Scribblings of the Metropolitician

Fastest Hands in the West

The fastest hands in the West have battled, producing a 93-year-old victor. Old school beats new school – but would he beat – KOREAN MIDDLE SCHOOL? Would he – could he – beat the fastest hands in the East? That would make for a super-duper showdown that would make Clint Eastwood look like a horse-stealing punk. Going hand-to-hand against a Korean middle school girl transmitting in Hangul – them is fast hands.

America, the Theoretically Beautiful, as Written by a True "Conservative"

A QUALIFICATION

Let me just say this up front: I am a true Patriot. I am also an academic. So let me, as all true academics do, offer a little background and take a moment to define my terms here.

FAKE PATRIOT ACTS

Now, most American expats go through a process of feeling extremely Americanized and feeling more "patriotic" during time spent outside the motherland. We miss our favorite downhome foods, the comfortable dialect of one's folks or family, or a regular neighborhood haunt. I went through the same process on my first extended period living overseas, when I went to Germany my senior year of high school. The next time I found patriotically pining for home was when I lived in another postwar cultural colony of the United States – South Korea – from 1994-1996. I still remember getting all Rambo when discussing the issue of the 50th anniversary of the atomic bomb drops in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, saying something along the lines of, "Well, Korea had damn well better be grateful we dropped nuked those Japs back to the stone age and fought the Korean War for them, because otherwise they'd be celebrating Kim Il Sung's birthday as a national holiday, just like the North Koreans!"

Don't ask me to recall the particulars of the conversation; let's just say that even at the moment I was saying it, I realized I had been overseas way too long. This was just the kneejerk nationalism you get when you're homesick, you live on an island off the coast of South Korea, before cable, Internet, and less-than-$2-per-minute international phone calls. The international edition of Time and Newsweek weren't even regularly sold where I was, so it was balls-to-the-walls Korea or go home. I did the hard core thing, but I was starting to go funny in the head.

A REAL PATRIOT

I think love of one's country – as defined in the ideals it stands for and worth being proud of – transcends the passing politics of the present, party affiliations, or the cult of political personality. What I mean to say is that my hatred of Bush and his administration is not the kneejerk reaction of a Democrat or unexamined "liberal" group-think. Also, I don't think blind support of the President is a duty of the truly patriotic. The American president is an office far bigger than the person sitting in it – I feel no obligation to support a president who I think has violated the powers provided him by his office. The American President is a position, not a person, and whosoever violates the limits placed upon that position by the Constitution and the people should be called out, at the very least.

OLD SCHOOL VALUES

My allegiance lies with protecting the lofty ideals of America and the governmental structures that made our national and political culture unique in the history of the world – and which also inspired countless governments that came after it with its lofty example. It is not hyperbole or jingoistic nationalism to say that American experiment offered the world a first, shining example of a truly viable democracy. And the Revolution that spawned it, while narrow in scope at the beginning – begun over a tax dispute and the subsequent limited debate over appropriate parliamentary representation – ended up being a true revolution in political thought, after which the world would never be the same. The French Revolution rolled up right behind it, as did the heads of its political opponents, followed in turn by African slaves in Haiti successfully taking back their freedom only a few years later, when they rightly murdered many of their French masters and put some of their heads on stakes. Napoleon bugged out of the "New World" and sold Jefferson the middle third of North America for a song.

Even Ho Chi Minh based his liberation movement's principles upon our own, calling upon the philosopher John Locke's idea that if a government – for which the sole raison d'être is the securement of one's property in both possessions and rights – is ever found to be negligent in doing so, or does not possess the mandate of the people, it is the right and even duty of said people to reform or even oust the government. The assumptions of Locke and the American Revolutionaries are quite radical in the conclusions they draw. Too bad the United States had become so conservative in its operation that it had completely forgotten the radical politics that created it, which would soon lead to the French being restored in power in what was then called Indochina.

By the time we get to the creation of a Bill of Rights as political compromise, as a stipulation for the Anti-Federalists signing off on a new constitution that created a central government with incredibly strong power, something that grated against their post-Revolution near-paranoia that assumed that central governments were doomed to become corrupt and abusive of their powers, the world would be witness to the most radically progressive political document ever created that protected the rights of the individual.

And the Bush administration has been taking an arrogant, extended piss on both the spirit and even the letter of our founding documents throughout his entire administration's political reign.

So I don't hate Bush just because I'm a bleeding-heart liberal with a kneejerk response to anyone of a "conservative" stripe. I love the ideals of America and its Constitution, even with the few glaring flaws that eventually needed "working out" – namely, oh, you know, its protection of the right to own human beings, not explicitly outlining the extension of political rights to anyone than propertied white men (having a certain amount of property was a requirement for most states until the early 1800's).

But the ideals espoused in the Constitution are as infective as they are inspired. Almost all governments in the world to that point were a system of some kind of monarchical, hereditary rule. Most societies in the world worked within a social system that explicitly placed some kind of elite at the top and gave them most political rights. Whether you're looking at the English gentry or Korean yangban, around the world, it was variations on the same theme. So it went with the peasantry, who were thought of in most societies in the world as barely human. There were exceptions, sure, but they were either too brief or too unsustainable to be duplicated.

America's democratic legacy has not to do so much with its endurance in time, but with the number of true revolutionaries inspired by our example. Right after our came the French Revolution, then the Haitian, and on and on throughout history.

NEW JACK AMERICA

One of the vaunted things we always talk about "fighting for" is the constitutional obligation to protect the rights of individuals and guarantee the equal protection of the law. So when it becomes clear that patterns of societal discrimination make an equal access to the basic rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" impossible, it is the government's responsibility to secure them. Now, I realize that poor whites, women, and people of color were not on the minds of most founders when the Constitution was written; but you basically have to argue that poor whites, women, and people of color don't deserve political rights at all in order to make use of this fact. But if you are do not follow that line of logic – which most non-members of the KKK would not (even though the KKK is a terrorist organization mostly constituted by poor whites) – you can't then turn around and talk about constitutional intent after the fact, e.g. "well, the Constitution never intended Civil Rights legislation."

It's in the spirit of the law, not within its letter. Rocket-propelled grenades, F-16's, nerve gas, and nuclear bombs were also not around at the time of the writing of the Constitution, but we all pretty much accept the reasonable conclusion that individuals owning items on such a list of tools of mass destruction would be more harmful to preserving the "general welfare" of our society than a help. The Founders lived in a post-Revolution world, in which they had just gotten through fighting what they viewed as a corrupt and power-drunk regime bent on stripping them of their former English liberties; they had waged war with their hunting rifles and privately-owned muskets; they waged the war with their own community militias; so of course such an idea as the "right to bear arms" would be included as one of the first amendments to the Constitution. We often forget about the 3rd Amendment, which says that "no soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in a time of war, but in a manner prescribed by the law."

This is an irrelevant remnant of a paranoid, post-revolutionary time. In terms of my personal rights, I am not worried about the very unlikely possibility of being asked to house soldiers, since the government usually provides soldiers with their own private bunkers. But it's interesting to note that the government is not legally prescribed from doing so. Nor has, as many people erroneously believe, slavery been abolished in our country. From Amendment 13: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." [Italics mine.] But for as many chain gangs and the later excesses of the "prison-industrial complex" as can be enumerated here, straight-up slavery as a punishment for crimes would not be tolerated in our world. The right to enslave is a value that the vast majority of the population doesn't share, and slavery as an institution is something most reasonable people have no desire to see reinstated, whatever the justification may be.

So of course, present-day society is limited by the letter of the Constitution, but we are also guided by present-day norms and values when making decisions not explicitly spelled out in that founding document. Bazookas, space-based weapons, the Internet, Civil Rights legislation, or animal rights – none of these things were on the mind of even the most enlightened and forward thinking of the Founders. We inevitably channel the spirit of the document even as we pay close attention to the letter of its laws. So it goes on, even to this day.

SELLING OUT OUR RIGHTS

So when I look at the "Patriot Act" or what's worse – the proposed "Patriot II" bill – it makes me realize how far down the slope we've started. Just like the Federalists in the 1790's, when power-crazed John Adams pushed through the Alien and Sedition acts to crush his political opposition (which later coalesced politically into the Jeffersonian Republicans and the first real political parties) in the name of war and rumors of war, the Bush administration has decided that it is worth sacrificing our way of life – the basic protections of individual rights from the prying interests of the state, as promised to the Anti-Federalists as condition for them signing off on the Constitution in the first place – for the sake of countering the phantom menace of "terrorists."

I agree – we are dealing with bad people. They did bad things to us and others in the world. But this kind of political reaction has many precedents in history – including especially our own – and the menace we faced has usually not in actuality posed a threat commensurate with our overreaction. The "missile gap" idea during the Cold War in a case in point. In the same way, the Islamic extremist terrorists pose a concrete and definable threat to the United States and its interests. But this is not because of bombs or planes crashed into buildings, but because the true power of terrorism lies in exacting long-lasting economic, social, and psychological damage upon its target. Because of a single incident meta-incident, on a single day, perpetrated with cheap cutting tools that were not even contraband items at the time they were used, America has entered into two separate wars that have not made the world a safer place for Americans or anybody, our already-shaky economy has been pushed to the breaking point, Americans live in constant fear in a world that is not decidedly more dangerous than before (Al-Quaeda has been officially attacking the US and its interests since 1993 and I believe the reports of CIA spooks who say they stopped a major set of attacks on New Year's Day 2000).

Certain groups of people have formed small organizations – for a variety of reasons, some reasonable and some not – to take out hatred of America as terrorist acts. But we're still talking people who number in the several thousands, not millions. We're talking about specific groups who mostly have a long and identifiable history, who are not unknown to us, who can be traced and eliminated. We're talking about groups whom even the Taliban – post-9/11 – wanted nothing to do with, and with whom Saddam Hussein himself, according to actively-ignored CIA intelligence, wanted nothing to do with and even offered his condolences to individual Americans after the attack, even if he was still salty with Bushes I and II about US sanctions. International cooperation to catch terrorists? Totally possible after 9/11, but somewhat soured by American unilateralism and bullying. The cooperation of groups who could actually locate and isolate these badguys better than we can? Possible, until we started behaving unilaterally, as if we were the first country in the world to experience terrorist attacks that have rocked and shocked a nation. Did we have the sympathy of basically the entire world – even erstwhile enemies – to work with? Yeah, but we squandered that pretty fast. We even alienated the populations of our staunchest, Cold War-era NATO allies – our teammates throughout decades of fighting against the dreaded "Red Menace." 50 years of hard-won and defended diplomacy – gone in a flash. Perhaps we should listen to the words of the coldest of Cold Warriors – Robert McNamara – as put down in the documentary The Fog of War, when he was specifically talking about Vietnam, the other ill-thought war to which the present  Iraq war is being increasingly referred to: 'If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better re-examine our reasoning." All these interviews took place well before the second Iraq war.

WHO IS "CONSERVING" WHAT?

What is the meaning of "conservative?" I believe this term has been misappropriated by people who could be better described as "reactionaries." If there is anything that most "conservatives" are trying to preserve, it is a way of life that never really existed. There was never a "good old days" when everything was good for all people, when there were no social inequalities and associated tensions, when there was no political contention, when everything was hunky-dory. Maybe for some middle and upper-class white folks, but not for a lot of other people. Perhaps that's why most self-described "conservatives" are – you guessed it – middle and upper-class white folks. Oh, my gosh! What a revelation in political science!

Most "conservatives," in my estimation, are trying to preserve nothing more than the status quo, or the particular conditions that make their lives comfortable, defined in terms of not just economics, but ideology and cultural power as well. So as Spanish-speaking immigrants, as myriad immigrant groups before them did in American history, enter our society with the carry-on baggage of foreign customs and a foreign tongue – certain people freak out. As paltry government policies give groups – who've experienced the discrimination of centuries of pro-white, both de facto and de jure "affirmative action" – a little tip of the scale in the opposite direction, certain people freak out. When making fiscal policy, many of these people also support those they most directly benefit from – not the ones that might benefit the most number of people. This also goes along with what I'm talking about.

These people are far better described as "reactionaries" working to protect their own, best interests. I define myself as a "conservative" in that I am protecting an original set of American ideals, as defined in the tenets of the wave of revolutionary republicanism that inspired our Founders to pick up weapons against the British, or the waves of populist democracy that redefined political participation from the late 1820's. These are true American ideals, albeit marred by the political concerns and moral limitations of their respective times, but for which their true merit has endured until the present day. These are the ideals worth "conserving," since they

I'm "progressive" in action, but in terms of working to fulfill the still unrealized dream promised by our lofty ideals. I don't think of our initial Revolution as a failed one because it could not rise above the material concerns of its time, i.e. slavery; many historians call the Civil War "the last battle of the American Revolution" because it simply took that long for the initial, inherent contradictions evident in our founding documents and ideals that long to work themselves out. the Civil Rights movement is another echo of that initial Revolution, as the infective rhetoric of "freedom from slavery" had been channeled through the voices of African-Americans in bondage from as far back as the Stamp Act Riots of 1765. That voice remained unquelled for centuries and only found true purchase in an America existing in very different circumstances than when it had originally been founded. But that voice remained constant throughout, a true American ideal. So it goes with every social liberation movement before or since – the ideas of social equality and the equal protection of the laws is as American as apple pie.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply a "reactionary." Spanish-speaking immigrants are not a threat to our language, any more than the Eastern European, Chinese, Japanese, German, or non-voluntary African immigrants who have come throughout American history have been. But they are a threat to a contemporary notion of the status quo and an idealized, imaginary time when things were supposedly "better" (although many people were not included in that rosy picture). Blacks demanding basic equal access and rights were a threat to the status quo. So were women asking for an Equal Rights Amendment (which still has not been passed). Gays demanding the right to the secular institution of marriage (contrary to uninformed popular belief, the particular origins of marriage as a religious sacrament doesn't make it a religious institution, since there are no religious requirements to get married, hello!) in the same way that interracial couples did only 4 decades before.

Many of the Founders didn't like each other, and the Federalists based the Constitution on a politics of contention, not consensus. It assumed the existence of different political interests and factions. The nature of such factions and contention was different, naturally, but the principle the same. "You don't have to agree with each other to get along," they were saying." In fact, the inclusion difference of opinion and even vested interests in the political process – what Madison called "factions" – would help guarantee a natural balance of society's myriad sectors and interests within the government. Faction was not a threat to balance within a republic, but rather the guarantor of its integrity. And we've gained a lot more interests and factions than were extant in America during the 1780's; the fact that this is reflected would be neither surprising nor new to the Federalists who were arguing for the adoption of a new Constitution. You Rush Limbaugh-listening, O'Reilly Factor-watching radical bigots should go back and read Federalist #10.  Everybody has a stake in government and every voice should be heard.

TOWARDS SOME NEW DEFINITIONS

You don't have to be a scholar to call yourself a true "conservative." And most of the people who now describe themselves with that term actually aren't, in my humble opinion. According to the principles contained within our Constitution and our broader ideology of freedom, equality, and giving everyone a fair shake to do well in this life, true "conservatives" should be happier about these freedoms being given to the increasing number of people who want to claim them. We should be defending to the end our ability to speak up in an unfettered way about anything we want to, up to and including calling the President of the United States a coward and an international criminal. If indeed he and his administration indeed hoodwinked the American people into war, outed a CIA field agent's cover to the world as political retribution,

Standing up and saying something takes moxie, especially when your opinion is unpopular. Walking in formation like lemmings over a cliff while our country keeps shooting itself in the foot and continues to squander its economic, strategic, and moral power – that's easy.

In the end, history will be the judge of Bush, his cronies, and everyone who supported him. Politics is in the moment and easy to get caught up in. History is a much cooler-headed judge. The direction our nation has been taking in terms of burning our old NATO allies, giving the UN the finger, arguing that the US economy is more important than the environment we are leaving to our children, running up a national debt that a previous president had just paid off, and trampling all over international law to bomb Iraqi civilians while Al-Queda and Osama bin Laden continues to laugh in our faces – we'll see how history judges our behavior and what we did with the moral high ground we had on September 11, 2001.

True "conservatives" should have revisited our original values and principles and taken a cold, hard look at the monster our country created, who came back to bite the old, now-hated master on 9/11. Look at our foreign policy. We support dictators (Saddam Hussein in the 1980's) and suppress true democratic revolution (Iran in the 1950's). One wonders if Commies--on-the-brain policy wonks hadn't mistaken talk of mere land reform and redistribution in Iran for "Communism" and let the first true democracy in the Middle East settle in, instead of installing the Shah, a ruthless dictator. One wonders if America had simply removed its troops from Saudi Arabia as per our promise and Mr. Bin Laden's subsequent demand. After all, wasn't he our friend from the fight with the Soviets in Afghanistan? Hadn't he received our funding, training, and weapons? We could've been at least a little responsive to how sensitive having American bases in the Middle East was. Perhaps a plan of gradual reduction and withdrawal? Who knows? But in the end, Team America's attitude is "who cares?" – which is what keeps getting us into deeper and deeper trouble in recent years.

Anyway, in reality, so-called "liberals" and "progressives" are not going to lay claim to the "conservative" moniker anytime soon. I make the suggestion to do so facetiously, but with serious moral indignance. I'm also angry that so many "progressives" and "liberals" are so close-minded and dismissive of anyone who doesn't think exactly like them. I'm somewhere in the middle, although blind Bush disciples and Team America cheerleaders tend to set me off; but I also can't stand the strident whining of liberals who wear their hearts and  politics on their sleeves, whose sense of moral rectititude tends to come off like sneering elitism as they look down on so-called "red states" and engage in classist discussions of white "trash" and trailer parks. Yeah, no wonder self-described "conservatives" hate us. I also
kinda hate the people with whom I share similar liberal political opinions, if only because so many of them are irritating, prudish snits. Grrr.

A MODEST PROPOSAL

Let's declare ourselves the true "Conservatives," who have the best intentions of seeing the world fairly, while giving others, as well as themselves, the room to not be perfect and not act like they know every-goddam-thing. Let's work towards making a better America and better relations with the world within a true spirit of morality – and not act out of revenge or spite while using the rhetoric of "morality" as mere hollow justification. For you religious "conservatives" out there – how about acting in the spirit of Christ's message of forgiveness and God's grace, rather than Old Testament spite and revenge? God punished those who broke his Laws or ignored his Word in that era; with the advent of Christ's sacrifice, even those who committed the worst trangsressions against God's laws were offered forgiveness. Where is the spirits of Christian charity? And I mean that in the strictest sense of the word –Christian charity – Christ's actual words and the spirit of them? Support for a regime that lies, tortures, and kills innocents in our name shouldn't be something a true "Christian conservative" conservative believes in, either because it violates the American values I like to think of as good, or if that doesn't sway you, because it violates both the letter and spirit of God's law.

I'm not even a nominal Christian and I've figured it out. Why can't many self-described Christians, whose actions seem to be more motivated out of hate than love, do the same? And why don't Americans, who would like to say that they stand for freedom and democracy, when the actions taken by their country – in their name – actively prevent the spread of these very values that we would like to think we value?

Americans need to stop, take a deep breath, and look both our recent history and foundational experiences squarely in the face. What you will notice is that the values evident in our actions between our foundational and present periods do not at all match. In fact, they are contradictory – just as contradictory as the Founding Fathers of our freedom who, for all their wisdom and political sagacity, owned other human beings. This inherent contradiction and failure of the Revolution worked itself out in the Civil War, and took yet another century to deal with the cultural leftovers of the racist economic institution of slavery. I hope it won't take a "fire next time" for Americans to start realizing that we are going to have to pay for the consequences of the contradictions between out ideology and actions.

I really wonder what it would be like to live in a powerful country that used its might for moral good, instead of unabashed self-interest. We could use our force – as well as restraint in using it – to gain the moral respect of the rest of the world. For better or worse, our Hollywood movies, Coca-Cola, and myriad other aspects of our culture have laid a cultural groundwork all over the world – the rest of the world tends to actually like the US in terms of the fantasy that they see portrayed as the "American way." It's the reality that doesn't match up. But as a concerned citizen of the world's most militarily powerful country, I am more disappointed at this dissonance than any non-American could be, since I know America's potential to be great; this is why it pains me to watch our country piss our once-respectable name away for no good reason nor greater benefit.

Why the Idea of "Intelligent Design" Is – and Isn't – Stupid

Thanks be to Hugh, who asked for more clarity in that last post.

I meant "Charles Darwin" as the "original Chuck D." Chuck D was part of the group "Public Enemy" in the 1980's and 1990's, and also had a song entitled  "Public Enemy #1", which you might expect from a group of the same name. I was playing off the fact that Charles Darwin seems to have become "public enemy #1" these days, at least among certain types of people who believe that their own religious views should those of everyone. In their eyes, Charles Darwin is the proponent of the theory of evolution, which these people misrepresent as a theory that we are "descended from monkeys," as assertion that is patently untrue.

Of course, most of the people who attack the theory of evolution as "just a theory" or as the "theory that humans are descended from monkeys" actually don't even understand 1) what a theory is, and 2) what the theory of evolution actually is about. In fact, many scientists don't even understant why it's a debate, since many scientists, including Albert Einstein, believe(d) in a Judeo-Christian God.

If we were to take everything in the Bible at its word and worry about every instance that would seem to contradict Scripture, I mean, we'd have to ban our kids from seeing anything about dinosaurs, space travel, aliens, or just about anything fantastic and interesting that wasn't specifically mentioned in the Bible or would seem to go against the way God is described to have created the world.

So research that has to do with the formation of other planets and possible life on them might just contradict the Bible. Why are the Rightists not attacking that as well? Anyway, I think it's because people don't seem to even understand the theological point that to even think that God put down everything for there is to know in the Bible, or that humans can profess to know God's greater plan, whether He may have created things outside of our ken, or even that the humans who took down the word of God may have added or subtracted elements according to human failing – no one on the ground considers this (although real theologians do).

In any case, this is political posturing and vying for control, rather than a real, substantial debate over religion and science. In the big picture, someone with a decent layperson's knowledge of both should see that in almost all areas, science and relgion don't overlap that much, and that in the sheer beauty and elegant structure of the natural world, one could very much see the touch of an "intelligent design." But this inspiration is the same motivation that moves someone to gasp in awe of the Grand Canyon. It is shockingly, starkly beautiful – and is explained as having been created by the slow erosion created by a small river moving along a slowly winding path over millions upon millions of years. The scientific explanation of it doesn't take away from the sheer feeling of awe one has in seeing it – in fact, to me, it makes the sight all the more spectacular: All this from a little running water? One might just think, "Wow – what an amazing tool the Creator has chosen to carve such a wonderful work!"

OK - so my dialogue comes out corny. But you know what I mean. To a scientist who has gotten down to the point past molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, quarks, and even to the "strings" these things are supposed to made of – the universe seems perplexingly complex – yet superbly and surprisingly simple. To a scientist who knows what she's looking at, a realization made in terms of pure math may inspire the same spiritual awe that a massive canyon might, because both are wonders of the natural world. The only difference is that in once case, it takes an egghead to see it.

So I think that DNA may smack of "intelligent design" because it is so elegant in its ability to duplicate itself, yet deliciously full of just enough inherent replication errors to put the spice into life required to make diversity, mutation, and adaptation possible. If you teach biology with the right verve and excitement that it deserves, nothing about science should take away from the religious view of the world. In fact, it simply offers more possibilities for the "wow" moment.

However, this does not make "intelligent design" an actual scientific theory. In fact, trying to qualify as such actually proves the point of their opponents, although most of the people on the side of "intelligent design" are actually too unintelligent to recognize this point. In a complete absence of evidence of value to a scientific theory, there can be nothing left but pure faith. Isn't it this "leap of faith" that makes gives the endeavor of religion its real value? Trying to prove the existence of God via science is, as I mentioned before, just as dumb as scientists arguing that God does not exist, which no scientific theory tries to do.

Even the Big Bang theory of the universe cannot peer into the very moment of Creation itself; we do not know the instant of and exact origin of the first DNA molecule; we cannot peer past the limits of our senses and the limitations of the devices we have to measure the universe, at least directly. Good scientists know this, and some are inspired by the elegance of the physical universe. I am, to some extent, as well. I haven't taken the leap of faith yet. But it certainly isn't science that's preventing me, nor will the idiots behind "intelligent design" politics convince me.

I just wish we had more intelligent, reasonable people in the world who would be able to just sit down and realize that actually agree on far more than they disagree about. But politics and ideology speaks louder than reasonableness, so dumb-as-dirt political tussles continue. Such is the American way, I guess.

Anyway, Darwin needs good, reasonable people in his posse. You gonna join?

"Chuck D - Public Enemy #1!"

For those of you who listened to Public Enemy back when hard, militant raps were new and relatively non-commercial (Public Enemy got no play on MTV – at least on their second album, It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back), you should be familiar with the title as a key sound bite spoken by Chuck D. Vilified by the media and feared by people who just didn't know, Chuck D carried on, for two decades, his clarion calls of sense and street reason for those who just did.

But the original Chuck D – Public Enemy #1 – has come under attack again, this time by crackpots in new clothing. These are the intelligent supporters of "intelligent design," the latest, greatest attempt to overturn established scientific theory in favor of flights of unsupported fancy. "Intelligent design" is not science because 1) it was never put forth by scientists or any scientific study, 2) its initial proponents were and are politically-motivated religious groups with a clear agenda on their hands, and most damningly, 3) it is supported by no specific evidence, but most importantly, by its very absence.

On the other side are perplexed scientists who have to sit and wonder why this even comes up as a legitimate subject of debate by the media. It's as if a group of people simply came up with the theory that the universe was spontaneously produced out of a sheep's ass in an explosion of flatulent fury. This "new Big Bang" theory would be arguably true only because of the lack of evidence to positively prove that there was no large, cosmic sheep's ass that pre-existed the creation of everything. How could you prove that right or wrong, one way or another? It simply defies logic altogether.

Faith works the same way, so if you have it – great. If you don't – great. The idiotic notion of "intelligent design" holds about as much water as the "new Big Bang" theory of fleecy flatulence. "God must be there, since the structure of DNA is so complex. It couldn't have gotten that way by itself." Although there are completely reasonable and acceptable theories as to why and how DNA could have come to be what it is, we have this first erroneous assumption. If there were some strange, inexplicable marker that we noticed once we had gained the ability to peer down at the thing at the molecular level, like some arrangement of peptides into the words "It's God, niggas! Right here, boyeee!" – man, I'd be shocked into getting down on my knees before the undeniable. Seeing as how God's use of ebonics would be about as likely as his using English, which would both be about as likely as God writing his name in the structure of DNA to prove his existence scientifically when faith is what if required for true religious belief, I'm not waiting around for any such burning bushes. Of course, I am committing the arminian heresy of professing to reason out the will and intent of the One, but I am just making a point here: There is no positive evidence for the veracity of this theory, and in a belief system – religion – that requires faith and faith alone, in the absence of evidence, the "intelligent design" theory leaves everyone at square one, anyway. You either believe it or you don't. Religion doesn't need pseudo-pseudo science to bolster its claims, even as scientists cannot actively disprove the existence of God. The only reason I am not a practicing Christian is because I lack faith. Hey – I'm Christian-compatible – ready to go, given my Midwestern, meat-and-potatoes, generically Christian environment. But I just don't have the faith required to make the jump to true Christian belief. As Chuck D would agree, you just can't fake the funk.

This country was culturally founded by extreme Christians, but politically founded by more tempered ones, who did the great and difficult deed of making sure that belief was separated from politics. Even in Massachusetts, ground zero of the extreme Christian views of the Pilgrims and Puritans, their constitutions progressively eliminated requirements such as being a church member to vote, and by the time of the two Great Awakenings and the advent of the Declaration of Independence, the state had become ringed off as a secular place.

Even Roger Williams, who was more a fervent Puritan than the rest of the Puritans, which is what got him kicked out of the Mass Bay Colony, advocated for the separation of church and state, albeit to protect the church from any undue and dirtying influences of the worldly state. Good idea, that. Some of the Christian right wingers might want to think about that fact as their PACs and other lobbying groups throw money and influence at politicians.

In any case, since I fear that there are forces that would seem to want nothing less than a theocratic Christian state, especially given the fact that more than half of all Americans say that they reject evolutionary theory, I place this sticker on my page to assist you in your fight against the forces who would put mankind back into the Middle Ages.

Charles Darwin has a posse. You down with us or what!?

Typepad Screwed the Pooch

As you more regular blog readers might know, all Typepad sites went down yesterday, like Mike Tyson in a comeback fight. They had all sites displaying archived backups for most of the previous day and have restored all posts and comments, at least on my blog. Man, Typepad – you guys are pretty good, but going down just when the Hwang debacle was getting big readership on the blogs, while my students were waiting for info to come down through my classroom blog, and while an announcement for an event for tonight went stale all day and yesterday night – talk about the wrong time to go down. This was a major inconvienience, people.

In South Korea, Alls Ends Still Justify the Means

I make this sweeping statement in response to Dr. Hwang's most recent admission – that the bulk of the research results themselves was faked. Even I, as someone who has been suspicious and crying ethical "foul" since the beginning, was stunned. Even the research itself? Dude. Jesus H. Christ.

I even feel a little bad for the kneejerk nationalists who, in a mood completely against the spirit of democratic values or a commitment to basic ethical responsibility, blindly rallied to the side of a scientist who had a responsibilty to cross and dot the ethical t's and i's as more than just a proud Korean. This is research that has implications for the future of the race itself, not just to Koreans worried about their country's "face" in the world. Such is the true test of the "globalized" country Korea fancies itself to be –  Korea has proven, through the actions of Dr. Hwang, the government and vast majority of netizens who supported him out of a sense of the wave of blind, seething nationalism that surged even after the first ethical allegations came out, that it is not a global citizen, that concerns about Korea's face (체면) are more important than even the most obvious moral/ethical considerations.

As a worker and researcher doing my doctoral dissertation research here, as well as actively working on some artistic projects related to life in Korea, as someone who teaches history to some of Korea's best and brightest students, and also as someone who has worked with some of the extremely capable doctors and staff at the MizMedi Hospital, which is ground zero for this particular scandal – I have been angered and deeply disappointed, almost beyond expression. Finally, the lack of ethical pause or sense of responsibility for the consequences of breakneck development have come home to roost. And I firmly believe, especially in consideration of the blatantly arrogant and nationalist response of many citizens (including the nixing of the only journalistic show with the moxie to deal with the truth in this matter and the death threats reported to have been levied against those related to the show's production) that "Korea" deserves every bit of its coming comeuppance.

As I write, the 2 PM press conference should be going on. But the writing's on the wall already. In Korea, a place where scantily-clad women are used to peddle toothpaste and toilet paper, a quarter of high school girls in one province have sold their bodies for spending money (as reported in a UNESCO-published paper) in the practice known as wonjokyojae (원조교제), cheating on academic papers at all levels of schooling is the rule, where the story of economic development focuses solely on collective "sacrifice" but doesn't include the factoids of Korea's war crimes in Vietnam, the brutal suppression of unions, or the exploitation of female labor – Dr. Hwang's "cutting of a few corners" should come as no surprise.

What came as a slight surprise was the extent to which most Korean citizens seemed to care more about vain national pride than the importance of ethical protocols in the conduct of this, one of the most potentially liberating yet dangerous technologies mankind will ever know.

Hyperbole, you say? Well, to the extent that Koreans lionized Dr. Hwang as a national hero, surely his research must have been important. Concomitant with his obvious scientific power and then-growing international renown should have been a monumental sense of moral responsibility. But obviously, this was a quality that this man lacked.

But is Dr. Hwang an aberration? Nay, I say – he is typical of the condition that is endemic to the state of Korean modernity itself: progress, for the sake of progress alone, is worth any price. Some people ask me why I think nationalism to be "dangerous" and why a study of Korean nationalism is even important. Many Koreans ask me that without even realizing the implied denigration of their country's own worth as a subject of study: "Why study Korea?" or "Is Korea really so important?" are common questions. I have always replied that the Korean case is unique in the world, if only for the fact that the complex composition of Korean ideology and sense of national pride is the result of colonization from both Western and non-Western powers in the same century – pretty unique in the world.

And as Korea's relative place in the world grows larger, its sense of self, as well as the way it looks at the outside world, becomes all the more important. In my eyes, to the extent that Koreans are said to have "pride" in their country, Korea needs to take this incident as a lesson about the dangers of its own nationalism. This case is the first, biggest case to offer itself as an answer to the question that Koreans always ask me about my dissertation: "How is Korean nationalism dangerous? We've never hurt anybody.

The simple answer to this question is that I don't fear a Nazi-era army of destruction running rampant across

Asia. I don't think Korean cloning technology will be used to build a secret army of cloned stormtroopers. What I do mean is exactly what has happened: Nationalism and the cutting of corners – or obliterating ethical concerns altogether – hampers Korea in the postmodern age more than it helps it. At best, it's just plain embarrassing, at worst, chillingly dangerous. What if the netizens had gotten what they wanted? What if this news hadn't come out? What if this research, the faked stem cell lines, the deception of the rest of the world's biotech research community, which had looked Korea with so much hope in providing them with the raw materials to conduct this most important researach – what if these ethical breaches had not come out? What more egregious crimes against ethics might have been committed? What actual crimes? Who knows? That's what scares me.

But it's obvious that national interests in Korea trump any other committments, whether to ethics or a sense of responsibility as a world citizen. And it is for this reason – mostly related to the actions of the bulk of Korean citizens rather than those of a single man – that I feel Korea is not yet worthy of being trusted with matters larger than those related to its own selfish, national concerns. If Korea wants to be the world leader in Internet speed and accessibility, great. If it has aspirations to become a leader of cinema for the 21st century and ride the "Korean Wave" to its highest possible point, great. But Korea, in my humble estimation, is too concerned with vain and selfish notions of pride to be a trustworthy "global leader" in anything of wider, global import.

What is all to obvious, from the reactions of most Koreans, is that the ends still justify any and all means in this society. On many levels, there is a sense of social morality and pride that I consider higher than many in my own home culture. But in this particular moment, I am deeply, deeply disappointed in Korea's recent display of selfish, stupefying hubris. I wish I could say that Korean society might gain a valuable lesson from this, in the same way that I had hoped that Americans might have been awakened from our privileged slumber after 9/11. But I have the same sinking feeling that I'm in for another disappointment.

AFTERWORD:
Now, before you nationalists start attacking me, do not simply assume that because I am American I believe America to be worthy of such a status in all respects. Note that this criticism, like most of the ones I write about,  takes place within as non-comparative a context as possible. I am not comparing to America or the West here as the bulk of my argument, although I could offer examples –  just examples – of higher standards of ethical behavior in many fields, such as academic research, journalism, or medical ethics. But take my argument above as it is – as based on assumptions of "universal" morality ostensibly accepted by Koreans (e.g. not lying, killing, stealing, faking data) and in international fields with clearly-defined, more specific standards for all participants, regardless of nationality or local concerns (e.g. definitions of plagiarism, protocols for conducting research on human subjects, not extracting egg cells from research assistants)

Podcast #17 – Spoken Word in Seoul

I've got something new for you this time – excerpts from spoken word in Seoul, recorded a few weeks ago at one in a series of art/music performances in Seoul. The podcast this time around is pretty long, but it's not full of me talking, but rather spoken word artists who've actually got something to say worth listening to. Depending on who you are, your politics, and your personal set of experiences, you may not find everything here familiar to you – but ain't that why art is worth taking in? Open you mind and find out about some other slices of life here in Korea.

And here's the next event in the series, taking place this Saturday. DJ's spinning for a good cause? Sounds good to me!

----------------

We're ringing out 2005 in fine style with a holiday bash at Monghwan in Shinchon in support of the Amerasian Christian Academy. Get in the holiday spirit of giving and celebrating at Party Benefit & Jam's last benefit of 2005 on Saturday December 17 from 9:30 pm to 2 am.

Dance to DJs accomplice (jungle/dancehall), CAP (hip hop/funk), and Club Garden resident dj SEUNGWOO (electro/house). Also featuring live drumming group Kunga! First 30 guests get homebaked holiday cookies!

Door is 10,000 won. More information and directions at www.manja.net/benefit.html or on the attached email flyer.

ABOUT THE BENEFICIARY
All proceeds from this special holiday edition will be donated to the Amerasian Academy to support their mission to empower Amerasian students in Dongducheon City with a bilingual, challenging education from kindergarten through 12th grade. In the face of widespread discrimination, nearly 20% of Amerasian children in Korea drop out of school during junior high, while 10% drop out during elementary school. Amerasian Christian Academy was established in 1999 to meet the educational needs of single parent Amerasian children. Using English as the main mode of teaching and communication, ACA's aim is to provide a challenging and creative environment where Amerasian students are all welcome.

ABOUT PB&J
Started in February 2005 as a nonprofit volunteer collective to raise money for and promote awareness of local and international non-profit organizations, PBJ has successfully organized eight different arts, music and dj benefits in the year 2005, supporting the following diverse non-profits in chronological order: CARE for Tsunami Relief, Adoptee Solidarity Korea, Burma Action, Migrant Worker TV, Ae-ran-won Single Mothers' Home, organizations working on Hurricane Katrina relief, artist project OKAYBOOK, and Medecins San Frontiers for their work with survivors of the October South Asia Earthquake.

We are honored to have the support of so many talented artists and DJs who donate their time and so many generous folks who come out to have a good time while benefitting a good cause.  Contact us at
cookeatdrink@gmail.com!

"Christmas in Myeongdong"

This is a favorite image from my earlier shooting in Korea, in the winter of 2002-2003, when I was a pure street photographer and hadn't yet started down the trajectories that my subsequent interests would take me, namely those of "fetishized femininity" and other specific documentary subjects in Seoul. In this picture, I noticed this homeless man as I passed by and I still remember the moment of decision in which my mind was telling me, on the one hand, to keep walking, it was cold, and that he probably was going to just yell at me no matter how nicely I asked him to take his picture; on the other hand, if there was even a slim chance that I could get an inpromptu portrait and that he wouldn't break up the natural mood and desired composition by then, in order to please the photographer, he started becoming self-conscious and noticeably aware of the camera. Instead, he completely ignored me after giving his gruff consent for me to take his picture.

What struck me was the obvious contrast between the brightly-lit and festive tree on the right, as well as the environment and space it defines, witih shoppers coming up from the background, which stands in sharp contrast to the dirty wall, sticker-covered pipe, and generally darker left side of the picture. I took almost a half-roll of film while the man just continued standing in the exact same position, with the exact same blank stare he had had when I first passed by. I gave him 20,000 won for his trouble, since I had asked him to pose. I figured he could use as much as I had to spare to give him, and that it would go a lot further for him than for whatever crap I was going to do with the equivalent of twenty bucks. I was the most I could do.

This picture meant a lot to me as a photographer, because it was one of my first "serious" shots – defined I guess as images that seem to contain some degree of gravity and social criticism – and that I had pushed myself past my normal level of comfort in order to make the shot. Thereafter, I started "finding my voice" as it were, as a photographer. To use a more medium-appropriate description, I had begun to find my authority as a photographer, which is actually a hard thing to do. Many people always ask me when one can officially call oneself a photographer, or how that is defined. I myself struggled with that question. I simply define it as Ken Light, an accomplished and respected documentary photographer with whom I had the honor to briefly study before coming to Korea, did – he simply said that "a photographer shoots." Period. That defines the major difference between an amateur and a serious photographer. And he suggested that one way to judge this is by looking at the negatives you bring back. An amateur takes snapshots and has mostly single shots of various things on a roll. A pro has multiple shots, half a roll, even an entire roll of the same subject, but caught in different poses, compositions, instants to capture just the right moment. It is a sign of a tenacity that amateurs don't have.

But there's something else. There's a self-confidence that comes from having a certain kind of authority when you're behind the camera. What I got from shots such as these was the feeling that I was doing something bigger than just me – I wasn't taking pictures just for my own edification, although that self-motivated drive was there – I was recording for others, as a means of conveying that moment to others, as a way of making a statement. In this way, I felt that I wasn't an amateur anymore; most amateurs don't push themselves past that weird line of comfort that governs our social interactions:

"Don't talk to strangers."
"Don't do that. People might notice."
"Don't ask permission before taking pictures."
"What if I get caught?"
"Who am I kidding? I'm not a real professional. So why take the picture?"
"I'm just being a voyeur."
"People might think I'm showing off."
"I might get in trouble."

These are the impulses that keeps our hand off the shutter, the camera in the bag, and our photographic eyes closed. People who like my photography always say that they want to take certain pictures of stuff they see in Korea, but are dogged by one of the questions above. My suggestion is to learn by doing – shoot. My response to the questions above?

"Talk to strangers. You'll meet interesting people. And it won't kill you."
"So what? You'll never see them again. And it won't kill you."
"What documentary photographer asks permission before taking pictures? We wouldn't have many of the world's best pictures if we spent all our time asking people for permission. And since you want real pictures, you can't ask before the fact. And most people don't notice anyway."
"Who cares if you get caught? They won't kill you."
"Take the picture because you want to. Fret about whether you'll use it later."
"If you're taking the picture because you think it worth taking, you're not being a voyeur."
"If you're even worried enough to be worried about looking like you're showing off, you're not."
"No, you probably won't get in trouble. Unless you're on a military base. Then they might kill you."

In any case, getting the self-confidence only comes from forcing yourself to step over that line of "normal" behavior. And the more you do that, the easier it becomes. Of course, I draw the line well before most Korean photographers do, as I generally don't interfere with the scene, I don't direct people, etc. So I am actually in a mode of nearly complete detachment from the subjects, which can be a huge advantage a lot of the time. Sometimes, I'll even shoot while using my in-the-ear headphones with my iPod. Then the detachment is nearly complete, although you are removing sound as a crucial sense to help guide your shooting, responding to changes in the environment, etc. For this reason, I usually forswear headphones and really try to keep on top of the environment I'm in. But still, sometimes this artificial detachment can push you to take pictures you might not if you were in a fully aware mode. I found this most useful in my early street photography days.

"Northern Exposure"

This sense of authority and mustering up the mental moxie to carry myself like a photographer is what led to this picture of the North Korean cheer team doing their stuff in formation. I got right up to where only the press corps was allowed – without a press pass – and used my 85mm to compress depth of field and get a solid line of faces. Yeah, it resembles what a lot of the press corps came up with, but the triumph for me was in getting this picture that only real photographers could get. And I don't mean that in terms of equipment, having the right credentials, or any other accoutrements of being a journalist. What I mean is that, having had the equipment and the big black bag helped, but the deciding factor was that I walked right into the press area as if I belonged, because I believed I belonged there. Yes, being a foreigner among an all-Korean press corps helped – because "hey, aren't all foreigners just English teachers? He must be here as a real journalist if he's got that camera and big bag" – but the attitude was key. That put me in the position to use my photo skills and nice lens to get the shot I wanted. The equipment didn't enable the shot – I did. And that's what counts.

Podcast #16 - A December Night in Myeongdong (Soundcast #2)

Yes, yet another podcast is in the bag. It's actually the second "Soundscape" I'm giving you, and I think this one's really cool. It's not in stereo (since I don't have a couple grand to drop on a stereo boom mike), but the recording
quality is sweet, even in mono. The 'cast is 128 mbps compression, which is the quality most people listen to downloaded music at. You might notice that it actually says 64 mbps, but that's because it's a mono channel (half the information of the stereo ones we're used to downloading into our MP3 players).

This will get you into the Christmas spirit wherever you might be – and for those of you who remember Christmas in Seoul, get ready to reminisce.

Listen to it directly through this direct link, or click in the menu to the left to access this directly in iTunes, for those of you down with that program.

Podcast #15 - School of Rock!

In this episode, I sit down with three high school students from the fancy Korean boarding school where I teach American History. They're funny, smart, and have major skills. Want to hear a bit about the life of high school students in Korea? Want to hear from a 10th grader who writes and sings her own pop songs? How about a slightly slacker kid sing Queen? In any case, these kids just rock. FInd this in the left menu bar, get it through Apple's iTunes, or download it directly here.