笨活儿

缅怀瓦茨拉夫·哈维尔 – 给胡萨克的一封公开信

慵云 — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:47:49 +0800

两年前第一次听说捷克前总统哈维尔这个人，并读到崔卫平老师翻译的《哈维尔文集》时，被其事迹和文字里智慧、博爱的光芒所深深打动。对捷克平滑完成社会转型羡慕不已，直到今日我在很多社交网络的头像都还是天鹅绒革命的现场照片。因为不太认同崔老师的某些译笔，在她的译文基础上重译了一下《给胡萨克的公开信》，不过因为懒惰，一直没译完。
哈维尔先生现在上了大船，我们能做的也只能缅怀。希望他的精神能激励更多正在遭受苦难和不公正待遇的人民，以使他们能够有勇气和智慧完成属于他们自己的不流血革命。
现送上完整英文版和部分中文译文，后面的译文接下来几天会补上，如有错漏，还望指正：

下文出自：http://www.vaclavhavel.cz/index.php?sec=1&id=1

此处转载纯为学习目的，原文版权归属请见：http://www.vaclavhavel.cz/Index.php?sec=6&id=4 。

“Dear Dr. Husák” (April 1975), addressed to Dr. Gustav Husák, who was then the general secretary of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, is Havel’s first major public statement after being blacklisted in 1969. He describes the circumstances surrounding the writing of this letter in the interview with Jiří Lederer on page 84. The letter was first published in English, in this translation, in Encounter (September 1975). It has subsequently appeared in several anthologies of Czech writing, most recently in Václav Havel or Living in Truth, edited by Jan Vladislav (London: Faber & Faber, 1986). The translator is not identified.

此信写于1975年4月，收信人是时任捷克斯洛伐克总统和捷共总书记的古斯塔夫·胡萨克。这是哈维尔于1969年被官方加入黑名单之后首次公开发表的文章。此文最早用英文发表于1975年9月的英国自由主义刊物 Encounter 杂志上，随后收录于多部捷克作家文集中。英文译者不详。

Dear Dr. Husák,

亲爱的胡萨克博士：

In our offices and factories work goes on, discipline prevails. The efforts of our citizens are yielding visible results in a slowly rising standard of living: people build houses, buy cars, have children, amuse themselves, live their lives.

现如今，我们的办公室和工厂都有序运行，国民的努力成果有目共睹，大家的生活水平正缓慢提升着：人们造房子，买汽车，生小孩，娱乐消遣，过他们的生活。

All this, of course, amounts to very little as a criterion for the success or failure of your policies. After every social upheaval, people invariably come back in the end to their daily labors, for the simple reason that they want to stay alive; they do so for their own sake, after all, not for the sake of this or that team of political leaders.

当然，所有这些，并不能拿来证明您的政策成功与否。每一次社会动荡之后，人们都会回归于日常劳作。原因再简单不过——他们要活着，而且是为他们自己而活，归根结底，并不是为了这个或那个政治领导人的统治集团。

Not that going to work, doing the shopping, and living their own lives is all that people do. They do much more than that: they commit themselves to numerous output norms which they then fulfill and over-fulfill; they vote as one man and unanimously elect the candidates proposed to them; they are active in various political organizations; they attend meetings and demonstrations; they declare their support for everything they are supposed to. Nowhere can any sign of dissent be seen from anything that the government does.

但除了上班、购物、过自己的生活，他们还会做很多很多事：他们投身于需要不断完成并超越的巨大生产计划；他们行动一致地投票选举某个提名给他们的候选人，就像只有一个人在投票一样；他们活跃于各种政治组织；他们参加会议和游行；他们表达对每一件他们应该支持的事的支持。无论在哪里，政府无论要做什么，都不会有人提出异议。

These facts, of course, are not to be made light of. One must ask seriously, at this point, whether all this does not confirm your success in achieving the tasks your team set itself-those of winning the public’s support and consolidating the situation in the country.

这些事情所展现的，当然不是什么轻松的状况。它让人不禁要认真询问，现在的所有这一切是否还能昭示您的成功？您是否完成了您和您的团队早先确立的任务——赢得公众支持并稳定国家局势？

The answer must depend on what we mean by consolidation.

问题的答案必须建立在对稳定的理解之上。

Insofar as it is to be measured solely by statistical returns of various kinds, by official statements and police accounts of the public’s political involvement, and so forth, then we can hardly feel any doubt that consolidation has been achieved.

如果单靠各式各样的统计数字来衡量，或者靠官方声明和警方对民众参与政治事务的记录之类，我们不难得出结论——统一而团结的稳定已然达到。

But what if we take consolidation to mean something more, a genuine state of mind in society? Supposing we start to inquire about more durable, perhaps subtler and more imponderable, but nonetheless significant factors, such as what, by way of genuine personal, human experience lies hidden behind all the figures? Supposing we ask, for example, what has been done for the moral and spiritual revival of society, for the enhancement of the truly human dimensions of life, for the elevation of man to a higher degree of dignity, for his truly free and authentic assertion in this world? What do we find when we thus turn our attention from the mere outward manifestations to their inner causes and consequences, their connections and meanings, in a word, to that less obvious plane of reality where those manifestations might actually acquire a general human meeting? Can we, even then, consider our society “consolidated”?

但是，如果我们把稳定的含义更推进一步，把它定义为社会中一种真实的精神状态呢？让我们开始考虑那些更为持久，也许还更微妙、更难以捉摸的因素——尽管如此，它们仍是有意义的——譬如，所有这些数字背后，真实的个人到底是何种体验？让我们再问一些问题，例如，对于社会之道德与精神复兴，对于生活中真正人性一面之扩增，我们做了什么？对于将人的尊严提升至一个新的高度，让人更自由更真切地表达他对世界的看法，我们又做了些什么？当我们停止关注那些浅层的外在表现，转而关注其内在诱因与潜在结果，关注这些现象之间的联系与意义，也就是说，如果我们去关注现实的不那么明显的层面，我们能获得什么？在这一层面，说不定可以从那些现象中挖掘出某种普遍的人性特点。至此，我们还能说我们的社会“统一”、“团结”、“稳定”吗？

I make so bold as to answer, No; to assert that, for all the outwardly persuasive facts, inwardly our society, far from being a consolidated one, is, on the contrary, plunging ever deeper into a crisis more dangerous, in some respects, than any we can recall in our recent history.

请容我冒昧作答——不，完全不能。因为所有这些看起来颇具说服力的事实，亦显示出我们社会内部的脆弱。我们的社会远不是一个稳定的存在，恰恰相反，她正陷入一场史无前例的危机。在某些方面，这是一场比我们近代史中所能忆起的任何时候还要严重的危机。

I shall try to justify this assertion.

我会尝试解释我的观点。

The basic question one must ask is this: Why are people in fact behaving in the way they do? Why do they do all these things that, taken together, form the impressive image of a totally united society giving total support to its government? For any unprejudiced observer, the answer is, I think, selfevident: They are driven to it by fear.

首先需要弄清楚一个基本问题：我们的人民到为何表现得如此这般？他们为什么要做那些事情？他们的行为，总体上给人十分深刻的印象——这是一个对政府百分百支持的百分百团结的社会。我想，对于任何不带偏见的观察者来说，答案不言自明：他们被恐惧所驱动。

For fear of losing his job, the schoolteacher teaches things he does not believe; fearing for his future, the pupil repeats them after him; for fear of not being allowed to continue his studies, the young man joins the Youth League and participates in whatever of its activities are necessary; fear that, under the monstrous system of political credits, his son or daughter will not acquire the necessary total of points for enrollment at a school leads the father to take on all manner of responsibilities and “voluntarily” to do everything re~ quired. Fear of the consequences of refusal leads people to take part in elections, to vote for the proposed candidates, and to pretend that they regard such ceremonies as genuine elections; out of fear for their livelihood, position, or prospects, they go to meetings, vote for every resolution they have to, or at least keep silent: it is fear that carries them through humiliating acts of self-criticism and penance and the dishonest filling out of a mass of degrading questionnaires; fear that someone might inform against them prevents them from giving public, and often even private, expression to their true opinions. It is the fear of suffering financial reverses and the effort to better themselves and ingratiate themselves with the authorities that in most cases makes working men put their names to “work commitments”; indeed, the same motives often lie behind the establishment of Socialist Labor Brigades, in the clear realization that their chief function is to be mentioned in the appropriate reports to higher levels. Fear causes people to attend all those official celebrations, demonstrations, and marches: Fear of being prevented from continuing their work leads many scientists and artists to give allegiance to ideas they do not in fact accept, to write things they do not agree with or khow to be false, to join official organizations or to take part in work of whose value they have the lowest opinion, or to distort and mutilate their own works. In the effort to save themselves, many even report others for doing to them what they themselves have been doing to the people they report.

因为害怕丢掉工作，教师讲授自己并不相信的东西；因为担心自己的前途，学生跟着老师重复这些东西；因为害怕无法继续学业，青年人加入共青团并参加组织上要求的活动；因为恐惧在这畸形的庞大政治积分体系中自己的子女达不到入学所需分数，父母承担起五花八门的责任并“志愿”去做被要求的所有事情。因为不敢承受拒绝服从的后果，人们参加选举，投票给安排好的候选人，并且还装作这是一场真正选举的样子；出于对生计、地位或者前程的担忧，它们出席会议，投票赞成每一项决议，或至少保持沉默：正是恐惧让他们甘愿经受自我检讨、深刻忏悔、乃至违背本意地填写大量卑劣调查材料的羞辱；因为恐惧有人告发检举，它们不敢公开地，甚至私下里也不敢，表达自己的真实观点。因为害怕遭受经济条件的倒退，因为只有讨好权势者才能获得提拔，有工作的人只好在“工作承诺”上署上大名——至少大多数情况下是如此；事实上，同样的动机也隐含于“社会主义生产队”的筹建背后，他们清楚地意识到这一组织的主要功能不过是让他们的名字适时地出现在给上层领导的某些报告之中。是恐惧让人们参加所有那些官方庆典、示威游行；因为害怕被停止工作，许多科学家和艺术家不得不对他们实际上并不接受的思想表示爱戴，不得不写一些他们并不赞同乃至明知是错误的话，不得不加入一些官方组织或者接下那些自己十分鄙夷的工作，又或者把自己的作品歪曲、破坏得面目全非。为了保住自己，很多人还去举报他人，理由是被举报者对他们做着恰恰是他们自己正对被举报者所做之事。

The fear I am speaking of is not, of course, to be taken in the ordinary psychological sense as a definite, precise emotion. Most of those we see around us are not quaking like aspen leaves: they wear the faces of confident, self-satisfied citizens. We are concerned with fear in a deeper sense, an ethical sense if you will, namely, the more or less conscious participation in the collective awareness of a permanent and ubiquitous danger; anxiety about what is being, or might be, threatened; becoming gradually used to this threat as a substantive part of the actual world; the increasing degree to which, in an ever more skillful and matter-of-fact way, we go in for various kinds of external adaptation as the only effective method of self defense.

我所说的恐惧，当然不是通常心理学意义上所定义的一种确切情感。我们身边的大部分人并没有像杨树叶一样颤栗不已：他们看起来都是信念坚定、心满意足的样子。我们面对的是一种更深层次的恐惧，毋宁说一种社会伦理层面的恐惧。具体表现为，或多或少地参与到针对某种持久且普遍之危险的集体警觉之中；忧心于正在进行或可能会发生的威胁；逐渐习惯于这种威胁，并把它当作现实世界必然存在的一部分；以一种更为娴熟和世故的方式，越来越多地曲意逢迎，如同只有如此才能自卫一般。

Naturally, fear is not the only building block in the present social structure.

Nonetheless, it is the main, the fundamental material, without which not even that surface uniformity, discipline, and unanimity on which official documents base their assertions about the “consolidated” state of affairs in our country could be attained.

自然，恐惧并非当前社会结构的唯一支撑。然而，它却是最重要、最基本的建筑材料。没有了它，官方文件中判定我国“稳定”状况所依据的表面的团结、纪律、统一也无法达到。

The question arises, of course: What are people actually afraid of? Trials? Torture? Loss of property? Deportations? Executions? Certainly not. The most brutal forms of pressure exerted by the authorities upon the public are, fortunately, past history-at least in our circumstances. Today, oppression takes more subtle and selective forms. And even if political trials do not take place today-everyone knows how the authorities manage to manipulate them-they only represent an extreme threat, while the main thrust has moved inco the sphere of existential pressure. Which, of course, leaves the core of the matter largely unchanged.

接下来我们又不禁想问另一个问题：大家到底在惧怕些什么？审讯？拷打？破财？被驱逐？极刑？当然不是。我们应当庆幸，当局施加于公众最严苛的压力，其实是“过去的历史”——至少现在我们的境况如此。现如今，压迫的形式更为微妙和充满心机。即便政治案件已成为历史——大家十分清楚当局对此如何操纵——那也只是一种极端威胁，而主要推动力早已由生存压力来提供。不难看出，事情的本质并未发生什么改变。

Notoriously, it is not the absolute value of a threat which counts, so much as its relative value. It is not so much what someone objectively loses, as the subjective importance it has for him on the plane on which he lives, with its own scale of values. Thus, if a person today is afraid, say, of losing the chance of working in his own field, this may be a fear equally strong, and productive of the same reactions, as if’-in another historical context-he had been threatened with the confiscation of his property. Indeed, the technique of existential pressure is, in a sense, more universal. For there is no one in our country who is not, in a broad sense, existentially vulnerable- Everyone has something to lose and so everyone has reason to be afraid. The range of things one can lose is broad, extending from the manifold privileges of the ruling caste and all the special opportunities afforded to the powerful-such as the enjoyment of undisturbed work, advancement and earning power, the ability to work in one’s field, access to higher education-down to the mere possibility of living in that limited degree of legal certainty available to other citizens, instead of finding oneself amongst the special class to whom not even those laws which apply to the rest of the public apply, in other words, among the victims of Czechoslovak political apartheid. Yes, everyone has someihing to lose. The humblest workman’s mate can be shifted to an even more lowly and worse-paid job. Even he can be cruelly punished for speaking his mind at a meeting or in the pub.

人人心知肚明，威胁的绝对大小并不重要，其相对大小才更重要。人们客观上失去的并不能说明什么，还要看以他生活水平里的价值尺度来看，可能失去的东西对他具有何种主观意义。因此，举个例子来说，今天某人害怕失去合适工作机会的程度或与其在另外的历史背景下害怕财产被完全充公一样强烈，并且将引发几乎完全相同的反应。实际上，从某种意义上来说，若以生存压力作为武器，几乎无人可以幸免。因为，在我们这个国家，广义来看，没有人的存在是不脆弱的——人人皆有可失去的东西，人人皆有理由忧心。人们可失去的东西范围之广，往高处说，包括统治阶层的种种特权与权势者的特殊便利——例如，可以安心享受无人打扰的工作，轻松获得职位晋升及谋求更多权力，拥有在自己擅长领域工作和接受高等教育的资格；往低处说，包括其他公民得以享受有限法定权利的仅存可能性，而不是成为某特殊群体的一员——对这一群体，连适用于其他公民的律法也不能适用，意即，成为捷克斯洛伐克政治隔离的受害者。是的，人人皆有可失去之物。最卑微的工人还可以被安排去做更为下贱、薪水更少的工作。即使是他也可能因在会议上或小酒馆里说出自己的想法而遭受残酷惩罚。

This system of existential pressure, embracing the whole of society and every individual in it, either as a specific everyday threat or as a general contingency, could not, of course, work effectively if it were not backed up-exactly like the former, more brutal forms of pressure-by its natural hinterland in the power structure, namely, by that force which renders it comprehensive, complex, and robust: the ubiquitous, omnipotent state police.

生存压力系统覆盖了整个社会以及其中的每一个人，它可能作为某种特定的日常威胁出现，也可能是某种不经意的潜在意外，但如果没有人在背后支撑，它的效用将大打折扣——这与历史上某种更残酷的压力形式如出一辙——也就是，我们无处不在，无所不能的国家警察。它们都由其在权力结构中自然而生的隐秘腹地所支持，正是这力量让它们变得如此全面、复杂和难以击破。

For this is the hideous spider whose invisible web runs right through the whole of society; this is the vanishing point where all the lines of fear ultimately intersect; this is the final and irrefutable proof that no citizen can hope to challenge the power of the state. And even if most of the people, most of the time, cannot see this web with their own eyes, nor touch its filaments, even the simplest citizen is well aware of its existence, assumes its silent presence at every moment in every place, and behaves accordingly-behaves, that is, so as to acquit themselves in those hidden eyes and ears. And he knows very well why he must. For the spider can intervene in someone’s life without any need to have him in hisjaws. There is no need at all actually to be interrogated, charged, brought to trial, or sentenced. For one’s superiors are also ensnared in the same web; and at every level where one’s fate is decided, there are people collaborating or forced to collaborate with the state police. Thus, the very fact that the state police can intervene in one’s life at any time, without his having any chance of resisting, suffices to rob his life of some of its naturalness and authenticity and to turn it into a kind of endless dissimulation.

这力量是一只丑恶的蜘蛛，织出一张无形的网，精准覆盖了整个社会；这力量是一个灭点，所有恐惧之线最后都交会于此；这力量是一场无从辩驳的终极力证，证明没有哪位公民可以与国家的力量抗衡。虽然大多数人大多数时候都无法亲眼见到这张网，亦不能触碰其一丝一线，但就连头脑最简单的平民也清楚地知道其存在，并相信它静静地存在于每时每刻、每个角落。于是他们恰如其分地规范着自己的言行，以免激怒那些看不见的眼睛和耳朵。大家十分清楚为什么要这么做。因为这只蜘蛛连嘴都不用动一动就可以扰乱一个人的生活。完全不需要讯问、起诉、庭审，直到宣判的过场。人们的各层上级也被这张巨网网罗；在每一个决定命运的时刻，总会有人自愿或者被迫地站出来与国家警察合作。他们能随时对他的生活横加干涉，而他又毫无反抗的机会，这样的事实已足够夺去人们生活中的部分本真和纯善，并将其转变成一种无止无尽的虚伪逢迎。

If it is fear which lies behind people’s defensive attempts to preserve what they have, it becomes increasingly apparent that the chief impulses for their aggressive efforts to win what they do not yet possess are selfishness and careerism.

如果说是恐惧让人们做出自我保护性的举动，是恐惧让他们努力留存个人所有之物，那么，我们也更愿意相信，令他们不择手段地争取还未到手之物的最大冲动则来于他们的自私自利和对名利的勃勃野心。

Seldom in recent times, it seems, has a social system offered scope so openly and so brazenly to people willing to support anything as long as it brings them some advantage; to unprincipled and spineless men, prepared to do anything in their craving for power and personal gain; to born lackeys, ready for any humiliation and willing at all times to sacrifice their neighbors’ and their own honor for a chance to ingratiate themselves with those in power.

近代似乎很少有这样一种社会体系，如此恬不知耻地公然赐予这些人生存空间：给那些只要自己能得到一点好处就心甘情愿支持任何事情的人；给那些为了追名逐利什么都肯做的无原则无骨气之人；给那些可以任意羞辱的拍马天才，他们随时愿意为讨好权势者而放弃身边亲朋乃至自己的尊严。

In view of this, it is not surprising that so many public and influential positions are occupied, more than ever before, by notorious careerists, opportunists, charlatans, and men of dubious record; in short, by typical collaborators, men, that is, with a special gift for persuading themselves at every turn that their dirty work is a way of rescuing something, or, at least, of preventing still worse men from stepping into their shoes. Nor is it surprising, in these circumstances, that corruption among public employees of all kinds, their willingness openly to accept bribes for anything and allow themselves shamelessly to be swayed by whatever considerations their private interests and greed dictate, is more widespread than can be recalled during the last decade.

有鉴于此，我们也就不奇怪为什么如此多重要公职都已越来越多地被臭名昭著的名利至上者、机会主义者、花言巧语者和背景可疑的人所占据。总而言之，这些人都是典型的“合作人士”。他们天赋异禀，总能在关键时刻劝服自己，说自己所做的坏事是为了挽救什么东西，或者，至少可以防止更坏的人接替他们。在这样的情形下，出现史上最大规模的公务员腐败也就不足为奇了。他们坦然地接受任何目的的贿赂，寡廉鲜耻地因着自己的私利与贪欲摇摆不定。

The number of people who sincerely believe everything that the official propaganda says and who selflessly support the government’s authority is smaller than it has ever been. But the number of hypocrites rises steadily: up to a point, every citizen is, in fact, forced to be one.

真心实意相信所有官方话语，并且支持政府权威的民众已经减少至史上最少，而口是心非的伪君子的数量却稳步上升——已达到几乎所有人，每个公民，都被迫成为其中之一的程度。

This dispiriting situation has, of course, its logical causes. Seldom in recent times has a regime cared so little for the real attitudes of outwardly loyal citizens or for the sincerity of their statements. It is enough to observe that no one, in the course of all those self-criticisms and acts of penance, really cares whether people mean what they say, or are only considering their own advantages. In fact, one can safely say that the second assumption is made more or less automatically, without anything immoral being seen in this. Indeed, the prospect of personal advantage is used as the main argument in obtaining such statements. For the most part no one tries to convince the penitent that he was in error or acted wrongly, but simply that he must repent in order to save himsel^ At the same time, the benefits he stands to gain are colorfully magnified, while the bitter taste, which will remain after the act of penance, is played down as an illusion.

这一令人伤感的现象自然有其逻辑成因。

And should some eccentric repent in all sincerity and show it, for example, by refusing the appropriate reward on principle, the regime would, in all probability, treat him with suspicion.

In a way, we are all being publicly bribed. If you accept this or that official position at work-not, of course, as a means of serving your colleagues, but of serving the managementyou will be rewarded with such-and-such privileges. If you join the Youth League, you will be given the right and access to such-and-such forms of entertainment. If, as a creative artist, you take part in such-and-such official functions, you will be rewarded with such-and-such genuine creative opportunities. Think what you like in private; as long as you agree in public, refrain from making difficulties, suppress your interest in truth, and silence your conscience, the doors will be wide open to you.

If the principle of outward adaptation is made the keystone to success in society, what sort of human qualities will be encouraged and what sort of people, one may ask, will come to the fore?

Somewhere between the attitude of protecting oneself from the world out of fear, and an aggressive eagerness to conquer the world for one’s own benefit, lies a range of feelings which it would be wrong to overlook, because they, too, play a significant role in forming the moral climate of today’s “united society”: feelings of indifference and everything that goes with them.

It is as though after the shocks of recent history, and the kind of system subsequently established in this country, people had lost all faith in the future, in the possibility of setting public affairs right, in the meaning of a struggle for truth and justice. They shrug off anything that goes beyond their everyday, routine concern for their own livelihood; they seek ways of escape; they succumb to apathy, to indifference toward suprapersonal
values and their fellow men, to spiritual passivity and depression.

And everyone who still tries to resist by, for instance, refusing to adopt the principle of dissimulation as the key to survival, doubting the value of any self-fulFillment purchased at the cost of self-alienation-such a person appears to his ever more indifferent neighbors as an eccentric, a fool, a Don Quixote, and in the end is regarded inevitably with some aversion, like everyone who behaves differently from the rest and in a way which, moreover, threatens to hold up a critical mirror before their eyes. Or, again, those indifferent neighbors may expel such a person from their midst or shun him as required, for appearance’ sake while sympathizing with him in secret or in private, hoping to still their conscience by clandestine approval of someone who acts as they themselves should, but cannot.

Paradoxically, though, this indifference has become an active social force. Is it not plain indifference, rather than fear, that brings many to the voting booth, to meetings, to membership in official organizations? Is not the political support enjoyed by the regime to a large degree simply a matter of routine, of habit, of automatism, of laziness behind which lies nothing but total resignation? Participation in political rituals in which no one believes is pointless, but it does ensure a quiet life-and would it be any less pointless not to participate? One would gain nothing, and lose the quiet life in the bargain.

Most people are loath to spend their days in ceaseless conflict with authority, especially when it can only end in the defeat of the isolated individual. So why not do what is required of you? It costs you nothing, and in time you cease to bother about it. It is not worth a moment’s thought.

Despair leads to apathy, apathy to conformity, conformity to routine performance-which is then quoted as evidence of “mass political involvement” All this goes to make. up the contemporary concept of “normal” behavior-a concept which is, in essence, deeply pessimistic.

The more completely one abandons any hope of general reform, any interest in suprapersonal goals and values, or any chance of exercising inftuence in an “outward” direction, the more his energy is diverted in the direction of least resistance, i.e., “inwards:’ People today are preoccupied far more with themselves, their families and their homes. It is there that they find rest, there that they can forget the world’s folly and freely exercise their creative talents. They fill their homes with all kinds of appliances and pretty things, they try to improve their accommodations, they try to make life pleasant for themselves, building cottages, looking after their cars, taking more interest in food and clothing and domestic comfort. In short, they turn their main attention to the material aspects of their private lives.

Clearly, this social orientation produces favorable economic results. It encourages improvements in the neglected fields of consumer goods production and public services. It helps to raise the general living standard. Economically, it is a significant source of dynamic energy, capable, at least par tially, of developing society’s material wealth, which the intlexible, bureaucratized, and unproductive state sector of the economy could hardly ever hope to accomplish. (It is enough to compare state and private housing construction as to quantity and quality.)

The authorities welcome and support this spillover of energy into the private sphere.

But why? Because it stimulates economic growth? Certainly, that is one reason. But the whole spirit of current political propaganda and practice, quietly but systematically applauding this “inward” orientation as the very essence of human fulfillment on earth, shows only too clearly why the authorities really welcome this transfer of energy- They see it for what it really is in its psychological origins: an escape from the public sphere. Rightly divining that such surplus energy, if directed “outward,” must sooner or later turn against them-that is, against the particular forms of power they obstinately cling to-they do not hesitate to represent as human life what is really a desperate substitute for living. In the interest of the smooth management of society, then, society’s attention is deliberately diverted from itself, that is, from social concerns. By fixing a person’s whole attention on his mere consumer interests, it is hoped to render him incapable of realizing the increasing extent to which he has been spiritually, politically, and morally violated. Reducing him to a simple vessel for the ideals of a primitive consumer society is intended to turn him into pliable material for complex manipulation. The danger that he might conceive a longing to fulfill some of the immense and unpredictable potential he has as a human being is to be nipped in the bud by imprisoning him within the wretched range of parts he can play as a consumer, subject to the limitations of a centrally directed market.

All the evidence suggests that the authorities are applyiug a method quite adequate for dealing with a creature whose only aim is self-preservation. Seeking the path of least resis~ tance, they completely ignore the price that must be paidthe harsh assault on human integrity, the brutal castration of man’s humanity.

Yet these same authorities obsessively justify themselves with their revolutionary ideology, in which the ideal of man’s total liberation has a central place! But what, in fact, has hap~ pened to the concept of human personality and its manysided, harmonious, and authentic growth? Of man liberated from the clutches of an alienating social machinery, from a mythical hierarchy of values, formalized freedoms, from the dictatorship of property, the fetish and the might of money? What has happened to the idea that people should live in full enjoyment of social and legaljustice, have a creative share in economic and political power, be elevated in human dignity and become truly themselves? Instead of a free share in eco~ nomic decision making, free participation in political life, and free intellectual advancement, all people are actually offered is a chance freely to choose which washing machine or refrig~ erator they want to buy.

In the foreground, then, stands the imposing facade of grand humanistic ideals-and behind it crouches the modest family house of a socialist bourgeois. On the one side, bom~ bastic slogans about the unprecedented increase in every sort of freedom and the unique structural variety of life; on the other, unprecedented drabness and the squalor of life reduced to a hunt for consumer goods.

Somewhere at the top of the hierarchy of pressures by which man is maneuvered into becoming an obedient member of a consumer herd, there stands, as I have hinted, a concealed, omnipotent force: the state police. It is no coincidence, I suppose, that this body should so aptly illustrate the gulf that separates the ideological facade from everyday reality. Anyone who has had the bad luck to experience personally the “working style” of that institution must be highly amused at the official explanation of its purpose. Does anyone really believe that that slimy swarm of thousands of petty informers, professional narks, complex-ridden, sly, envious, malevolent petits bourgeois, and bureaucrats, that malodorous agglomeration of treachery, evasion, fraud, gossip, and intrigue “shows the imprint of the working man, guarding the people’s government and its revolutionary achievements against its enemies’ designs”? For who would be more hostile to a true workers’ government-if everything were not upside downthan your pedit 6ourgeois, always ready to oblige and sticking at nothing, soothing his arthritic self-esteem by informing on his fellow citizens, a creature clearly discernible behind the regular procedures of the secret police as the true spiritual author of their “working style”?

It would be hard to explain this whole grotesque contrast between theory and practice, except as a natural consequence of the real mission of the state police today, which is not to protect the free development of man from any assailants, but to protect the assailants from the threat which any real attempt at man’s free development poses.

The contrast between the revolutionary teachings about the new man and the new morality, and the shoddy concept of life as consumer bliss, raises the question of why the authorities actually cling so tenaciously to their ideology. Clearly, only because their ideology, as a conventionalized system of ritual communications, assures them the appearance of legitimacy, continuity, and consistency, and acts as a screen of prestige for their pragmatic practice.

The actual aims of this practice do, of course, leave their traces on the official ideology at every point. From the bowels of that infinite mountain of ideological rhetoric by which the authorities ceaselessly try to sway people’s minds, and whichas its communication value is nil-the public, for the most part, scarcely notices, there emerges one specific and meaningful message, one realistic piece of advice: “Avoid politics if you can; leave it to us! Just do what we tell you, don’t try to have deep thoughts, and don’t poke your nose into things that don’t concern you! Shut up, do your work, look after yourself-and you’ll be all right!”

This advice is heeded. That people need to make a living is, after all, the one point on which they can rather easily agree with their government. Why not make good use of it, then? Especially as you have no other choice anyway.

Where is the whole situation which I have tried to outline here ultimately leading?

What, in other words, is the effect on people of a system based on fear and apathy, a system that drives everyone into a foxhole of purely material existence and offers him hypocrisy as the main form of communication with society? To what level is a society reduced by a policy where the only aim is superficial order and general obedience, regardless of by what means and at what price they have been gained?

It needs little imagination to see that such a situation can only lead toward the gradual erosion of all moral standards, the breakdown of all criteria of decency, and the widespread destruction of confidence in the meaning of values such as truth, adherence to principles, sincerity, altruism, dignity, and honor. Amidst a demoralization “in depth,” stemming from the loss of hope and the loss of the belief that life has a meaning, life must sink to a biological, vegetable level. It can but confront us once more with that tragic aspect of man’s status in modern technological civilization marked by a declining awareness of the absolute, and which I propose to call a “crisis of human identity.” For how can the collapse of man’s identity be slowed down by a system that so harshly requires a man to be something other than he is?

Order has been established. At the price of a paralysis of the spirit, a deadening of the heart, and devastation of life. Surface “consolidation” has been achieved. At the price of

a spiritual and moral crisis in society.

Unfortunately, the worst feature of this crisis is that it keeps deepening. We only need to raise our sights a little above our limited daily perspective in order to realize with horror how hastily we are all abandoning positions which only yesterday we refused to desert. What social conscience only yesterday regarded as improper is today casually excused; tomorrow it will eventually be thought natural, and the day after be held up as a model of behavior. What yesterday we declared impossible, or at least averred we would never get accustomed to, today we accept, without astonishment, as a fact of life. And, conversely, things that a little while ago we took for granted we now treat as exceptional: and soon-who knowswe might think of them as unattainable chimeras.

The changes in our assessment of the “natural” and the “normal,” the shifts in moral attitudes in our society over the past few years have been greater than they might appear at first glance. As our insensitivity has increased, so naturally has our ability to discern that insensitivity declined.

The malady has spread, as it were, from the fruit and the foliage to the trunk and roots. The most serious grounds for alarm, then, are the prospects which the present state of affairs opens up for the future.

The main route by which society is inwardly enlarged, enriched, and cultivated is that of coming to know itself in ever greater depth, range, and subtlety.

The main instrument of society’s self-knowledge is its culture: culture as a specific field of human activity, influencing the general state of mind-albeit often very indirectly-and at the same time continually subject to its influence.

Where total control over society completely suppresses its differentiated inner development, the first thing to be suppressed regularly is its culture: notjust “automatically,” as a phenomenon intrinsically opposed to the “spirit” of manipulation, but as a matter of deliberate “programming” inspired byjustified anxiety that society be alerted to the extent of its own subjugation through. that culture which gives it its selfawareness. It is culture that enables a society to enlarge its liberty and to discover truth-so what appeal can it have for the authorities who are basically concerned with suppressing such values? They recognize only one kind of truth: the kind they need at the given moment. And only one kind of liberty: to proclaim that “truth.”

A world where “truth” flourishes not in a dialectic climate of genuine knowledge but in a climate of power interests is a world of mental sterility, petrified dogmas, rigid and unchangeable creeds leading inevitably to creedless despotism.

This is a world of prohibitions and limitations and of orders, a world where cultural policy means primarily the operations of the cultural police force.

Much has been said and written about the peculiar degree of devastation which our present-day culture has reached: about the hundreds of prohibited books and authors and the dozens of liquidated periodicals; about the carving up of publishers’ projects and theatre repertoires and the cutting off of all contact with ihe intellectual community; about the plundering of exhibition halls; about the grotesque range of per secution and discrimination practiced in this field; about the breaking up of all the former artistic associations and countless scholarly institutes and their replacement by dummies run by little gangs of aggressive fanatics, notorious careerists, incorrigible cowards, and incompetent upstarts anxious to seize their opportunity in the general void. Rather than describe all these things again, I will offer some reflections on those deeper aspects of this state of affairs which are germane to the subject of my letter.

In the first place, however bad the present situation, it still does not mean that culture has ceased to exist altogether. Plays are put on, television programs go out every day, and even books get published. But this overt and legal cultural activity, taken as a whole, exhibits one basic feature: an overall externalization due to its being estranged in large measure from its proper substance through its total emasculation as an instrument of human, and, therefore of social, self-awareness. And whenever something of incontestably excellent value does appear-a superb dramatic performance, let us say, to stay in the sphere of art-then it appears, rather, as a phenomenon to be tolerated because of its subtlety and refinement, and hence, from an official point of view, its relative innocuousness as a contribution to social self-awareness. Yet even here, no sooner does that contribution begin to be at all keenly perceived than the
authorities start instinctively to defend themselves: there are familiar instances where a good actor was banned, by and large, simply for being too good.

But that is not what concerns me at this point. What inter ests me is how this externalization works in fields where it is possible to describe the human experience of the world far more explicitly and where the function of promoting social self-awareness is, thus, far more manifestly fulfilled.

For example, suppose a literary work, a play perhaps, um deniably skillful, suggestive, ingenious, meaningful, is published (it does happen from time to time). Whatever the other qualities of the work may be, of one thing we may always be perfectly certain: whether through censorship or selfcensorship, because of the writer’s character or his selfdeception, as a consequence of resignation or of calculation, it will never stray one inch beyond the taboos of a banal, conventional and, hence, basically fraudulent social consciousness that offers and accepts as genuine experience the mere appearance of experience-a concatenation of smooth, hackneyed, superficial trivia of experience; that is, pallid reflections of such aspects of experience as the social consciousness has long since adopted and domesticated. Despite, or rather, because of this fact, there will always be people who find such a work entertaining, exciting, and interesting, although it sheds no light, offers no flash of real knowledge in the sense that it reveals something unknown, expresses something unsaid, or provides new, spontaneous, and effective evidence of things hitherto only guessed at. In short, by imitating the real world, such a work in fact, falsifies the real world. As regards the actual forms this externalization takes, it is no accident that the vat most frequently tapped should be the one which, thanks to its proven harmlessness, enjoys the warmest approval of the authorities in our country, whether bourgeois or proletarian. I refer to the aesthetics of banality, safely housed within the four walls of genial petit bourgeois morality; the sentimental philosophy of kitchen-sink, country-bumpkin earthiness, and the provincial conception of the world based on the belief in its general goodness. I refer to the aesthetic doctrine whose keystone is the cult of right-thinking mediocrity, bedded in hoary national selfsatisfaction, guided by the principle that everything must be slick, trivial, and predigested, and culminating in that false optimism which puts the basest interpretation on the dictum that “truth will prevail.”

Of works designed to give literary expression to the government’s political ideology, there is today-as you must be aware-an extreme scarcity, and those few are clearly, by professional standards, bad ones. This is not merely because there is no one to write them, but also, I am sure, paradoxical as it may appear, because they would not be particularly welcome. For, from the standpoint of actual contemporary attitudes (those of the consumer society, that is), even if such works were available, were professionally competent, and attracted somebody’s interest, they would divert too much attention “outwards,” rub salt into too many old wounds, provokethrough their general and radical political character-too much general and radical political reaction, thus stirring up too many pools that are meant to be left as stagnant as possible. Far more suitable to the real interests of the authorities today is what I have called the aesthetics of banality, which misses the truth much more inconspicuously, acceptably, and plausibly, and (since it is far more digestible for the conventional mind) is far more suited to the role accorded to culture in the consumer philosophy: not to excite people with the truth, but to reassure them with lies.

This kind of artistic output, of course, has always predominated. But in our country, there had always been some chinks at least through which works of art that could truthfully be said to convey a more genuine kind of human self-wareness reached the public. The road for such works was never particularly smooth. They met resistance not only from the authorities, but from the easygoing inertia of conventional attitudes as well. Yet until recently they had always managed in some mysterious way, by devious paths and seldom without delay, to get through to the individual and to society, and so to fulfill the role of culture as the agent of social self-awareness.

This is all that really matters. This is precisely what I take to be really important. And it is also precisely this that the present government-arguably for the first time since the age of our national revival-has managed to render almost completely impossible, so total is the present system of bureaucratic control of culture, so perfect the surveillance of every chink through which some major work might see the light of day, so greatly does that little band of men, who hold the keys to every door in their own pockets, fear the government and fear art.

You will, of course, appreciate that I am speaking at this moment not of the indexes, listing the names of all creative artists subject to a total or partial ban, but of a much worse list-of that “blank index” which includes, a priori, everything which might contain the spark of a slightly original thought, a perceptive insight, deeper sincerity, an unusual idea, or a suggestive form; I am speaking of that open warrant for the arrest of anything inwardly free and, therefore, in the deepest sense “cultural,” I am speaking of the warrant against culrixre issued by your government.

Once more the question which I have been posing from the start arises. What does it all really mean? Where is it leading? What is it going to do to society?

Once more, I take a particular case. Most of the former cultural periodicals, as we know, have ceased to appear in our country. If any have survived, they have been so made to conform to official policy that they are hardly worth taking seriously.

What has been the effect of that?

At first glance, practically none. The wheels of society continue to go round even without all those literary, artistic, theatrical, philosophical, historical, and other magazines whose number, even while they existed, may never have filled the latent needs of society, but which nevertheless were around and played their part. How many people today still miss those publications? Only the few tens of thousands of people who subscribed to them-a very small fraction of society.

Yet this loss is infinitely deeper and more significant than might appear from the numbers involved. Its real implica~ tionš are again, of course, hidden, and can hardly be assessed precisely.

The forcible liquidation of such a journal-a theoretical review concerned with the theatre, say-is notjust an impoverishment of its particular readers. It is not even merely a severe blow to theatrical culture. It is simultaneously, and above all, the liquidation of a particular organ through which society becomes aware of itself and hence it is an interference, hard to describe in exact terms, in the complex system of circulation, exchange, and conversion of nutrients that maintain life in that manydayered organism which is society today. It is a blow against the natural dynamic of the pro~ cesses going on within that organism; a disturbance of the balanced interplay of all its many functions, an interplay reflecting the level of complexity reached by society’s anatomy. And just as the chronic deficiency of a vitamin (amounting in quantitative terms only to a negligible fraction of the human diet) can make a person ill, so, in the long run, the loss of a single periodical can cause ihe social organism far more damage than would appear at first sight. And what if the loss involves notjust one periodical, but virtually all?

It is easy to show that the real importance of knowledge, thought, and creation is not limited, in the stratified world of a civilized society,. to the
significance these things have for the particular circle of people who are primarily, directly and, as it were, physically involved with them, either actively or passively. This is always a small group, especially in the sciences. Yet the knowledge in question, conveyed through however many intermediaries, may in the end profoundly affect the whole society,just as politics, including the nuclear threat, physically concerns each one of us, even though most of us have had no experience of the speculations in theoretical physics which led to the manufacture of the atom bomb. That the same holds for nonspecific knowledge is shown by many historic instances of an unprecedented cultural, political, and moral upsurge throughout society, where the original nucleus of crystallization, the catalyst, was an act of social selfawareness carried out, and indeed directly and “physically” perceived, only by a small and exclusive circle. Even subsequently, that act may have remained outside the apperception of society at large, yet it was still an indispensable condition of its upsurge. For we never know when some inconspicuous spark of knowledge, struck within range of the few brain cells, as it were, specially adapted for the organism’s self awareness, may suddenly light up the road for the whole of society, without society ever realizing, perhaps, how it came to see the road. But that is far from being the whole story. For even those other countless flashes of knowledge which never illuminate the path ahead for society as a whole have their deep social importance, if only through the mere fact that they happened; that they might have cast light; that in their very occurrence they fulfilled a certain range of society’s potentialities-either its creative powers, or simply its liberties; they, too, help to make and maintain a climate of civilization without which none of the more illuminating flashes could ever occur.

In short, the space within which spiritual self-awareness operates is indivisible; the cutting of a single thread must injure the coherence of the whole network, and this itself showed the remarkable interdependence of all those fine processes in the social organism that I spoke of, the transcendent importance of each one of them, and hence the transcendent destructiveness wrought by its disruption.

I would not wish to reduce everything to this single and still relatively minor aspect of the problem. Still, does it not in itself confirm the deeply injurious intluence on the general spiritual and moral state of society which the “warrant against culture” already has and will have in future, even though its immediate impact is only on a limited number of heads?

If not a single new Czech novel, of which one could safely say that it enlarges our experience of the world, has appeared in recent years in the bookshops, this will certainly have no public effect. Readers are not going to demonstrate in the streets and, in the end, you can always find something to read. But who will dare assess the real significance of this fact for Czech society? Who knows how the gap will affect the spiritual and moral climate of the years to come? How far will it weaken our ability to know ourselves? How deeply will such an absence of cultural self-knowledge brand those whose selfknowing begins only today or tomorrow? What mounds of mystification, slowly forming in the general cultural consciousness, will need to be chipped away? How far back will one need to go? Who can tell which peopte will still find the strength to light new fires of truth, when, how, and from what resources, once there has been such thorough wastage not only of the fuel, but of the very feeling that it can be done?

A few novels of the kind absent from the bookshops do nevertheless exist: they circulate in manuscript. In this respect, the situation is not yet hopeless: it follows from everything I have said that if such a novel, over the years, remained unknown to all but twenty people, the fact of its existence would stilt be important. It means something that there is such a book, that it could be written at all, that it is alive in at least one tiny area of the cultural consciousness. But what about the fields in which it is impossible to work, except through the so-called legal channels? How can one estimate the damage already done, and still to be done, by the strangling of every interesting development in the stage and cinema, whose role as social stimuli is so specific? How much greater still may be the long-term effect of the vacuum in the humanities and in the theory and practice of the social sciences? Who dares measure the consequences of the violent interruption of the long processes of self-knowledge in ontology, ethics, and historiography, dependent as they are on access to the normal circulation of information, ideas, discoveries, and values, the public crystallization of attitudes?

The overall question, then, is this: What profound intellectual and moral impotence will the nation suffer tomorrow, following the castration of its culture today?

I fear that the baneful effects on society will outlast by many years the particular political interests that gave rise to them. So much more guilty, in the eyes of history, are those who have sacrificed the country’s spiritual future for the sake of their present power interests.

Just as the constant increase of entropy is the basic law of the universe, so it is the basic law of life to be ever more highly structured and to struggle against entropy.

Life rebels against all uniformity and leveling; its aim is not sameness, but variety, the restlessness of transcendence, the adventure of novelty and rebellion against the status quo. An essential condition for its enhancement is the secret constantly made manifest.

On the other hand, the essence of authority (whose aim is reduced to protecting its own permanence by forcibly imposing the uniformity of perpetual consent) consists basically in a distrust of all variety, uniqueness, and transcendence; in an aversion to everything unknown, impalpable, and currently obscure; in a proclivity for the uniform, the identical, and the inert; in deep affection for the status quo. In it, the mechanical spirit prevails over the vital. The order it strives for is no frank quest for ever higher forms of social self-organization, equivalent to its evolving complexity of structure, but, on the contrary, a decline toward that “state of maximum probability” representing the climax of entropy. Following the direction of entropy, it goes against the direction of life.

In a person’s life, as we know, there is a moment when the complexity of structure begins suddenly to decline and his path turns in the direction of entropy. This is the moment when he, too, succumbs to the general law of the universe: the moment of death.

Somewhere at the bottom of every political authority which has chosen the path to entropy (and would like to treat the individual as a computer into which any program can be fed with the assurance that he will carry it out), there lies hidden the death principle. There is an odor of death even in the notion of “order” which such an authority puts into practice and which sees every manifestation of genuine life, every ex~ ceptional deed, individual expression, thought, every unusual idea or wish, as a red light signaling confusion, chaos, and anarchy.

The entire political practice of the present regime, as I have tried to outline it here step by step, confirms that those con cepts which were always crucial for its program-order, calm, consolidation, “guiding the nation out of its crisis,” “halting disruption,” “assuaging hot tempers” and so on-have finally acquired the same lethal meaning that they have for every regime committed to entropy.

True enough, order prevails: a bureaucratic order of gray monotony that stifles all individuality; of mechanical precision that suppresses everything of unique quality; of musty inertia
that excludes the transcendent. What prevails is order without life.

True enough, the country is calm. Calm as a morgue or a grave, would you not say?

In a society which is really alive, something is always happen ing. The interplay of current activities and events, of overt and concealed movement, produces a constant succession of unique situations which provoke further and fresh move~ ment. The mysterious, vital polarity of the continuous and the changing, the regular and the random, the foreseen and the unexpected, has its effect in the time dimension and is borne out in the flow of events. The more highly structured the life of a society, the more highly structured its time dimension, and the more prominent the element of uniqueness and unrepeatability within the time flow. This, in turn, of course, makes it easier to reflect its sequential character, to represent it, that is, as an irreversible stream of noninterchangeable situations, and so, in retrospect, to understand better whatever is governed by regular laws in society. The richer the life society lives, then, the better it perceives the dimension of social time, the dimension of history.

In other words, wherever there is room for social activity, room is created for a social memory as well. Any society that is alive is a society with a history.

If the element of continuity and causality is so vitally linked in history with the element of unrepeatabidity and unpredicb ability, we may well ask how true history-that inextinguishable source of “chaos,” fountainhead of unrest, and slap in the face to law and order-can ever exist in a world ruled by an “entropic” regime.

The answer is plain: it cannot. And, indeed, it does noton the surface, anyway. Under such a regime, the elimination of life in the proper sense brings social time to a halt, so that history disappears from its purview.

In our own country, too, one has the impression that for some time there has been no history. Slowly but surely, we are losing the sense of time. We begin to forget what happened when, what came earlier and what later, and the feeling that it really doesri t matter overwhelms us. As uniqueness disappears from the flow of events, so does continuity; everything merges into the single gray image of one and the same cycle and we say, “There is nothing happening-” Here, too, a deadly order has been imposed: all activity is completely organized and so completely deadened. The deadening of the sense of unfolding time in society inevitably kills it in private life as well. No longer backed by social history or the history of the individual within it, private life declines to a prehistoric level where time derives its only rhythm from such events as birth, marriage, and death.

The loss of the sense of social time seems, in every way, to cast society back into the primeval state where, for thousands of years, humanity could get no further in measuring it than by the cosmic and climatic pattern of endlessly repeated annual seasons and the religious rites associated with them.

The gap left by the disquieting dimension of history has, naturally, to be filled. So the disorder of real history is replaced by the orderliness of pseudo-history, whose author is not the life of society, but an official planner. Instead of events, we are offered nonevents; we live from anniversary to anniversary, from celebration to celebration, from parade to parade, from a unanimous congress to unanimous elections and back again; from a Press Day to an Artillery Day, and vice versa. It is no coincidence that, thanks to this substitution for history, we are able to review everything that is happening in society, past and future, by simply glancing at the calendar. And the notoriously Familiar character of the recurrent ritu als makes such information quite as adequate as if we had been present at the events themselves.

What we have, then, is perfect order-but at the cost of reverting to prehistory. Even so, we must enter a caveat: whereas for our ancestors the repeated rituals always had a deep existential meaning, for us they are merely a routine performed for its own sake. The government keeps them going to maintain the impression that history is moving. The public goes through the motions to keep out of trouble.

An “entropic” regime has one means of increasing the general entropy within its own sphere of influence, namely, by tightening its own central control, rendering itself more mon olithic, and enclosing society in a straitjacket of onedimensional manipulation. But with every step it takes in this direction, it inevitably increases its own entropy too.

In an effort to immobilize the world, it immobilizes itself, undermining its own ability to cope with anything new or to resist the natural currents of life. The “entropic” regime is, thus, doomed to become the victim of its own lethal principle, and the most vulnerable victim at that, thanks to the absence of any impulse within its own structure that could, as it were, make it face up to itsel^ Life, by contrast, with its irrepressible urge to oppose entropy, is able all the more successfully and inventively to resist being violated, the faster the violating authority succumbs to its own sclerosis.

In trying to paralyze life, then, the authorities paralyze themselves and, in the long run, make themselves incapable of paralyzing life.

In other words, life may be subjected to a prolonged and thorough process of violation, enfeeblement, and anesthesia. Yet, in the end, it cannot be permanently halted. Albeit quietly, covertly, and slowly, it nevertheless goes on. Though it be estranged from itself a thousand times, it always manages in some way to recuperate; however violently ravished, it always survives, in the end, the power which ravished it. It cannot be otherwise, in view of the profoundly ambivalent nature of every “entropič’ authority, which can only suppress life if there is life to suppress and so, in the last resort, depends for its own existence on life, whereas life in no way depends on it. The only force that can truly destroy life on our planet is the force which knows no compromise: the universal validity of the second law of thermodynamics.

If life cannot be destroyed for good, then neither can history be brought entirely to a halt. A secret streamlet trickles on beneath the heavy cover of inertia and pseudo-events, slowly and inconspicuously undercutting it. It may be a long process, but one day it must happen: the cover will no longer hold and will start to crack.

This is the moment when once more something visibly begins to happen, something truly new and unique, something unscheduled in the official calendar of “happenings,” something that makes us no longer indifferent to what occurs and when-something truly historic, in the sense that history again demands to be heard.

But how, in our particular circumstances, could it come about that history “demands to be heard”? What does such a prospect really imply?

I am neither historian nor prophet, yet there are some observations touching on the structure of these “momentš’ which one cannot avoid making.

Where there is, in some degree, open competition for power as the only real guarantee of public control over its exercise and, in the last resort, the only guarantee of free speech, the political authorities must willy-nilly participate in some kind of permanent and overt dialogue with the life of society. They are forced continually to wrestle with all kinds of questions which life puts to them. Where no such competition exists and freedom of speech is, therefore, of necessity sooner or later suppressed-as is the case with every “entropic” regime-the authorities, instead of adapting themselves to life, try to adapt life to themselves. Instead of coping openly and continually with real conflicts, demands, and issues, they simply draw a veil over them. Yet somewhere under this cover,
these contlicts and demands continue, grow, and multiply, only to burst forth when the moment arrives when the cover can no longer hold them down. This is the moment when the dead weight of inertia crumbles and history steps out again into the arena.

And what happens after that?

The authorities are certainly still strong enough to prevent those vital conflicts from issuing in the shape of open discussion or open rivalry for power. But they have no longer the strength to resist this pressure altogether. So life vents itself where it can-in the secret corridors of power, where it can insist on secret discussion and finally on secret competition. For this, of course, the authorities are unprepared: any substantive dialogue with life is outside their range of competence. So they panic. Life sows confusion in their council chambers in the shape of personal quarrels, intrigues, pitfalls, and confrontations. It even infects, as it were, their own representatives: the death mask of impersonality that their officials wore to confirm their identity with the monolith of power is suddenly dropped, revealing live people competing for power in the most “human” way and struggling in selFdefense, one against the other. This is the notorious moment for palace revolutions and putsches, for sudden and outwardly mystifying changes of portfolio and changes of key points in set speeches, the moment when real or construed conspiracies and secret centers are revealed, the moment when real or imaginary crimes are made known and ancient guilt unearthed, the moment for mutual dismissals from office, mutual denigration, and perhaps even arrests and trials. Whereas before every man in authority had spoken the same language, used the same clichés, applauded the successful fulfillment of the same targets, now suddenly the monolith of power breaks down into distinguishable persons, still speaking the same language, but using it to make personal attacks on one another. And we learn with astonishment that some of them-those, that is, who lost in the secret struggle for power-had never taken their targets seriously and never successfully fulfilled themfar from it-whereas others-the winners-had really meant what they said and are alone capable of achieving their aims.

The more rational the construction of the official calendar of nonevents over the years, the more irrational the effect of a sudden irruption of genuine history. All its lorig-suppressed elements of unrepeatability, uniqueness, and incalculability, all its long-denied mysteries, come rushing through the breach. Where for years we had been denied the slightest, most ordinary surprise, life is now one huge surprise-and it is well worth it. The whole disorderliness of history, concealed under artificial order for years, suddenly spurts out.

How well we know all this! How often we have witnessed it in our part of the world! The machine that worked for years to apparent perfection, faultlessly, without a hitch, falls apart overnight. The system that seemed likely to reign unchanged, world without end, since nothing could call its power in question amid all those unanimous votes and elections, is shattered without warning. And, to our amazement, we find that nothing was the way we had thought it was.

The moment when such a tornado whirls through the musty edifice of petrified power structures is, of course, far from beingjust a source of amusement for all of us who are outside the ramparts of authority. For we, too, are always involved, albeit indirectly. Is it not the quiet perennial pressure of life, the ceaselessly resisted, but finally irresistible demands and interests of all society, its conflicts and its tensions, which ever and again spoke the foundations of power? No wonder society continually reawakens at such moments, attaches itself to them, receives them with great alertness, gets excited by them, and seeks to exploit them! In almost every case, such tremors provoke hopes or fears of one kind or another, create-or seem to create-scope for the realization of life’s various impulses and ambitions, and accelerate all kinds of movements within society.

Yet, in almost every case, it is equally true that this situation, owing to the basically unnatural structure of the kind of confrontation with life which such shakeups of power bring about, carries with it many incalculable risks.

I shall try to illuminate further one such risk.

If every day someone takes orders in silence from an incompetent superior, if every day he solemnly performs ritual acts which he privately finds ridiculous, if he unhesitatingly gives answers to questionnaires which are contrary to his real opinions and is prepared to deny himself in public, if he sees no difficulty in feigning sympathy or even affection where, in fact, he feels only indifference or aversion, it still does not mean that he has entirely lost the use of one of the basic human senses, namely, the sense of dignity.

On the contrary: even if they never speak of it, people have a very acute appreciation of the price they have paid for outward peace and quiet: the permanent humiliation of their human dignity. The less direct resistance they put up to itcomforting themselves by driving it from their mind and deceiving themselves with the thought that it is of no account, or else simply gritting their teeth-the deeper the experience etches itself into their emotional memory. The man who can resist humiliation can quickly forget it; but the man who can long tolerate it must long remember it. In actual fact, then, nothing remains forgotten. All the fear one has endured, the dissimulation one has been forced into, all the painful and degrading buffoonery, and, worst of all, perhaps, the feeling of having displayed one’s cowardice-all this settles and accumulates somewhere in the bottom of our social consciousness, quietly fermenting.

Clearly, this is no healthy situation. Left untreated, the abscesses suppurate; the pus cannot escape from the body, and the malady spreads throughout the organism. The natural human emotion is denied the process of objectivi2ation and instead, caged up over long periods in the emotional memory, is gradually deformed into a sick cramp, into a toxic substance not unlike the carbon monoxide produced by incomplete combustion.

No wonder, then, that when the crust cracks and the lava of life rolls out, there appear not only well-considered attempts to rectify old wrongs, not only searchings for truth and For reforms matching life’s needs, but also symptoms of bilious hatred, vengeful wrath, and a feverish desire for immediate compensation for all the degradation endured. (The impulsive and often wayward forms of this desire may also spring largely from a vague impression that the whole outbreak has come too late, at a time when it has lost its meaning, having no longer any immediate motive and so carrying no immediate risk, when it is actually just an ersatz for something that should have happened in quite a different context.)

No wonder, again, that the men in power, accustomed for years to absolute agreement, unanimous and unreserved support, and a total unity of total pretense, are so shocked by the upsurge of suppressed feelings at such a moment that they feel exposed to such an unheard-of threat and, in this mood (assuming themselves to be the sole guarantors of the world’s survival), detect such an unprecedented threat to the rest of the world, too, that they do not hesitate to call upon millions of foreign soldiers to save both themselves and the world.

We experienced one such explosion not long ago. Those who had spent years humiliating and insulting people and were then so shocked when those people tried to raise their own voices, now label the whole episode an “outbreak of passions.” And what, pray, were the passions that broke out? Those who know what protracted and thoroughgoing humiliations had preceded the explosion, and who understand the psycho-social mechanics of the subsequent reaction to them should be more su
rprised at the relatively calm, objective and, indeed, loyal form which the explosion took. Yet, as everyone knows, we had to pay a cruel price for that moment of truth.

The authorities in power today are profoundly different from those who ruled prior to that recent explosion. Not only because the latter were, so to speak, “originals” and their successors a mere formalized imitation, incapable of refiecting the extent to which the “originals” had meanwhile lost their mystique, but primarily for another reason.

For whereas the earlier version rested on a genuine and not inconsiderable social basis derived from the trustful support accorded, though in declining measure, by one part of the population, and on the equally genuine and considerable attractiveness (which also gradually evaporated) of the social benefits it originally promised, today’s regime rests solely on the ruling minority’s instinct for self preservation and on the fear of the ruled majority.

In these circumstances, it is hard to foresee all the feasible scenarios for a future “moment of truth”: to foresee how such a complex and undisguised degradation of the whole of society might one day demand restitution. And it is quite impossible to estimate the scope and depth of the tragic consequences which such a moment might inflict, perhaps must inflict, on our two nations.

In this context, it is amazing that a government which advertises itselF as the most scientific on record is unable to grasp the elementary rules of its own operations or to learn from its own past.

I have made it clear that I have no fear of life in Czechoslovakia coming to a halt, or of history being suspended forever with the accession to power of the present leaders. Every situation in history and every epoch have been succeeded by a fresh situation and a new epoch, and for better or worse, the new ones have always been quite remote from the expectations of the organizers and rulers of the preceding period.

What I am afraid of is something else. The whole of this letter is concerned, in fact, with what I really fear-the pointlessly harsh and long-lasting consequences which the present violent abuses will have for our nations. I fear the price we are all bound to pay for the drastic suppression of history, the cruel and needless banishmenc of life into the underground of society and the depths of the human soul, the new compulsory deferment of every opportunity for society to live in anything like a natural way. And perhaps it is apparent from what I wrote a little way back that I am not only worried about our current payments in terms of everyday bitterness at the spoliation of society and human degradation, or about the heavy tax we shall have to pay in the long-lasting spiritual and moral decline of society. I am also concerned with the scarcely calculable surcharge which may be imposed on us when the moment next arrives for life and history to demand their due.

The degree of responsibility a political leader bears for the condition of his country must always vary and, obviously, can never be absolute. He never rules alone, and so some portion of responsibility rests on those who surround him. No country exists in a vacuum, so its policies are in some way always influenced by those of other countries. Clearly the previous rulers always have much to answer for, since it was their policies which predetermined the present situation. The public, too, has much to answer for, both individually, through the daily personal decisions of each responsible human being which went to create the total state of affairs, or collectively, as a socio-historic whole, limited by circumstances and in its turn limiting those circumstances.

Despite these qualifications, which naturally apply in our current situation as in any other, your responsibility as a political leader is still a great one. You help to determine the climate in which we all have to live and can therefore directly influence the final size of the bill our society will be paying for today’s process of consolidation.

The Czechs and Slovaks, like any other nation, harbor within themselves simultaneously the most disparate potentialities. We have had, still have, and will continue to have our heroes, and, equally, our informers and traitors. We are capable of unleashing our imagination and creativity, of rising spiritually and morally to unexpected heights, of fighting for the truth and sacrificing ourselves for others.

But it lies in us equally to succumb to total apathy, to take no interest in anything but our bellies, and to spend our time tripping one another up. And though human souls are far from being mere pint pots that anything can be poured into (note the arrogant implications of that dreadful phrase so frequent in official speeches, when it is complained that “we”-that is, “the government”-find that such-and-such ideas are being instilled into people’s heads), it depends, nevertheless, very much on the leaders which of these contrary tendencies that slumber in society will be mobilized, which set of potentialities will be given the chance of fulftllment, and which will be suppressed.

So far, it is the worst in us which is being systematically activated and enlarged-egotism, hypocrisy, indifference, cowardice, fear, resignation, and the desire to escape every personal responsibility, regardless of the general consequences.

Yet even today’s national leadership has the opportunity to influence society by its policies in such a way as to encourage not the worse side of us, but the better.

So far, you and your government have chosen the easy way out for yourselves, and the most dangerous road for society: the path of inner decay for the sake of outward appearances; of deadening life for the sake of increasing uniformity; of deepening the spiritual and moral crisis of our society, and ceaselessly degrading human dignity, for the puny sake of protecting your own power.

Yet, even within the given limitations, you have the chance to do much toward at least a relative improvement of the situation. This might be a more strenuous and less gratifying way, whose benefits would not be immediately obvious and which would meet with resistance here and there. But in the light of our society’s true interests and prospects, this way would be vastly the more meaningful one.

As a citizen of this country, I hereby request, openly and publicly, that you and the leading representatives of the present regime consider seriously the matters to which I have tríed to draw your attention, that you assess in their light the degree of your historic responsibility, and act accordingly.

April 1975

分类于：人微言轻标签: 翻译

奥巴马的周报

慵云 — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 23:38:12 +0800

工作以后，一个让我比较厌烦的事情就是写周报。讲一讲这周都干了些什么事。而我之所以耻于写周报，是因为我总是觉得自己做的东西不够多不够好，小事不屑于写入周报，周报就显得很没内容，然后就显得我工作很不努力的样子…… 虽然我也确实不太努力，但倒还不至于像一个空周报显示的那样不努力… =.=

今天一位朋友推荐我看这个奥巴马的“周报”，一下就觉得非常自惭形秽。连美国总统都需要每周给全国人民做周报，我一个小小公司职员怎么还好意思在写周报的时候有怨言。

请看：

（看不到？点这里。）

这个周报还很用心，为什么很用心呢？因为奥巴马的英语已经讲得这么清晰标准了，还要为我们提供字幕。最后为了方便海内外各路粉丝，还提供了高清下载….

既然奥先生每周都要做周报，那这周又有什么特别的？为什么我要单单拿出这一次的周报不辞辛劳做出双语字幕给大家呢？第一，因为这是我第一次知道有这个东西；第二，其实是我那朋友建议我做的… =。=

据说，这周的这段视频也是特别打动美国人，短短5分钟，奥巴马总结了这周财政预算通过的经过，并解释了自己所谓“平衡提案”为何物，还十分真诚地请民众到网上查看自己的税赋去路。

中国的纳税人早就开始羡慕西方国家的财政预算公开，而现在每位美国公民都可以在白宫官网上输入纳税额，获知每一份税收的去处，得到政府的对您的贡税的“收据”。为了给国民信心，绝对的公开透明越来越有必要。因为你既然减了我的福利，我自然不免怀疑剩下来的钱是否会进入利益集团的腰包。但白宫这个“收据”也确实挺形式化的，无非按联邦政府的财政预算的比例乘一下你的纳税额，甚至只需要我们WD来开发……(^o^) 。

不过在中国，则不需要这种作秀，因为有些事情，总是毋庸置疑的。即使我们看不到清楚的预算和财政报表，我们也相信政府把钱真的用到了我们相信他们会用到的地方。因为中国的“民主集中制”是最先进最美好最适合中国国情的制度，我们是真正“权利在民”的国家。我们国家的主权在民，很好地保障着我们的人权。如果没有这种主权，我们肯定会丢失自个儿的人权。而美国那些东西都是虚伪的，是资本家拿来骗无知平民的。即使他们的总统在电视讲话上宣称“我这样的人不需要减税”，那也是因为他已经通过其他渠道掠夺了民众很多财产。为了巩固自己的统治，必然要说一些冠冕堂皇的话。哼哼，在这一点上，可是全世界都一样，天下乌鸦一般黑呢。

分类于：人微言轻标签: 美国

什么情况？《X Factor》要来中国了？！

慵云 — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:46:05 +0800

What? The X Factor is coming to China!!?

是的，你没听错，继达人系列之后， X Factor 也要来中国了！而且改了个特别老土的名字——《唱响中国》！

《唱响中国》大型音乐选秀节目，是由Fremantle Media公司提供全球最先进的电视节目模式《X Factor》，辽宁广播电视台本着“国际视野，高端崛起”的原则，重拳出击，强势打造中国有史以来最高水准的大型音乐选秀节目。

英国和美国版的 X Factor 都正在海选中，所以，今年夏天我可能不得不同时追中英美三版《X Factor》！！哇哦，哇哦，想起来就令人兴奋呢….

Hmm，怪不得前段时间拼命删我在优酷上传的视频，原来是要出中国版了！电视台的童鞋，看在我这么热衷为你们传播的份上，能请我去现场看一次直播么？？

中国版的X Factor似乎是辽宁卫视和光线传媒合作在搞。毫无选秀节目经验的辽宁台能搞好吗？我们拭目以待！不过我很奇怪一点，为什么 Fremantle Media 就是不跟湖南卫视合作呢？湖南台在国际上名声也很臭？不至于啊…

《唱响中国》这个名字让我想起超女最火那几年，在四川境内各市县遍地开花的《唱响XX》系列，不知道其他省市有没有？有木有？！

官网上并没有贴出中国版的评委具体是谁，看来还有很多事情都尚未敲定。嗯，还是希望能选几个好一点的人嘛…

冒昧地提几个人选哈：

孙燕姿！陈奕迅！李宇春！！哈哈！

五一期间正是杭州海选的时候，要是我会唱歌然后长得没现在这么难看，也就报名去了…… 所以啊，各位会唱歌的孩子，找个机会试一试吧！说不定这就是你改变命运的机会！

分类于：娱乐至死标签: The X Factor 英国偶像, 唱响中国

许崇德 – 新中国宪法史

慵云 — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:28:12 +0800

嗯，我知道我很久没更新了。实在枉我把网站速度优化得这么快啊。
随便发一篇刚整理的笔记吧，难得干一回这种体现我学习精神未泯的好事。这个视频的点击量好像还蛮大的。
懊恼啊懊恼，我怎么就不是文科生呢？

新中国宪法史 – 许崇德

根据中国人大法学院教授许崇德讲谈整理而出，版权归超星学术视频所有。

原始链接： http://video1.ssreader.com/playvideo.asp?id=7103 （速度慢的同学可以试试右上角的“线路选择”）

== （一） ==

1953年安排全国普选，先在山东泰安县和广饶县搞试点，选民登记和人口普查一起做了。有些民众一辈子没有名字，登记选民的时候给随便取了个名字，还很高兴。

1954年春天，毛泽东带着几个人在杭州起草宪法。后来在中南海组建了一个宪法起草委员会，秘书处有李维汉、田家英、沈志远、屈武几个秘书长、副秘书长。毛泽东在杭州的时候还给中央写信，开了个书单，叫大家学宪法。

1954年，六七月份的时候，宪法草案进行全民讨论，全国各省市都组织群众讨论提意见，最后编印出来 16 册意见汇编。当年涝灾严重，各省整理出来的群众讨论意见还得用不透水的油纸包好，用飞机运给中央。

== （二） ==

54年到56年，宪法都是贯彻得比较好的。后来极左思潮不断扩大，整个法学都受到很大伤害。“一化三改”，发动群众运动，造成法律领域重实体，不重形式和程序的现象。还有人认为法律本身就是资产阶级性质的一种形式。中国人大的宪法课程被迫压缩到四个问题——党的领导、无产阶级专政、民主集中制、群众路线，失去了宪法的专业性。

毛泽东在1958年北戴河会议上说，立那么多法，那么多条，谁记得住啊，当时我亲手搞出来的宪法，我都记不住了。刘少奇问是要法治还是要人治，毛泽东说要人治。从此法学进入低潮。

== （三） ==

1959反右倾，老师的讲稿要交给学生批判，反修正主义。后来深入农村搞了八个月四清运动，宪法学科被撤销，并入法理学，叫国家与法权理论。接下来是文化大革命，人大法学系的全体师生在1969年被赶到江西余江的五七干校劳动改造。

后来说中国人大要解散，北京需要教师，许崇德又被调回北京，在北京师范大学（现在的首师大）政教系教中共党史。党史实在被扭曲得不成样子，于是许就和学生一起学毛选四卷。实际的教学就是在工厂做工的空闲，在农田的田埂上读毛选。

当时毛泽东提倡读马列，许又被要到张家口一个部队去给解放军讲马列著作。当时知识分子是“臭老九”，被当作机器在用，得一天十二个小时不停地讲。战士们有一股拼劲，毛泽东说要学马列，他们就拼命地学。1978年人大复校，才得以回到人大重拾宪法专业。

1978年讨论修订宪法时又找了一些原来宪法学专业的人征求意见。许崇德提出，一要有监督制度保障宪法实施，二要恢复国家主席（1975年的宪法把国家主席取消了）。当时他花了半个小时论证为什么需要恢复国家主席，结果一个工厂的党委书记说他不主张恢复主席，唯一的理由就是毛主席说过不需要主席。

1980年全国人大作出决议，要修改宪法，于是就有了后来的1982年宪法。这次宪法修订，因为许在恢复国家主席等问题上发表了很多意见，所以被委以重任。

== （四） ==

宪法的起草总是要走群众路线，经过大家的讨论。比如经济学就请了各地很有名的经济学家，孙治方、王赣愚等，来座谈各种问题。起草委员会根据这些专家的意见落实具体条文。

文化大革命前，中共八大的时候，刘少奇提出“人民民主专政”这个词，后来改称“无产阶级专政”——无产阶级专政万岁，无产阶级专政下继续革命——根本不提人民民主专政。1980到1982年写这个宪法的过程中，有些领导就提出要恢复人民民主专政这个词，比如彭真，就极力这么主张。本来打算在宪法中写“人民民主专政 *即* 无产阶级专政”，有人说这两个词不能划等号，所以改成比较科学的“人民民主专政 *实质上是* 无产阶级专政”，既体现无产阶级的专政地位，又体现统一战线的权利。

之前的宪法本来把公民基本权利义务作为最后一章，放在国家机构后面；因为文化大革命的教训，1982年宪法改变了这个结构。

有的委员提出，现在父母老了子女不管的事情时常见诸报端，社会道德低下的人非常叫人吃惊，宪法应该纠正这种现象，于是宪法特意规定了父母有抚养子女的义务，子女有赡养老人的义务。同时还规定了比较多的类似对残疾人关怀照顾这样的条文。这说明虽然82年宪法没有明确提出人权的概念，但还是体现了对人的权利的尊重。

按照马克思主义原理，军队也是国家政权的重要组成部分，所以82年宪法还规定了国家军事委员会。基于党指挥枪的原则，规定中国共产党的中央军事委员会就是国家的中央军事委员会，军事委员会的主席、副主席右全国人大来任命。

文化大革命中，公检法名存实亡。国民党的时候，按照西方的体制，检察院不是对立的，他有三权分立，只有负责司法的法院里头有法官和检察官。检察院是参照的苏联，当时列宁觉得应该有一个强有力的监督机构，独立出来。检察院本来有一个“一般监督”的职能，一些职位比较高的领导干部也要监督。这让他们觉得这个体质不好。1954年宪法规定的检察院，是垂直领导制。即只有上级的人民检察院才能领导下级的人民检察院，基层的、地方的检察院不受地方党委和人民政府的干预。但这种制度在实际中是行不通的，事实上还是双重从属制，并且是地方领导占主要。

== （五） ==

82年宪法通过后，起草者们还到各地去做讲座，走了全国16个大城市，跟群众宣讲起草报告，收到人民群众的热烈欢迎。之后全国掀起了学习宪法的高潮，各地各校纷纷开办法学系，法律和法学专业迎来了第二春。

之后成立的宪法学研究会对一些问题进行了讨论。比如说宪法的序言有没有法律效力。有人认为序言讲了一段历史过程，没有法律效力，有人认为其中带有规范性的内容是有法律效力，另一部分对历史的叙述等，只是一种指导性的东西，是没有法律效力的。许认为宪法是作为一个整体通过的，其所有条文都是有法律效力的，不能认为把宪法割裂。

再比如私有财产保护问题。从毛泽东提出私有制改造开始，大家就觉得私有制是万恶之源，公有制要越大越好，程度越高越好，叫一大二公。搞新的宪法时，出于发展生产力的考虑，开始规定计划经济和市场经济并用。后来又通过修正案规定“社会主义市场经济”。许认为这是一种很大的革命。

资产阶级宪法说私有财产神圣不可侵犯，我们就反其道而行，说公有财产神圣不可侵犯。许现在认为，法律既然规定了不可侵犯，加神圣就是多余的，这是个文学语言。所以现在修正宪法，说国家保护私有财产，也不用加神圣了。

宪法的一些修正案，也是各种进步。比如指导思想里加入邓小平理论、三个代表，赋予国家主席进行国事活动的外交代表权，等等。

叶剑英发表了九条对台湾方针，叫叶九条，后来被发展成一国两制的方针，为解决香港问题提供了便利。英国人1895年签订的租借九龙半岛（现在的新界）的租期是99年，97年租期就满了。80年代，英国人开始紧张香港的前途，担心租期满了怎么办，就来找中国政府商量。中国政府说不光新界要收回，九龙、港岛统统要收回。所以就开始谈判，谈从80年代末到97年，不列颠如何管理香港，97年之后中国政府对香港实行什么政策。于是就有了一国两制的雏形，才又在82宪法的总纲里加了第31条，说国家在必要的时候设立特别行政区。特别行政区是什么制度，到时候由全国人大用法律来规定。

当时并没有明确说可以实行资本主义制度，因为和英国谈不谈得拢还不知道，万一谈不拢就只能武力解决，单方面宣布我们收回香港，然后和解放广州、解放上海一样，搞民主改革，搞社会主义改造。82年并没有把一国两制写在宪法里。

= = （六） ==

《香港基本法》是从1985年下半年开始，一直到1990年才起草完成。中间的《澳门基本法》是1988年开始，1993年完成。《香港基本法》的起草委员会里，59位委员有23个香港人。《澳门基本法》也差不多，有1/3的比例是港澳委员。

起草的过程是非常透明的，每天都要跟港澳记者吹风，每天的会议情况、争论的问题，都会见诸报端。因为这种公开，港澳各界人士也通过媒体提出他们的看法意见，甚至批评。

草案到了一定阶段，不仅在港澳发起全民讨论，还在内地的两省两市（广东、福建，广州、上海）广泛征求意见。

立法过程中，邓小平接见了起草委员会三次，并且非常详细而具体地对一些解不开的争论问题做了指示。

港澳既不搞人民民主专政，也不搞资产阶级专政，而是以爱国者为主体，港人治港，澳人治澳。

== （七） ==

港澳是高度自治的。中央不派驻干部，军队过去也只是国防需要。港澳的货币、税收都有高度自治权，是史无前例的。

许认为美国对港澳有路人皆知的企图，美国人想利用港澳这个资本主义的地方来推销它的民主制度，来改造中国大陆。因此虽然这个地方回归了，斗争还是非常尖锐的。香港还有倚靠美国人或英国人的一批反对势力。掌握主导权的港媒都不在政府手里，他们一边倒地偏向西方。这里面还有很多工作要做，要加强对居民的爱国主义教育。

有了基本法，按照基本法来办事，这些问题都可以逐步解决。

从2004年开始，我们国家意识到意识形态的斗争在国际国内都很严重。许认为我们应教育我们的后代，千秋万代，要保持马克思主义的承接性，要把马克思主义中国化来指导我们的一切工作。党中央高瞻远瞩，在04年启动了马克思主义研究和建设工程，成立了好几个科技组，要用十年的时间，在各个社会科学领域把马克思主义建设好。法学的科技组已经成立了法理学和宪法学两个。

== （八） ==

第八段太没有营养了，感兴趣的同学自己去看吧。

分类于：好康推荐标签: 历史, 宪法, 法学

[力荐!] Glee – Darren Criss 完美翻唱 Teenage Dream

慵云 — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:24:44 +0800

这集《给力合唱团》太给力了！而且是吴大维客串！

[此视频遭版权投诉 : http://www.soku.com/search/video/q_glee%20teenage%20dream ]

点此下载或者这里

——————————————

第一季音乐片段：

http://u.115.com/file/f4c9b1bfb3

http://u.115.com/file/f428dd13a7

http://u.115.com/file/f4cf13431c

———————————————

此人叫 Darren Criss 。为了推荐这首歌，我居然就把他名字记住了，看了这么久《给力》，其他演员的名字是一个都没记住……

他是密歇根州立大学 Team StarKid 剧社成员，这个剧社有部很受欢迎的音乐喜剧（当然，是在剧院演出）—— A Very Potter Musical ，简称 AVPM ，之前在某知名视频网站非常火（国内也可以看）…… 我稍微看了下，嗯，我承认我英语太差了，看不懂里面的笑点，所以不太感冒～

但这首翻唱是真的好啊… 完美的和声，完美的主唱… 完美的剧情铺垫….. 哎哟，那段牵着手小跑的慢动作哦。导演实在是….

这一集播出后，Darren Criss 可谓是人气飙升啊，一跃成为 Google 实时搜索热度排名的第11位：

还有一件很搞笑的事是，这段表演之前泄露出来之后，还有 AVPM 的粉丝跳出来，让Glee girls不要打Darren Criss的主意，因为她们知道，节目播出后，她们的 Potter 一定会大受欢迎！的确啊，面对如此一个 cute little shining talented boy ，谁又能有抵抗力呢？！

我反正是被折服了，你呢？

—-

补两个视频：

这个口技..

这个视频在youtube上顶得最多的评论是：WHY THE FUCK DID JUSTIN BIEBER GET BIG INSTEAD OF YOU ?! 哈哈～

原唱就大家自己去找吧～

分类于：娱乐至死标签: 欢乐合唱团_Glee

[The X Factor]英国偶像12强新鲜出炉各路选手特色十足

慵云 — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 23:24:58 +0800

正文开始前先推荐一坨屎一样的东西：中国达人秀失利选手大闹赛场。滑稽，太滑稽了…… 选手滑稽，周立波更滑稽，主办方最滑稽…… 不过咱能怎么办呢？再多说几句就又要有人骂我崇洋媚外啦！

反正这节目我是越看越没兴致了。本来达人系列一连七天的半决赛+决赛，就是为了利用海选的轰动效应，快速造星；而现在中国达人秀决赛是一周一集，国庆期间还要中断一周，粉丝们的热情很快就会冷下去。这个不是歌唱选秀，那些靠新奇才能出位的选手还不能每周出镜，当选手站在总决赛舞台上时，可能距你上一次看到他已经一个多月了，这时你还会保持当初的热情吗？这叫考虑国情么？这叫不尊重常识——正如我们国家的当权者正在做的一样。

————————————

本来没有追今年的X Factor，但国庆无聊，就又翻来看了。意外发现今年的选手都十分有特色，演唱水平总体上也比去年高一个档次。最重要的是，今年的选手比去年养眼多了！！

昨天12强新鲜出炉，虽然和我心目中的名单有一些差距，不过也完全能理解评委们为什么这么做，先来看一下名单：

女生组 - 选歌手还是选超模？

这一季的女生都很有超模范儿。两个特别会打扮的Katie Waissel和Cher Lloyd不说，连靠“巨星般嗓音”赢得掌声的Rebecca Ferguson在上面的视频里的POSE也特别像Tyra Bank（《全美超模大赛》主持）。前两个选手歌声并不动人，并且在Judge’s House里都演砸了：Katie情绪失控，连Cheryl自己都承认她是drama queen，Cher甚至没把一首歌完整地唱完。节目播出后，微博上掀起一股反对评委Cheryl的浪潮，某真人秀博客上的评论达到300多条，几乎是一边倒地批评Cheryl。The X Factor官网上也是一片反对声音。不过，也许节目组要的正是这种争议？

这些评论里提到的Gamu是一个津巴布韦黑人女生，歌声确实动人，所以Cheryl把她淘汰掉在广大网友看来不仅是肤浅的表现，也涉嫌种族歧视。

来看一看她在bootcamp的表现：

注意到她说完“这才是最重要的”之后那个微表情了么？这种对歌唱的真诚哪里找？

再来看看Katie在同一集里的表现，个人觉得这已经是她目前最好的表演了：

这份紧张，是单纯地爱唱歌，还是害怕错失成名机会？知道网友反应为什么这么大了吧？

不过木已成舟，还是来看一下三位晋级女选手们海选时的表现吧：

Katie Waissel的海选视频：

Cher Lloyd的海选视频：

这孩子我也挺喜欢的，很有特色，才17岁诶。这张老脸和沙哑嗓音，营造起如 Gossip Girl 里 Serena 的那股牛逼劲。不过在小黑屋里唱崩溃了实在不应该。我本来以为，既然她这么有范儿，就算因为训练过度造成发音器官受损，也应该能做到优雅退场，到底还是太年轻了呀。

Rebecca Ferguson的海选视频：

in bootcamp:

她的声线和Norah Jones很像，但不得不说，诺拉·琼斯的声音听起来比她舒服多了。

有传言说今年会有TOP13，Gamu可能回来么？拭目以待～

男生组 – 正太都到哪儿去了？

Matt Cardle 是我的最爱。有着邻家男孩的亲切和谦卑，最喜欢捏着嗓子唱女人的歌。

这是他的海选视频（人人影视的字幕，我压制时调整失误，字体较小，见谅）：

有人说他长得像这届美偶冠军Lee DeWyze，可唱起歌来却是一点都不像呢。在训练营时：

在评委小黑屋里唱的 If I Were A Boy 比碧昂斯的原版还要深情（暂无字幕，见谅），我觉得在歌声里碧昂斯都比他man一点：

作为男生组里年龄最大的，我却觉得他是看起来最孩子气的，what’s the problem with me… 是的，主要是其他选手都太成熟，太有范儿了。

Aiden Grimshaw虽然只有18岁，却有那种popular kids的自信，必然是迷倒了众多女生。不过我倒觉得他傻乎乎的：

海选时很装逼地清唱了一首Gold Digger。对他完全没感觉啊，尤其是当他鼓着眼睛看你的时候，真的很想给他两锭子！

我们可以听一听Glee Cast的版本对比一下：

意大利人Nicolo Festa的星范儿也是十足啊：

这长相，完全的超模胚子嘛，我都可以开始YY他在T台上的样子了。话说，这样子的在意大利是不是只能算中等水平啊？

再搭送一个黑人：

可以看出，偶像系列果然还是选“偶像”的的节目。这种虽然唱得好，但长相不过关的选手，是很难晋级的。不过要真说他能替代上面哪一位选手，还真难做决定。Aiden Grimshaw虽然讨打，但是人家唱得真不赖。

这首Man’s Man’s World, 我们也可以用Glee Cast的表演对比一下哟：

Quinn一开口，你就觉得，这首歌就应该是她唱的…… 这种真实感，绝对的打动人心。这歌选的，和剧情实在太贴切了。哎呀哎呀，还没看过《欢乐合唱团》的童鞋，赶快来看一看吧（链接里的“人物介绍”是我写的）！

基本上，男生组的三位选手都是性感魅力熟男型，那些怪蜀黍最爱的小正太们呢？都被Simon拉去组团了！这个后面会讲到。

28岁以上组 – 酱油小组？

老年组今年可能又要打酱油了。年龄门槛提高，丧失很多优秀选手，尤其还摊上Louis为导师，基本上回天乏术了。除非Mary Byrne能超常发挥，像苏珊大妈一样凭借个人魅力赢得大部分观众认可。不过这个可能性微乎其微。Susan大妈在总决赛时收获的投票不也不多么？

来看她海选时的表现：

很有power，听得出来声音少有修饰，因此总觉得缺了点什么。但是…… 说实话，她让我想起我妈，虽然我妈并不怎么唱歌。

黑人选手John Adeleye海选时的镜头少得可怜，就唱了两句…… 来看一下他在评委小黑屋的表演：

YOHO！又能拿Glee Cast来对比咯：

出生于苏格兰，然后在美国打拼了20年的大叔Storm Lee，他的艺名虽然像“麻辣鸡丝”一样俗气，但人还是很可爱的：

声音的确有Rockstar的范儿，可能只是造物弄人，他其实就应该是巨星。很多时候，我们只是少了一个机会。

为了他，我还专门发了条微博——“装嫩大叔什么的最可爱了….”

团体组 – Simon内定偶像团？

这一季有的年龄门槛提高了，多出很多“少男”、“少女”，怎么办呢？组团！评委们把一些表现欠佳的男选手和女选手集合在一起，分别组了两个团体。其实在宣布组这两个团的时候，我就知道，今年的group们悲剧了，top 3这两个团必然进，真正的团体晋级名额只有1个！Simon本人就是制作人，带领团体组应该是他自己要来的，甚至把多出来的少男少女捏成团体也是他的主意。

喜欢Liam 和小卷毛，不愧是主唱。中间那个弓腰驼背特猥琐的男生是在跳舞环节连上台都不肯的扭捏男，空有一副好五官，只能是被包养的命啊～

F.Y.D 能否重现JLS的辉煌？我看未必。中年男子团体，重要的就是一个帅劲… 要说长得最好看的组合，还是 The Reasons，但他们唱功确实不行啊。长了一张亚洲脸的法国双胞胎组合 Tween 很有喜感，看着就欢乐，但也是输在了唱功上。但 F.Y.D 对歌曲的编排别具匠心，若现场表现出色，说不定真的能成为黑马。

最后说说题外话，严格意义上来说，《The X Factor》并不能叫做《英国偶像》，因为YYeTs用的这个名字似乎已深入人心，我也只好沿用下来。两种节目形式，用国内比较熟悉的话来讲，X Factor相当于《名师高徒》，偶像系列相当于…额… 《梦想中国》？…… 独具创意的中国人民啊，搞那么多花样是做什么呢？

偶像系列的创始人Simon Fuller还和X Factor的创始人Simon Cowell（也就是我们熟悉的那个Simon）打过官司的。Simon Fuller最初创建Pop Idol（偶像系列的鼻祖，也是选秀潮的先驱）时，邀请了Simon Cowell做评委，后来Simon想搞一个自己的选秀节目，就和ITV商量把 Pop Idol 给挤下去了。然后Simon Fuller就上法院告X Factor剽窃自己的节目形式，最终双方庭外和解…… 双方各自竞争，造成现在世上有两大歌唱选秀节目的情况。偶像系列凭借诞生早，占据大部分市场，如果收视率没有降，一般是不会有什么调整的（最著名的当属《美国偶像》）；部分国家的“偶像”则被X Factor取代，少部分国家两者共存。拿澳洲来说，当年《澳洲偶像》火的时候，X Factor做了一季就做不下去了，现在澳洲偶像收视低迷，2010年甚至被砍掉，X Factor澳洲版就又重复江湖了～

分类于：娱乐至死标签: The X Factor 英国偶像

[转载]把根子理清、理顺

慵云 — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:44:29 +0800

转发者按：
转发这篇文章有两个原因。一是本博客实在很久没有更新了（博主都干嘛去了？）；二是此文的作者还算是博主的一个熟人，写得么，也还不错…… 我觉得应该让更多的人看到。请各位读者根据文章所述，自行反思一下，自己是否已经被物化为机器，然后再对照我之前写的这篇文章，想想自己接下来的生活要怎么过…
好吧，我检举揭发自己，上面那种很讨打的调调是向原文作者学的。其实我觉得，这种唧唧歪歪，喜欢对他人指指点点的人本身也是平庸人士的一种。其平庸之最根本在于，他的大部分想法是想当然的，是一个人躲在小黑屋里瞎想出来的，是没有经过田野调查的，是没有接受与他人思维直接碰撞的锤炼的。牛逼人士与准牛逼人士的差别就在于他们对现实、对人民的热爱是否足够深沉与真心。当然，思路要放开，想法要独立，这是根本。最最最重要的，要勇于思考、热爱思考。

把根子理清、理顺

按：

“曾经多少次跌倒在路上，多少次折断过翅膀，

如今已不再感到彷徨，超越平凡的欲望；

我想要怒放的生命，就像飞翔在辽阔天空，就像穿行在无边的旷野，拥有挣脱一切的力量。

曾经多少次失去了方向，多少次磨灭了梦想；

如今已不再感到迷茫，要生命得到解放；

我想要怒放的生命，就想矗立在彩虹之巅，就像穿行在最灿烂星河，拥有超越平庸的力量。”

一个人始终是难以摆脱一些东西的束缚。第一，既得利益是束缚人的一道大门，它，往往决定了那些不用自己‘心灵思考问题’的人的行为路径与人生杯具，也有‘屁股决定脑袋’一说。第二，无意识经验所形成的潜意识的束缚，这一点潜移默化而且深刻的影响你。它来源于a你小时候的家庭（经历）环境（贫寒、富裕、锻炼、溺爱、单亲、健全、民主、暴力、多子女、单子女等等你不能控制的外界‘强加’经历，而同时又是你的无意识经历，因为你无法识别、无法控制、无法思辨，在无意识时期的孩童）；来源于b学校的启蒙教育（什么样的老师方法、什么样同学经验等等）；来源于c社会大环境对你的互相对象化，以及你的社会大环境化。因此在反思时候，先把这样束缚你的根根上的东西理顺，再来谈其他。否则，根子不理顺，干什么都有‘既得物’的束缚与烙印，干什么都会有既定的未超越的局限。什么‘打通’、‘救赎’都难以谈起。当然，我并没说这不正常。“一切已死的先辈们（历史）的‘传统’，像梦魇一样纠缠着活人的头脑。”所以精神分析学派才频频说，“孩童时期的无意识经验，是日后人格特征与心理障碍的根源”。呵呵，扯远了。

当今社会也许需要很多这样的人，他们一方面觉得自己是自主的，并且认为自己是有所谓‘主见’与所谓‘规则’的；但另外一方面，他们又习惯于接受别人的命令与社会的操弄，心甘情愿地被纳入社会这部大机器中，规规矩矩听人摆布，自愿服从令他感到‘尊敬’的领导的盲目指挥。“现代社会只希望人保留一种作为人的一个主动性——那就是他们拼命的为他们连自己都搞不清楚原因的事情全力的工作、充分发挥自己的技术去追求“修齐治平”与出人头地。设定的各项目标诸如当富商、当官员、当教授等等，连自己都不知道为什么要这样做，这样做又是为了什么？”

其结果就是，现代人与自身、与其他人、与自然之间的关系被异化了。人、人格变成了一种可以进行交易的商品，宝贵的、人的真正的生命力在被掩盖后（能体会吗？）只不过沦为一笔资本（一定要弄清楚这里，资本的涵义），这样而言，在这些人眼中，人与人的关系在本质上是陌生的，是一群可以自由行动的机器之间的关系而已。早在50年前的欧洲就有人这样指出“哪怕这类人谈所谓的恋爱，也永远不能实现真正的内心的生命力、爱的结合，他们的相敬如宾只是为了使对方感到满意，以及让别人觉得他们还可以；他们极端的‘如胶似漆’只不过是互相的某种占有欲（色、利、名等）得以实现。是的，仅此而已。”

人‘被’安排重复而刻板的机械化工作，这种千篇一律的、周而复始的工作习惯，让人们忽视内心追求的创造性。当仅凭这些还不够。因此，人们就不得不通过娱乐工业提供的音乐、图片，为人们提供所谓的大规模的“精神享乐”，以及通过不断地商品性的、物质性的刺激去掩盖、去淡漠心中那无法回避的无奈。在这样的情况下，凤姐芙蓉姐脑残物质女等人物及其相关节目等等不仅不会减少，而且会以几何级数增加。《美丽新世界》中早就对今人的生活做出过描述“营养充分、穿戴讲究，性欲得到满足，但却没有真正的自我，与周围的其他人的接触只停留在表面，从不深入内心。”“一些人心中‘幸福’，就是享受，就是满足消费，就是和同一群人保持没有原因的简单一致。”以此，来规避自己不想面对的、也没有面对的东西，那东西又是什么呢？

那么这种背后真的东西，本质在哪里呢？没有情感的血缘只不过如同清水，没有爱情的性-交只不过如同畜生的本能，没有心灵交换的友情只不过是利益的畸形交换。在经常被提及的，所谓物质化的、物欲横流的、物质男女频频闪现以至于泛滥的时代，有什么特点呢？资本控制劳动力，没有生命的东西的价值高于有生命的意义；也就是，资本原则统治‘人’本身，统治人与人、人与社会的一切关系。物质与利益或者意识化了的物质与利益，对于没有灵魂的人，就如同得了蜱虫病的狗身上的脓包一样，难以摆脱。老王说，‘人不能在自己创造的对象中迷失自己’就是这个意思，但是有些人在别人创造的对象中迷失，岂不是更可悲？有一种‘非人非生命’的物质利益资本的东西，掩盖人心中真正的‘人’的特性与品质，并且胁迫和统治一个作为有生命的人的行为，岂不是既悲哀可恨又活该可怜。

什么叫做让他们开始思考？聪明的人满街都是，但是他们的聪明只限于：想与他们的物质利益（化）相关的事情，连自己的内心都不能够涉及。因此在这里，聪明几乎是一个贬义词。当他们比关心自己的物质利益那样还要关心自己的心灵的时候，也许就是开始学会思考的起步。敢于思考、鼓励思考、善于思考，让思考成为生活的重要一部分，这是多么美妙的事情。实际上，“聚精会神的冥思是灵魂在活跃的运转，是‘生命力’积极行动的最高境界，只有那些内心真正自主、人格真正独立的人才会具有这样的境界。”诚如‘爱’就是一种积极行动，人自己的真正的人格力量的运用，这种力量只有在自由自主状态才能得到发挥，而且永远不是强制的产物。

……

在当下的虚无与浮躁中，你寻找到了失落，还是探悟到了信仰？别在一次又一次的极其纵欲的物质刺激与强演欢笑的装逼装神中，去躲避、掩盖自己心中那尚未觉醒的深刻的悲凉和绝望~

……

我想起了《悲惨世界》中，让·瓦让对小警察讲的最后一句话：“你什么时候明白过？”（此句杀伤力极大，这哥们儿极其生猛，哈哈一条好汉！）。在让·瓦让死去的时候，作者这样讲道：“他，将幸福的死去，因为，他，真正的活过！”

……

“我深信，愿意学习的人，一定会像孩子学会走路一样找到自己的信仰；我也深信，每一个人都有实现自己的权利，只要他不放弃作为一个真正的人的资格。”

请原文作者见到此文后联系本人索取稿费。

分类于：人微言轻标签: 人生

欢乐合唱团 Glee 第一季歌舞片段高清720P 全下载

慵云 — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:47:54 +0800

Glee 是我今年最喜欢的剧集，也是唯一追看的两部美剧之一（另一部是《双面法医》）。前几天看了传说中的经典《雨中曲》，发觉我比想象中还喜欢歌舞片。当年《歌舞青春》让我眼前一亮，但看到第二部的时候就审美疲劳；Glee 却是百看不厌，里面的歌也是百听不厌。

特此整理出其歌舞片段的高清合辑，均为720P片源无损切割而得。不仅分辨率是1280×720，音轨也是 5.1 的环绕立体声… 可惜啊，咱大部分人都木有相应的音箱设备啊。不然肯定爽歪歪……

稍后我也会陆续传到优酷和其他网盘上，希望喜欢的同学多多分享！

送上一个预览(Don’t Stop Believin’ 几乎是 New Directions 的队歌了!)：

上半季（EP1-EP13）

看呐，就算你没看过这部剧，下面一定也有你熟悉的歌吧？

加粗的是推荐曲目。

EP1:
Glee.S01E01._Don__t_Stop_Believin___Journey_(00h43m05s-00h46m11s).mkv 队歌
Glee.S01E01_On_My_Own_-_Les_Misérables_(00h08m03s-00h09m05s).mkv 女主首唱
Glee.S01E01._Rehab_-_Amy_Winehouse_(00h29m52s-00h31m41s).mkv 首个合唱
EP2:
Glee.S01E02._Push_It_-_Salt-n-Pepa_(00h26m42s-00h28m52s).mkv 给他们一点Sex
Glee.S01E02._Take_a_Bow_-_Rihana_(00h41m01s-00h43m19s).mkv 瑞秋的自省
Glee.S01E02._Gold_Digger_-_Kanye_West_feat._Jamin_Foxx_(00h10m06s-00h12m00s).mkv
EP3:
Glee.S01E03_Poison_-_Bell_Biv_DeVoe_(00h13m13s-00h14m24s).mkv Acafellas 的首次公开亮相
Glee.S01E03._Bust_Your_Windows_-_Jazmine_Sullivan_(00h28m23s-00h30m26s).mkv 大爱
Glee.S01E03._I_Wanna_Sex_You_Up_-_Color_Me_Badd_(00h34m14s-00h35m52s).mkv 男子团体就是好
Glee.S01E03._Mercy_-_Duffy_(00h18m30s-00h19m41s).mkv
EP4:
Glee.S01E04._Single_Ladies_-_Kurt_(00h00m00s-00h00m57s).mkv Hello Beyonce
Glee.S01E04._Single_Ladies_-_Team_(00h33m40s-00h35m00s).mkv 搞得我都想跳了
EP5:
Glee.S01E05._Maybe_This_Time_-_Cabaret_4(00h11m54s-00h14m55s).mkv April 大姐一鸣惊人
Glee.S01E05_Last_Name_-_Carrie_Underwood_(00h33m34s-00h35m33s).mkv 牛仔
Glee.S01E05._Alone_-_Heart_(00h26m22s-00h27m51s).mkv 完美对唱
Glee.S01E05_Somebody_to_Love_-_Queen_(00h39m48s-00h42m29s).mkv 有理由相信，Queen会出现很多次
EP6:
Glee.S01E06._It__s_My_Life_Confessions_Part_II_-_Bon_Jovi_Usher_(00h16m03s-00h17m53s).mkv 女生的激情mashup
Glee.S01E06._Halo,_Walking_on_Sunshine_-_Beyoncé,_Katrina_and_the_Waves_(00h28m24s-00h30m32s).mkv 他们都嗑药了我爱mashup
EP7:
Glee.S01E07._No_Air_-_Jordin_Sparks_and_Chris_Brown_(00h22m35s-00h24m36s).mkv
Glee.S01E07._You_Keep_Me_Hangin___On_-_The_Supremes_(00h29m54s-00h31m46s).mkv
Glee.S01E07._Keep_Holding_On_-_Avril_Lavigne_(00h40m17s-00h42m39s).mkv
Glee.S01E07._Hate_on_Me_-_Jill_Scott_(00h11m01s-00h12m59s).mkv
EP8:
Glee.S01E08._I_Could_Have_Danced_All_Night_-_My_Fair_Lady_(00h27m09s-00h28m31s).mkv
Glee.S01E08._Sweet_Caroline_-_Neil_Diamond_(00h15m55s-00h17m58s).mkv
Glee.S01E08._Thong_Song_-_Sisqó_(00h09m23s-00h10m38s).mkv
Glee.S01E08._Bust_a_Move_-_Young_MC_(00h04m07s-00h06m13s).mkv
EP9:
Glee.S01E09._Dancing_with_Myself_-_Billy_Idol_(00h06m33s-00h08m14s).mkv
Glee.S01E09._Proud_Mary_-_Creedence_Clearwater_Revival_(00h40m35s-00h43m04s).mkv
Glee.S01E09._Defying_Gravity_-_Wicked_(00h29m23s-00h32m01s).mkv
EP10:
Glee.S01E10._(You__re)_Having_My_Baby_-_Paul_Anka_and_Odia_Coates_(00h30m04s-00h31m17s).mkv
Glee.S01E10._Don__t_Stand_So_Close_to_Me,_Young_Girl_-_The_Police,_Gary_Puckett_&_The_Union_Gap_(00h17m47s-00h19m53s).mkv
Glee.S01E10._Endless_Love_-_Lionel_Richie_and_Diana_Ross_(00h02m34s-00h05m07s).mkv
Glee.S01E10._I__ll_Stand_by_You_-_The_Pretenders_(00h13m01s-00h14m19s).mkv
Glee.S01E10._Lean_on_Me_-_Bill_Withers_(00h39m21s-00h42m08s).mkv
EP11:
Glee.S01E11._Bootylicious_-_Destiny__s_Child_(00h04m40s-00h06m41s).mkv
Glee.S01E11._Papa_Don__t_Preach_-_Madonna_(00h24m42s-00h25m53s).mkv
Glee.S01E11._Hair,_Crazy_in_Love_-_Hair,_Beyoncé_feat._Jay-Z_(00h28m59s-00h30m42s).mkv
Glee.S01E11._Imagine_-_John_Lennon_(00h31m04s-00h34m09s).mkv
Glee.S01E11._True_Colors_-_Cyndi_Lauper_(00h41m00s-00h42m54s).mkv
EP12:
Glee.S01E12._Smile_-_Lily_Allen_(00h15m46s-00h17m30s).mkv
Glee.S01E12._Jump_-_Van_Halen_(00h23m13s-00h25m13s).mkv
Glee.S01E12._Smile_-_Charlie_Chaplin_(00h38m44s-00h41m16s).mkv
EP13:
Glee.S01E13._Don__t_Rain_on_My_Parade_-_Funny_Girl_(00h24m20s-00h27m08s).mkv
Glee.S01E13._And_I_Am_Telling_You_I__m_Not_Going_-_Dreamgirls_(Jennifer_Hudson_)_(00h05m38s-00h07m55s).mkv
Glee.S01E13._My_Life_Would_Suck_Without_You_-_Kelly_Clarkson_(00h41m08s-00h43m34s).mkv
Glee.S01E13._You_Can__t_Always_Get_What_You_Want_-_The_Rolling_Stones_(00h27m19s-00h29m34s).mkv

下半季（EP14-EP22）

高清版下载链接已经失效，请选用 BT下载

https://torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=1036349

普通清晰度的再此： http://blog.benhuoer.com/posts/glee-music-videos-720p-download.html#comment-2006 不过至少要比那些视频网站上的清晰多拉！

分类于：娱乐至死标签: 打包下载, 欢乐合唱团_Glee

我勒个去，《中国达人秀》？

慵云 — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:40:06 +0800

好吧，正式播出了。

刚才稍微瞅了一眼，不巧就看到这周新闻稿里力荐的两位选手。

苏珊大妈？我操！这水平还不如快男呢！这样也敢称“男版苏珊大妈”，那如果这一季快男的小胖张建波来参赛岂不是能夺冠了？说来也奇怪啊，都是娘泡小胖，张建波我看着就挺可爱，这小孩儿就让我直起鸡皮疙瘩。

妈的，真的是对上海人一点好感也没有。一个自以为是自我膨胀的群体。

周立波也是个他妈的傻逼。

请问下各位读者，周立波在上海之外真的有市场吗？是我已经自决于人民了还是怎样？为什么我就是看他不顺眼呢！？

最他妈的受不了的是，这节目居然有罐头笑声！！我操！现场录制的节目居然有罐头笑声！

另外还受不了的是无处不在的赞助商牛皮癣广告。中国的电视台真的这么缺钱吗？！？！你们真的这么缺钱吗！？中国的广告客户都这么不要脸吗？！又或者是中国人民心理承受能力很强还是怎样？！？！？

啊，我开始希望买版权的是湖南卫视了……

PS：东方卫视的官网上也开始打造“番茄”品牌了，BBS叫“番茄社区”。好吧，姑且认为这是你们巴结人民群众的举动。

好吧，送上在线直播： http://info.smgbb.cn/2010/tv/live.html?216-1280063100 请直接拖到第18分钟…

其实这个节目还是有看头的，因为中国人民真的很有才。好吧好吧，我力荐大家去看，哈哈……

UPDATE 3:

点评一下这些选手吧。

1. 猫王模仿者蒋振威：他唱的是 Blue Suede Shoes 够范儿，部分地方发音不准，音色当然也没猫王好。不过作为中国人，能做到这个份儿上已经很不容易了。

2. 视唱歌为生命的假音歌手刘俊峰 : 这一段我对评委非常不满。严重怀疑有黑幕，故意安排这种所谓跌宕起伏的剧情，还他妈的同时按X，请问还能不能再假一点？说实话，刘俊峰开唱的时候，我真的能感受它是在用生命歌词。

3. 反串选手杨云阁： 首先我要说，那段老太婆鼓掌的镜头，居然在两分钟内用了两次？！我操，能不能多安排几个机位，认真点捕捉观众表情？嗯哼？话说回选手，扮相很美，唱得真的不咋样。有一个李玉刚就够了。谢谢！妈的，这个选手明显气息不够，同样是假音选手，怎么待遇差别这么大呢？就因为人家没有准备女装？去死吧！死评委！

4. 肚皮舞：嗯，美女多。略过。

5. 民工街舞团 好吧，我承认这组选手很有卖点。但是！但是！电视台也搞得太烂了吧？评委怎么可以不问选手是如何成团的呢？别人怀疑你是炒作怎么办？不会真的是炒作吧？那个啥，镜头也切得太糟糕了点吧？完全没把舞蹈的精彩之处表现出来，敢情你认为中国人就会看个热闹是吧？周立波你脑壳有屎吧？中国民工的生存现状？你他妈的喝咖啡的，中国民工真实的现状是跳街舞，那富士康N连跳的那些人全都是和你一样喝咖啡的高管啊？

6. 富二代原创音乐人 他说他是琴行老板。25岁的琴行老板。谁说不是富二代？坑爹呢这是？嗯，话说我还蛮喜欢他的… 哈哈。“怎么没有音乐了…” 哇哈哈，瞬间秒杀我。主持人的表现也太他妈落井下石了。 Ant & Dec 会这么说吗？啊？

7. 袖珍人朱洁 中国人才太鸡巴多了。问题是他还有个男朋友和她刚好凑成一对。我也不想长大啊… 笑起来有点难看，唱功还有待提升。

8. 变脸大妈李红沁 顶成都人！ 66岁！一点也看不出来呢！一点皱纹都没有！现在中国生活状态这么年轻的老年人，不多见了！达人节目的意义所在就是这种选手！

9. 肩上飞人女陈静 两个字！彪悍！这种风格的女人很市井，也很可爱。

10. “男版苏珊大妈” 朱晓明 啊啊啊啊啊！！这种怎么能使苏珊大妈呢？唱一首烂大街的歌，还唱这么难听，怎么可能成为苏珊大妈呢？电视台你脑子有病吧？

综上所述，《中国达人》其实比什么英国达人、美国达人都要好看的。只是电视台的操作太他妈的戳了。

分类于：生活琐碎标签: 中国达人

自由的百科全书+PDF+有声=?

慵云 — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:11:26 +0800

今天偶然访问维基百科，突然发现两个新功能——生成PDF和“有声维基百科计划”，惊喜万分，遂拿来与大家分享。

1. PDF版的维基百科

现在，英文版（以及大部分拉丁语系语言的）维基百科已经提供将百科内容下载为 pdf 文件的功能。你甚至能选定几个页面，制作自己的电子书。电子书可以下载为 pdf 或者开放文档格式 odt 。

在条目的左侧栏的 Print/export 找到 Create a book ，启动 Book Creater，即可进入上图所示界面。然后去浏览你感兴趣的条目吧，点击页面顶部的 Add this page to your book 即可把正在查看的页加入书籍。在页面中的条目链接上悬停，还可以直接把链接所指条目加入书籍。

在管理书籍界面，可以进行添加章节、为文章排序等操作。如上图所示，我制作了一本名为 How They Judge 的书，副标题是 A Look Into US Supreme Court ，搜集了美国最高法院相关的一些条目。生成的文档可以点此下载：http://img.yjc.me/US-supreme-court.pdf

有封面，有页码，有目录，有图片，有格式… 十分适合打印出来阅读。

2. 有声版的维基百科

我曾经在推特上数次推荐网友自发组建的家常读书论坛。一群朗读爱好者阅读各种书籍，放出来给大家共享，以弥补国内空虚的有声读物市场。

现在维基百科也有这样的项目了，也是网友自发朗读，不过朗读的内容变成了版权自由的维基百科条目。在这个开放的平台上你能听到各种口音的朗读。维基百科条目的高质量，保证了朗读内容的实用价值。听这些语音，既能增长见识，又能学外语…… 夫复何求？

已有有声条目：http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoken_articles

中文的有声条目计划：http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/Wikipedia:有聲維基百科專題

朗读爱好者，还不出手？

总结

自由的百科全书 + PDF + 有声 = 丰富、方便的学习资源！

另外，给有声书控推荐一个下载地址：http://www.torrentz.com/search?q=audio+books （是的，我爱死这个网站了。这几个月已经在博客推荐四五次了…）

另外外，学外语发音，我信赖 forvo …

分类于：外语笔记, 好康推荐标签: 有声书, 电子书, 维基百科

笨活儿