新世代，新氣候。黑人當上美國總統，證明只要有信念，夢想可成真。就讓我對09年美國大事作胡亂猜測，實行亂估一通。
宣佈美國非法移民合法化
美國非法移民問題存在已久，對於這有錢的移民國家更是家常便飯。由於美國缺乏基層勞動力，造成非法移民充撐這勞動缺口。偷渡赴美，實為眾多外來非法移民實現美國夢的第一步。20多年來無特赦，在07年非法移民大遊行反映事情嚴重積壓至不能不解決之地步。若美國宣佈非法移民合法化，將為國家提供新的、充裕的廉價勞動力(但很可能薪金等於最低工資)，部分低技術製造業有可能回流美國。由於邊疆遼闊、社會富裕，偷渡往美國仍將持續，抓非法入境者已成為政府沒完沒了的開支，惟合法化將對社會及就業起了正面作用。
簽署京都協議書
雖然美國汽車品牌巨頭多年來干擾美國社會發展，來到今天成了明日黃花，恐怕再無可用的手段來干預。本田、豐田等日本企業在美國設廠生產汽車，價廉物美，既是美國製造，又省油好力，比美國費油的muscle car環保多，PRIUS更創出業界新氣候。布殊政府害怕京都協議書影響親政府企業的既得利益，不敢簽署京都協議書；相反，奧巴馬大力支持再生能源，並於政綱表明要大力發展再生能源，推測有可能利用簽署京都協議書推動美國的環保進程。但是，在全球對炭排放商品普及化後，會否又產生新一次經濟泡沫呢？
伊戰鳴金收兵
奧巴馬反戰，反對伊拉克戰事，故對伊拉克收兵勢在必行。 要不然便是講大話。
鮑威爾任特別顧問
打破黨派界限，身為共和黨元老的奧維爾在選舉前在電視訪問節目上公開稱讚民主黨候選人奧巴馬為智者之選，奧氏能當上總統實為美國之福。鮑威爾四星上將為鴿派人士，是因他曾真真正正參與戰爭，第一身感受到戰爭的殘酷。奧氏屬反戰人士，高調反對03年伊戰。奧可邀請鮑威爾作特別顧問，為外交獻謀。
向聯合國交會費
欠了那麼多年的會費，真的不好意思。
第一寵物-George
要有寵物，才是完滿的第一家庭。George，挺帥。
黑人犯罪率突然降低，黑人學生上課率上升
奧巴馬當選美國總統成為黑人偶像，黑人莘莘學子努力學習，天天向上。
美國騎單車出外成為時尚，騎單車人數增多。
雖然小布殊總統為長跑愛好者，總不能感染國民跑步上班。政府在各大城市進行哥本哈根式單車道路改造，讓國民騎單車上課上班去。
將非洲傳統節日成為美國法定假期
？！
第十個，想不到了，不如您幫幫忙。
2008年11月6日 星期四
The morning after...
An amazing victory for Barack Obama, and also for the American people, those who are, those who were, and those who will be. It was half a decade ago when Rosa Park took that seat reserved for Whites. That changed the course of history. Today Obama also took the seat that has been reserved for Whites, the one in the Oval Office. This shall also change the course of history.
I began my Nov. 4 by brisking through the roads of Cambridge to reach the hospital where I work. On my way I passed by the city hall, where I witnessed a scene that almost brought me to tears: a league of people of all walks of life lining up, awaiting their turn to cast their ballot. They were all perfect strangers but their goal was one, to choose their leader, their future. It was 6:53am.
I spent the evening watching the polls and projection reports at the Kennedy School of Government with three other compatriots from HK as well as hundreds of fellow enthusiasts. We rejoiced (and were relieved) when the map of Ohio turned blue. As attested by many, it was an unbelievably emotional moment when the words "Breaking News: Obama..." appeared on the screen. Since then till dawn, the streets were packed with youngsters celebrating, chanting, dancing, while cars passed by and joined in with their horns. The cynic in me, however, found this level of exhilaration still inferior to the night when the Red Sox took championships last year. Do people really see this particular event as qualitatively different than other televised competitions?
Obama's victory speech was powerful, but we've been spoiled to expect nothing less from him (and his speech writers). It was loaded with references that resonate with Americans' collective memory, especially the borrowed words from Martin Luther King's last speech. The moving story of the 106-year old Ms. Cooper juxtaposed with the highlights of the country's history shall be remembered by its people and memorized by schoolchildren for many generations to come. The anticipated "yes we can" slogan wrapped up the speech and reinforced the brand.
Now that he has won the race to the office, will Obama actually be able to live up to all the expectations and fulfill his promises, as the president, as an African American president, as the commander-in-chief, as the leader of the most powerful country, as a Messianic figure to millions who lost their homes recently, and to the many who lost their lives in different parts of the world due to the failures by both commission and omission of his predecessor? When he took office last year, Gordon Brown was arguably the Obama in Britain (I know this is a bit of a far-fetch, but you get the point). By it didn't take long for his people to become disappointed, disillusioned, and asked for his resignation. Will Obama's fate be the same, given all the odds he is against? How he build up his administration will be his first test.
While we savor this monment, let us not forget that by popular vote, Obama's victory was far from being a landslide (approximately 52%). What this means is that slightly less than half of the people preferred McCain over him. The country is as divided today as it was at the turn of the millennium. The new president has many more hearts to win.
So the bottom line is this: Obama's victory is monumental and no credit could be taken away from him in the history of the United States. Whether his significance and achievement will be beyond cultural, whether he is the next Lincoln or FDR, however, are of every one's guess.
Christian
Nov 5, 2008
Cambridge, MA, USA
I began my Nov. 4 by brisking through the roads of Cambridge to reach the hospital where I work. On my way I passed by the city hall, where I witnessed a scene that almost brought me to tears: a league of people of all walks of life lining up, awaiting their turn to cast their ballot. They were all perfect strangers but their goal was one, to choose their leader, their future. It was 6:53am.
I spent the evening watching the polls and projection reports at the Kennedy School of Government with three other compatriots from HK as well as hundreds of fellow enthusiasts. We rejoiced (and were relieved) when the map of Ohio turned blue. As attested by many, it was an unbelievably emotional moment when the words "Breaking News: Obama..." appeared on the screen. Since then till dawn, the streets were packed with youngsters celebrating, chanting, dancing, while cars passed by and joined in with their horns. The cynic in me, however, found this level of exhilaration still inferior to the night when the Red Sox took championships last year. Do people really see this particular event as qualitatively different than other televised competitions?
Obama's victory speech was powerful, but we've been spoiled to expect nothing less from him (and his speech writers). It was loaded with references that resonate with Americans' collective memory, especially the borrowed words from Martin Luther King's last speech. The moving story of the 106-year old Ms. Cooper juxtaposed with the highlights of the country's history shall be remembered by its people and memorized by schoolchildren for many generations to come. The anticipated "yes we can" slogan wrapped up the speech and reinforced the brand.
Now that he has won the race to the office, will Obama actually be able to live up to all the expectations and fulfill his promises, as the president, as an African American president, as the commander-in-chief, as the leader of the most powerful country, as a Messianic figure to millions who lost their homes recently, and to the many who lost their lives in different parts of the world due to the failures by both commission and omission of his predecessor? When he took office last year, Gordon Brown was arguably the Obama in Britain (I know this is a bit of a far-fetch, but you get the point). By it didn't take long for his people to become disappointed, disillusioned, and asked for his resignation. Will Obama's fate be the same, given all the odds he is against? How he build up his administration will be his first test.
While we savor this monment, let us not forget that by popular vote, Obama's victory was far from being a landslide (approximately 52%). What this means is that slightly less than half of the people preferred McCain over him. The country is as divided today as it was at the turn of the millennium. The new president has many more hearts to win.
So the bottom line is this: Obama's victory is monumental and no credit could be taken away from him in the history of the United States. Whether his significance and achievement will be beyond cultural, whether he is the next Lincoln or FDR, however, are of every one's guess.
Christian
Nov 5, 2008
Cambridge, MA, USA
2008年11月5日 星期三
CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE
陳兄越洋親身報導美國總統選舉盛況，本人也來湊湊熱鬧。
本人對奧巴馬的形象甚為討好，自他在民主黨內選舉時開始留意其動向。奧氏在黨內選舉開始至今，競選主題始終如一－改變(CHANGE)。
時勢造英雄，或是英雄造時勢，實在難以判斷。若在克林頓執政期間的歌舞昇平年代高呼「求變」的口號，恐怕難有今天龐大的擁護奧氏群眾；另外，若不是小布殊過去在任8年施行各項「德政」，包括：無謂地發動戰爭導致國債急升，油價曾升至每加侖4美元、經濟放緩令今夏旅遊計畫告吹，次按問題令業主無家可歸等，國民難以感受到切膚之痛，被迫求變。
有奧氏出現的地方，必有CHANGE字樣，這絕對是其競選宣傳的成功要素。希拉莉及麥凱恩不同，他們在講台上的廣告牌均顯示他們姓名；而奧氏則透過CHANGE字樣，向各選民顯示「有奧巴馬，有改變」的競選理念。經過多月來潛移默化，選民不難將奧巴馬與改變兩字聯繫起來。
在講台上的廣告中，純粹打出競選人或競選拍檔的名稱，對已認識他們的觀眾來說，這牌子變得沒有廣告價值；相反，對不認識他們的，牌子的作用只告訴他們是誰。
奧氏競選廣告團隊知道，當奧氏站台演說時，奧氏、講台及演講台上廣告牌均會在鏡頭中出現，並於全國新聞轉播數秒。他們知曉要細心利用這不大不小的廣告牌，排上以粗體、大寫CHANGE字，下沿印有以自己名字來命名的網站。讓奧氏告訴觀眾「他代表改變」、「我是誰？請到以下網站」。將這小牌子的廣告效力發揮極致，是奧氏有效宣傳「改變」理念的重要一環。而從黨內初選到今天當選演說Change has come to America，「改變」一字從未改變，仍代表競選核心思想。
曾在格琳美兩次獲得朗誦獎(Spoken Words Award)的奧氏，其演講技巧不用懷疑。而他對群眾有獨特的凝聚力，這是今屆其他候選人沒有的。留意競選拍檔在戶外進行演說，台上佈置不多，只有講者、演講台、高凳一張。在特邀講者演說時，奧氏便坐在高凳上，聽聽講者的看法、支持話。雖然戶外演講在安全上有重大風險，但這親民形象、與選民零距離接觸，俘虜了不少選民的心。在陽光燦爛的日子作戶外演講，奧氏總喜歡穿上白色恤衫、西褲，不穿西裝不打領帶，但摺袖。很有活力。
奧氏的英語口音與其他美國黑人不同，傾於英式英語(還需陳兄指正)，口音獨特，更引起美國人們留意他(另一講英式英語的知名人物為美國演員Samuel Jackson)。
曾有香港評論說，奧氏的Reclaiming the American dream演說，可與馬丁路德金的I have a dream相比。文章以小放大，自己真人演譯美國夢。
從奧氏得到349張選舉人票，大幅超於所需的270票的三成，可見奧氏的個人魅力、選舉團隊實力、競選經費財力均超越對手麥凱恩。更重要的，是選民有著「改變」的心態，投下奧巴馬一票。
傑出的演說家能否成為成功國際領袖，與各國共創和諧道路，還需拭目以待。
本人對奧巴馬的形象甚為討好，自他在民主黨內選舉時開始留意其動向。奧氏在黨內選舉開始至今，競選主題始終如一－改變(CHANGE)。
時勢造英雄，或是英雄造時勢，實在難以判斷。若在克林頓執政期間的歌舞昇平年代高呼「求變」的口號，恐怕難有今天龐大的擁護奧氏群眾；另外，若不是小布殊過去在任8年施行各項「德政」，包括：無謂地發動戰爭導致國債急升，油價曾升至每加侖4美元、經濟放緩令今夏旅遊計畫告吹，次按問題令業主無家可歸等，國民難以感受到切膚之痛，被迫求變。
有奧氏出現的地方，必有CHANGE字樣，這絕對是其競選宣傳的成功要素。希拉莉及麥凱恩不同，他們在講台上的廣告牌均顯示他們姓名；而奧氏則透過CHANGE字樣，向各選民顯示「有奧巴馬，有改變」的競選理念。經過多月來潛移默化，選民不難將奧巴馬與改變兩字聯繫起來。
在講台上的廣告中，純粹打出競選人或競選拍檔的名稱，對已認識他們的觀眾來說，這牌子變得沒有廣告價值；相反，對不認識他們的，牌子的作用只告訴他們是誰。
奧氏競選廣告團隊知道，當奧氏站台演說時，奧氏、講台及演講台上廣告牌均會在鏡頭中出現，並於全國新聞轉播數秒。他們知曉要細心利用這不大不小的廣告牌，排上以粗體、大寫CHANGE字，下沿印有以自己名字來命名的網站。讓奧氏告訴觀眾「他代表改變」、「我是誰？請到以下網站」。將這小牌子的廣告效力發揮極致，是奧氏有效宣傳「改變」理念的重要一環。而從黨內初選到今天當選演說Change has come to America，「改變」一字從未改變，仍代表競選核心思想。
曾在格琳美兩次獲得朗誦獎(Spoken Words Award)的奧氏，其演講技巧不用懷疑。而他對群眾有獨特的凝聚力，這是今屆其他候選人沒有的。留意競選拍檔在戶外進行演說，台上佈置不多，只有講者、演講台、高凳一張。在特邀講者演說時，奧氏便坐在高凳上，聽聽講者的看法、支持話。雖然戶外演講在安全上有重大風險，但這親民形象、與選民零距離接觸，俘虜了不少選民的心。在陽光燦爛的日子作戶外演講，奧氏總喜歡穿上白色恤衫、西褲，不穿西裝不打領帶，但摺袖。很有活力。
奧氏的英語口音與其他美國黑人不同，傾於英式英語(還需陳兄指正)，口音獨特，更引起美國人們留意他(另一講英式英語的知名人物為美國演員Samuel Jackson)。
曾有香港評論說，奧氏的Reclaiming the American dream演說，可與馬丁路德金的I have a dream相比。文章以小放大，自己真人演譯美國夢。
從奧氏得到349張選舉人票，大幅超於所需的270票的三成，可見奧氏的個人魅力、選舉團隊實力、競選經費財力均超越對手麥凱恩。更重要的，是選民有著「改變」的心態，投下奧巴馬一票。
傑出的演說家能否成為成功國際領袖，與各國共創和諧道路，還需拭目以待。
2008年11月2日 星期日
Yes they can?!
It is only four days before one of the most monumental democratic elections in our generation. I say this not only as a sojourner in the United States but also as a fellow citizen of Hong Kong, of this world. Who takes the top job on Nov 4 will have the potential to change the world for the better, or the worse. Some more prominent and eminent issues at stake include the two wars, relations with Iran, North Korea, and China, and global warming on the foreign policy front; and energy policy, the restructuring of the financial industry, health care, pension on the domestic front.
It is on the one hand quite absurd to see a political campaign lasting for this long (2 years) and exhausting so much resource (Obama's group raised approximately $640 million USD and spent probably about 90% of it). On the other hand, the ingenuity and level of excellence exemplified by the politicians in both camps and the political engineers (e.g., David Axelrod, who groomed Obama to stardom since his time in Chicago) are jaw dropping. The level of oration, the careful selection of words, syntax, and visual imagery, the issues that were left on and off the table, and the combination of pundit to include and exclude... everything we saw (spare the not-so-occasional gaffes and McCain's short-sightedness in picking Palin as his running mate) seems so meticulously thought through and calculated. The goal is to iterate what the voters want to hear, even before they figure out what they want to hear. The difficulty is to decide which voters you should strategically appeal to.
The art and science behind this American (marketing) tradition is admirable, especially in the stark contrast to our own politicians in HK. Unlike the televised “political debates” we were bombarded with in August and September this year, the ones shared by Obama and McCain did not consist only of attacks on personal integrity but also on policy and vision. Unlike the laughable lexical awkwardness uttered by our Legco members, the two president hopefuls appear to be articulate, compelling, and yet unpresumptuous. It is without doubt some of Obama's speeches would make it into future textbooks of speechwriting, among the ranks of Churchill and King.
However, the flip side to such work of assiduous engineering is that it becomes unclear who is contesting for presidency. Behind the content and method of delivery of each political statement is a group of seasoned professionals, the cream of the crop, who could be on either side and do a similarly impressive job. American voters are not choosing between Obama and McCain, but rather two enormous, well-established machines: the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. This is unfortunate, and quite ironic, considering both candidates chose "change" as their sound bite. By choosing to play by the rule and selecting one of the two men, by default one is NOT choosing for real changes. As promising as he is, judging from his track record of adhering to the party line, Obama might not be radically different from any liberal president. Not to suggest that radicalism is necessary what the US needs or is ready for, but as many respectable critics (e.g., Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky) have argued, many progressive social movements require a leadership that has much less ties with the current power structure/hierarchy.
With that said, it is certainly very exciting to see a multiracial man from a background of hardship and activism rising to presidency in a country with such class and race divide. This is unthinkable just a decade ago, let alone forty some years ago when the civil right movement was beginning to make baby steps.
If the unfortunate thing--that the Republicans steal the election like they did in 2000--happens on Tuesday, you’ll be seeing me in person a lot sooner than I had planned. And I bet many foreigners and even locals will follow suite.
Christian
Nov 1, 2008
Cambridge, MA
2008年7月1日 星期二
七．一 我們幹了什麼
由於多月來 五家．豪談 都沒新文章, 故此, 小弟決定今天要發炮轟炸這個寧靜和平的國度!
小弟 - 自命為入門級的左翼, 民主信奉者 - 今天下午到了維園加入了爭取民主的遊行, 我明白民主不是完美的政治制度方案, 也不保證有了民主大家每一天都過得好, 但卻深信民主機器是現今唯一持久可行, 對社會大眾有最基本保障的制度。我也要跟你說, 如果我不愛港, 不愛國, 我是不會在三十幾度的一天跑出去白流汗的。
安非他命 - 自稱中立派, 她認同的是 "中庸" 的政策管理觀 - 今天下午在上網 web surfing。 晚上跟她談起, 她似乎最信奉的是一套叫 "主權民主" 的理念 (小弟也是剛從她那裡學會)... 即是在這個國家先有一個主權(集權)實體, 再由這個政治體把 "民主", "自由" 及 "人權" 分給國家的人民。 她強調這概念不是來自中共, 是來自俄羅斯...... 對不起, 我能接受的是每人有自己的看法, 而不是把錯誤的邏輯當成正確... "民主" 是不能由他人來分配的。
地獄小飛俠 - 自稱中間偏民主派 - 今天下午在家的電腦看電影。平時跟他談政制問題, 他總會有很多意見。但他不是"行動派" 的, 總是在要作行動或決定時有所保留。六四跟七一遊行小弟也有找他, 可是總拉他不動的。在我們社會太多沒思想的人, 但如果連有思想的也都不去行動, 我對香港的未來真的十分不安。
溫高雄 - (筆者寫此文時未能聯絡到他本人) 不折不扣的資本家(這是小弟硬加的) - 七．一? 資本家怎會上街呢? 資本家的計算機只能計算到跟金錢有關的東西。(溫高雄兄如有澄清請自便)
X'ian - (他人在外地, 筆者未聯絡他本人) 比筆者更為左的左翼份子 - 不在香港所以不會去了遊行了, 相信他本人一定會說這一句: '我在香港的話一定會去。' 當然大家可以質疑: 他出身富裕家庭, 怎知民間疾苦? 他讀 "番書" 長大, 怎知不是受了外國思想荼毒, 洗腦以亂我中華? 這些恕我不能為他辯解, 因為我也很想聽聽他對自己的身份(或指家國)認同是什麼...
這裡的幾個人, 思想行為都差異甚多, 奈何對對方寫的文章都 "留一手" (或 "藏拙"?)... 還是... 我們根本對自己所住的這個小島, 這個國家的政制發展莫不關心? 要是這樣, 難怪五家．豪談混不下去了...
小弟 - 自命為入門級的左翼, 民主信奉者 - 今天下午到了維園加入了爭取民主的遊行, 我明白民主不是完美的政治制度方案, 也不保證有了民主大家每一天都過得好, 但卻深信民主機器是現今唯一持久可行, 對社會大眾有最基本保障的制度。我也要跟你說, 如果我不愛港, 不愛國, 我是不會在三十幾度的一天跑出去白流汗的。
安非他命 - 自稱中立派, 她認同的是 "中庸" 的政策管理觀 - 今天下午在上網 web surfing。 晚上跟她談起, 她似乎最信奉的是一套叫 "主權民主" 的理念 (小弟也是剛從她那裡學會)... 即是在這個國家先有一個主權(集權)實體, 再由這個政治體把 "民主", "自由" 及 "人權" 分給國家的人民。 她強調這概念不是來自中共, 是來自俄羅斯...... 對不起, 我能接受的是每人有自己的看法, 而不是把錯誤的邏輯當成正確... "民主" 是不能由他人來分配的。
地獄小飛俠 - 自稱中間偏民主派 - 今天下午在家的電腦看電影。平時跟他談政制問題, 他總會有很多意見。但他不是"行動派" 的, 總是在要作行動或決定時有所保留。六四跟七一遊行小弟也有找他, 可是總拉他不動的。在我們社會太多沒思想的人, 但如果連有思想的也都不去行動, 我對香港的未來真的十分不安。
溫高雄 - (筆者寫此文時未能聯絡到他本人) 不折不扣的資本家(這是小弟硬加的) - 七．一? 資本家怎會上街呢? 資本家的計算機只能計算到跟金錢有關的東西。(溫高雄兄如有澄清請自便)
X'ian - (他人在外地, 筆者未聯絡他本人) 比筆者更為左的左翼份子 - 不在香港所以不會去了遊行了, 相信他本人一定會說這一句: '我在香港的話一定會去。' 當然大家可以質疑: 他出身富裕家庭, 怎知民間疾苦? 他讀 "番書" 長大, 怎知不是受了外國思想荼毒, 洗腦以亂我中華? 這些恕我不能為他辯解, 因為我也很想聽聽他對自己的身份(或指家國)認同是什麼...
這裡的幾個人, 思想行為都差異甚多, 奈何對對方寫的文章都 "留一手" (或 "藏拙"?)... 還是... 我們根本對自己所住的這個小島, 這個國家的政制發展莫不關心? 要是這樣, 難怪五家．豪談混不下去了...
2008年3月13日 星期四
觀後感：No Country for Old Men （中譯：二百萬奪命奇案）
故事簡介
故事講述主角Moss無意中在一輛棄置荒野的貨車上，發現多具屍體、一些海洛英，還有200萬現金，貪念頓生，他決定把巨款據為己有，想不到卻因而觸發一連串離奇事件，引來奪命追殺……
導演 : 高安兄弟
演員 : 湯美李鍾斯, 查維爾巴頓, 活地夏里遜
片長 : 123 分鐘
級數 : IIB語言 : 英語 (中文字幕)
（取自 http://www2.cinema.com.hk/revamp/html/list_detail.php?lang=c&movie_id=3310）
說真的，我非常喜歡片名
貪念人皆有之，聖人也不能幸免！就好像片中的獵人一樣，突然發現有二百萬元美金，動了貪念也是情理之中。雖然，他曾經見死不救的留下案發現場的一個生還者，但是當晚他也良心發現，回到現場，希望帶一些水給那個生還者。但是也因此被人發現，受到追殺。令我不禁的想，如果他沒有返回現場的話，是否就可以避過一劫？好心沒有好報，或者，這就是貪心的現眼報？
但是，片中的一個雞販的老伯伯，在公路上遇到了要追回二百萬元的殺手。見殺手的汽車沒有電池，好心的想替他充電…雖說片中沒有明示那老伯怎樣，但是下一幕就是那冷血的殺手在清洗老伯的車子。又在想，是否不應在公路上幫人？
金錢令人瘋狂，連我們的青年人也是也不能幸免。同樣的，片中兩個主人翁，獵人與殺生都在不同時間，不同地點的遇到不同的青年人。他倆分別的向他們買衣服，那二班青年人都是遇到一個在受傷的人。遇到獵人的青年人們，眼見獵人身上有傷，完全沒有問他需要怎樣的協助。最後，獵人以五百美元買了一個青年的風褸，當再想他們給他一樣啤酒，有一個青年立即問他以多少錢買。殺手遇到的，雖然起初沒有收殺手的錢，但是他最後也是收下。當他的同伴想分享他的錢時，他立即予以拒絕。這就是我們未來的主人翁，難怪我們只有越來越瘋狂的世界！
要數瘋狂，當然要以片中的那個追殺獵人的殺手了。以一枝氧風樽加一個噴咀的空風槍，及一樣加了滅聲器的散彈短槍。就好像告訴我們，瘋狂是以靜悄悄的來到我們身邊一樣。目無表情及隨意的殺人，雖然內裏似是自有他自己一套的殺人邏輯，就好像他在士多的那時候，強迫老闆要選擇銀幣的公字去決他生死。在電話中，與獵人的談判，冷靜的告訴獵人，他是一定要死的，只是如果將錢交出來的話，可以免他妻子一死。說到尾也只是瘋子的邏輯罷！到後段他受傷了，為了要得到藥物，引爆一輛一部停在路邊的汽車以引開別人的注意，以取得藥物。這令我不禁的想，好像有那一個國家，也在做同樣的事情。以自己的意志，自己的邏輯的去引爆這，引爆那，為的只是那些藥物一樣。其實，你正正常常的到藥店去買藥，那有人知道你受的是槍傷呢？經常要以自己的邏輯去強加在人家的身上，給你一個不能拒絕的選擇。
有沒有挺身而出的人？在片中，分別可以見到兩隻狗，一隻貓。在案發現場中，有一隻狗的屍體，另一隻是在追獵人的時候，被獵人槍殺了。我們人類的好朋友，在需要它的時候，它會挺身而出…那隻小貓呢？在殺手追到獵人投宿的旅館時，它的主人，旅館的主人被殺的時候，它一直在那，到獵人逃離旅館的時候，它還在靜靜地吃它的…
最後，穿插在整套戲的探長，在快要退休的時候，極力的想去幫助獵人，但最後目睹獵人的屍體時那種無力感… 那時候，我想起謝安琪的一首歌，<神奇女俠的退休生活>。
<神奇女俠的退休生活>
爆裂 散落 折翼墮下
正跌向對面大廈 就撞爛大廈
而樓下 有群男共女
以摺凳菜刀打架 聽不見他
幾秒後 滿地是血花
而模糊的受害人 一早猜想到嗎
誰人才 終極失去了他
有病 有毒 市面混濁
氧氣裏正在孕育 極厲害病毒
全城就快齊齊病發 個個照逛街睇戲
不知退縮 於市內網巷夜店中
誰人從粉末藥囊 針筒之中找到
如遊魂魔域 那份滿足
可惜我已經退休 一早已養尊處休
坦克再駐守 只可高叫快走快走
不可以插手 青春些會救到亞洲
歐洲與美洲 今天怎強出頭
可惜我已經退休 將這裏轉交你手
即使你錯手 摧毀一切炸出缺口
不可以插手 只可打氣拍手
恭賀人類 生出殺手
就是這樣 家產給你接收（總要去的不要留）
就是這樣 終生可以退休（歡送爆開的汽球）
氣候 變壞 雨大浪大 浸過了購物大道
像越鬧越大 而何時救援還未到
正派往遠方打仗 不可上街
管理層滿是實戰派 誰和誰慘被沒埋
不可多嘴表態 繁榮和安定正在瓦解
可惜我已經退休 一早已養尊處休
坦克再駐守 只可高叫快走快走 不可以插手
青春些會救到亞洲 非洲與澳洲 今天怎強出頭
可惜我已經退休 得一副老骨老手
只可以間中 幫乖仔去買煙買酒 幫新袍餵狗
幫子孫贖了樓 觀望時代 天天變醜
可惜我已經退休 一早已養尊處休
坦克再駐守 只可高叫快走快走
不可以插手 青春些會救到亞洲
歐洲與美洲 今天怎強出頭
可惜我已經退休 將這裏轉交你手
即使你錯手 摧毀一切炸出缺口
不可以插手 只可打氣拍手
恭賀人類 生出殺手
就是這樣 家產給你接收（總要去的不要留）
就是這樣 終生可以退休（歡送爆開的汽球）
2008年2月12日 星期二
幸福的反思
近日天氣寒冷, 上週六晚我應邀到朋友的生日派對, 市區也只得幾度。
在前往車站的路上, 我穿著剛買不久的簇新大衣, 跑到便利店買了一盒熱維他奶一邊喝著, 耳朵邊聽著iPod 放送著的音樂。盡管北風呼呼, 我仍為此刻的溫暖閒適而不禁踏著輕快的腳步…
走著走著, 覺得自己好像滿幸福似的。
派對現場真的坐無虛席, 席間少不免多喝了點酒。盡歡散席時, 駭然發現小弟的簇新大衣竟然不翼而飛, 想必是哪位喝醉的大哥拿錯了。我又慌又忙地找了又找, 邊想著 iPod 也一併放在袋裡去… 這次可慘了。最後我的物品還是去如黃鶴, 我為此當然是有點不忿有點無奈。
回家的路上, 我只穿著單薄的衣服, 先坐地鐵火車後再從火車站走十分鐘回家, 耳邊再沒有音樂, 換來的是刺骨的風嘯。為了少吹點風, 我三步併作兩步走, 但還是冷得起了雞皮疙瘩。
走著走著, 覺得自己的幸福好像全消失了。
回到家裡雖然已是清晨, 但是我好像倦意全失似的坐在家中輕嘆: 原來我的幸與不幸, 只在那件漂亮的新大衣跟iPod嗎?
我回想著, 學生時代的我, 穿的大衣多是家中表兄, 舅舅穿過的 “二手” 貨色; 我自小喜歡音樂, 但要到了中六那年, 自己用替鄰居小孩補習賺回來的錢才買了第一部 MD player… 長大了投身社會, 物質的入手變得輕易。被大財閥任意操控的傳播媒體灌輸給我是扭曲的價值觀, 教我“心情好買鞋, 心情唔好買鞋”, 買袋, 買大褸, 買褲子, 買電話……
物質的富足跟奢侈品的累積使我們變得麻木。我想穿得暖吃得飽, 不單讓我們忘了人間疾苦, 還讓幸福的定義變得愈來愈模糊。
為此我十分懊惱, 再三反問自己是不是變得不會珍惜, 變得腐敗。
跟朋友談起, 她有不同的看法: “人不懂珍惜,怕不是物質的關係; 是習慣,是善忘; 人心很快習慣幸福, 然後忘記、覺得應份、糟塌…可能要得到幸福, 先要勿忘幸福”…
我試著這樣詮譯: “幸福” 因為 “習慣”了而忘記, 其實是幸福的定義因為經歷而慢慢改變。 “勿忘幸福”, 應可說成不要讓幸福的定義改變了。物質不是問題的根本, 也至少是我們對幸福的定義改變的催化濟吧?
再說, 不讓幸福的定義改變,難道不是小學老師常常教我們的知足常樂嗎?
原來那麼多大道理, 我們還小時已一早學過了, 但是我們之中又有幾個做到呢?
在前往車站的路上, 我穿著剛買不久的簇新大衣, 跑到便利店買了一盒熱維他奶一邊喝著, 耳朵邊聽著iPod 放送著的音樂。盡管北風呼呼, 我仍為此刻的溫暖閒適而不禁踏著輕快的腳步…
走著走著, 覺得自己好像滿幸福似的。
派對現場真的坐無虛席, 席間少不免多喝了點酒。盡歡散席時, 駭然發現小弟的簇新大衣竟然不翼而飛, 想必是哪位喝醉的大哥拿錯了。我又慌又忙地找了又找, 邊想著 iPod 也一併放在袋裡去… 這次可慘了。最後我的物品還是去如黃鶴, 我為此當然是有點不忿有點無奈。
回家的路上, 我只穿著單薄的衣服, 先坐地鐵火車後再從火車站走十分鐘回家, 耳邊再沒有音樂, 換來的是刺骨的風嘯。為了少吹點風, 我三步併作兩步走, 但還是冷得起了雞皮疙瘩。
走著走著, 覺得自己的幸福好像全消失了。
回到家裡雖然已是清晨, 但是我好像倦意全失似的坐在家中輕嘆: 原來我的幸與不幸, 只在那件漂亮的新大衣跟iPod嗎?
我回想著, 學生時代的我, 穿的大衣多是家中表兄, 舅舅穿過的 “二手” 貨色; 我自小喜歡音樂, 但要到了中六那年, 自己用替鄰居小孩補習賺回來的錢才買了第一部 MD player… 長大了投身社會, 物質的入手變得輕易。被大財閥任意操控的傳播媒體灌輸給我是扭曲的價值觀, 教我“心情好買鞋, 心情唔好買鞋”, 買袋, 買大褸, 買褲子, 買電話……
物質的富足跟奢侈品的累積使我們變得麻木。我想穿得暖吃得飽, 不單讓我們忘了人間疾苦, 還讓幸福的定義變得愈來愈模糊。
為此我十分懊惱, 再三反問自己是不是變得不會珍惜, 變得腐敗。
跟朋友談起, 她有不同的看法: “人不懂珍惜,怕不是物質的關係; 是習慣,是善忘; 人心很快習慣幸福, 然後忘記、覺得應份、糟塌…可能要得到幸福, 先要勿忘幸福”…
我試著這樣詮譯: “幸福” 因為 “習慣”了而忘記, 其實是幸福的定義因為經歷而慢慢改變。 “勿忘幸福”, 應可說成不要讓幸福的定義改變了。物質不是問題的根本, 也至少是我們對幸福的定義改變的催化濟吧?
再說, 不讓幸福的定義改變,難道不是小學老師常常教我們的知足常樂嗎?
原來那麼多大道理, 我們還小時已一早學過了, 但是我們之中又有幾個做到呢?
2008年1月29日 星期二
On conviction
It is Sunday night and my lonesome roommate invited me to Chinatown for some wholesome, homesick remedy. After dinner, we decided that the night was still young, so we trekked through the snow to the nearest cinema and saw the Oscar-nominated Michael Clayton. Despite the clever script and splendid acting, the film wasn’t so brilliant that it is off your typical Hollywood chart. Nonetheless, some of the messages are worth pondering on. Though not the main focus of the film, we are reminded that behind the glamour and prosperity of corporate America likely lies something awfully wrong. Michael Clayton reiterates the existential theme that human lives and dignity are nothing but liabilities to other people’s profit and gain.
Not a novel theme; any average movie watcher could give you a long list of recent motion pictures that depicts something along that same vein. George Clooney’s earlier Syriana is probably a more remarkable one. The more classic Devil’s Advocate or The Firm are two other examples. This kind of Hollywood production has its merits: Their fictional stories have the potential to unveil the dark reality of seemingly desirable, or even neutral, nature of certain professions.
These films are accolade-worthy also because they elicit a much-needed sense of suspicion and awareness about the power holders in our society. Less partisan than Michael Moore’s documentaries (e.g., Fahrenheit 9/11), these Hollywood dramas can reach a broad crowd, and generate discussions beyond the fictitious scenarios used in the films. However, the flip side to such awareness is the possibility of habituation—a fancy way of saying “numbing”. That is, although these films can promote critical thinking and hopefully encourage us to question, too much of the same rhetoric could overwhelm people to a point that they rather treat it as merely a film, as mere entertainment. To be honest, how can one burden themselves with so many causes? It is hard enough to be told that this is a messed up world. Harder still is to accept one’s role and responsibility in them. What we might end up with is a mentality that goes like this: well, since the world and humanity are so doomed, there isn’t much I could do about it. So I might as well don’t. Another possibility: “oh, how horrible _____ is… now let’s decide what to watch next…” Good films change lives; too many of them change nothing.
I suppose the same sentiments are also shared by many “activists” and concerned citizens. As we are increasingly aware of the happenings in the world, we are also increasingly aware of the tragedies that take place EVERYDAY around the globe. Not too long ago we heard about the genocide in Darfur, which was described as the “next Rwanda”. Today, something strikingly similar is occurring in Kenya. Wouldn’t it be a fair bet that there will be another Kenya and another and another? And if so, how could anyone concern and devote themselves wholeheartedly to so many causes, all at once? How can an average Hong Kong activist equip and educate him or herself enough to campaign against all the horrible human-made tragedies, with conviction? Without conviction, how can any action be truly successful and meaningful? At the end of the day, is activism just another fancy form of entertainment? Just as we easily jump from one cinema to another watching different films about different weighty issues, do we also hop from one social justice problem to another? Is that fair to those who are suffering and dying?
I dare not offer any advice or insight on this matter as I also find myself finding new battles to fight before the one I’m engaged in is over. (Just look at the topics covered in my previous entries.) But I can suppose this: one must have a sense of conviction in whatever he or she choose to fight for, in order to stay true to it, or simply stay with it.
Conviction—a deep sense of belief—comes from within and it is very personal. How strong do/can I, a Hong Konger, really feel about the tragedy in Kenya in particular? Do I really “feel convicted”? It isn’t impossible but someone like Barack Obama would be a lot more convincing when speaking for the civil-war laden African country, not so much because he is a president-hopeful in the US than because of his Kenyan roots.
Conviction is a huge idea. It is a manifestation of who we are as an individual. It is connected to our history, personality, culture, aspirations, and faith. Sure, we could always be distracted, but I believe nothing would ever be able to take away that subtle tingling feeling in our heart. Conviction sustains us even when the world tells us we are wrong; it whispers to us when we stray.
We live in a post-modern world filled with too many post-modern possibilities and, indeed, anxieties. What 1984 was able to achieve six decades ago, no film could today—no matter how brilliant it may be—simply because there are too many of them. Likewise, we have witnessed too many 1989s in too many regions in the world. Such abundance results in the numbing of our mind and soul. We must therefore more actively cultivate our hearts so that we too can be attuned to that deep sense of personal conviction, which should inform us what are the areas we should act—act effectively—to bring about a better world. Conviction is not a burden, but a fuel for purpose, meaning and growth.
Christian Chan
January 27, 2008
Cambridge, MA, USA
Not a novel theme; any average movie watcher could give you a long list of recent motion pictures that depicts something along that same vein. George Clooney’s earlier Syriana is probably a more remarkable one. The more classic Devil’s Advocate or The Firm are two other examples. This kind of Hollywood production has its merits: Their fictional stories have the potential to unveil the dark reality of seemingly desirable, or even neutral, nature of certain professions.
These films are accolade-worthy also because they elicit a much-needed sense of suspicion and awareness about the power holders in our society. Less partisan than Michael Moore’s documentaries (e.g., Fahrenheit 9/11), these Hollywood dramas can reach a broad crowd, and generate discussions beyond the fictitious scenarios used in the films. However, the flip side to such awareness is the possibility of habituation—a fancy way of saying “numbing”. That is, although these films can promote critical thinking and hopefully encourage us to question, too much of the same rhetoric could overwhelm people to a point that they rather treat it as merely a film, as mere entertainment. To be honest, how can one burden themselves with so many causes? It is hard enough to be told that this is a messed up world. Harder still is to accept one’s role and responsibility in them. What we might end up with is a mentality that goes like this: well, since the world and humanity are so doomed, there isn’t much I could do about it. So I might as well don’t. Another possibility: “oh, how horrible _____ is… now let’s decide what to watch next…” Good films change lives; too many of them change nothing.
I suppose the same sentiments are also shared by many “activists” and concerned citizens. As we are increasingly aware of the happenings in the world, we are also increasingly aware of the tragedies that take place EVERYDAY around the globe. Not too long ago we heard about the genocide in Darfur, which was described as the “next Rwanda”. Today, something strikingly similar is occurring in Kenya. Wouldn’t it be a fair bet that there will be another Kenya and another and another? And if so, how could anyone concern and devote themselves wholeheartedly to so many causes, all at once? How can an average Hong Kong activist equip and educate him or herself enough to campaign against all the horrible human-made tragedies, with conviction? Without conviction, how can any action be truly successful and meaningful? At the end of the day, is activism just another fancy form of entertainment? Just as we easily jump from one cinema to another watching different films about different weighty issues, do we also hop from one social justice problem to another? Is that fair to those who are suffering and dying?
I dare not offer any advice or insight on this matter as I also find myself finding new battles to fight before the one I’m engaged in is over. (Just look at the topics covered in my previous entries.) But I can suppose this: one must have a sense of conviction in whatever he or she choose to fight for, in order to stay true to it, or simply stay with it.
Conviction—a deep sense of belief—comes from within and it is very personal. How strong do/can I, a Hong Konger, really feel about the tragedy in Kenya in particular? Do I really “feel convicted”? It isn’t impossible but someone like Barack Obama would be a lot more convincing when speaking for the civil-war laden African country, not so much because he is a president-hopeful in the US than because of his Kenyan roots.
Conviction is a huge idea. It is a manifestation of who we are as an individual. It is connected to our history, personality, culture, aspirations, and faith. Sure, we could always be distracted, but I believe nothing would ever be able to take away that subtle tingling feeling in our heart. Conviction sustains us even when the world tells us we are wrong; it whispers to us when we stray.
We live in a post-modern world filled with too many post-modern possibilities and, indeed, anxieties. What 1984 was able to achieve six decades ago, no film could today—no matter how brilliant it may be—simply because there are too many of them. Likewise, we have witnessed too many 1989s in too many regions in the world. Such abundance results in the numbing of our mind and soul. We must therefore more actively cultivate our hearts so that we too can be attuned to that deep sense of personal conviction, which should inform us what are the areas we should act—act effectively—to bring about a better world. Conviction is not a burden, but a fuel for purpose, meaning and growth.
Christian Chan
January 27, 2008
Cambridge, MA, USA
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
