Anything New York


How to avoid committing sexual harassment

by on Dec.10, 2017, under Posts>Opinions>Society>Sexual harassment

I have been sexually harassed and assaulted by both strangers and acquaintances. So I support the Metoo movement. In the meantime, I was accused of sexual harassment (for sending love messages through emails) when I was in my 20s and I have learned my lessons. So I am writing this post to give my advice on how to avoid committing sexual harassment.

Firstly, make sure you know why someone wants to talk to you or meet with you. There can be 999 reasons for someone to want to talk to you or meet with you other than wanting to be close to you. When someone wants to talk to you or meet with you, it does not mean that he/she is interested in you.

Secondly, when someone is interested in you, he/she may just want to know more about you. He/she may not have fallen in love with you. Only when people have fallen in love with you will they not feel being harassed sexually.

Thirdly, when people want to have a relationship with you, they prefer that you respond to their initiatives in certain ways rather than you taking the initiative, because they want to make sure that you have really fallen in love and could not help but to respond to them.

The rule of thumb is not to assume that you are so popular that people will fall in love with you no matter what. People fall in love only after they feel being admired and respected, on top of having admiration for you. Even getting admiration requires some self-discipline, not just popularity. If you lower your self-respect, he/she will lose interest in you even if you are popular.

When two people are truly in love with each other, they will overcome all the shyness naturally and get intimate. So don’t worry that the above rules will prevent people who are truly in love from getting intimate.

Leave a Comment more...

Can we use the laws to fight hate speeches?

by on Aug.28, 2017, under Posts>Opinions>Society>Racism

Why is there no any lawsuit against any hate speech? Can’t we sue hate speech rally speakers for defamation or incitement of violence?

By the way, I do not understand why the US government would allow hate speeches to go on. Is there not any criteria to meet for speeches to be allowed to be given in public? The right to free speech should not be in conflicts with the right to be free from being defamed or being physically threatened.

The right to free speech is the right to expression of opinions. Defamation and incitement of violence are not expression of opinions.

1 Comment more...

Black lives ALSO matter vs. ONLY Black lives matter

by on Aug.26, 2017, under Posts>Opinions>Society>Racism

I guess one of the reasons why there is a conflict over “Black lives matter” is that different people understand “Black lives matter” differently. Those who champion “Black lives matter” want to stress that Black lives ALSO matter. Those who stress that “All lives matter” think “Black lives matter” means “ONLY Black lives matter”.

When people feel that they are being oppressed, they try hard to assert their rights. If two groups of people both feel that they are being oppressed by the other group of people, they both fight against the other group. That is how two groups get into a fight.

To stop two groups from fighting, politicians and the media need to stop making their group feel that the other group is trying to oppress them or that the other group is the problem, that they need politicians and the media to help them fight the other group. Tension between two groups keeps increasing because politicians and the media want the people to feel that they need politicians and the media to fight against the other group on their behalf. Steve Bannon was one such politician when he was serving in the Trump administration. Trump is less so, but still a rather polarizing politician.

By the way, I don’t think Obama was the one who increased tension between Black and White Americans. Some in the media were.


Leave a Comment more...

The fight against racism should not be violent

by on Aug.21, 2017, under Posts>Opinions>Society>Racism

Racism comes from two sources. One is prejudice. The other is the desire for protection of interests.

When people get violent, it is either because they want to protect their interests, or because they disrecpect the people they abuse.

The fight against racism should not be for the protection of interests because there should not be real conflict of interests between those who embrace racism and those who fight against it. The fight against racism should be for overcoming prejudice only. So it should not be violent. If those who fight against racism get violent out of disrespect for those who embrace racism, then they are becoming the people who they fight against.

Most people who fight against racism are not violent. But some are. And those who use force are increasing tension with those who they fight against and invite more violence.

Leave a Comment more...

The wrong approach to combating racism

by on Aug.17, 2017, under Posts>Opinions>Society>Drug Abuse>Posts>Opinions>Society>Racism>Posts>Opinions>Politics>Terrorism

Calling racist people racists will never stop them from being racist. Racists do not reason or reason the way normal people do. And they are very strong-willed. The more they are called racists, the more stubbornly racist they become.

When you want to change them, you can not openly oppose them and make them feel that you are their enemy. So it is actually better that Donald Trump is soft on them, no matter it is because he is racist himself or because he does not want to offend them. Let’s be soft on Donald Trump as well. I used to think that Donald Trump should not be the President. But now I see why we need Donald Trump in the White House. This is the only way to decrease tension with a rather large part of the population. The racists who went to Charlottesville last weekend are not the only racists in the US. There are in fact a lot of racists in the US. That is why there is the Fox News channel.

Fighting racism should be similar to fighting terrorism and drug addiction. We have to find the root cause of the problem. We have to try to help people who embrace racism out. In fact, some racists do do drug and some do get violent.

Leave a Comment more...

These people need help!

by on Aug.15, 2017, under Posts>Opinions>Society>Racism>Posts>Opinions>Politics>Terrorism

I am joining many others to mourn the loss of Heather Heyer, who was killed in Charlottesville, Virginia last Saturday. (To find out more about her, please read “Heather Heyer is a civil rights martyr“) As far as I know, she is the third person since Trump got into office who has been killed by a white supremacist while fighting racism. I really do not want anyone else to be killed in their fight against racism.

Please do not to get into a physical confrontation with those who disagree with you. Go online to have a debate, or hold your own rally (as suggested by David Swanson in Top 10 Misconceptions About Charlottesville). And try in your daily life to help people who hold extreme views out, not to get them into even more troubles.

Whenever people become violent, what we should see is that they need help. Something is not quite right in their lives or they think that something is not quite right in their lives, and so they are acting out. Extremism is not a solution to their problems. But extremism is a signal that we should not miss. It is like cancer. It is better viewed as a sign that something need to change or be done to bring harmony back to the society rather than something to fight against or eliminate. When the society returns to harmony, extremism will go away.

Leave a Comment more...

My thoughts on Trump’s travel and immigration ban

by on Feb.01, 2017, under Posts>Opinions>Politics>Immigration & Globalization>Immigration>Posts>Opinions>Society>Racism>Posts>Opinions>Politics>Terrorism

First of all, I agree with Dallas Mayor’s assessment that Trump’s travel ban could help radicalize extremists. Whether or not there is any good reason for Trump to order such a ban is not as important as it is how the ban will be seen by the world. I am sorry to have dismissed political correctness. Political correctness is not unimportant in this case.

As to Trump’s motivation for this ban, I can only speculate. There could be a few reasons for Trump to have come up with this ban. There could be an innocent reason for the US to stop accepting refugees from Syria. I was once a refugee. So I know something about how things work for refugees. When conflicts end in the country where they come from, refugees are supposed to go back to their country if they have not resettled in another country. Whether refugees from Syria should still be sent to other countries to resettle there depends on whether conflicts have ended in Syria. Trump probably does not want to think that there are still conflicts in Syria. In reality, conflicts do not usually end so quickly. If Russia is still supporting the Assad regime, conflicts will still be there. Even after all foreign forces have left Syria, there could still be a civil war there. There will be peace there eventually. But probably not right now.

That being said, a lot of people, including myself, feel that Trump’s ban is motivated more by some people’s fear of, or worse, hatred for, Muslims. This is because Trump got into power partly by making promises to people who fear or hate Muslims that he will protect them. When government policies are made out of fear or hatred, they can not be reasonable. Why do some people have to be inconvenienced and disrespected? Human rights are not just for the majority. They are for everyone. If Trump does not want to be misunderstood, he should offer as much explanation for his decision as possible. By simply saying because the US has the need of finding extremists, some people have to be inconvenienced and disrespected, Trump is showing disrespect for these people. I can therefore tell that disrespect is the most important reason for Trump to come up with the ban. Of course, trying to keep his campaign promises, and by extension, keep his job, is another reason.

By the way, if stopping extremists from entering the United States is the reason for the ban, I can not understand why Iran is on the list of countries whose citizens are to be banned. I can only think of Iran being the enemy of Israel as the reason for her to be included.

Leave a Comment more...

No real justice can ever be found in a murder case

by on Feb.09, 2014, under Posts>Opinions>Society>Crimes

I have asked for justice for Meredith Kercher. That was meant to ask the American media and the US government to be impartial and not try to intervene in a judicial process.

Now that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been convicted again and they and their supporters are trying so hard to prove that there is no evidence to prove their involvement, I have realized that I have made a mistake.

Judicial systems can only convict perpetrators who have left evidence of their involvement. Therefore, no real justice for a murder can ever be found through a judicial system. Why?

In any judicial system, we have to find evidence of perpetrators’ involvement to prove their guilt. That means perpetrators who leave evidence of their involvement can be convicted while those who do not leave any evidence or succeed in cleaning up evidence of their involvement can not be convicted. That means murderers are convicted for their stupidity or inability to cover up or failure to cover up, not for their crime.

Therefore, it is very meaningless to argue over whether there is enough of evidence to prove their guilt or not. It is in fact even harmful to do so. It sends the message that you better cover up for your crimes or you will have to pay for your crimes.


Leave a Comment more...

Q&A on Amanda Knox’s Guilty Conviction

by on Feb.08, 2014, under Posts>Opinions>Society>Crimes>Posts>Opinions>Religions

Q: How can some people be so sure of Amanda Knox’s guilt?

A: To be able to understand the logic of Amanda Knox’s conviction, it helps to have followed as many past murder cases as possible, and to have researched about this murder case as much as possible from information available in the news, on related websites, and in court documents. Information on how these past murder cases were investigated and their perpetrators convicted can shed light on why Amanda Knox could have become a suspect, been investigated, and been convicted: the murder of Lacy Peterson and the conviction of Scott Peterson (who is still running a website proclaiming his innocence), the murder of Jennifer Levin and the conviction of Robert Chambers (who has confessed and served his jail time for the crime), the murder of Natalee Holloway and the investigation of Joran van der Sloot (who has only been a suspect for the crime but has been convicted and jailed for another murder), the murder of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman and the trial of O.J. Simpson (who has been acquitted but has always remained suspected of being guilty), the conviction of Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo, etc.

[Amanda Knox reminded me of Robert Chambers the most. They both were good looking, both took drug, both were initially somewhat idolized by the media. In the Preppie Killer case, it was the victim’s mother who had to fight very hard for the victim’s rights. ]

I wonder if those who believe in Knox innocence has ever followed any case at all. Are they following only this case because the defendant is American while the victim and her family and the court are foreign?

A note on the controversies surrounding this case: As with most such difficult to solve murder cases, this case and the O.J. Simpson case both rely on a lot of guesswork and so are both refuted by the defendants. People have to rely on common sense and the evidence available to make a judgement. The reason why different people come up with different conclusion concerning the same case is that people choose to believe what can prove their points of view and ignore evidence to the contrary. In this case, it is getting harder also because of all the conflicting information being thrown around. Since some people can basically say whatever they want to say, other people don’t bother to look for evidence any more, just stick with what they already know before. And what people already know before is not all the same, due to the different reporting of the case by different media outlets.

Something I have noticed in the course of the persecution of this case is that while Americans did not have any problem with Scott Peterson’s conviction (which was based on much less evidence) when it was announced some years ago, a lot of them are having so much problem with Amanda Knox’s conviction now. I guess the standard of what evidence is good enough to get someone convicted has changed. Maybe it is because so many people have been wrongly convicted in America. The American justice system has been so screwed up that Americans do not have faith in a justice system any more.

Q: Is there any evidence?

A: Yes. Plenty of them if you look for them. Court documents are the best place to look for them. You can also find information on many websites about the case. But all websites have been seen as either pro-guilt or pro-Knox. So if you already have some ideas about the case, you may simply skip all the websites that prove you wrong. It is a human nature. For those who are convinced of Knox’s guilt, their judgement is made based on common sense and knowledge of the basic facts in the case. When people see someone giving different stories or lying repeatedly, they suspect the person’s involvement. When it is hard to explain things without the person of interest being involved, they become convinced of the person’s involvement.

In lots of difficult to solve murder cases, there is not a whole lot of evidence, the only other witness is dead. and the killer does not want to tell the truth. That is the reason why people get killed sometimes – to prevent the truth from being told. That is why we have to try our best to solve murder cases.

Something we also have to know about evidence is that once people have got an initial opinion, it is not easy to change it. Everything will either be explained in some way to serve as proof for an argument that has already been made, or be ignored. The argument over Knox’ guilt has become sort of a political fight between two parties. It has got personal and people are up in arms to defend their rights, not just what they believe to be true any more.

A problem that has made it harder for Americans to be convinced of Knox’s guilt is that the evidence in this case has been under-reported in the US. Those who read from British and Italian media about what had been told by the students, friends of Meredith, the neighbors, etc, and what had been discovered by the Italian police, from the beginning of the investigation, made up their mind about Amanda’s guilt back then. Americans got to know about the case from American media much later and much less. The purpose of the American media’s reporting of the case, from the get go, is to entice Americans to demand Italy set Amanda Knox free. British media’s reporting of the case, on the other hand, is just like American media’s reporting of any American case. The British and Italians made up their mind about this case from their media very much the same way Americans made up their mind about Scott Peterson’s guilt from what they learned from American media way before he was convicted.

Another problem that has made it difficult for some Americans to accept Knox’ conviction is that they have seen people suspected of having committed a murder walk free (OJ, Casey Anthony) while they have not noticed or have chosen to ignore those who have been convicted in the US with little evidence (Scott Peterson, Drew Peterson). A question that must be in these people’s mind is, if not all of those who look guilty are convicted, why Amanda Knox?

Q: What is the motive?

A: There are lots of murders with very simple motives or no motive at all. You may find it strange that someone would kill just for being very angry. But that does happen all the time. As to why Amanda Knox was so angry, that is not what we can answer. Some people can get very angry for very little things, especially when they are on drug.

Q: There is already one person in jail for the crime. Why do they have to convict two more people? Why is the Kercher family not happy with having one person serving jail time for the crime?

A: Just because one person has been found guilty of the crime does not mean that others can not be found guilty of the crime. It has been proven that Meredith was killed by more than one attackers. And the Kercher family know it.

Q: Is it better for Amanda Knox to go to jail?

A: Many killers live most of their remaining life as normal people (never kill again) until they are found at their old age. However, some killers do kill again. Joran van der Sloot came to mind.

Q: How Amanda Knox should have handled this?

A: Amanda Knox’s woes have made me realized how important it is to believe in God. Only when she believes in God can she handle the situation properly and is able to handle what is coming for the rest of her life. Any mistake, however big it is, can be forgiven by God. But she can never be forgiven by God or get help from God if she never turns to God and never starts to believe in God. God’s power is greater than that of all of her relatives and supporters. All the money in the world cannot buy the power that God has. There are more people who believe in God, consciously or unconsciously. That is why Knox’s conviction is reinstated. If Knox believed in God and did the right thing, she would not have to pay such a high price. In fact, at any point in time, if she turns to God, she will get help. It is regretful for her that she never does seem to get that. She always tries to be in control of the situation. She would not let God handle it. She went on TV to lie to the whole world repeatedly, as if she is powerful enough to control the world. This will only turn the world against her.


My last word: Murderers don’t always get anything out of the murders they have committed. In fact, sometimes all they get is regret and shame. In that sense, they are victims, too – victims of their own inability to control themselves. We should not ask for justice. We should just try to help them become normal people if that is possible.

Leave a Comment more...

关于为什么要抗议 ABC 和 Jimmy Kimmel

by on Nov.17, 2013, under Posts>Opinions>Politics>World Affairs>China>Posts>Opinions>Ethics>Human Decency>Posts>Opinions>Society>Racism






你们还是必须告 ABC 和 Jimmy Kimmel。Jimmy Kimmel 说他不怕被告。那就告他,让他和像他那样的人知道向大众宣扬种族灭绝是要付出代价的。不要怕国内的人说什么。你们有权利确保你们的安全。与美国同胞搞好关系不等于说不讲原则。美国人知道做人有些什么规矩,只是以为在对待中国人时不必守那些规矩。

ABC 的很多主持人是维护上层社会(白人阶层)的、很有偏见的。求他们是没有用的,只会让他们看不起。对待 ABC 这种公司,美国人的一贯做法是来硬的:抵制在他们的节目上做广告的公司,使得他们的节目难以拉得到广告赞助。



















我也注意到那些 signs 看起来很好看,不像是 home made 的。但是近年来在美国的很多游行,包括美国人的,都是这样的。游行组织者向社会募捐(这里可能是向华人社区募捐),然后用捐款买 signs 发给大家。大使馆有没有提供帮助,华人团体应该也都可以组织得起来。这种抗议活动在美国很常见。




但是节目是在美国播放的,美国华人是那个节目的观众。如果有人对着你骂你的娘,你不觉得受侮辱吗?你还说骂的是我的娘,跟我没关系吗?ABC 侮辱的很显然是美国华人嘛。再说,美国华人抗议与否是他们的事,你有什么权利干涉?







我说的只是 ABC,不是整个美国。美国有很多为正义而斗争的人。只是美国的普通民众一向就看不起亚洲人因为亚洲人人少且不团结,明哲保身且很能忍声吞气,不像其他人种那样团结且好斗。其实中国国内也有两类人,一类爱欺负人,一类总会受人欺负。













Leave a Comment more...