Tindersticks is not really "my type of music"... but I liked this song anyway.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?
This is an excellent article I found online (here) talking about the new atheist movement... Often, atheism have been mischaracterized as "just another religion" (heck, my girlfriend even accuses me of being too deeply entrenched in the religion of 'atheism'). However, this article neatly points out why the above case is just not true, and the author has some neat numbers and figures to back up his points...
====================================================
New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?
By Benjamin O'Donnell
Posted Friday, 25 January 2008
A lot has been written about a group of recent best-selling authors that, back in November 2006, Wired Magazine dubbed "the new atheists". Principally, they are the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), the neuroscientist Sam Harris (The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation), the philosopher Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell) and the journalist Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great and The Portable Atheist).
These authors have not just sold a lot of books (over 1.5 million for the English language edition of The God Delusion alone). Dawkins runs a website with a lot of traffic and has started a charitable foundation in the US and the UK. Harris has smaller, but similar projects. Hitchens takes on all comers in his inimitably confrontational style. Google any of their names or the phrases "new atheist" or "new atheism" and you'll see a torrent of arguments, for and against. The “new atheists” are clearly trying to start and sustain an intellectual movement.
What is strange is that, when one actually reads them, one gets the feeling that the real target of the "new atheists" isn't religion at all.
Indeed, they all explicitly say they have little or no problem with deism, or Spinozian pantheism or what Dawkins calls "Einstein-ian religion". Harris, Dennett and Hitchens (and possibly Dawkins) have indicated that they wouldn't necessarily want to see the synagogues, churches and mosques emptied, though they would want to see them abandon their “metaphysical bullshit” (see this video towards the end).
It seems that the new atheists’ real problem is with dogma, and specifically with the dogma of religious faith - with the belief that it is acceptable, even admirable, to believe propositions without logically sound reasons based on good evidence. They aren't really the “new atheists” at all, but the “new anti-dogmatists”.
So, what's the problem with dogma?
The forms that dogmatically believed propositions can take are potentially infinite. One might dogmatically believe in the historical inevitability of a communist utopia, under which the State will wither away, after a brief but necessary period of a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Or one might dogmatically believe in the existence of something called the Aryan race, in its inherent superiority to all other races, and in the inherent inferiority and perfidy of the Jewish race.
Or one might dogmatically believe that the creator of the universe called on one's religion to convert the world, or take it by force through holy war; that death in the defence of (or attempt to reconquer) lands so acquired is the greatest of all actions; and that such martyrs will go to paradise after they die to be attended by 72 virgin brides and joined in due course be all their family and loved-ones.
Or one might dogmatically believe that the creator of the universe condemns condom use as a sin.
What all four of these beliefs have in common is that there is very little or no evidence for them and there is much evidence against them. Yet all four beliefs have at times been passionately believed and acted upon by otherwise rational, sane and civilised people - often resulting in those people performing some of the most irrational, insane and barbaric acts imaginable.
The physicist Steven Weinberg has said that, left alone, “you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” If you change the word “religion” to “dogma” or “faith” you have my view - and the view I suspect people like Weinberg, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris are really getting at.
Thankfully, Fascist, Nazi and Communist dogmas have been so discredited that almost no one believes them any more. This is a development to be celebrated. But as the events of New York and Washington DC and Bali and Madrid and London demonstrate; and as demonstrated by the genocidally stupid anti-contraceptive policies of the Catholic church in Africa; and the homicidally stupid stem-cell policies of Christian churches in the US, religious dogmas are alive and kicking and at work in the world today.
Reason and evidence and empiricism and science and liberal democracy - in short, the forces of the Enlightenment - have discredited Communist and Fascist dogmas. Now, say Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, it is time for them to do the same to the dogmas of religious faith.
Isn’t atheism just as dogmatic and dangerous?
At this point, a committed theist might point to the history of 20th century Communism and say that there is something about atheism that leads to barbarism, immorality and dictatorship. He or she might even say that there is something about atheism that leads to the very dogmatism that I and the "new anti-dogmatists" decry. But any theist who said that would have to explain the inconvenient fact that some of the most civilised, liberal and prosperous nations in the world are “atheistic”, in the sense that a majority of their populations do not believe in God.
Take Sweden, for example. When polled, more than 80 per cent of Swedes say they don't believe in God and more than 40 per cent explicitly identify themselves as atheists. Yet Sweden has some of the lowest homicide, poverty, teenaged pregnancy and STD rates in the world. It is a functioning liberal democracy with high levels of wealth, very little social unrest and a near 100 per cent literacy rate.
And while Sweden is the extreme, the figures show that liberal democracies with low levels of theistic belief tend to be have high levels of societal health, and vice versa. Even in the heavily religious United States of America, the less religious a State is, the lower its rates of things like homicide, STD infection and teenage pregnancy tend to be. (See P Zuckerman, "Atheism: Contemporary Numbers and Patterns" in M Martin (ed), Cambridge Companion to Atheism (Cambridge University Press, UK, 2006), summarised here and here)
Clearly, a widespread disbelief in God is not incompatible with a healthy, happy, prosperous and civilised society. (Note I do not claim that atheism has caused these wonderful societies to be so wonderful. I cite these facts merely to show that atheism is compatible with social harmony.)
So, what is the difference between the slaughterhouses built by the Godless Communists of Russia and China and the civilised liberal polities built by the Godless progressives of Western Europe and elsewhere? The obvious answer is that Western European countries are liberal democracies committed to science and empiricism and reason, and freedom of speech and debate; whereas Soviet Russia and Red China clearly were not. It was not its atheism per se, but the illiberalism, the undemocratic nature, the dogmatism of Communism that made it the architect of so much 20th century horror.
The two Enlightenments
Another common criticism of atheists (particularly atheist scientists like Dawkins) is that they are robotic philistines, determined to destroy art, culture and community and reduce the world to a place of steel and chromium, spreadsheets and catalogues. But the really interesting thing about these new anti-dogmatists is their spirituality. Dawkins has written with such wonder and poetry about the natural world in books like Unweaving the Rainbow that he's been referred to as a “deeply religious non-believer” (and he is, after all, the man who once wrote an article entitled “Atheists for Jesus”).
Hitchens waxes lyrical about the beauties of religious music and art, but insists we separate the transcendent from the supernatural. Dennett's Breaking the Spell devotes a great many pages to examining and praising the community-building and altruism-sustaining qualities of religious institutions.
Most radical of all, Sam Harris is a former seeker, a man who spent ten years in meditation retreats and with yogis and monks (including a stint as a bodyguard for the Dalai Lama). In the last chapter of The End of Faith, Harris argues that there really is something worthwhile and wonderful about the mystical experiences that lie at the root of most of our religions. These experiences are real and important and increasingly measurable by neuroscientists - but the truth about them is buried beneath mountains of “metaphysical bullshit”. Harris extols the virtues of the contemplative disciplines at the same time as he is withering in his criticism of the ancient theology and modern "New Age" waffle that so often goes with them. What we need, argues Harris, is to take a ruthlessly logical and scientific approach to these ancient disciplines, to separate the wheat from the chaff (see also Harris’ confronting article, “Killing the Buddha” (PDF 534KB)).
The new anti-dogmatists are children of the European Enlightenment. But Sam Harris, at least, is no stranger to that other meaning of the word enlightenment - the meaning that stands at the root of many of our religions. Reconciling these “two enlightenments” is a project where rationalists like Dawkins might join in common cause with ultra-liberal theologians like Bishop John Shelby Spong. But such a project is not a call for misty-eyed live-and-let-live compromise. Far from it. To get at the common core of truth that lies within both the religious and rationalistic meanings of the word “enlightenment” we need to be ruthless with obscurantism - whether it comes from orthodox theology, post-modern nonsense, new age silliness or naïve mechanistic psychology.
The baby and the bathwater
And here I return to my terminological criticism. This "spiritual" side to the new anti-dogmatism is not helped by the conflation of the terms "religion" and "faith". Dennett, as one would expect from a professional philosopher, has been by far the least sloppy in his use of the terms; but he is also the most subtle and least read of four.
Harris can slide between the terms "faith" and "religion", but his sophisticated treatment of spirituality makes it clear that his real target is the dogma of faith.
Dawkins and Hitchens are the two who most often conflate religion and faith in their use of language - and they are also the two most well known. In my view, this is unfortunate. As Dennett points out at length in Breaking the Spell, religions are social institutions that are very effective at providing community, solidarity and mutual support. But they needn't be based around dogma. By being sloppy in their language, I fear the new anti-dogmatists are driving away potential allies.
Benjamin O'Donnell is a Sydney lawyer.
====================================================
New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?
By Benjamin O'Donnell
Posted Friday, 25 January 2008
A lot has been written about a group of recent best-selling authors that, back in November 2006, Wired Magazine dubbed "the new atheists". Principally, they are the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), the neuroscientist Sam Harris (The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation), the philosopher Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell) and the journalist Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great and The Portable Atheist).
These authors have not just sold a lot of books (over 1.5 million for the English language edition of The God Delusion alone). Dawkins runs a website with a lot of traffic and has started a charitable foundation in the US and the UK. Harris has smaller, but similar projects. Hitchens takes on all comers in his inimitably confrontational style. Google any of their names or the phrases "new atheist" or "new atheism" and you'll see a torrent of arguments, for and against. The “new atheists” are clearly trying to start and sustain an intellectual movement.
What is strange is that, when one actually reads them, one gets the feeling that the real target of the "new atheists" isn't religion at all.
Indeed, they all explicitly say they have little or no problem with deism, or Spinozian pantheism or what Dawkins calls "Einstein-ian religion". Harris, Dennett and Hitchens (and possibly Dawkins) have indicated that they wouldn't necessarily want to see the synagogues, churches and mosques emptied, though they would want to see them abandon their “metaphysical bullshit” (see this video towards the end).
It seems that the new atheists’ real problem is with dogma, and specifically with the dogma of religious faith - with the belief that it is acceptable, even admirable, to believe propositions without logically sound reasons based on good evidence. They aren't really the “new atheists” at all, but the “new anti-dogmatists”.
So, what's the problem with dogma?
The forms that dogmatically believed propositions can take are potentially infinite. One might dogmatically believe in the historical inevitability of a communist utopia, under which the State will wither away, after a brief but necessary period of a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Or one might dogmatically believe in the existence of something called the Aryan race, in its inherent superiority to all other races, and in the inherent inferiority and perfidy of the Jewish race.
Or one might dogmatically believe that the creator of the universe called on one's religion to convert the world, or take it by force through holy war; that death in the defence of (or attempt to reconquer) lands so acquired is the greatest of all actions; and that such martyrs will go to paradise after they die to be attended by 72 virgin brides and joined in due course be all their family and loved-ones.
Or one might dogmatically believe that the creator of the universe condemns condom use as a sin.
What all four of these beliefs have in common is that there is very little or no evidence for them and there is much evidence against them. Yet all four beliefs have at times been passionately believed and acted upon by otherwise rational, sane and civilised people - often resulting in those people performing some of the most irrational, insane and barbaric acts imaginable.
The physicist Steven Weinberg has said that, left alone, “you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” If you change the word “religion” to “dogma” or “faith” you have my view - and the view I suspect people like Weinberg, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris are really getting at.
Thankfully, Fascist, Nazi and Communist dogmas have been so discredited that almost no one believes them any more. This is a development to be celebrated. But as the events of New York and Washington DC and Bali and Madrid and London demonstrate; and as demonstrated by the genocidally stupid anti-contraceptive policies of the Catholic church in Africa; and the homicidally stupid stem-cell policies of Christian churches in the US, religious dogmas are alive and kicking and at work in the world today.
Reason and evidence and empiricism and science and liberal democracy - in short, the forces of the Enlightenment - have discredited Communist and Fascist dogmas. Now, say Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, it is time for them to do the same to the dogmas of religious faith.
Isn’t atheism just as dogmatic and dangerous?
At this point, a committed theist might point to the history of 20th century Communism and say that there is something about atheism that leads to barbarism, immorality and dictatorship. He or she might even say that there is something about atheism that leads to the very dogmatism that I and the "new anti-dogmatists" decry. But any theist who said that would have to explain the inconvenient fact that some of the most civilised, liberal and prosperous nations in the world are “atheistic”, in the sense that a majority of their populations do not believe in God.
Take Sweden, for example. When polled, more than 80 per cent of Swedes say they don't believe in God and more than 40 per cent explicitly identify themselves as atheists. Yet Sweden has some of the lowest homicide, poverty, teenaged pregnancy and STD rates in the world. It is a functioning liberal democracy with high levels of wealth, very little social unrest and a near 100 per cent literacy rate.
And while Sweden is the extreme, the figures show that liberal democracies with low levels of theistic belief tend to be have high levels of societal health, and vice versa. Even in the heavily religious United States of America, the less religious a State is, the lower its rates of things like homicide, STD infection and teenage pregnancy tend to be. (See P Zuckerman, "Atheism: Contemporary Numbers and Patterns" in M Martin (ed), Cambridge Companion to Atheism (Cambridge University Press, UK, 2006), summarised here and here)
Clearly, a widespread disbelief in God is not incompatible with a healthy, happy, prosperous and civilised society. (Note I do not claim that atheism has caused these wonderful societies to be so wonderful. I cite these facts merely to show that atheism is compatible with social harmony.)
So, what is the difference between the slaughterhouses built by the Godless Communists of Russia and China and the civilised liberal polities built by the Godless progressives of Western Europe and elsewhere? The obvious answer is that Western European countries are liberal democracies committed to science and empiricism and reason, and freedom of speech and debate; whereas Soviet Russia and Red China clearly were not. It was not its atheism per se, but the illiberalism, the undemocratic nature, the dogmatism of Communism that made it the architect of so much 20th century horror.
The two Enlightenments
Another common criticism of atheists (particularly atheist scientists like Dawkins) is that they are robotic philistines, determined to destroy art, culture and community and reduce the world to a place of steel and chromium, spreadsheets and catalogues. But the really interesting thing about these new anti-dogmatists is their spirituality. Dawkins has written with such wonder and poetry about the natural world in books like Unweaving the Rainbow that he's been referred to as a “deeply religious non-believer” (and he is, after all, the man who once wrote an article entitled “Atheists for Jesus”).
Hitchens waxes lyrical about the beauties of religious music and art, but insists we separate the transcendent from the supernatural. Dennett's Breaking the Spell devotes a great many pages to examining and praising the community-building and altruism-sustaining qualities of religious institutions.
Most radical of all, Sam Harris is a former seeker, a man who spent ten years in meditation retreats and with yogis and monks (including a stint as a bodyguard for the Dalai Lama). In the last chapter of The End of Faith, Harris argues that there really is something worthwhile and wonderful about the mystical experiences that lie at the root of most of our religions. These experiences are real and important and increasingly measurable by neuroscientists - but the truth about them is buried beneath mountains of “metaphysical bullshit”. Harris extols the virtues of the contemplative disciplines at the same time as he is withering in his criticism of the ancient theology and modern "New Age" waffle that so often goes with them. What we need, argues Harris, is to take a ruthlessly logical and scientific approach to these ancient disciplines, to separate the wheat from the chaff (see also Harris’ confronting article, “Killing the Buddha” (PDF 534KB)).
The new anti-dogmatists are children of the European Enlightenment. But Sam Harris, at least, is no stranger to that other meaning of the word enlightenment - the meaning that stands at the root of many of our religions. Reconciling these “two enlightenments” is a project where rationalists like Dawkins might join in common cause with ultra-liberal theologians like Bishop John Shelby Spong. But such a project is not a call for misty-eyed live-and-let-live compromise. Far from it. To get at the common core of truth that lies within both the religious and rationalistic meanings of the word “enlightenment” we need to be ruthless with obscurantism - whether it comes from orthodox theology, post-modern nonsense, new age silliness or naïve mechanistic psychology.
The baby and the bathwater
And here I return to my terminological criticism. This "spiritual" side to the new anti-dogmatism is not helped by the conflation of the terms "religion" and "faith". Dennett, as one would expect from a professional philosopher, has been by far the least sloppy in his use of the terms; but he is also the most subtle and least read of four.
Harris can slide between the terms "faith" and "religion", but his sophisticated treatment of spirituality makes it clear that his real target is the dogma of faith.
Dawkins and Hitchens are the two who most often conflate religion and faith in their use of language - and they are also the two most well known. In my view, this is unfortunate. As Dennett points out at length in Breaking the Spell, religions are social institutions that are very effective at providing community, solidarity and mutual support. But they needn't be based around dogma. By being sloppy in their language, I fear the new anti-dogmatists are driving away potential allies.
Benjamin O'Donnell is a Sydney lawyer.
Mission of Burma -- Academy Fight Song
This is a very old song... but one of my first foray into the world of independent music... I can still remember the joy of picking up this CD album in a second-hand shop for less than 3 bucks... I guess it is true what they say, sometimes the true value of the art is not reflected in its monetary value...
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Joni Mitchell -- Chinese Cafe
Joni Mitchell is one of the most poetic lyric writers... Although I am not middle age (not yet), I always feel "old" and reflective whenever I hear this song about two middle age women...
Caught in the middle
Carol, we're middle class
We're middle aged
We were wild in the old days
Birth of rock 'n roll days
Now your kids are coming up straight
And my child's a stranger
I bore her
But, I could not raise her
Nothing lasts for long--
Nothing lasts for long--
Nothing lasts for long--
Down at the Chinese Cafe
We'd be dreaming on our dimes
We'd be playing--
"Oh my love, my darling"
One more time
Uranium money
Is booming in the old home town now
It's putting up sleek concrete
Tearing the old landmarks down now
Paving over brave little parks
Ripping off Indian land again
How long--how long
Short sighted business men
Ah, nothing lasts for long--
Nothing lasts for long--
Nothing lasts for long--
Down at the Chinese Cafe
We'd be dreaming on our dimes
We'd be playing--
"You give your love, so sweetly"
One more time
Christmas is sparkling
Out on Carol's lawn
This girl of my childhood games
With kids nearly grown and gone
Grown so fast
Like the turn of a page
We look like our mothers did now
When we were those kids' age
Nothing lasts for long--
Nothing lasts for long--
Nothing lasts for long--
Down at the Chinese Cafe
We'd be dreaming on our dimes
We'd be playing--
"Oh my love, my darling
I've hungered for your touch
A long lonely time
And time goes by so slowly
And time can do so much
Are you still mine?
I need your love
I need your love
God speed your love to me."
(Time goes--where does the time go--
I wonder where the time goes. . .)
Caught in the middle
Carol, we're middle class
We're middle aged
We were wild in the old days
Birth of rock 'n roll days
Now your kids are coming up straight
And my child's a stranger
I bore her
But, I could not raise her
Nothing lasts for long--
Nothing lasts for long--
Nothing lasts for long--
Down at the Chinese Cafe
We'd be dreaming on our dimes
We'd be playing--
"Oh my love, my darling"
One more time
Uranium money
Is booming in the old home town now
It's putting up sleek concrete
Tearing the old landmarks down now
Paving over brave little parks
Ripping off Indian land again
How long--how long
Short sighted business men
Ah, nothing lasts for long--
Nothing lasts for long--
Nothing lasts for long--
Down at the Chinese Cafe
We'd be dreaming on our dimes
We'd be playing--
"You give your love, so sweetly"
One more time
Christmas is sparkling
Out on Carol's lawn
This girl of my childhood games
With kids nearly grown and gone
Grown so fast
Like the turn of a page
We look like our mothers did now
When we were those kids' age
Nothing lasts for long--
Nothing lasts for long--
Nothing lasts for long--
Down at the Chinese Cafe
We'd be dreaming on our dimes
We'd be playing--
"Oh my love, my darling
I've hungered for your touch
A long lonely time
And time goes by so slowly
And time can do so much
Are you still mine?
I need your love
I need your love
God speed your love to me."
(Time goes--where does the time go--
I wonder where the time goes. . .)
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
我们在地铁车厢里练习恐慌
A poem published several years back... I have not actually written any new poems for a very long time, and it seems that I probably will not go back to writing poetry any time soon...
Still doing short stories and commentaries though...
我们在恐慌里练习地铁车厢
把毫无理由的正义
当成华丽的化妆品
抹在没有人戴着的面具上
所以公牛才会被风中蠕动的红布蜕变成斗牛士的敌人
所以国旗才会缠绕在智慧上发酵酿成危言耸听的头巾
所以可恶的政治家才会站在麦克风前肆无忌惮地放屁
所以咸蛋超人才无限次地在电视里复活只为打倒怪兽
我们都无法像咸蛋超人一样膨胀
因此只能够躲在熙熙攘攘的生活里
和命运的骰子玩跳飞机的游戏
跳啊跳啊跳啊跳
跳啊跳到外婆桥
外婆已经被可恶的野狼吃掉
我们都不是小红帽
我们只是在汪洋里游泳的沙丁鱼群
和鲸鱼的嘴巴玩着机率性的捉迷藏游戏
和渔夫撒下的鱼网玩大小游戏
然而漏网之鱼也无法逃避这个游戏
然而马德里的上空也不是天天下雨
然而新加坡的低洼区只在雨天淹水
然而台北市的投票也不是夜夜示威
然而华盛顿不是在昨天砍倒樱桃树
然而巴格达八千年前不叫做巴格达
我们好像迫不及待的猴子一样若无其事
拍拍屁股读着报纸打着哈欠偷瞄着美女
在子夜无人乘搭的地铁车厢里练习恐慌
在毫无理由的解释中放弃了生命和尊严
所以当可恶的小丑互相指责彼此的责任
可恶的小人互相理直气壮胡乱排泄真理
可恨的憎恨在彼此恨着憎以及憎着恨时
我们只能好像巨人脚下的蚂蚁
拍拍屁股讲着屁话放着臭屁
在地铁车厢里练习恐慌
Still doing short stories and commentaries though...
我们在恐慌里练习地铁车厢
把毫无理由的正义
当成华丽的化妆品
抹在没有人戴着的面具上
所以公牛才会被风中蠕动的红布蜕变成斗牛士的敌人
所以国旗才会缠绕在智慧上发酵酿成危言耸听的头巾
所以可恶的政治家才会站在麦克风前肆无忌惮地放屁
所以咸蛋超人才无限次地在电视里复活只为打倒怪兽
我们都无法像咸蛋超人一样膨胀
因此只能够躲在熙熙攘攘的生活里
和命运的骰子玩跳飞机的游戏
跳啊跳啊跳啊跳
跳啊跳到外婆桥
外婆已经被可恶的野狼吃掉
我们都不是小红帽
我们只是在汪洋里游泳的沙丁鱼群
和鲸鱼的嘴巴玩着机率性的捉迷藏游戏
和渔夫撒下的鱼网玩大小游戏
然而漏网之鱼也无法逃避这个游戏
然而马德里的上空也不是天天下雨
然而新加坡的低洼区只在雨天淹水
然而台北市的投票也不是夜夜示威
然而华盛顿不是在昨天砍倒樱桃树
然而巴格达八千年前不叫做巴格达
我们好像迫不及待的猴子一样若无其事
拍拍屁股读着报纸打着哈欠偷瞄着美女
在子夜无人乘搭的地铁车厢里练习恐慌
在毫无理由的解释中放弃了生命和尊严
所以当可恶的小丑互相指责彼此的责任
可恶的小人互相理直气壮胡乱排泄真理
可恨的憎恨在彼此恨着憎以及憎着恨时
我们只能好像巨人脚下的蚂蚁
拍拍屁股讲着屁话放着臭屁
在地铁车厢里练习恐慌
Monday, January 28, 2008
Keith Jarrett: The Carnegie Hall Concert Part VII
Keith Jarrett is one of my favorite jazz pianist, and I like his improvisation concerts best. In the early part of his career, he would just spend 30 minutes to an hour just improvising in front of a live audience. Recently, he has started to "change" this style, keeping his improvisation pieces to under 10 minutes.
This is from his newest album, The Carnegie Hall Concert, which is also my favorite piece from that album. Whenever I hear this piece, it fills me up with joy and hope, and the image that keeps playing in my head is that of a playful child skipping around...
The Horrors of Noah's Ark
Still think Noah's Ark is a GREAT story??? Well, maybe this video clip might convince you otherwise???
Sunday, January 27, 2008
The Smiths -- How Soon Is Now?
The first time I played this song in front of my friends at a gathering a few years back, most of them said that they have heard it before, which kind of surprises me, considering this is a very old song from the 80s. Then I found out it was because some second rated band covered this song and some stupid TV show used the cover version for their theme song rather than the original version.
And when I heard the cover version, my reaction was: it sucked. The singer (of the cover version) does not have the gravitas of Morrissey and the guitars in that version doesn't even come close to what Johnny Marr have done in the original version.
And when I heard the cover version, my reaction was: it sucked. The singer (of the cover version) does not have the gravitas of Morrissey and the guitars in that version doesn't even come close to what Johnny Marr have done in the original version.
Morrissey -- Ouija Board
One of my favorite Morrissey songs. I think the lyrics are beautifully written. It is a song about lost love without the usual cliches. I thought the use of the Ouija Board as a central theme in this song is just superb.
Ouija board
Would you work for me ?
I have got to say hello
To an old friend
Ouija board, ouija board, ouija board
Would you work for me ?
I have got to get through
To a good friend
Well, she has now gone
From this unhappy planet
With all the carnivores
And the destructors of it
Ouija board, ouija board, ouija board
Would you help me ?
Because I still do feel
So horribly lonely
Would you, ouija board
Would you, ouija board
Would you help me ?
And I just cant find
My place in this world
She has now gone
From this unhappy planet
With all the carnivores
And the destructors of it
Oh hear my voice (hear my voice)
Oh hear my voice (hear my voice)
Hear my voice (hear my voice)
Hear my voice (hear my voice)
The table is rumbling ...
The table is rumbling
The glass is moving
No, I was not pushing that time
It spells : s.t.e.v.e.n
The table is rumbling
The glass is moving
No, I was not pushing that time :
P.u.s.h.o. double f.
Well, she has now gone
From this unhappy planet
With all the carnivores
And the destructors of it
Ouija board
Would you work for me ?
I have got to say hello
To an old friend
Ouija board, ouija board, ouija board
Would you work for me ?
I have got to get through
To a good friend
Well, she has now gone
From this unhappy planet
With all the carnivores
And the destructors of it
Ouija board, ouija board, ouija board
Would you help me ?
Because I still do feel
So horribly lonely
Would you, ouija board
Would you, ouija board
Would you help me ?
And I just cant find
My place in this world
She has now gone
From this unhappy planet
With all the carnivores
And the destructors of it
Oh hear my voice (hear my voice)
Oh hear my voice (hear my voice)
Hear my voice (hear my voice)
Hear my voice (hear my voice)
The table is rumbling ...
The table is rumbling
The glass is moving
No, I was not pushing that time
It spells : s.t.e.v.e.n
The table is rumbling
The glass is moving
No, I was not pushing that time :
P.u.s.h.o. double f.
Well, she has now gone
From this unhappy planet
With all the carnivores
And the destructors of it
Saturday, January 26, 2008
How To Waste Five Minutes of Your Life
This is one way. Watch this YouTube Video about Ronald McDonalds:
Monday, January 21, 2008
新的音乐行销模式？
(刊登于联合早报2008年1月20日)
最近，英国摇滚乐团电台司令(Radiohead)打破了售卖音乐的常规。他们与唱片公司的合约结束后迟迟没有找到一个新东家，反而自组公司，在几个月前于他们的官方网站宣布他们的新专辑将以电子下载的方式出售，而购买价格任君决定。换句话说，由听众自己评估电台司令的新专辑到底值多少钱，就算有些顾客在订单上写下$0.00的价钱，电台司令也照样会让这些人下载新专辑。
我记得自己从音乐网站上得知此讯息时，当下的反应是这其实是个非常棒的主意。原本就打算非法下载的人也不会花钱购买此专辑，而原本就打算购买此专辑的人多数也会凭着自己的良知或者对于乐团的某种崇拜心态而付给乐团一个合理的价钱。最重要的是犹豫不决的消费者或许会花比较少的钱来下载此专辑。除此之外，利用电子下载的方式可以减少生产实质唱片的需要，是个节省资源和环保的方法。
其实，电台司令的行销策略并非完全无法预见。近几年来，如同ITunes和emusic等音乐下载网站的崛起使到透过下载购买音乐的方式越来越普遍，尤其是提供非主流音乐的emusic甚至没有在MP3档案中设立防盗版措施，其中的用意就是鼓励下载者将其音乐档案拷贝。在美国，许多非主流乐团都会在自己的网站上免费提供他们的音乐，并鼓励歌迷将这些音乐档案拷贝给朋友们。因为非主流乐团的传统收入来源都并非来自唱片销售，而是现场表演的收门费。换句话说，供消费者免费下载的歌曲无形中变成了这些乐团的名片。综观整个非主流音乐的走势，电台司令的行销策略虽说是史无前例，不过却不是完全无法预见。
我们可以从电台司令和这些非主流乐团的做法得到什么启示呢？大概就是在瞬息万变的环境中，墨守成规绝对不是办法。唱片公司如果要和所谓的“盗版商”抗争，恐怕最后只会承受更多损失。因为很多时候这些“盗版商”仅是不愿意花费昂贵价格购买整张唱片的消费者。与其坚持维持昂贵的唱片价格，不如考虑用另一种经营方式，不一定要和电台司令的任君决定方式相同，不过可以考虑类似方法。至少，唱片公司可节省制作成本，因为不需要运用到较昂贵的防盗版器材、或者打广告呼吁消费者别支持盗版、或者是制造许多和音乐本身无关的精美包装和附属赠品。歌星们不是一直呼吁大家要环保吗？我实在无法想到比透过减少制作原料以及无人问津的唱片来达到环保目的的更好方法。
虽然电台司令至今还未透露此销售方式为他们赚取多少钱，不过非官方的市场预测家指出他们大概每张下载的专辑都得到2.26美元左右。尽管此数目比传统的唱片或者是ITunes的价格少了许多，不过因为少了中间人和许多传统销售方式所承受的开销，所以乐团在每张专辑的平均收入其实更高。不仅如此，乐团此举动一般受到许多乐迷的欢迎，而许多市场分析家表示这将为他们往后的演唱会带来更多的观众。尽管本人无法预测电台司令此无心的试验是否会成为接下来音乐销售的新模式，不过随着拥有ITunes的苹果公司的总裁Steve Jobs最近提出完全解除下载音乐的防盗版措施，可以几乎肯定的是激光唱片将不会属于未来音乐销售模式的大玩家。
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
政府的新角色?
(刊登于联合早报2008年1月13日)
在美国2008年总统初选的候选人辩论中，民主党候选人约翰•爱德华斯 (John Edwards) 有别于其他候选人，以推翻美国德游说文化(Lobbyist Culture) 和反对大企业在社会上的影响力为他主要的竞选讯息。换句话说， 爱德华斯是在向选民承诺自己假若当选将会透过联邦政府的力量削弱如药剂、保险、能源等大企业的影响力，以及确保政府成为抗衡大企业的一股新势力。 在考虑美国向来提倡的自由市场经济和根深蒂固的游说文化的前提下，爱德华斯的宣言不仅在众多候选人当中算是较为独特，也与所谓主流美国思想稍微有所偏差。
然而，如果任何人近两年有阅读美国许多思想偏左的政治博客网站，就发现爱德华斯的宣言其实是许多网民所提出的见解。不仅如此，有些政治评论家认为热门希拉莉之所以在艾奥瓦洲的初选失蹄，其中的原因是她与游说集团和大企业走得太近，所以遭到许多民主党的选民排斥。尤其是在擅长拍有关社会问题的纪录片的大导演Michael Moore于2007年的片子《Sicko》再次把美国的公共医疗问题搬回公众意识里，希拉莉与保险和药剂企业的关系就显得特别尴尬。
无论是总统或者是参议院的竞选，这都是需要庞大资金的活动，因此许多候选人都向代表枪械和药剂公司的游说集团收取政治献金，或者是有些候选人就原本和这些企业有某些关系。尽管候选人们都必须公布所得的政治献金，而许多候选人都声称不会有利益冲突，不过许多参议员在投票通过法案或者是提呈法案时都明显地受到了影响。简单说明，如果你拿了军火企业代表的钱，你在提呈或者试图通过法案时，难道不会间接地受到左右吗？尤其是考虑下次竞选时的资金，或许在某种程度上就不敢得罪这些大企业了。
许多提倡自由市场的社会，如美国、新加坡和香港等，其政府官员一向都鼓吹企业友善 (corporate friendly) 的文化，尽可能在税务福利和基础设施的建设上配合大企业。当然，这些动作对于促进经济发展和吸引外资非常有帮助。可是，从许多跨国企业的观点，它们是以增加盈利为出发点，没有义务为人民的生计或者生活水平担忧，因为这些都是政府的责任。因此，在许多企业致富的同时，许多美国人的生计都受到了影响。就如同爱德华斯所说的，各大企业给政治候选人的献金都是由人民来偿还的，透过更高的医疗费用、更高的能源费用和无法严厉管制枪械所带来的社会代价。这其实很许多人对于中国经济蓬勃发展的其中一个批评有些相似：中国经济是搞起来了，不过人民的生活真的有变得更好吗？
在我们的现代社会里，衡量一个国家的政府是否有效的其中一个指标是经济成长指数。因此，许多政府都非常重视经济发展以及吸引资金和投资者。本人认为这对国家发展是必要的，而许多国家的政府都必须在吸引外资和保护自己人民和国家的长期利益间找到一个细微的平衡点。在这点上，本地政府一向来都拿捏的非常好，尽管近来物价上涨和贫富悬殊的问题是稍微让人有些关注。然而，问题是当大企业所得到的利益越过了平衡点的界线，有关当局是否能够扮演另一种角色，也就是爱德华斯口中的抗衡大企业势力以照顾平民老百姓的角色。
在美国2008年总统初选的候选人辩论中，民主党候选人约翰•爱德华斯 (John Edwards) 有别于其他候选人，以推翻美国德游说文化(Lobbyist Culture) 和反对大企业在社会上的影响力为他主要的竞选讯息。换句话说， 爱德华斯是在向选民承诺自己假若当选将会透过联邦政府的力量削弱如药剂、保险、能源等大企业的影响力，以及确保政府成为抗衡大企业的一股新势力。 在考虑美国向来提倡的自由市场经济和根深蒂固的游说文化的前提下，爱德华斯的宣言不仅在众多候选人当中算是较为独特，也与所谓主流美国思想稍微有所偏差。
然而，如果任何人近两年有阅读美国许多思想偏左的政治博客网站，就发现爱德华斯的宣言其实是许多网民所提出的见解。不仅如此，有些政治评论家认为热门希拉莉之所以在艾奥瓦洲的初选失蹄，其中的原因是她与游说集团和大企业走得太近，所以遭到许多民主党的选民排斥。尤其是在擅长拍有关社会问题的纪录片的大导演Michael Moore于2007年的片子《Sicko》再次把美国的公共医疗问题搬回公众意识里，希拉莉与保险和药剂企业的关系就显得特别尴尬。
为什么有些美国选民会对游说集团和大企业文化如此抗拒呢？本人的朋友近几年询问我有关美国的社会现象，最常问的两个问题是为何美国是唯一没有公共医疗的发展国家和为何美国政府在接二连三地发生了校园枪击事件后却没有施行更严厉的枪械管制。虽然其中原因有很多，包括许多历史和文化的包袱，不过其中一个重要因素就是游说集团和相关企业对于美国政府的影响力。
无论是总统或者是参议院的竞选，这都是需要庞大资金的活动，因此许多候选人都向代表枪械和药剂公司的游说集团收取政治献金，或者是有些候选人就原本和这些企业有某些关系。尽管候选人们都必须公布所得的政治献金，而许多候选人都声称不会有利益冲突，不过许多参议员在投票通过法案或者是提呈法案时都明显地受到了影响。简单说明，如果你拿了军火企业代表的钱，你在提呈或者试图通过法案时，难道不会间接地受到左右吗？尤其是考虑下次竞选时的资金，或许在某种程度上就不敢得罪这些大企业了。
许多提倡自由市场的社会，如美国、新加坡和香港等，其政府官员一向都鼓吹企业友善 (corporate friendly) 的文化，尽可能在税务福利和基础设施的建设上配合大企业。当然，这些动作对于促进经济发展和吸引外资非常有帮助。可是，从许多跨国企业的观点，它们是以增加盈利为出发点，没有义务为人民的生计或者生活水平担忧，因为这些都是政府的责任。因此，在许多企业致富的同时，许多美国人的生计都受到了影响。就如同爱德华斯所说的，各大企业给政治候选人的献金都是由人民来偿还的，透过更高的医疗费用、更高的能源费用和无法严厉管制枪械所带来的社会代价。这其实很许多人对于中国经济蓬勃发展的其中一个批评有些相似：中国经济是搞起来了，不过人民的生活真的有变得更好吗？
在我们的现代社会里，衡量一个国家的政府是否有效的其中一个指标是经济成长指数。因此，许多政府都非常重视经济发展以及吸引资金和投资者。本人认为这对国家发展是必要的，而许多国家的政府都必须在吸引外资和保护自己人民和国家的长期利益间找到一个细微的平衡点。在这点上，本地政府一向来都拿捏的非常好，尽管近来物价上涨和贫富悬殊的问题是稍微让人有些关注。然而，问题是当大企业所得到的利益越过了平衡点的界线，有关当局是否能够扮演另一种角色，也就是爱德华斯口中的抗衡大企业势力以照顾平民老百姓的角色。
Friday, January 11, 2008
康康 -- 你不愛我
一直很喜欢康康的主持，之前他有一首歌叫《兵变》我也很喜欢。这首歌似乎唱入自己心扉某处，所以有些感伤。
《你不爱我》
習慣被拒絕的人會先拒絕
這一次至少是我先說離別
有一些痛楚看不見淚水
有一種防衛叫做我無所謂
要讓你快樂原是我的心願
可是你從不在意我的傷悲
丟給我一些喜悅的碎屑
卻帶走我一切
你不愛我 是我捨不得 是我不配為你再狼狽
你不愛我 你真的不愛我 盡力而為我拼命給也是浪費
你不愛我 是我捨不得 是我不配和命運作對
你不愛我 你真的不愛我 一直以為我是後衛 原來只是那後備
習慣被拒絕的人會先拒絕
這一次至少是我先說離別
有一些痛楚看不見淚水
有一種防衛叫做我無所謂
要讓你快樂原是我的心願
可是你從不在意我的傷悲
丟給我一些喜悅的碎屑
卻帶走我一切
你不愛我 是我捨不得 是我不配為你再狼狽
你不愛我 你真的不愛我 盡力而為我拼命給也是浪費
你不愛我 是我捨不得 是我不配和命運作對
你不愛我 你真的不愛我 一直以為我是後衛 原來只是那後備
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Friday, January 04, 2008
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Infernal Affairs (CD Pro II Version)
Does anyone remember this from a few years back? Some guy from Taiwan dubbed over scenes from the Infernal Affairs, and changed it into a spoof about buying CD Pro II.... I thought it was quite funny back then and here it is back in its glorious form from YouTube....
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
From Siem Reap To Phnom Pehn
I've just converted some of my old analog films into digital images, and hence will be posting a lot of photos from the past. This is a shot of my friend, Chng, as we were making the boat trip from Siem Reap to Phenom Penn in year 2003, when we were backpacking through Cambodia.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
评论：2007
（刊登于联合早报，文艺城，2008年1月1日）
本人长期以来都以投稿者的身份揣测文艺城主编的选稿准则 ，因为有时对其选择感到纳闷和不解。因此，当主编要求本人写出对于2007 年文艺城的印象时，本人就从自己的揣测做出适当的评论。
由于近年来在国外，因此只能从联合早报网阅读文艺城刊登的作品。因此，本人对于去年文艺城的印象或许不完全正确。然而，如果要本人从网上的作品揣测主编的想法，所得的结论是他似乎比较偏好评论、专题和报告，因为感觉上以上文类的篇幅有所增加。相对来说，创作的稿件却减少了。
本人觉得这很可惜，因为我一向都认为文艺城提供给创作者发表作品的空间。当然，我不是说评论和专题报告等文类并不重要，只是觉得它们所占的比例过高。如果是一篇评论比十篇创作的比例，那么还算合理。然而，该比例似乎在去年占了1比6左右。不仅如此，许多评论文章的对象似乎是较为资深的作者，基调多数属于赞许而非批评。虽然好作品必须赞扬，不过评论主要的目应该是批评和指出作品的不足，要不然就是某种变相的互相吹捧。
或许评论文章拥有赞许的基调是因为其对象都是资深作者。然而，这却突现了另一个问题，也就是文艺城似乎缺乏新血。本人在近年来阅读文艺城时鲜少发现陌生名字。或许主编在选稿时的考量是稿件的素质，而资深作者的作品在此方面略胜一筹。我可想像主编选稿时的矛盾心情：应该给年轻作者鼓励而选择有些许瑕疵的作品，还是以品质优先为主要准则？本人的印象是主编稍微偏向后者。然而，这无形中就让非资深作者陷入类似Catch 22的状况，甚至还会扼杀他们对写作的热诚。
其实，以上所提到的几点都息息相关，而这其中的问题都源于版位的减少。由于版位减少使到主编没有办法容纳所有想选择的作品，因此出现了评论和创作文章比例不协调和投稿作者青黄不接的问题。当然，这是整个大环境的趋势，而不仅是文艺城的问题。然而，这却不是个无法解决的问题。
本人先前提到近来都是透过网路阅读早报。除了身在国外的理由外，本人阅读报章的习惯近年来也有所改变，都是透过网路阅读新闻。在阅读了国内外的各大电子报章后，我发现许多国外的新闻媒体都在他们的网站上提供实质报章以外的额外东西，而不加以收费。许多国外报章也有类似文艺城的版位，而他们懂得利用网路的空间，把许多无法刊登在实质报章上的文章放在网站上。与这些国外报章相比，本地报章在利用电子媒体和网路这点上就逊色许多了。这不仅是对文艺城的一个批评，而是对本地所有报章的批评。
如果文艺城可以善加利用电子媒体的话，以上所提到的问题或许能够迎刃而解。主编或许可以征询作者的同意，把没有刊登在报章上的作品放在网站上。这不仅可以增加版位，也让许多新的作者有另一个发表自己作品的空间。虽然文学的感动自古以来就存在，不过咱们已经步入21世纪了，处理作品发表也必须有21世纪的做法，不能够只是墨守成规。
先前提到评论文章过多，自己却又写了另一篇评论，真是有些不应该。不同的是，这篇文章应该会得罪很多人吧？嗯，我应该停笔了。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
