The Cure for A Hangover is to Go Back

It’s been exactly 1 month since I got back from my epic trip across Europe, and while I’ve been remiss in documenting it (an issue which will be remedied in short order), I find that I am just getting over something of an Olympics hangover. Or a life stage hangover. Call it whatever you want, but I’ve been in a bit of a funk these past few weeks.

I finally feel like I’ve snapped out of it, and one of the things that seemed to bring my current attitude problems into focus for me was an article that I read today (which reminded me of this piece and this one as well) about the post-games hangover that London is going through right now and how they're trying to harness all of the great energy that they generated into more great stuff in the future. After throwing an incredibly successful Olympics, and an equally impressive Paralympics, the citizens of the Olde Towne (and Great Britain in general) are scratching their heads and wondering, “Now what?”

While I can’t answer that question, and before I get on to my self-indulgent, exhaustive documentation of my entire European excursion, I did want to take a few minutes to write a little love note to the people back in London.

I heard from plenty of people who said that it would be folly to head to a city like London during the Summer Games. The streets would be mobbed. Traffic would be a nightmare. Security would be overbearing and cause massive delays. Prices would be outrageous. The Tube would be jammed beyond hope of use. As we now know, none of these fears came to pass. The Olympics were pulled off smoothly with an aplomb and panache that I honestly did not think would be possible.

I never for a moment believed that anything would be able to top the organizational marvel that had been Beijing 2008. Opening and Closing ceremonies aside (which were a wash, IMHO), after seeing such precision in execution of logistical plans and unwavering enthusiasm from the population, how could crusty old London ever hope to match what the Chinese accomplished? After all, hadn’t they invested billions of dollars in new city-wide transportation and other infrastructure just for a single 16-day event? From new subway lines to a revamped fleet of taxis to the closing of factories Beijing moved heaven and earth (almost literally) to roll out a red carpet that will not soon be forgotten.

It just so happened that I arrived to start my new life in Beijing on 8/8/2008 - Opening Day of the Games. In the months before I moved here, so I’m told by those who were there, there was a mass exodus of locals who fled the city. Some were forced to leave due to a visa crackdown, while others feared the crowds and… well, I’ve never gotten a clear answer on what other things people were afraid of. There seemed to have been a nebulous sentiment that BAD THINGS COULD HAPPEN that affected people here. Not too unlike what the people of London had been feeling over the past year (though for vastly different reasons).

Of course it was all so much paranoia. Beijing in August of 2008 was a joy to behold and having been there for all of it is one of the singularly important and transformative experiences of my life.

How could London possibly compare?

I don’t think that my life will be as altered by London 2012 as it was by Beijing 2008, but that’s an issue of happenstance rather than circumstance. (I’m not in the middle of an inter-continental move or such a drastic life change right now). Experience-wise, though, I struggle to find the words to express just how good a time I had and how thankful I am to the people of the city who made it all happen.

From the moment my girlfriend and I stepped off of the train from Brussels into Kings’ Cross station, it was evident that this would be more than just another fun stop on our trip. Greeters offered us Snickers bars and bottled water while we waited to go through Immigration. Flags were hanging everywhere. People were smiling. The weather was even ideal.

Each day we experienced some form of kindness from somebody and London found a new way to make us happy. Whether it was a surprisingly cheap meal, an uncrowded tourist attraction, a free ice cream after getting off of the commuter train at Wellington station or a helpful volunteer, there was always something good happening to us. We met people who were not only willing to give a couple of hapless tourists directions, but who seemed eager to engage us in pleasant conversation, wondering if we were having a good time or offering tips on how to best experience their city.

London is an amazing metropolis. The museums are overwhelming. The subway is great. The parks are lovely islands in the ancient, scalable urban landscape. There is an abundance of great food to be had… and that’s just scratching the surface. After 10 days there I wanted more. My current employer has an office there and I have found myself glancing at the internal job postings these days, checking to see if a position is opening up in it. Beijing is most definitely my home for now, but I find myself taking flights of fancy lately and if an opportunity ever presented itself to move there I would be hard pressed to turn it down.

In the end, I think that’s the greatest testament to the job that the people of London did last month. They made me, an avowed New Englander (who is almost arrogantly proud of our Revolutionary history) and rabid sinophile, seriously consider uprooting myself to give living there a try.

Good show!

More to come…

Michigan's Racist Candidate

In case you've missed all of the hoopla, this ad for Pete Hoekstra ran in Michigan during the Super Bowl last week. As you'll see it's beyond obnoxious and worth of all of the vitriol that its caused:

My jaw dropped when I saw this and could not believe that a candidate for national office in the US would think that running something like this was actually a good idea. I'm not from Michigan but I just couldn't hold my tongue in the face of such idiocy. Here's what I blasted off to the erstwhile candidate:

Mr. Hoekstra,

I wanted to add my voice to the many who must be contacting you in regards to the ad that you played during the Super Bowl. It was shameful not only for its borderline (at best)  racism, but also for its criminal oversimplification of America's economic problems.

Even if I were somebody who could overlook the blatant race-baiting, I would still think you a fool because of you assertion that borrowing money from China and "sending" our jobs overseas is somehow the root cause of our current economic crisis. I live in China and I see the reasons why America is in decline every day. It's a shame that America is saddled with politicians like you who campaign on fear and symptoms instead of positivity and real solutions.

Shame on you.

Sincerely,

Mike Shaw
Beijing, China

Of course he'll never read this note, but maybe one of his staffers will and maybe it'll at least provoke a thought in his/her head about what the real reasons for America's problems are. But it probably won't.

And that's an even bigger problem. What we face in America today is a political culture that is focused on tactics and message instead of actually presenting arguments to voters. This ad comes straight out of Modern Campaigning 101: Push the people's fear buttons (Yellow people!" "China!" "Debt!" "Unemployment!") then associate the other candidate's name to it. No explanation of the issues is required. No laying out the reasons why the incumbent's policies feed the problems and no presentation of solutions.

It's all so simple. And tragic.

Mr. Hoekstra should come to China and take a ride on one of the new high speed rail lines and then try to envision us building something like that in the US. (Spoiler: We can't.) Then dwell on that for a while. THEN maybe he'll reconsider what the real problems facing America are.

Of course he'll never do that.

The Sky is Falling! Fo' Realz!

Chinese New Year in Beijing is hard to encapsulate in a blog post. Really hard. Thankfully a friend of mine went through the trouble of trying to document last week's arrival of the Year of the Dragon on video for the New York Times:



It's an awesome job by Jonah and his merry band of videographers. The only complaint that I have about it is that he was not able to successfully bend the laws of space and time and actually transport viewers to where we who were lucky enough to be in Beijing were that night.

As I have for the past 3 years I organized a gathering for the local Couchsurfing community and visitors from out of town. The result was a raucous, rollicking bash that climaxed with us joining tens of thousands of people gathered around (and on) frozen Houhai Lake around midnight for a pyrotechnic display like none other. It seemed like everybody in this city if 20 million people was shooting off fireworks at once. The sky above my head was alive with light and the horizon in every direction was sparkling with glittering explosions. The noise was deafening.

I took some video myself on Chinese New Year's Eve 3 years ago. It's nowhere near as good as Jonah's stuff, but I was on a hutong rooftop and you can get an idea of the overwhelming sight of fireworks exploding in every direction all at once:

I would HIGHLY recommend everybody putting "Be in Beijing During Chinese New Year" on their Bucket List. This really puts the 4th of July to shame and, frankly, I wonder why we tolerate such comparatively miniscule displays on our national day. Then again, we in the US have only been around for 230-odd years. The Chinese have been at this for a few thousand. Maybe we'll get the hang of it after another millennium.

China in 10 Minutes or Less

Here's a great video that came out last fall. It's a wonderful overview of what's going on in China, its history and interesting highlights about its culture. I love it.

China's Lack of Cultural Relevance in the West

An interesting column ran in yesterday's New York Times, noting China's "charm offensive" of recent years and their attempts to build up "soft power" that can counterbalance the US in much the same way as their economic, political and military strength. Unfortunately for them it's not working.

"[President] Hu was saying that China was under assault by Western soft power — the ability to produce outcomes through persuasion and attraction rather than coercion or payment — and needed to fight back."

"But for all its efforts, China has had a limited return on its investment… A poll taken in Asia after the Beijing Olympics found that China’s charm offensive had been ineffective."

This piece is very good at explaining the Chinese problem and noting how they've been trying to address it, but it doesn’t get into WHY Chinese cultural influence hasn’t been growing outside of China.

And that's, basically, because a lot of what is produced in China isn’t produced for the West. At all.

Building Confucius Institutes around the world and opening a 24-hour news channel is all well and good, but if cultural production is only being done for internal consumption then nobody outside of your market is going to buy into it.

Take films, for example. There is a prodigious movie industry in China, but other than the occasional crossover hit, such as "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", there really isn’t much that is coming out of China that appeals to Western audiences.

The same runs true for video games, music and TV. While the Chinese are busy gobbling up all of the World of Warcraft, western club dance hits and Prison Break that they can cram into their brains, there's precious little flowing in the other direction. The closest thing to a hit Chinese TV show that we've seen in the west has been Firefly. (And even that only lasted 13 episodes – stupid Fox network.)

And this is a shame, because Chinese culture is quite beautiful and rich. Unfortunately, the creative juices of a majority of the artists in Mainland China are being squashed by the government's need to censor content. The result is a tragic dearth of Chinese cultural products being consumed in the west.

But there are exceptions and proof that art and culture from China can be successful outside of the Middle Kingdom.

The Flowers of War, a recent film starring Christian bale, is a good example of how movies can be made with both a western and Chinese perspective. The film is about 40% in English and showcases a main character (and actor) who doesn’t speak Chinese. The filmmaking is first class and the result is a gorgeous, haunting film that is accessible by both Chinese and western audiences.

I've got some friends who would be really upset if I didn’t mention the Chinese music scene. There are a handful of bands and artists who are doing their best to mix elements of Chinese culture with western musical influences. And they are awesome. Among my favorites are Hanggai from Mongolia, who mix traditional throat singing with hard rock, and my good friend Miss Melody, whose songs combine classical Chinese poetry-inspired lyrics with western electronic beats.

Here's a sample of Hanggai:

And here's the lovely Miss Melody looking all sultry on the streets of Beijing:

I don’t know what the secret formula to getting more Chinese flavor to sprinkle into western culture might be, but with the government here not very permissive when it comes to pushing boundaries, it will be a while before you see any breakout stars from the Mainland start hitting it big in the west. And that's a damn shame.

Ignoring The Facebook in The Room

A great post popped up on Fareed Zakaria's GPS blog today. In it, Anne-Marie Slaughter opined about how Public/Private Partnerships are playing a larger and larger role in foreign relations and how their new importantce seems to be transcending domestic US politics.

"The political argument for PPPs is that they stretch scarce government resources and ensure that they leverage other contributions of money, expertise and other in-kind resources. The initial emphasis on PPPs came from the Reinventing Government initiative under the Clinton administration, but the George W. Bush administration was also enthusiastic."

A really nice piece (Zakaria's blog is always fantastic place to find intersting takes on what's going on in the world), but I think that it completely ignored the biggest reason why this evolution is occuring: Social Media.

I think that public-private partnerships are going to continue to grow in importantce when it comes to the "heavy lifting" of foreign policy (i.e. nuclear proliferation, etc.), but this is coming out of a reality that has existed for several years but has only recently snuck up on the career politicans and the diplomatic corps: Governments already matter less when it comes to foreign relations.

Sites like Facebook and Twitter allow people to maintain relationships regardless of geographical or political borders. Other sites, such as Couchsurfing, encourage and facilitate real-world interaction and relationships, which Facebook and Twitter then help to maintain/deepen. The role of government in defining or shaping a person's iteraction with a country (or its people/culture/economy) is shrinking. Fast.

For instance, China's relationship with the US has little real effect on me here in Beijing. I don't interact with the government nearly as much I interact with people. Whether or not Obama moves troops to Australia or if Vietnam invites US naval vesels into their sections of the South China Sea has very little influence over mine and my friends' relationships. Whether Putin and Medvedev actually hold fair elections in the coming months doesn't effect my relationship with my girlfriend or our good friends in Moscow.

Sure, there are measures that countries can take to cut off peoples' access to one another or to social media and money, but these are extreme cases and outliers (North Korea, Iran). Travel has never been more accessible and the flow of information and capital has never been so proliferate.

In the near future you'll see governments sliding towards placing a greater emphasis on two items in their foreign policy stances: 1) The tracking of interactions between their citizens and another country's (not necessarily in a nefarious way, but in a similar way that they currently track financial transactions - see this fabulous map for an example of how this could work) and 2) a focus on interacting with another country's people directly. Even today the US is having more of an influence in Iran and Syria than it has had in decades by dealing with the PEOPLE there instead of the strongmen.

In the near future foreign policy will be directed more by people's interactions than the policies of governments.

Another Brick in the Pay Wall

The journey from free news to pay sites is well underway. The latest media giant to make the switch is my hometown paper, The Boston Globe, and I'm dreading it.

Boston.com has been my go-to site for news from home ever since I moved overseas. It's not my homepage (hello, Google!), but it's always the first site that I hit every day after checking my e-mails. The new pay system will essentially sequester all of the newspaper content behind a paywall leaving Boston.com with AP wire stories, bloggers and the Sports section, which will remain free and fully accessible. In addition, Boston.com will be able to feature up to 5 stories from the newspaper each day on the free site, but that's all.

This is frustrating for me because I've been a regular Globe reader since the 4th grade and I was even among the last generation of paperboys for them I the late 80s. Today it remains one of my last links to my hometown and what's going on there. Maybe I should have cut the cord years ago, but I've never been able to walk away from it completely. This may do the trick, though.

I'm a bit of an unusual case since I live overseas (I doubt that the folks at Boston.com have a very large expat demographic that they're worried about), but I'm not even sure if I could justify the cost of paying for the "paper" version if I was still living in Boston. Frankly, it doesn’t pass the smell test for me: Access will cost $3.99 per week, but you can subscribe to the Sunday paper for $3.50 per week and get in that way; it's a pretty obvious ploy to increase Sunday circulation.

Everybody knows that newspapers need to make more money somehow, but this paywall doesn’t feel like the right way. It's basically a retrenchment to the physical paper; it's a step backwards when I think that they should be expanding into different forms of media. They should re-open their Washington bureau and align with outfits like GlobalPost. They should produce more video. They could start broadcasting. They could buy into NECN and produce content with them. They could put some of that behind a paywall. Make the stuff that lives back there premium somehow. Don't make me pay for the same-old, same-old.

Boston's Paper of Record is (insultingly) a subsidiary of the New York Times (which also owns the Worcester Telegram-Gazette), which instituted its own paywall several months ago and, to my own surprise, I have actually come to like it. I even posted on Facebook that I would probably end up visiting the site much less as a result of it, but I'm eating crow now, as I read it just as much as I ever have. It allows for easy circumvention so leeches like me can get onto it for free, but is just annoying enough to get some folks to pay for it, and it has the benefit of helping their circulation, too.

Last month Wired's Felix Salmon wrote a great piece on the success of the Times' rather porous paywall. He posited that letting people get limited, but not exclusive, access to their content makes the Times a more attractive destination than, say, the Wall Street Journal.

If you hit the paywall on a regular basis and barge past it, eventually you start feeling a bit guilty and pay up. By contrast, if you hit the FT or WSJ paywall and can’t get past it, you simply go away and feel disappointed in your experience.

He even noted that given the "gentle" quest from a valued institution to pay a little or make a donation, people tend to actually do it:

Here’s the thing about freeloaders: if they value what they’re getting, a lot of them will end up paying anyway. What happened when the Indianapolis Museum of Art moved to a free-admission policy? Its paid membership increased by 3%. When the Minneapolis Institute of Arts did the same thing, paid membership increased by 33%.

Given their modest success, I wondered why the Globe didn’t just follow its daddy's model, but then I realized that the Times actually produces a shitload of content while the Globe, well, doesn’t.

The division between the website and the "paper" started last week and you can already see the difference. Boston.com has looked mighty thin of late and seems to have basically turned into an AP wire site (which I can get in a million different places in a much better-organized, cleaner format) with lots of trash (i.e. fashion, parties photos and celebrity garbage) that newshounds like myself couldn't care less about. They also seem to be putting their bloggers more front-and-center instead of burying them at the bottom of the site like they used to, turning them into low rent columnists, while the real ones are now hidden behind the paywall. (I wonder how they like the idea of going from a site with 7 million unique hits per month to a subscription-only audience of under 250,000 people.) I'm quickly finding that I have less and less reason to stop there since most of the local news content has been (or will be) put behind the paywall.

Which is, I guess, the whole point of the operation. Unfortunately, while this method may help to stabilize revenues, I don’t see it as being the foundation upon which the Globe can re-build itself into the pre-eminent news organization that it used to be. And that's a damn shame.