Fake Mold Sandwich Bag on Weibo Not a Sign of Chinese Creativity

In "Images—Chinese Creativity" on Tea Leaf Nation David Wertime wrote, "Weibo user Jason Peng (@赵鹏自媒体) has just posted two hilarious images of Chinese creativity." The second example particularly caught my attention:

Wertime suggested that this fake mold plastic bag could mean that "colleagues at the office will never pilfer your delicious lunch from the communal fridge". I would question, though, whether it would lose its effectiveness over time. Bringing moldy sandwiches regularly to work could raise the suspicions of others and cause them to investigate.

But what I most questioned when I saw the image was whether the plastic bag was truly a sign of Chinese creativity. If it was designed in China, I would be curious to learn what inspired or motivated the designer. Based on what I have seen in China, most Chinese do not bring homemade sandwiches to work or keep them in resealable plastic bags.

Although only a link to Jason Peng's Sina Weibo account was provided, I was able to track down his specific post. It makes a comment about the bag's potential use that is similar to Wertime's, but Peng makes no claims about the designer's nationality or ethnicity. Furthermore, Peng was not the first to post the image. He found it in a post by the Weibo user 微吃货 (Weichihuo). Although Weichihuo provides no links to other posts, the multiple Weibo stamps at the bottom of the image and the "DIY私房菜" logos suggest Weichihuo found the image elsewhere on Weibo. DIY私房菜 has her own Weibo account and her post of the image on Weibo appears to be Weichihuo's source (though it may not have been direct). DIY私房菜 posted the image earlier, the image only has a single Weibo stamp, and Weichihuo's comment is identical to DIY私房菜's comment.

DIY私房菜 also has no mention of the designer, and she provides no information in the post about her source for the image. To see if there was any reason other than the image being posted in China for Wertime to describe the plastic bag as a sign of "Chinese creativity", I decided to apply a complicated research method. After countless seconds of tireless work, I discovered several relevant articles from four years ago, such as one by Emily Dreyfus on CNET:

If only Jane had known about the Fake Mold Lunch Bags. Created by New York-based engineer and designer Sherwood Forlee, these bags are sure to gross out any lunch thief. Just place your delectable sandwich inside its clean yet deceptively filthy-looking plastic, and voila: the unstealable sandwich. Even the most stealthy lunch thief won't be desperate enough to eat a moldy sandwich (we hope).

I also discovered that Forlee's "Anti-Theft Lunch Bags" can be purchased here. The webpage includes images that appear to match those shared on Weibo. I was reasonably convinced that the plastic bag seen in the Weibo posts was Forlee's design.

However, since "New York-based" did not sound Chinese to me, I dug a little deeper and found more information about Sherwood Forlee:

Sherwood was born in Hong Kong, grew up in Zimbabwe, and attended university in the US. After graduating with a degree in mechanical and aerospace engineering, he has worked as a product designer for various companies and consultancies.

Sherwood's main interests lie in searching for the simplest solutions to problems and creating novel and memorable experiences. He has created innovative designs for well-known companies as well as for his own personal brand, the. (www.thinkofthe.com). His works have garnered awards and extensive press attention.

Outside of design, Sherwood is passionate about food. He hopes to one day open his own bread and nut butter shop replete with a staff of well-trained squirrels to operate the grinding the machines.

I supposed Forlee being born in Hong Kong might allow the claim of "Chinese creativity". Clearly, additional innovative research was required: I sent a quick email to Forlee. He kindly replied, and I will share his answers to my questions.

As far as you know, were you the first to create a fake mold plastic sandwich bag?

I believe I was the first to come up with idea of fake moldy sandwich bags and apparently, also the first to have them made.

I see you were born in Hong Kong. Would you describe your creation as a sign of "Chinese creativity"? Would you feel it is accurate for others to do so?

I was born in HK, but only lived there for 1 year. I wouldn't consider my work a sign of "Chinese creativity" as any influence from China or HK is minimal and most likely naught.

Could you provide any updates on your squirrel training?

I am interested in opening up a nut butter shop where customers can mix and match various nut butters together to create their own specialty jar. Squirrels are incorrigible and thus, I have had to alter my plans a bit.

And thus, my research came to an end.

I believe Forlee's response resolves my question, and I cannot characterize his work as "Chinese creativity". Additionally, Forlee has shown that sometimes human-centered design is not sufficient for a successful product or service. Squirrel-centered design may be required as well.

I could now opine about how the above relates to a variety of issues such as the challenges in interpreting and discussing online posts to gain cultural insights, but instead I will recommend checking out Forlee's website at www.skforlee.com. It includes links to some of his other intriguing designs such as modular wine glasses, a maze waffle iron, a double ended jar, and a mirror plate which reminds me of some fascinating neuropsychology research (maybe a topic for another day).

In a later post, I will discuss a creative endeavor I witnessed in Harbin, Heilongjiang province. It highlights how labeling a new design or piece of art as "Chinese" can raise some deep issues, even when it is made by someone who is Chinese. In addition to Forlee's diverse background before living in America, these issues mean I am more likely to be thinking about "Forlee creativity" than "American creativity" whenever I see his work.

Unlike a Chinese Engineer I was not Questioned For Photographing a Stopped Vehicle

James Fallows recently wrote about a Chinese-citizen engineer who during a work trip to the U.S. took a picture of a bus stopped on a road. If you have not already, please read the post "Annals of the Security State: China vs. America Department" before continuing further. It explains why the photograph was taken and what the ensuing events say about America's "security consciousness". It also sets the stage for what follows here.

The post by Fallows resonated with me for two general reasons.

One, I had a quick reaction to the photo taken by the Chinese engineer. Although many Americans may be puzzled as to why someone would feel compelled to take such a photo, after more than 5 years in China the reasons seemed obvious to me. In fact, they are similar to the reasons why one day in Macau, China I took this photo:

It shows a man who had very suddenly stopped his truck to allow a woman to cross the street even though he could have zoomed by without likely hitting her or have honked his horn to dissuade her from crossing. That the truck driver did not chose one of the latter options greatly surprised me since they would be typical in many places elsewhere in China. Yes, it appears there may be a traffic signal which I did not notice at the time. The point remains that prior to living in China, what I perceived at this crosswalk would not have surprised me or caught my attention. And like looking at the photo shared by Fallows, it felt surreal to find unusualness in something that was once so ordinary.

The second reason the post resonated with me is that like the Chinese-engineer I too have been questioned by police after taking some photos in all innocence. I will share that story another time, but it lead to the eye-opening discussion described in the post I wrote last year: "Detained in China: My Chance to Hear a Policeman's Views on Revolution and More". But I do want to say one thing about it now. Even after that experience in China, I can still believe I face fewer potential problems as an obvious foreigner in China taking the types of photos that I do than I would if I were in the U.S. and "looked suspiciously like a foreigner". Even in my current incarnation I wonder if I would have more problems in the U.S. Like Fallows, I am concerned about the "photograph-pathology that has emerged in the United States".

I can appreciate why the Chinese engineer was so fascinated by the scene at the stopped school bus. And although I think some aspects of driving behavior in China may not be best described as disorderly but instead as having a different type of order from what can be observed in the U.S., I am glad the truck driver seen above stopped for the older woman. And I am also glad he did not feel the need to call the police even though he may have been baffled by my choice of scenes to photograph.

Has the U.S. Government Been Naive in the Chen Guangcheng Case?

Since my previous post, the Chen Guangcheng case had continued to develop. Most importantly, he has communicated to numerous people including reporters Louisa Lim, Melinda Liu, Steven Jiang and others that he now wants to leave China and is seeking U.S. assistance.

One of the issues concerning me is that some have questioned why the U.S. would believe China would keep its side to the agreement made with Chen. For example, Charlie Custer, editor of ChinaGeeks, tweeted:

Regardless of how this ends, needs to be a serious discussion in US State Dept of why the hell they would believe CN assurances on CGC.

And with some additional qualifications (which are of course more difficult to capture in a tweet) Peter Foster for The Telegraph wrote:

...it is hard to know whether the US State Department was being naive or cynical by accepting assurances that Chen would be allowed to settle down in peace with his family and study law unmolested...

However, some of the language coming from the US State Department suggested they really believed they had a "deal" that would enable Chen to remain in China. If so, they must have taken leave of their senses, and to listen to senior State Department officials involved in negotiations, perhaps they had.

Although it remains possible a major blunder has been made, I am not at all convinced the U.S. has acted unwisely or been duped. I will focus on two of the reasons I feel this way.

One, there is reason for the U.S. to give China the benefit of the doubt publicly and in the recent negotiations, whatever officials may think privately. Especially with China's role in the world so quickly changing and China seeking to increase its influence, it could be an especially opportune time for the U.S. to provide China the chance in a unique case to show it can be trusted in such a situation. If China does break the agreement then the U.S. has reasons for other approaches in the future. But if the U.S. had fully applied a belief that it must openly question China's intentions or insist on stronger oversight measures not only may have China responded in a less preferable manner in Chen's case, but an opportunity for important future gains may have been lost.

In addition to the stakes for the relationship between the U.S. and China, there is a second issue in considering whether the U.S. should be seen as foolish. Even if the U.S. had significant questions about the agreement, the decision to leave the embassy was ultimately Chen's, and there are reasons to believe he was willing to accept a less than perfect offer. At the time, Chen expressed a strong desire to stay in China and very much wanted to be reunited with his family. Also, Chen has said that he felt unfairly pressured. China's statement that they would return his wife to Shandong province if he did not leave the embassy could be perceived as a veiled threat to harm her. On the side... some have criticized U.S. officials for their refusal to characterize this as a threat, but their decision seems reasonable. If the U.S. publicly stated otherwise it would likely only anger China and create the potential that Chen would face increased difficulties. Once Chen was in China's hands, the U.S. needed to do everything possible to put the best face on matters to improve the chances for a positive resolution.

Certainly, as time passes more will be learned to better judge recent actions. But at this point, I believe some of the reasons the U.S. has been criticized could be indicative of prudent actions. Actions taken to best facilitate Chen Guangcheng's own choice in a difficult situation and to provide the best chance for improving broader conditions in the future.


Added note: As I am about to publish I see that James Fallows has recently also questioned whether it can be assumed U.S. officials have made significant mistakes. I have only skimmed his post at this point, but it appears to raise other issues, including that the U.S. had "an incredibly weak hand". I will read it and the cited material more closely. My only comment at this point is that I am encouraged to see others are urging caution in judging recent U.S. actions. You can find the post by Fallows here: More on Chen Guangcheng: The Limits of Outside Power.

An Overview of the Chen Guangcheng Story

The Bo Xilai story I wrote about yesterday is not the only important and Hollywood-like news in China at the moment. Civil rights activist Chen Guangcheng has also been the center of an also incredible but very different story. Especially since events have recently taken a significant turn, I will share some recent pieces that I have found to helpful in understanding them.

Chen Guangcheng previously led efforts to expose forced abortions and sterilizations occurring in Shandong province. After serving four years in prison for questionable reasons, he had been held in his home since 2010. In addition to there being no apparent legal merits for Chen's home detention, the scope of the efforts were striking. Tania Branigan in The Guardian describes them in her article "Chen Guangcheng: how China tried to lock down a blind man":

The campaign to keep Chen Guangcheng locked away from the world — defeated at least temporarily by his escape — has been as remarkable in its pettiness as it has been comprehensive in scope. A massive security operation has swamped the small village of Dongshigu. Scores of thugs armed with surveillance cameras, floodlights and phone-jamming technology have watched an ailing blind man, his wife, frail mother and small daughter round the clock. Relatives and neighbours who have tried to help have faced retribution. Supporters who have attempted to visit have been beaten, detained and pelted with stones.

But beyond the lockdown lies a grindingly intrusive exercise of power. At times, according to human rights groups, seven or eight men have been stationed inside the family compound. Steel shutters bar the windows of the home. Chen's elderly mother has been harassed when working in the fields. Guards escort his six-year-old daughter to school and have confiscated her toys.

Amazingly, despite the large amount of security and Chen being blind, he recently evaded his captors. David Eimer's article "Dissident Chen Guangcheng 'chased by undercover Chinese agents' as he fled to US Embassy" in The Telgraph describes Chen's escape:

"Chen told me he had prepared for the 'prison break' for at least two months. He knew the patrolling routines of the guards by heart, before climbing over the wall around his house on Sunday night," said Mr Hu.

"He injured his leg when he landed and it took him 20 hours to make his way around eight roadblocks. He told me he fell over at least 200 times, before he got picked up on Monday and driven to Beijing."

It is believed that He Peirong, a long-time friend, drove Mr Chen to Beijing, where he spent three sleepless nights before making his break to the US embassy. Ms He was later detained at her home in Nanjing, in eastern Jiangsu Province. Mr Chen's brother and nephew were also arrested, raising speculation that they played a part in his escape.

That Chen had sought the safety of the U.S. Embassy was particularly notable since Wang Lijun, once very close to Bo Xilai, had not long ago fled for his own reasons to the U.S. Consultate in Chengdu. However, the comparisons between Wang and Chen are few. Wang is reportedly connected to acts of torture. Chen is connected to acts of protecting people's rights.

With Chen at the U.S. Embassy, significant hurdles faced the U.S. and Chinese governments to resolve the issue. Some expected that Chen would eventually be granted asylum in the U.S. despite the complications involved. But there were also reports that Chen desired to stay in China. Chen made some of his hopes clear in a 15 minute video addressing Premier Wen Jiabo. A version with English subtitles was produced by CHINAaid:

Today, in a key development Chen left the protection of the U.S. Embassy. On the way to a hospital with U.S. Ambassador Gary Locke, Chen requested to speak to The Washington Post, possibly due to its early coverage of his efforts (thanks to Gady Epstein for noting this connection). The Washington Post's Keith Richburg and Jia Lynn Yang describe the current situation in their article "Chen Guangcheng leaves U.S. embassy after assurances he will be treated humanely, U.S. says":

Accompanied by U.S. Ambassador Gary Locke, Chen went to Chaoyang Hospital in Beijing and was apparently taken to the VIP clinic, which was blocked off from reporters by hospital security guards and plainclothes police. U.S. officials said Chen, a self-taught lawyer, was to be reunited with his family at the hospital...

U.S. officials said Chen made clear from the beginning that he did not want to leave China, and that he wanted his stay in the embassy to be temporary. He did not seek asylum. His priority was reuniting with his wife, two children and other family members. He has a son who he has not seen in about two years.

The Chinese government agreed that Chen would be treated humanely, moved from his village to a safe place, reunited with his family and allowed to enroll in a university, the officials said. “We understand there are no remaining legal issues . . . and that he will be treated as any other student in China,” said a senior official.

They also said Chinese authorities agreed to investigate the “extralegal” activities of the local authorities in Chen’s hometown, who have allowed armed men to effectively confine Chen to his farmhouse in Shandong province, preventing celebrities, journalists and others who tried to visit him from entering.

The story remains fluid but assuming the above it will be critical to see how China will carry out its side of the agreement. For example, what assurances are there that Chen will not be later subjected to trumped-up charges to justify detaining him again?

Like the Bo Xilai case, there is also much to say about how the story was reported in China and the heavy (and sometimes amazingly quick) censorship of online discussion. But again, I think the above is enough to digest for one post. I highly recommend reading all of the mentioned articles and viewing the video. I have provided some more details on my Twitter account, primarily through retweeting some of what has caught my eye. As I look now, a variety of details about today's events continue to evolve.

Will Hu Jintao Slow Jam the News Like Barack Obama?

Previously, I shared photos of U.S. President Barack Obama's appearance in marketing for BlackBerry in Chengdu, Sichuan province. I commented on a difference it suggested between Obama and the current leader of China--Hu Jintao. For example, I doubted that a company would desire to use Hu Jintao (with his permission or not) for a U.S. media campaign in a similar manner.

The "soft power" I mentioned typically refers international affairs but "the ability to attract and co-opt rather than coerce" can apply to domestic affairs as well. I believe this ability can be found in the video below of Obama trying to influence his country's citizens about a publicly debated government policy. Yet again, I doubt we will be seeing Hu following in the footsteps of the "Barackness Monster".

H/T to Kaiser Kuo.

Where Can You Say "Falun Dafa Is Good"?

While in Taitung, Taiwan a couple of days ago I saw this sign:

There was at least one other similar sign elsewhere in Taitung.

Falun Dafa, also known as Falun Gong, is a "spiritual discipline" that has roots in China and was once viewed positively by the Chinese government.  However, as noted in Wikipedia:

...by the mid- to late-1990s, the Communist Party and public security organs increasingly viewed Falun Gong as a potential threat on account of its size, independence from the state, and spiritual teachings. By 1999, some estimates placed the number of Falun Gong adherents at over 70 million, exceeding the total membership of the Chinese Communist Party.^[8]

In July 1999, Communist Party of China (CPC) leadership initiated a ban on Falun Gong and began a nationwide crackdown and multifaceted propaganda campaign intended to eradicate the practice. In October 1999 it declared Falun Gong a "heretical organization."^[1][9][10] Human rights groups report that Falun Gong practitioners in China are subject to a wide range of human rights abuses; hundreds of thousands are believe to have been imprisoned extra-judicially, and practitioners in detention are subject to forced labor, psychiatric abuse, severe torture, and other coercive methods of thought reform at the hands of Chinese authorities.^{[11][12][13][14]} In the years since the suppression campaign began, Falun Gong adherents have emerged as a prominent voice in the Chinese dissident community, advocating for greater human rights and an end to Communist Party rule.

The signs brought to mind something I saw while in Seattle, USA for a business trip two winters ago:

On this small grassy mound near the popular Pike Place Market in Seattle were people presenting information about the struggles of Falun Dafa in China.  The most visible banners say, "Falun Dafa -- Stop Genocide in China".

On numerous occasions I've informally shown my photos from the US to friends in China.  If the above photo from Seattle comes up it can sometimes cause a stir.  I recall one time in particular when a friend was shocked that some people in the US would support Falun Dafa and even suggest that China is conducting genocide.  I didn't know much about Falun Dafa so together we read the Wikipedia entry on it and further searched the Internet (using my VPN to avoid any potential censorship due to China's Great Firewall).  Much of what she believed was consistent with the efforts of the Chinese media described in the Wikipedia entry on Falun Dafa under the section "Media Campaign".  For example:

According to China scholars Daniel Wright and Joseph Fewsmith, for several months after Falun Gong was outlawed, China Central Television's evening news contained little but anti-Falun Gong rhetoric charging that it cheats its followers, separates families, damages health, and hurts social stability. The government operation was "a study in all-out demonization," they write.^[146] Falun Gong was compared to "a rat crossing the street that everyone shouts out to squash" by Beijing Daily;^[147] other officials said it would be a "long-term, complex and serious" struggle to "eradicate" Falun Gong.^[148]
...
On the eve of Chinese New Year on 23 January 2001, five people attempted to set themselves ablaze on Tiananmen Square. The official Chinese press agency, Xinhua News Agency, and other state media asserted that the self-immolators were practitioners while the Falun Dafa Information Center disputed this,^[150] on the grounds that the movement's teachings explicitly forbid suicide and killing,^[151] and further alleged that the event was a cruel but clever piece of stunt-work.^[152] The incident received international news coverage, and video footage of the burnings were broadcast later inside China by China Central Television (CCTV). Images of a 12 year old girl, Liu Siying, burning and interviews with the other participants in which they stated their belief that self-immolation would lead them to paradise were shown.^[150][153] Falun Gong-related commentators pointed out that the main participants' account of the incident and other aspects of the participants' behavior were inconsistent with the teachings of Falun Dafa.^[154] Washington Post journalist Phillip Pan wrote that the two self-immolators who died were not actually Falun Gong practitioners.^[155] Time reported that prior to the self-immolation incident, many Chinese had felt that Falun Gong posed no real threat, and that the state's crackdown had gone too far. After the event, however, the mainland Chinese media campaign against Falun Gong gained significant traction.^[156] As public sympathy for Falun Gong declined, the government began sanctioning "systematic use of violence" against the group.^[157] According to Falun Gong websites, the number of Falun Gong adherents tortured to death rose from 245 in 2000 to 419 in 2001.^[158]

After reading several sources on the Internet that day, I don't think she was convinced that Falun Dafa was necessarily "good" and that a genocide had occurred, but she was now deeply suspicious of much of what she had previously learned about Falun Dafa and how the Chinese government responded.
 
The full Wikipedia post on Falun Dafa can be found here.  It is detailed and provides numerous references.  I suspect that many, whether in Mainland China, Taiwan, the US, or elsewhere would find much in the entry that would be new to them.  What people take away from it could be very different, though.

For now, I simply want to say that like the students' use of Facebook in Hualien, Taiwan discussed in the previous post, the signs in Taitung contrast with what is possible in Mainland China.  I doubt such signs would be permitted to stand long in Mainland China.  I certainly haven't seen any.

Signs supporting Falun Dafa may seem like a very distant issue from access to Facebook.  However, you don't need to make a sign to share the opinion "Falun Dafa is Good" with many people.

You could do it with Facebook as well.

Bertrand Russell's Advice to the Future

Although I've been living in China the past 5 years I still closely follow news and commentary in the US.  During that time, I have wondered if there was an increase in the severity of several problems that I believe interfere with meaningful debate over how best to address a number of important issues, whether the environment, the recession, the debt, etc.  Two of these problems are:

• Attacks against or dismissal of logic, science and intellectualism.

• Labeling those with different viewpoints as "evil" or "traitors".

I find them particularly concerning since they work against traits that I believe are part of some of America's most important strengths.  I'm certainly not the first to note them and neither is new to the world.  In fact, in 1959 when Bertrand Russell was asked what he would say to people alive 1000 years later his response touched on these two issues.

The following is a video of Russell's response.  It is just a 2 minute clip from a longer interview (which can be found here).  I'd be curious to know how various people interpret and react to it.

I don't think his response would be at all out of place if he made it today, especially this:

In this world which is getting more and more closely interconnected we have to learn to tolerate each other.  We have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don't like.  

Maybe the continued aptness of his comments shouldn't come as a surprise since he apparently thought this advice would still be useful about 950 years from now -- possibly a silver lining for an interpretation of struggles in today's debates.  And while Bertrand Russell's comments were likely the result of some careful thinking, I suspect he would also appreciate debate about his very own advice.  After all, he has said:

I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine.

I believe there is much strength in that view.  And I believe that if more people held it, we might be able to have more productive debates in the US.

"Fallows was wrong"

As I'm still waiting for my missing post to reappear (or be told by Blogger it has gone to a more heavenly cloud than The Cloud), I think it's appropriate to do a post on something else that is missing (and of interest to me) in another case: data.

James Fallows includes at the end of a recent post a reference to his earlier claim about the impact of President Obama's release of his long-form birth certificate on the ridiculous debate over the President's place of birth:

"As Andrew Sullivan has pointed out, I guessed that even the long-firm birth certificate wouldn't change the minds of many hard-core birthers. I am very glad that real-world results are different and that, on this issue at least, actual evidence seems to have had some effect."

However, a look at Andrew Sullivan's post on The Dish with its charming "Fallows was wrong" suggests to me that Fallows shouldn't give up on his claim just based on that post. [note: I'm not sure if Sullivan's post was the sole piece of information that swayed Fallows.  It doesn't matter for my following points.]  Sullivan shares the following poll:

Apparently, this shows that Obama revealing his long-form birth certificate made an impact in changing people's minds.  As suggested in some opinions of others later shared by Sullivan (see here) the source of the change may be more about the killing of Bin Laden than the release of the long-form birth certificate.  It would be difficult to tease those two possibilities apart given the events were only separated by days.

But even if one disregards the possible influence of Bin Laden's death, it would be easy to be unconvinced by the data above because:

• It's just one poll.  It could be an outlier.
• There is no indication that the differences between the two years are statistically significant.  
• It is possible that opinions on the issue fluctuate greatly over short periods of time so the recent poll may not be an accurate stable measure.
• It compares two time points one year apart.  

It's the last point that really jumps out at me.  It is possible some or all of the above change occurred prior to Obama's releasing his long-form certificate.  One year leaves plenty of time for opinion to change for a variety of reasons and makes it very difficult to pinpoint the cause of any change -- a lot happens in one year.  For example, possibly some simply grew to accept Obama as President because "time can heal" and they became less motivated to believe he was not born in the US.

Polls from multiple time points, especially including one from a "before" time point far more proximate to Obama's announcement, would help address the above issues.  Sure, no matter how close the before and after polls one could argue that there was another cause.  But if there was a sudden and unusual significant change (compared to previous changes in opinion over comparable periods of time) between the days or even weeks before the announcement and those afterward a more solid argument could be made it was the result of Obama releasing his long-form certificate.

I realize in this case the ideal set of polling data might be unavailable.  Regardless, even just finding a more proximate comparison point than 1 year ago would make a big difference.  It appears that Public Policy Polling has such data (a link to a PDF report is provided in the relevant post here).  PPP writes:

"In February we found that 51% of Republican primary voters thought Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Now with the release of his birth certificate only 34% of GOP partisans fall into that camp... "

Again, I'd like to see more data.  But at least this offers a more reasonable point of comparison.  On the side, while PPP's data adds evidence that there was a change of opinion as a result of Obama's announcement, 34% of Republican primary voters still thinking Obama was not born in the United States also suggests there remains a large number of people in a "post-factual world".

So, the release of the the long form birth certificate may indeed have changed some minds of those who were previously convinced Obama was born outside of the US.  However, the data shared by Sullivan in the referenced post doesn't answer the question, even if you disregard the possible impact of Bin Laden's death -- at least another serving of data from The Dish is needed.