I wasn't really intending to post more on this topic, but this video at BBC is absolutely the point I was trying to make in my previous post. Watch it (please), and marvel: despite North Korea's rhetoric, 30 minutes north of where I live people are still commuting back and forth across the NK border. That's the kind of war anyone can live with, and I'm inclined to agree with the reporter's citation: unless and until this border crossing closes, I'm going to take the bellicose rhetoric with a few grains of salt.
Category: Politics, Economics & Current Affairs
Caveat: alone in austere emeraldry
The Nigerian author Chinua Achebe has passed away. I vividly recall reading his novel Things Fall Apart – it was something assigned in a university class of some kind, but it had an impact on me, and I returned to it and reread it many years later and it will pop into my mind sometimes. It's a great book.
I always felt some ambivalence about Achebe as a personality (as opposed as an author) because, like so many great authors from poor, post-colonial countries, he seemed to exist mostly in Europe and the US. I'm thinking in terms of the great Latin Americans whom I loved reading so much, but all of whom were living lives as academics in US universities: Carlos Fuentes, Octavio Paz, Gabriel García Márquez, Isabel Allende. Achebe was the same – he lived in New York and New England for most of the second half of his long life [UPDATE: shortly after posting this I ran across a very interesting meditation on Achebe that pursues this aspect in depth – it's not at all flattering to one's perception of Achebe, however].
I don't mean this despectively. It is simply a reality that talented writers will gravitate to places where they can be well paid for their talents. But it creates a certain ambivalence vis-a-vis their having crafted narratives critical of colonialism and neocolonialism.
… enough of uncharitable ranting.
What's undeniable is that Achebe was a great writer – one of the greatest of the 20th century.
A poem of his:
Pine Tree in Spring
(for Leon Damas)
Pine tree
flag bearer
of green memory
across the breach of a desolate hourLoyal tree
that stood guard
alone in austere emeraldry
over Nature’s recumbent standardPine tree
lost now in the shade
of traitors decked out flamboyantly
marching back unabashed to the colors they betrayedFine tree
erect and trustworthy
what school can teach me
your silent, stubborn fidelity?
Caveat: Outraded
In the past, I have actually been [broken link! FIXME] quite [broken link! FIXME] fascinated by Intrade. And it wasn't a small thing – it struck me as a "next big thing." But apparently as of last week, Intrade is out of business – just go to their homepage. I wonder what happened? No doubt something scandalous, right?
What I'm listening to right now.
Muse, "Animals."
Caveat: Think, everyone
My fifth-grade student who goes by Clara wrote about political economy in her essay book yesterday. I haven't corrected her errors – she's a fairly low level of ability but her meaning is clear. As usual, I type this exactly as written, not correcting grammar or spelling mistakes.
Hello my name is clara. Today I talk about rich pay much more taxes than usuall people today. The first reason is "who have much more money." Think, everyone. Usuall people have much more money? "No." Yes, no is right. Why? Rich dad gives money to his son. Then, Rich dad's son, son's son, that son's son… sons are rich. Usuall people same to rich? No! that is rich pay taxes. thank you.
Caveat: Hiring an Argentinian
Some additional, tangential thoughts on the new Pope.
First, a reader comment reported at Andrew Sullivan's blog: "Best comment on the new pope that I’ve heard so far: Pope Francis – because when you need to hide a German, hire an Argentinian." Brutal and prejudicial, but historically justified, perhaps.
But also, yesterday – the day after the new Pope was announced, I received an email flyer from a Spanish bookstore website I get emailings from periodically, announcing a book about the new Pope. That is fast turnaround: about 24 hours for publication. This is what the internet is doing to publishing. This is the future.
Unrelatedly… but rather nostalgically…
What I'm listening to right now.
Bee Gees, "Love You Inside Out."
Caveat: That Popey-Changey Thing…
To paraphrase Palin (I think it was her): How's that popey-changey thing working out for ya? I couldn't resist.
Habrá Papa argentino. ¿Que significa eso? San Francisco de Asisi fue partidario de la humildad. ¿Sería posible que habrá humildad en el Vaticano? No soy católico, pero hubo un momento en mi juventud, viviendo en América Latina, cuando me ocurrió la idea seria de convertirme – estuve bajo la influencia de la teología de la liberación de Leonardo Boff. Al fin y al cabo, no aguantaba la fantasía. Este nuevo Papa fue parte de la retroguardia en contra de la teología de la liberación en los años 70. No me suena bien…
Caveat: modernity causes suicide because it commodifies individuals
There's an excellent series over at the Ask a Korean website about South Korea's stunningly high suicide rate. The blogger there, known by the name "The Korean," generally starts in a humorous vein but his posts often pursue serious topics analytically.
His observation, that I wasn't really aware of, is that the Korean suicide problem is a recent development – very recent: post 1997 (which was a transformative date in Korean history because of the IMF Asian financial crisis of that year). Up until then, Korea's rate was lower than would be predicted based on other socio-economic factors. This is why, he eventually explains, culturalism is not a good explanation for the problem.
Considering that The Korean blogger is, in fact, a lawyer working in DC (according to his online bio), he makes a pretty trenchant observation:
"What
is it about modernization that causes suicide? Modernity comes with
capitalism and individualism, which travel hand in hand. Reduced to its
core (and thus risking gross over-generalization,) modernity causes
suicide because it commodifies individuals."
Caveat: as their good sovereign pleasure dictates
One (very) political blogger I like to read goes by the name Michael J. Smith at a blog entitled Stop Me Before I Vote Again. I'm not sure if his name is a pseudonym or his real name, and one thing is certain: I often don't agree with him. But he has a very biting and incisive style, he is a stunningly good writer, and is a genuine radical. He was offering up a paean to the recently deceased Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and made the following observation:
"Democracy, on any informed understanding of the term, is the negation of ‘rights’. Democracy means that the people rule. They give rights, and they take them away, as their good sovereign pleasure dictates. If you’re really into ‘rights’, you have no use for democracy; and vice versa." – [from blog post here].
I have been trying to wrap my mind around what this means, but my gut feeling is that he is, in fact, on to something important. There is most definitely a tension (not to use a stronger term like dilemma or – god forbid – dialectic) between the field of discourse we call "democracy" and that which we call "human rights." Perhaps if I was better read in Marxism I'd find his remark to be a truism (in that context, anyway), but I think it's more valuable to remove it from that probable origin and confront it head-on, without so much theoretical baggage.
Democracy, at least in the modern, globalist, bourgeois conception prevalent today, is clearly at odds with the "rights" of minorities within democracies, and at odds with the rights of everyone excluded from given "democratic" polities – cf. the US government's attitude, on evidence, toward the rights of Pakistanis living in tribal areas, or toward Mexicans on the wrong side of the border who have failed to jump through previously established bureaucratic hoops. Et cetera.
Caveat: Preppers and TEOTWAWKI
I learned a new term, recently: "Prepper."
A prepper is someone who essentially makes a hobby of preparing for doomsday or the apocalypse. They like to worry about TEOTWAWKI ("The end of the world as we know it"). We used to call the severe cases of this mode of social (or anti-social) behavior "survivalists" (and in wikipedia, for example, the article "prepper" redirects to "survivalism"), but this new term seems to be more inclusive of people who have survivalist tendencies but may not be as extreme in their efforts or interpretation. The concept of prepper takes a thread traditional American frontier survivalism and knits it together with the kind of clubby, fuzzy-warm, after-work enthusiast style of hobbies like scrapbooking or homebrewing. Take a look at this prepper website, which not only tells how to start a fire using three distinct, non-technology-dependent methods and how to survive the inevitable currency collapse, but also has apple pie recipes.
The thing is, if you look at the movement broadly (and not just at that crazy website, which is just an example), there are clearly a lot of preppers in the US, and even in the world. There are people I know in my current workplace who have the mentality of American preppers – they think the end of the world is nigh, and this influences their lifestyle and behavior.
Is it perhaps derivative or connected to all the millenarianism circulating in Christian evangelical circles, which the US and Korea share culturally, these days? Yet even in my own very non-Christian evangelical family, I can point to a half dozen family members which strong "prepper" tendencies – in some cases very strong. Even I have inclinations that way, though in my case I don't really act on them – instead, in my own case, the "prepper" tendencies are expressed in my "minimalist" lifestyle, perhaps, and what's missing is any interest or obsession with TEOTWAWKI, as the preppers like to call it.
But there's something more going on.
Caveat: 박근혜 대통령 취임
Korea inaugurated a new president today. I have ambivalent feelings about Ms Park, but I really don't see how she could do worse than Lee Myung-bak's charmless tenure, and I have come to respect the process whereby she became president – it's certainly no less democratic than what we have in the US – not that that's necessarily saying very much.
There was an interesting article at the Ask a Korean blog, ranking the past presidents of South Korea. Despite his dictatorial grip on power for almost 2 decades, Park Chung-hee, the current new president's father, received a high ranking, mostly because he propelled South Korea from "poorest of poor" to "Asian tiger" in a generation. I can see the logic of that. At the end of that article, the Korean (as the author of the blog idiosyncratically likes to call himself, always in the third person) remarks that depending on historical circumstance, Ms Park has the possibility of ending up near the top of that list, too. Arguably, that's true for any leader stepping into leadership, at any time, but I get his point – she seems to have a lot of potential to be a great president, but also just as much potential to be a sort of climax of Saenuri (conservative party) mediocrity, too (which is to say, 2MB [Lee Myung-bak] 2.0).
The Korea Herald posted a translation of her inaugural speech, which I read. It's a long speech, but here's a part that stood out for me, given that I work in Korean education, currently.
Fellow Koreans,
No matter how much the country advances, such gains would be meaningless if the lives of the people remained insecure.
A genuine era of happiness is only possible when we aren’t clouded by the uncertainties of aging and when bearing and raising children is truly considered a blessing.
No citizen should be left to fear that he or she might not be able to meet the basic requirements of life.
A new paradigm of tailored welfare will free citizens from anxieties and allow them to prosper in their own professions, maximize their potentials, and also contribute to the nation’s development.
I believe that enabling people to fulfill their dreams and opening a new era of hope begins with education.
We need to provide active support so that education brings out the best of an individual’s latent abilities and we need to establish a new system that fosters national development through the stepping stones of each individual’s capabilities.
There is a saying that someone you know is not as good as someone you like, and someone you like is not as good as someone you enjoy being with.
The day of true happiness will only come when an increasing number of people are able to enjoy what they learn, and love what they do.
The most important asset for any country is its people.
The future holds little promise when individual ability is stifled and when the only name of the game is rigid competition that smothers creativity.
Ever since childhood, I have held the conviction that harnessing the potential of every student will be the force that propels a nation forward.
Our educational system will be improved so that students can discover their talents and strengths, fulfill their precious dreams and are judged on that bases. This will enable them to make the best use of their talent upon entering society.
There is no place for an individual’s dreams, talents or hopes in a society where everything is determined by one’s academic background and list of credentials.
We will transform our society from one that stresses academic credentials to one that is merit-based so that each individual’s dreams and flair can bear fruit.
It goes without saying that protecting the lives and ensuring the safety of the people is a critical element of a happy nation.
The new government will focus its efforts on building a safe society where women, people with disabilities, or anyone else for that matter, can feel at ease as they carry on with their lives, no matter where they are in the country.
We will build a society where fair laws prevail rather than the heavy hand of power and where the law serves as a shield of justice for society’s underprivileged.
It's also remarkable that someone considered to be the Korean equivalent of a Republican would offer such a spirited (and well-argued) defense of the welfare state. But isn't it always the case that in truth, conservatives in most economically advanced countries are typically somewhere to the left of the US's Democrats?
Caveat: Are You a Laissez-er or a Faire-er?
"Most
of the smart people I know want nothing to do with politics. We avoid
it like the plague—like Edge avoids it, in fact. …We expect other
people to do it for us, and grumble when they get it wrong. We feel that
our responsibility stops at the ballot box, if we even get that far.
After that we're as laissez-faire as we can get away with. … What
worries me is that while we're laissez-ing, someone else is faire-ing." –
Brian Eno (Musician/Composer)
I like this quote partly just for the way he innovates linguistically with the French phrase laissez-faire.
What I'm listening to right now.
Talking Heads, "Listening Wind." (Produced by – guess who? – Brian Eno).
Caveat: 50 States
This map is intended to be thought provoking and/or simply as art – it's not a real political project. But I really like things like this – I call this category of things "speculative geopolitics."
If I were doing this, I would take it another step, and imagine if the borders with Canada and Mexico didn't exist – if they were included and we could compose something taking the 96 North American 2nd order polities [51 (US States + DC) + 32 (Mexican States + DF) + 13 (Canadian Provinces and Territories)] and making them even by population or by land area: maybe 100 polities. What could be done?
Just daydreaming, I guess. Certainly not meant as a political project, either. It's just interesting.
Caveat: What is the morality…?
Ta-Nehisi Coates, at That Atlanic, waxes passing eloquent as is his wont on the topic of torture vs the drone-war:
… The president is anti-torture — which is to say he thinks the water-boarding of actual confirmed terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was wrong. He thinks it was wrong, no matter the goal — which is to say the president would not countenance the torture of an actual terrorist to foil a plot against the country he's sworn to protect. But the president would countenance the collateral killing of innocent men, women and children by drone in pursuit of an actual terrorist. What is the morality that holds the body of a captured enemy inviolable, but not the body of those who happen to be in the way?
I present the quote above not entirely in full context – there are other things Coates said that I don't agree with as much. But this paragraph struck to the core of my discomfort with the obvious – to me – fundamental bushcheneyism of Obama's national security policies. Since the main reason I supported Obama in 2008 was his repudiation of Bush's post-ninelevenism, my disappointment, at this point, is complete.
Caveat: Crazy Uncle Neighbor
Well, I've lived in South Korea during most of North Korea's nuclear career. They tested another one.
Each time they do one of these tests, I can't help but reflect for a moment how bizarre the whole thing is – South Korea is this prosperous, moderately well-adjusted OECD member nation, but they have this neighbor, you see… a crazy uncle, no less, who throws rocks at passing cars and sits in his yard playing with his gun collection and shooting targets in his kitchen. Further, everyone knows he beats his children and locks them in the basement, and he comes around asking for handouts every few months because he's run out of money.
What do you do with a crazy uncle neighbor like that?
Caveat: Giving Speeches
I'm teaching a lot of debate classes, these days: more, by almost an order of magnitude, relative to previous terms at Karma. And I make video of all my students' speeches. And I evaluate the speeches and give scores. This is a laborious process, and part of why I'm feeling overwhelmed with work. But I have decided it's a really great way to get middle schoolers actually talking in English class. The combination of natural adolescent reticence on the one hand combined with the horrifying discomfort of speaking a foreign language they don't feel confident with, on the other, means that getting middle school English students to actually talk is about as easy as pulling teeth from a chicken. But if you turn on a video camera and tell them it's a test, they'll stand up at the podium, shaking and quaking, and give their damnedest. It's a bit coercive, relative to my most preferred methods, but overall I'm pleased with how well it works.
Here's one of my favorite classes, giving some speeches on the debate proposition: "Immigration to South Korea should be encouraged." They complained that this topic was difficult, but they all said it was interesting, too.
As a bonus, this video has a complex connection to an earlier blog post: I'll have to give a door prize if anyone actually identifies the connection. I don't know if I have any blog readers loyal or attentive enough to do this. So this is a kind of stealth-test.
Caveat: Filibusters Per Dollar
Blogger Michael J. Smith is, as usual, scathingly precise in his analysis of the alleged "filibuster reform" failure in recent US Senate activity. He writes,
It’s a question of supply and demand. If getting something through
the Senate takes sixty votes instead of fifty, the marginal vote becomes
that much more valuable.Econ 101.
Thus none of the senators have an economic interest in surrendering the filibuster as currently practiced and configured.
Caveat: Democracy Demo
This is such a phenomenally awesome video that I had to post it immediately having found it.
데모그라시:데모, from studio shelter.
It’s a little bit “late” – the South Korean elections have passed. It’s intended to be a sort of “get out the vote” thing, I think, showing how relevant and important the elections were.
I laughed a lot at the bit where ghost of Park Chung-hee (the game lists his character as Takaki Masao, his Japanese name, which is symbolically very significant) throws the baby off the tank and the baby becomes Park Geun-hye (the new president-elect, now).
Caveat: On Paywalls and Washing Machines
So one of the blog websites I most frequently visit, Andrew Sullivan’s Dish, is apparently implementing some kind of “leaky paywall” and is hoping readers will pay for content. As I’ve stated before, I’m not opposed to paying for content, but most implementations of pay-for-content tend to piss me off, not because they’re requesting money but because they do so in a pestering or technically inefficient way that requires things like memorizing new passwords and logging on every time I go to the website from a new computer (and my computer is always “new,” because I abhor cookies on my browsers), not to mention the dumb-ass implementations of IP-address-based paywall and metering schemes that more often than not get broken by the very existence of such bizarre internet arcana as an oh-my-god-it’s-South-Korean (!) IP address – such as mine. It is for reasons such as this that I not only ceased to be a regular reader of all the major US newpaper websites (first WaPo, then NYT, and most recently LA Times all broke my access and thus my heart), but in fact essentially boycott them, normally quickly clicking away from even “free content” on their allegedly leaky-paywalled websites when I should happen to naively land on such.
I pay a monthly “membership” for NPR – which is most definitely pay-for-content – but their website and streaming services are technically easy to access and still de facto free, and the feeling I get as a “voluntary” payer-for-content feels more in line with the open-source spirit behind my particular conception of how the web should be. Another example of a “volunteer” website model is the “donate” button some blogs put up: The League of Ordinary Gentlemen and Brain Pickings are examples of this, where I’ve come very close to donating and may do so in the future.
I will be conflicted if I pay for Sullivan’s blog. On the one hand, I do, in fact, derive value from it – even though I don’t always agree with him. I wouldn’t begrudge paying for the content in principle, even given my voluntary “life-of-poverty.” I think many readers on his site are accurate when they say that they read him regularly because he seems to understand the idea of “intelligent debate” about real political issues more than most current media personalities. I tend to attribute it, at least in part, to to that good old Oxbridgian education I reckon lies at his roots – and it’s the same classical rhetorical tradition that I attempt to imbue when I teach debate to my middle-school students.
I suspect my most likely response will be a) pay for the content, initially, because I value Sullivan’s voice, but then b) gradually decline in visits and time spent on the site, because of annoyances with the technical aspect of having to be a paying member where usernames and passwords must constantly be resubmitted (again, because my computers don’t do cookies because I’m a bit of a security freak), and finally c) ceasing to pay for the membership because I’ve stopped visiting the website.
I’m going to try emailing a link to this blog post to the Sully-blog team, in hopes of my voice allowing them to consider some of the issues raised – though in the past my efforts to communicate with the Sully-blog have been at best a mixed bag, unlike the usually rave reviews for reader-communication and dialogue as reported on his site.
And with all that said, I’ll change the subject completely. This kid plays a mean washing machine.
This embedded video is, appropriately, courtesy Sullivan’s Dish. Just remember – music (and art) is where you find it.
Caveat: canada(electron) = neutrino
I’d heard of people who don’t believe in Belgium before, but not believing in Canada was new to me. This blog entry at Crooked Timber was stunningly hilarious.
The author writes how he doesn’t believe in Canada. It’s great writing and great satire.
Even many of the comments, following, were brilliant. I laughed a lot at the joke that goes:
Q: How do tell the difference between a Canadian and an American?
A: Ask him a question about American history. If he knows the answer, he’s a Canadian.
And, I especially liked the fractal theory of Canada, by a commenter who goes by the handle of Don Cates. It goes something like this (I will quote from the comment at length, hopefully I will be forgiven, it is sheer brilliance – note that it’s not just Canada-humor, but math-humor, which may be lost on some readers):
Given a community A and an adjacent community C, such that A is prosperous and populous, and C is less populous and prosperous, and nonreciprocal interest of C in the internal affairs of A, often C will need ego compensation by occaisional noisy and noisome display of its superiority over A. In this case C is said to be the _canada_ of A, C = canada(A).
For example, it has been previously established that
canada(California) = Oregon
canada(New York) = New Hampshire
canada(Australia) = New Zealand
canada(England) = ScotlandThe Fractal Theory of Canada.
For all A there exists C such that
C = canada(A)
For example,
canada(USA) = Canada
canada(Canada) = Quebec
canada(Quebec) = Celine DionIt would appear that the hierarchy would bottom out an individual.
However, an individual is actually a community of tissues, tissues of cells, cells of
molecules, and so forth down into the quantuum froth.canada(brain) = pineal gland
canada(intestines) = colon
…
canada(electron) = neutrino
Speculation: what is x, if x = canada(South Korea)?
I’m not sure. But I will suggest canada(Seoul) = Ilsan.
Meanwhile, this photo:
I took the photo at Morris, Manitoba, November, 2009.
Caveat: The Ajummocracy Comes Out
I coined the word “ajummocracy” a while back in this blog. I think today is a good day to return to it – because now South Korea has an ajumma for president – although Park Geun-hye breaks the stereotype in many ways: most importantly, she breaks the stereotype by becoming president, rather than just running things behind the scenes.
I was confident enough in my prediction that she would win to have published that prediction. My prediction was based mostly on following the news, and the atmospherics of my classroom discussions of politics with my middle-school students. I find the electoral map exactly matches the prediction I had made in my own brain, too – not that anyone cares. I think the electoral map is very interesting – I’ve written about that before too.
I want to be clear that I didn’t “support” Park, however. Most of my coworkers are either disturbingly apolitical (“what, me vote?”) or else vocally liberal (and therefore they voted for the opposition, Moon Jae-in). Several of them were rivetted by following the election returns on their web-browsers last night, and they were moaning and crying and gnashing their teeth. “Korean people are so stupid,” one of them remarked. Another said, “There are too many old people voting.” As you can see by these remarks, Korean electoral politics aren’t that different from in US: people get very partisan, and the tropes are similar.
I don’t really think it’s my place to say which candidate I personally prefer – it’s not my country. But I will say I think each of the candidates offered some important things. Park’s election is ground-breaking in so many ways: she’s a woman, she’s the daughter of an asssassinated dictator, she’s a leader of a conservative party but she’s made several quite progressive proposals, she’s unmarried – this last may be more surprising than the fact that she’s a woman.
So in February, Park will return to the Blue House – the home where she grew up in the 1960’s and 70’s. Can you imagine entering the presidential mansion, as president, and recognizing and remembering a closet where you may have played hide and seek when you were 9 years old? That seems novelistic, to me – psychologically interesting.
I’ll be intrigued to see how this plays out. I’m sure I’ll be disappointed – I almost always am, in politics.
Caveat: 20 Children
I read recently that 20 children die every hour in Afghanistan from easily preventable health problems. I’m sure many other countries are similar and even much worse, but I specifically mention Afghanistan because the US has a major and specific commitment to that country.
There is nothing wrong with mourning the dead. There is nothing wrong with mobilizing political action (e.g. gun control) in reaction to tragedy. But why are the deaths of 20 children in Connecticut an imputus for such action, while the deaths of 20 children in Afghanistan not? Is it because of how far away they are? I think Hawaii isn’t that much farther from Afghanistan than it is from Connecticut, yet I suspect Hawaiians are deeply fixated on the events at Newtown, but not so much by the events in Afghanistan. Is it a matter of shared nationality? Why does shared nationality, in a nation as culturally diffuse as the US, really mean that much? Is it a matter of shared government responsibility? In what way is our government NOT responsible for political and legal conditions in Afghanistan, in this day and age?
I’m making no claim of moral superiority. I suffer the human weaknesses of selfishness and narrowness of vision as much as any person. But I find something distasteful and even morally repugnant in the elevation of these deaths – that is currently obsessing our media – over so many other deaths that occur without any trace in the media, and where a great deal more could be done to prevent them through political action.
Somewhat relatedly, vis-a-vis the Newtown mediacalypse, but in a very different direction, I also would like to recommend this bit of painful satire: The time has come to arm our 6 year olds.
Caveat: Korean Presidential Debate
I watched the last of the Korean presidential debates. I understood almost zero of what the heck they were talking about. Yet I watched it, nevertheless, because politics is interesting to me even when I don’t understand it. Because I’m weird.
I remember a lot was made of analyzing the body language of Obamney during the US presidential debates, and at the time, I thought, that’s dumb – there are more important things in a debate. I still think it’s dumb for serious political analysis to talk about those things, but in watching this Korean debate, I nevertheless basically did more of that than any actual content analysis, given how poor my Korean listening skills really are. Seriously – when I all I understand are the conjunctions and transition words, the debate is a sort of kabuki where I’m looking for nonverbal signals.
Here’s one thought – Moon (the male, leftistish candidate) needs to get the stick out of his butt. He’s about as charismatic as Michael Dukakis. Uh oh. Did I just say that? Park (the female, rightistish candidate) is much more personable. She will win. Admittedly, I’m bringing other information to the table – not least, the informal polls I periodically conduct in my middle-school classes. Over the years, these have proved remarkably representative of Korean public opinion. I’m not sure of the sociological reasons why tiny samples of Korean middle-schoolers in above-average-income suburbs of Seoul accurately reflect Korean public opinion, I’m just sayin’.
Caveat: A net exporter of culture
Supposedly, Korea overtook Japan as an exporter of "culture." This is a little bit hard to understand or explain – what it means, or how it happened. There's an interesting article at Quartz online. I also remember hearing that South Korea was a net exporter of culture (in monetary terms – video games and music play a big part in these figures).
Caveat: Ah, Retribution… PSY Style
So I suspect I might be able to mention Korean rapper and satirist PSY without too many people not recognizing him, at this point. I was slightly ahead of the curve when I posted about his “Gangnam Style” way back in mid August.
But I recently ran across something interesting. His current social satire is pretty mild. Back in 2003, he as was full-on radical. And angry-radical, too.
In this video, he’s performing a small part in a song called “Anti-American,” which is by the heavy metal band called “NEXT” and he’s smashing a toy model of an American tank. Apparently the song included lyrics such as the following.
싸이 rap : 이라크 포로를 고문해 댄 씨발양년놈들과
고문 하라고 시킨 개 씨발 양년놈들에
딸래미 애미 며느리 애비 코쟁이 모두 죽여
아주 천천히 죽여 고통스럽게 죽여Kill those —— Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives
Kill those —— Yankees who ordered them to torture
Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law, and fathers
Kill them all slowly and painfully
I did not do the translation, and it seems a little bit rough, but I found it online and it’s close enough.
I do not condone, and never condone, violence as a response to violence. I dislike the ease with which people transition from violence they oppose to the idea of retributive violence such as that being espoused by the PSY and his metal-headed friends, above. Having said that, I, too, was deeply troubled by the US behavior in, especially, Iraq. I have long felt that Bush, Cheney, and subsequently the disappointing Mr Obama should be held responsible for war-crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Yemen and Pakistan and other places where drone attacks are still being carried out). So without agreeing with his prescription for retribution, I do agree with PSY’s anger as expressed in 2003. And I actually find him more interesting, because he’s clearly a politically conscious animal – as indicated by both his recent, milder satire as well as this.
[Update added 2012-12-10] I just noticed that blogger Ask A Korean has a very brilliant post on this same topic. Please read it if you’re one of those people who are uncomfortable with PSY’s rhetoric. Or even if you’re not, but just curious about the context of South Korean anti-Americanism.
Caveat: Winter & Elections
I think winter has arrived. I checked my friendly local news website (naver.com) for the weather. Here’s the five-day forecast.
So. Winter.
Yesterday, walking around, I saw banners strung across Juyeop plaza, for the upcoming presidential election (December 19). The two main-party candidates are on the two banners: top is Park Geun-hye (conservative) and below is Moon Jae-in (liberal). The daughter of the dictator versus the former student activist (who was once jailed and barred from politics for his activism). I think either candidate would be a milestone for Korea, and both have their merits. But I predict Park will win.
Let’s see how it plays out.
Caveat: Birthrates and Immigration
There are some direct relationships between birthrates and immigration rates. But it is also true that in economically prosperous countries where there are high levels of prosperity and education (which the US still is, despite recent downturns), immigration can be a substitute for lower birthrates to ensure continued growth. Setting aside sustainability issues (i.e. is growth even the right way to go, in the long, long run), and ethical issues (i.e. my long-declared position that immigration is, in fact, a human right) immigration still becomes a critical factor in determining an advanced economy's health.
Apparently the US birthrate has recently plunged. No one is sure what exactly is going on – it's tied to lower immigration rates (which in turn are tied to the poor economy and high unemployment), but there seem to be other things going on too. Ezra Klein at the Washington Post writes:
A key contradiction in American public opinion is that many people simultaneously think that immigration is bad for the economy (“they’re taking our jobs!”) and that a low birthrate is bad for the economy. But they basically lead to the same economic problem: too many old people, not enough young people.
This really does capture the cognitive dissonance behind anti-immigration thinking.
Caveat: Iceland Let the Banks Go Bust
… and look at Iceland now – the country most heavily striken by the 2008 global financial crisis, and now it’s healthy and happy as can be – not perfect, but it weathered the storm much better than Europe or even the US. Read about it at Washington’s Blog.
That’s a cool picture I found by randomly searching the interwebs, too.
Caveat: no country on Earth
“…there’s no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.” – Barack Obama, November 18, 2012.
He was talking about Israel, vis-a-vis Gaza. However… How’s that work, vis-a-vis the drone war being conducted by the US in countries like Pakistan and Yemen? It’s why I was unable, within the scope of my own moral compass, to vote for the man, despite his accomplishments and the symbolism of it.
Caveat: The Presidential Beetle
The president of Uruguay, José Mujica, drives a 1987 VW Beetle.
It is his only asset. He is also a flower farmer, a vegetarian and an open atheist. Would this be possible in Mexico or the US or South Korea? Um, no. Someday, I want to go back to Uruguay.
“Does this planet have enough resources so seven or eight billion can
have the same level of consumption and waste that today is seen in rich
societies? It is this level of hyper-consumption that is harming our
planet.” – José Mujica
Caveat: The Cultural Trade Surplus
According to an article in the Korean Herald, South Korea posted its first-ever "cultural trade surplus." This is a very interesting perspective. It's interesting to think about. It's interesting that Koreans are interested in it. They take the idea of being successful cultrual imperialists quite seriously, as a component of their "arrival" in the world as a "developed" country.
The idea, basically: Korea now exports more cultural stuff (books, movies, music, etc.) than it imports, on a dollar-value basis. There aren't many countries that do this – the US is the juggernaut, of course; there's probably some others: France, I suspect, and Japan, and Italy. I'd bet on maybe Egypt, actually, and maybe Brazil. But these are just guesses. Completely wild guesses. I'm too lazy to research it. But it's interesting, anyway.
Caveat: Habitual Invaders
Factoid-of-the-day, heard on the radio this morning (last night, US time):
There are only 20 countries in the world that Great Britain has not invaded at some point in history.
Caveat: The Lions and The Hippies
Blogger Ta-Nehisi Coates at The Atlantic website is mediocre when he's bad. But when he's good, he's amazing. Read his post – if only just for the title. It's a bit "triumphalist" vis-a-vis Obamism (specifically, I darkly disagree with Mr Coates with respect to the idea that the extra-judicial assassination of Osama bin Laden was ethical), but for all that, I can hardly fault it. It succeeds in being optimistically inspiring and mildly humorous at the same time. Coates can sometimes write very well.
Caveat: The Reign of the Straw Man
Obama has been re-elected. I think, despite my own failure to have voted for him, this was a foregone conclusion. I did a poll of my ISP7 class (formerly TP cohort) and they predicted that Obama would win without exception, regardless of whether they’d decided to support Obama or Romney in our recently-completed unit on the US election. So none of them were in that bubble who saw the race as close. It wasn’t, at the end – not because Romney and Obama weren’t neck-and-neck in the popular vote – they were – but because the Obama team had long-ago worked out the electoral math they needed (e.g. Ohio, Ohio, Ohio) and they’d worked their message in those states relentlessly.
So how do I feel about it?
I worry about the civil liberties issues – I think Obama’s essential continuation of the Buchcheneyian post-9-11 imperial paradigm is disturbing. I worry about the still-too-aggressive foreign policy – especially the drones and Obama’s alleged “kill list” and Guantanamo.
What I’m definitively not worried about is “creeping socialism” or “Obama-as-dictator” or whatever bogeyman the pseudo-Randian right has gotten so worked up about – despite my own mumblings to the contrary. Obama’s alleged socialism is essentially a straw-man that somehow took on a life of its own and has come back to terrify its creators. Obama is less socialist than your typical European right-winger, and less socialist than Nixon or Eisenhower. I don’t doubt the sincerity of those who believe in this straw-man – but I feel they’re deluded at some level.
There were some interesting results in state-level elections. Most interesting to me was the reported fact that Puerto Rican voters approved statehood for PR. This doesn’t mean, of course, that PR becomes a state: Congress would have to approve, and that seems unlikely as long as Congress is divided (House Republican and Senate Democrat). I have long thought that PR should try to change its status, although I’ve felt neutral about whether that should be toward statehood or independence. But the fact that the vote on the island has swung toward statehood is striking. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.