信不信由你: 古老的符咒--令人愛上你...
一天，男孩和女孩吵架了。他不再對她說“我愛你“，當然她也不再對他說 “我也是"。一天晚上，他們談到了分手的事，背對背睡下了。半夜，天上打雷了。第一聲雷響時，他醒了，下意識地猛地用雙手去捂她的耳朵，才發現不知何時他又擁著她。雷聲緊接著炸假裝什麼也沒發生，可誰都沒有睡著她想也許他還愛我，生怕我受一點點嚇。他想，也許她還愛我，不然她不會流淚的。愛的最高境界是經得起平淡的流年。世界上最美的木乃伊,這是一個古老的符咒，請在收到次消息後發給三個論壇。等發完後看看三天內就能得到心愛的人。
Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnnie Ray
South Pacific, Walter Winchell, Joe DiMaggio
Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Studebaker, Television
North Korea, South Korea, Marilyn Monroe
Rosenbergs, H Bomb, Sugar Ray, Panmunjom
Brando, The King And I, and The Catcher In The Rye
Eisenhower, Vaccine, England's got a new queen
Marciano, Liberace, Santayana goodbye
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
Well, we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it
Joseph Stalin, Malenkov, Nasser and Prokofiev
Rockefeller, Campanella, Communist Bloc
Roy Cohn, Juan Peron, Toscanini, Dacron
Dien Bien Phu Falls, Rock Around the Clock
Einstein, James Dean, Brooklyn's got a winning team
Davy Crockett, Peter Pan, Elvis Presley, Disneyland
Bardot, Budapest, Alabama, Khrushchev
Princess Grace, Peyton Place, Trouble in the Suez
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
Well, we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it
Little Rock, Pasternak, Mickey Mantle, Kerouac
Sputnik, Chou En-Lai, Bridge On The River Kwai
Lebanon, Charles de Gaulle, California Baseball,
Starkwether, Homicide, Children of Thalidomide
Buddy Holly, Ben Hur, Space Monkey, Mafia
Hula Hoops, Castro, Edsel is a no-go
U2, Syngman Rhee, payola and Kennedy
Chubby Checker, Psycho, Belgians in the Congo
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
Well, we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it
Hemingway, Eichmann, Stranger in a Strange Land,
Dylan, Berlin, Bay of Pigs invasion
Lawrence of Arabia, British Beatlemania
Ole Miss, John Glenn, Liston beats Patterson
Pope Paul, Malcolm X, British Politician sex
J.F.K. blown away, what else do I have to say
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
Well, we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it
Birth control, Ho Chi Minh, Richard Nixon back again
Moonshot, Woodstock, Watergate, punk rock
Begin, Reagan, Palestine, Terror on the airline
Ayatollah's in Iran, Russians in Afghanistan
Wheel of Fortune, Sally Ride, heavy metal, suicide
Foreign debts, homeless Vets, AIDS, Crack, Bernie Goetz
Hypodermics on the shores, China's under martial law
Rock and Roller cola wars, I can't take it anymore
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning since the world's been turning.
We didn't start the fire
But when we are gone
It will still burn on, and on, and on, and on...
Here is an article from New York Times OpEd. Finally, somebody has spoken out.
April 19, 2007
Editorial
The Silence of Politicians
There are myriad questions from the evolving tragedy at Virginia Tech. One is how such a gravely disturbed student as this killer could raise heightened concern among the authorities over a year ago, yet manage to proceed unhindered to take 32 lives. But no less pertinent is the question of how, after detailed tracking of the guns purchased for the ghastly spree, the lethal empowerment of such a troubled individual can somehow be pronounced entirely legal under the laws of a civilized nation.
But it certainly seems legal.
The guns wielded by Cho Seung-Hui were traced through the laissez-faire weapons marts of Virginia and found to be legitimately obtained. So, case closed. At least according to most of the nation’s political leadership, so studiously ducking the morning-after question of whether anything serious can be done, or least proposed, about such an appalling situation. The victims at Virginia Tech represent a mere tenth of 1 percent of the 30,000 gunshot deaths each year.
Yet the implicit, hardly sorrow-free lesson for the nation is that beyond the usual calls for prayers and closure, there’s no sense these days for a politician, particularly one running for president, to get into the risky business of even talking about the runaway gun problem.
No one who tracked the last headline-consuming gun tragedies — the Columbine high school massacre and the Washington, D.C., sniper murders — can be surprised as political leaders slide off their obligation to propose answers, or at least candidly discuss the woeful status quo of gun violence.
After those two sprees, possible remedies were proposed. But none were passed as the gun lobby cracked its whip in Washington. The most that happened were delays in the passage of an egregious proposal, signed a safe time afterward by President Bush, that brazenly denied gunshot victims and plagued cities the right to sue the gun industry for negligence.
Politicians should at least have the guts to tell the nation that retrogression is the state of gun control in America. But Congress’s new Democratic majority is a study in caginess, its leaders obviously mindful of the warning — issued by Terry McAuliffe, the former party chairman who is now a principal in Senator Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — to avoid the subject as a third-rail loser. The question in the ’08 campaign is whether major candidates will dare to speak of Virginia Tech as anything more than an occasion to express grief (emphasis added).
As word got around that the killer at Virginia Tech was an Asian man, all Asians in America like us must have been praying that the guy wasn't someone from their own country of origin. There was rumor that the guy was a student from Shanghai, who entered the US on an F1 visa. My intuitive response to the allegation was that it must not be true. As soon as the shooter was positively identified by the police as a South Korean national, the Chinese community (including me) seemed to have been relieved. My intuition has been proven sound, or has it?
Why couldn't a Chinese or Chinese American commit a mass murder? Why couldn't a Shanghainese man suddenly snap and become a cold-blooded killer? Should the Chinese feel relieved about the killing being not a Chinese but a Korean? Can the part of American society who are less savvy about international geography and politics distinguish a Korean from a Chinese? I can't tell the difference between a French and a German just from their looks. To the white American community, the killer has an Asian face, and he looks Asian (just like every Chinese), not Korean. Why should we feel so happy about his not being Chinese or of Chinese descent?
Why should we make a big deal about the killer's racial identity? A white lunatic can take out a whole class of students. What was so odd about a troubled Asian doing the same thing (or copycatting the whole thing)? Certainly, this incident greatly shattered (or confirmed?) the stereotype about Asians in this country, but there can be a bunch of such self-centered, desperate, and violence-prone people (I'd refrain from calling them perverts, because there is always a reason,social or personal, behind their madness) in every society and of every nationality.
If we have to address the racial issues involved in the massacre, let's talk about the first-generation immigrant experience in this country, the hardships they have to endure, and the cultural battle within the immigrant family. Let's not be afraid to renew the debate on gun control. Contrary to what Bush said about finding a later time for policy debate, there's no better time than this to tackle the gun control issue head-on. It is unmistakable how guns has magnified the damage of malicious individual actions. There was a university student in China who killed his four roommates with an ax and hid their bodies in the closet. If he had swung his ax on the students in the classrooms, he wouldn't have been able to kill or injure more than a few before being stopped (or just getting exhausted.) I believe the lesson is loud and clear. It may be impossible to eradicate crimes (and as difficult to provide counseling for every troubled person), but we're definitely able to control the impact of irresponsible individual behaviors by doing away with guns.
Gun manufacturers and their congressional supporters have already had too much blood on their hands.
我和Hong昨天讨论为什么春晚年年办，年年骂，年年还办。得到的结论是春晚是大而全的计划 体制下的遗产。现代商业社会娱乐都倾向有target audience。而春晚想target所以的audience,所以往往不成功。武林外传所以成功是因为它明确的定位了自己的观众范围。年青人喜欢看 的，上一辈人可能不喜欢， vice versa.
之所以春晚还在办，不仅是因为一种习惯，而且是需要，是老一辈人的需要，是党中央的需要。等80年代的人到了不惑之年的时候，而老一辈人慢慢消失的时候，春晚either可能就消失了，或者变成一种更有target audience 的晚会了。
我还是喜欢有个春晚的春节，虽然我希望小S和蔡康永来主持，由周杰伦主唱开场，要有金城武之类的衰锅伴舞，宁财神写都市小品剧本，贾章柯写农村、市井题材，煽情就由王家卫来导吧，老谋子可以来个波涛汹涌，也是会有看头的。
过年没年气，幻想一下最佳春晚。不知道我们下一辈人又会喜欢怎样的春晚，但愿我四五十岁时还能融入他们的潮流中去。
以下转自文学城，好像是南方都市报上登的，作者分析的更加透彻： http://news.wenxuecity.com/messages/200702/news-gb2312-367239.html
春晚走向衰落 体现中国的变迁(图) 南方都市报
这些年来，每年年关前后，媒体、网路上都充斥了对春晚的各种批评。除了对春晚本身进行艺术层面、形式、内容的文化批评外，还可就批评本身进行一种社会分析与研究。哈佛大学费正清东亚研究中心访问学者任意今日在《南方都市报》撰文指出，把春晚放到中国社会大环境这个语境中来，中国是一个转型经济，社会、人民群众的个体，都在经历着巨大的变迁与冲突，春晚的题材、内容，人们对春晚的反馈，无不反映社会的变迁与发展。
文章说，理想上的春晚，大概是这样的：每到大年三十，来自全国各地各族人民的各个年龄层的男女老少都坐在一起，同步收看这个电视节目。这是全国人民同一时间做的一件事。是全国人民团结一致齐心协力做的一件事。随着中国社会在今天的变迁，这样一种模式也会变得越来越困难。
首先，中国是一个日益分化、趋向多元、多极的社会。改革进行了近三十年，中国社会的结构发生了巨大变化。众所周知，首先是以城乡与地区为基础的贫富差距。可以想像，一部分人有更高的物质基础和教育水准，掌握更多的文化资源，另一部分人尚在农村，在这方面可能还很落后。经济收入差别不断加剧的情况下，文化趣味的差别可能也在加大。
春晚众口难调的问题将越来越严重。
文章指出，在社会不断分化的今天，让一个年轻的西南大城市的大学生、一个南方沿海城市的商人，一个东北大城市的国有企业工人，一个内陆地区的农民，一起坐下来看同一台演出而都感觉好，几乎是不可能的事。
春晚伴随着改革开放的历史而成长。上世纪80年代的春晚，文艺作品的形式和内容还是和生活比较接近的。我不完全严谨地推断一下:改革前，经济、文化上，中国的社会比现在都要更加同质，也就是人和人的区别相比之下更小。当时，中国离开旧的体制，走向新的体制，所有的人一下子都面临着类似的转变、冲突、挑战，都有类似的迷茫、困惑、激情、理想。
在这样一个相对同质的社会里，也许搞一台大家都能喜欢的晚会难度会更小。改革三十年后，社会分化严重，不同人过着非常不一样的生活，面临不一样的机遇、困难，挑战，未来，且不同社会群体间彼此可能还有不小的隔阂和冲突，自然的，搞一个能满足这么多口味的晚会就更难了。
文章说，早几十年，中国都是一个有浓厚意识形态色彩的国家。什么都要泛政治化。政治在人们的生活中无处不在。歌颂领导，宣扬口号，是为生活的常态。
改革三十年来，这一现象发生了变化。现代都市人，越来越“世俗”。一方面对老一套的理论与政治说教不感兴趣，另一方面对仍然是老一套的宣传手段以及泛政治化的形式感到抵触，意识形态和政治在日常生活中扮演着越来越弱的角色。
人们越趋于物质主义、消费主义，对政治则越感到淡漠、犬儒。这恐怕是改革开放市场化的中国的现实。加之对外开放及全球化使资讯开放，与国外的交流不断增加，使人们的视野更加广阔，选择更加丰富，并开始接受一些不一样的价值观念。
文章认为，在这样的情况下，春晚要完成政治任务，传播政治资讯。而这种目前仍然在沿用的政治宣传手段只会使它失去更多的年轻观众。年轻人想看的是实实在在有趣的娱乐节目，而不是来上政治思想课。依我看，这种政治化的形式，和市场化、商业化的需求，是存在严重冲突的。
随着社会的发展，物质和文化资源更丰富了，人们可以选择干很多事。选择多得很。过去选择少，人们没什么事干，就看春晚，现在选择多了，自然春晚的竞争力就下降了。此外，春晚的节目形式单一，缺乏新意，人们也逐渐厌倦。如果要赢得更多的年轻观众，春晚必须走创新的道路。
总而言之，春晚日益引人不满，是因为中国的社会比原来更复杂了。贫富悬殊，地区与城乡间的社会分层与隔阂严重，在我看来，是一个结构性的问题。其次就是现代消费型文化生活的引入，改变了人民的观念与趣味。带着政治宣传功能，保守地拘泥于旧有形式的春晚竞争力在来自多方的挑战下不断下降。
在这样的形式下，众口难调的问题将越来越严重。恐怕不是哪个导演能解决的。
文章问到：央视的全国人民看一台的春晚，究竟有什么好？有人可能会说，它创造了一个机会，让全国人民走到一起，做同样一件事，看同一台节目，可以增进互相的了解，扩大自己的视野。中央台的春晚很能反映中国社会的面貌。全国一台的春晚有利于促进社会融合、相互理解、和谐。
此言有理，但在这个时代我们已不可能强制观众观看央视春晚。观众随便换个台就可以不看你的晚会。这是一个市场经济的时代。这是一个资讯时代。这是一个越发个人主义的时代。我认为，除夕的娱乐就要商业化、市场化。
要拥抱一个新的娱乐时代。庆祝除夕夜的方式将是多元化的(形式、面向群体、格调、内容)，地方化的（或者说，去中心化的decentralized），满足不同社会群体与个人的需求的。让市场来解决一切，按照简单的供需来完成资源配置。
在巨变的当代中国，全国大一统的中央电视台一套节目的春节晚会，大概是一定要走向衰落的。
