没见过男人的毛腿吗

杜然 发表于 2006-11-18 16:00:39

去超市,懒得换上长裤,站在窗口看外面也不算冷,索性穿了短裤出去。

马路上,众人的目光像刷子。弄得我很不爽,用目光瞪回去,直到对方低下头。

买完,离开超市。这家超市很奇怪,出门的时候要把收据拿过去盖一个戳。听见一个卖染发剂的男人对盖戳的女人说,看!看!短裤!女人看到了,用更高分贝对同事喊道,快看!快看!

我终于忍无可忍了,盯着她,走上前,在她因为紧张或者害羞而低下头的那一刹那,用尽可能礼貌地声调说道:傻逼,没看过男人的毛腿吗?

读我这篇blog的人,希望您能做到:

1、不要在公开场合盯着别人看。
2、不要在公开场合吐痰。
3、不要在公开场合用声嘶力竭的声音打手机。
4、在超市里,不要推着小车挡在走道上。
5、不要没事儿就蹲在地上。
6、如果你开车,请尊重行人;如果你是行人,请遵守交通规则。
7、平时说话,请降低音调,大家都不是聋子。可以听得很清楚。
8、无论你是男人还是女人,用完马桶请把马桶垫抬起来放。无论大便小便,请冲厕所。
9、不要在地铁和公交上吃东西喝东西。
……

不是我demanding,不是我critical,只是希望:如果你的确受过正常的教育,请把你所受到的教育表现出来。
收藏: QQ书签 del.icio.us 订阅: Google 抓虾

MONICA BELLUCCI,您别脱了,求您了

杜然 发表于 2006-11-18 14:03:11

昨晚看了一部MONICA BELLUCCI主演的法国片《HOW MUCH DO YOU LOVE ME?》(2005年),美人易老,《西西里美丽传说》中的那个MONICA BELLUCCI,那个无论对男人还是对女人都同样具有强烈说服力的女人已经消逝了。要命的是,她在《HOW MUCH DO YOU LOVE ME?》一片中三分之二的镜头是穿着衣不遮乳的吊带内衣,三分之一的镜头是直接露出乳房。看完之后,替她觉得悲哀。11月的《巴黎竞赛画报》以她做了封面,说2007年她将有4部电影上映。别再脱了,求您了。

Kylie Minogue治好了乳腺癌,11号在澳洲开了复出演唱会。上周在德国的时候,好多电台又把她的歌拿出来。她的Can't get you out of my head(直接下载  http://www.funzj.com/multi/outofmyhead.mp3),Come into my World(直接下载http://220.181.26.87/...Hits-2002-11/Kylie%20Minogue--Come%20Into%20My%20World.mp3  )当年是许多迪厅DJ的最爱。


图像 “http://foto.yculblog.com/duran/t-18452160.jpg” 因其本身有错无法显示。http://node0.foto.ycstatic.com/200611/18/5/25532581.jpg


收藏: QQ书签 del.icio.us 订阅: Google 抓虾

胖子究竟招谁惹谁了

杜然 发表于 2006-11-17 23:32:27

美国在1960年代曾经进行过一个心理测试:向一群小朋友展示身体正常的孩子、身体有残疾的孩子和肥胖孩子的素描之后,问他们希望谁成为自己的朋友,结果没人选胖孩子。新西兰的一所大学今年在一群大学生中重复了这个实验,结果连胖子都不愿意挑胖子做朋友。

胖子在我们这个社会中,一直被钉在审美的耻辱柱上。而对胖子的控诉,已经上升到了环保的层面。上个月的《工程经济学家》杂志上刊登了伊利诺斯州大学谢尔顿·雅各布逊的一份研究报告,指出美国每年交通工具搭载胖子而需要多耗费10亿加仑的汽油。去年《美国公众健康杂志》也发表了一篇观点类似文章,来自美国疾病防治及预防中心的研究人员指出,美国因为胖子多消耗的汽油导致了380万吨二氧化碳的排放,也就是说,他们认为胖子要对全球的气候变暖负责。

这些文章的作者已经取得了某种程度的共识,即肥胖已经不仅仅是一个公众健康的问题,它导致了许多社会经济问题。于是又有人跳出来,说要仿效向吸烟者征税的做法,向胖子征税,比如向不愿意下车走进快餐店进食,而是把车开到窗口直接买食物的人征收特别的税收,他们的理由是:如果你不愿意通过步行消耗卡路里,那么你就要多交钱。

这听起来的确像是一场完美的匪夷所思。撇开把各种现代社会的种种弊端归结到胖子身上的做法,是否建立在不带感情色彩的因果联系之上尚且不谈,这种试图通过对胖子进行羞辱而刺激他们进行减肥的做法是否真有效,答案是肯定的:无效。科学研究已经反复证明了,人类依靠自身力量控制肥胖的能力非常有限,主要是基因在起决定因素。而且,这种羞辱可能起到相反的效果。在10月份的美国《肥胖研究》杂志上发表的一篇研究报告指出,研究人员针对3000名肥胖人士进行调查,当问到他们面对羞辱和歧视的反应时,几乎所有的人都选择了——更使劲、更疯狂地吃。

BMI(体质指数,Body Mass Index),即体重(公斤)除身高(米)的平方(kg/m2),这是被世界卫生组织认可的评估体重与身高比例的工具。根据世界卫生组织的标准,BMI指数25-30为超重,30以上为肥胖。有研究数据支持,除非该指数超过了30,否则肥胖和糖尿病、高血压、癌症、心脑血管疾病之间并没有明显的关系;超重人群的非意外死亡率并不比正常或者理想体重的人群非意外死亡率高。目前惟一确信与肥胖有关的疾病是在肥胖女性中,拥有更高的关节炎(体重对关节的压迫)和子宫癌比例。

即使医学报告已经证实了肥胖的危害性远不如大家所认为的严重,但是为什么肥胖依旧引起如此大的恐慌?从经济角度看,是减肥和制药行业的推波助澜、肥胖研究人员出于既定利益的考量而急于证实肥胖与健康之间的关系;从文化层面上看,是大多数人对肥胖在审美取向上的排斥与厌恶,以及大多数文化中在肥胖与懒惰之间建立起的某种关联。

最大的误解还是来自把体重和健康之间的关系孤立起来。举一个简单例子,一个体重超重,但全身都是肌肉的人,显然比一个BMI指数合乎标准却很少运动的人要健康。美国在90年代曾经根据世界卫生组织的数据,把超重标准从27降到25,导致数百万美国人一夜之间体重超标,但你不能说这些人的健康状况在一夜之间发生了变化。而且脂肪在身体部位的分布也是参考因素之一,比如脂肪在臀部的堆积是无害的,甚至是性感的,真正的危害来自脂肪在腹部的堆积。

恰恰是对肥胖的恐惧本身,是惟一与肥胖有关,同时又需要对健康负责的因素。节食、服用减肥药、体重的波动(减肥、反弹、再减肥),都比肥胖本身对健康的威胁要大。当研究人员把压力、生活习惯等各方面因素综合考量的时候,体重与健康之间的关系只会越来越弱。如果肥胖真可以致死的话,世界上也就不会有这么多的胖子了。(你说呢,健崔?)

收藏: QQ书签 del.icio.us 订阅: Google 抓虾

什么?!你不知道Borat?

杜然 发表于 2006-11-17 14:58:43

恶搞喜剧片。全称:Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kasakhstan

主人公是一个
名叫Borat的哈萨克斯坦男人,家庭幸福,妹妹位居 “国家风尘小姐排行榜”第四,他自己的儿子能进入“国家少儿那话儿尺寸排行榜”前十名。Borat来到世界上最强大的国家US and A,爱上了波霸Pamela Anderson……他在纽约街头大便,在第五大道对着橱窗里的模特“打飞机”……

朋友看完,乐到说不出来话,颤抖着给了我
Borat的非官方网站:
http://www.boratonline.co.uk/
图像 “http://foto.yculblog.com/duran/boratthong.jpg” 因其本身有错无法显示。
收藏: QQ书签 del.icio.us 订阅: Google 抓虾

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN今天在北京

杜然 发表于 2006-11-17 14:28:20

The Green Leap Forward

Beijing

A friend of mine here wakes up every morning and does his own air quality test — as many Beijing residents do: He looks out his 24th-story window and checks how far he can see. On a rare pristine day, when the wind has swept Beijing, he can see the Fragrant Mountain rising to the northwest. On a “good” pollution day, he can see the China World building four blocks away. On a bad day, he can’t see the building next door.

Shortly before I arrived in Beijing, China had been host of a summit meeting of 42 African leaders. Time magazine reported that Beijing officials had “ordered half a million official cars off the roads and said 400,000 more drivers had ‘volunteered’ to refrain from using their vehicles” in order to clean up the air for their African guests. No sooner were they gone, however, than all the cars returned and Beijing’s air went back to “unhealthy.” China’s Environmental Protection Administration, Time noted, recently estimated the annual number of premature deaths in China caused by air pollution at 358,000.

No, China’s officials are not in denial about their environment. But they also have not fully come to grips with how big a project it will be to take this incredible locomotive of an economy and clean up the engine without stopping the train.

I would argue that the same kind of bruising effort it took for Deng Xiaoping to move China from communism to capitalism will be required to move China from its polluting model of capitalism to a sustainable one. Mao almost destroyed China with his Cultural Revolution to make it more red, more communist. Without a new cultural revolution to make China more green, more sustainable, the Chinese growth juggernaut will destroy itself.

“To reverse this kind of situation we can’t just make speeches,” Pan Yue, China’s vice minister for environmental protection, told me. “It will only come from a shift of attitudes from the very top to the very bottom. My job is to educate and encourage this shift, so that officials don’t just think about economic growth as G.D.P. growth, but also factor in environmental health.”

Three big shifts will be needed. The first is addition by subtraction. China can’t go on trying to solve its energy problem by building the equivalent of two 600-megawatt coal-fired power plants a week. China needs California-style virtual efficiency “power plants” — E.P.P.s. These E.P.P.s are companies formed to identify and implement ways to save energy — from better lights to better designs to more efficient appliances — in a particular region. E.P.P.s sell the kilowatt-hours they save to the power grid at a fraction of the cost the grid would have had to invest to generate that same power with a coal-fired plant. The idea is to have profit-driven companies focused on adding power — by saving it where it is not needed so there will be more capacity where it is needed — without having to build more smokestacks. China is exploring E.P.P.s.

Second, China has set ambitious environmental targets. But it has to better persuade officials at every level that meeting not only their growth targets but also their “green” targets will determine if they advance or not.

China’s 10th five-year plan, which began in 2000, called for a 10 percent reduction in the sulfur dioxide that produces acid rain. When that plan concluded in 2005, air pollution in China had increased by 27 percent. The 11th five-year plan calls for a 20 percent improvement in energy consumption for every percent of G.D.P. growth and a 10 percent reduction in pollution, now from a higher base.

This time, Beijing is stipulating exactly how much each province and locality and the top 1,000 factories have to improve. So far, though, the first year has seen another increase in air pollution. Until local officials start getting fired en masse for missing their green targets, you won’t see big change.

Finally, China’s leaders are going to have to allow more press freedom and public participation, because the best environmental watchdogs are local newspapers and farmers. Beijing, to its credit, has begun to allow citizens to take part in environmental impact assessments and to bring environmental lawsuits. But this needs to go further.

I repeat: China’s leaders do get it. But moving this place to a new sustainable model will take more than ordinary leadership. It will take a giant leader who by sheer force of will moves the whole system against all the entrenched habits and interests. It will take a green Deng Xiaoping. Nothing else will suffice. Otherwise, every day here will feel like midnight at noon.

收藏: QQ书签 del.icio.us 订阅: Google 抓虾