All about the energy project-6

All about the energy project-5

All about the energy project-4

All about the energy project-3

All about the energy project-2

All about the energy project-1

About the deception of the label ‘Luxury Apartment’

8/27/06

Hello friends,
HK’s advertisement is often about ‘Luxury Apartment’, I would like to ask how luxurious are those ‘Luxury Apartment’:
A. How endurable is the building? 50 years, 100 years. How is comparable to cheapskate apartment(public housing)?
B. What is the quality of the sewage system compare to other? Do it perform excellent in 99.9% of the time?
You certainly can’t qualify ‘Luxury Apartment’ with those of occasional sewage issue.
C. What is the quality of the elevator system? Do it perform excellent in 99.9% of the time? How long does it take to transport from one floor to another? How is its availability? Does it take at most 1 minute from any floor to another?
D. Does it never have any problem of pest infestation regardless of the inhabitant and his/her behavior?
E. Does it provide facilitate for Drying the cloth within/outside the apartment? Does it place that facilitate next to the kitchen to ensure the clothes are always oily? Or outside the apartment with no protection from rain?
F. How is the quality of air ventilation system, if that exist? Does it require your air-conditioner to be always on?
G. What is the endurability of the floor? Does it worn down easily?
H. How is the interior spacing different from other? How does it demonstrate the value by the spacing of the apartment?

Wake up, there is no ‘Luxury Apartment’ in HK. All the idiots!

Regards
Innovative Thinker

Why conservative can’t take over Cultural Industry(in US)?

The following is a translation of ‘保守派攻不下文化碉堡’, ‘The failure of conservatism in media industry’. It originate in the
Appledaily in 9/30/07.

ABC TV stationary just release an ‘documentary’ movie: ‘The road to 911’. Because this movie aim at attacking the ex-presidency of Clinton, it is not well receive among the cultural industry. This movie is an attempt by the conservative to extend its influence in the cultural realm. Conservative Republican insist that the Democrat haven’t done its best in the issue of national security, thereby 911 incident is the legacy of Democrat.
Of course, the conservative is aggressive both in the area of politics as well as cultural industry not just today. During the old Bush’s regime, the conservative minister of education William(?) has repeatedly stress the importance of culture: He think culture is the water which the young American live in. The dominating force in American cultural life are music, movie and media. Conservative often admit their admit in taking over the cultural industry. However, this could not overshadow the achievement of the Conservative in this arena. For instance, Fox TV is now the base of conservatism in media, Rush Limbaugh is a well-known conservative talk show host. I must add that the famous Anti-Drug Rush Limbaugh need to rehabited for his abuse of drug, and the William of ‘Family Value’ turn out to be a gamble. It is as hypocritical as they could be.
Conservative has always being aggressive in their attempt to influence the media, what make them unease is their failure in the movie industry while making some in-road into other areas like newspaper and TV. Why?
The conservative seems to think that: ‘By the result of 2004 election that 51% of American vote for their ‘mildly’ right wing stance, (exclude the possibility of election fraud) it follows that the conservative value must have some market. But why there is a lack of right wing movie in the cinema? At least half of the top twenty documentary is leaning toward political left. Is that because of cultural elite dominate the cultural industry? Or Liberalism is the historical political tendency for Hollywood?
It is justifiable to accuse that Hollywood produce cheap, sense-thrilling movie, how can Hollywood survive without selling
those kind of movie? It become ridiculous to accuse Hollywood of being left-wing when the right-wing movie could also make money. Hollywood would cooperate with anyone with any political stance if it is profitable.
To employ art as a political tool, it at least had to be entertaining before we can talk about its usefulness. What trouble the conservative is their ring-wing movie they made does not make much of an entertainment. When Hollywood made a movie about GLBT, it vividly describe the sexual act of those who wear ring in their nose, lip, eyelid. For the conservative, talking about those deviant is no differ to spread the depreciation of moral value. However, these topic is what exactly attract the audience into the movie theater because everyone is curious about them.
Secular movie is meant to reflect the real livelihood of people, and each compete for the spare time of busy citizen. Nobody would interest in what normally goes on in a happy couple’s marriage. Topics like guy love story among Conservative worker in the West would definitely attract a lot of eyeballs.
Conservatism, by definition, is to protect status quo from change. Therefore almost all documentary made by conservative is defending against something, ranging from ‘G.W. Bush; The Faith in WhiteHouse’ to ‘Breaking the Devin Code’ to ‘Micheal Moore hate America’. Only the later had enough entertainment value to differentiate it from US-Army’s ‘We want you’ advertisement. For those conservative movie made without any artistic sense nor entertainment value, it is doubtful it had any audience at all.
From perspective of entertainment as an expression of art, the point of criticism is to pound the heart of audience. Those who can made an excellent presentation of their criticism must themselves being rebellious. How is that compatible with the nature of conservatism?
That is why the conservative is always on the defense, and attacking any trend ‘after-the-fact’. When they criticize the legal union of GLBT, lesbian couple already adopt kids; when they criticize Madonna being indecency in bring the bed into the stage, Madonna already bring the Crucifixion into the stage. Diversity is the characteristic of modern society, and it is also the nature of cultural industry. I thus conclude that despite with the backing of wealthy Protestant church, they can hardly be successful in their attempt to dominant the cultural industry.

Original By: 殷惠敏
Translated By: Euler

Regards
Public Intellectual

幾個可以分析陳冠希裸照門的視角

(WARNING: THIS links below contain MATERIAL WHICH MAY OFFEND AND MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED, CIRCULATED, SOLD, HIRED, GIVEN, LENT, SHOWN, PLAYED OR PROJECTED TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS 警告: 以下連結內容可能令人反感; 不可將本物品派發、傳閱、出售、出租、交給或出借予年齡未滿18歲的人士或將本物品向該等人士出示、播放或放映。)

陳冠希裸照門,不是單單是一宗娛樂園事件,可以由幾個主要的視角來分析:

1.貧富之爭,代表貧富分野的堅尼指數自97年以後未曾下降過,是故任何社會時事一但牽涉「貧富的待遇有分別時」,即成階級矛盾的大爆發。香港特區政府,自97年以來,不斷用各種手段逃避這個重大問題,例如儒家治港、道德治港以致神六治港、福利主義,因為貧富不均和政治制度不民主有直接關係,改善這個問題的政府會觸及某階層的根本利益,這個政府首長下一屆在沒有普選的情況不可能連任。美國政府可以向財雄勢大微軟集團宣戰,但香港政府連李嘉誠在以要脅撤資來迫傳媒收口一事上卻不敢發一句聲。
2.新左派/自由派及以基督右派為守的道德保守派的價值之爭,基督右派被納入建制之內以便進行道德治港,用道德來保持自己的統治認受性。然而,代價是自由派及新左派長期視自己為被壓迫、被排擠者,成為永恆的反對派。新左派/自由派一向以代表人民利益自居,對抗壟斷道德價值及政治權力的基督右派霸權。
3.依法治港和以道德權威統治之爭,前者是世俗主義者所認同的價值,自由是不做任何違法的事,是一種與生俱來的權利,而且就算被控告還不一定有罪;隱含了如果法治不是建基於民主制度,可以公民抗命。相反,認同道德權威是統治來源者以為道德就是行為合理性的來源,亦是統治合法性的來源,人行為的前提不單是不違法,而是一定要做好事,做有道德的人。因此網民不覺下載明星疑似不雅相有錯,純是以法來論行為,而後者則要以有不良的動機來判定,不論下載合法不合法,一定是不道德。前者是認同程序及制度,後者近於認同統治者本身的人格。

Kosovo and Hong Kong

Kosovo reject the Serbian proposal of united under the ‘One country, Two system’. I guess this is the contribution of Hong Kong people to the international community. We just demonstrate that this great proposal wouldn’t work as it stated for neither Chinese(Taiwan) nor Serbian.
The biggest inherent problem in this proposal is that they both have to treat each other as equal. It is not just that the system has to be design in such a way that both sides are equal in its right and responsibility; it also has to be perceived as equal by both sides. As the case in Hong Kong has shown, even though Hong Kong citizen could easily identify with China as Chinese, are nevertheless uneasy with this integration. Many Hong Kong citizens perceive China as overzealous in its relationship with Hong Kong, while China also perceive Hong Kong are ‘Taking from the country without any contributing anything’. Where is the balance of right and responsibility that would satisfy the majority on both sides at most of the time, in all situation? And also don’t forgot that, just like China has reinterpret Basic Law for three times. Even such an excellent-thought out system like Basic Law couldn’t avoid circumvention from both sides, how could we expect such a historical invention of political system to succeed?