xiao's profilePleasurePhotosBlogListsMore Tools Help

Blog


    转载

    The article is orginally located here:

    http://notcoming.com/features/tenyearsofsouthpark/

     

     

    Features / 17 June 2007

    Ten Years of South Park

    Ten Years of South Park

    America has never been particularly comfortable with satire. A gentle poke at the powers that be is allowed, even encouraged — witness the success of good-natured softies like Jon Stewart or The Simpsons, nudging decency in the ribs and tipping a wink to the audience. But genuine, hard-hitting satire is frowned upon: somebody might really be offended, and nowhere in the Constitution does it allow for that. There’s no American equivalent of British figures like Peter Cook or Christopher Morris, authentic anti- establishment comics who nonetheless achieved mainstream success. Even so—called ‘dangerous’ American figures like Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor kept their comedy largely personal. Topics like religious extremism, sexual abuse, disability, and AIDS, questions on the efficacy of democracy or America’s role in history and the world, these were never acceptable topics for comedy in any mainstream venue.

    Until in 1997, an animated show began that would eventually break all boundaries of accepted decency on television, and manage over the course of ten years to offend just about every living person on the globe, including me. There are moments of true horror in South Park, images and viewpoints so extreme you can almost hear the complain and creak of boundaries being stretched. But there’s also clear-headed insight and inarguable intelligence, a bull-headed determination to resist censorship, and a quality of writing unparalleled in American comedy.

    South Park

    Like its precursor The Simpsons, South Park’s rise to fame was meteoric. By the show’s second Christmas in 1998 the must-have toys were figurines of the four central characters, and Isaac Hayes’ single in character as Chef, ‘Chocolate Salty Balls’, went straight to No. 1 in the UK charts. I was working in a Virgin Megastore that year, and the sheer quantity of South Park merchandise was astounding — the fluffy dolls, the books, the CD’s, Eric Cartman mousemats, Big Gay Al keyrings. Very quickly, the show became the modern equivalent of the Richard Pryor and Derek & Clive albums of the 1970’s, or Eddie Murphy’s Delirious and Raw on VHS in the 1980’s — something for pre-adolescent boys to sneak off and enjoy furtively, for teenagers and students to flaunt as a badge of rebellion and cultural savvy. One had to wonder whether the parents (and especially the grandparents) who shelled out for this avalanche of filth-based memorabilia knew exactly what they were buying—there was a daycare centre near my house called South Park Nursery, with hardwood cutouts of the four main characters proudly displayed in the front garden. Had the proprietors even watched the show, or did they just see four cute, popular cartoon characters and run with it?

    The irony was that, again mirroring The Simpsons, the show in its early stages was fairly unremarkable. South Park fever was driven by controversy and by the shock of the new—we’d never heard cartoon characters talk like this before, at least not on prime time TV. Gay dogs and anal probes, obscenity and casual racism, broad swipes at celebrity culture and political hypocrisy, an endless, gushing torrent of scatological humour. Another predominant facet of the show’s appeal was the rough-and-ready nature of its presentation — the shoddy but intriguing content warning (‘this show… should not be watched by ANYONE’), the cookie-cutter animation, which might have been constructed in somebody’s garden shed. It was DIY, punk rock, three chords and no frills. But it was also rather formless, uncertain, eager to please but lacking in confidence, and exhaustively lowbrow — there are only so many times you can find farting funny, eventually it just becomes tiresome (though, as the writers were keen to point out, if you keep doing it sooner or later it becomes funny again. Circle of life). By the end of the second season the novelty was wearing off, and although the show had amassed a solid fanbase the prevailing wisdom was that South Park was, at heart, adolescent filth, amusing in its way but essentially forgettable. And in some quarters this perception holds today: in the UK the show hasn’t been given a prime time slot in over five years.

    It was the release and subsequent critical and commercial success of the show’s feature film spinoff, the unimaginatively titled South Park: Bigger, Longer And Uncut, in 1999 that heralded the show’s artistic rebirth. The film marked a quantum leap forward as writers for Parker and Stone, thrusting the show’s satirical aspects to centre stage, as an argument over censorship provokes a land war between the U.S. and Canada. For the first time the creators recognised that just because the show could be intelligent and provocative didn’t mean they had to tone down the fart jokes—in fact, the one complemented the other. The film’s critical success also proved that the key to long term success would have to be actual creative development. South Park didn’t just have to be funnier, it had to be better—the animation would have to advance, the characters would have to be more clearly defined, with real goals and recognisable traits, likes and dislikes. The show would have to work on multiple levels simultaneously, even if it meant alienating those adolescent fans who tuned in every week just for the swearing.

    The improvement was instantaneous. The first episode of South Park’s third season, ‘Rainforest Schmainforest’, uses a now familiar Parker/ Stone ploy, taking a well established socio-political truism (in this case ‘rainforests are good’) and turning it on it’s head: how would all those tree-hugging hippies who ramble on about saving the rainforest feel if they were actually lost in one? And as the season continues the quality barely dips, taking on the religious right in ‘Starvin’ Marvin in Space’, meaningless toy fads in ‘Chinpokomon’, combining a commentary on small-town small-mindedness and homophobia with a dig at the ATF post-Waco in ‘Two Guys Naked in a Hot Tub’.

    For the next five years the show scarcely faltered, gaining in confidence and taking on larger and more hazardous subjects—religion and disability in ‘Do the Handicapped Go to Hell?’, racism and recrimination in ‘The Death Camp of Tolerance’ and ‘Cartman’s Silly Hate Crime’, the 2004 election in ‘Douche and Turd’, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in ‘I’m a Little Bit Country’, ‘Red Sleigh Down’ and ‘Osama Bin Laden Has Farty Pants’, which scrutinized the ongoing conflict through the filter of WW2 propaganda, particularly those outrageous buck-toothed Bugs Bunny anti-Japanese cartoons. But amidst all the crusading, there has always been space for gentler episodes which let the kids just act their age — setting out on a dangerous quest in ‘The Return of the Lord of the Rings to the Two Towers’, using a cool Island song to persuade George Lucas not to recut Raiders of the Lost Ark in ‘Free Hat’, being bored to tears by Cirque du Soleil in ‘Quintuplets’.

    For these six seasons South Park stood head and shoulders above all other American comedy, animated or otherwise. If nothing else, the show was simply funnier than anything else on offer, joke-for-joke perhaps the finest comedy the country has ever produced, thanks to a combination of supreme writing and a willingness (and licence) to say things no one else would get away with saying. Trying to narrow down a list of worthy quotes to illustrate the genius of South Park is no easy task. One thinks of Jennifer Lopez singing to her fiancé “I love you Ben, you almost make me forget about Tacos”: offensive on so many levels, it’s also comedy approaching genius. Or the moment Krishna turns into a beaver so that he can chop wood for Jesus, Master Carpenter, to build a mould for a giant stone John Wilkes Booth which Mohammed can bake dry with his fire-hands and Lao Tzu can bring to life with the power of his mind. Or the mountain lion cubs scampering joyfully around the spreadeagled legs of a young mother as they learn to perform abortions so that they can prevent the impending birth of the Antichrist. Or Santa Claus in an Iraqi prison (“you shocked Santa’s balls!”), or Towelie the permanently stoned, genetically engineered towel, or the Native American comedy club (“HA- hahaha HA- hahaha”), or any of the many, many times Cartman starts singing. In fact, Trey Parker may be the first comic since the heyday of Monty Python to consistently write effective, humorous songs, in a seemingly inexhaustible range of styles (a far cry from The Simpsons’ repetitive Broadway showtune addiction). There’s the Christian rock stylings of Faith +1 (“Gonna get down on my knees and start pleasin’ Jesus…”), the hi-NRG chart pop of Fingerbang (“I want to finger bang-bang you into my life”), from backwoods bluegrass (“You do a line and I’ll do a line, honey”) and shimmering 30’s Noel Coward music hall jazz (“I’ve got something in my front pocket for you”) to an entire folk-rock musical about the adventures of a lemming stuck up Mr. Slave’s ass. Best of all are the pastiches of popular artists, like the aforementioned J- Lo with Taco Flavoured Kisses, or Alan Jackson’s attempts to cash in on 9/11 with his unique brand of heart-tugging country pop (“Where were yew… when they built that ladder to heaven? Did it make you feel proud, or did you think it was kinda gay?”)

    But the show has other strengths—over the years the animation has improved immeasurably (to the chagrin of some purists), and the character development has been equally successful, resulting in the inexorable rise of one of the most complex and terrifying psychopaths in television history – Eric Cartman. his single-minded pursuit of his own selfish goals was played largely for laughs throughout the first few seasons – he was the mean-spirited fat kid, spoiled and self-absorbed but essentially harmless. There were moments of concern—the relish he took whenever a flicker of authority came his way, his willingness to rat out his friends even when his own life was in danger. But then Season Five kicked off with ‘Scott Tenorman Must Die’, and the rules were changed forever. In this episode Cartman, faced with continuous humiliation by his nemesis, the eponymous 6th Grader, develops the most heinous of all revenge strategies, and executes it with cold and flawless precision- Scott’s parents are lured to a remote field, murdered, cooked into chilli and fed to Scott at a chilli cookoff to which Scott’s favourite band, Radiohead, have also been invited. The episode ends with Radiohead leaving in disgust at the ‘little cry-baby’, as Cartman licks the tears from Scott Tenorman’s face:

    CARTMAN: Yummy, yummy, you guys. The tears of unfathomable sadness!

    South Park

    Since the Scott Tenorman incident, Cartman’s psychosis has only deepened, from having his left hand possessed by Jennifer Lopez (and runaway con artist Mitch Connors) to attempted murder with a whiffle-ball bat when Kyle threatens to rat him out.

    Stan and Kyle act largely as proxy characters for the show’s creators, though each has developed throughout the show’s run. Now freed from the Machiavellian clutches of Wendy Testaburger, Stan has become the moral centre, firm in his beliefs even when the world is falling apart around him. Kyle is the focus of doubt in the show, always plagued by guilt and questions, willing to follow anyone who promises to rid him of a yawning inner emptiness. Parker and Stone’s depiction of childish fear and ignorance is heartfelt, and often acts as a welcome counterpoint to the wider issues up for discussion: celebrated episode ‘The Passion of the Jew’, which deals with the question of anti-Semitism in Mel Gibson’s Jesus film, would lack much of its impact if it weren’t filtered through the guilt- ridden eyes of Kyle, who comes to believe that his people really do owe the world an apology for killing Christ.

    South Park

    Then there’s a raft of classic supporting characters, from decent, down-to-earth folks like Chef, Mr. Mackie, and Jesus, to bug-eyed lunatics like Officer Barbrady and Mr. (now Mrs.) Garrison. Of the parents, Randy Marsh is the most convincingly developed as a character, his seething homosexual leanings and boyband past hidden beneath a thin veneer of familial respectability and barely controlled alcoholism. The kids, by contrast, are relatively normal — even initially stereotyped characters like handicapped standup Jimmy and paranoid Tweek become part of the gang in due course. The most memorable has to be Butters, the lovable innocent, perhaps the most unfortunate and put upon character on television — in one episode alone (‘Good Times with Weapons’) he is severely wounded in the eye with a throwing star, covered in hair and glue, disguised as a dog and abandoned in the snow before being mistaken for an actual dog and thrown into an animal shelter where he’s repeatedly peed and shat on. In other episodes he’s sold to Paris Hilton by his parents, exposed to pornography so hardcore that he loses his mind, is locked in an underground fallout shelter for a week and forced to wear false testicles on his face so he can go on daily talk shows.

    BUTTERS: I always fall asleep to the sound of my own screams. Then I always get woken up in the morning by the sound of my own screams. Do you think I’m unhappy?

    For the past two seasons, the working practices behind South Park have been altered, bringing about a sea change in the show’s fortunes and notoriety. South Park is now the first authentically topical cartoon show, written and animated inside of a week so that the creators can keep up to date with current events, leading to episodes like ‘Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow’ about the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, or ‘Cartoon Wars’ which dealt with the Mohammed cartoon furore. But in 2005 the episode ‘Trapped In The Closet’ took on the Church of Scientology in the most confrontational manner imaginable, not only offending the organisation’s most high profile members like Tom Cruise and John Travolta (‘oh my gahd!’), but calling the Church’s entire ethos and culture into question, taunting them to react:

    STAN: I’m not the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard, and Scientology is just a big fat global scam.

    SCIENTOLOGISTS: You think you can say our religion is a lie? We’ll sue you, buddy. You are so sued. You can’t make fun of Scientology, kid. We are gonna sue you, and your boss. How dare you mock our faith, you little punk? You’ll be hearing from our lawyers tomorrow.

    STAN: Well, go on then, do it. I’m not scared of you. Sue me.

    The incident called worldwide attention to the show for the first time in years. The Catholic Church soon joined in, protesting over an episode, ‘Bloody Mary’, in which a statue of the Blessed Virgin shits blood in the new Pope’s face, though Trey Parker himself admitted he could understand why people were offended by that one. Things came to a head with 2006’s ‘Cartoon Wars’, in which a brief glimpse of the prophet Mohammed was shoehorned into an episode attacking the rival cartoon series ‘Family Guy’. But the image was blacked out by Comedy Central, fearing a backlash from Moslems — never mind that the episode ‘Super Best Friends’ had featured Mohammed as a character back in 2001, as part of a league of religious superheroes which also included Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Krishna and the Mormon founder Joseph Smith, and nobody had batted an eyelid.

    South Park

    So how did South Park manage for so long to get away with courting such radical controversies? If a mainstream film or drama series depicted the Catholic Church as a society populated entirely by dedicated child molesters led by a decrepit Pontiff who worships a giant spider (as in ‘Red Hot Catholic Love’), they would not only be facing trouble from the FCC and Christian groups, but possible prosecution under laws governing discrimination and religious freedom. Similarly, if a Hollywood comedy depicted the North American Man-Boy Love Association’s pursuit of a group of eight year-olds in the style of bedroom farce complete with French accordion music and a pratfalling waiter, it would quite rightly be seen as monumental bad taste. But for years South Park had done all this and more, with nary a raised eyebrow. Only when the machinations of Tom Cruise and his fellow Scientologists drew attention to the show did religious and moral groups begin to take notice, and complain.

    It’s partly a question of context. Animation has for so long been the provenance of innocent entertainment that South Park’s trangressions were easily overlooked, dismissed as harmlessly childish. Parker and Stone worked slowly, almost imperceptibly, the facile potty humour of the show’s early seasons acting in their favour — quite simply, nobody was watching. The boundaries of decency were expanded ever so gradually, starting with established satirical targets like the Catholics and the religious right before widening their horizons to take on extremists and hypocrites of all stripes, creeds and faiths.

    Parker and Stone’s attacks are bolstered by a clear-headed intelligence and self-awareness absent from their peers, allowing them to walk the knife-edge between comedy and indecency with practiced skill. Allied to neither political party (to the great frustration of activists on both sides), every attack Parker and Stone make is morally inspired, heartfelt, and personal but also objectively even-handed, motivated by a high-minded willingness to expose and lampoon duplicity wherever it may hide. The episode ‘I’m a Little Bit Country’ deals with the run-up to war in Iraq in the context of clashing marches by both anti-war protesters and pro-war ‘patriots’. Neither side is left unscathed, but their differences are solved when Cartman flashes back in time to the signing of the Declaration of Independence and uncovers the great hypocrisy which underlies the entirety of U.S. history: America will always be at war, both for financial gain and self-preservation, but the Constitution also promises freedom of protest, ensuring that the national conscience can always be placated. It’s an astonishing conclusion: without the hawks the country would collapse, but without the doves they’d just be seen as warmongering criminals. At a time when the country was divided into two irreconcilable and increasingly bitter camps, only South Park was able to ignore the ongoing war of words and uncover an even greater, more disturbing lie, one which America will almost certainly never choose to face.

    Another of the great joys of South Park is that the show’s attacks, particularly on shadowy or misunderstood organisations, are often backed up by a genuine desire to educate. Everything you need to know about either Scientology or Mormonism can be learned here, the writers sticking as close as possible to the facts because it’s damn close to comedy already. Other episodes stray further from the truth — it’s unlikely that the Pope does, in fact, worship the Queen Spider, or that the OJ trial was won using the Chewbacca defence.

    South Park

    Many of the most vicious, pointed attacks in the series are reserved for celebrities — David Blaine, Steven Spielberg, and Rob Reiner have all paid the price for perceived crimes and double standards. Perhaps the most vicious celebrity attack of all can be seen in the episode ‘Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset’, in which Paris Hilton drinks until she vomits, drives her pets to suicide, attempts to buy poor helpless Butters and engages in a ‘whore-off’ with consummate whipping boy Mr. Slave, wherein she inserts a pineapple into her vagina and is eventually swallowed by Mr. Slave’s anus, to the delight of the gathered crowd. The episode could, and occasionally does, come across as mean-spirited — Paris is obnoxious, but she hardly seems an appropriate target for such bilious hatred. But, again, the target is wider than one person — Parker and Stone are attacking the industry that has sprung up around figures like Hilton, the culture which encourages young women to prize appearance and attitude over intelligence and self-worth, which pushes them to dress and behave like pampered heiresses.

    Occasionally Parker and Stone’s fury gets the better of them. ‘The Passion of the Jew’ begins in classic fashion, as the various arguments are laid out and examined: is the film anti-Semitic? Is the bible? Is Mel Gibson? The answers are yes, probably, and yes. But then the episode moves onto a larger question: Is the film any good? It’s an appropriately lopsided South Park approach, as Stan and Kenny set off to Malibu to confront Gibson and get their admission fee back. And here the episode falls down — the writers’ hatred for the burly Australian homunculus is so intense that they can’t seem to bring themselves to deal with him at all, except as a freakish, shit-flinging madman — it’s sledgehammer satire, and less funny for it.

    But this tendency to take everything personally can also be rewarding — many of the episodes are driven by a real moral fervour, an outrage against the horrors that exist in the world. The aforementioned ‘Cartman Joins NAMBLA’ does indeed depict the ravenous sexual pursuit of pre-teen boys, but the episode is steeped in a genuine sense of disgust that serves to sharpen both the comedy and the social comment. As usual, the characters of Stan and Kyle serve as proxies for Parker and Stone themselves:

    NAMBLA REPRESENTATIVE: We are human. Most of us didn’t even choose to be attracted to young boys. We were born that way. We can’t help the way we are. And if you all can’t understand that, well, then I guess you’ll just have to put us away.

    KYLE: Dude, you have sex with children.

    STAN: Yeah, you know, we believe in equality for everybody and tolerance and all that gay stuff but, dude, fuck you.

    KYLE: Seriously.

    South Park

    But the most reviled figures in Parker and Stone’s world, responsible for more heinous crimes than religion, government and NAMBLA put together, are the parents. In the universe of South Park, parents are irresponsible, morally wavering, easily influenced, so convinced of their intellectual superiority over their hapless offspring that they are blind to the reality of the world surrounding them. The most flagrant example of this comes in the film Bigger, Longer And Uncut, in which the mothers happily lead the U.S. into a war with Canada to protect their children from foul language, but the theme reoccurs throughout the series. In the episode ‘Cherokee Hair Tampons’, Kyle’s mother is assured of the efficacy of New Age remedies to the point where her son almost dies of a kidney infection. In ‘Child Abduction Is Not Funny’, the parents become so paranoid that their children might go missing that they have the local Chinese restaurant owner build a wall around the town to keep out potential abductors (it is instead attacked by hordes of angry Mongolians). An episode dealing with the Michael Jackson case, ‘The Jeffersons’, throws the issue into stark relief—Parker and Stone are less interested in whether or not Jackson is a child molester than his skills as a dad:

    KYLE: Let’s say all the bad things said about Mr. Jefferson are lies. Let’s say the police department does just go around spending their time framing people for crimes they didn’t commit. Let’s say it’s all made up, and Mr. Jefferson is just a nice guy who’s trying to be a child because he never got to have a childhood. Well that’s fine, except that he has children now, and when people have children they have to grow up.

    MR. JEFFERSON You’re right… Blanket doesn’t need a playmate. He needs a father.

    In South Park, the worst thing anybody can be is a bad parent.

    Occasionally the series does go too far and risks becoming a crass display of crude shock tactics—it was saddening to see Cartman’s image in that desperate parade of washed-up comics, The Aristocrats, but occasionally South Park suffers from a similarly skewed desire to horrify without real purpose. When the first episode after Isaac Hayes’ acrimonious departure, ‘The Return of Chef’, included references to child abuse and molestation, it felt like a cheap and immature attempt to send Hayes off in the most insulting way imaginable. Other recent episodes have similarly struggled — the show concerning Mr. Garrison’s sex change operation was graphically disgusting, but contained precious little insight, as did an episode concerning an argument between Oprah Winfrey’s private parts. The episode ‘Bloody Mary’ that so angered the Catholic Church made a number of supremely intelligent points about alcoholism, but was somewhat railroaded by the unnecessarily grotesque blood-shitting incident.

    It’s now becoming unavoidably clear that, like The Simpsons before it, the heyday of South Park is past. In their ongoing bid to become as topical as possible, Trey Parker and Matt Stone have sacrificed some of the cool headedness and insight that made the show work — it feels rushed, because it is. There are still moments of near-genius, angles on current events that provoke us into re-learning what we think we already know. It will be interesting to see how the fallout from the Scientology and ‘Cartoon Wars’ episodes affects South Park’s ability to address serious issues — Comedy Central’s decision to censor the image of Mohammed has set a worrying precedent. But even without the threat of outside influence the show’s edge is getting blunt, the satirical swipes cheaper and more obvious. A case in point, the recent episode ‘Manbearpig’, in which former Vice President Al Gore attempts to warn the world about the increasing threat from the titular beast, which exists only in his head. The parallels are achingly clear: global warming, pollution. But the show’s take on the issue seems badly thought out — are they trying to question the now irrefutable science behind global warming, and if so, why? It feels like senseless devil’s advocating, taking the naysayer’s position just for the hell of it. It’s hard to believe Parker and Stone care much for the environmental issue either way, so why tackle it?

    Perhaps it’s not too late. If Parker and Stone were willing to ignore the yes-men, sacrifice some small measure of pertinence and accept a larger workload, perhaps the show could regain it’s former standing — it’s been less than two years since the quality first began to slide. But even if things continue as they are, we still have six seasons worth of sporadic perfection, moments of stark truth and genuine insight, and better jokes than anyone else.

    South Park

    It would be remiss of me to end this article without drawing attention to one of the great questions of our age, which has pursued me through pubs and bars across the free world: which is the better show, South Park or The Simpsons? It should be clear by now on which side my allegiances lie, but such a bold claim requires backup, and I’m happy to provide it.

    For a start, let me say that I don’t hate The Simpsons. For at least six or seven years, from about the third to the eighth or ninth seasons, The Simpsons was classic television — rounded characters, tight, effective plotting, genuinely funny. But those days are long gone, and the hollow sham that was a great show keeps lumbering forward. Now that South Park seems to be headed in the same direction, we can look back to each show’s peak and compare.

    On the level of satire, South Park is a million miles ahead of The Simpsons, which always seemed to pride itself on being a bit dangerous but whose attacks were in fact confined to petty jibes at the expense of nuclear power and big government, and occasionally prejudice of one sort or another. And the fact remains that The Simpsons is produced by the Fox network, so however much they try to proclaim their independence and countercultural credentials they are in the pay of a man who poses a grave threat to democracy and liberty the world over, who happily hands power to warmongers and extremists. So they really don’t have a leg to stand on.

    As regards characters, the Simpsons may once have had the edge, but it’s a photo finish. If nothing else, the warmth of personality in The Simpsons nudges it ahead of the rather more brutal (though perhaps more realistic) characterisation in South Park.

    But the bottom line is that both are comedy shows, and South Park is now, has always been and will always be funnier. There are some great gags in The Simpsons, slapstick and wordplay, ironic and sweet. But in South Park the laughs hit harder, and last longer. As an easy example, take the movie references in each show: while The Simpsons tends to stick to rather overbaked, obvious references to familiar, populist classics – 2001, The Godfather, A Few Good Men, TV shows like The SopranosSouth Park has to date included references to films as divergent as It’s Alive!, Children of the Corn, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Aliens, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome and most gloriously They Live, wherein one of cinema’s longest fight scenes was restaged between wheelchair-bound Timmy and crutch-carrying Jimmy. But the point is less which films were chosen but how the references are treated—in The Simpsons, if you don’t know the film you won’t get the joke, it’s an isolated, often purely visual reference with no other connection to surrounding events. But in South Park, these homages work organically within the story, serving as inspiration and enhancement even though the scenes would work just as well without them.

    I find the continued popularity of The Simpsons perplexing—as the show grows ever more smug and desperate, the wonder of South Park only shines brighter in contrast. I doubt if South Park will ever get as bad as The Simpsons is now, if only because it’s written by two smart people instead of a faceless committee, and I trust Parker and Stone to recognise when it’s time to stop. Though judging by some recent episodes, that time could be closer than any of us want to believe.

    Tom Huddleston  /  © 2007 notcoming.com

    欢迎加入轰轰烈烈的贴标签游戏~~

    Fox的主持人不去演戏,实在太屈才,影视界当引为憾事。效果很震撼,只是不知道他们说的是什么。。
    有了bailout,就说socialism来袭。因为立法让AIG吐出巨额红利,所以obama成了头顶communism咒语的大魔王。反正现在是有理只在声高,也不用讲讲自己的理到底是什么。
    可是你能给我解释解释socialism和communism是什么吗?你反对的是理论?是实践?是当今存在的有限的政体模式?是当今存在的有限的政体模式所制定的政策?我猜你说不清楚。在你小小的脑子里面,这是两个标签,两个张牙舞爪的图腾,两个集合了斯大林古拉各群岛大饥荒文化大革命(可能再加上侵占西藏)的飘来荡去的邪恶概念。
    所以,这成了一个姓资还是姓社的假问题,而你能做的只是摆出这个姿态:凡是敌人反对的我们都赞成,凡是敌人赞成的我们都反对。所以现今这件有关AIG的事,逻辑变成:由于让他们吐出钱来这种做法触了communism的霉头,所以让他们叫90%的红利税这是赤裸裸的狗屁。天大地大,标签最大啊。
     
     

    Talking about 转载《姐妹》

    http://anousparis.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!37ECCA9AECFCD6B1!1721.entry

    转载《姐妹》

    姐妹

    无论是打工还是创业,其本质无外乎向老板或客户出卖自己的有形或无形产品。作为女性,外表和性格共同决定你的命运,这是残酷的现实。无论哪朝哪代、东方或西方,端庄路线是永远不会错的。装也要装的像。所以,第一要保持美丽,第二要多做事少抱怨,第三看在钱的份上要适当妥协。付出不一定有回报,努力不一定有收获。学习知识和锻炼身体除外。这个时代的规律就是没有绝对公平竞争,接受这一点,然后武装自己投身到轰轰烈烈的不公平竞争中去。顺应规律而行,也是达尔文主义。或许自己的期许和愿望始终没有实现,一要怪自己学艺不精,二要怪自己运气不好,三就请赶快行动起来争取下一个愿望。前面投入的时间精力,统统算做沉没成本。勇于承担沉没成本是出来混的第一课。
     
    谈恋爱某种程度来说就是让自己从精神到物质,从灵魂到肉体,因为有了对方都比从前的状态更好。否则何必呢?两个人最终过起日子来,"也就那么回事"已经是非常好的结局,因为很多人发现婚后"完全不是那么回事"。成功的感情关系里,爱情是一定会转化成亲情的。老人说的道理大部分都是对的,但是这些道理只有在N年后遍体鳞伤的你才能想明白。撞了南墙自然懂得回头,怕就怕一直没回头。男人也是人,他不是必然比你还要聪明、勇敢、勤劳和富有。如果你不能爱一个男人的本尊,而是爱上你期待中的他的话,你会一直失望,而他会因压力过大而沉默和崩溃。对一个人的崇拜不足以支撑琐碎的日常生活。偶像要走下神坛,他谈完世界观也要去厕所。
     
    每个人先天能量区别很大,有的人寡淡无味,有的人跌宕起伏,都是按自个儿的能量定额来的。先天能量这个东西没法攀比,自己跟自己比,满足就好。关键是正确估计自己的能量。欲望得不到满足就会很痛苦,欲望得以满足又忽觉很无聊。只有刚刚实现后那短暂的时期是幸福快乐的。所以幸福快乐必然是短暂的,痛苦和无聊才是生活的常态。这是人类的欲望所决定的。别人的任何选择和决定都有他自己的道理,尽量理解和不干涉。但如果伤害到你的心灵和财产,一定要干涉。面子是别人给的。别人会把面子给那些那坚持表现出诚实、勇敢、勤奋和靠谱的人。不以以上这些元素作为给面子准则的人,你也不用在意他给不给你面子。有时候不用等到什么时机都成熟了才开始做一件事,在游泳中学会游泳,在开车中学会开车,摸着石头是可以过河的。前提是输得起。
     

    fajitas

     

    guacamole recipe

     

    这真真假假的,看着够累的

    谎言下的辉煌——“小英雄”林浩事迹被曝是骗局
    信源:中华博客|编辑:2009-03-01| 网址:http://www.popyard.org     抄送朋友打印保留

    【八阕】郑重声明:本则消息未经严格核实,也不代表《八阕》观点。【八阕】一个劳动人民群众喜闻乐见的好地方:http://www.popyard.org
    八阕 http://www.popyard.org 近日,报刊和网络上都看见人民日报资深记者李辉揭露国学大师文怀沙欺世盗名的文章。我是去年在央视节目里看见文怀沙,只见这个百岁老人,银鬓飘拂,面色红润,思维敏捷,谈笑风生,学贯中西,精通古今。主持人向大家介绍这个百岁老人不俗的生平,让在场的每个人对文怀沙大师都肃然起敬。2008年年底,央视2 套的对话节目中,又请了文怀沙来现场书写了“结绳记事”的横幅,作为那期节目的名称。

    刚刚时隔一个多月,人民日报的记者李辉站出来揭穿这个百岁老人的虚假。文怀沙的真实年龄其实是87岁,而远非100岁;文怀沙的文革入狱并非是受四人帮的迫害,而是因为调戏妇女;文怀沙的学识绝非国学大师,不过只抵一个中学国文老师水平,总之只是一个欺世盗名的假大师。

    这下可是媒体跟媒体叫板了,当然也有文怀沙的拥趸跳出来拔刀相助,据理力争。如今的社会就是这样,成也媒体,败也媒体,雾里看花,让你难辩谁真谁假?昨天还是一个大文豪,今天就成了大流氓!

    要说媒体造假,2008年最大的假新闻当属汶川地震中的那个“小英雄”林浩了。我说他可以上2009年315晚会的头条,可惜这是央视造出来的英雄,他们总不会自己揭自己的疮疤吧!

    地震后四川卫视现场采访在医院的“小英雄”,当时林浩说他救了全班同学,连老师都是他背出来的!当时大家就觉可笑,但当时地震情况很乱,失误难免,谁知小孩子还越说越当真了!黄口小儿的戏言竟通过媒体散布到全国!

    林浩最初在媒体上说他背出50个被压的人,后又改口成了十多个,到最后又改口成两个是死在医院的人(死无对证)。呵呵.....九岁的儿童身高不过一米左右竟能背起成年人----老师??开玩笑!

    后来小孩竟然在央视与著名主持人侃侃而谈他的英雄事迹,主持人还兴致勃勃的叫台下的观众上台来来背成年人试试.........荒诞极至!!

    我多次去映秀灾区,听那里的灾民们说,林浩根本没有救过人,他那么小的个子,怎么可能背起大人呢?连我们都背不了。只是这两个所谓他背出来的人已无法开口。林浩说他把背出来的两个人交给了校长,可是校长根本也没有看见过,校长成了哑巴吃黄连,在媒体高调的采访下,校长只有沉默,而无法说出真相。

    随着对林浩的宣传升温,林浩频频出镜,走进了奥运开幕式,带领全家几代人移居上海。在上海生活了半年后,全家又回到成都。听他父母的口气,似乎对上海人很不满,虽然林浩在上海期间向媒体表露了很多心愿,比如喜欢上海,愿意做个上海人,希望能让他的父母找到一份更好的工作,以便在上海购房等等,但心愿实现的不多。林浩的父亲林大坤说自己在上海找工作到处碰壁,而事实却是他对于一些热心人士介绍的工作根本就是不屑一顾,逢人就说中央九个常委他见了五个之类的话,言下之意那些1000--1500左右的工资太委屈他了。一家人连同亲戚6六口人,在上海快半年了,生活开销几乎就是靠孩子频繁的上各种媒体来获取的。即便如此,林大坤还要在各种媒体上大唱高调,说什么绝对不能用小英雄的称号去换钱等等。上海高昂的生活费用和上海人特有的精明让“小英雄”的一家感到很不如意,于是在2009年春节前举家回到成都,林家姐弟俩高调转入成都的名校“盐道街小学”,当然学校一切费用全免。

    在盐道街小学入学考试中,林浩基本上是交了白卷,林浩不以为然的说,这是因为上海跟成都的教材不同,表现出了毫无所谓的样子。一个功课极差的孩子有了英雄的光环,就有了终身享用不尽的“幸福”资源,当然满不在乎,反正已经进名校啦!这让人想起若干年前的“白卷英雄”张铁生,只是年龄上张某也得甘拜下风、自愧不如!

    谎言加上媒体的宣传成就了林浩的今天,让一个9岁的孩子成了走上神坛的英雄。因为身后有强大的媒体,地方上知情的记者鲜有敢于出来揭穿这个骗局,因为戳破了它的同时,可能也会毁掉了自己。

    于是这个惊天的骗局一直在延续,善良的国人仍然把他当作英雄,林浩还在不断地向记者们讲述他的新年愿望,林大坤在成都也表示必要的时候林浩也要接一些广告,其实就是他们家人的愿望,就是想在城市里体面的生活下去,能买一个大房子,不用再回灾区。

    谎言说了千遍就会成为真理,我们已经习惯生活在一个充满谎言的世界里,著名主持人杨澜说:在这个世上说真话有时就像说笑话。这话一点不假。其实要了解事实很简单,成都到映秀的车程不过只有一个多小时,但是回归一个事实真相可能需要很长的时间。

    今天的成都晚报记者写了《林浩上下学,民警要接送》的报道,写的是督院街派出所的干警每天接送林浩上下学,保障他和他的家人安全的事情。看来林浩的影响够大,骗子的把戏真能忽悠住人,连警察叔叔都要放下手中的正事,去向他奉献爱心。

    在记者李辉出来揭露文怀沙的时候,成都也有人在四川在线贴出了《“小英雄”林浩并不怕闪光灯,怕的是记者的良知!》的文章。依我看,国学大师文怀沙比起林浩来说,可谓小巫见大巫,差远了。不管怎么说文怀沙还有点真才实学,林浩呢,只是一个被媒体宠坏了的小骗子而已!

    附:从“小英雄”林浩事迹被曝是骗局想到的

    牛乐吼

    汶川地震中的九岁“小英雄”林浩事迹近来被曝是骗局,这一事件----姑且无论它的真实性如何----都成为近期最吸引我眼球的事件----起码比希拉里访华、俄舰炮击我国民船的事件要更令我震撼。我关注的是这一可能事件蕴含的意义。

    乱世出英雄,这次是林浩。央视被卷入了一场可能的骗局,原因之一当然是当时局势混乱、信息不畅、难以寻找充分的目击证人;原因之二自然在于我们一贯的舆论宣传的迫切需要:特定时期急于树立榜样和英雄。考虑到央视的特定地位,树立了错误的典型,上了小孩的当,姑且说有情可原。不能怪我们太笨,只能怪鬼子太狡猾 ----谁会想到一个九岁的小孩撒谎到了九段的水平?

    但如果我们深入思考,也许这样几个方面会引起我们的深思:

    其一,树立榜样的做法对不对?受骗,往往是因为自身存在着某种弱点。央视如果被骗,也许最值得检讨的是树立榜样的迫切心理。树立榜样其实是我们的光荣传统,但同时也被历史资料证明往往最容易偏离事件本身轨道。当初树立武训、刘文彩等反面典型就是最好的例子。从传播学的角度看,树立榜样也许是需要,但应该有一个前提,那就是我们永远不应该以牺牲真理和正义为代价。

    从更本质的角度来思考,树立榜样这一做法本身很有风险:第一,向榜样学习削弱了人类生活的多样性;第二,很少有先天的英雄,树立榜样的过程往往是一个夸饰的过程,把凡人的某个瞬间的闪光(偶然)推广到他的全部(寻找必然)。事实上,汶川地震中关于那个绑着老婆尸体骑摩托车的男人的宣传就遭遇了尴尬----我们一厢情愿地视其为天老地荒的坚贞爱情的象征,但他居然在短短半年后就“重结新欢”了。事实上,这个平凡的男人没有错,错的是我们为了满足自己的浪漫想象而对别人不切实际的要求。

    其二,我们强大的舆论工具树立了榜样之后,如果发现错了,那该怎么办?皇帝的新装,将错就错?还是知错就改,善莫大焉?不要说央视对关于林浩事件的传闻一无所知(没有验证之前,姑且当他是传闻----而且,为了扩大我们的思考面,不妨把这一事件推广为央视某次错误宣传的假设),永远不要轻视央视强大而灵敏的触觉。

    自打耳光比什么都难,这是我们的一般经验,对央视也同样适用。另举一个现成的例子是,近年来央视一向对意外社会事件的报道反应迅速,可在不久之前影响极大的央视大楼失火这一事件中,却保持了谦虚的低调和缄默。从这一点看,央视还明显不足以作以正义和良心的代表,因为它还有我们常人常见的性格缺陷。

    但这还不是这一事件的全部意义。舆论宣传的力量是如此强大,央视完全可能通过某次舆论宣传制造出连自己也控制不了的怪物。这一次,“假设”林浩事件是假的,央视如果要颠覆自己所创造出来的怪胎,需要有比当初创造出它来多十倍的勇气----因为作为一个理性“人”,央视不得不正视其巨大的社会后果和“政治影响 ”:这是被树立的地震灾区的代表,是奥运会入场式的旗手,是中央领导亲切接见的小英雄,是……。颠覆的后果,是向领导、向民众、向“全世界”自揭家丑。这需要的不仅仅是壮士断腕的勇气。

    因此,我猜测,“假设”这一事件的确是骗局,各级媒体甚至一般的领导者都失去了揭穿这一“皇帝的新装”的勇气,很可能是默认、不了了之,甚或,继续以错误来掩盖错误。林浩这个九岁男孩已经成功地挟持了央视,这一情形,有点像成功获取了银行数十亿贷款的骗子企业家,或者像一个违章建造的摩天大楼,因为后果严重,因此博弈的后果是,不法者获利了胜利。

    如果这一“假设”的确成立,小英雄林浩在九岁的时候,由于误打误撞抓住了庞大社会机器的“七寸”,很有可能因此领悟了在社会立足的“无上神功”,从此得心应手,视表面桀骜不驯的媒体如无物,呼风唤雨,成长为大“英雄”。

    而我等,面对这一完全可能的荒谬,应该脱离林浩这一具体事件,得出终极结论:一、千万要小心舆论,因为它完全可能被少数别有用心的人所利用;二、任何时候对榜样都多留一个心眼,一个思维强健的人其实不需要任何榜样,他应该敬畏和听从他的内心。如康德所言:“有两种东西,我对它们思考越深沉持久,他们在我心灵中唤起的惊奇和敬畏就越历久弥新:一是我们头上浩瀚的星空,另一个就是我们心中的道德律令。”