Ethnicity and Dating Criteria

[another asian american discussion topic from amabelle's blog.]

when i was growing up i *knew* i was chinese, but i didn't really know what *chinese* meant. my parents spoke english at home. and there were hardly any asians at all where i grew up (Westchester County, NY). there were only 2 other asians in my year in school. and one was my best friend. i even won "most american" among other things in the senior poll. so growing up and in college, i basically only went out with or had crushes on non-asian girls. (mostly from not having enough exposure to cute asian girls.)

Full text continued here...

all about lily chou chou

i'm so excited!! this weekend when i was in chinatown looking for DVDs, i found a store that had the new VCD release of All About Lily Chou Chou. i hadn't even known it was out yet in a HK/western version (the japanese version released last year had no english subtitles).

when i asked, the staff said that they had it on DVD as well, but unfortunately, they had sold out. they told me to try again in a week. (of course i then tried a dozen other DVD stores that i frequent as well, but to no avail. nobody else was even carrying the VCD.)

so today, three days later! and feeling restless on a dark and rainy wednesday evening, i took a little walk down to chinatown to see if any DVD shipments had come in yet. i was in luck! and proceeded to buy the *one* they had just received and placed in the window.

now i am so tempted to watch it instead of the PBS Chinese American special that i'm watching (and taping) as i type!

[btw, as gg notes, you can also get the film from yesasia; they're cheaper than Poker, but not sure if their version tests ok in region1. my guess is that it works, as the one i bought was also from panorama and said region3 but worked.]

update: 02:15 EST Thursday

so just finished watching it (in bed on my 8 foot screen!). and, as expected, it was just beautiful -- all 140 minutes worth!

Full text continued here...

clarifications, justifications, and consequences

amabelle posted and several others responded with thoughts on military action in iraq. first, a few clarifications to what has been posted thus far. second, a summary of why we are going to war. third, a few self reflective questions.

Full text continued here...

Pinchas Zukerman, Studio Ghibli, and War

last night my friend linda took me to another performance at the philharmonic. i was especially excited as the program included pinchas zukerman playing the bruch violin concerto. it was the first time i had seen him in person, and he was in perfect form -- delicate and quite meticulous yet emotional and powerful at the same time. the orchestra in contrast, led by david zinman, was at times a little soft. but overall it was a quite excellent performance. the second half featured dvorak's seventh, and i was lost to my thoughts as the music flowed through me. afterwards, we had a late dinner at leshkos in the east village and tried to catch up. but with a pack of the loudest drunk birthday girls at a large table next to us, it became hard to hear ourselves think!

at home, i felt too lazy to do any work, so i watched the next of my Studio Ghibli movies (the 10th so far out of the 12 i have). this time, and in stark contrast to the others i have seen (like Spirited Away or Princess Mononoke), it was "Grave of the Fireflies", a heartbraking account of two children who become orphans and struggle to survive during WWII in japan. it reminded me of another poignant animated movie (When the Wind Blows) about an elder british couple who try to survive after a nuclear war.

it also made me think of what my dad's life must have been like during the war as they fled from the japanese in mainland china. (admittedly, as my grandfather was on chiang kai shek's staff and later li zong ren's (李宗仁), they had had a much easier time than most other people.) it made me think of those pictures of my grandmother as a teenager in front of tiantan in beijing, dreaming of a beautiful life, only to have it altogether changed by the war.

seeing the movie made me consciously realize again -- especially for civilians, and despite technological advances and political considerations that make this a very different localized "surgical" war -- what a horrible horrible thing is war. for most of us, growing up in the west under a pax americana, we have been too priviledged and spoiled to really know true hardship.

Collective Security

amabelle writes in her comments -- "they're cutting the budget for the san francisco unified school district as well. . . . makes me wonder why we're fighting a war for oil when we can't even afford to educate our own children."

i've been hearing quite a few comments like this from some people. and i ask myself, can we really afford to fight this war? not to be a "cassandra" here, or to continue flogging the issue, but i think the question is really -- can we afford *not* to fight this war?

i'd like to be an idealist and think that we can wait this out and everything will be ok. i'd also like to win the lottery. bankers and engineers (being realists) are trained to expect and prepare for the worst case. this is one scenario where the worst case better *never* happen.

this is *not* a war for oil (as evidenced by the lack of rich US oil barons from the 1991 war), it is a war for *collective security*.

Full text continued here...

A Case for Iraq

over the last few weeks, i have become increasingly dismayed with the realization that few people are *really* paying attention to the issues at hand regarding Iraq, and that many people i know have seemed to tacitly jump onto the anti-war bandwagon without informed justification (other than a general desire to avoid a war).

after several discussions with my sister in paris (with french leaning sentiments), talk with friends of participation in the recent anti-war demonstrations, recent conversations with friends over a few dinners, and a few targeted requests for more information, i have replied with lists of articles and highlighted issues to those involved.

however, after last night's excellent and informed discussion on charlie rose, and with our nation and the world at an existential crossroads, i really felt inspired to bring more awareness of the critical issues involved to myself and those around me.

The Debate

with few people really paying attention, there has been much irresponsible talk. however to me, the fact that serious liberals have acceded to the assertion that force may be necessary has been more than instructive -- we are talking about editorials in The New York Times, arguments by leading liberal scholars, and statements by senators with 80% ADA ratings like Dianne Feinstein; not The National Review or Pat Buchanon.

last night's debate between Jonathan Schell (Peace and Disarmament correspondent at The Nation, and Harold Willens Peace fellow at the Nation Institute), and Michael Ignatieff (Director and Carr Professor of Human Rights Practice, JFK School of Government, Harvard University), and recent debates on the PBS Newshour and Meet the Press, were instructive at raising important issues:

1) the consequences of acting and not acting -- especially the fact that once Iraq secures nuclear weapons, we will be unable to act with force.

2) the essential threat of coercive force -- without which there would be no inspectors or hope of peaceful disarmament at all; and which by default has been American, as no other major power (other than the Brits) seems to want to make the sacrifice

3) the fact that sometimes force or threat of force is the only way to achieve good ends -- europe after 50 years of (american invested) reconstruction and reliance on America for its defense seems to be incapable of thinking in that paradigm anymore.

4) the opposing option of peaceful disarmament -- if it were credible, then we should take that option. but who can defend that peaceful disarmament can be credible after 12 years of efforts.

5) the fantasy that international multi-lateralism by itself can contain and order the world -- it is not even credible without the threat of force. and that force has been american. america has reluctantly and by default become the world's only guarantor of order.

6) the sense that the rest of the world would rather talk about the dangers of american power rather than the dangers of a ruthless expansionist dictator and his possession and potential proliferation of weapons of mass distruction. -- of course, not helped by american unilateral action over the last several administrations.

7) the pretext of oil -- it is a reason. but not about american oil barons getting rich. can anyone show us where the rich oil barons are from the 1991 war?? it is more a case of world and american economic stability - where gas prices don't double or triple and paralyze local economies.

8) the consistency of efforts -- how can we approach iraq and not approach others with the same tactics? because North Korea & Pakistan already have nukes. which is exactly why we should proceed now against iraq before they have them. otherwise it will be too late. given Iraq's record for the use of their weapons and power, we should be very afraid. we haven't seen North Korea or Pakistan invading another country or using bio-weapons on their own populations.

As the nation prepares to go to war, we should all be particularly aware of why our government is seeking to bring us to war. we should try to be as informed as possible, and not let ourselves be swayed by casual and irresponsible talk. i believe that our nation (and the world) is in a fight for nothing less than *national survival*, and we must be prepared to make painful sacrifices to preserve international order. i am not saying that everyone should by default support the war and the administration. but if you are disposed to opposing any use of force, be responsibly aware of what that position is and all that it implies.

More Articles

Following are a few articles (unfortunately quite lengthy) from both of the participants. if you can only read one, read Michael's first article from the January 5th, 2003 NYTimes Magazine on America as the de facto world empire. it is an excellent analysis of the entire issue, and the many potential dangers. (for those that cannot access the NYT, i have posted the entire article in the following post.)

Michael Ignatieff -- Carr Professor of Human Rights Practice, and Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, JFK School of Government, Harvard University

"A role once played by the Ottoman Empire, then by the French and the British, will now be played by a nation that has to ask whether in becoming an empire it risks losing its soul as a republic. . . .

Why should a republic take on the risks of empire? Won't it run a chance of endangering its identity as a free people? The problem is that this implies innocent options that in the case of Iraq may no longer exist. Iraq is not just about whether the United States can retain its republican virtue in a wicked world. Virtuous disengagement is no longer a possibility. Since Sept. 11, it has been about whether the republic can survive in safety at home without imperial policing abroad. . . .

The fact that states are both late and hypocritical in their adoption of human rights does not deprive them of the right to use force to defend them. The disagreeable reality for those who believe in human rights is that there are some occasions -- and Iraq may be one of them -- when war is the only real remedy for regimes that live by terror."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/magazine/05EMPIRE.html
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1569
http://www.peacemagazine.org/0104/kahar.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/koso-n27.shtml
http://cobrand.salon.com/books/review/2000/05/04/glenny_ignatieff/

Jonathan Schell -- Peace and Disarmament correspondent at The Nation, and Harold Willens Peace fellow at the Nation Institute

"One way or another, the world is on its way to a single standard. Only two in the long run are available: universal permission to possess weapons of mass destruction or their universal prohibition. The first is a path to global nightmare.... If inspections fail, then containment will do as a second line of defense."

"We--that is, we, the peoples of the earth--have examined the case for war against Iraq and rejected it. We have stepped forward onto the streets of our cities and looked at ourselves, and have liked what we saw. We know our will. Now we must act. We can stop the war."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030310&s=schell
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030303&s=schell
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/War_Accountability.html

More Editorials

Free Iraq??
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/opinion/26FRIE.html
A Last Chance to Stop Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/21/opinion/21POLL.html
Liberal or Conservative Idealism?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/opinion/18KRIS.html
Vote France off the Island
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/opinion/09FRIE.html
There is no nation we can rebuild by ourselves
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/12/opinion/12FRIE.html
Why the chinese should care
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/opinion/16FRIE.html
The I-Can't-Believe-I'm-a-Hawk Club
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/opinion/08KELL.html
Saving face? {and this coming from maureen dowd!}
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/opinion/16DOWD.html
The Yes-but Parade
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/20/opinion/20SAFI.html
Index of NYT Editorials
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/columns/index.html

Senator Byrd's speeches against use of force
We Stand Passively Mute (February 12, 2003)
Rush to War Ignores U.S. Constitution (October 3, 2002)
Other recent speechs

More Resources on TV

Newshour with Jim Lehrer -- M-F 6PM (ch21) 7PM (ch13)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/home.html
Frontline -- Thursdays 9PM (ch13)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
McLaughlin Group -- Sundays 10AM (ch4 NBC)
http://www.mclaughlin.com/
Meet the Press -- Sundays 10:30AM (ch4 NBC)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/meetpress_front.asp

Asian American

amabelle writes -- "i'm trying to think... what is it that makes me asian american? i'm not talking about the way i look and the fact that i live here in the united states. i mean something more than that. how i act... who my friends are.. what i do. are those things that make me asian american?"

if only cantonese americans could visit Hong Kong, Taiwanese could visit modern day Taiwan, or mainlanders could visit the shining cities of Beijing and Shanghai (ok, maybe not so shining with all that construction debris and northern sandstorms!) -- most would be filled with such a sense of ethnic and national pride and generational accomplishment.

if we only knew the incredible sacrifices our parents and their parents made to get us to where we are now, and think and compare to where so many of our peers in China are currently, we would be so much more thankful and appreciative of our priviledged assimilated status (as asian or chinese americans).

Full text continued here...

The Joy of Cooking

Great journal entry from linda on cooking (and the loss of generational experience). We all need historical family recipe books.
http://www.luckykat.com/03/020203.shtml

Love is just a series of actions

[interesting article posted in amabelle's comments.]

Love is just a series of actions
Monday, November 25, 2002
JON CARROLL
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/11/25/DD196934.DTL

MY FRIEND LINDA says that there are two kinds of people -- new-teapot people and broken-teapot people. She likes the broken-teapot people better, and so do I. I don't trust anyone who hasn't lost something.

Full text continued here...

Better to be Content and Single

Amabelle writes:

"i think that singleness should be a state of mind that should be cherished, not feared. i have friends who ask me, "so, are there any boys in your life?" or questions to that extent, and, recently, i've said, "nope." and then they say, "ohh... that's too bad," as if it's something to be pitied. but realistically, if i had a boyfriend or someone of that stature in my life, i don't think i'd feel the same sort of freedom that i do right now. "

after a lot of discussion (over 15 comment posts) over the benefits of single versus together versus social pressures and stigma, i started writing a lengthy response to the many replies. and then it hit me.

what i really wanted to say boiled down to this -- "although it would be our fortune to be blissfully happy (with a perfect soulmate), it would be better to be simply content by ourselves, than miserable with someone else".

Sexual Tension, Platonic Relationships

amabelle writes (and van commented later) --

"jl's an interesting guy. he's very unique. for example... he believes that women and men can't be "just friends". he doesn't believe in platonic opposite-sex relationships. thusly, he doesn't have any women friends so that he doesn't have to deal with it. while we were talking about it yesterday, i wondered if i'd be able to do that... to not have any male friends."

haven't had time to completely go through van's link. however, i actually agree with the sense of what it seems to say -- that there *usually* (if not always) exists sexual tension between men & women (or people in general), conscious or latent. that is not to say that this tension, when it does exist, always trumps all other non-sexual intents. or that sexual tension cannot be tempered or controlled.

Full text continued here...