Those newfangled "climate scientists" keep fearmongering about anthropogenic global warming (screenshot at right).
That's from a snippet published in a New Zealand newspaper, RODNEY AND OTAMATEA TIMES, WAITEMATA AND KAIPARA GAZETTE, 14 AUGUST 1912.
[daily log: walking, 7km]
I find most conspiracy theories – whether left, right, center, or way-out-there – implausible. My own response to most conspiracy theories can be summarized by the old quote from Goethe, "misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent." This idea has circulated more recently as "Hanlon's Razor": "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Mostly, I have given up trying to explain why conspiracy theories are implausible to those who espouse them, however. It seems a fruitless exercise, and anyway it's a lot of work.
I ran across an excellent debunking of the recently emergent conspiracy theory (being propagated by Trump et al.) that Democrats are rigging the upcoming US election. Written by a commenter who goes by "CrunchyFrog" on the Clintonist left-of-center blog "Lawyers, Guns & Money," it is so well reasoned I felt like sharing it. Not that I have the mistaken belief that someone who believes Trump's voter-fraud theory would be persuaded by this to change their minds, but I cite it just because I admire this kind of reasoning. I think the author would not mind having most of it reproduced here (I clipped off the gratuitous insults and Trumpist-baiting at either end as detracting from the clarity of argument).
Regarding the black voter busing scheme. Let’s think about this logically (not possible for the GOP, I know, but bear with me). If I were running such a scheme what would I have to do to make an effective dent in the results? As a starting point, a lot of Colorado wingnuts think that Obama won there in 2012 by cheating. He won by 138k votes, so let’s use 140k votes as a starting point. So let’s say I have a bus full of black voters – say 66 people (common capacity limit on school buses). So if every bus is filled to near capacity that’s about 2200 bus-visits to the polling stations. How many polling stations can a given bus hit in a day? Well, your typical precinct has 2-3 people checking voters in and each one processes about 2 per minute, so that’s over 30 minutes just to check in (of course there will be other voters, too), plus time to drive between precincts. Seriously, if you are counting on more than 10 precincts per bus per day you’re going to be disappointed. So that’s 220 buses chartered for the day, and a total of about 14k fraudulent voters.
Holy freaking crap. The logistical problems of arranging that many fraudulent voters, ALL of whom are risking felony sentences and NONE of whom have ever talked about it to anyone. Now plan to arrange for 140k fake registrations using the matching photos for each person and arrange it so that the manager of each bus makes sure that every voter gets the exact fake ID for each precinct. And NO MISTAKES – remember no one has ever been caught doing this because Democrats, who are inept in government, are utter geniuses when it comes to vote fraud. So that means there NEVER can be a situation where a fake voter encounters a registrar who says “Hey, I live on that street, I’ve never seen you” or similar.
By the way, the absolutely easiest logistical part of this scheme is arranging for photo ID. Assuming you have that many people willing to commit felonies for whatever you are paying them and have arranged everything else in detail, getting fake photo IDs for them is simple and routine. So photo ID laws do absolutely jack shit to stop massive vote fraud – but of course that wasn’t their real intention, was it?
[daily log: walking, 7km]
This is a fascinating article: a German historian has demonstrated incontrovertibly that Hitler was a serious drug addict. I actually had never heard about this before, but it looks like it has been one of those "open secrets" among historians.
I find it very compelling. The idea that Hitler was a coke-head junkie in his last years has a lot of explanatory power. And not just Hitler – the whole damn Nazi military apparatus was apparently high on meth and coke, with the pushers being the government. A bad trip, indeed.
What other 20th century insanities might be better understood as drug-related issues?
[daily log: walking, 6.5km]
Recently, the term "neoliberalism" seems to be undergoing a kind of evolution. In the past half century (i.e. during my lifetime), "neoliberalism" seems to have been a negative term used by people, mostly on the left, to define an opposition they don't like. Lately, however, some people have been trying to "reclaim" the term as defining their own position. Interestingly, I find this redefinition somewhat appealing. It seems to be a kind of "liberalism with libertarian tendencies" and/or "libertarianism with liberal tendencies" which actually hoves somewhat to where I am, politically, myself.
One recent self-identified "neoliberal" that I ran across is Sam Bowman (I don't really know who that is – some economist maybe?). For the most part I am close to that defintion. Interestingly, I think Hillary Clinton is, too. Many Bernie Sandersites have called Clinton "neoliberal" despectively, but in fact, she might call herself neoliberal if identifying with Bowman's definition.
I think what Bowman leaves out entirely, but which is critical to my understanding of both the historical conception of "neoliberalism" as well as why I think I don't quite match the concept, is on the issue of militarism and/or interventionism. I am not a pacifist, but I am not really in favor of militarism, even the "trying to save the failed-state-du-jour" variety common nowadays.
My biggest disappointment with Obama and biggest ambivalence about Hillary Clinton is in this realm. I think that this lacuna with respect to militarism in historical neoliberalism is its overlap with what was called "neocolonialism" when I was vaguely marxist, in college. And just as then, when it comes to such things, I am very much anti-interventionist.
If I stick only with Bowman's defnition, I could be a neoliberal. But I refuse the term because of that unmentioned neocolonial affiliation. Both traditional liberals and traditional libertarians would also be unconfortable with it, I think.
[daily log: sweating]
What I'm listening to right now.
Pop Will Eat Itself, "Ich Bin Ein
The song is 22 years old, by the British group Pop Will Eat Itself. Yet it seems eerily contemporary, vis-a-vis recent developments like the European response to the refugee crisis, Brexit, and Trump. The zeitgeist.
Lyrics.
Listen to the victim, abused by the system
The basis is racist, you know that we must face this.
"It can't happen here". Oh yeah?
"Take a look around at the cities and the towns."
See them hunting, creeping, sneaking
Breeding fear and loathing with the lies they're speaking
The knife, the gun, broken bottle, petrol bomb
There is no future when the past soon come.
And when they come to ethnically cleanse me
Will you speak out? Will you defend me?
Or laugh through a glass eye as they rape our lives
Trampled underfoot by the right on the rise
[CHORUS}
"You call us…" …Ich Bin Ein Ausländer
"You call us…" …Ich Bin Ein Ausländer
"You call us…" …Ich Bin Ein Ausländer
"You call us…" …Ich Bin Ein Ausländer
Welcome to a state where the politics of hate
Shout loud in the crowd "Watch them beat us all down"
There's a rising tide in the rivers of blood
But if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence
If they come to ethnically cleanse me
Will you speak out? Will you defend me?
Freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
Trampled underfoot by the rise of the right
[CHORUS]
Ich Bin Ein Ausländer.
Ich Bin Ein Ausländer.
Ich Bin Ein Ausländer.
Ich Bin Ein Ausländer.
Ich Bin Ein Ausländer.
Ich Bin Ein Ausländer.
Ich Bin Ein Ausländer.
Ich Bin Ein Ausländer.
[daily log: walking, 6.5km]
As you may know, sometimes I read politics blogs somewhat obsessively. I generally don't feel particularly passionate about it – for me it's a strange sort of entertainment, as I just observe what is happening in the world.
The Trump thing disturbs me, as I've commented before.
Michael Moore – a political persona whom I normally abhor – makes a set of salient points to support his prediction that Trump will win in the fall. I actually believe he's on target, and will be curious to see if his idea pans out. My caveat must be, as Moore's is, that predicting a Trumping in the fall is not the same as supporting the man. He is a frightening narcissist. If America is Rome, then Trump can be her Nero.
[daily log: walking, 6.5km]
In case you didn't know, Cthulu is running for president. This is great news. This is the candidacy that will trump the others.
[daily log: walking, 6.5km]
The Korean TV news is full of bits on the North Koreans' Party Congress, the first in 36 years. KJU is consolidating his power, repossessing the military, and showing savvier leadership than had been expected, it appears. Not that that's a good thing.
Perhaps relatedly, what I'm listening to right now.
Communist Daughter, "Not the Kid."
Lyrics.
When we were younger
we had nothing to do
so we'd close our eyes
and spin around in circles
happy to hit the ground
or happy to just fall down
When we were younger
we'd go down to the park
we'd catch all the fireflies
we'd put 'em in jars
we never knew that they'd die
we never really thought that far
I'm not the kid you knew
im not the kid you remember
When we were younger
we were scared of the dark
so we closed our eyes
we pulled the sheets over our heads
we didn't want to see what's there
like the shadows under the bed
And now that I'm older
I look back on those days
I wish I had them back
cuz the shadows are gone
or at least they're not that strong
as the shadows in my head
I'm not the kid you knew
I'm not the kid you remember
I'm not the kid you knew
I'm not the kid you remember
In 1985
well there was a picture taken with my name on it
climbin' an apple tree with blue shoes
You'd think it was me
I could swear it was you
I'm not the kid you knew
i'm not the kid you remember
I'm not the kid you knew
i'm not the kid you remember
I'm not the kid you knew
i'm not the kid you remember
I'm not the kid you knew
i'm not the kid you remember
Notes for Korean (finding meaning)
[daily log: walking, 1km]
"PGH" is a kind of shorthand for Park Geun-hye, Korea's current president, who I also like to refer to as The Dictator's Daughter.
Recently she has been on a high-level visit to Iran, now that Iran is "open for business" under the new nuclear agreement, and she can do so without antagonizing the Imperial powers in Washington and Brussels. Korea's economic presence is already huge in the region – bearing in mind that it is Korean construction contractors who have built major portions of infrastructure in Iran's neighbors United Arab Emirates to the south and Uzbekistan to the north. The Burj al-Khalifa might be in Dubai, but it was built by Koreans – a point of pride, here.
Anyway, her visit is all over the news. I keep the Korean 24 hour news channel running sometimes on my TV at home. I noticed something that frankly surprised me, that vastly increased my estimation of President Park's intelligence. It's minor, perhaps: she has made a point of wearing an Iranian-style headscarf during her state visit to Tehran. Somehow this strikes me as a remarkable bit of cultural sensitivity. It's hard to imagine a European or American female politician making such a cultural concession. It may antagonize those who object to the clearly anti-feminist nature of the Iranian regime, and I have sympathy for that. But we should also acknowledge that PGH is no feminist – if she were, she'd never have won the presidency in Korea. It was just such gestures of obeissance to patriarchy that have made her political career possible in Korea. Basically, that she can extend such symbolic behavior into the international sphere speaks well of her level of political savvy and machiavelianism.
I'm not saying I like her, but I think perhaps she is easy to underestimate.
[daily log: walking, 6km]
I learned this aphorism from my friend’s blog.
산토끼를 잡으려다가 집토끼를 놓친다
san.to.kki.reul jap.eu.ryeo.da.ga jip.to.kki.reul noh.chin.da
wild-hare-OBJ catch-PURPOSIVE/TRANSFERATIVE tame-rabbit-OBJ miss-PRES
This means, “Losing rabbits at home while running after hares in the mountains.” My friend Peter points to Korea Times senior editorialist Choi Sung-jin having used the expression in translation, commenting on the opposition party’s strategy – prior to the election. Thus the translation is due to that editorialist. The phrase could also apply to other misguided business strategies, I think. I need to remember it for the next time I feel annoyed in a work-meeting.
In retrospect, I think this was not the right sort of aphorism to quote, given the opposition’s surprising electoral upset. It turned out the wild hare made a better meal.
[daily log: walking, 6km]
One realization I had in looking at the election coverage yesterday (both on my TV and on the internet), was that my long-standing characterization of Ilsan (and Goyang) as fairly conservative is simply wrong. I don't really know what the basis was for that impression, but I've probably mentioned it more than once in this blog. Yet in looking at the election data, I can see that northwest suburban Seoul (indeed, most of suburban Seoul) definitely leans leftward.
What really made me notice this was the breakthrough realization that the electoral district just to the east of where I live (called 고양갑 Goyang-gap) is the home district of the just re-elected left-most member of the National Assembly, Sim Sang-jung (심상정). I had this realization in studying the electoral map, where the yellow stands out (because it represents only two districts nationally). The yellow represents the Justice Party (정의당), which is a left-leaning party – the color choices are based on party "brand" colors, but seem to be somewhat coordinated for contrast between the groups (whether by some government agency such the elections commission, I'm not sure). The map below is reproduced from wikipedia.
Anyway, I after making this realization, I took the time to look back at previous electoral maps, and indeed, this leftward slant on Goyang is not recent. So I have no idea where I got the idea that Goyang was conservative – the electoral evidence belies it. So consider my earlier characterizations retracted.
[daily log: walking, 6km]
Korea voted for parliamentary representatives yesterday (this is called 총선, “general election”). The atmosphere as I walked to work was quite strange – a “real” holiday. The schools were closed and workers are given time off (half days or complete off days depending on their work type and schedule, but the hagwon business, such as where I work, is exempt from this and so we worked as normal). There were lots of senior citizens going in and out of polling places, and parents were out in playgrounds playing with their kids. It was nice, and the feeling was vaguely festive.
My friend Peter has been blogging in a very detailed and interesting manner about election-related issues. I have enjoyed reading his thoughts. I haven’t, myself, been following these elections as closely as in the past – I have been feeling a kind of bitter resignation about the phenomenal lock on power held by the conservatives in Korea, and this election appeared to be only a further entrenchment of this “neo-Parkism,” embodied by the presidency of the dictator’s daughter, with a fragmented opposition that seemed destined to do badly.
In fact, the opposition didn’t do so badly, on preliminary results – I have been looking at Naver News’ summary coverage (in Korean). The president’s 새누리당 (Saenuri Party) lost its parliamentary majority, Ahn Cheol-soo’s new third party, 국민의당 (People’s Party) did remarkably well, and even the 더문주당 (Minjoo Party) surprised at least me by turning Gyeonggi blue on the electoral map, despite losing their main stronghold in the southwest to the upstarts. Turnout was higher than in the last several elections.
I walked past 4 different polling places on the way to work (all schools). Below is the Ilsan Service Industry Workers Vocational High School (called, optimistically, the “International Convention High School”, but really a dumping ground for Ilsan’s least ambitious students), with a polling place banner across the entrance gate.
[daily log: walking, 7km]
The following is an incomplete thought.
There is the confusion of character and luck. I've been struck by this, for example, in the thinking of my students… but I can't quite figure out if it is more closely related to their being Korean or to their being children. I suspect both factors may be involved, at some level. There is something childish about thinking this way, but there is also a strong cultural trope in the Buddhasphere, related to notions of karma, which tell us that one's luck is tied to one's moral character, which is a result, in turn, of the idea of accumulating merit (and/or demerit) across multiple lives.
Recently, this thought crystallized for me, though, in relation to some writing about Trump. Trump appears to espouse this conflation of luck and character, and in general, it seems to be a way of thinking that is on the increase in American culture. Hence, Trump's condemnation of McCain as a loser, for example, since McCain had the bad luck to be captured by the North Vietnamese.
An economics and political blogger named Chris Dillow labels this type of thinking "feudalist," and although that is true, I'd simply say it is "pre-modern," since it underlies all kinds of caste-based systems, from untouchables in India to know-nothingism and the eugenics movement in America.
Speaking of which, I'd like to label Trump's new movement "neo-know-nothingism" – it has a nice, hard-to-pronounce euphony.
[daily log: walking, 6km]
A blogger who blogs under the pseudonym Patrick Non-White recently channeled William S. Burroughs pretending to be Donald Trump. He writes as if Trump had hit upon the idea of running for president while doing bong hits with his friends. This alternate-universe Trump meditates on his plan, thinking of himself, of course, in the third person:
"There is nothing so crazed as a politician in rut, screeching whatever thoughts burst into his coke-addled brain like a radioactive weasel before thousands of ignorant nimrods, on total auto-pilot, completely in the now, popping off like God's own Mentos and Diet Coke."
This fine picture appeared in another spot online. You may wish to connect it, at your own mental risk, to the above.
[daily log: walking, 6]
Holly Wood (her real name, apparently), is a political and social commentarist operating in the twitteresque postblogoid realm called "medium.com". But her writing is quite astute. She leans more radical than I, but I respect radicalism, and often find it inspiring. She posted this untitled bit of poetry:
Freedom requires cultivating
the peculiar and completely irrational
faculty for projecting imagination
beyond the horizon of common sense.
We have to drive out beyond the city limits of hegemony
away from the light pollution of neoliberal ideology.
Men do not rule.
Men have never ruled.
Only legitimacy has ruled.
End man’s legitimacy and
you end the rule of man.
To end man’s legitimacy, child,
you must become exceedingly fluent
in what today is only unfathomable.
Hurry, though,
we are choking on escapable darkness.
[daily log: walking, 6.5km]
Here are some random thoughts that have been floating around in my brain, mostly due to the fact that one of my weird hobbies is reading economics blogs.
On anthropogenic climate change
The entire "stop global warming" movement is predicated on the fallacy that, if we can just make people see the problem, they will immediately understand that it is a problem and so work to stop it. I don't think that's quite so obvious. There are too many narrow-minded people who live in cold climates and like to vacation in Florida or Mexico. Their reaction to being convinced of the reality of anthropogenic of global warming would be to shrug, buy a Hummer, and start investing in Minnesota or Manitoba real estate. The geopolitical equivalent of this is that there are entire countries capable of the same reaction.
Here's a scary thought: Why should Russia work to combat global warming? A warmer planet Earth puts that vast country in a more "human friendly" biome – tundra beomces taiga and taiga becomes steppe, and Siberia's agricultural potential is immense, if only it was a bit wetter and warmer. If I were a nationalistically-inclined long-term planner in Russia, with Putin's ear, I'd be doing everything possible to increase carbon output. And if we look at Russian energy policy, that does seem to be the approach.
The real problem with climate change isn't the deniers, it's the apathetic and faux-apathetic (i.e. Russia in the above scenario).
On "peak oil"
Somewhat relatedly, why do the Saudis keep increasing output? I think the answer is clear, there, too. They have been operating for more than a generation with a very sophisticated understanding of their position vis-a-vis the world energy market and our Age of Petroleum. In the 1980s, the oil minister, Ahmed Zaki Yamani, observed that, "Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil – and no buyers. Oil will be left in the ground. The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil."
I find this insight profoundly compelling. The age of oil will end with oil in the ground – because technology and civiliztion will either have moved on, or self-destructed. It's almost obvious to anyone capable of long-term thinking. Given that fact, there is no long-term benefit to hoarding oil. Pump and sell today, for tomorrow it will have no value.
[daily log: walking, 6km]
Justice Scalia died, I've seen in the news. I have some curiosity about this, just in the sense that I tend to follow American politics despite my frustration with it.
There has been some of the typical hagiography of Scalia that, given his record, seems a bit unjustified. He wasn't really a great person, as far as I can figure out. He was bitter, legally insonsistent, and pointlessly combative. I saw this humorous quote about Scalia, attributed to Clarence Thomas, of all people: "He loves killing unarmed animals." That's snark from one supreme jerk to another.
Unrelatedly – two days ago, it was snowing as I went to work. More climate volatility, among the redwoods (metasequoia) of Ilsan.
[daily log: walking, 6km]
Since I teach debate, I sometimes have the situation where students express views or even “facts” with which I don’t agree or which I dislike. Only with the most advanced students have I ever tried to go into the realm of evidentiality and “sourced” arguments – mostly I focus on using debate as a means of expressing opinions using English and without regard to the veracity or even acceptability of what they’re saying. Also, since I often make students “switch sides,” I can hardly complain if they end up coming up with some implausible argument for a position which they wouldn’t have chosen in any event on their own.
The below, however, is not one of those cases – the student chose the position apparently sincerely, and furthermore, I can sadly say that the opinions he echoes are quite widely held. Most interesting, vis-a-vis the question of immigration to Korea, is the seemingly circular argument that foreigners should not come to Korea because, since Koreans are racists and nationalists, immigrants would therefore have a bad experience here. It boils down to: “Don’t come here because we don’t like you, and so it would be bad for you to come here.”
Still, perhaps the most bizarre are the beliefs about how dangerous foreigners are. Yet this kind of thinking is hardly unique to Korea – just look at the American discourse around immigration, and such views are easy to find.
There are many people who are coming from other country these days. Korea can develop by accepting these kinds of people, but there are many people in different opinion that disagree about accepting these kinds of people.
People who are coming from another country have different religions. IS which is one of the most dangerous groups of people in the world have the Islamic religion. They are very dangerous, so most people do not like to live in the same country with them. Korean people often eat fork after work, but Islamic people can not eat pork. Hindu people can not eat beef, so they can not join in the Korean company dinner. Many people who are coming from other countries can not live with Korean people.
There is the wall between Korean people and foreigners. This wall is called nationalism. Korean people express a very powerful nationalism. For example, Korean people do not like black people because they think that black people make scary situation. Korean people are also disregard immigrant workers who are coming from Philippines or Vietnam. Immigration is harmful for foreigners.
Foreigners make crimes. American soldiers make crimes almost once a week. They kill many Korean women and rape them. Chinese are psycho. Chinese kill Korean people, cut into their bodies and also they eat human meat. Foreigners are dangerous to live with.
In conclusion, immigration is sometimes helpful but not always. Foreigners have different religion and make many crimes. Korean people also have nationalism, so foreigners can not endure it. People should know that immigration is not always good for our country.
I can say that among my students, such views as these are not that common – just by virtue of being a middle-school student who is in the top quartile of English ability (such as is the case with my students, since I don’t teach the lower levels) means that one’s views of things like globalism and internationalism are probably moderate. Nevertheless, in the broader public, I can also say that such views are probably more common than anyone would like to admit.
“While the secret knowledge is only available to some members of the society, there is an ideology, an ethics, and a phenomenology of ignorance that is shared, to some degree, by all.” -Jonathan Mair
[daily log: walking, 6km]
There are many aspects of Ben Carson's character that make me question his ethnic loyalties. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and certainly, just like Obama, perhaps only an African-American with deep ambiguities vis-a-vis African-American cultural identity could ever be successful running for president in a racist America. In Carson's specific case, however, I do think it is a bad thing, that his ethnic loyalties are so unclear. He seems to be a kind of latter-day Clarence Thomas. In fact, would I say that I rather dislike Ben Carson – despite being a trained surgeon, he strikes me as a dangerous luddite and a flaming fanatical hypocrite of the worst sort. Nevertheless, there was something reassuring about the revelation that this painting, below, is hanging in Ben Carson's home. To riff on the website where I saw it… finally, we have some concrete proof of Carson's blackness.
[daily log: walking around my apartment]
December, 1971:
Justin Trudeau is born.
April, 1972:
While visiting with Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in Ottawa, Richard Nixon says, with respect to the Prime Minister's newly born son, "Tonight we'll dispense with the formalities. I'd like to toast the future prime minister of Canada, to Justin Pierre Trudeau."
October, 2015:
Justin Trudeau is elected Prime Minister of Canada.
[daily log: walking, 6km]
I was surfing some of the blogs I read, and found this blog post with a rather novel approach to defining capitalism. I'm not sure I find it entirely compelling, but I like the effort to break with philosophical and economic tradition. It takes a rather abstract, game-theoretic approach informed by information theory.
This article, however, led me in turn to this rather humorous bit at the New Yorker, about a "Libertarian Police Department" – which is a kind of oxymoron, of course.
[daily log: walking, 6km]
Many years ago, I made [broken link! FIXME] some posts on this blog (in its earliest, pre-Life-in-Korea incarnation) about the issue of open borders and migration as a human right. I still basically believe this, although it's not something that I consider particularly urgent, and certainly, living as a de facto immigrant in one of the world's less immigrant-friendly regions presents some ironies to this.
Recently, in a post on the crookedtimber blog, I ran across what I would consider one of the best counter-arguments to the idea that borders should be thrown open. Actually, it was a comment below the main post that raised the issue (by a commenter named "Merkwürdigliebe" – whoever that might be), but I think it's possibly the best rebuttal to open borders I have run across.
The idea is that when you have open borders, a government (or a people, in the form of a mass movement) could "weaponize" migration. Many conspiracy-theorists (especially on the right) already believe there is intentionality behind mass migrations of e.g. Mexicans into the US, and, with respect to certain fringe groups (such as the Aztlan revanchist movement) there is actually some validity.
The commenter raised the idea of, say, the Russian government using putative open European borders to flood former East Bloc countries such as the Baltics with direct Russian migration, until those countries were rendered majority Russian and thus captured into the Russian orbit.
In fact, there are plenty of examples from history of successful "weaponized" migration – everything from the barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire to the movement of settlers from the British Isles into North America to the Argentinian leverage of Welsh nationalism to subdue the Patagonian natives, to the entire Zionist project from conception to its current manifestations in the West Bank settlements.
These historical examples themselves constitute the essential counter-rebuttal to the argument, however: all of these historical examples of "weaponized" migration were successful despite active resistance on the part of the people being "migrated against." Thus, whether or not there are "open borders" seems structurally irrelevant. If a given people or movement or government make a concerted effort at weaponized migration, the presence or absence of border controls seems not to matter a whit. As the borg pointed out, as it effortlessly zoomed across Federation border controls, "resistance is futile."
Nevertheless, it is a cogent and intelligent argument, and would need to be addressed in the context of a debate in favor of open borders.
[daily log: walking, a little bit]
Korea’s “New Cities” have always fascinated me, given my own proclivities as an unfulfilled urban planner as well as my current long-standing residence in one of Korea’s largest and most successful New Cities, Ilsan. There are many aspects of the the New City concept and process that are interesting to me, but perhaps what I’m most curious about is why some can be so successful, while others fail. What are the factors which cause this? What decisions are made that influence the success or failure, and what sociological factors beyond the control of planners influences the success or failure?
Ilsan is quite successful. If you came to this city of half a million residents, you might be surprised to learn it was less than 30 years old, and that nothing existed but a small village when when I first visited the area in 1991, while in the US Army stationed in Korea.
On the other hand, there are large New Cities which feel like ghost towns. They are not empty, but they have not managed to coalesce into a city-type place. They have atmospherics which resemble those of some US suburbs (or exurbs), contrasting only in being much higher density.
I was thinking about this recently, having watched on the TV a fairly in-depth report on a New City being built down near Gwangju, the other Korean metropolitan area that I have called home. The report first caught my attention because the name of the city is 빛가람 [bitgaram], which struck me as a weird name for a New City – it means “Bright Monastery” or “Bright Cathedral” and so what struck me as odd was the apparent religious aspect of the name. I suppose it could be seen as a “Cathedral of Capitalism.”
It is being called “혁신도시” [hyeoksindosi = “Innovation New City”] – the term “innovation” in the name seems to be… an innovation. What are they trying to build? Gwangju has a history of trying to reinvent itself as a high tech city, from its old character as agricultural center and “car town” (it is the original home to KIA motors in that company’s pre-Hyundai merger days, as well as home to the Kumho chaebol, maker of car parts and tires and buses). I have described it as Korea’s Detroit. I’m not sure how accurate that is, but I think there is a reputational aspect that matches up, too.
Bitgaram Innovation New City is being built in the city of Naju, which is Gwangju’s older but much smaller neighbor to the south, but which is now absorbed into the Gwangju metropolis. Naju was one of two capitals of the pre-modern Jeolla province, and dates back to the Baekje kingdom era, I think.
Toponymically (and to digress), the name of the other capital, Jeonju, along with the name Naju, are the origins of the name of Jeolla province, since Naju was originally La-ju (a natural sound change from medieval to modern Korean), and thus Jeon+La = Jeonla->Jeolla. Originally, there were two provinces, Jeonju and Laju (“ju” just means place or province, after all). I have always wondered why, when the modern Korean government decided to split Jeolla, they named them North Jeolla and South Jeolla. Why not just return to Jeon and La (Na)? It would be as if, say, Iowa and Minnesota merged, to form Minnesotiowa, and then split again to form North Minnesotiowa and South Minnesotiowa.
This blog post is rambling a bit.
My real question is, will this New City if Bitgaram be successful, like Ilsan, or less successful, like e.g. Ilsan’s western neighbor, Unjeong? I have been to Unjeong many times, and even have had coworkers and students who live there. But despite the ambitions attached to it, it has so far never evolved into anything more than a bedroom suburb, unlike Ilsan. It’s a bit younger than Ilsan, but that doesn’t explain its failure to develop its own city character – Ilsan had its own city character well-established even 15 years ago, which is Unjeong’s age now. Unjeongians always commute to Ilsan for their city-type activities. I wonder why.
The one trend that I find disturbing is that the newer New Cities seem to lack the commitment to diverse public transit that the older New Cities seemed pretty good at. Thus Unjeong is not built along a subway line (as is the case with Ilsan, really along two lines) but rather off to the side of one. Gwangju’s subway (which is, anyway, a joke) will not connect to Bitgaram, as far as I can tell.
Here is an image of Bitgaram, fished off the internet. It is a “rendering” – not an actual view – the city is still under construction.
[daily log: walking, ]
Some criticism has been leveled at Barack Obama, over the years, for being a perhaps excessively cerebral president. I understand such criticism, but I cannot wrap my head around the vernacular American resistance to the idea of an intelligent president – this is a problem that has puzzled me since my youth.
Anyway, it looks like this tendency is being taken to a new level by Republican candidate Scott Walker, who recently said, in response to a question about how he might handle the Syrian refugee crisis if he were president:
"Everybody wants to talk about hypotheticals; there is no such thing as a hypothetical"
Let me present a hypothetical: are we now ready for a president who is not only anti-intellectual (a la Reagan) but who a priori denies a capacity for abstract thought?
[daily log: walking, 6 km]
In Korea, it's common for people to put their cellphone numbers on small placards or stickers facing outward in the windshields of their cars. The reason for this is that then they can park blocking entrances and driveways, and if someone needs to get in or out, they can simply call to have the person move the car. It's quite logical, if a little bit chaotic, and clearly subject to abuse, but because the Korean social contract is mostly civil, it seems to work out.
Recently I read about a new thing emerging in Somalia, wherein people put their cellphone numbers on their goats. This seems similar, although obviously it's not, in fact, about goats blocking driveways so much as it is about goats getting lost or damaging someone else's property. But it's very fascinating to me that such a trend should emerge in a country like Somalia, which is supposedly a country utterly lacking in a civil social contract. Maybe that's not, in fact, the case?
[daily log: walking, 6 km]
What I’m listening to right now.
Saul Williams, “List of Demands (Reparations).” This song has a reference to the concept of reparations for African-Americans, which has recently seen some revival, especially on the part of the stunningly talented writer, Ta-Nehisi Coates.
Lyrics.
I want my money back, I’m down here drowning in your fat
You got me on my knees praying for everything you lack
I ain’t afraid of you, I’m just a victim of your fear
You cower in your tower praying that I’ll disappear
I got another plan, one that requires me to stand
On the stage or in the street, don’t need no microphone or beat
And if you hear this song, if you ain’t dead then sing along
Bang and strum to this here drum ’til you get where you belong
I got a list of demands written on the palm of my hands
I ball my fist and you gon’ know where I stand
We living hand to mouth, you wanna be somebody?
See somebody? Try and free somebody?
Got a list of demands written on the palm of my hands
I ball my fist and you gon’ know where I stand
We living hand to mouth
Hand to mouth
I wrote a song for you today while I was sitting in my room
I jumped up on a bed today and played it on a broom
I didn’t think that it would be a song that you would hear
But when I played it in my head, I made you reappear
I wrote a video for it and I acted out each part
And then I took your picture out and taped it to my heart
I’ve taped you to my heart, dear girl, I’ve taped you to my heart
And if you pull away from me you’ll tear my life apart
I got a list of demands written on the palm of my hands
I ball my fist and you gon’ know where I stand
We living hand to mouth, you wanna be somebody?
See somebody? Try and free somebody?
Got a list of demands written on the palm of my hands
I ball my fist and you gon’ know where I stand
We living hand to mouth
Hand to mouth
Ecstasy, suffering, echinacea, buffering
We aim to remember what we choose to forget
God’s just a baby and her diaper is wet
Call the police, I’m strapped to the teeth
And liable to disregard your every belief
Call on the law, I’m fixing to draw
A line between what is and seems and call up a brawl
Call on them now ’cause it’s about to go pow
I’m standing on the threshold of the ups and the downs
Call up a truce ’cause I’m about to break loose
Protect ya neck ’cause son I’m breaking out of my noose
I got a list of demands written on the palm of my hands
I ball my fist and you gon’ know where I stand
We living hand to mouth, you wanna be somebody?
See somebody? Try and free somebody?
Got a list of demands written on the palm of my hands
I ball my fist and you gon’ know where I stand
We living hand to mouth
Hand to mouth
I got a list of demands written on the palm of my hands
I ball my fist and you gon’ know where I stand
We living hand to mouth, you wanna be somebody?
See somebody? Try and free somebody?
Got a list of demands written on the palm of my hands
I ball my fist and you gon’ know where I stand
We living hand to mouth
Hand to mouth
[daily log: walking, 6 km]
We were having a debate in my HS classes, on the topic of "restoring the Korean monarchy."
This may seem like a quixotic topic, and it is, a little bit, but it is a sort of leitmotif in Korean media, sometimes – there was a popular TV drama a while back set in a vaguely alternate universe where South Korea was a monarchy. Historically, for most of its long history, Korea has been one or more monarchies in the Sinospheric tradition of "conceptually tributary but de facto independent" kingdoms under the suzerainty of the Chinese emperors.
Anyway, to make the debate more interesting and less of a fairy tale, I focused on the aspect of an implied transition from a presidential system to a parliamentary system of government, since that is generally how monarhies operate in the modern world. We talked about separation of powers, about the seeming higher incidence of authoritarianism and corruption in presidential systems, South Korea's own problematic history of authoritarian presidents and how a parliamentary system might have moderated that or how it might prevent future tendencies in that direction.
In that vein, the students vented their annoyance with the incompetencies of our current dynastic president, Park Geun-hye, the daughter of the 1970s dictator. I made a throwaway line about the methods by which we might choose the new monarch, aside from simply annoiting some descendant of the Yi family that ruled Joseun prior to the Japanese takeover in 1910. In this vein, I mentioned both the Park family of the current president and the Kim family that has been ruling our neighbor to the north for the last 75 years. This was really meant as a joke.
However, one student, Seungyeop, decided to run with it. Seungyeop is one of those types of students that abound in my high level middle-school debate classes: pretty good at English, quite brilliant academically, but not really interested in doing homework. In fact, Seungyeop never does homework, but he can often get away with it in my class, where the main score is based on the quality of one's speeches.
He gave a speech yesterday where he explained, more-or-less cogently, the advantages of making Kim Jeong-eun, North Korea's current dictator, the king of Korea as a part of resotring the monarchy. He said that since he seems mostly interested in the trappings of power, he would be happy for such a figurehead position, but since it would be implemented as a constitutional monarchy, he would be essentially powerless. Thus, this type of restoration could bring about Korean reunification.
His speech is the first in the series of five speeches in the video I posted for the class blog (embedded below).
It's a little bit hard to hear, and as always, keep in mind that these are just middle-schoolers learning English, so I hold them to a fairly low standard on some axes of evaluation. But overall I thought it was a clever argument and it holds together especially well considering he slapped it together in the five minutes before speaking.
[daily log: walking, 6 km]
The monsoon has finally come. The last week has been pretty continuously rainy and grey.
I like this kind of weather. I can feel my mood improving, as contrasted to how I feel when it is hot and sunny, which always just feels oppressive to me.
I'm working hard. My TEPS-M cohort middleschoolers, who normally annoy me greatly, made me laugh yesterday. Somehow we got on the topic of politics. They said we should have a debate about politics. I am actually a bit wary of having debates about politics – the kids are either apathetic or bear the same irreconcilable "culture-war" views as their parents no doubt have, i.e. the evangelicals are Saenuri-dang (Korean Republican analogues) and the rest are Minju-dang (Korean Democrat analogues). Mostly I prefer to focus the debates on specific policies or lifestyle choices.
Somehow they seemed intrigued when I said that a few years back I'd actually had a Korean "presidential debate" in one of my classes. They asked what other topics I'd done. Out of the blue, one student burst out, "Hey kids! Let's have a debate about Park Chung-hee!"
It was in a voice meant to imitate mine.
"Hey kids" is an imitation of the way I speak to them, when I first walk into a classroom. It's a kind of fakey-jokey, super upbeat tone-of-voice phrase that is meant in a vaguely ironic way, that has become part of my classroom "brand," I suppose. Most of my students seem to find it entertaining as it contrasts with my normal tone, and it's quite predictable.
The humor was in combining that cheery introduction with an immediate segue into what could conceivably be a very controversial debate topic – but of the sort of complex, elevated topic material for which I'm probably also known (and dreaded): Korea's notorious dictator, Park Chung-hee.
Anyway, it made me laugh. I hear only silence. Maybe you had to be there?
[daily log: walking in the rain, 6 km]
I was led to this "document 9" (formally "Communiqué on the Current State of the Ideological Sphere") of China's party leadership by a comment thread on an entry at Tyler Cowen's Marginal Revolution blog.
A commenter basically said, "Why do we spend so much time trying to figure out the China Leadership's intentions? Why not take what they say at face value?" with a link to this document. Frankly, this is a very good point. I don't think that anyone with even a limited background in the history of Marxism, Maoism and China could fail to see that the Party leadership isn't really hiding anything here.
Whether one agrees with it or not, an exposure to Marxist thought on questions of ideology, dialectics and theories of history seems like the sine qua non as regards commenting intelligently on the China question. I think the Chinese leadership take a very long view of history, from a still unrepentantly marxian position, and their embrace of "capitalism" is merely a means to an end. The preamble to the last section of the document reads:
Historical experience has proven that failures in the economic sphere can result in major disorder, and failure in the ideological sphere can result in major disorders as well. Confronting the very real threat of Western anti-China forces and their attempt at carrying out Westernization, splitting, and “Color Revolutions,” and facing the severe challenge of today’s ideological sphere, all levels of Party and Government, especially key leaders, must pay close attention to their work in the ideological sphere and firmly seize their leadership authority and dominance.
They intend to dance with the devil and step on his toes and force him out of the dance competition.
[daily log: walking, 6 km]
The Australian economist John Quiggin, who writes at a blog called Crooked Timber which I often peruse, had a slightly oblique discussion of a text by Thucydides (the Melian dialogue) which I very vaguely recall once reading (or attempting to read). His summary is interesting, vis-a-vis drawing an eerie (and ironic) kind of parallel between the situation in Classical Greece, with Athens as hegemon within the Delian League, and the situation in modern Europe, with Germany as hegemon within the European Union.
He concludes with the quote I have used as my title on this post, which I guess is a kind of anonymous Greek proverb which was first recorded in Sophocles' Antigone (one of my favorite classical plays, I guess, though I most prefer Jean Anouilh's modern adaption, which neverthless stays quite loyal to the thematics… and speaking of Germans behaving hegemonically).
[daily log: walking, 6 km]
Actually, no. Let's think this through. Where does electricity come from? Solar or hydro? Great, buy a Nissan Leaf. But most electricity comes from coal. So, in that case… burning gasoline is better for the environment.
Here's the article that led me to think about this.
[UPDATE (a few hours later): I had written "Prius" but it occurred to me that this is ambiguous, since a Prius is technically a hybrid, not an electric car, and thus is just a new model for burning gasoline. I have altered the title and post to reflect this – but there's no majorly iconic electric vehicle, yet. I chose the Nissan Leaf because it's one I happened to have seen recently here in Korea.]
[daily log: walking, 6 km]
On my work blog's admin page, hosted on the naver.com website, which is Korean, they will put up these little "prompts" to suggest blog topics, in Korean.
Yesterday, on June 25th, appropriately, they had the question:
6.25전쟁과 같은 전쟁이 다시 일어나지 않으려면, 어떻게 해야 할까요?
Roughly, it asks, "How can we avoid another war like the 6-25 war?" ("6-25 war" is what South Koreans call the Korean war, since it started with the North's surprise attack on June 25th, 1950).
The answer that popped into my mind immediately was: "Just keep doing the same thing that's been done."
Why such a flippant answer? Well, it's worked for 60 years, right?
I would characterize the South's approach to the North with the oxymoronic phrase "vigilant disregard." Vigilant because the Korean military is large, well-trained (relatively speaking), and well-supported (e.g. financially, by the U.S. alliance, etc.). Disregard, because, despite this vigilance, there is little coherence or intentionality to be found in the broader policy portfolio. It is mostly reactive, but tempered by a strong conservative tendency to hove to the status quo and avoid provocation. I've always said that South Korea seems to mostly see the North the way a Korean family would regard a mentally ill elderly relative. Something to be embarassed by, to try to ignore, but also to be controlled as best possible.
Anyway, I answered that naver blog question here on this here blog thingy.
[daily log: walking, 6 km]
"I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes" – Winston Churchill, in 1920, on Iraq.
I guess Saddam took his cue from Churchill. Beware whom you elevate to hero status.
[daily log: walking, 6 km]
