Profiel van NaToday is a presentFoto'sWeblogLijstenMeer ![]() | Help |
|
19 maart What the Iraq war has done for Bush and Blair: MSN UKThe infamous bond between George W Bush and Tony Blair has never been a simple one. MSN UK home page editor Ian Jones examines how it has been influenced by events in Iraq. Long distance relationships never work. Consider Tony and George, two people separated not merely by nationality, but by a distance of 3,674 miles. Chances to meet face to face were, understandably, few and far between. Chances to say what they really felt about each other, even on the phone, were even rarer. So many other people made demands on their time. So many other issues kept proving a distraction. Cynics had proclaimed the affair doomed from the outset. Sceptics had reflected that it could only end in disaster. Nobody expected, however, that it would leave anywhere between 600,000 and 1,000,000 dead in Iraq, and both protagonists - and their respective nations - at best mistrusted, at worst loathed, right around the globe. The relationship between Blair and Bush was fostered in trying times and from contrasting motives. They might have claimed to think they were behaving out of pure pragmatism, but clearly both had other reasons for falling in together and turning the so-called 'special relationship' between the UK and America from a largely docile sideshow into a desperately antagonistic double act. Take Blair first. Before Iraq he had tried to cultivate an image of himself as a kind of enlightened warrior, striding into the world's hotspots - the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan - like a 19th century missionary, looking to heal discord and division with stirring words and stern action. By and large it worked, if you measure the level of his standing in the eyes of both the press and the public. In the case of Afghanistan, Blair had even been able to get most of the world on his side. Yet little by little he started acquiring a new image for himself, to replace those – ‘New Labour reformer,’ ‘the People’s Prime Minister’ – he had collected since coming to power. He was becoming a foreign crusader. Issues of the wider world were beginning to seem more important to Blair than those concerning his citizens' wallets. ![]() Dynamic shift Iraq sealed the change. Throughout his second term of office (2001-5) it never went away. Indeed, it increasingly dominated every aspect of the man and his government. Who now remembers anything about what else Labour did in power during those years? What we were sold as a quick, efficient liberation turned into a blood-soaked occupation. On and on it dragged. Blair seemed obsessed by it - or rather, obsessed with not letting it become seen as a bad thing. Now that Blair has been gone from Downing Street for almost a year, perspective has dealt his legacy a woefully bad hand. Whatever good he did as Prime Minister feels like it happened in spite of, rather than because, of his own personality. Whereas everything that went wrong, of which Iraq is most prominent, is traced right to his own doorstep. His entire premiership gets summed up under the heading: Fighting The Wrong Kind Of War. Of course, a lot of scorn was poured on Blair for that 'special relationship' with George Bush. Initially Blair had been able to define himself on his own terms, and not on those of another world leader. That all changed when Blair started repeatedly claiming he thought it was worth sticking with the US President in order to better influence the outcome in Iraq. His blinkered idealism prevented him from realising he would not - could not - have any influence at all. How has Iraq left its mark on
George Bush? The man himself appears not to care. He is spending his
final months in office fooling around, behaving like it's the last day
of term and openly stating his eagerness to get back to his ranch.
After all, when you claim to have God on your side, who else do you
need? Almost everything he tried to do in his stint at the White House, however, is in ruins. He won power in 2000 speaking of compassionate conservatism and of America leaving the world to mind its own business. The fact those aspirations were but fig leaves to mask a nakedly militarist agenda was made plain by the speed at which Bush used the events of 11th September 2001 to launch a 'war on terror' and promote an 'axis of evil'. Both backfired. Both lost his party control of the Congress. Both lost his country a titanic sum of dignity and respect across the planet. And both have meant those people hoping to replace him have run a mile from any kind of similar sentiments. As for that tête-à-tête with Tony…well, as is so often the case with such liaisons, the chance to remain just good friends has rather been scuppered by one of the couple behaving like he was never really that interested in the first place, and the other choosing to spend more time with his family. Truly, long distance relationships never work – except tens of thousands of innocent people don’t usually pay for it with their lives. By Ian Jones, MSN home page editor March 2008
引用 What the Iraq war has done for Bush and Blair: MSN UK 16 maart 网友言论真的不知道中国的对事不对人是如何执行的???????????为什么梁朝伟,李安甚至范冰冰都没事。就只单单封杀汤唯???真该要相关部门解释一下“对事不对人”是什么意思.处在同一类事件的其他人到底处在这个问题的哪个角落。不得不承认这部电影对中国的社会风气造成了一些消极的影响,但这关汤唯及“色戒”中其他的工作人员什么呢?他们不过在述说男人与女人之间的爱情,表现一段对王佳芝和易先生而言刻骨铭心的爱情。而爱情一向是受人们称颂的感情之一。爱情对于过群居生活的人而言是最普通不过的事了,人类又不是禽兽!只不过导演在表现这段感情时用了一种较为真实的方式叙述。难道就因为这样,他们就该受到现在这种待遇吗?现实生活中的人,有几个能够说自己和自己的另一半是不上床的?这种行为不过是一种相爱的表现。如果你受不了如此露骨,可以选择不看。真正用心体会过剧中男女主角故事的人应该知道,剧中人物的痛苦、矛盾、绝望及相爱的快乐。正如导演所说,很难找到另外的方式来表现他们之间的感情。总不可能让他们用嘴说吧?明显,剧中的人都不是处在现在这个热衷于台湾偶像剧的时代,总将爱字挂在嘴边。人们对任何人事物作出的第一反应往往最接近其内心真实的想法。因而行为能够更好的体现一个人及其内心世界。仔细想想剧情,有人能想到更好的表现他们爱情的方式吗?这些镜头绝对是剧情的需要,而绝非哗众取宠。有问题的是那些只看到色情的观看者。是他们只会从这样一种角度看问题,他们无法维持自己那份纯净的心。致使看任何事情都只会从功利的角度诠释。在毫无根据的情况下,就一口咬定演员是为了名利地位一脱上位。想必大家都知道关于苏东坡的一个故事吧。
苏东坡与佛印斗禅。 苏东坡首先问:“印老,你看我像什么?” 佛印禅师毫不犹豫地回答说:“学士像一尊佛。”接着又反问他: “你看老僧像什么?” 苏东坡想了又想,见佛印禅师穿了一件黑色僧袍,人又长得胖,盘腿坐在那里,黑乎乎的一大堆。于是便冲口而出,说:“和尚活像一堆牛屎。” 佛印禅师听了,不怒反笑,默然不语,然后怡然自得地闭目养神。 苏东坡回到家里,高兴地对他的妹妹说:“妹妹啊,从来与印老斗禅机总是斗不过他,今天不知是和尚倒霉,还是我苏东坡走运,总算斗得他哑口无言。”接着便把他与佛印禅师斗禅的经过,绘声绘色地讲了一番。苏小妹听后,首先禁不住“呸”了一声,然后便数落了苏东坡一顿:“哥哥今天输光了矣!你还自以为大获全胜是不是?”苏东坡翘起胡子,瞪大眼睛,问她这是什么意思。苏小妹不急于告诉他答案,只问他:“我且问哥哥,是佛名贵呢,还是牛屎名贵?”苏东坡说:“当然是佛名贵罗!”苏小妹说:“好道!印老的见处是佛,哥哥的见处是牛屎。请问,谁高谁低?”苏东坡一怔,揪着胡子只顾发愣。苏小妹接着又说:“印老心中装的是佛,所以他看人人都是佛;哥哥一开口就是牛屎马粪,你心中装的是什么?可见印老的心境比你高啊!他既然获胜,便见好就收,还同你啰嗦什么?你就认了吧!” 看了这个故事,真的很想知道那些思想偏激的人是怎样的感受,你们到底把自己放在了那个位置。用这种敌对的心态去对待周围的一切,累的人最终将会是自己,而绝不会像现在这样说说别人的八卦这么轻松。看任何事务都应尽量积极的看,这才是对自己好,而周围的人也会轻松些。 另外官方说对事不对人,请问到底是指的哪件件事?汤唯做了哪些事导致她遭到封杀。如果官方指的是《色戒》的上映的话,那么第一个该受罚就应该是审批此片的相关工作人员。正是因为得到了他们的批准,该片才得以见于人前的。为什么他们没有得到任何处分?如果不是因为《色戒》,那汤唯又凭什么该受到这样的待遇!!!!???而且中国电影的尺度问题,十几年来一直没有个定论,这本就是中国政府相关工作人员工作上的失误。如果我国做好相关规定,导演自然会做相应调整。若剧情不允许调整,导演也可选择不在我国上映。那不就风平浪静了吗?为什么中国政府工作上的失误却要一个普通的演员来承担呢?她并没有以工资名义领纳税人的钱,自然不存在这份义务。更重要的是,既然法律没有规定,即表明汤唯及其他工作人员没有触犯相关法律。而且,我们都知道该片的一切手续都是通过正规程序的。该片涉及到的东西都没有触犯中国相关规定,那中国政府又凭着哪点来封杀一个演员出现在镜头上的权利呢?如果这样的做法成立,那表示只要政府人员乐意,我们任何一个老百姓的权利都可以被政府无条件的剥夺!!那我们百姓的生活又有什么保障呢?中国千年的历史都告诫我们,管理一个国家一定要严格尊照本国法律制度,就算是国家的帝王也应处于法律之下。这些年来,我国总说依法治国,现在执行起来却又根据它自己的喜好。这让我们这些小市民该怎么去适应呢?就算政府工作人员由该电影意识到,尺度大胆应属于一种违反国家规定的行为,也不可以立马就认定这次的行为是违法行为。而只能尽快提出议案,将这一规定加入中国的相关法律之中。当有明文规定后,若有人敢犯才能做出相应处理。法律规定了,本身已触犯法律的人的权利不受法律的保护。但这次相关人士都没有违法,是不能剥夺其正当权利的。 这次暴露了我国法律系统严重的缺陷。以前,我们看到各省市在执法上存在很多问题,只觉得我国法律不够完善,没有统一的标准,时常缺少可操作性。这次电影事件也是由于没有统一的标准造成的。而今却暴露出了一个更为严重的问题————我国有执法权利的相关人员根本不尊重法律,根本没有依法办事的意识。以道德来判定人事物确实是我国存在的一种评价标准,但这和个人道德观密切联系,无法同一。正因如此,世界才需要法律来规范人们的生活。我国行政人员似乎是没有弄清其中的差别。借此机会,正好改善改善我国的执法问题。还有,不能忘记给汤唯一个交代,给大众一个交代。 作者:58.20.4.* IANA 08 maart 文摘:封杀汤唯:权力与恶俗的合谋 (新快报)在“色”与“戒”的娱乐潜规则之间,作为新人的汤唯确实两难。如果循规蹈矩,则不知何时能从充满黑色素的影视大染缸里熬出头;若选择性感路线,散尽衣装,一脱成名,那么不仅要承受某些公众道貌岸然的批评——尽管从前不久“艳照门”的表现来看,这些批评者观看艳照的渴望比一般人还要强烈——和近乎无厘头的刁难,譬如有人质疑,汤唯与梁朝伟的床戏不够投入,王佳芝双目空洞无神,丝毫不入戏等,还有更惨痛的厄运:近两日传出新闻,说汤唯在内地被国家广电总局全面封杀,接受采访的各家电视台皆承认迫于压力而撤下了汤唯所拍摄的广告和视频。
据报道,汤唯被封杀的原因,在于《色,戒》里的过火表演。这不禁令人暗生疑虑:广电总局若依此下达必杀令,所凭据的到底是哪个《色,戒》版本呢?要知道,经广电总局审查批准,在大陆公开上映的《色,戒》系删节版,其中并无什么越位的情色镜头——如果“过火表演”出于此处,岂非让广电总局自己打自己嘴巴,承认剪刀手的工作存在失职? 还有一种说法,导致汤唯被封杀的过火表演,不止是情色戏,还有政治戏,即汤唯所塑造的王佳芝之形象,有“歌颂汉奸、侮辱爱国烈士之嫌”。假设此说成立,板子首先仍该打上广电总局的屁股,是他们审核不严,犯下了政治错误,怎么能出尔反尔? 其次,一个虚构的艺术形象之恶行所衍生的罪孽,却由现实演员来承担,是否合适?在更根本上,这不止是汤唯一个人的错,整个剧组都有责任,为什么不封杀李安呢? 所以说,广电总局比汤唯还要两难。既无实证,他们凭什么合法的名目来封杀汤唯?难怪有报道称,该封杀令并未以红头文件的形式下放,只是根据某领导的会议讲话上行下效。这或许是最符合中国国情的,是打法律擦边球的行政操作模式。 令行禁止,自然最好。若产生非议,引爆问责机制,最终可以将责任推到某个具体的人头上,集体依然无罪,权力之轨依然运行有序。 我们对此也许已经司空见惯,但仍需追问,为什么会如此?以及,为什么这种暧昧不明的行政作为在中国能流行起来,而且极具效力;为什么上峰一点头,下面就纷纷迎合,撤汤唯的广告和视频? 由此而言,汤唯被封杀,实是一场权力与恶俗的合谋。广电总局在无法正常举证,无法自圆其说的情况之下封杀汤唯,再次展现了权力的粗暴逻辑,正如此前对境外动画片播放的重重限定,对恐怖灵异片的狭隘定性等。 最后要说,以上评论均建立在“汤唯被封杀”之新闻属实的基础之上。如果这是一个传媒的乌龙球,我愿向广电总局致以诚挚的歉意,尽管对它的恶感并无分毫减弱。 ---新快报 |
|
|