| Ji's profile勤工巴人＆俭学黎民PhotosBlogLists |  Tools  Help |
有关死刑“新华网北京１０月３１日电（记者田雨 邹声文 王娅妮）中国全国人大常委会３１日表决通过一项法律修正案，将死刑案件的核准权统一收归中国最高法院行使。这是２３年来，中国对最严厉的刑罚——死刑所作的一次最重大改革。 这个决定自２００７年１月１日起施行。” 看到这则新闻，心里很痛快，因为误判的可能性降低了。 “ 西南政法大学刑法学专家陈忠林说：“在中国，死刑依然是阻止和预防重大犯罪、保障广大民众生命财产安全的不可替代的手段。” 国人是很羡慕新加坡的治安，至少普遍是这样认为的。但那小小的地方，“判处死刑比例最高的国家是新加坡，该国在2001年共执行了70次死刑，而同年在美国只执行了66次。”而且是用很残酷的绞刑。香港死刑是废除了的，不过。 中，印，日，美。世界上影响力最大的四个国家，都是有死刑的。 劊子手難覓 據分析，印度死囚「難死」的重要原因，首先是法律程序複雜繁瑣，法院對執行死刑極之謹慎﹔其次是沒有足夠「劊子手」，據稱，目前整個印度亦只有5人，在最近一次執行死刑的劊子手，便是84歲高齡的長者。印度法例規定死刑採取絞刑，拒絕使用注射毒藥、電椅、槍決及毒氣等方法。 而日本，死刑极少实施。 中国历史上，用刑就是比较重的，而且国家太过复杂。因此，经济犯罪也可能判死刑，这在很多国家认为是不可思议的事情，在中国却是大快人心，就不难理解了。 世界其他范围内，回教国家最不可思议，“In some countries with a Muslim majority, sexual crimes, including adultery and sodomy, carry the death penalty, as do religious crimes such as apostasy from Islam, the formal renunciation of one's religion.” “Scholars of Islam hold it to be permissible but the victim or the family of the victim has the right to pardon. However, the Qur'an, teaches that the killing of one man is like that of killing all humankind. In Islamic jurisprudence, to forbid what is not forbidden is wrong. Consequently, it is difficult to make a case for abolition of the death penalty which is explicitly endorsed” 欧洲方面，除掉白俄罗斯以外，其他国家都废除了，据说法国是最后一个（这个有着光荣“革命”传统的国度。） 亚洲，可以说是个“大屠场”了。回教国家，东南亚（其中不少国家是回教国家），中国，朝鲜。 很多的支持死刑，和反对死刑的声音，到头来，查不过可以这样来一个折中：
到底该如何呢，我不能言语，引用一段圣经的话，听主的，没错的。人世间如何行，都会由他最终来审判的。
the green loved Red转载此文，以纪念一位伟大的篮球先驱！
The green loved Red
By JIMMY GOLEN, AP Sports Writer October 29, 2006 BOSTON (AP) -- Through 16 NBA titles and more than half a century, no one meant more to the Boston Celtics than Red Auerbach.
The coach who lit up cigars to celebrate an unprecedented nine championships. The general manager who acquired Hall of Famers Bill Russell, Kevin McHale, Robert Parish and Larry Bird. The team's president when it won its league-record 16th title, in 1986, and when he died of a heart attack Saturday at the age of 89.
"He is the godfather of all the Celtics," former player and coach Chris Ford said. But he was more than that.
"Nobody has had as much impact on a sport as Red Auerbach had on the game of basketball. He was a pioneer of the NBA," said Tommy Heinsohn, a Hall of Fame player in Boston before becoming a Celtics coach and broadcaster. "He left his philosophy of winning championships, playing hard and playing as a team with several generations of players. ... The game of basketball will never see anyone else like him."
Arnold Auerbach was born in Brooklyn in 1917, and had already coached two professional teams when he took over the Celtics in 1950. He won an unprecedented nine titles -- Phil Jackson has since tied him -- including eight in a row before he stepped down in 1966.
Auerbach pulled the strings that brought seven more championships to Boston, and maintained a presence as the Celtics president and patriarch over the last 20 years. "Our ownership group feels the highlight of becoming owners is clearly the chance to have known and worked with Red," owner Wyc Grousbeck said Saturday.
Auerbach received the U.S. Navy's Lone Sailor Award on Wednesday at a ceremony in Washington, where he lived. Hall of Famer Bob Cousy, who knew Auerbach since 1950, was with him.
"I think Arnold was an absolute giant in the field," the former Celtics point guard said Saturday. "I have been around a lot of competitive people but his commitment to winning was absolute nothing was more important. He was relentless and produced the greatest basketball dynasty so far that this country has ever seen and certainly that the NBA has ever seen."
With Cousy passing the ball around, Auerbach introduced a fast-paced game that made the young league more exciting -- and popular. In racially combustible Boston, he hired the NBA's first black coach and fielded its first all-black starting five.
"He did so many things to help improve the game," said Bill Sharman, who played for Auerbach in Boston and went on to become coach and general manager of the Los Angeles Lakers. "He was a coach who went out of his way to help his players. ... Besides being such a great coach, he was also a great friend and he will be truly missed."
U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy said Auerbach's "legacy transcends the Celtics and basketball," whether it was helping out on a political cause or visiting the senator's son in the hospital.
"He was the gold standard in coaching and in civic leadership, and he set an example that continues today," Kennedy said. "More than being a legendary coach and Boston institution, Red was a person of the highest caliber with a heart and generosity that knew no bounds. ... With every whistle that blows for the Boston Celtics, Red's spirit is celebrated and his memory cherished. He was loved and never will be forgotten."
Auerbach's failing health put a scare into the Celtics and their fans last year, when he spent much of August visiting hospitals for tests and an undisclosed surgical procedure. But he made it to Boston for opening night and held court with the media before the game.
"I'm here. That's what counts," he said at the 2005 opener. "I've been to, oh, about 50 of them. It's always a great thrill, it really is."
Grousbeck said that Auerbach was preparing to attend the team's Nov. 1 opener. Instead, the Celtics will dedicate the season to him.
The city of Boston erected a statue of Auerbach on his 68th birthday in 1985, placing him on a park bench, holding a cigar, near historic Faneuil Hall. Kris Liakos, 24, stopped by to take a picture with the statue after seeing the news of Auerbach's death on television.
"The statue's been here since I was a kid," the 24-year-old Celtics fan said. "That's the kind of thing that happens to somebody when they die, but he's been sitting on this bench for 20 years. That's what he meant to this town."
Down the street at the TD Banknorth Garden, fans watching the Bruins play the Ottawa Senators could spy the 16 NBA banners hanging from the rafters, along with the No. 2 the Celtics retired in Auerbach's honor.
"When you think of the Celtics, you think of Red Auerbach," 46-year-old Dana Letiecq said after the hockey game. "That's the bottom line."
Joe O'Leary brought his 13-year-old son, Mark, to the game and to the Auerbach display at the new Garden's sports museum.
"I don't smoke many cigars, but whenever I do I think of Red," the elder O'Leary said.
"Light one more up for Red," said his brother-in-law, Mike Bohan.
Those titles came in the Boston Garden, a beloved building that was shuttered with much sentimentality in 1995 to make way for what is now called the TD Banknorth Garden. But Auerbach was stung by a different emotion after watching the Celtics' final game in the old building, a playoff loss to the Orlando Magic.
"(Expletive) the building," Auerbach said. "We lost a ballgame."
AP sports writers Howard Ulman in Boston, Joseph White in Washington and Dan Gelston in Philadelphia contributed to this story.
a smart manager
se7enSin: Punishment in Hell
Pride :Broken on the Wheel. Envy: Placed in freezing water. Wrath: Dismembered Alive. Sloth: Thrown in Snake Pits. Greed: Put in pots of boiling oil. Gluttony: Forced to eat rats, toads, and snakes. Lust: Smothered in Fire and Brimstone. Vice Virtue Lust (undesired love) Chastity (purity) Gluttony (overindulgence) Moderation (self-restraint) Greed (avarice) Generosity (vigilance) Sloth (laziness) Labor (zeal/integrity) Wrath (anger) Meekness (composure) Envy (jealousy) Charity (giving) Pride (vanity) Modesty (humbleness) The art of the impossibleThe art of the impossibleOct 26th 2006 A morose France has fallen behind its competitors. But there is nothing inevitable about its decline, argues Sophie Pedder: all it needs is political will“SOMETHING seems very wrong with this country. Once the very model of a modern major power—stable, rich and smug—it appears beset now by political and economic instability and by civil unrest and disorder. One observer has even taken to calling it 'the sick man of Europe'. Hardly a month passes without the appearance of a new book or learned article on the decline and imminent demise of a once proud country.” Alarmist talk about France has become commonplace. Home-grown titles such as “France in Freefall”, “Gallic Illusions” and “France's Malheur” crowd the bookshelves. Politicians hold seminars with titles such as “The Origins of the French Disease”. “Declinism” has become a school of thought. Pessimism prevails. Fully four-fifths of the French tell pollsters that they think “things are getting worse.” But the opening quotation, seemingly so apt for morose France today, is not about that country at all. It was written in 1979 by Isaac Kramnick, an American political scientist, and refers to Britain. The 1970s were Britain's decade of self-doubt, not so unlike the first decade of the 21st century is turning out to be for France. The country was paralysed by a sense of terminal decline. The mainstream left was beholden to its militants, union friends and class warriors. Politicians were preoccupied by the distribution of wealth, not its creation. Strikes were as crippling as taxes. Industrial jobs were going to lower-cost countries and academic brains to America. Britain was uncomfortable about its place in the world. Now it is France's turn. The country is gripped by a belief in its own decline. It sees itself as a victim of globalisation, regarding markets as a threat and profits as suspicious. It has a short working week, militant unions and high unemployment. The opposition Socialist Party, in its official programme for next spring's presidential and parliamentary elections, pledges to renationalise the electricity utility, raise the minimum wage, enforce the 35-hour week more vigorously and reverse tax cuts. Moreover, the creed of anti-liberalism and anti-globalisation is shared by both left and right. The centre-right government of Dominique de Villepin is irredeemably protectionist, fending off foreign predators at every turn. The president, Jacques Chirac, a Gaullist descendant, has called liberalism a greater menace for Europe than communism. France is troubled by its diminished voice in the world and fretful about immigration at home. Fear of change is pervasive. Just as Britain battled through its winter of discontent in 1978-79, when rubbish went uncollected, school gates unopened and ambulances undriven, France has fought its way through a series of social upheavals in the past 18 months. First, its electorate revolted over the European Union in May 2005, rejecting a new constitution for the European project that its own countrymen co-founded. Next, its multi-ethnic underclass revolted against exclusion, with 20 consecutive nights of rioting in nearly 300 banlieues across the country, forcing the government to declare a state of emergency. Most recently, its students and unions revolted against insecurity, holding countrywide strikes, university sit-ins and protest marches to contest a plan to make it easier to hire and fire the under-26s. Some historians trace this turbulence and fiery rejectionism back to the collective spirit of the 1789 revolution and the French fondness for the drama of confrontation (as in 1830, 1848 and 1968). Others suggest that these events are symptoms of a dysfunctional democratic system in which the street is a more efficient theatre of protest than parliament. Popular malaise has certainly been simmering for a while. Since 1978 the French have not re-elected an incumbent government. They have gone through 12 prime ministers when over the same period Britain and Germany have each had a mere four heads of government. When the far-right Jean-Marie Le Pen was voted into the 2002 presidential run-off against President Chirac, it was an early distress signal. That vote was partly against immigration, a theme the National Front leader has long exploited. But it was also a protest against what the republican French, with a disarming nod to elitism, call the “political class”: the cosy governing caste in Paris. In that election, 35% of the votes went to the political extremes or protest parties on the left and right. The message to mainstream politicians was plain: we've had enough of your empty promises. Three reasons for gloomWhy are the French so restless? The answer is threefold. First, their economy has lost ground. For example, France's GDP measured at current exchange rates has been overtaken by Britain's, which is now 5% bigger (even though the two countries' populations are much the same). Back in the late 1970s it was the other way round: the British economy was only three-quarters the size of the French one. Over the past 25 years, in terms of GDP per head at current exchange rates, the French have dropped from seventh place in the world to 17th. Even allowing for things France does well, such as health care and welfare, the 2005 United Nations Human Development Index ranked it 16th, down from eighth in 1990. The French feel the slippage keenly. Polls show that “loss of purchasing power” is one of their top concerns. Second, France's heavily planned economy has reached its limits. In the past, the French dirigiste model, which relies on a strong centralised state in the pre-revolutionary tradition established by Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Louis XIV's finance minister, served the country well. It speeded up reconstruction after the second world war. It delivered the trente glorieuses, or 30 years of post-war prosperity. And it laid the ground for the rapid transformation of the economy into an industrial powerhouse. Even today, elements of dirigiste planning have helped to set France up for the modern age. Its high-speed TGV train network reaches into new corners each year: to Strasbourg in 2007, from Lyon to Turin by 2018, with projects to extend lines to Bordeaux, Rennes and Perpignan. As Thierry Breton, the finance minister, points out, France's early decision to invest in nuclear energy, which accounts for 78% of its electricity production, has turned a country short of fossil fuels into a net electricity exporter. Yet the planned society relies crucially on an intelligent and efficient state, and over the years the French version has become untenable: too many bureaucrats, supported by too many taxes, impose too many rules in too many overlapping organisations. Despite all this effort, there is little sign that the public sector in France is any more efficient than in other rich countries. French public spending accounts for 54% of GDP, compared with an OECD average of 41% (see chart 1). One in four French workers is employed by the public sector. Public debt amounts to 66% of GDP, compared with 42% in Britain, and over the past ten years has grown faster in France than in any other EU-15 country. The baby-boom generation is leaving behind a poisoned legacy: as the title of a recent book puts it, “Our Children Will Hate Us”. Too top downMoreover, in such a hierarchical system people too often expect solutions to be provided from the top. For example, whereas Google was devised by two graduate students at Stanford University, a rival search engine with the unpronounceable name “Quaero” was ordered by the French government from, among others, two big French companies, Thomson and France Telecom. CNN was founded by Ted Turner, an American entrepreneur in Atlanta; a new French challenger to the cable television network, France 24, which is due to start broadcasting shortly, was invented by Mr Chirac and is financed with government money. The problems have been building up for some time. Thirty years ago, Alain Peyrefitte predicted that the mal français—essentially, a bureaucratic mentality—would stifle creativity and innovation and entrench resistance to change. Another critic wrote in 1994 of a “France suffering from a more profound sickness” than anybody then imagined: a “heavy and inert” state machinery that, if unreformed, would “block the evolution of society”. The prescient author? Mr Chirac. Even so, politicians have consistently failed to explain to the citizens why the country cannot afford to go on as before. This is the third source of French electoral dissatisfaction. Instead of making the case for change, successive politicians have preferred to blame, and thus to discredit, outside forces—usually Europe, America or globalisation. “The French political class has constructed a wall of lies against the globalised world,” comments Nicolas Baverez, author of “France in Freefall”. No wonder there is no consensus for reform. Yet this survey will argue that French decline is not inevitable, any more than British decline was inevitable in the 1970s. There is nothing that necessarily predisposes the French to conservatism or resistance to change. Just because political leaders in the past have failed to push through bold reforms—Mr Chirac himself, in 1986-88; Alain Juppé, a former prime minister, in 1995—does not mean that the country is unreformable. The unruly French do not make the task easy, but winning them over is a question of political leadership—the courage to level with voters and tell them why things need to change. The parallel with Britain is plainly inexact. For a start, France is rather better placed than Britain was in the 1970s. Public finances may be under strain, but there is no financial crisis of the sort that forced Britain to go cap in hand to the IMF in 1976. Corporate Britain at the time was ailing; corporate France now is thriving. The CAC 40 stockmarket index reached its highest level for five years this year and profits are at record levels. French firms are buying up companies across Europe. Both these factors should help France to rebound more rapidly than Britain did. Moreover, France has the second-highest birth rate in the European Union, sparing it some of the demographic worries preoccupying countries such as Britain, Germany and Italy. Change need not mean trampling on values that the French cherish. Some of those who defend the status quo argue that France is a civilised country that has simply chosen different priorities. Like a misunderstood teenager, it wants to do things its own way. It still believes in solidarity and social cohesion, in small farmers and local markets. It does not want to abandon its poor to the streets and its shopkeepers to Wal-Mart. Yet economic efficiency and social justice need not be incompatible. The Netherlands, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Canada have all revived once-flagging economies without destroying their welfare system or way of life. France's long dole queues and troubled banlieues are proof that, by keeping things the way they are, the French model is failing to deliver on its promise. France has 3.7m people living in poverty (defined as having a household income of less than half the median income); 2.5m living on the minimum wage; and over 2.4m unemployed. Politicians will have to explain that tightening welfare rules need not rip a hole in the safety-net; that subjecting hypermarkets to more competition need not drive the boulanger or patissier from the high street; that removing pharmacists' monopoly on non-prescription drugs need not deprive every village of its green cross. They will also have to persuade voters that the prize is worth having. According to the IMF, more competition in French markets for both goods and services, combined with labour-market reform, could in the long run boost GDP by more than 10%. The stakes are high. Next year's presidential and parliamentary elections will arguably be the most important for a generation. Unless Mr Chirac unexpectedly decides to stand again, they will bring an end to a stagnant 12-year presidency and provide a chance for a fresh start. France cannot afford to waste five more years. This survey will identify the most urgent tasks that the new president will face and consider who is best placed to deal with them. The two presidential front-runners—Ségolène Royal on the left and Nicolas Sarkozy, currently the interior minister, on the right—are both in their early 50s, and both claim to offer a break with the past. But is this new generation as reform-minded as it sounds? And how can it build a consensus for change in a country that seems so resistant to being nudged out of its comfort zone? 荒唐引自世界上最有影响力的杂志，the economist的一段关于中非经济的原话：
“THE characters for “Africa” in the Mandarin language mean “wrong continent”. But the Chinese have often ignored this etymological hint......”
都不知道这老外知不知道中国有个成语叫“断章取义”，不懂就不要说嘛，就像我原来在餐馆，听一年长者，说啥：长江中游，上面是湖北，下面是四川的话一样。
非洲，全称阿非利加洲，意为阳光灼热之地－－这才是非洲的来历。
记得还有篇英语的文章，说中国人一直仇视俄罗斯人，为什么呢？
因为我们称对方的国家为e国，就是说hungry的国家。当时我立即晕倒！！！ waiting...等待 经历都是一种财富，为此，我感谢主！！ the egg-stepping ceremony
链接一：一篇关于饶恕的文章，关于卢旺达的（英） 链接二：关于这场战争的反思（中） 传奇王光美
Capital CityTwenty years ago London embarked on a remarkable transformation to become a global financial centre. It now has to keep its leadONCE a year the Lord Mayor of London invites top financiers to the “City Banquet” at Mansion House, his official home. It is one of many opulent functions hosted by a Gilbert-and-Sullivan-sounding figure whose grand title harks back to the middle ages, when the Lord Mayor really did run the capital rather than act as an honorific salesman for its financial centre. But although the old City of London still celebrates its ancient traditions—today's Lord Mayor is the 678th—the new City has discovered a modern destiny as a hub of international finance since far-reaching reforms transformed the London stockmarket 20 years ago. That revolution was called “Big Bang” because new ways of trading shares came into effect on one day, October 27th 1986. Just as the universe exploded after Big Bang, so the City has burst from its former boundaries around the old “square mile” of the Lord Mayor's domain and, in the process, redrawn the capital's skyline. Twenty years ago, Canary Wharf was a wasteland in east London's docklands. Now it sprouts skyscrapers, including Britain's tallest, that provide palatial premises for global banks with giant trading floors. There are now almost as many financial staff working in just this one area as in the whole of Frankfurt, London's main European rival, says George Iacobescu, Canary Wharf Group's chief executive. The City has also expanded to the west. Hedge funds have plumped for boutique offices in the choicer parts of the West End, like Mayfair. And a short cab-ride to the north at Marylebone, BNP Paribas employs 3,100 staff—the most in any of its buildings in the world—at a swish office that opened in 1997. The French bank's trading floor, with 850 desks and 2,550 screens, could double as a football pitch. Within the square mile itself, the City's incessant demand for more space has led to a huge wave of new developments. To the east of the great dome of St Paul's Cathedral, built in the late 17th century, a cluster of 21st-century skyscrapers is planned as new towers with names like the “Helter-skelter” join the “Gherkin”, completed three years ago. Within less than a decade, the view from the Thames may look like the illustration above. The property boom reflects the City's expansion since Big Bang. The specialist workforce that carries out international financial business has risen by a half in the past 15 years, according to CEBR, a consultancy that monitors the London economy. These highly paid financiers, traders and professionals are now much more cosmopolitan. At BNP Paribas, for example, 35% of its staff in London are foreign nationals; less than half of these are French. Few doubt that London's élan owes much to the revolution in its securities markets. “There is just no comparison now between the City's standing today and 20 years ago,” says David Lascelles, co-director of the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation, a think-tank. “London wouldn't be in this position without Big Bang.” But can the City maintain its role as a global financial centre? Just this week the British government set up a taskforce, partly to signal to the City that it values London's standing. Other cities, not least New York, are keen to steal footloose financial transactions away. Exchanges are joining forces, making trading hubs, such as Chicago, potentially more powerful (see article). For all its historic success, London will be relentlessly tested in the future. Club rulesEven before the revolution at the stock exchange, the City had defied historical odds by re-establishing itself in the 1960s and 1970s as the top international financial centre. Just as London had gained that position at the height of British economic supremacy in the 19th century, so New York might have been expected to take on the role after the second world war, when the dollar was pre-eminent. Instead heavy-handed regulations (such as interest-rate ceilings that made it unattractive to leave short-term deposits in America) drove international finance out of Wall Street. It found a ready home in London where the Bank of England monitored foreign banks with a feather-light touch. By the early 1980s, the City had become an international banking bazaar. Walk down any of its narrow streets and you could enter banks from around the world; Moorgate was nicknamed “the Avenue of the Americas”. London played host to far more foreign banks than any other financial centre and had the biggest slice of the foreign-exchange market. Business had gravitated to the City because its role was based no longer on sterling but on offshore currencies, predominantly dollars, held outside America. Yet there was a missing dimension. Although the City had opened up to the world in international banking, it had kept the shutters firmly closed in its stockmarket. The London stock exchange was a closed shop, marked by an antiquated division between brokers who brought the business and jobbers who made markets in shares. Brokers were paid a fixed minimum commission on shares and gilts, which ripped off big clients, and jobbers lacked the capital to deal in big amounts. Trading in top British shares was starting to move to New York, where investment banks were able to offer keener prices because they could combine broking and market-making as well as underwriting new issues. The stock exchange was unable to reform because its rulebook was due to come under legal attack in a court case brought by the Office of Fair Trading. In July 1983 the exchange reached a historic deal with the Conservative government. The case was dropped. In return the exchange agreed to get rid of minimum commissions by the end of 1986. Well before then, a bidding war had started for the stock exchange's Victorian-sounding member firms. In a giddy rush of deals, banks both domestic and international took stakes in virtually every broker and jobber worth having. Two British ventures raised especially high hopes. S.G. Warburg, a merchant bank that had pioneered London's eurobond market based on offshore dollars in the early 1960s, plunged into the fray. And Barclays, a high-street bank, created BZW, an investment bank, from its acquisitions. Big Bang was a turning point in the City's postwar history, securing its position as a centre for trading international equities. The City signalled its welcome to foreign financial firms by sweeping away cosy club rules that protected domestic incumbents. American commercial banks, at that time unable to carry out securities business in the United States, were able to treat London as a laboratory. By October 1986, the City already felt quite different. American investment bankers brought a brash new style to its financial markets, including breathtaking bonuses and early starts. The City, long notorious as a stuffy place where the old school tie mattered more than talent, became more meritocratic. The boisterous colour-jacketed traders in financial futures at LIFFE, a market founded in 1982, typified the new unbuttoned style of business. Trading placesBut after thriving for most of the 1980s, the City looked fragile ten years after Big Bang. The early 1990s brought recession to Britain and cuts in the number of City jobs. Then the two main British contenders as investment banks fell by the wayside. In 1995 S.G. Warburg was bought by the Swiss; and two years later, Barclays pulled the plug on BZW. As if this was not enough, Nick Leeson's rogue trading brought down Barings, a centuries-old merchant bank once called the sixth great power of Europe. Ahead loomed the euro. The risk was that footloose financial firms might forsake the City and cluster instead in Frankfurt, home of the new European Central Bank. The fears proved groundless. Far from undermining London, the euro strengthened the City's grip in European finance, says Douglas McWilliams, chief executive of CEBR. With the fading of the small centres that had specialised in bilateral trading between the former currencies, London dominated euro trading. Over the same period, London surfed the next big breaking wave of products. Although Euronext took over LIFFE in 2002, 98% of the value of the Paris-based exchange's trading in derivatives was done in London last year. More important, the City secured a commanding stake in “over-the-counter” derivatives, which are traded off exchanges primarily with banks. The value of these commitments is now four-to-five times greater than those on exchanges owing to investors' ravenous appetite for financial products that parcel up and repackage risk. London's share of this booming market has risen from 27% of daily turnover in 1995 to 43% in 2004. Some of the biggest customers for derivatives are hedge funds, which offer sophisticated investors opportunities to gain from trading strategies (for example, making money in falling stockmarkets) as well as through asset allocation. Here again, London has elbowed its way into a high-growth financial industry. The global value of assets in hedge funds has doubled since the end of 2002 to reach $1.2 trillion. Although the industry is dominated by the east coast of America, investments managed out of London are worth a fifth of the world total, up from a tenth in 2002, and almost four-fifths of those in Europe. The City's record over the past two decades has not been an unqualified success. International insurance has been a weak spot, in part because of the travails of Lloyd's of London, a market founded in a coffee house in the 17th century that was hit by 20th-century scandals and huge losses from asbestosis claims. London's share of net premium income in marine insurance, a traditional mainstay of Lloyd's, has shrunk from around 30% in the mid-1980s to 20% in 2005. Set against that, other less salient parts of the City have been thriving. Shipping services have made a recent comeback; overseas earnings rose by a quarter between 2002 and 2004. London's 400 shipbroking firms match ships and cargoes in 50% of tanker chartering. And there has been a spectacular growth in legal services, which are vital in backing the work of a global financial centre. Over 200 foreign law firms have offices in London, which is also headquarters for three of the four largest firms in the world. Exports from Britain generated by international law firms are now three times higher than they were in 1995. Centre courtLondon is a textbook example of an economic cluster, in which businesses locate close to one another because they gain from proximity. “The big warehouse of markets is in London,” says Pascal Boris, chief executive of BNP Paribas's British operation. The distinctive feature of the City cluster is the pre-eminence of foreign financial firms. In this sense, London has become to finance what Wimbledon is to tennis: a place where the best international players come to compete. Yet modern communications and information technology allow people and businesses to operate from virtually anywhere nowadays. And there are obvious disadvantages in locating at the heart of a metropolis. Property costs are extremely high in London by international standards. Public transport is overcrowded and often unreliable. The City's vibrancy shows that it offers compelling advantages that outweigh these drawbacks. Financial firms cluster in London because they derive external economies of scale. By thronging together, they create large, liquid markets that drive down trading costs and reduce risks by allowing large deals to be handled. There are further benefits from locating in the cluster. Firms, large and small, can call upon all the external services needed to put together a complex financial deal, such as advice from lawyers and accountants, or the use of specialist markets. This in turn creates a fertile environment for innovation to flourish—a vital attraction for a global financial centre. Underpinning the hub is access to talent. Firms locating in London can tap into a huge specialist financial workforce drawn from both domestic and foreign sources. “It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy,” says Mr Boris. “If you want to be hired you go to where people will hire you: London is this magnet in Europe.” A continuing tradition of “light-touch” regulation has proved to be another essential ingredient. In 1997 the new Labour government announced reforms to replace what had become an untidy muddle of statutory and self-regulatory bodies with one regulator. This offered the advantage of a single port of call for the City's big financial conglomerates, but held the risk that they might get unduly caught up in rules to protect the individual consumer. In 2004 the Financial Services Authority responded by introducing a separate division for wholesale and institutional markets, headed by Hector Sants, previously an investment banker. “We recognise,” says Mr Sants, “that good regulation is a key component of a successful marketplace.” The FSA is now highlighting the need for regulation to be based on principles rather than detailed prescriptions. But if the FSA has seen the light, European directives that pay insufficient heed to the City's unique position increasingly tie the regulator's hands. These absorb 85% of the FSA's policy time, says Mr Sants, who sounds a cool note about the worth of the latest directive—on markets in financial instruments—for the City. Against this background, Mr Lascelles gives the FSA grudging praise: “It's not so much that it has been good but that it has been less bad than elsewhere.” America's ability to score regulatory own goals continues to help the City. The Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, passed after the collapse of Enron in order to stiffen up corporate governance, has put off foreign companies from listing there. The London Stock Exchange (LSE) has been the big beneficiary. Foreign firms have flocked to list on its main market and AIM, a less regulated market that it established in 1995. In an ironic coda to Big Bang, which saw the stock-exchange's member firms gobbled up by foreign owners, the LSE—since 2001 a listed company itself—is under siege from NASDAQ, an American exchange, which already owns 25% of its shares. Tellingly, the government's only worry about the deal is that it could lead to a back-door introduction of heavy-handed American-style regulation—a threat it will block through a change in the law. That apart, it is unfazed by the prospect of this citadel of British capitalism falling to a foreign predator. London's success as the Wimbledon of international finance is now such that New York is trying to fight back. Michael Bloomberg, its mayor, has called in McKinsey, a management consultancy, for advice. But Mr Bloomberg will find it difficult to alter America's regulatory approach. Lawmakers in Washington, DC, are generally swayed by domestic rather than international concerns. Some recent talk about London has smacked of hubris, confusing its success as a financial centre with the favourable cyclical conditions that investors and traders have been enjoying. That froth will be skimmed away by tighter money and a slowing world economy. However, the City will be hard to dislodge as a financial hub. Sir David Walker, who worked behind the scenes in the early 1980s to reform the stock exchange and is now a senior adviser to Morgan Stanley, an American bank, gives warning against complacency but says: “Over time a virtuous circle, supported by sensible regulation, has developed to such an extent that London is more than a network: it's become a knot and it's very difficult to disentangle a knot.” 立论立论 •鲁迅• 我梦见自己正在小学校的讲堂上预备作文，向老师请教立论的方法。 “难！”老师从眼镜圈外斜射出眼光来，看着我，说。“我告诉你一件事—— “一家人家生了一个男孩，合家高兴透顶了。满月的时候，抱出来给客人看， ——大概自然是想得一点好兆头。 “一个说：‘这孩子将来要发财的。’他于是得到一番感谢。 “一个说：‘这孩子将来是要死的。’他于是得到一顿大家合力的痛打。 “说要死的必然，说富贵的许谎。但说谎的得好报，说必然的遭打。你……” “我愿意既不说谎，也不遭打。那么，老师，我得怎么说呢？” “那么，你得说：‘啊呀！这孩子呵！您瞧！那么……。阿唷！哈哈！Ｈｅｈ ｅ！ｈｅ，ｈｅｈｅｈｅｈｅ！’” 一九二五年七月八日。 别了，温哥华打来了巴黎，每天晚上吃饭的时候，就会一边端个大盘子，一边看《别了，温哥华》
咋说呢？ 片子的氛围是我喜欢的，平平淡淡，虽然情节也是挺曲折的，但看戏中人聊天来着的时候，都是很平和的。（尤其是四个人，一块的时候，我都是带着笑容看的） 可能还是受《秋天的童话》的影响，对大洪和杨夕的结合更觉得有意思些，虽然我对大洪的草率很不满－－但有情人终成眷属，似乎真爱真的可以超越很多阻碍。
晓雪，人如其名。看天空降下来的雪花，白皙而脆弱，美丽却单薄。晓雪的美，正如大雪初霁，太阳刚升起那会的景致－－一切都是那样的安详，柔和...... 几点印象－－晓雪皮衣，墨镜的出场，让我觉得纳闷，因为她行步中，很不professionel，玩黑道的，怎能这样？后来才知她还只是个半路出家的，打那会起，就喜欢这女孩了。
然后，罗毅出现了，当时我差点骂娘－－天，留学生咋住这好的房子，真的是为了拍电视，是不？后来有朋友说，一些去加拿大，澳大利亚的留学生们，家里都是钞票奠的基脚来着，我才不足为奇了，不过后来他家出事，也就显得不太意外了。这样的事情，现实中可能还真有不少呢！
杨夕，是一个逐渐让人喜欢的女孩，率真，能把自己的青春过得很潇洒，用一个朋友的话说，叫“敢爱敢恨”，虽然自己更喜欢钟楚红那样，外向中带些含蓄，但现在这时代，或许杨夕这样的女孩，才更典型了吧。
马芬，和马粪同名，唉，真不知道写剧本的，要弄这样一个怪物出来－－怎么说，也是一个访问学者啊，也太不实际了吧，难道编剧当年有过啥经历，不爽来着，来造了这样个哭笑不得的人物来！而且她结婚的时候，还故意来不少吻戏的特写，真叫一个痒痒！
罗毅一看，就觉得应该是上海男孩，咋成了北京的呢，不像啊！其实，个人觉得，把这群人在国内的窝，定在上海更有感觉些（个人意见）。在里尔的时候，一个弟兄，挺秀气的，有点罗毅的味道，就是上海来的。
很久，一直在莫名其妙得，想一个简单的问题，本来都不咋想了，但看了王平平，大洪和杨夕的来往，似乎又觉得有些纳闷了：爱情到底是一种感动，还是一种感觉？如果真有还能有爱情的话。
大洪是幸运的，用我，一个留学生的眼光来打量，并不是如他自己说“到了加拿大一直郁闷着”那样，他是很幸运的，因为对他而言，生活，而不是事业，才是他的重心，而他，笑到了最后。 经常在路上，看到不少可以用“惊叹”来形容的异国女子，就像看到塞纳河，注视越久，越会神往一样。但我，永远只是一个看客，过去了，脚印经细雨一打湿，啥都剩不下了，唯有在我心口，还有那么一点点美的回忆。
不少人，推荐我看这片子，都说是风景很棒。我的确是一点感觉都没有，可能还真是因为见过世面的缘故，反倒是对很多室内很感兴趣，摆设什么的，都会注意好一会。
除却晓雪那少女般纯真的美，杨夕的妩媚和洒脱，真能给自己留下印象的，可能还是大洪的傻笑。那单眼皮，傻傻盯人的时候，挺逗的。《北京人在纽约》那会，自己还小，不懂事。姜文的表演没有什么印象，这次看了他兄弟，觉得还不赖。如果把姜文比作美国（霸气，底气十足）的话，姜武更像中国（实在，厚道）。
王平平，一个不容易的女人，貌和身材有几分像我初中的英文老师，但可以肯定的是，芳龄时候的老师，定比王平平漂亮许多。
是不是北方女孩，大多挺大方呢？ 还是折腾好自己的日子吧，首先该做的，就是睡个好觉。
附：片子最后四集，因为碟片一些问题，是直接看的剧本，看到后来杨夕生红豆豆，晓雪精神出问题，挺庆幸自己没有看到片子本身，不然多少有些感时伤怀。
电视剧，还挺怎么可悲的，总得拼拼凑凑，弄些异样的情节，才能符合大众的的欣赏情趣。电影，因为短，剧情集中些，导演发挥的空间反而自由些。书更是可以天马行空。
如果给我拍《别了，温哥华》，我就拍了十来集，就说晓雪来了，是为了逃难来的，然后呢，姓余那人也不追来了，就写写和罗毅邂逅，然后呢，杨夕和大洪好上了。司马波可以因为什么缘故，牺牲一下啦，然后王平平去照顾司马波家人，和他堂兄直接好上了，得了（在一次电话中，大洪告诉了平平，他和杨夕已经好上了），然后就多一些四个人一块的平时生活，这样就好了，可以弄些个笑料什么的，酸甜苦辣也有不小空间的。自然，可以把一些温哥华的景致给展现一下，来些有韵味的调子。 鲁迅究竟是谁讲演者周海婴小传
1929年9月生于上海，1952至1960年在北京大学物理系学习，1960年起在国家广电总局工作。现任十届全国政协委员；另任上海鲁迅文化发展中心理事长，绍兴鲁迅纪念馆、厦门鲁迅纪念馆名誉馆长，北京鲁迅纪念馆、上海鲁迅纪念馆顾问，北京鲁迅中学、绍兴鲁迅中学名誉校长，中国鲁迅研究室、中国无线电运动协会(CRSA)顾问等。曾任全国人大第四、五、六、七届代表，全国政协第八、九届委员等职。 一、我想触摸活着的鲁迅 我一直有一个想法，就是想写一篇名为《我想触摸活着的鲁迅》的文章，目的就是希望鲁迅能够真实地活在21世纪青年人的心中，让他活得更好，活得更有意义，更能促进中国社会朝向健康文明的方向发展。 时间的推移和历史的变迁不仅会固化我们的情感，而且也会加深我们对人与事的认识。对于已成往事的20世纪，作为鲁迅的家属，我的感慨不仅深刻，而且复杂：鲁迅在20世纪的影响是有目共睹的，他以毕生不懈的努力创造了一个辉煌的“文化鲁迅”，这是我作为鲁迅家属的骄傲。从更广的视野来看，鲁迅作为作家的意义可能还表现在中国社会由传统向现代转型的历史进程中，在这个过程中，鲁迅努力实践着传播新文化的信念，同时，他也因为自己不惮前驱的意志而成为了一面具有召唤性的旗帜，对以后那些同样致力于中国进步与发展的有为者而言，鲁迅是令人尊敬的前辈和导师。 然而，从20世纪到21世纪的今天，关于鲁迅，似乎发生了许多变化，有些变化还在持续进行中，这些变化不仅使我感到十分不安，而且，随着时间推移，这种不安又越来越明显地在我内心转化为对“文化鲁迅”的责任感了。2002年，我们在上海成立了非企业性质的鲁迅文化发展中心，全身心地开始了接近鲁迅的工作，把中心的办公地点就选择在当年鲁迅住过的上海虹口，离他的墓地走路三分钟。在四年的工作中我接触了与鲁迅相关的所有纪念馆，联系了与鲁迅命名的各类学校，对鲁迅故乡和他的所到之处作了大量的实地访问，此外，我还与一些研究鲁迅的学者、专家取得了联系。在与社会大众的交流中我获得了大量信息。当然，我也接触了很多学生。随着工作的展开和延续，原来那些让我不安的东西越来越沉重了。在此之前，作为鲁迅的儿子，我天然地拥有与鲁迅最直接而密切的关系，但是现在这种联系似乎已经被一种无形的力量切断了，我在宣传鲁迅、纪念鲁迅这样一个垂直的系统里，并没有找到那个本应属于我的独特位置。这是一件令人感到遗憾的事情。在法理上鲁迅应该就是我的亲人，在感情上也是我的亲人，可是现在却感觉这个鲁迅离我很遥远，好像几乎已经不是我们家里的人了，我背负着鲁迅儿子的重负却几乎不能直率的表白，就是当我把所有鲁迅遗物捐出去以后，我从此就开始被当成了花瓶。在这种情况下，我们家属很疑惑，如果这种权利也被剥夺的话，这还是否符合鲁迅的原意？ 假如鲁迅作为一个时代的符号有理由有必要走下去的话，则必须给青年人一个有血有肉的鲁迅。生活中的鲁迅其实是个爱开玩笑、非常幽默和蔼的人。从鲁迅的外貌上来说，我想还他的是这样一个原本的形象，说老实话，我迫切地需要表达我们家属对鲁迅的认识。 二、“意识形态化”掩盖了真实的鲁迅形象 在已经存在的对鲁迅的认识和理解中，鲁迅的真实形象显得遥远而模糊。现在我虽然在很多地方可以听到鲁迅，鲁迅也还是以各种各样的形式呈现着，但是这样的鲁迅并不是非常真实的。 事实上，对鲁迅的宣传和纪念始终都与对鲁迅的认识相互联系着。作为鲁迅的家属，我对这一点尤为敏感。鲁迅与现代中国社会的变革关系是很密切的。因此，鲁迅与现代中国革命历史的关系也就显得格外醒目。在新中国成立以后的时间里，鲁迅受到了来自政治意识形态的特别重视，鲁迅的革命性开始逾越他的文学家和思想家的身份而得到了特别的强调。以往很多描述鲁迅的文字也把他刻画成了一个喋喋不休、拿着匕首和投枪的战士形象，形象是双眉紧蹙严峻凝重的，思想是革命化战斗化的，没有个性和生活，其他方面似乎都淡化掉了，只剩这么一个壳，甚至在对这个壳的描述中，也忽略了他作为思想家、文学家的存在，离开了他作为一个最根本的文学家这样一个位置。我总觉得这样的鲁迅很空洞，我不认识这样一个鲁迅。以后，中国的现行教育体制也把这个特别“革命化”了的鲁迅形象以知识普及的形式传播给了一代代中国人。即使到了21世纪的今天，我们中学语文课本里的鲁迅形象也还保留着浓厚的“意识形态化”的特征。这个“意识形态化”了的鲁迅体现更多的实际上是一种实用价值，而他的思想价值和文学价值则被大大地简化了。 此外，对鲁迅的认识和理解还存在着另外一种形式，这就是存在于中国各大高校和各研究机构里的鲁迅研究。鲁迅研究的工作也因为历史的原因曾一度被“意识形态化”，上个世纪80年代以后开始出现明显变化，出现了很多优秀的鲁迅研究者。我对他们的工作很尊重，因为，他们把主要力量和智慧放在了“还原历史中的鲁迅”这样一个工作上。“还原历史中的鲁迅”之所以重要，是因为在20世纪的相当一段时间里，鲁迅被严重地“革命化”和“意识形态化”了，以至于完全掩盖了历史中真实的鲁迅形象，当然也就取消了鲁迅作为中国社会从传统向现代转型过程中巨大的思想存在和文化价值。然而，这种还原的工作，由于研究者个人的立场差异存在理解与认识上的歧见，因而，也就会存在思想上不同见解间的论争。也就是说，学术界对鲁迅的认识是不完全统一的，还处在一个不断还原，以趋于接近那个历史中真实的鲁迅的过程之中。 因此，我的不安显得尤为迫切。根据我的不完全调查，现在青年的一代已经开始淡忘鲁迅了，如果你去问他们“鲁迅是谁？”他们就会说“横眉冷对千夫指”呀，“俯首甘为孺子牛”呀；这都是一个已经“阶级斗争化”了的鲁迅，一个除了用“战士”这个名词来说明以外就找不到词汇来说明的鲁迅。鲁迅在20世纪所作的工作及其对推动中国社会现代转型的历史意义，他们几乎没有什么了解。所有这些都令我十分不安和迷惑，因此，如何让鲁迅活在21世纪青年人的心中，这是一个需要全社会共同来关注的大问题。而解决这个问题的关键，恐怕首先在于回答“鲁迅是谁”这样一个问题。 那么，鲁迅究竟是谁呢？ 三、还原鲁迅的真精神 如果说，“还原历史中的鲁迅”是在追求对鲁迅的认识价值，那么，我所说的要对鲁迅的人格和精神做出概括，则是在追求鲁迅的文化价值和精神意义。 寻求对鲁迅的理解，找寻“鲁迅是谁”这个问题的答案，关键在于对鲁迅的人格和精神做出概括。我想从四个方面来谈谈我个人对父亲的认识。 首先是立人为本的思想。 “立人为本”是鲁迅精神的灵魂。实际上，鲁迅从青年时代起就自觉地把自己的全部精力投入到了推动中国社会现代转型这样一个巨大的社会工作上去了。国族遭受凌辱的历史困境曾使鲁迅十分痛心，这激发了他对人的精神麻木，尤其是中国人的精神麻木的自觉而深入的关注。他在日本留学期间无意间看到影像中麻木的中国人，这件事对鲁迅刺痛最深，他在《呐喊自序》里写到：“这一学年没有完毕，我已经到了东京了，因为从那一回以后，我便觉得医学并非一件紧要事，凡是愚弱的国民，即使体格如何健全，如何茁壮，也只能做毫无意义的示众的材料和看客，病死多少是不必以为不幸的。所以我们的第一要著，是在改变他们的精神，而善于改变精神的是，我那时以为当然要推文艺，于是想提倡文艺运动了。只有当具有个体尊严和独立思考能力的人被确立起来，一个现代意义上的中国的崛起和强大才是可能的。”鲁迅在这里讲到的个体尊严和个体意识的觉醒，就是他“立人为本”思想的精髓。 鲁迅讲的个体尊严，代表着现代人的价值理念，这种观念表明每个个体都有充分发展自我、享受幸福的权力，同时，他也完全拥有个人独立思考的权力，这是每个人的天赋人权。人不应该为自己的独立思考遭受损害，这是一种普世价值理念。而个体意识的觉醒则意味着个体对自我的生存价值的关注与自觉。拥有这种个体意识的人会自觉地要求自己活出一个样子出来，他会活得很有尊严，也很有魅力，所以，一个人有了这样的意识，他就具有了真正的勇气，他就可以“横眉冷对千夫指”了。他也就可以拥有“一个人走自己的路，让别人说去吧”这样一种坦荡的胸怀了。所以，个体意识着重于人的生命价值和意义的追求，以及人的精神气度的养成。 拥有了个体尊严和个体生命的自觉意识，也就拥有了鲁迅所说的“自信力”。而这些拥有自信力的人，才是中国的脊梁。鲁迅在《中国人失掉自信力了吗》一文中就说：“我们从古以来，就有埋头苦干的人，有拼命硬干的人，有为民请命的人，有舍身求法的人，……虽是等于为帝王将相作家谱的所谓‘正史’，也往往掩不住他们的光耀，这就是中国的脊梁。”所以，鲁迅接着指出：“要论中国人，必须不被搽在表面的自欺欺人的脂粉所诓骗，却看看他的筋骨和脊梁。自信力的有无，状元宰相的文章是不足为据的，要自己去看地底下。”觉醒人的个体尊严，激活人的个体生命意识，这是鲁迅人格与精神的首要之点，具有个体尊严和清醒的个体意识是他特别看重的精神品质。 第二是独立思考。 如果说立人为本是鲁迅思想与精神的灵魂的话，那么，独立思考则是他的骨髓，它使“立人为本”这个灵魂获得了支撑。仔细思考鲁迅的独立思考的内容，大概可以包括三个方面： (一)独立思考体现为一个人如何把“立人为本”的理念真正落实在自己的身上。这种独立思考要求一个个体自觉的人对自己的生命负有完整的责任。在五四新文化时代，像鲁迅这样的早期思想启蒙者特别看重一个人对自己生命的负责态度。我要过怎样的生活不应该让父母来包办，也不应该由某个外在的绝对权威来支配，我有我自己的选择，这其实是五四新文化运动中最重要的东西。它真正推动了中国社会的现代转型。我这样一个人应该怎样度过自己的一生才是有意义的，对这样的问题，一个有独立思考能力的人是有着明确坚定的立场的。 (二)真正的独立思考意味着能够把批判精神体现出来。鲁迅在《野草》中描写了一个举起投枪的战士，这个战士的形象很大程度上就是他的自我形象。这就是说，鲁迅是自觉地把批判的重担放在了自己身上的。他是一个真正意义上的斗士。这里，批判的意思是一个人有勇气面对真实的世界，并且不依赖任何外在的权威做出自己独立的判断。鲁迅就是一个具有这种批判精神的斗士。值得特别强调的是，鲁迅的这种批判目的不是破坏、拆毁和颠覆，而是在于推动中国社会的现代转型，建设一个强大的中国。他的建设性的意义是非常明显的。应该说，鲁迅对孙中山推翻千年帝制、亲手创建的新制是有感情的，是希望它成长壮大的。正是因为有了这样一种希望和期待，他才对那些丑恶的、腐败的、麻木的、落后的现象怀抱如此深刻的愤怒。但在这愤怒后面难道不是跳动着一颗希望的心吗？所以，我们说鲁迅是一个为新文化理念去战斗的人。当他看到一切阻碍着新文化传播的力量的时候，他是以合法的、和平的方式来捍卫新文化的，虽然有时候他使用讽刺与挖苦的笔调，但这仅仅是他的一种个人风格，是无可厚非的。 (三)独立思考也意味着文化与观念的创新精神。在拥有深厚封建文化传统的国度努力传播新文化的理念，这本身就是一种文化的创新，是需要用勇气来实践的一项人类壮举。鲁迅首先是思想家。这是我们一开始就特别强调的。鲁迅强调在思想与文化观念上的创新，是在科技创新和制度创新基础上的更高程度的创新。同时，也要看到，科技创新和制度创新也必须依赖于我们在多大程度上具有思想和文化创新的意识。所以，文化和观念的创新既是基础性的创新，同时也是主导性的创新。 第三是拿来主义。 鲁迅是一个在文化上积极主张拿来的思想家。拿来主义就好像是鲁迅精神与人格的眼睛，体现的是他的气度、视野和眼光。他在《拿来主义》一文中这样写到：“我们被‘送来’的东西吓怕了。先有英国的鸦片，德国的废枪炮，后有法国的香粉，美国的电影，日本的印着‘完全国货’的各种小东西。于是连清醒的青年们，也对于洋货发生了恐怖。其实，这正是因为那是‘送来’的，而不是‘拿来’的缘故。”这“送来”的历史就是被迫、屈辱的历史。何以打破这被迫和屈辱呢？那么，就首先需要去拿来。所以他说：“总之，我们要拿来。我们要或使用，或存放，或毁灭。那么，主人是新主人，宅子也就会成为新宅子。然而首先要这人沉着，勇猛，有辨别，不自私。没有拿来的，人不能自成为新人，没有拿来的，文艺不能自成为新文艺。”拿来主义体现的是文化的气度、视野与眼光。他是一种主动积极的态度。值得注意的是，鲁迅的拿来主义，他的立场是完全中国的。他是脚踩在中国的大地而放眼世界的，一切拿来的东西都是为了我们自身的自强和壮大。所以，他与崇洋媚外是势不两立的，也不赞同无选择的乱拿。 第四是韧性的坚守。 韧性的坚守是鲁迅精神的手和足，它是对上述三个方面的积极而坚持不懈的践履，是观念落实在行为上的具体过程，是一步步走、一点点做的持续不断地努力和进取。所以，鲁迅的韧性，体现的是一种坚守的精神。它从两个方面表现出来：一是长度，二是强度。所谓长度，就是指每天的工作从不懈怠，所谓强度，就是指每日工作的辛劳与效能。鲁迅在他的《野草》中有这样的句子：“是的，我只得走了。况且还有声音常在前面催促我，叫唤我，使我息不下。可恨的是我的脚早经走破了，有许多伤，流了许多血。”那“前面的声音”其实也就是他自己内心的声音，这实际上就是他自己生活的真实写照，持之以恒，进之以猛，把坚守贯穿于生命的整个历程，一个人能够拥有这样的人生，就足以令自己欣慰的了。所以，我们理解的鲁迅，在他生命的最后时刻，在他弥留之际，是没有什么悲哀痛苦的，因为在他的一生中他尽可能做自己想要做的事，而且做得那么好，鲁迅在自我完成方面是足够欣慰的。一个人能够在自己有限的生命历程中把自己做成，这是多么精彩，他怎么会感到悲哀呢？所以，筹拍40集鲁迅电视剧，我就对编剧们说，不要把鲁迅的弥留之际描写得很悲哀，他应该是豪情满怀的。 从鲁迅身上我们可以看出，要做到韧性的坚守，就要面对三个东西：暴力、权力和软暴力，应该说，鲁迅对来自这三个方面的压力是做好了足够的精神准备的，所以，他从来没有被暴力和权力屈服过，更没有被软暴力所腐化和动摇。尤其是软暴力，更有当今的现实意义。要知道，鲁迅当年的生活是很精致的，他当年的生活大概仍然是今天很多人追求的梦想，但是鲁迅从来没有因为自己拥有这样的生活就遗忘了自己对社会的使命，他对自己的使命和自我完成是充分自觉的。现在社会上流行的拜金主义思想很严重，对青年一代影响很坏，一个孩子在家里总是养尊处优，害怕困难，遇到一点点挫折就受不了，这很成问题。我们这个时代是一个软暴力处处显示威力的时代，如何在这样一个时代中使每个生命个体发育成型，拥有健全的个体生命自觉，这是很重要的问题，值得我们认真对待。 以上我谈了我的不安和迷惑，谈了鲁迅的精神和人格，这是在沉思良久后，我作为鲁迅的后代鼓起勇气，在鲁迅走后70年来第一次说出我的想法，发出我的声音。第一次表达我作为鲁迅的儿子对父亲的理解和认识。我希望能够促进社会各界传播和弘扬鲁迅精神，并且让这样一种鲁迅精神真正地活进21世纪，这是一个很有意义的社会工作。但我决不是把鲁迅作为我个人的事情来做的，而是把他作为一个社会性的事业来追求，中国的未来需要鲁迅，需要这样的文化精神。因为他已经是一种经过一个世纪大浪淘沙所产生的中华民族现代的文化精神和脊梁的象征。我希望这样一个社会性的工作能够有更多的人来参与。我在2006年策划了一系列纪念活动，以纪念鲁迅逝世70年。对这样一个社会性的事业而言，这仅仅是一个开始，我提议将2006年作为“普及鲁迅元年”，希望以此作为新的起点，把这一工作持续、有效、深入地开展下去。 (本文为作者在2006“上海书展”《鲁迅与我七十年》一书发布会上的讲演) 我作为鲁迅的后代鼓起勇气，在鲁迅走后70年来第一次说出我的想法，发出我的声音。第一次表达我作为鲁迅的儿子对父亲的理解和认识。我希望能够促进社会各界传播和弘扬鲁迅精神，并且让这样一种鲁迅精神真正地活进21世纪，这是一个很有意义的社会工作。但我决不是把鲁迅作为我个人的事情来做的，而是把他作为一个社会性的事业来追求，中国的未来需要鲁迅，需要这样的文化精神。因为他已经是一种经过一个世纪大浪淘沙所产生的中华民族现代的文化精神和脊梁的象征。我希望这样一个社会性的工作能够有更多的人来参与。——周海婴 五四精神谁执牛耳？（转）黄河黄，长江长，鲁迅炉，胡适壶。 缅怀两位先哲！ 易道禅 中国现代文化史上，说到五四新文化运动，有两位启蒙大师是功不可没的，那就是鲁迅与胡适。 如果单从文学创作成就来讲，这两位人物的建树都欠火候，胡适的新体诗《尝试集》虽具划时代的开拓意义，但白夹文的过渡痕迹太重，确像小脚女人迈不开大步，尽管后来继续尝试，把集子尝试得厚厚的，也依然是旧瓶装新酒，能够散发出酒味的也就那首“我从山中来，带得兰花草”；又写了一部独幕剧《婚姻大事》，也始终没有大家气魄，以致后来干脆不写了事。在创作的文化准备上没有尽到应有的责任是胡适在新文化运动草创期最大的弊端，这弊端影响了不少人跃跃欲试，徐志摩写诗从理念上遵循胡适的拙笔纵横原则，诗写得很滥很糙，一旦看见郭沫若奇异想象的诗篇横空出世，也立马扭转笔锋写起汪洋恣肆天马行空的抒情篇章来；对于剧本的尝试也跟胡适一样，与陆小曼拼凑一部《卡昆岗》就江郎才尽。鲁迅也试写过两个小小的剧本《起死》和《过客》，玩了一下觉得不爽就洗手不干了。鲁迅也玩过写诗，一玩就玩成打油诗，倒是那些一不留神的副产品旧体诗成为鲁迅创作上的另一个高标。鲁迅是现代白话小说的开山鼻祖，《呐喊》和《彷徨》是那个时代新文学最杰出最丰硕的果实，但除此之外由于鲁迅缺乏其它生活的底蕴，取材的范畴离开故乡那点回忆积累，创作的题材和想象思维也就比较干瘪，强行写作的时候，就只好弄部近似于油滑的《故事新编》。一个没有丰富社会底层经验的人，一个不能游走于山川原野的人，试想他在书斋里回忆故乡一旦枯竭时，他还能写什么？所以写尽阅历之后杂文便应运而生。有人说，诺贝尔奖在30年代差点落到鲁迅头上，这样的话只能惹得瑞典文学院士大夫们的暗暗嗤笑。鲁迅凭什么得诺贝尔奖？凭那两本薄薄的小说集子还是凭那众多的杂文集？一百年来的诺贝尔获奖者就算历史证明个别糟糕透顶的作家，哪一位不是著作等身（指文学作品的质和量）？你能相信瑞典皇家学院那些爱挑剔的评判官们真会欣赏杂文和薄薄的两本小书？对于那个流传至今的中国文化人的自恋情节，真是一个类似天方夜谈的故事，就如同胡适的美国博士学位也属于不那么真实的假造事实一样，关于他们的许多神话其实就是神话而已。 但是在文学理论的建树上，在文化思想的建树上，这二人却不同凡响，虽然二人道不同不相为谋，然而对于推动中国现代文化现代学术现代思想的发展方面，实实在在是黄河与长江殊途同归大海，自然，鲁迅是黄河胡适是长江。 胡适在文化上的贡献莫过于首倡白话文，否则我们今天也许还在之乎者也予尔然耶。胡适的另一个贡献是把中国传统的古典学术变成现代学术，那部《中国哲学史大纲》影响了中国学术界整整三代人，不论后人的综述方式有多大变化，其研究学问的根本方法绝然离不了胡适的“实用主义”加“科学方法”。就是批胡适最厉害的那些人，也始终在《胡适文存》乃至《胡适全集》里吸取最精华的思想。胡适真正具有里程碑的贡献，当属他终极一生苦苦求索的民主与法制、人权与自由的精神理念，尽管他也有言不由衷、行不俱实的时候，可是如若把他一生所倡导和追求的价值观放在历史的天平上来衡量，只要是具有独立人格和社会良知的人都会承认其思想先行者的伟大作用。就这一点，也是鲁迅所永远不能企及的。 胡适曾经说过：“生命的意义就是从生命的这一阶段看生命的次一阶段的发展”，抛开意识形态的偏见不谈，就这样的世界观认识论，也无不含有贴近唯物史观的正确意识。要是把自由主义者贬损成变相的无政府主义者，我们无论如何是不能够理解胡适为民主为人权疾呼呐喊的勇士历程。按熊培云先生的心得，审视胡适的真理观，我们可以看到实践是检验真理的唯一标准的脉络；大胆地假设、小心地求证，我们可以看到摸着石头过河的朴素理论；教育破产的救济方法仍是教育，我们可以听到再穷也不能穷教育的谆谆教诲；中国需要医治贫穷、愚昧、贪污、疾病、扰乱，我们可以发现当今社会依然五毒俱全（大意）。还有红学的滥觞，直到今天不是惹得王蒙先生刘心武先生也痴迷如醉么？这都是胡适“整理国故”开风气之先的功劳。当然那句调侃历史是一位可以任人打扮的小姑娘的话，也一直调侃到当今那些任意篡改历史的作家、剧作家们，多么具有讽刺意味啊。 再说鲁迅。这是一位曾被抬到神坛上的一尊大神，近年来被拉下了神坛，按说是好事，更近于人的本质，可一不小心又被某些人拉下地狱变成鬼。这有点像胡适，在台湾在海外曾被奉为尊神，在大陆却被弄成一个鬼。我们还是恢复其人的形态吧。任意诬损或拔高都是一群文化行帮意识的学者们在海外和海内的意气之争，是文化复仇主义和文化马屁主义的体现，那是极不公平也是极为丑陋的。 鲁迅与胡适最接近的地方就是对于西方文化的态度，鲁迅要倡议“拿来主义”，甚至扬言最好不读中国书，包括中医、京剧、方块字，他都不屑，最好废掉。后人有诗凭吊说他“平生旷业犹拉化”，这和胡适的“全盘西化”真是平行的两根铁轨，不聚头不碰面却始终奔一个方向。鲁迅对中国文学的贡献除了有小说创作，还有《中国小说史略》那样了不起的煌煌史料巨著，而杂文却差点毁掉他成为现代文学先驱者的一生。很可惜，纵然不能再写小说，就是多写《野草》或《朝花夕拾》那样精彩的散文，也会让后人难以望其项背。历史证明他的杂文写得再有水平，也只映证出他是一个爱走偏锋爱钻牛角尖的血气方刚的汉子，但不是一个能包容能海涵具有阔大胸襟的人，而没有这一点，文学创作的视野就显得及其狭窄。就现代文学以及现代文化的发展史来看，鲁迅始终是一部半成品。他想做尼采而不成，想做契可夫又不成，最终成为现代意义上的杂家鲁迅。 但杂文又成就了鲁迅的另一面，使他成为不妥协思想的精神导师。鲁迅的深刻之处，在于他对中国社会的黑暗面极其痛恨。鲁迅对历史的清醒，对现实的清醒，使他绝不产生梦幻，哲学家说过没有梦幻的人第一不能做学术家，第二不能做文学家。奇怪的是胡适做了前者鲁迅做了后者。这是否说明胡适是有梦幻的特征？从他对蒋介石政权的前后态度来看，他是有梦幻的，不幸的是他的梦幻破灭之后，连自己也做不成了。鲁迅一生压抑深重，这为他成为文学巨匠奠定了心理和生理基础，也是不幸，后期他卷入无聊的左右之争，彻底颠覆了他文学旗手的地位，实在让人倍感痛惜。但是鲁迅的意义在于，他深恶痛绝中国太多的伪君子行为太多的伪文化现象太多的伪革命理论太多的伪真理事件，他把自己绑架劫持，又试图铁肩担道义扛鼎黑暗的闸门，他奉献了自己的智慧和躯体，想以呐喊于无声处，唤醒千千万万沉睡麻木的国人，这一点他做到了，他的沉痛的心路历程胜过了他的文学作品，致使我们今天在惋惜一个人不能到达创作高峰的同时却欣慰和钦佩他的精神世界成为后人取之不竭的汪洋大海。 平心静气而论，把两位新文化运动的领军人物放在对于建设一个和谐社会法制社会的天平上来考量，鲁迅的思想是极具破坏力和杀伤力的，胡适的思想却是具有创造性和建设性的。从人道的人性的立场来看，一个社会既要进步必须要有鲁迅，哪怕他的创作对现实社会起到揭疮疤的作用，一个社会还要深化人本的主体结构也就必须要有胡适，哪怕他的自由境界和人权理念对社会机制构成冲击。有破有立，方能全新展现一个社会的历史和现实。 当然，还有未来。 鲁迅是黄河，胡适是长江—— 黄河承载了太多民族苦难的沉痛历史 长江澎湃着的是现代中国的发展趋势 鲁迅离开我们七十年了一直觉得，鲁迅有些像我的二舅，长相和性格，今天得知，鲁迅也是一米五十八，和我二舅一样，更觉得有意思了。
二舅是个战斗性很强的人，有能力，但眼里容不得人，口也掩不住，常吃些亏。
刚来法国那段时间，他的一些短，中篇，除却杂文和诗歌，大多都看了一遍（杂文虽说是他的精华，无奈时代不同，当时也没心情去看，遂作罢）
拿他的文字，去自我考究一下，脊梁会更硬些，但心却有些颤颤的。
您永远是我们的一面旗帜。
您遗言中那句“主张宽容的人，万勿和他接近”，一时不大能够理解。
鲁迅生活年历：
１８８１年：出生在绍兴城内一户周姓人家里。家里的四五十亩水田，使鲁迅获得了一系列穷家小户的孩子所无法享受的条件。从《十三经注疏》、《四史》到《古文析义》、《唐诗叩弹集》、《三国演义》丰富的藏书，使鲁迅从六岁开始开蒙读书。 １８９４年：祖父周介孚因替亲友向浙江乡试的主考官行贿赂而入狱，而后父亲周伯宜吐血病逝。鲁迅初次体会到现实中炎凉人情对他的尖锐刺激，向他那般强烈的内心仇恨，注入了深长的后力。 １８９９年：第一次为出路感到忧愁，和二弟一道参加乡试，在五百多人中考得第一百三十六名。因厌恶科举制度而选择就读江南水师学堂，成绩总是班里第一位。 １９０２年：鲁迅东渡日本，先在东京的弘文学院学习日语，再到仙台的医学专科学校学习医学，后来又返回东京，住在公寓里修德文，看杂书，直至回国。在日本的７年多里，看尽了日本人对中国的鄙视，也曾在仙台被藤野严九郎的善意和热忱所感动。 １９１２年：应蔡元培邀请，去南京就职，３个月后，他又被任命为北京政府教育部的佥事；兼社会司第一科科长，住在宣武门外的绍兴会馆。１９１２－１９２５年，１３年的佥事生涯中，鲁迅对工作十分认真负责，但和第一任夫人朱安之间却缺少交流和默契。 １９１８年：首次用“鲁迅”为笔名，发表中国现代文学史上第一篇白话小说《狂人日记》，对人吃人的制度进行猛烈地揭露和抨击，奠定了新文学运动的基石。１９１８－１９２６年间，陆续创作出版了《呐喊》、《坟》、《热风》、《彷徨》、《野草》、《朝花夕拾》、《华盖集》、《华盖集续编》等专集。 １９２０年：北京大学、北京高等师范学校等学校相继聘鲁迅为讲师和教授。他对中国小说史的研究在学术界颇受称赞。 １９２１年：发表中篇小说《阿Ｑ正传》，被称为是中国现代文学史上杰出的作品之一。 １９２３年：鲁迅兼任北京女子高等师范学校国文系讲师，认识了当时还是二年级学生的许广平。在学校，鲁迅是一位在学生中找不出一句恶评的老师，而许广平则是一位听课时喜好忘形而直率地提问的小学生。 １９２６年：因支持北京学生爱国运动，为反动当局所通缉，无奈只得南下到厦门大学任教。 １９２７年：１月份来到到当时革命中心广州，在中山大学任教。“四·一二”事变以后，愤而辞去中山大学的一切职务。其间，目睹青年中也有不革命和反革命者，受到深刻影响，彻底放弃了进化论幻想。１９２７－１９３６年，鲁迅创作了《故事新编》中的大部分作品和大量的杂文，这些作品收录在《而已集》、《三闲集》、《二心集》、《南腔北调集》、《伪自由书》、《准风月谈》、《花边文学》、《且介亭杂文》等专集中。 １９３６年１０月１８日凌晨，鲁迅的气喘病突然发作。挨到天明，仍撑持着写下一封短信，由许广平带去内山书店，并在那里打电话，请来了医生。他靠坐在椅子上，整整喘了一天，话也不能说，流汗。医生和看护的人们用了各种办法，都不能缓解病情。这一天晚上，许广平每次给他揩手汗，他都紧握她的手，仿佛是要握住自己的生命。可是，到第二天凌晨六时，他还是未能挺过去，与世长辞了。 鲁迅的遗嘱 我只想到过写遗嘱，以为我倘曾贵为宫保，富有千万，儿子和女婿及其他一定早已逼我写好遗嘱了，现在却谁也不提起。但是，我也留下一张罢。当时好像很想定了一些，都是写给亲属的，其中有的是： １．不是因为丧事，收受任何一文钱——但老朋友的，不在此例。 ２．赶快收敛、埋掉、拉倒。 ３．不要做任何关于纪念的事。 ４．忘掉我，管自己的生活。——倘不，那就真是糊涂虫。 ５．孩子长大，倘无才能，可寻点小事情过活，万不可去做空头文学家或美术家。 ６．别人应许给你的事物，不可当真。 ７．损着别人的牙眼，却反对报复，主张宽容的人，万勿和他接近。 此外自然还有，现在忘记了。只还记得在发热时，又曾想到欧洲人临死时，往往有一种仪式，是请别人宽恕，自己也宽恕了别人。我的怨敌可谓多矣，倘有新式的人问起我来，怎么回答呢﹖我想了一想，决定的是：让他们怨恨去，我也一个都不宽恕。 影响中国青年的100句人生名言我们有力的道德就是通过奋斗取得物质上的成功；这种道德既适用于国家，也适用于个人 。 ——罗素
影响中国青年的100句人生名言
以热爱祖国为荣，以危害祖国为耻。
以服务人民为荣，以背离人民为耻。
以崇尚科学为荣，以愚昧无知为耻。
以辛勤劳动为荣，以好逸恶劳为耻。
以团结互助为荣，以损人利己为耻。
以诚实守信为荣，以见利忘义为耻。
以遵纪守法为荣，以违法乱纪为耻。
以艰苦奋斗为荣，以骄奢淫逸为耻。
——胡锦涛
路漫漫其修远兮，吾将上下而求索。
——屈原
与有肝胆人共事，从无字句处读书。
——周恩来
出淤泥而不染，濯清涟而不妖。
——周敦颐
生活的理想，就是为了理想的生活。
—— 张闻天
静以修身，俭以养德，非淡泊无以明志，非宁静无以致远。
——诸葛亮
走自己的路，让别人说去！
——但丁
海纳百川有容乃大；壁立千仞无欲则刚。
——林则徐
书是人类进步的阶梯。
——高尔基
要成就一件大事业，必须从小事做起。
——列宁
欲穷千里目，更上一层楼。
——王之焕
世上无难事,只要肯登攀。
——毛泽东
横眉冷对千夫指，俯首甘为孺子牛。
——鲁迅
君子爱财，取之有道。
——孔子
一言既出，驷马难追。
——佚名
虚心使人进步，骄傲使人落后。 ——毛泽东
苟利国家生死以,岂因祸福避趋之。
——林则徐
我们有力的道德就是通过奋斗取得物质上的成功；这种道德既适用于国家，也适用于个人 。 ——罗素
两情若是久长时，又岂在朝朝暮暮。
——秦观
不想当将军的士兵，不是好士兵。
——拿破仑
生命诚可贵，爱情价更高；若为自由故，二者皆可抛。
——裴多菲
那最神圣恒久而又日新月异的，那最使我们感到惊奇和震撼的两件东西，是天上的星空和我们心中的道德律。
——康德
先天下之忧而忧，后天下之乐而乐。
——范仲淹
道德常常能填补智慧的缺陷，而智慧却永远填补不了道德的缺陷。
——但丁
能够生存下来的物种,并不是那些最强壮的,也不是那些最聪明的,而是那些对变化作出快速反应的。
——达尔文
仰不愧天，俯不愧人，内不愧心。
——韩愈
虚荣的人注视着自己的名字；光荣的人注视着祖国的事业。
——何塞·马蒂
天下兴亡，匹夫有责。
——顾炎武
人生自古谁无死，留取丹心照汗青。
——文天祥
知识就是力量。
——培根
如果错过太阳时你流了泪，那么你也要错过群星。
——泰戈尔
人最宝贵的是生命。生命对于每个人只有一次。人的一生应当这样度过：回首往事，他不会因为虚度年华而悔恨，也不会因为碌碌无为而羞愧；临终之际，他能够说：“我的整个生命和全部精力，都献给了世界上最壮丽的事业——为解放全人类而斗争。”
——奥斯特洛夫斯基
古之立大志者，不惟有超世之才，亦必有坚韧不拔之志。
——苏轼
立志是事业的大门，工作是登堂入室的旅程。
——巴斯德
盛年不重来，一日难再晨。及时当勉励，岁月不待人。
——陶渊明
三军可夺帅也，匹夫不可夺志也。
——孔子
吾爱吾师，吾更爱真理。
——亚里士多德
为中华之崛起而读书。
——周恩来
天行健，君子以自强不息。地势坤，君子以厚德载物。
——《周易》
只有在那崎岖的小路上不畏艰险奋勇攀登的人, 才有希望达到光辉的顶点。 ——马克思
要散布阳光到别人心里，先得自己心里有阳光。
——罗曼·罗兰
少壮不努力，老大徒伤悲。
——乐府《长歌行》
有志者，事竟成，破釜沉舟，百二秦关终属楚；苦心人，天不负，卧薪尝胆，三千越甲可吞吴。
——蒲松龄
学无止境。
——荀子
己所不欲，勿施于人。
——孔子
天将降大任于斯人也，必先苦其心志推浣罟牵銎涮宸簦辗ζ渖恚蟹髀移渌远娜绦裕嫫渌荒堋?
——孟子
美是到处都有的，对于我们的眼睛，不是缺少美，而是缺少发现。
——罗丹
你若要喜爱你自己的价值，你就得给世界创造价值。
——歌德
时间像海绵里的水，只要你愿意挤，总还是有的。
——鲁迅
老吾老以及人之老,幼吾幼以及人之幼。
——孟子
富贵不能淫，贫贱不能移，威武不能屈，此之谓大丈夫。
——孟子
业精于勤，荒于嬉；行成于思，毁于随。
——韩愈
三人行,必有我师焉，择其善者而从之，其不善者而改之。
——孔子
人的生命是有限的，可是为人民服务是无限的，我要把有限的生命投入到无限的为人民服务之中去！
——雷锋
生活永远不像我们想像的那样好，但也不会像我们想像的那样糟。
——莫泊桑
我要扼住命运的咽喉，它妄想使我屈服，这绝对办不到。生活是这样美好，活他一千辈子吧！ ——贝多芬
人的差异在于业余时间。
——爱因斯坦
世界上最宽阔的是海洋，比海洋更宽阔的是天空，比天空更宽阔的是人的胸怀。
——雨果
衡量一个人的真正品格，是看他在知道没人看见的时候干些什么。
——孟德斯鸠
读一本好书，就是和许多高尚的人谈话。
——歌德
天才就是百分之二的灵感，百分之九十八的汗水。
——爱迪生
千里之行，始于足下。
——老子
人并不是因为美丽才可爱，而是因为可爱才美丽。
——托尔斯泰
给我一个支点，我可以撬起地球。
——阿基米德
历览前贤国与家，成由勤俭败由奢。 ——李商隐
宝剑锋从磨砺出，梅花香自苦寒来。
——佚名
勿以恶小而为之，勿以善小而不为。
—— 刘备
不积跬步，无以至千里；不积小流，无以成江海。
——荀子
如果不想在世界上虚度一生，那就要学习一辈子。
——高尔基
天生我才必有用。
——李白
良好的开端是成功的一半。
——亚里士多德
纸上得来终觉浅，绝知此事要躬行。
——陆游
人不是为失败而生的，一个人可以被消灭，但不能被打败。
——海明威
机遇只偏爱那些有准备的头脑。
——巴斯德
人的一生可能燃烧也可能腐朽，我不能腐朽，我愿意燃烧起来！
——奥斯特洛夫斯基
鞠躬尽瘁，死而后已。
——诸葛亮
长风破浪会有时，直挂云帆济沧海。
——李白
骐骥一跃，不能十步；驽马十驾，功在不舍；锲而舍之，朽木不折；锲而不舍，金石可镂。——荀子
人无远虑,必有近忧。
——孔子
人不可有傲气，但不可无傲骨。
——徐悲鸿
失败乃成功之母。
——牛顿
人只有献身于社会，才能找出那短暂而有风险的生命的意义。
——爱因斯坦
物竞天择，适者生存。
——赫胥黎
穷则独善其身，达则兼济天下。
——孟子
岂能尽如人意，但求无愧我心！
——林则徐
不要问你的国家能够为你做些什么，而要问你可以为国家做些什么。
——林肯
有很多良友，胜于有很多财富。
——莎士比亚
由俭入奢易，由奢入俭难。
——司马光
如果说我比别人看得要远一点，那是因为我站在巨人的肩上。
——牛顿
吾生也有涯，而知也无涯。
——庄子
我的最高原则是：不论对任何困难都绝不屈服。
——居里夫人
生于忧患，死于安乐。
——孟子
人生的价值，并不是用时间，而是用深度去衡量的。
——列夫·托尔斯泰
古之成大事业大学问者，必经过三种之境界：“昨夜西风凋碧树，独上高楼，望尽天涯路。”此第一境也。“衣带渐宽终不悔，为伊消得人憔悴。”此第二境也。“众里寻她千百度，蓦然回首，那人却在灯火阑珊处。”此第三境也。
——王国维
夫仁者，己欲立而立人，己欲达而达人。
——孔子
希望是生命的源泉，失去它生命就会枯竭。
——富兰克林
书山有路勤为径，学海无涯苦作舟。
——韩愈
一个人追求的目标越高，他的才力就发展得越快，对社会就越有益。
——高尔基
劳动一日，可得一夜的安眠；勤劳一生，可得幸福的长眠。
——达·芬奇
世界上最快乐的事，莫过于为理想而奋斗。
——苏格拉底
他以痛苦體驗真情演出--怀恋“哥哥”怀恋“哥哥” 作者：林沛理 張國榮是香港影壇上罕有的演員作者，他以生活體驗演戲，演戲是個除掉面具的過程。至死的一刻，他也選擇了戲劇化的尋死方式，但他只能拉近戲劇與人生的距離，不能跨越生死的界限。 論者最大的虛榮也是最大的誘惑，莫過於為評論物件蓋棺論定。本文不是要為張國榮蓋棺論定。作為一個浪漫象徵、一個文化符號、一個表演藝人，張國榮之所以引人入勝，在於他的曖昧矛盾和不可捉摸。這樣一個人物賞者既眾，評者亦多，但難有公論，更何況定論。我有興趣的，反而是探討張國榮作為演員，對香港影壇產生過什麼影響，又留下什麼遺產（Legacy）﹔他在香港電影史上會佔有怎樣的一席位。 張國榮入行二十五年，拍過五十多部電影。他的演技雖然得到廣泛的讚賞，但有部分意見認為：張是極有天分的天才型演員，但尚未足以靠演戲成大師。 這點我不同意。我認為香港影壇上，張國榮是極罕有的演員作者（actor-author）。他在銀幕上最動人遐思、耐人咀嚼的演出，或纖柔、或華美、或椎心刺骨、或驚悸哀慟，都有一種真的假不了、來自生活與紮根於痛苦體驗的真情，一種感情的濃度，及一個活生生的「我」在。張國榮沒接受過正統的戲劇訓練，他作為演員所倚賴的最大資源是他的生活體驗，他受過的傷害，他的恐懼，他的愛與恨，他的血、淚和苦，以及敢於提取這資源的勇氣和決心。 這種演戲方法得之於真，這類演員可以成就最動人的演出，但也要冒最大的險。美國劇作家田納西威廉斯說過，現實生活是演戲的本質，以假亂真只是演戲的方法。故此，演員必須入世盡俗、俯仰天地、投入生活、面對自我，對一切都坦坦蕩蕩。對他們來說，唯一的防禦就是不設防。 張國榮未必熟悉威廉斯這套有濃烈殉道者色彩的演戲理論，但他在銀幕上每一次精彩的演出，都是對這套理論的實踐和驗證。這可以從張國榮早期最有代表性的作品《烈火青春》說起。 譚家明導演《烈火青春》尾大不掉，敍事吞吞吐吐，結構支離破碎，但到目前為止，沒有一套港產片比它更成功地探討香港年輕人的虛無主義。對電影裏面的年輕人來說，青春是一種消耗，成長就是要墜入無聊之境。張國榮的演出最令人意外的，是其漫不經心，點到即止。這個只有二十五歲的小夥子，並不急於在銀幕上證實他懂演戲。然而正是這種從容、不經意，甚至不耐煩，使張國榮成為香港八十年代新感性的代言人。 這也是張國榮作為一個演員與眾不同的地方。他演戲往往只使七八分力，演技有時藏的比露的多。這與剛剛再奪得香港電影金像獎最佳男主角的梁朝偉的演戲方式大異其趣。梁朝偉總是要給我們太多的演技，卻在這過程中不自覺地提醒我們真實與戲劇的距離。 九一年的《阿飛正傳》，今日重看，仍像張國榮親筆的書簡、隱私的日記。張國榮是《阿飛正傳》的作者更甚于王家衛，沒有張國榮的《阿飛正傳》簡直令人無法想像。 這套令人神傷的電影中，張國榮透支了他童年的不快，他對父親的怨恨、母親的失望，塑造了一個感情上一無羈絆，卻經常受困於一種無始無終無邊無際，帶有自虐宿命的悲觀情結的浪子形象。張國榮的演出，初看，偶看，覺得放浪形骸﹔多看之後，回味之餘，才發現其世界之寂寞蕭條。他的舉手投足，依稀可聞他無奈的低回、獨客異域的滄桑。 同性戀三部曲可貴 英國詩人艾略特說，詩是個性的逃避，非個性的表現。對大部分演員來說，演戲是一個戴上面具的過程，但對張國榮而言，演戲是一個除掉面具的過程。張國榮的同性戀三部曲《霸王別姬》、《金枝玉葉》和《春光乍泄》難能可貴，因為它不但證明了演戲是心靈溝通的藝術，誠則靈，才能感人，還紀錄了一個有性別困惑的雙性戀者勇敢地站出來，承認自己的性取向的心路歷程。 這種演戲方式，說穿了其實建基於一種生活態度，一種誠實忠於自我的生活態度。問題是善用劍者往往死於劍下，熱愛生命的人最受生命折磨。張國榮選擇這種方式演戲，便要把應該忘掉的不快牢記，把別人難於啟齒的愛，宣諸於口，把蠶食心靈的恐懼一抱入懷。一如他在《東邪西毒》飾演的西毒歐陽鋒，對張國榮來說，回憶既是堡壘，亦是監獄﹔切膚之痛的愛既是痛苦，亦是力量的泉源。 他的遺作《異度空間》令人悚然暗驚，不因為生活對藝術的模仿近乎亦步亦趨，而是張國榮再一次將現實生活的矛盾、鬱結和困擾，赤裸裸地帶上銀幕。演戲對他來說，再一次變成了一個面對自我、挑戰自我的過程。從來沒有一個演員，至少香港的演員，像張國榮那樣義無反顧地將演戲視作一個發現自我，甚至自我救贖的媒介。從這角度看，《異度空間》在中外古今的電影史上皆佔有一特殊地位——它探討了電影的自療的潛力與極限。 西諺有雲﹕一日演員，一生演員。張國榮的一生，是演員的一生，是悲愴的藝術家的一生，甚至死，仍然是一個演員，作為一個演員，張國榮最後只能拉近戲劇與人生的距離，而不能跨越生與死的界限。 生活最大悲劇是麻木 歷史上其中一個最著名的同性戀者，十九世紀末英國唯美主義作家王爾德（OscarWilde）認為，生活最大的悲劇並不是它令人心碎——那是最自然不過的事，而是令人變得鐵石心腸、麻木不仁。張國榮的人已逝，但他的一顆心永遠是熱的，鮮活著的，跳動著的，這是我們每一次看張國榮的電影、在舞臺上的演出，甚至接受訪問，都心領神會的。也許這就是張國榮作為一位演員、一位表演者，一位藝術家，以至一個人，留下的最為寶貴的遺產之一。 林沛理，香港文化評論家，英文《南華早報》影評人。 亞洲週刊 西方重新看中国电影把这里面提到的都看看，就好了... 林沛理，美国纽约Syracuse University香港中心客座教授，着有评论集《影像的逻辑与思维──从张国荣的生与死到张艺谋的真与假》（次文化堂出版）
贾樟柯执导的《三峡好人》夺威尼斯电影节最佳影片金狮奖，有重要的象徵意义──它象徵中国电影旧时代的结束与新秩序的诞生。以张艺谋为首的中国第五代导演也许仍然掌握着话语权，但他们的作品对于建构中国人的文化身份，已经越来越无关痛痒，与中国社会现况的交涉也越来越敷衍和勉强。在争先恐后地要满足中国电影产业化要求的过程中，张艺谋、陈凯歌和冯小刚等导演忘掉的，不仅是创作与生活的关系，还有的是导演作为艺术工作者的道德良心与社会责任。
始作俑者当然是张艺谋。他的《英雄》真正追求的，不是艺术上的真善美，或者商业上的巨大成功，而是一种为当权者脸上贴金的政治正确性。这副厚颜无耻地捞政治资本的嘴脸，本来只是属于张艺谋一人，但由于张艺谋是中国第五代导演中拍片最多、海外知名度最高和创作生涯最一帆风顺的一个，他的「失贞」也就污蔑了一整代的名节。他之后拍的《十面埋伏》，以一种囫囵吞枣的方式，将亚洲电影的卖座元素共冶一炉，进一步为其后陈凯歌怪力乱神、大而无当的《无极》与冯小刚不中不西、非驴非马的《夜宴》提供了楷模和参照模式。 中国第五代导演在完成了他们的历史任务后未懂得急流勇退，结果在急剧转变的电影世界中迷失方向。在《三峡好人》得奖之前，中国影坛的旧势力败坏了自己的声誉，但新势力仍然不成气候、群龙无首。在这个意义上，贾樟柯与《三峡好人》的一登龙门，可说是回应了时代的呼唤。 《三峡好人》在艺术上的成就也许不及《霸王别姬》、《红高粱》或《蓝风筝》，甚至贾樟柯自己的《小武》；但它展现的那份不卑不亢的文化自信应该教张艺谋、陈凯歌与冯小刚这些所谓「中国电影大师」汗颜。威尼斯电影节的评委主席、法国女星嘉芙莲．丹露（德纳芙）说《三峡好人》有一种「人抚摸人的亲切感」。诚然，《三峡好人》讲的是一个关于寻找和抉择的故事。片中两位主人公，一个打算放弃爱情，一个决心要挽回爱情。他们的心路历程证明，生活需要的是尊严与行动，而不是更多的妥协与屈服。 贾樟柯与张艺谋不同，他的作品没有张艺谋电影那股挥之不去的异国（exotic）和异色（erotic）的东方色彩；也没有将中国的文化「木乃伊化」 （cultural mummification），将中国当做一个他者那般客体化与固置化。然而这次威尼斯电影节对《三峡好人》青睐，是否表示西方终于懂得中国电影，又或者至少愿意接受一个比较接近实况的中国？ 依我看来，较之《大红灯笼高高挂》、《风月》和《孔雀》一类刻意迎合西方的东方主义式的自我呈现，贾樟柯的电影从早期的《小武》、《站台》和《任逍遥》，到近期的《世界》和《三峡好人》，的确为「中国」这个符号注入一层新的意义。然而，《三峡好人》得奖，在一定程度上展现的仍然是西方对东方的文化期待视野，以及西方人心目中的东方景观。这必须从中国电影的发展说起。 踏入二十一世纪，中国电影急速产业化的发展令国际影展与西方评论界措手不及。它们习以为常在中国电影看到的「贫困的奇观」（spectacle of poverty）被特技的奇观所取代，它们百看不厌的中国女性悲剧变成了阳刚味十足的英雄故事。与其说这是西方对中国电影期望的落空，倒不如说是中国电影的发展超越了西方的期望。无怪乎讲述中国人身不由己的《三峡好人》一出，西方评论界就像久旱逢甘霖一样倒屐相迎；反而讲中国人的性爱与自由、颠覆西方对中国的想像的《颐和园》却名落孙山。即使贾樟柯的电影在中国大陆电影之中只是一个极小的边缘和角隅，它在西方的文化视域与认同中却成了中国电影的指标，支配着西方对中国电影的理解与想像。 问题是中国电影就像张爱玲的《半生缘》里面的世钧与曼桢一样，是再也「回不去了」。在拥抱市场经济、日趋城市化的今日中国，中国人作为「自我」，城市作为「他者」，不一定要成为绝对的对立元素。西方若只看见中国的落后、贫穷和愚昧，便等于将实存的当成隐没，中国电影的主体性便无从建立。至于中国导演，不管是第五代的还是第六、七代的，必须在作品里建立一个与现实不但有交涉、甚至血肉相连的世界；并且在压制的传统与荒谬的现实的对峙中间，发展出一套属于当代中国人的叙述。 song of trust and security in Godsong of trust and security in God 1 Protect me,O God,for in you I take refuge. 2 I say to the Lord,"You are my Lord; I have no good apart from you." 3 As for the holy ones in the land,they are the noble, in which is all my delight. 4 Those who choose another god multiply their sorrows; their drink offerings of blood I will not pour out or take their names upon my lips. 5 The Lord is my chosen portion and my cup; you hold my lot. 6 The boundary lines have fallen for me in plesaant places; I have a goodly heritage. 7 I bless the Lord who gives me counsel; in the night also my heart instructs me. 8 I keep the Lord always before me; because he is at my right hand,I shall not be moved. 9 Therefore my heart is glad,and my soul rejoices; my body alse rests secure. 10 For you do not give me up to sheol, or let your faithful one see the Pit. 11 You show me the path of life. In your presence there is fullness of joy; in your right hand are pleasures forevermore. |
|||||||||||||||||
The manager of a large corporation got a heart attack, and the doctor told him to go for several weeks to a farm to relax. The guy went to a farm, and after a couple of days he was very bored, so he asked the farmer to give him some job to do.
|
|
