Scribblings of the Metropolitician

Colbert Got Rained On!

Good stuff. I guess his profile got big enough with Speed Racer that they thought of a way to bring him on without a translator. That line when Rain entered was a sample from the movie, I think. Clever. [HT to Ggamssi!]

The Logic of Illogic

Needless to say, I couldn't find any answers to the question of where the "94% of Koreans more genetically susceptible to mad cow disease" claim came from, so I did my own research, since not knowing such things bothers me. Here's the answer, in terms of where this flimsy set of ideas is coming from. The article on "kuru" on eMedicine.com, which was reprinted from WebMD.com, and was written by:

Paul A Janson, MD, Instructor, Tufts University School of Medicine; Director, EMT/RN Consultants; Consulting Staff, Department of Emergency Medicine, Lawrence General Hospital

Along with coauthors:

Rachel H Chung, MD, Consulting Staff, Department of Family Practice, North Clinic, North Memorial Hospital; Mary Buechler, MD, Per Diem Staff, Department of Emergency Medicine, Caritas Holy Family Medical Center; Stuart H Cohen, MD, Director of Infection Control and Epidemiology, Associate Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, University of California at Davis School of Medicine

Here's the excerpt of this article, last updated on October 15, 2005:

"Prions are thought to be both the infectious agent and the cause of spongiform encephalopathy in animals and humans. The prion is a naturally occurring protein (termed prion protein [PrP]) found in the CNS and elsewhere.

In the alpha-helical configuration, PrP usually is sensitive to protease degradation and is termed PrP-sen. Disease results when the PrP is reconfigured into the beta-sheet configuration, which is resistant to protease degradation. This configuration is termed PrP-res. The PrP-res proteins are resistant not only to protease degradation but also to radiation, heat, and most other processes that destroy proteins. Neither the transmissible agent nor the disease-producing agent contains any DNA or RNA. Because they are naturally occurring proteins, immunologic response to the infection is absent.

The prion of kuru is infectious orally and is capable of transmission to nonhuman primates by this route and by direct introduction into various tissues. Scrapie may be transmitted to sheep from pastures that have previously been grazed by scrapie-infected sheep and have remained unused for as many as 30 years, demonstrating the extreme resistance of prions to degradation. CJD also has been transmitted iatrogenically by transplanted tissue such as dura mater grafts. Potential transmission via the blood supply has been suggested but never demonstrated.

Prions are capable of replicating themselves in organisms; or, more correctly, prions are capable of changing the existing PrP-sen to PrP-res. This change takes place particularly in the CNS. Resistance to degradation is the probable source of disease because prions accumulate within the CNS, causing amyloid collections and resulting in neurologic symptoms and the spongiform appearance on pathologic examination. Hence, the term spongiform encephalopathy is applied to this group of diseases.

The name prion has only recently gained wide acceptance, replacing previously used terms such as slow virus, infectious proteins, infectious amyloids, and crystal protein. Mice that lack the gene responsible for PrP cannot be infected with the agent causing spongiform encephalopathy. The lack of this protein has no apparent effect, except an alteration in the circadian rhythm of these mice. They have a normal life span. For this reason, the PrP has been proposed to be a redundant protein.

The PRNP gene has recently been identified as altering the susceptibility to prion infection. The gene has a polymorphism at site 129 for either methionine or valine and has been noted as showing a strong increase in susceptibility to kuru if methionine is present on both genes (M/M). All cases of vCJD in the United Kingdom have occurred in people of the M/M genotype as well.

The pathologic similarity between the spongiform encephalopathies and other degenerative brain diseases, such as Alzheimer disease, is the subject of speculation at this point."

OK, now that's something I can work with. The problem is, it still doesn't lead us to the conclusion that Korea and Koreans are somehow more susceptible to getting mad cow disease, even if it is established that the M/M genotype is expressed in 94% of the Korean population and only 38% of the American population. [And where did these numbers come from?]

The main problem is still the same: preventing tainted meat from reaching the population. If tainted meat hit the shelves of American grocery stores, it doesn't mean only 38% of the population would get it, nor does it mean that 94% of the Korean population would get it.

Neither population would find such a figure acceptable. The fact remains that one has to be exposed to said tainted meat, and a single case of vCJV in the United States in 2003 doesn't establish American meat as any worse than say, E. coli infections in Korean beef, which actually HAVE killed people, and have killed many more people in Korea than any cases of "mad cow" in the US. If there's something more logical to crow about, it's E. coli infections that have forced mass recalls of American beef -- not mad cow disease.

In the end, this is about fear-mongering and existing anti-American sentiment. The question isn't supposed "susceptibility" but whether or not mad cow disease is in the meat of that country. I'm still waiting -- for the over one million Americans of Korean descent (myself included) who've been eating American beef since they were born, how many cases of mad cow disease were there? Was that single case back in 2003 with a Korean American?

Where's the logic, people? It's about the absence or presence of contaminated beef -- not genes.

Some people automatically say "you're just defending America because you're American." That's fucking stupid, if you read this blog (which takes aspects of US society to task every bit as much as I do for South Korea), and my main argument is that if you want to protest the KORUS FTA, do it.

The Korean beef industry wants to protect its market, Korean farmers don't want the FTA bringing in American-grown rice, Korean car manufacturers don't want Ford, Chrysler, and GM selling its cars without the tariffs that have kept them out by keeping their prices double those of domestic cars. Fine. That's all economics, interests, perfectly reasonable arguments, whichever side of them you fall on.

But this fear-mongering about the certainty of death if American beef imports begin again is illogical: even assuming a 94% distribution of the M/M genotype (versus a supposed 38% prevalence in the US) doesn't mean 94% of the Korean population is going to get mad cow disease. In the end, one still has to demonstrate that American beef is particularly dangerous vis a vis "mad cow disease" actually being present, which so far, hasn't been demonstrated. Otherwise, I would have stopped eating American beef a long time ago.

American or not, I'm not stupid enough to eat infected beef. So I would appreciate it if Koreans dropped that line of argument. If and when it is demonstrated that American beef is unsafe, I'll stop eating it. And so should Koreans struggle to keep it out. Until that day, I'll still be getting my occasional beef fix at the local Burger King.

And so will most Koreans, after this all blows over. Illogical and extreme gesticulations and much ado about nothing are usually followed by completely forgetting about the issue.

Because Koreans are just almost even more "mad" about "cow" than Americans, what with the allegiance to foreign fast food chains such as Burger King and McDonald's. I predict a slight drop in sales in both establishments right after American beef comes in, followed by complete amnesia and business-as-usual two weeks later.

Such is the way of things in Korea, and why this whole thing amounts to a whole bunch of silliness. If people were really so worried about their health, they wouldn't eat beef AT ALL, since my vegetarian friends, plus the American book Fast Food Nation, illustrates just how unhealthy the beef industry is in general. Yet, I'm a carnivore. Can't help it.

Alternatively, if Koreans were so concerned about random and inexplicable death, they would also wear their seat belts. But generally, not only don't they, all my friends outright refuse to buckle up in the rear seats.

Pass the steak, please.

Mad About Mad Cow Disease in Korea

I'm going to say this in unequivocal terms, so this can draw the attention of as many people as possible: anyone who believes the scare about getting "mad cow disease" from eating American beef is stupid. [See English link to Chosun.com editorial here, and Korean link here]

Now, that being said, let me also say that it's not quite their fault, since the amount of irresponsible reporting on the part of the media (PD 수첩), the lack of media literacy on the Korean public in general, the lack of general critical thinking skills that go with a tendency to believe anything on television or printed in a newspaper, combined with the tendency to not go against what the crowd, one's 선배, teacher, or group of friends think -- these all combine to make it pretty easy to spread a bunch of bullshit that people will tend to believe, the facts be damned.

The same thing happened in 2002, with the protests about the two middle school girls killed by an armored vehicle. Falsehoods presented as facts by an irresponsible Korean news media included:

1) the US Army refusing to offer compensation (from the beginning, the US military claimed responsibility and paid compensation according to the SOFA agreement and at a level decided according to Korean law -- the SOFA merely specified the percentage to be paid by the US), the members of the

2) the soldiers involved not only showed no remorse but laughed and joked at the crime scene and afterwards (no evidence for this was offered, but was widely reported from hearsay, even as the images from the service held by soldiers in 21D were widely available, which was attended by top brass, and the soldiers donated $22,000 of their own money to the families that was collected the very next day after the incident) -- none of this was reported

3) the US military and US government refused to apologize for the incident (in fact, written apologies from the US military commander to the President of the United States were reprinted and linked, in both Korean and English, on the US Embassy web site after having been sent to the appropriate parties)

4) the use of dubious "experts" who never visited the scene nor had access to the bodies, who said that the two girls were clearly "murdered" on purpose as the tank had rolled back and forth over their bodies several times (in fact, the tank had rolled over them, and backed up once they did, which is more in line with common sense than a "murder" case, which always needs a motive -- even the Korean imagination's most evil of evil American GI's isn't going to just run over two middle school girls for fun)

In the end, the backdrop for this incident was an already-extant, extreme amount of anti-American sentiment, which was cleverly used by radical activists to excite the Korean masses. Even I, as one who never hesitates to criticize American government or society, was taken in by it; but upon further review and after finding out that half the story I was being told was simply not true, by any stretch of interpretation or the imagination, I simply dismissed the story for what it was: effective baiting of a gullible Korean public more than willing, at the time, to express its anti-American sentiment. The fact that most of what the public was mad about was either patently untrue or an extreme distortion of the facts wasn't even an "inconvenient truth." In fact, at the time, one didn't dare have another point of view.

Here we go again. It's the same thing, enabled by similar dubious claims -- according to PD 수첩, Koreans are 94% more disposed to developing a disease to which no humans have demonstrated any resistance, and is a disease that scientists are not even fully clear as to how it works?

This is about as believable as the idiotic doctors who say that an elderly man has died because a fan was left on, letting the assumption bar any other investigation into the logical conclusion that it was age-induced heart failure, a sudden stroke, or some other thing that generally kills people who are 79 years old. This is simply stupid. I can shoot down any idiotic explanations for fan death than any quack doctor simply because I've had an education that has taught me basic logical and critical thinking skills, and I have a decent understanding of what is scientifically sound, and what is mere uninformed idiocy. I've already talked about it before, and I'll challenge any idiot who still claims "fan death" is a fact.

Anyone who believes in said myth is, in fact, stupid and is in need of correction, either in terms of basic logic (countless people sleep in front of fans in closed spaces and do not, in fact, die) or basic science education (the oxygen content of air does not, in fact, change if the air happens to be moving, and no, your body temperature cannot fall low enough to kill you because your body sweats to allow excess heat to be taken away by evaporation, which it doesn't do when you are no longer hot, and there is nothing about moving air in itself that actively reduces temperature, anyway-- the temperature of the air might your body to lose heat by induction, which would kill you if you were exposed at 20 degrees Fahrenheit, but not the 90-degree heat that usually causes people to use a fan in the first place. In fact, if one is worried about dying, one SHOULD use a fan to help your body keep body temperature DOWN by passing air over all the sweat causing one's kids to stick to the sheets.

One can't call me an "elitist" for having had access to the same basic science information that every Korean kid is exposed to. I took Basic Chemistry (not advanced) and got a B, and didn't do any better in Physics. I nearly failed Geometry and never got to Calculus in high school. I don't do numbers, and am pretty much a dunce in that respect. But I learned enough about how the world works to distinguish science fact from the science fiction of things to come, as well as from myth, magic, and other forms of apparent mystery. The fact that many Koreans cannot is not my fault, and I haven't received any additional messages about the world -- Koreans generally have been exposed to more math and science than I ever had, and I went to pretty good schools in the US.

Yet, many people here -- even the highly educated -- still believe in "fan death," that blood types are linked to personality traits (a myth ironically started by a racist Japanese anthropologist trying to prove the superiority of mainland Japanese over the "inferior" Ainu -- since I am always one to try and be specific about claims rather than offer ambiguous references, that would Takeji Furukawa's series of papers called "The Study of Temperament Through Blood Type"), that kimchi can prevent SARS, or even the old doozy that Koreans are "racially pure", which defies Korea's own historical logic as should be dictated by all the nations and tribes that ran back and forth across the peninsula.

Basically, a lot of Koreans believe in a lot of stupid bullshit spread by irresponsible authorities, and this is enabled by having been trained to unequivocally believe in what one is told. That is a pretty defensible claim, but I'll spare you the thousands of concrete complaints about the problems of the Korean education system, authoritarian socialization, or the lingering effects of having lived under direct colonial occupation, neo-colonial administration, or direct dictatorship, none of which are very conducive to encouraging liberal pedagogy.

Another claim that is more of an opinionated observation is that many Koreans seem to have trouble discerning between logic and emotion when it comes to issues related to the nation. I've been in so many arguments in which a Korean is forced to admit that my observation is correct but they simply don't like the fact that a foreigner has noticed it or is making the comment, and I often squash the argument by simply pointing that out; alternatively, I simply make an equally harsh criticism of the United States, and the person sees I do not "hate" Korea, but am just a critical thinker. But I rarely talk about any issue with a Korean unless I have specific examples, statistics, and references -- there is no benefit of the doubt given to a reasonable explication of reasonable claims when it comes to Korea. One has to have serious ammunition when it comes to pointing out even the painfully obvious in Korea, especially when people are on about something.

Whether it's Ohno (why vilify the athlete simply doing what athletes do, which is try to win, as opposed to the referee?), the US military's dumping of harmful chemicals into the Han River (which is bad, but is a tiny fraction of what Korean companies continue to dump into the river, as highlighted in far less publicized media stories), two middle school girls killed in a vehicular accident (but lack of seatbelts or respect for pedestrians means that Korea is the most dangerous place in the world in terms of traffic deaths, and many of the factors that led to the girls' deaths, like the lack of a sidewalk or a divider on a highway regularly traveled by pedestrians, or the fact they were listening to an MP3 player while walking, remain unaddressed) -- people are not only not thinking critically or looking very deeply, there's another factor here, which is the big, fat, pink-and-blue striped elephant in the room:

Anti-American sentiment runs at such a fever pitch here that people are willing to believe any bad news about anything having to do with the United States, to the point of believing flimsy "scientific" claims and not dealing with the fact that American beef has not been proven to be much less safe than any other country's beef, not to mention Korea's own problems with E. coli or the recent Cheil Jedang food poisoning scandal.

It boils down to the KORUS FTA and whether or not one wants cheap American beef flooding the markets here. That issue, being dealt with directly, would be a fair one. Don't want to open the markets? Want to protect the domestic beef industry? Think America's FTA is negative for Korea? Fine. That's legitimate. I don't happen to agree, but I understand the arguments on the other side.

But this fear-mongering and nationalism-baiting isn't a healthy mode for Korean society, and it's even more frightening to see that teachers (well, members of the Korean Teachers' Union, which is little more than a propaganda machine for far left interests) here are telling their students that eating American beef is tantamount to a death sentence. Last week, half of my school, at the urging of certain teachers, told kids to attend the rally "if they wanted to fight for their life" and other such nonsense. To their credit, the principal and most of the teachers forbade students from leaving the grounds, and several stood guard at the gates to make sure no kids were sneaking out.

I myself forbade a student from skipping class to go, but held a discussion about why the claims were ridiculous, and why I felt that an anti-FTA rally was no place for a high school girl. Yes, the candlelight vigil was peaceful, but that was a first when it came to anti-FTA or anti-US beef rallies, and I didn't think that human feces-throwing, epithet yelling, riot police attacking protesters would provide any "education experience" for impressionable 10th-graders. It's sad to think that Korean teachers, knowing how intellectually vulnerable Korean students are, would urge them to go. It's not surprising, mind you -- just sad.

I actually had students thinking that using menstrual pads would lead to mad cow disease (I'll have to get back to you on that one, since the logic was such a stretch that the strings of "evidence" has broken down in my mind), or who actually made the mental jump to a sincere belief that they would immediately die upon eating US beef. This isn't responsible "teaching" if your students are literally scared to death -- I got a text message urging me not to go to 7/11, TGI Friday, and Lotte Mart because I would get mad cow disease, since they use American beef.

None of this is commensurate with any actual dangers posed by American beef, although it might be in relation to the danger of eating ANY kind of beef, but that's a different story, and I've already decided why I can't be a vegetarian, even though I know I should:

I like beef. "It's what's for dinner."

Hehe - I Called It!

Six months ago, baby! So, with all that Speed Racer prep and being denied a chance to come on Colbert last year because they wouldn't allow him to use a translator [didn't reader Cat drop the beans on that one?], it seems that Rain has been brushing up on his English.

Now, let the dance competition begin!

Korean Foreign Language High Schools -- Heaven for Korean Students?

Oh, come on.

This is in response to the superficial puff piece written by the New York Times on the Korean school system. While the Times generally practices great journalism, the depth of inquiry in this piece was woefully inadequate, especially considering what a contested and troubled topic the education system in Korea is -- well, if you know very much about Korea, that is. (HT to the Marmot's Hole for posting on this one first!)

I taught at Daewon for a year-and-a-half before quitting in the middle of my contract (having an F-4 helps with that) because of me finally being faced with two roads -- participating in evil, or maintaining my sense of ethics. Beyond that, I can't elaborate. I've already waxed about it at my blog here and here.

Their rival institution, Waedae's boarding school in Yongin, recruited me once they learned I was quitting. I worked there for a year before choosing not to renew my contract after the Ministry of Education made it illegal for a foreigner to teach a non-language-based subject based pretty much entirely on a hack-attack job done on my school by a reporter from the Kyunghyang Shinmun because I was teaching an AP US History class taught during normal school hours. A disgrace to the nation! That made the morning radio news nationwide. Lovely.

I now teach at Ewha Girls Foreign Language High School, which is small and very much not a pressure cooker. I teach American History to about 20 girls, not 120 test terminators, which makes my life markedly easy. I'd never teach in a Daewon or Yongin again, since the kids' life is a living hell.

The reason I think the NYT article is superficial and lame is because it's just a recycling of the PR stats. The problem with these schools is that they apply the best aspects of the Korean system (test assassination) to the requirements of getting INTO American colleges (SAT, SAT II subject tests, and now the AP's which have become de facto required). The kids do remarkably well on these tests. But when they get to the American schools, they are woefully ill-prepared. But the schools don't have a vested interest in caring about that -- they just want their kids to get INTO famous schools, and it doesn't matter how they DO at them.

Daewon is one of the few schools that actually has the clout and money to attract sparkly foreigners and lets them teach a few "discussion-based" classes, which are, though, linked to an AP test of some kind. Still, though, most of the FLHS system in Korea is basically tests, tests, tests. One of the struggles in the FLHS has always been to actually teach them something substantial, rather than for the tests.

Now, I am in contact via chat and Facebook with many of my former Daewon students, whom I first met 3 years ago. They agree that their first year in American college was like getting hit with a Mack truck; I had always told them that it would -- "it's true for native speakers attending their own American colleges, so it'll be triple-true for you." They always kinda rolled their eyes. Now, they get it.

Anyway, I did what I could to prepare them, and it was always a struggle, fighting against the stream. Other teachers fought the same battle, and usually got attacked by the Korean teachers for it. Most of the foreign teachers at these schools quit after a year. When I was in Daewon and Yongin, I was not the first teacher at either school to quit before the year ended. Turnover rate is nearly 100% per year for foreign teachers. And Daewon paid an hourly rate of $100 per hour, average part-time teaching load 12-15 hours per week. How bad must it have been for people to quit, or not renew their contracts? Don't just do the math -- try to imagine the extreme suck of one's life to consider quitting a job that paid sometimes as much as $6,000 per month for (technically) half-time work.

Won't find that in the NYT article.

Nor this pic of my Daewon kids taking the chance to do what they have so little time to do, which is sleeeeeeeeep.

Basically, your life sucks at these schools for 3 years, but the kids and parents swallow their pride and ire, since it is the fast-track to America's best schools. Period. That's the exchange. But it absolutely brings out the worst of the Korean school system in a soul-crushing nightmare of pain that many students realize only gets them to the door of the institution they wanted, but has woefully under-prepared them to make it through.

I can't believe the Times was comparing the SAT scores of Exeter and Daewon, playing into the "Asian powerhouse" myth. Scores aside, a school like Exeter prepares you to think, gives you a spectacular education. Because you're not spending all of your time sitting in a chair.

And if the Times reporter actually thinks THAT school approves of rock bands (or the cheerleading squad that was summarily crushed by the principal when I was there) or anything non-academic that isn't a 1-hour-per-week weekly meeting so the kids can put it down on their college apps as filler without it technically being a lie, I've got a bridge on the Han River to sell him.

And now, more grist for Daewon's PR and human test factory mill, since the NYT writer didn't think to insert nary a dollop of critical social context into the sweet and savory soufflé he was baking. Intentional or not, this piece on Daewon couldn't have been written better by a well-paid PR firm.

This Just Takes the Cake

OK -- I just about popped a gasket when I saw this. The important points (where they chopped together "negative" things she said) are where she jokingly said the facilities in Russia were old and the bathrooms smelled, but then she went on to say how not upgrading keeps things safe, how that's different from the accidents that happen at NASA, which always upgrades with fancy and expensive, new equipment, and how much she respects those who went up and died before her is a point she emphasizes in two videos, if memory serves. And it's also about two years ago and before she was chosen as the final candidate. Before even that, they take a snippet where she said that she'd buy her mom a house if she got rich and famous, but that was 2 summers ago, and she also happened to say she'd give to science programs and help fund one at KAIST as an example to other Koreans of how to use that power. But that's not what you get in the video. And that's just where they abused MY footage. They've got more.

[If you can't see the video, click here to the direct link.]

OK, I'm not sure how the Korean law applies here to attacking a person and what defines the Korean equivalent of "defamation", I can't be the one who would sue them for that, even if that's possible. But I could get them for copyright violations. As far as I understand copyright law, you can excerpt segments for educational purposes as well as for critique, but my understanding is that you still have to attribute. Hmm. I'm foggy on this, and any help would be appreciated.

As for the legitimate suggestion that I should just let things like this pass, I'd suggest you do a Naver search for 이소연 (Yi Soyeon) and look at what comes up in the video section. It's ridiculous. Or, you could check out the "Anti-Yi Soyeon Cafe" on Daum.

Link here.

It's amazing how much energy certain Koreans are putting into thinking about the monetary value of the space program all of a sudden, or are so eager to believe the ridiculous assertions that people are putting up. And now, they're even blaming Soyeon for the stupid questions SHE'S being asked by reporters, for example, how much she has swollen or gained 5cm in height. Those were stupid "issues" brought up by the idiotic Korean press corps, and now she's being attacked as if she was speaking out of vanity.

Here's the article that will be up on Ohmynews.com either today or tomorrow, as it's getting translated. I think it says what I need to say, although my English version is a bit rough. They edited my repeated points down a bit. Hence, the advantage of having an editor.

I'll link to the Ohmynews story here when it goes up. My goal here is to get the other angle on the Soyeon-attacks out there -- that it's totally misplaced, dishonest, and just vicious -- and look at the other issues that I think are mixed in here: how Soyeon's trip is actually stepping all over some very touchy Korean hotspots, as she violates certain rules of her gender, age, status, and even region, her being from Kwangju.

This, on top of the intense levels of intense jealousy that one often sees displayed whenever someone receives something more than the rest of the group (I think it's important that she won a spot in an open contest, rather than come out of the Air Force as a test pilot or something equally elitist). I think a lot of things are coming together in and around Soyeon that would make for some very interesting international press treatment.

----------

Wow. As the maker of the "UCC" interviews of Yi Soyeon that have been going around the Korean Internet, I am a bit shocked and disappointed to see some people twisting Soyeon's frank and honest words made in a Shinchon coffee shop in 2006, before the marketing term "UCC" was even invented in Korea. Made by a foreigner (me), for a foreign audience (such shows are called "podcasts" in the US), she was far, far from being an "우주인." She was just my friend who had done well in this interesting contest, since she had made it to the final 30 in Korea's Astronaut program.

Who could imagine where she would be 2 years later? At the time, I was interviewing interesting people in Seoul, and I had found her insider experience with this program interesting. If she made it to the final 2, it would be so great that it would be nearly unimaginable -- I just thought it was really cool to have made it as far as she had. And she herself said so. She was humble, and was so surprised and happy to have made it that far. She talked about her dreams, why she became interested in science, and how the process was affecting her life. And as she progressed through the process, of course we made another video, after she had made the final 10, and what was interesting to notice was how quickly she was maturing, how well she was growing into the role of great responsibility that was now becoming all the more real.

By the third video, shot after she had made it to the final two, she had become much more serious about her role, because now, it had now become her reality. She would go through the training, and it was just as likely as not that she would go into space. I never interviewed her after the final decision was made, since I never had the chance and now, this was SBS's territory; I just found it poignant and fascinating to watch an everyday person grow into a public figure before one's eyes.

But that's not how certain Korean netizens took it. Partially based on sloppy journalism as found in the in the Donga.com article called "우주인 이소연의 솔직한 지구인 이야기", her words were misquoted, twisted, and taken completely out of context to a point that even I had never even imagined. The DongA.com article merely misquoted her, emphasized certain aspects of what she had jokingly said in 2006 with the headline “돈 벌어 엄마한테 아파트 선물”, and did so did so without properly attributing the source of the video, which was readily available, so that people could judge for themselves. To just read the DongA.com article or the words of some Korean netizens after that, Soyeon had joined the space program to get rich. Or perhaps it was to promote this "UCC" -- a concept that did not even exist in Korea at that time (remember that the large media companies started pushing this marketing term around Auhust 2006) Or perhaps she was going to space just to promote my web site, which Soyeon also jokingly said she would support? But if you watch the interview from the beginning, you would know she didn't even know about which site that was.

Firstly, it's amazing to see how little respect major UCC media companies and Korean bloggers have for copyright and intellectual property. Instead of taking my video and cutting into chunks that totally eliminate the context of much of what Soyeon actually said and how she said it, people should have just left the intact video as it was, so people could at least see for themselves. And I think, "Why cut out parts, especially when the other parts make the point you're trying to prove silly?" My point is, anyone presenting an excerpt from this video is suspicious. Simply watching the video, knowing when it was shot and why, you can see that the assertions being made by certain netizens are patently ridiculous. I shouldn't need to convince you. Just watch the video from beginning to end.

Then, you would have seen that any comments about "what would you do if you make it?" were no more real to her than if I asked any of you "What would you do if you became President?" when you were a child, but then upon becoming an adult, it really happens. I'm sure if one does become president, one's choices and sense of responsibility would be far more serious than when you were just an everyday person. And this is just what Soyeon was when she sat down with me for a cup of coffee that day in Shinchon in 2006.

If people didn't cut the video up into little pieces, you would see that this was a conversation between a FORIEGNER and her; you should also notice that the entire video was subtitled -- it's made for FOREIGN audiences, made BY a FOREIGNER. No one was interested in "UCC" in Korea at the time. No one was interested in Soyeon, either. In fact, most Koreans weren't even really interested in their own space program. But a few foreigners like myself found it interesting, and I decided to record her experiences in it. So the stupid conversations about "how will this look overseas?" are simply just that -- stupid. That firrst video was up on YouTube for about a year-and-a-half, and making very positive impressions about Soyeon as well as Korea far, far before the Korean audience learned about it, or cared.

Perhaps this is telling: I put it on MNCast and Daum, and there was nearly no reaction. No one cared, and I didn't expect them to. Almost no one watched it.

And the reaction on YouTube? Overwhelmingly positive. People remarked about what a great sense of humor she has, how humble she is, how intelligent her answers are, and how mature she seemed -- even from the beginning, far before she was actually chosen. The fact that she was a woman was a sign to most foreigners that Korean society was becoming more liberal and fair towards women, and even after the other candidate was initially chosen to go to space, all the foreigners I knew were rooting for Soyeon. Especially Americans, we like the underdog. Before Soyeon had even arrived in Russia, I had learned from the blogging community and people linking to my site that the NASA astronauts and people from other space programs had already seen Soyeon through the videos even before they had met her.

What continues to both surprise and disappoint me is that Koreans are still so worried about "what foreigners will think" and still so steeped in 사대주의 that people wring their hands over a few words spoken in passing well before the fact, despite the fact that Soyeon has shown nothing but respect for the people who have come before her at Soyuz, whom she mentions as having died so she can go into space safely, who have developed technology that she has dedicated her life to helping develop back in her home country.

Yet, context doesn't matter when you can simply attack someone out of spite or jealousy, right?

It seems to me that Korea is still so caught up in the psychological scars of bitterness over 사대주의, the national humiliation of having loss its sovereignty, the destruction and horrors of the Pacific and Korean Wars, followed by loss of freedom under dictatorship, rapid development and urbanization, along with the social problems created cutthroat competition for scarce resources, which has manifested in the education system, women feeling the social pressure to define their self-worth primarily through their appearance, and the drive to be first, first, first no matter what the cost, as we saw in the cases of the Sampung Department Store, Seongsu Bridge, Taegu gas explosion, or finally in the case of Hwang Woo-seok.

But in the case of the typical "national hero", he was from the establishment, old, and a man. He "deserved" his fame, right? He fits the image of the national hero. It doesn't matter that he violated ethical protocols to do it. Who cares where the eggs come from, right? When it comes to the nation, it's still "하면 된다" right? And when he's a Seoul National University scientist, an older man with connections, and wearing a white coat, he is names "hero" before the ink even dries on the textbooks. And then "Korea" embarrasses itself.

[Source]

There's a huge unspoken message behind the attacks on Soyeon, and how my videos are being used (stupidly, I think, but they are, nevertheless). It bothers a lot of people that she got into space through a process that had been open to anyone, and that she won it fair and square. It bothers a lot of people that she's a woman. It bothers a lot of people that she's a YOUNG woman. And for certain people, the only place for a young woman is in high heels and behind a cake of makeup, shaking their shoulders and calling them "오빠!" These are the people who seem to be the most offended by Soyeon's mere existence.

For Soyeon, I'm glad she wasn't chosen initially, and it was Ko San's own mistakes that got him disqualified. If she had been the first choice, I think the netizens would have been even worse: "Woman are too powerful" or "She was just chosen for PR because she was a woman!" Ridiculous, in a society that treats men like veritable kings, and a woman I know with a Ph.D. in the sciences was told by her mother-in-law to not work because it "would make her husband look bad." For certain people in Korea, for whom it is still the Joseon Era, Soyeon's success is very, very offensive, indeed.

If people are really concerned, as some say they are, with Korea's national image, then they would stop behaving as they are, for the obvious reasons that they are. It is absolutely shocking to see how eagerly and viciously so many of her fellow Koreans try to tear her down.

When YouTube came to Korea and opened its site, you know what appeared for the first time on Soyeon's videos? Statements appeared for the FIRST time attacking this nanotechnology engineer going up into space for "being too fat" or "having a big head" or just for the apparent crime of being a woman. You know what was the real "나라 망신?" It wasn't Yi Soyeon, but the negative and vicious words of her fellow Koreans, made in front of beweildered foreigners on YouTube. And I sometimes can't keep up with the 악풀, since I delete them. I wonder what the foreigners think of that?

The problem isn't really anything Soyeon said -- it is really the fact that no matter what, so many of her fellow Koreans (especially men) are eager to attack her, eager to tear her down. The content isn't important; vicious netizens would have found something. I think Yi Soyeon represents some very sensitive points in Korean modern society, and is the point at which public notions about ability, fairness, and relative success converge with older notions of traditional related to age, gender, scholastic background, and yes, even regionalism. In short, Soyeon is young, female, outspoken, and obviously articulate about expressing herself frankly. Honestly speaking, how are such women generally regarded in Korean society?

Are Americans perfect? Nope. But I think we have a sense of fairness about the people who become figures of public ridicule. Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, or any popular entertainers who make their own scandals, Americans tend to criticize, too. But do we attack Condoleeza Rice because of the gap between her teeth? She has one, you know. It's very apparent.

[Source]

But is that important to her job, though?

When Sally Ride became America's first woman into space, I can't remember -- and I can't even imagine -- people talking about how she needs to be prettier, or "fix her face" or "she should get rid of her freckles" or something like that. Yet, the Korean media asks the dumbest questions possible on the short and expensive time communicating in space. When I heard about this question, "Which star would you most like to travel to space with?" I just shook my head in embarrassment. This is the level of the broadcast media? Korea should be thankful that Soyeon handled such an obviously stupid question politely when she replied that she would rather take someone qualified to perform experiments with.

[Source]

Korea and the Koreans who live here always seem so concerned with becoming "globalized" or "international" or the "hub" of something. But it takes more than just words and the simple desire to be something in order to make it so. It takes a real change in attitude, a fundamental change in the way of thinking -- not just installing more western-style toilets or sweating bullets worrying about speaking a few words of English to a foreign customer.

What is really embarrassing to the nation? What should Koreans really be thinking about? It's the fact that there is such a strong desire to cut a figure like Yi Soyeon down because she's a woman, or young, or doesn't look like she's had thousands of dollars of plastic surgery. Or insipid questions such as the one noted above, asked in her ISS interview. Is the problem really that Soyeon doesn't take her ROLE seriously, or that really, even the broadcast media sponsoring her doesn't take HER seriously?

[The note at the top of this actual resume reads, "Too old."]

So what is really ironic is watching Soyeon's fellow Koreans abusing her in public on YouTube, while foreigners scratch their heads. These comments call her ugly, fat, a "disgrace to the nation." Yet, our impressions of Soyeon are fine. They are great, actually! In fact, they've been great for nearly TWO YEARS. The only thing that is sad is watching Koreans tear each other down for nothing. This is the only country I know of where netizens drive their stars to suicide. Several times over, in fact.

What is driving this incident isn't anything Soyeon said, but the sheer, pathological desire of certain netizens who have already decided to hate her for no real good reason, other than petty jealousy and traditional prejudices. Really, only in a culture such as this can the old maxim hold true: "If a cousin buys some new land, my stomach hurts."

Now, this is being played out on a national scale, since this was an open competition, and technically, any Korean was eligible. Now, old social prejudices related to age, gender, and region have mixed with new ones related to the hyper-commercialization of nearly everything in Korean society, including the commodification and over-sexualization of female bodies that was embarrassingly pointed out having the South Korean president make his appearance at the space launch ceremony surrounded by young women in tiny skirts, who asked all the questions.

[source]

Is everything in South Korea made more palatable by extremely young women in miniskirts? From a new bakery opening in the neighborhood, the girl selling toothpaste in the grocery store, all the way into space, apparently, a lot of South Koreans seem to think so. Frankly, I think Korea's first astronaut would have gotten less flak if she simply was another plastic surgery toothpick with a magic perm, rather than a nanotech engineer from KAIST with a Ph.D.

[Source]

What is even sadder than a cynical statement like this is the fact that I actually believe it to be true, given a lot of the comments I've read about her, which reveals the deep-seated prejudices and bitter jealousies that many South Koreans seem so eager and willing to display whenever they get the chance. To me, many South Koreans need to think about whether they want to live in the past, along with all the scars and wounds that it has produced, or a future without such petty jealousies and horrible rancor against anyone who seems to be getting ahead of oneself in the hyper-competitive rat race of Korean life.

Until then, the horrible words many South Koreans aim in Soyeon's direction will continue to bewilder many foreigners who see nothing but a spectacular candidate and a great representative for the Korean nation. It's too bad that today's reality is, at least on the global level and Korea's international image, the worst enemies of Koreans are Koreans themselves.

The Yi Soyeon Media Frenzy and DongA.com

OK - I've been out of things for a little, partially because I forgot to pay my Typepad bill on time, and partially because I've been kinda keeping a low profile since the launch. The media frenzy has been crazy, and besides an SBS interview that I gave because SBS is the network doing the publicity for this whole project (and presumably predisposed to not putting Soyeon in a bad light), I wanted to say what I wanted in a controlled fashion (Ohmynews articles and the videos) and stay out of things. As this site's regular readers know, I have a strong allergy to the Korean media, and I've almost never been in a Korean news media piece without misquotes, gross factual errors, or extreme reality distortion.

Here are links to what I wrote up about her on Ohmynews.com, where I've been working with a very good editor whom I met and trust to do a good job. I've not always been friends with Ohmynews, but so far, our work together has been great. Here are the two articles:

"소연아, 한국 여자의 힘을 보여줘!" ("Soyeon! Show the Power of Korean Women!", in which I wrote a public "personal message" of good luck to Soyeon and told her that she didn't need the "good luck" and "safe journey" wishes as much as being told to simply enjoy the hell out of the trip, since it it's going to be the kickass ride of a lifetime. I basically just said, "Have fun" and see you on Earth. It also contained the 3rd video in the series I made.)

이소연씨 인터뷰 두 편을 소개합니다 ("An Introduction to Two Videos about Yi Soyeon" was an article about the first two videos I made as well as the backstory behind how and why they were made.)

I felt that these were the best way to get the videos wider exposure, and that they would be a valuable addition to the mostly PR fluff being produced about her. One of the original hopes with these videos was to point out the somewhat obvious point that SBS should have thought ahead to do pre-interviews with all of the candidates, that it would show the power of new media to bring the real, frank story to the fore in a way the stiff Korean news media can't seem to, and to also show Soyeon's true personality and get her more grassroots support in the public as a way to help tip the scales in Soyeon's favor at final candidate selection time.

I don't know if I accomplished any of those goals, but I do think the interviews are fascinating materials, and capture a side of her that will inevitably be gone once she returns to Earth as Korea's superstar and national hero. I think her status as a woman, as a qualified and capable women, will give this entire propaganda exercise the crucial PR value and power that will raise it above the status of hackneyed flag waving and ham-handed science education boosterism.

This is because had it been Ko San who'd gone up, it would have been the same old story, the standard plot, the expected narrative; given the fact that the entire ceremony in City Hall was ludicrously corny, with the President of South Korea entering the stage flanked by girls in short miniskirts and appearance by the pop group Girls' Generation, the plastic tackiness of the entire space project seemed to come to the fore. The narrative would have read, "Korea sends man into space. Ho hum. And in other news..."

But somehow, Soyeon's story seems to better resonate with people who know Korean culture, who know how serious gender discrimination is here, and who also know how blatantly many men still defend their right to judge even the most capable woman by the shape of her face or curves of the ass -- her story and the fact that she has received constant criticism for not being an anorexic supermodel who covers her mouth when she giggles and walks pigeon-toed in 4-inch heels has become very, very interesting.

And then came the irony of Ko San shooting himself in the foot while conducting what most reasonable people assume to have been a really incompetent attempt at industrial espionage and the resultant switch in chairs -- that was like the other team going up for the decisive slam dunk during the final seconds of the game...and then biffing it! Suddenly, the space program story had our (my) attention again and the underdog had gotten the ball, alley-ooped it across the court, and swished it, to everyone's surprise and amazement.

Yeah, people say that this is because I'm Soyeon's friend, but I would have thought the same thing had I been just another viewer of the vids and not their creator; I like to root for the underdog, especially when said underdog looks like the more interesting choice. In a way, had Soyeon been the chosen candidate up front, I'm sure many netizens would have grumbled about "women being too powerful" and "discrimination against men." I'm absolutely sure that discourse would have popped out; but with Ko San having done himself in, and seemingly at the behest of the government/corporate spooks that define the worst of Korean corporate/national culture, it was just perfect. Absolutely perfect.

I don't think this whole thing could have gone down any better than it did.

One thing, though. DongA.com did an article that essentially used quotes from the first videos as making up about half the article. You don't even have to speak Korean to see how much these quotes make up the article. Yet, not only did they not attribute the quotes properly and specifically, like any article should when taking specific quotes from a clearly defined source, the article opens with "Yi Soyeon wants to make a lot of money and buy her mom a house!"

[source: DongA.com]

Now, not only was that taken out of context (since it was said half-jokingly and along with the more serious statement that she would give money to her school and help support scientific research), without a link to the video in question (which, as a UCC, is openly available, and as a source for nearly half the article, should have been linked to so that readers could see it for themselves), one might actually forget the very important fact that this was said back when she had made the final 30 candidates, well before she had actually assumed any responsibilities as either one of the two final candidates or before going into space.

At the time, we were sitting in a coffee shop in Shinchon and just having a chat about the interesting fact that she had even made it this far. Important to note in the video is the fact that she really only wanted to make it as far as getting the free trip to Russia before being cut -- one could not even try to claim that she was in the mindset of a final candidate and that she was "in it for the money." She was just talking and joking a bit about the future -- a future that was more than two years away and one which I am sure she could barely even imagine as coming true. Really, who could have?

In any case, the main problem here is that this article is based on a video interviews that are not explicitly shown or even referenced. The name of the video wasn't given, nor was the name of the interviewer (me), nor even the title of the interview itself.

If this isn't close to plagiarism, or copyright violation, I don't know what is. Technically, the piece mentioned that it was from "a UCC made by Soyeon's friend," but that's not enough. I'm not concerned about getting my name out there and getting fame and fortune off of this. Sure, I would like publicity for the video magazine SeoulGlow, even though it has become a back burner project; one of the reasons for doing the interview was based on the "what if" nature of the whole thing. We both joked during the interview that she'd promote my site and hook me up if she actually made it. That was then.

Now, I scarcely expect that Soyeon will look into the camera on the ISS and say, "Go to www.seoulglow.com! That's S-E-O-U-L-G-L-O-W-dot.com!" In the end, it's just about as ludicrous to say that Soyeon went through the grueling selection process as a "UCC publicity stunt" as to say that she did it to "buy her mom a house." But hey, she said it in the video, right? Two years before the fact and well before any of this had become a reality, she said it, right? Soyeon's in space to promote a web site she barely knew about and to buy her mom a fat crib. Riiiight.

I just think credit should be given where it is due. If I write a book and you lift quotes from it left and right, the author's name and title are expected. If one makes a movie, credits are crucial. What is different about this situation? This is intellectual property, and one of the bases of intellectual property law is the assumption that if you can't guarantee ownership of the work, if you can't even be guaranteed to be recognized for works done, then it decreases the motivation to create such works. Didn't the author learn this in journalism school?

I wrote a letter to Yang Hyeong-mo, the author of the Donga.com piece in question, addressing these points. Here's the reply I received, which was apologetic, acknowledged the mistake, and agreed to update the information to link back to the original video so that any reader could see the context of the quotes and authorship of the work is clear and obvious again:

우선 죄송하다는 사죄의 말씀부터 드립니다.
지적하신 부분은 모두 옳습니다. 제 불찰이었습니다.
한국의 첫 우주인 이소연씨에 대해 저 역시 크게 감동하였고, 좋은 기사를 쓰려는 의욕에서 나온 불찰이었습니다.
다른 신문들과 차별화된 기사를 쓰기 위해 이소연씨의 '솔직하고 인간적인 면'을 쓰려고 했는데 본의 아니게 일이 흘러가게 되어 저도 크게 당황하고 있습니다.
특히 인터뷰 기사 중 CF에 관련된 부분에 대하여 네티즌들의 안티적인 반응을 보고는 너무 당혹스럽습니다. 제 의도는 전혀 그런 것이 아니었는데요.
소스를 밝히지 않은 점 역시 깊이 사죄드립니다. 미처 생각하지 못한 제 불찰이 크다고 느끼고 있습니다.
소스를 정확히 알려주시면 정정기사에 내도록 하겠습니다. 인터넷은 바로 수정하도록 하겠습니다.

다시 한번 송구하다는 말씀을 드립니다.

Now, that's all well and good, except for the fact that I sent a reply letter that continues to be blocked by the spam filter, no one at the editorial desk has ever picked up the phone at the number I was given initially (02-2020-1200), and the number at which I was told "someone will definitely pick up" (02-6749-2000), no one has. I called the DongA.com main line (02-360-0400) four times, the first three of which were cut short by someone picking up the phone and only to immediately hang it up, and on the fourth time, exasperatedly took my call. Here's the letter, which I don't know if the reporter ever got. I was polite and gracious, and have been waiting for something to be done:

빨리 답장을 해주시니까 감사합니다.

그 것은 제가 만든 SeoulGlow.com이란 서울에 대한 비디오 잡지인데 제 이름은 Michael Hurt이고요. 그리고 만약에 원본 (movie file)들이 원하신다면 (사이트에 올리게) 드릴 수 있어요. 제 알기로는 온라이 신문들이 남의 UCC사이트에서 올리기 싫은 거랍니다. 남의 광고에 들어가니까요. 근데 MNCast의 걸로 올리고 싶다면 상관 없습니다. 제가 봤을 때는 직접 그 UCC에서 많은 말이 나왔는데 링크나 그 UCC 직접 넣는 건 당연하다고 생각했거든요. 물론 기사의 넣는 건 기자님의 선택인데요. 그냥 attribution만 원핬습니다.

우리 UCC하는 사람들이 (특히 미국에) 돈 버는 것아니라서 attribution이나 recognition만 바라는 겁니다. 그리고 아시다시피 미국언론이랑 blog community랑 UCC community랑 아주 친한 사이 있거든요. Blog들이 온라인 신문의 가자들의 홍보를 엄청 많이 하니까요. 그래서 뭐 NYT이나 한상 기사의 끝에 "in the blogs" 그런 비슷한 링크를 잘 제공해주고 Digg, Facebook, MySpace의 추천 기능도 해주는 겁니다.

일단 제가 한국에서는 아직도 blog/UCC는 일반언론하고 사이 친하지 않는 건 알고 있습니다. 그리고 많은 blog/UCC 하는 한국사람들이 아직도 표절/copyright 위반을 많이 하는 건. 그래도 제 video magazine그리고 다른 web project들이 미국식으로 완전한 professional하게 진행하려고 하는데 (바른 온라인 매거진/비디오 매거진으로서) 아직도 한국언론한테 UCC community가 인정 많이 못 받았으니까 이렇게 민감하게 됐습니다.

제 말씀 그리고 어색한 한국말을 이해하셨으면 좋겠습니다.

감사합니다.

So far, it's been impossible to get through to these people, due to lazy phone skills, overzealous spam filters, and a seeming desire to hope this problem will somehow fade away by itself.

Is this the behavior of a major Korean newspaper? Is this the level of Korean journalism? Where are the corrections? Why is the story still unchanged, unaltered, even after the reporter said in an email that he would correct the problem?

I can't get through to them, no one answers the phone, and I think I'm being given the runaround. So I write this to document this and to also pressure DongA.com to get its act together.

I want the source in the article clearly attributed and a correction printed. Since I can't send them an email, nor will anyone take my calls, perhaps they'll see this link in the referral statistics and see it there. And I am going to propose to Ohmynews.com translating a condensed version of this post into Korean as a piece of media criticism and an attempt to deal with some of the silly stuff being said in an interview two years prior to anyone even imagining who Korea's first astronaut would be -- including Soyeon herself.

From a long time spent in Korea, I've learned that nothing gets done to rectify inconvenient truths or errors unless somebody makes a public stink about it -- until someone starts yelling and acting indignant, nothing gets fixed.

So, until something is done, DongA.com, it's ON.

Watch the Drummer!

Animal the muppet ain't got nothin' on this guy.

A Sad Day Has Come

This is the last time I will post here. My time as the "Metropolitician" is up.

I've realized a lot of things over the last week or so, since falling for a certain young lady of a more conservative persuasion, who has quite literally rocked my world. I realize that a lo