I don't live in Arizona, so I can only observe Arizona's new legislation on weeding out illegal aliens from afar. Almost all responses, particularly those in the liberal New York Times, are negative, accusing the new Arizona law as oppressive, racial profiling in disguise.
I must say, I agree with those negative views...to a certain extent. In principle, the law is all legal. Afterall, who can argue with the fact that these are illegal aliens who sneak into the country illegally, thereby breaking the law in the first place? To counter that, most of these illegal migrants would tell the story of poor economy or violence or oppression (political or otherwise) or some such, in their native countries that propel them into smuggling themselves to a new country. On a human scale, there's no argument about that. But then, there are a few billion people out there in the world who live poorly and would love to get a second chance in America. Do they deserve a chance to come to the United States illegally, and stay too? I don't think any rational person can say yes to that. To that end, there really is no question about the legality of this new Arizona law.
On the basis of the new law, most opponents point to the very real possibility of racial profiling because it's likely to target the Hispanic communities in Arizona. While politicians and law enforcement would deny that, nobody would naively believe that claim. Sure, racial profiling is discrimination. But if the "illegals" that you want to weed out come from one particular demographic group, do you target that group, in order to be effective? You bet. Honestly, this whole concept of racial profiling is so politically correct. Everyone wants to believe that it doesn't exist, in the name of political correctness; yet even my 5-year-old knows it's there. Can't we just drop that pretense and hypocrisy?
Don't get me wrong. I don't like racial profiling any more than anyone else, particularly who might get targeted. Afterall, I'm in a minority group in US as well. It's going to be there, for as long as we live. It's just part of human nature.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The new law in Arizona reminds me of the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong some 30 years ago. The crisis in Vietnam and the ensuing war forced alot of civilians to flee the country by boat. Hong Kong was still under the British colonial rule, and the Brits made the decision thousands of miles away from Hong Kong, that Hong Kong should open its door to all Vietnamese boat people, for humanity reasons, with no limit to the amount of people it can take.
Surely, it's easy for Britain to take the high moral ground, while leaving the burden to Hong Kong, because it was the people in Hong Kong who had to live with these Vietnamese, not the Brits who lived in their comfortable homes in the British Isles. And, the Hong Kong government was the one paying the tab too, and not Brits.
You might not know it, but these Vietnamese were called refugees initially. As time progresses, and the number of Vietnamese increased, with no end in sight, it's become increasingly evident that Hong Kong simply could not absorb the Vietnamese realistically. While most of the Vietnamese were peaceful, there were invariably thugs and gangsters in the mix, bringing with them guns and violence to Hong Kong, which is exactly how it's like in Arizona now.
In order to control the violence, all Vietnamese were put into gated camps to disallow them from sneaking out. Nobody liked that; surely not the Vietnamese, and not the Hong Kong people, but even more so by the Brits who claimed that encampment measure to be inhumane. Well, what did the Brits do? And what had they done to help Hong Kong anyways? Zippo.
At one point, Hong Kong government has offered residency in Hong Kong to the Vietnamese in the camps, thereby allowing them to work and live in more normal life in Hong Kong. Not surprisingly, very few of them took up the offer, because all they wanted was a ticket, as refugees, to other Western countries like Canada, US, UK, Europe, and Australia. The Viets didn't give much of a damn about Hong Kong since it's just a halfway house to them. They complained, they rioted in the camps, but there had never been any expressed gratitude for pulling them out of the dinghy when they ran out of food and water, and no other countries would accept them. There came a time, when all these Western countries ran out of their own patience and "quotas" of how many Vietnamese they could take, and closed the door of any more Vietnamese in refugee status.
In short, Hong Kong was stuck with these Vietnamese, and they were stuck in Hong Kong. Hong Kong couldn't reasonably send them back to Vietnam when it's still at war with its own fractions. No other countries would take them. And yet, they still would not want residency in Hong Kong.
During the height of the Vietnamese boat people crisis, Hong Kong government adopted a measure which was pretty much the same as Arizona. All Hong Kong residents were (and still are) required to bring an official ID with them. (In Hong Kong, everyone has to have a Hong Kong ID card for identification.) Supposedly, police can stop anyone on the street and demand the ID for verification purpose. There was no local opposition to that at all because everyone knew that that's the only way. And no one complained about the racial profiling. You might think that all Asians look the same. But to anyone with an Asian eye, a Vietnamese looks very different from someone from Hong Kong, who looks very different from someone in Japan or Korea, and so on. So, in reality, even the RHKPF did not say it out loud, everyone knew that's how it would be done, that policemen on beat would mostly question the ID from Vietnamese-looking non-residents.
Even as a very Hong Kong looking resident, born and raised as such, I was stopped a few times to show my ID as well. I'm not sure why people find that oppressive, because I don't have a problem with that at all.
Such was my own experience with a law exactly like the new law passed in Arizona. To those who oppose it, I'd say, if you have nothing to hide, there really is nothing much to that. But to those who have something to hide, you can't and shouldn't really complain that people are trying to find out what law(s) you have broken, however benign it might be.
But...implicit to all these is that, the police force in Hong Kong is one of the cleanest and least corrupt in the world (after the establishment of ICAC in which the British did a remarkable job in weeding out corruption). Without knowing much about the police force in Arizona, I can't say for sure how serious a threat it might be, for police to hassle civilians, legal and illegal alike. A law is only as good as the enforcement that comes with it. If Arizona cannot sort this out, the law could turn into a legal license for harassment by police. And, that, would be a true shame.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
On romantic moments in life...
Last night, I watched the movie, Before Sunset (2004). I didn't read any reviews prior to that. I just happened to casually pick up this DVD at the library with my kids. In fact, I think I might have borrowed the first movie, Before Sunrise (1995), from the library once before, but it didn't look compelling enough to me, and I returned the DVD without even watching it. Last night was slow, and I've got nothing better to do. The DVD happened to me on the table, so I watched it. And then, I realized that there was supposed to be a previous movie before the Before Sunset. Silly me. :)
Then again, why should I care? The movie was light. The premise was simple. Camera work feels like they probably just did a few takes to finish the whole movie. The whole movie hinges on the chemistry of the two leads. Without that, there would not have been a movie, what with all the conversations, and audience was supposed to feel the present moments, and connect to the characters, their lives, their treasured moments nine years past. You get the idea.
I suppose, if I have been in my teens or even 20s, I'd probably be much charmed by the movie. The idea is so romantic. Two strangers in a beautiful, foreign city. Instant chemistry, and sparks fly. That one memorable night transcends their lives. All the what-have-been, should-have-been romantic love-of-our-life. Instead, they settle with the second best, dull boring adult life, much like everybody else. Nine years on, they met again. What could/should happen? Should they do something to take the moments in their own hands? Should they go back to their lives, and let the dream live on?
I always wonder: What would have been more romantic? The ending of Before Sunset suggests that they're going to seize the moment, and decide to not letting the regrets of the past nine years continue to haunt their lives. The movie wants us to believe that it's a happy ending, because they have chemistry nine years ago, they still have the chemistry nine years on, so we should safely assume that they should be able to keep that chemistry alive for the next 60 years, maybe; assuming they'll grow old together....you know, live the boring adult life like everybody else does, only with a different person this time around.
Truth be told, I felt happy about the ending. It's what lighthearted movies are supposed to make you feel, right? But right when I put the DVD back in its jacket, I know I've been kidding myself.
The true romance, the longest lasting romance, are the ones that we have lived and re-lived in our memory. Because we, as humans, tend to remember only the good things, and filter out the bad things. We tend to remember to tender loving moments, rather than the fights, however trivial they might be. We tend to remember the longing and laughs, rather than angst. To me, that platonic love that lives only in our dreams is the most romantic one there is.
I know, because that's increasingly how I feel, about my husband, and the could-have-been's with some of my ex's. I don't tend to drill much on the ex's. Afterall, we have the present life to live. My husband and I have gone through alot together to be together before we got married too; hence, it's not like I have never loved my husband. But as most everyone who's settled in marriage life, the settled life can get monotonous and even boring. Do I mind it? I don't think so. Somewhere along these 13 years, I've lost that lover's feeling. But I've come to accept it to be so.
I do wonder out loud sometimes, of why would I enjoy my kids' company more than my husband's these days. And, why would I sometimes long for the forbidden love with my ex that was long gone since. Of course, I know those were just a dream. Of course, I know I should not take anything for granted, and should treasure all that I have in life now, rather than go chasing a dream. I know, for a fact, that I'm quite done with chasing romantic dreams. I'm quite happy with just brain-f**k. Honestly, and literally.
Maybe herein lies the issue in my present predicament, which is that, I don't long for the physical connections anymore. Oh, isn't that was what those studies were all about - explaining why wives don't want sex anymore, leaving their husband sex-deprived?
It's grunge work, day-in day-out, reminding ourselves every day, that we have to work at it, to make a relationship work; that we have to look at not just the things that annoy, but the things that make us laugh too. I'm past that seven-year-itch thing, now that we're married for some 13 years now. I don't think I'm capable of extra-marital affairs. It could probably be fun, but I know it's wrong. There's certain comfort factor, knowing the exact daily pattern of married life. On the other hand, sometimes I do miss that electric moments that come with romantic love, even though I've come to accept it that, they should be left to the young to experience. (I probably have more than my fair share of that when I was younger, already.)
Coming back to that movie, I don't consider the ending as a happy one, in hindsight. If the two leads would revive their romantic love, and continue to nurture in their dreams, while going separate ways to their own lives, that forbidden love would have been so much more satisfying, even though it's not "happy," in the eyes of Hollywood movies. A forbidden love ending would probably be more befitting for a British movie (with a more emotionally repressed audience). For Hollywood movies, that would rarely do. Pity.
Then again, why should I care? The movie was light. The premise was simple. Camera work feels like they probably just did a few takes to finish the whole movie. The whole movie hinges on the chemistry of the two leads. Without that, there would not have been a movie, what with all the conversations, and audience was supposed to feel the present moments, and connect to the characters, their lives, their treasured moments nine years past. You get the idea.
I suppose, if I have been in my teens or even 20s, I'd probably be much charmed by the movie. The idea is so romantic. Two strangers in a beautiful, foreign city. Instant chemistry, and sparks fly. That one memorable night transcends their lives. All the what-have-been, should-have-been romantic love-of-our-life. Instead, they settle with the second best, dull boring adult life, much like everybody else. Nine years on, they met again. What could/should happen? Should they do something to take the moments in their own hands? Should they go back to their lives, and let the dream live on?
I always wonder: What would have been more romantic? The ending of Before Sunset suggests that they're going to seize the moment, and decide to not letting the regrets of the past nine years continue to haunt their lives. The movie wants us to believe that it's a happy ending, because they have chemistry nine years ago, they still have the chemistry nine years on, so we should safely assume that they should be able to keep that chemistry alive for the next 60 years, maybe; assuming they'll grow old together....you know, live the boring adult life like everybody else does, only with a different person this time around.
Truth be told, I felt happy about the ending. It's what lighthearted movies are supposed to make you feel, right? But right when I put the DVD back in its jacket, I know I've been kidding myself.
The true romance, the longest lasting romance, are the ones that we have lived and re-lived in our memory. Because we, as humans, tend to remember only the good things, and filter out the bad things. We tend to remember to tender loving moments, rather than the fights, however trivial they might be. We tend to remember the longing and laughs, rather than angst. To me, that platonic love that lives only in our dreams is the most romantic one there is.
I know, because that's increasingly how I feel, about my husband, and the could-have-been's with some of my ex's. I don't tend to drill much on the ex's. Afterall, we have the present life to live. My husband and I have gone through alot together to be together before we got married too; hence, it's not like I have never loved my husband. But as most everyone who's settled in marriage life, the settled life can get monotonous and even boring. Do I mind it? I don't think so. Somewhere along these 13 years, I've lost that lover's feeling. But I've come to accept it to be so.
I do wonder out loud sometimes, of why would I enjoy my kids' company more than my husband's these days. And, why would I sometimes long for the forbidden love with my ex that was long gone since. Of course, I know those were just a dream. Of course, I know I should not take anything for granted, and should treasure all that I have in life now, rather than go chasing a dream. I know, for a fact, that I'm quite done with chasing romantic dreams. I'm quite happy with just brain-f**k. Honestly, and literally.
Maybe herein lies the issue in my present predicament, which is that, I don't long for the physical connections anymore. Oh, isn't that was what those studies were all about - explaining why wives don't want sex anymore, leaving their husband sex-deprived?
It's grunge work, day-in day-out, reminding ourselves every day, that we have to work at it, to make a relationship work; that we have to look at not just the things that annoy, but the things that make us laugh too. I'm past that seven-year-itch thing, now that we're married for some 13 years now. I don't think I'm capable of extra-marital affairs. It could probably be fun, but I know it's wrong. There's certain comfort factor, knowing the exact daily pattern of married life. On the other hand, sometimes I do miss that electric moments that come with romantic love, even though I've come to accept it that, they should be left to the young to experience. (I probably have more than my fair share of that when I was younger, already.)
Coming back to that movie, I don't consider the ending as a happy one, in hindsight. If the two leads would revive their romantic love, and continue to nurture in their dreams, while going separate ways to their own lives, that forbidden love would have been so much more satisfying, even though it's not "happy," in the eyes of Hollywood movies. A forbidden love ending would probably be more befitting for a British movie (with a more emotionally repressed audience). For Hollywood movies, that would rarely do. Pity.
Friday, April 9, 2010
On more girls/women beocming lesbian or bisexual...
I normally consider myself fairly open-minded. I'm not partisan to party lines to particular political parties that Dem or GOP would like to see us voters to be like.
On the other hand, you might considered me old-fashioned, puritan even. I find it almost distressing, to see the de-sensitization of sex and violence in modern-day culture, in particular, the younger generations (and they're getting exposed to such culture younger in successive generations). Add to that is the growing acceptance of homosexuality as the norm, rather than exception, in society.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against gays or lesbians at all. I do believe that there are people who are born that way, and should be respected in their own right. But I find it hard to accept homosexuality is an "acquired taste" or lifestyle. Such is the push of the idea, by a psychologist no less. Couple of things get me quite peeved:
But this psychologist failed to address the other big part of the equations: If girls turn to girls as an acquired taste, why are more boys/men found to be gay these days? As the arguments goes, according to this author, men are pigs, and they must be turning to their own kind for sex. Is that really the case? There might be some truth in it, but I have much doubts that online porn is turning boys into homosexuals.
A larger question remains: If there's an ounce of truth in all these, can the trend be reversed? What can we do, as individuals, as parents, as society? I don't find any discussions or debates on this, which I guess, is due to the highly political incorrectness of it. Just discussing this would imply that homosexuality is undesirable, and that seems to be the "wrong" thing to say. But to me, it is, in certain way, and we must have the courage to say it.
PS: It's funny too, that sexuality like homosexuality, is almost a forbidden subject in both the East and West. Asian countries don't talk about it, because they pretend it doesn't exist, and maybe by ignoring it, they hope it'll just go away. Western countries don't talk about it the way they should, because they've come to "accept" that it's an accepted practice, that they consider it wrong to discuss anything otherwise. Why can't we find some middle ground, so that the issue can be discussed more rationally?
On the other hand, you might considered me old-fashioned, puritan even. I find it almost distressing, to see the de-sensitization of sex and violence in modern-day culture, in particular, the younger generations (and they're getting exposed to such culture younger in successive generations). Add to that is the growing acceptance of homosexuality as the norm, rather than exception, in society.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against gays or lesbians at all. I do believe that there are people who are born that way, and should be respected in their own right. But I find it hard to accept homosexuality is an "acquired taste" or lifestyle. Such is the push of the idea, by a psychologist no less. Couple of things get me quite peeved:
- This psychologist/author claimed that he interviewed many young girls who claim that they're not really lesbians, but are really doing it (eg. girl kissing girl) to turn guys on. He rejects their claim that they're not lesbians, because maybe they just don't know they are lesbians, just by kissing other girls and liking it. Is that really so?
- He also claimed that girls are turning to other girls for comforts, because guys are pigs. And guys are pigs because of the ease of access to online porn to young boys/men. I would give it credit that there's some truth in this. But does this justify girls or women to choose to become lesbians? If such is the case, that this is a behavioral change, because nice men are just in such short supply, that girls are dropping boys in favor of their own sex, does it mean that if the men/porn trend is reversed, these girls and women who have turned to lesbianism for comfort, are going to rejoin the heterosexual cohorts?
- If this is the case, the argument would go, that countries like China where online porn is strictly forbidden, should be applauded for their attempts to heavily regulate such undesirable consequences. The fact that western countries are going against it, all in the name of "freedom of press," makes me cringe. As an individual, I would draw the line to forfeit certain "freedom," in order to see these regulated, in order to bring things back in line (or back to "normal," like the olden days, perhaps?). Is this too much to ask for?
But this psychologist failed to address the other big part of the equations: If girls turn to girls as an acquired taste, why are more boys/men found to be gay these days? As the arguments goes, according to this author, men are pigs, and they must be turning to their own kind for sex. Is that really the case? There might be some truth in it, but I have much doubts that online porn is turning boys into homosexuals.
A larger question remains: If there's an ounce of truth in all these, can the trend be reversed? What can we do, as individuals, as parents, as society? I don't find any discussions or debates on this, which I guess, is due to the highly political incorrectness of it. Just discussing this would imply that homosexuality is undesirable, and that seems to be the "wrong" thing to say. But to me, it is, in certain way, and we must have the courage to say it.
PS: It's funny too, that sexuality like homosexuality, is almost a forbidden subject in both the East and West. Asian countries don't talk about it, because they pretend it doesn't exist, and maybe by ignoring it, they hope it'll just go away. Western countries don't talk about it the way they should, because they've come to "accept" that it's an accepted practice, that they consider it wrong to discuss anything otherwise. Why can't we find some middle ground, so that the issue can be discussed more rationally?
Friday, April 2, 2010
On Fannie/Freddie's debts not sovereign debts...
I was reading Wall Street Journal (WSJ) today on Tim Geithner's comments, that Fannie, Freddie's debt isn't sovereign debts. I was thinking out loud, on the kind of voodoo that economists, or politicians, still practice. Maybe Geithner, the embattled Treasury Secretary, thinks that, by repeating something untrue often enough, people will accept it as truth. How would anyone thinks that, underwriting someone's debts is not the same as taking the debts on, should s/he defaults, is simply beyond me. Even my 7-year-old understands that to be the same thing.
Well, it's too bad for him, because that won't happen. That's even more so, with an audience like the WSJ crowd, as evident in the readers' comments on the news report, that almost every single one of them regards Geithner's comments as all BS.
I don't think Geithner is a stupid man, and I have no doubt that he knows he's going to get deep-fried for coming out in front of the crowds, double-talking like that. But when you are charged to do the impossible, all one can do is to try to keep a straight face while lying through one's teeth. Regardless, it's truly shameful.
Well, it's too bad for him, because that won't happen. That's even more so, with an audience like the WSJ crowd, as evident in the readers' comments on the news report, that almost every single one of them regards Geithner's comments as all BS.
I don't think Geithner is a stupid man, and I have no doubt that he knows he's going to get deep-fried for coming out in front of the crowds, double-talking like that. But when you are charged to do the impossible, all one can do is to try to keep a straight face while lying through one's teeth. Regardless, it's truly shameful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)