Want to keep the "real" Korea experience with you always? Prints of any documentary/art photo I have taken on this site are 175,000 KRW ($175 USD), signed, numbered, and framed. For the print only, you need only pay 125,000 KRW ($125 USD) for the same without the frame. Please contact me directly via email for orders.
Thanks to ExpatJane for this, since I'm getting on the bandwagon late.
Pushing the edge of acceptability, two young (Korean American?) guys do their take on two Korean old guys (ajussis!) with a lot of sarcasm and obvious pent-up frustration at probably having to have listened to Korean guys (relatives at family dinners?) in their 50's and 60's going on about how evil Japan was and is when all they wanted was a Playstation for Christmas. I can see it in their minds' eye:
KID: I want a Playstation for Christmas.
DAD: Playstation?! Why Playstation?!
KID: Because it plays games. I want a Playstation.
DAD: [BEGIN JAPAN-IS-EVIL RANT AND WHY YOU SHOULD BUY SOMETHING FROM SAMSUNG.]
KID: I still want a Playstation.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard variations on that same conversation. I'm used to it by now, but I can also see how it gets old, and it's pretty easy to parody. I was showing off my iPod Nano just today to some older people, and the first note was "Samsung makes the memory chips for those, you know." Yeah, I know. And that's cool. But coming from a person who otherwise knew nothing about the actual iPod line or the product other than that singular fact, it was kinda funny.
I thought the "Japanese stegosaurus" schtick was pretty funny. They came to eat all the peace-loving Korean dinosaurs and never apologized. Hehe.
Here it is, fresh off the page as soon as it went up.
Go to Apple.com to see more. It's the thinnest notebook in the world and fits in a manila envelope. 3 lbs. 5 hours battery life. Damn. Watch the ad. Double damn.
Something I posted on ROKDrop, a blog worth reading and a perspective worth knowing about. We disagree from time to time on some things, most recently on his recent piece on a New York Times piece I read last night, was very saddened by, but quite appreciated. Whether or not they got some things wrong, I don't think such journalism is "anti-troops."
Sure. Being Af-Am isn't actually a reasonable "cause" for troubles back home, and the rates of bad things happening amongst people with PTSD seems to be higher, and the incidents caused by the violence and stress of being in action.
And to be fair, the NYT reporters were very clear from the jump about the context they wanted to be taken in, the fact that their research for the story was not scientific nor exhaustive, as well as the fact that they went to great lengths to interview talking heads who point out that PTSD is one of many factors that lead to problems back home, but to say PTSD is not worth looking at unto itself is a problem, especially given the stigma that exists about the subject even (and especially) within the military itself.
One might disagree with aspects of their take on the story, but that article struck me as honest – certainly not "anti-troops."
And major newspapers (The Washington Post is a recent example, in their series on black men) and the print publishing media has done a great deal of good, responsible work on the problems endemic to certain parts of the black community (black men in particular), and dealt with the problem of violence and drugs in particular.
I don't and didn't have a problem with that being pointed out, as long as it's done responsibly and with an eye to context, as I think the NYT story was.
Combined with a very good story done by NPR recently on PTSD, involving both a civilian and official Army psychologist, veteran representatives, vets from Vietnam and Iraq, which looked at the complex issues involved in coming home and the difficulties in getting help sometimes, or identifying the problem, I don't think the so-called "liberal" media is troop bashing at ALL, but on the contrary, taking a nuanced take through good journalism on a difficult and emotional subject.
Kudos for the NYT tackling this issue. When I read this as a civvie leftie, I didn't think "damn troops!" but I sympathized with the hell that soldiers are going through in war. And I really think most of the readers of the NYT are with me on that, since that's the spirit in which this is written, tone, context – all of that.
If any criticism is being leveled in the direction of the "military" it's for failing to recognize the problem and help its soldiers get treatment, as expressed through pending suits against the government, not just the NYT's alleged agenda or hatred of "troops." I think this is real news, and an issue worth looking at, just as the Walter Reid issue is and was.
This kind of journalism is about as "anti-troops" as saying that a failing health care system is "anti-patient" or pointing out the collapse of public education as "anti-student."
I don't find the content, tone, or context of these articles "anti-troop" at all. I think, as a self-avowed right-of-center guy and as a member of the military yourself, you might just be taking this in much more of a sensitive way than need be, which is understandable, given the emotions running high about this war.
Still, I maintain that it has become quite politically possible to be anti-war and have no animosity towards "the troops" and in fact, anti-war protest has always been such, even and especially in Vietnam. Even the ever-present spectre of the "spitting on troops" image is quite overblown, as peace/anti-war/free speech activists in the late 1960's worked quite closely with veteran groups against the war. A man I heard on NPR, and a book I want to read and has been quite talked about: The Spitting Image
He makes a very compelling case that even the "fact" of troops being spit upon as a rule back in Vietnam is mostly a media creation and more of a function of post-Vietnam war movies than something grounded in reality, or much more than urban myth amongst vets who did in fact face some negativity towards them, but rarely, if any spitting or other pattern of obvious derision.
Personally, I think the "anti-troops" myth right now is a big one, because I don't know anyone on my side of the fence who has anything against soldiers, and this includes activists and other active anti-war people. Just like the NYT piece, whenever a liberal speaks out against the war, or against even one of the government's institutions in the NAME of saving American lives and getting our men and women 1) back home, 2) the proper equipment, as in criticizing Rumsfeld for not getting the proper armor on Humvees, or 3) help and treatment upon returning from war - we get slapped with this "anti-troops" thing and dismissed as disrespecting men and women in uniform.
I don't believe this is happening, nor is that the intent. And I just wanted to extend that to the present NYT piece as well. I think some very good and helpful work is being done to help soldiers. And as a person with family members presently in the military, as well as a father, uncle, and other family members 20 years retired, I am certainly not "anti-troops." And one of the reasons my Dad got such good hospice care in his fight against colon cancer (lost in 2001) was because he lived near the UMich hospital and was able to receive care through them, as opposed to the Dayton, OH VA hospital that I wouldn't want to wish on anyone fighting for their lives in a hospital bed. Which is where the heart of the Walter Reed reporting was, and where I think – for what it's worth – is where the heart of the present NYT article is.
That's where I'm coming from, in any case. I just think it's kind of a cheap shot to lump everything critical of the war or the military as "anti-troops" when there's much more complexity and carefulness than you imply here.
OK – I've changed my loyalties. Obama's cool, but it's time to get old school, since new school ain't doing it right. It's time to bring back Jimmy Carter. Or so says The Onion, in a raunchy and hilarious piece penned by "Jimmy Carter," who says "I Got What America Needs Right Here."
Some highlights:
Way I see it, America needs a president who's gonna somehow un-royally screw up the Middle East, do some serious cleaning up after you dropped your pants and took a steaming dump all over the fucking environment, and—boom!—restore dignity, honor, and all that shit to these United States.
Whoa there, Jimmy! Those are pretty strong words. But we're all for restoring the honor and dignity of the United States, right? On questions related to the Middle East, he has some more harsh words:
You actually seem to think one a' these assholes is gonna prance in and wave a magic wand and make everything all nice again. Look at you, sitting there like a common fucking schnook and eating all their bull about bi-fucking-partisanship, and how they have all the goddamn answers. Let me tell you something: These fags are dogshit compared to Jimmy fucking Carter, all right? I was arbitrating Mideast crises when this bunch was still sucking on their mamas' titties.
But who comes to me, huh? Fucking nobody. Why ask old Jimmy anything? What the fuck could he know about peace in the Middle East? It's not like he fucking won the Nobel Peace Prize for that shit. You myopic pricks. Back in '79, I sat Sadat and Begin right down and made those two dicklicks shake hands. It was beautiful—I had all the pieces lined up and I smiled and waved in my best fucking suit and tie right there on TV. And what do you do, you pieces of shit? You screw the whole goddamn pooch.
Yikes! That's some pretty strong trash talking, but yes, yes – he did write the book on brokering peace in the Middle East. But what about a new school problem such as global warming and controlling them greenhouse gases? Get ready for it:
Oh, what's that I hear? The weather's all screwy? You got a global warming problem? Boo-fucking-hoo! I was telling you morons to turn off your lights and unplug all your shit at night to conserve energy in 19-fuckin'-75, for chrissake. Gee, I wonder what woulda happened if we'd all switched to solar power like I fucking did back when we had a fucking chance to do something about it. Think we'd still be sucking Saudi Arabia's dick like a five-dollar whore? I sure as fuck didn't get no fancy Oscar for that little spiel, though, did I? No. But Al Gore, that cum-sucking pig, steals the shit from me and now he's the greatest thing since Jesus Christ made a fucking sandwich.
Well, he can lick my asshole right after George W. Bush, that fuck.
Golly! Is this really Jimmy C? That's some tongue on that man of peace and negotiation. Who knew? Read the entire piece on your own, if you have the moxie.
Hehe. The Onion. Once again, I choked on my breakfast when I read that. Cool.
Another Clinton, another set of crocodile tears. Well played, Hillary. Well played.
"Some of us are right, and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready, and some of us are not. Some of use know what we will do on Day 1, and some of us really haven't thought that through enough."
Yes – a focused, perfectly worded political attack right after her supposedly unguarded moment, our little glimpse of the "human Hillary." Right.
New York Times op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd channeled my thoughts perfectly in her piece on the matter of candidate Clinton's apparently willful weepiness:
There was a poignancy about the moment, seeing Hillary crack with exhaustion from decades of yearning to be the principal rather than the plus-one. But there was a whiff of Nixonian self-pity about her choking up. What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing.
As Spencer Tracy said to Katharine Hepburn in “Adam’s Rib,” “Here we go again, the old juice. Guaranteed heart melter. A few female tears, stronger than any acid.”
The Clintons once more wriggled out of a tight spot at the last minute. Bill churlishly dismissed the Obama phenom as “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen,” but for the last few days, it was Hillary who seemed in danger of being Cinderella. She became emotional because she feared that she had reached her political midnight, when she would suddenly revert to the school girl with geeky glasses and frizzy hair, smart but not the favorite. All those years in the shadow of one Natural, only to face the prospect of being eclipsed by another Natural?
That's exactly the feeling I got when I watched her display on the news, and pre-planned or not, Hillary's little hold-on-give-me-a-moment, tearful tremolo had its desired effect. Yet, I found it as suspect as old Slick Willie's crocodile tears at a funeral for Ron Brown, and completely out-of-character for Hillary C., since that lady's as tough as nails and no question lobbed by a soccer mom is going to choke her up, like a guest having a self-revelatory moment on Oprah.
So, Clinton the Second busted a move as slick as any pulled by Clinton the First, and it worked. It humanized her, and synced perfectly with Slick Willie's speechifying about poor, poor Hillary:
Gloria Steinem wrote in The Times yesterday that one of the reasons she is supporting Hillary is that she had “no masculinity to prove.” But Hillary did feel she needed to prove her masculinity. That was why she voted to enable W. to invade Iraq without even reading the National Intelligence Estimate and backed the White House’s bellicosity on Iran.
Yet, in the end, she had to fend off calamity by playing the female victim, both of Obama and of the press. Hillary has barely talked to the press throughout her race even though the Clintons this week whined mightily that the press prefers Obama.
Bill Clinton, campaigning in Henniker on Monday, also played the poor-little-woman card in a less-than-flattering way. “I can’t make her younger, taller or change her gender,” he said. He was so low-energy at events that it sometimes seemed he was distancing himself from her. Now that she is done with New Hampshire, she may distance herself from him, realizing that seeing Bill so often reminds voters that they don’t want to go back to that whole megillah again.
Hillary sounded silly trying to paint Obama as a poetic dreamer and herself as a prodigious doer. “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act,” she said. Did any living Democrat ever imagine that any other living Democrat would try to win a presidential primary in New Hampshire by comparing herself to L.B.J.? (Who was driven out of politics by Gene McCarthy in New Hampshire.)
Her argument against Obama now boils down to an argument against idealism, which is probably the lowest and most unlikely point to which any Clinton could sink. The people from Hope are arguing against hope.
A cheap shot, but effective. Obama can't attack her on it, since he'll look like a schoolyard bully, the popular kid who doesn't deserve the attention, who stepped over the line. But crying ain't gonna carry Hillary all the way through the primaries, and I think Obama's wiley enough himself to remind young, independent, and female voters that America isn't a political system that includes dynastic succession, and the Clintons had their chance, as had Hillary.
Hillary's an establishment politician, she's extremely polarizing, and just plain lacks the charisma and "audacity to hope" that makes Obama a leader I want to follow. Hillary got her pass, she's used her "Get-out-of-third-place-free" card, and it's time to move on. We'll see how well she does after Obama has some more time in front of the cameras and crowds.
The feet of an inline skater effortlessly glide between multi-colored cups in front of a Christmas Eve crowd gathered at the Cheonggyecheon stream. [go to FeetManSeoul.com]
If they sell Blu-ray discs on the base, then they surely must have Superbad, which is a top-selling Blu-ray disc. This is about the only Blu-ray disc that isn't available in Korea.
If so, and you got me a copy, I'd be eternally grateful and buy you dinner. Oh, and you'd have to come to the little party I'd gather to watch it.
Help! I can't go on much longer without seeing this movie!
What I don't want this to be is a chance for me, or anyone else, to be maudlin. I'm dead. That sucks, at least for me and my family and friends. But all the tears in the world aren't going to bring me back, so I would prefer that people remember the good things about me rather than mourning my loss. (If it turns out a specific number of tears will, in fact, bring me back to life, then by all means, break out the onions.) I had a pretty good life, as I noted above. Sure, all things being equal I would have preferred to have more time, but I have no business complaining with all the good fortune I've enjoyed in my life. So if you're up for that, put on a little 80s music (preferably vintage 1980-1984), grab a Coke and have a drink with me. If you have it, throw 'Freedom Isn't Free' from the Team America soundtrack in; if you can't laugh at that song, I think you need to lighten up a little. I'm dead, but if you're reading this, you're not, so take a moment to enjoy that happy fact...
...I do ask (not that I'm in a position to enforce this) that no one try to use my death to further their political purposes. I went to Iraq and did what I did for my reasons, not yours. My life isn't a chit to be used to bludgeon people to silence on either side. If you think the U.S. should stay in Iraq, don't drag me into it by claiming that somehow my death demands us staying in Iraq. If you think the U.S. ought to get out tomorrow, don't cite my name as an example of someone's life who was wasted by our mission in Iraq. I have my own opinions about what we should do about Iraq, but since I'm not around to expound on them I'd prefer others not try and use me as some kind of moral capital to support a position I probably didn't support. Further, this is tough enough on my family without their having to see my picture being used in some rally or my name being cited for some political purpose. You can fight political battles without hurting my family, and I'd prefer that you did so.
On a similar note, while you're free to think whatever you like about my life and death, if you think I wasted my life, I'll tell you you're wrong. We're all going to die of something. I died doing a job I loved. When your time comes, I hope you are as fortunate as I was...
...Soldiers cannot have the option of opting out of missions because they don't agree with them: that violates the social contract. The duly-elected American government decided to go to war in Iraq. (Even if you maintain President Bush was not properly elected, Congress voted for war as well.) As a soldier, I have a duty to obey the orders of the President of the United States as long as they are Constitutional. I can no more opt out of missions I disagree with than I can ignore laws I think are improper. I do not consider it a violation of my individual rights to have gone to Iraq on orders because I raised my right hand and volunteered to join the army. Whether or not this mission was a good one, my participation in it was an affirmation of something I consider quite necessary to society. So if nothing else, I gave my life for a pretty important principle; I can (if you'll pardon the pun) live with that.
Before you say this site is "anti-Korean" or bashing Korea – read this: "Why Be Critical?" Chances are, if you're simply angry because I am a social critic in Korea but not actually Korean, see if your argument isn't just a kneejerk response that follows these patterns.
Session 1: Just the Basics
Dealing with the basic operations and functions of your DSLR, explaining each function, button, and doo-hickey. The bulk of the session is likely going to stick around the relationship between aperture and shutter, as well as depth-of-field. Basically everything on your camera has something to do with this relationship.
Session 2: Composition and Shooting (Shooting Session 1)
We'll take those examples and look at them on the big screen, while also answering the concrete questions that will pop up about the stuff we learned before. Then we'll talk about composition and other framing issues, including lens lengths and why some lenses are worth $100 bucks and some are worth $10,000.
Session 3: Flashes and Advanced Exposure (Shooting Session 2)
Dealing with flash, in terms of compensating above and below exposure levels (bracketing), as well as other bracketing techniques in general.
Session 4: Final Session/Critiques
Keeping it open, determined by the class.
Four 3-hour sessions, as well as shooting sessions, photo discussions, and critiques. An individual photo essay will also be done as part of the ongoing class assignments. Inquire at the email address at the top right of this page.
As for my photo book (now in limbo due to editorial differences with the publisher), you can see the representative chapters from the "Seoul Essays" posts below. Note that Chapter 3 remains undone and in limbo on my computer:
Recent Comments