Korean university professors have to be careful these days when referring to such concepts as liberalism and liberal democracy. Unless you intend to be critical, you are best advised not to mention them at all. The moment you become an apologist for these taboo subjects, you lose popularity among students and younger faculty members and are labeled a hopeless conservative. What a paradox! You become a conservative by advocating liberalism. Yet that is exactly what happens in Korea.
This all probably stems from the brainwashing impressionable students receive from radical teachers at high school, where it is instilled in them that "liberal" is a bad word. The problem is that once these students enter a university they are not sufficiently deprogrammed to fully benefit from what is supposed to be a broadening of their intellect and imagination through a "liberal" education.
Young people in Korea also seem to believe that capitalism and the market economy are something evil, that they are perhaps part of an American conspiracy to dominate the world. "The principle of capitalism was the cause of all of the corruption that we see in it," indignantly announced a student of mine in a class presentation recently, confusing capitalism with commercialism or materialism.
For this uniquely Korean phenomenon, we should blame radical politicians in the ruling party who are preoccupied with socialist ideals. Socialism and Marxism did provide an ideological foundation for those who fought the right-wing military dictatorship of the seventies and eighties. But radical left ideologies have always proven to be failures when actually applied to the real world. Only our politicians, apparently oblivious to the lessons of history, seem to believe that the faded dreams of these obsolete ideologies can come true.
Metaphorically speaking, for the past two years these politicians have been trying to reboot a dusty old 386 DX-II computer while other countries are flying ahead with high-tech Pentium IV¡¯s. When you boot up an old 386, the immediate problem is that everything on it is outdated and incompatible with current machines; nor is its system able to cope with the installation and running of new programs. Not only that, such an obsolete system does not have the latest in communications technology, so even communicating with those running the latest systems is going to be a frustrating and cumbersome task. You¡¯ll be lucky if it doesn¡¯t crash every time you use it. In short, if you insist on adopting an obsolete system, backwardness and isolation from the wider community are inevitable.
Seeing politicians still clinging to failed political ideologies is even more astounding given that they are living in such a modern country as Korea. In keeping with the above metaphor, it¡¯s like finding a 386 user in Korea, a country at the cutting edge of high-tech computer chip production, who has not heard the news that there is an upgrade available. You would seriously question their cultural awareness if not intelligence, after you had stopped laughing.
One also wonders why hostility towards capitalism and a market economy has become so fashionable in Korea, a country that has benefited so much from them. Perhaps it¡¯s because Koreans tend to be fashion victims. If something is in vogue, we clamor after it like sheep, whether it¡¯s a political protest or a famous brand name. Thankfully, not all do: my favorite poem, Kim Seung-hee¡¯s "Literary History of Korea without Me," beautifully renders the agonies of a poet who refused to be a faddist.
In the age of pure poetry, I did not write pure poems.
In the era of protest poetry, I did (could) not write protest poems
Against the a la mode of poetry in the Korean 1980s,
In the times of deconstruction poetry
I did not write deconstruction poems (perhaps I could not)
In the period of commercial love poetry
I did not write love poems (perhaps I could not)
In the age of ¡¯minjung (people)¡¯ poetry
I did not write ¡¯minjung¡¯ poems (perhaps I could not).
Dear politicians: in 2005, leave behind the sweet memories of your old 386¡¯s; nostalgia is no reason to reboot. Resurrecting a system that is no longer valid in the 21st century will surely ruin what we have achieved over the past 60 years. Korea has enough economic and diplomatic bugs to cope with as it is; don¡¯t boot us back into the last century.
Dr. Kim is a professor of English and dean of the Language School at Seoul National University. - Ed.
Posted by: tipper ||
01/20/2005 9:07:55 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Ellis Henican
The Party of God is now fully in charge of the City of Earthly Advantage, and the faith-based finger-pointing has only begun.
Whoa! Is that St. Augustine I see over there, wearing the cowboy boots and a black tie?
It's another four years for a leader who considers himself as God's own prophet, a man who says he can't even imagine someone serving in the White House "without a relationship with the Lord." Like it or not, we have a president who just convinced half a nation that Republicans and Republicans alone have a clear-channel, exclusive pipeline to God. And he's not stopping now.
This is, of course, a rant against the religious proclivities of the Evil Publicans. Ellis' guy lost, y'see?
Even yesterday, George W. Bush stood at dusk on the Ellipse between the White House and the Washington Monument, and he previewed an inaugural address studded with allusions to the divine. "We have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom, and America will always be faithful to that cause," he said to the shivering crowd, again invoking the Almighty in support of worldly political goals.
He said on a previous occasion that democracy was God's gift to mankind. Despite my being both agnostic and often irreligious in my outlook on life, that statement doesn't bother me in the least, perhaps because I don't regard democracy and individual liberty to be theoretical concepts...
It's the same thing that the Rev. Jerry Falwell was driving during last year's campaign. Jesus, Falwell was certain, had officially endorsed Bush.
Does anyone pay any attention to what Jerry Falwell says? Besides Ellis Henican, I mean?... Ummm... Now that I think about it, does anybody pay attention to what Ellis Henican thinks? Are most people aware of his existence, and do those who are care?
"For conservative people of faith," the politically powerful reverend said, "voting for principle this year means voting for the re-election of George W. Bush. The alternative, in my mind, is simply unthinkable."
Well, I agree. It would have been pretty unthinkable for people who believe in God and take that belief seriously to toss a vote toward John F'in' Kerry. We're not talking about Mr. Sincerity here, are we?
Here's a little more: "I believe it is the responsibility of every political conservative, every evangelical Christian, every pro-life Catholic, every traditional Jew, every Reagan Democrat and everyone in between to get serious about re-electing President Bush." Get used to it. And don't think it didn't help Bush.
I belong to the very first of Falwell's categories, and I agree with that statement, too. What's wrong with it? There's a subject and a verb and everything...
He's a president who doesn't just wear his religion on his sleeve. He stuffs some in his boots, puts more in his pockets and always has extra to spare.
Thank you for your opinion, Ellis. You haven't presented any real evidence that this is the case, nor have you explained to us why it would be a Bad Thing if it is in fact the case. You've merely said it.
But as his big day arrives - his first clean-shot inaugural, the swearing-in outside the Capitol, the big parade to the White House - a vicious wind is blowing up Pennsylvania Avenue.
Vicious, I tell you! Vicious!
Snow and ice are everywhere. You have any idea what slush like this can do to a pair of Tony Lamas?
Tony Lamas are pretty good boots, Ellis. They stand up to snow and ice, as well as the occasional pile of bullshit...
Maybe that's what the Democrats meant when they said Bush would get four more years "when hell freezes over." Looking around this locked-down capital yesterday - well, who could say it hadn't?
First you have to equate the capital to Hell, which most people don't do. 750 years of Purgatory, perhaps, but not Hell...
David Domke is a professor from the University of Washington.
Is he really?
He's been busy counting all the times Bush has been mentioning a higher power in the speeches he gives. It was 10 in his first inaugural address and another 14 in his three State of the Unions for a first-term average of six references per speech. That easily beats Ronald Reagan's 4.75. Even Jimmy Carter, famous for his piety, managed only two mentions of God in four trips to the big podium. Franklin Delano Roosevelt at 1.69 and Lyndon Johnson at 1.50 bring up the rear among God-citing modern presidents.
Maybe Carter and Johnson should have relied more on the divine? Neither is ever going to be featured at the top of the list of great presidents. And Roosevelt died in office, so maybe God struck him dead for not doing Him honor? On the other hand, a professor God knows of what wasting time, attention, and resources on counting the number of times the president refers to God in his speeches strikes me as a spectacular waste of resources that could be better spend documenting the sex life of the common guinea pig...
But it isn't just the numbers, Domke says. There's something different about the way Bush cites God.
"It's the way he scrunches up his eyes..."
"It's one thing to state that there is a God and that Americans should listen to Him, which is what presidents have generally done," Domke said. "In contrast, Bush speaks as if he knows exactly what God wants." And the confidence that brings may be part of the problem here as this second term begins.
Bush has these ridiculous concepts of "right" and "wrong," when as we all know the world is actually made up of uniform shades of gray, none lighter or darker than the other. It was "right" to strike back at our enemies when they attacked us. It was "right" to try and bring individual liberty to the Middle East, where it's regarded as a perversion. It was "right" to oppose the holy men behind the current wave of worldwide terror because they "know exactly what God wants"...
But that'll have to wait one more day. Last night, the Bushes, George and Laura, were busy dancin' with the ones that brung 'em here: Three candlelight dinners for donors who contributed $100,000 or more for the inauguration and then Texas State Society's "Black Tie and Boots Ball."
Y'know what? They had more money to give than I had, and I'm not jealous. Ellis is, and he didn't give anything. But I'm not.
All of it is following a sprinkled-with-religion Bush-populism theme, geared to the kind of populists who believe in giving money to Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Defense - not taking money away from them.
Don'tcha just love these unspoken assumptions? Big Oil is Bad, despite the fact that it puts Big Gasoline in your tank and you have fairly abundant Big Heating Oil to heat your house. Big Pharma produces the drugs that keep our children from dying of dyptheria and cholera and mumps, and that alleviate the pain of terminal cancer patients. For that they should be vilified and all their money taken away. Oh, and Big Defense provides the weapons and transport systems that enable us to hunt down and kill the people who aren't capable of producing sophisticated weaponry themselves, but who're vicious enough to hijack civilian airliners and run them into civilian buildings in New York, killing thousands of our citizens.
But while the tanked-up donors had their inaugural fun around town, a scarier presentation was under way on Ninth Street at the Renaissance Washington Hotel. It was the Republican National Committee having its 2005 Winter Meeting.
[Begin Vincent Price's voice...]
The star of that show was Ken Mehlman. It was Mehlman who ran the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign, and yesterday he got his earthly reward, the party chairmanship. To repeated thunders of applause, Mehlman vowed to round up enough gun owners, right-to-lifers and religious conservatives to create "a durable majority" that will keep Republicans in power for decades and decades to come.
I own a gun. I haven't used it in years, not even for target practice. But that does make me a gun owner, which I consider a good thing, not a bad thing. I think that any law-abiding citizen should be able to own a gun, whether it's for self protection or hunting or just to take it out on Saturday nights and look at it fondly. I'm not convinced someone else has the right to tell me what to do with it, assuming I'm not holding up liquor stores or plugging my brother-in-law because he didn't return my lawn mower. I'm nearly as troubled by the ins and outs of abortion as I am bored by the subject. My reluctant opinion is that it shouldn't be legal, because little babies are defenseless creatures that we adults are obligated to protect and raise as best we can but I also recognize all the arguments on the other side. Discounting the silly one, that puts me somewhere around 51-49 against abortions. In Ellis' eyes that makes me categorically wrong and probably in league with Jerry Falwell. I'm hardly a religious conservative, but I do have this idea that some things are right and others are wrong. Probably there are enough people like me that the Publicans will build a durable majority, if only because the Sinners have nothing to offer but abortions.
"We can deepen the GOP by identifying and turning out Americans who vote for president but who often miss off-year elections and agree with our work on behalf of a culture of life, our promoting marriage, and a belief in our Second Amendment heritage," Mehlman said. Say amen to that. If this doesn't scare you, nothing will.
Frightening. Simply frightening.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/20/2005 12:49:18 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
They still don't get the Redland stuff do they. Hip, In, Snide. Just the fine qualities of such drivel mongers that's going to get the voters back on your side. Oh more, please, more. [insert Doctor Evil laugh here].
#4
It's another four years for a leader who considers himself as God's own prophet,
Lie.
a man who says he can't even imagine someone serving in the White House "without a relationship with the Lord."
Taken out of context and distorted into a lie.
Like it or not, we have a president who just convinced half a nation that Republicans and Republicans alone have a clear-channel, exclusive pipeline to God.
Lie.
FOR CRISSAKE YOU BLUE-BRAINED IDIOTS, I'M AGNOSTIC AND I WOULDN'T HAVE VOTED FOR KERRY IF YOU HAD HELD A GUN TO MY HEAD.
IT AIN'T ABOUT GOD. IT'S ABOUT TRUST. THE ONLY GODDAMNED THING I TRUST THE DEMOCRATS TO DO IS TREAT ME LIKE SHIT AND PUT MY LIFE AT RISK.
*pant*
*pant*
Sorry. Had to vent.
Like I said, I'm not at all religious. But the vitriol coming from the left, aimed towards religious people, is making me sick. LGF is called "racist" and "Nazi" for making bad remarks about Islamofascist thugs; these asshats are going after people who, quite honestly, live their lives in peace and just want to live as they choose.
Hey, if the Religious Right tries to get contraceptives banned -- a common accusation from the left -- or looks like they'll succeed in getting censorship beyond the "family television hour" level, then I'll be working and voting against them. I'm adamantly against teaching "intelligent design" in public schools, too.
But right now, the real threats to liberty are coming from the left. Censorship? Let's talk about speech codes, "hate speech", and the incessant desire to control what we can say to one another. Oh, sure, they'll let us blabber endlessly about sex -- but anything more serious, anything that questions their received wisdom, that's verboten.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
01/20/2005 14:04 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Thanks, Robert - you saved me the trouble of ranting. I'll just "amen" yours. :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/20/2005 14:52 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Amen, and hallelujah.
For Ellis and his ilk, there is always the Kanadian option.
Posted by: Mac Suirtain ||
01/20/2005 15:31 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Ditto, xcept... I'm adamantly against teaching "intelligent design" in public schools, too.
I am agnostic, yet, I don't see any harm. It was a part of my curriculum when I was on a HS level in my old commie country (unfortunately, I moved to another one that s coming rather close in that regard--Canuckistan, which I will rectify soon)--that is... we had course in Philosophy, no it was not elective, yes, they pushed marxism up and down, but still, it was there. Beside course items like Logic, Psychology intro, Sociology intro... And the normal items like Math, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, 2 languages (yes, Russian was mandatory, you could pick the second one), plus one dead one (Latin).
I still had time to chase gurlz and drink myself silly, on ocassion. :-)
Well, since in these times, there is this revulsion againt straining the poor kids' brains, how about ... skipping the intelligent design, but stating that the evolution is a theory, with still big holes in it that tankers can drive through, instead of using terms like "fact", "proven", proclaiming it with the air of religious conviction?
#10
Aris, is that really you? One of these rare moments to be framed...:-)
Well, anyway, since there is no Philosophy class, Science class may be the best choice at present. Since origins is based on metaphysics anyway (the scientism deux ex machina=big bang ex nihilum), I see the necessity of putting Philosophy back in the curriculum. Science should concern itself with the method and epistemology, rather than waxing poetics, as Rene Descartes originally devised in his Discourse on Method.
#11
I've come to think that teaching Intelligent Design in the biology class could have a very beneficial effect. Compare and contrast with the job/process of science, which is to test the testable and devise a theory to explain the results, then devise a test to challenge the theory, to see if it actually works. Intelligent Design by definition is not testable (how do you test for the existence/nonexistence of God the Creator? Can't be done, that's why religions are based on faith.), therefore ID is not science. A valuable lesson for a population that generally doesn't distinguish between science and magic.
#2
"In an editorial on Wednesday, Americaâs most respected newspaper the New York Times..."
Doesn't say much for America's newspaper business, does it? But then, these are the words of the Daily Times, "A new voice for a new Pakistan".
Posted by: Tom ||
01/20/2005 8:58 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Let's be honest here:
Dr. Rice (and Colin Powell for that matter) are the MSM and Dummycrats worst nightmare. Both are among America's finest, bright, witty, very accomplished and capable people who happen to be black.
NYT thinks Mad Halfbright was excellent...nuf sed.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/20/2005 9:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I received an invitation to get the NYT last week.
Wrote "LYING SACKS OF SH*T!
EUROTRASH
Think they'll get the message and not waste any more money sending fishwrap to me?
The only thing unfortunate about Rice is, that as a diplomat and the President's representative, she couldn't tell the Senate committee beauzeaus (that means YOU, sKerry & Bollocks) where to get off.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/20/2005 15:27 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The frightening thing is remembering that there was a time when the NYT was America's paper of record. I can't imagine anyone except kool-aid drinking Democrats with aspirations to pretensions still reading it. Jayson Blair was one of their more honest journalists - at least he admitted that he just made things up.
#1
Tipper, that may take centuries to take a hold, if ever.
I would advocate some more radical approach. No, I don't mean nuking muslims wholesale. Some form of replacement--deux ex machina of sorts. Technologically, it is not there yet to pull something like that off, but in 15 years, it may be possible to make a convincing con.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
