Of course, being a political junkie, I was looking at The Atlantic website’s liveblog of the election night, on this brisk Wednesday morning in Korea. There was this rather irrelevant picture of Dick Cheney watching the election returns, with the comment below the picture:
“It appears he has a lamp made of antlers.”
Why would this make me laugh hard for a few minutes?
xkcd has one of the most amazing timeline graphics I’ve seen in a long time: the US Congress’ left-right spectrum over time.
xkcd has been moving into more and more interesting and challenging graphics, which I really appreciate. It’s become a reliably thought-provoking series and not just an occasional nerdy snicker.
Two days until the election. I absentee voted. I voted my conscience, I wasn’t able to select the “lesser of two evils.” Oh happy Sunday.
What I’m listening to right now.
Lionrock, “Packet of Peace.” I think it’s a UK dance track from circa 1993.
Andrew Sullivan the sullyblogger has an interesting post about George Romney, Barry Goldwater, and the Nixonian “Southern Strategy” that made the Republicans who they are today. One very striking thing: he includes this fascinating 1976 electoral college map (with post-2000 colors so we can understand it):
Comparing that map to current electoral maps is quite mind-blowing. This shift occurred in my lifetime.
And this quote:
We need only look at the experience of some ideologically oriented
parties in Europe to realize that chaos can result. Dogmatic ideological
parties tend to splinter the political and social fabric of a nation,
lead to governmental crises and deadlock, and stymie the compromises so
often necessary to preserve freedom and achieve progress. – George Romney, 1966.
I had an “off-line” day – I forced myself to not go on my computer until now. And I’m not sure I have figured out my new phone, either – so I had a non-technological day. I’ve been reading a biography of Park Chung-Hee, by Chong-Sik Lee, that my friend Peter loaned to me. It’s really very interesting.
Somewhat discordantly…or at the least, unrelatedly:
What I’m listening to right now.
McGinty, “Farewell to Nova Scotia.”
I only visited Nova Scotia once. I was 11 or 12 years old.
Yesterday, we had our own presidential debate. The debate proposition was: “Barack Obama should be re-elected as president of the U.S.” They divided about evenly between Romney supporters and Obama supporters, after the dust settled (we’ve been working on this all month).
I gave my most advanced students (ISP7 cohort – all 8th graders) many lists of the “Top 10 reasons to vote for X” style, but they crafted and chose their reasons themselves.
I’m amazed at how my kids have handled this debate topic. It’s incredibly difficult, and hard for them to connect to or understand, too – they’re Korean 8th graders, after all: they don’t know or care that much about US politics. I actually expected a much lower level of interest and dedication to this topic than they have shown – I was doing it more as a prelude to the real fun: we’re going to be tackling the Korean presidential election, next, which votes in December.
I voted for Obama mostly as seeking for (hoping
for) a repudiation of George W. Bush. And so the reason I cannot vote
for Obama this time round is because Obama has utterly failed to
repudiate anything Bush did: Guantanamo still open, drone strikes are
more popular than ever, wars only wind down in defence-industry-friendly
ways, the Patriot Act persists, Bush's tax cuts persist, health care
reform (if it must be done) is in the pockets of the insurance industry
(seriously: let's compare Bush's oft-forgotten humongous new drug
entitlement with Obamacare and try to find philosophical differences),
etc., etc., ad infinitum.
There's some unpleasant irony in the fact that the Right (such as it is) accuses Obama of such things as socialism and betraying American values. To the former accusation, Obama is no more socialist than Bush – which is faux socialist, at best, though certainly more socialist (e.g. "big government") than anyone on the right wants to admit. To the latter accusation, well, I would have to say that GW Bush was he who most "betrayed American values" – Obama is merely continuing that trend. Here's an interesting thought: Colin Powell has endorsed Obama, again. Wasn't he, uh, GW Bush's Secretary of State during that most stunning of betrayals of American values, the Iraq invasion?
This
blog post at the website-whose-name-I-hate sums it up most excellently.
It seems I will be voting "third party" this year – back to old ways, I
guess – though I'm a bit hesitant to wear my politics so prominently on my sleave, as posting on this blog inevitably means.
The same blog post points to a somewhat apocryphal quote from Karl Rove, that is utterly stunning in its scope:
We’re
an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while
you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act
again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s
how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of
you, will be left to just study what we do.
Obama will be remembered as only the second emperor of the new imperium that Julius Caesar – ahem, George W. Bush – founded.
O Octavian, O Augustus, O Caesar: Obama.
I haven’t got much to say at the moment, but I found this video funny.
Finally, I have come across a comprehensive yet brief synopsis of the last 5000 years in Palestine/Israel/Levant that really contextualizes the current conflict in historical terms.
This Land Is Mine from Nina Paley on Vimeo. A brief history of the land called Israel/Palestine/Canaan/the Levant.
Who’s-killing-who viewer’s guide here: https://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/
It all underscores the essential inhumanity that lies behind all nationalisms and especially the cultural fantasies that fall under the rubric of revanchism.
I didn't watch the debate between Obama and Romney, live. But, being the politics addict that I am, I have followed it through that innovative new medium called "live blogging." And the consensus seems to be that Obama blew it, and that Romney did quite well. I haven't formed an opinion, except to say that Obama likes to play the "adult in the room," which rarely plays well on TV. Romney, on the other hand, comes off as a patriarch high on meth – which might not be that inaccurate.
So far the best part was when Ta-Nehisi Coates, blogging at The Atlantic, quoted Alan Ginsburg. I feel compelled to do the same, though somewhat more at length:
…I had a vision or you had a vision or he had
a vision to find out Eternity,
who journeyed to Denver, who died in Denver, who
came back to Denver & waited in vain, who
watched over Denver & brooded & loned in
Denver and finally went away to find out the
Time, & now Denver is lonesome for her heroes,
who fell on their knees in hopeless cathedrals praying
for each other's salvation and light and breasts,
until the soul illuminated its hair for a second,
who crashed through their minds in jail waiting for
impossible criminals with golden heads and the
charm of reality in their hearts who sang sweet
blues to Alcatraz,
who retired to Mexico to cultivate a habit, or Rocky
Mount to tender Buddha or Tangiers to boys
or Southern Pacific to the black locomotive or
Harvard to Narcissus to Woodlawn to the
daisychain or grave,
who demanded sanity trials accusing the radio of hyp
notism & were left with their insanity & their
hands & a hung jury…
From his poem, "Howl." If you're not getting it, the segment of the poem is relevant because the debate was held in Denver.
“You’ll never see a squirrel trapped by a syllogism. He might be cornered by a dog, or swept up for breakfast by a hawk, but he won’t have talked himself into his predicament.” – blogger Michael J. Smith (I think that’s a pseudonym). He’s refering, of course, to the false choice that exists within the American political landscape.
"One oddity of the current legal situation remains that the U.S.
government needs some kind of court-approved warrant to intentionally
eavesdrop on the telephone or e-mail of a U.S. citizen suspected of
involvement with Al Qaeda, like Anwar Al-Awlaki. However, using a drone,
a missile, bomb or military raid to intentionally kill that same person
requires no approval from the judicial branch." – Josh Gerstein, in his blog about legal issues.
Talk about understatement.
Meanwhile, despite this (or because of it?) Obama is now at 65% at intrade. The elections market-makers appear to have reached their decision point – only a week ago Obama was under 60% on intrade.
The Los Angeles Times is the last of the major "metro" US newspaper websites that I frequently visit. I'm a news junkie, as many know, and I used to visit 3 or 4 different newspaper websites, daily. But first the Washington Post, and then the New York Times disappeared behind complex paywalls that, as a relatively impecunious international reader, weren't worth my trouble to overcome. That left, basically, only the LA Times. Perhaps my frequent deletion of cookies prevented me from noticing it, or perhaps they've only changed its implementaion recently, but the LA Times' paywall has been popping up more often, now, too. And the consequence is that basically I quit going there, just as I quit going to the NYT or WP in the past.
I'm not opposed to paying for web content in principle – I consume NPR as a donating "sustaining" member, and I've donated to other websites that use that "donor-based" pay model, where I value the content. But I much prefer the "voluntary donor" model of pay-for-content than the "sneakily block some content while teasing other content" model that has become nearly universal at US newspapers, for example. So my reaction to being repeatedly harrassed by these paywall widgets is to go find my web content elsewhere.
I have no idea if my reaction is anywhere near typical. But my own reaction can't be unique. And my consequential, rather low-key boycott of the paywalled media can't be unique, either. And so I am really not surprised at the sustained, long-term decline of US newspapers. Like Hollywood and the music industry vis-a-vis the pirates, this is really an example where the industry itself, in its retrograde movements to protect its traditional revenue streams, is destroying itself rather than adapting.
This is a little bit dated, but it’s some serious anti-war stuff. Minneapolitan Sims (of Doomtree Collective) with Crescent Moon, rapping about Iraq.
What I’m listening to right now.
Sims, “Frontline (feat. Crescent Moon).”
Lyrics.
(…thousand miles from home, an American army is fighting for you…He’ll do everything he can to bring peace to our land through the guiding of God’s hand…take action…this message is brought to you as a public service by your department of wealth and helfare…and crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea)
[Chorus]
Left right, march to your grave site
They got ’em ready on the front line
Every man, woman, and child
For miles, single file
Take a number and they’ll call you when it comes time
The air feels thick not as thick
As the black smoke blockin’ out the sunshine
Speak up boy they can’t hear your voice
And I never had a choice when they hold mine[Crescent Moon]
Yo, you put up your pride
They burn, gonna burn it down
You speakin’ your mind
They turn, gonna turn it down
They feed you their lies
You word, spread and learn it now
Live by it (Learn to smile)
Big riots (Burn awhile)
Thank you for savin’ us savages
Godless primates that never had a prayer
Bottom of the food chain
Around where the maggots is
Trippin’ antagonists
Layer by layer (By layer)
Now do we divide or do we divide?
You don’t believe in evolution
Or improvin’ with time
Now you standin’ there
Talkin’ ’bout what’s truly divine
I know right from wrong
Wherein you need a sign from the sky
Back, back to where you all came
Give me every brother back
Lynched in your God’s name
Your lords gold plated on a chain
Mine’s hangin’ from a tree
By his neck in the rain
Shit, I got blood
To watch the trail of tears
Watch a trail of tears
Survived and kept comin’
How’m I supposed to feel
About honorin’ my country
When I’m lookin’ at they killer
Every time I see a 20
What the fuck is he talkin’ ’bout?
You’re so patriotic
I ain’t fightin’ in a war
I don’t believe dyin’ for
Hide behind that sticker on your bumper
You ain’t sendin’ folded up
flags back home to their mothers
You ain’t overseas fightin’
Dyin’ with the others
You would rather send your neighbors
Teachers, cousins, nephews, little brother
Hidin’ in your mansion in the suburbs
Like your God wouldn’t judge you
Sleepin’ under silk covers
‘Bout to reach Vietnam numbers
While your president leads you
In prayer for his brothers
We ’bout to reach Vietnam numbers
Why don’t you go ahead
Say me a prayer while you’re under[Chorus]
Left right, march to your grave site
They got ’em ready on the front line
Every man, woman, and child
For miles, single file
Take a number and they’ll call you when it comes time
The air feels thick not as thick
As the black smoke blockin’ out the sunshine
Speak up boy they can’t hear your voice
And I never had a choice when they hold mine[Sims]
I believe in the spirit
And the feathered serpent
But never in the curtain
Words sown by a sermon
In the service of your churches
T-t-t-tighten up the wire
Turnin’ t-t-turnin’ citizens to servants
It’s the c-c-c-constant chaotic
F-f-f-fear of Bin Laden
Either him or it’s Saddam
God we hit bottom
Wait, here comes a cowboy
And he’s a hero he promise
Wavin’ crosses, and pistols
And fistfuls of profits
But, there’s blood in your hands
There’s blood in your pockets
Blood fills your goblets
Patriotic gun
With the scum in the office
With no conscience
I hope you choke
On your own broken soul
Oh-overdose your God’s a remote
I know you’re usin’ up the social control
Abusin’ human rights
Cuz your views confused at birth right
And you want me to march
Left right, left death toll
You’ll eat what you said so souls
No, won’t march for your C.E.O.s
I roll with the murder of crows
Flyin’ over the booms
Over the wreckage
And so we go
Why would I waste a mile
In your crooked footsteps?
We don’t see eye to eye
You see me as that prodigal son
But I see I got nowhere to move and nowhere to run
But I see why you got power from day one
From the slaves that you captured
Sell em’ in to hell and tell ’em
To wait for the rapture
To the day we slaves you manufacture
Master, pastor, same hegemony
Subtle demise makes a legitimate plea
Jesus, please save me from the Jesus freaks
There’s vultures in the skies
And there’s solders overseas
Christian’s on a mission
With missiles positioned and ready to launch
‘Til somebody’s ghost is ready to haunt
God love’s America the most
Cuz it gives him what he wants[Chorus]
Left right, march to your grave site
They got ’em ready on the front line
Every man, woman, and child
For miles, single file
Take a number and they’ll call you when it comes time
The air feels thick not as thick
As the black smoke blockin’ out the sunshine
Speak up boy they can’t hear your voice
And I never had a choice when they hold mine[4x]
Speak up boy they can’t hear your voice
Although I have some sympathy at the ideological level with anarchism, I probably would never be a very good anarchist, because I like rules too much. I'm perfectly happy, most of the time, to live in a semi-fascistic (pseudo-fascistic?) state, like South Korea.
My feelings about Chomsky are conflicted, at best. Most people will say that the guy is a genius in the field of linguistics, but his politics are crazy. I'm perhaps unconventional in that I would be much more likely to appreciate his contributions to politics than his work in linguistics – and I say that as someone with a graduate degree in linguistics. It's not that he hasn't brought genuine insight to linguistics, especially the realm of syntax, but I have always found him to be stunningly hypocritical in his approach to his profession vis-a-vis his approach to politics. His pronouncements and conduct as the "founding father" (those are irony quotes) of modern syntax theory and much of analystical descriptive linguistics are strikingly authoritarian and patriarchal, which is, frankly, unbecoming of a self-proclaimed anarcho-syndicalist.
Having said that, I have strong sympathies to anarcho-syndicalism. I even sometimes will list my political affiliation as "moderate anarcho-syndicalist" which is deliberately ironic – to capture that I have sympathies to it without actually practicing it (i.e. ironic as to say "moderate radical").
Why am I writing about any of this, right now? I ran across a video that was a mash-up of a Chomsky speech from the 1970s and some hip-hop. It made me think about my views of revolutionary politics and of Chomsky in particular.
Do I believe property is a form of theft? Perhaps in the strictly marxian sense, sure: as a philosophical starting point. But it's theft within the framework of a broader social contract that "allows" such theft, and I'm all about contracts and rule-of-law – even in the case of essentially "unjust" laws.
The key to reform must include not just ignoring or protesting unjust laws, which is the fairly typical anarchist-left approach (e.g. Occupy! etc.) but also working hard to create societal consensus about changing unjust laws (a good recent example of that would be the emerging, truly revolutionary, new social consensus with respect to the issue of marriage equality). Most forms of social protest tend to stridently alienate those in opposition (cf. Tea Partiers vs Occupiers) and as such, actually work against building the kind of longer-term societal change that would be of the most benefit. That, in a nutshell, is why I'm not an Occupier despite my ideological proclivities.
While I’m proud of what we’ve achieved together, I’m far more mindful of my own failings, knowing exactly what Lincoln meant when he said, “I have been driven to my knees many times by the overwhelming conviction that I had no place else to go.” – Barack Obama, 2012 Nomination Acceptance Speech.
If this is true and sincere, I almost (only almost) could forgive his continuing surrender to the Cheneyesque post-civil-rights security state and his utter failure to roll back the increasingly imperial presidency.
The fact is, what most people like to tout as one of his greatest accomplishments – the assassination of Osama Bin Laden – I tend to view as one of the hugest symptoms of Obama’s surrender to the logic that permitted the Afghanistan and Iraq wars in the first place. Where was that man’s trial? Where was the justice? He was a criminal – why wasn’t he accorded the rights accorded criminals under rule-of-law? What about due process? What about the Geneva Conventions? Surely a New York jury would have convicted him. Bin Laden’s death was Obama’s darkest moment, and I wonder if the above quote might alude to that. I wish I could know that it did – but even so, could he be forgiven? Was Osama’s death anywhere close to as “necessary” as the U.S. Civil War (as suggested by the reference to Lincoln). That implies a rather grandiose self-view.
“Once upon a time Republicans were tax collectors for the welfare state. Now Democrats are the austerians of reactionary Keynesianism.” – Corey Robin
There’s a lot going on in that quote, so if you want to understand it, I recommend Robin’s essay at Crooked Timber. It’s pretty in-depth – but a good historical analysis of the way the Republicans and Democrats have evolved over the last several generations, such that modern Democrats more closely resemble Republicans of 50 years ago than they do historical Democrats. And not to everyone’s benefit.
Did you know that Canada has a strategic maple syrup reserve? Well, I didn’t either. I found out because I read on The Atlantic that someone has stolen some of its contents: $30 million worth. That’s a lot of maple syrup.
I turned to my coworker and commented on this. This was pertinent because my coworker, being Korean-Canadian, was possibly interested in this tidbit of trivia.
I said, “Canada stockpiles maple syrup. Who knew?”
Without missing a beat, he said, “Yea, but, I mean, thank God, eh?”
I know people probably don’t wan’t to hear my thoughts on politics. But I’m feeling discouraged. Reading blogs like Stop Me Before I Vote Again doesn’t help. Here’s a writer named Al Schumann (who sometimes gets on my nerves), capturing some of my thoughts with his extreme sarcasm:
The “nice” brand of advocacy has to take the form of pleas to participate in deranged comparison shopping. This is not just any lemon, ladies and gentlemen, this is a genuine proletarian lemon, certified by veterans of Students for a Democratic Society. It’s far superior to the bourgeois wingnut lemon. It enhances your unique sense of self. The neighbors will feel like fools when you drive off the cliff in style.
Does it matter how you look when you drive off a cliff?!
Is it that bad? Am I just in a bad mood? I like the phrase “deranged comparison shopping.” Now that’s US politics.
Here’s a meme-picture I ran across. Perhaps it resonates because I was one of those guilty of feeling hope – despite my evident lack of youth.
“On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”
“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”
“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”
“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”
– Douglas Adams, in So Long, And Thanks For All the Fish
Well, now that I'm back home, I can go back to observing politics, at least part of the time. Given that Paul Ryan is noteworthy at the moment, with Romney's announcement that he was the VP pick, I thought this relevant. Ryan, like most current GOP types these days, seems to hold both Ronald Reagan and Ayn Rand in pretty high regard (but see also: he seems to have renounced Rand recently). But Rand and Reagan were philosophically at odds, and despised each other. Here's Rand on Reagan (as found at dangerousminds):
What do I think of President Reagan? The best answer to give would be: But I don’t think of him—and the more I see, the less I think. I did not vote for him (or for anyone else) and events seem to justify me. The appalling disgrace of his administration is his connection with the so-called “Moral Majority” and sundry other TV religionists, who are struggling—apparently with his approval—to take us back to the Middle Ages, via the unconstitutional union of religion and politics.
Seeing quotes like this reminds me why I was rather Randian myself, once-upon-a-time. I've long since converted to a kind of euro-style liberalism, at least in politics. But my libertarian tendencies still run deep, and she was always at her best when she was defending atheism.
"Any politician who will not show multiple year taxes may be hiding something." – George Romney.
So far I haven't felt deluged with political discourse since coming to the U.S. – but I recognize that since Minnesota is in no way a swing state, the battle is taking place elsewhere. I'm not really looking forward to it.
I don’t really know. I try to understand. But… Higgs!
The Higgs Boson Explained from PHD Comics on Vimeo.
[Daily log: walking, 4 km]
Mitt Romney said, “We want America to be more like America.” I certainly can see this as an achievable aspiration. We want our presidential candidates to set realistic goals, right?
(The picture above is an AP picture circulating on the web. Is posting it here and saying that fair use? I have no idea.)
But meanwhile, Australia is seeming more like Legoland. See picture below.
France’s Minitel is dead. I remember when it seemed very high tech and forward-thinking. I remember when I thought, “Why doesn’t the U.S. do something like that?”
We got AOL instead. And then, eventually, the internet evolved. But somewhere along the line, Minitel became quaint and old.
I'm not sure that Roberts' siding with the constitutionality of ACA is a good thing. First and foremost, because I'm not sure there's much that's progressive about the ACA – it's always struck me as being so compromised with the insurance industry and the status quo that it wasn't likely to really offer much genuine reform. All Roberts has shown is that he will take the side of corporations – which we already knew from e.g. Citizens United. And as many commentators have already pointed out, he nevertheless managed to reject that the ACA was valid due to the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, calling the mandate fines a tax instead. As a result, he's provided ammunation to the Republicans who can attack Obama as "tax-and-spend" – thus doing Obama no favors while nevertheless avoiding besmirching the court's allegedly non-partisan reputation. He gets the best of both worlds, and plants the seeds for further erosion of the Commerce Clause.
One blog, Stop Me Before I Vote Again, had what I found to be a bitter, cynical, but largely accurate summary of what's going on with this. And one commentor on that blog post, going by the name "Picador," had a thought that I feel is worth quoting:
Roberts has actually done us a favour here: he's pulled back the curtain a bit on the whole "government of enumerated powers" illusion. His decision is perfectly in line with legal precedent: after all, the government essentially already has an individual mandate for every citizen to buy a predator drone or a cluster bomb from a defence contractor (stored and maintained by the CIA and US Army, of course), so why not health insurance too? Once the power to tax is unrestricted, do you really even need the commerce clause anymore?
Indeed. Via our taxes, we've been mandated to support a vast, planetary-scale war-machine for decades. How is mandating that people buy healthcare coverage that different?
On a lighter note, the humor/meme site, Buzzfeed, has a posting of people who have – no kidding – announced via Twitter that they're moving to Canada due to their disgust with the creeping socialism in the U.S. This is hilarious.
Michael T. Klare at Guernica magazine makes a what I find a convincing case that Barack Obama's energy policy is a near perfect continuation of Dick Cheney's, as developed both while he was Bush II's vice president but even when he was Secretary of Defense under Bush I (due to said energy policy's notably heavy geopolitical elements).
Let's add to that the almost transparent way in which Obama is continuing the Cheneyesque national security policy (e.g. drones, subterfuges against Iran, Guantanamo, etc., etc.), and I have hard time not believe that Cheney somehow, eerily, still seems to be pupeteering the White House, despite his protoge's replacement by a zombie from the other team.
I'm so discouraged. I'm trying to decide what third-party candidate to support.
There’s an artist named Tim O’Brian. I recently ran across an illustration of his that struck me as symbolically correct. To those who feel that Obama is too far left, I can only say that I feel you are deeply, deeply mistaken. I’m among those who perceive Obama to be turning out to be one of the most conservative Democratic presidents in more than 100 years. That’s why this illustration makes sense to me. Plus it looks cool.
I had made a decision to call Obama “The Future Space Emperor” way back when he first appeared to be winning the 2008 election, but I haven’t stuck with it. If you stick with that metaphor, though – BHO as Palpatine – does that mean that Reagan is the dark side of the Force? Darth Ronald. Nice. Continuing the metaphor, I like the sound of Darth Romney, too. …Rolls off the tongue. We could view the current election as just a minor squabble among the Sith Lords within the Coruscant Beltway.
As I’ve admitted before, I voted for him. And I still view the currently psychotic Republican party as an unacceptable alternative. But I’m less and less enamored of Obama, too, if I ever was.
"the trash-strewn lots of Detroit and the subway tunnels of New York support far more biodiversity than the sterile, “sustainably planted” forests that cover most of the continental U.S." – Christopher Mims, in an article at a site called Motherboard.
This seems depressing and darkly pessimistic, but frankly, I find in it cause for optimism. Why? Because that means nature is actually pretty good at building biodiversity "under duress." The world is not ending – merely changing. And evolution is all about adaptation. Things will go on.
According to this article on the AP, suicides have exceeded war casualties among troops in Afghanistan this year. Partly, that underscores how few troops actually die fighting in Afghanistan – the drones help assure that mostly the people who die are on the other side. But this whole suicide-while-in-the-military tells me they’re doing something very wrong. I can speak from my own experience in the Army – when you feel there’s some moral failing in what you’re doing, it’s much easier to feel despair and get depressed. I think, therefore, that this suicide rate among troops is something we should pay attention to, vis-a-vis our moral instincts – do we have any?
What I’m listening to right now.
Radiohead, “Go To Sleep.” This song is awesome, and the video is cool too – I’d never seen it before searching for a version of the song to paste here.
Like every song from this album (Hail To The Thief), it makes me nostalgic for my massive 2003 road trip in Australia, when I discovered my rental car had a CD player and I went into some suburban Sydney Target store and bought a couple Radiohead CDs, which thus became my soundtrack for the trip up the coast from Sydney to Cairns (2000 km).
Lyrics.
Something for the rag and bone man
“Over my dead body”
Something big is gonna happen
“Over my dead body”Someone’s son or someone’s daughter
“Over my dead body”
This is how I end up sucked in
“Over my dead body”I’m gonna go to sleep
Let this wash all over meWe don’t wanna wake monster taking over
“Tiptoe round, tie him down”
We don’t want the loonies taking over
“Tiptoe round, tie them down”May pretty horses
Come to you as you sleep
I’m gonna go to sleep
Let this wash all over me
President Obama got in some trouble for saying this. But it’s true. Robert Wright at The Atlantic explains. Here is a graph from his article.
Wright speculates:
“What if Obama, rather than just try to walk back his unfortunate choice of words, trotted out some visual aids and spent 60 seconds explaining exactly what he meant? ‘Professorial’ can be a feature, not a bug.”
Haha. Obama’s having got defensive and backed down on this issue really does seem like a mistake, to me.
There's a political blog called "Stop Me Before I Vote Again." It's one of those leftish blogs (cf. also the libertarianish IOZ) that rants alot about how the Democrats are too far right and that there's some kind of conspiracy (or accidental synergy) between the two main parties in the US that prevents truly leftist agendas from being pursued – that the Democratic Party's leftism is a sort of subterfuge, essentially. I read the blog, occasionally, but the quality of the writing has decreased – or else I just don't get the point – there's really only one writer there that I even find coherent, to be honest.
But one recent post by Mr Coherent (Michael J. Smith – is this a real name or pseudonym?) made a striking and noticeable point about the stridency of right-leaning talk radio in the U.S. A quote (he's talking about the show called "Focus on the Family"):
Focus on The Family is a radio product; that is, it's a commercial enterprise with a political angle. It's a show; everything on it is contrived and scripted. It's a fishing boat, and the "Fundies" — for lack of a better word — are the fish. Some come into the net, of course, and others do not.
Strelnikov [the person being criticized here] has never swum with the fish in question; he knows nothing at all about their lives and feelings and thought processes. What does a trawler tell you about fish, except that they can be caught and sold?
This is a very important point.
"What does a trawler tell you about fish, except that they can be caught and sold?" I'd like to apply the same essentially marxian logic (I'm thinking of how ideologies are deployed to preserve systems, a la Eagleton) to how we think about behemoths like Fox News – these things are not reflecting views, they're designed to draw people in with the views they express, and maybe, incidentally, they cause the "fish" to swim in certain directions they wouldn't, on their own. Let's never forget that the current "far right looniness" in the U.S. is caused mostly by people who realized they could make money off of it. The rational market is going to eventually self destruct, at this rate, it seems to me.
[Daily log: um, no]
There is some guy in Russia who was previously convicted of operating a Ponzi scheme during the go-go post-communist 90's (his conviction was originally delayed because he managed to get elected to parliament, which gave him immunity). Now, he's operating a ponzi scheme again – but this time, he's announced that that's what he's doing, thereby perhaps avoiding illegality – seriously, is it illegal to bilk stupid people of their money, if you tell them that's what you're doing? He argues that that makes him no different than a major bank or a casino. See the article, here. It does rather raise ethical issues, and/or connect to what would be the various appropriate liberal/libertarian/conservative stances with regard to it.
Today I had a busy day despite the start of the test prep time – one of the other teachers was absent, and so I covered some extra classes. And I tried to study, some. And I saw Stephen Colbert
-Notes for Korean-
노래하는 분수대 [no-rae-ha-neun bun-su-dae] = the "Singing Fountain" at Ilsan's Lake Park
수위 [su-wi] = janitor
경비원 [gyeong-bi-won] = building watchman, doorman
바닥 [ba-dak] = floor, ground
마루 [ma-ru] = wooden floor
천장 [cheon-jang] = ceiling
칠판 [chil-pan] = blackboard, whiteboard, chalkboard
부엌 [bu-eok] = kitchen
거실 [geo-sil] = living room
전자레인지 [jeon-ja-re-in-ji] = microwave (electric-range)
가스레인지 [ga-seu-re-in-ji] = stovetop (gas-range)
오븐 [o-beun] = oven
커튼 [keo-teun] = curtain(s)
블라인드 [beul-la-in-deu] = blinds
유리장 [yu-ri-jang] = a pane of glass
시계 [si-gye] = clock, watch
벌 [beol] = punishment
체벌 [che-beol] = corporal punishment (observation on usage: Koreans seem to preferentially use this term for what I, personally, prefer to call "hazing" – it's punishment of the body not by hitting or hurting someone, but rather by compelling them to hold positions or engage in actions which cause discomfort to their own bodies, e.g. making students stand with their arms up in the air for extended periods of time, making them hold heavy objects, making them jog or do pushups or that kind of thing – it's basically boot-camp-style discipline; I don't think this really means corporal punishment the way Americans use that term, although the literal meaning is corporal punishment [body-punish])
교실 [gyo-sil] = classroom
식당 [sik-dang] = dining room [also restaurant]
침 [chim] = bed
침실 [chim-sil] = bedroom [bed-room]
의자 [ui-ja] = chair
창문 [chang-mun] = window
문짝 [mun-jjak] = door [one panel of a multi-part door]
문 [mun] = doorway, gate
책상 [chaek-sang] = desk
책장 [chaek-jang] = bookcase (or, the pages in a book)
식탁 [sik-tak] = table
소파 [so-pa] = sofa
(진공)청소기 [(jin-gong)cheong-so-gi] = vacuum [(vacuum) clean-machine)]
드라이기 [deu-ra-i-gi] = dryer (dry-machine)
기계 [gi-gye] = machine
냉장고 [naeng-jang-go] = refrigerator, cooler
식혜 [sik-hye] = Korean rice drink, cf. horchata
생강 [saeng-gang] = ginger
도토리 [do-to-ri] = acorn (powder, flour)
도토리묵 [do-to-ri-muk] = acorn jelly
염원하다 [yeom-won-ha-da] = to want strongly, to long for
호치키스 [ho-chi-ki-seu] = stapler (really, this is a brand name = ~Hotchkiss?)
절대 않다 [jeol-dae anh-da] = (I/you/he/she) never do/es that
절대 안했어요 [jeol-dae an-haess-eo-yo] = (I/you/he/she) never did that
절대 안할 거에요 [jeol-dae an-hal geo-e-yo] = (I/you/he/she) never will do that
뛰어넘다 [ttwi-eo-nam-da] = to hop
열대 [yeol-dae] = tropical (climate)
온대 [on-dae] = temperate (climate)
냉대 [naeng-dae] = arctic (climate)
아열대 [a-yeol-dae] = subtropical (climate)
야단맛다 [ya-dan-mas-da] = to be scolded
야단치다 [ya-dan-chi-da] = to scold
사랑스러운 눈길로 [sa-rang-seu-reo-un nun-gil-lo] = with a loving gaze
X스럽다 [seu-reop-da] = to feel X about someone else
받아들이다 [bad-a-deur-i-da] = to receive, to get
수용하다 [su-yong-ha-da] = to accept, to receive
수염 [su-yeom] = whiskers
뉘우치다 [nwi-u-chi-da] = to repent a sin
한 [han] = regret (N) [this is one of many homonyms of 한]
[Daily log: walking, 4 km]
From a blog called Lowering the Bar:
A number of sources (including the Wall Street Journal) report that someone has used the White House’s “We the People” website to start a petition asking it to create a “Do Not Kill” list similar to the “Do Not Call” list that has been reasonably successful against telemarketers. […] The president, who you may recall won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, then personally approves names on the “kill list” for execution targeted killing by drone. […]
There may be no need to worry, of course, if you think the government will never get it wrong and target somebody who’s actually innocent. And probably that never happens. In fact, it really can’t happen, because the administration has adopted a rule defining any “military-age male” it has blown up as a terrorist unless proven innocent:
[The rule] in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good.
All perfectly legal under the Fifth Amendment, of course, which provides that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, unless he is probably up to no good.” And under the strike-zone rule, you also don’t have to worry about killing foreign civilians, because there aren’t any, at least not near your bomb.
I voted for Obama in 2008, at least in part because of his promise not to continue the Bushcheneyian business-as-usual vis-a-vis the loss of respect for due process and rule of law. It was that same promise that got him the above-mentioned Nobel Peace Price, I presume. So much for promises.
The above encapsulates why I am going to have a VERY difficult time voting for him again in 2012, despite my terror at the Romneyian alternative. I may just forgo voting altogether, so as to avoid the guilt. I know that’s very sad. I particularly like the blogger’s re-interpretation of the 5th Amendment.
I tried to go to the whitehouse.gov website and sign the above-mentioned petition, but the site complained that it was having technical difficulties. I wondered if that was due to my choice of petittion. But then, eventually, I was able to sign the petition.
I was reading an article at the Atlantic by Robert Kaplan about Vietnam's complex, fraught relationship with China, and how that has made them much more receptive to US influence in the region, despite the legacy of the Vietnam War. Whenever I study Vietnam, I'm always struck by the cultural and political similarities with Korea.
One phrase that he uses to describe the millenia-long influence of China on its southern neighbor is: "the narcissism of small differences." This made me laugh, because it's so precisely the sort of phrase that could be applied to the interesting cultural dynamics at play between Korea and China, too, or between Korea and Japan, or between North Korea and South Korea, for that matter. And I suppose it could apply to most any cultural interaction between related neighbors, e.g. Canada and the U.S., too. That being said, although it's a thought-provoking phrase, I don't actually think it conveys much information. It's more poetry than political analysis.
I spent the day today reading and cleaning my fridge. Not at the same time. And I tried to study a little bit, too. I'm still feeling very distressed and annoyed with my knowledge that I need to reduce my blood pressure, and I'm manifesting a definite lack of self-discipline in tackling it – step one: I ate too much today. It was healthy food, mostly… but it was too much. Pasta and stuff. Sigh.
-Notes for Korean-
[I'm resurrecting this "feature" of my blog from 2008/2009 – I think it helps me to organize my study efforts. I'm not sure why I ever stopped doing it, except that there have been periods when I've given up studying Korean.]
수영하다 = to swim (humans)
헤엄하다 = to swim (animals/fish)
모엄 = adventure
병아리 = chick (i.e. baby chicken)
시냇가 = stream, rivulet
건너다 = to cross
뛰다 = to run
마당 = yard
날다 = to fly
백설기 = a style of tteok that has a texture that resembles, in my mind, polenta
붐에 안다 = hug closely
알아차리다 = to realize (to come to know…) (so, 알아치리지 못했구나 = I didn't realize… )
가리키다 = to point
영리하다 = to be clever, to be smart
[Daily log: what, me exercise?]
