[North Korea] Perhaps Financial Sanctions on North Korea Might Not Be Such A Good Idea Right Now...

Apparently, the United States, according to Josh Stanton, is once again considering imposing financial sanctions on North Korea, which is arguably the most potent weapon that the United States has against North Korea. But, while I thought these sanctions to be a good idea under the Bush administration, I think the situation in North Korea has changed sufficiently enough that it might as well be a good time to consider holding off on such sanctions and instead just deflect the issue (North Korea) to China -- by sending a 97,000 ton U.S. aircraft carrier to the Yellow Sea. I had earlier commented this would probably be one funny development and which The Washington Post reports might actually turn out to be a reality shortly. 

Anyways, North Korea is once again experiencing widespread food shortages again and Kim Jong Il is preoccupied with concerns of succession and domestic stability. Moreover, consider that the country has ditched any pretense of being a Communist country, by making changes in the regime's constitution, and, much more recently, has fully and formally absolved any rules that make market activity illegal in an effort to stave off starvation. So, clearly the country is bankrupt both ideologically and materially. Why press for further substantive sanctions now?

And, while it might seem at times that I am all for unification at all costs, I think the U.S. has more pressing issues at the moment, which unfortunately look far more important than Korean unification -- which itself the South Korean people are not yet ready for. For example, Iran's nuclear weapons program, finding a global consensus on ways to amend the world's financial system, and the on-going war in Afghanistan -- which the South Korean government refuses to aid on a substantive basis not unlike South Korea's "heroic" troop deployment to the peaceful Kurdish regions in Iraq -- seem far more important. I would also add a flexible Chinese currency regime in here as well, which China seems to have budged on even with the crisis in Europe. Probably the best course of action that's in the best interests of the United States would be to once again overlook the transgressions of the worst regime in the history of the world. Of course, it looks like this is actually in the best interests of the five remaining parties not inclusive of North Koreans, of course.

I mean is it not China's duty at the moment to ensure that North Korea does not torpedo another South Korean boat? So, along with token sanctions that have been extended for another year very recently by the U.S., a 97,000 ton aircraft carrier in the Yellow Sea will send a crystal clear message to China about what is exactly at stake when China is unable to actually rein in North Korea. Simply, North Korea doesn't want war and I don't think the country will be stupid enough to incite another incident out of fear for China's wrath when China is fuming at the country that there is a giant aircraft carrier parked near China's capital and less so out of a North Korean belief  that the U.S. will actually bomb or invade North Korea. So, for the time being, as it is increasingly clear that North Korea is both a financially and ideologically bankrupt regime, it would be best to deflect the matter to China -- which means maintaining the status quo for the time being and, yes, millions of Koreans suffering and starving -- while the rest of the world waits to see how the succession issue plays out.

Of course, if people were willing to die for starving North Koreans -- as well as a united Korean peninsula, then it would be an entirely different situation as it would present additional options. However, this is just not the case and unlike the past two decades it looks like the DPRK might soon implode on its own accord.

[World Cup & North Korea] Schizophrenic South Korea & ESPN

I'm upset and it's not because it looks as if I'm set to lose $5 and it's also not because Brazil beat North Korea or even how offensive ESPN commentators were towards North Koreans or Koreans in general. I was waiting for some mainstream U.S. publications to pick up on this rather than it coming from me. Here's Michael Boyajian at Huffington Post:

ESPN made fun of North Korea's leader, the team's coach, their fans, the names of their players and their overall performance in a very unsporting manner. Such a diatribe would not be tolerated in American sports whether it was baseball, football, hockey or yes soccer. In fact in my entire lifetime I have never seen such reactionary conduct while watching a sporting event even during the Olympics at the height of the Cold War.

I'm very upset at the response of South Koreans.

Now, with that said, it's hard not to laugh along with some of the cheap shots aimed at the North Koreans'. For example, EPSN was mocking the "invisible telephone line" that North Korea's coach claimed he had with Kim Jong Il or the alleged Chinese fans, who were being paid to root for North Korea, were pretty funny. Or, the references to North Korean players being showed a mobile phone or a refrigerator for the first time.

But, some of the other comments, such as making fun of the North Korean players' names were, well, decidedly not so funny. Also, I couldn't help but look at how old all the North Korean players all looked. It seemed as if the North Korean government interreputed some Korean ajeoshi's (middle-aged men) game of Baduk ("Go") and dropped them off next to arguably the most stylish, popular, and talented soccer team (Brazil) in the world. The contrast could not be more striking. Nonetheless, the North Koreans even qualifying and coming to the World Cup in and of itself is a solid achievement. Consider that neither of the two Chinas (China or Taiwan) or ethnic Chinese states (such as Singapore) were able to qualify for the World Cup.

As an American with no emotional attachment to the Korea, it'd be easy to overlook all this, but for South Koreans, who were in a similar situation not too long ago, their profound silence on the matter is deeply disturbing and baffling. In particular, it reminds me of the sham Sunshine Policy with its direct policy of engaging North Korea by providing them with the least amount of material aid necessary to keep the North Korean regime intact as South Korea can grow ever richer while some how trying to block out that they have an enormous amount of baggage attached to them -- the 23 or 24 million Koreans that live between the DMZ and China.

All the while, while this game was being broadcast, it was hard not to overlook the halftime report sponsored by Hyundai, the Kia signs -- a Hyundai subsidiary -- all over the soccer stadium, and commercials of new phones and flat screen televisions by Samsung. Now, what amazes me is that I can understand how ESPN commentators would mock North Koreans, but what I can't understand is how South Koreans are able to sit by and abide all this.

It was not too long ago that ESPN commentators would probably have been doing the exact same thing with respect to a South Korean team, such as mocking the names of Korean players or the ESPN commentator even making the comment "there are just too many Koreans [for the Brazilians to score]..." Not even with a decade ago, David Letterman was still making references to cheap South Korean cars -- I believe this was in 2002 and Hyundai even offered him a Tiburon to test drive -- for his comments on the Late Show.

On a side note: I thought it to be a mighty statement of how far South Korea has come in their struggle for legitimacy against North Korea when South Korea has monopolized the three letters, "KOR" as an abbreviation for South Korea or "Korea Republic."

Also, what I found to be amazing was the comment by ESPN commentators about thanking those of watching the Armed Forces Network for American soldiers stationed overseas in "175 countries and territories..."

[Correction] Rebuking Barbara Demick's Deliberately Dishonest Los Angeles Times Editorial *edit1*

edit: 06/15/2010, 8:32am
I earlier offered a scathing rebuke of Barbara Demick's piece in the Los Angeles Times, "Sinking of ship provides welcome distraction for North Korea" as both an exercise to show first how often articles -- particularly editorials -- on North Korea are usually just gibberish and, then, to show how useful blogs can be in picking apart these editorials. I picked that editorial in particular as, well, the author is an award winning author of two books and as she is the Beijing Bureau Chief of the Los Angeles Times.

When I first read that article, it appeared as it was just gibberish. But, upon re-reading the article, it appears she's just slamming the policies of the South Korean right very deliberately. So, whereas I earlier wrote:

While I have nothing against the book -- which I have yet to read and of which I have heard nothing but praise, the author here makes a sweeping and rather incorrect generalization that either borders on naivete or very lazy and perhaps even dishonest journalism. I'd like to believe it's out of naivete.


Upon re-reading the editorial, the article definitely has not only a dangerously dishonest, but a very deliberate twist to it. Anyways, it's these lines made me feel this way:

In an assessment released last week based on intelligence reports, the Washington-based International Strategic Studies Assn. concluded, "Kim Jong Il was so far winning the Cheonan incident he had instigated."

The big loser has been South Korea's conservative ruling party, which was trounced in local elections Thursday. The Grand National Party had hoped that outrage over the Cheonan would boost its popularity; instead the electorate appeared to be more concerned that President Lee Myung-bak was exploiting the incident with his hard-line stand toward North Korea. Results of an investigation of the sinking were not released until May 20, two weeks before the election.

Kang Won-taek, a professor of political science at Soongsil University, said people "thought the government was going back to the old days of using fear for authoritarianism and not democracy."

That's just the standard platform of the South Korean left. I was at first a bit misled by the title. Anyways, it's an even more dangerous editorial after re-reading it and with her credentials:

The editorial suggests that average North Koreans are hurting --  the title of the editorial is "Sinking of ship provides welcome distraction for North Korea" and that Kim Jong Il is winning. What makes this article more dangerous after re-reading it is that she won an award for writing a book as an investigative reporter on the human rights situation in North Korea -- after writing a book about the human rights situation in the Balkans. So, in effect, she is in effect implying that the current right of center ruling party in South Korea is responsible for the suffering of average North Koreans, allowing the North Korean leadership to take advantage of the situation, and sacrificing South Korea's best interests (as Kim Jong Il is "winning"). And, moreover, the South Korean government is doing all this to further their own political interests, which is pretty much an outright lie if you consider what is going on in South Korea...

Anyways, here's the link to the updated post.

Also, South Korea's ruling GNP right of center political party suffered losses in many parts of the country in largely mayoral races -- not inclusive of Seoul I believe, but why on earth is there an article like this in the Los Angeles Times? I mean, if it were it in Hankyoreh-rubbish I would understand, but it's pretty clear that South Korea -- by internationalizing the issue -- singlehandley strengthened the US-South Korea Alliance, US-Japan Alliance, and Japan-South Korea ties. Furthermore, China has become enraged at North Korea and Kim Jong Il "winning" would mean a successful succession which I doubt that this incident has furthered. I'm not sure if the author is deliberately doing this, but it looks pretty damn deliberate and while she may be an investigative reportor of human rights situations in the more exotic places in the world, I wonder why she would deliberately dive into South Korean politics and what the regular Los Angeles Times reader would pick up froom this article...

[Japan] A Japanese Model with a PhD in History Offers Sex as Compensation for Japanese Wartime Atrocities

This has got to be one of the strangest stories I've ever heard -- even of those that relate to Japan. Apparently, a female Japanese model with a doctorate in history is offering sex as compensation to Chinese students at her school for historical atrocities committed by Japan against China:

ROK Drop:

Talk about a way to recruit foreign students to your school. I wonder if anyone has inquired on whether the bombing of Pearl Harbor counts for Americans to get this benefit?

Actually, I think if this were the case, then we would probably lose a substantial portion of the U.S. female population. I think Japan got the raw end of World War II. I mean they were basically beaten down in every possible way -- oh yeah and nuked as well. But, I do believe in the post-war period the U.S. has done more than enough -- such as sacrifice entire industries to the Japanese -- to make up for what happened in World War II.

[World Cup & South Korea] Commentary on Korean Surnames & Jerseys & Phonetically sounding out Chinese names in Korean *update1*

Edit: For clarity and readability, 9:54 am, 06/13

Aside from the usage of Korea Republic instead of South Korea [and that of Korea being double represented], what I find to be the next funniest thing about the World Cup are the names listed on Korean soccer jerseys -- the conspicuous absence of surnames on jerseys.  This is the 23-man South Korean soccer team in 2010 World Cup in South Africa :

1 LEE Woon Jae 26/04/1973 GK Suwon Bluewings (KOR) 182

2 OH Beom Seok 29/07/1984 DF Ulsan Hyundai (KOR) 181

3 KIM Hyung Il 27/04/1984 DF Pohang Steelers (KOR) 187

4 CHO Yong Hyung 03/11/1983 DF Jeju Utd. (KOR) 182

5 KIM Nam Il 14/03/1977 MF Tom Tomsk (RUS) 180

6 KIM Bo Kyung 06/10/1989 MF Oita Trinita (JPN) 178

7 PARK Ji Sung 25/02/1981 MF Manchester Utd. (ENG) 178

8 KIM Jung Woo 09/05/1982 MF Gwangju Sangmu (KOR) 183

9 AHN Jung Hwan 27/01/1976 FW Dalian Shide (CHN) 177

10 PARK Chu Young 10/07/1985 FW Monaco (FRA) 183

11 LEE Seung Yeoul 06/03/1989 FW FC Seoul (KOR) 183

12 LEE Young Pyo 23/04/1977 DF Al Hilal (KSA) 177

13 KIM Jae Sung 03/10/1983 MF Pohang Steelers (KOR) 180

14 LEE Jung Soo 08/01/1980 DF Kashima Antlers (JPN) 185

15 KIM Dong Jin 29/01/1982 DF Ulsan Hyundai (KOR) 184

16 KI Sung Yueng 24/01/1989 MF Celtic (SCO) 187

17 LEE Chung Yong 02/07/1988 MF Bolton Wanderers (ENG) 180

18 JUNG Sung Ryong 04/01/1985 GK Seongnam Ilhwa Chunma (KOR) 190

19 YEOM Ki Hun 30/03/1983 MF Suwon Bluewings (KOR) 182

20 LEE Dong Gook 29/04/1979 FW Jeonbuk Motors (KOR) 187

21 KIM Young Kwang 28/06/1983 GK Ulsan Hyundai (KOR) 184

22 CHA Du Ri 25/07/1980 DF SC Freiburg (GER) 181

23 KANG Min Soo 14/02/1986 DF Suwon Bluewings (KOR) 186

Nine of the 23 players have the surname Kim and two of arguably the three most popular South Korean soccer players have the same surname -- Park. Almost as if to avoid the occurance of "Kim passes to Kim" or "Lee to Park to Park to Lee, now, again, to Park ...", South Korea has only listed given names on the jerseys. It's particularly funny when you think about the fact that in Korean, names are read surname first. Also, just for added emphasis to show how important surnames are in Korea, Korean surnames are traditionally for life as when a Korean woman gets married she keeps her surname.

I wonder how hard it must be for non-Korean speaking sports announcers to memorize South Korean players' names. Anyways, Wikipedia has a nice table (and listed below) on the most common surnames in South Korea. Apparently, Chang (Or, Jang as it is now apparently romanized) was the tenth most common surname in South Korea back in 2000 (2.05%). Of course, it gets a little more complicated than that as what may appear to be the same surname may just be a homonym with the same spelling in Korean and English. The surname I carry -- Chang/Jang, 장 (張) is a homonym -- in both Korean and English -- with a different Chang/Jang 장 (長). Of course, even among surnames with the same spelling (same Chinese character) it can also mean that they are actually two different names(for example, Kim/김/金). 

Funny thing is this should just reinforce the notion of how important it should be to teach Sino-Korean characters in primary school and, also, goes to show, how South Koreans are keen about the way the rest of the world perceives the country.

On a side note, I find it absolutely ridiculous that South Koreans pronounce Chinese names and cities phonetically rather than spelling out the Korean character that corresponds with these characters. It's like having a loanword for centuries and while the loanword is still in use, such as say, Caesar, and then to suddenly change the spelling to "Kaiser" as, well, in Latin it was supposedly pronounced as "Kaiser." Or, going out of your way many hundreds of years after "Veni, Vidi, Vici" was taken as loan word(s) and deciding, well, we should now spell it "Wheni, Widi, Wiki." I know these are not the best examples as, well, English uses the Roman script; hopefully, however, this conveys the gist of it.

Of course, as Chinese is a tonal language, whereas Korean is not, I'm not sure how many of these homonyms with the same spelling in Korean are also homonyms in Chinese languages, but, of course, the Chinese script is not alphabetic. Anyways, it seems to be a rather transparent attempt for South Koreans to minimize the historical influence that China has had.

But, here's the list of the most common surnames in South Korea out of a population of about 45 million in 2000.

Source: Wikipedia

Hangul Hanja Revised McCune-Reischauer Popular spellings 2000 South Korean population *

김 金 Gim Kim Kim, Kym 18,925,949

이 (S)/리 (N) 5 李, 伊, 異 I (S) Ri (N) 5 Yi (S) Ri (N) 5 Lee, Yi, Rhee, Ree, Rey, Rhie 6,796,227

박 朴 Bak Pak Park, Pak, Bark, Pack 3,895,121 
정 丁, 程, 鄭 Jeong Chŏng Chung, Jung, Joung, Chong, Cheong, Choung 2,230,611

최 崔 Choe Ch'oe Choi, Che, Choy, Chey 2,169,704

조 趙, 曺 Jo Cho Cho, Joe, Joh, Jou 1,347,730

강 姜, 剛, 康, 强, 彊 Gang Kang Kang, Kahng, Kwang, Khang 1,169,805

유 (S) 류 (N) 4 柳, 劉, 兪, 庾 Yu (S) Ryu (N) 4 Yu (S) Ryu (N) 4 Yoo, You, Ryu 1,040,984

윤 尹 Yun Yun Yoon, Youn, Yune, Yeun 948,600

장 莊, 章, 張, 蔣 Jang Chang Chang, Jahng, Jhang, Gang, Zhang 943,257

신 申, 辛, 愼 Sin Sin Shin, Shinn, Sheen, Chin, Seen 911,556

임 (S) 림 (N) 6 林, 任 Im (S) Rim (N) 6 Im (S) Rim (N) 6 Lim, Yim, Rim, Leem, Rhim 735,493

한 韓, 漢 Han Han Hahn, Hann 715,556 오 伍, 吳 O O Oh, Oe, Au 706,908

서 西, 徐 Seo Sŏ Suh, Su, Sur, So, Seu 695,249

전 全, 田, 錢 Jeon Chŏn Jun, Chun, Chon, Jeun, Cheon 687,867

권 權 Gwon Kwŏn Kwon, Kweon, Kwun, Gwon, Kwan 652,495

황 黃 Hwang Hwang Whang, Hoang 644,294

송 宋, 松 Song Song Soung, Shong, Sung 639,082

안 安 An An Ahn, Ann, Aan 637,786

홍 洪 Hong Hong Houng, Hyong 518,635

양 (S) 량 (N) 1 梁, 楊, 樑, 襄 Yang (S) Ryang (N) 1 Yang (S) Ryang (N) 1 Ryang, Yaung, Lyang 486,645

고 高 Go Ko Ko, Koh, Goh, Kho, Gho, Kor 435,839

문 門, 文 Mun Mun Moon 426,927

손 孫 Son Son Sohn, Shon, Soon, Soun, Sun 415,182

배 裵 Bae Pae Bai, Bea, Pae, Pai 372,064

백 白 Baek Paek Baik, Back, Paik, Paek, Beak 351,275

허 許 Heo Hŏ Hur, Huh, Her, Hu, Ho 300,448

노 (S) 로 (N) 盧, 魯, 路 No (S) Ro (N) No (S) Ro (N) Noh, Roh, Ro, Rho, Nho 290,434

남 南 Nam Nam Nahm, Nham, Narm 257,178

심 沈 Sim Sim Shim, Seem, Sheem, Shimn, Sihm 252,255

주 周, 朱 Ju Chu Joo, Chu, Choo, Jou, Zoo 215,010

하 河, 夏 Ha Ha Hah, Har 213,758

성 成, 星 Seong Sŏng Sung, Soung, Seung, Song 185,363

차 車 Cha Ch'a Char, Chah, Tchah, Tcha 180,589

우 于, 禹 U U Woo, Wu, Ou, Wo, Uh 180,141

나 (S) 라 (N) 羅 Na (S) Ra (N) Na (S) Ra (N) Ra, Nah, La, Rha, Rah 172,022

진 晉, 眞, 陳, 秦 Jin Chin Chin, Jean, Gin, Zhin, Chen 170,980

민 閔 Min Min Minn, Mihn 159,054

지 智, 池 Ji Chi Jee, Ch, Gi, Chee, Gee 147,572

엄 嚴 Eom Ŏm Um, Eum, Uhm, Aum, Oum, Ohm 132,990

변 卞, 邊 Byeon Pyŏn Byun, Byon, Pyun, Byoun, Pyon 131,554

원 元, 袁, 苑 Won Wŏn Weon, Woon, Wone, Wun, One 120,465

방 方, 房, 邦, 龐 Bang Pang Pang, Bhang, Bahng, Pahng, Phang 119,703

채 采, 菜, 蔡 Chae Ch'ae Chai, Che, Chea 119,251

천 天, 千 Cheon Ch'ŏn Chun, Chon, Chen, Choun 112,227

[World Cup 2010 South Africa] Joe's Picks

So, I decided to do it. I couldn't get myself to put down a $100 or even $20 on North Korea winning the World Cup. Unlike the past entry, "[World Cup & North Korea] North Korea in a nutshell," this is more of a journal entry I guess.

I'm attending summer school, so I'm far away from Los Angeles again, where the Staples Center will be overrun with Koreans and Los Angeles will be up until five morning with a Korean victory.  Rather, I'm headed to San Jose tonight with its larger Korean community rather than Oakland or San Francisco, which has a rather select number of venues. . Anyways, I do have a certain number of picks:

Note: I'd like to say gambling is a terrible vice and I deposited $80 for the entire world cup and I'm not a big fan of going through a bookie... However, I am looking to hopefully take a summer trip to Vegas -- if I can afford it -- where I will probably spend most of my time partying and watching other people gamble rather than gamble myself.

Among my other picks for the World Cup, I've also bet that South Korea will take it all the way and that the United States of America will defeat the hated English. I also bet that the Koreas, Japan, and the United States will all make it to the round of sixteen; I bet that Portugal would not. Bets on futures cannot be parlayed on the site I use.

With that said, I will be in San Jose tonight -- I'm up in Berkeley again for a summer school course and I find pleasure in watching a Korean football with other Koreans. Let's hope South Korea or Korea Republic -- which I wrote about in past topics as a form of Koreans denying that their country is still divided -- does not disappoint in the way that the Lakers did last night. 

As Koreans like to say, "Fighting!" 화이팅~

Translation: 'Let's Go Korea."

[A Rising South Korea] Who would've thought the sinking of the Cheonan would bring...

... a 97,000-ton aircraft carrier to the Yellow Sea...

I find this story hilarious for a number of reasons --  (map below). But, the underlying message here would be that China can utter a few words of measured regret, yet try and maintain an equidistant or "neutral" stance on the Korean peninsula, but the United States can offer a 97,000 ton aircraft carrier to South Korea in support. Also, Communist China only seems to pay attention to hard power as they admonish North Korea only when they kill Chinese citizens -- recently, 3 Chinese smugglers were killed by North Korean border guards -- and only begin to really start paying attention when a 97,000-ton aircraft carrier is about to be parked off Beijing and Shanghai. That's the serious part I guess, but, I just find this story so terribly funny...

In a Chosun Ilbo article entitled, "Keep U.S. Aircraft Carrier Out of Our Backyard, China Warns:"

A state-run Chinese newspaper on Tuesday criticized the South Korean government for allowing the 97,000-ton aircraft carrier George Washington of the U.S. Navy's Seventh Fleet to join South Korea-U.S. military training scheduled late this month.

In an editorial, Global News wrote the West Sea "is in proximity to China's political hub of Beijing and Tianjin. If a U.S. aircraft carrier comes into the West Sea, mainland China falls under the military strategic influence of U.S. military forces. The people of China will not accept South Korea having military demonstration involving a U.S. aircraft carrier."

There are a couple things that I find incredibly funny about this article, but, first, I should digress. What is the West Sea?

 

Koreans are a funny lot. Like the Japanese, Koreans are very ethnocentric. (Of course, for reasons why I would again repeat the mantra of a long history of a single people without an ethnic minority or sense of other). But, anyways, the waters to the west of the Korean Peninsula, known to the rest of the world as the Yellow Sea is also called the Yellow Sea in Korean, but is used interchangeably with the name, the "West Sea" -- 황해/서해. Of course, Japan gets less deference as, well, the waters to the east of Korea are always referred in Korean as the East Sea (of Korea) rather than the Sea of Japan. 

Note: Of course, there are historical factors that play into this... but anyways...

 

I'm in no way trying to diminish the legitimacy of the name East Sea (of Korea), but, rather just, pointing out the difference in the way Korea has traditionally treated Japan and China. (Japan as a peer and China, well, not so much so). But anyways, I guess along with increasing tensions against China comes, perhaps, a new found need to call the Yellow Sea by its proper name. (By the way, there's a province in the central part of western North Korea called the Yellow Sea Province). Of course, I might be reading too much into this... But, this is Northeast Asia... 

 

But anyways, I  wrote just yesterday that I was pleased with the new "Obama doctrine" of pragmatism. Well, to fully appreciate this story, we should first take a look at a map (Source: University of Texas).

 

If you examine the map, right to the south of the most western part of North Korea, is a few islands that are controlled by South Korea. That is where naval clashes between North and South Korea have occurred, the Cheonan sank, and where a 97,000 ton U.S. aircraft carrier may soon be headed.

 

Now, if you look at the map, look how close China is -- particularly Beijing and Shanghai; it is pretty understandable why China would be so upset. It's like having a Chinese aircraft carrier -- if they had one as well as a base in say Greenland or Cuba -- and they were to say hold "exercises" off Washington, D.C. or New York...

Now, I'm sure there are some in South Korea that think Lee Myung Bak used the incident for personal gain -- perhaps even in agreement with North Korea for those that are more cynical, but having a giant aircraft carrier off the coast of China is something that seems a lot more convincing to China than any amount of evidence that may be collected against North Korea. Of course, if there is talk of China looking rather feeble, this seems to make China look like a laughing stock... But, of course, this leads directly into whether if China actually respected the deaths of innocent South Korean sailors, perhaps such a show of force would not be necessary...

As counter-intuitive as this may sound, this is definitely a more pragmatic U.S. foreign policy.

I find it absolutely hilarious though that there is talk of an aircraft carrier headed to the Yellow Sea now -- the last time the U.S. sent aircraft carriers so close to China in a show of force, they sent them to the Taiwan Strait, but this is a lot closer to home (Beijing, Shanghai)... Who would've thought that, well, the sinking of the Cheonan would lead to this...

A Disgruntled Republican on Primary Day... in California...

In North Korea, Kim Jong Il seems to be trying to solidify his third son's chances of becoming the next leader of the northern half of the peninsula. However, in California, today is primary day. ...though I will not go out and vote. There is that poll question that asks Americans if they believe that the "Country is headed in the right direction," but there is no such poll that asks if either of the two mainstream political parties are headed in the right direction.

California Republicans called my cellphone and left a message a couple weeks ago asking if I could volunteer in the campagain against California's Proposition 14, which changes election rules to one where it would no longer be the case of first nominating a candidate for a political party and then holding elections, but to one where there would be two general elections with the second being a face-off between the two candidates receiving the most votes. It's not about time or so per se, but rather, I think Proposition 14 might not be a bad idea -- of course, I think it's better to bring about a new constitution in California and eliminate these annoying propositions that while they seem good on paper, they suffer from the Carpool Lane Syndrome. For example, just as people thought term limits would discourage corruption in Sacramento, people found out that term limits led to a more ineffective government and actually ended up hurting California by continually trading experienced legislators for those that have no experience. So, while it may sound good in principle, in practice it just doesn't or won't or hasn't worked -- the proposition system, carpool lanes, the flat tax, repealing the 14th amendment, tea party movement, the reform party, post-World War II Great Britain's nationlization of key industries, the devolution process in Great Britain, etc... well, actually I'd think making changes to the 14th amendment would not be such a bad thing... -- if it were just, well, even only remotely politically possible...

Well, I didn't call back. But, if there was a Gallup Poll done on whether the Republican Party was headed in the right direction, then I would simply answer, "No." What is wrong with this Tea Party Movement? This blog has for the most part strayed away from domestic U.S. politics that do not pertain to international issues, but in general I'm not a big fan of going backwards. It actually seems to be a giant step backwards. I'm not a big fan of a flat tax either -- no matter how fair it might first appear on paper. But, if you think about it for a second, how much more important is an extra $1 to somebody in the top 1% against those in the bottom 1% of the income bracket. Is that really a "fair" tax? Of course, the extent to which a tax should be progressive is a legitimate question, but going to a flat tax sounds, well, outright byzantine.

With respect to amending the constitution so that children of illegal immigrants should not be granted automatic citizenship, I am in favor of, but I don't believe it is the most important issue in the United States right now and I believe North Korea has infinitely better odds of winning the World Cup than an amendment to the Constitution being passed right now.

This reminds of me of the American Enterprise Institute's paper that speaks of a 70-30 divide in a new cultural war in which 30% of the country or a minority are taking the rest of the country towards a Statist, European welfare state. While I have no doubt that President Obama -- such as his formal request for a modified line-item veto -- has tried to strengthen the executive branch of the presidency, it is not at all a new phenomenon. I mean it wasn't until the Civil War until the power of the Federal Government truly superceded that of State Governments and the concept of Nullification was discarded.

It has taken a number of calamities and LBJ's Great Society for the federal government to have grown to be the size it is today -- about a fifth of the economy -- and -- I'm dithering here on exact dates-- and not too long since a rather liberal interpretation of the interstate commerce clause -- such as the end of segregation -- led to even more newly found powers of the federal government. But, importantly, what seems clear is there is a general trend as to the reasons why the federal government has grown to be as large as it is now, such as massive income inequality, low perceived social mobility, and a potentially dangerous concentration of weath in the Gilded Age, unequal treatment on the basis of sex and race, and, of course, the mother of all textbook examples that is the Great Depression.

And, while it might make sense to argue about certain aspects of what legislation should or should not be passed today or the extent to how large the United States government should be and the role it should have -- to look at the federal government and blindly say it's time to head back towards how the U.S. federal government was in the 19th century in a 21st century world seems to be a sheer exercise in stupidity and particularly dangerous for any significant minority in the United States to ascrie to. And, by actually blinding so many in ideology, it hurts the rest of the "70%" of the country by forcing a system that cannot bring about change -- not unlike the far right or the Zionist movement in Israel or Japan's far right with respect to issues pertaining to North Korea. It seems the political party I belong to is being held hostage by a very loud wing of the party -- not unlike Japan's DPJ, which was held hostage to the Okinawa base relocation issue and led to the downfall of yet another Japanese Prime Minister -- to an impractical ideology rather than trying to actually engage Democrats on the relative role that government should actually have on a pragmatic basis.

With that said, I am pleased with President Obama's decision to return to a traditional, realpolitik view of the world. Countries, principally those that are communist in name, have not yet come to respect other countries in the way that people respect each other at the individual and communal level; they only respect hard power and the United States shouldn't handicap herself by blindly following ideology, but should base decisions primarily by following what is in the best interests of the United States and in a fashion that ascribes more to pragmatism than to a John Bolton while trying to abide by principles to the extent to which the United States can afford.

Anyways, Joe will not be voting in the primaries today and he is unhappy with the Republican party. Of course, California is a mess, and somebody needs to take on these powerful unions  -- namely those that represent teachers -- and fix schools for one. Also, any talk of whether input based school policies need to be grounded on a budget that does not rank 47th or so out of 50th on a per capita basis in the country. And, this concept of a supermajority needs to, well, go the way of Nullification. Partitioning or gerrymandering needs to be toned down. I'm itching to say other unions as well, but I'd rather not.

In summary, California should not be held hostage to a fickle electorate that can so whimfully change or pass laws or even recall governors through the ballot initiative process, where lawmakers in Sacramento have so little power in the form of discretionary spending and have to pass laws in a hostile climate (as a result of gerrymandering) under an impossible set of rules (supermajority).  Basically, we need a governor that Arnold Schwarzenegger was supposed to be the moment he got elected. And, not this unworkable ideology that is the tea party... It's absolutely amazing how California is home to so many productive industries from Silicon Valley to Hollywood to a transportation industry (40% of American imports go through one of the Los Angeles ports) to an aerospace industry to a fairly large light manufacturing industry (more light manufactoring jobs in Los Angeles than in Michigan), etc etc with this type of government. I do like the talk of a new Pac-16 though. When there are demonstrations all over the state for school budget cuts, I can't believe the tea party is even getting press.

Talk about the disenfrachised 70%...

[Correcting Gibberish from the Los Angeles Times Again] Re: Sinking of ship provides welcome distraction for North Korea *update3*

Edit: For clarity and readability...
Edit 3: Overlooked the political agenda of the article

I wrote before that blogs are useful for dissecting editorials -- particularly terrible editorials -- and that most editorials on North Korea can be summed up in a couple sentences. Well, this is one of them and a particularly dangerous one as the author has a couple award winning books with a deliberate political agenda. A welcome distraction?! How on earth can we know it's a welcome distraction... But, it's worse than that... Let's take a look...

Barbara Demick, author of the award winning book, Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea and current Beijing Bureau Chief of the Los Angeles Times writes:

"This will distract people from their troubles," said Cho Myong-chol, a Pyongyang-born economist and son of a former North Korean minister. Cho, who now lives in Seoul, doesn't believe that Kim was intimately involved in the attack.

"It is more likely that a local naval commander did it, but there could be some short-term benefit," Cho said. "In the long run, of course, it will only make their problems worse."

In an assessment released last week based on intelligence reports, the Washington-based International Strategic Studies Assn. concluded, "Kim Jong Il was so far winning the Cheonan incident he had instigated."

The big loser has been South Korea's conservative ruling party, which was trounced in local elections Thursday. The Grand National Party had hoped that outrage over the Cheonan would boost its popularity; instead the electorate appeared to be more concerned that President Lee Myung-bak was exploiting the incident with his hard-line stand toward North Korea. Results of an investigation of the sinking were not released until May 20, two weeks before the election.

Let me begin...this editorial is taking the position that like in the past, a North Korean provocation has been used to the country's advantage -- some how without the knowledge of Kim Jong Il. They have done They have been successful by diverting domestic attention away from their economic plight and also by affecting local elections in South Korea....

The editorial suggests that average North Koreans are hurting -- the title of the editorial is "Sinking of ship provides welcome distraction for North Korea" and that Kim Jong Il is winning. What makes this article more dangerous after re-reading it is that she won an award for writing a book as an investigative reporter on the human rights situation in North Korea -- after writing a book about the human rights situation in the Balkans. So, in effect, she is in effect implying that the current right of center ruling party in South Korea is responsible for the suffering of average North Koreans, allowing the North Korean leadership to take advantage of the situation, and sacrificing South Korea's best interests (as Kim Jong Il is "winning"). And, moreover, the South Korean government is doing all this to further their own political interests, which is pretty much an outright lie if you consider what is going on in South Korea...

This is flat wrong. And, North Korea will receive no further aid. China is also furious at North Korea. And, let's not forget that the author mentions a report that says  "Kim Jong Il is winning the incident that he instigated," but --  in the same editorial -- refers to conclusions from an economist who says its probably the work of a "local naval commander." From the inherent contradiction here in sources, this should serve to show that the author is basically picking and choosing which sources to cite to backup her "argument".

While I have nothing against the book -- which I have yet to read and of which I have heard nothing but praise, the author here makes a sweeping and rather incorrect generalization that either borders on naivete or very lazy and perhaps even dishonest journalism. I'd like to believe it's out of naivete. Let's begin by looking at how it should read:

First of all, Cho Myong-Chol like many other North Koreans are quick to pass blame on anybody, but Kim Jong Il. (This view is even prevalent among North Korean defectors and is very similar to revisionist looks at the role of the Japanese Emperor during World War II.) And, this economist apparently believes North Koreans will somehow forget about hunger and hyperinflation -- which may be the single biggest threat to the stability of the DPRK regime with markets in North Korea playing a larger role now in the DPRK economy just by speaking of going to war again. The currency reform fiasco has well at least led to a governmental apology, the alleged execution of the individual that was apparently in charge of the currency reforms, and, well, actual backtracking on the reforms. Moreover, recent studies suggest North Koreans blame their economic plight on not the United States or Japan or global factors, but failed DPRK policies and to an extent China. (Blaming China is from one of the K-blogs linked from my blog; I'm sorry I cant remember the exact post, but the report of a North Korean speaker saying something along the lines of "I understand why the US & South Korea won't help us, but aren't the Chinese our allies...") 

But, moreover, I find it highly improbable in a country where if you look at some of the press releases of past six-party talks and transcripts of interviews of those involved in the six-party talks, where all aspects of the North Korean negotiation agenda tactics is handed are -- to the frustration of other parties at the six-talks -- were handed down directly from Pyongyang, that this could have happened without Kim Jong Il's approval. Now, with that said, I am not the only one who believes the sinking of the Cheonan was done without the approval from Kim Jong Il and there are many North Korean experts, such as Andrei Lankov, who feel the same way. (Also, the study cited in the editorial itself.) Now, just by reading this article in the Los Angeles Times, it makes it look as Cho Myong-Chol knows or that there is some type of agreement in that a local commander ordered the attacks without Kim Jong Il's knowledge... But, most importantly, when discussing North Korea -- nobody can actually know for sure and this view is actually a minority view among North Korean observers, experts, and the like...

Second, the author writes "the big loser is the GNP" -- the ruling, right of center political party in South Korea. Again, this is a sweeping generalization and it overlooks who is actually the big loser here -- China and, by extension, North Korea. I think while there is some sense in South Korea that Lee Myung Bak has used this for his political gain, which may be true, the Cheonan fiasco basically forced North Korea and China into a corner. I would not think too much about how the "GNP was trounced." North Korea will get hit by some symbolic slap on the wrist, but they will not get any further aid and I find it highly improbable that this will result in North Korea actually getting more aid from South Korea. In fact, if anything it looks like North Korea will get back only some of the aid South Korea took away as a result of the fiasco.

The incident has also solidified the US-ROK alliance, US-Japan alliance, and also encouraged better ties between South Korea and Japan -- all of which, is not in the interests of China. Furthermore, it has created an uproar against China for her two-Korea policy and basically makes the giant country look hostage -- which it pretty much is -- to North Korea and also made China's six-party talks a farce. I bet many minds in China are weighing the continuing costs of supporting the regime -- which I'm fairly sure China is currently doing with great hesitation and only at the bare minimum level to avert a DPRK regime collapse.

Again, we have no idea that North Koreans actually believe they are about to go to war with South Korea, but the editorial makes it sound like it's a fact. And, what's worse is that the author is not only spreading misinformation on a topic she seems to poorly understand, but that the editorial doesn't even seem to actually put forward an agenda or a real argument. It's just gibberish dishonest.

Add:
Also, South Korea's ruling GNP right of center political party suffered losses in many parts of the country in largely mayoral races -- not inclusive of Seoul I believe, but why on earth is there an article like this in the Los Angeles Times? I mean, if it were it in Hankyoreh-rubbish I would understand, but it's pretty clear that South Korea -- by internationalizing the issue -- singlehandley strengthened the US-South Korea Alliance, US-Japan Alliance, and Japan-South Korea ties. Furthermore, China has become enraged at North Korea and Kim Jong Il "winning" would mean a successful succession which I doubt that this incident has furthered. I'm not sure if the author is deliberately doing this, but it looks pretty damn deliberate and while she may be an investigative reportor of human rights situations in the more exotic places in the world, I wonder why she would deliberately dive in South Korean politics.  

[Apple Conquers South Korea] Also, it's time to sell your 3GS -- by Sunday

After several years of trying to protect the Korean market from the iPhone, the phone seems to have taken off. How do I know this? You know something has become huge if my aunt, who is the head Buddhist Monk at a temple in Seoul, Korea has purchased an iPhone. I also convinced my mother that it's time that she catches up with her friends and colleagues, who all have either an iPhone and Blackberry. I showed her the voice control features off the iPhone. For example, if you change the phone's voice command options to Korean, then you can literally say, "Call Mom" in Korean and then in Korean the iPhone says "Calling Mother" in Korean. Also, she liked the idea of being able to send and receive text messages in Korean and to other iPhone owners regardless of whether they are in South Korea or the United States as well as other features more commonly associated with smartphones.

Apparently, Apple has made it easy for me to show her how cool the iPhone is, but it was my job to show that she needed it. She agreed. She thinks it will be a good idea to bring both my younger brother and her  into an AT&T family plan. As a reward, I will be upgrading to the iPhone 4G.

Anyways, it seems to be the repeat of an innovative American company -- namely Microsoft -- turning the products of hi-tech Japanese companies into commodities (memory chips). By the way, I finally saw an iPad today at the Glendale Galleria  and, well, it looks pretty unbelievable. And, its sales also seem unbelievable considering that it seems like a very expensive toy.

But, the new iPhone is a different story. When I first got the iPhone it was nice in that I didn't have to carry around an iPod and a phone. It also functioned as my camera and a mini-computer in that I could browse the web and send e-mails without having to purchase a laptop, while having all the features of a traditional phone with the slick, cool Apple interface -- I can't stand the OS X when it comes to a using a computer though. So, the iPhone is something I've grown quite attached to and with a more powerful camera -- that has a flash and zoom feature -- and a better resolution, the iPhone 4G makes it a new must have for me. 

Used iPhone 3GSs seems to be going for $350-$400 on Craigslist at the moment, but I'd suggest selling it before Monday if you plan on upgrading to the iPhone 4G.

[World Cup & North Korea] North Korea in a nutshell

This has got be one of the funniest things North Korea has ever done. North Korea will for the first time since 1966 make an appearance in the World Cup and has been put in the "Group of Death" with Brazil and Portugal Euro Cup champions Spain. (Yes, it is the NBA Finals right now, but the World Cup is about to begin shortly after the Lakers take care of the Celtics.) I've never counted gambling as one of my vices -- except when College Football season comes about, but, well, North Korea is just getting some terrible odds. Currently, the odds of North Korea winning the World Cup are set at 2000:1 -- or +200,000.

But, incredibly, it seems, well, North Korea tried to pack their final 23-man squad by only putting two real goalkeepers on the lineup and naming a forward as their third goalkeeper.

Russel Kempson:

It is, though, a third Kim — Jong Hun, the North Korea coach — at whom the finger of suspicion was pointed yesterday because it was he who had named Kim Myong Won, the Amrokgang forward, as a third goalkeeper in his 23-strong squad. It would, Kim No 3 perhaps believed, give his tournament underdogs an extra option up front.

Fifa was not amused, pointing to its labyrinth of rules and regulations. “The three players listed as goalkeepers can only play as goalkeepers during the World Cup and cannot play outfield,” it said. “And Kim Myong Won will not be allowed to play as an outfield player if he has been put on the list as a goalkeeper.”

This development hasn't yet been factored into the odds yet as I don't know how many people would bet on North Korea, but let me tell you something. Joe indeed plans on putting down a nice, crisp, and, real (not a counterfeit) $20 on North Korea taking it all and probably another $20 for South Korea, who are being given a 250:1 (+25,000) shot at winning the World Cup. Of course, for some reason, the more technically proficient, higher ranked, and richer Japanese soccer team is being given a 600:1 shot. I am not putting down money on Japan, of course, which brings me to my next post. I'd like to put down money on the United States as well, but for a country that already considers herself to be the most powerful, richest, and technologically advanced nation in the world -- international sports doesn't really mean as much. The same doesn't hold for Japan, whose coach is aiming to make the semi-finals (what North Korea did in 1966 and South Korea did in 2002). South Korea is humbly hoping to make it the round of 16 -- the second round of the finals.

No, it's not that I like to donate money, but it's the fact that, well, I would want a Korean team to win. And, of course, if it's a only a dream I'd like to be compensated with some money as well -- it appears to be at least $40,000 if North Korea wins. But, anyways, North Korea trying to bend the rules -- and not use the rules in its favor -- seems to very much describe the rogue nation that is, well, North Korea or the DPRK.

"Plagarism," Lazy Journalists, and on the nature of covering North Korea

"Blatant Plagarism"

Felt the need to pick up on this. Joshua Stanton:

Of course, the readers of this Daily Telegraph photo essay might learn a great deal more if they could see the images in the context in which I published them, along with the text and video clips with which they’re presented. And perhaps because I’ve never seen dime one from all of the hard work I put into this, it angers me to see my work published below slick banner ads from airlines, sports promotions, or advocacy groups with big budgets … without any attribution whatsoever.

Apparently, Chosun Ilbo then picked up on this from the Daily Telegraph. For some time now, it goes to show how lazy journalists can be and how you should take things with a grain of salt...

I've been saying this for some time now and, especially on the topic of North Korea. But, in particular, I bring this up is as, well, I mean the nice thing about posting about North Korea is -- unlike some other fields that I'd like to write about -- there is only so much known about North Korea and most of it is publicly available. And, much of this does not really get digested in the mainstream press or by journalists covering the issue. Usually, it's just a number of headlines in differing publications that all originate from a single source. This, of course, then gets rehashed and editorialized in newspaper editorials and even cable networks. This makes blogs particularly useful in that it helps to understand and dissect most of these editorials, most of which on North Korea can be summed up in a couple sentences...

But, of course, it's a lot easier to write when you actually enjoy writing what you post on topics you enjoy reading. And, of course, it's a lot easier when you're not making any money off of this and choose to do so at your leisure...