Archive | 十一月 2015

Let’s Talk about …..Liberalism

因為左膠思想無論對本人還是對讀者都是一件非常難消化的麥維他消化餅,亦鑑於早前聽取美國總統的意見,多看不同觀點的文章,決定多看一期經濟學人,一份非常著名的自由主義雜誌。

經濟學人的路線比我最看它時(約為2010年前,討論Dodd-Frank Act的時候)路線有改變,早已察覺,但手上那期,有Angela the First做封面女郎*的一期,其中一篇尤為顯明。它提到如何限制毒品(主要講祥哥至愛海洛英)及其禍害。它認為比起打擊毒品販賣,倒不如政府出手,搶毒臬/買家/拆家的巿場,公立營運,提供更安全的注射環境,亦可控制產品的安全劑量。

我沒想過這樣的見解可從經濟學人看到這種論述。不是說大逆不道甚麼的。我也覺得毒品有其存在價值。但自由主義者竟然相信政府比私人更為合適作為貨品提供者? 我正工作,不詳加討論。要討論你們自己討論。但我心裡也明白,對毒品,政府錢始終要洗,洗在從來都冇乜效的打擊毒品罪案,不如洗在設公立粉竇好過吧。設定又同醫院差不多,政府做慣做熟,亦有亮麗業績。係咪先?

今天看到另一篇新聞:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/26/iain-duncan-smith-unlawfully-dicriminated-against-the-disabled-rules-judge

英國司法覆核成功爭取工務及福利署對因照顧殘障家人而不能外出工作的人扣減福利(作為"鼓勵"上班自力更生的動力)政策是不合法。但法官的判詞非常經濟學,簡單的cost benefit analysis

The judge said the government should exempt these carers because “the cost to public funds if the cap is to be maintained is likely to outweigh to a significant extent the cost of granting the exemption”.

因為福利扣減所慳的成本會被因為福利減免所慳的成本大幅度地抵消(個官都是一舊舊)。 意義就是: 你減個照顧者福利。FINE….佢去做野咯。個殘障人士唔該你地納稅人同我搞掂去。但經驗告知通常公營機構唔係好搞得掂。又貴好多。被照顧者又唔開心,自殺又盛。

英國呢個政府不是被稱為know how to count的嗎? 不是自由主義倡導者嗎? 為什麼計數比一個律師還要差呢? 為甚麼要用大量的政府資源去減政府開支,而最後反增加了開支呢? 自由主義者不是認為政府你多一事不如少一事嗎? 為甚麼這個自由主義政府的政策,連人們應怎樣去照顧家人都要管? 咁多事?

當然這都不是我會繼續討教的範圍。開工先!

*強烈建議下期唔好咁重口味….加惠貞BB,或法輪功之花anastasia BB 可谷高銷量。

 

廣告

愛的真相~yingju-Lu

~愛的真相~ 立冬當日相當悶熱無風,對戶人家的紅磚色矮籬牆上已掛上了幾條巨大的青綠色冬瓜,那冬瓜長的真好看。 …

來源: 愛的真相~yingju-Lu

Fellow Humans

All the images here were taken in the last couple of weeks using a Pentax 67 and 105mm lens. Kodak Portra 400 was used and developed and scanned at UK Film Lab.

來源: Fellow Humans

Let’s Talk about Suffragette

The second movie I saw with my wife this year, just two of us.

suffragette_poster

One of the most looked forward to films this year. One of the films that afterwards made me disappointed. I couldn’t express any emotion or sentiment watching the film that I had expected I could before watching it, although the production seemed try very hard to make it dramatic, emotional and sentimental. I found the film is unusually bland. But that it is bland doesn’t mean it is bad. At least to me it is good and appropriate in this sense. To tell a historic/heroic/heroine-ic (in this case) in a film, there are usually 2 ways of narration.

1. Telling a story from the perspective of the heros/leaders. Example, Martin Luther King, The Lady (Ang San Suu Ki). I didn’t see either. And I couldn’t recall I have seen many of this genre. I can’t tell the reason. The only reason I can barely give is that I have a personal and subtle distaste of the genre. So much that I couldn’t recall any scene of those films even I have seen them.

2. Telling a historic epoch using narrative of a group of small characters in the historic epoch, which is put into the background of the story. Example, 甜密密. Sorry I don’t know the English title of this Made in Hong Kong film. But it is archetypal in this genre- telling mass migration period of Hong Kong in late 1980s – 1990s, using a love story of two migrants from Guangzhou. I love this story so much.

Suffragette is a hybrid of the above two, telling an historic incident using the narrative of a group of peripheral participants instead of the core leaders. It is not even a pioneer of this genre. At least I know there is a very good film titled 十月圍城, sorry not not cognisant of its English title. Another film made in Hong Kong. And, I have to say, to compare the two,十月圍城 is better. More elaborate. More melodramatic. More focus on the GROUP of nameless heroes whose sacrifices and self-denials led to the greatest moment on China, the proclamation of the Republic of China and the end of Ching Dynasty. Suffragette, rather, focuses too much on rendering, cinematographically and script writingly, one nobody, Watt Mould (by Carey Mulligan), a heroine. Her conversion, her pre-plot, her struggles, her determination, her lost in direction and re-finding afterwards. At the expense of other unsung and un-named heroines, particularly so Emily, the martyr whose description I couldn’t imagine plainer.

I read some reviews revealing that the above description of Watt Mould, a fake character, was actually the personification / incarnation of what real Pankhurst had been through that made her what she done later. I couldn’t tell as I am really no expert of this part of history. But story-wise, it was not a wise tactic. Neither was the result very convincing to me. True, having a chance to speak in front of men in the Congress what pain and distraught an average 20th century woman was through, a little smell of what power can become of, might have gifted a hitherto powerless and prone-to-fate woman to resurrection that would later on trigger a tsunami to wipe the whole world. But a re-collection of Paedophile factory manager’s sexual assault and molesting with impunity is, to me, not a trigger powerful enough to convert a scarecrow mum of 6-year-old to an infantile so determined for the only course, Justice. And to me, justice itself is never a strong motive for changing anything. At least, I couldn’t see any change in the cases of Yewtree, Rotherham and Jimmy Savile. But still, I have to say I am no expert in such topic. What is trivial to me may be of consequence and scale to the society. I really couldn’t tell.

During the film, my wife by my left shew impatience. “When it is going to end" two times she asked. “I know it’s bland. It seems nothing special would happen does it. Just bomb bomb and bomb." was my response. Or I told myself. During the film, I kept asking myself: Were they doing things right, even if they fought for the right course? Was the final coming out of women’s suffrage really attributed to their civil disobedience? What I learnt in History class is that it was mainly the result of WWI that killed half the male population of Europe. The post-war economic rebuild was mainly taken up by women. So their power in society rose sharply not surprisingly though. To me, a historical epoch was more often attributed to a lot of co-incidences, that no one particular incident would have been thought of creating anything big in itself. Of most of those trivialities, we couldn’t even trace their true causes. However, they, for I don’t know why, happened in parallel at largely the same moment. Together they created an epoch. So I googled back home what happened in parallel in 1912. The founding of the Republic of China. The ending of the Qing Dynasty. The founding of African National Congress in South Africa, that 80 years later realised the dream of South Africans, a government represented by all colours. What a co-incidence. And honestly, in 1912, women in Britain, the then most advanced economy of the world, should have a life / fate much better than the other countries. So, it doesn’t surprise me a slice to know that they were the first who did the things they did.

After leaving the theater, my wife asked me why there was such a stupid director who made such film that would destine to trail. I told her it was supposed to be premiere in sync with the Women’s Day. Ironically, it was released in Hong Kong three months after. We can explain, perhaps. Hong Kong is one of the places that gender equality is at a very advanced stage. (I’m quite sure we are better than U.K. in this aspect). Women’s Rights is never a topic to resonate in Hong Kong.

P.s. Correction: 十月圍城 is the real title of the film, rather than 十面埋伏

 

Let’s Talk About…. Truth or Dare

利申: 純情的我從未玩過呢個遊戲, 見到蜜餞成熟時的李麗珍玩得我興高采烈, 卻得個望字. 到佢人老花黃, 變成M Club 都要中午重播, 我仍未玩過. 這希冀只能埋葬到我未來的花梨木處所.

但我今日唔係要講呢樣. 我是想講我剛看的Doc Who Season 9 Zygon 同人類玩的一次Truth or Dare. 注意: 內容是前所未有的嚴重劇透, 未看的千萬要離開. 離開的鍵在左上角.

Zygon(其實一群曱甴)據講因無處可居, 只可化身成人類寄居這個藍色星球, 與人類同居. 但時不時遭到人類, 即地球主人, 的欺侮. 因而時有反擊. 有見及此, 聯合國維持長情首領 Doctor, 曾於幾千年前設計一個盒, 盒內藏毁滅另一族群的殺著, 而哪方拿到這盒就可把對方完全摧毀, 佔領這星球. 而由於這盒過於危險, Doctor決定交由四眼孖妹Osgood保管(唔好有幻想, 想知孖妹是誰請維基Watson and Oliver). 及後雙安無事幾千年.

但地球人欺凌曱甴仍然無日無之. 曱甴首領Bonnie 決定帶領族群反擊. 先捉本人第二最愛Clara BB, 再化身成佢咁的樣(冷豔的Clara BB突然食慾大增老實), decoy後再從Clara的記憶內尋找那個盒. 而故事亦快速到了最精彩階段. Here comes the Dilemma!

現場是一張長檯. 原來盒有兩個, 亦一模一樣, 除一個紅一個藍外(代表人類及曱甴), 兩邊的對決單位是樣衰的人類代表Kate, 及曱甴的代表Bonnie (即邪惡版Clara BB). 中間是Doc. 原來個盒的設計是咁的: 有兩個制. 一個叫truth, 一個叫consequence (即係dare 啦). 咁其中一個制, 聲稱會急速殺害對方族群, 但同時會放出毒氣令自己族群都死埋, 叫冚家鏟. 另一個制, 會另曱甴自動永久變人類, 變成佔領變得沒有任何意義. 所以Bonnie 好興的以下的內容:

B : 這不公平. 你知否人類待我們如畜牲?

D: 不公平? 我架時光機成日被人整爛我都覺得不公平

B: 這點同. 你快話我知那個制才是!

Kate: 你也快話我知那個才是! 我要殺佢老母! Doctor 這不是遊戲. 這是一場戰爭.

B: 冇錯. 這是一場戰爭!

D: 你不如話我知. 你咁想戰爭. 到你殺晒佢老母冚家鏟後, 你會有咩打算? 你會過回快樂的生活嗎? 你會上班嗎? 你會有假期嗎? 你會出來輕鬆一下嗎? 你會聽音樂嗎? 你有冇人拉小提琴給你嗎?

B: 我唔理. 我總之要殺佢老母! 我要報仇!

K: 我都要. 睇下邊個快手D? 你老味!

D: 你地有冇想像過. 我比你達成心願後, 當世界如你所願一模一樣後, 你會快樂嗎? 你會如何處置同你一樣的搞事份子嗎? 我告訴你. 戰爭的發生就是每每因為你呢D從來冇諗過禁制後會發生乜事的人. 你呢D頭腦不清的人! 因為你們禁制一刻, 你根本無想過, 有幾家的細路會因為你死亡.

B: 你唔明. 你都未打過仗

D (瞪大眼): 我未? 你呢D叫打仗? 我打過的比你想像的殘酷多幾多你知嗎? 殘酷到一個地步, 你同自己講, 每一個眼神你都要記緊, 因為你要記住以後唔好再有人受咁的苦難! 戰爭從來不能解決戰爭. 唯一的就是你們永遠都唔曉的, 坐低! 傾!

此時K 決定離場, B 亦以非常誘人的表情, DUD 嘴道.

“個盒是空的其實…. 這就是你的設計…是嗎?"

D: 非常好…因為你開始明我想甚麼了.

B亦退場. 下刪五分鐘出字幕.

 

這集播出後的一星期. 美國幫英國炸鳩ISIS的JIHARDI JOHN. 及後, 巴黎亦出現一連串恐襲. 今日為止像死了50人. 而我相信, 法國會傾全力炸佢老母, 儘管從無公佈過ISIS其實有幾多老母可以炸. 但我今日唔講呢D. 我今日來劇透的. BYEBYE

 

Let’s Talk about….文青 (as it happened)

作為一個部門的管理下層(因為對上有管理中層同管理上層,再上嗰D叫聖上,或你們喜歡叫的權貴,或撚樣,稱號對應稱呼人的道德水平,或被稱呼人的道德水平),我平日當然是著得新光勁靚一些,大概是west wing入面toby (不知怎的,我全套戲最愛toby,而不是重口味的Zoe)咁。

昨天中午時分,到圖書館拿已預約的Jane Eyre。當然真正的文青會講,識睇梗係睇Jane Austen。但我就是喜歡Jane Eyrey這本書無論是作者個姓Bronte 還是主角個姓Eyre都唔識讀。而據說讀D人地唔識讀的名是文青的指標。看這本書另一個原因是,藝術節預訂的Jane Eyre已成功,但我完全唔知個故事是什麼,唯有看本書頭百頁叫打個底。而據說讀看話劇是文青的指標。

拿完書到電梯口撞到我曾經講過的role model 良好愛國愛港關心社會同事。現在讓我再形容一下他的日常打扮- 愛國愛港的鮑魚刷頭,架著黑色膠框眼鏡。因為平日的工作是比較體力勞動,一件短袖圓領TEE,一條牛仔褲,一對Reebok波鞋。每天都帶著燦爛的陽光笑容,和五尺十一,寛肩16吋的軀殼。而據說那樣的裝束並不是文青的指標。他看見我拿著這本書,跟我說

“你看Jane Eyre (他讀"唉r",好像頗純正的發音,而據說發音正確是文青的指標)?"

“係呀 哈"

“我睇過幾頁" 然後專家般的皺眉 (而據說有專家般的皺眉是文青的指標) “但唔係好有興趣"

“哦….可能悶D掛" (而據說唔怕悶是文青的指標)

同事眉梢一戚,再專家的口腔 “但我有看莎士比亞,威尼斯商人囉,還有Hamlet"

“嘩! 我都未看過呢"

(而據說 I = k (no. of Shakespeare’s works read by one in his/her lifetime),I = 文青度。我只看了一本,而他看了至少兩本,所以我的文青度最多只有模範青年的一半,I1 = 1k, I2 >=2k >>>>>> I1 <= 1/2I2)

同事再轉為政治文青Mode “但我知習近平總理喜愛莎士的著作,所以於十月到英國訪問時,跟英國首相卡梅倫隨交流國事,也很投契交流文學。" (而據說關心國家主席,歌功頌德絕不是文青的指標)

從他的眼神,口腔,我感到他再恥笑我閱歷淺陋,就正如我平時不恥人一樣。因為據說不恥的傲慢是文青的指標。就如我回家憶述此事,老婆說我是否平時恥笑他而報復呢。

“我冇喎!"

“你眼神有吖"

“咻我眼神不屑就普世平等啦。他誤會我了…"

但或許……以上對文青的指標一分析,我們可以得出一條econometrics equation

I = a(Income)+b(costume)+c(frequency of going to PMQ)+d(no. of books whose names no one sound right)+………..+n(love Premier Xi)^1/1,000,000,000,000

咁上下掛。數據,就你們自己fit 吧。但記著,econometrics通常做backtrod,即你已直觀認為那人是文青,再用他的attributes 解釋他為何是文青。就如馬評人喜歡那隻馬,就說因為牠呢樣嗰樣。但這方法對project / predict一個人是否文青的誤差通常很大,因為econometrics通常不是線性,意含答案多於一個。

註: Eyre 好似讀aine (好似係…..)

故事 - 重建 CHAPTER TWO

「其實沒有必要去為一件不知道有沒有發生過的事去做一篇專題」就是陳先生在整個訪問中重覆多次的句子。而從陳先生的呆呆滯滯,時而清醒,時而夢遊,時而超長的沉默,時而口若懸河的精神狀態,你很難不去問,那件事其實是否真的有發生,還是全是陳生一個人的夢境。但若果真的只是夢,那七十具頭上插著CT SCAN的屍體又怎樣解釋呢?

而訪問的頭半個鐘,都是陳先生一個人的話當年,把牆上的每一個場境,每一個他的朋友、親戚、同學,逐一介紹。那個是阿銀,住在村口對落第二間屋的。這個是馨,細個時全條村都說要娶她的。那一張是十二歲時單車比賽時拍的。大富牛那次贏了。其實不是甚麼認真比賽。就只是在那條河旁兜五六個圈看誰最快罷了。大富牛就是當時全村最有錢的,所以那輛單車比較快。這一張是大妹生日,說大夥兒到巿區吃個涼粉。大家不是那麼富有,就只好九個人兩碗涼粉。他每一個人每一段都很細緻,把整個三興村的一事一物都如電影般重現出來。

三興村現在沒有了。它是一個借來的村落。從前是難民來港時暫借的政府土地做耕種成村,當時政府為避免大量的難民到大城巿定居而容許這些村落的存在。四十多年前,屯門藍地要騰出更多土地來建房屋及基建設施,把三興以至沿山腳的所有暫借村都清拆搬遷。而三興村清拆的當時,陳先生大概十二三歲。

「你之後就離開,咁佢地呢?」我問。在預期「都要走架,你咁都問」的回應時,陳生卻像沒有聽到我的問題似的。他繼續他的自說自話,回憶起他最好的朋友。

「季友、萬成、同阿文。呢…..呢張相就是他們三個了。」陳生從牆上抽出一張四人的相片,都是十一二歲,都鄉土味,阿文和陳先生架著眼鏡,另外兩個戴著漁夫帽。「當時坐著甚麼都不做就過一日了。」陳生繼續說。「阿文當時就是跟那位全村最靚的馨一起的。他說要跟她結婚。我們笑他,毛都未出結甚麼婚。但他從來都不理我們的,每天就是自己的鴻圖大劃。他說他要買掉整個村,跟大夥一起住到老。他看了那個武打明星,就說要天天練武,我和季友他們都覺得奇怪,那麼呆的人我們竟會喜歡日日和他聊。」口若懸河時段告終,又回到好像直到永遠的沉默。

「阿文卻比我們所有人都早離開。他甚至再見都沒有說。」