Mmm... Hsu Fu Chi

Chuck Klosterman could only exist in America.

Only in such an idiosyncratic culture could a writer make a living dissecting and analyzing the vapid and morbid obsession we have in North America with celebrity pop-culture. Millions of people every day enjoy reading, watching and sharing opinions about why we act the way we act, listen to the music we do, celebrate the famous people we do.

Intellectuals are no exception. To send scholars at the minutiae of our indulgence is in itself an indulgence only we could afford.

Lately however, I am finding myself increasingly curious if a person such as Chuck Klosterman exists in China.

I cannot read Chinese, so my attempts to search for a Chucky Kwan type pop-culture swazi have been hindered. But in my mind, if Klosterman and Thompson can make turning a mirror on ourselves engrossing, can you imagine what an unfettered and gifted Chinese writer could do with her topic matter?

Let's be honest here -- China is Fucked. Up.

Partially because of the disparate geography, but throw in the political status, cultural repression and constant self-conciousness, and you have a potent and fascinating mixture. Instead of questioning what is produced by Chinese pop-culture, how about wondering why there is essentially no such thing as pop-culture on mainland China? And what little of it does exist is such a sad showing.

Japan, South Korea, India; all the major Asian nations have developed a pop-culture identity to call their own. Even Hong Kong. But for some reason, not mainland China. They have always just mooched off of Hong Kong, but that's like all of Canada being defined by Roch Voisine -- it just would never happen. (I realize the irony of a Canadian accusing another country of lacking cultural identity, but Beijing and Shanghai combined already have more people than we do. So bear with me).

Why is this? I find the question tantalizing. Naturally however I do not consider myself in touch with the Chinese youth. I only know what I can perceive from my house. If you are educated on the topic, please enlighten me.

Otherwise, I am off on a search, starting tonight. Updates to come on what I find.

*********************

As an aside, I found this article kind of neat.

The top selling candies in the world.

I'm not a huge M&M's fan, but apparently I am in the hugenourmous minority.

Pick your zombie party

More people should listen to CBC radio for its magazine shows. Much like the public library, CBC radio is a wealth of knowledge often under appreciated. Not only do you learn about the world, but CBC reporters regularly win awards around the globe for their radio docuwork. Despite the ever-shrinking budget of the ceebs, it's a Canadian institution I fully believe in, heartily support and will love until my final days.

With that said, the current feature on 'Ideas' with Paul Kennedy is a three-part broadcast titled "Climate Wars".

Here is the synopsis:

About 2 years ago I noticed that the military in various countries, and especially in the Pentagon, were beginning to take climate change seriously. Now, it's the business of the military to find new security threats. It's also in their own self-interest, since they need a constant supply of threats in order to justify their demands on the taxpayers' money, so you should always take the new threats that the soldiers discover with a grain of salt. You know, never ask the barber whether you need a haircut.

But I did start to look into this idea that global warming could lead to wars. It turned into a year-long trek talking to scientists, soldiers and politicians in a dozen different countries. I have come back from that trip seriously worried...

- Gwynne Dyer

This might sound like an audiobook version of an inconvenient truth, but so far it has been much more focused on presenting the latest research and exploring little discussed consequences than it is about brow beating.

Not just "the world is ending" but having respected minds discuss how that might happen politically, culturally and environmentally helps really lay things out with a different perspective. Moreover, it explores both sides, weighing the consequences of ecoengineering, ecoterrorism and how both those evolutions are impacting the world on a political level for both good and in many cases, not so good.

Probably one of the most informative pieces of journalism about our current climate (literally and otherwise) that I've ever enjoyed.

I highly recommend you check it out.

This post is banned in China

On the morning of September 11, 2001, I stood slack jawed, standing in the hallway of the Richard Ivey School of Business having just left my first ever university english class.

CNN was on several TV's overhanging the dimly lit linoleum hall. Hushed voices and wide eyes mingled reacting to the stuttering commentary coming from the television as dozens of us stared in awe at the unbelievable sight of an airplane smashing into an iconic New York landmark -- then horror as that landmark came crumbling down to the earth. It was hundreds of miles away, but we could feel the dust flying at us through the screen. The fear at least, was most certainly palpable.

Before 9/11 however, there was 6/4.

As much as one act of terror defined a generation (and many to come), on June 4, 1989 an act of courage inspired the world.

More iconic than the tallest building in the world, selected as symbols of capitalism, one Chinese student stopping a battalion of tanks by himself idealized notions of freedom, democracy, humanity and self-determination to a world in the grips of political conflict.

Blood was shed that day. On a pivotal moment that to this day defines the Chinese government and to a certain extent, it's people, freedom lost the battle in Tiananmen -- but it won the war.

Five months later, the Berlin wall would come crashing down. Two years later, the Soviet Union would be no more.

We speak often of tipping points, and in this age of over-saturated, over-analyzed, over-blown media coverage, hyperbole is part and parcel of information dissemination.

I was seven years old on June 4, 1989. At the time, the events were lost on me, the symbolism and gravitas of the situation blissfully irrelevant compared to the opportunity to stay up late into the night to watch TV, even if I didn't know what we were watching.

Little did I realize the world I woke up to the next day would never be the same. Even 20 years later.

I love China. Most would probably not suspect this, but I am proud of my heritage, proud of our tradition, proud of my family's roots and lineage. It is for this reason that we privileged enough to live here in Canada shouldn't ever, ever forget 6/4, and what it means as a moment in humanity shared not just by our home country, but inspirational to people all over the world.

Most importantly however, is that there is still much work to be done. Those who would purposely choose to ignore history seem to be ignorant of the fact that they are setting themselves up to repeat it.

Hopefully next time, the pendulum will swing the other way, and yet another date will go down in the annals of humanity not for tragedy, but for victory.

Pondering parenthood.

Perusing the new Globe&Mail today (side note: love the site, hate the long loading times. Lots of potential but the back-end clearly has some loose ends to tie up), and stumbled upon this story out of the Vancouver desk about Marriage stability and children. Here's a quote:

Today's parents seem prepared to set aside all kinds of pleasures to nurture a child – from their sex lives to careers, not to mention happy-hour beers – but there's one thing even the most kinder-friendly couple is loath to give up: their marriage.

And when one child rocks the marital boat, a growing number of couples are sticking with just one to keep their union strong.

That doesn't make them wimps, though. In fact, research suggests that children are more taxing on marriages than they used to be.

Essentially the article discusses how many modern couples are stopping at one child because having children is so stressful, and after struggling in their marriage to raise one, many don't want to go through it all over again and again. It actually goes so far as to posit that happiness is inversely proportional to how many kids you have, citing a 2005 study that determined mothers with one child were happier than those with multiple children.

There's nothing wrong with this story. It's well written, and although it's based on some entirely anecdotal quotes backed by "evidence" of studies that are as dependable as a GM stock option, these are more symptomatic of a leaky premise than they are of shoddy writing.

I guess upon reading this, more than anything one has to reflect on the cultural context from which this story was made possible. Clearly, nobody would have written this article in 1940, even if they had the concrete backing of a Danish sociology professor circa 2005.

Attitudes surrounding the entire concept of marriage and family, and the many interrelationships that compose those two entities, seem infinitely more complex these days than they once did. And for the most part, those complications stem from a forward march to break down what were once the most concrete of human connections; your spouse and kids were once inescapable, really, but we have moved into an era were if something doesn't quite work for you, it's completely possible to move on.

I am not casting judgement. I simply find these paradigm shifts fascinating. The implications of familial relationships, if you think about it, really has a hand in almost all the cultural and social evolutions of the last 10-15 years, both in the liberal movement and the aggressive partisanship rift that ensued.

How have social values changed? What is important to us now, asides (and likely after) ourselves? How much of every decision we make every day is painted by these broad cultural engravings and, looking back, how did today's seemingly quaint ideological cliches dictate the ebb and flow of generations past?

When it boils down to it, I guess after reading that article, I really was left wondering only one thing:

Why are these parents having kids in the first place?

I have a feeling if they can answer that question honestly, then deciding whether or not to have another one shouldn't be a very difficult question at all.

*****

In other news; awesomeness.

Perez Hilton thinks Miss California is... uncool

It's disappointing that in something as innocuous as a beauty pageant, an issue like this had to come up.

In this interview, Hilton states that the contestant isn't a politician, and as such shouldn't have answered according to her political beliefs. This confuses me. Did the dude ask a question (in competition) fully expecting her to lie, even if she didn't agree? In front of the nation? On television?

It's his own fault for asking a loaded question, and to be honest I kind of feel sorry for this chick. I mean, she's clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer (although she might be the hottest. damn.)

But if you listen to her answer, she actually does agrees. She implies that GLB's should have the right to marry (since she thinks they have that choice already, apparently). She simply doesn't believe that those unions fit her personal definition of marriage.

If you believe in equal rights regardless, what's wrong with having an opinion on a topic that is still so openly debated and controversial in today's society?

This topic is not analogous to racism in my book. It's not even close. It's a rights issue, not a hate issue. And although those two are often intertwined, they can also be examined impartially if you take a step back.

It's unfortunate that not everyone agrees.

Really, my entire thought process on the issue can be summed up pretty tidily I suppose:

Leave the hot girl alone, angry gay man.