The other day, I caught up with a parent of one of the kids' classmates, and had a pretty long chat. Incidentally, I read this article too, on the almost politically incorrect parenting, and thought maybe I should jog down a few thoughts in the heat of the moment.
When I was growing up, my dad never raised his voice. While he's a mild-tempered guy, I've always speculated that the main reason is that, he never really has the chance. Not that me and my siblings are bad kids, but my dad has been working 14-16 hours a day, and he probably sees us only on our best behavior. So, he never has the need to raise his voice.
My mom, on the other hand, is a different matter. She's a stay-home mom, taking care of five kids, 24x7, 365 days a year, child-rearing non-stop. In all my childhood, I have only rare memory of playing or chit-chatting with my parents. The oft memory of my parents are their incredible work ethics, because they are always so very hard-working. The waking hours of my mom are all spent tending to us: walking us to/fro school, grocery shopping, cooking, doing dishes, ironing, cleaning, the list goes on. Just talking about the laundry-list of how my mom's day was like is a quite mouthful, that can tire you out already, not to mention actually doing it (as she did back then).
As my mom was also so busy doing chores, she has very little patience for arguments or things that go out-of-line. I'm, by nature, very head-strong and upfront about things. It's only natural that my mom and I have had big fights. When I was younger (probably before 13 or 14), I would get beaten up by mom for not listening to her. As I got older and a bit more mature, I tend to mellow down some, reducing the chance of having fights with her.
I remember I used to get really angry with her after each fight, condemning myself that I must not have been her real daughters, or else she would not have beaten me up like that. Thinking back, it's actually not so bad, since she has a rule, that she would never hit us in the head or body. She never used hard object for beating, opting for those elastic bamboo sticks that most traditional Chinese parents favor. Boy, I can tell you they leave big wedges and hurt like hell; but they don't really leave any scars after a day or two, and they don't leave any permanent damage.
Since I don't like being beaten up, I don't like to hit my kids either. Sure, I would raise my voice, or even yell at them to listen up, I rarely raise my hands. (There were probably couple of times when it has to come down to spanking, but I really hated doing it on my kids.) My husband does not agree with my philosophy. While he himself hates the beating in his childhood, he has come to see that as a useful child-rearing tool, to bring kids back in line. His philosophy almost goes hand-in-hand with what's said in the article. From his perspective, I'm like a toothless tiger (or dog) - it's all bark and no action.
Sometimes I agree with him; sometimes not. He used to wack the kids when they're young and don't listen. These days, the kids are pretty much conditioned to be afraid of him. And all parents know, that fear is a powerful tool. When the kids are scare, you'll get immediate actions, to bring them back in line.
Having said that, I've always had doubts. While effective, is his way (of making the kids afraid of him) the only way of parenting? Naturally not. I've always believed there are other ways and means. Sometimes when I look at other parents in school, particularly alot of American parents, they seem to be so calm and cool, and the kids would listen. I have always wondered how they did it. It's funny that, when I was talking about to that parent in my kids' school, she was wondering out loud of the same puzzlement. She was saying, other Japanese parents really admire the American way.
But then, as we're parents ourselves, we know for a fact that no parent will complete their child-rearing years without raising their voice. This parent I was talking to, she's very mild-mannered and soft-spoken. One would never be able to imagine how she would raise her voice in any foreseeable situations. So, you can imagine how surprised I am, when she confesses to me that she does that so often at home. The main angst came from her youngest child who has developmental delays. While she's very understanding and is learning the rope, patience can wear thin at times. What makes matter worse is that, her husband would question and almost criticize her for yelling. In response, she's telling him, if he would "do something," then maybe she wouldn't need to bear all the brunt to do all the yelling. THEN, maybe he would understand more where she's coming from, of why she's yelling, or feels the need to yell to get some results from the kids.
I guess that's the power of "support group." While I don't regret the way I rear my kids, I have always had wonders, as to how the other parents "did it." Guess what the response from this parent is? She said, "I don't believe it." As she sees it, sure the parents will put on the best behavior and face to it when they're in public. But she does not believe it one bit, that they're always in such good behavior and manner when they're at home, behind closed doors. And you know what, I agree with her.
Not that there's anything good or bad about it. As parents, we do what we can for the kids. I just wish that the kids would not periodically ask me to divorce their father, simply because they're afraid of him, and they don't want to go home when he's around. (Now that they're getting older, they have this concept of divorce already. Have I planted the wrong seeds in their head??)
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
On mental illness in China...
It's heartbreaking reading news in China when innocent school children are hacked by aggrieved and/or individuals with supposedly mentally illness. There's also report of the government's effort to try to brush over the reports.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
News like that bring back some memory of a maternal uncle. I don't know much about him since my parents don't talk about him much. Even as a child, I know that the reason for the hush-hush was due to the fact that he's in a mental asylum, which is one major taboo subject in China. In China and even in Hong Kong, people treat mental patients as if they are invisible in a rather ostrich approach. The idea goes, that if you lock the "problem" away, and if you don't see it, it won't be a problem anymore...not on a daily basis anyways.
From the little that I gather from my mom, my uncle used to be a decorated army officer in China during World War II, and a rising star at that. He's tall (well over 6'1") and strongly built. And then, something happened... This is the part that either no one really knew what happened, or no one wanted to talk about it. I can never get a word from my parents or grandmother (before she died), as to what might have caused it. The only version of the story for his "condition" is that, some deceased distant great uncle had a grudge on my maternal grandfather, and his ghost tried to get back at our family by playing "tricks" in the mind of the only son (my uncle) in the family, in order to get even. Ah well, Chinese love ghost stories, and no one can ever dispute it anyways.
In any case, towards the end of WWII, my uncle "snapped" in the army, and was sent home to my grandmother like a damaged goods. No matter that he was a decorated army officer, nobody wanted him anymore, once he lost his mind. There was no pension, no follow-up, no medical treatment or help. Grandma was left with the caring and feeding of him. Although she's a relatively big woman by Chinese standard (5'6"), she's no match to my uncle in his prime 20s. Time and again, when he snapped, he would turn the house upside-down and even beat grandma. Other times, he would run out and be gone for days, and come back home destitute, without saying a word.
Grandma had treated so many times to get intervention and help from the government. Every time, she got the same answer, saying that it's her own problem since he's her son. And then, she got "lucky." One time, uncle stormed out of the house, roamed in the village, and snapped again; but this time, he hit some stranger. The villager complained to the local government official who, in turn, came to grandma's doorstep. She told him, there's nothing she could do because she couldn't restrain him to the house. If they wanted to prevent him from hurting other people, then they had to get him treatment in the hospital/asylum. That's when the government finally agreed to take uncle in to the local mental asylum, for free.
For the longest time, uncle stayed in that asylum. When I was a child, I have always wondered what kind of treatment my uncle got in the mental asylum. Some years later, I finally have had a look at what a mental asylum looks like in China, since my mother eventually agreed to take me and my sister to go see uncle there, when we become adults.
The condition in that local mental asylum was suitably depressing. My mom, sis and I went there with another auntie and two cousins. (From what I gather, my aunt visited him from time to time, maybe monthly, but the cousins rarely visited, if at all. I'm not sure if it might be due to superstition, since the local Chinese seem to consider mental illness like contagious diseases, for some reason. Or, perhaps, it's due to the "out of sight, out of mind" mentality. But they're probably afraid too, to just look at mental patients.) The cousins came with us that time, since we were in such a large group.
We arrived at the gate where the reception area was, which was just a small window with an attendant. We announced the patient's name for a visit, and were told to wait. There was a broken down bench; other that, it's just concrete wall. From the front, there's view into a much larger holding ground, with wired fence around it. There, we saw maybe a hundred or so mental patients who were walking about mindlessly around in the fenced-in area. There was no eye contact, no talking, no sitting, no loitering. All the mental patients were just shifting their feet sluggishly in there. Off to one side of the reception area, there's a short corridor that leads to a room where there're maybe 6-8 beds in there. We didn't realize it until we heard screaming from down the corridor. We looked, and we saw a few patients strapped down to their beds in there. The screaming came from a guy, pretty strong built, who refused to be restrained. With much difficulty, three small men who worked in the hospital were trying to pin him down. There was no equipment in there; just beds, and patients/workers (they didn't even look like doctors or nurses).
After much waiting, my uncle was finally led out by a hospital worker. He was tall, by all account. Although he's in his 60s by then, with greying hair and all, he's still very strongly built, with eyes darting everywhere. Mom and aunt told us that uncle used to be much stronger and bigger, but the asylum feeds very little to the patients. Aunt tried to visit from time to time, leaving food and cigarettes behind for him, but was told by uncle that he was robbed of anything that was left with him inside the asylum. So, he learnt to just eat and smoke as much as he could only during the visitation. That time, mom and aunt brought him some soup, noodles, and cigarettes. Uncle recognized mom and aunt, and knew none of the rest of us. He even uttered "sis" to them, which brought tears to mom's eyes. She would later tell us that, this was the first time for a very, very long time that he ever showed any recognition for anyone, not to mention uttering any words at all. We didn't talk, and just watch him squatting, eating and finishing his smoke. Aunt tried to give him something to bring back in, but he refused. After that, he went back in, without saying another word or turning his head. That was the first (and last) time I ever met him.
My grandma had passed away for a few years at that point. My uncle died maybe a year or so after that visit. When mom told me about it, she almost sounded relieved. For some 30 years, the families had lived with the taboo and the caring of uncle, with no resources or help from anyone. But finally the pain was gone.
Those were the days before TV and news became commonplace in China. Would it have put wrong ideas in uncle's head, if he saw news of people hacking at children, so that he'd go out and do copycat deeds? No one could tell. But for the central government to try to push aside a taboo subject like how to deal with mental illness, it's a disservice to the populace. Before any resources would be allocated, there has to be recognition of the issue/problem, then debate on the alternative solutions. Since that one encounter with the mental asylum in China, there does not look to be much changes in the horizon. It's an opportunity wasted. Perhaps, all these news could serve as catalyst for something to be done. That would be one silver lining from it all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
News like that bring back some memory of a maternal uncle. I don't know much about him since my parents don't talk about him much. Even as a child, I know that the reason for the hush-hush was due to the fact that he's in a mental asylum, which is one major taboo subject in China. In China and even in Hong Kong, people treat mental patients as if they are invisible in a rather ostrich approach. The idea goes, that if you lock the "problem" away, and if you don't see it, it won't be a problem anymore...not on a daily basis anyways.
From the little that I gather from my mom, my uncle used to be a decorated army officer in China during World War II, and a rising star at that. He's tall (well over 6'1") and strongly built. And then, something happened... This is the part that either no one really knew what happened, or no one wanted to talk about it. I can never get a word from my parents or grandmother (before she died), as to what might have caused it. The only version of the story for his "condition" is that, some deceased distant great uncle had a grudge on my maternal grandfather, and his ghost tried to get back at our family by playing "tricks" in the mind of the only son (my uncle) in the family, in order to get even. Ah well, Chinese love ghost stories, and no one can ever dispute it anyways.
In any case, towards the end of WWII, my uncle "snapped" in the army, and was sent home to my grandmother like a damaged goods. No matter that he was a decorated army officer, nobody wanted him anymore, once he lost his mind. There was no pension, no follow-up, no medical treatment or help. Grandma was left with the caring and feeding of him. Although she's a relatively big woman by Chinese standard (5'6"), she's no match to my uncle in his prime 20s. Time and again, when he snapped, he would turn the house upside-down and even beat grandma. Other times, he would run out and be gone for days, and come back home destitute, without saying a word.
Grandma had treated so many times to get intervention and help from the government. Every time, she got the same answer, saying that it's her own problem since he's her son. And then, she got "lucky." One time, uncle stormed out of the house, roamed in the village, and snapped again; but this time, he hit some stranger. The villager complained to the local government official who, in turn, came to grandma's doorstep. She told him, there's nothing she could do because she couldn't restrain him to the house. If they wanted to prevent him from hurting other people, then they had to get him treatment in the hospital/asylum. That's when the government finally agreed to take uncle in to the local mental asylum, for free.
For the longest time, uncle stayed in that asylum. When I was a child, I have always wondered what kind of treatment my uncle got in the mental asylum. Some years later, I finally have had a look at what a mental asylum looks like in China, since my mother eventually agreed to take me and my sister to go see uncle there, when we become adults.
The condition in that local mental asylum was suitably depressing. My mom, sis and I went there with another auntie and two cousins. (From what I gather, my aunt visited him from time to time, maybe monthly, but the cousins rarely visited, if at all. I'm not sure if it might be due to superstition, since the local Chinese seem to consider mental illness like contagious diseases, for some reason. Or, perhaps, it's due to the "out of sight, out of mind" mentality. But they're probably afraid too, to just look at mental patients.) The cousins came with us that time, since we were in such a large group.
We arrived at the gate where the reception area was, which was just a small window with an attendant. We announced the patient's name for a visit, and were told to wait. There was a broken down bench; other that, it's just concrete wall. From the front, there's view into a much larger holding ground, with wired fence around it. There, we saw maybe a hundred or so mental patients who were walking about mindlessly around in the fenced-in area. There was no eye contact, no talking, no sitting, no loitering. All the mental patients were just shifting their feet sluggishly in there. Off to one side of the reception area, there's a short corridor that leads to a room where there're maybe 6-8 beds in there. We didn't realize it until we heard screaming from down the corridor. We looked, and we saw a few patients strapped down to their beds in there. The screaming came from a guy, pretty strong built, who refused to be restrained. With much difficulty, three small men who worked in the hospital were trying to pin him down. There was no equipment in there; just beds, and patients/workers (they didn't even look like doctors or nurses).
After much waiting, my uncle was finally led out by a hospital worker. He was tall, by all account. Although he's in his 60s by then, with greying hair and all, he's still very strongly built, with eyes darting everywhere. Mom and aunt told us that uncle used to be much stronger and bigger, but the asylum feeds very little to the patients. Aunt tried to visit from time to time, leaving food and cigarettes behind for him, but was told by uncle that he was robbed of anything that was left with him inside the asylum. So, he learnt to just eat and smoke as much as he could only during the visitation. That time, mom and aunt brought him some soup, noodles, and cigarettes. Uncle recognized mom and aunt, and knew none of the rest of us. He even uttered "sis" to them, which brought tears to mom's eyes. She would later tell us that, this was the first time for a very, very long time that he ever showed any recognition for anyone, not to mention uttering any words at all. We didn't talk, and just watch him squatting, eating and finishing his smoke. Aunt tried to give him something to bring back in, but he refused. After that, he went back in, without saying another word or turning his head. That was the first (and last) time I ever met him.
My grandma had passed away for a few years at that point. My uncle died maybe a year or so after that visit. When mom told me about it, she almost sounded relieved. For some 30 years, the families had lived with the taboo and the caring of uncle, with no resources or help from anyone. But finally the pain was gone.
Those were the days before TV and news became commonplace in China. Would it have put wrong ideas in uncle's head, if he saw news of people hacking at children, so that he'd go out and do copycat deeds? No one could tell. But for the central government to try to push aside a taboo subject like how to deal with mental illness, it's a disservice to the populace. Before any resources would be allocated, there has to be recognition of the issue/problem, then debate on the alternative solutions. Since that one encounter with the mental asylum in China, there does not look to be much changes in the horizon. It's an opportunity wasted. Perhaps, all these news could serve as catalyst for something to be done. That would be one silver lining from it all.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
On Greek sovereign debt, taxes, and cheating...
Markets worldwide have been on roller-coaster ride recently, due to the downgrade of Greece sovereign debts and its ramifications on the stability and ongoing viability of Euro, should Greece default on its debts. European leaders hate to admit defeat, allowing an opening for IMF to step in to help bail out Greece; at the same time, quite some Euro members, most notably, Germany, do not feel compelled to automatically bail out Greece, without Greece feeling at least some pain.
That's all well and good. Afterall, Greek officials have recently been announcing its plan with painful austerity measures, resulting in protests.
A few things stood out though:
PS: I guess if I have been a German voter, I would have been voting against the Greece bailout as well, much as I was and still am opposed to the bailouts of banks and subprime mortgagees. If you want someone to learn, if you want them to understand that somehow their actions do have consequences, then you have to prepare to let them fail and suffer though it. Without that, you're simply staring down at a bigger disaster down the road.
That's all well and good. Afterall, Greek officials have recently been announcing its plan with painful austerity measures, resulting in protests.
A few things stood out though:
- Despite the poor track record, and the potential for defaults, investors are still rushing to the recent Greece bond sale. Perhaps there really is too much liquidity in the system worldwide, that investors don't care if the inherent risks could well outweigh the high yield that the latest Greek bonds are offering. Perhaps too, investors are all confident that somehow EU is going to come to the rescue, however reluctantly, to Greece, and underwrite its debts. Still, the bipolar messages from the markets - that Greece is dangerously close to default, yet investors would still lend to it - are exactly the kind of recipe for disaster, much like the underlying cause for the subprime mortgage crisis in US. Too bad, Euro is in a bind, and doesn't seem to have a choice, regardless of how bad Greece behaves.
- Which leads to the second thing about Greece. Granted that Greece is not the only country in Euro zone who fails the 3% limit of debts over GDP, afterall, big guys like France have failed the litmus test for years with no ramification, why in the world should Greece care?! But the fact remains, that Greece has been opening cooking its books, reporting false statistics about the true state of its economy for some two decades, yet no one would do anything about it. No one wants to spoil the party, and tell the emperor that he has no clothes on. The austerity plan from Greek officials is to try to bring the grey and blackmarkets (all the cash economy that generates wealth, not those reported on tax forms) out to the open. By some reports, the grey and blackmarkets in Greece accounts for at least 20-30% of the real economy. It would be hard, because basically everyone in Greece is lying and cheating on their tax forms, in some forms and fashion.
- Which brings me to the last thought about Greece. What the Greek officials had been doing, in lying and cheating on the official false statistics of the country's economy and state of health, is essentially the kind of lying and cheating that every other Greeks are doing. And if no one has confidence to really expect average Greeks to suddenly turn about and hand over their tax dollars, why would anyone have any confidence in the Greek officials doing so, by enforcing the austerity measures? Afterall, the Greek government never seriously attempts to prosecute any tax cheaters; neither would Greece, as a country, be seriously punished by not sticking to the published austerity measures. In essence, the Euro pact is all carrots and no stick. Everyone knows that Greece will be bailed out, one way or the other, all in the name of saving the face/ego of Euro.
PS: I guess if I have been a German voter, I would have been voting against the Greece bailout as well, much as I was and still am opposed to the bailouts of banks and subprime mortgagees. If you want someone to learn, if you want them to understand that somehow their actions do have consequences, then you have to prepare to let them fail and suffer though it. Without that, you're simply staring down at a bigger disaster down the road.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
On the new Arizona legislation on migrants...
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.
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 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)