A Christmas Letter of 2014

A Christmas Letter

Cherry Baby:

One thing you should know is that I never regard myself a writer. I don't have that kind of lofty self-conception. Rather, I think I am just a weaver of words to while away the time and to seek peace, serenity, and salvation. I weave facts and fantasies into a woven fabric of manifestos, stories, and poems. I need to write just like I need to breathe. Words sustain me. 

So now you should know fully who I am. I just told you everything about who I think I am, warts and all, in the recent manifesto, "Who Am I. Why Is My Name Wissai?" I held nothing back. I didn't want you to fall in love with a wrong conception and perception of me. I am too proud and arrogant to stoop low in order to conquer your heart. I always subscribe to the notion that honesty is the best policy. A victory without struggle is not worth fighting for. Don't take me wrong, you are not a target for me to seize and carry away. I just felt that you needed to know how I view the notions and myths of God, paradise, reincarnation, Judgment Day and other crap. I know all these notions and myths are important to you and you believe in them whole-heartedly. I used to look with disdain at those who believe in these notions and myths. But after meeting you, I realize that for some people, religion does do them good. I think that without religion, they are still good, but religion gives them a structural framework to have a moral view about the world. For most people, however, religion is just a superficiality. They are not transformed into better humans by the religion of their "choice". I used the word "choice" sarcastically because very few of them did a conscious study of the main religions available to them and then chose one of them. They just mindlessly adopted and accepted what they were brought up to believe in. 

A guy like Nietzsche was an exception. He grew up in a family of clergymen. Fortunately for him, he was endowed with a superb inquisitive and independent mind. He came to believe in his teens that the notion of God was too gross for him. So he became an atheist (for reference, read his strange book "Ecce Homo" written before he broke down under the strains of syphilis). He wrote that "I do not by any means know atheism as a result, even less as an event: it is a matter of course with me, from instinct.  I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. (Ich bin zu neugierig, zu fragwürdig, zu übermütig, um mir eine faustgroße Antwort gefallen zu lassen.) God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers---at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!"

Please don't think I became an atheist after running into Nietzsche. I became an atheist at the age of eleven after having doubts about my mother's warnings of the terrible punishments from God if I didn't behave because I saw many wicked individuals in my neighborhood alive and prosperous while some virtuous folks suffered. I began thinking that God was not fair or more importantly, He was just a tool, a concept Man invented. Later, in my late teens and twenties when I read that Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell forsook the notion of God when they were  about 15, 16 years of age, I got very proud of my metaphysical precocity. I think a human's views of the world rest on two main pillars of thought: whether or not there is a God and whether or not life is worth living. 

But enough about God, let's go back and talk about writing and why people have an urge to write and post their thoughts in blogs and Internet forum groups. I obliquely mentioned that in the recent short speech I gave at a book signing event. The gist of that speech is as follows:

"Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends who love poetry:

It was a honor for me to be invited here by my friend, the poet of the book of poems that most of you are holding in your hands, to read translation of a poem of his into English. Before doing so, I would like to say a few words, if I may, about language, poetry, and poetry translation.

All beings have a need to communicate. Plants communicate via chemicals. Animals do so by secreting chemicals and emitting sounds. Humans, the most developed animal on this planet, has the most elaborate sound system expressed by means of language and music.

Two humans, like two lovers freshly in love, can talk with each other for hours, from dawn to dusk. A person can speak for hours in front of a rapt audience which observes absolute silence. On the other hand, a comedian, via the spoken words, can make an audience laugh rollickingly, their faces radiant with understanding, pleasure, and communion. No other animals on this planet can do so. From ordinary speech, humans have progressed to poetry to express the most deeply felt thoughts in a condensed and suggestive manner. A person who was struggling with the thought of killing himself could say in prose such as, "I feel so depressed that I don't want to live anymore" or he could say in verse as follows:

Mây đã trôi đi tận cuối trời 

Mang theo xác chết của hồn tôi

                                    NKB

The clouds have floated to the horizon

Carrying with them the corpse of my soul

I think by expressing his suicidal thought in a poetic and metaphorical manner, he unconsciously struggled to stay alive. To understand poetry is easier than to write poetry. Everybody knows about that. The two processes are different. One process is passive, requiring no quick recollection of words and arrangement of them in a striking, memorable, and musical manner, as in the other process. 

Poetry and Music go hand in hand. That's why it is easy to put a poem into a song. And each song is a poem delivered with music. A poem must have musicality. Musicality is more than just rhyme. Musicality is governed by rhythm and cadence. That's why we have  free verse and poetry in prose. Poetry has many genres: epic, elegiac, lyric, humorous, and surreal. 

The poetry of my friend Lưu Nguyễn Đạt is imbued with musicality while exhibiting both lyricism and surrealism, hence resistant to rendition. His poems are laden with unusual words and ideas. The French have a saying, "traduire, c'est trahir" (to translate is to betray.) I have translated into English some poems of several Vietnamese poets. Mr. LNDat's poems stretched to the limit my linguistic abilities. It was exceedingly harder for me to translate them than even the poems of Bùi Giáng and Phạm Công Thiện. In my opinion, to translate is not necessarily an act of betrayal. It is a creative process of giving birth to the twin of the original. Each language is a world of its own. It reflects the special way its speakers have learned to express themselves over thousands of years. Two peoples can walk together in the same path but the footprints of each people cannot be identical. To translate is to convey the same journey while recognizing the differences in footprints. The translation done by the computer does not and cannot recognize the subtle differences in footprints. The machine tries to match the footprints by means of literal translation. The result is that the translation sounds stilted, awkward, clumsy, and sometimes nonsensical. Most translations I have seen in the Internet forums are not much better than those done by Google translation algorithms. The translations may consist of end rhymes, but lack rhythm. Most of the time, they fail to capture the essence, the spirit of the original. To know a language in depth requires a lifetime of dedicated immersion. One can tell the level of mastery by the way a person expresses himself in writing, let alone a poetry translation. 

 

To translate a poem is a labor of intense love.  When we translate, we engage in a process of falling in love with the words of the original text. We wrestle with them, we make love with them and we make them become our own. We want to prolong the pleasure of making love; we wish we could write those words ourselves. A translated poem that has merit is the one that meets our wish and the challenge of the original. An elderly Vietnamese gentleman could say the following line to his newly found young love:

Yêu em là đi ngược lại thủy triều của thời gian

T'aimer, c'est marcher contre la marée du temps 

To love you is to march against the rising tide of time

I think when he added the adjective "rising" in the English translation he knows something about musicality and he has a feel for the rhythm of the English language. He is not a translation machine. He has become a poet himself. 

Now I invite you to enjoy the lyricism and surrealism of a poem of Mr. Lưu Nguyễn Đạt in three languages:

ĐUỔI BẮT MẶT TRỜI

 

ta bay đuổi bắt mặt trời

kéo đêm bừng sáng vợi vời bên em

cánh mây bát ngát gió mềm

vuốt ve giấc ngủ tụ xuyên bóng thừa

 

thân yêu thai nghén hạt mưa

rừng thiêng núi biếc vẫn chưa nối liền

quanh đây tiếng gọi triền miên

thời gian hé mở góc thiền trong tâm

 

LNDat

ATTRAPER LE SOLEIL

 

je vole pour attraper le soleil

tirant de la nuit

la lumière à ton côté

les ailes de nuages au vent immense

caressent le sommeil

sur les oreillers d'ombres

 

tu portes dans ton corps

un embryon de pluie

à l'appel incessant de la nature mystique 

les forêts sacrées s'éloignent des collines vertes

et le temps s'ouvre en béance

dans l'âme éveillée 

Traduit par l'auteur

 

TO SEIZE THE SUN

i fly high in the sky

to seize the sun

from the stillness of the night

to bring light by your side

vast wings of clouds 

take off in flight 

with the help of gentle winds

caressing the sleep lying in superfluous shades

you carry inside

a seed of rain

the sacred forests haven't linked with green mountains

in response to the unending call 

time unfolds itself 

in the Zen corner of the awakened soul

Translated by Roberto Wissai/NKBa'

Cherry, this letter is getting much longer than I intended. I'm going to say a few more words then I will sign off. 

A poem worth its name must be written in blood, sweat, and tears. It must have its gestation in the throbbing heart and was born via the restless mind. It is a cherished, wanted child of the poet. Each word and each line were chosen and nourished with care and consideration. They were not withdrawn from the storehouse of the ready made words, available for use on demand. A good poem commands attention of the reader at once. It forces the reader to slow down, savoring each word. And when he gets to the end, he goes back up reading the poem again and again. The immortal poems have that hypnotic effect on the reader. Le style, c'est l'homme. Văn là Người. Thơ là Tất Cả. The Style is the Man. Poetry is Everything. It is the Logos. 

Anybody can write verse. However, to write good poetry is very difficult, as difficult as to be a true human. A true poet must be free, transcendental, noble in sentiments, romantic but not lewd, serious but not severe, sensuous but not sentimental, friendly but not clownish. 

Man is a social animal. He has a need to share his thoughts and feelings, and to be understood. To write prose is to share one's thoughts and feelings in a formal, lasting manner. To write poetry is to journey in a land of metaphors and suggestions. To translate is to attempt the impossible. And for me, a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, to write this kind of Christmas letter to a devout Christian like you is an act of romantic suicide. Nevertheless, I harbor an undying wish some day you come to understand that you left some beautiful, unforgettable memories with me. 

Happy Holidays of 2015!

Wissai

December 12, 2014

Song in the early 1970's

No, I can't forget this evening

Or your face as you were leaving

But I guess that's just the way the story goes

You always smile but in your eyes

Your sorrow shows, yes, it shows

No, I can't forget tomorrow

When I think of all my sorrows

And I had you there but then I let you go

And now it's only fair that I should let you know

What you should know

I can't live if living is without you

I can't live, I can't give any more

Can't live if living is without you

I can't live, I can't give any more

Well, I can't forget this evening

Or your face as you were leaving

But I guess that's just the way the story goes

You always smile but in your eyes

Your sorrow shows, yes, it shows

Can't live if living is without you

I can't live, I can't give anymore

I can't live if living is without you

Can't live, I can't give anymore

Living is without you

An Essay by Charles Blow about being black

I was born in 1970, on the heels of the civil rights movement. I didn’t witness my parents’ struggles and their parents’ struggles before them. What I knew of darker days I learned in school, read in books or saw on television. Therefore, as a matter of circumstance, there existed a space between that reality and me. It was more pedagogical than experiential.

As a young man, I could connect my current circumstances and present societal conditions intellectually to previous ones and form a long-arching narrative of undeniable progress from slavery to Reconstruction to Jim Crow to mass incarceration to me. But that narrative was developed in the mind. Not, more innately, written by personal tribulation or authored by the shock and horror of real events happening in real time — my time — so that the mind and spirit could unite in moral outrage and the voice lift in anguished outcry.

That changed when I reached a series of racial-justice maturation moments, two of which are particularly relevant to our current cultural discussion in this country.

One came in 1991, when I was 20 years old. Rodney King was savagely beaten — on video — by Los Angeles police officers. The video showed “officers taking turns swinging their nightsticks like baseball bats at the man and kicking him in the head as he lay on the ground early Sunday,” as The New York Times put it at the time.

Earlier in the day, before the beating, one of the officers who participated had typed a message on a computer terminal in a squad car, referring to a domestic dispute among blacks this way: “Sounds almost as exciting as our last call. It was right out of ‘Gorillas in the Mist.’ ”

One of the officers reportedly said of King and the beating during an internal affair interview: “It’s like he’s looking at me, doesn’t see me, he’s just looking right through me,” reasoning that King was under the influence of PCP. (Testing of King showed no PCP.)

This is reminiscent of the dehumanizing language used by Darren Wilson, who shot and killed Michael Brown in Ferguson,Mo. Wilson testified about Brown: “He looked up at me and had the most intense aggressive face. The only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon, that’s how angry he looked.”

The four Los Angeles police officers were acquitted of assault.

Six years after those acquittals, a black man named James Byrd Jr. was attacked by three white men, beaten, urinated on, tied by the ankle to the back of their truck, dragged on the asphalt and decapitated by a culvert.

After that, I was acutely aware of what W. E. B. Du Bois, in “The Souls of Black Folk,” called the “double consciousness”:

“One ever feels his two-ness, — an American, a Negro; two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.”

After that, all innocence inculcated and nurtured by the distance of history and the dreamy visions of perpetual progress melted. A new, harsher sensibility and an endless searching for social justice formed in its place.

I knew then that whatever progress might have been made in previous generations would not continue as a matter of perpetual momentum, but rather as a matter of constant pushing.

So I deeply understand and appreciate the feelings of the protestors — particularly the young ones — who have taken to the streets with outrage and outcry in cities across this great country over the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases.

I even understand the sentiments, recorded by recent polls, that a majority in this country believe race relations are getting worse and that more than a third think police-minority relations are getting worse.

Obviously, in the long sweep of history, no one could make such a claim. Race relations are certainly not worse than they were 50 or 100 or 400 years ago, but there is nagging frustration that things haven’t progressed as fast as many had hoped. And change, rightly or wrongly, is often measure relative to the recent past rather than to the distant one.

Furthermore, for young people in their late teens or early 20s, like my children, whose first real memory of presidential politics was the election of the first African-American president, any seeming racial retrenchment is jarring, and for them, over the course of their lifetimes, things can feel like they are getting worse.

This is their experiential moment, that moment when the weight becomes too much, when the abstract becomes real, when expectations of continual, inexorable progress slam into the back of a slow-moving reality, plagued by fits and starts and sometimes prone to occasional regressions.

It is that moment when consciousness is raised and unwavering optimism falters, when the jagged slope of truth replaces the soft slope of fantasy, when the natural recalcitrance of youth gathers onto itself the force of purpose and righteousness, when we realize that fighting is the only way forward, that equality must be won — by every generation — because it will never be freely granted.

This is a moment of civic awakening and moral maturing for a generation, and they are stepping boldly into their moment. Yes, they are struggling to divine the most effective way forward, but they will not accept being dragged backward. It is a profound moment to which we should gladly bear witness.

Dignity Deficit by Timothy Egan

We know President Obama wants a lasting deal on immigration, something to make taxes fairer, a little help from a caveman Congress on climate change. If he’s lucky, he might get some of the above. But one thing his worst opponents have never given him, and probably never will, is respect. R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

From the day he took office, his legitimacy has been challenged, his American birth has been suspect, and he’s been personally insulted, lectured, yelled at and disrespected in public, by public figures, in a way that few if any American presidents have ever faced.

The latest example of this may seem a trifle — the crude comments of a Republican congressional staffer, Elizabeth Lauten, about the first family. She resigned after making fun of Sasha and Malia Obama last month. And while Lauten certainly proved her shortcomings as a communications director, making the story about her instead of some platitudinous deed of her boss, Representative Stephen Fincher of Tennessee, her swift resignation was seen as validation for the last line of civility still standing in uncivilized Washington.

The impulse insults that flow from social media are invariably dismissible, and often forgivable. This is your brain without filter. Add an extra dimension for the young and impetuous. But overlooked in Lauten’s Facebook takedown of the Obama kids was a lecture on their family values:

“Dear Sasha and Malia, I get you’re both in those awful teen years, but you’re a part of the First Family, try showing a little class. At least respect the part you play. Then again your mother and father don’t respect their positions very much, or the nation for that matter, so I’m guessing you’re coming up a little short in the ‘good role model’ department.”

The subtext, consistent with Republican treatment of the president since day one, is the idea that he and the first lady are not decent or normal people — expressed here as failed role models who have tarnished the positions they hold.

No one can know for sure what goes on behind closed doors in a family. But within the bubble that we can see, the Obamas have been an impressive unit, projecting an image worthy of emulation. Michelle Obama has tried to get Americans to exercise more and eat healthy, and has reached out to the families of veterans. In public, she and her husband are a feisty, often playful and complementary couple. The kids have hardly ruffled a feather, something almost no parent of a teenager can claim of their own.

One of the things that President Obama has started is an effort to connect young men of color to mentors — the My Brother’s Keeper initiative. Family breakdown touches all races, whites increasingly. My Brother’s Keeper tries to find role models for young men coming of age at a time when two-thirds of African-American families are single-parent.

Many of the people who dwell in the uglier recesses of social media, or make casual conversation among the like-minded, will not grant Obama the family man the respect he has earned, or Obama the president the dignity that comes with the office.

I want to believe this is not about race, but it sure looks that way. Barely nine months into his presidency, a Republican congressman, Joe Wilson, shouted out “You lie!” at the president in the decorous setting of a joint session of Congress — a flagrant show of disrespect for the man and the office. For this, Wilson became a hero in conservative media.

The biggest slap at the president was the smear about his birth. It’s insulting and humiliating that Obama — alone among presidents — has been forced to release his long-form birth record to satisfy a clutch of fact-deniers. Leading the attack on the president’s very citizenship is the professional vulgarian Donald Trump, who gets away with the kind of preposterous, race-based comments granted few black public figures.

Trump’s displays of idiocy on Fox News are a staple of that network. I wait for the day when something Trump says that is both stupid and incendiary is held up as representative of all white people — and he’s asked to apologize for his race.

Also on Fox, Sean Hannity recently blamed President Obama for the troubles in Ferguson — because, I guess, he’s black.

The list goes on and on: Arizona’s governor, Jan Brewer, wagging her finger at President Obama while lecturing him on an airport tarmac, as if he were some errand boy and not the commander in chief. The complete fraud of the Benghazi nonstory — as even a Republican House panel had to conclude recently. The endless millions spent finding nothing scandalous about the president on Benghazi proved just one thing: how grass-roots conservative hatred of the president drives Republican congressional action.

The first lady herself is not off limits. It’s one thing to make fun of Nancy Reagan’s designer dresses. It’s quite another to ridicule Michelle’s Obama’s rear end, as the Republican congressman James Sensenbrenner did, trying to discredit the first lady’s Let’s Move initiative. Why a politician with a red bulbous nose and no discernable chin — the very caricature of a pampered political hack — feels that he’s in a position to comment on someone else’s appearance is another question.

The first lady cannot go on vacation without the Drudge Report hyping elaborate travel bills, playing to race insinuations. But when the family of Sarah Palin was involved in a beer-fueled, fist-flying brawl in Alaska this year, conservative media did not call them out for bad white family values, or failures as role models.

And don’t forget the assessment of Washington’s most reliable hypocrite, the shameless Newt Gingrich. “What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions],” he said a few years ago, unveiling his great, race-based and entirely inaccurate epiphany about the president.

The disrespect continues to this day. Representative Paul C. Broun, Republican of Georgia, has suggested that Speaker John A. Boehner not invite the president to give his annual State of the Union speech before Congress next month.

You can call Obama a weak leader. You say he’s too aloof. You can disagree with his policies. You can suggest he’s acting like a king — thankfully, still an impressive insult in a country born in a bloody revolution against the British crown. But, for those who can’t even see the humanity in the man because of his race, try to respect the title that comes before his name. It’s there forevermore.

Happiness Matters by Pharrell Williams

Turning Point: “Happy,” the world’s first 24-hour music video, becomes a global sensation.

Happiness is a human right. It’s neither a luxury nor a triviality. It’s given to you at birth, but you must recognize its existence. It’s as important as the breath of air in your lungs. If people aren’t happy, the world is not right.

Most people think that once they have found “it” — whatever that “it” may be for them — then they will have attained “perfect” happiness. But happiness always comes from within, and many unfortunately take it for granted, or feel guilty about it or suppress happiness instead of setting it free.

It’s not possible to experience constant euphoria, but if you’re grateful, you can find happiness in everything. While I’ve expressed gratitude many times for what my song “Happy” did for me personally, I will never stop saying thank you.

I’m thankful for all the people behind the song’s success, and how I was constantly pushed to do more — my song submissions for this scene in “Despicable Me 2” were rejected nine times. I’m thankful that people now know my name where they hadn’t before.

But what has moved me the most is that people from all over the world, in places like Poland, Japan, Mexico, Korea, Brazil, Senegal and Jordan, took this song — one that I was lucky enough to create — and made it their own. I didn’t create this phenomenon. Everybody else did.

Moved by the spirit of “Happy,” people young and old, from the most remote corners of the globe to the most polarized, began recording homemade videos of themselves dancing and singing along to the song. People expressed joy to the track in the tsunami-ravaged Philippines, the Gaza Strip, Vatican City, the Ukraine and beyond. And in the spring, just days after Iran’s president had denounced Internet censorship, a group of young Iranian men and women were arrested after posting their own version, “Happy in Tehran,” and were forced to publicly apologize before they were released on bail.

[Video: Watch on YouTube.]

It’s those people, inspired and brave, making their own videos and sharing them on YouTube, who showed me how happiness can connect us all.

This reminded me of how music can break down barriers, transcending language, religion and even geography. Music can be political: Harmony can penetrate the walls where attitudes can’t, and a melody can get your attention more quickly than a shout.

Music can send you in a different and unexpected direction. In my own life, “Bonita Applebum” by A Tribe Called Quest set me on a new path. Its creativity made me curious, which helped me to start to chisel away at what I wanted to know. It got my mind going, got me asking questions — it was the first song that ever did that for me.

And music is universal. It’s easy to forget how the power of music can prove how similar we are as human beings by taking us all to a common place, a shared feeling, an emotion or an understanding of something that is often inexplicable. It can make us all smile — and few things on this earth are as beautiful.

It’s humbling to know that something I touched helped to inspire millions of smiling faces, reaching disparate people across far-flung places. There are really no words to explain that feeling. Humbled seems inadequate.

People often ask me why I think so many connected with the song. And that’s just it — the connectivity. We’re more connected than ever now, and this phenomenon would not have happened without a channel like YouTube or the ability to easily create and share videos, but it’s the emotion that really drove it.

Happiness is the truth, and it’s contagious. How can you not smile when you see someone who is happy? It’s such a simple thing, and we need so much more of it as we face the challenges that threaten peace all over the world.

That’s why I participated in the United Nations’ International Day of Happiness on March 20, which every year celebrates unity and says that the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental human goal that should be recognized in public policy objectives.

Building on the organic response to 24hoursofhappy.com, we created 24hoursofhappiness.com and inspired people to submit their own “Happy” videos. We received responses from more than 140 countries and the result was a 24-hour celebration and a wave of happiness worldwide. People came together in cities to sing, dance and celebrate happiness. A flash mob gathered in Croatia; “Happy” played on Jumbotrons in Tokyo, Japan; and there was a #HappyDay video contest in Indonesia.

I plan to take this turning point into the next year. In 2015, I will use the song to bring attention to the United Nations Global Education First initiative, which aims to put every child in school and foster global citizenship.

Happiness should not just be a temporary phenomenon, and it should not be limited to just one moment in 2014. If we can connect on this level, we can connect on others, like accepting each other’s individuality and working toward a greater sense of well-being. We all need to recalibrate our self-awareness based on happiness, or we won’t know who we are or what we stand for. Only then will we realize that there’s always a reason to smile, we can make social progress and we can truly become a global nation.

With almost a billion views combined, I hope the “Happy” video continues to inspire humanity and the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is not found over the rainbow or in some mythical place. It’s around the corner, dancing down the street with no cares in the world.

Our time on this earth is not infinite. We need to welcome any opportunity to smile and can’t afford to waste one second. There’s real purpose in our desire for happiness — it’s not silly or even selfish to pursue it.

So yes, it might sound crazy what I’m about to say, but it’s my responsibility to repeat it. Go ahead, feel like a room without a roof. No boundaries, no limits, no restrictions. Dance like no one’s watching, smile like love and believe that happiness can change the world.

Pharrell Williams is a Grammy Award-winning musician, designer and entrepreneur.

Tôn Giáo và Chính Trị

Con người, nhất là người được may mắn có học thức, phải biết tôn trọng sự thật, biết tự giác, cưỡng lại được sự nhòi sọ, tẩy não.

Tôn Giáo nguyên thủy là một cố gắng đi tìm sự thật, nhưng qua thời gian trở thành một dụng cụ mị quần chúng, chỉ huy tư tưởng tập thể. Tôn Giáo vì thế bắt tay, hợp tác với Chinh Trị, đưa tới một Ý Thức Hệ cầm quyền, tha thiết chiếm và bảo vệ Quyền Lực.

Bàn về Tôn Giáo và Chính Trị mà không biết sự đi đêm giữa TG và CT thì còn đắm chìm trong Bóng Tối. Muốn rời Bóng Tối để đến Ánh Sáng cần có sự can đảm, cái dũng của người thông minh yêu chuộng sự thật, lý luận, và kiến thức khoa học. Có học vị chưa hẳn là có sự can đảm và cái dũng nêu trên, vì nhiều người có bằng cấp mà đầu óc còn mê tín, u muội, tin vào những giáo điều hoang đường và quái đản vì tâm hồn, bản chất của họ là một đứa trẻ con, cần một sự che chở, bảo bọc bởi một "Đấng Toàn Năng" (sic!), một sự tưởng tượng người khác đặt ra để thống trị tư tưởng những nô lệ tinh thần. 

Muốn đi tới Chân Lý, phải có khả năng suy tư thật sự, tất là phải yêu Triết Học. Triết (Philosophy)  bên Tây Phương bắt đầu từ Hy Lạp nghĩa là yêu Kiến Thức. Kiến Thức cho ta một giải phóng và tự do của tư tưởng. Ta không còn mê tín, lý luận ấu trĩ, và nô lệ tư tưởng. Ta không là một đứa bé trong một thân xác người lớn. 

Trường hợp hiện tại Điếu Cày là một trắc nghiệm suy tư. Nếu ai đó nhìn vào hành động quá khứ, lời nói, và phong cách diễn đạt tư tưởng của ông ta trong những cuộc phỏng vấn với nhiều câu hỏi hóc búa và khiêu khích của vài phần tử không thiện cảm với ông, mà cho ông ta chỉ là một anh cựu binh nhì trong bộ đội Cộng Sản gửi qua Mỹ để lũng đoạn cộng đồng tỵ nạn người Việt, chớ không phải là một người yêu nước rất nhiều can đảm, và có thể là một trong những lãnh tụ tương lai của người Việt, thì theo thiển kiến của tôi, cách suy tư của người đó có nhiều vấn đề.

Trân trọng, 

Một bài viết giá trị

http://www.bbc.co.uk/vietnamese/forum/2014/11/141128_dieucay_south_vn_flag

Điếu Cày và 'phép thử cờ vàng'

Trần Nhật PhongGửi cho BBC từ California

• 28 tháng 11 2014

Chia sẻ

Sự kiện nhà tranh đấu Điếu Cày được trả tự do và tống xuất sang Hoa Kỳ được đón tiếp nồng hậu bởi cộng đồng Việt Nam và sau đó xảy ra vụ "áp đặt cờ vàng" ngay tại phi trường Los Angeles đã dẫn đến tranh cãi gay gắt trong cộng đồng giữa các luồng quan điểm chính trị khác nhau.

Điếu Cày Nguyễn Văn Hải bỗng nhiên trở thành tâm điểm của những cọ xát về quan điểm chính trị nhiều hơn là cuộc tranh đấu của bản thân ông với guồng máy của nhà nước Việt Nam.

'Chống cộng giả hiệu'

Từ nhiều năm nay, do các yếu tố từ quá khứ chiến tranh, từ những trò "chống cộng" giả hiệu để gạ gẫm tiền bạc, cho đến những bất đồng quan điểm giữa các thành phần trong cộng đồng, đã dẫn đến một thực trạng tiêu cực trong cộng đồng mà ai cũng lắc đầu ngán ngẩm, đó là sự phân hóa và mất niềm tin lẫn nhau.

Do những yếu tố trên, người trong cộng đồng dường như không tin bất cứ điều gì. Họ luôn đề phòng và thụ động. Họ sẵn sàng nghi kỵ bất cứ điều gì. Sự mất niềm tin này đã nhiều lần khiến cho các sinh hoạt trong cộng đồng trở nên ngột ngạt hơn.

Bên cạnh đó là sự cực đoan của một số người, luôn nhân danh lá cờ vàng ba sọc đỏ, hay nhân danh VNCH, nhân danh "đấu tranh cho dân chủ, nhân quyền" để áp đặt những quan điểm của họ lên người khác, và nếu ai đó có ý kiến khác biệt sẽ bị qui chụp "Việt gian", "tay sai Việt cộng" hay "làm lợi cho Cộng sản".

Và kết quả sẽ là những cuộc biểu tình mang tính "áp đảo", tẩy chay, đôi khi còn tệ hại hơn như các trường hợp đã bị sát hại ở thập niên 80 và đầu thập niên 90.

Đứng ở góc nhìn tiêu cực thì rõ ràng sự cực đoan đã đẩy người trong cộng đồng mất hẳn niềm tin lẫn nhau, trở nên gay gắt hơn và gây bầu không khí ngột ngạt thiếu lành mạnh trong cộng đồng.

Đứng ở góc nhìn tích cực thì sự mất niềm tin và cực đoan này cũng tác động tốt đến phần nào trong các sinh hoạt, nó khiến người ta suy xét cẩn thận hơn, sàng lọc kỹ hơn, không bị lôi kéo vào những sự kiện mang tính bầy đàn, vốn đã từng bị một số tổ chức chính trị hay một số cơ quan truyền thông từng gây ra những tiêu cực trong quá khứ mà nạn nhân không ai khác chính là những thành viên trong cộng đồng.

Cờ Vàng và phép thử máu

Từ năm 2002 sau khi nghị viên Andy Quách của thành phố Westminster vận động thông qua "Nghị quyết cờ vàng" đến nay, đã có nhiều thành phố, tiểu bang cũng có những hành động tương tự, và sự việc lan tỏa không chỉ ở Hoa Kỳ mà còn trải rộng ra các quốc gia khác.

Lá cờ vàng hôm nay không còn là biểu tượng của đất nước Việt Nam, nhưng đến thời điểm hiện tại lá cờ được xem là biểu tượng chung cho người Việt ở hải ngoại, cho cộng đồng Việt Nam ở khắp nơi, trừ đất nước Việt Nam.

Do phân tích ở trên về sự cực đoan và mất niềm tin lẫn nhau, lá cờ vàng đã trở thành một "phép thử máu" cho nhiều sinh hoạt khác nhau trong cộng đồng.

Một người mới gia nhập vào sinh hoạt cộng đồng, một người muốn lãnh đạo tổ chức nào đó trong cộng đồng, một chính trị gia muốn kiếm phiếu của cộng đồng, đều được trao lá cờ vàng để "thử máu".

Trong một cộng đồng đang bị phân hóa và mất niềm tin lẫn nhau, lá cờ vàng trở thành một "phép 

thử máu" hay một tấm "bình phong" an toàn cho bất cứ ai có những dự án gì trong cộng đồng

Thậm chí để tìm hiểu lập trường của một cá nhân, một tổ chức trong cộng đồng, đôi khi người ta buộc phải treo cờ vàng hoặc mở đầu các chương trình bằng thủ tục "chào quốc kỳ" và hát quốc ca VNCH.

Nếu từ chối thì sẽ nhận lãnh ngay các hậu quả không lường trước, nhẹ thì bị đặt vấn đề trên báo chí, Internet, nặng thì có thể dẫn đến bị tẩy chay, bị biểu tình.

Một nghị viên, một thị trưởng gốc Việt mới đắc cử, điều được "thử máu" bằng cách này để khẳng định lập trường, họ phải ra những "Nghị quyết vinh danh cờ vàng" hay những "nghị quyết gây khó khăn cho giới chức nhà nước Việt Nam" khi đến thành phố của họ sinh sống, thường hay được diễn dịch là "Nghị quyết cấm cửa viên chức cộng sản Việt Nam".

Tóm lại trong một cộng đồng đang bị phân hóa và mất niềm tin lẫn nhau, lá cờ vàng trở thành một "phép thử máu" hay một tấm "bình phong" an toàn cho bất cứ ai có những dự án gì trong cộng đồng.

Trường hợp Điều Cày

Ngay trong cuộc hội luận đầu tiên, ông Điếu Cày Nguyễn Văn Hải vẫn tự tin với thành tích tranh đấu của bản thân nên khẳng định ông chỉ chọn lá cờ nào mà dân chúng trong và ngoài nước chấp nhận, một câu nói "khéo" để tránh đụng chạm các phía, mà theo đó bao gồm những người đang đón nhận ông ở hải ngoại chọn cờ Vàng, và những bạn tranh đấu trong nước của ông không thích lá cờ Vàng, đồng thời cũng để tránh bị nhà nước Việt Nam qui chụp cuộc tranh đấu "Xã Hội Dân Sự" của ông và bạn hữu, trở thành những "thế lực thù địch" muốn tái lập nước VNCH.

Nhưng đến cuộc hội thảo diễn ra tại Washington D.C, ông Điếu Cày Nguyễn Văn Hải đã phải thốt lên câu "nhập gia tùy tục" - một hành động bị xem là thỏa hiệp với một số người cực đoan để có thể hội nhập vào cộng đồng mà ông đang phải hội nhập trong những ngày tháng sắp tới.

Đứng ở góc cạnh đấu tranh và bối cảnh lý lịch của blogger Điếu Cày, việc "chấp nhận" lá cờ vàng có thể sẽ gây khó khăn nhiều hơn cho bản thân ông và bạn bè đang tranh đấu trong nước, nhất là gia đình ông đang có nhiều dấu hiệu bị an ninh Việt Nam tìm cách cô lập hay trù dập.

Nhưng đứng ở góc nhìn của nhiều thành phần trong cộng đồng xem lá cờ Vàng là biểu tượng, họ muốn ông phải khẳng định lập trường nếu ông muốn tiếp tục sinh hoạt và hội nhập trong cộng đồng, hay tìm kiếm sự hỗ trợ của cộng đồng cho công cuộc tranh đấu của ông, vì lá cờ Vàng đang là biểu tượng chung của cộng đồng người Việt hải ngoại.

Không chấp nhận biểu tượng chung này, có nghĩa là chọn đứng ngoài và điều này sẽ giới hạn các hoạt động của ông, vì các lời kêu gọi hay các dự án của ông sẽ không được hỗ trợ bởi những người người ủng hộ cho biểu tượng cờ Vàng.

Không chỉ riêng ông Điếu Cày Nguyễn Văn Hải mà tương lai của các nhà bất đồng chính kiến trong nước, những nhà hoạt động tranh đấu cho Xã hội Dân sự cũng sẽ gặp trường hợp tương tự nếu họ vượt thoát hay bị tống xuất ra hải ngoại.

Đây sẽ là bài toán khó cho họ vì chọn hay không chọn cờ Vàng thì các sinh hoạt đấu tranh của họ cũng sẽ bị giới hạn một cách cụ thể.

Chung cuộc

Vụ tranh cãi "Áp đặt cờ vàng" tại phi trường LAX hay lấy chiếc khăn mang hình ảnh cờ vàng quấn cổ Điếu Cày cho thấy trong cộng đồng Việt Nam có nhiều quan điểm trái ngược nhau, nhưng tựu chung chỉ có hai khuynh hướng rõ rệt.

Những người được xem là thoáng trong cộng đồng nghĩ rằng các thế hệ lãnh đạo kế tiếp của người cộng sản tại Việt Nam sẽ trẻ trung hơn và sẽ thay đổi để Việt Nam được hội nhập vào cộng đồng quốc tế dù có chậm hơn mặt bằng thế giới, do đó họ chọn thái độ không quá gay gắt, đôi khi sẵn sàng tiếp cận với giới chức của nhà nước Việt Nam để tìm hiểu hay tìm cách thay đổi.

Tuy nhiên vẫn còn rất nhiều người trong cộng đồng không tin rằng người Cộng sản sẽ thay đổi, từ những bài học trong quá khứ chiến tranh, cho đến sự quản lý đất nước một cách tồi tệ hiện nay, do đó họ chủ trương rằng, muốn Việt Nam thay đổi và khá hơn thì cách duy nhất là phải lật đồ hoàn toàn thể chế do người Cộng sản lãnh đạo.

Với các khuynh hướng nói trên, trong những ngày tháng sắp tới sẽ là những thử thách khá nghiệt ngã cho các nhà tranh đấu, vì họ chưa có giải pháp nào có thể đạt được sự ủng hộ của các phía khác nhau.

Và chính điều này là hệ quả dẫn đến một số thất bại của các nhà tranh đấu: hồ sơ nhân quyền Việt Nam vẫn mỗi ngày một tệ hơn vì lực lượng tranh đấu chưa đủ lực thuyết phục được cộng đồng quốc tế.

Bài viết thể hiện quan điểm và cách hành văn của tác giả, một nhà báo tự do từ Quận Cam, California, Hoa Kỳ.