Scribblings of the Metropolitician

Completely OWNED

What a tool.

I can't stand when so-called "conservatives" try to get all historical, yet know less history than the average grade schooler. Especially when it's the crux of one's point. Look it up on Wikipedia at least, fer chrissakes., before going on national television and making an idiot of oneself. Or, alternatively, shut the f**k up.

This tool got owned on national television. I'm sure he'll go back to his radio show and whine about how he got railroaded or something -- but in the end, he's just stoopid dumm.

Is the Apple Tablet Really A-Coming?

I mentioned and posted about this before, but I guess I jumped the gun. A device that looks like this:

But wait! Did I? Here's the dealio:

According to ZDNet.de, Intel Germany CEO Hannes Schwaderer confirmed that Apple would be using the Intel Atom processor in a future version of the iPhone. The new model will reportedly be a larger model with a larger display, correlating with circulating rumors about a mini-tablet (720x480) device rumored to be coming from Apple.

720x480? Doesn't that look just about the size of the patent application diagram? Hmmmmmm...

Dude -- Who Pulled the Race Card?

Ruben Navarette, Jr. had it right in his article over on CNN: that was cheap and divisive. And if you think that West Virginia and Kentucky aren't very working-class and white, and that Clinton's not doing all she can to use that, you're living in fantasyland. Her little WINK*WINK quip:

"Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again."

Talk about Reagan-era "code words" and veiled racial politicking. It isn't nearly Willie Horton, but Clinton indeed sounds more like some conservative, southern Republican stumping straight outta the 60's, rather than the dyed-in-the-wool "liberal" she's supposed to be, the wife of the "first black president."

Shit, if Obama wins, McCain is looking like a better choice than her. She also voted for the Iraq war, but at least he's not trying to get sneaky with old racial prejudices -- ahem, or actual fear and animosity towards black people.

Leave it to Hillary to look more "conservative" than the Republican guy. What wonders she is doing for the Democrats! I certainly am thinking about not voting for her if she wins the nomination -- I wonder how many others are starting to get a distinct distaste for her that will go beyond a realistic recognition of the things one has to do to best one's opponent in the nomination?

I mean, if I'm going to vote for a Republican, I'll at least vote for the one who at voted for the war resolution and has the courage to stand behind that choice even after the war has become unpopular -- instead of doing the "flip-flop" the Rovians successfully pinned on Kerry. And I'll also be wanting to vote for the candidate who DOESN'T look like a racist prick. On that score, Hillary stands alone right now.

Aoki Was Awesome!

For those who read FeetManSeoul.com, you know that Steve Aoki -- perhaps the world's most famous DJ -- came to Seoul. If you went to the show, you also might know that he rocked the house.

Also, Cut Chemist, formerly DJ for the Jurassic Five and who really tore up the turntables, was in total effect.

Both the Chemist and Aoki definitely kept the crowd entranced.

I also got snapped by the (in)famous, super-duper party photographer, The Cobrasnake. It's an honor to have been shooting with him, and to make the Cobra Snake party page. He definitely has a Zen style to his shooting, and gets some really fun stuff -- check it out!

Got me!

FMS is getting invited to some cool stuff these days, and I'm having a ball shooting both folks of fame, as well as folks just having fun. It's a salve to get some people actually paying more attention to my pics these days, instead of just continuing to be the ignored street photographer.

And it's a hard job getting the word out there about a new kind of magazine, in a new medium, but we're learning, and building, and having a great time.

Check out the full, ongoing coverage of this and more fun stuff at FeetManSeoul.com.

Whoa...Ouch!

Did she really just say that?

Ouuuuuch. (HT to ExpatJane)

"That Hillary Show"

I'm sorry, Hillary supporters. This one's simply irresistable.

Bye, Bye Speed Racer

As I predicted, Speed Racer is bombing, mainly because it apparently sucks. So far, one call down, and Ironman is still booming at the box office. My doubtful Korean friends are all now true believers. I've even got one friend going again to see it. Hehe. Ironman, baby.

Bomb English #15 - Being a Lesbian in Korea

In our 15th episode, Jennifer and Michael talk with a Korean lesbian who tells us what many people want to ask, but never get the chance. "Are there REALLY gay people in Korea?!"

For those of you who don't know, our Bomb English project is going pretty well, where we provide good conversational English content along with a transcript for free. We keep it frank, honest, and real as can be. No Arirang, EBS English here -- recommend it to your Korean friends for their intermediate/advanced study, and listen in yourselves as native speakers, since we treat the topics as real topics and not just awkward, superficial conversations about things we don't care about.

This is real English, with Korean content. So there's something for everyone.

Check us out!

"The Five Mistakes Clinton Made", Why She Doesn't Deserve to Be President, and Why It's Time to Hang It Up

The "five mistakes" are kind of telling, in that these are not the kind of mistakes that I would have wanted a potential president to make. And when I say "deserve," I mean it -- look at the frickin' delegate count lead Obama has, which has remained constant for far longer than Hillary should have been in the race. Time Magazine's list:

1. She misjudged the mood.

2. She didn't master the rules.

3. She underestimated the caucus states.

4. She relied on old money.

5. She never counted on a long haul.

What does this add up to? "Out of touch" and "arrogant" spring to mind. Oh, and "elitist," a term she has (inexplicably!) trying to pin on Obama.

As I've said before, when I called it right, and I'll say again -- it's time for Hillary to step aside.

I've come a long way since I first decided to tentatively decide my conscience and realize that Obama was going to be a great candidate, or stop believing the line that "no one would really vote for a Black president" and that once in the voting booths, white people just couldn't punch it for a black man (and they call ME the cynic, right?), or the accusation that the real hope and excitement Obama supporters see was "cultish" and MLK's greatness was diminished as "just words", or when the Clintons started pulling out the "kitchen sink" and engaging in a politics of "hopelessness", And even after Obama actually WON Texas, and didn't win Ohio (which didn't even affect his delegate lead, but the media kept reporting it as a "loss"), or the Wright non-fiasco that was absolutely racist in the way the media chose to put Obama's feet to the fire but let the far more crazy of the religious crazies with far closer actual ties to other candidates (both past and present) completely off the hook, even as he handled it by dropping the science and one of the most important pieces of political rhetoric in a century...

Obama's come a long way, too, and more than earned the right to shake of the "all talk" jabs by holding his own against anything that Clinton threw at him, by taking the high ground, by actually not engaging in the dirty pool that he claims to not want to play. His money came from average people and not old money, he planned ahead, he had a pulse on the sentiments of the people.

How is he not completely and obviously better qualified than Hillary to be nominated? What remaining reservations are there? Ah, he's not a realist, we need a connected political animal to get things done? She has "more experience?" Pshaw. Is that all that's left?

In a way, it doesn't matter. Obama's done the do-diligence. He's run the political gauntlet, even as people (including myself) were half covering their faces and hoping that he wouldn't fall flat on his face, and as he not only didn't, but continued to display his appropriateness for the job, and many on the side of the fence who might actually vote for him have continued to be emboldened enough to be more vocal about their support for him.

Many African-Americans were initially quite skeptical about his prospects at the beginning -- and did not offer the kind of blind support that many seem to assume was given only because he was black (umm, Jesse Jackson was also black, but let's not nitpick...) Now, Obama's completed the tough task of convincing these final cynics -- us.

What people fail to realize in this myopic, horse-race way of dealing with political races in the US, is that Obama has already changed a lot of the rules of the game, has raised the level of political discourse, has already raised the bar again for what can be hoped for in politics. Is the job done? No.

But the man ain't even President yet. And prognosticating naysaying aside (since he's made it through a whole heaping helping of that and come out rosy), what if...just what if...his candidacy actually reflects what he does as president?

Imagine that!

My vote's right where it's been since December, 2007.

And yeah, I told you so.

A Voice of Rationality

CORRECTION: An astute reader pointed out an error in this post, which is pertinent to what I'm saying and should be noted:

"김 교수는 자신의 논문에서 밝힌 광우병의 위험성을 적극 알리지 않았다는 이유로 '분뇨 테러'까지 당한 것으로 전해졌다. 광우병 논란 사태가 불거진 후 몇몇 사람들이 집에 찾아와 욕설을 하며 동물 분뇨를 뿌렸다는 것이다. "

which describe that the shit terror occured prior to him making the statement revealing the truth, not after the fact. The actual reason for the shit attack was because he did not actively spread the word of danger to the public as 'described' in his research paper, not because he turned around to say 'no thats not what it says.'

Duly noted, although I still don't think it says much for the rationality of the protesters in attacking an innocent researcher, it is an important point. I just skimmed through the article and trusted the summarized translation of others, instead of fact- and error-checking myself. I stand corrected. Thanks, Greg.

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

I love being right. I really do.

No, I'm not a scientist, as certain irrational people point out -- I love when people point out the obvious -- but I am a reasonable, educated person who has the ability to discern substance from, ahem, bullshit. (Yes, I am trying to be "punny.")

So -- as I've been saying from the beginning, when I have been taking people to task for 1) not really knowing what the actual source was for the "Korean genetic predisposition to mad cow disease" argument, and 2) for misinterpreting what even the apparent meaning of that statistic is -- the media and the general populace has been freaking out over nothing. Let me repeat:

It has not been established that American beef is any more unsafe than any other country's beef.

And so says the author of the scientific paper being (mis)used by PD 수첩, crazed netizens, petrified students, and anti-American FTA activists (who must be complimented for an amazing PR coup, since this was, admittedly, a master stroke of political theater and manipulation):

국내 광우병 사태를 촉발한 ‘한국인 광우병 취약’ 논문의 저자인 김용선 한림대 의대 교수는 자신의 논문이 일부 언론에 의해 과장 보도됐고 정치적으로 악용됐다고 주변 인사들에게 말한 것으로 확인됐다.

김 교수는 4일 한림대 의대 학장 자격으로 핀란드의 헬싱키 의대 등과의 업무 협의를 위해 윤대원 한림대 이사장 등과 함께 핀란드로 출국했다.

6일 헬싱키 시내 호텔에서 만난 윤 이사장은 기자에게 “김 교수의 논문은 일부 미디어에 의해 부풀려졌고 이를 다시 정치권이 마녀사냥 식으로 악용하고 있다”고 말했다.

I put it in Korean so it's clear to the several commenters who seem to take my critique of the poor critical thinking skills of the media and political groups as proof of my arrogance (guilty as charged, since I consider the rantings and ravings of stupid people, umm, stupid, and I don't consider myself stupid), or proof of me, once again, "hating" Korea. (You can read the English-language breakdown of the article quoted above at the Marmot's Hole.)

Well, it's not surprising, since the author of the study has had his house attacked by shit-throwing idiots. And I don't mean that in the rhetorical sense -- I mean that people have actually found his house and thrown shit at it. If even the author of the study in question gets shit on, is it surprising that anyone with lesser authority (ohhh -- I'm not a scientist!) would get the same treatment? Because we all need to be scientists or other specialists to make critical judgments of obviously faulty logic or specious claims, right?

We should be a clear expert or authority to make any claims? Kim Yong-seon has that authority! "He said Koreans are 94% more likely to...umm...I don't really understand it, but...anyway! He said it! See!"

But then that very authority turns around and says, "No. That's not what it says. You're wrong."

So people start throwing shit at his house, and he's afraid to even come back to Korea from his research trip. The man's nearly in hiding. And what did he do to deserve this? Umm, absolutely nothing. Lovely.

What is more obvious is that PD 수첩's research is shoddy and unprofessional -- I've said it before. And I'm right again: obviously, they never even contacted the professor to discuss the meaning of his paper. Otherwise, they wouldn't have made it the center of their claims, linking it with other specious claims.

The point is -- to those of you getting on my case for pointing out that the statistic looked fishy and taken completely out of context -- you need to ask yourself why it was so obvious to someone like ME that the "94% genetic predisposition" claim looked very suspicious, and NOT to someone like YOU. What separate us? Nationality? Genetics? What neighborhood in Seoul I lived in? Or perhaps my school names?

It's critical thinking skills, people. Link that with a little basic understanding of logical and statistical fallacies, a rudimentary understanding of the science we all should have learned in high school, as well as not being beholden to a slavish belief in "authority," or the petty maneuverings of a self-interested few of what is clearly a highly-politicized issue -- and you get the ability to not be driven into irrational hysteria over a minor trade dispute.

Does this make me arrogant? If so, I guess I'm arrogant, then.

Does pointing this out make me an asshole? If so, I guess I gotta be an asshole, then.

Does this make me anti-Korean? Again, I'm just pointing out what I consider to be the overreactions of the irrational. By some people's standards, that makes me "anti-Korean," I guess. Hmm.

But then again, by "some people's standards," this innocent professor who did nothing but write a paper on an issue that people not only didn't properly understand, but actively misused for political gain, and when he simply clarified the actual meaning of the research being misused by intellectual brownshirts (and I use the term "intellectual" hesitantly), a completely innocent academic who literally has been dragged into a political shitstorm now has cow dung being thrown at his house and fears for his physical safety.

I guess that makes me, him, and anyone else who raises a voice outside of the mass-mind of the angry crowd, "anti-Korean," right? But to the mob, what does the truth -- nay, even mere rationality -- matter? "You're either with us or against us." Or, as the great Captain Jean-Luc Picard once ominously warned while under the assimilative mind control of cybernetic alien nanoprobes, "You WILL become one with the Borg."

"대~한민국!"