Venus Fly Trap
維納思是招誰惹誰啦？ 為什麼愛與美女神的名字和蒼蠅連在一起啊！
今天頭痛所以去植物園小散步了一會兒, 反正是會員一年入園不用錢, 所以想到就拼命去, 要值回會員價嘛～
逛逛逛逛了花園, 到了園內的店裡, 想買蘭花, 可是要40元, 所以精打細算下的結果是買了隔壁4元的蒼蠅捉。
觀賞兼除蟲又能滿足本人殘酷的天性 （蒼蠅是會怎麼地被植物吃掉啊！！ 好興奮好想看喔！）
所以回來就把蒼蠅捉擺好最佳戰略位置, 哈哈哈, 蒼蠅們 Watch Out!!
Friday, March 31, 2006
維納思蒼蠅捉
Venus Fly Trap
維納思是招誰惹誰啦？ 為什麼愛與美女神的名字和蒼蠅連在一起啊！
今天頭痛所以去植物園小散步了一會兒, 反正是會員一年入園不用錢, 所以想到就拼命去, 要值回會員價嘛～
逛逛逛逛了花園, 到了園內的店裡, 想買蘭花, 可是要40元, 所以精打細算下的結果是買了隔壁4元的蒼蠅捉。
觀賞兼除蟲又能滿足本人殘酷的天性 （蒼蠅是會怎麼地被植物吃掉啊！！ 好興奮好想看喔！）
所以回來就把蒼蠅捉擺好最佳戰略位置, 哈哈哈, 蒼蠅們 Watch Out!!
Friday, March 24, 2006
海龍！
Weedy Sea Dragon
Leafy Sea Dragon
去號稱世界最大的水族館玩, 看到鮮豔美麗的熱帶魚, 像嬰兒一樣的 Beluga 鯨, 奇異又迷人的水母, 還有這種怪生物, 海龍！
有點想變成素食者, 嗯.. 至少我絕不吃海蜇皮了。
Friday, March 17, 2006
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Monday, March 13, 2006
悶熱的三月天
才三月蟬就在孜孜叫
南部的夏天真是到的快
聽歐洲朋友說那裡整天下雨 溼搭搭 冷陰陰
真慶幸自己身在美國南部
今天出門已經是全套夏季打扮
太陽眼鏡 短袖衫 短裙 涼鞋
不敢想再過幾個月是否會熱到受不了
參加了植物園全年會員
植物園內的圖書館冷氣足 椅子舒服
看書累了還可以去雨林 沙漠 蘭花區走走
好耶～
南部的夏天真是到的快
聽歐洲朋友說那裡整天下雨 溼搭搭 冷陰陰
真慶幸自己身在美國南部
今天出門已經是全套夏季打扮
太陽眼鏡 短袖衫 短裙 涼鞋
不敢想再過幾個月是否會熱到受不了
參加了植物園全年會員
植物園內的圖書館冷氣足 椅子舒服
看書累了還可以去雨林 沙漠 蘭花區走走
好耶～
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
李安效應狂想曲
（一）
老婆:[已經一年了你要不要試著投一些履歷表？]
老公:[就是妳這種不支持老公的女人我才會變這樣！ 妳看看人家李安在家窩六年他老婆還是默默支持。 妳勒？]
老婆:[可是人家李安在家還不是有帶小孩, 煮飯, 做家事, 你每天在家就是抽煙發呆, 看電視, 家裡小孩通不管！]
老公:[妳懂什麼啊！ 人家李安是搞電影的, 我是要做純藝術的, 做純藝術要有靈感, 妳叫我做那些事我的靈感就變濁了, 那還搞什麼藝術啊！]
老婆:[你只不過是有一次拿起你女兒的畫筆起來畫了隻狗, 這樣就成為藝術家囉？]
老公:[哎～ 不懂就不要問！ 我就倒楣娶了妳這種老婆！] 轉身點煙看電視。
老婆默默私底下:[∥＠＃（＄＊）＊！＃!!!]
(二)
男:[我告訴妳, 我是個有才華的人, 只是我那俗氣老闆不了解我。妳看看李安, 那麼有才華的人那時也找不到工作待在家裡, 但是現在還不是出頭了！是李安讓我醒悟, 我才把工作辭了。從現在起我要專心做我的創作。]
女友:[那你欠的卡債和你的生活費怎麼辦？]
男:[妳看奧斯卡看到李安得獎時和他老婆擁抱時不是感動的哭了, 我現在給妳個機會做我身後的女人, 以後我成名了, 我會感激妳一輩子。]
女友:[你要我養你？]
男:[哎～ 別說的這麼難聽, 是支持我！Support 啦！]
女:[可是我們交往才一個月！]
男:[妳要是瞎眼不識我的才華, 我也沒辦法, 以後妳不要後悔！]
女:[＠＃＄（＊＠！＃＆＆＆↑＊↑！！！！！] 轉身就走。
（三）
同一男:[我以前的女友就是沒有藝術氣質, 太物質, 太現實了。對了, 妳有沒有看奧斯卡轉播？]
小女生:[有。]
男:[那妳就知道了, 我就是那沒發光發亮前的李安, 有才華可是碰不到伯樂。]
小女生崇拜的看著刁根煙留長髮的男人。
男:[我只要有機會就一定會成名！ 我相信我自己, 我希望妳也相信我！]
小女生小小聲 :【我相信。】
男:[那妳先幫我8,000元, 我發誓我一定會還妳的。]
小女生:[那我先給你一萬好了, 你晚一點還我沒關係, 我相信你一定會成功的！]
男:[妳錢包還有兩百也一起給我好了。]
小女生:[那是我要坐車用的...]
男:[走走路對身體好耶～ 妳最近吃太多有點胖了喔～]
以上三狂想曲獻給明明沒才華, 沒出息, 沒擔當, 只出一張嘴的男人們。
女生們, 精明點！
老婆:[已經一年了你要不要試著投一些履歷表？]
老公:[就是妳這種不支持老公的女人我才會變這樣！ 妳看看人家李安在家窩六年他老婆還是默默支持。 妳勒？]
老婆:[可是人家李安在家還不是有帶小孩, 煮飯, 做家事, 你每天在家就是抽煙發呆, 看電視, 家裡小孩通不管！]
老公:[妳懂什麼啊！ 人家李安是搞電影的, 我是要做純藝術的, 做純藝術要有靈感, 妳叫我做那些事我的靈感就變濁了, 那還搞什麼藝術啊！]
老婆:[你只不過是有一次拿起你女兒的畫筆起來畫了隻狗, 這樣就成為藝術家囉？]
老公:[哎～ 不懂就不要問！ 我就倒楣娶了妳這種老婆！] 轉身點煙看電視。
老婆默默私底下:[∥＠＃（＄＊）＊！＃!!!]
(二)
男:[我告訴妳, 我是個有才華的人, 只是我那俗氣老闆不了解我。妳看看李安, 那麼有才華的人那時也找不到工作待在家裡, 但是現在還不是出頭了！是李安讓我醒悟, 我才把工作辭了。從現在起我要專心做我的創作。]
女友:[那你欠的卡債和你的生活費怎麼辦？]
男:[妳看奧斯卡看到李安得獎時和他老婆擁抱時不是感動的哭了, 我現在給妳個機會做我身後的女人, 以後我成名了, 我會感激妳一輩子。]
女友:[你要我養你？]
男:[哎～ 別說的這麼難聽, 是支持我！Support 啦！]
女:[可是我們交往才一個月！]
男:[妳要是瞎眼不識我的才華, 我也沒辦法, 以後妳不要後悔！]
女:[＠＃＄（＊＠！＃＆＆＆↑＊↑！！！！！] 轉身就走。
（三）
同一男:[我以前的女友就是沒有藝術氣質, 太物質, 太現實了。對了, 妳有沒有看奧斯卡轉播？]
小女生:[有。]
男:[那妳就知道了, 我就是那沒發光發亮前的李安, 有才華可是碰不到伯樂。]
小女生崇拜的看著刁根煙留長髮的男人。
男:[我只要有機會就一定會成名！ 我相信我自己, 我希望妳也相信我！]
小女生小小聲 :【我相信。】
男:[那妳先幫我8,000元, 我發誓我一定會還妳的。]
小女生:[那我先給你一萬好了, 你晚一點還我沒關係, 我相信你一定會成功的！]
男:[妳錢包還有兩百也一起給我好了。]
小女生:[那是我要坐車用的...]
男:[走走路對身體好耶～ 妳最近吃太多有點胖了喔～]
以上三狂想曲獻給明明沒才華, 沒出息, 沒擔當, 只出一張嘴的男人們。
女生們, 精明點！
Monday, March 06, 2006
保守派贏了！
Crash 得奧斯卡獎。
種族問題和同性戀問題, 兩者取其輕。
大家不要錯愕, 要記住美國以前到現在都是保守國家。
下面的文章講出了我的心聲。轉貼自 LA Times。
http://theenvelope.latimes.com/awards/oscars/env-turan5mar05,0,5359042.story
Breaking no ground
Why 'Crash' won, why 'Brokeback' lost and how the academy chose to play it safe.
By Kenneth Turan, Times Staff Writer
March 5, 2006
Sometimes you win by losing, and nothing has proved what a powerful, taboo-breaking, necessary film "Brokeback Mountain" was more than its loss Sunday night to "Crash" in the Oscar best picture category.
Despite all the magazine covers it graced, despite all the red-state theaters it made good money in, despite (or maybe because of) all the jokes late-night talk show hosts made about it, you could not take the pulse of the industry without realizing that this film made a number of people distinctly uncomfortable.
More than any other of the nominated films, "Brokeback Mountain" was the one people told me they really didn't feel like seeing, didn't really get, didn't understand the fuss over. Did I really like it, they wanted to know. Yes, I really did.
In the privacy of the voting booth, as many political candidates who've led in polls only to lose elections have found out, people are free to act out the unspoken fears and unconscious prejudices that they would never breathe to another soul, or, likely, acknowledge to themselves. And at least this year, that acting out doomed "Brokeback Mountain."
For Hollywood, as a whole laundry list of people announced from the podium Sunday night and a lengthy montage of clips tried to emphasize, is a liberal place, a place that prides itself on its progressive agenda. If this were a year when voters had no other palatable options, they might have taken a deep breath and voted for "Brokeback." This year, however, "Crash" was poised to be the spoiler.
I do not for one minute question the sincerity and integrity of the people who made "Crash," and I do not question their commitment to wanting a more equal society. But I do question the film they've made. It may be true, as producer Cathy Schulman said in accepting the Oscar for best picture, that this was "one of the most breathtaking and stunning maverick years in American history," but "Crash" is not an example of that.
I don't care how much trouble "Crash" had getting financing or getting people on board, the reality of this film, the reason it won the best picture Oscar, is that it is, at its core, a standard Hollywood movie, as manipulative and unrealistic as the day is long. And something more.
For "Crash's" biggest asset is its ability to give people a carload of those standard Hollywood satisfactions but make them think they are seeing something groundbreaking and daring. It is, in some ways, a feel-good film about racism, a film you could see and feel like a better person, a film that could make you believe that you had done your moral duty and examined your soul when in fact you were just getting your buttons pushed and your preconceptions reconfirmed.
So for people who were discomfited by "Brokeback Mountain" but wanted to be able to look themselves in the mirror and feel like they were good, productive liberals, "Crash" provided the perfect safe harbor. They could vote for it in good conscience, vote for it and feel they had made a progressive move, vote for it and not feel that there was any stain on their liberal credentials for shunning what "Brokeback" had to offer. And that's exactly what they did.
"Brokeback," it is worth noting, was in some ways the tamest of the discomforting films available to Oscar voters in various categories. Steven Spielberg's "Munich"; the Palestinian Territories' "Paradise Now," one of the best foreign language nominees; and the documentary nominee "Darwin's Nightmare" offered scenarios that truly shook up people's normal ways of seeing the world. None of them won a thing.
Hollywood, of course, is under no obligation to be a progressive force in the world. It is in the business of entertainment, in the business of making the most dollars it can. Yes, on Oscar night, it likes to pat itself on the back for the good it does in the world, but as Sunday night's ceremony proved, it is easier to congratulate yourself for a job well done in the past than actually do that job in the present.
種族問題和同性戀問題, 兩者取其輕。
大家不要錯愕, 要記住美國以前到現在都是保守國家。
下面的文章講出了我的心聲。轉貼自 LA Times。
http://theenvelope.latimes.com/awards/oscars/env-turan5mar05,0,5359042.story
Breaking no ground
Why 'Crash' won, why 'Brokeback' lost and how the academy chose to play it safe.
By Kenneth Turan, Times Staff Writer
March 5, 2006
Sometimes you win by losing, and nothing has proved what a powerful, taboo-breaking, necessary film "Brokeback Mountain" was more than its loss Sunday night to "Crash" in the Oscar best picture category.
Despite all the magazine covers it graced, despite all the red-state theaters it made good money in, despite (or maybe because of) all the jokes late-night talk show hosts made about it, you could not take the pulse of the industry without realizing that this film made a number of people distinctly uncomfortable.
More than any other of the nominated films, "Brokeback Mountain" was the one people told me they really didn't feel like seeing, didn't really get, didn't understand the fuss over. Did I really like it, they wanted to know. Yes, I really did.
In the privacy of the voting booth, as many political candidates who've led in polls only to lose elections have found out, people are free to act out the unspoken fears and unconscious prejudices that they would never breathe to another soul, or, likely, acknowledge to themselves. And at least this year, that acting out doomed "Brokeback Mountain."
For Hollywood, as a whole laundry list of people announced from the podium Sunday night and a lengthy montage of clips tried to emphasize, is a liberal place, a place that prides itself on its progressive agenda. If this were a year when voters had no other palatable options, they might have taken a deep breath and voted for "Brokeback." This year, however, "Crash" was poised to be the spoiler.
I do not for one minute question the sincerity and integrity of the people who made "Crash," and I do not question their commitment to wanting a more equal society. But I do question the film they've made. It may be true, as producer Cathy Schulman said in accepting the Oscar for best picture, that this was "one of the most breathtaking and stunning maverick years in American history," but "Crash" is not an example of that.
I don't care how much trouble "Crash" had getting financing or getting people on board, the reality of this film, the reason it won the best picture Oscar, is that it is, at its core, a standard Hollywood movie, as manipulative and unrealistic as the day is long. And something more.
For "Crash's" biggest asset is its ability to give people a carload of those standard Hollywood satisfactions but make them think they are seeing something groundbreaking and daring. It is, in some ways, a feel-good film about racism, a film you could see and feel like a better person, a film that could make you believe that you had done your moral duty and examined your soul when in fact you were just getting your buttons pushed and your preconceptions reconfirmed.
So for people who were discomfited by "Brokeback Mountain" but wanted to be able to look themselves in the mirror and feel like they were good, productive liberals, "Crash" provided the perfect safe harbor. They could vote for it in good conscience, vote for it and feel they had made a progressive move, vote for it and not feel that there was any stain on their liberal credentials for shunning what "Brokeback" had to offer. And that's exactly what they did.
"Brokeback," it is worth noting, was in some ways the tamest of the discomforting films available to Oscar voters in various categories. Steven Spielberg's "Munich"; the Palestinian Territories' "Paradise Now," one of the best foreign language nominees; and the documentary nominee "Darwin's Nightmare" offered scenarios that truly shook up people's normal ways of seeing the world. None of them won a thing.
Hollywood, of course, is under no obligation to be a progressive force in the world. It is in the business of entertainment, in the business of making the most dollars it can. Yes, on Oscar night, it likes to pat itself on the back for the good it does in the world, but as Sunday night's ceremony proved, it is easier to congratulate yourself for a job well done in the past than actually do that job in the present.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)