十月
19
我想考南开大学历史学院李喜所老师的博士，不知道哪位同学能提帮忙打听一下他的联系方式？电话，邮箱，越详细越好。谢谢！
我的聯系方式：13849027384 徐建新
八月
18
昨天在百度贴吧看见一个人预测刘翔会推出比赛，我是一百个不相信，但是今天真的佩服这个孩子。他（如果他是个男的话）真的是太有才了！
原帖地址： http://tieba.baidu.com/f?kz=440240025
五月
26
无德者无畏，大概就是说她。以下是她的言论：
Well you know it was very interesting because at first, you know, I am not happy about the ways the Chinese were treating the Tibetans because I don’t think anyone should be unkind to anyone else. And so I have been very concerned about how to think and what to do about that because I don’t like THAT.
And I had been this, you know, concerned about, oh how should we deal with the Olympics because they are not being nice to the Dalai Lama, who is a good friend of mine.
And all these earthquake and stuff happened and I thought: IS THAT KARMA? When you are not nice that bad things happen to you.
And then I got a letter, from the Tibetan Foundations that they want to go and be helpful. And that made me cry. And they ask me if I would write a quote about that and I said, “I would.” And it was a big lesson to me, that some times you have to learn to put your head down and be of service even to people who are not nice to you. And that’s a big lesson for me...
karma:In Indian philosophy, the influence of an individual's past actions on his future lives or reincarnations.
It is based on the conviction that the present life is only one in a chain of lives (see samsara). The accumulated moral energy of a person's life determines his or her character, class status, and disposition in the next life. The process is automatic, and no interference by the gods is possible. In the course of a chain of lives, people can perfect themselves and reach the level of Brahma, or they can degrade themselves to the extent that they return to life as animals. The concept of karma, basic to Hinduism, was also incorporated into Buddhism and Jainism.
© 2005 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.karma是印度教及佛教中的一个詞，与它對應的詞是“業”：業（梵文：कर्मन्），印度宗教一個普遍的觀念。印度傳統宗教包括印度教、錫克教、佛教、耆那教都有業力的觀念，業力是組成因果關係的原素。業力是指個人過去、現在或將來的行為所引發的結果的集合，業力的結果會主導現在及將來的經歷，所以，個人的生命經歷及他人的遭遇均是受自己的行為影響。因此，個人有為自己生命負責的可能性以及責任。而業力也是主導輪迴的因，所以業力不單是現世的結果，還會生生不息地延伸至來世。
四月
10
又被水瓶座的人点名了，硬着头皮回答吧。虽然俺对星座了解不多，但是我和水瓶座的人比较投缘倒是真的，因为他们智商高，人也不赖。
1.你相信命中注定吗?
相信
2.认为分手后男女朋友还可以做普通朋友吗？
不知道
3.可以选择的话,想做男的还是女的?
当然是男的
4.你相信承诺吗？为什么？
相信，人都是为了希望而活着
5.你喜欢什么样的异性朋友？
智商在100到200之间的
6.你觉得朋友相处最重要的是什么？
真诚
7.你相信日久生情还是一见钟情？
我相信日久之后的某一天一见钟情
8.除了钱，你最想得到什么？
现世安稳
9.春游组织什么活动你会喜欢捏？
无所谓
10.你有信仰吗？
有
11.你觉得什么时候你是最幸福的？
陪女朋友、踢球
12.如果遇到不顺心的事，你最想干什么？
想不起来了
14：如果只剩下一个星期的生命,你会怎么过？
抢银行，当了一辈子好人了，我得抓紧时间颠覆一下自己
15.你想成为什么样的人？
好人，平凡的人，绝对不能是名人或者伟人之类的
16.10岁之前印象最深的一件事情是什么？
忘了
17. 至今为止, 生活中有什么事物,让你觉得人生是美好的?
足球、音乐
18. 上一次哭是什么时候,什么情况？
上一次不记得了，但是我知道下一次是啥时候：等我有孩子的时候，我肯定会喜极而泣的
19.你最喜欢点你名的人哪个方面?
自恋
20.你最近遇到的最尴尬而搞笑的事？
好像没有尴尬的事儿，搞笑的事儿倒是挺多的，313的故事随便找出几条来，就是笑料
三月
26
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/michael_portillo/article3602819.ece
From The Sunday TimesMarch 23, 2008
Tibet: the West can use the Olympics as a weapon against Beijing
Michael Portillo
Adolf Hitler’s glee at exploiting the 1936 Berlin Olympics as a showcase for Nazism turned to fury when the black American athlete Jesse Owens won four gold medals. The Chinese leadership must by now be wondering whether staging the Games in Beijing will bring the regime more accolades than brickbats. Be careful what you wish for, as Confucius probably said.
In defence of the Olympic movement, Berlin had been selected before the Nazis came to power. No such excuse covers the decision to award the coveted prize to Beijing. In 1989 the Chinese government crushed the peaceful protests in Tiananmen Square as the world looked on in horror. China still secured the Olympics and a propaganda triumph and has looked forward to showing off to the world.
The authorities must have reflected that other governments are rarely brave enough to boycott the Olympics. The Berlin Games proceeded even though the Nazis had by then implemented the infamous Nuremberg laws that deprived German Jews of basic human rights.
Admittedly the Americans led a boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics because Soviet troops had stormed Afghanistan (Russian invasion bad, American invasion good). China knew that, short of marching into neighbouring territory, nothing it did would put its show at risk.
All the indicators suggested that China would be given a soft ride. When President Jiang Zemin visited Tony Blair in 1999 the Metropolitan police treated pro-Tibet demonstrators roughly. Double-decker buses were used to shield the protest from Jiang’s sensitive eyes. As Washington became embroiled in the scandals of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition, not to mention the tremendous loss of civilian life in Iraq and Afghanistan, Premier Wen Jiabao, the prime minister, must have been confident that America would avoid dialogue on human rights.
In any case we are all in awe of China’s economic power. When Gordon Brown toured there last month, he talked of business opportunities. Prime ministers loathe being asked to raise human rights issues that threaten to interrupt the smiles, handshakes and toasts by which the success of visits are measured. Brown probably limited himself to the vaguest urging of reform.
China’s economic sway is such that it has undermined US foreign policy with impunity. America aims to use its muscle to shape a world that embraces western values. In developing countries it insists that governments respect the rule of law and reduce corruption as a condition for trade and aid. China, on the other hand, has extended the hand of friendship to gruesome regimes (including Sudan’s). Beijing’s requirement for natural resources is its only consideration. Maybe it has enjoyed thwarting America’s attempts to export its liberal values.
So China had every reason to expect a trouble-free Olympics that would show its best face to the world. In Berlin the anti-Jewish notices were taken down in the weeks preceding the Games. In Beijing the use of cars has been restricted to reduce air pollution.
In the modern world governments are not the only players. Steven Spielberg, the film director, withdrew as artistic adviser to the Games’ ceremonies, remarking that his conscience did not allow him to continue while “unspeakable crimes” were being committed in Darfur.
His decision has transformed the situation. In that moment the Beijing Olympics flipped from being an opportunity for the Chinese government and became a threat. China’s deep concern that the Games should be a success provides those who oppose its policies with a narrow window of opportunity. It delivers leverage both to domestic dissidents and to the outside world, unparalleled since Tiananmen.
With the news blackout imposed by China on the country’s interior we cannot know whether the Tibetan protests are opportunistically linked to the forthcoming Games. But the Olympics are a political factor and the situation is dynamic. The eyes of the world are turned disapprovingly on Chinese policies.
“If freedom-loving people throughout the world do not speak out against China and the Chinese in Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to speak out on human rights,” declared Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, before cheering crowds of Tibetans in northern India, where she had gone to meet the Dalai Lama. Such outbursts had not featured in China’s “script” for the Olympics.
Our prime minister, discovering the courage of others’ convictions, has said that he, too, would like to meet the Tibetan spiritual leader. David Cameron has congratulated him, so we have a new consensus. We have moved a long way since Blair claimed to have too many requests for meetings to find time to receive the Dalai Lama during his 2004 visit to Britain.
China failed to understand that politicians in democracies cannot predict what positions they will take. Spielberg’s démarche has changed everything for them. In a few weeks they have moved from avoiding anything that might offend Beijing to scrambling to be seen as pro-Tibetan. It scarcely matters whether the riots in Lhasa were, at least in part, brutal and racist, nor that such violence is in defiance of the Dalai Lama’s strictures and undermines his authority. The Tibet bandwagon is rolling and every democratic politician clamours for a place on board.
As western politicians are exposed as being powerless to avert economic downturn and as Iraq and Afghanistan smoulder on, heaping opprobrium on China offers an agreeable opportunity to divert attention from the politicians’ other woes.
The genie is out of the bottle and there is no predicting where this may end. All our politicians say that boycotting the Olympics is not on the cards. But that is for now. If the situation in Tibet deteriorates, pressure will grow to use the Olympics as a weapon against Beijing. If China continues to thwart western journalists in their attempts to report dissent, the hostility of the world’s media can be guaranteed. However, if it allows events to be reported, the protesters will seize their chance.
Anyway, there is much that can be done short of a total boycott. The Olympic torch is to embark on a world tour, providing the occasion for Tibet and Darfur protests around the world. When it arrives in London, I predict that the 2,000 police being mobilised that day will go easy on the demonstrators and no buses will block our view of them. Sir Trevor McDonald, scheduled to be a torch bearer, will surely face insistent calls to withdraw.
Mia Farrow, the actress, will front the protest when the torch passes through San Francisco. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton must then consider how to garner support from those demonstrations in America’s most populous and perhaps most liberal state.
The unprecedented grandiosity of the torch’s itinerary must have looked great on the drawing board. In practice, Beijing has secured a rolling programme of antiChinese protest circling the globe.
If celebrity torch bearers are forced to pull out one by one, China will suffer daily public relations disasters. Nor does its recruitment of Spielberg, a spectacular coup at the time, look such a brilliant move now.
The ceremonies on which he was advising will provide the next focus. They can be shunned without disrupting the sporting events which supposedly are the point of the Olympics. Indeed, once the politicians have aligned themselves with Tibet and Darfur, what justification could they offer for allowing the regime to bask in global adulation?
When China bid for the Olympics it judged correctly that democratic politicians are pusillanimous. Given their hunger for Chinese contracts they would not let massacre in Darfur or torture in Tibet disrupt a good party. But Beijing failed to see that western statesmen are even more craven towards their celebrities and media.
Beijing’s other mistake was being too anxious for the Games to be a success. A man who wants something too much makes himself vulnerable. Surely Confucius said something of the sort.