| Profilo di E.青青子衿FotoBlogElenchi |  Strumenti  Guida |
|
30/10/2007 James Fallows on Fresh Air has restored my confidence in American journalism towards ChinaThis afternoon around three I tuned into NPR's Fresh Air while driving, it happened to be an interview on China, so I sat in the car until the program's end. Last time I did this was one winter night last year when NPR's On Point discussed China's role in Darfur, I tried to call in upon the host's repeated invitation for some "Chinese voice" to be heard, only to find it was a syndicated and pre-recorded program. The conversationalist with the host Dave Davies is a journalist named James Fallows, who writes for the Atlantic (Monthly) and is now living in China. He discussed his recent article "China Makes, The World Takes"(this related slideshow highly recommended), based on his hands-on investigations in Guangdong. The man's tone struck me as distinct from most of the reporters you'd see from the New Yorker Times. I could instantly tell that he has actually lived there for a substantial period of time, talked to the workers, managers and owners in length and details, and actually undertands what's happening there. He describes how the manufacturing/procuring runs in a typical factory in extremely clear and precise language, explains how the flexibility and responsiveness creates a hyper-competitive environment, and reports how ordinary workers view their own and the country's prospects. His posture toward the "Made in China" label is respectfully critical, and his observations toward the deeper implications emulate an economist's vision. I was so impressed how well he lived up to the standards that a good journalist should always uphold. I listened through the program without any extra idea who James Fallows is. Judging from his voice I thought this must be a man in his 30s, since the voice has a mixture of liveliness and maturity typical of men in that age group. And the guess follows that he might have a pretty young Chinese wife/lover and probably speaks Chinese himself. It turned out I was grossly wrong (last time I made the mistake judging from the phone call my landlord-to-be was in her 30s; I'm too much anchored in my Chinese stereotype), James Fallows is 25-year veteran of the Atlantic, studied economics at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar 1970-72 (two years after Bill Clinton), and most extraordinarily, chief speechwriter for Jimmy Carter 1977-79. This is not the average reporter you'd see from even a major newspaper/magazine. So all of a sudden my confidence in American journalism toward China was restored. Fed up with the one-sided coverage of China in NYT, even the money-hearted WSJ, finally some revered journalist shows up with a clearer picture and pronounces some balancing view. When 80% of the picture is upbeat and promising and 20% nasty, NYT's fondness for the nasty 20% makes me wonder who's controlling this business and in which direction it leads public opinion. If the sole purpose of NYT's China coverage is for the opinions to flow back to China and educate Chinese people/sway the Pulitburo, I'm OK with it. If every Chinese reads People's Daily and the New York Times simultaneously everyday, China will become a democracy soon. But American people deserve better journalism. Earlier this year when I was presenting a research about NYT's biased reportage, a professor rebutted by saying "isn't there also an American stereotype in the Chinese media?" This comment is lamentable self-degradation. Being the longest democracy with the greatest freedom of speech and press, America should always uphold the highest standard of jounalism rather than compare to the China media which couldn't even operate under a democracy. My hats off to James Fallows, the Atlantic, and Fresh Air. The podcast should soon be available in iTunes store, though online listening is always available on Fresh Air's website. 25/10/2007 饮食男女二十六岁的吴倩莲看上去很美。 摘自《十年一觉电影梦》： 在现场，我胆子小，不喜欢骂人；对人发脾气，我自己伤得更深，当然还是有受不了爆发的时候。 平常不发飙，当你稍稍坚持时就有效果。我觉得导演最重要的是把话讲清楚，跟人吼不是我的个性。 一般我生气，不是为维护面子，也不是因为事情没做好，由于有时我要求高、找麻烦，可能真的没法做到。我发火，大都是因为有人不用心，当大伙都付出很多，如果因为一个人的被动、不用心而影响到整体成绩时，这时候你不说他，会对不起别人的。 《饮食男女》最后那场戏，我终于忍不住发飙。拍摄最后那句台词时，吴倩莲愈紧张愈吃螺丝。那场戏林慧懿设计的三丝汤还不错，把三丝扣在杯子里，然后把汤浇上去，杯子再拿起来，一个汤匙下去，散了。这时吴倩莲要说话。桌上有七八道菜同时在冒烟，大概花四十五分钟才能使七八道菜同时冒烟。结果吴倩莲连吃了三次螺丝，拍第四次时，林慧懿说：“三丝我只准备了六份，我想六杯应该够了。”没想到拍到第六遍，还是不行。 我大吼一声，冲出去踢门，就为这个。 我一发脾气，全场气氛丕变。 林慧懿忙说：“你不要生气，我马上做。”她连忙又做了三份，半夜三更，店都打烊了，材料也不够。 场务黑龙忙问：“导演，要不要我去买烟给你消气？” 我说：“不要，我要槟榔。” “好，马上给你买。”他很来劲地跑出去。 发过脾气后，突然之间，全场气都顺了。台湾片场有时好似台风将至，弥漫着一股郁结溽躁之气，非刮阵台风气才顺得过来，真是一种很奇怪的拍摄文化，我是这次才知道的。 这和《饮食男女》片中三个女儿离家、老爸宣布婚事的突然，异曲同工。有人说突兀，其实我要找的就是中国人的节奏——压抑到一个程度，然后突然间爆发，之后，大家再重新找寻新的平衡点。 24/10/2007 We need more Wikipedian我们需要更多的维客。 有人说维客完全是义务劳动，并且对维基百科的迅速壮大、完善表示不理解。我也不很理解，特别是看到一些写得十分严谨精准的条目，因为要写到那么好需要花很多的功夫和时间，即便作者本来就是这个领域的专家。我一度觉得只有拿了tenure的教授才同时具备这等素养和闲功夫，可是他要是有这个时间干嘛不跑到中国去给MBA上课，一堂课能挣上万。但这并不意味着经济学解释不了这个现象，很多维客能从编写条目、构建知识大厦的过程中获得很大的成就感，这不是金钱所能衡量的。维客们的努力具有很强的外部性；同时这个世界上越来越多的人能够从维基百科获益而不需要付出成本。由于这是一项造福世界的工作，很多人以自己wikipedian的身份为荣。 19/10/2007 My position on the political compass昨晚和YQ争论了一下liberal和conservative的问题，很离谱，我们俩的看法竟然完全相反。讨论的结果我觉得我们俩的理解都存在不同程度的偏差。一个学了六年经济学，一个在天下第一的法学院，出现这种状况实在对不起列祖列宗。 经高人指点，做了一小一大两个测试，认识加深了不少。 World's Smallest Political Quiz The Political Compass Test “全世界最小的测试”：真的很小，一共才十道题，五道“个人/社会观点”，五道“经济观点”。可以选Agree, Maybe, Disagree，我觉得还都蛮清楚的，没有选Maybe。这个棋盘的横轴是经济观点，纵轴是个人/社会观点，我的测试结果落在第三象限。假设这个棋盘是20*20的正方形，我的坐标是（-2，-2），离原点很近，属于坚定的中间派。换言之，就个人自由而言，我比美国人平均数略少介意个人自由，就经济自由而言，我比美国人平均数略更容忍政府干预（当然这已经是一个过于简单化的诠释）。如果把原点换成中国人平均数，我的这个红点应该会垂直上移进入libertarian的区域。 ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS, The political group that . CENTRIST
CENTRISTS espouse a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.
The RED DOT on the Chart shows where you fit on the political map.
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 40%. ...................................................................... . THAT'S HOW MANY TIMES THE QUIZ (Results are renewed after each submission.)
...................................................................... (Results are NOT indicative of the general public.) Centrist 33.54 % Right (Conservative) 8.88 % Libertarian 32.71 % Left (Liberal) 16.98 % Statist (Big Government) 7.89 % ......................................................................
Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional while endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy, and endorse strong law enforcement. Left (Liberal) Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles. Libertarian Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties. Statist (Big Government) economy and individual behavior. They frequently doubt whether economic liberty and individual freedom are practical options in today's world. Statists tend to distrust the free market, support high taxes and centralized planning of the economy, oppose diverse lifestyles, and question the importance of civil liberties. Your political compassEconomic Left/Right: -2.12 |
|||||||
Name : 
| 2007/05/26 |
| Title : | |
|
This web site needs work. Please do not assassinate me for saying so. | |
祝内贾德同学的博客早日推出中文版。
The best debate I've seen in years
"# ekissinger Says:
October 18th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Very stimulating debate, you guys should run for President of China in 15-20 years. Hopefully by that time a greater proportion of the Chinese population understand such sophisticated arguments and make a well-informed choice. I think either way it's not too bad a choice:)
Ahmadinejad does have a charm that makes him less likely to be perceived as a bad person. That's just a superficial observation of course. CBS 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley interviewed him in Tehran before he talked in Columbia, which I think is worth hearing (under iTunes podcast). Pelley used the yes-or-no tactic several times and I think he's a great reporter."
I hope you find it interesting. Btw, iTunes offers many podcasts free to download, which I find to be a great way of learning English/keeping up with going-ons in the world. This collection ranges from the many interesting programs by National Public Radio (NPR) to CNN's Anderson Cooper. Audiobooks are generally not free of charge, but you can listen to excerpts, like last time I suggested a few friends to listen to the audiobook "Lust, Caution" narrated by Eileen Chang herself!
Eileen's voice was maturely sweet and her pronunciation was impeccable and stylistic. She was not only a great writer, but a highly qualified announcer as well.
麻辣小龙虾的来历
一直以来对美国向中国出口种种“文化”见怪不怪，可这簋街麻小的来历，我想破脑袋也没想到是这样！
Yet another Ralph Lauren
When Rauph Lauren threw a celebration party for his world renowned brand's 40 years anniversary in Central Park a couple weeks ago, I thought I was done with him long before.
But it turned out not. Once again I ended up with yet another Polo, magically and ridiculously, despite my deliberate attempts to favor the alternative.
As I headed for waterfront this afternoon the original plan was to buy a pair of casual shoes, specifically K-Swiss--my new sweetheart. To my delight, there were several models of K-Swiss on sale, some of them very handsome, but the joy was soon replaced by a disappointment: my size, Europe 42, i.e. US 8.5 or occasionally 9, was sold out. It didn't hit me too hard since I'm quite used to the downside of being average. I wandered around a bit and came across a stunningly beautiful pair of Puma. Although I've always had good sentiments with German brands, I never had a real crush on Puma. Rare as it was, I got excited on the thought that my rendez-vous with Puma finally begins. By the way, it was only one of the several Puma's sitting out there, though the rest were less attractive for me. At that moment, a Rauph Lauren jumped into my sight. I was scared because I only knew RL makes all kinds of apparel and fragrance but didn't quite expect to see this little honey on a shoe rack. And she was all by herself. I tried it on and it felt just fine. The design and color was sort of yuppie and somehow it doesn't really fit with my modest jeans and appearance at large. On the contrary, the Puma goes with the rest of me just fine.
I hate to think that I study judgment and decision making, because at this kind of moment, I never really know how I come to the decision. The reality was, I pondered for god-knows-how-long, with Puma and Polo on each feet, and then just walked away with the Ralph Lauren.
At the checkout the cashier said: oh I love this. I smiled back and inhibited the impulse to say that this is the sixth RL God blessed me in the past two years, first two at Century 21 Manhattan, third and fourth at Macy's Queens, fifth at Macy's St. Louis and right now at your honored Marshall's Pittsburgh. I vowed repeatedly not to get into another one ever since the fourth.
My best buddy once commented that choosing shoes is like choosing a woman. I guess vice versa, that is, for a woman choosing shoes is like choosing a man. That probably explains why women like buying shoes so much--for the same reason they like romance drama and fiction, and it follows there are always many more choices for woman than for man. Anyway, it's my sixth, and probably will be the most used, most intimate friend.
P.S.
Check out the photo of Rauph Lauren. The old fellow is wearing exactly the same Levi's shirt I bought last Thanksgiving. Exact the same. This is just...appalling. And he looks the same as my downstairs neighbor in China whose son works for Intel at Arizona. 
喜宴
不少好电影我慕名已久而一直无缘相见，喜宴是其中之一。最近色戒炒得很热但是匹兹堡这边还没有上映，好在李安的父亲三部曲有两部我还没看过，于是打破来美国两年多没有下载电影的惯例，第一次装上电驴下了一个电影——喜宴。
喜宴给我带来了一个星期的欢笑，也赚取了我大概一年的泪水。
前半部分的轻松幽默俯拾皆是，看似信手拈来，却处处体现导演生活体验的细腻深刻。比如高伟同为应付父母而胡编的择偶条件：要有两个PhD学位，其中一个是物理；身高六英尺——对中国女孩子不太现实？那就五尺九寸；会唱歌剧；会说五国语言……而高妈妈竟然真的照单开药把一位俏佳人从台北送到纽约，令人不得不赞叹中华多奇女子。李安在婚宴上突然冒出来的客串也是神来之笔----“What you see here results from five thousand years of sexual repression”.
要说清楚喜宴为何让我流泪却不是举一两个例子那么简单，因为它所表现的生活和探讨的话题——同性恋，爱情，婚姻，家庭，异乡漂泊，一个想做画家的上海女人在纽约的奋斗和挣扎，文化冲突，传统和现代，所有这一切都很沉重而极富戏剧性。李安用他天才的心思把它们烹调成这样一桌酸甜苦辣色香味俱全的喜宴。
但如果不是在美国这么长时间，对人生种种有直接和间接的初体验，这桌喜宴也不会让我吃得唏嘘不已。不是亲身在纽约生活过，很多的场景细节也难以引起感动。李安在纽约六年的家庭妇男不是白做的。从这个意义上说，好的艺术作品不是越早欣赏越好，比如东京爱情故事，15岁的孩子很难理解25岁的完治和莉香们在想什么，年龄和阅历终究难以超越。赵文瑄的英文无可挑剔，但气质还不够像这个在美国混了十年、连国籍都已经换掉的房地产经纪人高伟同。但是如果他的表演炉火纯青，那他简直是神而不是人了——这毕竟是他的第一部戏，他之前只是一个华航的职员，甚至不是科班出身！演员自身经历限制其表现力是天经地义的，所以这瑕疵丝毫不影响我对赵的喜爱。事实上，赵文瑄是所有男演员中，东方的和西方的，唯一一个帅到让我心动的人。李安挑演员的功力非凡，他塑造演员的功力也非凡，能让完全没有表演经验、没有在美国生活经验的赵文瑄演到这份上，不啻是个奇迹（这让我有理由更期待汤唯）。进一步说，赵和金素梅、郎雄、归亚蕾，本来个个都是千里挑一的好演员，能够在这部戏里组成一个家庭，摆出这样一桌让人心碎的喜宴，也是命运对李安的眷顾！值得一提的是，金素梅似乎在演她自己：她后来的人生之路即便按照戏中人顾威威的性格推断也是丝丝入扣，合情合理。
我一贯尊重同性恋的权利，但同时心存反感。这种反感没有消除首先因为我的朋友中没有（或有而我不知）同性恋。这种本能的反感从在大学里看蓝宇，到在华大时看lesbian题材的Saving face（强烈推荐，陈冲在里面饰妈妈），到断背山都没有变过，但无论如何通过这些出色的电影对这个群体有了更多的理解、宽容和同情。应该说喜宴前半部我很讨厌高伟同，不因他是gay，因为他的不孝，或者说他完全不努力去至少让含辛茹苦的父母得到他们最需要的满足。从寒酸的纽约州婚姻公证处走出来，高妈妈忍不住哭了，我也第一次落泪。这种美国式的简陋寒酸和中国人重仪式的强烈冲突相信很多人都不陌生。开始以为顾威威在跟读结婚誓词时候的乱七八糟是英文不好，最后才体会到她原来是故意的。开餐馆的陈老板说“师长是最爱面子的，咱们丢脸也不能丢到美国来”那一席话的场景也特别感人，只透过这个局外人、高爸爸的老部下几句话，把中国人的传统心理发挥得淋漓尽致。婚宴、闹洞房的精彩自然不在话下。我对高伟同的看法从他在医院里对妈妈的坦白后发生了转变，我才了解并不是他不努力，而是他早已经知道这是一场打不赢的战役而放弃了努力，传统的力量太强大了，他唯有远远地逃开，唯有将自己变成一个美国人，也许做一个更开放国度的公民能让他好受些。他也唯有担上不孝的恶名，并甘冒更不孝的风险演出这场闹剧。高伟同的挣扎集中表现在他对父亲的复杂情感上。当父亲歪着脑袋躺在摇椅中打盹时，他竟然会去探父亲的鼻息。他在医院对妈妈说的话“你看那些正常的夫妻，吵的吵，离的离，我和Simon在一起五年都这么好，同性恋能找到这么合适的特别的不容易，所以我们都特别珍惜对方”。说到这里我突然真的理解了他们，人要的东西本质上没有不同。
李安的电影既胜在情节，更胜在细节。喜宴中有很多不易觉察的表情都细细琢磨，慢慢品味。
高爸爸高妈妈那辈人对传统的坚守更让我感动，即使他们所坚守的价值也许终将被时代的洪流冲蚀而成为历史。老师长终于是成功地得到了孙子（他先知般地料到威威会要孩子，是运气好还是真的洞察人性？），他最后和Simon的兜底是整部片子里最大的一个拍案惊奇。高妈妈和威威的“婆媳”情和几次交心的话也是沁人肺腑。高爸爸高妈妈终于还是回台湾了，走进机舱的一刻，老师长举起双手接受安检：他所深深信仰的传宗接代的价值观终于向更开放的社会投降了？这是个意味深长的结局，我敬佩高爸爸，喜爱剧中每一个人。
喜宴，1993，与汤姆汉克斯和丹泽尔华盛顿的费城故事同岁。
P.S. 匆匆成笔，支离破碎，辞不达意，对李安说声对不起。
我到底是什么星座
早年我一直以双子座自居，直到后来星象高人HL姐一锤定音地将我认定为金牛座，我就基本上也默认了这个论断。不过，突然不想再忍受这种模糊性，我决定搞个明白。
但是调查的结果让我越发一头雾水，因为每一个地方的说法都不一样。新浪和Tom的划分不同，英文的网站之间说法也不一致，而且看来不光是21号的比较模糊，20号和22号的可能也有类似的困惑。原先以为是时差的问题，但是似乎没有任何来源提到出生地会影响星座的判断。再说我是下午生的，即便是美国西岸也已经刚刚好到了21号。
有一个网站给了这样的答案：
What's my star sign?
Enter your Birth date: May 21
Your star signs are: Taurus and Gemini.
In astrological terms, you were born on a cusp (on or around the changeover from one Sun sign to the next). You probably have traits of both signs.
难道一个人真的可以有两个星座？哪位达人懂得多一些请不吝赐教，先谢过了……
|
|
