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.
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 lot of the liberal ideas I had formerly and formally adhered to were largely misconstrued notions I had held, distortions of ideological ramifications that simply had no precedence in either established fact, dilapidated fiction, or even (and not either) the demonstrated dialectics of most people's dystopic desires.
In short, a new kind of love has made me into a harder, more turgid man.
No longer will I carry the torch for a a deluded liberalism, nor be the voice for lefty illiberality. What I truly hanker for is a haughty helping of a hunk of cheese that isn't defined in terms of a mere neo-Freudian kitsch, but the kind of cheese one can count on, like money in the bank; indeed, one needs sustenance so solid and reliable one can literally stick it in a pipe and smoke it.
So I can no longer continue to write here, after having fallen for someone like the one who has learned to call me "oppa." Such is an experience I never thought I could have had, either as a black man, or a Star Trek fan, and her highly-developed sense of what I have previously called here mere "fetishized femininity" has caused in me an emotional rise that is quite epic in its tense and torpedo-like tautology. Indeed, they didn't call Moby a "Dick" for nothing, as they say. Unlike the proverbial Ahab, my little lady has actually caught her whale.
When wondering why I have decided to forgo any further forays into formalism and endorse not Barack "Aladdin" Obama, but rather John McCain, the answer becomes perfectly obvious, does it not?
When you ask yourselves these questions, as you struggle for the answers, yet still can't bring yourself to face the truth, realize that Tom Cruise once said, quite poignantly, that the "truth could not be handled" and that in a similar situation, Al Pacino pointed a finger and said that the entire Supreme Court was indeed, very much "out of order."
In the same way, I was once out of love, and was so lost without her, but believe you me -- I now realize that it's hip to be square. Or did not Huey Lewis not give you that news?
So, it is with heavy hands that I make my last entry here, since the Metropolitician that was me has completely and totally ceased to be he.
For Pak Geun-hye's youngest daughter knows how to hit me where it counts, and to not just do that to me once, but likes to hit me, baby one more time, all the time, if you catch my meaning, number one Negaroni! See, I don't shrink away from saying, loudly and proudly, what needs to be said. And if you didn't get it from the passage above, you need a double dose of dis doubletalk. April mothafuckin' fool's, bitches!
How about 17,000 miles an hour, getting you into space in less than 2 minutes? From a camera on board the space shuttle from the ground to space? It is truly the shit. Seriously cool stuff.
You feeling Monday morning yet, or do you still need that cup of coffee? Hehe.
I'm sad to report that Arthur C Clarke has died, and before we found any evidence of life on other planets, although the discovery of more than 200 extrasolar planets in the last decade surely had put some wind in his sails. He was ahead of his time from back in the 60's, and we're still catching up. I just rewatched 2001 very recently and was re-impressed with how he set helped set the bar for the limits of the human desire to explore beyond our closed inner space, even a year before Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon.
Interestingly enough, we just waxed rhapsodic about science fiction and its role in the West, as well as the genre in general, on Bomb English just this week. Of course, Mr. Clarke lived to a ripe old age of 90, but it was still nice to see the man still with us, chilling in his home in Sri Lanka. RIP, Mr. Clarke.
Ouuuuuch. Like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Mccain's staff pulls out attack dog Bill Cunningham, lets him do what he does best, then apologizes for his words.
Then, at a time when McCain's conservative credentials are being called into question, you've got ole Bill basically calling McCain a big pussy in front of the whole frat house. Now, Ann Colter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Cunningham, and Sean Hannity are all stumping against McCain and some (Colter and Bill) are even making a point of formally endorsing Hillary.
Whoa. And how did we get here? What does this Ohioan (me) think this means?
Well, to start with, Cincinnati is the most conservative city in America. Although in actuality, that's hard to gauge, what makes Cinci so important is the fact that it's the one major city that breaks the overall pattern repeated across the US: large metropolitan areas are blue, less populated (but more numerous) areas tend to be red. In all the 2004 swing states especially, this tension is what made them fall where they fell.
In all the states I pored over in 2004, it was "city vs. country" and tipped blue, but only barely, in States democrats won. What made me know Kerry lost Ohio before all the votes were in was the fact that it was still squarely half-and-half when most of the major cities were counted. Hours before the tallies were finished, before any major network was calling it, I knew that Bush had remained POTUS. Because Cinci's vote were still not counted, and Cincinnati's the only major city I know of in the United States that's bright, fresh hemoglobin, race car red.
As someone who lives in the heart of the "tri-state area," you know this. And within Ohio, I lived in Dayton, which is part of the triangle of cities all situated about 45 minutes apart: Dayton, Columbus, and Cincinnati. The raising of the speed limit from 55 to 65 literally brought us about 10 minutes closer together, along with the suburban sprawl that makes the edges of the cities closer to one another.
Now, one think anyone in that area knows is that you can't buy a Playboy within the city limits, there are no strip clubs, there's a huge bloc of conservative, old-school, former German immigrants who are proud, Protestant, and very socially conservative. There's also huge racial tension in Cincinnati because of the extreme disparity between black and white in this town, where a lot of whites are very obviously comfortable and well off, whereas a lot of blacks are very obvious not.
This is markedly different from Dayton, where the level of integration is much much higher, and even the public school systems enjoy pretty minimal tension between the races. You see blacks and whites (it's a mostly black-and-white town, and the number of blacks stands at around 40%, if memory serves) together in social places, mixed in groups far more than other parts of the country. You can even see this in the campaign speech in Dayton, where it's a mix of young and old, black and white, and where, like Wisconsin, Obama is making big inroads even as Clinton is tanking, even within her own most solid base - older, white women.
Dayton is a real typical Ohio city, where it's bright blue and people are relatively moderate, and fairly nice people who haven't been through race riots like in LA, nor do they see the extreme extremes in poverty in an obvious way as in Chicago, nor do you have constant influxes of immigration from around the world, as in NYC. Where I'm from, it's pretty black-and-white, with smidges and dollops of Latino, Jewish, or Asian people thrown in there. We got some college towns with more diversity (say, Columbus) or larger segments of the Asian population (say, Cleveland), but for the most part, it's a group of black-and-white folks who've pretty much gotten used to each other. And where, importantly somehow, even poorer black folks live in small houses and have their own yards.
I still remember commenting to a grad colleague that California seemed much more segregated than my hometown in Ohio, to which he guffawed, since most people on the coasts think everything in the middle is something akin to a scene from Deliverance, in which hicks play banjos on their porches and talk about the "perty mouths" of outsiders. Kinda strange for a Californian to hear an Ohioan remark that Dayton, Ohio seemed more integrated than the Bay Area, but I think it's true. There are more types of people, but there isn't very much actual social mixing between racial groups, other than between Asian Americans and whites, of course.
Anyway, Cinci's not like that, from what I've seen. It's conservative, uptight, and hardcore red meat. Like raw and bloody. It's no surprise that Cincinnati has been ground zero for more pitched conservative battles than its size would seem to lend itself:
Larry Flynt and Hustler? Cincy.
Mapplethorpe and the cultural freakout over a few pictures? Cincy.
Literally deciding the fate of the President of the United States in 2004? Cincy.
Had Cincinnati followed the pattern of every other major metropolitan area in the United States, Kerry would now be running for re-election.
So going to Cincinnati wearing anything other than his Sunday conservative best was a bad idea. And unleashing an attack dog like Bill Cunningham, telling him to "give the crowd some red meat," and then getting all PC and apologizing for it later – bad, bad press.
Bill Cunningham is one of the best shock jocks in the US – hell, even I listened to him all though middle school from 10-12 every weeknight as I fell asleep. The guy's a straight talker, he's runs a funny show, and you never wonder for what he thinks. He's gotten far more conservative over time, it seems, as politics has shifted further to the right since the mid-80's, when I was listening to him, and as conservative shock radio has upped the ante and started warring with specific left-oriented media, such as Keith Olbermann's show, Jon Stewart, or Bill Maher at times. Then you mix in the culture wars and the extremization of the right over the last couple decades, and ole Bill sounds pretty strident to me now.
But what I always liked about Bill Cunningham is that he always did pull off a reputation as a shock jock but never went into the realm of the truly crazy. Rush Limbaugh – I can't even listen to that blowhard talk for more than a minute; Bill Cunningham always seems to be the voice that "makes sense" to the actual staid, conservative crowd that doesn't see itself as radical or ideological, but rather as "the normal people" in the world. That's Ohio, and that's Bill.
I don't agree with him, but he's not nearly as stupid-sounding as that waste-of-human-flesh Rush. And Colter? Don't even get me started. If her intellect shone as brightly as her blonde ambition, she might even be worth calling a pundit, as opposed to a crazy bitch. Sorry, PC-police, I think her level of coo-coo warrants the term.
But McCain's people really screwed the pooch on this one. Why did they take a conservative pit bull, put a bloody steak in its mouth, and tell it to go buck wild? What did they think Cunningham would say? Did they think he'd keep this fight "fair?" Do they even know who Bill Cunningham is?
Now, I'm sure they also felt that ole Bill from WLW was far more acceptable than a Limbaugh or Coulter – who would be crazy choices to be asked to stump for McCain at a political even, as anyone knows – but Bill isn't going to speak in thinly-veiled innuendos, coded language, or subtle politico-speak. He's going to go for the jugular, baby, and he's going to give "straight talk," which is what he's famous for. Isn't that what McCain calls himself?
I don't blame Cunningham at all. He's happy, of course, since now he's making the rounds again in right-wing media and getting his impressively powerful voice (I don't think I've ever just heard him speak in a normal tone, but always seems to be projecting as if he had a built-in megaphone in his throat) on national TV and mainstream venues like CNN and FOX.
McCain's people? I think someone's head is rolling on this one. This is a huuge political mistake, since I think he just pissed all his conservative right street cred out the window, and now that he's made an enemy of the shock jocks with big voices and big audiences – ouch. It's gonna hurt him to hear, day after day, night after night, Limbaugh, Cunningham, Coulter and a myriad others drive home what a big wimp and double-talker McCain is, and how he's "not a real conservative."
And actually, I think they're right, if you can excuse the unintended pun. I don't think McCain's all that conservative, because he can't be anymore, at least publicly, as things have de-radicalized as the culture wars petered out, the real war in Iraq has heated up, and Bush has been busy driving the American economy into the ground. I don't think the shock jocks command as much power as they think they do, and are more on the extreme right than ever, but their war of words against McCain is going to hurt him a lot in another election that's got the 50/50 dynamics of recent years, but which this time, the burden will be on the Republicans to scrape enough votes to win, as opposed to the Dems last time.
In the big picture, I like McCain as a person and he's not a bad conservative candidate if I had to pick one. I don't agree with most of what he stands for, but he's also not an idiot, like Bush II. We just totally disagree on issues, but I don't think him to be immoral or incompetent. But I think his campaign's really jumping the shark now, after the non-scandal of the cute lobbyist that blew over, but the heels upon which this real fuck-up is coming at the most inopportune time.
Of course, I want Obama to win, but I do extend an E.T.-style "ouuuuch" to him, even as my higher brain wants to ask, "What the hell were you thinking?" This was the epitome of a bad political move, poorly thought out and horribly executed.
Just got this email. About 18 years too late. Doh!
Dear Brown Alumni,
Today the Brown Corporation approved a new financial aid policy that eliminates loans for students whose family incomes are less than $100,000, reduces loans for all students who receive financial aid and no longer requires a parental contribution from most families with incomes of up to $60,000. Beginning in the fall of 2008, the new provisions will apply to all current students who receive financial aid, including the incoming Class of 2012.
This important action by our University is an effort to address the universal concern over the cost of receiving an education at a top institution such as Brown. I invite you to read more about this new policy on Brown's Web site. If you have any questions about this news, please don't hesitate to contact me directly.
With best regards,
Todd Andrews' 83
Vice President
Alumni Relations
I doubt they make that retroactive. Hehe.
Well, I'm glad this is happening, and I'm proud that my school continues to really try to bridge the gap for those without the funds to pay for college. My university wasn't "needs-blind" while I was in college, as admissions had to account for the finances of something like 10% of those who applied (my memory is fuzzy on that, so don't hold me to it). We went needs-blind several years ago, and this is just the next step. This is one aspect of education that is really done right.
Except I ain't getting a retroactive check in the mail. And I would've gotten a full ride!
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!
I waded through the silly debate over "intelligent design" when the issue was in the news over the last few years, but came to the conclusion on this blog – which helps me work through issues and figure out where I am on things by writing about it publicly – that "intelligent design is not only an insult to science, but to faith as well. But it was a process:
In a nutshell, my thinking on the subject is that ID is obviously not science, but it is also not religion/faith, since these idiotic ID advocates are essentially saying they have found "proof" for the unprovable: the DNA machine is so complex and beautiful that some Being must have made it. OK, if you say so, but that's not science, and it's a betrayal of the principle of faith to say it is anything different from feeling the beauty of the Grand Canyon and feeling the presence of God.
That's a personal thing, and perfectly valid to the individual. And people come to possess faith in all kinds of different ways, ones that cannot by bottled up into a formula or process.
It's probably my cultural compatibility with Christianity, coming from a pretty Christian Midwest, that explains my interest in the subject, especially in terms of history; but it's the lack of the ability to make that "leap of faith" that so impressed me at the end of Indiana Jones 3 that prevents me from being a Christian.
But it's not because I see any conflict between science and religion, since an intelligent look at the subject tells you that there really isn't as much there as one would think.
And I'm glad that my few conclusions about the subject is echoed by a specialist in the matter, which gives great assurance to this spirited amateur:
Haught is an intriguing figure in the debate over evolution. He was the only theologian to testify as an expert witness in the landmark 2005 Dover trial that ruled against teaching intelligent design in public schools. Haught testified against intelligent design, arguing that it's both phony science and bad theology. But Haught is also a fierce critic of hardcore atheists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, who claim that evolution leads logically to atheism. He says both sides place too much faith in science. "Ironically," Haught writes, "ID advocates share with their ideological enemies, the evolutionary materialists, the assumption that science itself can provide ultimate explanations." [From Salon.com]
I'm gonna go read Jon Haught's books. Another one worth reading, and which has borne out what I've been saying about the idiotic people in the Christian Right who completely misunderstand the historical and theological factors that led to the separation of church and state, is American Gospel, by Jon Meacham. It's not academic, having been written by a journalist and being essentially a string of quotes linked by time periods, but it's a good coverage of the issue.
For those who were paying attention in history class, and remember that Roger Williams was exiled out of Mass Bay colony because he wanted to separate church and state to preserve the integrity of the CHURCH from the muddying and corrupting influence of worldly governments, this motive is crystal clear.
The present efforts to characterize America as a "Christian nation" along the lines of some theocracy are simply misguided and wrong.
If people want to set up a Christian theocracy in America – fine – it's one's right to try, even if it's Constitutionally, historically, and theologically (at least from the point-of-view of anything remotely more Protestant than Anglicanism, which is pretty much anything on the American side of the Atlantic) unsound. I have the right to advocate for a whites-only state, found a political party dedicated to putting an Xbox 360 into every home, or even one extolling the virtues of "man-boy love" – but reasonable people, laws, and the Constitution should make short shrift of such silliness.
As they should with those suggesting that the government should give a red penny to fund private religious organizations conducting religious activities.
On the other hand, the book provides a much-needed corrective to the idea that there is no such thing as "civic religion" in the US, which there always has been. Using religious symbology doesn't force one to adhere to the idea, especially since "God" is non-specific (that wasn't and has never been accidental) and doesn't actually have any concrete impact on one's life.
Case in point: you may have to swear on a Bible in court, but it's not the Bible that's going to get you sent to jail, but laws regarding perjuring oneself. People getting all up in arms because of some imagined dissolution of the church/state wall because of mention of the word "God" in public rituals also forget history.
Another case in point: the Constitution. How are rights defined as "inalienable"? Because they come from "God." Sorry – that's the logic, and a smart one it is. The point wasn't to say that these rights come from the one, true Christian God (and efforts to use just such language was quickly and vigorously dispatched), but simply from a plane higher than human affairs, and hence, untouchable.
They are simply "inalienable rights" and taken as the starting point for everything else. Basically, you can't fuck with that logic, since it exists on a plane removed from our ability to do so. Hence, that basic assumption stands, unable to be assailed short of resetting the entire system from scratch.
In other societies, rights stemmed from class, bloodlines, connections, and other ephemera of the worldly plane. Making the ultimate "hyperlink" to "God" solves this problem quite nicely, thank you very much.
Ah, history and context. It's so helpful towards cutting through the petty bullshit of the present.
And it's nice to know that the tools in the woodshed are still sharp, my recent vent-fest over the non-valuation of foreign intellects in Korea notwithstanding.
On that note, I need a vacation from Korea. Badly.
Thailand! Never been. Fruity drinks, sandy beaches, and spicy food for two weeks is my diagnosis. And maybe some Xbox. Can I get that on a beachside bungalow?
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