A Mafan

How about "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" ?

Yes, Happy Birthday!

You'll have to point out where I tried to force anyone to accept my opinion as their own, because I don't see anything except a free exchange of opinions that only you seem to have a problem with. I'm not sure why you try to turn everything I give my opinion on into a pissing contest, but fine: you win whatever is you think you need to compete over.

After thinking about a little more, the reason I don't like Zhang Yimou is every single movie I've seen of his (and, admittedly, I haven't seen them all), all have the same message: "It doesn't matter what you want, you can't have it." Nobody ever gets what they want in: Raise the Red Lanterns Qiu Ju Ju Dou Red Sorghum Shanghai Triads Happy Times Hero To Live And the more he has his protagonist struggle, the more the protagonist suffers. And the more sincere the protagonist is in trying to do the right thing, the more they suffer for their good heart. (now, I haven't watched "Not One Less", which seems to be an exception to this theme) I don't enjoy Zhang's films because their dependence on fate for the plot makes them seem contrived and unrealistic to me.

"Qiu Ju" is one of the few movies by Zhang Yimou where he doesn't over-do it. In fact, that movie is very good, as is "To Live". But I think he overdoes it in: Ju Dou Raise the Red Lanterns Red Sorghum Happy Times (which is supposed to be a comedy) Hero Shanghai Triad In most of his movies, his protagonist ends up insane or dying/giving up in utter despair. That's really not what I enjoy in a movie. One thing, however: Zhang Yimou's films are always visually stunning. There are just other directors I prefer more, especially Feng Xiaogang, but also Chen Kaige, Li Ang, Hao Ning (mainly for "Crazy Stone"), Tsui Hark, and even Clarence Fok Yiu-leung. Feng Xiaogang directed: World Without Thieves CellPhone Big Shot's Funeral The Dream Factory Bu Jian Bu San Tang Shan Those are all great movies, in my opinion. The combination of Johnnie To and Ka Fai-Wai on the Andy Lau & Sammi Cheng Spring Festival movies ("Love on a diet", "Needing You" and "Long Juan Feng") and "My Left Eye Sees Ghosts" are great. Johnnie To's "Running Out of Time" is one of the best movies I've ever seen. But if you watched all these movies, you'll see that I tend to like a little comedy injected into serious subjects, and a tendency to more realistic situations (rather than Zhang Yimou's tendency to make his plots dependent on incredible coincidences/situations), and more western-style story arcs (whereas Zhang Yimou tends to use Chinese story arcs which seem more arbitrary to western viewers).

FWIW, I don't like Zhang Yimou that much. The short explanation is that I think he goes too far in manipulating emotions, i.e., exaggerating tragedy beyond reasonable proportions. But maybe he's finally found a topic that matches his penchant for dramatics.

To me, the amazing thing is that the atrocities in Nanjing were well on their way to being successfully covered up by the Japanese and forgotten until Iris Chang put the effort into her book (referred to by Mick): Excerpt from the Wiki entry on The Rape of Nanking:

Okay, I can see where that came off schizophrenic. What I was trying to get at was that while there are a few people who aren't willing to risk their lives to maintain Taiwan's de facto independence, there are many, many, many more who are willing to risk life and freedom to do so. There's a lot of history there, from CIA-trained U-2 pilots getting shot down, to Taiwan spies being rounded up on the mainland, to those who lost their lives in some minor skirmishes in the 70s, to those killed injured in shelling the islands close to the Chinese mainland. It may help you to understand I'm seeking unclassified examples that can roughly correspond with somethings I've personally seen but can't discuss. But my confidence in my opinion certainly doesn't preclude anyone's equal confidence in their opposing opinion, or providing examples that contradict what I'm asserting. It's all damn complicated, anyway.

Anyway, there is almost no PRC and/or Taiwan issue I can't at least see both sides of, even if I lean slightly to one side or the other. Neither side has covered itself with glory, neither side is completely wrong. For fun, if you can understand Chinese, watch "Qian Fu", which is a television serial about the spy game from 1945-1950. It has some humor, has two of the top stars in China right now, and is almost cartoonish in the way it depicts the KMT as corrupt fools...but it also shows how the Communist Party is almost a religion that crushes individuals and individual happiness in its gears. Then watch "Li Ming Zhi Qian", which is another television serial covering the same topic and the same time span. But in this case, it is two men who are as close as brothers, on opposite sides. And the KMT individuals are clever, honorable (although some are not), intelligent...but loyal and committed to a cause just like the Communists are. A much more balanced take, and much more enjoyable because of it.

But what does that statement really mean? Are they not disputing the PRC is the legitimate government of mainland China or are they just not disputing that the PRC has physical control of the mainland which is stating the obvious. Before I came to China I did not understand the Taiwan situation and the more your read about it the more complex it becomes. I learned a little more in this thread. Though I agree with Chen that if Taiwan ever wants to be independent it needs to become the Republic of Taiwan and not the Republic of China. It is truly a gordian knot. It gets even more fun when you consider the aspect of Min-nan chauvinism: Basically, Chen Shui-bian is of the Min-Nan ethnicity. They consider themselves the "true" Taiwanese (even though they aren't the mountain aborigines) because they were the first to come from the mainland. Apparently, they preceded the Hakka by less than 100 years, but there you have it. When the Japanese took over, they used the Min-nans to rule the Hakka and aborigines. So the Min-nans like Japan, the Hakka hate them with the same fervor as the KMTs. Which means that most Hakka end up voting pan-Blue, mostly out of dislike for the pan-Green Minnans. But many of the Pan-Green complaints of the KMT/pan-blue take-over and discrimination ignores that the Hakka have integrated with the KMT quite well. But that also has an impact on Taiwan-Japan relations...Japan could/should be Taiwan's best defense against China, but Japan doesn't give Taiwan the time of day...yet the Pan-Greens still fawn/toady on Japan, but the Pan-Blues (unnecessarily, in my view) instigate Japan whenever possible.

Please don't take this the wrong way. The tone is nothing but confidence: The scenario you paint has no accuracy. The number/percentage of Taiwan military that would refuse to fight would be about equal to the number/percentage of US military that refused to report for the Gulf War...some, but extremely few. The Taiwan military is extremely professional. They abandoned the notion of taking back the mainland a while ago...but they take the defense of Taiwan seriously. They worked under Chen Shui-bian about the way the US military does under a US President that detests the US military: for the country, not for the leader. There is a significant Taiwan patriotism, shared by both the Min-nans (the Pan-Green-based ethnicity) and the KMT and Hakka (the Pan-Blue-based ethnicities) for different reasons. But that patriotism results in some pretty impressive self-sacrifice: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/14/world/la-fg-taiwan-china-spies-20110814 http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/dark-days-for-taiwans-spies-have-arrived.html All that being said, there are absolutely plenty of Taiwan citizens who sell out to the Chinese government for money. It is almost 100% certain that China knows everything about Taiwan's defense plans, locations, readiness, etc. I think this is because there are plenty of people in Taiwan, and in the military, who think it will never come to a shooting war, so why not make some money? But all that means is that if it ever did come to shots being fired, I think some of these "harmless" traitors (they consider their activities harmless and don't consider themselves traitors) would wake up and react with anger, outrage, a feeling of betrayal, and resolve to fight/die for Taiwan against the Chinese aggression. The reason I mentioned the Taiwan military fighting for a President that detests them is that I think that when Chen Shui-bian was at his lowest level of popularity, if China had chosen that moment to attempt a decapitation strike, the Taiwan military would have rallied around the event and would declare independence and fight to the death. The main evidence I have for this is that every time China rattles its sabers (like shooting missiles over Taiwan or into their harbor to try and influence an election), Taiwan votes in a manner that moves them away from the Mainland. The Mainland saber-rattling only caused Chen Shui-bian to end up with a bigger margin of victory (stronger mandate) than any of the projections had him winning by. But anyway, that's just my understanding. It doesn't bother me if anyone disagrees or has contradicting evidence (I don't consider myself infallible, by a long shot!), just don't call me an idiot!

I'm having a difficult time finding the reference so far. It was about 10 years ago that the Dalai Lama said in an interview that he regretted inviting the Chinese into Tibet, because he was young and too excited about the promise of Communism. Now most of the articles I can find don't even mention the 17-point agreement he signed. Those that do always put it in the context of being a forced agreement. While that actually makes sense, I can't help but feel that history has been scrubbed on this topic to leave an intended impression. It is easy to find many articles about the Dalai Lama expressing his belief in Communism...and then easy to find other hagriography-ish articles that claim those are all PRC propaganda. My understanding was that the Dalai Lama did fall for the glittering "promise" of Marxist Socialism/Communism, and asked the PRC to come in and help his country develop. But then things when the Communists started acting like totalitarians always do, and deeply regretted his naivety. I'll keep searching, but I'm just not sure I can find actual proof. Thanks for the effort in tracking down sources regarding the Dalai Lama asking the Chinese in. Without a doubt, the history is slanted one way or the other, depending on who is telling the story. I am trying to track down how old the Dalai Lama would have been in 1950. He was fairly young I am sure. I think he remained in Llasa until 1959, and then fled to India. Don't waste any time trying to track down the source. I was just curious as I had never heard that point made before. And Randy, thanks for your posted link. It adds to the perspective and in any case, it seems the Chinese were going to come in, invited or not. *** Note: Just found out the Dalai Lama was born in July 1935, which would have made him 15 in 1950. I wonder to what depth he might have understood Communism at such a tender age??? Also, at age 15 was he actually "in control" of the country, or was there a proxy in charge until he came of age? I don't know. But by their belief system, he was a reincarnation, and so should be trusted more than the average 15 year old. ...unless the Dalai Lama's "handlers" (?) at that time were merely cynically manipulating a 15-yr old boy as part of keeping power in a religious structure they didn't actually believe in...but that seems too cynical by far. Anyway, the way I remember the article was he sincerely regretted the decision to invite them and considered it a mistake due to youthful inexperience. That says something to me. Then again, the idea of the PRC govt saying, "Welcome us in and nothing gets broken, refuse and we come in anyway" seems par for the course for Mao Zedong.

Yeah, that's one of the reasons I disliked Chen Shui-bian so much; he seemed willing to martyr US military lives along with his own in his quest for purely local political victories. That's why I like the US' "no opinion on independence/unification, as long as its peaceful" policy. It tells the PRC to not overreact to the small stuff, and tells Taiwan not to deliberately stick their fingers in China's eyes for the fun of it. The reason I think the PRC will use a financial method to force re-unification is because the Chinese don't like risk, their people won't be happy with masses of 'only sons', even in a presumed victory, and the Taiwanese have shown preference for caring more about standard of living issues than pretty much anything else (that's a long story to explain, tho). But when push comes to shove, as much as I like the mainland Chinese society/people/culture and don't really like Taiwan society/people/culture much (sorry if that offends anyone), I still back Taiwan for one reason: I will not tolerate the PRC deciding to go to war, resulting in (tens/hundreds of) thousands of deaths to put a free, democratic Taiwan under their authoritarian control for the purpose of shoring up their continued authoritarian domination of mainland China. And that's the scenario I see most likely to result in a cross-Strait war.

But Scotland wouldn't take the position that it was the legitimate government of the UK. It would declare itself separate. Taiwan has never really done that. Taiwan abandoned that claim back in 1991: As much as I have always disliked Chen Shui-bian, I do think he was right on name "rectification".

I'm having a difficult time finding the reference so far. It was about 10 years ago that the Dalai Lama said in an interview that he regretted inviting the Chinese into Tibet, because he was young and too excited about the promise of Communism. Now most of the articles I can find don't even mention the 17-point agreement he signed. Those that do always put it in the context of being a forced agreement. While that actually makes sense, I can't help but feel that history has been scrubbed on this topic to leave an intended impression. It is easy to find many articles about the Dalai Lama expressing his belief in Communism...and then easy to find other hagriography-ish articles that claim those are all PRC propaganda. My understanding was that the Dalai Lama did fall for the glittering "promise" of Marxist Socialism/Communism, and asked the PRC to come in and help his country develop. But then things when the Communists started acting like totalitarians always do, and deeply regretted his naivety. I'll keep searching, but I'm just not sure I can find actual proof.

When there was the UN vote on the Palestinian state, I was really surprised to see China vote for it. Because the PRC has been in existence only about as long as modern Israel, and it was formed by taking over territory from the Nationalists. Insisting on Palestine's sovereignty due to "history" (there's that self-serving reference again) merely strengthens Taiwan's claim to co-exist with the PRC, I would think. At least, that's how I would argue it in the UN. Maybe I'm missing something, but I actually don't have much of a problem with Tibet being a part of China. I wouldn't have a problem with it being separate, either...but the Dalai Lama invited the PRC in. Maybe that was stupid of him to trust the Communists, but he did it. And Tibet had been a part of China previously, and had been separate previously. Now, I'm not one of those people who thinks that the world map gelled at the end of WWII and should never be changed again. I just don't think you can solve injustice by creating new victims. I believe in war ONLY to create more freedom. But I also do believe that wars do mean something. People died, blood was shed. At least one side believed the issue was worth fighting, killing, and dying over...and the other side thought it was worth spending their own lives and blood to resist. And then one side had enough, and acquiesced. The result was purchased with lives. For good or ill, the result has been cemented in blood. That price should not be overturned lightly, especially not due to nationalistic/regionalistic fervor that rises and ebbs for all sorts of reasons...but often due to small groups of people stirring up "righteous" anger in pursuit of personal power or glory. There are some things that suck in Tibet right now. There are some things in Tibet that are far better under the Communists than they were without them. Unless people are actually being brutally repressed, I'm not too keen on supporting separatist movements. Too many things like that are subject to whims and fashions and passions of the moment, rather than being well-thought out.

"denying the legitimacy of PRC for 20+ years" ...hmmm, that's a good point that I didn't consider. But I guess I don't fully understand why it has to be a zero-sum game. We split from England; it didn't mean our existence as a nation made England illegitimate. Scotland is considering splitting from the UK; if they do, it won't make the UK illegitimate. East Germany didn't make West Germany illegitimate, but when the time was right, they peacefully reunited. Personally, I think they will reunite when China owns enough of Taiwan's economy that the PRC can say, "Re-unite, or we will nationalize all your mainland factories/capital/technology." Owning "enough" of Taiwan's economy will be when a significant portion of Taiwan's economy is fully invested in and fully dependent on Mainland China, but only constitutes a small fraction of PRC's economy. The ultimatum will come when the PRC has its own economy strong enough that it can take a 2-3% hit on its GDP without much of a problem. That could happen as soon as 5-6 years from now, but probably within 20. I originally thought military action would come around 2014, when several new PRC weapons systems were scheduled to come on-line, but in a lull of US weapons' development (before the US next-generation weapons systems were online and fully integrated). But the US has made some jumps in information/intelligence that have filled the gaps, and the world economic slowdown has exposed housing bubbles in China as well as slowing their economy to concerning levels, so I think that pushes things off a few more years.

My mother-in-law (the least political, least strident person I can imagine) says that one thing makes it clear Taiwan is part of China: when Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalists fled mainland China, why did they go to Taiwan? Why didn't they go somewhere else? Why couldn't they go somewhere else? ...obviously, because Taiwan was part of China then.

A smattering of random thoughts: - I don't really see that Taiwan "allows" China to speak for them on the international stage. The US basically threw Taiwan under the bus in the UN for some reason (I think it was because China had nukes and/or we thought we could exploit a Sino-USSR rift by doing so), and China has used that prominence in the UN to force all other international organizations to refuse to recognize Taiwan. Taiwan has been trying to get recognition in any international organization as a pretext/prelude to get UN membership. China is adamant about blocking them from membership, even in groups like the World Health Organization, where China has no power to enforce any policies or deliver aid in the event of a pandemic. - There are all sorts of mainland Chinese artistic treasures in the National Museum in Taiwan. These treasures are clearly Chinese. If Taiwan is not a part of China, shouldn't they return those treasures to where they were stolen from? Lots of Taiwan historical movies and television shows (like Seven Swords) are set in Mainland in China, using language originating on mainland China. Even the so-called "native" Min-Nan Hua originates from the mainland. Linguistically, historically, culturally, Taiwan's source is undoubtedly China. (...then again, we tell stories of Robin Hood in the US.) - On the other hand, I can only define sovereignty as the ability to enforce laws and collect taxes over a geographical area, and the PRC absolutely does not have sovereignty over Taiwan from that perspective. - The official US policy is that we want the issue to settled peacefully. Independence, (re)unification, eternal ambiguity...it doesn't matter, as long as force is not used to bring about or in reaction to changes to the status quo. I think that actually makes good sense. My wife gets pissed at me for saying that Taiwan is, for all intents and purposes, a separate country. My father-in-law says that if Taiwan declares independence, China will go to war. When I ask why, he says that, historically, Taiwan is a part of China. I said, isn't 40 years ago part of history? Why is 40 years ago less valid than 70 years ago? Or even more clearly, why is 70 years ago more important than 2000 years ago when Taiwan wasn't part of China? (same argument comes up about the Spratlys...China had zero presence there until they took some islands from Viet Nam, then found some pottery there from 300 years ago and make the same b.s. history claim) And if "history" is so important, then why shouldn't PRC surrender to Taiwan, because in 1946, the Communists were ruled by the Nationalists, no? And why don't they go to war with Russia over Vladivostok, or start a war to re-unify outer Mongolia (also part of China at some point in history)? Viet Nam was part of China, too, for a while... The point being, that just because ownership existed at one point in time in history doesn't mean you have a claim on it now. Or else Mongolia should be given all of China due to their conquest in the 1100s (the Yuan dynasty), or China should be split up into lots of little countries (as it was several times during history). I doubt they'd stand for that, either. Maybe, in the end, that is the actual point: a nation, long united, must split; and long divided, must unite. That's the opening line from the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. So maybe PRC's point is that this is just one of the divided periods, and someday they have to get together again, due to common blood, language, culture antecedents, etc. Put that way, maybe it works better as a belief than as a logical argument.

Who? What? Security clearance..........??? There are a few around that have security clearances, and should consider the issue of their wife's property in China.

My wife makes all sorts of different dishes, mostly Chinese, but a little of everything. But she is in heaven now that her Mom is here visiting and cooking. She gets homemade noodles, homemade steamed bread, dumplings, etc. I'm a little non-plussed, because it is all kind of bland, and most of the things my wife makes for us are spicy. My wife loves spicy, too, so I didn't realize how many of the dishes she was making were mainly for me. I guess there is something to be said for comfort foods like mom makes? But I like my wife's cooking far better than most of the things my Mom made when I was growing up.

Unless you have a security clearance. Then you need to let your security officer know about the situation. Just be honest and it is no problem.

Also, you should tell her to go back. If you don't, she may mark it down in her heart that you don't care about her family, or about her seeing her family. If she refuses, it may just be their form of politeness, i.e., refusing precisely because she does want to. So if she refuses, tell her again. With this in mind, it might work to say something like, "your parents are aging; you should go see them...who knows when you might have another chance?" You aren't mentioning death or dying, but your intent to give her a chance to see them again should make your meaning clear without touching on superstitious taboo. Then again, my wife seems to have no concept of tempering her words in case they are the last words ever said between her and someone else. So maybe they simply don't want to think about death/dying at all until they actually face it.

I agree to a point. But when translating one does not always have a sentence or paragraph; if your translating a text your translating words as accurately [in context] as possible. You cannot rewrite a 5000 word text of Laozi's Dao De Jing into 20,000 english words just to suit the idea that one can use a paragraph. The linguist noted in the article, Gu Zhengkun, has translated the Laozi text (which I have a copy) and one can invariably see the challenge even in his work. And 'shengren' in the Laozi will be quite different than for Confucius (who tended to use Junzi)... but there is also 'zhenren' (true man) in the ancient text; and it would probably all differ somewhat from what a modern would say it means; so context is really quite important in the translation; one has to know the thought and meaning of the speaker, not just the word itself. It does get very pedantic very quickly... Right, and understood. But you have to match the degree of accuracy to the task at hand. 99% of the time, "philosopher" is fine, because it puts the right picture into the listener/reader's head. 99.9% of the time, the listener/reader doesn't need anything that precise, they just need to understand what is going on, and delving into the exact difference between "shengren", "zhenren" and "philosopher" will just get things bogged down and may confuse people. That's why I didn't like the article. It would have been effective to me if he had been explaining why translating nouns that attach to concepts that existed only in antiquity and/or in other cultures. Instead, all I got out of the article was someone complaining about how translating is really difficult and not accurate, along with an extreme exaggeration about how using foreign terms may be cultural treason. But maybe it just rubbed me the wrong way. I have encountered these translation problems over and over, and rather than complaining about them, I relish finding the right translation that gets the right understanding to the listener, while glossing over any unnecessary details. For instance, let's say you run across "°ËÒ»" while translating an article. It could be the °ËÒ»´óÂ¥ (81 Building) or °ËÒ»ÖÐѧ (81 elementary school) or something else. Do you translate it as the 1 August Building, the Army Day Building, the Army Birthday Building or the 8/1 Building? Any one of those is literally correct. You ned to choose the one that gives the listener the right feeling. In the US, the US military celebrates both Navy Day and the Navy Birthday (two different things, due to the Navy being decommissioned after the Revolutionary War). Since Navy Day celebrates the US Navy's re-establishment, and since the Communist Army was established on 1 August, and since China doesn't really celebrate 1 August as a "birthday", I think for most purposes, the Army Day Building is the best translation. Do you really need to explain the background to help people get it? No. Is it cultural treason to talk about the Chinese Army Day? Of course not. Is it accurate to call it the 1 August Building? Yes, but... I guess my point is just that if the writer's point was try to help laymen understand the problem of translating, he could have chosen better examples, and explained the problem more aptly. If not, then I don't know what he was getting at.

Two "rules" apply here: Family is more important than anything. An older generation is more important than a younger generation. (generally speaking) My wife has never asked to go back for grave cleaning day, but she has never missed one when she is China. So far, no one has passed away while she was in the US. It just happened that her last living grandparent (mom's mom) passed while I was in Iraq and she was back home with the folks. She never asked to go back when it seemed like her cousin might die in childbirth complications...but I think the fact that I offered multiple times was appreciated. Hope that helps.