“You are what you eat.” How true that is! For most of my life I have been eating pork and rice. Since moved to Berkeley (no causal relation, just a time coincidence) I have switched to beef, cheese and bread and feel good.
Beef and bread provide more energy than pork and rice do. The way I figure this out is by simply looking at how long to grow a beef cattle versus a hog: One is at least 18 months while another 6 months. Slower growth means the animal has packed more energy into its body, and will pass that energy into humans consuming its meat.
The same goes to rice and wheat. China has had a field experiment for thousands of years: In Southern China, it is possible to grow and to harvest rice three times a year, while wheat only grow two rounds. Again, faster growing means packing in less energy and the opposite holds for the slower growing plants. It is a common knowledge that Northern Chinese who feed on wheat tend to get bigger and taller than people from the Southern provinces where rice is eaten.
I also remember reading online that when China was in the war with the UN troops in Korea, its airplane pilots were trained by Soviet air force and the latter told China to eat more beef and drink milk to get sufficient calories for flying soviet airplanes.
Chinese parents should at least add beef and milk (many of them do not like cheese) to their kids’ diet if they want them to perform well school and also to grow taller and stronger. Porridge in the morning simply does not provide that much energy for the day.
Another point is to go with the natural. I always drink whole milk because that’s naturally produced by cow, and if possible, cheeses made from whole milk as well. Processed foods are against nature and should not be preferred, like the 1% or 2% lean or skim milk. The same goes to whole wheat bread rather than white bread.
What You Read Matters
This blog is not about foods, I just cite the famous saying of “You are what you eat” as a way to introduce another saying of “You are what you read.” I must admit that I was reading posts from the mainlanders and was unconsciously affected to feel negative about the protestors in Hong Kong. I thought these people just wanted to copy whatever is prevailing in the west to Hong Kong, and protesting is just their way to grab global attention and to show they are morally and culturally superior to the mainlanders. I thought that by violently attacking the police, they had shown they did not understand democracy but rather hopelessly pro-violence. I also thought their slogan of “Satisfying all five demands at the same time, not missing anyone!” shows they did not know democracy is about compromises, not zero-sums.
The Good Profiles of Democratic Leaders
Then I came to these Facebook pages (in Chinese) and found them interesting. Democratic protesting in Hong Kong is now no longer just an abstract movement but with faces, stories, hearts and souls. I wish they had done something like this earlier to tell the world what they are fighting for (I still wish them to use more English, like people in former British colonies of Singapore and India).
Reading these short bios of the democratic leaders in Hong Kong made me feel more sympathetic, at least understand the movement better. These leaders are in general young and had little or limited experience in politics. They are journalist, business owners, medical doctor, lawyer, lecturer, college student, environment activist. With different careers and backgrounds the only thing in common among them is that they believe in their cause of making Hong Kong a better place tomorrow, and for that they are willing to sacrifice their existing or previous jobs, salaries, careers and personal and social interests. This is what deserves respect.
Beijing Wasted A Good Opportunity
“One country, two systems” is an excellent idea, because it offered Beijing a good opportunity to learn how to manage a wealthier, more diversified society in the future. Unfortunately Xi, Jinping blew it and wasted it. It should have allowed people in Hong Kong more freedom, because how to treat Hong Kong people is a field experiment for the future of the mainland. Citizens in Hong Kong are relatively more mature and have relatively better democratic discipline than the mainlanders, and therefore deserve to be treated differently.
A perfectly legitimate cause for example is calling for Chinese authority to allow family visits, open trials, and entitled to legal assistances after the 12 people from Hong Kong were arrested by the mainland on their way escaping to Taiwan. Beijing however chose to hold secret trials and sentenced them the way Beijing wanted. This is a setback from rule of law to rule by law, and it only helps the Hong Kong people to reject and distrust Beijing more.
Bullying Taiwan Is The Wrong Way To Go
A failed Hong Kong could only alert Taiwan to worry about their future once unified with the mainland. But Hong Kong is only a part of the problem, a bigger and more direct problem is with the way Beijing has been treating Taiwan. It has not been friendly at all — like it should be if Beijing really wants Taiwan to be a part of the same country. Taiwan should be allowed to join the international community as long as it has not been unified with the mainland. Preventing diplomatic contacts and international memberships in organizations or entities can only scare the Taiwanese away. It also tells the world that even with such a big difference in economic and military muscles, Beijing is not confident enough to give Taiwan some breathing space. The right approach is to stick to the “one China” policy and beyond that, Taiwan can enjoy its full autonomy, which is what One Country, Two Systems supposes to work.