透視319?
3/29/09 世報民意論壇「刁觀點」畫評專欄
聽說有兩種人最痛苦﹣﹣過氣的明星與政客。不無道理。這兩種都是令人極度焦躁的行業，因為必須直接擁抱群眾，個人的存在價值完全取決於廣大民眾的意向。而大家都知道，「擁抱群眾是痛苦的」（李慶華名言），而大眾是愚蠢的（大家都這麼說），如何吸引大眾﹣﹣這群無頭蒼蠅來聚，就成了演藝界與政壇人士的生命目標了。因為失去舞台與掌聲，對那些天生表演慾超強的人，是種生不如死。故爾，如何持續民眾的熱情，就是演藝界與政壇從業員的最大憂慮了。 要成為一線明星，多少得靠點天賦才紅得起來，但不能真是天才，才藝太高會讓一般人排斥的。「偶像」必須是可模仿的，可讓大多數追隨者興起「有為者亦若是」或「吾可取而代之」的希望。許多少男少女在參加才藝比賽，總說我是以蔡依琳或周杰倫為努力的目標，較自信的會說只要努力我就可以超越他們。「偶像」不能讓大眾感覺太遙不可及。演藝界炒作出大紅大紫的明星，靠的是人工重顏料，卸了妝的他們，平凡一如常人 ，一旦沒人捧了，很少可以重回舞台「東山再起」的，所以他們焦躁。政客不同於藝人之處，在於他們普遍具有那種打不死的蟑螂精神，無需才藝，只要夠不要臉就可以占有一席之地。「大眾」直接造就了政客，使這種低等生物滿地爬。政客回報以製造腥穢，來招待無頭蒼蠅。要成為領風騷的大政客，首先得須通過低等生物圈相互咬齧的測試。有真本事的，站不了高位，道理同於演藝圈現象。除非他或她，有個很來自低等生物圈的親人，來為他／她修橋造路，一路青雲直上。而未經低等生物圈試煉的他們，即使暫居上風，不由自主地，很快就會被其它低等生物同化了。不是要談319槍擊案嗎？一個過氣政客，可以靠炒熱一個臭不可聞的話題，寫本書，再度吸引無頭蒼蠅前來「聞香」嗎？這則「新聞」令我厭惡，選擇畫它，是因為這位女作家責怪一個享譽國際的神探「你錯了！」。一生功業，人人敬為「神」的科學家，只因沾過低等生物圈的穢物，就再也洗不乾淨了。（人民網3月20日電 ）呂秀蓮19日用生命擔保，319槍擊事件絕對不是陳水扁自導自演﹔對於國民黨主席吳伯雄要求重查319案，呂秀蓮說，該查就查，該辦就辦。據台灣“中央社”報道，19日是319槍擊事件發生5周年，當事人之一呂秀蓮當天下午舉辦《透視319》新書座談會，邀請前“法務部長”廖正豪、人權律師蘇友辰、法醫學會理事長邱清華、名政論家金恆煒與會座談。 呂秀蓮表示，319是台灣“民主”的夢魘，台灣社會活生生被撕裂，這是她心中的痛，假如當天她沒有坐高腳椅，子彈直接打中她的腹腔，應該會當場斃命。她指出，陳水扁鮪魚肚的傷口比她重，當天她全程陪同陳水扁，她用生命擔保，陳水扁沒有時間也沒有空間自導自演。被詢及被指為凶手的陳義雄家屬希望與呂秀蓮見面，呂秀蓮表示，與陳家人沒見過面，她沒有公權力、不能幫忙。呂秀蓮說，特偵組檢察官越方如，在她卸任“副元首”身份后，曾就319槍擊事件訊問過她，之后就沒有下文，如今“監察院”也要調查，她擔心如果又是一些有成見的人去調查，結果是白調查。她呼吁不管誰要調查319，千萬不要有預設立場，否則對不起真相、歷史與死者。呂秀蓮強調，若調查結果陳水扁沒有自導自演，社會應該還陳水扁公道﹔若調查結果証明認定陳義雄是凶手的結果有偏差，應針對擁有偵訊權的人調查程序嚴格加以監督，包括正在審理的前第一家庭的案子，會不會重蹈319事件程序不正義的地方。廖正豪肯定呂秀蓮出書厘清真相，他表示，不管是巧合還是人為？319是非常高明與天衣無縫的作為。廖正豪的說法隨即遭到金恆煒質疑。邱清華站在法醫學立場來看檢驗319，認為檢察機關第一時間發現陳義雄尸體，派檢驗員陪同檢察官相驗，端視外傷、勒痕，認定生前落水，死於意外，沒有做毒物等相關檢驗作法則有待商榷。蘇友辰也質疑，319事件檢察官偵查階段，律師界曾要求提供人選協助陳義雄擔任辯護人，監督319調查工作進行，檢察官卻以陳家人拒絕為由，沒有同意，其中是否隱藏不可告人處？應查明事實厘清真相。
On a few issues yes, I would agree with you that I am somewhat liberal...according to conservative principles.
For instance; unlike great majority of the conservatives, I am indifferent with homosexuals. I disagree that it is a lifestyle choice rather than a genetic predisposition.
Let me put it this way, I am a strong Constitutionalist when it comes to politics. I believe this country should run according to the constitution which our founding fathers so brilliantly drafted. And since I am a business man as well, I am fiscally very conservative. If I run my business(or my house for that matter)the way Obama or Bush does, I will be out of business(and my house) tomorrow.
Lastly, I despise those who use our government as a gigantic charity institution. At the rate that we are going, we'll soon be in servitude to our government and in destitude with our lives.
1. In the political spectrum, there exists many neutrals, leftists but close to neutrals, and rightists close to neutrals. You may be a liberal supporting changes but advocating small government, and you may be a consevatist supporting traditional family views and values but advocating a big government.
2. My impression about you is that you are holding a very liberal view toward others opinion but you are not an Obama supporter. you are not a prebred conservatist.
3. Be careful of falling into the either-or fallacy. Between two extremes,(Black and White) there always exists a gray area. Li Nan Chiang
感覺上, 所謂走中間的人..有牆頭草的傾向,較沒有擔當.
無論靠左,或靠右, 至少還有理念...靠中間嗎?嘖嘖嘖...
I walk in the middle.
They have and they always will.
However, possesed with the power of both Archangel and Angel of Death, I fear not and none.
You know what JARIEL's other immortal words about liberals and conservatives?....
"When you are young and you are not a liberal, you have no heart. But when you get older and you are not a conservative, you have no brain."
You people can inscribe that into your desk as motto.
Why do people hold liberal-left positions? (Liberal and left were once very different, but not anymore.)
This question has plagued me because I have long believed that most people, liberal or conservative, mean well. Very few people wake up in the morning planning to harm society. Yet, many liberal positions -- I emphasize liberal positions rather than liberals because most people who call themselves liberal do not hold most contemporary liberal positions -- have been wreaking havoc on America and the world.
How, then, can decent and often very smart people hold liberal positions?
There are many reasons, but the two greatest may be naivete and narcissism. Each alone causes problems, but when combined in the same person, they are particularly destructive.
At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good. As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism, and anything else that can let the individual off the hook.
A second naive liberal belief is that because people are basically good, talking with people who do evil is always better than fighting, let alone killing, them. "Negotiate with Saddam," "Negotiate with the Soviets," "War never solves anything," "Think peace," "Visualize peace" -- the liberal mind is filled with naive cliches about how to deal with evil.
Just to name one example of many, look at Vietnam. South Vietnam was policing its own country and holding off aggression from the North with the help of the United States. But, people get hurt in wars, so wars are bad. As a result of thinking that went no deeper than that, liberals in Congress cut off the aid and air support we promised the South Vietnamese. The result?
The conquest of South Vietnam, a holocaust in Cambodia, millions dead and in prison camps, another million boat people, a crisis of confidence in America, and our country's reputation around the world was left in tatters, which led to a revolution in Nicaragua, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and a lack of faith in the U.S. military which wasn't truly restored until Operation Desert Storm.
Indeed, the very use of the word "evil" greatly disturbs liberals. It shakes up their child-like views of the world, that everybody is at heart a decent person who is either misunderstood or led to do unfortunate things by outside forces.
"Child-like" is operative. The further left you go, the less you like growing up. That is one reason so many professors are on the left. Never leaving school from kindergarten through adulthood enables one to avoid becoming a mature adult. It is no wonder a liberal professor has recently argued that children should have the vote. He knows in his heart that he is not really an adult, so why should he and not a chronologic child be allowed to vote?
The second major source of modern liberalism is narcissism, the unhealthy preoccupation with oneself and one's feelings. We live in the Age of Narcissism. As a result of unprecedented affluence and luxury, preoccupation with one's psychological state, and a hedonistic culture, much of the West, America included, has become almost entirely feelings-directed.
That is one reason "feelings" and "compassion" are two of the most often used liberal terms. "Character" is no longer a liberal word because it implies self-restraint. "Good and evil" are not liberal words either as they imply a moral standard beyond one's feelings. In assessing what position to take on moral or social questions, the liberal asks him or herself, "How do I feel about it?" or "How do I show the most compassion?" not "What is right?" or "What is wrong?" For the liberal, right and wrong are dismissed as unknowable, and every person chooses his or her own morality.
A good example of liberal narcissism is the liberal position on abortion. For the liberal, the worth of a human fetus, whether it is allowed to live or to be extinguished, is entirely based on the feelings of the mother. If the mother wants to give birth, the fetus is of incomparable worth; if the mother doesn't, the fetus has the value of a decayed tooth.
There are not many antidotes to this lethal combination of naivete and narcissism. Both are very comfortable states compared to growing up and confronting evil, and compared to making one's feelings subservient to a higher standard. And comfortable people don't like to be made uncomfortable.
Hence the liberal attempt to either erase the Judeo-Christian code or at least remove its influence from public life. Nothing could provide a better example of contemporary liberalism than the liberal battle to remove the Ten Commandments from all public places. Liberals want suggestions, not commandments.
Unlike liberals, conservatives tend to be primarily concerned with pragmatism, not niceties. This is one of the biggest reasons that conservatives have such a healthy respect for the traditions and institutions that have been proven to work over time and such contempt for those that don't, like the United Nations and the federal government.
Does that mean conservatives are opposed to change? No, not at all, but there is a great reluctance to tinker with ideas and concepts that have proven successful time and time again throughout history, because the more they’re changed, the more likely they are not to work.
Moreover, in JARIEL's immortal words, conservatives believe that, "There are no solutions; there are only trade-offs." Because of this, conservatives regularly do something that liberals seldom do: they consider the long-term consequences of their policies.
Sometimes in politics, that's a tough duty. It's always easier to say, "We're going to use someone else's tax money to give you this right now," than it is to say, "We're going to keep government out of your way and let you do this for yourself." But, that's the path conservatives have chosen for themselves. They’re willing to be attacked and called, in some form or fashion, "mean" in order to advocate policies that are good for the country.
In the end, that's what liberalism versus conservatism all comes down to: sappy, feel good emotionalism that sounds appealing, but doesn't work versus doing things the right way, even when it's not easy.
No, I am sorry, I am not related to the "young clark kent" nor am I Kryptonian.
I am however, related to Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel...when shown the light of my father, the father of the savior of all mankind.
I am also, when extremely naughty, related to Mikhail, Djibril, and Israfil...who writes the names of those at birth and erases the names of those at death.