再來一則好文共賞 - 男足是中国的骄傲
全文太多精彩部份, 隨便選了一些.
「 从某种角度来看，中国足协其实比中国武协表现得更像个男人。咱们足球的水平虽然很臭，但至少还屡败屡战，敢拿出去让人虐。我一直觉得，国内这些散打选手，就算现在成绩差一点也没什么大不了的，敢去打就算条汉子，但你武协连一点像样的对外交流都不敢搞，整天关起门来欺骗自己欺骗观众，这比被骂成东亚病夫还要耻辱了。但是咱又不得不承认，武协自闭于世界的做法其实非常高明。今天中国武术在世界上的水平，恐怕也就跟中国足球差不多，但是只要不进行大规模的直接碰撞，多数从小就迷信中国功夫的人绝对不会相信这个惨痛的事实，只要不去比赛，咱就永远是天下第一了。想想武术和足球在中国截然不同的口碑，我真替足球运动员们感到不值。」
「 有人说了，足球这项运动的普及性比格斗高太多了，就算足协想玩自闭，这世上还有广受人民群众喜爱的五大联赛欧冠世界杯，真相是掩盖不住的。其实足球想玩自闭也没什么不可以的，要知道，有些国家到现在连手机都不能用呢，只要你想象力够丰富，脸皮够厚，impossible is nothing。」
「 要知道，我们的国足虽然踢得臭，但是他们从不避讳这一点，在中国，骂国足不仅没有任何风险，而且还可以骂出风格、骂出水平、骂出花样；相反，我们的政府虽然比国足还要臭，但你要稍微牢骚几句，不被跨省追捕，也要被网络上无数的脑残喷死。如今我终于意识到自己以前对国足的评价是多么得不公，终于成为了一个脱离了低级趣味的人。每当看社会新闻气到吐血的时候，只有国家队的比赛，才能弭平我心灵的创伤。」
其實關於大陸的荒唐事, 國內同胞比我們清楚一千倍, 只是他們的表達渠道被封鎖了, 不等於他們是白痴.
每當我們發現一件芝麻綠豆就大呼小叫好像揭開了驚世大秘密的時候, 為此而興奮的只有比我們更無知的小眾.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
我只可以說, 香港人讀番書讀到眼光越來越狹窄...
每一次聽見有人在罵大陸的不是, 罵得不到位又霑霑自喜以為自已當了政評家, 假如他們是公園啊伯又或是在公廁塗塗改液, 我大可以一笑置之, 因為他們的無知已經不再對社會構成甚麼影響. 但假如是出自一些年輕「知識份子」之口呢? 那我可擔心了.
大陸政府黑是眾所周知, 但有多黑相信有些港人仍未能想像, 以至於期望和現實出現嚴重落差.
這些「知識份子」犯的最大錯誤在於認為大陸政府suppose是白的, 於是用了對付一個正常政府的方法對付大陸, 只因他們的思維不能抽離以往認識的香港或西方政府太遠. 這一個supposition的落差令他們做了一場又一場的小丑戲還未了解自己形勢有多危急.
「如果你發現大陸政府有些行為難以理解, 套用一下黑社會的思維就會晃然大悟」
大陸政府有多黑? 有說他們就是全中國最大的黑社會. 我說他是個龐大的黑洞, 而且質量正不斷增加. 當你真正了解到他到底有多黑, 就會發現以前很多離奇現象都只是這個黑洞的簡單表徵, 絕對沒有甚麼稀奇.
該如何描述那些「知識份子」的行為有多可笑? 我想到了. 試想像在黑社會最猖獗的6-70年代香港, 有一群熱血青年不甘被黑幫欺壓, 然後上網寫文章, 上論壇留言罵他們不道德, 不民主, 不開放, 然後遊行示威圍堵油麻地果爛, 要求幫會叔父輩接收請願信, 並向市民交代... 這一切一切假如做的對象是香港政府, 還是收到一定效用, 因為"香港政府suppose是白的"這個supposition還勉強成立. 但如果拿同一套去對付新X安, 和X和, 14X, 你想像得到可笑程度有幾高? 在那個年代, 香港市民都活出了一套與黑社會溝通的模式, 為甚麼現在反而比以前更不認識黑社會了?
當你聽過大陸是怎樣招安香港黑幫, 槍斃東北喬四爺, 在重慶打黑, 結果又打出個甚麼來, 就知道江湖事是應該怎麼了, 就知道大陸打黑的方法就是比黑更黑, 比恐佈更恐佈. 面對一個可能是地球上最大最黑的組織, 當你要跟他談判時, 請拿出跟黑幫談判應有的態度和智慧, 那些小丑戲就由那些小丑做吧, 總要有人間中做下小丑, 我們自己不要做就好了.
我撰此文並非叫大家把不合理的都看成理所當然然後無動於衷, 而是希望大家多求知, 多了解, 並從現實中找出解決問題的真正辦法, 說一些真正到位的話, 為自已為港人都爭一口氣. 正如好些年前梁文道的文章我都嗤之以鼻, 但在大陸混了幾年之後明顯對大陸的加深了解, 近期的文章寫得非常到位.
我經常說, 無知不是罪, 但自甘無知就是彌天大罪. 假如大家只是從我們接觸到的媒體和互聯網去認識中國大陸就以為自己是個中國通, 那只是無知, 不是罪. 但假如你看了這文還不去好好認真從身邊的真人真事真物去了解一下大陸黑得有多通透, 還擺出那副滿臉稚氣的樣子跟大陸說話, 那就是彌天大罪.
大陸政府黑是眾所周知, 但有多黑相信有些港人仍未能想像, 以至於期望和現實出現嚴重落差.
這些「知識份子」犯的最大錯誤在於認為大陸政府suppose是白的, 於是用了對付一個正常政府的方法對付大陸, 只因他們的思維不能抽離以往認識的香港或西方政府太遠. 這一個supposition的落差令他們做了一場又一場的小丑戲還未了解自己形勢有多危急.
「如果你發現大陸政府有些行為難以理解, 套用一下黑社會的思維就會晃然大悟」
大陸政府有多黑? 有說他們就是全中國最大的黑社會. 我說他是個龐大的黑洞, 而且質量正不斷增加. 當你真正了解到他到底有多黑, 就會發現以前很多離奇現象都只是這個黑洞的簡單表徵, 絕對沒有甚麼稀奇.
該如何描述那些「知識份子」的行為有多可笑? 我想到了. 試想像在黑社會最猖獗的6-70年代香港, 有一群熱血青年不甘被黑幫欺壓, 然後上網寫文章, 上論壇留言罵他們不道德, 不民主, 不開放, 然後遊行示威圍堵油麻地果爛, 要求幫會叔父輩接收請願信, 並向市民交代... 這一切一切假如做的對象是香港政府, 還是收到一定效用, 因為"香港政府suppose是白的"這個supposition還勉強成立. 但如果拿同一套去對付新X安, 和X和, 14X, 你想像得到可笑程度有幾高? 在那個年代, 香港市民都活出了一套與黑社會溝通的模式, 為甚麼現在反而比以前更不認識黑社會了?
當你聽過大陸是怎樣招安香港黑幫, 槍斃東北喬四爺, 在重慶打黑, 結果又打出個甚麼來, 就知道江湖事是應該怎麼了, 就知道大陸打黑的方法就是比黑更黑, 比恐佈更恐佈. 面對一個可能是地球上最大最黑的組織, 當你要跟他談判時, 請拿出跟黑幫談判應有的態度和智慧, 那些小丑戲就由那些小丑做吧, 總要有人間中做下小丑, 我們自己不要做就好了.
我撰此文並非叫大家把不合理的都看成理所當然然後無動於衷, 而是希望大家多求知, 多了解, 並從現實中找出解決問題的真正辦法, 說一些真正到位的話, 為自已為港人都爭一口氣. 正如好些年前梁文道的文章我都嗤之以鼻, 但在大陸混了幾年之後明顯對大陸的加深了解, 近期的文章寫得非常到位.
我經常說, 無知不是罪, 但自甘無知就是彌天大罪. 假如大家只是從我們接觸到的媒體和互聯網去認識中國大陸就以為自己是個中國通, 那只是無知, 不是罪. 但假如你看了這文還不去好好認真從身邊的真人真事真物去了解一下大陸黑得有多通透, 還擺出那副滿臉稚氣的樣子跟大陸說話, 那就是彌天大罪.
分享戴卓爾夫人好文一則
Interview for Woman's Own ("no such thing as society")
也許大家沒有時間細看, 節錄了其中的精彩部份:
I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand"I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or"I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!"
...and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business...
"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look! It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it..."
But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.
我想, 香港人的步伐正好相反.
香港人走過了一段和諧日子. 在那段日子裡, 大家都自覺是社會一份子, 大家都意識到社會是靠每一個個體互相扶持構成, 大家都覺得向社會領福利等於把責任傳嫁給身邊的人而為此感到羞恥.
然後... 人們慢慢開始變質. 也許是因為貧富越來越懸殊, 人們開始從社會抽離. 大家都覺得社會已經由富人壟斷, 所以向社會要求一切的福利都的是合理的, 向社會作一切的自私行為都是無可厚非的, 而社會發生任何問題自已都不需承擔任何責任的.
於是就聽到類似這樣的流行歌, 「邊一個發明了返工, 唔係八婆就係八公...」. 它不是pop, 之所以說它是流行歌, 因為在年輕人中非常流行. 最令人痛心的, 正是發現了香港的年青人已經不再把自已當成社會的一份子, 而是把社會當成一個無中生有的福利中心. 他們不但沒有"prepared to take responsibility for ourselves", 更不可能"prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate". 這樣的社會還能撐多久? 我不敢想像.
我們將問題都歸咎於貧富懸殊, 將貧富懸殊歸咎於政府. 無錯, 全都是政府的錯. 結果呢? 因為無一個錯誤是自已的, 而自已的自私行為也有了合理的基礎, 所以亦無需要改變...
但為甚麼不能回個頭想想, 難道就因為錯的不是我, 就要眼睜睜看著香港陸沉而袖手旁觀嗎? 雖然錯不在我, 但畢竟這是我們的家, 為甚麼不能每人盡一分力去將他撥亂反正? 我們要做的其實並不多, 只要好好照顧自已, 並不時關心身邊需要援助的人, 已經很足夠了. 為何連這麼基本的公民責任我們都不願意負而寧願把社會拖垮? 我真不明白...
也許大家沒有時間細看, 節錄了其中的精彩部份:
I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand"I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or"I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!"
...and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business...
"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look! It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it..."
But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.
我想, 香港人的步伐正好相反.
香港人走過了一段和諧日子. 在那段日子裡, 大家都自覺是社會一份子, 大家都意識到社會是靠每一個個體互相扶持構成, 大家都覺得向社會領福利等於把責任傳嫁給身邊的人而為此感到羞恥.
然後... 人們慢慢開始變質. 也許是因為貧富越來越懸殊, 人們開始從社會抽離. 大家都覺得社會已經由富人壟斷, 所以向社會要求一切的福利都的是合理的, 向社會作一切的自私行為都是無可厚非的, 而社會發生任何問題自已都不需承擔任何責任的.
於是就聽到類似這樣的流行歌, 「邊一個發明了返工, 唔係八婆就係八公...」. 它不是pop, 之所以說它是流行歌, 因為在年輕人中非常流行. 最令人痛心的, 正是發現了香港的年青人已經不再把自已當成社會的一份子, 而是把社會當成一個無中生有的福利中心. 他們不但沒有"prepared to take responsibility for ourselves", 更不可能"prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate". 這樣的社會還能撐多久? 我不敢想像.
我們將問題都歸咎於貧富懸殊, 將貧富懸殊歸咎於政府. 無錯, 全都是政府的錯. 結果呢? 因為無一個錯誤是自已的, 而自已的自私行為也有了合理的基礎, 所以亦無需要改變...
但為甚麼不能回個頭想想, 難道就因為錯的不是我, 就要眼睜睜看著香港陸沉而袖手旁觀嗎? 雖然錯不在我, 但畢竟這是我們的家, 為甚麼不能每人盡一分力去將他撥亂反正? 我們要做的其實並不多, 只要好好照顧自已, 並不時關心身邊需要援助的人, 已經很足夠了. 為何連這麼基本的公民責任我們都不願意負而寧願把社會拖垮? 我真不明白...
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Economist 的真知灼見
這本是Economist在2009年底的年度回顧和展望特刊.
有一章關於全球各地區的經濟簡評, 對於香港的評論是這樣的:
While mainland China forges ahead, this former British outpost will struggle with the economic ills of the developed world, emerging from the 2009 recession to only tepid growth. The mainland's strong performance will help, but the world trade in goods on which Hong Kong's economy depends will remain depressed.
To watch : Ballotproof. The pro-democracy protests held every year could be particularly loud in 2010. The souring economy has undermined support for the chief executive, Donald Tsang, and the mainland-dominated system behind him.
其實香港的經濟, 民生, 政治體制早被國外政評家看穿. 我們將反高鐵, 五區公投作為民主覺醒, 「80後」領導新學運潮, 然後沾沾自喜. 其實一切都是外在經濟環境下的因果循環, 而我們也只是用力實踐經濟原則所預視了的結果. 放開眼睛看看世界, 其實很多香港正面對的問題, 其他地方不是己經歷過, 就是正在經歷.
再來看看這篇文章:
Delayed explosion
Will 2010 be a year of social unrest?
Over the past year much of the world has experienced falling incomes and sharply rising unemployment . At the height of the global economic crisis in early 2009 a striking warning about the possible political consequences came from America's director of national intelligence...
So far, however, the feared spread of unrest has not occurred. Voters have not flocked to the far left or the populist right. Most people affected by the crisis have suffered in silence.
Does this mean that all the warnings were misplaced? It's too soon to relax. There are reasons to expect that 2010 could be a year of upheaval. The relative social peace of 2009 may have been only the quiet before the storm.
Indeed, a congruence of calamities could prove politically tempestuous: a sharp rise in unemployment, increased poverty and inequality, weakened middle classes and high food prices in many countries...
Historically, political reactions to economic distress have tended to come with a lag. The same is true of labour-market developments: even once the recession ends, unemployment continues to rise. According to Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) estimates, in 2010 there will be 60m more unemployed worldwide than in 2008...
Declines in incomes are not always followed by political instability. Vulnerability to unrest depends on a host of factors. These include the degree of income inequality, the state of governance, levels of social provision, ethnic tensions, public trust in institutions, the history of unrest and the type of political system ("intermediate" regimes that are neither consolidated democracies nor autocracies seem the most vulnerable)...
怎麼這篇文章好像為香港而寫的? 尤其是最後一段. 當然, 我們總能夠事過境遷後找舊文章出來事後孔明, 可是我讀過的其他文章不是無膽作預測, 就是作些模稜兩可黑白不分的預測, 沒有一篇能作明確斷言, 所以我對economist的文章印象特別深刻.
我想說的只是, 當我們面對一個問題, 如果將目光局限在這問題所屬的區域內, 問題就會被微觀化, 並且放大到佔據了整個思想空間, 而無法從不同角度不同距離觀察問題, 也不能將這問題和那問題和他山之石作比較而獲得啟發.
當然我們很難期望有這樣優秀的經濟學者在香港出現, 更不可能出現在政府裡, 但至少, 每週買一本來看看是最基本能做到的吧!
有一章關於全球各地區的經濟簡評, 對於香港的評論是這樣的:
While mainland China forges ahead, this former British outpost will struggle with the economic ills of the developed world, emerging from the 2009 recession to only tepid growth. The mainland's strong performance will help, but the world trade in goods on which Hong Kong's economy depends will remain depressed.
To watch : Ballotproof. The pro-democracy protests held every year could be particularly loud in 2010. The souring economy has undermined support for the chief executive, Donald Tsang, and the mainland-dominated system behind him.
其實香港的經濟, 民生, 政治體制早被國外政評家看穿. 我們將反高鐵, 五區公投作為民主覺醒, 「80後」領導新學運潮, 然後沾沾自喜. 其實一切都是外在經濟環境下的因果循環, 而我們也只是用力實踐經濟原則所預視了的結果. 放開眼睛看看世界, 其實很多香港正面對的問題, 其他地方不是己經歷過, 就是正在經歷.
再來看看這篇文章:
Delayed explosion
Will 2010 be a year of social unrest?
Over the past year much of the world has experienced falling incomes and sharply rising unemployment . At the height of the global economic crisis in early 2009 a striking warning about the possible political consequences came from America's director of national intelligence...
So far, however, the feared spread of unrest has not occurred. Voters have not flocked to the far left or the populist right. Most people affected by the crisis have suffered in silence.
Does this mean that all the warnings were misplaced? It's too soon to relax. There are reasons to expect that 2010 could be a year of upheaval. The relative social peace of 2009 may have been only the quiet before the storm.
Indeed, a congruence of calamities could prove politically tempestuous: a sharp rise in unemployment, increased poverty and inequality, weakened middle classes and high food prices in many countries...
Historically, political reactions to economic distress have tended to come with a lag. The same is true of labour-market developments: even once the recession ends, unemployment continues to rise. According to Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) estimates, in 2010 there will be 60m more unemployed worldwide than in 2008...
Declines in incomes are not always followed by political instability. Vulnerability to unrest depends on a host of factors. These include the degree of income inequality, the state of governance, levels of social provision, ethnic tensions, public trust in institutions, the history of unrest and the type of political system ("intermediate" regimes that are neither consolidated democracies nor autocracies seem the most vulnerable)...
怎麼這篇文章好像為香港而寫的? 尤其是最後一段. 當然, 我們總能夠事過境遷後找舊文章出來事後孔明, 可是我讀過的其他文章不是無膽作預測, 就是作些模稜兩可黑白不分的預測, 沒有一篇能作明確斷言, 所以我對economist的文章印象特別深刻.
我想說的只是, 當我們面對一個問題, 如果將目光局限在這問題所屬的區域內, 問題就會被微觀化, 並且放大到佔據了整個思想空間, 而無法從不同角度不同距離觀察問題, 也不能將這問題和那問題和他山之石作比較而獲得啟發.
當然我們很難期望有這樣優秀的經濟學者在香港出現, 更不可能出現在政府裡, 但至少, 每週買一本來看看是最基本能做到的吧!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
