在布碌崙的日子

 

港人對於異域地名的翻譯甚見功底。例如Virginia州,大陸的通用譯法是弗吉利亞,有點不吉的味道——你想想看,弗吉利亞,弗吉利亞,真是不吉利啊!你猜猜看香港人怎麼稱呼Virginia的?維珍尼亞。高下立見。

紐約的新中國城Flushing,英文意思總讓人聯想到抽水馬桶;大陸人和香港人都呼之為法拉盛,談不上典雅,但聽起來也很不錯。至於紐約人口最稠密的Brooklyn,大陸人稱之為布魯克林,有點文藝青年的范兒;香港人的翻譯則令人大跌眼睛:布碌崙——你是不是已經聯想到了忙忙碌碌一無所獲的悽苦景象?港人精於翻譯地名的清譽,毀於布碌崙。

我因為吾妻的一段實習,從匹茲堡驅車千里,在布碌崙住了整整四個禮拜。我們的住處離68街和八大道的交界處不遠。此地是紐約城新興華埠,其發展之迅猛,有其天時地利:九一一之後,曼哈頓的Canal Street唐人街交通受阻,臨近新澤西州的布碌崙八大道成為華人購物新熱點。今天,你在這裡走路,耳邊全部是廣東話,間有國語,但基本上沒有英語,沿街景觀則和香港九龍或者深圳的普通街道看起來毫無二致。

我們從一個福建人手裡租了一間針尖大的臥室。每天白天吾妻上班,我就從衣櫃裡拿出牙刷牙膏去洗手間洗漱完畢之後,趴在一張巴掌大的可摺疊的飯桌上寫東西。偶爾在房間裡踱步,從東邊走到西邊是3步,從西邊走回東邊也是3步。

習慣了匹茲堡大大的房子和悠閒的空氣,這裡的空氣讓人倍感壓抑。而且這還不完全是因為在紐約,而是這裡集中了中西文化最令人討厭的東西。這裡是地地道道如假包換的文化沙漠。一個簡單的判斷指標就是:整個區域內,最近的Starbucks步行也要半小時;而我在這裡住了四周,沒有看到過一家咖啡館。按照Tom Standage所著的The History of The World in Six Glasses一書的觀點,在西方文明體系里,一個沒有咖啡的地方,就沒有沉思。在布碌崙華埠談沉思?你肯定是在開玩笑。

我們的一個醫生朋友在這裡開了一家新診所,她接觸到的病人的狀況讓她幾乎窒息。她悲鳴道:在這裡,我每天都在和牛蛇鬼神打交道!在這裡,一個正常在街道上行走的人,一句英語都不會說,幾年前還在中國福建或者廣東,然後偷渡過來,現在則要麼已經被批准政治避難,要麼已經成為美國公民。他們所有的工資都以現金發放,一分錢不用納稅;他們所有的交易都是現金交易;他們買日常食品全部使用政府發放的food stamp,基本上不用出一個子;他們藍卡白卡用得熟練得很,看病的費用有美國政府全部報銷。此地確實是牛蛇鬼神的天堂。

在這裡,學生身份是可疑的。坐在公園裡思考問題是可疑的,保證你可以吸引到一堆好奇的目光。

在這裡,小聲細語地說話是可疑的,你絕對應該理直氣壯地用最大音量說話、吵架、聽音樂。

在這裡,小心翼翼地開車並不可疑,但是可恥。你會被無數車狂鳴笛,而且左右兩邊都會被超過去。

布碌崙華埠,我是不是把你描繪得過於不堪了?其實,這裡的美食是非常誘人的,這裡隨便每一個block都有一家中國超市,而且每一家的規模則是我們匹茲堡那個小小的百合超市的5倍不止。這裡的人們麻木、無趣、目光渙散、戒心重重,但大體上都心腸不壞,而且很多人還有點可愛。

可是,每當我在街道上走路,迎面傳來穿透一切的魚腥味,我就感覺自己是一個徹底的瘋子。

當我們離開布碌崙,來到外州朋友家,僅僅幾十英里的距離,我就見到了一個完全不同的世界,一個我已經完全熟悉而且適應的世界:我可以在月光下散步,我可以坐在寬大的客廳裡讀書,我可以先念一會詩,然後和一堆數學公式搏鬥一會。

最美妙的是,我可以舒心地和朋友談論各種各樣的無用之物,而絲毫不覺得自己是瘋子。而且,你可以確定你看到的笑容是真的。

Advertisements

The Amazing George

那麼多年過去,最喜歡的美劇是Seinfeld,沒有之一。其中的George Costanza,是一個極其好玩的角色。最近George的扮演者Jason Alexander就丹佛屠殺發表了控槍言論

I cannot understand support for legality of the kind of weapon in this massacre. It’s a military weapon.why should it be in non-mil hands?

短短的兩句話之後,Jason就遭到無數美國網友的人身攻擊甚至恐嚇——你沒看錯,這是在美國。

只有在這樣的事件發生之時,你才能理解很多美國人的腦袋是石頭做的。這種時候,需要勇敢的有影響力的人站出來不慌不忙地逐點反駁。 但即使是無畏的鬥士,也有懷疑人生的時候,需要有人打氣。這一點,在Jason隨後的長推裡暴露無遺:

Friends, I am overwhelmed by your response to my long tweet regarding our gun laws. Thank you for sharing it and thank you for your kind words. Sometimes when I despair for this world, I am reminded of the true heart of most people and I am rejuvenated. I am hopeful that this may result in a real national dialogue that forces us to make real change. Please keep it going. Keep talking. Call your representatives and insist on debate and bills.

And for the many gun owners and gun advocates that have responded with intelligence, concern and respectfulness – I so appreciate your input, your knowledge and your decorum. I am not anti-gun. And I am not unaware of how often guns can prevent violence. I merely believe we need to have a rational discussion about the pros and cons of where we draw the line on civilian ownership of the range of weapons and instruments of violence that exist. And on gun laws in general. IF there is a real discussion – among experts and lawmakers – unfettered by money interests, then I think acceptable conclusions will be attained. But please don’t believe what the few are shouting over the twitter-verse that I am anti-gun. I am for sense, and I fear it is often a victim, as well.

Again, to you all – your support and kindness moves me to my core. Thank you for taking the time to reach out to me. My prayer today is for a world where all of us feel secure, feel hopeful and feel cherished and appreciated by those we love. Good Sunday to ya.

Jason

Jason之後發表的另外一篇長推,讀起來有禮有節,我希望可以說服很多石頭腦袋,說服一些良心未泯的政客:

I’d like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday’s victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.

Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence – these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

Many of them cite patriotism as their reason – true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I’m no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

As passed by the Congress:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution – if you’re in a well-regulated militia. Let’s see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

“A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.”

Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment – are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority – the answer is no.

Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?

I’m hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let’s see – does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.

Then there are the tweets from the extreme right – these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn’t see it should…
a. be labeled a moron
b. shut the fuck up
c. be removed

And amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right who swear allegiance to unelected officials that regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.

These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats – no problem. But if they try it with anyone else – it’s going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a “militia”. They don’t. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That’s why they have to “take our country back”. From who? From anyone who doesn’t think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn’t believe that? Just asking.

Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning – I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn’t have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources – sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. “Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar – plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out.”

But that won’t happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.

I have been reading on and off as advocates for these weapons make their excuses all day long. Guns don’t kill – people do. Well if that’s correct, I go with @BrooklynAvi, let them kill with tomatoes. Let them bring baseball bats, knives, even machetes — a mob can deal with that.

There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don’t agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?

We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.

I’ll say it plainly – if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to “pry it from my cold, dead hand”, then they are probably planning on using them on people.

So, sorry those of you who tell me I’m an actor, or a has-been or an idiot or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.

But this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.

In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless.

Jason Alexander

政客!政客!

去年Barack Obama在Arizona的動人演講,還讓我感動了一把 (who wasn’t moved at that time?)。可是,當丹佛大屠殺之後,他再度老調重提,說:

Our time here is limited and it is precious. And what matters at the end of the day is not the small things, it’s not the trivial things which so often consume us and our daily lives. Ultimately, it’s about how we choose to treat one another and how we love one another.

說得很好。可是,在Obama的演講稿裡反覆尋覓,根本找不到gun這個字。

Obama,你真的把靈魂出賣給了魔鬼嗎?連2008年競選季節不遺餘力支持你的New York Times這次都對你失望了

When he was campaigning for office in 2008, Barack Obama vowed to reinstate the assault weapons ban that had expired in 2004. That would have prohibited the AR-15 rifle used in the Colorado theater shooting on Friday, along with the large 100-round magazine attached to it. But as president, Mr. Obama has made no attempt to do so. Mitt Romney banned assault weapons as governor of Massachusetts and undoubtedly saved many lives, but now he opposes all gun control measures. He never repeats what he said in 2004 when he signed the ban:

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” he said. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

Both men fear the power of gun ideologues, particularly in swing states like Pennsylvania, Nevada and North Carolina, where many voters have fallen under the spell of a gun lobby that considers any restriction an unthinkable assault on the Constitution. Senator Ron Johnson, the Tea Party favorite from Wisconsin, spoke for the Republican Party (and many Democrats) when he said that limiting high-capacity magazines would infringe on a basic right. “When you try and do it, you restrict our freedom,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Freedom to do what, precisely? To fire off 100 rounds without reloading?

The Atlantic的資深記者James Fallow多年來對Obama有讚有彈,但整體上持嘉許和期待態度。這一次,他說:

Perhaps the most depressing thing to me was that the two men under the most immediate election pressure, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, both avoided using the word “guns” in their condolence statement about the shootings.

這是New York Times的Room for Debate的一篇

Listening to President Obama’s speech about the Aurora tragedy, I found myself comparing it (unfavorably) to the one he gave in Tucson after the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, in which six people died. Then I realized: He’s given two speeches on gun massacres in 18 months. It’s going to be hard to keep it fresh.

That’s cynical. But Obama and other politicians cultivate cynicism when they fail to address the debate the Aurora killings reignited: over whether to reauthorize the federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004 and which would have banned some of the ammunition James Holmes used last Friday.

這個一個犬儒主義大行其道的美國。如果一切繼續下去,那麼這將是一個前景恐怖的美國,一個不適合人類聚居的美國,一個根本不值得移民的美國。這個美國,和那個令人窒息的天朝像極了,連Virginia Tech屠殺之後Tim Kaine州長怒斥追問者的口氣,都和四川地震過後那些地方官員們的嘴臉如此接近:

But the parents, and the rest of us, were told that it was not the right moment to ask how the shooting had happened—specifically, why an obviously disturbed student, with a history of mental illness, was able to buy guns whose essential purpose is to kill people—and why it happens over and over again in America. At a press conference, Virginia’s governor, Tim Kaine, said, “People who want to . . . make it their political hobby horse to ride, I’ve got nothing but loathing for them. . . . At this point, what it’s about is comforting family members . . . and helping this community heal. And so to those who want to try to make this into some little crusade, I say take that elsewhere.”

恍如戰地的美國,以及……我為什麼討厭余傑

1.

喜歡余傑的一些文字,但是非常不喜歡余傑這個人。原因有二:一是余傑和王怡2006年引起軒然大波的排擠郭飛雄事件,個中余傑的表現令人不齒,徹底出離了一個讀書人的底線。而余傑事後的文字堪稱令人作嘔的政教合一的典範。二是余傑的保守立場:“在死刑、同性戀、墮胎、 幹細胞研究、槍支管制這些問題上,我都是鐵桿的共和黨人。” 他不久前更表示要盡快購槍。

這兩件事讓我沒法對一個人不反感。

2.

認為美國的槍支氾濫不是問題的人,要麼無知,要麼無恥,要麼愚蠢。

美國每年被槍支謀殺的人數達4.1人每十萬人(2003年數據,與目前數據接近),對比之下,包括澳洲、加拿大、芬蘭、法國、德國、日本在內的22個西方國家加在一起,每年被槍支謀殺的人數為0.2人每十萬人。換而言之,在美國被槍殺的概率比其他西方國家超過20倍! 槍支謀殺率最低的日本,只有0.02人每十萬人,不到美國的1/200!

3.

日本是不是人間樂土呢?也不是。人固有一死,但死法可以不同。

日本是全世界自殺率最高的國家之一(中國也是,但是權威統計數據不多,故在這裡不加評論),達到了驚人的23.8人每十萬人。再看美國,自殺率和全球平均水平相當,是11.8人每十萬人。

把自殺和他殺加在一起,美國似乎比日本還要好一點。也許,這就是日本他殺率很低的原因——人們忙於自殺,根本無暇他殺。

4.

The Atlantic繪製了美國各州因槍支死亡人數的地圖(注意:這張圖的數據既包括他殺,也包括自殺以及警察執行公務的合法槍殺)。

美國本土最安全的地方在哪裡?答案令人大跌眼鏡:紐約,新澤西,以及麻省。美國中部民風淳樸?Don’t get me started!

5.

為什麼傳統中認為治安較差的紐約反而最安全,而號稱田園風光的田納西幾乎“血流成河”?原因可能很多,但眾多研究一再證實,美國槍支管制越嚴格的地方死亡事件越少。

6.

不要跟我說持槍乃美國人立國之本,自由之義。在一個人人生命權時時可能被陌生人剝奪的國家,談論自由有何意義?

更何況,根據New Yorker最近引起極大迴響的文章”Battleground America“,美國建國之後一直對槍支從嚴管制,而且幾乎沒有人把持槍權和公民自由聯繫在一起。直到1970年代,美國槍支協會開始大肆lobby國會,加上右傾之風狂虐,“槍支=自由”的謊言才慢慢擴散,到了今天已經一發不可收拾,以至於連余傑這樣的號稱獨立思考的人都視之為神聖不可侵犯的真理。

7.

美國是不是一個可愛的國家?我認為是。但就是這樣的一個國家,也許人們會地久天長地守着持槍自由,直至沒有人可以持槍為止,直至沒有子彈為止。

8.

祈禱、祝福、希望…… 經歷了那麼多次之後,我們是不是厭倦了這些東西?各位,還是花點時間讀一讀Adam Gopnik的滴血的文字吧,這是關於此事唯一值得一讀的評論:

The truth is made worse by the reality that no one—really no one—anywhere on the political spectrum has the courage to speak out about the madness of unleashed guns and what they do to American life. That includes the President, whose consoling message managed to avoid the issue of why these killings take place. Of course, we don’t know, and perhaps never will, what exactly “made him” do what he did; but we know how he did it. Those who fight for the right of every madman and every criminal to have as many people-killing weapons as they want share moral responsibility for what happened last night—as they will when it happens again. And it will happen again.

9.

下面這些細節送給余傑,送給每一個為美國槍支政策辯護的人:

在昨日凌晨的丹佛大屠殺中,兇手是一名大學時期成績優異、看起來弱不禁風的一名白人學生。為了這次行動,他做了充分準備:

- 過去兩個月內,他在當地的合法商店購買了4把槍,包括一部戰鬥步槍(assault rifle),兩部手槍(handgun)和一支散彈槍(shotgun)。這是完全合法的。

- 過去兩個月內,他通過網絡購買了合計6300發子彈。這也是完全合法的。

- 他有一個彈匣,可容納100發子彈。這是100%合法的。

- 他的戰鬥步槍每分鐘可以發出60顆子彈。嗯,這也是合法的。

- 這是當地警長的原話

My understanding is that all the weapons that he possessed, he possessed legally. And all the clips that he possessed, he possessed legally. And all the ammunition that he possessed, he possessed legally.

男歡女愛是世界的希望

***以這篇文章,給每一個依然相信並執着尋找真愛的朋友。***

再也沒有一本書比路遙的《平凡的世界》更能象徵和我年紀相近的人了。《平凡的世界》這本書放在今天的中國小說界,依然是一本一流小說,因為中國的小說界從來都是世界末流,這本書絕對是末流中的一流。

當我和大學的室友們徹夜聊天時,才發現每個人都讀過這本書,而且都是從其他人手裡借過來的,各有各的奇遇。我第一次讀這本書,是初中畢業的那個暑假,偷翻大姐的書包裡的時候發現的一本皺巴巴的盜版,帶着粗糙而俗氣的腰封。那時候最喜歡這本書的一點在於裡面的男歡女愛是那麼真誠那麼純粹,即便故事的背景是在那樣一個荒謬愚蠢顛倒黑白的時代,即便路遙的敘事和抒情都和瓊瑤阿姨相比都有一定差距。

談論這本書,很能體現人和人的認知的差距。比如,我的一位有點悶的帥哥室友就無論如何都不能理解為什麼作為省報記者的田曉霞會喜歡孫少平這樣一個礦工。那時候,大家都覺得這位帥哥是異類,但無法找到說服他的理由。到了社會急劇分層的今日,恐怕要顛倒過來了,相信這份愛情的反而會成為異類。

那麼,多年過去了,回想起這個世界的種種變化,科技日新月異,我們也見識了各種各樣的令人掉下巴的怪事。道德的底線不知道被衝破了多少次,那麼多東西誕生那麼多東西死去。收音機差點消亡,電視差點消亡,報紙雜誌差點消亡,紙質書差點消亡。打字機消亡了,電腦差點消亡了,然後是筆記本電腦差點消亡了。

嫌貧愛富是人類亙古不變的傾向,但從來沒有今時今日的語言這麼自白和赤裸——高富帥對矮挫窮,白富美對黑窮醜,富二代對窮八世,官二代對紅五類,房奴對蟻族。如果多讀一點書,就會發現世象其實一點都不荒謬,荒謬的只是我們日益粗鄙醜陋的語言系統。而這種荒謬,只對有語言潔癖的人構成痛苦。

為了和各位解釋清楚這種語言的變遷,且摘錄一段Oscar Wilde的鉅著The Importance of Being Earnest(中譯:認真之重要性)。背景很簡單:Jack Worthing謊稱自己的名字叫Earnest向自己的心儀女郎Gwendolen求婚,獲得意外成功。但Gwendolen的母親Lady Bracknell獲悉Mr. Worthings是孤兒,幼時曾被裝入手袋中放於火車站的衣物暫存室,心生不悅,於是有了如下的話:

Lady Bracknell: The line is immaterial. Mr. Worthing, I confess I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred, in a hand-bag, whether it had handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life that reminds one of the worst excesses of the French Revolution. And I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to? As for the particular locality in which the hand-bag was found, a cloak-room at a railway station might serve to conceal a social indiscretion—has probably, indeed, been used for that purpose before now-but it could hardly be regarded as an assured basis for a recognised position in good society.

(Youtube上面有兩位很搞笑的哥們,把這段演繹得妙極了:http://goo.gl/0f1e2 從6’17”開始)

這段話美輪美奐,但是表達的意思用今天的話翻譯只有一句——你的家庭出身,不配我們上流社會。今天的人,根本不會滿嘴跑火車般地提法國大革命。溫柔和委婉,不屬於這個時代。

如果說這個世界依然充滿希望的話,如果我們堅持自己面對的並非窮途末路,那麼有一個頑固的證據,那就是,雖然委婉的精緻的語言在死去,但是男歡女愛依然存在。

時至今日,多數男人依然喜歡女人,依然發現漂亮女孩無以取代,這是多麼美妙的奇蹟。

時至今日,那麼多美麗的動植物、建築、藝術、音樂、設計,依然無法取代對美麗的人的嚮往。

時至今日,愛仍然無法作為商品大量生產。我們見到那麼多癡男怨女,依然無法抱着冰冷的iPhone安眠,反倒飛蛾撲火版尋覓真愛(true love) 這一存在性成疑,供應稀少,時有聽聞但經常幻滅的概念。

上帝在微笑。人類盡在掌控中。

當有一天,男人再也不愛女人了。這個世界就滅亡了。比起來,核威脅真的不算什麼。

Dichotomy

熱衷於破壞法制的人被鬥之際奮勇地舉起憲法:

Image

譏諷普世價值的五毛黨,一旦捱打,立即訴諸民主自由:

Image

討厭政府的人也要高呼吾黨萬歲:

Image

趨炎附勢,志在洗腦的人可以那麼不畏官威,無懼打壓:

教聯楊耀忠反擊:不是局長說了算

文章日期:2012年7月7日

【明報專訊】教育局長吳克儉公開點評國民教育服務中心出版的教學手冊內容偏頗,中心主席楊耀忠昨傍晚在電台節目反擊。他認為教學手冊內容客觀,教師不採用是「浪費」、「自己封閉自己」,他又指「我不認同(吳克儉),局長不是『官說了算數』」。他又批評主持人以吳克儉的言論質疑他,等同「用局長壓我」。

身兼教聯會會長和國民教育服務中心主席的楊耀忠,昨接受商台《左右大局》訪問,多次強調不認同新任教育局長吳克儉說法。楊解釋,出版教學手冊目的是要介紹內地過去30年的發展,並為此提供合理解釋,不是為了回應六四或毒奶粉事件。而教學手冊形容內地執政集團是「無私、進步」,楊指公眾可不認同此觀點,但不可否認它(執政集團)獲得支持。

指手冊內容客觀 教師不用是浪費

楊耀忠認為,教學冊內容全面、客觀,並非如吳所言「有所偏頗」,加上它並非市面上唯一國情教材,教師有自由選擇是否參考,指若學界不用此教學冊是「浪費」,是「自己封閉自己」。楊說﹕「我不認同(吳克儉),局長不是『官說了算數』」,但他說,不會「咁霸道」譴責教育局或吳克儉,中心亦會公開解釋事件。

記者及後再致電楊耀忠查詢,他不願評論吳克儉上任數天即公開批評中心教材是否恰當,認為應由吳自行檢討。楊重申,他雖不認同吳克儉說法,但每人都有發表想法的權利,他只期望公眾開放接受不同觀點,而非由局長的一家之言就「一錘定音」。

黃均瑜:政府「按計劃撥款」模式資助

至於有意見質疑中心獲資助是「私相授受」,教聯會主席黃均瑜回應時說,現時政府是以「按計劃撥款」模式提供資助,中心角色被動,撥款亦不穩定。以今次製作教材為例,原本提出今年製作3份教材,政府終削減至2份,中心要靠申請其他機構撥款才能確保團隊穩定。

教聯會尚未與政府簽訂新一年營辦國民教育服務中心的合約,被問及會否擔心事件影響續約事宜,黃均瑜直言:「這些事我沒法控制。」

至於那被歌頌的呢?則安然享受八方朝聖,真不愧是進步、無私、團結的執政集團!