Tuesday, June 03, 2014

白马非马

新加“破”的“有破大家破”

李莫愁说《新加坡人是否一定要跟“死会”?》,形象的说出人民对公积金纠结的心理。然而,还有可以补充的地方。其一就是在法律强制之下,已经没有“是否”的问题了。其二,一般民间“银会”,除了“会头”、“会尾”,多少有些赚头之外,一般会员需要投标利息来定输赢,因此都是输家。但是,无论如何,所谓的“死会”,都是已经先吃到甜头,先拿到一笔钱的人。因此,就算是“死会”,“会友”也会跟得心甘情愿。不然,岂非就没有信义,“倒会”了?
公积金在“终身入息计划”下则不然,听说目前的情况是有半数以上的公积金会员在55岁被强制参与“终身入息计划”时,公积金户口存款不敷“最低存款”的数额,也就无钱可拿。这时只有眼睁睁的看着这二三十年工作的心血,从此被“冻结”到65岁 — 还不是一次性可以提取。
明修栈道、暗渡陈昌 — 其实,“公积金终身入息计划”打着为老年国民的养老未雨绸缪的道德牌坊,就像“集选区”口头说是保护少数民族的利益一样挂羊头卖狗肉。不然的话,在“最低存款”年年水涨船高的时候,不要说已经不能保证这5成最低存库不足的退休人士在65岁之后有足够的养老金,真正关键的问题是:这些“最低存款”不足的55岁国民,在65岁每月可以支取若干“终身入息”之前 — 自55岁到65岁者10年当中,若有什么燃眉之急,或则生病、或则失业,也都失去了合法使用自己“私己钱”的机会,如果逼虎跳墙,惹上了“大耳窿”,是谁造孽呢?
公积金本来作为一个“善策”,是新加坡政府建国以来施“良政”的一个口碑。不到50年,就被改头换面,铸成一匹庞大狰狞的恶魔怪兽。李总理和博客鄞义林的“诽谤”官司 — 谁都知道,李总理的官司是“”定了,大家眼睛睁得大大的,就是想知道CPF这头怪兽的真面目。
试想,玻璃橱窗里头摆设的衣物美不美,各花入各眼,还会有争议。那么,如果把东西隐藏在密不透风的柜子里 — 譬如说,那个老妇人,40万元财物被“祈福”之后,如果永远不打开“塑胶袋”…
新加坡人的尴尬,就是颁给李总理天文数字的薪水之后,还“”得他必须穿“破衣服”。什么叫做“矫揉造作” — 这就是!不就是因为一个穷小子,一个小贩助手穿着破衣服被“取笑”吗?
除了乞丐和标新立异的嬉皮士,会有谁愿意穿“”衣服呢?要知道的是,就算是物质缺乏的时代,一个有自尊心的人穷人,衣服或许会有许多“补丁”,却不会让人见到“破洞”。因为这代表了这家的女主人肯定不是个“贤内助”。
当李总理的妻子看到衣服“破了洞无行动 ”、当李总理说“才一个洞,等有3个洞时才要紧 ”的时候,我们看到了拙劣的演技,“做秀”做过头了。
一个国家的总理,若是有担当,那么在看到人民穿着破衣服的时候,绝对不会是跟着穿破衣服扮演“风雨同舟”;而是想方设法,让人民穿得像一个人。
衣服上有破洞,没有办法换新,最起码也要缝补,而不是“大家” — 新加坡,不是“加破” — 我说啊,总理,你明白吗?
Gallery | This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 条 新加“破”的“有破大家破” 的回复

  1. limchonghock says:
    糟老头的谎言在于把自己的意愿强加在新加坡人的身上,许多今年62岁以上的国民,早已在最低存款制和终身入息制下,每月有固定的入息。许多在1940年代出身的乐龄人士,已经享受这个制度所带来的好处十年以上。把这个制度说得一无是处,实在是天大的谎言,误导读者,以达到攻击政府的邪恶目的!
  2. 陈劲扬 says:
    难道月入上千或过万的人,没有穿过破衣服?穿破衣服是矫揉造作?是做秀?这是一种一厢情愿的想法!足见作者的思维狭隘,思想偏激,只要是总理说的话,就用屁股当脑袋,没脑地进行攻击,脑袋装的是屎水!老顽固并且思想僵化!
  3. 吴统峰 says:
    鄞义林的照片附在博客版面上,年轻潇洒 ;白马非马若附上照片;读者可吓破胆了!原来是一个面目可憎的糟老头!

发表评论

加关注

每发布一篇新博文的同时向您的邮箱发送备份。
Join 29 other followers

Monday, June 02, 2014

Hunter S. Thompson On Finding Your Purpose In Life

Hunter S. Thompson On Finding Your Purpose In Life

hunter s thomspson
YouTube/hoopayz
Journalist and author Hunter S. Thompson.
In April of 1958, Hunter S. Thompson was 22 years old when he wrote this letter to his friend Hume Logan in response to a request for life advice.
Thompson’s letter, found in “Letters of Note,” offers some of the most thoughtful and profound advice I’ve ever come across. [bolding is our own]
April 22, 1958
57 Perry Street
New York City
Dear Hume,
You ask advice: ah, what a very human and very dangerous thing to do! For to give advice to a man who asks what to do with his life implies something very close to egomania. To presume to point a man to the right and ultimate goal — to point with a trembling finger in the RIGHT direction is something only a fool would take upon himself.
I am not a fool, but I respect your sincerity in asking my advice. I ask you though, in listening to what I say, to remember that all advice can only be a product of the man who gives it. What is truth to one may be disaster to another. I do not see life through your eyes, nor you through mine. If I were to attempt to give you specific advice, it would be too much like the blind leading the blind.
“To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles … ” (Shakespeare)
And indeed, that IS the question: whether to float with the tide, or to swim for a goal. It is a choice we must all make consciously or unconsciously at one time in our lives. So few people understand this! Think of any decision you’ve ever made which had a bearing on your future: I may be wrong, but I don’t see how it could have been anything but a choice however indirect — between the two things I’ve mentioned: the floating or the swimming.
But why not float if you have no goal? That is another question. It is unquestionably better to enjoy the floating than to swim in uncertainty. So how does a man find a goal? Not a castle in the stars, but a real and tangible thing. How can a man be sure he’s not after the “big rock candy mountain,” the enticing sugar-candy goal that has little taste and no substance?
The answer — and, in a sense, the tragedy of life — is that we seek to understand the goal and not the man. We set up a goal which demands of us certain things: and we do these things. We adjust to the demands of a concept which CANNOT be valid. When you were young, let us say that you wanted to be a fireman. I feel reasonably safe in saying that you no longer want to be a fireman. Why? Because your perspective has changed. It’s not the fireman who has changed, but you. Every man is the sum total of his reactions to experience. As your experiences differ and multiply, you become a different man, and hence your perspective changes. This goes on and on. Every reaction is a learning process; every significant experience alters your perspective.
So it would seem foolish, would it not, to adjust our lives to the demands of a goal we see from a different angle every day? How could we ever hope to accomplish anything other than galloping neurosis?
The answer, then, must not deal with goals at all, or not with tangible goals, anyway. It would take reams of paper to develop this subject to fulfillment. God only knows how many books have been written on “the meaning of man” and that sort of thing, and god only knows how many people have pondered the subject. (I use the term “god only knows” purely as an expression.) There’s very little sense in my trying to give it up to you in the proverbial nutshell, because I’m the first to admit my absolute lack of qualifications for reducing the meaning of life to one or two paragraphs.
I’m going to steer clear of the word “existentialism,” but you might keep it in mind as a key of sorts. You might also try something called “Being and Nothingness” by Jean-Paul Sartre, and another little thing called “Existentialism: From Dostoyevsky to Sartre.” These are merely suggestions. If you’re genuinely satisfied with what you are and what you’re doing, then give those books a wide berth. (Let sleeping dogs lie.) But back to the answer. As I said, to put our faith in tangible goals would seem to be, at best, unwise. So we do not strive to be firemen, we do not strive to be bankers, nor policemen, nor doctors. WE STRIVE TO BE OURSELVES.
But don’t misunderstand me. I don’t mean that we can’t BE firemen, bankers, or doctors — but that we must make the goal conform to the individual, rather than make the individual conform to the goal. In every man, heredity and environment have combined to produce a creature of certain abilities and desires — including a deeply ingrained need to function in such a way that his life will be MEANINGFUL. A man has to BE something; he has to matter.
As I see it then, the formula runs something like this: a man must choose a path which will let his ABILITIES function at maximum efficiency toward the gratification of his DESIRES. In doing this, he is fulfilling a need (giving himself identity by functioning in a set pattern toward a set goal), he avoids frustrating his potential (choosing a path which puts no limit on his self-development), and he avoids the terror of seeing his goal wilt or lose its charm as he draws closer to it (rather than bending himself to meet the demands of that which he seeks, he has bent his goal to conform to his own abilities and desires).
In short, he has not dedicated his life to reaching a pre-defined goal, but he has rather chosen a way of life he KNOWS he will enjoy. The goal is absolutely secondary: it is the functioning toward the goal which is important. And it seems almost ridiculous to say that a man MUST function in a pattern of his own choosing; for to let another man define your own goals is to give up one of the most meaningful aspects of life — the definitive act of will which makes a man an individual.
Let’s assume that you think you have a choice of eight paths to follow (all pre-defined paths, of course). And let’s assume that you can’t see any real purpose in any of the eight. THEN — and here is the essence of all I’ve said— you MUST FIND A NINTH PATH.
Naturally, it isn’t as easy as it sounds. You’ve lived a relatively narrow life, a vertical rather than a horizontal existence. So it isn’t any too difficult to understand why you seem to feel the way you do. But a man who procrastinates in his CHOOSING will inevitably have his choice made for him by circumstance.
So if you now number yourself among the disenchanted, then you have no choice but to accept things as they are, or to seriously seek something else. But beware of looking for goals: look for a way of life. Decide how you want to live and then see what you can do to make a living WITHIN that way of life. But you say, “I don’t know where to look; I don’t know what to look for.”
And there’s the crux. Is it worth giving up what I have to look for something better? I don’t know — is it? Who can make that decision but you? But even by DECIDING TO LOOK, you go a long way toward making the choice.
If I don’t call this to a halt, I’m going to find myself writing a book. I hope it’s not as confusing as it looks at first glance. Keep in mind, of course, that this is MY WAY of looking at things. I happen to think that it’s pretty generally applicable, but you may not. Each of us has to create our own credo — this merely happens to be mine.
If any part of it doesn’t seem to make sense, by all means call it to my attention. I’m not trying to send you out “on the road” in search of Valhalla, but merely pointing out that it is not necessary to accept the choices handed down to you by life as you know it. There is more to it than that — no one HAS to do something he doesn’t want to do for the rest of his life. But then again, if that’s what you wind up doing, by all means convince yourself that you HAD to do it. You’ll have lots of company.
And that’s it for now. Until I hear from you again, I remain,
your friend,
Hunter
Still curious? Letters of Note is full of unexpected awesomeness.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

How To Rewire Your Brain For Success

How To Rewire Your Brain For Success

Brain
Matt Johnston / Business Insider
The latest science says memories are subject to change every time they're remembered.
The most recent edition of The New Yorker magazine contains an article about neuroscientists who study the way the brain retrieves memories. What they've found out is probably the most important breakthrough of all time in the field of success training.

How the brain remembers

Most people think about human memory as a videotape or computer memory. When you remember something, you're playing back the memory, which is vivid or vague depending on how good you are at remembering things.
It turns out that human memory isn't like that at all. When you remember something, your brain is "rewiring" the connections between neurons, literally changing the structure of your brain.
Rather than video playback, human memory is more like video editing. When you remember something you are recreating, changing, and re-memorizing. The memory is subject to change every time you remember it.
According to the latest research, it's possible to intentionally edit bad memories to remove the bad feelings associated with those memories. This new memory therapy is being used treat to PTSD sufferers.

What this means to you

Your attitude and behavior — the two things that make you successful — are heavily influenced by your memories.
For example, if you've experienced a painful failure in the past, you're more likely to avoid taking risks, even when they're smart risks.
Similarly, if you've had successes in the past, you're more likely to take actions to repeat those successes, if you have vivid positive memories about them.
The reason that this research is so important is that we now know that you can:
  1. Edit your bad memories so that they don't hold you back.
  2. Edit your good memories so that they propel you forward.
In other words, you can literally rewire your brain to make you more successful.

How to weaken your bad memories

The method described in the article is almost exactly the same as a method that author and motivational speaker Anthony Robbins (of all people) has been training people to use for the past two decades.
To extract the poisonous fangs (as it were) of your bad memories, bring the memory into your mind, and then imagine it getting smaller and dimmer, like you're watching a tiny black-and-white TV.
Now add details that scramble the memory. For instance, if you're remembering a time when you flubbed a presentation, turn the audience (the little bitty audience in the little bitty screen) so that they're all wearing clown suits.
Do this five or 10 times and you'll discover that the bad memory simply doesn't sting any longer. If anything, the memory of that presentation will make you chuckle, because you have literally and physically rewired your brain.

How to strengthen your good memories

To make your good memories more powerful and motivating, you do the same thing in reverse. You call the memory up as vividly as you can, on a huge IMAX, surround-sound screen. Make it bright and loud.
Most importantly, insert or increase the wonderful feelings that you experienced in that situation.
Do this five or 10 times and you'll discover that what was once just a happy memory is now a driving motivation. The more you experience the memory, the more you'll want to make it real again.
I've been using this method on and off for years, without really understanding why it works. Now that I know the neuroscience behind it, I'm going to make editing and improving my memories into a daily habit.
This article originally appeared at Inc.. Copyright 2014. Follow Inc. on Twitter.


Read more: http://www.inc.com/geoffrey-james/use-neuroscience-to-make-you-successful.html#ixzz32KrOcXg5