郑云城 | Dec 14, 2012 11:45AM
【新政治诗】
一纸写实的执照
四张超现实的嘴
一个老实主席
四个老千部长
一间稀土厂
四间马戏团
一个大马
四面楚歌
Friday, December 14, 2012
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Tomkins: Lucas the counter-balance
http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/tomkins-lucas-the-counter-balance
Probably for the first time this season, you can look at the most recent five league results and say the Reds have picked up more-or-less the number of points as you'd realistically hope for.
Draws at Chelsea and Swansea (given their form) were more than creditable; and three points at home to each of Wigan and Southampton should be par for the course (you'll always get home games where you drop points against sides that finish towards the bottom of the table, but the key is for them to be rare off-days).
A point at Spurs, which was probably what the Reds deserved, would have made it three consecutive away draws at sides currently in the top seven. Pick up at least a point away from home, and win most of your home games, and it quickly becomes top-four form. As it happened, Liverpool paid for a sluggish start at White Hart Lane. You can criticise the opening 20 minutes, but you can also praise the reaction.
Slowly but surely, things are edging into shape for Rodgers' Liverpool. There's a fair way to go, and we've not seen too many "90-minute performances", but the Reds are becoming harder to beat, keeping more clean sheets and winning a few more games. The costly mistakes that were evident in the early weeks are now rarely seen.
After struggling at home in the early games - in part due to the calibre of opposition, and in part due to those aforementioned gaffes - the Reds have now won three of their last four home games in the Premier League, keeping a clean sheet in each of those victories. The second half against Wigan and the first half against Southampton showcased Liverpool at their free-flowing best.
A concern would be that the only four victories to date have come against relegation candidates, but the performances against Manchester City, Manchester United, Chelsea and Spurs were deserving of more than just two points (a fairer reflection would have been five or six). Only the Arsenal game, out of the five big encounters so far, left me underwhelmed by the performance. Arsenal were having a great start to the season, and look an easier proposition now winter has set in (one thing that Rodgers hasn't been afforded is good timing, with regard to the fixture list).
Getting the balance right has clearly been on the manager's mind. He's tried a number of midfield permutations, to mixed results. Enforced changes at full-back also hasn't helped, and it was only against Southampton, with the return of Lucas Leiva and with Glen Johnson playing at right-back, that you got a sense of everything being in the right place.
This is not a criticism of playing players out of position, as I think far too much gets made of that. Likewise, the expression 'round peg in a square hole' gets overused. While you will always have specialists, who only really excel in one key area, many footballers have transferrable skills. Johnson, for example, was consistently good at left-back, and, as an example that playing people out of position can actually bring benefits, Jose Enrique only rediscovered his best form once moved to the left wing. Back in defence, he looks like the left-back Liverpool signed 18 months ago.
It's just that, with the line-up on Saturday, the team gelled a bit better. Once you get too many players in unnatural positions there's perhaps a breakdown of instinctive movement, where players have to take a split second longer to think about what to do. And of course, one particular player helped several others.
Lucas is brilliant at knowing where to be, and even lacking match fitness, he made a big difference in stopping Liverpool from being vulnerable to counter-attacks. He made more than twice as many tackles (eight) as the next Liverpool player (who was on three), and won seven of them.
With the return of the Brazilian, there were also fewer rookies in the team that faced Southampton. I think it's fair to say that all of the youngsters have done a very good job indeed, and some have excelled. The experience will serve them - and Liverpool - well. But it's rarely ideal for instant results.
Manchester United may have won the title in 1996 with "kids" (if you don't know what I'm getting at, Google Alan Hansen and "you don't win anything with..."), but they also had five or six very experienced players who featured in over 20 league games: Peter Schmeichel (33), Denis Irwin (31), Brian McLair (33), Gary Pallister (30) and Eric Cantona (30), with Andy Cole, Lee Sharpe and Roy Keane hardly youngsters at 25. Even the much-vaunted "kids" weren't that young: Ryan Giggs was 22, Nicky Butt 21, Gary Neville 21, Paul Scholes 22 and David Beckham 21. Only Phil Neville was in his teens (18). Contrast that with Raheem Sterling, 17, Suso, (only recently turned 19) and Andre Wisdom, 19.
Much was made of those United's kids in the mid-'90s, but Scholes and Giggs were the same age as Joe Allen and Jordan Henderson are now, and they don't seem to be classed as youngsters, with many people expecting them to perform like seasoned pros.
Lucas on Saints comeback
While United had five regulars in their early thirties 16 years ago, to help balance youth with heavy experience, Liverpool have played this season with just two: Steven Gerrard and Pepe Reina. Glen Johnson, Daniel Agger, Martin Skrtel and Luis Suarez are all fully mature players, but the return of Lucas - older and more experienced than his deputies - helped add a calming presence to the middle of the park, and to the team as a whole. Not only did he help balance the formation, he helped add an older head. (It's saying something when using that to describe a 25-year-old.)
It was still a relatively young side against Southampton - at 25.4, still well below the Premier League average - but it was more than a year older, on average, than some of the sides the Reds have fielded this season. To put that into context, you'd expect a side with an average age of just 24 to be that much better in 12 months' time. So in some senses, the game against Southampton was like seeing what October's side would be like in autumn 2013.
Although we view a team as a group of individuals, the collective intelligence will surely be determined, to some degree, by their average age. Youngsters make mistakes, and inexperience can make them the weak link in the team's chain.
Another factor in a team's overall psyche is how long it has been together. A lot is made of Barcelona's youth set-up, and last week it was incredible to see an entire XI comprised of La Masia graduates (even if some, like Gerard Pique and Cesc Fabregas, had spent time away). These players have been playing together for between 10 and 20 years, and yet they're still (mostly) fairly young men. You cannot fake or force that level of understanding. Not only have they been learning the best skills (and, equally importantly, taught how to avoid bad habits) as young boys, they've also tuned in to the same wavelength over a period of time that is just not possible with purchases.
You'll always get one or two newly-introduced players who seem naturally attuned to one another's thinking (a surprising one is Luis Suarez and Jose Enrique, given their positions), but in Barcelona's case, it's an entire team. This is the bonus of a strong youth system, and for three years Liverpool have been creating and honing their own version of La Masia. It's reaping some rewards, but it could take another decade to get anything close to where the Catalan system is currently at (given how long it's taken them to get to this level).
I've been patiently (and sometimes impatiently) awaiting the big 'lift-off' moment of the season: the dramatic turnaround, the incredible result against the odds, or the absolute hammering of an unsuspecting opponent. And it still hasn't happened. But maybe it's not necessary. If results keep improving in small increments, slowly but surely, it will add up to much the same thing.
To end with a Chinese proverb, "be not afraid of growing slowly, be afraid only of standing still."
Sunday, November 18, 2012
“百里苦行”新闻阅后感
http://siewki86.blogspot.com/2012/11/blog-post_14.html
“百里苦行”新闻阅后感
面子书上一半都是百里苦行的照片和消息。
我在电脑前面，面无表情地看着苦行者们脚肿、脚痛、脚抽筋的新闻。不是我冷血，而是在电脑前工作久了养成的职业病。面无表情就是对着电脑时应该有的表情。还好我的心还没有患上这种职业病，我的心在痛。
为什么我们的政府，厚着脸皮说自己“以民为本”的政府，要让我们的人民以这样吃力不讨好的方式来表达我们的不满？
武吉公满的案子，法庭以“太迟申请”为由，裁定那里的居民活该被慢性谋杀；关丹的案子，法庭就以“太早申请”为由，裁定那里的居民理应被辐射危害。原来捍卫我们心爱的土地、捍卫我们自己的生命，还要看准时机，不可太迟、不可太早。
等到关丹真的变成了切尔诺贝利死城，法官会不会才接受审理呢？还是就算到那时候，法官依然昧着良心，说“太迟申请”而不受理？
如果大家不知道切尔诺贝利的事情，不妨上网找一下资料，这里送大家几张那里的照片，让大家欣赏一下——也许，过不久的关丹，也会变成这样。
这两个月，我都在跟丽兰跑《坠落》的巡映。有一次，丽兰对我说：“每次出席活动，前来采访的记者都很喜欢写今天的丽兰有没有哭。其实我想说，我的眼泪一点也不重要，那只是我的情绪的一种宣泄方式。今天我们不是为了不要让丽兰哭而努力，是为了为明福和其他死者讨回公道，并阻止更多这样的冤案的发生而奋斗。”
为什么一个自称“以民为本”的政府，会让他的人民以眼泪、以苦行来表达他们的心声？为什么我们要容忍这样的恶霸，让我们的生活过得战战兢兢？为什么有些朋友还能无动于衷？为什么有些人还可以嘲笑那些正在努力贡献力量改变的人？
还在沉睡中的马来西亚人，你为什么不生气？你为什么不清醒？你为什么没有站出来？？？
p.s.：写完文章后，回想起之前还蛮轰动的一则新闻，一个五岁的血癌小男孩帅帅，原本有望康复，却因为原本答应捐赠骨髓的亲生父亲忽然在最后一刻反悔，因此敌不过癌魔的袭击而死亡。这则新闻以帅帅最后的心声“爸爸，你为什么不救我？”作为标题，引起了广大人民对该父亲的谴责。而当我看到身边对反公害、反滥权、反暴力无动于衷的朋友时，我就会不禁想到，在我们的国家，多得是像帅帅父亲那样见死不救的人——只是这些人，不知道听不听得到他们未来的孩子说的这一句：“爸/妈，你为什么不救我？”
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Tomkins: Season starts now
http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/tomkins-season-starts-now
Tomkins: Season starts now
24th Sep 2012 - Latest News
In his latest article for Liverpoolfc.com, columnist Paul Tomkins reflects on an emotional Sunday at Anfield.
It was a moving, emotional affair before the kick off against Manchester United. The game itself evoked its own emotions: frustration, anger and injustice - although inscrutable decisions by officials would always pale in comparison with the far, far bigger injustice that framed the occasion.
Referees make honest mistakes; 23 years ago, elected officials and public safety providers should not have been making dishonest ones. That remains the bigger picture.
It was fitting that Sir Bobby Charlton, a survivor of United's tragedy in 1958, brought out flowers to present to Ian Rush, a Liverpool player at Hillsborough. Kenny Dalglish, the leader of Liverpool 23 years ago, was back at Anfield, in the stands. 96 red balloons were released and the mosaic unveiled during You'll Never Walk Alone sent chills up the spine.
Let's be fair to Manchester United for the club's conduct in the lead-up to the game. And let's credit their team for somehow winning a game in which they were totally outclassed.
It's been an insanely difficult first five games for Brendan Rodgers; the best three teams in the league last season faced in the first three home fixtures of this. And as we know, away games against mid-table sides are rarely easy (as I noted last week, both West Brom and Sunderland were playing their first home games, which makes it more like a cup tie). It's the kind of run of fixtures that usually happens only once a decade.
Questions will inevitably be asked of Rodgers after just two points from five games, but there's plenty to be optimistic about.
I actually think it's a perfectly natural response to need convincing about a new manager. It's a question of getting to know their strengths and weaknesses, and trying to understand what they are doing. That's not going to happen from day one, is it?
You should of course do your best to support the manager, just as you support the team, but I don't think that you can expect fans to inherently trust just anyone who happens to be in the role; I couldn't ever see myself being enthusiastic about, say, Neil Warnock getting the job, should such a footballing apocalypse occur. No one in football should expect blind trust.
Everyone knows that I'm a big fan of Rafa Benítez, but four or five months into his first campaign I was far from certain about how things were going to pan out. I loved the way Liverpool played in some of those early matches - Manchester City, Norwich and Monaco in particular - and I especially liked his main signings (Garcia, Alonso), but there were also quite a lot of issues with aspects of the team's play. Lots of change was occurring, and it didn't always make a smooth transition.
At the time I hated zonal marking, simply because everyone else seemed to (and as with a lot of hate, it stemmed from not understanding something).
It was leading to Liverpool conceding quite a lot of goals in the autumn of 2004, but the number of costly corners and wide-free kicks started to drop by the spring, by which time Liverpool were now winning their bigger games. And in the following season, the Reds ended up with the fewest goals conceded from set pieces, and also conceded the lowest percentage from those faced (in other words, it wasn't just that Benitez's team simply ended up not giving set-pieces away in the first place).
Maybe the way Liverpool are playing right now is reminiscent of how the team set up in those situations eight years ago: people not quite in the right positions, not quite knowing their roles inside-out, and being punished for every last slip. Lots of instances of split-second indecisions and hesitations that ended up in opposition goals, and as we know, any time you concede you are in danger of not getting a win (I believe two-thirds of games are won by the team who scores first, as just one example; this didn't happen against United, of course, but it was 10 versus 11).
LFC 1-2 Man U: 11 mins
This season, Liverpool have been undone by fine margins. Not necessarily in terms of the scorelines, but in terms of players being a fraction out of position, a fraction late; even a fractional error in where and when to pass, and indeed, when to shoot. And yet the overall play has been largely encouraging; at times it's been excellent. Both Manchester clubs were clearly outplayed.
Yaya Toure said it was the toughest game he'd faced since arriving in England, and Gary Neville clearly knew that "his" side had been outplayed by the Reds.
Understanding a system can taken time. Liverpool were still a passing side last season, but the formation was different, and the timing (and emphasis) of the passing was not quite the same. Players are expected to take up different positions, and, in certain situations, use the ball in a way that might not have been expected to in the past. It's not a sea change, but it is an evolution.
What's expected needs to become second nature, and that takes time. Rodgers hasn't been helped by decisions beyond his control: the men in black haven't helped his cause.
If Shelvey's challenge was a red card, then so too was Johnny Evans'. The worst tackle of the weekend, by David Luiz, ended in just a yellow and no ban, but Shelvey's ended with a red and a three-game ban. How is that fair? (Answer: it's not.)
Evans was allowed to stay on, and didn't even receive a yellow, while van Persie only got a yellow for a tackle arguably as bad as Shelvey's.
Had Shelvey rolled around, Evans might have been punished too. This came after a dangerous tackle by Patrice Evra on Raheem Sterling on the edge of the box that, amazingly, didn't even warrant a caution.
I do think, however, that as fans we have to allow players to pull out of certain tackles; to not berate them for "bottling" it. It's not like the old days when you could go thundering in. Losing a tackle is almost always better than losing a man. I'm not suggesting players start pulling out of all tackles; getting "stuck in" is often vital to the tempo of a game. But with the speed of the play these days, more injuries and more red cards come from such situations.
Despite the defeat, there were plenty of plusses from the game. It was great to see the introduction of Suso - yet another hugely gifted teenager making his bow.
If Liverpool's regular participation in the Champions League ended in 2009-10, it has to be said that the seeds for a rebirth were sewn that season. It was the season in which Jonjo Shelvey, now 20, Raheem Sterling, still only 17, and Suso, now 18, were signed, for a combined fee of well under £10m.
This trio have been involved in some massive games lately. Sterling has often been the Reds' most successful passer in the final third, and Suso completed all 22 of his passes on his league debut, and created two chances in just 45 minutes. He can certainly spot a through-ball, like a lot of Spanish players.
Their inexperience has inevitably shown at times, and I'd personally like to see Shelvey calming down a bit in the tackle (in the way the Steven Gerrard had to learn to), but on the whole they've added a new dimension to the squad, and even the first XI.
Another youngster secured just before that time, Andre Wisdom, scored on his debut against Young Boys, and showcased the leadership skills he's clearly possessed since the age of 15, when I first saw him play. And of course, Jack Robinson, who became Liverpool's youngest ever player in the final game of 2009-10, looks every inch a future first-team left-back.
These players will be learning, and learning the hard way. And yet they don't look out of place. Having said that, against United the older players, particularly Gerrard, Johnson and Suarez, led by example. Joe Allen, at mere 22, was another leader out there.
Let's be clear: when it was 11 against 11, the Reds had almost 70 per cent possession, and a succession of goalmouth situations. They maintained control of the game for the rest of the first half with 10, and were in no way second-best in terms of overall play after the break.
It's also clear that Suarez should have had three penalties this season. Referees are judging the player, not the situation. Commentators in those games have all said Suarez dived, only to then say "oh, actually he didn't". Opposition players, who know they were at fault, then lean over him and shout at him, as they try to influence the referee (no-one ever calls that cheating, by the way).
Yet at the other end, Mark Halsey had no hesitation in pointing to the spot when Valencia went to ground before contact was made. To make matters worse, Agger got injured in the build-up to that situation, as we saw yet another example of every little slip doubly punished.
And yet I feel strangely calm. In early 2010-11 I was panicking due to the nature of our football, which I saw as defensive, reactionary and dull, in a team full of older pros going through the motions. But right now it seems that the side are doing many of the "right" things, but not getting the breaks.
Yes, there have been too many self-inflicted wounds, but every error seems to have been punished. Teams are scoring with their very first shot on target, and United, who couldn't even really force a shooting opportunity, equalised out of the blue by Rafael curling an unstoppable effort past Reina.
I just hope Rodgers' luck changes. Lucas and Agger stretchered off in games against the Manchester clubs, when the Reds were easily the better team, seems almost unfair. Players sent off, penalties conceded, yet nothing ever given at the other end. At least the fixture list won't remain as cruel.
In truth, I hate it when people say "the season starts now". But seriously...the season starts now.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Merseyside united: Classy Everton's show of solidarity encapsulated by Moyes' tribute
By ALEX HORLOCK
|
They were scenes that proved there are far more important things in life than football.
Before a ball had even been kicked between Newcastle and Everton at Goodison Park, the blue side of Liverpool had already shown their class.
In a moving show of solidarity, two mascots, one young girl in Everton blue and one small boy in the red of Liverpool, led the players on to the pitch.
Solidarity: The two mascots' numbers combined to read 96, the number of those who lost their lives in 1989
The Everton team linked arms to pay their respects and show support to the victims' families
As they emerged in front of the teams from the tunnel, the numbers on the back of the shirts became visible, the girl’s was the number 9, and the boy had the number 6.
This neat touch was, of course, implemented for Everton to show their support to the families of the 96 victims of the Hillsborough disaster.
The players and mascots assembled on the centre circle before The Hollies’ He Ain’t Heavy was belted out of the speakers accompanied by a photo collage of the 96 victims of the disaster.
The players, the staff, the officials and the fans inside the stadium, among them Trevor Hicks and Margaret Aspinall, applauded throughout the song as the faces of those who lost their lives in 1989 poignantly lingered on the screen.
Last week, an independent panel revealed that the police had attempted to blame the fans inside the stadium for the tragedy, which cost 96 lives and changed the landscape of football forever.
Rival support: Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson (right) and Mike Phelan were at the game
Everyone in the stadium applauded before the game began
Everton manager David Moyes expressed his support for the victims’ families in the form of strongly-worded, yet emotive, programme notes.
Moyes said: 'I, and everybody at Everton, stand alongside the families who have challenged the authorities over what has been proved a travesty.
‘I'm a football manager, a supporter and a father, and I applauded the families who continued to fight for the ones they loved. I believe everybody in the world of football will have been shocked by the wrongdoings surrounding Hillsborough which were exposed last week.
Solidarity: Last week it was revealed that the police had attempted to incorrectly blame the fans for the incident
Them too: Newcastle's players joined in before the match
‘As part of the football family, I, and everybody at Everton, stand alongside the families who for so long have challenged the authorities over what has now been proved a travesty. I am not only a football manager, I'm a football supporter and a father, and I applaud the families who continued to fight for the ones they loved.
‘The outcome was nothing short of disgraceful. We have all been brought up to believe and trust in authority. The authorities who were responsible for ensuring the safety of supporters that afternoon let themselves down, as have the government parties who have been in power since.
‘Praise must go to Andy Burnham and the families for getting disclosure.'
‘Praise must go to Andy Burnham and the families for getting disclosure.'
For everyone to see: Fans were proud to be associated with banners more commonly seen at Anfield
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2204704/Hillsborough-Everton-Merseysides-united.html#ixzz26nJt8nQB
Thursday, September 13, 2012
草莓族，或被犧牲的一代？──台灣的案例
http://mhperng.blogspot.com/2012/09/blog-post_3509.html
2012年9月11日星期二
最近媒體大肆宣傳各種就業機會，製造一種印象：工作機會很多，是年輕人期望太高。名嘴則大談自己當年如何艱苦地不計較待遇，陳鳳馨乾脆希望學校要教學生「正確的工作態度」。所以，年輕一代是草莓族？咎由自取？
我在上一篇文章「我們被騙了三十年！談全球性的青年困境」裡用美國為例說明過去三十年的新自由主義要為全球性的青年困境負起主要責任。現在這一篇文章要用台灣的社會狀況說明這一代的年輕人是如何被上一代犧牲掉的。
四、五年級的會用自己年輕時的狀況質問六、七年級的說：我們年輕時當黑手、水電工、廚房小工都願意，你們現在為什麼不願意？這個問題是嚴重忽略了兩個世代許多社會與經濟背景的差異，問題出在忽視了「問題脈絡的差異性」。
二、三十年前房價沒有炒到這麼離譜，年輕人所要擔負的儲蓄能力沒有這麼高，名嘴當人會比較容易看到未來。而把房價炒高的正是名嘴的世代和他們的學長姐（四、五年級的），所以說六、七年級看不到未來是因為被四、五年級的陷害。
二、三十年前沒有紅豆食府和連鎖餐廳，任何人當了廚房小工或端盤子的，出師之後就有機會自己當老闆──他們願意吃苦，因為只要努力就可以出頭天。現在連鎖餐飲林立，中高價位餐廳競爭激烈，四、五年級的霸佔了餐飲業最肥的一塊，年輕人當過廚房小工之後要想自立門戶的話，只能跟已經快要倒店的其他自助餐店競爭，或者永遠在餐廳當被苦勞，永遠沒有出頭的日子。
二、三十年前沒有大賣場和全國電子，水電工出師後可以自己做水電行或者電器行，自己當老闆。他們願意吃苦，因為有一天可以出頭天。現在有了大賣場和全國電子，水電工只能當一輩子奴工，看不到前景，不敢想像能靠自己的積蓄買房子。
三十年來台灣所有的產業規模都在大吃小的過程中擴大，使得利潤和控制權迅速地集中在少數人手中，使得年輕人失去了往上流動的管道，成為永遠的奴工；而得利的少數人又通過政商勾結把得到的財富拿去炒作房地產，使得年輕人更加看不到未來。
對於年輕一代而言，買房子要靠爸媽，創業要靠爸媽的資本和人脈；政府部門的服務愈少，各種資源的世襲現象愈嚴重；連黑道的民代席次都已經是世襲的了。過去三十年來台灣從「所有人都可以出頭」的社會變成今天「不靠爸媽買不起房子」，台灣社會不幸地從「政權世襲而資本不世襲」退化成「政權空洞化的資本獨裁世襲制」，我們其實是在往新封建主義的路上一路走了三十年，社會是退步而非進步的。
這叫做新封建制度：四、五年級的霸佔了市場上最豐厚的利潤，霸佔了產官學研的最高決策與資源；甚至相互勾結成產官學研的利益共犯集團，壟斷掉所有的政經資源和發言權而成為絕對的統治階級；而六、七年級的只能在底下當一輩子奴工，不但無法出頭天，還要被媒體抹黑成草莓族，把一切的責任當賴到他們頭上。
如果這樣的社會叫做公平，哲學系、政治系和社會系的教授都可以去跳海了！
但是哲學系、政治系和社會系的教授如果認為這樣的社會不公平，就不該佔著毛坑不拉屎，而要大聲站出來說話！大學教授的首要責任不是發表 SSCI 論文或拿國科會傑出獎，而是要說出社會哪裡有問題，要如何解決！
我在上一篇文章「我們被騙了三十年！談全球性的青年困境」裡用美國為例說明過去三十年的新自由主義要為全球性的青年困境負起主要責任。現在這一篇文章要用台灣的社會狀況說明這一代的年輕人是如何被上一代犧牲掉的。
四、五年級的會用自己年輕時的狀況質問六、七年級的說：我們年輕時當黑手、水電工、廚房小工都願意，你們現在為什麼不願意？這個問題是嚴重忽略了兩個世代許多社會與經濟背景的差異，問題出在忽視了「問題脈絡的差異性」。
二、三十年前房價沒有炒到這麼離譜，年輕人所要擔負的儲蓄能力沒有這麼高，名嘴當人會比較容易看到未來。而把房價炒高的正是名嘴的世代和他們的學長姐（四、五年級的），所以說六、七年級看不到未來是因為被四、五年級的陷害。
二、三十年前沒有紅豆食府和連鎖餐廳，任何人當了廚房小工或端盤子的，出師之後就有機會自己當老闆──他們願意吃苦，因為只要努力就可以出頭天。現在連鎖餐飲林立，中高價位餐廳競爭激烈，四、五年級的霸佔了餐飲業最肥的一塊，年輕人當過廚房小工之後要想自立門戶的話，只能跟已經快要倒店的其他自助餐店競爭，或者永遠在餐廳當被苦勞，永遠沒有出頭的日子。
二、三十年前沒有大賣場和全國電子，水電工出師後可以自己做水電行或者電器行，自己當老闆。他們願意吃苦，因為有一天可以出頭天。現在有了大賣場和全國電子，水電工只能當一輩子奴工，看不到前景，不敢想像能靠自己的積蓄買房子。
三十年來台灣所有的產業規模都在大吃小的過程中擴大，使得利潤和控制權迅速地集中在少數人手中，使得年輕人失去了往上流動的管道，成為永遠的奴工；而得利的少數人又通過政商勾結把得到的財富拿去炒作房地產，使得年輕人更加看不到未來。
對於年輕一代而言，買房子要靠爸媽，創業要靠爸媽的資本和人脈；政府部門的服務愈少，各種資源的世襲現象愈嚴重；連黑道的民代席次都已經是世襲的了。過去三十年來台灣從「所有人都可以出頭」的社會變成今天「不靠爸媽買不起房子」，台灣社會不幸地從「政權世襲而資本不世襲」退化成「政權空洞化的資本獨裁世襲制」，我們其實是在往新封建主義的路上一路走了三十年，社會是退步而非進步的。
這叫做新封建制度：四、五年級的霸佔了市場上最豐厚的利潤，霸佔了產官學研的最高決策與資源；甚至相互勾結成產官學研的利益共犯集團，壟斷掉所有的政經資源和發言權而成為絕對的統治階級；而六、七年級的只能在底下當一輩子奴工，不但無法出頭天，還要被媒體抹黑成草莓族，把一切的責任當賴到他們頭上。
如果這樣的社會叫做公平，哲學系、政治系和社會系的教授都可以去跳海了！
但是哲學系、政治系和社會系的教授如果認為這樣的社會不公平，就不該佔著毛坑不拉屎，而要大聲站出來說話！大學教授的首要責任不是發表 SSCI 論文或拿國科會傑出獎，而是要說出社會哪裡有問題，要如何解決！
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Benitez blames Hicks and Gillett for Liverpool's failure to win Premier League
By SPORTSMAIL REPORTER
|
Rafa Benitez has hit out at former Liverpool owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett for denying him funds to strengthen his squad for a Premier League title challenge.
The Spaniard spent six years at the Anfield club, winning the FA Cup and Champions League, before leaving two years ago.
And the 52-year-old has revealed he was not given the support to mount a title challenge in his final season at the club.
Lashing out: Rafa Benitez claims he was not supported in the transfer market
‘Attempting to work in the transfer market that summer was almost impossible,’ Benitez said in his new book being serialised in the Daily Mirror.
‘We knew we would need cover and support for Fernando Torres, as David Ngog was still developing, and we had raised the cash to find it.
‘The player we identified to fill that role was Stevan Jovetic, a young Montenegro forward playing for Fiorentina in Italy.
‘The funds we thought we had available would also have stretched to another central defender, to provide cover for Jamie Carragher, Martin Skrtel and Daniel Agger.
Missing links: Matthew Upson (left) and Sylvain Distin were targets for Benitez
‘The two players we had identified were Sylvain Distin, then with Portsmouth, and West Ham’s Matthew Upson, both boasting abundant Premier League experience.
‘Signing one of those two, plus the tall, powerful, intelligent Jovetic, would have given Liverpool the squad we needed to build on the previous year’s title challenge, when we had run Manchester United so close.
‘Liverpool, though, was no longer a football club. It was a business.
‘The money, which we wanted to use to take Liverpool on to the next level, was all gone.
Main man: Stevan Jovetic (right) was highlighted as a top target
‘We would be punished for the disappearance of that money - and our failure to sign Jovetic - again and again that season.
‘That was supposed to be our year, the season it all came together. Instead it was a long, hard campaign, a battle from start to finish.’
Benitez paid the price for Liverpool’s seventh-place finish in the Premier League when he left the club by mutual consent.
And he lays the blame for the club’s demise squarely at the door of Hicks and Gillett.
‘For five years I had been a football manager at Liverpool. By the start of my sixth, it was clear I had become something else entirely. I was suddenly supposed to be a bank manager.
‘Decisions were being made to appease the banks, not the fans. That is how serious the situation with the owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, had become.
‘At the end of April, Tom Hicks and George Gillett at long last agreed to put Liverpool up for sale to end their involvement with the club altogether.
‘They had been forced by the banks, as a condition of their latest loan, to appoint Martin Broughton, a Chelsea fan and the chairman of British Airways, to the same position at Anfield.
‘As the season drew to a close, I was informed on three occasions that I would have a meeting with Mr Broughton.
Blame game: Former Liverpool owners George Gillett (left) and Tom Hicks
‘When we did eventually meet, after the final game of our campaign, it was clear that we did not share the same vision for the future of the club.
‘It was at that point that it became evident what was about to happen. It was obvious that they had decided that my time at Anfield was up and wanted to come to an arrangement as quickly as possible.
‘I was not in a hurry to leave Liverpool - quite the opposite, I wanted to stay.
‘It was while I was on holiday in Italy that I next heard from the club.
‘It was while I was on holiday in Italy that I next heard from the club.
‘Their lawyers had contacted mine to offer me a settlement.
‘It was confirmation that the directors of the team I had worked so hard to turn into a force at home and abroad no longer wanted my services.
‘I was disappointed, hurt and sad. I would not be given the chance to try to solve the problems that had arisen during the season, to complete the six years of work I had put into the club.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2201463/Rafa-Benitez-blames-Tom-Hicks-George-Gillett-Liverpool-decline.html#ixzz26DDVDonR
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Benitez admits surprise at being overlooked for vacant Liverpool manager's job in the summer
|
Surprise: Rafa Benitez has admitted his disappointment at being overlooked for the Liverpool manager's post following the dismissal of Kenny Dalglish in the summer
Rafa Benitez has told of his surprise that he was not approached about the Liverpool job in the summer.
The Spaniard, who managed the Anfield club between 2004 and 2010, was not considered for the role left vacant when Kenny Dalglish was sacked in May despite knowing the club inside out.
Launching a new book called ‘Champions League Dreams’, which recalls how Liverpool challenged for European honours during his time there, Benitez, who is currently without a club, said it was ‘strange’ to be overlooked in favour of Brendan Rodgers.
Talking to the Irish Independent, he said: ‘It was strange. We know the club, the players, the Academy and we have even more experience now.
‘The fans were positive about the idea and if you read the book you will understand why. So it was strange not to be approached.’
During his tenure, Liverpool regularly competed in the Champions League and won the competition in 2005, his first season in charge. They also reached the final in 2007 and won the FA Cup in 2006, alongside a succession of top four league finishes.
‘Some people were taking these great games for granted,’ he said. ‘We used to play so many important games that it seemed it was normal and it wasn’t.’
Following a patchy start to the season, as Rodgers tries to introduce a philosophy of attractive, attacking football, some sections of the Liverpool support have suggested owner John W Henry may be as bad as former American chiefs Tom Hicks and George Gillett.
Looking for work: Benitez has been without a managerial role for nearly two years after being sacked by Inter Milan
Benitez remembers those days only too well: ‘I was working three years under Hicks and Gillett and it was quite difficult, especially the last year.
‘Ian Ayre [the club’s Managing Director] said Liverpool was close to administration and still we were performing on the pitch. I don’t know how it us under the new owners so I can’t compare.’
Benitez hasn’t been in managerial work since an ill-fated spell at Inter Milan in 2010, but he says ‘it’s a question of time’ before he is on the touchline again. He did, however, refuse to comment on how close he came to the Chelsea job after Andre Villas-Boas was dismissed.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2200994/Rafa-Benitez-surprised-considered-Liverpool-job.html#ixzz2670NSWse
Thursday, September 6, 2012
FSG's learning process at Liverpool
Think of the power and the prestige. Imagine the chance to put your plans into action. For the vast majority who are neither qualified nor talented enough to manage or play for a football club, owning one is the next best thing. For many a predatory businessman, it is also a money-making opportunity.
PA PhotosJohn Henry has said Brendan Rodgers will not be sacked if Liverpool fail to finish in the top four
But sometimes it is hard to be an owner. And for Fenway Sports Group, this is one of those times. Liverpool's American directors have been criticised for what they didn't manage to achieve - signing a striker on transfer deadline day - and then for their reaction, releasing an open letter to supporters, restating their ambition and reiterating their philosophy.
It also kept Liverpool in the news, offered hints of a disagreement with manager Brendan Rodgers and did not address every concern fans raised. Honesty and humility brought some censure and condemnation. And, at times like these, it feels that FSG are damned for whatever they do and whatever they don't.
Clearly Friday was a disaster. Quite how costly a failure it proves to be will become apparent over the next four months. It looks a false economy not to sign the 29-year-old Clint Dempsey for around £6 million and an additional error not to have a secondary striking option.
Yet anyone expecting an in-depth explanation of who said what to whom on Friday, when and why is deluding themselves - partly because some things ought to remain confidential, not least because they could expose greater divisions, and partly because it wouldn't happen anywhere else. Liverpool's owners are more open than many of their counterparts; compared to some others, they do not deserve to have their motives questioned. They are not the Glazers. They are not Venky's. Most importantly, they are not Tom Hicks and George Gillett.
After their 2010 takeover, FSG inherited a far greater mess than they expected and, while there should be a statute of limitations about attributing problems to Messrs Hicks and Gillett, John W Henry and Tom Werner are nowhere near it yet. In many ways, including communicating with the fanbase, they are the opposite of their secretive predecessors, not to mention Manchester United's reclusive directors, who have lumped debt on the club and taken money out of it.
It is not enough to satisfy some of the Liverpool support, but it is a level of transparency that would make Sir Alex Ferguson turn puce with rage. FSG have been truthful enough to admit to mistakes, and diplomatic not to name them, which might have reflected rather poorly on Southport's most prominent golfer and his most expensive signings.
Kenny Dalglish is a reason FSG have long been in a no-win situation. The awkward decision to dismiss the Anfield icon came at a cost to Henry's popularity with a section of fans, yet the alternative was to risk another league season like last and, perhaps worse, another summer signing spree like the last.
During the Scot's reign, Dalglish's loyalists criticised FSG for not offering the Scot enough support. Yet it was not advice that he needed - he needed to be overruled. When apologies were dictated from Boston during the Luis Suarez affair, it was a belated reaction to a situation that had escalated out of control.
PA PhotosClint Dempsey has not featured for Fulham this season having refused to play
The problem was not that Dalglish had too little power, but too much. Yet had FSG parachuted someone in from America to run the club, the interpretation would be that they were interfering. Now the call from the pressure group Spirit of Shankly is for them to appoint a Merseyside-based chief executive. They are sentiments many share but, were FSG to accede, it may lead to a militant faction making demand after demand.
As it is, apart from vetoing a deal for Dempsey, FSG have given their appointments licence to act as they will and room for manoeuvre. At Rodgers' wish, their plans to install a director of football this summer were shelved. He, too, is largely able to run the club his way. But if Henry takes advice from others on players' valuations, is it any wonder given the way Dalglish and Damien Comolli paid over the odds for average talents?
Yet while Rodgers has not been granted the spending power afforded to his predecessor, the demands are also lower. A top-four finish was the principal objective last season but Henry has said that failure to secure Champions League football will not be grounds for dismissal for Rodgers. This is entirely reasonable.
Their broader principles, of assembling a young group of players, with an intelligent recruitment policy focused on identifying talent and a manager with the skill to turn them into a competitive, attractive team, make sense. In the case of Dempsey, FSG should have been more flexible.
But, as Henry said in his letter, it is a learning process for them. In particular, they are learning that they can't please all of the people all of the time. Or even a majority of the people most of the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)