One Walks Before He Can Run

This is a basic Chinese notion about how things should be done in a gradual order: you don't teach a baby to run if he could not even walk (less true with Forrest Gump though). But too often the civilized West becomes impatient with the 'barbarian Asians' and ask them to jump without knowing where they originally stood.

This impatience is again manifest in the New York Times' editorial, where Afghanistan and Pakistan for violation of human rights and regressing into Islamic war control. I cannot speak for the Pakistan authority which let happen the beating of a woman for refusing a marriage, because it is an extreme case of human rights violation. I cannot speak for Mr. Karzai of Afghanistan, either, as the new law does sanction marital rape. But condemnation does not work.

The very idea that passing a marital rape law could boost Mr. Karzai's re-election campion shows that the law has popular support among the Afghan voters. Now I don't really know if women can vote in Afganistan or not (and given the newly passed law, it seems that they can't), but clearly Mr. Karzai is making a calculated decision. Find him another viable way, or stop telling him that he's doing the immoral thing. You can't condemn him into another presidency.

The popular support for Islamic law, as I understand it (or am unable to understand it), has many complex levels. Scolding Mr. Karzai isn't likely to work; telling them to respect the rights of women overnight isn't either (while telling them to respect the rights of women the Western way is entirely another matter.) The way to do it is to induce the Islamic society (and any other non-Western compliant societies) to form globally acceptable moral codes on friendly terms. The Japanese and the Indians once treated foreigners (Europeans) like dogs, but are now good world citizens (at least in this current world order), and it took them a couple of centuries to get there. Why can't we give other people some time so convergence in value can take place, unless some of us are actively seeking possible enemies to divert attention on local matters?

I don't believe that the word 'befriend' means beat someone repetitively untill they are submissive enough to agree to everything you say. Realize the difference and be tolerant. Since it's always easier said than done, stop condemnation and try to do some real friendly work patiently. Please.

Susan Hough: 'Confusing Patterns With Coincidences'

I've been quoting a lot recently, as I do not have enough web time for blogging. But for this one, I do have something to say.

The quote goes first:

The game goes like this: you look back at past recordings of X, where X is radon or whatever, and find that X had shown anomalies before large earthquakes. But the problem is that X is typically what we call a “noisy signal” — data that includes a lot of fluctuations, often for varied and not entirely understood reasons — so finding correlations looking backward is about as meaningful as finding animals in the clouds.

We do know that some earthquakes, including the L’Aquila event, have foreshocks, but we can’t sound alarm bells every time little earthquakes happen because the overwhelming majority — 95 percent or so — will not indicate a coming major quake.

And the full article is available here.

Does the story sounds remotely similar to the one happened in China last year? Or indeed to the current economic crisis centered around the Wall Street melt-down? The choice is ours to make: find a way to neutralize these high-stake risks, or live on like we do now and let issuance of one kind or another to clear up the aftermath. The strange thing is that we have so far opted unanimously for the latter option, which seems to be cheap in comparison. But is it? Clearing up the mess in L'Aquila might be cheap (no derogative use here), but for the other 2 cases, the consequences are all too severe.

I seriously suspect that the whole world nowadays is risk-loving, for my problem is your problem, but my profit is too often my profit alone--the negative externality problem is everywhere. In theory people would look to the government for solution, but governments are more concerned about social unrest than about the possible loss of lives... What other options have we got?

Sakura + Kimono: Still Problematic in China

---

It is spring time and sakura, not only in Tokyo, but in China too, is flowering. A mother with her daughter dressed up in kimono (Japanese traditional clothing) and took photos under some flowering cherry trees the other day in Wuhan University, and they were, unfortunately but almost inevitably, ill-received by the passers-by.

The on-lookers felt especially offended by the wearing of kimono, which may be too "Japanese" for the liking of most of Chinese. It is not perhaps as offensive as a few Japanese military uniforms reminiscent of WWII, but it is still too much.

The media is almost uniformly opposed to the on-lookers, saying that it is only excessive and unnecessary patriotism. Neither sakura nor kimono are related the WWII crimes, and should be given considerations as such.

I am, of course, in support of the media on this issue, but I, too, find this sakura/kimono combination too much for me. I do not hate the Japanese, especially not the current generation; I am learning the Japanese language in the hope that I can view the civilization in a more educated manner. However, at this stage I still have some "nerves" against the Japanese; I wish that it could go away, but it is there. Similarly, I believe that none of the on-lookers in Wuhan University are really that anti-Japanese as to get themselves completely insulate from the Japanese culture. In this age it is too hard. We buy Japanese electronics, use Japanese cosmetics, view Japanese TV series, and read Japanese comic books. Tension still exists, but understanding is growing, and tolerance brewing. Therefore, no one will likely to scold you for viewing sakura, for taking photos of sakura with Canon cameras, or for similar activities related to Japan. However, unfortunately, wearing kimono to the scene is still not quite accepted, and with a little understanding of the opinions of the Chinese people at large, such embarrassment can be avoided.

The mother and daughter said that they had no special intentions. They just thought that wearing kimono under sakura trees was beautiful. So indeed, it is avoidable, as the kimono served no particular important purpose. The mother and daughter did not do anything "wrong"; just that they should have known better.

Now I am writing to the Westerners' dismay, because my suggestion is so undemocratic. But remember: China has always been a collective society (and Japan too), and collective opinions are not to be taken lightly. Just as the US youth do not understand the sadness in someone traveling alone (according to the experience of Haruki Murakami, if I remember correctly), it is OK for the West not to understand the Chinese emphasis on the collective over the individual.

But NOW is a good time to start to understand.

And believe me, just as it is now nothing big to talk about Takuya Kimura in adoration, it will be acceptable to wear kimono to "hanami" in China as well, sooner or later. It is happening. Just wait.

P.S.
Just came across this piece on IHT. Some Westerners do seem to understand collectivism and hold it rather high. Also, this Britannica Blog entry on loneliness by Peter Augustine Lawler is distantly related. I'm amazed how quickly related articles got my attention after this post.

Afterwit--the 'How' Is More Important

---

I recently did a cleanup, and found something interesting. A news printout from the International Herald Tribune (IHT), or 'Gore attacks Bush's policy on Iraq, saying it hurts nation', dated Sep. 25, 2002, by Dan Baiz of the Washington Post. (Just checked, and this article is somehow missing from the IHT archive.)

Back then, I used news articles like this one to train my English reading. Opposition to the war played a minor part in the choice of this particular article. Now it seems to be fate that I made the choice, since Gore's speech reads like a prophecy.

By shifting from his early focus after Sep. 11 on war against terrorism to war against Iraq, the president has manifestly disposed of the sympathy, goodwill and solidarity compiled by American and transformed it into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility.

How true. I was never positively thrilled by the disaster of Sep. 11, as opposed to the feeling of many Chinese when the incident occurred. I don't remember having any conscious disagreement to the war against the Taliban, despite the funny history of how the Taliban came into power. I would choice to dislike Saddam if I was asked to make a choice (although it was not my concern), and though I was not a fan of the Bush administration ever since they decided not to honour the Kyoto Protocol, I was to some degree with the US since Sep. 11. But not after the start of the Iraqi War.

But I'm not going to make any more moral judgments on Bush or the past US administration. Moral standards are difficult to handle, especially in international politics.

The point is that people knew the War was wrong, and did not stop it from taking place. In 2002 there were of course arguments, and arguments went on while decisions were being made. Only six years later does a clear judgment come forward, and Bush was mostly wrong. One cannot but feel that this comes too late.

It is all possible that Gore attacked Bush out of partisanship. This review from the Economist's View is more revealing, but maybe Paul Krugman can also be ignored for being partisan? After all, Dick Cheney is now attacking Obama, and who knows? Maybe he's right?...

Yet I would say NO to Cheney, though I do not yet know if Obama is doing the right thing against terrorism. Although I admit that judgments are hard to make, especially concerning things that has not yet happened, it is relatively easy to spot the fault; and the fault in the Bush administration is their conservative origin--to idealistic to deal with reality. Such moral arrogance was also present in the North Korean talks. And now Cheney is not ready to give it up.

I'd very much like someone to share their way of foreseeing the "truth", but at least for now, this is still mission impossible for me. However, this should not prevent people from trying their best at making decisions, as long as they are dealing with the real world, and not just fancies.