網路城邦
回本城市首頁 政治符號
市長:古士塔夫  副市長: lukacs
加入本城市推薦本城市加入我的最愛訂閱最新文章
udn城市政治社會其他【政治符號】城市/討論區/
討論區政治符號學理研究 字體:
看回應文章  上一個討論主題 回文章列表 下一個討論主題
政治符號的通理與想像
2006/02/15 00:21 瀏覽2,639|回應21推薦2

BB 咖啡。以淚封印
等級:8
留言加入好友
文章推薦人 (2)

lukacs
古士塔夫

說到政治符號 有幾件通理是可以確立的 :

一 ) 帝國時代或威權極權體制國家 , 君王是 forever ruler, in life as in death, 愛如何搞就如何搞 , 要如何 memorized 就如何 memorized, 叫皇陵、王廟、叫金字塔 , 連活人陪葬都可以 , 誰敢異議 , 除非不想活了。

二 ) 進入民主時代 , 還搞這套 ,by definition 不是無知、無聊、食古不化 , 就是想改但不知如何改 , 或別有用心。如果是無知、無聊、食古不化跟不上時代的前者 , 那老 K 的下場 , 被人民拋棄就是借鏡;如果是就是想改但不知如何改或別有用心 , 那就要小心了。

自律自許、歷史認知是關鍵。相對於帝國君王的「現代」第一位共和國總統華盛頓 , 了解自己言行舉止表現 , 不論自己願不願意 , 會被當成衡量 Presidential Demeanor 標準 , 必需特別謹慎。這 Presidential Demeanor 內容可以巨細糜遺 , 包括 : 如何稱呼共和國最高民選行政者、如何與 other branches of the government 互動、如何與人民互動等等。要人說那就叫他「 His Elective Majesty 」 , 也有人提議「 His Highness, the President of the United States, and Protector of Their Liberties 」 (Well, this is from John Adams, one of the famous funding brothers generation, 華盛頓的副總統 , 還是未來的總統呢 !!!) 。但是 Old George settled for just plain 「 Mr. President 」。理由 : 這稱呼在總統權威、尊嚴與國家民主特色中 , 取得完美平衡。與國會關係、政黨歧見的處理 , 例證太多就不在此提了。到了任期結束 , 借登報上給人民公開信 , 提指國家面臨危險 (don’t entangle in the old country, old continent), 未來的方向 (go west) . 包袱收一收 , 回老家 Mount Vernon 莊園養老 , 設計自己墳墓 , live out his life in peace. 「 Mount Vernon 」變成退休總統「自我了斷」的政治符號 , 「 George Washington 」 變成政治符號。 No Fanfare, No Fuss, No Mess, 人人認同變成標準。

所以 , 國家有國家墓園 , 對國家有貢獻的當然有資格入葬 , 國葬完了 , 要埋在自家祖墳墓園的 , 請買地自理 ( 台灣人如此重風水 正好合自理原則 ) , 別再卡國家的油。要蓋總統圖書館的 , 請國家定出原則 , 自己去勸募 , 葬禮別太政治化 , 別弄得像最近金恩夫人葬禮一樣難看 , 宛如民主黨選舉造勢大會 , 太政治也對死者不敬 , 一篇對死者很人性化的 Eulogy , 比總統的政治褒揚狀來的合禮、合理、合誼。以上這些廢話 , 狀似有理 , 但在台灣 , 政治考量 , 沒有去任總統會如此做 , 不到出事或事到臨頭 , 沒有政府相關單位會事先規劃。不是詛咒人 , 下次有 the passing of Ex-P , 這種 Mess , 跑不掉。

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘

引用
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=1558785
 回應文章 頁/共3頁 回應文章第一頁 回應文章上一頁 回應文章下一頁 回應文章最後一頁
捧腹
2006/03/15 08:42 推薦0


古士塔夫
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
捧腹,妙!
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=1600294
文藝悲劇
    回應給: Beaver(allthingsconsidered) 2006/03/15 08:31 推薦0


semaguang
等級:
留言加入好友

 

雖說這黃澄澄的戀愛故事不若羅朱或是梁祝經典,卻也夠悲的了...哀...

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=1600277
symbol and symbolism
2006/03/15 03:39 推薦1


BB 咖啡。以淚封印
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

古士塔夫

黃金 : 我的電腦,自從二月防火牆升級後,對於圖檔很敏感,有些網站圖檔看的到,有些完全看不到,無名的圖檔正是那個看不到的,老修不好正在龜怪。不過你那馬桶文很有趣。充份表達出那水把一按,嘩啦啦地氣勢,爽快呢 !!!

來貢獻個馬桶故事好了。我家 “ 小人口 ” 眾多,我媽沒事,就愛邊做家事邊講古,反正,說故事不花錢,還能娛樂孩子。這個馬桶故事可是真人真事,就發生在她好姐妹身上。話說,我媽還在做小姐時候 (Beaver 注 : 嘻嘻,我媽說 “ 做小姐 ” 是指她年輕時候,可不是 “ 在酒店當小姐 ” 哦 ) ,在一家親戚開的藥局上班,有個手帕交,是桃園本地好野人小姐,家裏賣浴室建材百貨,像八丁掛小磁磚磁臉盆馬桶這類啦,人有學問脾氣好長的也正。這小姐認識個男的,台南人家裏務農。兩人交往一段時間後,想結婚,可是想先帶回家去見父母一下。到了男方家,他媽還特別殺雞待客,客氣的很氣氛很好,飯吃了,還坐大廳喝茶,男的心想大概沒問題。那坐一旁惦惦阿公突然出聲問一句 : 阿咿老伯仄做啥 ? 那小子想都沒想回說 : 阿咿老伯是的賣便桶。阿公不吭聲就進屋去。所有人都嚇到了。老爸媽趕緊跟進去,只聽老阿公大聲說 : 娶熊 娶虎 碼卡好過娶一個帶屎姆。信不信,一樁婚事就吹了。我還記得問我媽,便桶跟馬桶差很遠耶 ? 我媽說 : 都跟大便有關,哪有差多少。 Talking about symbol and symbolism

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=1600175
置入性行銷
2006/03/10 21:14 推薦1


semaguang
等級:
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

古士塔夫

"黃金"在這裡要工商服務一下,

小弟的部落格放了兩幅有關政治符號的視覺作品,

外國人給出的主意,我的"佛陀下普"(photoshop)神功,

有興趣不妨給個批評唄!!

http://www.wretch.cc/blog/retiredsam&article_id=2368787 (國家的誕生)

http://www.wretch.cc/blog/retiredsam&article_id=2025679 (馬桶)

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=1594204
打招呼
    回應給: Beaver(allthingsconsidered) 2006/03/10 01:13 推薦0


semaguang
等級:
留言加入好友

 
對"錢"和"運動"比較有興趣ㄋㄟ,叫我"黃金"好了! 好福氣的稱號喔!
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=1593085
牽托上帝
2006/03/09 02:43 推薦0


BB 咖啡。以淚封印
等級:8
留言加入好友

 

嘻嘻,跟那個 "g ", 多出來都會擠到下一行的 James 打招呼,好啊,很幽默好到陣喲,乾脆叫你「 黃帝」好了。

上帝「牌子」老,可連個「蹦子」都沒 ; 教會不見得「名聲」好,可是「身家」可是太好啦。所以呢,要錢,當然得「告」有錢的教會 ; 要面子,可就得「牽托」上帝。前幾年,美國波士頓教區不是出了教士戀童癖醜聞案,一干涉案教士依法究辦,有個還在監獄裏,被獄友活活打死,可是受害家屬要告索賠的,卻是波士頓主教區。原因 : 好野人啊 ! 比照推理,阿扁要找元兇,目地就清楚啦 !

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=1591598
控訴上帝
2006/03/06 06:44 推薦2


semaguang
等級:
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (2)

lukacs
古士塔夫

脫口秀一方之霸Billy Connolly演過一部電影叫做"The man who sued god",講的是一個小市民因為保險公司以"天災"為理由而不理賠他在颱風中的損失,他決定控告上帝,反正大家都說是天災,那就告上帝,可是上帝不能當被告,所以他選擇了"教會"這個宣稱上帝存在的機構團體...因為之前有人提到"元兇"的問題,所以想到,也許,可以一切都說是老天搞的!
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=1587775
哥倆好 一對寶!!!
2006/02/27 02:14 推薦1


BB 咖啡。以淚封印
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

lukacs

On Grant and Sherman and the reelection of Lincoln: when running for reelection, Lincoln faced couple of challenges, namely the Republican Radicals’ opposition of Lincoln’s leniency towards the South and the Peace Democrats that wanted to negotiate for peace, the seeming gloomy military progress, and last but not least, the meaning of the war.

The Gettysburg Address of Nov. 19, 1863, marked not only the high point in the record of American eloquence, but also the meaning of the war, recognizing the human drama that is going to have on the nation for the generations to come. Then Lincoln's long search for a winning combination finally brought generals Grant and Sherman to the top; and their series of victories in 1864 cleared the doubts that the war was really winnable thus stop once for all the harassing nature both Radicals and Peace Democrats that at one time seemed to threaten Lincoln's reelection.

As for the relationship and/or contribution between Grant and Sherman, well, I won’t go so far as to endorse one over the other in terms of their military contributions in ending the war. I tend to agree with Charles Bracelen Flood in his assessment (see Grant and Sherman: The Friendship That Won the Civil War, a critically acclaimed book on civil war history) that: The Grant-Sherman relationship was remarkably symbiotic, but not always in harmony. If it was not for Sherman, Grant would have been known in history as a “drunk”, if not for Grant, Sherman a “crazy bum”. They complemented each other in the following ways. 1) Corporation and division of labor, so that the military commanding of the North after Grant took over was basically friction free. 2) Forging the winning strategy, Grant went after Lee, Sherman after Joe Johnston, thus cutting the Confederate force in half. 3) Starving the South of its resource, then you have the burning of Atlanta and the march to sea drama.

本文於 2006/02/27 02:30 修改第 1 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=1577150
Will he still be great?
2006/02/27 02:12 推薦0


BB 咖啡。以淚封印
等級:8
留言加入好友

 

Having said that, we turn to Lincoln as a person and agent of political change in question. So far as I can tell, Lincoln has been consistently ranked on the top bracket as one of the great presidents. Then we have to ask ourselves, what are the criteria by which Lincoln has been measured? Conventional wisdom holds it that preserving the Union and his stand on the slave issue made Lincoln great. Not to diminish the significance of scholars’ views, such as Bernard Bailyn, and books, namely The Great Republic, there is a recent trend towards understanding the characteristic traits, world views, personal as well as political skills in successfully managing national crises that make a president great.

So here is what I think: even if the North had lost the civil war and despite the fact that Lincoln did have a “relatively” short political career (both at the state level, and national level) before became president, his stands on the state right, the rights of the black, his understanding of human suffering, and his political skills in bringing together old foes to work for the bigger common good will definitely, in my view, not make him one of the failed president.

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=1577149
總統這麼大 如何評比呢?
2006/02/27 02:08 推薦1


BB 咖啡。以淚封印
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

lukacs

這有兩問題 () 如何評比American Presidents () Gen. Grant Gen. Sherman 的貢獻與Lincoln 的連任 

 

評比American Presidents 要從老Arthur Schlesinger說起1948 Schlesinger 首開先例, 分五級 ( great, near great, average, below average, or failure) ,55名歷史學者來列評presidential performances. Since then, press organizations, academia periodically put out surveys determining how people feel about presidential performances, past and present.

 

So far there are a dozen of such rankings. And these are the things we know as a result of such surveys: (1) there is a consistent pool of presidents, whom according to the participants and the kinds of questions asked, are considered great or failure, on both ends of the scale. (2) There is a tendency for past presidents to experience certain reputation rehabilitations after (a) a certain time laps after their tenures, or (b) new historical materials become available, or (c) the society as a whole went through certain type of broad social, political, and/or cultural changes. Besides, there are certain scholarly discrepancies, which are pretty normal by definition and merit, over the design, definition, language, and wording of the survey regarding the criteria by which the presidents were judged.  

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=52727&aid=1577147
頁/共3頁 回應文章第一頁 回應文章上一頁 回應文章下一頁 回應文章最後一頁