蘋論：警員的尊嚴
吳沛樺因覺得警員沒有尊嚴憤而辭職，寧願去夜市擺攤。他說，20歲就當警員，原先很喜歡這個工作；但5年多下來看到不少民代或長官施壓案例，而警員在有權有勢者眼中不過是披著虎皮的小綿羊；更無法忍受的是有些警察長官怕民代和更大的長官，不但不保護部屬，甚至欺負基層警察。被朱高正羞辱之後1年多，吳決定不幹了，因為「當警察不應連基本尊嚴都沒有」。雖然放棄月入7萬多的鐵飯碗，去夜市賣衣服只賺4萬左右，但是賺到自己的尊嚴，不會後悔。
對吳沛樺的說法，一名高階警官很不以為然地說：「尊嚴是自己給的，而不是看別人臉色去獲得的。」報告阿Sir，此言差矣。尊嚴固然可以自給自足，但這種態度與阿Q所差無幾；尊嚴必須來自別人的尊重，而一個正常社會必然含有尊重他人尊嚴的機制，像是司法的程序正義、社會福利保障最基本的生存尊嚴、各個領域的人權保護，例如同性戀、跨性別、殘疾人士、弱勢者……此外，文明社會越進步，禮貌的實踐越普及，大家都把互相尊重他人尊嚴當成基本信念，只有粗魯不文的落後社會才不尊重他人的尊嚴。
台灣的民代非常可惡，經常關說施壓，如不獲同意還動輒打人，或在議會杯葛預算、惡性質詢，公報私仇，嘴臉猙獰，醜陋至極。最多被施壓的是警方和基層公務員。最可憐的是這些基層人員執法及依法行政在受到民代羞辱後，長官還向民代道歉，並責備基層員工。這最傷基層的心，當然也損害基層的尊嚴。
在先進國家，絕少民代關說施壓的事，官員或民代違規駕駛，基層警員照開罰單；如有關說、羞辱基層的事，一旦曝光此君的政治生涯立即宣告死亡。以後有施壓關說，請官員說出，讓民眾看看是誰如此不要臉。
Why Sir David Attenborough, at 89, can’t and won’t stop documenting nature
Once, Sir David Attenborough said he would retire from making nature documentaries when he turned 80. Well, that never happened. Attenborough turns 89 today, still lending his legendary eye and voice to the incomparable programs he's made for decades. He dosn't plan to stop anytime soon.
"You'd be amazed at how much we have failed to show," Attenborough told The Washington Post this week. "The natural world is hugely varied with a vast number of species. And we will always find something new to show you."
His newest documentary, "David Attenborough's Rise of Animals: Triumph of the Vertebrates" on the Smithsonian Channel, tells the story of how vertebrates — including humans — came to be the way they are. It features some spectacular recent fossil finds that fill what Attenborough refers to as the "tantalizing gaps" of evolutionary history. It's the sort of stuff fossil nerds, Attenborough included, could spend a lifetime hoping to glimpse up close.
If you're unfamiliar with Attenborough, walk right over to the nearest science lover you know and ask them. They will probably tell you, depending on age, that they wish David Attenborough was their grandfather.
The day before his birthday, Attenborough sat down with The Post at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History to discuss his newest project and his 60-year career as arguably the most well-respected and best-known nature documentarian alive.
On his favorite fossils at the Smithsonian
It's nonstop. I suppose that really, for a European, the thing that really knocks you out here is the abundance of dinosaur stuff you have. In fact, dinosaurs were first discovered in Britain, but the really big spectacular dinosaurs were found here. It's just great to see the real things. Only too often in Europe we've put up with casts, with plaster copies. But to see the real things here is great.
Why he chose to tell the story of the vertebrates
It's one of the great stories that anybody can tell, is it not? The beginning of life, a thousand million years ago. And visible life 500 million years ago. It is one of the most extraordinary, detailed and wonderful and amazing stories you can think of. And we now understand more about it than we ever did.
It is a great story, it's a great detective story.
The new frontiers of research in Chinese fossil beds
We've only understood the motives, the drivers to this story within the last few decades. And certainly the links in this chain of developments, there've been a number that were very hard to find or missing altogether, we didn't understand how this moved to that and so on. And marvelously enough, it so happened that the missing links that were missing from European and American discoveries, the answers were found in China. For a long time it wasn't possible to go and see these things. And now it is.
The most dramatic of course, are the discoveries of dinosaurs with feathers. There was an argument in the world for decades, a really passionate — and I was going to say venomous — a very powerful argument between the experts as to what the origin of the dinosaurs were, and as to what the origin of birds more particularly were. And of course the answer is in China. To have the privilege of looking at these extraordinary fossils with feathers absolutely preserved was really thrilling.
The privilege of going to the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology in Beijing was that they've got dozens of them. And I was saying "Oh look at that!” and they were saying, "You wait, we'll show you this!" It was very exciting.
How to show wonder in a world with an abundance of information available about the natural world
[the reporter gives the example of a YouTube clip showing the lyrebird’s call]
I think they are so wonderful, the lyrebird. Seeing the lyrebird once is an amazement. But you don’t exhaust the pleasure of seeing a lyrebird by seeing it once. Or indeed a dozen times. You can just see it over and over again.
You'd be amazed at how much we have failed to show. The natural world is hugely varied with a vast number of species. And we will always find something new to show you
For example, I'm doing a commentary on a film that the BBC made of a little puffer fish in Japan that creates, that builds in the soft sand in the mud of a shallow bay in Japan, a huge design like a chrysanthemum but three meters — six feet, nine feet across. This tiny little thing beavers away. And you look down at the sea and you cannot believe that there's this chrysanthemum in the sand. Nobody'd ever seen it before. No scientist had seen it before. We heard about it from a Japanese diver who was wondering what on Earth it was. It's just mind-blowing.
The persistence of a debate about the theory of evolution
Of course, if you're a scientist, if you believe material evidence, and you ask for material evidence to support every statement you make, that's what science is about. And you get one answer. If you think that that's irrelevant, and actually, I can just think about it and imagine it, then you get a different kind of answer.
Philosophers and religious people accept the writings and teachings and beliefs of people who have thought about the idea without seeking the material evidence for it.
On whether that debate could be reconciled
I personally see no conflict between the idea that there might be a creator, an omnipotent creator spirit, that created this world, and chose to do it by allowing things to evolve in the way that they have. That doesn't seem to me to be blasphemous, or indeed necessarily irreligious. In fact, it has nothing to do with it. There is the evidence, and if you believe God wanted to go that way that's fine, and if you don't, that's fine. But the evidence that it went that way is irrefutable.
On why he has increasingly incorporated climate change into his natural history documentaries over the past decade
Well. I come from the BBC, and the BBC doesn't allow people unless it's made very evident — we don't grind axes. We don't propagandize. And when you're talking about a very, very important thing like that, opinion is, if it's going to be opinion, has to be seen as opinion. Usually if there's going to be an opinion there will be a contrary opinion. So you have to be very careful.
I didn't come out, as it were, on television about the reality of climate change until the evidence was absolutely overwhelming and there would be no serious scientist who would argue about the evidence.
You can argue about the interpretation of the evidence, sure. But the evidence now and has been for a decade or so incontrovertible that the climate is changing. There was an argument 10 years ago as to what degree humanity contributed to that change or drove that change. Even that has now been pretty well solved.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/05/08/david-attenborough-on-the-great-detective-story-of-the-vertebrates/
*****
Happy 89th birthday to Sir David Attenborough. When he first joined the BBC, over 60 years ago, Britain had only one television channel. Cameras had to be wound up like clocks and could only film live or in 20-second bursts. There was no way to capture sound and vision at the same time, or to broadcast from anywhere but the studio. Like most people, he didn't own a television set and had only seen one programme in his life. He applied for a job in radio, as a talks producer, but was turned down, and it was only by chance that his CV was seen by a television executive. http://econ.st/1Puzx4A
沒有留言:
張貼留言