Video: Breakfast at Alamo California on Saturday September 20 2025 年 9 月 20 日星期六在阿拉莫加州享用早餐
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8SQDt89/
https://youtu.be/DShSouqE0bE?si=0WOO4dwpK3zBC2pr

Video with English subtitles: Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu claims that he got US & Trump’s full backing, he can do whatever he wants. He is untouchable. 影片有英文字幕: 以色列總理本雅明·內塔尼亞胡聲稱他得到了美國和川普的全力支持，他可以為所欲為。他是不可觸碰的.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8SQS8eo/
https://youtu.be/_u6h-pfDEYo?si=jAJtRrqnEcFuVEtT

Video with English subtitles: Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu uses the Afghan War to slap the US in the face: “We are the same kind of people. What US did in Afghanistan is the same as what we did in Gaza. Why criticize Israel and not the US? You have no right to condemn Israel.” 影片有英文字幕: 以色列用阿富汗戰爭“打臉”美國: “我們都是一路貨色，你在阿富汗比我在加沙幹的事一樣，更加出色，你沒有資格，憑什麼只譴責我?”
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8SQXacU/
https://youtu.be/l7yonpoN-xc?si=Y1dE8lT6cGlMV3cc

It’s official: China is decarbonizing the planet! 官方消息：中國正在讓地球脫碳 compiled by KJ Noh in SF on Sept 19 2025

Prior to China’s efforts, “sustainable growth” was an oxymoron and “ecological civilization” was a pie-in-the-sky slogan, if not outright deception.

Now, a major data-driven report https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/china-energy-transition-review-2025/ from the British Energy think tank Ember shows that’s no longer the case. China’s “ecological civilization” is leading the world away from fossil-fueled economies and leading the way out of Climate Catastrophe. This is the power of socialist planning to serve the people and save the planet.

However, the Western Empire was built on–and is now doubling down on fossil fuels. Western industrial capitalism arose https://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin-articles/petroleum-a-pillar-of-capitalist-expansion through fossil fuels–coal, then petroleum–as the lifeblood of capital: Petroleum is the catalyst https://www.counterfire.org/article/crude-capitalism-oil-corporate-power-and-the-making-of-the-world-market-book-review/ of the commodity form: it drives the machinery of commodification, fuels its transport/distribution/logistics, and is its key raw material. The power of the Empire is based on its control of oil: the subjugation of producers, the coercion of consumers, and the global tribute (“exorbitant privilege”) exacted through the currency that mediates its distribution and consumption (the petro-dollar). It overthrows governments and goes to war https://theglobalobservatory.org/2015/03/civil-wars-oil-above-water-military-intervention/ to hold onto that privilege.

However, the sun, the wind, and the waves are a commons that the US can neither control nor dominate. Countries with the capacity to harness these commons have a way to reclaim economic/energy sovereignty and develop outside of the fossil-fuel stranglehold of the Empire. This is another way that China is sharing the concrete instruments of liberation for the multi-polar world: it is slowly dismantling the master’s house–without using the master’s tools.

However, the US would rather sooner burn the planet down than let China lead the way out of subjugation and planetary collapse. This is one more reason why US war on China has to be prevented.

Ember Report: China Energy Transition Review 2025 (packed full of data) https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/china-energy-transition-review-2025/supporting-materials/

China’s surge in renewables and whole-economy electrification is rapidly reshaping energy choices for the rest of the world, creating the conditions for a decline in global fossil fuel use.

China Energy Transition Review 2025

For too long, emerging economies have faced what seemed like a stark trade-off between growth and sustainability. As this report highlights, China’s green ascent challenges that assumption.

Through scale, innovation and long-term planning, China is demonstrating that decarbonisation can go hand in hand with industrial upgrading, job creation and improved quality of life. These lessons carry significance not only for China, but for the broader region – especially Southeast Asia, where energy demand is rising and development needs remain pressing.

Of course, China’s experience is not a one-size-fits-all blueprint. Each country must chart its own course, shaped by its unique resources, needs and priorities. Still, China provides a valuable reference point – showing what is possible when long-term vision is matched with pragmatic, coordinated action.

China’s clean energy transition is fundamentally reshaping the economics of energy across the world. Accelerating deployment of renewables, grids and storage in China, combined with electrification of transport, buildings and industry, are rapidly bringing China itself towards a peak in energy-related fossil fuel use, while also reducing costs and accelerating uptake of clean electro-technologies in other countries. These twin trends are creating the conditions for energy-related fossil fuel use globally to peak and decline.

Snarky NYT article still can’t ignore the truth tries to insinuate negativity/coercion but still can’t overcome the facts).
‘China Is the Engine’ Driving Nations Away From Fossil Fuels, Report Says
https://archive.is/kRVro
Since the beginning of the industrial age, the global economy has required more and more fossil fuels — coal, oil and gas — to power growth.

It is increasingly clear, however, that China’s aggressive efforts to sell batteries, solar panels and wind turbines to the world is on course to bring that era to an end, a new report says. The Chinese dominance of clean-energy industries is “creating the conditions for a decline in fossil fuel use,” according to a report by Ember, a research group focused on the prospects for clean-energy technologies.

The scale of Chinese production since 2010 has driven the price of these technologies down by 60 to 90 percent, the researchers found. And last year, more than 90 percent of wind and solar projects commissioned worldwide produced power more cheaply than the cheapest available fossil-fuel alternative, they said. That cost advantage might have seemed laughable before China began pumping billions of dollars of subsidies into the sector.

“China is the engine,” said Richard Black, the report’s editor. “And it is changing the energy landscape not just domestically but in countries across the world.”

“For too long, emerging economies have faced what seemed like a stark trade-off between growth and sustainability,” said Suwit Khunkitti, Thailand’s former deputy prime minister. The Ember report “challenges that assumption,” he said.

Veto of Hong Kong Same-Sex Relationships Bill Is Not a Constitutional Crisis 否決同性關係條例非憲制危機 by Ronny TONG Ka Wah 湯家驊, Sept 17 2025

Last week, the Legislative Council, in a rare move, rejected the second reading of the “Registration of Same-Sex Partnerships Bill,” a bill introduced by the SAR government in response to the Court of Final Appeal, sparking heated debate. Some have asked whether the Legislative Council’s rejection of the bill represents a disrespect for the court’s ruling, or even a violation of the rule of law. Others have suggested that the government’s public admission of its failure to carry out its legislative obligations under a court order is tantamount to disrespect for the court, inconsistent with the rule of law, and even in violation of its constitutional obligations, thus creating a constitutional crisis. These concerns are understandable, but the reality is that, constitutionally, legally, and politically, the Legislative Council’s decision is simply a normal functioning of our constitutional order, further embodying the normal functions of the judiciary, executive, and legislative branches under the Basic Law.

To correctly understand the issue, we must first correctly interpret the relevant Court of Final Appeal judgment. In the case of Sham Chi-kit, the plaintiff, a homosexual, and his partner entered into a legal same-sex marriage in New York. The plaintiffs argued that the SAR government’s refusal to recognize their same-sex marriage resulted in them enduring unequal treatment in society, and therefore filed a judicial review. The Court of Final Appeal unanimously ruled that legal same-sex marriages abroad do not constitute legal marriages in the SAR. However, in response to the plaintiff’s request for the government to provide an “alternative solution” for legal recognition of same-sex unions, the Court allowed the plaintiff’s appeal by a majority of three (P.J. Andrew Ribeiro, P.J. Anthony Fok, and P.J. Neil Chiu-yin of Australia) to two (P.J. Matthew Cheung and P.J. Matthew Lam). Simply put, the difference between the majority and minority’s reasoning lies in the majority’s preference for citing European human rights law cases and reasoning, while the minority believes that European human rights law is less appropriate for application in the SAR.

The Basic Law sets out its objectives; the government’s best efforts do not violate them.

The majority held that under Article 14 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (i.e., Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), the government has an obligation to provide a “legal recognition framework” to protect same-sex couples from unreasonable or unlawful intrusion into their private lives and families, to meet their basic social needs, and to provide them with a legitimate identity, thereby preventing them from feeling inferior and feeling that their committed and stable relationships are unworthy of recognition. In other words, the plaintiff’s request, which was accepted by the majority, was for a legal, rather than administrative, framework recognizing their special status.

When the parties debated whether the court should grant them further instructions on how to enforce the judgment and whether the judgment required a time limit for the government to fulfill its obligation to provide a legal framework, the plaintiff cited numerous polls showing that the majority of Hong Kong people accept same-sex relationships and pointed out that after the improvement of the electoral system, the Legislative Council has consistently followed the government’s advice in passing legislation, so establishing an alternative legal framework should not be difficult. Consequently, the court declared that the government had an obligation under section 14 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance to protect the privacy of same-sex couples from unreasonable interference with their private lives, and also decided to give the SAR government two years to fulfill this obligation.

Note the following passage in the judgment of Justices Li and Fok: “We must emphasize that our determination that the government has the aforementioned obligation does not represent the exercise of executive or legislative power by the court, but rather the fulfillment of its constitutional duty to interpret and declare the nature and scope of the actual constitutional rights under section 14 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance.” This explanation lies at the heart of the issue. The court’s function is simply to interpret and assert the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and the SAR government’s responsibilities. How the SAR government fulfills this responsibility to protect the privacy of people in same-sex relationships is the responsibility of the executive branch, not the judiciary. The two are distinct. The court also does not compel the government to propose legislation, nor does it compel the Legislative Council to blindly approve it.

Another core issue is whether the Legislative Council’s rejection of the SAR government’s bill, introduced in response to the court’s request, constitutes an unconstitutional act. If the SAR government, as it claimed after vetoing the bill, would not apply to the court for a stay of execution, would this also constitute an unconstitutional act? We must understand that the Basic Law is a forward-looking constitutional document, which means that it sets out our constitutional aspirations, rights, and responsibilities. As long as the government continuously strives to achieve these constitutional aspirations and fulfills its responsibilities, we cannot regard failure to achieve these aspirations as a “violation” of the Constitution.

Let me cite a few examples to illustrate the difference between violating the Constitution and failing to achieve constitutional objectives. In 2003, the SAR government proposed Article 23 legislation, but abandoned it due to opposition from a majority of Legislative Council members. This was a practical example of the SAR government’s failure to fulfill its legislative responsibilities. The SAR government’s attempt to introduce legislation but abandoning it due to strong social opposition and the possibility of rejection cannot be considered a “violation” of the Constitution. Another example is the 2015 veto of the SAR government’s universal suffrage proposal. Does the democrats’ rejection of the universal suffrage goal under Article 45 of the Basic Law constitute a “violation” of the Basic Law? If the SAR government fails to pass the universal suffrage bill and concludes that the political conditions are insufficient to propose the same or a different universal suffrage proposal again, can this also be considered a “violation” of the Constitution? The answer is certainly not.

In common law jurisdictions, Legislative Council decisions change daily.

Secondly, Article 73 of the Basic Law clearly states that the Legislative Council’s powers include “enacting, amending and repealing laws in accordance with this Law and in accordance with legal procedures.” In other words, whether to legislate and how to legislate are the Legislative Council’s exclusive constitutional powers, and no one, including the courts or the SAR government, may interfere. The Basic Law also does not grant the judiciary the right to override the executive or legislative branches. Clearly, under the Basic Law, the judiciary, executive, and legislature must respect and check each other.

Third, under the common law system, laws declared by the courts are generally subject to being overturned, amended, or modified by legislation passed by Parliament. In lawmaking, the legislature’s power is supreme, and the courts’ function is merely to interpret or supplement the laws passed by the legislature. Historically, in common law countries, there are countless examples of legislatures passing laws to alter or amend common law declared by the courts, and this occurs almost daily.

From the various perspectives mentioned above, the Legislative Council’s veto of the bill cannot be seen as disrespecting the court’s judgment, let alone violating the spirit of the rule of law. However, the government’s responsibilities declared by the courts under Article 14 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance must still be respected and addressed. The SAR government must fulfill its constitutional obligation to protect the private lives of same-sex couples from discrimination or interference when appropriate social conditions exist. When the conditions are ripe, the SAR government has a responsibility to provide a legal framework recognizing the fundamental constitutional rights of same-sex couples. When society is ready to adopt this legal framework depends on whether overall social attitudes toward same-sex relationships change over time. Just as with the goal of universal suffrage, we eagerly await this day.

上星期立法會罕有地二讀否決特區政府因應終審庭要求提出之《同性伴侶關係登記條例草案》，引起社會激烈辯論。有人問，立法會否決條例草案是否代表不尊重法庭的判決，甚或有違法治？又有人說，政府公開承認未能履行法庭指令的立法責任，也是否等同不尊重法庭，不符合法治精神，甚至有違憲法責任，而因此產生憲制危機？這些憂慮可以理解，但事實是無論在憲法上、法律上、或政治上，立法會的決定只是我們憲制秩序下的正常運作，進一步體現在《基本法》下，司法、行政和立法機關之正常職能。

要正確了解問題所在，首先要正確地解讀終審庭之有關判決。在岑子杰案中，原告人是同性戀者，與其伴侶於紐約締結當地合法的同性婚姻。原告認為特區政府拒絕承認他們的同性婚姻，引致在社會中需要忍受不平等的待遇，就此向法院提出司法覆核。終審庭一致裁定外地合法之同性婚姻在特區不構成合法婚姻；但在原告要求政府提供一個在法律上承認同性結合關係之「替代方案」下，終審庭以三（常任法官李義、霍兆剛、澳洲非常任法官祈顯義）對二（首席法官張舉能及常任法官林文瀚）比數判原告上訴得直。簡單而言，多數法官與少數法官所持之理據的分別在於多數法官偏向引用歐洲人權法案例和理據，而少數法官則認為歐洲人權法不大適合借用於特區。

《基本法》訂目標 政府盡力不算違反

多數法官認為《香港人權法案條例》第14條（即《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》第17條）下，政府有責任提出一個「法律承認框架」，保護同性伴侶之私生活及家庭不受無理或非法侵擾，以滿足同性伴侶之基本社會需求及獲得合法性的身份認同，免致令他們覺得自己低人一等，並感到這種委身穩定的關係不值得獲得承認。換言之，原告獲得多數法官接納的要求是一套法律上，而非行政上，承認他們特殊地位的框架。

當訴訟雙方爭拗法庭應否給予雙方進一步要求法庭如何處理執行判決，和判決是否需要給予政府時限完成提供法律框架的責任時，原告引用不少民調顯示大部分香港人接受同性關係，及指出在完善選舉制度後，立法會一向跟循政府的建議通過法例，因此建立一個替代法律框架不應有困難。結果法庭宣告政府在《香港人權法案條例》第14條下有責任維護同性伴侶私生活不受無理干擾之同時，亦決定給予特區政府兩年時限履行此責任。

留意就此，在李義及霍兆剛大法官的判詞中有這樣的一段：「我們必須強調我們決定政府有以上所述的責任，並不代表法庭正在行使行政或立法職權，而只是履行法庭的憲制責任，就《香港人權法案條例》第14條之本質及實際憲制權利之範圍作出解釋和宣稱。」這段解釋正是問題的核心所在。法庭的職能只在於詮譯及宣稱原告憲制上的權利及特區政府的責任。特區政府如何履行這責任，保護同性關係人士私生活不受干擾，乃行政機關而非司法機關的職能，兩者有別。法庭亦沒有強迫政府提出立法建議，或立法會需盲目地通過該建議。

另一個問題核心是，那立法會否決特區政府因應法庭之要求而提出的條例草案會否構成「有違」憲法之行為？假若特區政府正如其否決後聲稱不會向法庭申請延期執行法庭判決，是否也屬於「違憲」行為？我們要明白，《基本法》是一份前瞻性的憲制文件，意思是說，《基本法》訂下的是我們憲制上的理想目標、權利和責任。只要政府不斷盡力追求達到這些憲制上的目標及履行其責任，我們不能視未能達至這些憲制上的理想目標為「違反」憲法。

容許我引用幾個例子說明違反憲法和未能達致憲法下的目標之分別：2003年特區政府提出23條立法，但遭到立法會多數議員反對而放棄立法，是特區政府未有足夠條件完成立法責任之實際情況。特區政府嘗試提出立法建議但遇上社會強烈反對及遭到否決的可能性而放棄，並不能被視為「違反」憲法。另一個例子是2015年泛民主派否決特區政府提出之普選方案。民主派否決了達至《基本法》第45條下之普選目標算不算是「違反」了《基本法》？通過不了普選法案，特區政府認為目前未有足夠政治條件再嘗試提出同樣或不同的普選方案，這也同樣地能不能被視為「違反」憲法？答案當然不是。

普通法地區 每天發生立法會更改判決

第二，《基本法》第73條清楚列明立法會的職權包括「根據本法規定並依照法定程序制定、修改和廢除法律」。換言之是否立法、如何立法，是立法會憲法上獨有之職權，任何人，包括法庭或特區政府均不能干預。《基本法》亦沒有給予司法機關可凌駕行政或立法機關之權利。明顯地，在《基本法》下，司法、行政及立法機關需互相尊重、相互制衡。

第三，在普通法制度下，一般法庭宣稱的法律均有被議會通過法例而推翻、修訂或更改之可能。在制定法律上，立法機關的權力是至高無上的，法庭的職能只在於詮譯或補充立法機關通過的法律，而歷史上，在普通法國家中，立法機關通過法律更改或修正法庭宣稱的普通法例子不勝枚舉，差不多每一天也在發生。

從以上所提及的不同角度看，立法會否決條例不能被視為不尊重法庭的判決，更遑論有違法治精神。然而，法庭就《香港人權法案條例》第14條下宣稱的政府責任仍需獲得尊重及正視。特區政府必須在社會存在適合條件下履行保護同性關係人士私生活不受歧視或干擾之憲制責任。當條件成熟時，特區政府有責任提供一套法律框架，承認同性伴侶在憲法下的基本權利。至於何時社會具備通過法律框架的條件，則視乎整體社會對同性關係的看法日後會否有所改變。正如普選目標一樣，我們殷切期待這一天的來臨。

English Video with Chinese subtitles: Did the Israeli army not indiscriminately kill civilians? Chinese scholar “Xiangshan Forum” directly retorted to Israeli officers: When you shoot women and children, you completely lose the legitimacy of your actions! 以軍未濫殺平民?陸學者”香山論壇”當面回懟以色列軍官:當你們射殺婦孺時便徹底喪失行動合法性!
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8S9SMqK/
https://youtu.be/JElpZMobxg0?si=Lh69K3A1ok3jns_V

Video with English subtitles: A historic turning point! The Federal Reserve has been forced to cut interest rates, signaling a crucial shift in the Sino-US trade war. A significant amount of US dollars may flee the US, making the renminbi a safe haven. 視頻有英文字幕: 歷史性轉折！聯準會被迫降息，中美博弈最重要的訊號出現了，大量美元可能逃離美國，人民幣將成為一個最安全的避風港.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8S9NhGy/
https://youtu.be/zTZmRAHxbWk?si=3Fm4dA0bIhnPXbX2

Video with Chinese subtitles: Ronnie Chan* angrily criticizes the United States, saying its hegemony is about to end 陈启宗怒怼美国，霸权即将终结 (his family foundation gave US$350 million donation in 2014 to the Harvard School of Public Health) （*他的家族基金會於 2014 年向哈佛大學公共衛生學院捐贈了 3.5 億美元）

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8SHw9Lu/
https://youtu.be/447j5g750vY?si=-lEh5rAVBjs4Digl

主要内容：
为什么建议子女回香港？
发展中国家 vs 西方的机会对比
世界安全形势正在变化？
台湾问题的真相与北京策略
美国真的要退出国际舞台了吗？
美国是不是在衰退？误解与真相
总结：给年轻一代的建议

Main Content:
Why recommend children return to Hong Kong?
Opportunities in developing countries vs. the West
Is the global security landscape changing?
The truth about the Taiwan issue and Beijing’s strategy
Is the United States truly withdrawing from the international stage?
Is the United States in decline? Misconceptions and truths
Summary: Advice for the younger generation

Video with English subtitles: The neglected lychees and dragons profound highlight the difference between Chinese and US. Recently, several films focusing on the theme of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, including “Nanjing Photo Studio,” “East Pole Island,” and “731,” have attracted widespread attention due to their numerous private screenings. 影片有英文字幕: 被冷落的荔枝與蛟龍 (深刻凸顯了中美之間的差異，為什麼中國有5000年的連續文明，而美國可能撐不過300年) 最近有幾齣抗戰主旋律電影《南京照相館》、《東極島》和《731》，因為很多包場，看的人多，談論也較多.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8S9Sq7m/
https://youtu.be/hO21MY5Dunc?si=E7z7UqIS0lPw1bbW

This one-sided public opinion has caused some excellent films released during the same period to be overlooked, missed, and neglected. I highly recommend two of these films and hope you’ll pay to see them in theaters.

The first, “Lychees in Chang’an,” tells the story of a Tang Dynasty lychee envoy who transported fresh lychees from Lingnan to Chang’an (modern-day Xi’an) to celebrate Yang Guifei’s birthday. After reading these plot synopses, the normal reaction is: Wow, what’s so interesting about transporting lychees?

If the lychee transporting story were described as “Mission Impossible,” perhaps the audience would be more understanding. Fresh lychees have a shelf life of only three days. In the Tang Dynasty, without airplanes or refrigerators, transporting freshly picked lychees from Lingnan to Chang’an was practically impossible. However, no one dared to tell the emperor the truth, so everyone sought a scapegoat. A diligent and honest clerk was appointed to take on this unfortunate task.

The film ostensibly deals with transporting lychees, but it actually explores the intrigues and hidden daggers of officialdom, the workplace, and even the human world. People avoid dangerous, uncertain, or even doomed tasks. But when success, with its prestige and rewards, comes, everyone rushes to reward the credit, while the real perpetrators are sidelined.

Isn’t this scene incredibly familiar? The story of Yang Guifei and her lychees during the Tang Dynasty resonates with us a thousand years later. That’s the magic of good cinema.

Transporting lychees is an impossible mission, and his friends all urge him to run away. However, he offers a very inspiring and touching line, one that embodies Chinese values: “Even if I fail, I still want to know how far from the finish line I’ll fall.”

The foreign version of Mission Impossible is about a brilliant agent breaking all the rules and completing a mission through heroism—a plot that only exists in the virtual world. But the Chinese version of Mission Impossible is about following the rules, working hard, using brains, wisdom, and a relentless spirit to forge ahead. Those who fell short of the finish line become the starting point for those who follow. This is how we gradually approach the finish line through the efforts of generations. This achievement is exemplified in another film, “Operation Dragon.”

“Operation Dragon” is a masterpiece by renowned Hong Kong director Dante Lam and China’s first submarine film. The successful development of China’s nuclear submarines was the result of generations of anonymous hard work.

In the past, military themes were the preserve of Hollywood films, but “Operation Red Sea” and “Operation Dragon” rewrote these filmmaking rules. Only when a nation has a strong military can military films be persuasive.

Submarine scenes are the most challenging genre to film. Confined within a submarine, facing the pitch-black depths of the ocean, and armed with invisible torpedoes, the visuals are dull. How can one film this?

Ben Lam is truly a masterful action director. He can create thrilling scenes even in confined spaces; even the sonar listening scenes are gripping. The entire 130-minute film is flawless. I previously saw it in Shenzhen, but there were still a few scenes with drama. This time, watching the edited version released in Hong Kong, even those scenes were omitted, leaving the action-packed action to the fullest.

What I admire most is the director’s dedication. In an age where everything can be created with AI and special effects, Lam insisted on constructing a 1:1 submarine for the film. The “Dragon Whale” in the film is the world’s largest submarine prop, a project that took the crew seven years and cost 1 billion RMB to build.

Because submarines are state secrets, the navy only allows the director one person to walk inside a real submarine. Therefore, every detail of the submarine set had to be memorized and reproduced by the director inside the real submarine.

In the past, Hong Kong directors could only shoot gangster films, and military blockbusters were unthinkable. Now, with the support of a powerful nation and military, Hong Kong filmmakers can create Hollywood-style war epics.

If “Nanjing Studio” reminds us of history, then “Operation Dragon” reminds us of crisis. Deep in the sea and amidst the waves, there lies an unseen battlefield, and a group of unknown soldiers, lurking in the deepest reaches of the ocean, protecting our peaceful and prosperous times.

輿論的一面倒，反而令一些同期上畫的好電影被忽視被錯過被冷落，其中兩齣，很想向大家推薦，更希望大家掏腰包進戲院支持。

第一套叫《長安的荔枝》，講的是唐朝荔枝使從嶺南把新鮮荔枝運到長安（即現今西安）獻給楊貴妃賀壽的故事。看這幾句劇情簡介，正常反應是：吓，運荔枝有什麼好看？

如果，把運荔枝用Mission Impossible來形容，也許觀眾會較易明白。新鮮荔枝保質期只得3日，唐代沒飛機沒冰箱，那年代要把荔枝從嶺南鮮摘下來再運到長安，根本是不可能的事，但沒人敢向皇上說真話，於是大家便找個替死鬼，一個勤懇老實的小吏就被擺了上枱擔這死任務。

電影表面講運荔枝，其實是講官場、職場甚至人世間的爾虞我詐與笑裡藏刀。危險、沒把握、甚至注定失敗的事，大家避之則吉；但當成功了、有威有獎攞了，人人都會撲出來論功行賞，而真正做事的人卻被踢到一旁。

這畫面，太似層相識了吧？唐朝楊貴妃的荔枝故事，竟能跟一千年後的我們有情感連結，這就是好電影的魔幻之處。

運荔枝是個不可能的任務，朋友都勸主角逃跑，但他說了句很勵志、很觸動人心、更很有中國人價值觀的對白：「就算失敗，我也想知道，自己會倒在距離終點多遠的地方。」

老外的Mission Impossible，是由一個厲害特工違反所有規矩憑英雄主義完成任務，這是虛擬世界才有的劇情。但中國人的Mission Impossible，就是跟著規則苦幹，用腦用智慧用拼命精神闖出生天。前人在距離終點不遠的地方倒下，就成了後人的起點，我們就是這樣靠一代一代人的努力慢慢接近終點。這種成就，在另一齣電影《蛟龍行動》得以驗證。

《蛟龍行動》是香港著名導演林超賢的力作，也是中國第一部潛艇電影，我國的核潛艇就是靠一代一代人隱姓埋名苦幹，才成功研製出來。

過去，軍事題材是荷里活電影的專利，但《紅海行動》、《蛟龍行動》讓這些電影規則改寫。國家有強軍，軍事電影的出現才有說服力。

潛艇戲是軍事電影中最難拍的片種，身處潛艇內狹窄空間，外面是黑漆漆深海，武器是看不見的魚雷，畫面枯燥，怎拍？

林超賢果然是神級動作導演，密閉空間都能拍出驚心動魄，連傾聽聲納的場面都扣人心弦。全片130分鐘沒冷場沒透氣位，之前我在深圳看還有幾段文戲，今次再看香港上映的剪輯版，連文戲都刪掉，打足全場。

我最敬佩是導演的態度，在什麼都可以用AI用特技弄出來的今時今日，林超賢堅持以1比1方式搭建出一艘潛艇來拍攝。電影中的「龍鯨號」是劇組花了7年、耗資10億人民幣搭建的全球最大潛艇道具。

由於潛艇是國家機密，海軍只容許導演一人進去真潛艇走一圈，於是，那潛艇布景的各項細節，全靠導演在真潛艇內用眼用腦死記出來再複製。

從前香港導演拍警匪片已是極限，拍軍事大片想也不敢想，現在因為有強國強軍在背後支援，香港電影人能拍出荷里活式戰爭巨作已不是夢。

如果說，《南京照相館》讓我們牢記歷史，那麼《蛟龍行動》更讓我們記住危機，深海裡、波濤中，原來有一個不被看見的戰場，有一班沒人知道的戰士，一直潛守在海洋最深處，為我們守住盛世的太平。

The best of the Western (fake) democracy are 2 folds: 1) elected officials failed on the jobs stayed on the jobs till next election, 2) if you are belonging to the right political party in power like DPP in Taiwan or Republican in US, failing your fiduciary duties could means promotion at a new post with higher pay! whoever dares to criticize could faced political prosecution and losing your jobs like Jimmy Kimmel in the US! 西方（偽）民主的精髓在於兩點：1）當民選官員未能履行職責，他們是可以留任到下次選舉；2）如果你屬於當權的執政黨，例如台灣的民進黨或美國的共和黨，那麼未能履行受託責任可能意味著可以晉升到新職位並獲得更高的薪水！任何敢於批評的人都可能面臨政治起訴，並像美國的吉米·坎摩爾一樣失去工作. 美國政客的術語是永遠講反話！好像美國說和你談和平，其真正目的是攞你命，如果你是一個國家元首，眞正意思是要你亡國! 如果想活著，交保護費和成為美國永遠的奴隸! 作為美國的鄰居像加拿大和墨西哥更慘，有空就侮辱你，無錢就加你關稅，簽了自由貿易協定美國可以隨時作癈!