版主信箱  貼圖、程式等,版主可任意修改或刪除,轉貼文章請多用連結,
一天 (00:00-23:59) 請只開一個話題,請大家合作,謝謝。12/17/2017 00:45:04
 

外獨會意見交流

 

對一個球迷來說, 是一個 overdue 幾十年的新聞!

發言人:摸咪郎, on Dec/06/2017    07:37:39 (IP code: X.X.17.134)
長庚運動醫學整合照謢計畫 世界羽球后戴資穎感恩站台


從2014年起長庚醫療集團啟動「長庚運動醫學整合照護計畫」,造福台灣的菁英運動員,包括羽球、網球、舉重、桌球和跆拳道等許多菁英選手都受到貼心照顧,今公布新年度的照護計畫外,還首度將照顧對象擴大到台灣的國高中學校運動隊伍,受到貼心照顧的選手中,包括世界羽球球后戴資穎、拳擊賴主恩和羽球身障金牌蒲貴煜都到場站台力挺。

「長庚運動醫學整合照護計畫」是以長庚的醫療資源認養運動員,全面以選手為中心來架構醫療團隊,從2014年仁川亞運開始,惠及上百名台灣的菁英選手都受到專業的醫療照顧,今年席的世界球后戴資穎說:「我一開始就被列入照顧對象,每次比賽都有防護員跟從,比賽前可以即時處理,比賽後的放鬆,即便是比較嚴重的傷勢,都可以透過爸爸跟長庚連繫,一回台灣就立刻進行檢查跟治療。」戴資穎特別感謝已經陪伴她四處征戰的長庚防護員陳盈璇,她說:「整整兩年她都跟著我四處比賽,讓我印象非常深刻。」

長庚運動醫學整合照護計畫總召集人醫師林瀛洲,今公布最新照顧的頂尖和潛力選手之外,還首度將照顧的觸腳深到國高中學校的運動團隊,他說:「台灣頂尖的運動選手不多,除了要確保菁英選手不會受傷有受到妥善照顧外,對台灣的年輕和身障弱勢選手也要特別關注。」(詹健全/台北報導)

2018-19年長庚運動醫學整合照護計畫頂尖選手名單:
戴資穎、王子維(羽球)、文姿云(空手道)、譚雅婷(射箭)、鄭怡靜(桌球)、李凱琳、蔡明諺(柔道)、林資惠(健力)、許淑淨(舉重)、李智凱(體操)、鄭兆村、黃士峰、楊俊瀚、陳傑(田徑)、景美(拔河)。

Record ID: 1512517059   From: 美國

回信 發言人:摸咪郎, on Dec/06/2017    08:11:34 (IP code: X.X.17.134)
Later better than never!

一天, 一天, 見證 台灣 自發性, bottom-up, 的進步.

等王永慶, 等國民黨, 等共產黨
你就再等五千年!



摸咪郎

Record ID: 1512517059R001   From: 美國

回信 發言人:摸咪郎, on Dec/06/2017    08:13:37 (IP code: X.X.17.134)
Late better than never!




摸咪郎

Record ID: 1512517059R002   From: 美國

回信 發言人:temo, on Dec/06/2017    08:47:58 (IP code: X.X.158.133)
沒想到這傢伙是個右控份子. 自發性?

你以為長庚再做功德阿? 阿彌陀佛.

Record ID: 1512517059R003   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:temo, on Dec/06/2017    09:01:43 (IP code: X.X.158.133)
>長庚再做功德阿?
長庚在做功德阿?

And would you please stop writing mixed broken languages? Thx.

Record ID: 1512517059R004   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:temo, on Dec/06/2017    09:02:51 (IP code: X.X.158.133)
很中二. :-\

Record ID: 1512517059R005   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:摸咪郎, on Dec/06/2017    09:48:06 (IP code: X.X.17.134)






摸咪郎

Record ID: 1512517059R006   From: 美國

回信 發言人:摸咪郎, on Dec/06/2017    09:59:42 (IP code: X.X.17.134)




摸咪郎

Record ID: 1512517059R007   From: 美國

回信 發言人:摸咪郎, on Dec/06/2017    11:13:04 (IP code: X.X.17.134)
雙腳的行為


張昭仁/加州會計師



在北京清理低端人口的冬天裡收到好友從北京來的電郵。

好友到北京工作將近五年,從開始去的時候非常不適應,現在慢慢適應了「具有中國特色」的社會主義生活。

五年前,剛到北京工作,精神與身體都非常不適應,習慣於西方世界網路自由,要看什麼就看什麼,要講什麼就講什麼,現在網路處處限制,除非共產黨政府同意的網站,觀點,想看一下西方世界的自由動態都求之不可得,每次上不了網,總覺得少了什麼東西的失落感,身體方面,每次從外頭回來,眼睛就是紅紅的,污染的空氣不只染紅眼睛,偶而還會不停的流鼻涕咳嗽。每次寫來的信總是抱怨再抱怨,希望早點離開。

捱過了五年,他也逐漸的習慣了,看不到西方世界的自由動態,共產黨的媒體絕對少不了許許多多「自立自強的」偉大事蹟;在自由方面,你絕對有嘲謔西方,跟著喊共產黨口號的自由,倘若厭煩了口號自由,北京仍然有許多歷代文物讓你參訪或是許許多多聲影愉樂將時間填滿;至於空氣污染,可以帶上各式各樣的口罩進出,雖然明知道口罩是隔離不了許多嚴重的污染物,總是一層加一層,有帶有心安,效果好壞也是莫可奈何的事了。

不斷的,他的精神生活習慣於受限制「中國式的自由」,只要以黨意為己意,順著黨報的風向球,忘了西方世界的生活,也可以活的很自在。環境方面,每日的霧霾讓你習慣它的陰沈,生活不就是這樣嗎?不只他,每個北京人不都是這樣日復一日,何況也不是沒有藍天,川普總統來的那幾天,不也讓大家感受「川普藍」的滋味了嗎?

日復一日,在共產黨的口號「自由」中,你的五腑六藏逐日崩壞,終於「肺病安樂」地走完人生,「中國夢」就是讓你精神享受共產黨口號自由的安寧,每日浸漬在陰霾空氣中,在肺病中安樂消逝。

朋友終於習慣於特有的中國夢,同時他也瞭解為什麼存有一點錢的中產階級都拼著命移往世界各地,天涯海角只要不是中國都好。因為空氣――不論精神或身體,都是清新的。

朋友來信的結尾中自問自答,到底那個才是真正的中國夢,留下來或往外跑?雙腳的行為不就做了最好的詮釋!

Record ID: 1512517059R008   From: 美國

回信 發言人:temo, on Dec/06/2017    11:21:12 (IP code: X.X.158.133)
這個張摸咪郎是個DPP傳統支持者. 那時常在台灣的民主電台(or [地下電台])發聲, very sharp, 頭腦很清楚.
然後, 可能去追"美國夢"了吧?

Record ID: 1512517059R009   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:temo, on Dec/06/2017    11:22:04 (IP code: X.X.158.133)
所謂"階段性任務完成"? ^_~

Record ID: 1512517059R010   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:摸咪郎, on Dec/06/2017    11:42:06 (IP code: X.X.17.134)

Click to listen, or you can read if you will.


摸咪郎





來聽聽美國憲法在 Supreme Court 是怎麼辯論的



Supreme Court Seems Split In Case Of Baker Vs. Same-Sex Couple

NINA TOTENBERG December 5, 20174:42 PM ET






All eyes were on Justice Anthony Kennedy Tuesday at a riveting Supreme Court argument where the issue was whether a baker may refuse to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Kennedy was the center of attention because, with the rest of the court appearing to be evenly split, he very likely will cast the deciding vote in the case. And he is the author of every major decision favoring gay rights that the Supreme Court has ever decided.

A Reagan appointee, Kennedy is at the same time a fierce defender of the First Amendment right of free speech and the free exercise of religion. But the clashes inherent in those rights appeared to prompt some conflicting questions and positions from Kennedy.

The case before the court involves much more than wedding cakes, and it could have huge implications for all retailers and service providers.

That's because the baker, Jack Phillips, owner of the Denver-area Masterpiece Cakeshop, claims his First Amendment right of free speech and religion exempts him from the state's anti-discrimination law. To Colorado, however, he is a retailer and is barred from discriminating based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

Tuesday's argument opened with a series of hypotheticals posed by the court's liberal justices. The questions were aimed at Phillips' claim that baking a cake for a same-sex wedding would unconstitutionally compel him to speak as an artist and cake creator on behalf of same-sex marriage, which he opposes.

When Michelangelo is not an artist, but a baker is

"At the wedding ceremony, the speech is of the people who are marrying, and perhaps the officiant," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. "But who else speaks?"

The artist speaks, replied Kristen Waggoner, representing the baker. "It's as much Mr. Phillips' speech as it would be the couple's."

"Who else then is an artist?" Justice Ginsburg asked. "The person who designs the wedding invitations, and the menus?"





"How about the jeweler, or the hairstylist, or the makeup artist?" Justice Elena Kagan questioned.

No, replied Waggoner, none of those are artists.


Why not? asked Kagan, noting that a makeup artist has the word "artist" in her name and may be using her creativity and artistry, too.

And what about an architectural design? asked Justice Samuel Alito. Waggoner answered that it would not be protected.

"So in other words, Mies or Michelangelo or someone is not protected when he creates the Laurentian steps, but this cake baker is protected when he creates the cake without any message on it for a wedding? Now that — that really does baffle me, I have to say," Justice Stephen Breyer said.

Jack Phillips' artistry is different, Waggoner insisted, contending at one point that a chef is not engaged in speech when she creates food for a wedding or a wedding anniversary but a baker is.




"We're asking these questions," Justice Breyer said, "because we want some kind of distinction that will not undermine every civil rights law." Those civil rights laws have long barred discrimination based on race, sex and religion.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco, making his first appearance on behalf of the Trump administration and supporting the baker, agreed that the court should not allow such exceptions when discrimination is based on race. But he urged the justices to allow some narrow cases of discrimination, such as in this case, when the discrimination is based on gender, or religion, or sexual orientation.


"The problem for you," Justice Kennedy remarked, "is that so many of these examples ... do involve speech. It means that there's basically an ability [for businesses] to boycott gay marriages."

If you prevail, asked Kennedy, "could a baker put a sign in his window saying 'We do not bake cakes for gay weddings'?"

Yes, replied Francisco. As long as the sign says the baker does not make custom-made cakes for gay weddings.

"I think that's an affront to the gay community," Kennedy said. He added a few moments later that if the Trump administration's position were to prevail, bakers all over the country might receive messages urging them not to bake cakes for gay weddings.

"Tolerance is essential"

But when Frederick Yarger, the lawyer for the state of Colorado, went to the lectern, a clearly angered Kennedy pointed to a statement by one of the seven members of the state Civil Rights Commission who was quoted saying, "freedom of religion used to justify discrimination is a despicable piece of rhetoric."

Suppose, said Kennedy, that we thought at least one member of the commission based his decision against the baker in this case on a hostility to religion. "Could your judgment then stand?" he asked.


Lawyer Yarger argued that while a baker may refuse to put a message on a wedding cake if he finds it offensive, he may not refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple if he has sold the same cake to a straight couple. That, said Yarger, is the essence of discrimination based on identity, just as it would be if a baker refused to sell the same cake to an interracial couple or an interfaith couple.

Justice Kennedy wasn't buying it.

"Tolerance is essential in a free society," he told the lawyer, "and tolerance is most meaningful when it's mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs."

Representing the same-sex couple, lawyer David Cole of the American Civil Liberties Union told the justices that there is no evidence here that the state was targeting religion. Pressed by the court's conservatives, he reminded them of the late Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion declaring that a broad general law regulating conduct that is neutrally enforced is constitutional even when it has an incidental effect on some people's religious views. Otherwise, said Scalia, we would be in a world that effectively permits "every citizen to become a law unto himself."

Cheers and tears outside the Supreme Court

While the argument progressed inside the court, there was a festive mood outside. Supporters of both sides played music, chanted and carried signs and banners. All in polite good humor. But when the litigants emerged from the courtroom, there were tears on both sides.


Phillips choked up as he read a statement describing the harassment and difficulties he has faced in his five-year legal battle against the state of Colorado.

"Stopping the wedding art has cost us much of our business — so much so that we are struggling to make ends meet and keep the shop afloat," he said. "It's hard to believe the government is forcing me to choose between providing for my family and my employees, and violating my relationship with God."

Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, the couple turned away by Phillips, came to the microphones, too.

"We're two regular guys," said Craig. "Dave and I do not have an agenda; we do, though, have hopes and dreams. ... We want to grow old together and most importantly we want everyone to be treated equally."

Record ID: 1512517059R011   From: 美國

回信 發言人:小台北, on Dec/06/2017    12:19:42 (IP code: X.X.37.205)
temo扯太遠,且流於「對人不對事」。

Record ID: 1512517059R012   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:temo, on Dec/06/2017    12:25:23 (IP code: X.X.158.133)
沒有 Peter Pan 時代了, 老是用溜之大吉這步是沒用的.

Record ID: 1512517059R013   From: 台灣

本篇到此告一段落———版主

WE ARE 49ER TAIWANESE