Scribblings of the Metropolitician

Good Point, Marmot

Here's a pretty interesting post from The Marmot, which brings another nuanced view to the tricky matter of national responsibility and history, both sensitive subjects on both the blogospherical and more general levels. A key excerpt:

"What really gets my goat, through, is when I hear Americans and Europeans taking Japan to task for its past. Example A: Rep. Henry Hyde warning Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro to stop visits of the Yasukuni Shrine if he’d like to address Congress. Listening to Seoul of Beijing lecture Tokyo over the Yasukuni Shrine ad nauseum is one thing. But when did the United States—or any other Western power, for that matter—suddenly get the moral authority to lecture the Japanese over a failure to atone for its imperial past? Hey, I’ve got an idea! Rather than lecture Koizumi, perhaps Hyde could show him the way by encouraging American authorities to show something even approximating an honest public discussion of the historic American role in the Philippines, Hawaii and any number of Central American victims of U.S. gunboat diplomacy. Perhaps throw in a mea cupla for the A-bomb and firebombing of Japanese cities as well. Or maybe he can write letters to the British and French to apologize for spending most of the period between the Berlin Conference and the 1960s screwing an obscenely large percentage of the planet’s landmass; it doesn’t take too much time in Africa to realize that the white man’s shit does in fact smell."

Touché. As much as I am critical of Japanese rightest tendencies when they do manifest, one has to keep in mind the politicized context of rightist Korean nationalism, as well as self-righteous American indignation, even as the United States continues to exhibit moral and historical amnesia – more on the level of public discourse than in professional historical circles – for war crimes such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the firebombing of Tokyo.

Congratulations, Soyeon!

While of course, I technically agree with the sentiments (here and here) that the whole program isn't really sending up homegrown "astronauts" in Korean-built spaceships, I don't there's much wrong with promoting math and science education in an educational environment in which there's a decreasing interest in these areas. The United States is having the same problem.

Original article here.

And since one of the candidates is a personal friend, who has been filling me in on the entire process, I've been privy to some of the more interesting inside information. Just for the record, the Metropolitician is rooting for Soyeon (the female astro-hopeful in the top row).

Well before the selection of the final 10 from the previous rounds, I told Soyeon that I thought there would be exactly, 3 women selected out of the 10 – for various reasons – and I was spot on. I also predicted that she'd be in the final 3, since she is such a super trooper and one of the healthiest women I know (something she doesn't like to hear, but it's true). She laughed as she mentioned that even the medical team doing the preliminary fitness tests were surprised to see her outperforming many of the boys on the flight stress and G-force simulations.

I find the picture above quite awkward, but I am always partial to efforts to promote science and math education, and the country paying for a ride on a Russian space bird may not be the same as building your own space program up from scratch, but I don't agree with the argument that these people won't be real astronauts.

The final two candidates will have to spend 1 and 1/2 years training in Russia before boarding the spacecraft, even if they obviously won't be involved in flying it. And since civilian scientists and others have been in space, and have obviously been thought of as "astronauts", I don't think it really matters who paid for the ship. When non-Americans and/or civilians have been aboard the US space shuttle, I don't think anyone was quibbling over who was a "real astronaut" or not.

And to be the first Korean in space? Hey, it's a real first, whether they hitched a ride or not.

I've got my bets down that there will a male and a female final two candidates. So, the way I see it, Soyeon has a 1/3 shot or better, partially improved because of the fact that she's a scientist-in-training herself, and can apparently take a few G's and not even wrinkle her nose.

Impressive.

Only downside is that if she makes it, Soyeon will be living in Russia for the next couple of years. Well, I guess there's always email.

Go, Soyeon!

Our site is rooting for you! And even if you don't make the final cut, you've already succeeded.

Wait - I Thought There Were No Gay People in Korea

Is it me, or is the 5-member boy band known as "Dong Bang Shin Gi" (Rising Gods of the East) more appropriately named "Dong Seong Shin Gi" (Rising Gods of Gayness)? I think the latter name works far better, since they have obviously made their "coming out" video. Watch for the champagne bottle "money shot."

I mean, it doesn't take a Semiotics major to catch the symbology of them popping that champagne bottle after rubbing all over their sweaty bodies throughout most of the video, before all five members come together (pun absolutely intended) at the end to make their ejaculatory toast and do "love shots" together while playfully feeding each other.

Have there been sudden advances in Korean gaydar technology? One would think not, since I don't think anyone officially acknowledges their eminent gayness.

But congratulations, 동성신기, on your unofficial coming out album! (And thanks, Party Pooper, for the tip!)

Hehe. Hehehehe. He. He. "Zune."

Microsoft's "iPod-killer"? You can transfer songs and photos between Zunes, they say. Yeah – good for 3 plays or 3 days before the file self-destructs. And you can only play songs bought through the Microsoft music store. Oooook.

"It's crackalackin'!"

Hehe.

Podcast #26 – Korean Nationalism

Michael Hurt discusses Korean nationalism with journalist Jason Strother. The interview is actually for his podcast, but I decided to take the same interview and make it kind of a linked event.

It's an off-the-cuff discussion without the aid of my notes or having done real thesis research in a long time, so do cut a bit of slack. Still, this is a subject I have thought, researched, and taught a lot about, so do take a listen.

Again, it's long, but who said you had to listen all in one sitting?

You can download it directly and save it to your computer, or you can just click on the white iPod symbol in the left menu and be taken right to your iTunes and automatically subscribed. And a list of all episodes, as always, is right there in the left menu. Pick them a la carte and enjoy.

Running Time: 45:30
File Size: 15.6MB
File Info: 48 kbps (mono) at 44.1 kHz, MPEG-2, layer 3 (MP3)

Show Links:

Jason Strother's Seoulcast

And here are several selected posts I did on the subject of Korean nationalism, either directly or indirectly discussed, presented in chronological order from oldest to newest:

On "Korean Blood," Social Policy, and the Dangers of Race-Based Nationalism

Blast from My Past: "Black Culture, Not Black People"

Thoughts on Minjok and The Matrix

The Gates of the Minjok

Korea and the Nazis redux

Umm...As I Was Saying...?

Korea – a Good Sport?

Thanks for reading!

Paul Mooney on Michael Richards

Well, partially as a way of replying to some comments about the matter, as well as following up on some reactions to the Michael Richards incident, I'll lead off with comedian Paul Mooney's words on the matter.

What do I think about the apology? I think that it's one thing if you slip up and accidentally say something offensive that people call you out for and come back with, "I'm sorry, dude. Fucked up." That's fine with me, and most reasonable people would be fine with that, too.

But come on – that's not what happened here. He went on and on on a racist tirade, first berating a heckler in the audience, then in response to the man in the audience saying that his initial tirade was "uncalled for" – he went on another racist tirade, at which point the man in the audience really got in his face (and with just reason) and basically called Richards a washed-up has-been, which pretty much describes the behavior he was displaying. Richards is talking about the "white man" this, we woulda had you hanging upside-down from a tree 50 years ago that – that's not an "oops, sorry" kind of comment taken in a way different from the way it was intended – it was him taking off part of his public face and showing a part of his real, buried thoughts.

Do I care if Michael Richards is a racist? No – not any more than I care if my car mechanic's a racist, my baker's a racist, or the guy running the register at the 7/11 is a racist. I don't care if my lawyer's a racist, my doctor, or my priest is, either – as long as they keep it out of their job and squarely in the realm of the private, where it belongs.

Of course, such clear separation is tough to maintain and is purely theoretical, but I think it helps me make my point.

Richards is a comedian and works on a stage in front of people. What people think of him matters. It's his bread and butter. Even on my darkest day, in a fog of the dirtiest and most embarrassing of thoughts that might flash across my mind, I'd never say to an annoying Jewish person, "You fucking kike! I guess Hitler missed your family with the ovens! 50 years ago, they had a place for people like you, and you Jew bastards would be showing the 'real' white man some respect! Fucking Christ killing, gefilte fish-eating Jew!"

Would that be the end of my singing career? Shouldn't it be? Yeah, apparently Mel Gibson was spewing off all sorts of filth in a drunken haze, but he wasn't dumb enough to do it on stage, on camera, into a mike. However you call it, Richards did all of those things, and his career is suffering. As well it should.

Why are we taking the burden of proof off of Richards to show that he's NOT a racist, when he so clearly has given us damning, shocking evidence that he not only harbors the thoughts that enabled him to go on such a sustained tirade, but that it was obviously simmering just below the surface, and all it took was a single black heckler to set him off – a heckler, I might add, who didn't seem at all belligerent or difficult to handle.

"That was uncalled for!" was the heckler's comeback, before he had another exchange in which he called Richard a "cracker." Oooooh. Such historical and institutional power behind the word "cracker." Even in a black person's most indignant rage, the best semantic weapon we can even come back with is "cracker." I think that fact speaks for itself.

And I think Mooney makes his point – whatever you want to say about race, or the use of race in comedy – the reason people found him so utterly offensive was the fact that he soooo was not joking, in both senses of that phrase.

Yes, he had left the realm of the comedic rip and had entered that of pure racist rant, and he had also seemed to be channeling a deep, deep bed of pre-existing racist anger, since the reaction was clearly incommensurate to the perceived provocation, and so vicious and long-lasting.

It was coming from somewhere. It was built up over time. He obviously has some conflicted and even hateful emotional baggage about blackness or black people. It's as obvious as hell.

An apology? Fuck an apology.

Give a chunk of money to a needy organization helping inner city youth and go give the check in person, in a sincere gesture of contrition.

Or like Mooney said, go perform in the Apollo and meet the challenge of being funny as you explain yourself and make the sincere, ongoing gesture of reconciling with the community you just angered and alienated.

Richards might even have given his career a boost, had he done it right. I mean, who even knew "Michael Richards" before this incident? He was just "Kramer from Seinfeld" before this. But he won't do the PR juijitsu and turn this negative energy into something positive – because I don't think this is just a slipup. I think the man has some serious anger issues and he's got some issues with black people. Period. Why are we so quick to assume the opposite, when he has done little to earn me changing those assumptions?

It's not like anyone thought anything bad of Richards before, or he's getting some kind of unfair rep here. He dug his own hole. It's his responsibility to convince me, not my responsibility to give him the benefit of the doubt after he got in the face of an entire race of people and just called things even the Y2K Klan doesn't utter these days. Hang me "upside down from a tree?"

You just don't say "sorry" for shit like that and move on like nothing's happened. And for better or for worse, he's torpedoed his career. And the only person responsible is him. I mean, it's not like he's an investment banker or a chimney sweep. He's a public figure. And a comedian, to boot. "Nigger." Haha. Very funny.

So getting pushed by Seinfeld into apologizing on Letterman and talking about "the anger" as some mysterious 3rd-party force or a demon that took over his body isn't the way to go. That's not taking responsibility – that's passing the psychological buck in a new-age, "it wasn't me but 'the rage'" kind of thinking.

Want to compare with a black comedian who tells race jokes and reads race straight? Paul Mooney's act is better known these days, and he sometimes shows visible anger in his face when he talks about race. But even at his most biting, he has a punchline, and moreover, a point.

If all Mooney was doing was calling white people "honkeys" and "crackers" or just ranting and raving about killing all white people, nobody – black or white or otherwise – would have ever found him funny. And it's not coincidence, obviously, that Mooney's writing was a part of Richard Pryor's rise to stardom, largely based on his straight talk about race.

I like Mooney's humor because he takes a step back from the bullshit and sees things big picture. And a well-liked comedian who digs himself into a hole and does what anyone would expect him to be obligated to do in order for him get himself out of it – well, he'll get off my shit list when he takes himself off it. Let's remember that he did a all the work of getting on it in the first place.

Why Koreans Would Love Battlestar Galactica

I know, I know.

I've gone on long enough about why Korean people don't like Star Trek and science fiction (real science fiction, not the Will Smith every 4th of July variety), and I've all but given up hope that the Trek will make any inroads into Korean culture ever.

But Battlestar Galactica is a different story.

First, though, you have to do a few things in order to stick with me here. I know I've blogged about this, in passing, before. Sure, look that over, come back when you're ready. But this is a post that gives it the attention it deserves.

Second, I'd like you to completely forget whatever associations you have with the well-loved but cheesy original series from the 1970's, which was just a cheap television ploy to wed the grandiose feel of Star Trek with a dynamic, small-ships-battling-in-space, Star Wars kind of feel. This was as obvious to me then as it is now. The clothes and costumes (except for the Cylons) were cheesy, the plots never seemed to go anywhere, and everything outside of the space battles was kind of boring to me. I was always waiting for the ships and the lasers and the robots, instead of caring all that much about the plot.

Secondly, you have to leave whatever aversions to and aspersions against science fiction you have at the door, please. Just give this argument – and the show – a chance. Let me just say that BG is science fiction at its best, and I realize that most of the general public doesn't get to see "good" science fiction because of the process of the way broadcast television and Hollywood movies tend to suck the integrity and true SF out of most productions that they then present as "science fiction." Grrr.

Only sometimes does quality science fiction rise out of the relative obscurity of some very, very good works of that genre's literature, past some corporate boardrooms and number crunchers, and past the writers and directors who may see the story as a good action spectacle, star vehicle, or special-effects extravaganza.

There aren't many cases of good science fiction remaining good all the way to the time when audiences buy popcorn, Goobers, and Diet Cokes and sit down to watch some flick on a much-hyped opening weekend. The Terminator, Aliens, Predator, John Carpenter's The Thing, They Live and even Cocoon are notable exceptions.

But before we even get to what "good" science fiction is, it might help to clarify what science fiction is in the first place, right? Well, I think so, as part of the effort to clearly lay out my little argument of "why Koreans would love "Battlestar Galactica."

SCIENCE FICTION

The way I see it, science fiction uses the future and/or technology to ask key questions about the present-day state of society, humanity, and even the nature of our existence itself. It's a commentary on the present, not a mere fantasy that has not much directly to do with our lives. Importantly, science fiction depends on the plausibility of things portrayed – as instinctively silly as that may sound – as a part of posing the question of "What if?"

That's why, under some purists (and my own) definition of the concept, Star Wars is a great story, but not really science fiction. Yes, it works with the trappings of science fiction, with its lightsabers, spaceships, and cool machines all set against the backdrop of space; but it's just set dressing, since it's not an extrapolation cum lesson about who "we" are or what "we" are about or what "we" might face – or presently face – in reality.

Star Wars – especially in its original trilogy – is really a pre-modern story of feudal relations, empires and alliances, swords and sorcery. The Jedis themselves are pre-modern throwbacks to the samurai, although in the Star Wars universe, they ride around on ion-engine and hyperdrive-powered horses. Their swords are made of light, not steel, and their powers come from "the Force" and not magical incantations and spells. But it is a universe that is actively separated from "us" from the git-go: "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..." It is not us – it is entertaining fantasy, much like Lord of the Rings.

As proof that such stories actually resonate quite a bit with the many pre-modern myth templates that are still alive in the literary imagination here in Korea, I challenged several Korean friends who asserted that "Star Wars is so American" as a reason the new Star Wars wasn't popular. I simply said that it was more due to the fact that Star Wars wasn't shown on big screens anymore and had become passé in a movie culture (which Star Wars largely made possible, too many people forget) that consumed Jurassic Park dinosaurs and blockbuster productions for breakfast. On the flip-side, will the next generation of kids, raised on holovision TV, recordable holodiscs, and Telepathic Tivo™ go all gaga over those long-ass, 4+ hour, weepily serious movies that we were enthralled to over the last several years?

No way.

"Mommy, I've seen Rings a million times!" [out of order and in parts, I might add]

"Come on, Johnny – it's a classic. You have to think of seeing this on the big screen," your year 2020 self might reply.

"But I've got a virtual reality holoscreen! Why do I want to watch some flat picture with bad special effects? It all looks so fake," irreverent Johnny replies.

"It didn't look fake at the time! Why, I'll have you know that when this came out, there were lines around the theater..."

Johnny rolls his eyes. Here we go again, he thinks.

So I challenged my friends to watch the Star Wars special edition on my 100-inch screen and in digital surround. I swear fo' the Lord that every one of them was begging to watch the next two discs, and in one's friend's case, she actually made an appointment to watch Return of the Jedi at a later date, since she couldn't stay for a third movie. Each one of them said – "I never knew it was so good! It's totally different seeing it on the big screen." Like I said. And most young Koreans – who don't ask – don't remember that Star Wars was actually quite popular in Korea when it premiered here, with lines around theaters and buzz around the block – even though the consumer culture, disposable income, and post-modern thinking all hadn't really come to pass yet.

Point is, the story is actually more compatible with cultures that still have ample connections to pre-modern themes, and presented along the same lines as the Rings trilogy, if you get people past their preconceptions and refusal to opt-in by buying an admission ticket to something "I've seen before", all the Korean folks I've forced to watch it ended up loving it. Really. And these were the friends who constantly teased me about my "American Star Wars-loving" and would go on and on about how much better Rings was. Pshaw.

But back to Trek. Even far-flung in the future Star Trek is an extrapolation, not mere fantasy. It may be somewhat utopian and way too far off in terms of ongoing contact with aliens and warping across the galaxy as if we're traveling to the next state over the ridge, but it still speaks to themes confronted by modernity. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that many of the questions are those of modern societies questioning the nature of modernity itself.

"What is the meaning of humanity?" as confronted through characters such as "half-human" Spock or non-human Data, who raised the question to a more post-80's tenor as he juxtaposed machine-based sentience and "life" against our human, organic notions of the idea.

"What are the dangers of technology?" as we see in Zion struggling against the Machines, the human resistance trying to take down Skynet or prevent machine "terminators" from performing retroactive abortions in the past, or even *COUGH* Will Smith turning out to be fighting against human pride and prejudice when we thought we were just fighting more uppity robots. The "pitfalls of technology" is a major sci-fi trope, one we should all be familiar with.

"Humanity doomed to its own arrogance" has been a theme with us since before the story of the fall of the Tower of Babel, but brought to acute form in science fiction in terms of the hokey-but-fun first romp through the first Jurassic Park, or interesting films such as 12 Monkeys or some such movie, in which the main protagonist says something like, "This system is foolproof!" or "The failsafe protocols are perfect!" We, the audience, knowingly roll our eyes and wait for the fun to begin. Hehe.

Such are many of the themes of Star Trek, or of most of the Hollywood science fiction movies we see, which, if you check, almost all came from novels written by science fiction giants; half of the ones used in Hollywood seem to have come from Philip K. Dick. If only he were alive to reap all them royalties...

My point is, good science fiction entertains as much as it asks questions that make you go, "Hmm." In the end, that's why the Matrix did so well, and why, in the end, many were so disappointed by the latter two, especially the final one.

They were thoughtful and deep. Now, I know, everyone is so above thinking those movies were either of those things – pshaw! – but it doesn't truly matter whether they were misappropriating Kantian philosophy or whether Neo was an believable Christfigur; the movie's innovative action and slick stylings worked because there was another world, another system operating according to a system of rules that was elegantly and economically presented to the audience in a way that gave everything apparent to the eye another layer to consider. It doesn't matter if it matches what you remember from your "Modes of Eastern Philosophy" graduate seminar, as a deep movie, The Matrix worked.

But people forget that the first Blade movie came out more than a year before The Matrix and had those cool action sequences (and in a way, more honest ones, since the action relied on good cutting and editing, not CGI) and very cool stylings. It had black people, martial arts action, and the main characters wearing sunglasses at night. Blade used automatic weapons almost as much as he defied gravity and the believable with his acrobatics, speed, and pure martial abilities. Yet, it was a cult hit, not an instant classic and touchstone for a whole new generation's way of looking at the world.

See, Blade was a throwback to pre-modernity, not a conversation about modernity itself. Yes, there were the rules of the gritty "real world" that really determined things in the "cotton candy fantasy world" we live in, but they are old rules, and firmly rooted in pre-modern fear as fantasy. Yeah, vampires were now wearing PVC latex, Blade shot bullets filled with silver nitrate and garlic extract, and they even had grenade bombs of concentrated UV sunlight – cool. But still just an update of the age-old human fear of walking alone in the woods at night, getting the "evil eye" from the crazy lady next door, or other superstitious beliefs that are as cross-culturally constant as swords, sorcerers, and dragons.

So what about this Battlestar Galactica? Why am I so hot to trot about it? And why the hell would I think Koreans would take a hankering to it? It's simple – because Korea's sooooo ready for good science fiction.

Korea's hellish experience with a forced and compressed modernity marked by overlapping experiences of colonial, authoritarian, and neo-colonial control and violence, followed by a giddy, but now more guarded transition into postmodernity, all add up to a pretty heady cocktail veritably bubbling over with most of the themes that really good science fiction deals with: humanity vs. authority, humanity vs. machine, humanity vs. mechanization, humanity vs. "them," humanity vs. itself.

Check, check, check. Battlestar Galactica, baby!

But importantly, BG isn't a bunch of humans and humanoids running around in sparkling spaceships living according to utopian ideals – I think that doesn't jibe much with Korean esthetic sensibilities in drama. No, BG is barely obviously "futuristic," is steeped in real human drama (love triangles, jealousies, and suspicions abound in this, more gritty universe – Korean dramas, anyone?), and there are no laser guns, transporters, or anything else noticeably new.

Besides the fact that, yes, humans are living in a huge caravan of ships traveling between stars, only a few (but importantly, very good) sci-fi actions sequences punctuate what is actually a very good drama. It does what science fiction does at its very best – it lets the technology step out of the way and set up really, really, really interesting and thoughtful situations, such as what do you do if someone takes your DNA and makes you a mom against your will? What if your best friend or colleague turned out to be something he wasn't, a clone? If you fall in love with the enemy – especially a cloned "skinjob" enemy, can you just turn that off?

Such are many of the sci-fi setup questions that come up in the show. But there are more mundane ones as well: What are the rules of war? Under occupation, what defines collaboration? What defines a "terrorist" and how far shall we go to stop them? Where does the line fall between stopping terrorism and becoming ones ourselves? What moral line do we cross when we allow torture as a society?

These are obviously questions that American society is confronted with in the now. But aren't these questions that Korean society has either faced, or brushed not-so-neatly under the rug? The National Security law, torturing dissidents in the bowels of Mt. Namsan, "disappearing" people in the name of fighting Communism, censoring information in the name of "preserving democracy" – the list can go on.

When you parse the more general themes mentioned above through those dealt with in the show, and match them against some of the things that modern Korean society, both past and present, has been dealing with, it gets pretty interesting:

• the excesses of faith in technology, especially in cloning and robotics (hello, Dr. Hwang, Korean military DMZ sentries!)
• the realities of nuclear annihilation, the ethics of civil war (need I even give examples here?)
• the constant threat of war, the cloying fear of spies and infiltrators
• the politics of dealing with "collaborators" balanced with the need to foster healing and moving forward
• the journey from being a nationalist underdog that uses terrorism and assassination to survive (national hero Ahn Chung Geun is the obvious example) to being a nation that uses terror tactics to squelch dissent (the ghosts and the historical score of Kwangju, no matter what show trials there have been, have still yet to be settled)

I could go on, but then I'd be giving away specific plot points. In any case, my point is that BG is actually a cultural product that is dealing with many of these issues anew, whereas for Korea, such issues are largely old news, but remain quite unsettled.

MINOR SPOILER IN THIS SECTION
The most recent episode dealt with the question of who was guilty of "collaboration" and, more importantly, how such collaboration was defined. In the show, the secret committee designated to quickly and quietly make the secretly convicted disappear (without the right of habeas corpus, but as a jury of the accused's peers) came to define this not as those who were in no position to resist, but rather those who actively sought out collaborative roles and committed "crimes against humanity" – and given the fact that they are fighting non-humans, this term suddenly takes on a special kind of weight. They are truly traitors – to the entire human race.

What continues to be so impressive about this show is how it thoughtfully and realistically avoids moral absolutes. The self-righteous collaboration committee performs its duties – not without some degree of trepidation and conflict, however – until it nearly executes a former friend cum enemy based on ample circumstantial evidence that makes his guilt nearly painfully obvious, but upon the revelation of a single, crucial fact – quite accidentally – just before his life ends, they realize that they have made a nearly-fatal mistake.

But complete condemnation of the committee doesn't ensue, especially when its existence is revealed to the inner circle of authorities. There is a grandstanding speech about rights and justice and "sacrificing our ideals" as a society, but the character who had been in charge of the operation counters, not so much in his own defense as much as to remind everyone of the actual social utility of the act, saying that he had just saved their recovering society-on-the-run that he just saved them years of show trials, recriminations, and witch-hunting.

Everyone had just escaped to the fleet and still hadn't been officially accounted for. Since the most egregious of traitors had just "been disappeared," wouldn't it be best to just be quiet and move on as this society tries to reestablish itself. Or would the new president rather drudge up the cases of people who were no longer with us and thrust the shaky fleet of human survivors into factions and in-fighting? Silence ensues, and the point is made.

A general pardon is given by the new leader for all actions committed during the occupation, made possible mostly by the fact that most of the hardcases have conveniently "not made it back." A kind of Truth and Reconciliation" committee is formed for the sake of history and posterity, but for all practical intents and purposes, society had been ordered to move on, remember later, not fight now.

MINOR SPOILER ENDS

Anyway, something well worth chewing on. Given the present-day debates about collaboration, sweeping pardons, and cleansing the nation of the ghosts of authoritarian Christmas pasts, the most recent episodes of BG would have found a receptive Korean audience.

I've introduced a few Korean friends to it, and even watched a couple episodes as I offer clumsy plot summaries and rough translations as they match that with what is obviously going on onscreen, combined with the snippets of easy English that leap out from the fog of chatter.

In the end, it's a really good soap opera, since only a small percentage of the show focuses on space battles or other kinds of fancy future action. It's heavily plot-driven, although the show foold you into thinking that it's more actiony than it is. This is not to criticize them for this – what I'm saying is that the show is a lot deeper, with real characters whom you care about, than most people would have assumed before they actually started watching the show.

And there's another thing – Grace Park, Korean American actor extraordinaire, is on the show. She's Korean! She's hot! She can act! What are Korean folks waiting for? Here's another "Korean" person to write up in the newspapers. Why aren't there more stories about her?

Of course, it's just a few people, but I'm not conducting a market study. But they all think the show's really good and wonder why they've never heard of it. I think one major reason has to do with this not having been attached to a major network (BG is played on cable's SciFi Channel), but now, I hear BG is getting played on NBC from this season. It's also been released on DVD and is the top-selling television show on Amazon, according to what I heard over on the Diggnation podcast.

Hmm. A major NBC series, already on DVD – maybe we might get it carried on Korean television sometime? Or at least get the DVD's? We'll see. But if they did – man, would I have a 3-day BG marathon, like those old Star Trek marathons of times past. Ahhhhh. I get teary (and bleary) eyed.

And for you expats who aren't watching the show – I'll tell you how to get in on the action and in high quality to boot.

Doesn't matter whether or not you own an iPod – you can download the Apple iTunes program for free. Just go here, download it, and get into the Apple Store from the program. You can download a million podcasts (all free!) to boot and watch them. Again – YOU DO NOT NEED AN IPOD TO DO THIS. The only thing an iPod does it let you take your stuff with you.

Then do a search of TV shows and find Battlestar Galactica. You can buy a season (more economical) or buy by episode (why would you do that?!), but before you decide, you can download the free show overview that got rave reviews from people who wanted to play catchup but didn't know quite how to jump aboard a bandwagon that has been going for 3 years now.

Seriously, the little show – Battlestar Galactica: The Story So Far, which was broadcast on TV and even played as in-flight entertainment on some airlines) – is amazing. One of the main characters – the former Secretary of Education who finds herself President after she is found to be the highest-ranking government official alive – narrates the "history" of the present conflict as actual key moments from all the episodes are played in order. It's fun to watch in itself, and does an amazing job of compressing a 3-year television story line into about an hour of programming.

Now, you'll be podcast-compatible as well. Join the podcasting revolution and watch them all for FREE, all without buying an iPod.

And if you already own an iPod, you have no excuse whatsoever. Why aren't you subscribing to and listening to podcasts? What? Huh? What was that? Come again?

Didn't think so. Get off yer butt and download this FREE program and at least watch the free synopsis. If you don't find yourself glued to the screen, mouth open with a puddle of drool forming on your desk as you stare at the screen, I'll buy you lunch.

Trust me. This is not a geeky show, there is no litany of alien races with strange abilities and weird names, no pseudo-futuristic technologies to know, nothing like that at all.

Why are you still reading this post? You're not downloading already?!

Go.

GO!

Asian Sensations

Considering the nature of the Internet, I'll probably be deluged with people sent over by search engines on a quest for illicit materials.

But this is not what this post is about.

For those of you who aren't in on all the miniature sensations created by YouTube here in Asia, let me catch you up.

The Korean guitar kid. Pachabel's Canon at the speed of lightning-fast fingers and total precision.

Amazing, this kid. He deserves whatever accolades he receives, which is more than I can say for the insipidly vapid interviewers who titter on with him in this news clip.

God, this reminds me so clearly why I don't watch television.

Now, here's something inspiring from the Middle Kingdom. In case you missed these two Chinese kids singing the Backstreet Boys or whatever, they are a hoot. And watch the kid in the back, just chilling on the computer the whole time.

Is the kid on the left tripping you out or what?

And now, for the grand finale. Many of you have likely seen these two Korean girls just dominating the mikes in this noraebang. They are karaoke and camera masters, and they were taking no prisoners. The little video they made in the karaoke room (many of the nicer ones in Korea have all kinds of audio/video functions such that you can walk out with your own CD or music video in your hands) is priceless.

They got so famous that they ended up on Korean TV several times, and on this show, the producers did a lot better job of featuring their talent.

Every time I see these two girls, I am reminded of the pure frivolity of youth and am briefly broken out of the fog of life's frustrations. The gesticulations of the girl on the left is enough to break me into a smile even on the gloomiest of days.

And that's good medicine. .

ExpatJane - Guest Blogger - Numero Uno

Hi folks.

You know when the Metropolitician called me the other evening and asked me if I wanted to be a guest blogger on his site, I was a bit nervous.

At my blog Where the Hell Am I?  things rarely get heated.   I usually write about international politics, personal stories or entertainment.  Maybe those issues are just easier to deal with than the more complex issues of social commentary. In contrast, the reader's of this blog sometimes go nuts in the comment section.  It's a virtual mosh pit. That makes me uncomfortable.  However, I can and have gone toe to toe when necessary so don't take me being uncomfortable as a sign of weakness or lack of confidence.  I just prefer being civil over slinging mud.  I'm a firm believer in agreeing to disagree when necessary.

I thought it was an interesting idea, and I've heard about similar things happening in the blogosphere.  He and I discussed some ideas and even recorded a podcast on our experiences living as blacks in Korea.  It was interesting to discuss it, but I'm still nervous that my words are out there pretty much uncensored.  I was in the shower this morning thinking "ohmygod, I said 'bitch!' I'll be up for a important promotion one day and someone will find that podcast and I'll be doomed because I said 'bitch!'"

Well, now the podcast that will doom my fate is up, so I should introduce myself.  I'm going to keep it basic. I'm a black American female who has lived in Korea for just over six years. Don't be shocked at the length of time I've been here. I know other black females who've lived here even longer than I have.  For more personal stuff you can go to my blog.  That's not an attempt to get hits. It's due to laziness.  I just don't see the need or want to type it again. 

I was going to write about women and education in Korea since I'm getting a master's here, however, I think I'll try a more interactive idea.  It's not due to laziness, it's just an attempt to try something new. 

Listen to the podcast, if the topic interests you.  Maybe just read about who I am and what I'm doing, then give me a few topics you might want me to discuss in the comment section.  I'll pick one and opine in excess on it.

Deal?  Deal...okay, it's bedtime for me.

G'night.

Kramer vs. Kramer

Since I know a lot of you out there were looking for this video (and some even found it on AOL's stupid video site that resizes your browser window – no, thanks), I found it on YouTube.

Dang, dude. "I'm not a racist." OK. If you say so.

I've been known to snap every now and then, but I've never let racial epithets fly, and even if I did, it certainly wouldn't be for like minutes at a time. Kind of a sustained burst of racist vitriol to be like, "Oops. Just slipped out. Sorry."

I think it's time to hang up the mike, dude. We liked you on Seinfeld, but jeezus. You've got some pretty heavy racist anger pent up there, buddy. Getting all shinied up and coming on Letterman with that apology – at the request of Jerry – doesn't really seem too sincere if you've actually seen the video.

UPDATE: He's says he tried to "juijitsu" the mistake back, but really? Here's the whole Letterman "apology."

Come on. Even that "apology" sounded like it was made through grit teeth. You're washed up. You're an angry firecracker ready to pop, not a man who makes people laugh.

Apology not accepted.