By Eduardo Galeano
August 13, 2009 "Counterpunch" -- I’d like to share with you some questions--some flies that keep buzzing in my head.
Is justice right side up?
Has world justice been frozen in an upside-down position?
The shoe-thrower of Iraq, the man who hurled his shoes at Bush, was condemned to three years in prison. Doesn’t he deserve, instead, a medal?
Who is the terrorist? The hurler of shoes or their recipient? Is not the real terrorist the serial killer who, lying, fabricated the Iraq war, massacred a multitude, and legalized and ordered torture?
Who are the guilty ones--the people of Atenco, in Mexico, the indigenous Mapuches of Chile, the Kekchies of Guatemala, the landless peasants of Brazil—all being accused of the crime of terrorism for defending their right to their own land? If the earth is sacred, even if the law does not say so, aren’t its defenders sacred too?
According to Foreign Policy Magazine, Somalia is the most dangerous place in the world. But who are the pirates? The starving people who attack ships or the speculators of Wall Street who spent years attacking the world and who are now rewarded with many millions of dollars for their pains?
Why does the world reward its ransackers?
Why is justice a one-eyed blind woman? Wal-Mart, the most powerful corporation on earth, bans trade unions. McDonald's, too. Why do these corporations violate, with criminal impunity, international law? Is it because in this contemporary world of ours, work is valued as lower than trash and workers' rights are valued even less?
Who are the righteous and who are the villains? If international justice really exists, why are the powerful never judged? The masterminds of the worst butcheries are never sent to prison. Is it because it is these butchers themselves who hold the prison keys?
What makes the five nations with veto power in the United Nations inviolable? Is it of a divine origin, that veto power of theirs? Can you trust those who profit from war to guard the peace?
Is it fair that world peace is in the hands of the very five nations who are also the world’s main producers of weapons? Without implying any disrespect to the drug runners, couldn’t we refer to this arrangement as yet another example of organized crime?
Those who clamor, everywhere, for the death penalty are strangely silent about the owners of the world. Even worse, these clamorers forever complain about knife-wielding murderers, yet say nothing about missile-wielding arch-murderers.
And one asks oneself: Given that these self-righteous world owners are so enamored of killing, why pray don’t they try to aim their murderous proclivities at social injustice? Is it a just a world when, every minute, three million dollars are wasted on the military, while at the same time fifteen children perish from hunger or curable disease? Against whom is the so-called international community armed to the teeth? Against poverty or against the poor?
Why don’t the champions of capital punishment direct their ire at the values of the consumer society, values which pose a daily threat to public safety? Or doesn’t, perhaps, the constant bombardment of advertising constitute an invitation to crime? Doesn’t that bombardment numb millions and millions of unemployed or poorly paid youth, endlessly teaching them the lie that “to be = to have,” that life derives its meaning from ownership of such things as cars or brand name shoes? Own, own, they keep saying, implying that he who has nothing is, himself, nothing.
Why isn’t the death penalty applied to death itself? The world is organized in the service of death. Isn’t it true that the military industrial complex manufactures death and devours the greater part of our resources as well as a good part of our energies? Yet the owners of the world only condemn violence when it is exercised by others. To extraterrestrials, if they existed, such monopoly of violence would appear inexplicable. It likewise appears insupportable to earth dwellers who, against all the available evidence, hope for survival: we humans are the only animals who specialize in mutual extermination, and who have developed a technology of destruction that is annihilating, coincidentally, our planet and all its inhabitants.
This technology sustains itself on fear. It is the fear of enemies that justifies the squandering of resources by the military and police. And speaking about implementing the death penalty, why don’t we pass a death sentence on fear itself? Would it not behoove us to end this universal dictatorship of the professional scaremongers? The sowers of panic condemn us to loneliness, keeping solidarity outside our reach: falsely teaching us that we live in a dog-eat-dog world, that he who can must crush his fellows, that danger is lurking behind every neighbor. Watch out, they keep saying, be careful, this neighbor will steal from you, that other one will rape you, that baby carriage hides a Muslim bomb, and that woman who is watching you--that innocent-looking neighbor of yours—will surely infect you with swine flu.
In this upside-down world, they are making us afraid of even the most elementary acts of justice and common sense. When President Evo Morales started to re-build Bolivia, so that his country with its indigenous majority will no longer feel shame facing a mirror, his actions provoked panic. Morales’ challenge was indeed catastrophic from the traditional standpoint of the racist order, whose beneficiaries felt that theirs was the only possible option for Bolivia. It was Evo, they felt, who ushered in chaos and violence, and this alleged crime justified efforts to blow up national unity and break Bolivia into pieces. And when President Correa of Ecuador refused to pay the illegitimate debts of his country, the news caused terror in the financial world and Ecuador was threatened with dire punishment, for daring to set such a bad example. If the military dictatorships and roguish politicians have always been pampered by international banks, have we not already conditioned ourselves to accept it as our inevitable fate that the people must pay for the club that hits them and for the greed the plunders them?
But, have common sense and justice always been divorced from each other?
Were not common sense and justice meant to walk hand in hand, intimately linked?
Aren’t common sense, and also justice, in accord with the feminist slogan which states that if we, men, had to go through pregnancy, abortion would have been free. Why not legalize the right to have an abortion? Is it because abortion will then cease being the sole privilege of the women who can afford it and of the physicians who can charge for it?
The same thing is observed with another scandalous case of denial of justice and common sense: why aren’t drugs legal? Is this not, like abortion, a public health issue? And the very same country that counts in its population more drug addicts than any other country in the world, what moral authority does it have to condemn its drug suppliers? And why don’t the mass media, in their dedication to the war against the scourge of drugs, ever divulge that it is Afghanistan which single-handedly satisfies just about all the heroin consumed in the world? Who rules Afghanistan? Is it not militarily occupied by a messianic country which conferred upon itself the mission of saving us all?
Why aren’t drugs legalized once and for all? Is it because they provide the best pretext for military invasions, in addition to providing the juiciest profits to the large banks who, in the darkness of night, serve as money-laundering centers?
Nowadays the world is sad because fewer vehicles are sold. One of the consequences of the global crisis is a decline of the otherwise prosperous car industry. Had we some shred of common sense, a mere fragment of a sense of justice, would we not celebrate this good news?
Could anyone deny that a decline in the number of automobiles is good for nature, seeing that she will end up with a bit less poison in her veins? Could anyone deny the value of this decline in car numbers to pedestrians, seeing that fewer of them will die?
Here’s how Lewis Carroll’s queen explained to Alice how justice is dispensed in a looking-glass world:
“There’s the King’s Messenger. He’s in prison now, being punished: and the trial doesn’t begin until next Wednesday: and of course the crime comes last of all.”
In El Salvador, Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero found that justice, like a snake, only bites barefoot people. He died of gunshot wounds, for proclaiming that in his country the dispossessed were condemned from the very start, on the day of their birth.
Couldn’t the outcome of the recent elections in El Salvador be viewed, in some ways, as a homage to Archbishop Romero and to the thousands who, like him, died fighting for right-side-up justice in this reign of injustice?
At times the narratives of History end badly, but she, History itself, never ends. When she says goodbye, she only says: I’ll be back.
Translation from Spanish for CounterPunch: Dr. Moti Nissani
Among his other achievements, in 1971, Eduardo Galeano wrote The Open Veins of Latin America and, in 1976, escaped death at the hands of CIA-financed Argentine death squads.
Volunteer project leader 跟我們提醒的事..
我覺得會比較接近這次project的狀況, 希望我們真的可以給他們有一點幫助囉
As a team we will be volunteering in a beautiful area called Beddau in Phondda Cynon Taff, working in a school with 1200 children from the age of 11-18. They also have a special needs department and it would be great to spend time in this department also, creating new ways to show how different cultures experience life. This is the second time the project has run so lets make this year as good as (if not better) than last year! This area has many problems, mostly due to the coal mining closing down causing lots of unemployment. There are few things for the children to do in their spare time, it would be great to bring our enthusiasm to this small town and help them understand new cultures whilst also learning about their own culture. The local community is very welcoming and we will be able to meet them and learn about welsh ways of life. The host of the project (K zdzieblo) is organising a fashion show which is going to be great fun! We can also go visit the out of school clubs and join in with sports activities.
還有我最愛的免治馬桶耶~真是好的開始
Lastly, it was supposed to rain everyday in April and May. I can tell you from experience in the Summer it does indeed rain everyday, but instead of the rainy season being rainy, we have had a drought for two or three weeks. By the looks of it now, that is about to change. Its weird how when the endless rain is finally gone, you miss it.1. 南瓜切成小塊（皮可去可不去）蒸約15分鐘至熟。
2. 放涼後，將南瓜放入空盆中，加入白糖攪拌均勻成南瓜泥。
3. 動物性鮮奶油煮至沸騰，加入泡過水的吉利丁，再一起和入南瓜泥中。
4. 植物性鮮奶油打發至濃稠扎實狀，加入南瓜泥混勻。用模具或是小杯子裝著，放入冰箱冷藏兩小時以上即可。
| 辭職或不辭職，這是個高難度的問題，在做判斷前，最好先把幾個重點想清楚，其中最該考慮的，就是現在是不是離開的好時機。 腦海中一旦萌生去意，應極力保持冷靜，客觀地把前因後果想清楚，首先需要檢視的，是自己的情緒，一時衝動而遞出辭呈絕非明智之舉。因此當你感到怒氣沖天而亟欲求去時，不妨先試著保持冷靜，利用以下七大檢查要點，好好做一番評估。 Check Point 1 還有沒有進步空間？ 當你自認在公司該做的事都做過了，或許就是適合離職的時候。比方說，發現自己不再有機會和客戶交換名片，就是可以考慮離職的指標，因為這代表你不再有機會認識新客戶，也等於不再有進一步拓展人脈的空間。 在 公司裡業已轉戰過各大部門、熟悉所有業務，也是同樣的道理，既然身經百戰，想必也累積了足夠因應跳槽的利多。到新公司後，不管被安插在哪個部門，對業務內 容都有所認識的你，必將受到大家的器重。因此，工作做到這種程度時，代表你若繼續留任，在技能、人脈、甚至薪資上都不大可能再有進步空間。 Check Point 2 發現自己 不如理解工作 有人認為跳槽是「發現自己」的手段之一，這種心態其實是大錯特錯。要知道30世代的你已經不再有這種閒情逸致，為此貿然辭職，只會讓自己承受更大風險，現在與其試著多了解自己，不如先試著理解「工作」的本質要來得實在。 工作理應是「聖職」、「天職」，並不是一種選擇，而是一種必然。邁入30世代後若還考慮跳槽，首要前提就是找到自己的天職，並確定目前的公司無法讓你在這方面有所發揮，若能確認唯有辭職方能不愧對此生，冒這種險才有價值。 Check Point 3 公司前景 不確定性升高 若感覺公司目前的管理模式已經大幅背離原有的宗旨，或因公司業績不振而對前景感到不安，或許就真的該辭職。比方說，如果自己的部門將解散，那麼只要能比目前安定，即使換到一家規模較小的公司，都可能是個好選擇。 要判斷公司業績是否不振，最容易的就是從薪資狀況著眼。雖然現在有些企業講求論功行賞的結果論，薪資升降的判斷基準可能是自己的成績而非公司體質，但若發現自己的業績提升，卻沒有相對反映在薪資上時，或許就是你該準備跳槽的時候了。 Check Point 4 對新職沒把握 別急著走 先問自己一個問題︰這次辭職會不會成為日後懊悔的源頭。若你沒能從目前的窘境中學到任何教訓，換環境遲早還是會碰到同樣的問題，極可能讓你再度萌生去意。 跳槽要跳得有價值，若新工作是能讓你的昔日經驗有所發揮的同一職種，必須先確定這次跳槽對自己是否有任何加值意義。當然，時下跳槽後薪水也可能較原本的工作低，但若能試著從新工作中找出正面意義，減薪便不致淪為毫無價值。 Check Point 5 人際失和 你可能有責任 若與上司、同事或下屬失和，必須認清自己或許也得承擔部分責任。若習慣將一切過錯推諉他人，認為自己的不幸都是周遭的人造成的，那麼不論換多少工作，同樣的情況只會一再發生。 每當人際關係稍有破裂，第一件該做的就是檢討自己是否有任何失當之處，並客觀地接受事實。世上有許多不得人緣的上司，若自己的上司就是個讓自己和同事抱怨不斷的討厭鬼，不妨先與人事部懇談，申請轉調其他部門。如果連這種機會也沒有，屆時再認真考慮跳槽也不遲。 Check Point 6 定期檢視 工作賞味期限 一份工作其實可能有賞味期限，一般來說約為十五年，一旦過了這個期限，薪資、技能與體力就開始下滑。或許你的期限還未到，但不妨先養成一個觀念︰欲在有生之年往上爬，一輩子在同一家公司裡埋頭苦幹絕非唯一選項。 | ||
網上「維基百科」是個驚人的創舉：任何人可以上網去把自己的見解和知識寫成辭條定義，任何人也可以去修訂前面那個傢伙所下的定義，然後等待被後面的人──如果他有更準確的訊息、更精闢的見解，將你推翻。也可能後面那一位是個罕見的「大說謊家」，篡奪解釋、顛覆是非，可是總有人起而反對。洛杉磯時報夠大膽，將自己的社論拿出來，歡迎讀者用「維基加注」的方式，對社論進行改寫。
「野火」二十年了。當年充滿理想，立志要改變社會的二十歲的人，今年四十歲，今天的你在哪裡？浪漫的理想主義仍舊是生命的動力？或者，它早已被平凡生活磨損和冷卻？或者，完全被懷疑和無所謂取代？
在二十年的漫遊途中，我曾經和幾個人偶遇：那深入部落為原住民孩子爭取權益的，那回到烏丘孤島去為窮鄉僻壤努力的，那起而行組織了全國環保運動的。。。台灣的文化底醞，很大一部份是在這些人的堅持和努力中累積了厚度。但是，是不是也有很多人，疲累不堪，被打敗了？被什麼打敗？
我們的上一代，受戰亂和貧窮之苦，期望我們這一代溫飽安定。我們這一代溫飽安定了，但是受威權統治之苦，期望下一代在沒有恐懼、沒有控制的自由環境中成長。
今天二十歲的人，當年才出生，也真的就在我們所努力、所祈求的環境中長大了，今天和我們站在一樣的高度上，眼睛與我們平視。我好奇，當年的「幼稚園大學」，現在是什麼？當年的大學生，在威權政體長期的控制和操弄下，往往遇事「淚眼汪汪」、「沒有意見」、「不知道」； 今天，在民主政治中成長的大學生，是不是多了很多「能思考」、「能判斷」、「有勇氣良知」呢？ 或者說，二十年裡，價值翻轉到一個程度，所謂思考、判斷，所謂勇氣良知，都不再是一種值得追求的價值？
倒是我自己，在寫過「野火」二十年之後，世界看得愈多，困惑愈多，答案愈少。如果下面的文本攤開來請今天的大學生來「維基加注」，你會怎麼加呢？
今天的新瓶裝昨天的餿酒
譬如說，我承認民主讓我困惑。（是否觀察過、比較過，印度的民主、俄羅斯的民主、拉丁美洲的民主，跟台灣的民主比起來，如何？我們是更糟呢，還是不錯？）
民主以後，台北每年有跨年晚會，市政府廣場和總統府廣場，在一條街的兩頭，同時舉行。但是總統府和市政府分屬不同政黨主政，所以是一個較勁的局面。通常總統府錢多，場面也比較豪華。兩邊請的都是偶像流行歌手，而不是交響樂團或民族音樂或地方戲曲，因為，主政者鎖定吸引的「顧客」，是年輕人。
在威權時代，統治者有一套籠絡年輕人的方法。當年救國團每個寒暑假舉辦青年戰鬥營，設計種種「育樂」活動讓年輕人參加，同時將政治意識型態，像把糖置入咖啡一樣，溶入歌舞昇平、歡樂光明的活動裡，很輕易地就贏得青年人對執政者的好感、信賴和忠誠。在對統治者的「愛戴」裡，有很大一部份是真誠的。
威權被我們「打敗」了，民主了。成千上萬的年輕人在廣場上搖晃手裡的金光閃閃，在青春洋溢的歌聲理，露出熱切而幸福的表情。當他們情緒裡的快樂和感恩激素漲到最高度時，政治人物上場了：他打扮成「超人」或「蝙蝠俠」，他穿著和年輕人一樣輕鬆而「酷」的服裝，講著和年輕人一樣俏皮的語言，做出年輕人熟悉做的手勢。當他湊進麥克風大聲說，「好不好──」，廣場上的群眾，一如他所期待的，響雷一樣地歡呼回應，「好──」。（你在場嗎？）
不管是燈節、耶誕節，不管是掛著什麼名目的文藝季，不管是北中南城市或鄉下，到處都是這樣的歌舞昇平、歡樂光明，而在舞台和燈光的後面，基本上是這樣的操作：該不該有藝文活動，不是看文化發展的內在需要，而是看政治人物的政治需要。他需要的是高曝光率，需要的是選民的好感、信賴和忠誠。於是從預算的編列到預算的使用，從晚會的時機地點到宣傳的文字調性，從圖騰的挑選到節目的設計，絲絲入扣，扣住的是如何行銷這個政治人物，累積選票。在太多的場合裡，所謂文化，所謂藝術，其實包裹在選舉的規劃裡，花的是公家的錢。
講得更白一點，如果專業告訴你，最迫切需要預算的是山區小學建立圖書館，或者中學藝術教育的深化，但是這些措施只能靠默默的投資、長期的耕耘，政治人物是不會去做的；一場一場聲光絢爛的晚會，一砸幾千萬，卻可以為他塑造形像，贏得選票。錢，就往那個方向流去。再加上民意代表懶惰，人民又不加思索，大家都成了政治人物的快樂消費者。
我看不出這種公器的私用、這種權力對人的操弄，和從前的威權政治有什麼本質的差別。反而，威權的統治者因為不需要選票考慮，他可能做長程投資和規劃，即使不討好；那需要靠四年一輪的選舉的執政者，卻往往選擇犧牲長期的利益來換取眼前的權宜。而每一任執政者都以最短距離的眼前的利益為利益，社會發展永遠像夜市裡的流動攤販、窪地裡的違章建築，急就章，而且品質拙劣。
（你是否思考過這種矛盾？就是說，好不容易得到了民主，但是我們所創出來的民主，是第幾流的品質？沒有人願意往回走的，可是，這往前走的路你看見嗎？）
在威權時代，所有的媒體都被統治者壟斷，報紙上從頭版到尾巴都是領袖的照片和言行，都是政府的英明作為。今天民主了，是的，聲音多元了，批判的言論激烈了，奇怪的是，為什麼仍然有整版整版的政府宣傳？
原來，從前靠的是行政命令，媒體配合報導，政令宣傳都以新聞的面貌出現。現在靠的是市場：媒體需要賺錢，政府就用納稅人的錢去買報紙版面或電視時段，於是政令宣傳再度以新聞的面貌出現。這就叫「置入性行銷」。民主是競爭的，但是誰執政，誰就花得起錢，購買媒體，購買知名度，購買政治資本。在野的反對者沒這個優勢，是活該。而在野反對者一旦得權，馬上佔盡資源。累積政治資本的錢，全是納稅公民的，而媒體，與他共謀。
我看不出這種公器的私用、這種權力對人的操弄，和從前的威權政治有什麼本質的差別。
知識份子、新聞記者、進步的大學生，在威權時代，對政府的壟斷和操縱曾經前仆後繼地批判、反抗，在今天，知識份子和記者卻成為政治人物的事業合夥人，進步大學生成為競選團隊。還不提財團與政權之間，綿密的曖昧互利。
這些都沒錯，因為在民主結構裡，知識份子、新聞記者、大學生，財團，都有自由的公民權利。可是，問題是，今天的新瓶裝了昨天的餿酒，那麼誰是新時代的反對者呢？
從威權到民主，不是從奴役到自由嗎？或者認為「奴役的反面是自由」，根本就是一個錯誤的認知？（不要告訴我，你八歲就知道了這個道理）
文學、知識和語言的敵人
著名的捷克作家克里瑪在十歲那一年就跟著父母住進了集中營， 在死亡的陰影、恐怖的環境裡成長。解放的那一天，監獄的柵欄被拆除，蘇聯紅軍和史達林的巨幅相片在他眼前出現，對劫後倖存的他，這代表了「善的力量」，即使在同一瞬間，他看見一個德國平民被槍殺，看見一個囚犯撲向一包地上的香菸而被坦克車碾過。被幸福感所充滿，他告訴自己，「我自由了」。（你又怎麼理解「自由」呢？沒有經過不自由的人，能不能理解自由？你認為自己自由嗎？你怎麼理解以薩克。柏林所說的消極和積極自由之間的差別？這個問題和你的個人生活有沒有關連？抽象觀念和你的具體生命，有沒有關連？）
一九四五年，納粹崩潰、蘇聯「解放」了捷克，他以為是自由的來臨，自由卻再度變成奴役，捷克陷入蘇聯的集權控制。一九九零年，蘇聯崩潰，自由似乎像無辜的鴿子一樣突然飛進窗戶，他卻已經不再天真。克里瑪回首煙塵歲月，試圖理解「自由」的含意，結論是，「很長時間後我才完全明白，常常不是善與惡之間的力量在戰鬥，而僅僅是兩個不同的惡，在為了控制世界而互相爭鬥。」自由，和權力的行使有關，而權力，克里瑪說，「權力是沒有靈魂的。它來源於沒有靈魂。它建立在沒有靈魂之上並從中吸取力量。」
他好像在講禿鷹如何依靠動物的屍體讓自己強壯。自由之於權力，是否猶如屍體之於禿鷹呢？（可以嗎？可以這樣比喻嗎？）
但是一九九零年代以後，腐蝕自由的「禿鷹」有一種流動的面貌，不容易辨認它的輪廓。 美國作家菲力普。羅斯逼問克里瑪，言詞鋒利：
。。。我要說的話或許會給你留下傲慢自大的印象──自由的富人在對自由的窮人告誡致富的危險。你為了某個東西奮鬥了許多年，某個你需要它就像需要空氣一樣的東西，而我要說的是，你為之奮鬥的空氣也有一點敗壞了。。。隨著捷克成為一個自由、民主的消費世界，你們作家會發現自己正被一些新的敵手所困擾，說來也奇怪，令人壓抑的、毫無生氣的集權主義曾保護過你們免受這些敵手的傷害。尤其使人不安的將是這樣一個敵手，它是文學、知識和語言的無所不能的首要敵人。。。這個敵手實際上使整個人類的語言都變得愚昧。我談的是商業廣告電視，它的一切都是庸俗淺薄的──不是由於一個愚蠢的國家檢察官所控制。。。而是由於其娛樂性幾乎所有人都愛看的大量陳腐乏味的電視節目。
你和你的作家同行們好容易才衝破共產集權主義的知識囚籠。歡迎來到「絕對娛樂世界」。你們不知道你們在在失去什麼，還是你們已經知道？
（你在台灣的現實裡是否看得見那「文學、知識和語言的無所不能的敵人」？或者，你能為這個「敵人」辯護？你拿羅斯的問題怎麼辦？）
讀到這裡，我把書闔上，暫且不看克里瑪怎麼對付這個問題，倒是先自問：二十年前寫「野火」時，我知不知道「我們在失去什麼」？我知不知道，我所追求的自由，會邀來另一種敵人，一種以庸俗淺薄為時尚、以「絕對娛樂」為目的，以行銷消費為最高指導原則的生活哲學？我是否知道，政治人物可能變成沒有靈魂而機關算盡的豪賭客，政治可能變成純粹的商品推銷術，政治理念可能被抽空，轉為權力鬥爭技巧學，知識份子，可能爭相以虛無為高尚，而群眾，可能比從前更。不。寬。容。我是否知道，新聞學的種種崇高理想可能變成一種令人難堪的諷刺，擺脫了威權之後，電視由虛假和童騃式的愚蠢統治？寫「野火」時，我是否知道，二十年後的大學生可能不再有「幼稚園大學」的天真幼稚，反倒是理直氣壯地嘲笑深刻、拒絕思想？（七十年代的大學生會把羅素、尼采的書夾在腋下走路，假裝「深刻」。二十一世紀的大學生，「假裝」什麼？人們又是否誇大了新一代的「虛無」和「草莓」傾向？在這裡，我們可以討論所謂「後現代」和所謂「現代」的語意錯綜嗎？）
我得誠實地說，不，我沒有料到。事實上，不能呼吸、渴望空氣的人，你不能跟他說，「那空氣充滿雜質，是敗壞的，所以留在屋裡吧。」你就是不能這麼說。
雖然不是第一次做布朗尼，但是因為之前都是跟姊姊一起做，第一次一個人做還真的有點手忙腳亂。雖然已經在心裡run過好幾遍，真的在做的時候，還是很懷念阿姊在台北的時光。
這是參考PTT 庫克版的達人作法，但因為不喜歡吃太甜，奶油和糖都有減量過。可以烤兩大塊，一人以小塊的話十幾個人吃應該是沒問題。成果真的不錯，大家可以試試看。也順便感謝嵐嵐的香草糖，非常方便使用。
材料：
苦甜巧克力
無鹽奶油
細砂糖
可可粉
低筋麵粉
泡打粉 1/2小匙
小蘇打粉 1/4小匙
核桃
全蛋 2個
牛奶
香草精 (可有可無)
作法：
1. 苦甜巧克力隔水加熱融化後備用 (Tip：用微波爐最小的加熱十分鐘)
2. 無鹽奶油+糖隔水加熱融化後 (Tip: 還是用微波爐處理)，加入可可粉以及融化的苦甜巧克力拌勻
3. 全蛋分兩次加入後拌勻
4. 先加入剩餘粉類的三分之一，再加入牛奶拌勻 (Tip: 絕對不行一次全加，會非常難和勻)
5. 剩下粉類加入
6. 倒入模型，抹平表面灑上事先烤香的核桃 (松子)
7. 200度烤30分鐘
---------------------
後記：
1. 火候掌控很重要，如果是上下兩層的烤箱記得中間要替換位置，時間到後戳戳看若是沒有全熟要繼續烤。
2. 發粉不要太多，否則會過於蓬鬆
3. 收拾器具的時候用熱水清洗，巧克力才容易洗掉
其實收到這個offer已經有一段時間了,不過因為還在等其他的學校,所以其實不算是很興奮. 不過其實對我來說應該也算是一個不錯的backup了. 學校的ranking也不算太差,前兩年的也還有到12th的位置. 算是已經妥協很多了,從當初堅持的MBA到MA or MS, 也許人生的路還會再繞但至少我覺得目前能前往UK算是個不錯的選擇(環境及匯率及歐洲旅遊種種因素的考量下). 感謝Kiku的開導讓我不再stick to MBA的迷思. 學習都是看自己吧,我想只要學校和教授不太差,其他的就是自己的積極度吧.
我還不確定自己最後會不會選擇出國,不過至少可以開始存英鎊了~~XD
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Chung-Ming Wang,
Student Reference Number :XXXXXXXX
Thank you for your application for the MA Asia Pacific Business degree here at Royal Holloway. I am pleased to tell you that we will be making you a conditional offer based on you obtaining 6.5 overall in IELTS, with 7.0 in writing. The course starts on September 21st 2009 and the mode of attendance is full-time. We will send you a confirmation letter of this offer very soon for your records.
I hope you will consider and accept our offer and please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions with regards to your application or the admissions procedure here are Royal Holloway.
We would appreciate it if you would keep us up to date with any changes to your contact details, e.g. postal address, to ensure that you do not miss out on any vital information about your application.
Posts
All Comments
