Source: travel.nytimes.com
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Finally, Renda is a network!
I just noticed my alma mater, Renmin University of China is now a network.
This may not be news so please bear with my belated excitement...I still remember more than a year ago me and some friends were writing petition letters to ask why Renda, an overseas university and one of China's best is not a network.
So here's this place we can call home, and I'd like to nudge my alumni to happily join this network! We only have hundreds of people now and I know there are many more of you unwittingly crouching there, just like I did until today:-)
This may not be news so please bear with my belated excitement...I still remember more than a year ago me and some friends were writing petition letters to ask why Renda, an overseas university and one of China's best is not a network.
So here's this place we can call home, and I'd like to nudge my alumni to happily join this network! We only have hundreds of people now and I know there are many more of you unwittingly crouching there, just like I did until today:-)
Runner's high, again
Folks:
When do you usually get your runner's high? I mean on a standard 400 meters track.
I usually get mine around Round 8 or so; that's 2 miles. A little too fast uh?
I blogged about running last month:
O~ Beechwood
http://ekissinger521.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!1E0FC9BD030D7CDE!2388.entry
In which I cited this article (March 27, 2008) from the New York Times:
Yes, Running Can Make You High
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/health/nutrition/27best.html?ex=1364270400&en=44c391fe05dfbef7&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
When do you usually get your runner's high? I mean on a standard 400 meters track.
I usually get mine around Round 8 or so; that's 2 miles. A little too fast uh?
I blogged about running last month:
O~ Beechwood
http://ekissinger521.space
In which I cited this article (March 27, 2008) from the New York Times:
Yes, Running Can Make You High
http://www.nytimes.com/200
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Jenny's Journey
Jenny is the daughter of Prof. Philip Tetlock at UC Berkeley. Her parents are now desperate.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
A melancholic Chinese Song
I'm testing a newly-learned way of playing music in blog...
The singer was Anita Mui Yim-fong (梅艷芳,1963.10.10~2003.12.30), a Hong Kong singer and actress. She was an extremely popular icon in the 80s and 90s, unprecedented and perhaps unsurpassed by anybody in the region.
The song is named "Woman the Flower", dated around 1997, sung in Mandarin Chinese (she usually sang in Cantonese.)
The singer was Anita Mui Yim-fong (梅艷芳,1963.10.10~2003.12.30), a Hong Kong singer and actress. She was an extremely popular icon in the 80s and 90s, unprecedented and perhaps unsurpassed by anybody in the region.
The song is named "Woman the Flower", dated around 1997, sung in Mandarin Chinese (she usually sang in Cantonese.)
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Talking about "Petition to the City of New Haven Board of Aldermen"
Mr. Zheng Yeqing is a friend of mine and a JD student at Yale Law School.
Reminds me of an earlier article, "One Olympic Victory" on the Wall Street Journal's Opinion page (February 19, 2008), by Hollywood actress Mia Farrow and her son Ronan Farrow. Mr. Farrow is also a student at YLS. I respectfully disagree with the Farrows.
Quote
Reminds me of an earlier article, "One Olympic Victory" on the Wall Street Journal's Opinion page (February 19, 2008), by Hollywood actress Mia Farrow and her son Ronan Farrow. Mr. Farrow is also a student at YLS. I respectfully disagree with the Farrows.
Quote
Petition to the City of New Haven Board of AldermenDear Aldermen,
We are a group of Chinese students and scholars at Yale University. We are writing to apply for permission to host a public gathering of approximately 500 people in an appropriate public space on the afternoon of April 26th, 2008.
It has recently been brought to our attention that the Board of Aldermen has approved street closure for a mock torch relay on April 26th, 2008 to protest against China’s alleged human-rights violations. While we sincerely appreciate and share your concern with China's human rights conditions, we feel the responsibility to make our own voice heard as well—a voice which we believe represents the vast majority of the Chinese community in New Haven. Our peaceful gathering will aim to present a balanced picture of Chinese human rights conditions and to promote the Olympic spirit of unity, inclusiveness, and equality. This event is jointly organized by the students and scholars of Yale University and leaders of the local Chinese community.
We, overseas Chinese, perhaps care more than anyone else about human rights in China. Every human rights violation in China potentially affects our families and friends residing in China. Our deepest gratitude goes to the well-meaning Americans who not only welcome our stay and accept us into the community, but also endeavor to improve human rights in China. Nevertheless, we are exceedingly regretful that this good intention is being exploited by special interest groups to further their own agenda.
The Falun Gong group and its affiliates, the major organizers of this mock torch relay, are not truthful promoters of human rights. The Falun Gong group's track records are replete with exaggerations and fantasies. The group is marked by their outright hostilities toward China, and some of their claims have been discredited by the United States government. We are concerned that this mock torch relay may turn out to be another public display of vicious and untruthful attacks on China. In that case, it would be a mistake to honor their causes as promoting “human right,” and indeed, it would be a mockery to the sacrifice that Chinese people have made.
We recognize and appreciate legitimate concerns for human right violations in China. We do not unconditionally endorse actions of the Chinese government. But we also want nothing short of a truthful presentation of the human rights conditions in China. A biased picture provided by special interest groups would not help promote human rights in China. On the contrary, it would endanger further improvements by inviting cynicism and distrust.
Presenting the public with a balanced image of modern China is also of vital interest to the United States. A one-sided version that demonizes China would not only cloud the judgment of the citizens in both countries, but also create misunderstandings and hostilities between the two governments. At this delicate moment, an open-minded citizen would certainly appreciate a different opinion of China. The world expects the United States and China to address human rights issues in an open and collaborative manner, not in antagonism and isolation.
We also believe that the Olympic torch, a symbol of understanding and cooperation that transcends national, cultural, and racial boundaries, should not be mocked. The history of New Haven, shaped by immigration and integration, is a history of bringing people together regardless of their cultural heritage or race. We hope that our public gathering will confirm and further the ideals of this city, ideals that echo with the Olympic spirit of promoting peace and cooperation without discrimination.
In addition, we would like to briefly note the violence that occurred during the recent anti-China protests in San Francisco, Paris, and London. Dozens of protesters were arrested for their aggressive and violent behavior, many of whom are associated with the organizers of this mock torch relay. The principal organizer of New Haven's protest, the local Falun Gong Club, has had a troubled relationship with the Chinese community. Members of our group have been threatened or aggressively harassed by the Falun Gong Club, and many of them have expressed concerns that the anti-China sentiments stirred by this mock torch relay may affect their future safety..
We will promptly provide any further information of our proposed gathering upon request. We look forward to your understanding and support, and thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Yeqing Zheng
Committee of Supporting Beijing Olympics at Yale
April 18th, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Sarkozy's sympathy letter to Jin Jing
On April 21, Christian Poncelet, President of the French Senate, came to Shanghai and brought a sympathy letter by French President Nicolas Sarkozy to Jin Jing, the Chinese Paralympic fencer and torch bearer during the Olympic Torch Relay in Paris. Jin Jing was repeatedly attacked by Tibet-independence protesters, an incident that sparked overwhelming indignation among the Chinese worldwide.
Chère Mademoiselle Jin Jing,
Je voudrais vous dire toute mon émotion pour la façon dont vous avez été bousculée à Paris le 7 avril dernier lorsque vous portiez la flamme olympique. Vous avez fait preuve d’un courage remarquable qui vous fait honneur, et à travers vous, à tout votre pays.
Comme j’ai eu l’occasion de le souligner le lendemain même du passage de la flamme olympique en France, je comprends que la sensibilité chinoise ait été blessée par ce qui s’est passé, et en particulier par l’attaque inadmissible dont vous avez été victime et que je réprouve avec la plus grande vigueur.
Ce qui s’est produit à Paris le 7 avril a engendré dans votre pays de l’amertume. Je tiens à vous assurer que les incidents de cette triste journée, provoqués par quelques uns, ne reflètent pas les sentiments de mes concitoyens pour le peuple chinois.
Pour tenter d’effacer ce moment pénible, je souhaite vous proposer de vous rendre en France dans les prochaines semaines comme mon invitée personnelle, et celle du peuple de France.
Dans l’attente de vous accueillir à Paris, je vous prie de bien vouloir accepter, chère Mademoiselle Jin Jing, l'expression de ma profonde sympathie, et vous demande de bien vouloir transmettre à l’ensemble de votre famille et à vos proches l’expression de mes sentiments les plus cordiaux.
Nicolas SARKOZY
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Talking with my Taiwanese friend about NYT's report on the Duke freshman Grace Wang incident
Last night I read the report "Chinese Student in U.S. Is Caught in Confrontation" on the New York Times website. According to the report, there was confrontation between Chinese students and pro-Tibet people on the Duke campus on April 10, when Grace Wang from Qingdao, China tried to get the two sides to talk but was labeled "traitor" by her fellow Chinese. She was slandered on the internet and received threats.
This morning I got two emails asking for my comments on this. One of the emails came from my Taiwanese friend. In fact, if there are two major "traitor" incidents on both coasts in April, she was caught right in the middle of the west coast one. She said：
“I don't understand why Chinese people do not tolerate or listen to other voices. To be honest, I don't understand how China can gain Tibetans or Taiwanese' hearts by doing so.”
Here is my response:
Hi XX:
Thanks for the message. I read this news last night before you sent me the link. I think the treatment Grace received from some of the Chinese people is unfair and unfortunate. Many posts on the 163.com discussion board on this topic range from pathetic to downright evil, and I believe posting her home address, parents' information and other sensitive data is illegal. You can also see some people calling for the more extreme ones to calm down. Birds of a feather flock together, the internet routinely magnifies irrational sentiments to an intolerable extent. I, for one, wouldn't bother to argue with these people on their turf.
I agree with you that China cannot win either Tibetan or Taiwanese heart with people like this.
One of my best friends is at Duke and I will call him to ask for some alternative accounts. In controversial contexts like this, I tend to have more confidence in individual accounts than the news media. Overall I think this piece of report is in keeping with NYT's relatively higher standard of journalism ethics. But it is not free of problems.
The reporter quoted indirect remarks but shunned from recording the opinions of Chinese students who are sympathetic with Grace and think she didn't do anything to deserve such heinous treatment. My bet is that there are plenty of such people, but NYT wouldn't let them talk because that undermines the stereotype it tries to convey to the American public: "200 of your own fellow nationalists yelling at you and calling you a traitor and even threatening to kill you." As Chinese I know this is a grossly inaccurate characterization of the Chinese student population at Duke. But an average American would have much less trouble in assimilating this stereotype and think: "Geez, even the most highly educated Chinese are like this. The Chinese at home must be so hopelessly barbarian and they haven't changed much since the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. Cafferty actually got it right in calling them 50 years' of 'goons and thugs'."
On a more technical note, one quote from an email “If you return to China, your dead corpse will be chopped into 10,000 pieces” is a literal translation of the Chinese idiom "碎尸万段"(Sui4 Shi1 Wan4 Duan4). Chinese idioms, mostly composed of four characters, have been in existence for hundreds of and occasionally more than one thousand years. These idioms come from an age when the human beings were indeed much less civilized, and when used in modern context they often lose the literal meaning. By translating this idiom literally into English without noting its origin as an ancient idiom, the writer imposes on the e-mailer a near-terrorist image which I don't think he/she deserves.
Chinese media did similar things to convince the Chinese that many westerners are the same bunch of "goons and thugs" (from Jack Cafferty, CNN Situation Room, April 9) that invaded and humiliated China for 100 years. That is how misunderstanding and animosity between East and West deepened rather than alleviated throughout this whole event.
In recent centuries, the West has achieved a higher level of civilization which many of us admire from the bottom of our hearts and come a long way to learn from. In recent decades, the Chinese are making quick progress, both economically and mentally. The mental progress is subtle and calls for great endeavor to appreciate and measure. From the vantage point of a higher level of human development, the West should recognize and encourage the progress in the Chinese mentality, because that signals the its sincerity to welcome China to the same level of civilization. Manufacturing stereotypes, on the other hand, signals its fear, insecurity and deep-seated bias.
It is my sincere hope that these subtle mental progress would materialize in the form of fundamental institutional changes, and together they would someday come to fruition that Tibet won't find it necessary to rely on the West to preserve its religion and culture, and Taiwan won't have to turn to the West to defend its democratic values and security. That is the day we can all call China our home.
I am doing my bit of job to make that happen and I'm sure millions of others are doing the same thing too.
Best,
Zhan
This morning I got two emails asking for my comments on this. One of the emails came from my Taiwanese friend. In fact, if there are two major "traitor" incidents on both coasts in April, she was caught right in the middle of the west coast one. She said：
“I don't understand why Chinese people do not tolerate or listen to other voices. To be honest, I don't understand how China can gain Tibetans or Taiwanese' hearts by doing so.”
Here is my response:
Hi XX:
Thanks for the message. I read this news last night before you sent me the link. I think the treatment Grace received from some of the Chinese people is unfair and unfortunate. Many posts on the 163.com discussion board on this topic range from pathetic to downright evil, and I believe posting her home address, parents' information and other sensitive data is illegal. You can also see some people calling for the more extreme ones to calm down. Birds of a feather flock together, the internet routinely magnifies irrational sentiments to an intolerable extent. I, for one, wouldn't bother to argue with these people on their turf.
I agree with you that China cannot win either Tibetan or Taiwanese heart with people like this.
One of my best friends is at Duke and I will call him to ask for some alternative accounts. In controversial contexts like this, I tend to have more confidence in individual accounts than the news media. Overall I think this piece of report is in keeping with NYT's relatively higher standard of journalism ethics. But it is not free of problems.
The reporter quoted indirect remarks but shunned from recording the opinions of Chinese students who are sympathetic with Grace and think she didn't do anything to deserve such heinous treatment. My bet is that there are plenty of such people, but NYT wouldn't let them talk because that undermines the stereotype it tries to convey to the American public: "200 of your own fellow nationalists yelling at you and calling you a traitor and even threatening to kill you." As Chinese I know this is a grossly inaccurate characterization of the Chinese student population at Duke. But an average American would have much less trouble in assimilating this stereotype and think: "Geez, even the most highly educated Chinese are like this. The Chinese at home must be so hopelessly barbarian and they haven't changed much since the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. Cafferty actually got it right in calling them 50 years' of 'goons and thugs'."
On a more technical note, one quote from an email “If you return to China, your dead corpse will be chopped into 10,000 pieces” is a literal translation of the Chinese idiom "碎尸万段"(Sui4 Shi1 Wan4 Duan4). Chinese idioms, mostly composed of four characters, have been in existence for hundreds of and occasionally more than one thousand years. These idioms come from an age when the human beings were indeed much less civilized, and when used in modern context they often lose the literal meaning. By translating this idiom literally into English without noting its origin as an ancient idiom, the writer imposes on the e-mailer a near-terrorist image which I don't think he/she deserves.
Chinese media did similar things to convince the Chinese that many westerners are the same bunch of "goons and thugs" (from Jack Cafferty, CNN Situation Room, April 9) that invaded and humiliated China for 100 years. That is how misunderstanding and animosity between East and West deepened rather than alleviated throughout this whole event.
In recent centuries, the West has achieved a higher level of civilization which many of us admire from the bottom of our hearts and come a long way to learn from. In recent decades, the Chinese are making quick progress, both economically and mentally. The mental progress is subtle and calls for great endeavor to appreciate and measure. From the vantage point of a higher level of human development, the West should recognize and encourage the progress in the Chinese mentality, because that signals the its sincerity to welcome China to the same level of civilization. Manufacturing stereotypes, on the other hand, signals its fear, insecurity and deep-seated bias.
It is my sincere hope that these subtle mental progress would materialize in the form of fundamental institutional changes, and together they would someday come to fruition that Tibet won't find it necessary to rely on the West to preserve its religion and culture, and Taiwan won't have to turn to the West to defend its democratic values and security. That is the day we can all call China our home.
I am doing my bit of job to make that happen and I'm sure millions of others are doing the same thing too.
Best,
Zhan
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
A personal statement -- In response to Tinglong
Hmm, last night I told Minjie that I have scheduled some writings (some "scoop" if you will) later this week that would "happen" to make him happier -- actually make both you guys happier.
I will do that.
It is not uncommon for perfectly reasonable people to disagree on political issues, because politics is about infinite complexity. I look forward to a lot of good discussions with you and Minjie when we all have time in the future.
When I disapprove A, I generally don't take the pains to stress that I disagree with B who share my interest in disapproving A (may or may not for different reasons), because that doesn't help sharpening my arguments. But yes, sometimes it is necessary to state one's position very clearly.
During the recent media turmoils since mid-March, I formed each and every one of my opinions strictly by my own judgments, and I'm sure many people here do so too. Criticizing western media bias doesn't mean I approve of China's information control or its non-democratic political system. I certainly do not align with extreme nationalists who are eager to pick fights with anybody who doesn't seem to match their own level of "patriotism", but I also condemn those bigots and hypocrites (and they came out in non-trivial numbers and ferocity this time) who so ignorantly (or blissfully?) crawl on presumptuous moral high-grounds without ever opening their eyes to reality and never waste a second in demonizing countries and peoples different from their own.
So for me the task is always two-fold, and the only criteria I stick to are objectivity and rationality. By doing so I run the risk of alienating both groups who may see value in my arguments for their respective causes, but I do not lend or sell mine to those people I despise. This is the only possible way for me. I cannot tolerate violations of these criteria during serious discussions. And CNN broadcast is meant to be very serious. Jack Cafferty must apologize and be punished.
I am neither a Permanent Resident or US citizen so may not be in the best position to advocate for expanding civil rights for Chinese Americans. But one thing is clear to me. Martin Luther King Jr. did not hold back his relentless pursuit for civil rights until his fellow African Americans around the country stopped committing crimes and attained the same level of education and civility as Whites. By the same token, it makes absolutely no sense that simply because China is not good enough that someone up there on CNN could insult the Chinese (no matter which country's passport they hold) without getting punished.
Criticism is alway welcome; insult, never.
So we are mixing several separate issues here. I agree that Chinese people within China's border need not over-react to outside news and can always remain skeptical as to whether certain facets of political news were censored (and if yes, question and challenge the authority for doing that) and focus on domestic development and reform. For Chinese people abroad, the task is very different because they read materials in both languages, the picture is much fuller and least censored for them than those who can only read English yet never suspect that the free press can sometimes betray them by inserting some brainwashing stuff under disguise.
I will do that.
It is not uncommon for perfectly reasonable people to disagree on political issues, because politics is about infinite complexity. I look forward to a lot of good discussions with you and Minjie when we all have time in the future.
When I disapprove A, I generally don't take the pains to stress that I disagree with B who share my interest in disapproving A (may or may not for different reasons), because that doesn't help sharpening my arguments. But yes, sometimes it is necessary to state one's position very clearly.
During the recent media turmoils since mid-March, I formed each and every one of my opinions strictly by my own judgments, and I'm sure many people here do so too. Criticizing western media bias doesn't mean I approve of China's information control or its non-democratic political system. I certainly do not align with extreme nationalists who are eager to pick fights with anybody who doesn't seem to match their own level of "patriotism", but I also condemn those bigots and hypocrites (and they came out in non-trivial numbers and ferocity this time) who so ignorantly (or blissfully?) crawl on presumptuous moral high-grounds without ever opening their eyes to reality and never waste a second in demonizing countries and peoples different from their own.
So for me the task is always two-fold, and the only criteria I stick to are objectivity and rationality. By doing so I run the risk of alienating both groups who may see value in my arguments for their respective causes, but I do not lend or sell mine to those people I despise. This is the only possible way for me. I cannot tolerate violations of these criteria during serious discussions. And CNN broadcast is meant to be very serious. Jack Cafferty must apologize and be punished.
I am neither a Permanent Resident or US citizen so may not be in the best position to advocate for expanding civil rights for Chinese Americans. But one thing is clear to me. Martin Luther King Jr. did not hold back his relentless pursuit for civil rights until his fellow African Americans around the country stopped committing crimes and attained the same level of education and civility as Whites. By the same token, it makes absolutely no sense that simply because China is not good enough that someone up there on CNN could insult the Chinese (no matter which country's passport they hold) without getting punished.
Criticism is alway welcome; insult, never.
So we are mixing several separate issues here. I agree that Chinese people within China's border need not over-react to outside news and can always remain skeptical as to whether certain facets of political news were censored (and if yes, question and challenge the authority for doing that) and focus on domestic development and reform. For Chinese people abroad, the task is very different because they read materials in both languages, the picture is much fuller and least censored for them than those who can only read English yet never suspect that the free press can sometimes betray them by inserting some brainwashing stuff under disguise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
Most Emailed #2 on NYTimes, as of now