Babyseyo jumps

Sorry posting has been sparse.

I WILL write about North Korea soon... but until then, here is some Babyseyo to tide you over.

12 Best Gay Bars in Jongno...

While I'm pretty sure this isn't what gay bars are really like, the headline made me think of this silly video.


(made by the people who made one of my favorite music videos ever: this one, which is hilarious in EXACTLY my sense of humor.

Discovering Korea has published a list of the 12 best gay bars in Jongno... research for which sounds like a heck of an interesting night.

I'm mostly interested in this because it's a huge departure from the "No gays in Korea" line that I heard regularly during my first few years in Korea. Now, I live well in the city, so maybe I'm in an area where people are a little more blasé about gay culture -- the annual pride parade is less than an hour's walk from my house -- but it should also be noted that many at that parade still wear "Please do not publish my photo" ribbons, though they do show up... so we're farther out of the closet than we used to be, but not all the way yet. (In comments under previous posts about LGTB culture, I've also been told farther out of the big cities, the "no gays in Korea" thing still happens)

It'd be cool to see Korean gay culture being a little more open and unashamed... on the other hand, I cringe to imagine the day when Korean Promotions inc. realizes there's some kind of cachet to be gained from promoting Korea's gay culture, and suddenly the promotional material starts telling everyone about Korea's proud and ancient gay culture, which is better than teh ghey culture of other countries in the region. (which, now that I've mentioned it, you can totally imagine happening, can't you?)  Which would be sad not because of the attempt to make acceptance of various gender identities the norm (that'd be awesome) but because of how obvious the cultural promotion-y people can be when grasping at angles to make Korea seem like a cool and advanced place, truth and actual experience of gays in Korea be damned.

Happy Holidays from Roboseyo 2012

Hi, all.

I hope you all had a merry christmas (or whatever you prefer to call it), and that you're gearing up for a great 2013. My Christmas was full of sick -- the baby, the wife, the mom-in-law and I all took turns on the toilet/change table this christmas. So the best I can say is that most of us are now on the mend, and I hope your Christmas was better than ours.

And new-years is coming, with the new-year reviews...

and of course a 2012 pop music mash-up (along with year-end best of lists, one of my favorite things about the winding down of an old year)


2012 has not been as prolific as previous years at Roboseyo... but I'd like to hope that (for the most part) the quality has increased while the quantity decreases.  Does that make up for SUCH a decrease? Well, dear readers, I sure hope you've done something else with your time than sit by the computer hitting "refresh refresh refresh" waiting for new Roboseyo... maybe get some exercise.

Anyway, as a look back on the year... here are the most popular Roboseyo posts of 2012, in order:

Most popular... by a TON, and one of the five most popular posts on the blog ever:
The Blackface post

Also WAY above the others... thanks, I think, to the love/hate on tumblr:
Hyuna + Ajosshi fans are bullshit

Remember that racist MBC ad?

the Stupid, Sexist Adoption Law (very interesting comments below it... including one VERY recent one)

The one about K-boys... for which I still owe a retraction

SNSD on Letterman

perhaps anachronistic now but.... American kids hate Kpop

continue being excited about... CLASSIC KOREAN MOVIES ON YOUTUBE!

this year's April Fools' prank... which I'm still answering for

my announcement of All The Korea Blogs: the new big K-blog aggregator

ho-hum another North Korean missile launch.  (cut and paste it for the one this december as well)


And a few that didn't make the years' top ten, but of which I'm proud:

Ahn Cheol-su shouldn't (have) run for president.
my return from exile: "How (president elect) Park Geun-hye can Revitalize Korean Politics"
Seoul Sucks for Bike Commuters
Now that ATEK is dead, what kind of organization should replace it?



Old stuff also popular this year:

that dumb Visit Korea Ad

my mom's eulogy

don't do pot in Korea. Stupid.

the Ni-ga post that ruffled feathers.

the classic complaining expat post

Some Love for BoA...

And Maurice Sendak...

The night Max wore his wolf suit and made mischief of one kind...

and another...

his mother called him "Wild thing!"

and Max said

so he was sent to bed without eating anything.

That's all I could think the first time I saw this video.


(my kid loves that book)

How Park Geun-hye can Revitalize Korea's Politics

So Park Geun-hye, if the news tells it right, just won the Korean presidency, and we get five years of her in the iron throne.

I wrote earlier about my misgivings about her being held up as a female role-model actually being good for Korean women, because in her (an unmarried woman) the career/family dichotomy remains dichotomized, but now the I-Think-Women-Have-Come-Far-Enough-Thanks Koreans get to say "Look! We've got a female president! What more do you want?"

I also have misgivings about her being the daughter of a dictator... so I'm going to try to keep this short, but the context matters to the point I want to make in the title.

Her father was Park Chung-hee, perhaps the most polarizing personality in Korea. You've heard the story by now: he set the table for Korea's spectacular economic growth in the 80s and 90s by investing heavily in infrastructure and heavy industry in the 60s and 70s. While sure, he (like all the presidents in Korea so far) was corrupt... but unlike other presidents, he attached his favors to activities that fit with his long-term plans. He controlled the foreign aid money that came into Korea, by controlling the banks, meaning that he could give favorable terms to companies that cooperated with his master plan, when they applied for business loans.

Through this, the industries and business leaders Park hand-picked became mega-rich, but they also set up businesses and industries that helped Korea become wealthy.

To accomplish this, Park and his business leader buddies did a lot of union busting and suppression of workers' rights, in order to reap the benefits (nationally and personally) of a cheap labor force.

To make it easier to keep the little man as little as possible, Park is well known for using torture, kidnapping, and... let's call it... suspicious deaths of key people (a euphemism as sharp as calling sex slaves comfort women).

His legacy now is mixed: for those along the Seoul Busan Highway (where most of the industrialization took place) he's the genius whose long vision led to Korea's success today. For those whose parents and uncles and aunts were kidnapped from their homes and had their fingernails pulled out, he's kinda beastly.

and in a lot of ways, this election was, in part, a referendum on Park Chung-hee's legacy: if Ahn Cheol-su didn't do his tease act, it would have been the main narrative of the election... and perhaps the reason Ahn held on for so long was specifically so that the issues the Left wanted to bring to the table would get some play.

So that's the background.

Now, two things you may not know:
1. Park Chunghee was not a beastly military goon for his entire presidency. He was at the beginning, after the takeover, when he kept the elected president in office for a while as a puppet until he resigned in frustration. (that'd be Yun Bo-seon). But then, in the 60s, he ran for president and managed to win three elections in order to stay in power. He won elections in 1963 (by a hair) and 1967 (by a lot)... and maybe those elections were rigged, but they weren't as rigged as Rhee Syngman's, whose opponents had a way of dying. (see here... one of his other opponents was later executed under Korea's national security law). Park had three elections where the other guy might have won, and the last one (1971, where he barely beat Kim Dae-jung) was what pushed him around the corner and led to the "Yushin" era, when he declared a national emergency, suspended the constitution and basically concentrated all power to himself, and his enemies and threats started mysteriously disappearing.

2. The economic growth that came through Park Chunghee's efforts nearly didn't happen. After securing foreign funds with the (very unpopular) normalization treaty with Japan (the 1965 one that Japan points to as absolving their responsibility for war crimes) and by sending troops to Vietnam (earning aid from the US), Park saw the US pull out of Vietnam completely... well, if US pulls out of Vietnam when it's no longer politically useful, what's to stop US from pulling out of Korea? The next step in that logic is, "Korea'd better have a self-sustaining industrial background and military before that" -- so he invested in six heavy industries: shipbuilding, industrial machinery, automotive, heavy chemicals (oil refineries etc.), electronics, and steel, (also known as the six most necessary ingredients for developing your own military). But after investing SO FRIGGIN' MUCH in these industries, the world economy slowed down in the late 70s, and suddenly heavy industry was a bad place to have sunk your nation's entire wealth! To stir up capital, Park sent construction crews abroad, to build things in the middle-east (those oil rich OPEC countries that were undermining the other industries he'd invested in), and this barely kept Korea afloat until the economic boom of the Reagan-era 80s, when that heavy industry infrastructure suddenly led to MASSIVE economic growth for Korea when Chun Doo Hwan presided over the payoff of Park's investment.

This is more my opinion than clear fact, but here's a third thing about Park Chung-hee's legacy: being assassinated and followed by Chun Doo-hwan did more good for his legacy than anyone can account for.

Huh?

Well... when you're assassinated, when you die mid-stride, your legacy gets a bump from what we might call "dead rockstar syndrome" -- if Axl Rose had died one week after releasing "Use Your Illusion I and II," we'd rank him with Kurt Cobain, instead of being sad about his "Fat Recluse" phase. Ditto if Michael Jackson had died in 1988. If Jimi Hendrix were still alive, the amazing things he did in 1968-70 would be diluted by those two albums in the 80s when he experimented with synthesizers, his religious phase in the early 90s, and his Grammy sweeping 2011 duet album with Taylor Swift. Park Chung-hee died... so he never had to spend time in jail, never saw the humiliation Korea's other ex-presidents suffered when later presidents jailed them to make themselves look cleaner, never had his corruption publicly revealed by whistleblowers or whatnot during a trial.

Second: the ugly parts of his dictatorship got smoothed over, because he was immediately followed by someone who was even worse. If M. Night Shyamalan had retired after The Happening, we'd all still be howling about what a bad movie it was. Instead, he went us one worse, and made The Last Airbender, and it was SO bad that all our The Happening jokes were no longer relevant. Chun Doo hwan managed the difficult accomplishment of making Park Chung-hee look like the GOOD strongman, which gave people the ability to gloss over that part of his legacy, and made it way easier to get nostalgic about him.

You don't see Chun Doo-hwan's kids in politics, do you?

So... all of that is in play, when you look at where Park Geun-hye came from.

Now, to wrap this up, I have one prediction, and one suggestion, which, as mentioned above, could revitalize Korea's politics...

The prediction is gross.
Opposition rhetoric during this presidency could be... has the potential to be... and therefore probably WILL be the shrillest, harshest, most polarizing, and most infantile, we've heard in Korean politics so far. Because every single time President Park introduces a policy the left doesn't like, they're going to play the dictator card, tell her how much she resembles her father... and that name calling will further polarize an already polarized political scene.

All the young people who were excited about Ahn Chul-soo's promise for a new kind of politics that doesn't involve brinksmanship and name-calling will get further jaded, and the broken system will get more broken. And even if you didn't like Park Chunghee... it'll be bloody annoying to hear the left jibjab about how the apple doesn't fall far from the tree... Park Geunhye at least should get a chance to show her own colors.


But here's the suggestion... Park Geun-hye could do something that would not only nip all those ad hominems in the bud, but completely change Korean civil society, meanwhile also showing that she is not simply riding her father's legacy, but that she'll be a new kind of leader appropriate for modern Korea. By doing two things:

1. Severing government ties to Korea's mass media. The fact that the government owns large stakes in most of Korea's major media entities is ridiculous... especially because the previous president actually had been interfering in the way government-owned media are run. Canada manages to keep the CBC run by government funds, without conflict of interest accusations coming out every month. BBC is generally seen as above reproach in that regard. These government run institutions are allowed to criticize their governments. And that's healthy.

2. And this is the biggie:
Striking the National Security Law from the books... or severely and specifically limiting it. The National Security Law has been the law that every president has used to stifle their critics or opponents. It's a vaguely worded catch-all law that allows a president to pretty much arrest or harass anyone who is doing something they don't like. It's been around since the cold war (1948)... when maybe vaguely worded catch-alls were needed, and "anti-state acts" could have meant a lot of things... but when retweeting a pro-north Korea tweet got somebody arrested? When an unemployed blogger gets called in by the national police? That's just ridiculous. Either a group of lawyers from both sides needs to get in there and add enough specific language that the National Security Law only catches North Korean spies... or it needs to be abolished entirely. Amnesty International and international human rights groups have been encouraging Korea to abolish the National Security Law for years, and the (mis)use of the National Security Law is one of the reasons that during Lee Myung-bak's presidency, South Korea went from "Free" to "Mostly free" on international press freedom indexes. (more at Amnesty International)

If Park Geun-hye does these two things, especially early in her presidency, she'll cut the umbilical cord, so to speak, from her father. She'll clearly distance herself from the kinds of behaviors that have plagued the Korean right for a long time, and open space for a healthier, less polarized civil society to develop more strongly in Korea. She'll also pull the rug from her opposition, so that the "dictator card" is unplayable, because she'll be able to toss back at them, "I abolished those laws, and removed the president's influence on the media. What are you talking about, I resemble my father? Take another look." She'd have the space to create her own legacy.

It'd be a genius move. Absolute genius.

Maybe the amount of name-calling in the national assembly would finally decrease... which might give more hope to those disenchanted voters who wanted Ahn Chul-soo to run for president. Maybe Korea's civil society would get a little less screechy, and we'd be able to have a conversation about issues without somebody calling someone else a dictator sympathiser or a communist. Maybe.

Too bad it won't happen.

Since I'm not writing a lot these days...

Well, since I'm not writing a lot these days, let me direct you to Scroozle, whose "State of Public English Education In Korea" is pretty spot-on, and suggests a set of reforms I could get behind.

TL:DR: (as a Marmot commenter once wrote:)
1. Good foreign English teachers
2. Many foreign English teachers
3. Cheap foreign English teachers

Choose 2.

(Right now Korea is choosing 2 and 3, and forgoing 1)

Go read the whole article... and argue with him if you like.

Ali, Shin Joong-hyun, and new Korean artists doing old Korean music...

It's no secret that I REALLY like Shin Joong-hyun, one of Korea's original rock'n'roll badasses.

And I LOVE his signature song 미인, which takes the sounds of that majestic Korean chanting and call-and-response sound that you hear in traditional performances, and lays a blistering guitar lick over it... and makes it really, really work...

I generally like what I've seen of Ali (알리), the singer who does this version. She can actually sing, and she's sexy in the way real people are sexy, not in the way Kpop stars or cardboard cutouts are sexy.


Ali does a version of Shin's song here - I saw it on TV this weekend... and I liked it.


It goes in three movements, laying out, in a way, three of the features of Shin Joong-hyun's original song -- the primal wail of sexual energy turns into a slinky come-on in the first part, the messy fun of Korean folk culture (which animates the vocals of Shin's original version) somes out (to varying degrees of effectiveness) in the second part [in my opinion, the rap section could have been dropped], but I liked the samulnori bit (the part with ribbons on hats and Korean drums) and then flying with the energy charge of psychadelic rock and roll at the end.

I like that young Korean artists are listening to older Korean music, and bringing it to a new generation.

The Wondergirls also did a version of Mi-in as well, with the (slightly dirty sounding) name "Me, In"


And let's not forget Big Bang doing Lee Mun Sae: Sunset Glow



the original


Oh, BTW... in 2006, Shin Joong-hyun still had it... I mean, REALLY had it:


Enjoy the music, readers.

Park Geun-hye: Female President, Patriarchal Society?

I had a short conversation today with someone who wanted to convince me to vote for Park Geun-hye

(If, that is, I had a vote.)

Now, I haven't studied too deeply into the politics and policies of the candidates for Korea's upcoming presidential election.  I expressed my skepticism about Ahn Cheol-su's candidacy a while back, and I usually list to the left politically, but I just have a few things to say about Park Geun-hye and her pop... because it's impossible to talk about Park Geun-hye without referencing her late father. And that works both for her (with one group of people) and also against her (with another group, at least a few of whom have to vote for her, unless Ahn Cheol-su continues splitting the vote on the left, gift-wrapping the presidency for her).

These are my scattershot thoughts -- I just don't have it in me these days to string together long and coherent arguments on teh blarg these days (hell, I can barely be arsed to write a post a month)... but here are a few things about Park Geun-hye's candidacy, and her pop's legacy.

1. Park Chung-hee's legacy will always be mixed. I visited his museum, not far from the World Cup Stadium, last spring, and it was pretty much a hagiography, glossing over things like his training and experience in the Japanese military, or the sketchier parts of his story. The emphasis was economy economy economy. What he set out to do? He did in spades, spectacularly... but at a hell of a cost.

2. What he did was really good for the time when he came along. A leader cast in his mold coming along now, when the world is a very, very different place, just doesn't fly. Remember LMB's grand canal plan? Korea doesn't need a grand canal anymore, because it ain't 1965 anymore. In the infrastructure area... we're good, thanks. Nor does Korea need another president who puts economic growth above everything --Korea's mostly in a good place right now, but some of the other components of democracy, like civil society and social welfare and equality, have a ways to go--, or plays nationalist cards in order to score points in favor of their economic projects, or who continues to stifle civil society and go on with the old tradition of appointing buddies in high government positions, or having two cabinet graft scandals per month, or hobbling civil society, free speech, and human rights organizations. International communication is too good, too instant, and too fast, to try and pull that kind of shit anymore.

3. I hate the way talking about Korea's history is so politicized -- that vast tracts of President PCH's story go ignored according to one's political stripe, and the same goes for many other characters events and entities in Korea's history. It's depressing, because it means people don't listen to each other. Then again, looking at the way different countries talk about the history of the region, it's no surprise there's such a sharp contrast between the stories domestically, along political lines as well.

4. The narrative my conversation partner gave me was this one: That Park Geun-hye didn't get married and start a family, because "Korea is her husband" or something like that. And with that kind of narrative, suddenly it becomes possible for an ultra-patriarchal country to have a female president, but still be ultra-patriarchal. Because clearly, the norm -- what a woman is SUPPOSED to do... is have a husband. To get married and make babies. As if the only way to be a successful female politician is to remove herself from the roles she's "supposed" to do... and just so, even as Korea moves toward possibly having its first female president, even the memes around that woman's becoming president, point a big finger back to the kitchen for women who don't want to become president-- women remain faced with the false choice of either starting a family or chasing success in some other (read: men's) realms.

Now I'm not saying every person in Korea's patriarchal or sexist, or that gender roles are as rigid as they used to be, or that no progress has been made...

but it makes me sad that the narratives surrounding the woman who might become Korea's first female president actually reinforce traditional gender norms, and that along with that, all the "well women in Korea have come far enough, thanks" (mostly) men will be able to pull out the Park Geun-hye trump card as "proof" that Korea is now an equal society, so we don't need to have wacky things like a whole government ministry just for women's equality anymore, and we clearly don't need to develop laws and social programs protecting working or unmarried or migrant mothers, because if we have a female president, clearly women have come far enough!

This might not be the case. This may not be how the narratives around PGH go. I'm almost 100% sure I'm missing something, because I've been busy, and my Korean ain't that hot. Probably, things will continue getting better, faster than the old men in power would like (out come the hospital gowns!) but slower than I'd like to see... but I just really really dislike the "Korea is my husband" meme, because of what follows from it. That is all.

The Dokdo Flag, The Olympics and Antagonistic Nationalism

The Olympics came and went. And all the flag waving with it. I've been busy -- I got a very unexpected promotion at work, and between doing the "Blog Buzz" section at TBS This Morning every week for quite a while, and also writing a "Blog Of The Month" thingy for 10 Magazine, I seem to have gotten blogged out... more on that later, perhaps. So I didn't comment on the Olympics as they were happening. Tough nuts.

And that Korean soccer player may or may not get his bronze medal after holding up a sign that said "Dokdo Is Our Land," and there's been buzz that he may even still have to do his military service, which would happen in Korea's soccer or olympic organizations don't want the IOC or FIFA to be mad. Or maybe he still won't, because now that the Korean media's picked this up, he may come out of this a minor hero.

Sigh. Grumble grumble grumble.

The whole news story is pretty much stupid from top to bottom.

To begin, the idea that the Olympics are not political is just stupid from the start. The Olympics always have been. After World War II, cities from all the major Axis nations were each awarded Olympics games, partly to symbolize normalization with the rest of the world (Munich, Rome and Tokyo), but not before London crowed in 1948 (Who won the war? Fuck yeah! We did!). Those city selections were political choices, no doubt about it. Apartheid and cold war politics saw mass boycotts of the Olympics through the 70s and 80s.

The awarding of the games to a particular host city has ALWAYS been a huge granting of status, and a form of validation in the international arena that is all the more powerful for its rarity -- after all, there's only one Summer and one Winter games every four years - that scarcity makes it a much bigger deal than if, say, the Superbowl, which happens EVERY year, went to a different city worldwide each year. And you can't award the Olympics to Beijing, but not the political prisons. The games go to the host city, baggage and all.

And the Olympics have turned a blind eye to some awful shit in their day, hiding behind "The Olympics are not political" when their hypocrisy becomes too glaring -- a few year after the Tiananmen Square massacre, the president of the IOC was encouraging china to make an Olympic hosting bid for the 2000 games that went to Sydney. Seoul got the 1988 games in 1981, only about a year after Korea's military massacred democracy protesters in Gwangju.

But while the International Olympic Committee goes through the paces of not being about politics, it's always been about politics. And money. And prestige. The countries being awarded the games have always been western countries, or countries that can put on a mask of appearing similar enough to the West to make the high-up mucky-mucks feel assured of their superiority.

So the idea that the Olympics are not political is rubbish. They're intensely, intrinsically political, and you only get smacked for being political if your politics don't agree with theirs.

And in fact, I'd rather they were MORE political, if it meant they were a little less commercial. Banning logos and making it illegal for companies that weren't official sponsors of the Olympics to use the word "London" and "2012" too close together -- and the amount of resources spent policing the above -- let everyone know what the Olympics are about now. And it made me pine a little for some political showboating, if only because the black power fist doesn't translate onto a Wheaties box.

At the more "mass" level, the Olympics are about nationalist chest-thumping and flag waving. I realize I'm not saying anything new. The Olympics have also always been about nationalist chest-thumping and flag-waving. Leading up to the 1908 Olympics (also in London), the Olympic project was in trouble. A handful of other potential host cities had balked at the cost, and Rome actually cancelled after repairs from Mt. Vesuvius' eruption drained public coffers. The Olympics had no home, and London became the host on short notice, because it was hosting the World Expo at the time. Can't even find a host city? The Olympics were in rough shape.

But then the guy carrying the American Flag refused to dip the US flag as the US contingent passed in front of the British King's box (all the other nations had), and that insult, followed by some misunderstandings about the rules for a few sports, led to an acrimonious rivalry developing between British and American athletes. These territorial controversies made the olympics much more interesting than some high-minded nobles prancing their horses around, and the Olympics started down a path it would not be able to return from.

Olympics have always been about nationalism -- all the way from that fifth Olympiad. Before that, the Olympics mostly ran as afterthoughts concurrent with and overshadowed by a few world fairs, in Paris and St. Louis. In fact, I'm gonna say that if nationalism hadn't gotten tied into the Olympics, the whole project would have sputtered, and the world would give about as much a damn about the Olympics as the world gave about  the 2011 World Athletics Championships (who hosted them? Quick! Without google! Betcha nobody outside the host country can tell you) or the 1986 World Expo (Betcha nobody outside the host city can tell you were that was). For what it's worth, cheering for a country helps people get excited about the Olympics -- it gives us a hook to hang our interest on, when otherwise nobody'd give a damn about mixed pairs badminton or synchronized diving.

I don't think nationalism is going anywhere regardless, just because a nation is a large enough unit for human beings to feel aggrandized by connecting their identity to it, but a small enough unit that we can remain provincial and prejudiced toward outsiders, and wrap our minds around that morsel of identity in a way that sets up an ingroup and outgroup. That ingroup-outgroup shit seems to matter with us homo sapiens.

And what of Park Jong-woo?

Well, to begin with, he didn't make the sign himself. But he could read it. But he had just won a medal by beating his country's (percieved) nastiest rival. But he had to expect what was coming.

Honestly, I'd do some dumb shit too if I'd just won an Olympic medal. The people I blame are the Korean fans who handed him the sign.

I hope they really feel like shit.

Not just for getting a guy stripped of his medal, but in the larger picture, for making, and bringing, such a shithead sign to an event that (despite my descriptions of the IOC's hypocrisy above) is supposed to be a celebration of excellence, and is described as an opportunity to resolve, or at least suspend, national differences through competition. Resolving rivalries through competition is ass-backwards thinking... but then, would a billion people world wide turn their TVs on to watch the open ceremonies of the "International Leadership and Team Building Activitiad"?  "Bulgaria won a gold medal in the trust fall on Tuesday, but their representative placed dead last in the 'Back-pat and Multi-step Handshake' event."

They're kinda dumbasses... but I can hardly blame them, because if THEY missed the point of the Olympics, then EVERYBODY's been missing the point of the Olympics since 1908.

I've been reading about nationalism for some of the papers I wrote last semester, and this Dokdo sign stupidity is just another iteration of other historical real and perceived grievances in the arena... as for Dokdo itself, go read this article. I like it.

But as for antagonistic nationalism in East Asia?

Well, you know how the basketball or soccer team where the players are making the extra pass and sacrificing their own stats for the sake of team success, are usually the teams that win the big games? And how the teams where players are trying to run up their statistical totals for the sake of their next payday... usually don't win the big game?

And you know how in the long run, history is kinder to the athletes who pass on individual glory for the sake of the team, and those guys who score lots of points for the last-place team get forgotten, while everybody remembers the folks who lift the trophies?

Well right now, all the countries in East Asia are the players gunning for individual stats, rather than trying to figure out how to win the effing game.

The USA and China will benefit from this, because if the smaller countries can't get their shit together, they'll keep setting up the pieces to dominate the pacific rim, and the Asian continent, by continuing to pitch smaller countries against each other.

The smaller countries in Asia will either be forced to choose between USA or China, or allowed to keep vacillating, which renders their influence in the region pretty much impotent.

I mean... Europe's not doing so hot right now economically... but if you look a little closer, the idea that "We're in this together, and we've got to help each other out of this" underpins most of the debates about what comes next for the EU... and that shared experience of mutual support is going to pay dividends in the future, when nations begin to trust the institution of the EU more.

And Korea and Japan and China will probably still be screeching at each other about this island, and that mountain, and the truth about some historical events.

And that's just stupid. That's all.

Photographer...

Hi there all.

In case you haven't heard, first of all, congratulations to Seoul-->Suburban, on their upcoming book publication (link), and also, if you're a Seoul-based street photographer looking to get involved in a really cool project, you might be interested to know the Seoul-->Suburban photographer, Elizabeth, is moving away from Seoul, and this leaves the site in need of a new photographer. More info here.

Oh yeah... an in their latest post, they cover one of my favorite stretches of the Cheonggyecheon, and the surrounding area. Check it out.