The topic of immigration periodically looms in my political imagination. I have never done much about it, however. I once tried to build a website on the topic of “open borders,” but my own inertia doomed that effort (the site only lived about a year).
I’m pretty sure I wrote somewhere, but I can’t find where, that I have sometimes thought that the issue of immigration and open borders will be a new kind of abolition movement. I was gratified to read this post at a blog called spottedtoad, which appears to argue the same idea, more cogently than I ever could. It may fade, but at least at the moment, the issue is becoming more noticeable and more politically polarizing in the US. This is not dissimilar to the way abolitionism took hold of political discourses in the first half of the 19th century.
In the meantime, I leave with that same Herman Melville quote I’ve cited before:
“If they can get here, they have God’s right to come.”
Run The Jewels, "Nobody Speak." Anyway I found the video entertaining.
Lyrics (NSFW).
[El-P] Picture this I'm a bag of dicks Put me to your lips I am sick I will punch a baby bear in his shit Give me lip I'ma send you to the yard, get a stick Make a switch I can end a conversation real quick
[Killer Mike] I am crack I ain't lyin', kick a lion in his crack I'm the shit, I will fall off in your crib, take a shit Pinch your momma on the booty Kick your dog, fuck your bitch Fat boy dressed up like he's Santa And took pictures with your kids
[El-P] We the best We will cut a frowny face in your chest, little wench I'm unmentionably fresh, I'm a mensch, get correct I will walk into a court while erect, screaming "Yes! I am guilty motherfuckers, I am death"
Hey, you wanna hear a good joke?
[Refrain] Nobody speak, nobody get choked
[El-P] Get running Start pumping your bunions, I'm coming I'm the dumbest, who flamethrow your function to Funyuns Flame your crew quicker than Trump fucks his youngest Now face the flame, fuckers, your fame and fate's done with
[Killer Mike] I rob Charlie Brown, Peppermint Patty, Linus and Lucy Put coke in the doobie, roll woolies to smoke with Snoopy I still remain that dick grabbin' slacker that spit a loogie Cause the toter of the toolie'll murder you friggin' Moolies Fuck outta here, yeah
[Refrain] Nobody speak, nobody get choked, hey Nobody speak, nobody get choked, hey, hey Nobody speak Nobody speak
[El-P] Only facts I will shoot a Baby duck if it quacks, with a Luger Top billin', come cops some villainous shots is blocked, shipped out, and bought, and y'all feeling it El-P killin' it, Killer Mike killin' shit
[Killer Mike] What more can I say? We top billin' it Valiant without villainy Viciously foul victory Burn towns and villages Burning looting and pillaging
[El-P] Murderers try to hurt us we curse them and all their children I just want the bread and bologna bundles to tuck away I don't work for free, I am barely giving a fuck away
[Killer Mike] So tell beggin' Johnny and Mommy to get the fuck away Heyyo here's a gun, son, now run, get it the gutterway Live to shoot another day
[Refrain] Nobody speak, nobody get choked, hey Nobody speak, nobody get choked, hey Nobody speak Nobody speak Nobody speak, nobody get choked
Aeromexico's new advertising campaign mocks the new Space Emperor's wall. There is some pretty complex messaging going on.
The final line could be the voice of the typical, hard-working, entirely law-abiding (except for immigration law) Mexican in the US, "al otro lado" for his or her almost culturally obligatory decade of remittances and wealth-building.
Urban planning has always fascinated me. I think if I'd felt more confident and more motivated during my college years, I'd have pursued that as a career.
Perhaps it can be attributed to my somewhat countercultural background, but I have always harbored a great deal of skepticism about what might be termed the US's "typical suburban development model." Recently I ran across a rather stunning indictment of this development model, concluding that not only does it produce fragmented and/or insular communities and excessive energy consumption, but it also is, in strictly financial terms, something like a publicly-sponsored pyramid scheme and utterly unsustainable.
A nation which makes greatness its polestar can never be free; beneath national greatness sink individual greatness, honor, wealth and freedom. But though history, experience and reasoning confirm these ideas; yet all-powerful delusion has been able to make the people of every nation lend a helping hand in putting on their own fetters and rivetting their own chains, and in this service delusion always employs men too great to speak the truth, and yet too powerful to be doubted. Their statements are believed – their projects adopted – their ends answered and the deluded subjects of all this artifice are left to passive obedience through life, and to entail a condition of unqualified non-resistance to a ruined posterity. [emphasis added] – Abraham Bishop.
Bishop was an American Jeffersonian politician (called "Republican" in that Era), abolitionist and orator, who lived 1763-1844. He apparently advocated for gender equality, too. Oddly, the wikithing lacks an article about Bishop, but I found this with some biographical information.
Yesterday, an impeachment process was started against the president of Korea, Park Geun-hye (박근혜).
Perhaps not coincidentally, during my Newton1-M cohort class (4th and 4th graders), after allowing several students to use the Korean-English dictionary on my phone, I found the following message written on the dictionary's search window:
박근혜하야하라 [pak.geun.hye ha.ya.ha.ra]
This means "Park Geun-hye, resign!" (in a very informal register, as used in the recent public demonstrations against the president).
Note that we were not, in any way, discussing the political events – I tend to confine my political class discussions to my middle schoolers. This was essentially a kind of surreptitious message entered for no particular reason.
I asked the kids, "who wrote this on my phone?"
Eric raised his hand, sheepishly. "Park Geun-hye, hiya," he said, waving a hand and exaggerating an "English" pronunciation of the name, making it sound like he was "just saying hi."
One area where I had been willing to give some benefit of the doubt to the new Space Emperor-elect was in whether or not he was actually a racist. I had preferred to imagine that he was cynically manipulating racists by rhetorical means, without himself having strong opinions on the matter. However, blogger Paul Campos makes a point at the Lawyers, Guns & Money blog about the Ben Carson appointment to HUD:
Appointing someone who admits to being completely unqualified for a job, and who also happens to be black, to that very job is exactly what one would expect a racist to do, since that’s a racist’s definition of “affirmative action” in action.
I am no longer able to give benefit of the doubt. This is pure reaction: post Obama, everything swings outrageously the other way. Sad!
Worth noting: apparently the Canadian government's "immigrate to Canada" website has been crashed by excess web traffic. I am definitely going to be working on my Korean language skills – I see a TOPIK (Korean language skills test) test in my future.
What more should I say? This is an awkward morning for the USA.
I have this germ of an idea that I'm going to try to avoid mentioning the victor's name on this here blog.
In personal news, I stayed at my friend Bob's house last night. Curt and Mr Jin stayed at a B&B a block or so away (since Bob's house is a bit small to accommodate so many guests). I'm not clear what exactly our plans are for today, but they might involve Chicago.
I awoke before dawn today – but it's not clear to me if this is a sign of a continued jetlagged state or if, alternatively, in fact it is proof of my adaptation to the time zone, since pre-dawn wakings with subsequent insomnia are a very typical part of my day-to-day existence.
Today is election day, in the US, where I happen to be. With some admitted guilt, I will come out openly and say that I do not intend to vote.
I can justify this in several ways, although I will introduce these justifications with the caveat that I am deeply aware that they are merely that: justifications.
My first justification is that although I am, de jure, a US citizen, in the de facto sense I have become an emigrant. This may be reversed someday – indeed, it's easy for me to imagine various futures where I return, but at the current moment, taking the broadest possible definition democracy and with a notion in mind of whether or not I am a "stakeholder" in the 230 year old US social experiment, I am definitely a fringe case. If offered the opportunity to vote in South Korea, I would be more likely to consider it.
My second justification is that for most of my life I was a third-party voter. I only broke with that tendency when I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. I had a lot of optimism about what Obama might represent, in terms of somehow breaking with the old, terrible habits of the US executive. I have been deeply, gravely disappointed. I don't believe Obama is a bad person, but he clearly was unable to break those old habits, due to systemic inertia and his own conciliatory disposition. As a result, I suffer voter's regret, which is an unpleasant if weirdly abstract emotion. In a rather selfish spirit, I do not wish to experience voter's regret with respect to Clinton, and the "main" third party candidates are quite distasteful this round – Jill Stein is dangerously ignorant about the principals of science and fiscal management, and Gary Johnson is just simply dangerously ignorant about just about everything, as far as I can tell. And it's too painful to even comment on Trump.
My third justification is that the places where I am registered to vote (yes, there are multiple places, which is itself uncomfortable and disconcerting, but where, exactly, should I be registered anyway, given my long non-residency and scattered roots?) are not really "in play" with respect to the national election. Both California and Minnesota are "safely blue" and thus there is hardly a scenario under which a Trump victory could be "my fault." I feel I can abstain, following my conscience, with a clear conscience, so to speak.
So there I am. I am not apathetic – I am deeply interested in and engaged with US politics. Rather, I am not voting on various principles, despite the fact that Minnesota, where I sit right now, would undoubtedly let me vote (it is a same-day registration state). Nevertheless I remain curious as to the outcome, and I urge everyone to vote (or not vote) their consciences.
But try not to vote your "unconscience." That may be the problem that got us to this crossroads.
I ran across the most amazing thing earlier, as I surfed online a little bit in my predawn insomniac state. I discovered that my friend and former work colleague, Jay Neuman, has a blog. Somehow, I had neglected to notice this before. Jay is a committed Christian, yet he has written what in my opinion is one of the best ethically-oriented evaluations that I have seen of the Faustian choices presented by the current situation. I recommend reading it – even if you are not Christian.
Happy voting.
Today we drive to southern Wisconsin. We can listen to the elections on the radio or something.
As the evolving scandal around President Park Geun-hye and her "spiritual advisor" Choi Soon-sil continues to dominate the media, I have ambivalent feelings.
On the one hand, this reminds me a little bit of the potential scandal that never really took root around Nancy Reagan's reliance on astrologers. Imagine if it had turned out that there was documented evidence that Nancy's astrologers had been writing policy speeches for Ronald Reagan (and maybe this was true, but there was never any "smoking gun"), and that said astrologers had made billions of dollars through extortion and influence peddling to business leaders.
On the other hand, there is an element of "moral panic" about this scandal that is quite distasteful to me. My concern lies at the intersection between certain very conservative social forces in Korean society (linked to both Evangelical Christianity and traditional, Joseon-Era Neoconfucianism) and the long-standing cultural habit of condemning and persecuting the ancient shamanistic practices which are the substrate of Korean culture. These practices go under the rubric of "Muism" and have been persecuted and suppressed for at least 1500 years, since Buddhism became the state religion in the Three Kingdoms Era. Yet they remain quite strong, and they have always been connected to a kind of Korean "counterculture" that seems have an almost hippie-pagan flavor (in the sense familiar to westerners) yet is also deeply traditional. It helps to imagine Korean hillbillies.
I despise that this scandal is serving to reinforce the "superstition against superstition" that especially Evangelicals use to condemn nonbelievers. Yet the behavior of the President and her friend, in this context, has been self-evidently reprehensible. This is the sort of thing that could serve to increase the Christian right's stranglehold on South Korea's polity, if carefully spun.
As I've said before, there are positive ways that Christianity's weird, unprecedented takeover of South Korea during the last 50 years has enabled the culture to leapfrog out of its most xenophobic and caste-driven tendencies that were its premodern heritage, but I have always seen Muism and Buddhism, as well as Korea's many vibrant, unconventional syncretistic cults, such as they remain, as important counterweights to the excessive "holier-than-thou" moralizing and intolerance emanating from the mostly American-influenced, Pentecostal churches.
Actually, I find the odd links between one of those bizarre cults, 영세교 ([yeongsegyo], called "Church of Eternity" in English) and the Park dynasty (father dictator and daughter current president) fascinating. They might lend some insight into the Parks' odd relationship with the Korean establishment. That "church," founded by a former Buddhist monk, seems to be equal parts Christianity, Buddhism, and Muism. The daughter of the founder is the one at the center of the current scandal.
We are basically finished with our current Speaking class textbook. We can't bother ordering a new book, since in December they'll be transitioning to the next year-level (i.e. HS3), which will involve a new book – getting a new book for just a month and a half is impractical. Obviously, I didn't do very well budgeting out the progress in the book, which was meant to last a full year.
"So, what are we going to do?" I asked.
Most classes of 8th graders would desultorily propose something in the vein of "play" or"nothing" - and it would be left up to me to come up with something more academic.
These kids, however, proposed, "Let's have debate class." Most them had me for debate in prior years, but the 8th grade curriculum as currently defined doesn't include much debate.
"Wow, so you guys like debate?" I asked.
They did.
"So what should we debate about?" I asked.
Most classes of 8th graders, presented with this choice, would immediately suggest debating something pretty banal: who is the best current pop idol on the k-pop scene, or something in the vein of my absurd debate topics.
One girl, however, proposed, "Let's debate about president Park and the Choi Soon-sil thing." I was, in fact, pretty ignorant about this. I was vaguely aware that some new scandal was exploding around the South Korean President, but I didn't know the details. So we spent some time with them filling me in on what was going on.
Once I understood what was going on, I offered some possible debate propositions.
The one we settled on was: "President Park's recently revealed behavior is impeachable." We had to make a digression while I tried to explain the concept of impeachment, but, to my surprise, they knew what this was – I guess it's something they cover in civics class in their public school.
They're pretty sharp 8th graders – I already knew this. But what I like most about those kids is that they are so interested in learning stuff and thinking about their world. This is what I strive for when I talk about student-driven learning.
Of course, once we'd settled the debate proposition and I assigned some speeches for the next speaking class, they wanted to play. So I let them do that for the last 15 minutes. They're clever - they know if they please me with showing interest in academic topics, they'll get latitude on free time during class, too.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
병진 = advancing side-by-side – this is the label for the new, not-military-first policy initiative by NK's KJU
"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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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, 7km]
