台灣社會原本應有的多重面向被我們傳媒創造出來的政治娛樂削得單薄無趣。我們的社會只剩下了政治，離開了政治，我們一點想像力都沒有。甚至，我們的知識份子都只在關心自己跟政治權力之間的關係與距離，彷彿知識的力量只是用來監督、反抗與平衡當權而已，而不是用來創造思想、反省社會、維護文明，無形中，知識份子竟讓政治定義了自己的角色，限制了自己的社會功能。
什麼時候，台灣社會可以不必高喊許我一個政治家，而是期待一個大詩人的誕生。公園豎起文學家的塑像，道路以科學家為名，紀念館保存的是音樂家的事蹟與成就，而不僅僅用來頌揚政治家。什麼時候，我們可以看見民眾夾道歡迎的人不是一個新總統，而是一位偉大的哲學家。
1. 拒絕興建蘇花高速公路
2. 發展花蓮大眾運輸交通工具
3. 恢復花蓮海岸
4. 發展花蓮社區特色小站
我真的看不下去了，今天就在这说两句，中华民族大多数是热爱和平的，但也不怕部分人闹事，只要是有利于大多数人的，不管怎么做，我坚决支持！！
要说藏区，中原地区不一样吗？中国就是场皇帝的新装，谁过的好不好，冷暖自知。但凭借良心说，藏区的生活的确改善很大，起码比周边的国家都不错，这是应该看到的。
但就如您所说，生活好了，就会满足吗？事实是正好相反的，这种思维就算拿到汉族里也说不通，更何况是对信仰那么看重的藏区。你可以想像政府免费让他们读书，却用的是汉族课本。他们整日仰望的神山圣湖，却日日都要遭受俗人的攀登和打扰，这是谁都接受不了。
另外说一下，藏族人对青藏铁路并不完全是支持的。而在拉萨日益繁华的时候，我那些老藏族的邻居却一个个都搬走了，这些难道还不够说明问题？
歐洲不會為了西藏事件對中國採取經濟制裁，也不會抵制奧運（另一個說法是，2012年就是倫敦奧運，所以英政府不會抵制2008年的北京奧運），而是採取與達賴會面的做法，來向北京抗議。
現在，一堆中國人在那裡喊打喊殺的，要殺光奧運前抗議的藏民。這樣啦，如果你殺光人家是正義的話，就別怪別人殺到南京宰了你30萬人就叫可恥，中國人可沒比別種民族高貴，屠宰人了不起，被宰就是邪惡。這裡想強調一點，尤其對於國家機器特別要有「節制」的要求，畢竟掌握警察、軍隊、宣傳，權力和實力本來就不對等，很基本屬於言論自由範疇的抗議遊行，國家能壓下去就是打壓言論而已，壓不下去一造成反彈，就是情勢升級，糜爛下去就會變成上述1959年的情勢，最後就是武力鎮壓，怎麼看，國家機器都難辭其咎，尤其掌握情勢後必然有的清鄉，那更會造成無辜，更會產生怨懟的累積。
喔喔，對了，也順便一提，一堆台灣獨派見獵欣喜，藉此佐證中國鎮壓西藏多醜惡，是啦，中國不是什麼好東西，但請也自己照鏡子瞧瞧，去年紅衫軍時，你們多少人喊著要鎮壓、戒嚴？要是民進黨卯起來幹了，你們不會像現在的中國網民說一樣的話才怪，當時南部縣市長用集會遊行法派警察禁止紅衫軍集會，你們不也是拍手叫好。法西斯真是存在於各種社會及制度之中啊！最妙的是，當時還有人綠營支持者反指紅衫軍是法西斯，真是滑稽極了。
The Dalai Lama said that he had long ago accepted Chinese control over Tibet in exchange for guarantees of genuine internal autonomy.
"The whole world knows the Dalai Lama is not seeking independence, 100 times, 1,000 times I have repeated this. It is my mantra - we are not seeking independence."
He added that he was "always ready to meet Chinese leaders, particularly Hu Jintao"- a reference to China's president, who in 1989 oversaw a bloody crackdown in Lhasa as regional Communist party secretary.
"In its annual human rights report on 190 countries, the State Department conceded that Beijing’s overall performance remained poor. But in what looked like a political payoff to a government whose help America desperately needs on difficult problems, the department dropped China from its list of 10 worst violators.
Whatever gain China may have gotten from being elevated above the likes of North Korea, Myanmar, Iran and Sudan was lost by the crackdown on Tibet."
And even as their culture is undermined by the railway, most Tibetans are unlikely to enjoy any economic benefits from it. With a price tag of more than $4 billion, the Tibet railway is the most ambitious and costly element of China’s current drive to develop its western regions, known as the Great Leap West. But its construction was based upon the Communist Party’s old strategic and political objectives, and its main beneficiaries will be the Chinese military units stationed there, Chinese companies and Chinese settlers. Most Tibetans don’t have access to education that would allow them to compete in the economic environment created by China’s policies, nor are they welcome to share the fruits of its success.
In bidding for the Olympics, Chinese officials argued in 2001 that international attention would improve the country's human rights policies. China also signed a host city contract -- which the IOC refuses to release -- that lists the conditions China agreed to. An IOC spokeswoman says the document does not include "elements on human rights." The contract does, however, contain a section on media access, and it surely must mandate adherence to the Olympic Charter, which promotes "a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity." At the very least China appears to be violating these provisions, given that it is suppressing news coverage of Tibet and punishing domestic journalists and dissidents (such as Hu Jia, who was tried earlier this week) for exercising rights guaranteed by not only the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also by China's own constitution.
These are the largest protests in two decades, and they are part of a greater narrative of repression of the Tibetan people. For decades the Chinese government has afforded the "Tibet Autonomous Region" little in the way of autonomy, and it has punished monks and laypeople for devotion to their exiled religious leader, the Dalai Lama. After decades of repression, monks and other Tibetans have chosen to seize the moment. They, like others with grievances against China for its human rights policies, realize that these few months ahead of the Olympics present their best chance to gain the world's interest.
The reaction of the Chinese authorities to the Tibetan protests evokes echoes of the totalitarian practices that many of us remember from the days before communism in Central and Eastern Europe collapsed in 1989: harsh censorship of the domestic media, blackouts of reporting by foreign media from China, refusal of visas to foreign journalists, and blaming the unrest on the "Dalai Lama's conspiratorial clique" and other unspecified dark forces supposedly manipulated from abroad. Indeed, the language used by some Chinese government representatives and the official Chinese media is a reminder of the worst of times during the Stalinist and Maoist eras. But the most dangerous development of this unfortunate situation is the current attempt to seal off Tibet from the rest of the world.
The UK must immediately and publicly demand that the Chinese government allow the western media and independent observers into Lhasa and other Tibetan towns. UK embassy representatives should be monitoring the situation on behalf of the British people. Gordon Brown must also make it clear to the Chinese government (as the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, did last year) that human rights cannot be ignored in favour of trade. The leaders of both opposition parties have already announced that they will meet the Dalai Lama when he visits the UK in May. As our latest front cover's photomontage suggests (see left), it's about time Brown did the same. How can our prime minister shame the British public by doing any less?
The UK government's silence only emboldens the Chinese government to believe it can trample the basic human rights of Tibetans with impunity. And silence sends a tragic message to these brave protesters that the British government is prepared to turn a blind eye.
