April 15, 2006

not sure what kind of blog i want

i've been thinking about getting a web host, doing my own thing, using perhaps wordpress as a the blogging platform.  I've seen many people use YAM to make some snazzy looking blogs.  One thing i wanted to know is how people get music playing on their blogs, where you can listen to the songs they have playing.
Anyone know how to do that ? I've seen that on YAM




...繼續閱讀

April 14, 2006

milesdavis kindablue

I haven't written in this blog for a long time.  bet no one is reading it anymore.
prove me wrong.
angstmachine.





...繼續閱讀

February 14, 2006

蔡明亮的“不散” Tsai Ming-liang's "Goodbye Dragon Inn"


今天看了蔡明亮的新電影“不散“(英語名字是“GoodbyeDragon Inn).我一向很欣賞蔡明亮的電影,但是我覺得從某种角度說,他已經江郎才盡了。不對其實這樣說有一點過重,這部電影不知道他是怎麽看待的。是不是大作中間的一些小插曲還是怎樣?我覺得“愛情萬歲”還有"那邊幾點“以及天邊一朵雲“代表了他的創作高峰與輝煌時期,不知道他能再度超越,像以前那樣直綫向上,一部比一部好。我今天看了他的電影的時候開始使用正常的播放速度,隨後開始失去耐心了,把速度調到1.05x, 感覺這樣沒有什麽不好,反正聲音也沒有變質--到了最後我逐漸把速度調了到1。75, 反正到了最後我已經了解電影的基調,電影的母體,主人公的狀況,等等。當然按者正常速度看的話能讓觀衆沉浸於蔡明亮的映像世界裏--畢竟蔡明亮的攝影和畫面都是靠意境而呈現其獨特的魅力,你不是爲了訊息,而是爲了感受而睜開眼睛看電影的。但是無論如何,我還是覺得這部電影如果沒有加速就簡直太枯燥乏味。我倒是蠻喜歡看楊貴梅,她還是當之無愧的頽廢美女。

<a href="http://yam.com" rel="tags">Tsai Ming-Liang</a>
<a href="http://yam.com" rel="tags">Goodbye, Dragon Inn</a>
<a href="http://yam.com" rel="tags">Asian Cinema</a>


...繼續閱讀

February 9, 2006

猶豫不決

就連今天早餐也成問題了,我家裏的東不夠,也不太好吃,但是我最近的開銷泰勒--所以我是應該在家裏吃,還是去外面吃,要去外面吃大概也需要開車才可以,這樣我不是更加破費了嗎。我覺得自己太情緒化了,人家說這是藝術家的氣質,沒錯,但是這種活法並非因爲符合本性而給我帶來什麽快樂。我真不知道怎麽辦才好。改進一個不良習慣並不需要太多毅力,但是誰有改變重新改造性格的整體,或者性格所讓你自己厭惡之処。當然,這種過程可行的,但是一個人不能指望一時半會兒就見到成效了,因爲這種改造本身就很難況且還有下意識的抗拒。

想到世人的忙忙碌碌,包括各個社會的有錢有權的階層,我本來感到自己很渺小,但是這世界除了變幻無常還有什麽呢--也就是說,過了一百年,現在或活生生的人都已消失了,且那個時候的歷史學傢都要開始研究我們時代的時事,個人的事跡,等等。再過幾千年,誰都不記得我們了,後世的人把我們稱之爲古人了。也許他們將像我們現在這樣,無法理解過去人是何物,雖然有了我們留給他們的遺產,但是他們還無法脫離他們實際生活,實感,也許他們那個時候已經住在月球上了,無法想象一個人怎麽一輩子只呆在地球上的某一個蕞爾小國。也許他們會覺得我們,尤其是美國帝國,是很遙遠的,很野蠻的時代,於是他們心裏感到慶幸可以活在那麽進步開放的時代。他們會感嘆:那些21世紀的人類實活得太苦了,他們所処的現實也太殘酷了。







...繼續閱讀

February 8, 2006

被無視的憂鬱症

我一直希望網上會出現一個有關憂鬱症的網站,而且不是那種以資訊爲主,而是以互動主要宗旨的平臺。

我又糊塗了。
我看了論語,孔夫子說了一個年輕人,那個人很傲慢,是一位野心勃勃的年輕人,但人家問孔子對那個人的評價如何,孔子對他的聰明才幹非常不以爲然,說那個人不那種腳踏實地,不懈努力的堂堂正正的君子。。。這使我想到自己,其實,我所有的念頭所有的一年都不是能歸結于一種自命不凡的信條嗎?而這恰切就是給我許多煩惱的源頭。我看了很多人寫過關于憂鬱症的東西。看完嘆息,因爲我覺得我自己無法寫出那樣感動肺腑的字句。如果我不能將自己的經理變成能影響後世的東西,我真不知道還能幹什麽。

爸爸今天送我帶飛機場。
每當要囘學校的時候,平常還有一點開朗的我就寡言了,他還問我有沒有利用學校的資源以找工作。但是我無心告訴她我已經沒有了求職的欲望和志向。我花了10年的時間才發現我覺得那些東西是值得追求的--但是恰恰這個時刻,我卻發現如果要追求這些東西,也很困難,而說這種困難的“弊”多於追求的“利”--這種説法不為過吧?
得不償失。事情要那麽的無往嗎?
比如説我最求從事電影製作之夢?值得嗎?這麽多煩惱,這麽多煎熬,消耗的時間,金錢,精力:這樣自問就覺得自己很消極的。一般的人都不想那麽多--他們實現行動的。不惦記成敗,或者起碼不惦記都人都癱瘓的地步吧
我現在不就是一種癱瘓?精神的癱瘓?
有誰能伸出援助之手。



...繼續閱讀

February 7, 2006

Thoughts on "Why We Fight"

Why We Fight, directed by Eugene Jarecki, is a documentary film that attempts to explore why America has gone to war so many times throughout the 20th century; it's an attempt to discern what patterns there are in the foreign policy have direct causal effect on whether or not we go to war, and the manner in which we do so.

The film is not really any less partisan than anything by Michael Moore, but has the advantage, if one can call it that, of not having that abrasive egoism that turns many a viewer off MIchael Moore. The film begins with President Eisenhower's farewell speech, which is the swan song of a rare breed of military man; one for whose vast and complex understanding of the military led him to believe that the military-industrial complex (along with Congress, the media, etc.) had to be tamed lest it outgrow its necessary function of protection and cross the Rubicon into becoming the instrument of American empire.

Throughout the film, Eisenhower's remarks are repeated, so that he is portrayed as prescient, almost prophetic: even though at one point in the movie, the point is made that the CIA in collusion with the UK helped over throw Mossadegh in Iran and install the brutal and corrupt regime of the Shah. There is a veritable Greek chorus built around Eisenhower's statements, including the voices of his children and grandchildren.

Then there is there are the former Defense Department, Pentagon and CIA officials and analysts--the eggheads, and then, for emotional effect, the man who lost his son in 9-11, a former cop and Vietnam Veteran, who goes from knee-jerk thirst for revenge (he even goes as far as to put his son's name on a missile), to feeling like Bush lied ("my first reaction was you're a liar"...."when American citizens can't trust their own president"...) to others who, formerly part of the defense establishment, have gained enough insight to realize that their deepest ideals for American democracy and the US role in the world have been betrayed by a foreign policy that not only indulges but considers it vital that Americans engage in either covert or open military larks to protect what we consider are vital interests, which means to pry open the shell (overthrow the native governments or governing powers) in order to find the pearl (open markets for US business interests). The film includes people who espouse the same position but who have not been part of the system--such as Gore Vidal--but does not bother interviewing Noam Chomsky or Cindy Sheehan, people that are more likely to polarize the viewer and the reception of the movie. That I believe was a wise and prudent move on the part of the filmmakers. Dan Rather excoriating the capitulation of the fourth estate has much more gravitas than the same words coming out of Chomsky's mouth, though the message is nearly identical.

The film also includes strands about the young men that go into military service--including two of the Stealth pilots involved in firing the opening salvos of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a young kid, who, after the loss of his mother (his only family) is a mess of bitterness, loss, and aimlessness, and believes that the army is going to remedy that, fill in the hole in his heart. Of course, this part of the film is going to be more emotionally persuasive but less intellectually so, you don't have professors and former CIA analysts speaking with authority on subjects of expertise--you have the example of one kid whose soul is bleeding and needs someone or something to staunch it. THen you have the pilots and people already within the military, that represent the future of this kid, what he will become--an obedient follower, a "I was just taking orders" sergeant, one of the cogs in the war machine that keeps turning for the powers that be.

There is little ambiguity in the filmmakers' position or answer to the question of "why we fight"--for them, something as illogical as war makes sense, when, as Chalmers Johnson says, "if war is good business, you're going to see more of it in the future". No doubt Johnson is going to see at least a small spike in book sales in the near future: his criticisms of US foreign policy are the 'smart bombs' of the film, the most precise, the most devastating, the most memorable.

Go and see this film, even though by doing so you are letting the filmmakers preach to the choir. Sometimes it's good to be part of the choir though. This film, as much as Michael Moore's and perhaps more, is an intelligent and articulate statement for those that oppose Bush's war and wring their hands about what they see America evolving into. If you've been sold on this view of things, then you won't find any new information, but what's more important than learning something new is simply transmitting the message in different media, to different audiences--hoping that, for those few who enter the theaters still agnostic about Bush and US foreign policy, something will stick, and then imperceptibly, perhaps, that something will change.


...繼續閱讀

對創作的一些胡思亂想

To recapitulate: data; description, pointless attention to the null
moments of existence; a psychology that makes the characters’ every
move predictable; in short, to roll all the complaints into one, it is
the fatal lack of poetry that makes the novel and inferior genre for
Breton. I am speaking of poetry as vaunted by the surrealists and the
whole of modern art—poetry not as a literary genre, versified writing,
but as a certain concept of beauty, as an explosion of the marvelous, a
sublime moment of life, concentrated emotion, freshness of vision,
fascinating surprise. For Breton, the novel is nonpoetry par
excellence.


--Milan Kundera, from Testaments Betrayed.



我就是想創作出這種”poetry”但問題是找不到適當的題材。

適當的題材如何定義?

我欽佩的藝術家很多都是以現實主義,紀實爲主要風格。

他們的靈感是來自周邊人的生活窘境,精神困惑。

這是他們的創作根源。

如果我沒有根,如果扎根的過程需許多時間,那我到什麽時候才能開始?

有原創能力的藝術家總歸是另辟蹊徑或說的功利一些就是標新立異。

但是我有什麽呢?有時候感覺我生活太平淡無味,從創作的策略角度而言,真不知道該如何是好。



今天看了那個“十個導演的批判”的那本書以後覺得很煩。

其實我一半還喜歡看影評的,但是有時候覺得這些人實在太挑剔了。或許他們除了批評人家電影拍得不好,也許讚美其他人拍得好,但是通常不會放在同一篇文章。


這對我來說很不是滋味,因爲你這樣感覺是忽略了正面的,只講反面的。我看評論家是因爲我覺得他們如果稱的上是專家的話,他應該懂優劣的分界所在。評論家不
厭其煩地給我解釋電影那裏欠缺,那裏處理得不好,而對好電影我們只能拿寥寥無幾的字句來來推斷筆者電影的最終目標或者電影性的界定。有的評論家光說電影不
能太拘泥于風格的展示,或者對白的機靈。好,沒錯,電影不能靠模一個因素來承載的,但是說電影要尋求一種平衡也未免太籠統了。這樣感覺就是玩弄字眼。所以
看了這些評論就讓我感到很心煩,很累,心情低落,因爲藝術家不能創作的時候也需要從其他東西汲取藝術靈感和養分。音樂家可以從小説得到靈感,攝影師可以從
音樂得到啓示,所以建議藝術家遠離這些東西,看起來沒什麽但是實際上對創作心靈起了反作用。其實評論家也有不同類型的,即給建設性的批評和橫加批評的區
別。




我應該去拍電影嗎?還是寫詩歌,還是表演音樂?其實我覺得問題不僅僅是技術的問題,專長的問題,而是靈感的源泉――人家把生活當中的談情説愛或各種各樣的
情趣變成詩歌,曲子,但是我就是寫不出那些東西,不是因爲我沒深切地感受到情愛,而是因爲我覺得那不平常最強烈的感受。




當下大城市年輕人心靈的異化,疏遠,資本主義的殘酷,硝煙中的真人感情――我一直比較鍾情這種體裁,可惜的是我一直都跟這些東西沒有緣分。現在我覺得我這
輩子也許就找不到好題材。我開始質疑自己的選擇了。如果我在上海多生活幾年的花,我能不能挖掘出東西呢?我拍照的時候總是偷拍然後悄悄溜走的。我有什麽解
不開的情節?我倒是覺得自己是一種真空,人家並非比我有思想,他們就是比我敢拿他心裏現有的東西出來和大家分享。如果你拿出來的不是你自己的感情,那麽失
利的痛苦或自尊的損失也能挽回的。但是如果你拿的則是心坎的東西並指望得到群衆的認可,這賭注就大了。你失敗的花怎麽辦。有的人不在乎,也許以爲藝術對他
來說也無非是一種商業活動。




觀摩大量的電影有時候也對滋生一種沮喪,放棄的念頭。因爲你看了很多電影以後,可以得到兩种結論。有的導演的電影有社會根底,也就是說這個人有一定的社會
閲歷,從生活點滴提煉一些比較好的故事。。。他們雖然有思想,但是他並沒有把電影看做承載思想的媒介。與此相反的是那些純粹是天上樓閣德,幻想,夢幻般的
電影,雖然電影的背景在時空上和我們所処的現實別無二致,也就是說沒有那麽離奇,但是在劇情或守法/風格方面還是有很有創意的。極端現實主義和夢幻之間的
迴旋餘地對一個藝術家已經是綽綽有餘了,挖掘一輩子也看不到底,但是我就是好像一直找不到坐標,總是差了一點。現實生活的具有震撼力的故事太多了,尤其是
在中國,但如何發掘這些故事,讓它們變成藝術成品,躍然紙上或銀幕上我就一無所知了。我覺得我無從根這些人溝通,那個隔膜不是不能克服的,問題是時間和精
力的付出最終能換取什麽?




如果我自己無從尋求藝術主題,那麽我可以就儅匠人一般的技術人員。。。創作也許能儅一個人唯一的精神寄托。所以你可以像一個攝像,導演顧你的時候你去拍,
當然在過程當中要努力,但是這樣你不用也儅編劇,不用強迫自己寫出好劇本,因爲也許人家比你善於這個,所以呢,你偶爾可以寫東西,其餘時間,人家要你拍廣
告,導演要你幫他拍他的嘔心瀝血作品就好了。當然這樣的話你就必須遷就人家,不能擺架子,人家要你做得如果不和你胃口,你非得繼續做下去,這種狀態雖然從
純粹藝術理想的追求的角度而説是一種應當抗拒的妥協,但是有時候,就是要妥協。


...繼續閱讀

February 6, 2006

在台灣中華文化不僅是復興而且是創新

Saw an interesting post in Peking Duck about small groups devoted to the explication and interpretation of dreams in Taiwan. The author had some interesting things to say about how this figured into evolution of Chinese culture itself:


I sense, although I have little evidence except for the dreams we've
worked with since we came here, that deep down in the lives of
individual people here in Taiwan, Chinese culture is taking an
important step forward. This island nation is a real hot spot, but not
in the way the world thinks. The whole money-hungry world is greedily
focused on the huge market potential of Mainland China. How much more
fascinating are the creative, cultural, spiritual, and human
developments underway in tiny Taiwan. This little nation that these
people here have forged from nothing has the makings of a real world
leader that can deliver the authentic genius of Chinese culture up out
of the sad swamp of official corruption, bureaucratic rigidity and
social tyranny that it has gotten mired down in.



In the dream group we see each individual life, under Taiwan's new
freedoms, move forward just a pace, maybe two. But the feeling that
comes after working on dream after dream is that the cumulative effect
of these individual Taiwanese steps is amounting to something really
big. The world sees the economic Taiwan, maybe even the political one.
But all that is only the tip of the iceberg. The biggest part of what
is happening here on this island is below the surface. You see it when
you get down into the dreams here. Then you know what an amazing people
these are and what a really powerful country they are building.



Chinese culture
Taiwan
dreams
therapy

...繼續閱讀

February 1, 2006

迪斯尼的深圳紙品工廠:21世紀還在剝削勞動者?

一絲不掛:裸身女人在上海噴泉裡洗澡 Naked Chinese woman bathes in a Shanghai fountain

January 31, 2006

Harry Gruyaert on photography

 I think of photography like therapy. It's something I need to do. If I
don't take pictures for a month, I really miss it. It's a relationship
to the world I need, a distance: It's being more present and somehow
less present.


...繼續閱讀

Gilles Peress on photography and photojournalism

For me, at least, and I think for many people in Magnum, the
confrontation with reality is about understanding and formulating the
ambiguity of it, and giving an account of the many forces that are at
work within it.


...繼續閱讀

Naomi Wolf has a Jesus sighting

Naomi Wolf, feminist author, has opened a new chapter in her life, and it's tentatively titled "Jesus". Guess she found God. Oh well, that's good for us, because that means we won't have to spend money on her books from now on. Just kidding, though. What I hate most is how people like Camille Paglia diss her, not because i know anything about feminism or Wolf, but because she's an "intellectual lightweight"--what bothers me about that is that since i probably fall into that category myself, i wonder what would happen to me if i were in her position. I can only be what I am, and if i don't have the IQ or whatever else is necessary to become a famous writer, than I should just bank on whatever I have. That doesn't mean that I try to swindle people, or try to be what I'm not--but that acknowledges that I might not ever be the uber-intellecutal, the heavyweight that you want me to be, but I am fully qualified and licensed to be me, with my own existential crises, issues, hangups, etc. Anyway check out this teaser passage from that article

“I was completely dumbfounded but I actually had this vision of … of Jesus, and I’m sure it was Jesus.” Anticipating a raised eyebrow, she adds quickly: “But it wasn’t this crazy theological thing; it was just this figure who was the most perfected human being – full of light and full of love. And completely accessible. Any of us could be like that. There was light coming out of him holographically, simply because he was unclouded. But any of us could become that as human beings.”

The thing is that she knows its cheesy and so do the rest of us, but it's so damn true, so true it fucking hurts!

Naomi Wolf
feminism
writers
books

...繼續閱讀

January 30, 2006

Masters of War

A Bunch of
Nobodies


Extraordinary that people can discuss war without
saying to themselves, over and over: “we will kill people, we will
maim, we will destroy flesh, we will burn and harm. That is what we
are planning to do.”



See original text

...繼續閱讀

Steven Soderbergh's "Bubble"

This Slate review of Steven Soderbergh's movie Bubble about a love story in a bumblefuck toy factory kind of rubbed me the wrong way: because the reviewer claims that Soderbergh, who's opus thus far is really any aspiring director's wet dream, made this movie not out of some desire to purify his aesthetic, but just because he can, just because he's got the chutzpah to make whatever kind of film he wants.
In Bubble, nonactors swish the ice in their Big Gulp, stare blankly off into the middle distance, and mumble their lines without conviction. So brutal a negation of the popcorn aesthetic is liable to be mistaken for artistic courage. A grindingly slow pace, a quarter-baked plot, a semidocumentary focus on the lives of the working poor: It's enough to make you whimper "Matt Damon" in defeat.
. OK, so Stephen Metcalf feels like that Soderbergh is is just acting himself, playing the role, in this case, of an art film director that uses nonprofessional actors in a very naturalistic, documentary setting. Sometimes it will be very verite, and other times it will be naturalistic but nonetheless smack of a certain formalism, a certain austerity of aesthetic that reminds you of Bresson or Ozu or some other master. And what else does Soderbergh represent other than the film nerd in film school that actually had a bona fide cool streak in him and didn't take himself as seriously as others, didn't make too many oaths written in blood about copping out that would later result in a lot of feet to extract from that mouth. Soderbergh is all about showing off the fact that he's film literate, and in a way that's somewhat subtler than Tarantino's cultural mishmash.

So he decides to make a film like this, without all the petulant A-list actors, without all the egos and the coaxing and the expectations. To this Metcalf says:
Like many directors before him, Soderbergh decided to shoot on location, and he is not the first to search for authenticity and immediacy in a cast full of amateurs. But there's amateur, and then there's amateur. In Bubble, dialogue dribbles forth; it overlaps, cuts short, wanders off. Definite words often barely form on the palates of the performers; those words often barely link up to form full sentences. For being so free of affectation, the nonacting is creepily hypnotic..


OK, Metcalf thinks this whole thing was just too contrived, and didn't quite work out as planned. Must have looked good on paper. Well, I will still try to see the movie, because somehow the things that Metcalf cites as being excruciating are in fact the very things that are integral to films made in this way: the mumbling, the half-baked thoughts, the whole inarticulateness, the whole sloppy mess, the lack of cinematic snap, crackle and pop so characteristic of the director of Ocean's 11 and Ocean's 12, Traffic and Out of Sight.

So that means that Metcalf's criticisms, in my book, bounce off the film because there is nothing in what he says that would really go against expectations. It's really the fact that the "Directed by Steven Soderbergh" statement threw Metcalf off, which is why by the end he is wistfully wishing for one of Soderbergh's slick capers.

I will still try to take a look at this movie, nonetheless.


...繼續閱讀

〈藝妓回憶錄〉在中國遭禁

他媽的。 雖然這部爛電影我還沒看過,我依然贊成其公映權或者換句話來說,我們應當捍衛民眾觀摩電影的權利。 遭禁的主因是為了不要煽動群眾的反日情緒。諷刺的是,中國百姓的這種傾曏,局部要歸咎與黨的源源不斷的意識形態灌輸。
一個成熟的人不需要每次看電影的時候先得到父母的同意或徵求人家的意見。但是當權者就是把我們看作小朋友,需要教導的對象。意味是他們比我們懂得甚麼是應
該看的,甚麼才算有內涵的,甚麼算沒有所以不許看的。這政府真幼稚到極點了。若要民眾能跟一些敏感的藝術作品,包括影像作品有合理的健康的交互,那麼必須
要讓民眾直接沒有屏障的接觸這些事物。沒有其他的辦法,也沒有甚麼快捷方式。哀哉,哀哉!





Memoirs of a Geisha
banned
China

...繼續閱讀

彭康成:中共的真正对手并非陈水扁而是马英九

聯合早報網:<<反國家分裂法>>的出台闡明瞭中共反台獨的立場,與之相應的是,國親新三黨的大陸之行,大熊貓的贈台等一系列政
治活動意味著泛藍成了中共合作的對像,中共正加強了打擊台獨的力度.從目前的局勢來看,陳水扁威信接連下降,馬英九人氣不斷上漲,中共已達到了其初步目
的,以至於幾乎令人產生一種錯覺,似乎只要馬英九執政,中共便可高枕無憂,然而,從長遠來看,直接威脅中共統治地位的並非鼓吹台獨的陳水扁,而是胸懷大略
的馬英九.

  固然,台獨對中共確有一定的打擊性,但是其力度是有限的.即使台灣宣佈獨立,也並不能導致藏獨,疆獨等成功,更不能令中共因威信下跌而覆滅.
日本侵占釣魚島;越南等國侵占南海諸島;中國使領館被炸;軍機被撞,其中任一事件對中共威信的打擊強度均不亞於台獨,這些事件並未引發藏獨,疆獨的成功,
台獨又豈能促使其成功?清朝越南獨立;朝鮮被占;台灣被占;北京失陷......清政府照樣能維持政權,若非革命黨起而反清,或許時至今日,中國的政府仍
然是清政府.而較之於當年的清政府,中共對政權的維護力度更是有過之而無不及.清政府尚且與日歐諸國開戰,但是中共一遇國際衝突不但按兵不戰,反而把註意
力集中在防止內亂上.例如對於使領館被炸,軍機被撞等令中共威信掃地的政治事件,中共並不發錶激烈性的言辭,轉而要求國民"做好本職工作",甚至露骨地喊
出了"要維護社會穩定"的口號.面對中共如此嚴密的防範,內亂又豈是易事?即使是爆發內亂也並非是由台獨而引起.內亂的爆發自有其特定原因.倘若大陸的經
濟仍未崩潰,中共內部仍然能持團結一?日本不發動全面性的侵華戰爭等,中共仍不會分裂,內亂仍不會爆發.至於西藏,新疆雖有獨立組織,但是他們的實力無法
和台灣相提並論,所以並不能獨立成功.在此種局勢下,除非是? 濾飴示鄙喜拍芡倉泄蒼詿舐降耐持蔚匚?

  然而,扁政府推行的"去中國化"措施,以及稱孫中山為外國人,中國史是外國史等諸多言論錶明陳水扁並無北上之意,其僅僅是想做台灣的島主而
已.而大陸也並不會發動台海戰爭.近數十年來,中共從不敢與任何國家交戰.不要說當今的霸主美國,就是弱小不過的越南,中共也不敢動其毫毛.越南在南海開
採天然氣等行為,中共甚至不敢指其為侵略,至於中國漁民無數次死於菲律賓等國的民眾或政府之手,中共也不抗議.如此無能的中共還能打甚麼仗?還敢打甚麼
仗?何況台灣的實力非越南可比,中共不敢發動中越戰爭,自然也不敢發動台海戰爭.尚且又有美國因素在內,中共又豈敢自不量力?因此,即使台灣更改國號,中
共也只好干罵幾句而已.在陳水扁不北上謀求統治大陸,中共亦不南下反獨的情況下,中共在大陸的統治地位依然固若金湯.

  但是,統一是大勢所趨.不論是和平統一也好,武力統一也好,兩岸特殊的地理位置,歷史淵源等因素意味著兩岸遲早要歸於一統.對於和平統一的方
式,大陸提出的"一國兩制"遭到了台灣政府及民眾的否決.扁政府自不需說,馬英九也錶示不予接受.馬英九認為不可能兩個政府共存.其亦曾錶示"兩岸不急談
統一才務實",因為於統一"兩岸都沒有准備好".這不禁令人生疑,"急"是個甚麼樣的時間概念?要到何時談統一才算不"急"?不談又如何"准備好"?然
而,細加分析卻不難得知,馬英九仍然在等待時機.馬英九的真正意圖是大陸制度的不平等;國民的貧睏;官僚的腐敗諸多因素使得中共正在逐漸地喪失民心,中共
的"關係網"制度也使得中共內無能臣,外無良將.若照此趨勢發展下去,中共將不堪一擊.而如果又能巧妙地運用中日衝突,便很有可能迫使中共屈服於壓力,接
受有利於國民黨的談判方案.例如,在中國實行選舉制.倘若選舉制得以實行,陳水扁主導下的民進黨由於曾經推行"去中國化"等政策,自然不會得到大陸民眾的
擁護.縱然又有新政黨的出現,一時之間,亦未必能取得民眾的信任.而國民黨由於長期以來民主和經濟等政策的實效卻可以得到大陸民眾的普遍認同.所以,彼時
選出來的政府極有可能是馬政府.即使是馬英九不能迫使中共屈服,?
湮闖⒉換崢悸鞘褂夢淞ν騁?畢竟西歧百里之地可王天下的歷史事實能給馬英九以借鑒.正是基於此,馬英九才認為目前"兩岸不急談統一才務實",因為到馬英九
認為在中共無力統治大陸的情況下談統一才"務實"!所以馬英九一直堅持現有的國號"中華民國",堅持"中華民國"現有的領土範圍,因為這些正是馬英九或其
後繼者日後揮師北上的理由!而如今,出於聯合中共反台獨的需要,也為了掩飾自己的雄才大略,馬英九才將中共和自己都沒有誠意談統一含蓄地說成是"兩岸都沒
有准備好".

  2008年,台灣舉行"總統"大選,如果馬英九勝出,中共或許會翻然醒悟到,原來聯合泛藍;打擊台獨;間接性地為馬英九競選推波助瀾竟然是搬倒石頭砸自己的腳!

  作者:彭康成



...繼續閱讀

Larry Diamond on the Iraq War and more

This is from an article in Foreign Policy, an interview with Larry Diamond, a fellow at the Hoover Institute of Stanford University.

FP: You’ve written a lot about the initial miscalculations of the Bush administration with regard to Iraq. Who should be held responsible for those miscalculations?

LD: I think the greatest responsibility lies with the senior civilian Pentagon leadership, beginning with the secretary of defense who—though I think has done some intriguing and creative and innovative things in looking over the horizon about future war-fighting—has been on balance one of the most disastrous secretaries of defense since the position was created after World War II. I think history will skewer Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and the whole senior Pentagon leadership. I think we’re learning increasingly that Rumsfeld was working in the preparation for the war, and quite possibly in the way the postwar was planned and envisioned with the vice president. I think it was a pipe dream. [They were] just utterly detached from reality. I also blame the president for listening to them, frankly.






...繼續閱讀

良心未泯的中國人:高智晟律師

這是從英國的guardian報紙裡轉載的,講的是高智晟律師。中國大陸很少有這樣敢於公然抨擊共產黨。很多人覺得高氏有太尖銳了,太針鋒相對了,但是要是你冷靜地的考慮思量這些問題,認為你會得到同樣的結論。本人唯一希望的是在有生之年聽到共產黨專制的喪鐘。


全文

The fact that Gao is still free is perhaps the government's best defence against the lawyer's most strident accusations. Twenty years ago, such an anti-government tirade would have quickly resulted in imprisonment or death. Gao believes he has been left at semi-liberty because the authorities are worried about domestic protests and an international outcry if he is arrested.

'They threaten to arrest me and I say, "Go ahead,"' he says. 'I am a warrior who does not care whether I live or die. Such a sacrifice will be nothing to me if it speeds the death of this dictatorship.'

他們(當權者)有威脅過我,說要拘捕我,但我對他們說了,“你們來吧“。“我是不怕死的戰士,如果我的犧牲能促使專制的終結,這樣也值得。“

...繼續閱讀

January 27, 2006

漢語已經成為了一種弱勢語言

武漢大學某教授在一次講演中曾不無感慨地說到,漢語現在已經成為了一種弱勢語言、一種第二階級的語言。在座
的富有自由辯論精神的學子們一片嘩然,紛紛以“語言是沒有階級性的”觀點反駁。但在聽了演講者的“一個外國人晉職、昇中學、上大學、考研究生、攻博,需要
考我們漢語嗎?”的反問之後,全場寂然。      我不否認,今天我們必須學習西方科技知識,掌握其語言,瞭解其文化。但是,如果我們普遍陷入對外國語言(這裡主要是指英語)的畸形崇拜,那麼這實際上就是一個關係到本民族文化生存前景的嚴重問題。 
   隨處張貼的花花綠綠的考研英語培訓班廣告,已是當下大學校園風景的一個重要組成部分。2004年的碩士研究生錄取工作剛剛結束,2005年的考研英
語培訓廣告已是鋪天蓋地。廣告上的授課“明星”近十年間換了一撥又一撥。這些來自皇城腳下的專家們,每年自9月份開始,便在中國的上空飛來飛去,給各大城
市帶去廣告上所標榜的“來自當年命題組的消息”。一次串講門票的票價往往高達百元以上,但聽者仍有數千之眾,盛況直追二流影視歌星走穴。 
   大多聽講者也明白在那種狂熱的氣氛裡,是難以學到甚麼新東西的,但他們認為,即便花費時間、金錢換來一種心理上的平衡也值得。因為,英語對於考研者
來說,具有一票否決的作用,它早已成為考研游戲的前提。而且,隨著競爭者日眾,它的難度也不斷水漲船高。具體地說,一個報考中國現當代文學甚至中國古代文
學專業的考生,如果英語不達“國家線”的話,即便專業再優異也是白搭。相反,專業平庸,英語成績突出的考生,卻往往成了錄取的亮點。


全文

...繼續閱讀