This past year is rather emotionally exhausting. So much so that there were days I didn't even want to read news. Worse still, countries (not only US, but other countries like UK, China, Middle East) have taken an almost predictable, if undesirable, path. Income inequality and wealth gap continue to deteriorate. Nativism, and in some corners, fascism, are on the rise. Ruling classes do not take care of the people, and the people are redirected to blame something/someone else, be it immigrants, or border control. I've even heard some religious friends exclaiming that this would be how end of the world would look like.
I'm not feeling too good about it all. There's no comfort in rehashing 2016, perhaps it's better to just forget about 2016, and look ahead to 2017 instead.
Let's just move on. New job starting, new venture taking shape, it's certainly time to move on...
Saturday, December 31, 2016
On the Donald Trump presidency, Hillary Clinton's losing, et al...
I'm still too emotionally exhausted to talk about the 2016 presidential election.
I had expected Hillary Clinton to win, although I never really believe in the wide margin that so much of the main media had believed she would win. I thought she would win, but only by small margin, so that she would not and could not claim a clear mandate to rule in the next four years. And I had expected the House and Senate would go to GOP. That would have been the "usual" path, for the electorate's desire to split the White House and the Congress. I can feel it, even though I live in a solidly blue state in New England.
But, that was not meant to be.
HRC lost, and by such wide margin in electoral vote that her campaign didn't even bother to ask for a recount (even though that joke of a task went to Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate whose campaign did not even warrant a footnote to this election, except with its claim of wanting to launch recount lawsuit in multiple states, raising millions of dollars from people in the pursuit. Now that the court has shut down all her request, and all electoral voters had voted accordingly, I wonder what's going to happen to those millions of dollars that Stein raised but was never used?
In the parlance of electoral system, it matters not that HRC has won the popular votes. In the land of United States, popular votes never really count for much, even though HRC has won by the widest margin in popular vote historically.
One can only say, this was an election that Hillary Clinton lost, it's not an election that Donald Trump won. The HRC camp has since blamed her loss on the FBI debacle and its director, James Comey, in the back-and-forthing about the email server scandals that HRC has no one to blame but herself in the sloppy handling of sensitive government emails. She and Obama have also blamed in on the Russian meddling via cyberhacks that have likely led to the leaking of John Podesta's emails, among other things, to WikiLeaks and the press.
But no, those are just white noise. To the extent that these incidences have done, they only serve to reinforce what voters' belief, one way or the other. Even without all these leaks, Trump and GOP supporters have chanted Crooked Hillary, complete with bumper-stickers long before the Comey debacle and Russian meddling.
Hillary Clinton lost because she ran a lackluster campaign. What does We Are Stronger Together, the HRC slogan, really mean anyways? When people, particularly the struggling working class, have no food on the table or money in the bank, they want to talk about the economy, and they want to talk about jobs. Instead, HRC and Democrats want to talk about gay marriage and LGBTQ rights, they want to ensure protection to illegal migrants, they want to advance further the liberal agenda, but nary a mention of the bread-and-butter issue of the economy and jobs. Obama kept reminding voters how much US economy has come back, from the abyss in the depth of 2008. If the stock market is any indication, Obama could well be true. But it's universal knowledge (and acknowledgement) that the income inequality and wealth gap can render an "economic recovery" a totally different view for someone who is moving ahead, and those who lost their jobs, livelihood and were left behind. Belatedly, HRC came to acknowledge the devastating effects of NAFTA, the trade deal that her husband had championed and which she supported...until she's not. She and Obama are tone deaf enough to tell those struggling coal miners that she's going to close all the coal mines, and chanted "those [manufacturing] jobs are not coming back!" While that is likely to be reality, you won't win any votes by feeding voters tough medicine like that. Meantime, Obama and preceding governments kept reciting the same lines to younger generations that they need to get a college education in order to compete. So many young adults have heeded the call, borrowed heavily to go back to college (even if it's some literal arts bullshit degree with no job prospect in some for-profit no-name schools), just to realize that there's no job waiting for them upon graduation, all while they are saddled with huge student debts that will follow them for life.
Meanwhile, Trump's message was simple. He says he would bring the jobs back. How, he didn't say. Whether he can do it, most people have doubts. No matter, it's a message that insecure voters want to hear. Meantime, he says he'll build a wall along Mexico border to keep illegals out, and make Mexico pay for it. He says he'll ban Muslims coming to this country too. Whether he will do it, it's highly unlikely. No matter, it's something nervous voters feel good hearing it, even though they know very well that it's unrealistic. He says he'll drain the swamp, so to speak. How would he do it, he wouldn't say either. The list goes on and on and on.
But as one of The Atlantic reporters had it exactly right: Main media takes Trump literally, but not seriously. Voters [his supporters] take him seriously, but not literally.
Main media had their field day almost everyday chronicling Trump's supposed gaffe, which to other mere mortals, would have sunk a campaign long ago. But Trump trumps even the ultimate teflon kid (Bill Clinton), and nothing seems to stick. In fact, people have come to expect this kind of gaffe from Trump, to the point of entertainment. He bumps up TV ratings when he's on a show, he lit up Twitter, he generates tons of clicks.
Since the November defeat, Bill Clinton has come out publicly to lament that HRC campaign staffers ignored his plea that they needed to focus on economy issue, and that they should not write off the white working-class voters. Afterall this was one voting bloc that had voted for him not once, but twice. Joe Biden had lamented that Dems seem to have given up on the solid white working-class voters as has-beens, and chooses to chase the unicorn voting coalition of young voters, hispanics, blacks, educated classes, and a combination of voter blocs that Obama had garnered in 2008. Too bad that the young voters prefer Bernie Sanders, the blacks feel let down by the first black president, and the hispanics...well, they are just not that big a voting bloc afterall. Feminists from the 1960s looove HRC, women voters these days don't feel that kind of affinity to a candidate just because of her gender.
Looking back, perhaps the biggest mistake of Dems was that, in the rush to try to make history (from putting the first black president in office, to wanting to put the first female president in office too), they had simply believed that "it's time," "it's her turn." Although I have no doubt she would be a solid leader, she had failed in pushing for a compelling vision of where she wants to lead the country to. I'm sorry, but maintaining the status quo and legacy from Obama is not a "vision." Voters do not need just a caretaker in the White House, they need a true leader. It matters not that Trump is hardly one to claim that title, but he certainly promotes himself well, like a peacock.
As much as I hate to say it, I do believe that, had Joe Biden been on top of the ticket, he would have won. Biden has always been able to connect to working class voters in a way that HRC had never been able to do.
I don't know what's going to happen in the next four years. Judged from the way Trump has handled the transition of government, prognosis is not good. This is a guy who would dole out cabinet positions to his rich buddies like candies, openly criticizes an outgoing president of his policy, fragrantly ignores technocrats and diplomatic protocols in maintaining government policies and positions, and refuses to acknowledge the very many potential conflicts of interests. That list goes on and on and on as well.
Long story short, Trump is the manchurian candidate that everyone has so worried about. Given the full GOP control of the Congress, what would become of this country...
I had expected Hillary Clinton to win, although I never really believe in the wide margin that so much of the main media had believed she would win. I thought she would win, but only by small margin, so that she would not and could not claim a clear mandate to rule in the next four years. And I had expected the House and Senate would go to GOP. That would have been the "usual" path, for the electorate's desire to split the White House and the Congress. I can feel it, even though I live in a solidly blue state in New England.
But, that was not meant to be.
HRC lost, and by such wide margin in electoral vote that her campaign didn't even bother to ask for a recount (even though that joke of a task went to Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate whose campaign did not even warrant a footnote to this election, except with its claim of wanting to launch recount lawsuit in multiple states, raising millions of dollars from people in the pursuit. Now that the court has shut down all her request, and all electoral voters had voted accordingly, I wonder what's going to happen to those millions of dollars that Stein raised but was never used?
In the parlance of electoral system, it matters not that HRC has won the popular votes. In the land of United States, popular votes never really count for much, even though HRC has won by the widest margin in popular vote historically.
One can only say, this was an election that Hillary Clinton lost, it's not an election that Donald Trump won. The HRC camp has since blamed her loss on the FBI debacle and its director, James Comey, in the back-and-forthing about the email server scandals that HRC has no one to blame but herself in the sloppy handling of sensitive government emails. She and Obama have also blamed in on the Russian meddling via cyberhacks that have likely led to the leaking of John Podesta's emails, among other things, to WikiLeaks and the press.
But no, those are just white noise. To the extent that these incidences have done, they only serve to reinforce what voters' belief, one way or the other. Even without all these leaks, Trump and GOP supporters have chanted Crooked Hillary, complete with bumper-stickers long before the Comey debacle and Russian meddling.
Hillary Clinton lost because she ran a lackluster campaign. What does We Are Stronger Together, the HRC slogan, really mean anyways? When people, particularly the struggling working class, have no food on the table or money in the bank, they want to talk about the economy, and they want to talk about jobs. Instead, HRC and Democrats want to talk about gay marriage and LGBTQ rights, they want to ensure protection to illegal migrants, they want to advance further the liberal agenda, but nary a mention of the bread-and-butter issue of the economy and jobs. Obama kept reminding voters how much US economy has come back, from the abyss in the depth of 2008. If the stock market is any indication, Obama could well be true. But it's universal knowledge (and acknowledgement) that the income inequality and wealth gap can render an "economic recovery" a totally different view for someone who is moving ahead, and those who lost their jobs, livelihood and were left behind. Belatedly, HRC came to acknowledge the devastating effects of NAFTA, the trade deal that her husband had championed and which she supported...until she's not. She and Obama are tone deaf enough to tell those struggling coal miners that she's going to close all the coal mines, and chanted "those [manufacturing] jobs are not coming back!" While that is likely to be reality, you won't win any votes by feeding voters tough medicine like that. Meantime, Obama and preceding governments kept reciting the same lines to younger generations that they need to get a college education in order to compete. So many young adults have heeded the call, borrowed heavily to go back to college (even if it's some literal arts bullshit degree with no job prospect in some for-profit no-name schools), just to realize that there's no job waiting for them upon graduation, all while they are saddled with huge student debts that will follow them for life.
Meanwhile, Trump's message was simple. He says he would bring the jobs back. How, he didn't say. Whether he can do it, most people have doubts. No matter, it's a message that insecure voters want to hear. Meantime, he says he'll build a wall along Mexico border to keep illegals out, and make Mexico pay for it. He says he'll ban Muslims coming to this country too. Whether he will do it, it's highly unlikely. No matter, it's something nervous voters feel good hearing it, even though they know very well that it's unrealistic. He says he'll drain the swamp, so to speak. How would he do it, he wouldn't say either. The list goes on and on and on.
But as one of The Atlantic reporters had it exactly right: Main media takes Trump literally, but not seriously. Voters [his supporters] take him seriously, but not literally.
Main media had their field day almost everyday chronicling Trump's supposed gaffe, which to other mere mortals, would have sunk a campaign long ago. But Trump trumps even the ultimate teflon kid (Bill Clinton), and nothing seems to stick. In fact, people have come to expect this kind of gaffe from Trump, to the point of entertainment. He bumps up TV ratings when he's on a show, he lit up Twitter, he generates tons of clicks.
Since the November defeat, Bill Clinton has come out publicly to lament that HRC campaign staffers ignored his plea that they needed to focus on economy issue, and that they should not write off the white working-class voters. Afterall this was one voting bloc that had voted for him not once, but twice. Joe Biden had lamented that Dems seem to have given up on the solid white working-class voters as has-beens, and chooses to chase the unicorn voting coalition of young voters, hispanics, blacks, educated classes, and a combination of voter blocs that Obama had garnered in 2008. Too bad that the young voters prefer Bernie Sanders, the blacks feel let down by the first black president, and the hispanics...well, they are just not that big a voting bloc afterall. Feminists from the 1960s looove HRC, women voters these days don't feel that kind of affinity to a candidate just because of her gender.
Looking back, perhaps the biggest mistake of Dems was that, in the rush to try to make history (from putting the first black president in office, to wanting to put the first female president in office too), they had simply believed that "it's time," "it's her turn." Although I have no doubt she would be a solid leader, she had failed in pushing for a compelling vision of where she wants to lead the country to. I'm sorry, but maintaining the status quo and legacy from Obama is not a "vision." Voters do not need just a caretaker in the White House, they need a true leader. It matters not that Trump is hardly one to claim that title, but he certainly promotes himself well, like a peacock.
As much as I hate to say it, I do believe that, had Joe Biden been on top of the ticket, he would have won. Biden has always been able to connect to working class voters in a way that HRC had never been able to do.
I don't know what's going to happen in the next four years. Judged from the way Trump has handled the transition of government, prognosis is not good. This is a guy who would dole out cabinet positions to his rich buddies like candies, openly criticizes an outgoing president of his policy, fragrantly ignores technocrats and diplomatic protocols in maintaining government policies and positions, and refuses to acknowledge the very many potential conflicts of interests. That list goes on and on and on as well.
Long story short, Trump is the manchurian candidate that everyone has so worried about. Given the full GOP control of the Congress, what would become of this country...
Thursday, October 13, 2016
On the implosion of Donald Trump...
I haven't written on my journal for a while. Spring/summer travel, the works. There have been so much going on that I wish I have more time to jog down my thoughts on each of them. There were the refugee crisis in Europe, the on-going destruction in Middle East (flavor-of-the-month being Syria, of course), bomb and terrorist attacks in various European countries, Brexit, and to cap it all, the presidential election. Boy, that's quite a mouthful just to enumerate them.
Let's take the presidential election in US.
Surely it hasn't been this "entertaining" for the longest time, with plots thickened by the day, that it's becoming like the reality version of House Of Cards. But of course, there's nothing funny or amusing about it since the stake is so high. Whoever gets to the White House is going to almost dictate the direction of where the country (and by proxy, the rest of the world) goes for the next four years, and with the appointment of Supreme Court appointments at stake, the larger impact of the presidency would be felt in at least the next three to four decades to come.
I generally don't vote for anyone just because a candidate share the same gender as I do, although one can hardly deny the very powerful symbolic notion of the first female president, holding court in the most powerful office in the world. It's about damn time, one could say. But no, Hillary Clinton (HRC) has not had my votes by default. I have to admit, she has earned it, fair and square, through decades of dedication that work toward the largely same goals through public service, sans the time she's private practice, I suppose. Although I don't agree totally with the liberal agenda, the general directions that she has laid out are ok (or at least better than what Donald Trump has propositioned). Yet, I would not have wanted to see the near amnesty of illegals in the country, nor take-your-pick-in-gender fights where one can essentially choose whatever gender one wants, or the push of trade deals that imperils the working class in US (case in point being NAFTA).
When one looks at the other alternatives to HRC, she instantly looks more electable. I won't take Jill Stein (Green Party) or Gary Johnson (Libertarian) seriously. I was particularly unimpressed by one interview I heard Stein on the radio where she was asked whether she would admit she's wrong in supporting the anti-vaccination movement back then, even after the myth was totally debunked without any scientific proof. Without much of an admission of guilt, all she could muster in response was, trust me, I'm a doctor. I'm, like, really? So what if she's a medical doctor when she couldn't even look at scientific data in the eyes and face the facts.
As to Gary Johnson, there's nothing more to be said. The guy self-implodes the moment he half-admitted that he didn't even know what Aleppo is when it's all over the news about Syria. That says so much about his narrow worldview as a libertarian, no doubt.
And then, there is Donald Trump. Watching the love-hate relationship between Trump and GOP establishment during the primary season was priceless. We know now, that the ostrich approach didn't work out so well. Without so much of any effective rebuttal from GOP establishment and leaders, Trump goud each candidates, devours them one after another. All the while, GOP grassroots and core supporters egg him on. And why not? Trump is the ultimately protest choice of the GOP grassroot supporters, the largely white working class, particularly men, who have been left behind in economy. They were the ones who were fed the red meat rhetoric about liberal conspiracy whenever things don't go right, so that they would not have time to look closely at what their own party has done for them. After more than two decades of wool over eyes, they look to have finally wise up and opt for someone like Trump who is totally outside of the system, totally unconventional, and who also totally turns off the GOP establishment. So much the better. It doesn't matter if he's crass, or bigotry, or petty, or ignorant. In Trump, these voters see themselves in him, only with more money.
I won't even bother with all those stupid back-and-forthing about email server issue of HRC (extremely careless but no crime) or even Bill Clinton's infidelity issue (as if a husband's philandering is the fault of the wife, ah!), or how HRC might have acted dismissive toward those other women. I'm pretty sure no one in GOP, or in Trump's campaign, cares to ask opinion of any woman of how they might feel if they were in the shoes of HRC during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. If they have asked me, I would have told them I would probably have reacted the same way as HRC. Before the proof, no wife would want to believe in the betrayal. Afterall, Lewinsky did do her best in seducing a very married man. Him philandering, no question about it. But it takes two to tango, and Lewinsky was just as sinful as Bill Clinton did. Was that something that can be blame on the wife (HRC)? No.
But, we all knew of those incidents years ago now. The public, and GOP, has had more than thirty years of continuous vetting of the Clintons. GOP and Trump are just wasting their breath, and every voter's time, in diverting the attention from the real issues that this election really should have focused on.
Trump, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. He's an unknown entity. Bit by bit, things came out. Trump cast himself as the successful billionaire who can use his business experience to run the country. And then, news came out that he really isn't as successful as he claims to be, with reports that he didn't pay his bills or his workers, and even evaded taxes for years using huge losses accumulated on papers. No matter, he's shameless enough to grab the megaphone to claim him to be smarter than thou, that if he can game the system (or you) and you don't, it's your fault, not his. Just one month from election day, the revelation came, in the form of lewd conversations of Trump talking casually about groping women, all recorded on tape for the world to see. More women came forth with accusations against Trump, even though most were from years ago. Trump campaign tried desperately to duck, deflate and counter-attack HRC, dismissing the talks (as "locker room banter"), dismissing the women and their credibility, even threatening libel lawsuit. Perhaps this is the final straw for those like Paul Ryan who reluctantly walked with Trump, but finally had ammo to proudly claim he's breaking from him for good.
It sure is highly entertaining. All that HRC has to do, is to tread lightly, and watch Trump implodes. That said, I highly doubt that HRC would win with as big a margin as one would have claimed to be a mandate for her ultimate presidency. It's highly likely that she would end up follow Obama's footsteps, having to prove his worth with a two-term presidency, a re-election, turning around the economy, tackling intractable issues like pushing for climate change, and even introducing a flawed health bill that we now know it as ObamaCare. Still, a good half of the nation's voters would not go with Obama. I'd bet, it'll be the same pattern for HRC, even if she wins.
No matter, we can never please everyone, so we might as well push ahead whatever way we see fit. I hope HRC takes that path.
I won't even contemplate Trump winning. :)
Let's take the presidential election in US.
Surely it hasn't been this "entertaining" for the longest time, with plots thickened by the day, that it's becoming like the reality version of House Of Cards. But of course, there's nothing funny or amusing about it since the stake is so high. Whoever gets to the White House is going to almost dictate the direction of where the country (and by proxy, the rest of the world) goes for the next four years, and with the appointment of Supreme Court appointments at stake, the larger impact of the presidency would be felt in at least the next three to four decades to come.
I generally don't vote for anyone just because a candidate share the same gender as I do, although one can hardly deny the very powerful symbolic notion of the first female president, holding court in the most powerful office in the world. It's about damn time, one could say. But no, Hillary Clinton (HRC) has not had my votes by default. I have to admit, she has earned it, fair and square, through decades of dedication that work toward the largely same goals through public service, sans the time she's private practice, I suppose. Although I don't agree totally with the liberal agenda, the general directions that she has laid out are ok (or at least better than what Donald Trump has propositioned). Yet, I would not have wanted to see the near amnesty of illegals in the country, nor take-your-pick-in-gender fights where one can essentially choose whatever gender one wants, or the push of trade deals that imperils the working class in US (case in point being NAFTA).
When one looks at the other alternatives to HRC, she instantly looks more electable. I won't take Jill Stein (Green Party) or Gary Johnson (Libertarian) seriously. I was particularly unimpressed by one interview I heard Stein on the radio where she was asked whether she would admit she's wrong in supporting the anti-vaccination movement back then, even after the myth was totally debunked without any scientific proof. Without much of an admission of guilt, all she could muster in response was, trust me, I'm a doctor. I'm, like, really? So what if she's a medical doctor when she couldn't even look at scientific data in the eyes and face the facts.
As to Gary Johnson, there's nothing more to be said. The guy self-implodes the moment he half-admitted that he didn't even know what Aleppo is when it's all over the news about Syria. That says so much about his narrow worldview as a libertarian, no doubt.
And then, there is Donald Trump. Watching the love-hate relationship between Trump and GOP establishment during the primary season was priceless. We know now, that the ostrich approach didn't work out so well. Without so much of any effective rebuttal from GOP establishment and leaders, Trump goud each candidates, devours them one after another. All the while, GOP grassroots and core supporters egg him on. And why not? Trump is the ultimately protest choice of the GOP grassroot supporters, the largely white working class, particularly men, who have been left behind in economy. They were the ones who were fed the red meat rhetoric about liberal conspiracy whenever things don't go right, so that they would not have time to look closely at what their own party has done for them. After more than two decades of wool over eyes, they look to have finally wise up and opt for someone like Trump who is totally outside of the system, totally unconventional, and who also totally turns off the GOP establishment. So much the better. It doesn't matter if he's crass, or bigotry, or petty, or ignorant. In Trump, these voters see themselves in him, only with more money.
I won't even bother with all those stupid back-and-forthing about email server issue of HRC (extremely careless but no crime) or even Bill Clinton's infidelity issue (as if a husband's philandering is the fault of the wife, ah!), or how HRC might have acted dismissive toward those other women. I'm pretty sure no one in GOP, or in Trump's campaign, cares to ask opinion of any woman of how they might feel if they were in the shoes of HRC during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. If they have asked me, I would have told them I would probably have reacted the same way as HRC. Before the proof, no wife would want to believe in the betrayal. Afterall, Lewinsky did do her best in seducing a very married man. Him philandering, no question about it. But it takes two to tango, and Lewinsky was just as sinful as Bill Clinton did. Was that something that can be blame on the wife (HRC)? No.
But, we all knew of those incidents years ago now. The public, and GOP, has had more than thirty years of continuous vetting of the Clintons. GOP and Trump are just wasting their breath, and every voter's time, in diverting the attention from the real issues that this election really should have focused on.
Trump, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. He's an unknown entity. Bit by bit, things came out. Trump cast himself as the successful billionaire who can use his business experience to run the country. And then, news came out that he really isn't as successful as he claims to be, with reports that he didn't pay his bills or his workers, and even evaded taxes for years using huge losses accumulated on papers. No matter, he's shameless enough to grab the megaphone to claim him to be smarter than thou, that if he can game the system (or you) and you don't, it's your fault, not his. Just one month from election day, the revelation came, in the form of lewd conversations of Trump talking casually about groping women, all recorded on tape for the world to see. More women came forth with accusations against Trump, even though most were from years ago. Trump campaign tried desperately to duck, deflate and counter-attack HRC, dismissing the talks (as "locker room banter"), dismissing the women and their credibility, even threatening libel lawsuit. Perhaps this is the final straw for those like Paul Ryan who reluctantly walked with Trump, but finally had ammo to proudly claim he's breaking from him for good.
It sure is highly entertaining. All that HRC has to do, is to tread lightly, and watch Trump implodes. That said, I highly doubt that HRC would win with as big a margin as one would have claimed to be a mandate for her ultimate presidency. It's highly likely that she would end up follow Obama's footsteps, having to prove his worth with a two-term presidency, a re-election, turning around the economy, tackling intractable issues like pushing for climate change, and even introducing a flawed health bill that we now know it as ObamaCare. Still, a good half of the nation's voters would not go with Obama. I'd bet, it'll be the same pattern for HRC, even if she wins.
No matter, we can never please everyone, so we might as well push ahead whatever way we see fit. I hope HRC takes that path.
I won't even contemplate Trump winning. :)
Sunday, June 26, 2016
On my support for Brexit and its win in referendum...
I haven't been writing in my journal for a few months now. Too busy with other things, I guess, or maybe there's just too much same-old-same-old. There were however a few things worthy to note, one of which is the rout within the GOP after Donald Trump won the de facto nomination (which is worthy to note in another post), but the more recent one was the Brexit vote on June 23, in which Britain has voted 52% to 48% in favor of leaving the EU.
It was said that the Brexit vote shows generation divide among young voters (who more strongly favor staying in the EU in general) and old voters (who mostly want UK to stand on its own feet again). There's talk of despair among young voters after they lost the referendum, of fear from uncertainty, of resentment toward the elders who "sold them out," as they call it.
There was also talk of racial bigotry against immigration as it shaped up to be one key issues (inability to control immigration within EU and burdensome regulations from EU), hence the disparage of less affluent, less educated, lower-class voters by those citizens-of-the-world class championed in the City of London where its financial hub thrives, thrashing those who wanted out as anyone who can't handle change or uncertainty or competition.
The intense campaigning and drumbeat of the Brexit referendum from the Remain campaign and the Leave campaign, what with all the misinformation matches those from the Trump campaign. Both sides are to blame in the playing up of the element fear, of uncertainty.
In the Remain campaign, David Cameron, the PM who resigned the next day after losing the Brexit vote, and all business elites worked incredibly hard as trumpeting the call of mass exodus of jobs and business headquarters and financial services out of UK and London to the continent. For a while, I almost thought that worked for them; afterall, Cameron used the very same tactics during Scotland referendum for independence in 2014. History would not repeat itself with the mainland, and it goes to show the Englishmen prefer pride and independence more so than the Highlanders.
On the other side of the fence, the Leave campaign played up the element of fear from a different vantage point. There is the uncontrolled immigration primarily from eastern European countries who are free to come to UK to work, enjoy its healthcare and welfare system, pushing down wages with intense competition for low-end jobs, all of which UK cannot say no because they are part of one big happy (not) family within the EU. Even the debunked euro-myth of EU regulations governing the shape of bananas sold is still much cited by by the Leave campaigners, including the ex-London Mayor, Boris Johnson. While the banana regulation might not be true, there are plenty other regulations in all shapes and forms across all industries to pick on. While they might not be worthy for news headline, anyone who finds Brussels overbearing will not have a hard time finding something to chew on.
There is much parallels between the steady-hand campaign message from Hillary Clinton, and the upstart, rock the boat messages (for better or worse) from Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in this very season of primaries season on this side of the Atlantic. Clinton mirrors (and supports) the Remain campaign, Trump bleats about the Brexit vote that Leave won. The underlying current, voter angst and distrust of anything that establishment told them, is very real. It didn't help that the chiming in by other foreign dignitaries, including Obama and Merkel and Juncker (as if UK voters care about what Juncker had to say), essentially telling UK voters to not do the stupid thing (ie. to vote to leave EU), akin to very stern talking down to them like little school children by their principal. Even my kids would tell me, long before the vote, that the approach will not work. It didn't.
So now, after the Brexit vote, Cameron is out with more carnage to come. The one person who should be running scare right now, should be Hillary Clinton. But...I'm digressing.
Why do young voters, those under 35 in general, were so scare? It's indeed conceivable for much of their apprehension. Afterall they had born into this world, knowing nothing about Britain being its own country, when all they know in their life is UK being part of EU. Indeed it would be hard for them to fathom a time when their country had been standing all alone when the Nazis came marching across the continent, and all those countries in the continent were dropping like flies. The Brits were tough, and they were blessed with visionary leaders like Winston Churchill who had the wisdom and toughness to stand against the wind.
In modern times, the marching does not come with guns and weaponry, but with trade and dollar bills. While I don't want to thrash the younger generations to be as weak as the Vichy government back in WWII days whose job in collaborating with the occupied force of Nazis, there is much parallel in that. All it takes, is to wave "a good life" in front of time, and their knees would turn to mush. In modern times, these younger folks would cloak that in another euphemism called inclusion, or progressiveness, or pan-internationalism, or liberalism, whatever. No matter, the result is the same, which is that they are all too ready to give up sovereignty and self-control for a better life, an easier life.
So, why do I support Brexit?
I've supported Thatcher back then with keeping GBP alive, even if UK opted to join EC (the precursor of EU). Ease of bilateral trade can indeed be beneficial to everyone. I worked in the financial sector at the time when Euro was rolled out in 2000, and I never understood. (Well, of course I could certainly hear all the "benefits" from the Euro camp, but I was never convinced or sold on how ECB can manage a single currency for so many countries, even with the disparity back then between the economic fortunes for the smaller eurozone was substantial less than what it is today.) At least with GBP still alive, Bank of England can effect some change to its economic fate in terms of fiscal and monetary policy. Without GBP? Well, you need to look no further than Greece, and the deep shit it's in. Enough said.
I have always considered free movement of all EU citizens to all EU countries to be possible only if these countries are largely on the same boat, with similar economic fortunes. That was indeed the case in the earlier days of EC, and then EU. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the break-up of the Soviet Union, all its former communist satellites were let loose. Over the years, western Europe has rushed to embrace these poor cousins, starting with East Germany.
One has to realize, having a meal with someone is not the same as going to bed. What started as a trade bloc and strategic alliance (in the form of NATO) now requires much than just trade agreement or sharing with military secrets, all of which individual countries can choose to do with, or without, because they still retain that modicum of control. When you give up your currency, you give up your ability to control both fiscal and monetary policy. For small countries rushing to join the big boy's league, there might be argument for that; but a country that is more than capable of doing that, why would you give that up? And when free movement suddenly means open border and free for all (including welfare and health care), all while your own citizens are struggling, it all makes so much less sense.
Some would call me ranting and fear-mongering, but is it really? There is even name-calling from younger voters, of how older voters ruining their future. Is that the only future they can envision? (If yes, it'll be the saddest thing of all.) For those young people who says they want to be part of Europe too. What's stopping them? They still can move anywhere of their choosing. Is showing a passport that big of a deal, as compared to giving up their country's fiscal and monetary policy and border control? I would argue that it's not.
Thirty years on, and one global recession (circa 2008) later, we now know the wisdom from Thatcher (even if it's just on GBP alone). Some would call it isolationism, or rolling back the clock in the face of global trade deals like NAFTA. As the young people and working class (both of whom are struggling) in US would attest to it, global trade deals invariably benefit multinational corporations who won't have nary a care about local livelihood or ruined economies because the trade deals allow them to simply move from one country to another after devouring everything from that land. When will the young voters in UK wake up to that? While we're on that, when will Scotland and Northern Ireland (both of whom now want to breakaway from UK to join EU) start to learn something from the unfolding debacles in Greece who is still paying the price to stay in the eurozone, with no end in sight.
By the way, I never see immigration as the main issue for Brexit. I see sovereign control on issues pertinent within its own borders to be of paramount importance. Immigration, if regulated and managed properly, can be a good thing. This should be something that US should learn something about as well, rather than the Democrats (and Obama's) assertion to provide pseudo amnesty to all illegal migrants, just because they manage to cross the borders. If anything, I find that offensive. To me, it has nothing to do with nativism, or racial bigotry.
I do hope Brexit would serve a case study for other countries, not only for those who rush to join trade deals, but also for those who believe being a hanger-on to someone else's coattails is the only way to live and compete with competitors like China.
As to the aftermath of Brexit, EU now wants UK to leave as soon as possible as if contagion will not happen. It only goes to show how out of touch with reality those in Brussels are. Anti-establishment sentiment has been rising substantially in all countries (and not just on the continent due to the refugee/migrant crisis from the Middle East). Even if the exit UK is to complete tomorrow, those parties like Podemos in Spain, or Marine Le Pen in France, and even the Five Star Movement in Italy will accelerate in their rise. While Trump is crass, crude, and at times, even comical, one would be foolish to dismiss him as an also-ran.
I do look forward to a day when Britain would show the world that there is a third way to survive and thrive in this increasingly competitive globalized world. If there is anything that we should learn from Britain (and Churchill), standing all alone in the face of great adversity, with much courage and vision, we should realize that British voters might have once again shown us that that courage and vision. The question now is, do the Brits have another visionary leaders like Churchill to march with them?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I should say though, that one area that Britain would definitely lose out, is the seat at the big boys' table. The Brits have been profoundly apt in playing politics on the world stage. Leaving EU would mean it's vacating its seat on the EU table. I would suspect though, that over time, UK will find its way in again, when Germany needs a more capable ally than France on all EU matters.
It was said that the Brexit vote shows generation divide among young voters (who more strongly favor staying in the EU in general) and old voters (who mostly want UK to stand on its own feet again). There's talk of despair among young voters after they lost the referendum, of fear from uncertainty, of resentment toward the elders who "sold them out," as they call it.
There was also talk of racial bigotry against immigration as it shaped up to be one key issues (inability to control immigration within EU and burdensome regulations from EU), hence the disparage of less affluent, less educated, lower-class voters by those citizens-of-the-world class championed in the City of London where its financial hub thrives, thrashing those who wanted out as anyone who can't handle change or uncertainty or competition.
The intense campaigning and drumbeat of the Brexit referendum from the Remain campaign and the Leave campaign, what with all the misinformation matches those from the Trump campaign. Both sides are to blame in the playing up of the element fear, of uncertainty.
In the Remain campaign, David Cameron, the PM who resigned the next day after losing the Brexit vote, and all business elites worked incredibly hard as trumpeting the call of mass exodus of jobs and business headquarters and financial services out of UK and London to the continent. For a while, I almost thought that worked for them; afterall, Cameron used the very same tactics during Scotland referendum for independence in 2014. History would not repeat itself with the mainland, and it goes to show the Englishmen prefer pride and independence more so than the Highlanders.
On the other side of the fence, the Leave campaign played up the element of fear from a different vantage point. There is the uncontrolled immigration primarily from eastern European countries who are free to come to UK to work, enjoy its healthcare and welfare system, pushing down wages with intense competition for low-end jobs, all of which UK cannot say no because they are part of one big happy (not) family within the EU. Even the debunked euro-myth of EU regulations governing the shape of bananas sold is still much cited by by the Leave campaigners, including the ex-London Mayor, Boris Johnson. While the banana regulation might not be true, there are plenty other regulations in all shapes and forms across all industries to pick on. While they might not be worthy for news headline, anyone who finds Brussels overbearing will not have a hard time finding something to chew on.
There is much parallels between the steady-hand campaign message from Hillary Clinton, and the upstart, rock the boat messages (for better or worse) from Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in this very season of primaries season on this side of the Atlantic. Clinton mirrors (and supports) the Remain campaign, Trump bleats about the Brexit vote that Leave won. The underlying current, voter angst and distrust of anything that establishment told them, is very real. It didn't help that the chiming in by other foreign dignitaries, including Obama and Merkel and Juncker (as if UK voters care about what Juncker had to say), essentially telling UK voters to not do the stupid thing (ie. to vote to leave EU), akin to very stern talking down to them like little school children by their principal. Even my kids would tell me, long before the vote, that the approach will not work. It didn't.
So now, after the Brexit vote, Cameron is out with more carnage to come. The one person who should be running scare right now, should be Hillary Clinton. But...I'm digressing.
Why do young voters, those under 35 in general, were so scare? It's indeed conceivable for much of their apprehension. Afterall they had born into this world, knowing nothing about Britain being its own country, when all they know in their life is UK being part of EU. Indeed it would be hard for them to fathom a time when their country had been standing all alone when the Nazis came marching across the continent, and all those countries in the continent were dropping like flies. The Brits were tough, and they were blessed with visionary leaders like Winston Churchill who had the wisdom and toughness to stand against the wind.
In modern times, the marching does not come with guns and weaponry, but with trade and dollar bills. While I don't want to thrash the younger generations to be as weak as the Vichy government back in WWII days whose job in collaborating with the occupied force of Nazis, there is much parallel in that. All it takes, is to wave "a good life" in front of time, and their knees would turn to mush. In modern times, these younger folks would cloak that in another euphemism called inclusion, or progressiveness, or pan-internationalism, or liberalism, whatever. No matter, the result is the same, which is that they are all too ready to give up sovereignty and self-control for a better life, an easier life.
So, why do I support Brexit?
I've supported Thatcher back then with keeping GBP alive, even if UK opted to join EC (the precursor of EU). Ease of bilateral trade can indeed be beneficial to everyone. I worked in the financial sector at the time when Euro was rolled out in 2000, and I never understood. (Well, of course I could certainly hear all the "benefits" from the Euro camp, but I was never convinced or sold on how ECB can manage a single currency for so many countries, even with the disparity back then between the economic fortunes for the smaller eurozone was substantial less than what it is today.) At least with GBP still alive, Bank of England can effect some change to its economic fate in terms of fiscal and monetary policy. Without GBP? Well, you need to look no further than Greece, and the deep shit it's in. Enough said.
I have always considered free movement of all EU citizens to all EU countries to be possible only if these countries are largely on the same boat, with similar economic fortunes. That was indeed the case in the earlier days of EC, and then EU. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the break-up of the Soviet Union, all its former communist satellites were let loose. Over the years, western Europe has rushed to embrace these poor cousins, starting with East Germany.
One has to realize, having a meal with someone is not the same as going to bed. What started as a trade bloc and strategic alliance (in the form of NATO) now requires much than just trade agreement or sharing with military secrets, all of which individual countries can choose to do with, or without, because they still retain that modicum of control. When you give up your currency, you give up your ability to control both fiscal and monetary policy. For small countries rushing to join the big boy's league, there might be argument for that; but a country that is more than capable of doing that, why would you give that up? And when free movement suddenly means open border and free for all (including welfare and health care), all while your own citizens are struggling, it all makes so much less sense.
Some would call me ranting and fear-mongering, but is it really? There is even name-calling from younger voters, of how older voters ruining their future. Is that the only future they can envision? (If yes, it'll be the saddest thing of all.) For those young people who says they want to be part of Europe too. What's stopping them? They still can move anywhere of their choosing. Is showing a passport that big of a deal, as compared to giving up their country's fiscal and monetary policy and border control? I would argue that it's not.
Thirty years on, and one global recession (circa 2008) later, we now know the wisdom from Thatcher (even if it's just on GBP alone). Some would call it isolationism, or rolling back the clock in the face of global trade deals like NAFTA. As the young people and working class (both of whom are struggling) in US would attest to it, global trade deals invariably benefit multinational corporations who won't have nary a care about local livelihood or ruined economies because the trade deals allow them to simply move from one country to another after devouring everything from that land. When will the young voters in UK wake up to that? While we're on that, when will Scotland and Northern Ireland (both of whom now want to breakaway from UK to join EU) start to learn something from the unfolding debacles in Greece who is still paying the price to stay in the eurozone, with no end in sight.
By the way, I never see immigration as the main issue for Brexit. I see sovereign control on issues pertinent within its own borders to be of paramount importance. Immigration, if regulated and managed properly, can be a good thing. This should be something that US should learn something about as well, rather than the Democrats (and Obama's) assertion to provide pseudo amnesty to all illegal migrants, just because they manage to cross the borders. If anything, I find that offensive. To me, it has nothing to do with nativism, or racial bigotry.
I do hope Brexit would serve a case study for other countries, not only for those who rush to join trade deals, but also for those who believe being a hanger-on to someone else's coattails is the only way to live and compete with competitors like China.
As to the aftermath of Brexit, EU now wants UK to leave as soon as possible as if contagion will not happen. It only goes to show how out of touch with reality those in Brussels are. Anti-establishment sentiment has been rising substantially in all countries (and not just on the continent due to the refugee/migrant crisis from the Middle East). Even if the exit UK is to complete tomorrow, those parties like Podemos in Spain, or Marine Le Pen in France, and even the Five Star Movement in Italy will accelerate in their rise. While Trump is crass, crude, and at times, even comical, one would be foolish to dismiss him as an also-ran.
I do look forward to a day when Britain would show the world that there is a third way to survive and thrive in this increasingly competitive globalized world. If there is anything that we should learn from Britain (and Churchill), standing all alone in the face of great adversity, with much courage and vision, we should realize that British voters might have once again shown us that that courage and vision. The question now is, do the Brits have another visionary leaders like Churchill to march with them?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I should say though, that one area that Britain would definitely lose out, is the seat at the big boys' table. The Brits have been profoundly apt in playing politics on the world stage. Leaving EU would mean it's vacating its seat on the EU table. I would suspect though, that over time, UK will find its way in again, when Germany needs a more capable ally than France on all EU matters.
Sunday, January 3, 2016
On Chinese almanac...
Chinese almanac (通勝) has not crossed my mind for a long time. But when I read the New York Times article about English translated copies of it, it brings back some fond memory of years past.
Before my parents were converted to Christianity, they used to observe traditional rituals rather religiously on every Chinese festivals and important days. We used to live right across a very popular Taoist temple. I liked to sit high up at home watching the faithfuls waiting for the temple gate to open at 6am in the morning, bringing with them food (you have to have whole chicken, with head intact, for offering), incense sticks, candles, paper money etc, all for the temple patron or their ancestors. Some prayed for fortune, others for protection, yet more for predictions. I like the smell of burning, it feels peaceful to me.
Back then, my mom believed in the powers of fortune-telling, though she never exploits it much. All her life, she has only had her fortune told twice, once as a gift from a monk when she was very little after grandma gave the monk some food, the other time was to ask if she should send my brother, her only son, to college overseas. To this day, long after she's taken to Christianity, she still holds the belief that those two fortune-tellers told the truth. (As Christians should not worship idol gods, she has relinquished all those ancestral rituals these days.)
The monk had patted head, and told grandma that if this girl (my mom) were a boy, she would achieve great things. Pity she's a girl, he said. Mom strongly believes it still. And yes, she's a decisive woman, and highly independent in her times. In modern days, she would be called headstrong, even willful, but she's also sensible and practical, though she's quite risk averse. Maybe there's some truth in it.
In the second time, a fortune-teller told my mom, if you sent your son to Canada, you would never see him again; but if you sent him to Australia, he would attract unwanted woman (with a somewhat derogatory term I can't quite find a translation in English). My brother was thus sent to Australia for college and, lo and behold, he was involved with a woman almost ten years older, and they eventually married. Their marriage never gained approval of my parents. To add insult to injury, she has been unable to bear babies. My dad never forgave them for the inability to carry on the bloodline or the family name with offsprings. Oh well, I guess every family has their woes. In any case, that was the last that my mom ever deals with fortune-telling.
One of the things that my mom shows me, was the Chinese almanac (通勝). Its annual prints are a must-have for farmers who rely on it to tell the weather pattern in the coming years, based on the study of the Sun, stars, and constellation. Through five thousand years of study and trial-and-errors, the almost inch-thick booklet does contain quite some wisdom in that regard one would think, although I'm not so sure about the predictions about "this day (whatever date that's marked on the lunar calendar in the almanac) is good for long haul journey" or "wedding" and some such, which sounds more like superstition than anything else to me. A lot of Chinese still adhere to it though, with those days that are marked for weddings would become popular for wedding banquets. Yep, better safe than sorry, as most folks see it.
There is a lot more details contained in a Chinese almanac, some of which are the same in every prints. One of those is a tabular table for 稱骨. In essence, this table helps in measuring a very very broad prediction of your life, fortune-selling for you from an essentially 100,000-feet birds' eye view since your birth. With the input of your birth date (in lunar calendar) and time of birth, you can come up with a number, ranging from 2.2 to 8.1. Each one of which comes with four verses that would describe your life. The heavier you are (ie. the higher the number you get), the more blessed your life is. Supposedly, 8.1 is almost likely to be the emperors, princes and lords, while the 2.2's are for beggars and the very poor (throughout their life).
There you have it, most people's destiny is set right at the time of their birth, although I was once told by someone who has "studied" fortune-telling who says that yes, it's a birds' eye view, but the exact path is not set. That's where other studies come in, like palm reading. And if we care to look, we would see the lines in our palms will continue to change throughout our lifetime. He says, "do you notice your hands are never in "straight" palm position? That's because when your palms are bent, or half-closed, lines continue to form, and change. And that's how you control your life, literally." I heard that when I was very young, but I still find it fascinating, from a philosophical perspective. At least we all have some measure of control over our destiny, rather than deferring to the four verses that describe us (some six billions people on world, no less!) in such broad terms as can be dimmed meaningless. It's however cold comfort for those who are born as a 2.2 and who will never rise too much above their station.
As my mom sees it, her four verses describe her life perfectly. Now that she's pushing 90, it's safe for her to look back and make some tentative conclusion. Essentially, her verses describe her fierce independent spirit, my rough life when she's young, but she'll have a very peaceful and good life as she gets older. Maybe there's some truth in it afterall.
As you can see, there are billions of people on this planet, and for this table to describe anyone with some measures of accuracy, however small they might be, the verses have to be understandably vague, and they have to describe one's whole life. It's no small task.
(I'm not quite that old yet, but when I get to that point, I would probably look back and see the truth in my four verses as well.)
I've often wondered how many people in the younger generations even know their existence or how to use them, even those who grew up within China. How much of these knowledge, even the benefits of knowing about the superstition practiced in generations past, would be lost in the younger generations' relentless push to modernity? Is that a fair price to pay in terms of civilization?
Of one impediment, is the fact that most old manuscripts and prints are in complex Chinese characters which to most, if not all, of those who grew up in China learning only the simplified Chinese characters, would never be able to read or write. Yes, the simplified characters might make it easier to learn and to write, but they would have lost that part of history and traditions since they would never be able to learn. Chinese almanac is always printed in complex Chinese characters, in keeping with traditions, but maybe one solution is to reprint it in simplified characters, much like translated English version. But is it really the same?
It is thus ironic to see the mention of the Chinese almanac, and the translation of it, being made in the western world, in an English medium like New York Times. Would the tradition of one country be preserved by and in a foreign country because its homeland country can't shed those traditions fast enough? From the look of it, it increasingly looks that way.
Before my parents were converted to Christianity, they used to observe traditional rituals rather religiously on every Chinese festivals and important days. We used to live right across a very popular Taoist temple. I liked to sit high up at home watching the faithfuls waiting for the temple gate to open at 6am in the morning, bringing with them food (you have to have whole chicken, with head intact, for offering), incense sticks, candles, paper money etc, all for the temple patron or their ancestors. Some prayed for fortune, others for protection, yet more for predictions. I like the smell of burning, it feels peaceful to me.
Back then, my mom believed in the powers of fortune-telling, though she never exploits it much. All her life, she has only had her fortune told twice, once as a gift from a monk when she was very little after grandma gave the monk some food, the other time was to ask if she should send my brother, her only son, to college overseas. To this day, long after she's taken to Christianity, she still holds the belief that those two fortune-tellers told the truth. (As Christians should not worship idol gods, she has relinquished all those ancestral rituals these days.)
The monk had patted head, and told grandma that if this girl (my mom) were a boy, she would achieve great things. Pity she's a girl, he said. Mom strongly believes it still. And yes, she's a decisive woman, and highly independent in her times. In modern days, she would be called headstrong, even willful, but she's also sensible and practical, though she's quite risk averse. Maybe there's some truth in it.
In the second time, a fortune-teller told my mom, if you sent your son to Canada, you would never see him again; but if you sent him to Australia, he would attract unwanted woman (with a somewhat derogatory term I can't quite find a translation in English). My brother was thus sent to Australia for college and, lo and behold, he was involved with a woman almost ten years older, and they eventually married. Their marriage never gained approval of my parents. To add insult to injury, she has been unable to bear babies. My dad never forgave them for the inability to carry on the bloodline or the family name with offsprings. Oh well, I guess every family has their woes. In any case, that was the last that my mom ever deals with fortune-telling.
One of the things that my mom shows me, was the Chinese almanac (通勝). Its annual prints are a must-have for farmers who rely on it to tell the weather pattern in the coming years, based on the study of the Sun, stars, and constellation. Through five thousand years of study and trial-and-errors, the almost inch-thick booklet does contain quite some wisdom in that regard one would think, although I'm not so sure about the predictions about "this day (whatever date that's marked on the lunar calendar in the almanac) is good for long haul journey" or "wedding" and some such, which sounds more like superstition than anything else to me. A lot of Chinese still adhere to it though, with those days that are marked for weddings would become popular for wedding banquets. Yep, better safe than sorry, as most folks see it.
There is a lot more details contained in a Chinese almanac, some of which are the same in every prints. One of those is a tabular table for 稱骨. In essence, this table helps in measuring a very very broad prediction of your life, fortune-selling for you from an essentially 100,000-feet birds' eye view since your birth. With the input of your birth date (in lunar calendar) and time of birth, you can come up with a number, ranging from 2.2 to 8.1. Each one of which comes with four verses that would describe your life. The heavier you are (ie. the higher the number you get), the more blessed your life is. Supposedly, 8.1 is almost likely to be the emperors, princes and lords, while the 2.2's are for beggars and the very poor (throughout their life).
There you have it, most people's destiny is set right at the time of their birth, although I was once told by someone who has "studied" fortune-telling who says that yes, it's a birds' eye view, but the exact path is not set. That's where other studies come in, like palm reading. And if we care to look, we would see the lines in our palms will continue to change throughout our lifetime. He says, "do you notice your hands are never in "straight" palm position? That's because when your palms are bent, or half-closed, lines continue to form, and change. And that's how you control your life, literally." I heard that when I was very young, but I still find it fascinating, from a philosophical perspective. At least we all have some measure of control over our destiny, rather than deferring to the four verses that describe us (some six billions people on world, no less!) in such broad terms as can be dimmed meaningless. It's however cold comfort for those who are born as a 2.2 and who will never rise too much above their station.
As my mom sees it, her four verses describe her life perfectly. Now that she's pushing 90, it's safe for her to look back and make some tentative conclusion. Essentially, her verses describe her fierce independent spirit, my rough life when she's young, but she'll have a very peaceful and good life as she gets older. Maybe there's some truth in it afterall.
As you can see, there are billions of people on this planet, and for this table to describe anyone with some measures of accuracy, however small they might be, the verses have to be understandably vague, and they have to describe one's whole life. It's no small task.
(I'm not quite that old yet, but when I get to that point, I would probably look back and see the truth in my four verses as well.)
I've often wondered how many people in the younger generations even know their existence or how to use them, even those who grew up within China. How much of these knowledge, even the benefits of knowing about the superstition practiced in generations past, would be lost in the younger generations' relentless push to modernity? Is that a fair price to pay in terms of civilization?
Of one impediment, is the fact that most old manuscripts and prints are in complex Chinese characters which to most, if not all, of those who grew up in China learning only the simplified Chinese characters, would never be able to read or write. Yes, the simplified characters might make it easier to learn and to write, but they would have lost that part of history and traditions since they would never be able to learn. Chinese almanac is always printed in complex Chinese characters, in keeping with traditions, but maybe one solution is to reprint it in simplified characters, much like translated English version. But is it really the same?
It is thus ironic to see the mention of the Chinese almanac, and the translation of it, being made in the western world, in an English medium like New York Times. Would the tradition of one country be preserved by and in a foreign country because its homeland country can't shed those traditions fast enough? From the look of it, it increasingly looks that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)