Can a foreigner ever understand China (and other epistemological quandaries

These thoughts come after reading something on Brendan O’Kane’s Chinese blog: this was a post from two months ago, but I just read it now, including the comments. The post contains a video from the Onion, which we all know is satirical up the wazoo, a point which Brendan mentions at the end of the post but which, judging from the ire he and the post aroused, has largely fallen on deaf ears. I thought the last comment on the post was the most interesting, it certainly was among the least flaming and more considered comments on the post, though that’s not really saying much. I think it reveals some interesting things about how the Chinese view westerners and vice versa. Here’s the second paragraph of that comment:

另外，我想对Brendan说的是（反正你看得懂中文，我就不写英语了）：你是一个很有个性、很有想法的人，但是对于中国的很多事情，尤其是政治上的，你还不了解，或者一知半解，或者是站在西方的角度看问题，当然这也无可厚非，你本来就是西方人嘛~并且，博主应该还很年轻吧，年轻人看问题总是比较不自觉地在观点中带入自己的情绪。
但是，在中国那么久，不知道你了不了解中国文化中有一种换位思考的传统？每个人都应该学会从不同角度看问题，许多中国人也是这样做的，所以很能够理解西方人、西方媒体为什么会产生对中国一些事情的看法。可惜这并不能带来同样的“回报”，因为我十分地惊讶于许多西方人的固执，我想这种固执也许源于西方的“个人主义”传统吧。

Here the commenter states that B. has a lot of personality and his own way of thinking, but that there are still many things that he doesn’t understand, especially China’s politics. B. is described as having only a dim or partial understanding (一知半解), or perhaps worse yet, a Western perspective on Chinese politics. The commenter, lizzy, says that this is to be expected, given that B. is a westerner.

Perhaps “lizzy” intend this, but the remarks comes off as a bit patronizing. But consider the next remark:

在中国那么久，不知道你了不了解中国文化中有一种换位思考的传统？每个人都应该学会从不同角度看问题，许多中国人也是这样做的，所以很能够理解西方人、西方媒体为什么会产生对中国一些事情的看法。可惜这并不能带来同样的“回报”，因为我十分地惊讶于许多西方人的固执，我想这种固执也许源于西方的“个人主义”传统吧。

In this remark, lizzy states that in China there is a tradition of “considering the views from other people”. No shit? Not just a habit that perhaps a learned few have, but rather, a tradition–the word used is 传统, so you have to assume that’s what is meant. Lizzy then goes on to say that this is what allows Chinese people to understand the west, despite certain views that the West has of China. Then lizzy says that he/she is startled by the “stubbornness” of certain Westerners, but that must be somehow related to their tradition of “individualism”.

First of all, when it comes “to understanding things from the perspective of others,” I have to be skeptical about that. Where is that tradition when there are traffic accidents and fights? Where is that tradition when people are selling toxic milk that gets fed to small children? I don’t think that most mainland Chinese understand how Taiwanese and HOng Kong people feel about the PRC. There are tons of examples. I’m not saying that the Chinese are horrible, but to talk so speciously about this tradition, I think, is a problem.

And it’s funny that the Westerners get painted as these stubborn types that won’t budge an inch on their opinions and perspectives… while the Chinese are, by contrast, somehow quite flexible in their thoughts and opinions. I think it ought to be quite obvious that there are plenty of Chinese who are as dogged in their beliefs as anyone, and there is still the fact that relatively few Chinese people that really understand the West. It’s common to hear Chinese who traveled and study abroad say things about Western countries in bafflement…which is surprising because you’d think they’d “get” westerners more having lived there for awhile, but that’s not always the case.

I would also argue, as I have before, that if the Western media has bad opinions of China, the Chinese might also be partly to blame for it: their government isn’t exactly cutting-edge on the PR front, and furthermore, they do place some restrictions on foreign journalists, which is fine, I am not arguing for complete laissez-faire, but they don’t seem to recognize that this is tradition in which Western journalism operates, or aspires to operate, and any trammels to the gathering and dissemination of information may have negative effects on what does, ultimately, make it out there.

Here’s another interesting paragraph:

另外，我感觉博主是不是被太多人捧得有些沾沾自喜了呢？中文好不代表对中国的国情有一个清晰的认知，虽然，博主相较于其他外国人，对中国算是了解得比较深了，但是注意哦，你的参照者也只是其他一般的外国人，事实上，你对中国的了解还是很肤浅的，希望你以后能够从不同角度角度，更全面地看待一些问题，相信你的结论会有所不同。

In this part, lizzy says that perhaps B. is too full of himself, because being good at Chinese is not equivalent to understanding China. Lizzy says that B. might have a deeper understanding of China vis-a-vis other foreigners, who are completely ignorant, but that his understanding of China overall is still quite superficial. He/she hopes that B. will continue to round out his knowledge of China, and believes that as a result he will reach different conclusions.

I think this section is perhaps the one that got to me the most: because through this and the multitude of similar debates on blogs everywhere, one is inexorably led to the 64 thousand dollar question, which is: what constitutes a real understanding of China. Do the western reporters get China? Do the seasoned old China hands get it? Do only people proficient in Chinese get it?

This seems to be indicative of a certain way of thinking that Chinese people have: They would no say the things they do if they understood us more, or better. That is, if they could cut past the distorted mind clutter of the western media and somehow see the unvarnished truth, from the ground, from the grassroots level, then they wouldn’t say those horrible things about us. They wouldn’t criticize our human rights or go on and on about Tibet and Taiwan.

That is the assumption that most Chinese people make.
And I think that assumption is wrong.

I am all for quality journalism, and I decry the sound-byte driven, unsophisticated drivel that often passes for journalism in the Western world. But I find it patronizing if Chinese people think that somehow a more rounded understanding would change certain conclusions we have. Sure, it can modify our outlooks, as new information can–but the problem is, and this is a general one in political psychology, is that what, if anything, can alter first principles? If you first principles are for freedom of speech and human rights, or that political civil rights are as important as economic rights and the right to be free of want, then what amount of information about China, what kind of well-rounded knowledge is going to change my conclusions about China?

The best that one can hope for is that the effects of actions based on ignorance is mitigated by knowledge and information. That is, you don’t do stupid things and say rash things because of your ignorance. Perhaps I only have a superficial view of China myself, but having lived or traveled in China often, since I was three years old, and being fluent in the language doesn’t change my fundamental views. It means only that I tend not to be make arrogant statements about how inscrutable is the way Chinese way of acting and thinking. There are things I “get” more because I have more of a window into their mentalities and cultures that most foreigners. But it doesn’t change what I believe. Maybe I understand the half of Americans that voted for George Bush II, but I won’t forgive them. There is still a line in the sand.

I am reminded of these two Chinese idioms (or phrases, at least): 设身处地 and 感同身受.

Who knows, they just might be the linguistic artifacts of that hallowed Chinese tradition of “looking at things from the perspective of others“ and trying to understand how they feel about things. I certainly think these are ideals–ideals of compassion, really–that every human being ought to try to live up to. But as I said before, there are limits. There are epistemological limits, and there are ethical limits. It doesn’t matter how much you know about China–you will still, in the end, be relying on your particular value system and your personal inclinations to make your judgments about China. Some people are, by nature, more sympathetic and forgiving, while others are more analytical, critical, and unforgiving. And thus an ignorant but sympathetic person would probably say more “China-friendly” things than a critical and educated person. In other words, this is where knowledge and ethics in some sense, part ways.

If anything, my knowledge of China has made me less sympathetic to China than before. The more I read, whether its on blogs or BBS’s or newspapers, the more I tend to get in a funk about what China is and what it can or cannot become. I admit that my reading might be selective and that everything I see is tainted by my overwhelming pessimism. In the end, the whole thing turns me off. I would rather not have my soul tainted by either being a typical “Westerner” or a Chinese. Given my druthers I would find a third cultural identity. Blog comments like this only reinforce that view. I just don’t want to be part of this conversation, even though in some sense, I am uniquely suited to be part of the dialogue. But I don’t see the value in cleaning up somebody else’s mess, and that’s what it feels like. A big f*cking thorny mess, a Wittgensteinian language game from hell that goes and on and on, nonstop pseudo-intellectual yammering.

If there is anything left to teach the six billion clever apes on this planet, it would have to be the value of silence. Create the clearing, and in it you just might find an understanding of things worth having.

china, bokane, chinese, blogs, blog, politics, psychology, olympics

Could the Chinese rip off Bon Jovi to sell sneakers?

Sure, why the hell not. Like Frank Yi said they copied his way.

I mean the publicly listed Chinese fashion sportswear company, Xtep, whose recent commercials during the Olympics caught my attention because of the music used. The song is called “It’s My Way” and it doesn’t take a New Jersey-born fan of 1980s hair rock to know that the song is a rip off of Bon Jovi’s “It’s My Life”…I don’t know who the singer of the song is, but you can tell that they are going for the same kind of vocal style as well.

The commercial features some of the hottest youth stars from Taiwan and Hong Kong, including Nicholas Tse, the Twins, Jolin Tsai, and Wilber Pan, most of whom I thoroughly detest. From what I can tell on the commercial, their shoes look like shite too, but nonetheless, they are still a fairly big player in the China sportswear market, where they are still behind Anta and the now household name of Li Ning. And apparently they are also part of the Carlyle Group’s portfolio, which given the affiliations behind that group make me incredibly cynical about the world and reinforce an outlook which could be summarized thus: some shit capitalists are out there making shitty derivative products, and yet there are some powerful and elitist capitalists out there making sure that the former succeed for their mutual benefit.

Here’s a vid of the commercial, this one meant for the Olympics in particular:

and here’s the whole song:

A couple of thoughts on that commercial: firstly, it always get my goad when Taiwan and Hong Kong stars shil for mainland based products, just because if you are famous and from those parts of nominally free China, I somehow feel you ought to shil for some better brand–I mean what does it say about you that these shoes cost 150-300 RMB? On the other hand, I know that they’d never be remotely considered for brands like Nike and Adidas, who go for the real top-flight athletes. In that sense, Xtep is smart because they go for the youth demographic, for the fashion sportswear market, sell the image, sell the lifestyle. It’s not and has not been about the specs of the shoes for a long time.

It’s also ironic because the commercials plays on those common Olympic tropes of “1.3 billion people’s dreams and hopes”, which nauseates me to no end, and again, makes me wonder why Taiwanese and HKese stars would go for that. Oh yeah, maybe they are proud of the Olympics, and maybe they are getting paid a fuckload of money. Oh well Peijin, hold your nose and look the other way.

Last thought on this is the Wilbur Pan’s role in the commercial, where he plays the role of a street basketball player—that cheesy layup at the end and his knife across the neck motion—it’s like he’s some bad-boy gangsta baller, but I bet he’s a weakling on the actual basketball court. I doubt he really plays in the streets of anywhere, not even Taipei, where, if you know where to go, there are some ballers wid skeels. Wilbur is basically a pretty boy that likes to appropriate the tropes of hip-hop and b-boy culture to sell his image, which he can then parlay into record sales and concerts, sportswear and soda commercials. There is no need for him to be anything other than what he is. It’s one unified image, and all he’s selling are the various products that help him realize his lifestyle, one which, provided you outfit yourself with the same shit, you can have too.

Unfortunately, that’s another aspect of greater Chinese pop culture that I detest too—and I know that there’s no point in crying about the commercialization of hip-hope or black culture, that’s been the status quo for years and it’s not going to change. It’s just that to me, it’s even more meaningless when it comes from Chinese people. I know pop culture has an easy, lowest common denominator type universality to it, but somehow there’s a very atavistic and inchoate impulse towards Chinese purity that I cannot quite explain. It’s not that everything has to be traditional, it’s more that I was hoping that one day even in the realm of popular culture and lowbrow consumerism, Chinese people might do something that at least strikes people as having one or more iotas of originality.
Li Ning vs. Nike and Adidas, Lenovo vs. Apple, Baidu vs. Google—the west has a head-start and a superior advantage. Mimicry is a form of flattery. I talk of inspiration and originality, while these Chinese brands are locked in a fierce to the death battle for every percentage point of market share they can get.

Not sure what to think from here. Maybe better solution would be to put on some Bon Jovi, which always reliable source of low dosage escapism:

Protesting in China, or the red tape Olympics

Chinaelections.org has an interesting essay on the rules pertaining to public assembly and protest in the PRC. This was written before the Games, and in light of all that (didn’t happen) during the Games, the information here might be worth reviewing to get a better legal and historical context for why commies love repression.

The author divides the legal conditions for protests into two categories: those that are protective and those that are restrictive. Although I think the categories make sense, I am not sure that I totally agree with how he divvied them up. For example, he considers article 21 of the Assembly and protest law to be protective. The article says, according to what he’s quoted, that when there are unforeseen circumstances the police responsible for regulating traffic with relation to the protest route can change the protest route—ideally that means that the routes aren’t changed at the whims of the police, but of course, this is China, and if you the protester wanted to take a route in front of Disneyland, where there are loads of people, or in front of the government offices, where there is a lot of symbolism and media, do you think the Chinese police would actually let you? Hell no. They would steer you into some street where the chefs squatting on the road or the old men playing chess could get a clear look at your and political demands and banners, but for the protester that might just be defeating the whole point.

The author claims that there are certain articles that aim to both be protective and restrictive. Article 8 says that there has be someone in charge, someone to be held legally responsible for whatever happens during the protest. This person has to deal with the red tape and provide information such as the purpose of the protest, the mode of protest, the banners used, the slogans to be shouted, the number of people, number of vehicles being used, the number of speakers or amplifiers being used, the time the protest starts, the route including where it starts and ends, the legally responsible person’s name, occupation and address.

Now I suppose on a general level you could say that having someone responsible, is better than having huge spontaneous crowds of hoi polloi that you can’t really pin down.

All that information is a catch-22: you have to tell them everything to get an approval to protest, but if you tell them everything truthfully you run the risk of being rejected. And then there’s the issue of who in their right mind would want to be one of the official organizers or people responsible, knowing what the system in China is like? It’s a huge risk to take.

Onto some of the restrictive conditions: Article 15 states that you can only participate in protests and demonstrations in the place where you are registered to live. Article 16: government employees cannot take part in protests that go against their duties and responsibilities—I surmise that this legalese means, in the real world terms, complete loyalty to the government. No whistle-blowers, no biting the hand that feeds you. Article 34: without special approval, no foreigners can take part in protests or demonstrations of Chinese citizens.

Restrictions on place: no protests or demonstrations 10-300 meters from government offices and organizations, such as NPC offices, military committees, the People’s Supreme Court, major military facilities, airports, air facilities, train stations, etc. Provincial and local governments have their own regulations as well: Lanzhou stipulates that all protests and demonstrations in the city squares must be approved by the municipal government, etc.

Time restrictions: Unless given special permission to do otherwise, all demonstrations must be held between 6am and 10pm.

Modes of protest restrictions: in general, all demonstrations must be peaceful and legal. They cannot go against the interests of the country, society or general collective interest or impinge on the legitimate rights and freedoms of other people. They must be peaceful: no weapons, explosives. All demonstrations must be follow the conditions filed in the application, i.e. use the slogans and banners that they applied for, start and stop at the time stipulated in the approved application, etc.

The author levels several criticisms against the rules. Regarding the time restrictions, the author says that the 6am-10pm rule contradicts the rules regarding the “immediate protest rules”: that is, Chinese citizens have the right to protest after some unexpected “event”—a demolition, a ruling, a murder, diplomatic brouhaha, badly called football match, etc. However, given the nature of these events, they could be happening sometime between 10pm and 6am—and therein lies the contradiction.

Modes of protest: you are not allowed to let people join–the people that are legally allowed to demonstrate are the ones that were included by name or organization in the application. Of course, this is quite different from how most protests and demonstrations work, both in China and elsewhere: other people, not affiliated with the sponsoring group, join, whether it be for fun or solidarity. However, doing so in China would, legally speaking, automatically render protest illegal.

The “content” of the protest: this one is perhaps the most devious one, because it states that you cannot protest against the country’s laws, the country’s territorial integrity and unity, etc. Of course, no one would ever be dumb enough to hold a demonstration calling for Tibetan independence, but this means that you might not even be able to legally protest against a law that you think is unjust.

On having your application rejected: if your protest application is rejected, you can re-apply once, and after that you have to take it to court. However, the People’s Supreme Court has decided that it’s better NOT to allow people to take the issue to court. Therefore, after having your application rejected twice, you have no further legal recourse and are, as they say, shit outta luck.

These are the laws as they hold for Chinese people, in “regular times”—one could reasonably expect the Olympics to be different, even if only because the Chinese love nothing more than putting on symbolic shows for the west. But as we saw, there were limits: no protesting on anything related to Tibet. Those that went ahead with that were either deported or given a ten day detention after which they were deported. As for other planned protests that ought to have been held in the official protest zones:

But Western media have reported that Chinese citizens who applied for a protest permit instead were arrested.

IOC president Jacques Rogge told reporters Sunday that 77 protest-zone applications were received in a city of 16 million and a nation of 1.3 billion.

“We found that unusual that none of these applications have come through with a protest,” he said, adding that Beijing Organizing Committee officials told him the protests didn’t occur by “mutual agreement.”

On this point, I have to agree with most of the western media commentary. Some people were detained for just asking or applying to protest. I don’t think the Olympics ought to be overly politicized, but on the other hand, if Beijing decides that they are up to holding this most prestigious of international sporting events, they have to follow the accepted standards, and one of those standards is some respect for free speech and the right to demonstrate. But basically, everyone saw the opening ceremony and was ooh-aah’d into intellectual submission. Everyone got caught up in the sports and Beijing got away with this huge PR coup with nary a challenge.

How to be an Chinese Olympics sports commentator

I was watching the Australia-China women’s basketball last night and listening to the commentary, I finally snapped: I’ve just become to sick of hearing them say the same things over and over. Most of the time it’s stuff along the lines of:

我们在跟世界一流的队的对抗中可以发现自己的不足。
我们跟世界一流的篮球对还是有一定的差距。
亚洲人不能光靠速度取胜，外国队也很灵活的。
经过跟世界一流的队的对抗我们可以不断提升我们各方面的素质、水平。

yadda yadda yadda. It’s like they barely talk about the game. They don’t try to be funny. Some commentators do, and I appreciate that, but that sure was not the case last night with the Australia-China game. Whenever China is really far behind—Australia had a twenty point lead most of the game—they have to talk about why this is, they have to take on this developmental perspective which is fine and valid in itself but really detracts from the viewer’s (or should i just say MY) appreciation and enjoyment of the spectacle (game+commentary) as a whole.

And it’s been repeated throughout the Games, and forms the standard interpretation of events at any sporting event where China loses or gets its ass kicked by another team. In that sense, it’s nothing new and why I’m yammering on about it is beyond me, and perhaps beyond you as well. It just irks me.

While I’m in the mood for getting things off my chest, I might as well add that I hate the whole “1.3 billion” (十三亿）business, which usually modifies something like “dreams of”, as in “the dreams of 1.3 billion people” (十三亿人的梦想）or in “the Olympics of 1.3 billion people.”

I’ve been traveling to China throughout my whole life, starting in 1980 at the tender age of three. I’ve been around Chinese people my whole life, though not necessarily mainland Chinese. And yet, because I grew up in America, where the individualist ethos is so strong and ingrained (the pioneers and explorers are part of our cultural-historical narrative), I simply just cannot fathom this collective ethos, this insistence on the unity–indeed, homogeneity—of the group. Everyone is their own person, their own individual, but somehow when you get to these public announcements, like ads on TV or the speeches of China’s leaders, you have to adopt this “1.3 billion” rhetoric, snap your fingers and somehow they all fall into line into some intellectual phalanx formation. I just think it completely laughable for anyone to speak of the entire nation as one. I would find it insulting. Even in the aftermath of 9-11, when we were all New Yorkers, this kind of rhetoric was not present. There was a kind of national unity and solidarity, but that was in response to attack and tragedy. You could never imagine anything like “the dreams of 300 million people” intoned the same way it is over here.

As I write these last sentences, I am watching a Toyota commercial where the audience is told: “You are no like no one else. But you have to have your own style.”

Liu Xiang’s 100 million RMB insurance policy

According to an article on netease, Chinese insurance company Ping An of China offered Olympic hurdler Liu Xiang a 100 million RMB insurance policy on accidental injury to his body; now Chinese netizens are talking and voting on whether or not Liu Xiang ought to get his 100 million RMB check or not. The company states that injuries of this sort are not covered because they only cover accidental injuries, and one could argue that Liu’s current injuries are the result of shit luck and/or over-training. However, most netizens (58%) believe that Ping An ought to pay up. The article points out another interesting fact: Ping An has worked Liu and other athletes in a variety of ways before, and most of the athletes have some kind of insurance with them, but for most of them it’s only worth one million RMB whereas Liu Xiang got the VIP one-year, 100 million package, which is good until October 31, 2008. The article then mentions that insuring body parts (eg Beckham’s legs, J-Lo’s booty) is a more common practice in the west, but not many people do that in China. However, in the spirit of promoting Chinese athletics, Ping An hopes to develop this kind of service.

Liu Xiang’s policy is an accident-type policy and doesn’t cover his Achilles tendon or any other body part in particular. For his part, Liu has decided to not pursue the money.

American looking for Olympics basketball tickets video

This guy had it all going for him: the Cat in the Hat hat and the Sichuan earthquake relief T-shirt…but could not, for the life of him, get 500rmb tickets. Last night, talking to scalpers, it seemed the going price for most events is 1000+ for most tickets, regardless of what the face value is. My friend managed to get a track and field ticket for 500rmb, which is a minor miracle. They wanted over a 1000 but there was only one (most people are selling in groups of two or three, adjacent seats) so let it go for 500. The ease with which we got it this one after spending a fruitless half hour going through the scalpers market made me somewhat suspicious. I guess tomorrow we will know if it all worked out or not.

Businessweek on what is wrong with Lenovo ads in the US (and a collection of Lenovo ads)

Lenovo’s Olympic ads – BusinessWeek

I think they use completely different ads here in China. The sumo wrestler/Xpad 300 ad is this one:

Here’s even more bleeding edge avant-garde one for the Z60:

And here’s a Chinese one featuring Chinese actress Zhang Ziyi from way back when:

This Xpad 300 one is rather tepid by comparison:

Here’s another Chinese one that is snazzy but not quite as avant-garde as the newest ones:

Here’s yet another dated, sports-related one from China:

You can tell the Chinese ones and the US ones are quite different in style. I suppose that reflects a change in their marketing strategy, maturation of the brand, and perhaps change in commercial production personnel…anyway, Business Week thinks that these are perhaps too edgy for the Olympics and are better suited for the Superbowl…

Guo Jingjing: yet another Chinese diver to marry a rich Hong Konger

奥运结束众星结婚 迎娶郭晶晶霍启刚备1亿彩礼 via kwout

百度图片搜索_http://img.sport366.com/upload/2008/08/11/132200000.jpg的搜索结果 via kwout

Seeing that my Guo Jingjing post from a couple of months ago seems to be getting the most hits out of anything that I’ve written, I’ve decided to completely sell-out and write more about her. Yeah you heard me right. My ego needs the traffic. If I can figure out how to get Google ads showing up right, I could make a dime at it too.

As you might know, she’s getting married to Kenneth Fok (霍启刚); they’ve been dating several years and were waiting for the Olympics to end and Guo to retire (was she planning on retiring right after the Olympics?). It seems Kenneth knows is way around the uptown girls: the girls that he’s dated have all been society-types, the daughters of fairly famous or prestigious men. In 2004 he started dating Guo.

Of course, this kind of thing is not without precedent: Fu Mingxia, another celebrated Chinese diver,also married into Hong Kong wealth.
As for Guo, rumor has it that Fok is going to dish out 100 million RMB for some siheyuan property in Beijing for Guo’s parents.

And her dowry features some gold and silver, and would fetch a fair price on any market, black or otherwise, and that ain’t shabby either.

Not sure what I think about these types of thing: I mean they are as old as human society, this type of “selection”—I’m not saying it’s not love, it almost always is—so in that sense, its no different from how other people find their partners—introductions from people they know in common, etc. But in the end, it’s just access: each person has a limited amount of resources for meeting people. There are some circles you just can’t swim in. And that’s ok, that’s true as much for the rich and social elite as much as for anyone else.

Nonetheless, if one wanted to probe beneath the surface and ask about if there’s anything of cultural or sociological interest regarding such things in Chinese society, well, what could you say?
Are these things more prevalent than before? Is the mixing of worlds (Hong Kong business, mainland sports) more common than before, are there combinations (milieu A and milieu B) that might have been so common before?

Or is this, like all celebrity gossip, just a monumental waste of human time and effort?

Shanghai doctor: Liu Xiang achilles tendon injury serious

奥运首席医疗官:刘翔伤愈需1年 复发率几乎100%_网易奥运 via kwout

Chen Shiyi, Head of Huashan hospital division of sports medicine, says that Liu Xiang’s injury has been on-going and is quite serious. The interview with the coaches right after Liu Xiang dropped out hinted at what was wrong with him, how his bone structure etc. led to these particularly thorny achilles tendon issues. Chen says that an injury like Liu Xiang’s will take a whole year to heal and is almost guaranteed to happen again—that is, there is no proven way of making sure it doesn’t come back. In other words, Liu Xiang is going to going to be plagued with this kind of injury throughout the rest of his athletic career.

Beijing Olympics spoof movie posters

Netease has a bunch of spoof movie posters featuring Chinese Olympic athletes. You can vote for the ones that you like. Here are some of the ones that I liked or thought were nominally interesting, featuring Yao Ming, Liu Xiang and the usual suspects: