既然你說軍隊不是幫派，軍人不是流氓；那我說殺死人就要償命，一個一個揪出來

        軍營裏死人不是什麼新聞了，從古至今，哪個時期不出軍中流氓虐待人、殺害人的事？雖說今日已是民主的社會，但不公平不會因為民主就自動消失，而可憐的、無助的、無權無勢的老百姓，唯一能用的武器就是媒體，只有藉著媒體的強力放送，才有可能喚回那無聲消逝的公平正義。
        在戒嚴時期，軍中流氓打死人了，基本上是不用償命的，反正官官相護，打個軍法的名義就草草結束。某些人的隻手遮天，背後還是上面人眼不見為淨的政策使然，反正軍隊、媒體都是國家的，上面人怎麼說，你也只能照著作，如此一來，風平浪靜，可憐的是那莫名其妙斷送了生命的年輕軀體。白髮人送黑髮人的痛，沒人知曉。
        但今日不同了，聲淚俱下的那一句「怎麼好好一個兒子，當了兵就這麼不見了」，母親的痛擴散到全體觀眾的心中，在移情作用下群情激憤，激盪出對公平正義的質疑。可憐的母親說「這是什麼年代了」，沒錯，怎麼號稱民主自由的今日，仍不斷重複著軍營裏死了無辜老百姓的事，怎麼號稱進步的現代人，會如此殘酷的傷害別人，就只為了心理的不爽，只為了滿足一下變態的報復。荀子的性惡說或許才是真理，人的劣根性似乎永遠無法根除，一點點的外在刺激辨導引出極凶殘的行動。
        荀子說：「人之性惡，其善者偽也」，對照這當前最受注目、討論的事件，以偽善遮蔽惡性，不正好是那些士官、連長、輔導長、正副旅長等人的嘴臉嗎？這種人的行為舉止，根本上就是一種類似精神分裂的癥狀表現，一副道貌岸然的外表，骨子裏卻姦邪恣行，不過是假正經的真流氓。泯滅人性至此，不又呼應了 Fredric Jameson 對現代人精神分裂傾向的預言嗎？在這種精神分裂的狀態下，人根本從懷疑而忘了自己身為人，也就否定了人性的存在，而浮沈於物質性、虛無性之中，認假為真。這同紅樓夢中太需幻境那一副對聯說的：「假作真時真亦假，無為有處有還無」，易言之，沒了人性的人根本就不是人，而沒了人性之作為真的定數，「真作假時假亦真」，此時這批人不啻是真流氓假正經嗎！
        好好一個大有為的年輕人，就這麼莫名其妙地、難堪地離開了人世，再多的道歉根本無濟於事，不過是滿足了道歉者自身的人性需求罷了，又或者，不過是為了保住烏紗帽，意圖擺脫這事件可能對自己造成的永久性傷害。再說，道歉來的這麼遲，不過是再次應證了現代人的真假混淆、認假為真罷了。說難聽一點，若沒有媒體的強力放送，或許連最基本的道歉也不會有，或許在搓湯圓的效應下，事情就擺平了。說到國防部提出的懲處，就如同受害者家屬說的，這又有什麼意義，就算記了一百支大過，就算解除職務回歸死老百姓身分，加害者仍是自由地在過日子，仍是可每天用智慧型手機在玩樂場所打卡。這種種一切，讓人對軍方難以信任，也因此所謂的軍事檢查，到底能給出什麼能看的、合理的交代？是不是最後就是找個替死鬼擔了一切責任，而可能的對象就是那醫官？
        對照以往的例子看，軍事檢查似乎並未走出戒嚴時期那種睜一支眼、閉一支眼的消極態度。這又可從國防部的慢動作反應看出，是事件發生後的多久才有所行動，現在事情搞得如此之大，他們又有多積極？不錯，軍法的存在就是要對付軍隊裏的惡份子，但是否就必須如此神神密密的辦，就一定要慢吞吞的辦？其實就這個事件看，有眼睛的人都看得出來哪些人有問題，那為什麼不能直接以殺人罪嫌先行偵訊、收押？或者，若沒有所謂的串供、袒護問題，何不請特偵組協助辦案，就民間司法力量來取信於人民？其實當代社會的媒體力量分常強大，雖說媒體引導辦案絕非良策，但至少在這個事件上，確實媒體已經揪出了直接加害人，也是媒體的運作下，新證據不斷出現。此時，軍事檢查那套說法根本不能讓人心服口服，不過讓人對軍方更加厭惡。
        國防部長說可以下台，陸軍司令也說可以下台，但你們下台了事情就解決了嗎、壞人就受刑了嗎、軍營裏的流氓就沒了嗎、軍隊就不再是幫派管理了嗎？這是多麼不負責任的說法。何不勇敢地把事情說明清楚，公布所有相關證據，以最嚴厲的刑責起訴所有加害人，還給受害人家屬應得的一份公平正義！
        此同時就要談到許久前也曾是頭條新聞的討論。到底死刑是廢還是不廢？要廢者打著人權的名義，但說人權者有沒有考慮到這些被判處死刑者到底還有沒有人性。其他不論，就看這件事好了，在沒有深仇大恨下，可以如此虐殺一個年輕人，且這些加害者甚至在受害者尚存一息時，完全忽視並予以嘲弄，這是在泯滅人性下拒絕了受害者的人權，那麼以公平正義的原則看，這些加害人在否定人權的存在下還需要人權的保護嗎？再說，如果今天事件是發生在你的身上，你還會打著這人權的說法來原諒加害人嗎？
        這裡須分清楚的是原諒並非建立在人權之上，而是出自人性的自然表現，當然從荀子觀點看，或者就法家思想言之，人性是本惡的，所以韓非說：「法者，憲令著於官府，賞罰必於民心，賞存乎慎法，而罰加乎姦令者也。」明顯的，雖性惡觀點異於孔子主張的性善傳統，但基本概念都視人性、人心為禮與法的唯一依歸，這並不同於西方的人權主張，那是基於法的存在而出的概念，也就是說以法來界定人的存在與應有權力。換句話說，這種西方觀點與中國傳統思維模式完全不同，因儒家思想視人與其本性為法的依據，然西方卻以法來規範人性與人的自然存在，則打著人權要求廢除死刑，僅是就法論法的文字遊戲，根本無關於人性問題。當然的，若受害者家屬選擇原諒，這當然是高度人性的表現，也因此種良善人性的存在而更顯公平正義的價值，此時廢除死刑當然是值得稱許的。然若僅以人權的說法來要求無人性者的人權，這反而是詆毀了公平正義的價值。
        這個事件同時也點出了現代年輕人的一個問題：太過自我以致忽略了人際相處上潛藏的摩擦與危險。其實男人都當過兵，多多少少都見試過軍營裏的不公平，然而軍營裏的不公平實不比社會裡琳琅滿目的不公平。人世上本多不公平，若硬是要去爭，就只為說一句可以滿足自己心裡的話，那不就自己跟自己過不去，更糟的就如同這個事件一般，連命都丟了。或許手段圓滑一點、說話婉轉一點、身段軟一點、放一點、低一點，這個災厄也就避掉了。其實現代的年輕人太自膩於自我之表現，加上網路世界的即時性與匿名性，他們似乎在生活上就是少了點與人溝通的社交能力，少了點面對真實外在世界的接受能力。易言之，自我的耽溺加上與外在世界的隔絕，尤其是缺少處理外在於同儕間的人際關係，在他們身上多僅見人與人之間單向性的溝通運作，一旦有了負面情緒也就容易走向危險的領域中。或許傳統中國思維之以人為本位的哲理是一方良劑，這幫助年輕人去認識人的存在意義與社會責任，也就能幫助他們去避免不必要的摩擦和危險，但可惜的是此地的教育制度越來越病態，離固有的文化價值觀越來越遠，因為外國的月亮永遠比較圓。
        我願意相信軍隊不是幫派，軍人也不是流氓，軍隊裏還是有許多正直之士，有著保家衛國的真英雄。就是那些害群之馬壞了一鍋粥，所以處上位者更應積極地把老鼠屎一個一個揪出來，給予最嚴厲的處分。軍方必須要挽回已然喪失的面子和裡子，畢竟國家不能沒有軍隊，軍隊不能沒有軍紀，軍人不能沒有尊嚴。殺人償命，這不僅是法家的觀點，更是傳統價值觀表現，歷代戲曲不都這麼演的，水滸小說不也這麼寫的。既然有膽去虐殺人，就要有膽擔後果，俗語已如此說：「不是不報，是時候未到」，該來的一定會來，此生不報，來世再報必然更慘。

Gay rights in Obama's inaugural address

"It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."

After a long talk about liberty and equality, Obama finally speaks out, and right after his speech, we see the gay poet Richard Blanco reading his poem gracefully. Then Rev. Luis Leon gives his blessing to gays in his benediction.

Gay is no longer an inappropriate and uncomfortable topic, and gays are no longer ignored and alienated. This is something new, but still a baby step, and we shall all wait and see what comes next. Hopefully Obama can successfully make America a good model of true liberty and equality.

Beyonce is amazing, and her soft but powerful voice adds extra credits to Obama's courageous speech today. This inaugural ceremony touches me even though I am not an American, but I do hope that someday soon our world is better than it is now. Since the journey is not complete, we shall all carry on to ensure that we all share the true equality and great happiness.

公平只是消費神話：高雄人搭飛機的無奈

同一家航空公司飛往同樣的航點，為什麼高雄人就只有「次級」的服務，且這種「次級服務」甚至要多花個一兩張小朋友才享受得到？

從實際里程看，高雄到北京本比桃園到北京遠，所以價格高也是合理的，又若是從高雄搭高鐵或者接駁航班到桃園轉飛北京，多付高雄到桃園的費用也是理所當然的，這即是現代社會的使用者付費概念，所以從實際距離差異論，定價似乎是合理且公平的。不過當我們比較高雄與桃園到曼谷的價格差異時，這裡的合理性馬上被取消。桃園到曼谷比高雄到曼谷遠，但價格卻比較低，再若決定中轉桃園到曼谷，依據使用者付費概念，整趟旅程的花費也未必會高出高雄飛曼谷許多，則這裡的價格高度不合理，近距離者反比遠距離貴。經過這樣的比較，似乎得出一個結論，若往北走，直接從高雄出發是合理的，而若要往南走，便應該反向先往北走，因為旅程距離的拉長形成更好的「本益比」。然事實並不如此，因唯有從桃園出發才能獲得最佳的飛行「本益比」。

這怎麼說呢？航空公司當然是以提供交通工具服務為目的，但這種目的早已被航空公司自身五花八門的服務所掩蓋，因此消費者在搭飛機時根本不會意識到距離的問題，而是關注「到底我能在飛機上得到什麼服務」。因此消費者搭飛機的成本支出已非航空公司從計算距離而出的定價，而更多在於航空公司在這一確定距離之中所能提供的服務，故消費者在搭飛機之中所得之利益並非從一點到另一點的連結，而是在這種點對點連結中所享能受到的服務狀態。

既然服務內容才是關鍵，則高雄或桃園與任一航點間的距離就不是定價公平與否的依據，也正是這關鍵加重了南北差異問題：高雄人享有的不過是「次級服務」，而這更隱藏了高雄人是「次等人」的社會現實。聽來刺耳，但卻是不爭的事實！

不論是飛北京或是曼谷，從桃園出發的航班多是大飛機，而高雄永遠是用中小型飛機來執行任務。不可否認，顧客數量的多寡決定了飛機大小的運作，但「數大便是美」這種觀點象徵著大者所具有的優越性。這種大的優越性象徵意義並非東方文化所獨有，若真是如此便不能解釋巴黎戴高樂與倫敦希斯洛的機場擴建，因為機場本屬基礎建設一種，它象徵著國力問題，而國力的最佳表現就在軍事武力以及經濟影響力上，機場正是經濟影響力的外顯。故城市之間的比較也依循相同的邏輯，有大飛機服務的城市必然在經濟上與政治上比僅有小飛機服務的來得優越，而這種差異性更可從台北松山機場與高雄小港機場的比較看出：同屬都市型機場，也同樣有飛往東京的航班，從松山出發的航班遠大於高雄，且都是使用大型飛機來執行任務，更見出高雄之不比台北的次級地位。桃園機場雖屬桃園地區所有，但它國家機場的政治地位實際是以服務首都台北市為目的的，因此它的存更加強了台北市的優越性地位，由此突出了高雄的次級地位。

飛機之大小的形式差異已帶有強烈的偏見存在，但這種偏見的確定更在於服務內容的差別待遇上。大飛機的每一個座位上都設有個人專屬的娛樂系統，先不論娛樂系統之先進與否，至少每一個乘客都可以在耳機的包覆之下輕鬆地享受視聽娛樂，運氣好一點的更可以自由選擇所要的娛樂節目。反之，小飛機的乘客必須挺著脖子看架設於天花板上的液晶螢幕，運氣差一點的乘客更須努力地張大眼睛才能看清楚倒底螢幕上在演什麼。雖說後者像是在電影院看電影一般，但機艙內狹小的空間加上座位距離的過度親近，娛樂反倒像是身心的折磨。兩三個小時的航程或許可以容忍，在長一點的根本就是花錢買罪受，就像我搭泰國航空往歐洲的親身經歷，為了貪圖看電影而換來背痛、脖子痛，那種像是落枕的疼痛真是難以忍受。

形式與內容間的差異是明顯成等比的，大飛機便備有更優秀的服務項目，而小飛機則提供次級的服務內容。大飛機除了作為一種便利的交通工具外，它自身更是航空公司服務的象徵，而小飛機就不過是附屬於大飛機系統之下的輔助品，幫助航空公司完成提供交通服務的目的，因此娛樂不是主要的服務內容。除本國籍的出境旅客外，大城市自身的國際能見度更能吸引外國遊客，在加上國家機制對大城市的肯定與輔助，因此航空公司必然把大飛機配置於大城市的服務中，儘量滿足這一城市中的所有需求。相對的，從屬於其他城市的國際機場因城市自身無法吸引本國乘客之外的外國遊客，因此永遠只能享有航空公司次極品的服務。事實上這是一種差異的惡性循環，大者恆大之下加重了原本的偏見，而航空公司自身的商業營利考量絕不可能對此差異做出任何可能的修正。

小紅梅航空公司的服務便是這種商品市場機制引導出的歧視的最佳證明。不過在分析之前要先指出以小紅梅航空為例，並不是對這家公司的刻意詆毀，更非對這家公司的偏見。以她作例是因對特定航點，她同時提供往來桃園與高雄的航班，且從高雄出發的航線與航班數量遠多於綠地球航空公司。雖這裡不詳細分析綠地球航空公司，但他們對高雄人的歧視並不亞於小紅梅，且甚至更為嚴重，因在現實中的缺席代表著為他們幾乎不把高雄放在眼裡。

小紅梅航空每週有一班高雄到北京的航班，用的是中小型的737-800客機，但從桃園到北京卻是每天都有航班，且用的是大型的747-400客機。航班數量的差異並不能完全歸咎於航空公司之上，這裡不只有乘客數量問題，更涉及兩岸間航班限制規定。單就航機運用來看，738所能提供的服務完全不及744，尤其在航空公司完成744內艙改裝之後。從高雄直飛北京的費用遠大於從桃園出發，但在飛機上所能得到的服務卻遠遜於後者，則走這條航線的本益比其差無比，雖時間上節省了數小時似乎彌補了缺憾，但航班選擇性的匱乏又同時抵消了省時的優勢。同樣的情況也出現在曼谷航線上，桃園的航班數量遠大於高雄，且班班都是配備新娛樂系統的330-300大飛機，價格上更相對低廉。從整體應支出價格來看，從高雄出發的738航班完全不具備競爭力，唯一的優勢就在時間的節省上，但時間優勢實際並未能彌補極差的本益比，關鍵問題就在服務上：若花費差異不大，為什麼得到的服務比較差？從此便導出下一個問題：既然不趕時間，是否寧願多花一點時間來獲取比較好的服務？

由此，商品市場機制的惡性循環不斷持續下去，加重了政治意識的偏差。航空公司提供的商品選擇教育消費者「由桃園出發才能享有優良的服務」，但同時卻又假借「省時與便利性」來推銷相對次級的產品，而消費者又因習慣於直接從廣告來吸收商品資訊而做出消費動作，不斷在已被預先設定好的有限選擇中做出「出於自由意志的決定」，然這根本不是真正的自由意志表現，而是商品市場機制的操弄結果。生產與消費的循環過程合法化既有的商品市場機制，而機制背後本已有政治意識型態的存在，所以整個消費體系體現了早已存在於商品生產之前的南北差異問題，

當然的，這樣的說法政治化了商業模式的運作，也因此就商論商者必然以市場需求的角度來駁斥此處提出的觀點，指出缺席或者忽視本因不足的需求使然，因此上市場上的商品選擇必然有限，也無法滿足所有人的期待。但市場需求論述本質上是有問題的說法，因這種需求並非可以做出明確的簡單解釋的生理需求，如餓了要吃飯是生理需求的解釋，但市場需求說法實際是說餓了要吃什麼飯的問題。前者或許可以是等式結構，但後者絕不可能是等式的，因為還有別的東西影響著需求的意義表現，即商業機制中的廣告，這便帶出了更重要的議題，到底是誰有權力控制市場機制的有效實踐？一旦市場機制的運作連結到意識問題時，一切必然是泛政治化的：因為人不可能完全共享同樣且不變的意識，也因此意識的衝突不可避免，必然衍生出宰制與霸權的問題。當思考的層面走向控制，或者宰制性問題時，簡單的商業性等式思維便顯不足且幼稚，不僅隱藏了生產與消費的連動關係，更把消費轉化成一種當代神話，愚弄著市場中的每一個人，讓他們以為他所做的任何決定都是一種出於自由意志的結果。

雖說里程較長的航線理應比里程短的貴，但實際存在的距離並非價格公平性的依據，而附屬於服務範圍的一切更打破了定價的合理性，形成一種反邏輯的極怪異消費模式，在被默許的狀況下肯定了消費市場機制的合法存在，並因此轉化根本不合理的商品成為個人意識中的一種合理選擇。問題是這種所謂合理的、自由的選擇，根本是不自由、不合理的，因為在這種本末倒置的消費機制體系中，公不公平已非實際可見的、可測量的距離問題，空間感知的壓縮強調出時間認知，進而抽象化並象徵化消費動作，致使深陷其中的人誤以為空間中所有的既存狀態都是合理的存在，忽視了自身意識的自主性問題，僅能盲從於市場的規律而缺乏判斷。選擇實是市場機制規定出來的遊戲規則，而這個規則又與遊戲參與者的籌碼綁在一起，假公平之名而行不公平之實。

在這種怪異且不合理的消費邏輯中，高雄人因為默許次級服務而變成了次等人，但是否這種詭異狀態完全不能扭轉，是否就像Jean Baudrillard弔詭的超現實預設，高雄人就是已喪失人性而完全「役於物」的純粹消費者？Baudrillard的說法問題很多，此也無法申論，但反觀日本航空與新加坡航空所提供的服務，或許可以稍微平衡一下差異性問題，雖不可能打破整體消費神話的存在，更不可能取消政治意識型態問題，至少消費者重新被賦予了「身為人」的身分，至少他們在「役於物」的狀態中獲得了相對更自由的選擇權，至少更好的服務是對消費者人性的基本尊重。台灣的航空公司應多花一點心力針對附屬的服務產品做出品質提升，因為高雄人、台北人都是人，都應享有相同的服務品質。

國旗歌、國旗歌，至少我有唱過

會不會唱國旗歌對許多人來說不是個重要的問題，但我相信對那些離鄉背井，或者仍旅居海外、遙望故土的人來說，尤其是曾經歷過早上升旗唱國歌、國旗歌的「中年人」、「老人」（我想 7 字頭的一代讀小學時應該就沒唱了吧，或許在晚一些），在聽到國旗歌或者國歌的那一剎那，心的深處必然產生一種莫名的感動。那種感動並不關於政治立場、政黨傾向，而單純的是一種回憶的再現以及對家鄉的認同（當然的，極端的政治立場堅持者必然對這句話有強烈的敵意，一派會堅定否定對國歌、國旗歌、中華民國的情感認同，而另一派則會批評沒有中華民國認同哪會有情感反應，但是對更多的人而言，或許那個對家鄉的認同並不一定牽涉到政治立場問題，而是關係到他或她個人在台灣的成長經驗，是一種私密性的回憶，而歌曲不過是觸動回憶的媒介罷了，只是恰好這些歌曲帶有明顯的政治意味）。

當 TVBS 播放得到杜哈亞運金牌的棒球選手驕傲地唱著國旗歌時，看電視的人很難不被畫面中的情緒所影響，很難不為自己的家鄉感到驕傲，為台灣感到驕傲。在這裡我們沒有必要陷入政治性的爭論中，如果我們願意打開心胸去為那些貢獻自己力量的運動員喝采、為台灣喝采。

雖然馬英九這支競選廣告帶著強烈的政治訊息（選戰），但不可否認選用小朋友唱國旗歌，並搭配著台灣的風土民情，這支廣告啟動了那些仍會唱國旗歌的人的回憶，引發了一種「懷舊風情」，那種會讓人開始懷念家鄉點點滴滴的強烈情緒。那種情緒可能是國家認同，也可能僅是回憶故土，甚至單純的只是影像動人魅力的結果。不管如何，國旗歌在霎時間變成了「個人身分認同」的符號，而這個符號在持反對政治立場的眼中是「意識型態」在作祟，是必須要予以打敗的恐怖怪獸。事實上在這裡並沒有對或錯的問題，只有立場與政治意識型態的問題，但由於所謂的「政治正確性」的因素以及一種「偽」民主觀念（功利的、畏懼對錯、結果導向、泛政治性），國旗歌不再唱了，升旗取消了，甚至連國歌也變成中小學教育中的洪水猛獸。

問題是這樣的打壓國旗歌、國歌的結果會是什麼？是否因為不再唱國旗歌、國歌就可以塑造出一種新的國家認同？很明顯的，結果並非如此，而就像新聞報導說的，現代的年輕人多數不認得國旗歌，但也沒有因此形成另一種有別於舊有的、新的國家認同。我不認為新一代的人要回頭去做以前我們被要求做的事，小時候我也不喜歡升旗、唱國歌等等，但如果他們能有機會以新的方式來認識這些歌曲，或許可以形成有效的台灣認同，利用這種認同來凝聚住在台灣的新一代，形成一股力量來強化台灣的競爭力。就像是七十年代中期中美斷交時，不管海內外，來自台灣的年輕人自動自發地團結一致，促使了之後的經濟起飛，而現在在藝術領域中執牛耳的不正是那批人嗎！雖然那是因外在政治因素所形成的一股特殊現象，但我們是可以從歷史現象中學得某些有用的東西，而不是說要要求類似的事件再次發生：歷史不會重複，但歷史精神可以複製再運用。

簡而言之，若是沒有一種共享的、大家都同意的價值觀，是很難去凝聚社會群體的。當群體無法被凝聚去朝著光明的未來前進、當群體只是粗淺的認知其所生所長的土地與文化、當群體陷在多重認同下而精神恍惚，這群體所屬的社會到底會發展成什麼樣的社會？是否單純地說「多元文化」，並朝著這樣一個含糊不清的概念走下去，這個社會就會有大發展？（法國的種族動亂不正是多元文化導向的結果嗎？）國歌、國旗歌可以不要唱，但是在拋棄了他們之後，我們是否有個東西可以凝聚台灣的年輕人，有那樣一個東西可以在某個特殊的時刻（在世界的舞台上得獎），讓他們覺得驕傲，一種可以代表自己家鄉的符號？

講台語的心晟：台語的藝術性與情感性

還記得小學時牆壁上張貼的禁說台語標示，那時候在學校說台語是會被處罰的，有的會被打，有的則是罰錢，但有趣的是在這種壓制台語的學習環境裏，台語並未從生命中消失，仍一直是日常生活的慣用語。比如中午去買吃的，隨口一出就是「頭家」，接著就混著國、台語一起使用。說的人不覺有異，聽的人也多回應得很自然。

身為一個所謂的「芋頭蕃薯」，國、台語雙聲帶是那麼自然，根本就不須訓練就已能靈活運用、駕輕就熟。最好笑的就是當有事不想讓家裏的「國語人」知道，就用台語說，但事實上我們都知道他們多少聽得懂一些。或有時要捉弄「阿嬤」，就故意一直說國語，逼著她說那聽起來頗好笑的「不輪轉」的國語。

與朋友們去唱歌，點歌單裏總是混著國、台語歌曲，甚至有時故意把國語歌唱成台語，或者用國語唱出螢幕上的台語歌詞。故意把台語唱成國語通常是好笑的，而台語再怎麼好的人，每當遇到要把國語給台語化時，也會有卡住、轉不過去的時候，這時滿室哄堂，大家都「笑到彎腰去」。

其實從小到大根本就沒有所謂的學台語這件事，也不曾想過台語是須要去學的。靈活使用台語的能力，完全是從跟家人、朋友的日常說話中培養出來的。

這麼說吧，環境對語言的學習是有決定性影響力的，若是缺乏環境與使用習慣，想熟悉台語的用字遣詞、腔調與聲律根本是不太可能的。其實學什麼語言都一樣，單想靠學校或是補習班的教學，把語言當成是死板板的文法規則，完全忽視語言是活生生的人用以溝通的有機工具，這只會產生令人厭倦的壓力，讓人討厭語言的學習。

現今的中小學英語教育不就是這般成效不彰嗎？報紙、新聞常常在說台灣的英語教學成果不理想，而教育研究者也不斷試圖改進這種不堪的狀態，但基本上都不過是治標不治本的空談。原因就在台灣根本就不是個說英語的環境，加上考試導向的語言教育從未考慮語言的實際使用問題，一般學生想說流利的英語好像是要去登天一樣。少數英語學得好的多是因自身的興趣使然，也因此他們的努力並非僅是記憶與背誦，而是在他們的日常生活中去靈活使用英語。

現今這種把台語規則化以利教學的傾向越來越明顯，但這真的是一個適當的方式嗎？說實話，適當的方式是什麼尚未有定論，可能也不會有定論，但相信家裡有小朋友的家長們必定對小學台語教學敬畏三分。那充滿著莫名其妙的拼音文字的台語課本，真令人匪夷所思，好像是在教什麼神祕難解的外星語。最恐怖的是老師也搞不清楚書裡印的是什麼，小孩更說不出倒底學的是什麼。漸漸的，學台語變成是令人討厭的東西。為什麼學台語一定要弄得這麼複雜呢？為什麼只能用拼音文字來寫台語呢？

事實上在台灣說台語並不是個奇怪的現象，換句話說，台灣並未缺乏學台語的環境。就算北部人多說國語，台語也沒有在台北消失，更有許多台北人是用台語在買一碗麵或一杯飲料。到了南部，台語更是普遍，且國、台語混用根本就已是家常便飯。打開電視，有哪部連續劇不說台語，哪個綜藝節目不說台語，甚至連廣告都已台語化了。

其實很好笑，有些小孩是說得一口好台語，但怪的是學校的台語作業卻是一團糟。其實這也不難了解，那種莫名其妙的拼音文字根本就不是台語，不過是有心人士刻意強調某種意識型態下的變態產物。當語言被政治化，政治的操弄剝奪了語言活生生的生命表現，所剩下的不過是情緒性、技術面的逞強。試想當電視上台語節目的字幕用拼音文字時，那是多麼可笑的現象？

在台灣應該沒有人不認識江蕙吧！是的，江蕙的台語歌是那麼的動人，不管聽的人懂不懂台語，多少能引發聽者「心內的感動」。聽不懂的會說是她真摯的歌聲使然，聽得懂的人更會說是那真誠歌聲唱出了歌詞的意境，唱進了人的心坎裏。

江蕙歌聲中真摯的情感當然不可否認，但更是台語本身獨特的腔調與聲韻，搭配上文字引發出的意境美，才使歌曲直通人心。事實上台語的聲律早已為一般台灣人所熟悉，就算是不說台語的台灣人，也因日常生活中的接觸而對台語有了一種親切感。所以當江蕙的歌聲進到了耳朵裏，心也就隨之起了反應，情感隨著樂曲的流動而起伏著。

曾經客居異鄉的遊子，或是對生命有所體悟的浪子，對江蕙的《落雨聲》必定是感觸良多。聲韻與音律的結合，加上文詞所引發的強烈情緒，那滴滴答答的雨聲竟隱含著多少心中難以言喻的傷感。「寂寞的雨聲，捶阮心肝」，這簡單的一句話，讓多少男子漢、女丈夫落下隱忍多時的淚水。在雨聲的催撥之下，思鄉情緒一發不可收拾，但異鄉遊子卻只能在腦海中回憶著故鄉的景色，也只能對著空幻但熟悉的風景敘說心中無限的惆悵。

「人孤單，像斷翅的鳥隻。飛袂行，咁講是阮的命。」當唱到這裏，想必許多人的心理會突然生出一種莫名的酸楚。方文山的詞不僅完美呈現了台語聲律本有的情感表達，更利用中文詞彙的意境來強化聲律中的悲悽與無奈。這種不堪與無奈，都已是事後的悔恨，就像那一句「出社會走闖塊甲人拼輸贏，為著啥，家己嘸知影。」常常就是「嘸知影」，才造成遺憾。當江蕙用她婉轉哀淒的聲調唱出「你若欲友孝世大嘸免等好額，世間有阿母惜的囝仔尚好命」，不管是否曾經歷過痛失至親的大悲，聽者已淚如雨下。想必大家都有相似的經驗，每每唱到這一句必哽咽唱不下去，因為曲詞裏的意思那麼明顯、那麼痛。

江蕙就像看盡人間悲苦與滄桑的歌姬，用她細緻但卻滄桑的聲音詮釋出「樹欲靜而風不止，子欲養而親不待」的人生大道理，告誡著要把握人生，否則「哭出聲，無人惜命命」。方文山的詞烘托了台語本身聲律所能引發的意境，而江蕙的美聲更把意境唱到人心裏去。這麼優美而本色的詞，突顯台語本有的特質，這不是什麼奇怪的拼音可取代的。

台語自古以來不就都藉著中文詞彙來強調自身語言的獨特性嗎？歌仔戲，或是更早以前的明代泉州戲《荔鏡記》，不就是以中文來創作，而用方言唱出的嗎？《荔鏡記》一本在明代前後可能流傳甚廣，學者更推論今歌仔戲《陳三五娘》即本此劇而出。試看第三齣裏丫環對著小姐說「啞娘萬福」，後又替小姐感嘆「一點春心今來交代乞誰」，這完全是本色語，雖中間夾雜較俚俗的用字遣詞，但也因與民眾的日常用語親近，更易使人進入情節中，把情緒帶出來。

其實文字與聲律間的關係早已存在數千年之久，更因歷史的演進，關於某聲對應某字的運用我們多已熟悉。從文化的觀點來說，這只不過是語言實際存在的一種方式，並無關於政治的壓制或反抗。更重要的是這種文字的使用手段，不僅延續了台語的生命，更雅化了原屬方言的台語，使她更具文學與藝術性。

同樣是江蕙的歌曲，《無言花》中「你敢有聽見花謝若落土，破碎是誰人的心肝」，不正是雅化後的台語表現嗎？又蔡振南筆下的《花若離枝》不正是一闕好詞嗎？這樣帶著文學性的藝術表現，純粹是抒發人的真實情感，也因刻意撿選文字及文意，使美聲有意境，得以絲絲動人、扣人心弦。

在台灣說台語本不覺有什麼特殊之處，但每次在異鄉聽見台語聲，才發現原來台語有那種莫名的親切感，帶來親近故鄉的興奮。待的時間長一點，更是懷念說台語的感覺，但只能一個人呆對著窗外月色用台語自言自語，或者連上網路對著螢幕唱江蕙的歌。

因為台語，故鄉的記憶變得更真實，也因文字而引出埋藏的回憶。台語早已是講台語的人的鄉愁，她一直在腦海中迴響著，更永遠在血液裏奔流著。

What if Dalai Lama decides not to come back to this life again?

After his visiting to the U.S., Dalai Lama talked to the reporter that he considers not to come back to this world again, or he could choose a person to represent his authority before he leaves this world. This is startling, even to a non-Tibetan like me. In fact, as I remember, he has made such statements couple years ago, but still, hearing these words again frightens me.

I am not a Tibetan, and thus I will not be able to feel what they feel when they hear this. However, as a Chinese Buddhist having known and familiar with the reincarnation system in Tibetan Buddhism, I feel sad and frustrated. Dalai Lama is considered the reincarnation of Avalokiteśvara, the Bodhisattva of Compassion and also the most praised and worshipped goddess in Chinese culture. She represents great mercy and love, and it is widely believed that whenever a person suffers from any kinds of pain and calls her name, the Bodhisattva will come and help release the person from pain. Thus, when the representation of this icon in this world decides not to come again, does this mean that we, the pathetic human beings, are finally left for eternal pain waiting for the Judgement Day, as is described in Christian tradition?

Of course not, I personally believe (according to my religious belief) that all gods are loving and they will not leave us. Dalai Lama is only making this statement according to the difficult political situation of Tibet. He understands well that his presence represets all Tibetans, and as long as he holds the idea that Tibetans and their culture should not be suppressed by the Chinese government, China will never welcome him and his people. Indeed, this is a dilemma, and he is left with no solution but not to come again. But such a decision will have a great influence on Tibetans because it is impossible for them to imagine the world without Dalai Lama. Thus, he says it is possible to name his successor while he is alive. In fact, this could be a good way since no more reincarnation is involved, and the new successor will be a new individual without all the past history which may be a hindrance for him to rule Tibet. In other words, this new leader is more like a political ruler than a religious icon, whose lack of religious power may make Chinese government fear less.

But still, this dilemma is still not solved. If the new successor is no longer the reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama, he will never be Dalai Lama, even with the current Dalai Lama's consent. Tradition exists according to his internal laws, and once they are destroyed it will take a very long time for the new laws to develop and function. Tibet as a political regime has been in difficult condition, and it is undoubtedly true that their culture are greatly damaged due to the political situation. Religious belief and tradition are the reason why this culture can still survive and also the reason why Chinese government fears it so much. If Dalai Lama breaks this tradition, I wonder how this culture can be maintained without losing the essence of it. Dalai Lama says that as the time progresses, Tibetan culture should also progress and change so as to match the contemporary world. I agree with him, but I do not think that destroying the core of the culture is the best way to force an old culture to progress. Also, I believe the Chinese government will not change their attitude just because the new Dalai Lama is no longer the reincarnation of the previous ones.

I am unable to imagine a Tibet without Dalai Lama, and I am also unable to imagine a Dalai Lama who is not a Dalai Lama. Call me superstitious! I do believe in this magical reincarnation system, and I do think Dalai Lama has the wisdom and knowledge that has been passed down through such system. This is the difference between me and him. He is an old man with great wisdom and knows what life means and the rules of the world. I am only a human who tries to use my little knowledge to understand the world. Maybe his not coming back would in fact benefit his beloved people. But as a human being, I just don't think that such decisions can solve the dilemma between Tibet and China.

政府使用公權力是否可以不顧人民的死活？

圖片引自yahoo新聞，自由時報 2009/7/21

我們不能否認違章建築應該被拆除，因為違建不僅可能是侵佔國有土地，更有可能導致公共安全的問題。然而新店陽光運動公園的拆除事件並不只是單純的違建拆除問題，它涉及到是基本人權的問題以及政府執行公權力是否適當的問題。

「限時三天，強制驅離」，就是這句話把我們拉回到五十年前的威權體制，一切都是政府說了算。它要執行的公務是不容許任何差錯的，就算今天要犧牲掉人民的權益，它也在所不惜。回顧歷史，兩千年前的秦始皇不也是罔顧人民需求、生命，就為了要建造出可以保家衛國的萬里長城嗎？以建物的功能來看，萬里長城是偉大的，而陽光運動公園同樣具有一種促進人民生活幸福的功能。但以執行者的目的來看，秦始皇的萬里長城不過就是他為了永保帝業的方式之一。同樣的，陽光運動公園的建造實質上不過就是試圖為即將來到的縣市長選舉作準備。政治一直是現實的，而人是無法不為權與錢而服務的，因此政客試圖維持其既有利益也是理所當然的。柏拉圖的理想國不過就是個永遠無法實現的烏托邦，而烏托邦也只能活在知識分子的想像中。

由於已知烏托邦永不能實現，而政客對於權力的獲取又是不可避免的，知識分子只好退而求其次的以古雅典的政治制度作為出發點，推想出了一種折衷的民主的政治－－人民具有權力，政府是為人民服務的機制。但是在這種制度下真實的權力的獲取與運用仍是隱藏的，不過它卻是以另一種虛假的開放的形式顯現在人民眼前。藉由民主制度，一般人民被賦與了部分的權力，而這些權力是用來監督由他們自己選擇出來的政客，並且是用來確保他們能在政府機制的保護下幸福的、快樂的生活。不論真實的權力的獲取與運用是否適當或者能被顯現出來，至少民主的機制是要保護其下廣大的民眾，並盡其所能的服務民眾和滿足民眾的需求。這種機制允許了政客對權力的貪婪與慾望，不過它同時也禁止了政客過當的行為與舉動。所以他仍是反威權的、仍是以民為主的政治體制。

如果民主的體制是反威權、是以民生為重的機制，那麼新店陽光運動公園的事件不就顯示出台灣的不民主與威權的復甦？就民主制度來看，國家的機制是有權對不合理、違法、危害人民生活安全的事物以公權力介入處理的。但前提是在執行公權力的過程中，人民的福祉是必須被照顧的並且維護的。回頭看陽光運動公園事件，我們發現到台北縣政府，作為國家機制的代理人，並未顧及到當地居民的生活狀態，而只是一味的為達成目的而執行其公權力。

首先，不斷更改拆除線就是一個問題。若是公園設置早就安排妥當，為什麼拆除線會不斷更動？水利署的說法是要不斷探勘河道並作出修正。但為什麼這聽起來像是推拖之詞？這不禁使我們懷疑國家機制代理人的能力是否出現問題？人民需要深入了解的是代理人出現了什麼樣的問題。如果最後發現代理人不能勝任他現有的位置，那麼當地的人民，作為機制監督者，應該以他們被賦與的權力對此代理人作出懲罰，那就是不再以選票擔保他的能力。

第二點，現時強制驅離本身就是一種反應威權的行為。並不是說民主機制下不能採取強制性行為，而是在採用強制性行為時，機制代理人是否已對當地居民的需要與生活作出安全性與穩定性的承諾。相信一般人都會對已居住了五十年的老房子產生感情，要搬家畢竟是不捨的，不過大多數人民並不會只因感情因素而拒絕搬家（當然的我們不能否認因感情而出現非理性行為的人的存在）。今天事件會演變成頭條新聞的主要原因即在機制代理人並無任何保障當地居民生活的計畫，並且還以公權力擁有者的身分對人民作出傷害其生命安全與生活安全的行為。中華民國憲法明定國家保障人民生活安全的條文，然而在這個例子中可笑的是國家機制代理人直接挑戰了憲法，換句話說，他挑戰了台灣的民主制度。

最後，公權力執行的方式是值得我們討論的一點，而這一點與上述的配套措施有緊密的關連性。限時三天是可以接受的，如果拆除法令早已發佈，而相關配套措施已決定並可執行，並且是對當地居民屢勸無效的狀況之下。依照相關報導，似乎拆除令是已經發佈並已宣導，但是問題的癥結在於拆除線的變更以及對居民後續生活安排的缺乏。再一次的，執行的魄力似乎並不等同於人民福祉的計畫與照顧。如過一位國家機制代理人只是個政策執行者，那麼任何人，只要是會執行政策的人，都可以是國家機制的代理人，那麼為什麼還要用選票擔保他的能力呢？

就在昨天，台灣的風度偏偏的總統再次地擔保了這位台北縣縣長的能力，也再次地強調了他執行公權力的合法性與「魄力」。我雖不是台北縣民，雖仍是馬總統的支持者，在聽了他對台北縣長的支持後，我不禁懷疑起馬總統是否真的具備了操控國家機制的能力。這讓我不斷想起了「權力腐化人心」這一句話。傳統中國的士是以仁為己任，為求仁他入世，也是為求仁他出世。仁，不就是人嗎？而士的任務不就是將仁的觀念普及於世間嗎？（關於中國傳統價值觀與士的論述可參考余英時的著作）儒家思想是重人的，何以現代台灣社會對人是如此的看輕？為什麼人不具任何價值了？身為領導者，他是否應將他的人民擺在比選黨主席這件事更重要的位置上？是否一縣之父母官應將其縣民作為親身之子女般看待，而不是拆了他們的房子任其風吹雨淋日曬，之後再說是為了他們的生活休閒著想所以拆房子蓋公園？是否人沒房子住了，可以去住公園？這是什麼邏輯，這是什麼政府！

郭冠英的邏輯？？？語言暴力是言論自由嗎？

如果說污蔑台灣以及台灣人民是愛台灣的表現，那麼，按照這種邏輯來看，對陳水扁以及那些貪污者的不齒與厭惡不就變成了愛護他們的行為了嗎？這位郭才子的腦袋到底在想什麼？再者，不斷用謊言、惡言表達極端且偏激的主觀意識，這樣的行為有什麼好了不起的？是不是因為成為了為社會負面教材所以了不起？

口口聲聲說是要捍衛言論自由，但到底這是一種什麼樣的言論自由？他所定義的言論自由似乎是一種無限上剛的語言暴力，不管這種語言內容是多麼不得體、傷害人、或是污辱人。試想，罵人不好聽的話都會吃上官司，甚至是被判罰緩，更何況是具有國家公職身分的人用極度污蔑性的字眼來嘲諷國家與全體人民。如果一般民眾在運用語言暴力後會受到法律的制裁，那麼國家官員是否亦比照辦理？解職作為處分只不過是行政處置的結果，但是遭受到他污辱的台灣民眾是否就應該白白被打一巴掌，莫不吭聲？

「我是捍衛憲法，捍衛民族的英雄，我應該做個更大的位置，或許是總統，可能台北縣長，可能立法委員，可能新聞局長。」（NOWnews on Yahoo news, 98/03/25）真是大言不慚！我真的不懂他捍衛了什麼憲法規章。謾罵自己同胞什麼時候變成了是捍衛民族的方式了？

媒體應該開始拒絕採訪他，不間斷的密集採訪似乎更滿足了他偏執的英雄主義，因為他把他自己當成了捨己為人的聖徒。採取一種似乎是左派抗爭的虛假形式，試圖將其承受的責難轉化為政治性壓迫，他只不過是為了滿足自身的虛榮心，並不具備任何實際的、神聖的革命意圖，而小丑般的行為再再證明了他的怪異與膚淺。

如果身為中國人是他的驕傲，那麼請他就乾脆地放棄台灣護照吧，請他投向那熱情的祖國的懷抱吧！

台灣並不差，差的是那些假借愛台灣名義不斷傷害台灣的偽君子！郭才子在邏輯不通的狀態下，早已將自己歸類於偽君子一類，所以才會繼續大言不慚地發聲。中國人固有的文人精神就在他滔滔不絕的講話中被損害殆盡。

Should we believe in the Michelin Guide on its new investigation of Chinese food?

"You don't have to be French to appraise French cuisine and you don't have to be Chinese to appraise Chinese cuisine."

That sounds fair, but that is also a false consciousness. I believe a 'non-French' criticizing French cuisine in front of a 'true-French' would definitely be harshly ridiculed. So when Micheline awarded three stars to the Cantonese restaurant, Lung King Heen (龍景軒), in Four Seasons Hotel Hong Kong, it must prepare itself from the possible criticism from both Chinese and Cantonese speaking readers.

First of all, the guide and the inspectors probably did not have sufficient understanding of the dining habit of Chinese. We rarely dine at a hotel restaurant. Usually it is special occasions, such as wedding banquets, that will bring Chinese to those restaurants. The reason of not going is nothing about pricing but 'habits'. It is normal for Chinese to consider these restaurants as places for tourists due to their location within the hotel. It is because of the size of hotel restaurants and the prestige of international hotels Chinese choose them for holding banquets. Though the quality of food is often considered, it does not mean these restaurants would be the first option for Chinese when they want to 'eat out'. If you travel to Hong Kong, you will be amazed by the long queue outside of some very famous but 'small' restaurants. These restaurants offer what the locals, the Mainland Chinese, Taiwanese, and the overseas Chinese, consider 'the best Chinese/Cantonese food'.

The problem arises. Why these truly great ones are not awarded by the guide? Why aren't they investigated by these prestigious Michelin investigators? Of course, we cannot deny the quality of food offered by Lung King Heen in Four Seasons. However, what I could not understand is how such a restaurant that is not overtly acknowledged by Chinese as top over the top would receive a three-star status!

Let's come back to the notion of false consciousness. The guide creates a fantasy for its readers. Through its star system, it classifies the taste of food of these restaurants as 'divine', 'super good' and 'good'. So, what it suggests is only these listed restaurants are good ones, and the rest can be completely ignored because the food is not even 'good'. In the meantime, through the investigation of its investigators, the guide also guarantees the service, environment, and taste (which is used here to connote 'the value of life-style') of these restaurants. While the guide lifts up the value of these restaurants, it at the same time devalues the others. Therefore, what the guide reveals is a superficial world whose standard of value-judgment is no longer based on the quality and taste of food, but on the quality and taste (life-style) of upper-bourgeois society. It is through the strategies used to devalue could the upper-bourgeois society maintains the distance between itself and the unspeakable and inappropriate others. However, what is tricky here is the deceptive nature of the use of strategies. It is never obvious and always hidden behind a veil. As the guide shows us, it never tells you what is not appropriate. All it says is something good and prestigious, and all it tries to sell is these good and prestigious products. Since the nature of these products are highlighted, it becomes a fantasy that must be pursued. Pursuing this fantasy is nothing different from the accumulation of capitals. Pursuing leads to accumulation which is the nature of capitalism. Only this time what has been accumulated is something symbolic.

The guide helps to reinforce the consciousness of the upper-bourgeois society, which is also a class consciousness that has been applied to their domination of the world. Through the publish of the guide, it strengthens its status as a prestigious guide specially for the prestigious readers. Within this cycle, everything has been fetishized and nothing is true and about the real society. As for the other groups/classes, due to the power of media, the dominated status, and the same living environment as the dominant class (a world of commodities), they naturally follow that consciousness taking the world as a fantasy that must be pursued. However, since they lack the proper capital and knowledge to conduct such actions and maintain their positions, what they have developed is only an ideology, which is a set of obscure consciousness that is borrowed from the upper-bourgeois society. This ideology is a false consciousness that has been manipulated by the upper-bourgeois class for too long and has been turned into rules by which other people must abide (and naturally we all abide because of its been turned into norms).

There are more great restaurants in Hong Kong, and the taste of food of some restaurants should be way better than the one that is recently awarded three stars. How could we trust those stars? How could we listen to those so-called experts who probably don't even know what Chinese food is? After all, there are so many different types of Chinese food, and each has its own special taste and exquisite quality!

趕走了壞總統，卻來了個笨總統！

說馬英九是笨總統，實是一種恨鐵不成鋼的心態反應，然而馬英九最近的作為真的是笨總統的最佳代表。

曾幾何時，他的溫文儒雅、風度翩翩是如此吸引著台灣的選民，也造就出七百多萬選票的記錄。七百多萬選民賦予他艱鉅的重責大任，希望藉由他的清廉、穩重與睿智，將台灣的政壇與經濟帶出陳水扁時代的貪瀆、胡鬧與悲情。然而，誰也沒料想到溫文儒雅竟是懦弱的假象，而風度翩翩竟是徬徨無知的偽裝。因為他的懦弱，使得弊案無法以迅雷不及掩耳的速度偵查完畢，更無法對貪贓枉法之輩做出最嚴厲的處分；也因為他的徬徨無知，導致他成為總統府裡那不食人間煙火的理想主義者，好像只要有理想一切都會成功，而一切問題都是可以用理想來解決的。

治國不是在寫博士論文，不是用想的就可以做好，也不是待在辦公室建構理想就叫做治國。總統的任務不是每天去參加一些莫名其妙的餐會，也不是每天跟高層閣員關在辦公室討論與實際民生實無絕對關係的理想。當然的，理想是不可或缺的，有了理想國家未來發展才有目標與希望，但這不能夠脫離掉現實的社會狀態與人民迫切的需要。雖然當前政府推出的政策對台灣發展實有益處，但實際運作上卻是漏洞百出、脫離現實。試問，如果執行上出現誤差與不適，那以建構出的理想化政策是否需要適度修正，或是需要重新檢討？如果當總統真的是在寫論文，如果當前政府執意繼續這似乎完美，但卻無法實際解決問題的理想化政策，那我可以確定馬英九這篇如何當總統的論文是必要被退件重寫。

最近的毒奶粉、毒奶精事件再次顯露出當前政府對民生事件的無知與無能。怎麼一件單純的民生事件會讓政府如此的慌張失措？為什麼？是否就像俗語說的：「什麼人玩什麼鳥」，因為在上位者的個性、想法使然，因此他找來辦事的人也都是像他一樣的個性與想法。這樣一種懦弱、無能的政府，我要它幹嘛？可否請馬英九快一點振作起來，可不可以果斷一點、勇敢一點，可不可以有魄力，可不可以拿出當總統的樣子？不要在當躲在城堡裡的公主了，「be a man and show your guts」!

Poverty vs. High Fashion: how naive fashion can be

Vogue India editor Priya Tanna's message to critics of the August shoot: "Lighten up," she said in a telephone interview. Vogue is about realizing the "power of fashion" she said, and the shoot was saying that "fashion is no longer a rich man's privilege. Anyone can carry it off and make it look beautiful," she said.

"You have to remember with fashion, you can't take it that seriously," Tanna said. "We weren't trying to make a political statement or save the world," she said. International Herald Tribune 2008/09/01

Of course, the chief editor, the fashion editor, the photographer, the models and even the costumers and make-up artists don't have the intention to make any "political" statement in those pictures. What they think and want is only to give an image that can highlight the beauty of those fashion products, especially when they are all made in the style of so-called "ethnic". However, what is very wrong in these pictures is their very bizarre and even sick sense of beauty. Do they really think the contrast between poverty and high fashion in those pictures could help gain more potential costumers? In fact, instead of promoting fashion products, the contrast in these pictures seems ironically to mock the fashion industry. The laughter the woman made in the picture seems to laugh at those who purchase these somehow useless luxurious products.

It is extremely naive to say that high fashion can be enjoyed by anyone when "the power of fashion" is clearly pointed out. It is just illogical. If I had the money and were the person who has the privilege for such life-style, I wouldn't want other people to copy my life-style and dress as I do. Such distinction must be retained, and it has always been retained in the society since our society, whether highly developed or not, can never escape the condition of being classified. In this classified society, those who obtain the power and are thus the privileged class always try their best to make themselves different, and in order to do so, they must create something that can only be owned by themselves. This ownership, due to the scarcity of products being owned, defines the value and the status of the owner in the hierarchy. In fashion, a special industry that serves this specific class, we always see big brand names producing products highly "valuable" in quality but very "few" in quantity. Only by doing so could these brands, involving in this competition for being recognized as high fashion, survive and carry on their service. Therefore, we see the power of fashion is manipulated by those who want it and those who can have it. It is not available for every agent in the society. When the middle class only have limited access to high fashion, let alone the others. So, it is just naive to say that "fashion is no longer a rich man's privilege".

The second problem with these pictures are on the use of poverty. The editors in Vogue India must be very insensitive towards the food shortage and poverty problem happening in the world now. How could the editor tell the public to "lighten up" when the issue of poverty is manipulated in this way? Indeed, those models must have got paid by posing for the picture, but what concerns us is being a published media their use of poverty to highlight the wealthy life-style is irresponsible and leads the public to ignore the real problem. Moreover, this use of poverty also causes a highly sensitive issue, that is, treating the poor as a tool just to satisfy the weird and distasteful taste of the rich. We need people to care about the global problem, but the message in these pictures only say "we are rich because we are and therefore we can exploit whoever and whatever we can". As the editor said, no "political statement" is intended in these pictures, but she should know that messages are naturally transmitted and reinterpreted when pictures are made public. Even though you don't intend to give any ideas in the picture, since it is a public one, it is open to all who wish and have reinterpreted the message in it. Of course, we don't need to "take it seriously" because it is just a fashion magazine. We are not asking these fashion magazines to be educational, since it will be hard for them, but at least they can be more sensitive towards different real-life problems.

"You have to remember with fashion, you can't take it that seriously", this statement seems very wrong. Does it mean that fashion is not important and should be treated as something stupid and useless? Does it mean that those who love fashion and are involved in fashion are not serious people? Does this mean that this business is "not serious" at all? Does it mean that Vogue, being the most influential fashion magazine in the world, should be looked at in that sense? It is just amazing to hear such words form the editor of that publishing house. Instead of giving excuses and defending their obviously wrong approach, Vogue India, and even Vogue headquarters, should just simply apologize for their wrong approach. The statement just makes the whole incident ugly and may hurt to a certain extent the image of Vogue.

海外帳戶做什麼用？

今天如果我真的很有錢，我想我會去開瑞士銀行的帳戶。因為就算那1%的管理費看起來似乎是很多，總資產的投資收益應該能夠支付，甚至是遠大於那管理費的金額。（如果錢進了投資銀行反而變薄了，那誰還會敢把錢放那兒，投資銀行的面子、聲譽往哪兒擺？）更何況先決條件是「我已經有錢到可以去瑞士銀行開戶了」，那我還會在乎那區區的管理費嗎？問題並不是在於瑞士銀行的帳戶上，而是為什麼存入「瑞銀帳戶」（請謹記，那不是一般的商業銀行，而是服務極度有錢、並同時熱衷於不斷累積財富的有閒有錢人的私人高級俱樂部）中的錢會一次以如此大筆金額（例如說2000萬美金）轉出？同時的，會使人注意且懷疑的在於這轉出的對象，竟是通常為了避稅（甚至有可能是以洗錢為目的）的境外公司。這種不合邏輯、且引人注目的做法，不知是貪贓枉法的人想太多了，還是他們的腦袋就真的只有那麼丁點兒大。最可笑的是，偷吃完還忘了擦嘴，還四處炫耀偷來的東西。雖說他們是打死不認帳，好像沒法子制他們（就像藉出國以規避查緝、或是藉道歉以擾亂視聽），但別忘了現世報這種東西真的是存在的，否則怎麼事情會突然【ㄅㄧㄚ、ㄎㄤ．】呢，還是從國外丟臉丟回台灣呢？

道歉誰都會講，什麼時候都可以講。問題是，道歉的內容是否傳達出真心真意的懺悔，還是不斷的試圖掩蓋，甚至是企圖引導偵辦、扭曲事實。就這一點來說，道歉者的態度實不可取，也凸顯了道歉者的無恥下流。真是什麼人玩什麼鳥，一家子都同個樣子。如果沒做壞事（就算做了，至少是天衣無縫且利益均分），別人幹嘛沒事找你們家麻煩？如果真沒做，幹嘛攜家帶眷逃亡國外？讀書有需要連保姆都帶去嗎？真是暴發戶的行為！（這時候，法國社會學家Pierre Bourdieu關於taste品味及hierarchy社會層級的論述，真是實用啊：個人慣習habitus是與生俱來的，並隨著人的成長而不斷變化，但層級間的差異是無法抹滅的。因此，就算一個人得到了政治及經濟的資本而晉升上層社會，此人仍是不為上層階級所接納，因為在舉手投足間，此人會無意識地透露出其低下層級的特性，而此特性是永遠不會被上層階級所接受的。換句話說，他只能模仿上層階級的生活行為與品味—成為純粹追趕品味流行的文化消耗者，但卻永遠無法成為生活行為與品味的生產者。此為簡略敘說Bourdieu的理論，關於distinction以及habitus的論述，見La Distinction, critique sociale du judgement, 1979，英文版本由Richard Nice翻譯，Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, London: Routledge, 1984，無中文譯本。）

這一家子真是厲害，一個謊蓋一個謊，越說越多，也就越說越真。就像【紅樓夢】裡點出的「假作真時真亦假，無為有處有還無」，這一幅哲理深奧的對聯道出了賈家興衰，似乎也呼應著現世裡這一家人言行舉止的矯揉造作。不該是他們的，永遠都不會是他們的；假或許可以成真，但無就是無，強奪毫取的結果，在這講法律的社會裡一定要付出相對的代價的。

Where are the theatre audiences in Taiwan now?: on the cancellation of Isabella's room

The director of the Taipei Arts International Association (TAIA) regretted to announce the cancellation of the performance Isabella’s room in Taipei. Isabella’s room is created and directed by Jan Lauwers who established Needcompany in Brussels Belgium in 1986. The main reason for the cancellation is on the fire of the theatre in Seoul Korea, which forced that theatre to cancel the performance and withdrew from cohosting this production. Though TAIA decided to put on this production in Taipei by themselves, they still could not overcome the financial burden arising from putting on an international production. Indeed, it is never an easy task to fly international theatre groups to Taiwan for just couple days performances without having sufficient financial support from business corporations or the government. Besides that, ticket sales is always a huge concern for those who aim to promote good art to the people in Taiwan. In this case, due to the unsatisfactory ticket sales of this performance, TAIA finally decided to quit it.

"Where are the audience?", the director of TAIA told the news journalist. I have the same question in my mind as well. It seems they only show up when the performance is done by someone important, someone they know very well, someone who has been frequently talked about. It is never about the performance itself but always on the name of the group, the name of the director/choreographer, and the name they should know. Take Cloud Gate as an example, as I have observed, their performances seem always successful because the tickets are hard to get. Whenever you attend their performances in Taiwan, it is always full house. As for open air performances, it is basically not possible to get a place to stand or sit if you are there only 30 mins beforehand.

This is a good sign indeed because it says the people in Taiwan do have a sense for arts, and Cloud Gate really does a good job to promote modern dance to these people. Their dance is beautiful and is full of symbolic meanings which aim to examine and reevaluate contemporary social fashions and modern life. It lifts up the artistic taste of Taiwanese. However, if the people here do have that sense for arts and theatre, why only certain groups with big names can attract the audience. This should be the question we should all bear in mind.

Take Le Theatre du Soleil as another example. Their production Les Ephemeres attracted many theatre goers when it was performed in Taiwan. Its performance was very successful. However, as I was there, I noticed the whole performance (6 hours long in total) was presented only three times among 6 days schedule. (The National Theatre of Taipei broke it into two parts and separated them for three days performance, which is common for presenting this production.) Since Ariane Mnouchkine intentionally designed a small auditorium, the total amount of audiences for this production in Taiwan should not be big. Furthermore, when I attended the performance, I found most of the audience were either theatre participants or students. Of course, there must be some people who do not fall into these two categories, but it will not be hard to guess the social and cultural background of these people. They came because they knew the group. What is funny during the intermission is because of the huge white tent used for the performance, most passer-by asked the staff what that thing is for and what this group is about. Some of them even guessed this occasion to be a circus and said they know that name. I guess it is because Le Theatre du Soleil recalled their memory of the great circus Le Cirque du Soleil.

This misunderstanding raises interesting questions. Do Taiwanese go to the theatre for arts, for entertainment, or just for the name? Do the people in Taiwan really have a taste for arts? In fact, before the Les Ephemeres was presented, it was hugely reported on TV, even the news channels. But still, we saw people talking nonsense right outside of the tent. They don't care if this is arts, all they care about is if this is what they have known. If they don't know it and it belongs to the field of the arts, they would just walk away. If it is about arts and it is what they have heard of, then they will talk about it and maybe join the activity. Because that is something they already know, so they must participate in it so as to be in the same level as the others. This reaction reveals the cultural competence that happens all the time. This symbolic competence guarantees a person's right for the better, and it offers symbolic power to the person which puts him/her in the right level in which he/she expects to be. All the information they gather and learn of is from the media, education and interpersonal communication. The formation of their mentality is attached to their family, social, cultural, and economic background. These two factors deeply influence their actions towards arts. This is why they have difficulties participating in cultural activities when these activities are unknown to them. When the government and the media take arts as secondary and never really develop a healthy policy to promote arts, no wander performances cannot attract enough audiences. This explains why promoting arts in Taiwan is such a mission impossible.

I was very sad to hear about this performance been cancelled. Tough I have not yet seen Isabella’s room, I believe it is a very interesting production. If the government has had a healthy policy for the arts and urged the educational system to place the arts as one of the priorities, arts in Taiwan would have been more lively and progressing. We all deserve the right for appreciating arts, and arts can help construct a more civilized and harmonious society. Everyone is a potential theatre audience; they just haven't realized that yet!

Proud to be a Taiwanese

Thank Buddha, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was elected the 12th president of Taiwan ROC. And finally, Taiwan has a president whose behaviour, mentality, and mannerism truly matches what a president should be.

Mr. Ma brings us new hopes for Taiwan's future development. We, Taiwanese, have suffered from the economic and political downfall for the past 8 years. The government led by DPP only brought us difficult lives, only lowered our living quality, and the worst of all, only gave us a shaky regime. Many who support DPP and Frank Hsieh may oppose to what I said here, but if we really look at the people around us, think about our everyday life, and compare Taiwan to other developed countries, then we know what I said above are solid facts.

After 8 years of suffering, Taiwanese can no longer take it anymore. This time we used our legitimate power to show the government that we have had enough. Winning by a 16% margin, 220 million votes, KMT not only succeeds in taking back the government, but also succeeds in winning the people's heart again. Though it is a good teamwork that helps KMT win this election, we can't deny it is also Mr. Ma's charisma that completes such a difficult mission. This election is not just a dream come true for those who really concern Taiwan's future, it is also an excellent demonstration of how democratic this society is.

However, some radical supporters of DPP have shown us really bad attitudes. They have used horrible words to humiliate the people of Taiwan. It seems that only when their candidate wins the election could Taiwan maintain its democracy. How ridiculous! Didn't we all vote? Wasn't this an election that is based on people's free will? There's a woman, who has lived in Japan for most of her life, saying that she will give up being a Taiwanese because she could not stand Taiwan being "not Taiwanese" under Mr. Ma's presidency. This sounds just like a crying kid whose toys were taken away by the teacher. It is totally childish. I don't understand this logic and I am so curious about her logic. If she doesn't want to be a Taiwanese, go back to Japan and shut up! Stop giving irresponsible comments. Stop humiliating the people of Taiwan. We don't need a foreigner to tell us how to live our lives.

After the election, Mr. Shieh said that losing the election is only his and the party's failure, not the failure in Taiwan's democracy. I agree with him totally. At least, the candidate showed us a good attitude, and we should praise him for his frankness. His words highlights Taiwan's democracy.

Now we have a president that we want, and we all have a great expectation on him. This will not be an easy job, and he has to work very hard and be very careful. I have the faith that he can do it. From now on, Taiwan is different. Change has started, and we are ready to head to a prosperous future.

Is riot necessary?

It must be really hard for Dalai Lama to say that he would consider retreating himself if the insurgents in Tibet insist on the use of violent means. After hearing his speaking with BBC and CNN, I started to think about if riot is the only way for Tibetans to seek independence.

Dalai Lama is a Buddhist monk. According to the principle of Buddhism, killing is not allowed and should be avoided. Therefore, how could he stand out for the riot which will definitely cause lots of casualties? As a religious leader, this is against his religious belief, and as a political leader, it is also against his concerns for the welfare of all Tibetans.

What China has done in Tibet is certainly wrong. The way they dominates that land is truly what Dalai Lama called "a cultural genocide". However, this dominating power is way stronger than the dominated, and it is truly useless to fight against it. Of course, due to the coming Olympic Games, China probably will not dare to start another military suppression like the one happened 20 years ago. But we should all bear in mind that China has never really cared about their human rights records. Giving a riot and using your human body to fight against machine guns is basically committing suicide. Besides, this gives China a very good reason to "destroy all possibilities that will cause any instability in China". Indeed, Tibet now is a part of China and that saying shuts people up. No other country would dare to interfere China's domestic politics.

So, as a spiritual and political leader of Tibet, Dalai Lama would never put his people, even any living being, in such a risky situation. What else can he do besides telling people not to start a riot? If Tibetans still consider Dalai Lama as their leader, they should really think about cooperating with Dalai Lama. In fact, I believe those who participate in the riot and accuse Dalai Lama of not being supportive of Tibet's independence are ignorant and unreasonable. It is these people with their aggressive behaviours that reinforce China's belief that Dalai Lama, as an exile leader, is responsible for any violent disturbance happened in Tibet.

China, in the meantime, should really start the conversation with Dalai Lama. Since he has expressed his point of view on the current situation in Tibet and has urged Tibetans not to show any unreasonable actions, the Chinese government should take this chance to communicate with him so as to seek possible solutions to Tibetan problem. This is a great chance for China to show the international society what a powerful and civilized country they are. Olympic Games is coming, and if China really starts the conversation with Dalai Lama before it, this would add good points to the reputation of China. For a country that is progressing greatly now, winning a good reputation in the international society is definitely positive to the economic development of the country. It can also bring good effects to the tense relationship between China and Taiwan, which is another big problem that waits to be solved in the future.

關於萬人考大學活動

目前學生程度差是事實。學生程度不佳是整體教育制度不健全的結果，並對〝大學〞產生一定程度的傷害，但高等教育品質低落並不完全是學生的錯。辦學績效差、 研究素質差，這不是單以學生素質差做藉口就可以說得過去的。辦學及研究是大學內部人士的表現，這與學生表現並無太深入的關連性，反而是與主事者、師資、論 文發表、及研究成果密切相關。所以現在劣質大學以學生表現作藉口，企圖掩飾本身能力不足，實在是丟臉。

我舉雙手贊成萬人考大學活動這個部落格提出的大學改革觀點，因為目前高等教育的整體品質，簡直是到了可笑的地步了。不過再去考一次大學是沒什麼意義的，這對大學退場機制也沒有幫助。就算把爛校爛系都填滿，讓他們招不了生，他們仍能藉由推廣教育中心、學分班、或碩士班苟活下去。爛大學還是會存在著，難道要一直考下去嗎？最好的方式其實還是以大學評鑑做基準，配合教育部的行政權，直接對狀況不佳的校系減招、停招，之後推動大學合併進而將爛學校淘汰掉。不過要現在這樣一個政府去作對的事，我看是比登天還難的。

現在的政府那麼喜歡公投，那何不去搞個【劣質大學退場公投】呢？最好在綁上總統大選，不就一次將所有問題都給解決了嗎？

品德教育的重要性與「身教」的影響性

當教育部官員口出不堪言語時，相信大多數的台灣民眾，不僅是心中充滿著訝異，更是憂心如此現象將對下一代產生多大的影響。教育部的官員是教育的守護人；他們的責任在於推動更優良的教育體制，在於培養新一代成為具備良好知識與健全心態的國民。這些官員們皆是受過高等教育的專業人員，他們早應具備對全國大眾負責的基本觀念。除此之外，由於擔負著如此重責大任，他們必須更小心自身的行為言語。因為他們說的每一句話，做的每一件事，皆會被全民以高標準檢視。然而最近教育界出現的現象，實在令人懷疑這些人是否勝任教育監督者的角色。這不禁令人擔憂，是否台灣的整體教育水準向下沈淪，走向以仇恨、以負面性思考為出發的劣質教育。

「身教大於言教」，以身作則應是從事教育者皆應謹記的道理。若是從事教育者本身的行為言語出現偏差，想當然的被教育者的言行舉止定會受影響。現在的新一代，不論是言語上或行為上常出現偏差性行為。先不論這些行為是否是模仿自媒體上的報導，但媒體的報導絕對會影響兒童及青少年的行為舉止。當然的，媒體具有對事件誠實報導的責任，而一般大眾也絕對有知的權力。問題的癥結點在於，被報導的對象是擔負教育責任的政府官員。他們負面性的言語及行為，不啻是對從事教育工作者的侮辱，更是點名教育事業嚴重失敗。

現在常聽見學生們，用電視上聽來的字眼開玩笑。這些字眼很明顯的已經影響了新一代，也變成了玩笑用語。事實上，難聽的字眼並不是第一次被使用。他們變得如此流行的原因，主要還是在於媒體的強力報導及說話者的專業身分，這強化了這些負面性言語的影響力。就算學校教師用更多的方式來導正學生，效果仍有限。因為兒童及青少年的邏輯思考仍在養成階段，容易受強烈性言語的影響。一但接收到強烈性言語，便會試圖模仿並使用。除此之外，新一波教改後，我們發現新一代的學生極度缺乏判斷是非的能力。以往的倫理道德教育（如國文課程、公民與道德等）大量削減，卻不見強化思考邏輯的訓練，取而代之的是打著強化在地認同，但卻是教導族群分裂與仇視的負面性教材。這些無意義的教學，無形中剝奪了受教著知與學習的權力，更可怕的在於訓練出來的，是一批無自我意識及判斷力的新一代。在這種情況下，所有負面性影響深入於學生的生活中，偏差性行為也隨之產生。這種教育模式，不就像當年中國紅衛兵的養成嗎？

現在的政權早已徹底摧毀台灣的教育，這一代的受教者早已成為政權擁有者的失敗實驗品。八年的時間，教出了對自我傳統文化毫無認同感、無自我意識、無批判性邏輯，並只會運用負面性思惟的學生。相信目前的教育工作者，對教育事業必定感到一種莫名的無力感。然而教育為萬年事業，沒有教育就沒有國家發展。我們只能期望未來新政權能及時挽救當下危機，期望他們能運用兼具能力與品德的教育官員。唯有在上位者能以身作則，台灣教育才有希望，才能真正培養出優秀的下ㄧ代。

一黨獨大更需要謙卑地為人民服務

立委大選在一連串的爭議中，終於順利劃下句點。雖說國民黨勝利是意料中的事，他贏得如此漂亮仍是另人驚喜。其實就目前台灣的政經狀態來看，國民黨此次的勝選，是全國人民對民進黨投下的不信任票，是人民對貪腐、無能政權的吶吼與唾棄。就民主政治的形態來看，此次的結果就是人民力量展現的實例；一般大眾應相信自己那神聖的一票，因為那是我們欲打倒惡質政權唯有的武器，是唯一能讓我們實現希望的工具。

然而在投票結果出爐後，如此低的投票率實在令人憂心。這是否代表了有許多的台灣人早已放棄台灣的希望？加上民進黨及泛綠政營低的可憐的得票率，是不是只有泛藍支持者在這次選舉中投票？其實大多數民眾都對目前的執政黨極度不滿，包括我在內。原因大都相同，最重要就是生活變得越來越辛苦。當一個執政團體無法讓其人民生活的安心、快樂，很自然的人民便會怪罪這執政團體無能。而當人民有能力去選擇新的執政團體時（尤指民主社會，人民具高度決定權），人民便會以選票修理無能者。但是此次的投票率實在太低，不禁使人懷疑舊有泛率支持者，是否並未參與投票。若是如此，國民黨的勝選並不代表他們贏得泛綠支持者的心。他們能贏，在於泛綠支持者的投票率過低。不過，就南部的投票結果而言，國民黨是成功的，但實質上得票應是來自中間選民的支持，而非深綠支持者。

然而真正令人憂心的現象，在於民眾的消極性。低投票率的成因，主要是在於有須多人選擇放棄其投票權。或許是對台灣政治的過度消極，或對生活困境的無力感，這些人選擇逃避，選擇放棄希望。他們忘記了自身的投票權，其實能幫助他們選擇更適合的執政團隊。消極性的逃避，只是不斷延長現有的困難與痛苦。唯有選出新的執政團隊，台灣才能有新希望，生活上的痛苦才有可能減輕。就民眾的消極性而言，未投票者其實包含了泛藍、泛綠及中間選民。不論是國民黨，或是民進黨，他們目前需要努力的，在於去以優秀的政見及謙卑的態度來贏得這些人的心。畢竟台灣是民主政體，台灣的人民對民主應該要有良好的認知。低投票率即代表台灣民主的不健全，代表人民對自身的權力不了解，而兩大黨應負起教導台灣民眾民主教育的責任。

可惜的是民進黨至今為止，只反省了一天。對於輸了選舉，他們不斷地為自己找理由，低投票率可笑地成為民進黨輸了選舉的最大原因。怎麼可能深綠支持者，會不將他們的一票投給他們摯愛的民進黨？若是深綠支持者未投票，那民進黨的得票難道是來自於深藍嗎？這種想法，邏輯上實在說不過去。輸了裡子也輸了面子的民進黨，似乎不認為他們以已去人民的支持，仍想著可以在總統大選扳回一成。或許他們真的相信，此次的失敗只是因為低投票率，若總統大選時若能動員起來，應該還是五五波，不見得會輸掉政權。如此強硬的態度，加上仍是十分惡質的施政方式，我想民進黨想扳回一成，或期待的鐘擺效應，都將只是癡人說夢。

同時的，國民黨在取得國會絕大多數後，是否會像以前一樣，又犯大頭症，驕傲了起來？至今為止，國民黨對勝選仍是採謙卑政策。這是個很好的開始，加上馬英九先生提出，絕不會於國會中採極端方式抵制執政者，我想國民黨對此次的勝選，以及三月總統大選，是十分戒慎恐懼的。事實上，一黨獨大的國會不見得是好事。少了在野的制衡，國民黨或許會變成國會怪獸，將無法真正為發展國家希望、為人民做事。加上總統大選若是國民黨再勝，那似乎是又由民主社會走回去威權專制的感覺。這是個十分有趣的問題，因為若是屏除馬英九先生的候選人身分，就目前剩下的候選人狀態而言，實在是想不出有誰真的適合總統職位。或許有人認為謝長廷先生不錯，但他過去於高雄市市長期間，有太多的問題仍須他說清楚、講明白，他的政策也沒有新意、跳脫不出現有的架構。此外，八年的民進黨執政實在令人失望，也叫人看不出未來。試想八年換了這麼多的院長、高級官員，再給四年會有所改變嗎？相信民進黨內部，也沒有多餘的人可以換了吧！換句話說，就我自己的立場而言，我想馬英九先生應是最適合的總統人選。雖說是投人不投黨，因為他身為國民黨候選人的關係，他當選後台灣又成為了一黨獨大、說了就算的體制。

一黨獨大也是民主體制，只不過這一大黨需要更謙卑，需要為國家人民做更多有發展、有意義的事。其實國民黨是有能力的，尤其是在於經濟與外交上。但讓人擔憂的是，國民黨一直以來都戒不掉大頭症的問題。若是他們能從現在起，都能秉持著謙卑的態度，都能將個人利益拋掉，那台灣在國民黨一黨獨大的體制下，仍能保持高度民主性。其實過去蔣經國時代不也是一黨獨大嗎？雖然民主化不及今日，但那時的經濟發展及外交努力，著實令人懷念。真的很想、很希望再次看到那樣的榮景，台灣仍是有希望的。那些放棄投票權的人，不管支持的對象或政黨為何，都應該去投票。把票投給真正能為你自己帶來幸福的人！

Pakistan Emergency

The mail I received from Avaaz.org has such a terrible news about the current situation of Pakistan.

We just received this email from Asma Jahangir, head of the Pakistani Human Rights Commission and the UN's Special Rapporteur for freedom of religion worldwide. Now under house arrest in Lahore, she's one of many Pakistanis urgently asking the world community to raise our voice:

There is a strong crackdown on the press and lawyers... The Chief Justice is under house arrest (unofficially). The President of the Supreme Court Bar (Aitzaz Ahsan) and 2 former presidents, Mr. Muneer Malik and Tariq Mahmood have been imprisoned for one month under the Preventive Detention laws...

There are other scores political leaders who have also been arrested. Yesterday I was house arrested for 90 days... the President (who has lost his marbles) said that he had to clamp down on the press and the judiciary to curb terrorism. Those he has arrested are progressive, secular minded people, while the terrorists are offered negotiations and ceasefires.

Lawyers and civil society will challenge the government and the scene is likely to get uglier. We want friends of Pakistan to urge the US administration to stop all support of the instable dictator, as his lust for power is bringing the country close to a worse form of civil strife...

--Asma Jahangir
Lahore, Pakistan

In oder to maintain his power, Musharraf suspends Pakistan's constitution and shuts downs the media and basic freedoms. The martial law he declares allows him to be the real ruler of the country. According to the mail, he seems to be connected with the Taliban, which makes his actions even worse. If the western power still supports Paskistan by offering military aids, under the control of such a tricky man, the aid would probably go to the Taliban. If so, how can we really stop terrorism when the aid to stop terrorism is becoming the aid for terrorism?

Stop dictatorship!

Act now on climate change!

Sign up for the petition!


Petition To World Leaders:

Climate change is the greatest threat facing our world today - and we are almost out of time to stop it.

You must tackle this problem now, decisively and together. Start working toward a new global agreement this year. Set binding global targets for emissions to avert catastrophic climate change. Take bold action immediately - and we will join our efforts with yours.