It's a common refrain, but I've been hearing it more and more of late from the American politics people at my Ph.D. program: American voters are stupid. They make poor decisions, they support parties and politicians who manifestly do not advance agendas that would help them. They elected Bush. What's the matter with Kansas, anyway?
And of course, the common response to these points is to throw one's hands in the air and shrug.
Now, I can certainly appreciate the frustration. I think certain voters have been making idiotic statements about how it was the Democrats that were ruining the country for the past eight years (nevermind that Republicans controlled all branches of government). However, I can't go along with the idea that Americans are dumb (at least when it comes to voting). There are a lot of smart people out there, certainly smarter than me in their own areas of expertise, and definitely more knowledgeable about the matters that affect their lives directly.
So, I want to claim that Americans are dumb, I have to include myself in that measure. The more I get into this Ph.D. program, the more I am convinced that people don't know all that much more about the consequences of political decisions. Sure, I may know more than the average person about the debates, facts, and theories surrounding a political question. But that doesn't mean that I necessarily know more about who will ulimately make a better president, whether a particular decision will turn out for the best.
It's like forecasting the weather. Sure, it helps a lot to have more information. But that doesn't mean you're going to be right. And so I'm wary of painting other Americans as stupid without recognizing my own limitations.
Showing posts with label Chengora. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chengora. Show all posts
Friday, October 24, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Olympic Fever
Much of the world is currently in the throes of Olympic fever. The pageantry, the athletics, and of course, watching your country in the medal race.
But, you know what? I'm just not that interested.
I'm sure part of this is my anti-China bias. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that I've lost interest in the Olympics more generally. The jingoism gets to me for one. And then there's the fact that my youthful dream of being an Olympic swimmer will never come to pass (although the 41-year old athlete with two kids is making me reconsider this).
But I've been far more interested and concerned with the war between Georgia and Russia than I am with Team America, Team China, or Team Korea (which is surprisingly high in the early medal count right now - good for them).
Anyway, I want to call your attention to this article. Tim Wu discusses the non-Chinese media (I refuse to call it Western because, let's be frank, this kind of coverage isn't limited to just the "West") and whether it's being too harsh on China.
Now, I agree with much, if not all, of what he's saying. Just because the Chinese have put in a lot of hard work to prepare for the Olympics doesn't mean it should be immune from criticism, particularly if all that hard work was geared towards cleaning up their treatment of laborers, minorities, or the environment. And as a good friend of mine said, if China wants to be a leader on the world stage, it's got to be able to accept the criticism. Just because you're great doesn't mean you're faultless, and it's perfectly legitimate for people to point out your faults (they do it all the time to the U.S., EU, and Russia. Indians do it to themselves.)
However, I think there's also something to the Chinese complaint. It's difficult to separate legitimate criticism from a wider cultural disdain, but I think some of the reporting falls into that. Of course, there is the gap between Chinese expectations and everyone else's reporting, driven in many ways by the high expectations that the CCP set for both itself and the rest of the world. But, while I may dislike China, I think our criticisms must be tempered with this recognition of all its people have accomplished in the past 30 years (as well as being mindful of all its people destroyed in the 30 years before that).
The criticism is getting tied up with the jingoism, and I draw a line there. It's fine to point out (massive) faults in the system and history, but the arguments are stronger (and sometimes more chilling) if they're grounded in a more rational assessment of the country.
But, you know what? I'm just not that interested.
I'm sure part of this is my anti-China bias. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that I've lost interest in the Olympics more generally. The jingoism gets to me for one. And then there's the fact that my youthful dream of being an Olympic swimmer will never come to pass (although the 41-year old athlete with two kids is making me reconsider this).
But I've been far more interested and concerned with the war between Georgia and Russia than I am with Team America, Team China, or Team Korea (which is surprisingly high in the early medal count right now - good for them).
Anyway, I want to call your attention to this article. Tim Wu discusses the non-Chinese media (I refuse to call it Western because, let's be frank, this kind of coverage isn't limited to just the "West") and whether it's being too harsh on China.
Now, I agree with much, if not all, of what he's saying. Just because the Chinese have put in a lot of hard work to prepare for the Olympics doesn't mean it should be immune from criticism, particularly if all that hard work was geared towards cleaning up their treatment of laborers, minorities, or the environment. And as a good friend of mine said, if China wants to be a leader on the world stage, it's got to be able to accept the criticism. Just because you're great doesn't mean you're faultless, and it's perfectly legitimate for people to point out your faults (they do it all the time to the U.S., EU, and Russia. Indians do it to themselves.)
However, I think there's also something to the Chinese complaint. It's difficult to separate legitimate criticism from a wider cultural disdain, but I think some of the reporting falls into that. Of course, there is the gap between Chinese expectations and everyone else's reporting, driven in many ways by the high expectations that the CCP set for both itself and the rest of the world. But, while I may dislike China, I think our criticisms must be tempered with this recognition of all its people have accomplished in the past 30 years (as well as being mindful of all its people destroyed in the 30 years before that).
The criticism is getting tied up with the jingoism, and I draw a line there. It's fine to point out (massive) faults in the system and history, but the arguments are stronger (and sometimes more chilling) if they're grounded in a more rational assessment of the country.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
You're kidding, sir!
Chengora asked me my opinion on this slate piece about action scenes in movies. He further sent me this:
To which I say, kidding, yes?
The gunfight, tension filled, is the hallmark of the western, the action genre of western cinema. Real gunfights take seconds, less than minutes certainly, they've always been extended so you can cat and mouse it, so you can linger on their faces. Heck, Once Upon a Time in the West is 60% extreme closeup, or some other exorbitant ratio.
That said, the post wanted to talk about fighting more than just action, and non-martial arts (this includes boxing) has typically ignored the skill part, endorsing showing mainly the physicality of fighting (ideally), and sometimes just the effort of it (grunting a lot). Some of this comes from a professional wrestling like obsession with big immovable men in their action stars--so much so it's interesting that they pin point Bruce Willis, the only action star out of the 80's to be built like a fit man, instead of a, well, professional wrestler.
I think it's funny that Bourne Ultimatum is such a high watermark, since that's the Bourne movie that conceded it's shaky cam aesthetic with a capoeria inspired fighter. You don't add that style in film if you aren't conceding to aesthetics, to the appreciation of the body and skill.
I think the piece finished with a very good fight, with Cronenberg's set piece in Eastern Promises. Possibly though, the other true fight on film is the one in Casino Royale, in the bathroom. The graceless but skilled killing of another person, in particular contrast in the most glamorous of movie franchises. If anything, the Bourne movies fetishize the skillful killer more than any other. It disorientates exactly when death is going to be inflicted.
Interesting analysis. I was going to post a comment about martial arts movies, but the analysis already takes that into account. I wonder if the central focus of guns in action films set in more modern times requires more cuts in order to obtain the most visceral part of a fight. Whereas in martial arts movies you can do a close up of a face to establish the character's emotional state, then zoom out to a full body frame - in both cases you still have a sense of emotional/personal expression. I don't know if you can do that with gunfights, where the individuals are performing a much more limited set of actions.
To which I say, kidding, yes?
The gunfight, tension filled, is the hallmark of the western, the action genre of western cinema. Real gunfights take seconds, less than minutes certainly, they've always been extended so you can cat and mouse it, so you can linger on their faces. Heck, Once Upon a Time in the West is 60% extreme closeup, or some other exorbitant ratio.
That said, the post wanted to talk about fighting more than just action, and non-martial arts (this includes boxing) has typically ignored the skill part, endorsing showing mainly the physicality of fighting (ideally), and sometimes just the effort of it (grunting a lot). Some of this comes from a professional wrestling like obsession with big immovable men in their action stars--so much so it's interesting that they pin point Bruce Willis, the only action star out of the 80's to be built like a fit man, instead of a, well, professional wrestler.
I think it's funny that Bourne Ultimatum is such a high watermark, since that's the Bourne movie that conceded it's shaky cam aesthetic with a capoeria inspired fighter. You don't add that style in film if you aren't conceding to aesthetics, to the appreciation of the body and skill.
I think the piece finished with a very good fight, with Cronenberg's set piece in Eastern Promises. Possibly though, the other true fight on film is the one in Casino Royale, in the bathroom. The graceless but skilled killing of another person, in particular contrast in the most glamorous of movie franchises. If anything, the Bourne movies fetishize the skillful killer more than any other. It disorientates exactly when death is going to be inflicted.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Primary Colors
I’m an Obama supporter, but only lately come to the game. Up until the whole gas tax thing, I was perfectly fine with either Clinton or Obama getting the nomination. But that move (and the whole combined ticket thing) solidified my sense that Clinton panders too much and is greedy for power, rather than the public good.
And Saturday’s shenanigan’s demonstrated that amply. I can certainly understand why Clinton’s doing what she’s doing. But having Democratic Party members shouting “McCain in ‘08” is just plain bad for the party and the prospects for a real renunciation of the many mistakes made during the Bush years.
So, here’s a message for all the Clinton supporters (who also read this blog – surely a hefty number). First, this nomination contest is an internal election for a private organization. The DNC doesn’t need to count your vote if you didn’t follow their rules. There was no vote fraud, no manipulation. You knew going into primary booth that your vote wouldn’t count. You gambled that the state party could stand up to the DNC, and you lost. This is an apt time to use the Chinese phrase “huo gai”, or “You deserve it.” In 2000, people went to the ballot box thinking that it would. That makes this an entirely different ballgame.
Second, this whole talk about “reassigning” votes. You’re assuming that people who voted for Clinton support Clinton, and the DNC is undermining the will of the voters by giving Obama a higher percentage than he deserves. That’s only partly correct, but you’re forgetting a cardinal rule of elections. Elections are contests between the people on the ballots. So in Michigan, a vote cast for Clinton was not a vote against Obama. To have that, he would need to actually have been on the ballot. After all, the will of the voter could easily have been “Well, I can’t vote for my candidate, so I might as well vote for Clinton.”
Now, of course in Florida, Obama was on the ballot. But then, it wasn’t an even contest. From all the elections that my organization has looked at internationally, there emerges a simple rule. When you can’t campaign, name recognition wins. And at the time, that clearly went in Clinton’s favor.
Democratic elections (small “d” ones) are hard. They require a lot of different elements to be balanced and respected: campaign time, equitable access to fundraising, equitable positioning on the ballot, etc. You can’t pick and choose the way the Clinton people are doing and still proclaim yourself on the side of democratic elections. It then just becomes a means to obtain power, and that’s exactly why Clinton turned me off.
And Saturday’s shenanigan’s demonstrated that amply. I can certainly understand why Clinton’s doing what she’s doing. But having Democratic Party members shouting “McCain in ‘08” is just plain bad for the party and the prospects for a real renunciation of the many mistakes made during the Bush years.
So, here’s a message for all the Clinton supporters (who also read this blog – surely a hefty number). First, this nomination contest is an internal election for a private organization. The DNC doesn’t need to count your vote if you didn’t follow their rules. There was no vote fraud, no manipulation. You knew going into primary booth that your vote wouldn’t count. You gambled that the state party could stand up to the DNC, and you lost. This is an apt time to use the Chinese phrase “huo gai”, or “You deserve it.” In 2000, people went to the ballot box thinking that it would. That makes this an entirely different ballgame.
Second, this whole talk about “reassigning” votes. You’re assuming that people who voted for Clinton support Clinton, and the DNC is undermining the will of the voters by giving Obama a higher percentage than he deserves. That’s only partly correct, but you’re forgetting a cardinal rule of elections. Elections are contests between the people on the ballots. So in Michigan, a vote cast for Clinton was not a vote against Obama. To have that, he would need to actually have been on the ballot. After all, the will of the voter could easily have been “Well, I can’t vote for my candidate, so I might as well vote for Clinton.”
Now, of course in Florida, Obama was on the ballot. But then, it wasn’t an even contest. From all the elections that my organization has looked at internationally, there emerges a simple rule. When you can’t campaign, name recognition wins. And at the time, that clearly went in Clinton’s favor.
Democratic elections (small “d” ones) are hard. They require a lot of different elements to be balanced and respected: campaign time, equitable access to fundraising, equitable positioning on the ballot, etc. You can’t pick and choose the way the Clinton people are doing and still proclaim yourself on the side of democratic elections. It then just becomes a means to obtain power, and that’s exactly why Clinton turned me off.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
When I Grow Up...
A lot of changes happening for me this coming summer. I'm quiting my job in a month's time. I'm moving to New York City right after that. I'm starting a Ph.D. program in the fall. And just before that, I'm going to propose to GF.
So, I'd love to get some input on what I should do for the summer. Duvall has suggested something fun like volunteering at a museum. GF has suggested that I do something that will advance my academic network (volunteer research). A coworker has suggested that I:
- Write short articles everyday or week and try to get them published. Also, start a blog to house them all.
- Tutor kids.
- Help old ladies cross the street (or just something related to old people).
- Work with illegal immigrants using language skills.
- Assist a presidential campaign.
She came up with all this in the span of about five minutes. Needless to say, she didn't want to do her work.
So, what do you all think? My fallback is temping, which I'm perfectly happy with. I do want to stay in NYC and hold to a 9-5 or so schedule as much as possible, as this is GF and my chance to finally live together. And we're getting a Wii for some quality time together.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Old Friends
Turns out, being checked out at work has its advantages. Otherwise, I would never have been bored enough to discover that Fafblog has returned.
Fafblog - The best source anywhere for snarky politics and pie.
Fafblog - The best source anywhere for snarky politics and pie.
Political Reading
Since I'm completely checked out at work (even though I shouldn't be), I wanted to share some great political articles I've been reading. I often pick these up from www.aldaily.com.
Thunder from Tibet - An excellent article on the protests and violence in Tibet in March.
Obama on Zionism and Hamas
- Obama's thoughts on Israel and the U.S. in the Middle East more generally.
Confessions of a Sweatshop Inspector - Great look at the methods of ensuring corporate social responsibility.
Thunder from Tibet - An excellent article on the protests and violence in Tibet in March.
Obama on Zionism and Hamas
- Obama's thoughts on Israel and the U.S. in the Middle East more generally.
Confessions of a Sweatshop Inspector - Great look at the methods of ensuring corporate social responsibility.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Senioritis
As I'll be joining the ranks of the unemployed in June, I've completely checked out of work. Instead, my days are filled with surfing of weird and interesting stories on the web. Sadly, the ones that have captured my attention are the whole Mormon splinter group cult thing, the related issue of forced marriage, the pro-Tibet/pro-China protests, and (on a lighter note) trying to figure out if it's a good idea to build a Tivo (doesn't look like it. Hey, NYC people - what are the cable providers up there?).
Being the political junkie that I am, I'm going to discuss the pro-Tibet/pro-China issue. I've already talked about the limitations on having a rational discussion about the situation in Tibet: no reliable information. But what's really surprised me are the pro-China protesters in the U.S. Granted, it seems like many of them are from China (the interviews have lots of foreign students, but I think that's just of function of it being San Fran). However, I can't help feeling a touch of sadness over the fact that they still believe the PRC line, despite massive evidence to the contrary. For example:
Being the political junkie that I am, I'm going to discuss the pro-Tibet/pro-China issue. I've already talked about the limitations on having a rational discussion about the situation in Tibet: no reliable information. But what's really surprised me are the pro-China protesters in the U.S. Granted, it seems like many of them are from China (the interviews have lots of foreign students, but I think that's just of function of it being San Fran). However, I can't help feeling a touch of sadness over the fact that they still believe the PRC line, despite massive evidence to the contrary. For example:
The Olympics shouldn't be political. Please - they've always been political. If they weren't political, then China shouldn't be using it to showcase its global emergence. The entire route was specifically designed TO BE political, like stamping PRC sovereignty over Tibet and Xinjiang.
Support for the PRC. I can certainly understand that people want to support their culture, etc. But, the pro-Chinese demonstrators go further. They support the PRC government. At least with many of the Arabs I know, they are proud of coming from a long culture, but recognize and denounce the human rights abuses, corruption, and general venality of political leaders in the Middle East. The pro-Chinese protestors don't display any of this self-reflection. Granted, some of this is probably just reaction to a perceived outsider critique of China. But honestly, this quote from a student? "The Chinese people are very peaceful. They wouldn’t do what they are accused of.” Come on, man. The Chinese have been doing that to others and to each other for thousands of years. Where's the rational perspective?
China has been helping Tibet. Similar to the last point. Fine, China invests a lot in Tibet. But looking at this purely from an economic perspective is idiotic. It's about politics and power: who gets the money, can Tibetans practice their religious beliefs, what about the side effects of a depressed economy for a certain group of people and second class status in their own territory (like drug use)? I understand that people in China don't get the information to acknowledge these issues. But pro-Chinese in the U.S.? In the wake of the riots, it's impossible to believe that they were carried out by a small "clique" of individuals. Those were massive, widespread, and expressed great frustration with the economic and especially cultural degradation by the PRC. At the least, there needs to be some sense of humility about this, that economic investment hasn't been particularly successful, and that Beijing has given something of a raw deal to minorities.
Ah, that was cathartic. Now, if only the pro-China protestors would read this.Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Bioshock
Lots of posts, I know. I just finished Bioshock over the weekend. It was fun, and the setting was certainly atmospheric. However, I can't see why the game won awards for its story, more than its setting. The moral choices were pretty stark (SPOILERS - save the Little Sisters or kill them), and your choices ultimately weren't that consequential, except that it gave you one of two different endings. But, the limited moral choice aside, the biggest issue I had was that Bioshock was not so much a story-driven game but an exploration of recent history. Ken Levine gave an interview recently on why stories in video games suck, and he revealed that a remarkable amount of Bioshock's story was left on the editing room floor. It was condensed from a span of months to a single day. And that leaves the player out of some pivotal events in Rapture's "history", and instead he/she is left with picking up audio recordings of what happened. It is an exercise in - at best - piecing together what happened, rather than participating in the events.
And that hamstrings the emotional kick of the game. The audio recordings alone did get me to sympathize with certain individuals or revile others. But the foregoing the opportunity to interact with these people, either as events were going on or in the aftermath, was a narrative and emotional waste. Instead, you’re just left with shooting a bunch of psychos.
But I don’t want to be too harsh. Bioshock was good, and it had some excellent moments of set-piece story underpinned by a light layer of philosophy. But the story never matched the atmosphere. And the fact that Bioshock is renowned for its story is more an indication about the story state of narrative in video games, rather than a positive recommendation for the game.
And that hamstrings the emotional kick of the game. The audio recordings alone did get me to sympathize with certain individuals or revile others. But the foregoing the opportunity to interact with these people, either as events were going on or in the aftermath, was a narrative and emotional waste. Instead, you’re just left with shooting a bunch of psychos.
But I don’t want to be too harsh. Bioshock was good, and it had some excellent moments of set-piece story underpinned by a light layer of philosophy. But the story never matched the atmosphere. And the fact that Bioshock is renowned for its story is more an indication about the story state of narrative in video games, rather than a positive recommendation for the game.
Tibet and Taiwan
Some of this is coming a little late, but hey, I was hiking through mud while carrying a debilitating stomach bug.
Anyway, one of the obvious big pieces of news are the riots in Tibet. I can't add any additional analysis to what's already out there, but one question floating in the blogosphere did pique my interest. Namely, can you have a meaningful dialogue with the opposing side given the restrictions on information? I think it's clearly impossible with the rabid bloggers that have been unleashed on the Chinese side. However, I hold out hope that other Chinese netizens are willing to acknowledge that things in Tibet have not gone well for Tibetans, that their history is filtered, and that they don't have access to all the resources that people in the West do.
This is probably a fool's hope. But, I do wish that the Chinese government would recognize that democracy and free speech/press is typically a moderating force. With increased dialogue on the issues comes (ideally) increased respect for the other side. Now, they probably recognize this and want to stir up nationalism. But ultimately that's a failed policy. The anti-Japanese riots several years back are a clear indication of this: eventually you lose control, and that is ultimately constricting on the government's freedom of action.
Now, Taiwan. Obviously, I'm disappointed with the result. But this is a good time for the DPP to take stock and institute the internal reforms that people have been grumbling about for at least two years. However, even beyond this, I'm more disappointed with the analysis coming out of the State Department. They love the fact that the KMT won, and they should. But I don't think they realize the extent of Taiwanese nationalism - the feeling among Taiwanese that they should decide the country's future and no one else. None of this "the 1.3 billion Chinese will decide" crap: that's clearly not in keeping with international law.
But the fact that this feeling is widespread and strongly felt is an issue for the U.S. This election didn't change the political sentiment on this issue: it just kicked it down the road a bit. The U.S. still has to find a way to meaningfully resolve the Taiwan Strait issue in such a way that it doesn't allow China to threaten more U.S. interests. Even more, the U.S. needs to find a moral, democratic solution to the tensions. Economic inducements only go so far, and you only need to look to Tibet to see that.
Anyway, one of the obvious big pieces of news are the riots in Tibet. I can't add any additional analysis to what's already out there, but one question floating in the blogosphere did pique my interest. Namely, can you have a meaningful dialogue with the opposing side given the restrictions on information? I think it's clearly impossible with the rabid bloggers that have been unleashed on the Chinese side. However, I hold out hope that other Chinese netizens are willing to acknowledge that things in Tibet have not gone well for Tibetans, that their history is filtered, and that they don't have access to all the resources that people in the West do.
This is probably a fool's hope. But, I do wish that the Chinese government would recognize that democracy and free speech/press is typically a moderating force. With increased dialogue on the issues comes (ideally) increased respect for the other side. Now, they probably recognize this and want to stir up nationalism. But ultimately that's a failed policy. The anti-Japanese riots several years back are a clear indication of this: eventually you lose control, and that is ultimately constricting on the government's freedom of action.
Now, Taiwan. Obviously, I'm disappointed with the result. But this is a good time for the DPP to take stock and institute the internal reforms that people have been grumbling about for at least two years. However, even beyond this, I'm more disappointed with the analysis coming out of the State Department. They love the fact that the KMT won, and they should. But I don't think they realize the extent of Taiwanese nationalism - the feeling among Taiwanese that they should decide the country's future and no one else. None of this "the 1.3 billion Chinese will decide" crap: that's clearly not in keeping with international law.
But the fact that this feeling is widespread and strongly felt is an issue for the U.S. This election didn't change the political sentiment on this issue: it just kicked it down the road a bit. The U.S. still has to find a way to meaningfully resolve the Taiwan Strait issue in such a way that it doesn't allow China to threaten more U.S. interests. Even more, the U.S. needs to find a moral, democratic solution to the tensions. Economic inducements only go so far, and you only need to look to Tibet to see that.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Travels in Peru
So, got back from Peru a week ago. You know, I didn't enjoy this trip nearly as much as the one to Turkey. It could have been the week-long stomach bug I was battling, but I think that should be offset by all the glorious meat and ceviche (which probably gave me the stomach bug) that we ate.
No, I think the issue is large group travel. That's right, GF and I went on a tour group. Well, that is if you count 80 Wharton students a tour group. What I missed from Turkey was simply the chance to explore on our own, to meet native peoples and get lost in foreign cities. Because all that provides a much deeper experience and understanding of a country/place.
For example, we spent days exploring various Incan ruins and, of course, the Machu Picchu/Inka trail. But it was only when the two of us went to a museum on our own that all the various architecture, artwork, etc. finally started crystallizing into a coherent history. Similarly, we spent five days in Cuzco and only two in Lima. But I feel a much stronger understanding of life in Lima because it was primarily just the two of us walking around. No 80 person group of Americans to ward off interactions with local Peruvians.
Anyway, obviously none of this is groundbreaking, but I think it's firmly put me off of this kind of travel. GF, on the other hand, acknowledges the problems, but counters with the fact that we stayed at luxurious, high-end hotels at a fraction of the original cost. She also seems a bit less bothered with "understanding the local culture" thing, although that's probably because she reads the guide book diligently. Needless to say, if one of us is already going to do the reading, why should I? (Guys, don't take that advice.)
No, I think the issue is large group travel. That's right, GF and I went on a tour group. Well, that is if you count 80 Wharton students a tour group. What I missed from Turkey was simply the chance to explore on our own, to meet native peoples and get lost in foreign cities. Because all that provides a much deeper experience and understanding of a country/place.
For example, we spent days exploring various Incan ruins and, of course, the Machu Picchu/Inka trail. But it was only when the two of us went to a museum on our own that all the various architecture, artwork, etc. finally started crystallizing into a coherent history. Similarly, we spent five days in Cuzco and only two in Lima. But I feel a much stronger understanding of life in Lima because it was primarily just the two of us walking around. No 80 person group of Americans to ward off interactions with local Peruvians.
Anyway, obviously none of this is groundbreaking, but I think it's firmly put me off of this kind of travel. GF, on the other hand, acknowledges the problems, but counters with the fact that we stayed at luxurious, high-end hotels at a fraction of the original cost. She also seems a bit less bothered with "understanding the local culture" thing, although that's probably because she reads the guide book diligently. Needless to say, if one of us is already going to do the reading, why should I? (Guys, don't take that advice.)
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Annoying Politics
I’m still working my way through Bioshock, so more on that and a response to Duvall’s post later. It’s engrossing, although I’m not sure that it quite reaches the level of “games as art.” Nevertheless, it’s an interesting exploration of Objectivism and where it all falls apart. Question: do gamers generally find Objectivism more appealing?
Anyway, this post is about the ’08 Election. A couple sound bites/positions have annoyed me to an unusual degree, and I thought I’d rant here.
Flip-Flopping – We all remember this: Bush supporters who lambasted Kerry for being a flip-flopper on his Iraq War vote. Granted, it was a politically brilliant sound bite (for Bush).
Fast forward four years, and many of those same Republican supporters are being asked about Romney and his flip-flopping. Perhaps it's the media echo chamber, but the majority of responses from Romney supporters have been “He flipped the right way, so I’m fine with that.”
Which of course means that going back on your opinion is not the horrible thing that Bush makes it to be. These guys don't care about flip flopping: they care about ideological agreement. What gets me is that they just can't admit that. It strikes me as dishonest, or perhaps self-deluding/denial.
Barack “Hussein” Obama – This has been in the news more recently. Slate had an article about it, where Republicans were calling attention to Obama’s middle name and essentially saying “We’re not trying to send a political message. We’re just calling him by his name.”
Sure. And Fox News was a model of journalistic ethics when it ran the madrassa issue (I’ve been to Obama's school, by the way. It’s gorgeous.). The issue I have with this is that it taps into something ultimately nasty and destructive in American politics (or really all politics) - the need to exclude what's different. It's exactly why we've been so unsuccessful in the War on Terror: the U.S. simply cannot work with or deal with individuals when they cast them as an undifferentiated, sometimes incomprehensible group.
And when you stoop to calling out a candidate's name because you want to draw negative associations with Islam, you appeal to and empower those instincts. I'm glad John McCain rebuked that radio talk show host. But I only expect more of this from the 527s as the campaign progresses.
Anyway, for something a little more fun, check out this blog.
Anyway, this post is about the ’08 Election. A couple sound bites/positions have annoyed me to an unusual degree, and I thought I’d rant here.
Flip-Flopping – We all remember this: Bush supporters who lambasted Kerry for being a flip-flopper on his Iraq War vote. Granted, it was a politically brilliant sound bite (for Bush).
Fast forward four years, and many of those same Republican supporters are being asked about Romney and his flip-flopping. Perhaps it's the media echo chamber, but the majority of responses from Romney supporters have been “He flipped the right way, so I’m fine with that.”
Which of course means that going back on your opinion is not the horrible thing that Bush makes it to be. These guys don't care about flip flopping: they care about ideological agreement. What gets me is that they just can't admit that. It strikes me as dishonest, or perhaps self-deluding/denial.
Barack “Hussein” Obama – This has been in the news more recently. Slate had an article about it, where Republicans were calling attention to Obama’s middle name and essentially saying “We’re not trying to send a political message. We’re just calling him by his name.”
Sure. And Fox News was a model of journalistic ethics when it ran the madrassa issue (I’ve been to Obama's school, by the way. It’s gorgeous.). The issue I have with this is that it taps into something ultimately nasty and destructive in American politics (or really all politics) - the need to exclude what's different. It's exactly why we've been so unsuccessful in the War on Terror: the U.S. simply cannot work with or deal with individuals when they cast them as an undifferentiated, sometimes incomprehensible group.
And when you stoop to calling out a candidate's name because you want to draw negative associations with Islam, you appeal to and empower those instincts. I'm glad John McCain rebuked that radio talk show host. But I only expect more of this from the 527s as the campaign progresses.
Anyway, for something a little more fun, check out this blog.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Narrative in RPGs
It's been ages since anyone's written, but Duvall tells me he's got a post coming up. So, in the interest of restarting this thing, I'd like to discuss something that's been on my mind. No, not the election, although a post on that may come soon enough.
No, I've been thinking about RPGs, specifically this roundtable discussion. I never really played the classic computer RPGs like Ultima, becoming engrossed in the genre during Black Isle's heyday of Icewind Dale (ID - only okay), Baldur's Gate (BG - grand and epic, but a little trite), and Planescape: Torment (PT - probably one of the finest examples of narrative).
But, as the roundtable discusses, they just don't make RPGs like they used to. Something has gone out of the narrative and immersion. American cRPGs are beginning - in my mind - to resemble Japanese ones. You're dropped into the middle of events, and you're essentially a glorified gopher. Your tasks focus on picking up the 3, 4, 8 fragments needed to put the magic weapon back together, complete the ingredients to your spell, save the world. But you have little choice in the matter, and your actions don't mean anything as a result. As important, the worlds feel "artificial:" they don't feel lived in, as if they persist both before and after your character.
And I think one of the main reasons for this drop in immersion is technology. Sure, graphics in the past few years have made a tremendous leap. The Infinity engine has nothing on the Aurora engine. But text used to play an enormous role in these games, mostly because the engines couldn’t produce the effects that were needed. Pretty lights? Sure thing. Big explosions? Check. Emotive effect through facial animation that can keep up with your dialogue choices? Uh oh.
But that was okay. Well-written text created immersive environments and effective narrative when combined with the literally thousands of characters that inhabited the BG and PT games.
With the newer technology, designers have opted for fewer characters and fancier graphics, thinking that tech can potentially substitute for the emotional content that came from narrative. But – to cite just one example – when you enter cities in Oblivion, do you notice something missing? That's right: people. The world outside may be vast and fun to explore. But the cities are sparse and lifeless affairs, because there is no background to explain WHY you should become the head of the fighter’s guild, why your choice is meaningful beyond the swag that you receive.
I think the strongest analysis in the roundtable is that RPGs have become, in effect, single player MMORPGs. No real background, no real narrative, no “world.” Which is why I’ve been finding myself getting into shooters. The best – Half-Life 2, Call of Duty 4 – tie your actions into a larger narrative much more effectively than many recent RPGs, and they do it with a variety of content and gameplay (it also helps that guns are just that much better from a first person perspective). They are immersive: nowhere near PT, but better than NWN1. But they don’t set themselves up as needing to create a coherent world.
So, RPG makers, craft a narrative that gives meaning to my choices; make me care about a character’s relationships, not about leveling up; immerse me a rich history. Give me worlds again.
No, I've been thinking about RPGs, specifically this roundtable discussion. I never really played the classic computer RPGs like Ultima, becoming engrossed in the genre during Black Isle's heyday of Icewind Dale (ID - only okay), Baldur's Gate (BG - grand and epic, but a little trite), and Planescape: Torment (PT - probably one of the finest examples of narrative).
But, as the roundtable discusses, they just don't make RPGs like they used to. Something has gone out of the narrative and immersion. American cRPGs are beginning - in my mind - to resemble Japanese ones. You're dropped into the middle of events, and you're essentially a glorified gopher. Your tasks focus on picking up the 3, 4, 8 fragments needed to put the magic weapon back together, complete the ingredients to your spell, save the world. But you have little choice in the matter, and your actions don't mean anything as a result. As important, the worlds feel "artificial:" they don't feel lived in, as if they persist both before and after your character.
And I think one of the main reasons for this drop in immersion is technology. Sure, graphics in the past few years have made a tremendous leap. The Infinity engine has nothing on the Aurora engine. But text used to play an enormous role in these games, mostly because the engines couldn’t produce the effects that were needed. Pretty lights? Sure thing. Big explosions? Check. Emotive effect through facial animation that can keep up with your dialogue choices? Uh oh.
But that was okay. Well-written text created immersive environments and effective narrative when combined with the literally thousands of characters that inhabited the BG and PT games.
With the newer technology, designers have opted for fewer characters and fancier graphics, thinking that tech can potentially substitute for the emotional content that came from narrative. But – to cite just one example – when you enter cities in Oblivion, do you notice something missing? That's right: people. The world outside may be vast and fun to explore. But the cities are sparse and lifeless affairs, because there is no background to explain WHY you should become the head of the fighter’s guild, why your choice is meaningful beyond the swag that you receive.
I think the strongest analysis in the roundtable is that RPGs have become, in effect, single player MMORPGs. No real background, no real narrative, no “world.” Which is why I’ve been finding myself getting into shooters. The best – Half-Life 2, Call of Duty 4 – tie your actions into a larger narrative much more effectively than many recent RPGs, and they do it with a variety of content and gameplay (it also helps that guns are just that much better from a first person perspective). They are immersive: nowhere near PT, but better than NWN1. But they don’t set themselves up as needing to create a coherent world.
So, RPG makers, craft a narrative that gives meaning to my choices; make me care about a character’s relationships, not about leveling up; immerse me a rich history. Give me worlds again.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Intelligence
Enough has been said about the latest National Intelligence Estimate's findings on Iran in the media, and there's enough in there to cast lots of (deserved) doubt on Bush's policies. But the biggest issue for me is not that Iran doesn't want nuclear weapons: I still suspect that they are pushing for some kind of nuclear program. Rather, it's that Bush's past positions make it incredibly difficult to pursue the only remaining policy option with international support: work through the IAEA.
Ahmadinejad is correct: Iran has a right to use nuclear power for energy, and Tehran's rationale for pursuing nuclear energy makes a certain economic sense. But he's wrong in a critical way: Iran cannot pursue nuclear power unless it declares its production sites and allows international inspectors unfettered access to those sites. This was always been the sticking point for me. Tehran could have gotten nuclear power through the existing international system. But why didn't it? If their intentions were peaceful, there's nothing stopping them.
But unfortunately, Bush has made hay about taking a "strong" stand against Tehran, which has forced it to eschew the carrot side of any negotiations. The U.S. could easily and clearly have said, "We respect your right to nuclear power, but you have to comply with existing international rules." Instead, the threats of war have muddled the message and American credibility, and this latest NIE report casts a further cloud over the President's objectives. It's made it much harder now to work with the IAEA and other countries to find a solution to this mess, and that clearly hurts the American position both right now and in the longer term.
Ahmadinejad is correct: Iran has a right to use nuclear power for energy, and Tehran's rationale for pursuing nuclear energy makes a certain economic sense. But he's wrong in a critical way: Iran cannot pursue nuclear power unless it declares its production sites and allows international inspectors unfettered access to those sites. This was always been the sticking point for me. Tehran could have gotten nuclear power through the existing international system. But why didn't it? If their intentions were peaceful, there's nothing stopping them.
But unfortunately, Bush has made hay about taking a "strong" stand against Tehran, which has forced it to eschew the carrot side of any negotiations. The U.S. could easily and clearly have said, "We respect your right to nuclear power, but you have to comply with existing international rules." Instead, the threats of war have muddled the message and American credibility, and this latest NIE report casts a further cloud over the President's objectives. It's made it much harder now to work with the IAEA and other countries to find a solution to this mess, and that clearly hurts the American position both right now and in the longer term.
Monday, December 3, 2007
F-Cubed
My co-worker introduced me to the term F-Cubed or "Forced Family Fun." Think of those nights when your parents forced you to play board games with them.
Well, it pretty much sums up my trip to Italy. We had gone about 10 years ago to northern Italy, and this vacation swept up Rome and Naples. In that intervening 10 years, however, I have discovered that I simply don't like skipping lunches to run from location to location - treating the country as a repository of historic places to see - eating dinner, then conking out somewhere between 8-10 pm.
Sadly, my sister is of the hyperactive, must-see-the-sights kind of person, although tellingly "sights" does not include actual people. So, while I saw an overwhelming amount of churches (I think there's some religious rule by which I am now Catholic), I didn't actually have a conversation with any Italians while with my family. And unfortunately, my parents are getting old, so they pretty much have to fall asleep after dinner. All of which meant early rising, lots of walking, little sampling of the food, and even less sense of what the places are actually like.
All of which made Italy an only okay trip. Rome was gorgeous, and I loved Bologna, mostly because I was not with my family and visiting a friend there. Another notable event was going to a resort town on the Mediterranean coast. As is often the case in resort towns in non-resort seasons, the local industry gets a little desparate. Thus, I forced my sister to stare at me, rather than the guy desparately foisting himself onto a hooker in his tiny car.
Then there was being racially profiled by a Neapolitan cop. The previous night, two Philippino men were picked up for drug running and money laundering. The cop thought my dad and I may be part of that ring and asked for ID. I pulled my driver's licence out of my wallet, to which he asked "What's in the wallet?" and "Who's money is that?" Really, what did he expect me to say?
So, in sum, Bologna was great, Rome was nice but superficial, and Naples sucked, except for the food.
Well, it pretty much sums up my trip to Italy. We had gone about 10 years ago to northern Italy, and this vacation swept up Rome and Naples. In that intervening 10 years, however, I have discovered that I simply don't like skipping lunches to run from location to location - treating the country as a repository of historic places to see - eating dinner, then conking out somewhere between 8-10 pm.
Sadly, my sister is of the hyperactive, must-see-the-sights kind of person, although tellingly "sights" does not include actual people. So, while I saw an overwhelming amount of churches (I think there's some religious rule by which I am now Catholic), I didn't actually have a conversation with any Italians while with my family. And unfortunately, my parents are getting old, so they pretty much have to fall asleep after dinner. All of which meant early rising, lots of walking, little sampling of the food, and even less sense of what the places are actually like.
All of which made Italy an only okay trip. Rome was gorgeous, and I loved Bologna, mostly because I was not with my family and visiting a friend there. Another notable event was going to a resort town on the Mediterranean coast. As is often the case in resort towns in non-resort seasons, the local industry gets a little desparate. Thus, I forced my sister to stare at me, rather than the guy desparately foisting himself onto a hooker in his tiny car.
Then there was being racially profiled by a Neapolitan cop. The previous night, two Philippino men were picked up for drug running and money laundering. The cop thought my dad and I may be part of that ring and asked for ID. I pulled my driver's licence out of my wallet, to which he asked "What's in the wallet?" and "Who's money is that?" Really, what did he expect me to say?
So, in sum, Bologna was great, Rome was nice but superficial, and Naples sucked, except for the food.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Applications
I'm done with my Ph.D. applications!
Well, that's only mostly true. I still have one or two things left to fill out (oh, FAFSA, the bane of my existence). But, all the application fees are in, and I don't have anything left to send to schools except recommendations.
Now, back to drinking.
Well, that's only mostly true. I still have one or two things left to fill out (oh, FAFSA, the bane of my existence). But, all the application fees are in, and I don't have anything left to send to schools except recommendations.
Now, back to drinking.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Politics By Other Means
So I just got two PC games: Company of Heroes and World in Conflict. Both excellent real time strategy (RTS) games, and each is nothing short of emotionally draining. Lots of explosions, a visceral feel to the combat, and generally compelling story lines.
And most important for me, no resource micro-management. While something about RTS always appealed to me, I hated the "generate masses of peons to gather raw materials" design. This was mostly because I could never devote the time or effort to learn all the hotkeys required to build a specific building or perform actions. In other words, I could never "actualize" my economy. Games devolved into a series of scrolling around the map, pausing the game, hunting and pecking for a build order, and repeat. More often than not, the result was that my peons were quickly killed in all kinds of horrible ways.
I understand where these games were trying to go. The economy obviously lays the foundation for military choices, and a good RTS will have the player make interesting economic decisions that affect their military options later down the road. But too often - for me at least - the games just get bogged down in a mindless game of digital "gopher". This always left me wondering where the real focus of the game was: warfare. It was like I had to bore myself for hours just to get that five minutes of desparate payoff. And of course, my failure at economy building was eventually a failure on the battlefield, especially as I couldn't hotkey unit orders and have them come directly to the fight. The learning curve is far too steep for a casual player.
Which is why these two games are wonderful. WiC is the "purer" of the two, eschewing all resource gathering and superficially similar to the Panzer line of games (which are also fun). The beauty is that, while you may have no resource gathering, you are fundamentally concerned with resources. You get a steady supply of points, up to a certain level, and you have to spend them on just the right mix of units to win. If your unit dies, the points a credited back to you, although it does a little while for them to be available for use.
CoH makes things even more meaningful. Again resource acquisition is non-existent: you get steady supplies from key points that you hold. But you have to fight for those points, which neatly folds your military decisions into your economic ones. The point is not just to eliminate the enemy, but decide where you want to eliminate them and what can be gained from it.
All this frees up the player to concentrate on the action. They do say that soldiers worry about tactics, generals about logistics. But frankly, if logistics is that boring, I'd rather be a grunt. And besides, modern militaries take their time when planning their economic and political foundations. If I want that, I'll play Civ.
In other nerdiness, Wesleyan students be proud. Now, I'm off to play flag football.
And most important for me, no resource micro-management. While something about RTS always appealed to me, I hated the "generate masses of peons to gather raw materials" design. This was mostly because I could never devote the time or effort to learn all the hotkeys required to build a specific building or perform actions. In other words, I could never "actualize" my economy. Games devolved into a series of scrolling around the map, pausing the game, hunting and pecking for a build order, and repeat. More often than not, the result was that my peons were quickly killed in all kinds of horrible ways.
I understand where these games were trying to go. The economy obviously lays the foundation for military choices, and a good RTS will have the player make interesting economic decisions that affect their military options later down the road. But too often - for me at least - the games just get bogged down in a mindless game of digital "gopher". This always left me wondering where the real focus of the game was: warfare. It was like I had to bore myself for hours just to get that five minutes of desparate payoff. And of course, my failure at economy building was eventually a failure on the battlefield, especially as I couldn't hotkey unit orders and have them come directly to the fight. The learning curve is far too steep for a casual player.
Which is why these two games are wonderful. WiC is the "purer" of the two, eschewing all resource gathering and superficially similar to the Panzer line of games (which are also fun). The beauty is that, while you may have no resource gathering, you are fundamentally concerned with resources. You get a steady supply of points, up to a certain level, and you have to spend them on just the right mix of units to win. If your unit dies, the points a credited back to you, although it does a little while for them to be available for use.
CoH makes things even more meaningful. Again resource acquisition is non-existent: you get steady supplies from key points that you hold. But you have to fight for those points, which neatly folds your military decisions into your economic ones. The point is not just to eliminate the enemy, but decide where you want to eliminate them and what can be gained from it.
All this frees up the player to concentrate on the action. They do say that soldiers worry about tactics, generals about logistics. But frankly, if logistics is that boring, I'd rather be a grunt. And besides, modern militaries take their time when planning their economic and political foundations. If I want that, I'll play Civ.
In other nerdiness, Wesleyan students be proud. Now, I'm off to play flag football.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Cracking
So on my recent trip to Taiwan and Indonesia, I picked up various kinds of electronic equipment for friends and for myself: a microSD card, a reader for said card, a portable hard drive. This being Asia, invariably there were stands nearby selling all kinds of pirated DVDs, music, and video games. (On one of the occasions, I was wearing a suit, so it was a little weird walking through.)
I'm not going to talk about the benefits and evils of pirating. I'll make one quick comment and one long observation. First, quickly, Taiwan has really cleaned up its piracy issues. I remember several years ago walking along the night market outside my grandma's house as seeing DVDs everywhere. Nothing now.
Second, and longer, the experience in Indonesia especially got me thinking about some recent developments in video games. It's very difficult to copy-protect DVDs - sooner or later someone cracks it. But I wonder whether the recent trends of online play, constant updates and upgrades, and occasionally half-finished game releases aren't in some way tied to anti-pirating efforts. On several of the games, I saw disclaimers (in English, surprisingly) that you could not use the DVDs to play online. In addition, the ones where that was possible (I haven't obviously tested whether this is true) appeared to be older games that came out a minimum of 1-2 years ago.
And the reason online play is blocked is because the game developers can constantly check up on the legality of your copy. Most cracks to play games illegally require invasive changes to the executable file or core game files. That kind of thing is pretty easy to suss out. Similarly, constant file updates also make it very easy to catch crackers and force them to reinstall. Cripple your initial release just enough, string out your updates long enough, and you'll likely get all the people who were going to purchase the game to do so legally.
So, how plausible is this? I'm sure it's not the only reason behind buggy releases and constant updates with limited tweaks. But it could very well be a contributing factor to why certain types of games - especially single-player, offline ones - are increasingly being packaged with specific online features.
I'm not going to talk about the benefits and evils of pirating. I'll make one quick comment and one long observation. First, quickly, Taiwan has really cleaned up its piracy issues. I remember several years ago walking along the night market outside my grandma's house as seeing DVDs everywhere. Nothing now.
Second, and longer, the experience in Indonesia especially got me thinking about some recent developments in video games. It's very difficult to copy-protect DVDs - sooner or later someone cracks it. But I wonder whether the recent trends of online play, constant updates and upgrades, and occasionally half-finished game releases aren't in some way tied to anti-pirating efforts. On several of the games, I saw disclaimers (in English, surprisingly) that you could not use the DVDs to play online. In addition, the ones where that was possible (I haven't obviously tested whether this is true) appeared to be older games that came out a minimum of 1-2 years ago.
And the reason online play is blocked is because the game developers can constantly check up on the legality of your copy. Most cracks to play games illegally require invasive changes to the executable file or core game files. That kind of thing is pretty easy to suss out. Similarly, constant file updates also make it very easy to catch crackers and force them to reinstall. Cripple your initial release just enough, string out your updates long enough, and you'll likely get all the people who were going to purchase the game to do so legally.
So, how plausible is this? I'm sure it's not the only reason behind buggy releases and constant updates with limited tweaks. But it could very well be a contributing factor to why certain types of games - especially single-player, offline ones - are increasingly being packaged with specific online features.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Crunchiness and Granola
I've just come back from the cultural/spiritual center of Java, and while I can't say that I've learned any more or crystallized my thoughts on Indonesia, I did discover a few things about myself. For example, there's a reason I don't backpack anymore. It was all fun when I was in India and maybe even a little after I started working in Taiwan. But comparing my hotel room to the places where some of the Westerners I met were staying - well, there was no comparison. I was invited back to their place for some drinks (remember, it's Ramadan, so alcohol is hard to find) and quickly came to the conclusion that I would not be spending the night there under any circumstances. The fact that my 3-star hotel room was all of 300 meters away really wasn't an important factor in this decision, and I realize how much I've grown to enjoy my creature comforts. Like an actual seat on the toilet.
Also, I've become more firmly convinced in my disinterest - bordering on distaste - of Western tourists looking to find themselves in the spiritual centers of Asia. Yogjakarta (shortened to Yogja and pronounced "jog-ja") has loads of Hindu, Buddhist, and historical sites, as well as a cultural asthetic marred only by the commercialism that has crept in because tourism is a primary driver of the local economy. As a result, you get lots of people doing the extra-crunchy granola backpacking thing, something which - while I respect it - I'm not sure how much it's based in a realistic understanding of the people's lives.
I suppose that's partly the point - you go to these places to escape the rigors and stresses of the world. But at some point, I do wonder whether the travelers are mistaking the spirituality and "hush" lent to a location by virtue of it being a past religious center with the spirituality that in some sense should emanate from the people living in the location. It's hard for me to square the spirituality of the location with, say, the commercialism I mentioned earlier. So, India never struck me as the spiritual place that many of my friends thought it was, except in the Tibetan monasteries, where spiritualism was a way of life (the human element joining with the location). The same was in Yogja.
All of this is really me trying to say that multiple times, I felt very old. In a far different place than a lot of the college and post-college kids I met: much more firmly established and far less able to join in their conversations about things that, frankly, didn't seem at all interesting to me. This was even the case with some of the older individuals I met there. It makes me wonder about my time backpacking, and whether I was really as idealistic, perhaps even naive, as the individuals I met.
As for the city itself, it's a very pretty place with some great sights to see. The Borobhudur temple in particular is quite simply massive, and a monumental achievement for the Buddhist religion. I'll post pictures when I get back to the U.S. But like any heavy tourist spot, there were innumerable touts and people looking to sell overpriced handicrafts. This was a great contrast to Turkey, and I found myself longing for a place that is firmly used to the idea of tourists. So, as GF and I are planning a vacation next summer after I quit, it's a race between Southeast Asia and a Mediterranean tour. I think you know which one I'm going after.
And one thing I forgot to mention last time. Indonesia needs to cut off about three "0" off its currency. It's nice being a millionnaire, but the 9500:1 exchange rate - and the fact that things cost at least some multiple of 100, if not 1000, pre-tax - means that you get very large and unwieldy bills in your wallet.
Also, I've become more firmly convinced in my disinterest - bordering on distaste - of Western tourists looking to find themselves in the spiritual centers of Asia. Yogjakarta (shortened to Yogja and pronounced "jog-ja") has loads of Hindu, Buddhist, and historical sites, as well as a cultural asthetic marred only by the commercialism that has crept in because tourism is a primary driver of the local economy. As a result, you get lots of people doing the extra-crunchy granola backpacking thing, something which - while I respect it - I'm not sure how much it's based in a realistic understanding of the people's lives.
I suppose that's partly the point - you go to these places to escape the rigors and stresses of the world. But at some point, I do wonder whether the travelers are mistaking the spirituality and "hush" lent to a location by virtue of it being a past religious center with the spirituality that in some sense should emanate from the people living in the location. It's hard for me to square the spirituality of the location with, say, the commercialism I mentioned earlier. So, India never struck me as the spiritual place that many of my friends thought it was, except in the Tibetan monasteries, where spiritualism was a way of life (the human element joining with the location). The same was in Yogja.
All of this is really me trying to say that multiple times, I felt very old. In a far different place than a lot of the college and post-college kids I met: much more firmly established and far less able to join in their conversations about things that, frankly, didn't seem at all interesting to me. This was even the case with some of the older individuals I met there. It makes me wonder about my time backpacking, and whether I was really as idealistic, perhaps even naive, as the individuals I met.
As for the city itself, it's a very pretty place with some great sights to see. The Borobhudur temple in particular is quite simply massive, and a monumental achievement for the Buddhist religion. I'll post pictures when I get back to the U.S. But like any heavy tourist spot, there were innumerable touts and people looking to sell overpriced handicrafts. This was a great contrast to Turkey, and I found myself longing for a place that is firmly used to the idea of tourists. So, as GF and I are planning a vacation next summer after I quit, it's a race between Southeast Asia and a Mediterranean tour. I think you know which one I'm going after.
And one thing I forgot to mention last time. Indonesia needs to cut off about three "0" off its currency. It's nice being a millionnaire, but the 9500:1 exchange rate - and the fact that things cost at least some multiple of 100, if not 1000, pre-tax - means that you get very large and unwieldy bills in your wallet.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Notes from Abroad
Just thought I'd share a couple of observations from my time in Indonesia. Since I've largely been shuttling between meetings, hotels, and restaurants, I don't think I have the best impression of the country, but - with that major caveat - here goes:
- I've never seen worse traffic in my life. My coworker here gave an excellent piece of advice: always use the bathroom right before you go somewhere else. You never know when you'll get another chance. It took us 15 minutes to get to one meeting prior to rush hour. It took an hour and 15 to get back. That's happened EVERY DAY, without fail, on almost all the streets.
- That said, aside from cars, Jakarta is nowhere near as crowded as I had thought. Like LA, there's no city center, so you don't get that crush of people in particular areas.
- Also, the streets are very clean. The air is often terrible, but I have seen very little litter on the ground.
- There's something of an identity crisis going on, despite the fact that everyone keeps talking about (and I'm going to butcher this spelling) panchasila - which is kind of like a national philosophy. Even so, I don't know how many people have really embraced the ideas of pluralism and diversity, enough so that they can celebrate their commonalities amid a strikingly diverse range of people, cultures, and languages.
- And finally, there's a crapload of malls over here.
I take off for Java's cultural center tomorrow, so I'll hopefully have more insight later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)