假想的例子。有不恰当之处欢迎批评讨论。

一、杠杆：

目前，许多投资银行为了赚取暴利，采用20－30倍杠杆操作，假设一个银行A自身资产为30亿，30倍杠杆就是900亿。也就是说，这个银行A以30亿资产为抵押去借900亿的资金用于投资，假如投资盈利5％，那么A就获得45亿的盈利，相对于A自身资产而言，这是150％的暴利。反过来，假如投资亏损 5％，那么银行A赔光了自己的全部资产还欠15亿。

二、CDS合同：

由于杠杆操作高风险，所以按照正常的规定，银行不进行这样的冒险操作。所以就有人想出一个办法，把杠杆投资拿去做“保险”。这种保险就叫CDS。

比如，银行A为了逃避杠杆风险就找到了机构B。机构B可能是另一家银行，也可能是保险公司，诸如此类。

A对B说，你帮我的贷款做违约保险怎么样，我每年付你保险费5千万，连续10年，总共5亿，假如我的投资没有违约，那么这笔保险费你就白拿了，假如违约，你要为我赔偿。

A想，如果不违约，我可以赚45亿，这里面拿出5亿用来做保险，我还能净赚40亿。如果有违约，反正有保险来赔。所以对A而言这是一笔只赚不赔的生意。

B是一个精明的人，没有立即答应A的邀请，而是回去做了一个统计分析，发现违约的情况不到1％。如果做一百家的生意，总计可以拿到500亿的保险金，如果其中一家违约，赔偿额最多不过50亿，即使两家违约，还能赚400亿。

A,B双方都认为这笔买卖对自己有利，因此立即拍板成交，皆大欢喜。

三、CDS市场：

B做了这笔保险生意之后，C在旁边眼红了。C就跑到B那边说，你把这100个CDS卖给我怎么样，每个合同给你2亿，总共200亿。B想，我的400亿要10年才能拿到，现在一转手就有200亿，而且没有风险，何乐而不为，因此B和C马上就成交了。

这样一来，CDS就像股票一样流到了金融市场之上，可以交易和买卖。实际上C拿到这批CDS之后，并不想等上10年再收取200亿，而是把它挂牌出售，标价 220亿；D看到这个产品，算了一下，400亿减去220亿，还有180亿可赚，这是“原始股”，不算贵，立即买了下来。一转手，C赚了20亿。从此以后，这些CDS就在市场上反复的抄，现在CDS的市场总值已经抄到了62万亿美元。

四、次贷：

上面A,B,C,D,E,F....都在赚大钱，那么这些钱到底从那里冒出来的呢？从根本上说，这些钱来自A以及同A相仿的投资人的盈利。而他们的盈利大半来自美国的次级贷款。人们说次贷危机是由于把钱借给了穷人。

笔者对这个说法不以为然。笔者以为，次贷主要是给了普通的美国房产投资人。这些人的经济实力本来只够买自己的一套住房，但是看到房价快速上涨，动起了房产投机的主意。他们把自己的房子抵押出去，贷款买投资房。这类贷款利息要在8％－9％以上，凭他们自己的收入很难对付，不过他们可以继续把房子抵押给银行，借钱付利息，空手套白狼。

此时A很高兴，他的投资在为他赚钱；B也很高兴，市场违约率很低，保险生意可以继续做；后面的C,D,E,F等等都跟着赚钱。

五、次贷危机：

房价涨到一定的程度就涨不上去了，后面没人接盘。此时房产投机人急得像热锅上的蚂蚁。房子卖不出去，高额利息要不停的付，终于到了走头无路的一天，把房子甩给了银行。此时违约就发生了。

此时A感到一丝遗憾，大钱赚不着了，不过也亏不到那里，反正有B做保险。B也不担心，反正保险已经卖给了C。

那么现在这份CDS保险在那里呢，在G手里。G刚从F手里花了300亿买下了100个CDS，还没来得及转手，突然接到消息，这批CDS被降级，其中有20 个违约，大大超出原先估计的1％到2％的违约率。每个违约要支付50亿的保险金，总共支出达1000亿。加上300亿CDS收购费，G的亏损总计达 1300亿。虽然G是全美排行前10名的大机构，也经不起如此巨大的亏损。因此G濒临倒闭。

六、金融危机：

如果G倒闭，那么A花费5亿美元买的保险就泡了汤，更糟糕的是，由于A采用了杠杆原理投资，根据前面的分析，A赔光全部资产也不够还债。因此A立即面临破产的危险。除了A之外，还有A2，A3,...,A20，统统要准备倒闭。因此G,A,A2,...,A20一起来到美国财政部长面前，一把鼻涕一把眼泪地游说，G万万不能倒闭，它一倒闭大家都完了。财政部长心一软，就把G给国有化了，此后A,...,A20的保险金总计1000亿美元全部由美国纳税人支付。

七、美元危机：

上面讲到的100个CDS的市场价是300亿。而CDS市场总值是62万亿，假设其中有10％的违约，那么就有6万亿的违约CDS。这个数字是300亿的 200倍。如果说美国政府收购价值300亿的CDS之后要赔出1000亿。那么对于剩下的那些违约CDS，美国政府就要赔出20万亿。如果不赔，就要看着 A20,A21,A22等等一个接一个倒闭。无论采取什么措施，美元大贬值已经不可避免。

以上计算所用的假设和数字同实际情况会有出入，但美国金融危机的严重性无法低估。

八、危害性及波及范围广

以美国和英国为代表的发达经济体，在过去近十年，受益于全球化的大趋势，经济不断繁荣，但这种繁荣的基础其实比较脆弱。这些经济体自身的储蓄相对不足，消费不断增长，经济的金融化趋势不断加强，其集中的表现就是家庭利用已有的金融资产，尤其是房地产为抵押，向银行借款来支持其日益高涨的消费。这一格局发展的必然结果就是消费信贷链的破裂，集中的表现就是美国的次级房贷危机。次级房贷危机导致美国的金融机构必须重新估计金融风险的成本，也使这些金融机构必须重新分配自己的资产，以降低风险。

反过来看，新兴市场经济国家在过去十年的发展过程中，吸引了大量发达国家的资金，以墨西哥、俄罗斯、印度、巴西等国为例，其证券市场上一半以上的资金来自于国外。日益高涨的海外资金不仅推动了本地资产价格的高涨，也推动了本地经济的繁荣，同时也带来了本地货币实际汇率的不断升值。这一系列过程为这些经济体发生金融危机埋下了种子，其中最为突出的是两个地区：一是波罗的海三国―爱沙尼亚、立陶宛和拉脱维亚，不仅经常账户出现了占GDP10%以上的赤字，同时财政赤字也日益加剧，国内价格上涨的趋势愈演愈烈，而且，这些国家还实行了与欧元挂钩的联系汇率制度，这无疑是写下了导致金融危机最佳的化学反应公式。

另一个非常脆弱的经济体，就是印度。虽然印度经济在过去3年内保持了年均8%以上的增长率，但是其宏观经济的情况不容乐观：长期以来，印度的经常账户处于赤字状态，证券市场一半以上的资金来自于海外，通货膨胀率不断上升，中央政府也是长期处于赤字状态。

综合考虑发达国家以及新兴市场国家的一些经济情况，我们不难得出一个结论：在未来两年之内，世界经济很可能发生资金流动逆转的情形，那就是几年前从发达经济体争先恐后涌入新兴市场国家、追求高风险高回报的资金，在发达国家重估风险的情况下，纷纷逆转涌回发达国家，加强发达国家金融机构的稳定度。这种趋势的形成无疑会对发展中国家带来直接的影响，并最终导致新兴市场国家金融危机的形成。

(Source: http://www.popyard.com/cgi-mod/newspage.cgi?num=247289&r=0&v=0)

Against Positivism, which halts at phenomena – ‘There are only facts’ – I would say: no, Facts are precisely what there are not, only interpretations. We cannot establish any fact “in itself”: perhaps it is folly to want ot do such a thing.  “Everything is subjective,” you say; but even this is interpretation. The “subject” is not something given, it is something added and invented and projected beyond what there is. Finally, is it necessary to posit an interpreter behind the interpretation? Even this is invention, hypothesis.”  In so far as the word “knowledge” has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings. – “Perspectivism.”   It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against. Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm. (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, $481).

... The popular mind separates the lightning from its flash and takes the latter for an action, for the operation of a subject called lightning… But there is … no “being” behind doing, effecting, becoming; “the doer” is merely a fiction added to the deed – the deed is everything… Scientists do no better when they say “force moves,” “force causes,” and the like… our entire science still lies under the misleading influence of language and has not disposed of that little changeling, the “subject” (the atom, for example, is such a changeling, as is the Kantian “thing-in-itself”) (Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals, I, $13)

The Real Causes of the Housing Market Collapse, by Patrick Carmack

(Source: http://www.themoneymasters.com/faqs.htm#q1)

The National Debt now exceeds $9.2 trillion dollars. In Fiscal Year 2006 the U.S. Government spent $406 billion on interest payments.to holders of that debt. Why do we have such a gigantic debt? Because Democrat and Republican officeholders spend far more than the Government receives in revenue.

In 2007 alone, the US government paid out roughly $430 billion in interest to pay for money borrowed to finance previous deficits. The interest total for just the last 20 years – back to 1988 - is well over $6.5 trillion. Interest payments in 2008 alone will again exceed $400 billion. Where on earth will all that money come from? If the government borrowed it all from the credit markets (i.e., sold US Treasury bills, bonds and notes – government IOUs) to raise the money it would dry up all available credit. Interest rates would skyrocket and the economy would collapse. So how does it do this year after year without such dire effects?

Here is the trick. Take, for example, a year like this year in which the government runs a $400 billion dollar deficit. The Treasury Department has to sell $400 billion in US Treasury bills, bonds and notes (government IOUs) to buyers at a rate of interest sufficient to attract their money (and beat the interest competition of other banks’ CDs and other governments’ bills, bonds and notes). To avoid a credit squeeze, the Federal Reserve System Open Market Committee in Washington directs the NY Federal Reserve Bank to purchase roughly 10% of that total (or $40 billion in our example) in existing US bills, bonds, and notes from the current holders. To pay for them it creates the $40 billion out of nothing, merely with keystrokes on a computer. Through more keystrokes, this new $40 billion is deposited into the banks of the various bill, bond, and note sellers, thereby increasing the reserves of those banks by $40 billion.

Pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 those banks must keep only 10% of those new deposits on "reserve." (Because these banks do not have to keep 100% on reserve, this banking system is called a “fractional reserve” system.). So of the $40 billion deposited, the banks must keep 10% on reserve ($4 billion) and may loan out $36 billion (90%), for business loans, mortgages, credit card loans, to purchase government bonds - for whatever borrowers want. Those loans (and payments) are in turn deposited in banks (very few folks put their money in mattresses). So of the $36 billion loaned out and then re-deposited, the banks receiving the new deposits can then loan out 90% or $32.4 billion, retaining 10% or $3.6 billion as reserves.

Banks repeat this redeposit-reloan process, reduced 10% each time, until the 10% reserves retained have reduced the funds available for loan to zero. This cunning process allows the banks to create out of nothing nine times the original $40 billion in new deposits received from the Federal Reserve (the “Fed”), or $360 billion dollars. This total is concealed from the public by the only partial expansion of the loan total at each repetitive step.

We can easily see that even by the second re-loan step mentioned above, the banks have loaned out $68.4 billion based on the original $40 billion deposited. The end result of the process is that the banks receiving the deposits and re-deposits collectively have loaned out $360 billion dollars, which they created out of nothing, and have retained $40 billion in reserve. The Fed created the first $40 billion, the banks $360 billion, equaling $400 billion dollars. Thus the credit markets are stabilized even though the US government has borrowed $400 billion.

But notice, the Fed only created the initial 10% ($40 billion). Privately owned banks created 90% ($360 billion) out of nothing, and loaned it out at interest. At even 6% that is $21.6 billion dollars per year in interest. Some of this profit goes to the private stockholders of the banks. However, the banks conceal much of this vast profit from the public as undistributed or retained earnings. Five banks hold over 50% of all deposits in the United States. This means that in a year with a $400 billion deficit (such as FY 2007-2008), those five banks will receive over 50% of approximately 6% interest on the newly created $360 billion: over $10 billion per year, from now on, for creating money out of nothing. This is profoundly unjust, and dangerous to any government, especially in a country that prides itself on being a democracy.

Note that the Fed, not the United States Treasury, created the initial $40 billion in our example. The 12 Federal Reserve banks are private corporations the stock of which is owned by private banks in their districts, not by the United States Government. The United States Treasury pays the Fed interest on the US bills, bonds, and notes the Fed buys with the money it creates out of nothing. The Fed routinely holds about 10% of the United States National Debt (US Treasury bills bonds, notes), which it has accumulated to provide the base for the rest, as explained above.

6% interest on the nearly trillion dollars in bonds it now owns provides the Fed with roughly $50 billion in revenue. With this money the Fed (1) pays some money to its private banks stockholders, (2) uses some to create giant unaudited slush funds to manipulate currency and stock markets (ostensibly to help avoid economic crises such as the one we are currently in), and (3) then takes out whatever it wishes - without any Congressional oversight or external audit - for expenses, salaries, perks, jets, lavish parties, etc.. The rest it returns to the US Treasury. In this manner the Federal Reserve operates independently of our elected Congress and external oversight.

A well-meaning, but later-disillusioned President Woodrow Wilson signed into law The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that authorized this profoundly unjust system. This law transferred money creation from our elected government to private banks. The vast economic wealth that contorted and deliberately complex law of 1913 concentrated in the hands of the privately-owned national banks is almost incalculable. It is concentrating the wealth of the nation in fewer and fewer hands as they create over 90% of our new money, year after year, and receive the interest tribute on it from the American people to whom they have loaned it.

Deficits fuel the fire of economic injustice by requiring borrowing which requires new money creation, by the private banks. Wars fuel deficits. Conflicts and fear fuel wars. The mass media fuels conflicts and fear. The bankers own and/or control the mass media. Full circle.

Apart from the horrific greed of the banks and mortgage companies making the deceptive sub prime loans, the creation of new money to pay for wars and other deficit-spending results in inflation. Too much money at a time with the same amount of goods for sale drives up prices. To combat this the Fed raises interest rates. Higher interest rates hurt the housing market. Repeated and large deficits require repeated interest rate interest hikes to avoid severe inflation. Since Americans were on the edge economically already, the housing market was killed.

Now that the housing market is dead, can the Fed resurrect it? Perhaps. Certainly lower interest rates and tax breaks (to a much lesser degree) will help. But so many Americans are already bankrupt, or unemployed, or broke, that they simply cannot qualify for or afford any loan, house, or even, increasingly, a rental. They are now homeless, or living in homes owned by the banks, so that most Americans are now debt slaves on the continent their great, great, great, grandfathers conquered. The bankers own it all, or very nearly so. Once the "recession" has been halted - if it can be - the Fed will have to raise interest rates, rather quickly, to avoid severe inflation caused by all the deficits. Again, full circle. Besides the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands it causes, fractional reserve banking is the primary cause of the inherent instability in our economic system and of its boom-bust “cycles.”

Until the American people cease being foolish consumers and realize how the banking system in the United States really works – and fight to reform it - they will remain slaves to the bankers, who will become increasingly harsh taskmasters and injustice and wars will multiply. Soon, very soon, America will consist - like the 3rd world countries - of only the very few very rich and the very many very poor.

Understand now why the banks are the largest buildings in every town in the US?, why the bankers fought tooth and nail to get the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 passed, giving them the power to create the great majority of the US money supply (excepting the tiny fraction in coin issued by the U.S. mint)?, why banks like wars and deficit spending, and why we unfailing have deficits every single year, regardless of which bank puppets they get elected using the mass media they own and control?

Each generation is faced with the same choice. Our forefathers made their choice - to be free. Have we made ours - to be slaves? (copyright 2008)

有人说是“货币战争”美国原版 ...

最近总感觉有些不太对劲。周末买完东西回家，收拾收拾，刚坐下来要改学生们的作业，突然感觉口袋里空荡荡的。一摸，钱包竟然不在。会不会顺手搁哪儿了？横竖找了一通，踪迹全无。要不就是掉在车座椅上了？冲到车上一看，也没有。回想一下，买完东西上车，途中也没觉得有谁在身边晃悠，应该不是被偷了吧。再仔细一捉摸，终于想起在Walmart付账时，刷完卡把钱包搁在账台上，临走时居然忘拿了!!!

糟糕得紧：钱倒是小事，可是信用卡，School ID，驾照，和保险卡都在皮夹里，掉了的话，麻烦可真不小嘿

也不管已经没了驾照，跳上车直奔Walmart，希望还能有一丝希望。到了门口的柜台一看，刚才结账的店员已经走了，柜台上人影全无。心里不觉凉了一半。只好问旁边的一位店员。这位胖姐指指Customer Service: 是啊，也只能去那儿碰碰运气了。

Customer Service只有一个店员在工作。我不管还有几个顾客还在排队，直接冲到队伍最前面，说明了我的情况。那个小黑妹不慌不忙，处理完手上的case后问了一下我钱包的颜色和大小，就跑出来叫另一个正在一边聊天的店员。那人跑过来，带我到一旁的一个小房间前，自己进去拿了一个钱包出来，问我是不是。我的眼睛一亮，正要看个仔细，他又打开钱包让我看里面的内容。哈，没错，正是这个！我不觉有些喜出望外 :-) 黑人兄弟很爽快地把钱包交还给我，没有任何手续，看来是对中国人民有极度的信任。得亏我临走时还带了本护照，以便必要时可以验证自己的身份。

钱包失而复得，有惊无险，回家也不改作业了，看了一场电影自我庆祝一番 :-)

不过这一段好像心思不定。记得刚来 Georgia 时掉了一个油箱盖子。上个星期去Atlanta 吃饭，付完帐，已经坐上车准备要打火启程时，里面的小姐居然跑出来敲我车窗门，原来居然把信用卡拉在桌上。这次又忘拿了钱包。虽然失而复得，看来是到了提高警惕的时候了

 
Quote

温家宝总理接受CNN的独家专访，今天播出了(有视频)

在CNN的访谈正式开始之前，记者说，所问的问题中方都看过一遍，同意之后才能进行，虽然不是他感觉最open的访谈，但是也是很rare的openness。温总理自己也主动说，我待会接受采访的时候要说的话都是真心话。　

因为是英语，所以温总理说的中文原话都被遮蔽了，我只听到同声传译的英文，边看电视，边记录了一些。说一下，CNN说温家宝总理很少介绍外国媒体的直接采访，这也是5年来首次和美国记者一对一的访谈，CNN也说他是中国领导人中非常与众不同的一个领导，中国人称他为"Grandpa Wen"。

1. 对美国的金融危机有什么看法？美国的金融系统是否存在缺陷？

W：希望美国政府尽快行动，bailout那些处于危机的金融机构，因为美国的金融风波也会波及中国，亚洲，欧洲，以及全世界。中国也会和美国携手共同阻止这场可能发生的金融风暴。

　　2. 中国是否会实现经济高增长，如果美国出现经济衰退？

W：中国不希望美国出现经济的衰退。因为美国的经济影响全世界的的经济，当然也会影响中国的经济增长，10年前，中美的贸易额只有102 billion（也就是1020亿美元），今天，中国的贸易总额超过了302 billion（也就是3020亿美元）。美国的金融系统和中国的金融系统联系紧密，美国的经济衰退也会影响中国的企业。所以中国希望美国政府能过处理好这样的金融风暴。

　　3. 中国持有几百个billion的（也就是几千亿美元）美国国债，有些美国民众对此比较担心，请问拥有巨额美国国债的中国是否会动用外汇储备发动金融战争？

W：这样的担心是不必要的，刚才讲了，中美经济联系紧密。另外虽然美国的虚拟经济（Virtual Economy）发生了动荡。但是美国的实体经济却非常坚固，美国的科技实力也非常强大。所以中国对美国经济的长远发展是有信心的。当然，我们也关心中国的钱（China’s money），当前的情况下，合作就是一切（Co-operation is everything.）

　　4. 中国模式成功的核心是什么？

W: 改革开放。它激活了中国社会，和人的创造力。然后那个记者又说他最近去了中国一趟，很惊讶那里的个人主义的盛行。总理接着说，还有一点就是有“资本主义特色的社会主义？”（Socialism in Capitalism,这个是CNN的同声传译，我记得不是特别准确，我估计是有中国特色的社会主义）就是在社会主义中也能实行市场经济。记者又追问，这社会主义和资本主义这两者不是矛盾的吗？然后总理说，你们也许都读过亚当斯密的两本书，一本是《The Wealth of Nations》，另一本是《The Theory Of Moral Sentiments》，一本讲看不见的手invisible hand，一本讲法制和道德 justice and moral。过去三十年，中国发展经济的经验就是结合这两者。一方面依靠看不见的手，一方面制定规则制度，完善法制。美国也应该从中吸取经验。

　　5. 中国渐渐成为世界的superpower了，为什么不积极在国际政治问题上发言或者努力？比如平息达尔富尔的动乱？阻止伊朗发展核武器。

W: 我想改正你提问中的一个误解，那就是中国不是superpower。中国仍然是一个发展中国家，中国人口80%是农民，几千万人口还在处于贫困线以下。在这样一个情况下，中国会尽量focus on国内事物，不希望转移注意力。

然后记者不满意他的回答，继续问他

　　6.中国石油公司在达尔富尔开采石油，当地政府却镇压人民，达尔富尔一片混乱，中国将在达尔富尔危机上做出什么行动？中国怎么看待伊朗的核问题？

W: 你如果仔细调查过的话，你会知道，第一个派出维和部队去达尔富尔的是中国，第一个派送救援物资的也是中国。中国不主张威胁性的强迫行为，而是希望有一个和平的解决方案。强迫行为并不会产生很大的作用。至于伊朗，中国并不赞成伊朗拥有核武器。但伊朗想拥有核能发电技术必须受到IAEA的监督。中国不主张使用经济制裁的方式，那样于事无补。同样希望有一个和平的解决方案。说到这里，我想说一下，中国在朝鲜核问题上做了很多的工作，到今天也取得了很多的进展，这些都是解决全球核武器扩散的经验。虽然任重道远，但是把这些经验运用起来，和平解决却是最好的选择。

7. 有一张照片很有名，那就是您曾经在8平方事件中去广场看过学生。你从中得到的lessons是什么？

温总理好像停顿了大概三秒钟没讲话，然后说: 我想你问这个问题的重点是中国民主政治的改革问题。中国社会的发展不可能只是经济方面的发展，应该是社会的全面改革和发展。其中政治改革是非常重要的。

然后记者貌似不满意答案又继续问

　　8. 经过8平方事件后，中国的政治体制改革是加速还是减速？怎么继续？

W: 中国会继续政治改革1是improve the election system改善选举系统。让国家的权力落在人民的手上，同时也服务人民。2是让法制系统更加独立make the legal system more independent。3就是政府需要被监督。一方面被人民监督，一方面被媒体监督。

　　9. 如果在中国上网，输入8平方事件，网页会失效？中国的互联网审查。

W: 去过中国的外国记者都能感受中国的网络是很自由的。你完全可以在网上看到给政府的建议，听到批评政府的声音。但是，和其他很多国家一样，互联网都会受到一些限制，一方面限制违反中国法律的内容，一方面也是保护大多数人民自由的权利。

　　10. 你最喜欢上的网站是什么？

我上过很多的网站，很多我都很喜欢上。

　　11. 达=赖/喇/嘛问题

W:在世界上很多地方，达=赖/喇/嘛都有自己的组织和集团，他们利用宗教干涉政治问题。他们宣称的大西藏地区（Greater Tibet）包括了西藏省，青海省，四川省，甘肃省，云南省。这相当于中国领土面积的四分之一。让这些地区独立，这是任何国家都不能容忍的。

　　12. 达=赖/喇/嘛曾说不会要求西/藏/独/立，只是谋求西藏的自治，那达=赖/喇/嘛要怎么做，中国政府才能继续和他对话。

W:不仅听他怎么说，还要看他怎么行动，我们会视其真诚来决定是否与之对话，如果他是真诚的，我会愿意和他本人或者他的代表对话。

　　13. 你最喜欢的书据说是《沉思录》Meditation，你从中得到了什么？

W:我确实读过这本书很多遍，也很喜欢这个书，书中有故事，有时只有半个故事，有时甚至都不是一个故事。这些帝王最后都不再了，只留下这本书和那段历史。而创造那段历史的并不是那些王侯将相，而是人民，是人民创造了历史。书中也有很多关于Morality and Ethic道德和伦理问题。而道德和伦理的最终体现是Justice正义。中国不能用道德和伦理的丧失来发展经济。我常常讲，没有道德的经济是不可持续的，是行不通的。现在一些企业做出没有道德的事情这是决不允许的。（好像和毒奶粉事件有关）

　　14. 二十五年后，中国会举行全国性的有两党竞争的政治选举吗？

W: 哈哈，二十五年后？二十五年后的事情很难预测啊。但是中国根据自身特点，发展人民民主专政，会建立一个更加公平和法制的社会，更加民主的社会，这是肯定的。

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdBywvHolzg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAgQ_zwALlA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S09t6oyaWs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRyB79CTwI4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhIOeuIFhco

许多人喝牛奶是为了补钙，不过你如果留心一下国内鲜牛奶包装上的标注，一般没有列出钙的含量，标明的营养成分含量只有两种：脂肪和蛋白质。鲜牛奶有全脂、低脂、脱脂之分，其脂肪含量各不相同，而且在脂肪被视为健康杀手的今天，一般人不会在乎脂肪含量是否达标。蛋白质才是牛奶中的主要营养成分，鲜牛奶包装上都会注着蛋白质含量为100毫升≥2.9克，以表明符合鲜牛奶的国家标准（100毫升≥2.95克）。

生鲜牛奶的蛋白质含量一般在3％以上，所以一般都能达到国家标准，除非往原奶中兑水。要提防有人拿水卖出奶价钱，就有必要在收购生鲜牛奶时检测蛋白质的含量。根据蛋白质的化学性质，有几种检测方法，各有优缺点。食品工业上普遍采用的、被定为国家标准的是凯氏定氮法。这是19世纪后期丹麦人约翰·凯达尔发明的方法，原理很简单：蛋白质含有氮元素，用强酸处理样品，让蛋白质中的氮元素释放出来，测定氮的含量，就可以算出蛋白质的含量。牛奶蛋白质的含氮率约16％，根据国家标准，把测出的氮含量乘以6.38，就是蛋白质含量。

所以凯氏定氮法实际上测的不是蛋白质含量，而是通过测氮含量来推算蛋白质含量，显然，如果样品中还有其他化合物含有氮，这个方法就不准确了。在通常情况下，这不是个问题，因为食物中的主要成分只有蛋白质含有氮，其他主要成分（碳水化合物、脂肪）都不含氮，因此凯氏定氮法是一种很准确的测定蛋白质含量的方法。但是如果有人往样品中偷加含氮的其他物质，就可以骗过凯氏定氮法获得虚假的蛋白质高含量，用兑水牛奶冒充原奶。

常用的一种冒充蛋白质的含氮物质是尿素。不过尿素的含氮量不是很高（46.6%），溶解在水中会发出刺鼻的氨味，容易被觉察，而且用一种简单的检测方法（格里斯试剂法）就可以查出牛奶中是否加了尿素。所以后来造假者就改用三聚氰胺了。三聚氰胺含氮量高达66.6%（含氮量越高意味着能冒充越多的蛋白质），白色无味，没有简单的检测方法（要采用“高效液相色谱”这种高科技去检测），是理想的蛋白质冒充物。三聚氰胺是一种重要的化工原料，广泛用于生产合成树脂、塑料、涂料等，目前的价格大约是1吨12000元。在生产三聚氰胺过程中，会出现废渣，废渣中还含有70%的三聚氰胺。造假者用来冒充蛋白质的就是三聚氰胺渣，国内有不少“生物技术公司”在网上推销“蛋白精”，其实就是三聚氰胺渣。在饲料、奶制品中添加“蛋白精”冒充蛋白质，已成了公开的秘密，它的流行让这种本来免费的化工废料的价格攀升到了1吨300～400元。

三聚氰胺是怎么加到牛奶中的呢？有两种可能途径。一种是奶站加到原奶中。这样做有一定的局限，因为三聚氰胺微溶于水，常温下溶解度为3.1克/升。也就是说，100毫升水可以溶解0.31克三聚氰胺，含氮0.2克，相当于1.27克蛋白质，由此可以算出，要达到100毫升≥2.95克蛋白质的要求，100 毫升牛奶最多只能兑75毫升水（并加入0.54克三聚氰胺）。另一种途径是在奶粉制造过程中加入三聚氰胺，这就不受溶解度限制了，想加多少都可以。

三聚氰胺在国内之所以被当成了“蛋白精”来用，可能是因为觉得它毒性很低，吃不死人。大鼠口服三聚氰胺，半致死量（毒理学常用指标，指能导致一半的实验对象死亡）大约为每千克体重3克，和食盐相当。大剂量喂食大鼠、兔、狗也未观察到明显的中毒现象。三聚氰胺进入体内后似乎不能被代谢，而是从尿液中原样排出，但是，动物实验也表明，长期喂食三聚氰胺能出现以三聚氰胺为主要成分的肾结石、膀胱结石，并诱发膀胱癌。2007年，从中国出口到美国的宠物食品导致许多宠物肾衰竭死亡，调查表明可能是因为宠物食品中混入了三聚氰胺导致的。那么三聚氰胺是否也会对人有同样的毒性？我们无法拿人体做试验，而即使患肾结石的人曾经服用过偷加了三聚氰胺的食物，也很难确定三聚氰胺就是罪魁祸首，除非患者的食物来源很单一，例如只吃配方奶粉的婴儿----没想到还真有人敢拿婴儿来做试验证明了它能吃死人！

有人认为既然蛋白质检测法的缺陷导致了致命的造假，还不如干脆取消蛋白质检测，默许牛奶兑水得了。其实凯氏定氮法的缺陷并不难弥补，只要多一道步骤即可：先用三氯乙酸处理样品。三氯乙酸能让蛋白质形成沉淀，过滤后，分别测定沉淀和滤液中的氮含量，就可以知道蛋白质的真正含量和冒充蛋白质的氮含量。这是生物化学的常识，也早成为检测牛奶氮含量的国际标准（ISO 8968）。“蛋白精”骗局在国内出现已有一些年头，“三鹿奶粉”事件不过是把这一“行业秘密”摆在了公众面前。只有改进国家标准，堵住漏洞，才能挽回人们对国产乳业的信心。

2008.9.14

(Source: http://www.popyard.com/cgi-mod/newspage.cgi?num=228735&r=0&v=0)

(Source:http://shanghaiist.com/2008/09/15/obama_and_mccain_air_china_views_th.php)

In articles written exclusively for AmCham's China Brief magazine, US presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama have outlined their visions for US-China relations if they were to come to power.

From Obama:

In the coming years, the United States and China face challenges that require fresh thinking and a change from the US policy approach of the past eight years. How the US and China meet these challenges, and the extent to which we can find common ground, will be important both for our own countries and for others in Asia and beyond.

China has achieved extraordinary, sustained growth over the past three decades. Hundreds of millions of people in China live better now than most thought possible even two decades ago.

But as China’s leaders acknowledge, China must make some basic adjustments if it is to continue sustained, shared economic growth. China must develop practices that are more environmentally sustainable and less energy intensive, that boost domestic consumption as an engine of growth, that enhance the social safety net, and that encourage indigenous technology innovation. Otherwise, the country’s future performance may fall well short of its potential... [Read more]

The resurgence of Asia is one of the epochal events of our time. It is a renaissance that is not only transforming the face of this vast region, but throwing open new opportunities for billions of people on both sides of the Pacific—Americans and Asians alike—to build a safer, more prosperous and freer world.

Seizing these opportunities, however, will require strong American leadership and an unequivocal American commitment to Asia, whose fate is increasingly inseparable from our own. It requires internationalism rather than isolationism, and global trade rather than national protectionism. When our friends and allies in the Asia-Pacific region think of the future, they should expect more—not less—attention, investment and cooperation from the highest levels of the US government.

A central challenge will be getting America’s relationship with China right. China’s double-digit growth rates have brought hundreds of millions out of poverty, energized the economies of its neighbors and produced manifold new economic opportunities. The US shares common interests with China that can form the basis of a strong partnership on issues of global concern, including climate change, trade and proliferation. But some of China’s economic practices, combined with its rapid military modernization, lack of political freedom and close relations with regimes like Sudan and Burma, tend to undermine the very international system on which its rise depends. The next American president must build on the areas of overlapping interest to forge a more durable US-China relationship... [Read more]

The summary of both is that China has done great things(duh!), still has a ways to go(duh!), and the US should cooperate, except where it does not make sense to do so )duh!). Yada, yada, yada. One can hardly blame America for focusing more on Sarah Palin's glasses?

Now, what the two candidates have to say to Americans in China is one thing. Let's wait to see what they'll tell voters back home next.

In my view, MaCain is simply repeating the established US foreign policy of containment and hegemony that has been more and more resented and resisted around the world.

For the so-called "strong American leadership" may easily be translated into actions and practices that are perceived by the Asian people as "self-righteous sanctions" or "uninvited interference" if not "preemptive invasions."  China, let us note, has never acknowledged such self-assigned "leadership" of USA in Asia and have been continuously stressing that the two nations should interact on "equal" footings. For why should USA have a leadership on an area that is so far away from her homeland - just because she is much bigger and powerful? Is this stipulated in the International Law of the 21st century?

US, as MaCain said, "share common interests with China that can form the basis of a strong partnership on issues of global concern, including climate change, trade and proliferation." The interactions and cooperations between the two nations can be very important for the peace and prosperity of the world. But when the two nations have so fundamental differences in their approach to mutual communication and their roles in global affairs, let alone their cultural and ideological differences, misunderstandings, miscommunications, and conflicts seem inevitable. The reduction and solution of these obstacles require some adjustments and reconciliation  on both sides.  In the past few decades, we have seen a number of improvements and reforms taking place in the Chinese leadership, however slowly and hesitantly, with the changing situations around the globe. While such reforms and improvement need to be deepened and consolidated in the future, is there a necessity, however, for some changes in the US foreign policy in correspondence?

All in all, one thing is certain. The current hegemonic policy of USA is more and more criticized and despised by the new generations in China. The continuation of such policy can only bring about more roadblocks than progresses in the future.

From this perspective, though Obama's foreign policy concerning China needs to be more clear-cut and developed, one may at least appreciate his caution on this matter and his open-mindedness to change the current course that will be less and less profitable and promising.

After all, it may be well-advised for both the president candidates and the general public to have some genuine understanding and respect for the diplomatic principles of China  - Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchsheel):

1. Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty
2. Mutual non-aggression
3. Mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs
4. Equality and mutual benefit
5. Peaceful co-existence

It is a shame that both candidates, like most US politicians, have seldom cared to explain and address the Chinese perspective of foreign matters. But as summed up in a well-known maxim of an ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Zi : "A sagacious understanding of yourself as well as your opponent is the royal road toward the victory of all battles."

玻利维亚政局动荡，而美国政府又要插一杠。互相驱逐外交官的风波还蔓延到委内瑞拉。可是这一系列事件的主因又是什么呢？大多数的媒体报道都是浮光掠影，看了半天对事件发生的根本原因还是一头雾水。好不容易在BBC的网站上找到一点线索，摘录如下：

The president wants to give more power to indigenous and poor communities, by carrying out land reform and redistributing gas revenues.

Mr Morales's attempts to change the constitution are fiercely opposed by opposition governors who run five of Bolivia's nine regions.

They and their supporters want greater autonomy as well as more control over revenues of natural gas in their areas.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7614784.stm)

原来玻利维亚新总统要重新分配国家财富，以给予土著与穷人更多的权益。而这又无疑会触及地方寡头与富豪的既得利益。纷争由此而起。本来玻利维亚人的内政应由其自己解决，但美国政府为什么又要来推波助澜呢？很明显，Morales 的新政近乎共产主义，这自然是向来反共的美国政府所不能容忍的。再者，如果地方政治与经济由少数寡头与富豪操控，美国政府只要通过与他们的秘密交易，就能获取对玻利维亚石油工业的影响力。而穷人与土著自然不会买美国佬的帐。虽然美国政府矢口否认，但其勾结地方政要以反对Morales 的意图在南美人眼中就是司马昭之心，路人皆知。这当然也是美国帝国主义与门罗主义政策的延续，是其十九世纪中叶企图把南美归入自身后院以来所采用的一贯伎俩。虽然凭借其超级大国的地位，美国的这种政治手腕时有得逞，但它却造就了南美人民的巨大痛苦而越来越不得人心，是注定要破产的。　

A MYSTERY that the general American public never dare to face and thus will remain a mystery perhaps for ever....

逛街中，突然朋友惊呼："哇！'处女书店'！"我大惊，抬头一看，一块匾额，上书四个大字 
　　——外文书店-__- ！

我们的总经理姓周，一次他打电话来，我正开车，一紧张张口就说："周总理……"

爸妈吵架，我爸气的说了句："我给你滚出去！"

高中的时候打篮球，Ａ得球后，无私的传给了Ｂ，Ｂ轻松进球．过了一会，Ｂ得球，Ａ大声喊着把球传给他．Ｂ却自己把球投出．结果Ａ大怒喊到：刚才真是瞎了我的狗眼……

高二时，我们的语文老师是一个刚从南昌调到北京的老教师，他的口音特重．他的儿子靠上了清华建筑系，这也是他来北京的目的，他特为他儿子骄傲，总和我们说起他儿子，每次都这么说"偶（我）蛾（儿）子是青蛙（清华）大学蟾蜍（建筑）系的"．．． 
　　　　 
　　蛾子如果到了青蛙和蟾蜍那里，不就成了点心了吗．．．

中午做饭，妈妈给我一盆胡萝卜："去，把胡萝卜切成肉丁！"

当年找工作时，主考官问我哪年毕业的。 
　　我本来是要说2000 年的，结果一激动说："两千年前。。。" 
　　更瀑布汗的是，主考官竟然噢了一声，说："孔子的学生吧。"

刚上课10多分钟，我同桌就举手说：老师我想上厕所。 
　　英语老师很不高兴的说：都多大人了还上厕所？

经理开会一般对抽烟的说：抽烟的都掐死!!

和领导等众人喝酒，举起酒杯大声道:"让我们同归于尽吧!"当时脑子太热了 ......

我们有同事外地出差，经销商请吃饭。席间要欲小便，经销商说对面就有洗手间，你去的话如果给门口说，我们是对面吃饭的就可以免费。我们同事为了节约两毛钱，箭步直走，理直气壮地对管厕所的说："我是来吃饭的！"

我有个朋友刚看过《射雕英雄传》，对"打狗棍法"非常感兴趣，经常跟别人开玩笑。 
　　一日，他又照例而为。踢了别人一下，大喝一声："踢狗腿！"大家狂笑，他也觉尴尬，就又踢了一脚，大喊："狗踢腿！"

一次去市场买菜，准备聚餐，一个韩国朋友买了生菜，要2块4，他把身上所有的零钱都给了小贩，还缺一毛钱，所以他对小贩说 -- 
　　　　 
　　"我的毛，都给你了，所以没有毛了。" 
　　小贩哑然，半天，回答-- 
　　"你的毛我不要了。"

古书读多了，发现古代人在那方面其实比现代人想象的开放的多， 譬如下面苏小妹与印顺和尚的黄色笑话。所以窃以为过去经常说中国古代妇女处处受礼教束缚云云要不是天大的误会，也只是极其片面的认识 ：-）

在苏东坡众多的和尚朋友中，佛印是关系最密切的一位，他和苏小妹斗口也就百无禁忌。

一天佛印戏谑地对她说：“我有一联，敢请女施主对答”联语是：“一女孤眠，纵横三只毛眼。”

苏小妹是个女子，佛印知道她从来争强好胜，与人对联从不服输，这次就选了这么一副充满黄色情调的想逼苏小妹无法开口，谁料到苏小妹从来顽皮大胆，早和她哥哥对过类似的联语，根本就不觉得怎样，虽然开始难免有些脸红，但一想到你出家人都敢说，我又有什么不敢说的，便对道：“二僧同榻，颠倒四个光头。”

佛印连连摇头，自认失败，连赞苏小妹锦绣心机，才思敏捷。

:-0

(引自：http://www.izuowen.com/sucai/diangu/10201.html）

最近进展：

2008年8月22日下午三点，我正在北京接受美国ABC电视台的采访，我再次“反过来”采访了现场的四位美国记者，他们又给出一些新的选择！

Add fuel!

Pour it on!

　一直认为中国语言是最丰富的，但在几个领域，我遭遇了巨大的尴尬！

　　英语中有几十个形容词表示“棒极了”，而翻译成汉语，就只能在“好，很好，太好了，棒极了”等几个词组之间转换。其它常用的词有点地方性和俗气，比如：盖了帽了，牛逼。

　英语中的“棒极了”包括：great, super, awesome, terrific, excellent, unbelievable, fantastic, fabulous, amazing, stunning, We're NO.1, ...。

　另外一个例子就是比赛时cheer（助威；欢呼）用的短语。好像除了“加油”没有别的合适的词组了！而且“加油”这个神奇的词组越喊越有劲。但非常遗憾的是，这个词几乎无法翻译成地道的英语。

　美国人到底是如何加油的呢？

　有几下几种方式：

　篮球：Defence!

　足球：Shoot!

　一般情况下：Bring it on! Let's go! Score! 它们的意思基本等于“加油”！

　经过我与大量外国朋友的探讨，加油最贴切的翻译方法是：Add oil!

　这句英语喊起来和汉语一样有力、押韵！听起来真像“加油”！

Add oil!

Add oil!

Add oil!

我坚信：

随着十三亿中国人体育热情的不断升高，

这句带有中国特色的英语必将风靡全世界！

特别奉献：老外眼中最牛“中国元素”竟是两个汉字

张放

　几天前，柒牌服装玩了一把“中国元素”，什么“青花瓷”，什么“立领”，弄得很是热闹，抢了眼球。不错，不错。但这几天，开幕式已经不再是热门话题，柒牌的“青花瓷立领”也暂时放到了一边，等奥运结束之后，看人们对“青花瓷立领”的追捧程度如何再论风靡可能性不迟。这两天啊，全世界都通过电视、网络等有声媒体或有声链接，感受着“中国元素”蕴涵着的更多的内容所释放出来的巨大魅力。

　有人报道这个中国元素，有人报道那个中国元素。但这几天最引起老外兴趣的中国元素，竟然是两个汉字。有很多一句中文不懂的洋记者们，或第一次真正坐下来看北京奥运会的人们，突然间，对这两个汉字，发生了极大兴趣。实际上，我一看就知道，他们是对两个汉语的发音及意义产生了巨大兴趣。

　哪两个汉字及发音呢？就是：“jiayou，加油”。奥运会开始至今，老外满耳朵听到的震天价响的声音，就是“jiayou”。那声音，如此富有节奏感，喊的人又那么整齐不乱。越来越多的对中国文化基本一窍不通却开始迷恋中国文化的老外们，非想弄明白为什么要喊“jiayou”，而不是“China”的原因不可了。

　而之前，他们是想当然地以为，最应该听到的，是“China”的或跟“China”相类似的中文发音才对。结果却发现，来了个“Jiayou！”。这声音离“China”，着实是太远了，八杆子也打不着。众多对中国元素和中国文化开始发生兴趣的老外们，就纷纷撰文，研究起了这事。

　很多老外首先要弄明白的，是“jiayou”的字面字面意思。当被介绍说，中国人齐声呐喊的“加油”二字，其最表面的意思是“加：add”和“ 油：oil或fuel”时，老外们都蒙了！这怎么可能？这让我们老外们首先想到的，是“加油站里给车加油”的情形啊！再一问中国人，回答的结果是，与“加油站里加油”的意思无关。嘿，老外们就更来劲了：中国人真是太奇怪了，中国文化实在太有魅力了：整个中国一起呐喊的声音，居然是“加油”！却与“给车加油 ”无关！

　于是，众多人就更深入地研究了起来。他们终于听明白中国人的“加油”是什么意思后，想，如何才能把“jiayou”给准确无误地翻译成英文呢？读到此，肯定会有很多我们中国的网友愤怒了：怎么？连这么简单的“加油”都翻译不到英语中去？太扯了吧？看我的。别，看我的。于是，就会出现太多的“加油”英译出来，放到此博文后的评论栏里了。

　那么，实际情况到底是怎么样的呢？像我这种专业玩英语语言玩了二十几年的人，心底里是明白老外们说的意思的。的确，“加油”这个在奥运会上大放异彩的汉语，的确很难从英语中找到合适的词来对应。也就是说，从发音节奏上说，从内容贴切的程度上看，都很难找到准确的对应词来。当然还是有些翻译，如 “Let’s go,”“Go, Team! Go!”啦，等等，但都不能准确地把中文这个“加油”最精确无误地弄到英语中去。

　呵呵，说句题外话，试想，连个“加油”都不能完整无遗漏地给翻译进英语中去，那么，翻译作品所释放出来的所谓原文的光辉，会因“翻译的不能”和“翻译的无力”而被强行削弱多少呢？不能想象的事情啊。呵呵。所以，多余地说，不把原文弄精通到相当地步，甚至看不了原文，只凭翻译作品去欣赏与感受原来语言里特有的文化韵味与氛围，则总给人一种假掰掰的感觉，让人没有踏实感。

　话再说回到“加油”。还有人把它翻译成“Come on!”或“Go, go, go”或“Hop on”。但洋人们不得不承认的是，所有这些，都没有“加油”来得干脆，来得那么有韵律。最让老外感到不解的是，“加油”不仅在奥运会这种欢乐气氛十分浓烈的环境里使用，而且，也使用到了四川地震的悲伤环境里，当时有很多人打着“中国加油”和“汶川加油”的牌子。而且，从电视上，洋人们看到众多的中国人在天安门广场上一起高喊“中国加油”和“汶川加油”的场面。显然，他们明白，他们对“加油”两字的使用范围和意思的整体把握并不十分了解。也就是说，他们看到 “加油”两字居然能使用在大悲与大喜两种完全不同情形之中，却不发生冲突。那么，仅仅用英语中的“Let’s Go!”或“Come on!”等字眼来翻译“加油”的话，就会感到十分不对劲，也丧失了中文“加油”的那股劲儿！

　此外，很多老外网站上的很火的BBS上，都有很多人贴出问题，问“What is jiayou in Chinese?”（即，“jiayou，‘加油’在英语中到底是什么意思？”）但得到的回答，基本上与上面所说的相类似，都很难找到一个恰如其份的英语词来替换。呵呵。有人继续添加说，“加油”的意思是“let's put on some elbow grease”，或“go for it”，或“put more effort into it”，或“Don't give up”，或“C'mon, mate, you can do it, give it your best shot”，或这，或那。

　总之，依我看，啥也没有“加油”“jiayou”二字来得舒服，来得干脆，来得上口。它的使用范围是那么地广泛，我都开始讨厌英语了，因为我真真地发现，英语居然不能把“加油”给准确无误地，充满中式节奏地翻译过去，这太让我为英语感到失望了。

　不过，我转念一想，不对啊，我这文章说的是“中国元素”，是“青花瓷”，是“立领”，是伟大的两个汉字啊。老外们对中国开始了文化意义上的兴趣，这正是 “中国元素”的伟大胜利啊。我没有理由为英语有时的苍白无力感到失望，而应该对中国文化的不可能被全面翻译过去感到骄傲才是。

　于是，我高昂起了有点牛比的头，心中想着“青花瓷”，想着“立领”，也想着“加油”，脸有些肿地（因为这几天几乎天天熬夜的原因？）冲着洋人，也冲着英文：显然，我在等待着更好的中译英的出现。

(Source: http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_49f6a5930100aov4.html?tj=1)

Wow, I cannot help but respecting the "freedom of propaganda" of this leading US media ...

列子/天瑞篇

齊之國氏大富，宋之向氏大貧；自宋之齊，請其術。國氏告之曰：「吾善為盜。始吾為盜也。一年而給，二年而足，三年大穰。自此以往，施及州閭。」向氏大喜。喻其為盜之言，而不喻其為盜之道，遂踰垣鑿室，手目所及，亡不探也。未及時，以贓獲罪，沒其先居之財。向氏以國氏之謬己也，往而怨之。國氏曰：「若為盜若何？」向氏言其狀。國氏曰：「嘻！若失為盜之道至此乎？今將告若矣。吾聞天有時，地有利。吾盜天地之時利，雲雨之滂潤，山澤之產育，以生吾禾，殖吾稼，築吾垣，建吾舍。陸盜禽獸，水盜魚鱉，亡非盜也。夫禾稼、土木、禽獸、魚鱉，皆天之所生，豈吾之所有？然吾盜天而亡殃。夫金玉珍寶，穀帛財貨，人之所聚，豈天之所與？若盜之而獲罪，孰怨哉？」向氏大惑，以為國氏之重罔己也，過東郭先生問焉。東郭先生曰：「若一身庸非盜乎？盜陰陽之和以成若生，載若形；況外物而非盜哉？誠然，天地萬物不相離也；仞而有之，皆惑也。國氏之盜，公道也，故亡殃；若之盜，私心也，故得罪。有公私者，亦盜也；亡公私者，亦盜也。公公私私，天地之德。知天地之德者，孰為盜耶？孰為不盜耶？」

Guo of the state of Qi was very wealthy, while Xiang of the state of Song was very poor. Xiang left Song for Qi to inquire about his method of becoming wealthy.

Guo told Xiang: "I am good at robbery. When I first conducted robbery, I managed to feed myself in the first year, became self-sufficient in the second year, and achieved a big harvest in the third year. Ever since that, I have been making contributions to my village and borough."

Xiang was elated. But he was only able to understand Guo’s words about robbery, not his way of robbery.

So, Xiang began to make his way into others’ houses by climbing over walls and digging into rooms. He would leave nothing unscouted whatever his eyes and hands could reach. Soon, he was caught and indicted, with all his former properties confiscated.

Assuming that he was swindled by Guo, Xiang went to visit Guo again with complaints.

Guo asked: “How did you conduct your robbery?” Xiang related what had happened.

Guo said: “No – how much have you strayed away from the way of robbery! Let me tell you now. I heard that the sky has its propitious occasions and the earth has its favorable grants. I robed the sky and the earth of their propitious occasions and favorable grants – such as the moistening and watering of rainfalls and the breeding and production of mountains and lakes – so as to grow my cereals and cultivate my grains, to construct my walls and build my house. On the land I robbed birds and beasts; in the water I robbed fish and turtles – there is none of my possessions that I did not acquire through robbery. For crops, earth and wood, birds and bests, fish and turtles are all created by heaven. How can I regard them as my own possessions? But I robbed them from heaven without incurring any misfortune. On the other hand, treasures, gold and jade, grains and silks, money and commodities are gathered by human beings. How can one take them as endowed by heaven? So, if you robbed them and were indicted, whom can you complain about except yourself?”

Xiang was bewildered as he thought Guo was swindling him again. So he visited Mr. Dong Guo to quest for an answer. Mr. Dong Guo said: “Isn’t your own body a case of robbery? You robbed the harmony of yin and yang to generate your life and convey your form. Not to mention the external things – how can they not be robbery? Indeed, all things between sky and earth cannot be separate from one another. One must be out of his mind to regard any of them as one’s own belongings. The robbery of Guo follows the common path; that’s why it was free from misfortune. Your robbery pursues your private desires; that’s why you were indicted. To proceed with a distinction of the common and the private is to rob; to proceed without a distinction of the common and the private is also to rob. To give what is common to the community and what is private to the private person, so is the spirit of sky and earth. For those who understand the spirit of sky and earth, who is a robber? Who is not a robber?”

(Source: Lie Zi, Tian Rui, Translated by Wang Huaiyu)