nan | 楠木

Next week will be an incredibly busy week, so this weekend I had intended to do a fly-back.

But then as I searched for flights I felt really tired of all this flying. I will be literally spending 20 hours in the air from Friday to Sunday, and I won’t be in Beijing for more than 48 hours.

Then it hit me. I won’t fly back. I will go to Bali instead.

I was actually lucky to be able to book flights and a room in Bali – the season is heating up over there. But anyhow I got myself a 8pm ticket Friday, which means I will be in that beautiful island before midnight!

And my room isn’t too bad either. It should be 300 square meters with a private pool. Let’s see if it’s as good as it looks on paper.

And to think, I’m actually saving money for the firm/client by doing so… The round-trip fly-back would cost $2,000, while this trip would be less than $1,000…

Whatever complaints I have at Apple’s lack of transparency, I generally loved their products’ user experience. Not so with the iPod Shuffle I bought last Sunday.

Perhaps it was a mistake for me to buy another iPod anyway, but I thought I really needed a Shuffle for occasions like going to the gym – it could never be a main mp3 player, but it would be an useful complement. And I wanted to encourage my gym going behavior, so I bought one. And it’s not so expensive anyway.

Anyway, I bought one at Plaza Indonesia, one of the bigger malls here in Jakarta. I go back to the hotel, hook it up with the computer, and eagerly prepare for a gym session. Then I end up wasting a good hour trying to get songs onto the device – iTunes repeatedly displayed an error saying it could not locate the device.

Frustrated, and cursing my bad luck at getting a faulty device, I go back to the mall and asked for a replacement. Which I soon got. I tested the new device at the mall, and though I could download songs onto the device using the Autofill function, the speed was far from optimal. I couldn’t believe that Apple could launch such a slow device, but that was what I thought at the time – that this device was just so slow.

So today when I wanted to add some more songs, I came across the same error. Then I did a quick google (or yahoo, actually), which to my surprise instantly took me to the Apple support forum where literally many many other users were encountering the exact same problem! And there I found many innovative(!) solutions offered by frustrated users like unplugging your USB mouse after you drag songs onto your iPod… The problem seems to be with Apple’s USB drivers.

Anyhow, I solved the issue with one of the solutions offered, which was to scan the system for hardware changes (in Device Manager, Control Panel) after making a sync command in iTunes… Can’t believe how people can figure out such unorthodox solutions… At least my Shuffle is up to speed now, and I’m once again a happy consumer.

A few implications that I’d like to draw from this experience:

1. Apple is probably one of the few companies who can genuinely launch a faulty product and get away with it – their users are frustrated at first but would stop at nothing to overcome the issues (and be happy Apple consumers). The passion of those fans (I don’t consider myself one…) is amazing.

2. I should always google for an answer before doing something… I’m sure my first Shuffle was just fine, but I wasted a few hours getting the replacement.

The political drama/comedy Charlie Wilson’s War focuses on the playboy congressman of the title who pulls all the stops to increase US funding for the Mujahideen in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

“We’ve got to shoot down these helicopters!” Wilson stresses repeatedly throughout the film. The helicopters refer to the Soviet Hind gun-ships, which until the large influx of Stinger missiles (funded by the US of course), were virtually invincible. The film makes the argument that were it not for the efforts of Wilson, who single-handedly raised US funding for the covert ops in the Afghan war from a petty 5 million (to which the Pakistanis smirked, “is this some kind of a joke?”) to a whopping 1 billion, history could have been a very different story.

Whether that is true or not is besides the point. The film, regardless of its authenticity or not, is excellent at portraying the power-brokering of real-world politics. The world is not black and white, but instead gray; and the enemy of my enemy is truly my friend, leading to the US (along with Israel) working with the Pakistanis, the Egyptians and the Saudi Arabians. It seems unfathomable that Israel would even talk to Egypt (and vice versa) after the two had just fought a war themselves; but such is the curious nature of politics, which the film depicts brilliantly.

Tom Hanks, who plays Charlie Wilson, finally has a role that seems to a bad boy. It’s a rare Tom Hanks film where you see the actor naked in a pool with a group of strippers, and Hanks doesn’t seem to be exactly at ease either. Thankfully he’s not challenged too much in this regard, and his performance is on par overall. Philip Seymour Hoffman has a more interesting role, as the loud-mouthed CIA operative who is the brains behind all the actual covert ops. And Julia Roberts plays an eccentric (and extremely wealthy) power-broker, who takes up the “cause”.

The interesting question that the film raises, and doesn’t directly give an answer to, is that whether the Americans through their efforts in Afghan created the demon that would return to haunt them (Bin Laden and Al Qaeda). Charlie Wilson himself angrily proclaims that America “screwed up the end-game”, since after the Soviets pulled out the US didn’t fund the reconstruction, leaving Afghanistan in a vacuum where it eventually became a breeding ground for Al Qaeda terrorists. While things are never this straightforward, it does highlight the old Chinese saying (which was told in the film – “we’ll see”) 塞翁失马，焉知非福.

8/10

Fear, lust and obsession form the key themes of Alfred Hitchcock’s 1958 classic. Starring the great James Stewart as an ex-detective (John “Scottie” Ferguson) with an acute fear of heights, the film follows his bizarre encounters in the mystery of a woman’s death.

The brilliance of the film is that it is not built on suspense – indeed, the key to the mystery is revealed around the end of the second act, with a full 40 minutes to go before the film finishes. This revelation, which gives up the mystery, allows the film to fully develop and expose its characters.

The plot follows Ferguson after he has been hired by an old acquaintance to keep an eye on his wife, the voluptuous Madeline (Kim Novak). Madeline is not suspected of being unfaithful, though, and instead she is feared to be “possessed” (originating from a myth in her family) and suicide-prone. Ferguson inevitably falls for the femme fatale, which begs the question of morality (she is, after all, his friend’s wife), but was helpless to save her from her suicide attempt.

Things become interesting after the grief-struck Ferguson meets a girl (Judy) that looks identical to Madeline. He befriends the girl, they fall in love, but for Ferguson Judy is just a replacement, and he becomes obsessed on shaping her to be exactly like Madeline – dying her hair, changing her clothes etc. The obsession drives the film to its climax, where Ferguson has a revelation (some half an hour after the audience has) and there is a final encounter.

It is hard to like or dislike the protagonist. He is driven by his own lust and obsession, and his own fear results in him failing to “prevent” Madeline’s death. Yet you can also argue that his love and care is authentic and unselfish (he cared more for the girl than for himself). In the end this combination makes the character alive, and the in-depth study of this character forms the centerpiece of this film.

And therefore credit must be given to James Stewart, for this is an haunting performance. Especially during the pivotal final scene, the sheer conflict of multiple emotions is literally set free, and you can see how much pain and anger he is bearing. Kim Novak is icy cold on the outside, but it is evident there is a fury fire of emotions inside, and her performance (which some may bash as stiff) conveys that well.

In the artistic department, the eerie score fits well, and the cinematography is absolutely brilliant. From the wandering scenes of San Francisco to close-ups of the lead stars, the lighting and angle of the shots seem to tell stories themselves. And then one can only sigh in disbelief – why don’t people make these kind of films anymore?

9/10

昨天晚上嘴馋去吃了鼎泰丰。快十点到的，人依然很多。这家店的装饰不像北京那两家那样高档，更多的有一种小吃店的本色，我觉得反倒更适合（鉴于鼎泰丰的菜单以小笼包为看家菜）。

菜单有一定的本地化（增加了一些炒面、炒饭）；点了一份小菜，一小份蟹粉小笼包，以及一份辣虾仁炒乌冬面（当地菜）。小菜咸了些；小笼包的味道还不错；这份炒面则是我点的比较失败，是典型的印尼饭的风格，油比较重。

吃饭的时候，老板怕我等得烦，上来攀谈。老板是个年轻的印尼华侨，一口流利的台湾腔，说这家店开了3年多了，一些菜的做法跟台北有点不太一样。说到台北，我便想，似乎现在想去台湾转转会比以前容易许多——那样的话，倒是应该去吃吃台北那家鼎泰丰。

就是那家店，二十余载前被纽约时报的一篇文章宣传过，以至于今天在任何一家鼎泰丰的店里（至少我去过的这几家）都会看到“被纽约时报评为世界十大餐厅之一”。说实话我觉得这点他们倒是做得过了，酒香不怕巷子深，或者至少也不至于如此自卖自夸。。。

I’m incredibly disappointed with The Incredible Hulk. This film is incredible in several aspects, none of which good unfortunately.

To start off, it’s incredible how lacking the story is. With a character that is full of inner-conflict like the Hulk/Bruce Banner, which should be quite easy to flesh out, the film manages to make him very one-dimensional – just a big brute. And the plot is extremely unsatisfying in that there is not much development to the character – Bruce Banner ends the film in more or less the same state he was to begin with, which begs the question: “what’s the point?”

Even more incredible is how underused the actors are. Edward Norton is arguably one of the most talented actors of his generation (despite his notorious reputation for being hard to work with), yet he is given little to work with to produce the kind of acting he showed in his earlier works (e.g. American History X or Fight Club). Tim Roth, who plays the antagonist, is also reduced to just making grimaces and mumbling menacing words.

Credit is due in the effects department, as this film is essentially a CG fest. We see the Hulk, and later on the Abomination, lay waste to military and civilian vehicles as well as creating havoc through downtown streets. However there certainly isn’t anything incredibly outstanding regarding the effects – it’s cool, it’s well-made, but it’s also fairly routine and largely forgettable.

Perhaps the last thing incredible about this film is how Robert Downey Jr. a.k.a. Tony Stark / Iron Man manages to steal the show with just one cameo scene. Indeed, his appearance only serves to remind us how good Iron Man was and how bad this film is – really adding insult to injury.

5/10

在雅加达也有5个星期了。渐渐习惯了酒店——客户的两点一线，夸张一点生活规律得像在学校一样。

之前有篇blog讲我不喜欢雅加达。这种感觉随着时间的推移而有一定改变。雅加达依然有很多令我头疼的地方，譬如说比北京还夸张的污染与交通堵塞，以及没有什么市内历史景点（而令人觉得没有什么文化蕴涵）。

然而这里也是个可以很有趣的地方。这里也有奢华的商场，满足想做“橱窗购物”的游客。对我而言，更好的是影院很多，设备也不错，尤为重要的是档期基本跟美国同步，想看新片子实在很爽。而且相对而言要便宜一些，一张票人民币25-40元，比国内的大多数影院要好。

更为重要的是，作为一个外国人在这里是会有实实在在的优越感的。在印尼，虽然华人历史上一直遭受压迫，但在社会中的经济地位依然非常高（有个受争议的统计，在雅加达证券市场上市的印尼公司，70%是由华人控制的，而华裔只占印尼人口的3%左右）。连带的，中国人在这里通常都是上宾（何况，大量的中国电信、石油、消费品企业来这里淘金带来了大量的驻外员工由于享有相当不错的差补都是当地的高端消费者）。这和中国人去第一世界国家被人歧视、非议的境遇是迥然不同的，我也难得有种当“老外”的优越感。

如果说，在国内我只是一个很普通的统计数字（城市人口），在这里我的社会阶级地位则要上升了一个层次。在国内，去三里屯泡吧恐怕一百年都不会有异性主动跟我搭讪，因为我穿着长相都是普普通通的；在这里则不然，因为我是“老外”——并不是说我多么期待什么，只是谁会介意受到关注与重视呢？

然而从更深层次讲，你甚至可以说我有一种类似殖民者的心态，那就是认为自己来自一个更发达的国家，对于当地人我会有看不起的倾向。我可以为自己辩护说，我受到的教育比这里我遇到的绝大多数人都要好，而当地人的很多“陋习”（比如说个人卫生状况不是那么好，出租车司机经常想宰人）也的确让我有理由鄙视他们——然而这种心态本身也终究是种陋习。应当自省。

I watched Kung Fu Panda from the corner of the second row in fully packed multiplex in Jakarta. The only other seat available, by the time I purchased my ticket, was the corner seat of the first row. And I’m sure most of my fellow audience were not disappointed. Young or old, the audience laughed the whole way.

Kung Fu Panda, in most ways, is not groundbreaking in concept, but excellent in execution. The story is surprisingly satisfying in capturing the “nuances” of kung-fu (there are plenty of materials that feels authentic to the typical contemporary Chinese world of martial arts – the fabled technique of paralyzing an opponent by hitting acupoints (点穴), and close-quarters fighting at the table with chopsticks, for example), and the artwork is delightful in portraying Chinese scenery.

The moral of the story is nothing new – one should never quit in pursuit of one’s dream, but thrown against a lazy panda it never fails to amuse. The star-studded voice cast doesn’t offer anything special, but adds another layer to the humor – for example, Jackie Chan is the voice behind Monkey, which makes all of Monkey’s scenes more comical (if you think about this connection).

The real stars of the film, is the panda and the action. Jack Black’s helplessly lazy panda provides all the laughs (and then some), but the action often takes center stage and is highly entertaining (and steals the show in letting me temporarily forget that this is a comedy).

8/10

I’ve been reading a lot of the Wall Street Journal as of late, since the hotel provides it on a daily basis. It’s interesting to note the WSJ’s stance on environmentalism (especially climate change), which has long been skeptical. I just didn’t know before how proactive it was in pushing this.

In the past week there’s been at least two opinion columns on climate change. Today there’s an article (behind WSJ’s paywall, though) by the chairman of Nestlé, arguing how water is the most important issue, rather than global warming, with some particularly strong words against biofuel:

This could be the single most destructive set of policy mistakes made in a generation…

…If there’s one certainty, it is this: The production of biofuels has stimulated a massive, and destructive, reorientation of the world’s agriculture markets…

…The biofuel craze, egged on by global warming activists, has helped fuel a huge agricultural crisis.

Just last week, there was another article (this one you might not need an subscription to view, since it’s searchable on Google News – it seems if you search for WSJ articles on Google News and click the link from there you can view the full article) on how global warming should definitely not be the top priority. It again cites the Copenhagen Consensus Center (led by Bjorn Lomborg, famous for The Skeptical Environmentalist, and who also appears in the WSJ quite frequently it seems) on how there were many other priorities (most cost effective action item – solving malnutrition in children in poverty), and tackling global warming was low on the cost-benefit scale.

To some extent, I agree with the argument that global warming is not the single-most urgent issue. I think it’s being abused by interest groups to push their own agenda (just like every other issue), and sound economic analysis is needed for any global warming related policy (so we avoid bad policies like the biofuel push, whose unintended consequences are endangering the livelihood of the world’s poor).

But then again, that’s not saying much, since all policies should undergo such scrutiny in the first place. And I’m also wary of how WSJ is also a medium for other interest parties pushing their agenda too. (For example, this Copenhagen Consensus Center certainly looks shady…)

Over at the Peking Duck there’s a post on what happened 19 years ago. I usually refrain from posting about politics, but I do want to jump in here.

Over the last two years, thanks to my professional needs, I’ve done a fair bit of traveling around Asia. I’ve worked in Philippines, India, and now Indonesia, and what I saw and experienced in those countries have changed some of my perceptions on politics.

19 years ago, there was a big movement for democracy in China. 19 years later, the D-word is still only an ideological goal, while the country has taken big strides in economic development. There are certainly frustrations at the one-party rule, and there are plenty of deep social issues that the nation must tackle. But is the D-word the miracle cure of those issues?

I remember back in campus (I studied in Beijing) a few years ago, we would eagerly debate a range of issues every night in the dorm. And on campus BBS there were always discussions of political systems, democracy, and China. Interestingly, the most fervent supporters of democracy were students who hadn’t seen the outside world, while those who had already graduated usually had a jaded view towards it. People who have studied (or are studying) overseas (mostly in the US) seemed to be most against democracy.

And I remember I once also had pipe dreams for democracy. I was (and still am) frustrated at the various limitations of the current system (such as surfing the Internet). Now, after witnessing the failure of democracy in other Asian developing countries (perhaps I’m exaggerating here), I know that it’s not the perfect system, or at least it’s not time yet for China to adopt that system.

What do I mean by the “failure of democracy”? Well, you only need to take a look around Asia. Save for South Korea and Japan, where democracy is truly working well, in all other places democracy has not lead to more prosperity and well-being for the people. Singapore is in truth authoritarian. Taiwan prospered before switching to democracy. The ASEAN countries are generally backwards, and what economic achievements they did achieve were usually under authoritarian rule (at least that’s the case for Philippines and Indonesia). India, for all its claims at greatness as a rapidly developing country, still has a long, long way to go before it can catch up with China. Without economic prosperity there can be no well-being, and democracy has not brought economic prosperity to most of the Asian countries who adopted it.

And democracy has not solved those developing nations’ social issues either. In India, the social divide is far greater than what’s the case in China (of course, this has deep historical backgrounds). Social security is also bad – be it Manila, Jakarta or New Delhi, you usually can’t go into a mall without a security check by personnel armed with submachine guns. And corrupt as China is, it’s hardly fair to say that China is the most corrupt country in the world – India would seriously challenge that title, while Philippines and Indonesia are by most accounts even more corrupt than those two Asian giants.

When I was in India, I often talked with my Indian colleagues about the two countries. One colleague said in sincerity, “wouldn’t it be great if we could switch political systems whenever we wanted? What India needs right now is a government that would ‘just do it’.”

All those above are in support of the argument that democracy is perhaps not what’s good for China at the current stage. But I think the more fundamental question is, is the big D-word necessarily a goal/direction for China?

The concept of democracy, as far as I know, is almost as old as civilization. And even the common modern form of democracy has been around for several hundred years. If anything, history has shown that democracy (like any other political system) is a product of circumstance; it is not necessarily the best political system for every country in the world, and (gasp!) it is not always better than authoritarian rule. And democracy certainly shouldn’t be the ultimate stage in the evolution of political systems in human society – and it isn’t necessarily higher up in the food chain (so to speak) compared to authoritarian rule.

That said, it’s not as if I’m 100% happy with the current political system in China. Still, we need to be careful to separate the concept of democracy from the form of democracy. The concept maybe a worthwhile goal, but democracy as it is usually referred to – a western form of multi-party rule – may not be. I certainly don’t see how a multi-party system necessarily makes China a better country. I’m tired of the typical rhetoric that a multi-party election system (western style of democracy) would make things better – I just look at the Philippines, India and Indonesia and know that it doesn’t.

Indeed, many people nowadays look at Singapore, and Lee Kuan Yew seems eager to tell China that his way is the way to go. Perhaps many critics see Singapore as an authoritarian one-party state with only a procedural democracy, but no one can argue that this is a country with a thriving economy and a high standard of living. Compared with Singapore, what China really needs is a government which stands by its word (fulfills the contracts it makes) and a robust legal system. I think for most people, it doesn’t really matter who’s ruling, as long as they play by the book.