Recent Blog Posts



All Recent Posts

Korea and Taiwan Vie for the Lower End of Chinese Markets

Via Jose Areta – and I still don’t know what “the “penalty factor” is – South Korea and Taiwan traded statistical accolades in the Chinese market. But, it’s interesting how South Korea did it.

Citing statistics released by China’s customs authorities, the ministry said Taiwan secured a 8.4 percent share of China’s total imports for the first 11 months of last year, lagging behind South Korea’s 10 percent share.

But Taiwan overtook South Korea in terms of growth in exports to China for the 11-month period, posting a 37.9 percent year-on-year increase to South Korea’s 37.4 percent rise, the ministry said.

South Korea maintained a higher market share than Taiwan in China mainly because of its dominating position in optical products, flat panels in particular, as well as in organic chemicals and plastic goods, the ministry said.

Taiwan excelled in man-made fiber exports to China, occupying the top spot on the list of China’s main import sources, and it ranked second in shipments of electronics and electric appliances.

South Korea didn’t lead in electronic products. OTOH, South Korea has a fair;y wide range of exports. And, reading further, Taiwan is set to roar back and surpass South Korea. And, Japan remains at the top.

Powered by ScribeFire.


Filed under: Business/Economy, East Asia Tagged: china, exports, japan, prc, South Korea, taiwan

Huntsman, the Anti-Tea Party Fall Guy

I feel for Newsweek‘s mandarins, who really want to pick a presidential winner AND humiliate the Tea Party.

The cable-news crowd will undoubtedly scoff at [current Ambassador to China and former Republican governor of Utah, Jon] Huntsman’s prospects in a Republican primary. After a right-wing resurgence flooded Congress with Tea Party Republicans, the field doesn’t appear particularly inviting to a moderate Obama appointee. But

an increasingly vocal segment of the GOP is worried that the conservative populism of 2010 is distracting the party from its more pressing priorities. “We may be confusing a clearing in the forest for being out of the woods,” says Republican strategist John Weaver, who notes young voters’ disapproval of some of the party’s social agenda. “There is a ticking demographic time bomb working against us, and if we don’t correct that problem very soon, we could wind up back where we were four years ago.” What the party needs now, argue supporters like Weaver, is a leader who can negotiate a treaty of sorts between the right-wing base and forward-thinking moderates. The GOP, in other words, needs an ambassador.

I disagree with both Newsweek and James Fallows about Huntsman. It’s not that Ambassador Huntsman is playing for the enemy, that will ruin his electoral fortunes. It’s that, sorry Newsweek, he’s a moderate who has served as ambassador in a foreign country. There are two sins the Republican base will never forgive. And, if elites keep extolling those sins as virtues, Huntsman might wish he could stay in Beijing.

Powered by ScribeFire.


Filed under: East Asia, Politics, USA Tagged: 2012 elections, barack h. obama, china, jon huntsman, prc

Happy New Years! I had the best of times and worst of times in...









Happy New Years! I had the best of times and worst of times in 2010, and I am happy to put that year behind me. I am not sure what 2011 has in store for me. Well, I have a few ideas, but who knows what will really happen. I have been in Korea for six months, and I am looking forward to going back to the USA.

Lately, I’ve been filled with this weird mix of sorrow and hope. You know those days when you’re a little sad but at the same time your spirit is flooded with love…. and gratitude.

I am really thankful for how wonderful my life is right now, but I have no idea where I’m headed. I look forward to seeing where I’ll be in a year.

About 

Hi, I'm Stacy. I'm from Portland, Oregon, USA, and am currently living in Busan, South Korea. Check me out on: Tumblr, Twitter, Instagram, Lastfm, and Flickr.

 

2010 in Review

So, here are the highlights!! It was a great year and I am excited about the years to come!!

~Started 2010 off in Chiang Mai, Thailand. 

~I bought my car and got my driver’s license in February.

~I got a new co-teacher in March!! Carrie is a good friend now and I was VERY thankful for her.

~In May, I spent 5 days in the Philippines, snorkeling, island hopping and siteseeing with my new camera.

~The summer was both stressful and exciting… I had to stand in faith about a new job and at “the last minute” a GREAT new job in Seoul was provided. I finished working at the Elementary school in Ulsan on August 25th and moved to Seoul the next day! wow

~I settled into my new (huge) apartment in Seoul and starting working for the Korean Army. It is a great job and I am so thankful for my wonderful students.

~Of course, I have made new friends this year… that is something to be thankful for.

~I have been in good health all year too! Bless the Lord!

~Thanksgiving and Christmas: I spent in Seoul with out-of-town guests, and going to various get togethers with my new (Seoul) friends.      I had a great Christmas dinner at Outback Steakhouse…mmmm… Click to view slideshow.

~New Year’s Eve was also spent in Seoul (with Meagan). We went to downtown Seoul to hear the bell ring at midnight. It’s similar to the whole Times Square thing in NYC. A couple million people gather to celebrate and ring in the new year. Honestly, it was a little disappointing, but we had a good time nonetheless.

~So– that’s my 2010 in a nutshell! For more details, of course, check out my blogs!!


I'm on Facebook, Youtube and Wordpress... Come join my adventures!<br><br>

www.youtube.com/kasham76 
www.kasham.wordpress.com
~Kasham Laîné

More Peace than War Over Water

http://bookmunch.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/the-dense-centre-of-some-virulent-new-microbe-heart-of-darkness-a-graphic-novel-illustrated-by-catherine-anyango-text-adapted-by-david-zane-mairowitz/Here’s another moment when I almost felt I had paid money for a Master’s degree for a reason. The topic of my final paper in the methodology course I completed a month ago turns up in a blog post. “Conflict and Cooperation over International Rivers: A Global Governance Proposal

Water scarcity is an increasingly important issue in global governance today. As the world’s population grows exponentially, and underground water aquifers are rapidly depleted, international rivers as sources of freshwater are being stressed. Individuals’ and states’ reliance of these rivers as a main source of water will cause more and more conflicts between states in the near-future. This is because most states, particularly in the driest areas of the world, view water as a security issue. This encourages states to not only fight with other states in a river basin, but also to demand and use as much water as possible, so that the security of their citizens is guaranteed. However, the security-centered discourse promotes a vicious cycle: as states use more and more water, water scarcity becomes a more dire issue, and states are more likely to fall into conflict with one another over water resources and become entrenched in the security-centered discourse. Thus, a shift in the norms that currently dictate the governance of international rivers must take place. States must come to view water as an issue of human development, with preservation and sharing as a top priority rather than maximum consumption.

In order for this to happen, states must acknowledge the role of individuals in water consumption, as well as of scientists, NGOs and other experts in monitoring this consumption and in the research and development of new technologies that can help people use more water and mitigate the impact of individual water consumption. A global governance institution that embodies the principles of these norms would involve the input of all of these diverse individuals, as per Harlan Cleveland’s Novody-in-Charge decision-making theory, and would ensure that all of the riparian states in an international basin are involved in an agreement. Further, this body would incorporate positive incentives, including ‘water aid’ in the form of technologies that would help states to consume less water in the first place, in order to encourage states to reach an agreement. It would also incorporate negative incentives, including monitoring, public disclosure and sanctions, in order to overcome the free rider problem associated with these agreements.

In discussions of the critical global challenges of the future, problems like terrorism, climate change, nuclear proliferation, the current financial crises or unconventional wars in the developing world are often mentioned. Yet in many ways, water scarcity and the potential conflict situations that exist in many international river basins are just as challenging and pertinent, if not more so. Although the world currently runs on fossil fuels, there are many more ecologically friendly and sustainable substitutes that humans can adopt to advert the worst consequences of climate change, yet there is no synthetic substitute for water. Stated bluntly, the survival of the human race is at stake if we are unable to negotiate a means of sharing and preserving water resources.

Water and war? It’s really not that dry a topic – pardon the pun. What I’d do without a bottle of water I can’t begin to fathom. But, for all Stark’s emphasis on individuals like, well, ME, I had to be more of a realist in my own paper. I opted to test a theory called “water rationality”: “the issues of water scarcity, competitive use and a wider conflict do not necessarily lead to war, since war cannot guarantee a country’s water supply in the long term.” (Undala Z. Alam, “Questioning the Water Wars Rationale: A Case Study of the Indus Waters Treaty” in The Geographical Journal, Vol. 168, No. 4, Water Wars? Geographical Perspectives (Dec., 2002).) I concluded, after looking at both a large database of wars and a global sample of case studies, that conflict over water is nore canard than fact.

Using two datasets, the Claim-Level Summary Data and Attempted Settlement Data File, the preponderance of cases (190) resulted in a permanent peaceful settlement to the dispute. Of 35 cases involving river claims, only seven disputes became militarized. Of those seven, only one involved casualties exceeding 1000, lending credence to Hauge’s and Ellingsen’s argument about the impact of environmental degradation. Furthermore, another category of 29 dyadic claims neither became militarized nor resulted in a peaceful settlement.

I also looked at the quality of the settlements reached. Of 208 cases involving river claims, 36 settlements completed ended most or all of the parties’ claims, and in 32 cases the settlement ended the contention between the rivals. But the longevity of the settlements is impressive. 125 settlements have lasted for 15 years, the longest period the database offers. 138 settlements have endured for 19 years. 163 settlements have lasted for 5 years. These findings seem to support Gleick’s argument that water events lead to negotiations, not protracted war. And, finally, most curiously, 23 cases are unresolved for 15 years, but the parties have resorted to a militarized dispute. What I find significant is, that only one case became so destructive immediately, and that 23 others only turned violent after a settlement was initially reached. As opposed to Selby’s contention that river claims count for less than the state of the political economy, it seems these states had to get to the negotiating table to find out how they disagreed.

But, generally, as Alam argues, states choose to negotiate their river claims. The South African and Jordan River cases illustrate this point further. Although Israel has an interest in protecting what dear water resources it can, it has continued to negotiate for more sustainable water regimes in the region. After despoiling black populations with its water-use policies, a post-apartheid South Africa has sought to undo its apartheid predecessor’s mess. Still, those 23 unresolved cases are a warning about ignoring both the sufficient conditions, like hegemons and geographical details, and the finer details of the human art of diplomacy.

I can understand why Stark wants a little more reassurance that river claims won’t lead to conflict. But, from what I can gather, states are rational and generally responsible about sharing water. Stark argues that:

According to the realist analysis, states will be reluctant to engage in agreements with one another over water allocations because these agreements inherently require the accession of some part of national sovereignty. Given this reluctance, the myriad bilateral agreements that exist in the real world can be explained in two ways. First, agreements are often negotiated in a coercive manner by the more powerful states so that these states often receive the largest allocations of water. Second, Haas argues that negotiations concerning environmental issues occur when two state objectives are pitted against one another: even as states seek to preserve their own autonomy, under conditions of scarcity, a state’s access to water and through it the state’s ability to protect public health and amenities requires coordinated policy actions with other riparian states. In other words, “policy autonomy may only be preserved at the cost of endangering national survival”.[18] This is particularly true for international river basins, when upstream riparians states have more power over water allocations regardless of the power of each state in the international arena, and therefore it is necessary for downstream states to negotiate.

Nit, I don’t see it in the numbers. Belligerents have negotiated settlements over river claims, even nuclear-armed antagonists. Hegemonic states have negotiated in good faith with weaker states. Stark needs to show me a little more for me to get rid of the state.

Powered by ScribeFire.


Filed under: Academia, Military, Social Science, Spleen Tagged: international relations, michael t klare, rivers, water wars

Poll results for December 2010 - biggest news story of the year?

Biggest / most important Korean news story of 2010? (for all readers - choose up to 3)

Cheonan sinking 72 (45%)

North Korea tensions 97 (61%)

Apple vs. Samsung 15 (9%)

The G20 summit comes to Seoul 32 (20%)

Korea makes World Cup round of 16 24 (15%)

Japan apologizes for colonial Korea 14 (8%)

Kim Jong-il, meet Kim Jong-eun 38 (24%)

F1 auto race in Jeollanam-do 5 (3%)

Korea's Winter Olympics success 17 (10%)

Korea's Asian Games success 2 (1%)

Expensive kimchi / veggies 32 (20%)

Not surprisingly, North Korea was on many people's minds; I have a feeling we'll be seeing and hearing a lot more about South Korea's northern neighbors in 2011.

157 votes, readers could vote for more than one.

Biggest expat news story of 2010? (for Korean readers - choose up to 3)

Unequal AIDS testing rules 29 (50%)

Brian in Jeollanam-do leaves Korea 9 (15%)

Changes to E-2 teaching visas 38 (65%)

Quincy Black 7 (12%)

Canadian-Korean charged with murder in Canada 3 (5%)

Robot English teachers 15 (25%)

Hit pieces by Korean 'journalists' 15 (25%)

Threats to teachers' jobs understandly make up the biggest portion of the biggest stories. That's basically one of the only areas that affects just the foreigners in Korea...

58 votes, readers could vote for more than one.

January 2011's polls are up! If you're reading this in an RSS feed or elsewhere on the internet, you'll need to head to Chris in South Korea's main page to vote.

Creative Commons License © Chris Backe - 2010

This post was originally published on my blog,Chris in South Korea. If you are reading this on another website and there is no linkback or credit given, you are reading an UNAUTHORIZED FEED.


 

Is Social Science Too Precious for the Professionals to Hoard?

I didn’t think a debate I’d encountered in my last International Relations methodology course would wind up appearing so quickly in the mainstream press. But here’s Justin Logan and Paul Pillar debating a question Erik Voeten so neatly reduces to “Is Political Science Too Hard for Policy-Makers?” Stephen Walt, in an article still fresh in my short-term, test-oriented memory, “The Relationship between Theory and Policy in International Relations” in Annual Review of Political Science lays out the issue succinctly.

Policy makers pay relatively little attention to the vast theoretical literature in IR, and many scholars seem uninterested in doing policy-relevant work. These tendencies are unfortunate because theory is an essential tool of statecraft. Many policy debates ultimately rest on competing theoretical visions, and relying on a false or flawed theory can lead to major foreign policy disasters. Theory remains essential for diagnosing events, explaining their causes, prescribing responses, and evaluating the impact of different policies. Unfortunately, the norms and incentives that currently dominate academia discourage many scholars from doing useful theoretical work in IR. The gap between theory and policy can be narrowed only if the academic community begins to place greater value on policy-relevant theoretical work.

I don’t think either side, policy-makers and professors, is dumb. I do question the short-sightedness of policy-makers for quantitative methodologies, as Voeten narrates. Quantitative methods, according to my graduate text perform three goals: identify general patterns and relationships; test theories; and, make predictions. I’m always skeptical of that third goal, but I’d bet the second goal would be quite useful in a policy setting.

But, I’d like to avoid the aridity of the Logan-Pillar debate. Joseph Nye, Jr. argued that “…scholars teach theory and methods that are relevant to other academics but not to the majority of the students sitting in the classroom before them.” Honestly, does “realism” mean anything to you? I’m thinking of Henry Kissinger and the Spartans. How about Dr. Strangelove and nukes? Would you prefer to go into an argument about FTA armed with Ricardo or Smith? Logan and Pillar are just as bad myopic as the Washington elites they are trying to impress. It’s not just scholars and policy-makers who need a little theory. Every reader – dare I say, “citizen” – here needs it, too. Our lives are too complicated to be left to squabbling hacks and professors, with journalists trying to court one or the other.

Powered by ScribeFire.


Filed under: Academia, Politics, Social Science, USA Tagged: international relations, joseph nye, political science, quantitative methodology, stephen walt, theory and practice

I Don’t Care by 2NE1 (투애니원): Lyrics, Translation, & Explanation

( Source )

Seems like everyone was really disappointed with Korean girl groups in 2010, and for good reason.

It’s kind of embarrassing then, that it was also the year that I first got into them. But still, I too was struck by how many of their members couldn’t even sing, and soon resolved to stick to the original tracks and official music videos rather than watch any live performances again.

It was with some trepidation then, that after I discovered I Don’t Care by 2NE1 (투애니원), I immediately thought to describe their voices as, well, simply beautiful, especially Park Sandara’s (박산다라). Fortunately however, they don’t seem too different on stage either, and I think I’d enjoy listening to them singing even without any accompanying music.

Here is the original music video that got me hooked:

A live performance for the sake of comparison:

Next, a video which already has English lyrics. Some are very strange and/or completely wrong though, but otherwise they’re mostly correct, and good for getting the gist:

Yeah, I don’t think a Playboy bunny costume is apt either, even for an anime version of – I think – Park Bom (박봄).

But next, a reggae mix that I hate myself, but you might like it, and I think it actually became more popular than the original in Korea:

Finally, a not bad dance remix, although I’m not really sure who the “Baek Kyoung” referred to is sorry:

Meanwhile, I’m just as surprised as you are to find myself describing the “bad girls” of K-pop as having beautiful voices. But now that I think about it, why can’t they go together?

If I did have to find a flaw with the song though, it would be that the lyrics are a little inconsistent with what stage of the relationship the couple is in exactly: as you’ll soon see, in one line the girlfriend can appear to have just split up with the boyfriend, then in the next they seem to be together but she’s thinking about it, and then in yet another they sound like they split up a long time ago!

It would be very very tempting just to have assumed that they’re in one of those stages and translated accordingly (like in the video with English lyrics above), but I don’t think the lyrics justify that, and so ended up stumbling along accordingly. But with just a bit more thought by the writers, all that unnecessary confusion could easily have been avoided.

Update – In hindsight, the final verse does indeed resolve their relationship: they’re together, but about to split up. But please forgive me though, for declining to rewrite all 2400 words of translations and explanations accordingly!^^

Hey playboy, it’s about time and your time’s up

I had to do this one for my girls you know

Sometimes you gotta act like you don’t care

That’s the only way you boys learn

Oh oh oh oh oh oh 2ne1 이야이야

Oh oh oh oh oh oh 2ne1 이야이야

니 옷깃에 묻은 립스틱들 나는 절대로 용서못해

매일 하루에 수십번 꺼져있는 핸드폰

변하지 않을것만 같아 oh oh

I absolutely can’t forgive your collar being stained with lipsticks

Every day your phone dies many times

I don’t think you’ll ever change oh oh

( Source )

Line 1 of the Korean is a pretty basic, literal translation, although personally I was pretty surprised to learn that “묻다” means “stain” as well as “dig”. I’m more familiar with”얼룩지다”, easier to remember because “zebra” is “어룩말”, or literally “stain horse”.

Line 2 was more difficult though. First, because “매일” means “every day”, but then “하루” means “a day,” or “one day”, so already there’s some either unnecessary and/or nonsensical repetition (not to be confused with that about the relationship though). Not being able to figure out what the combination meant, then I decided to plump for the former, although I was tempted to put “all day long” in there instead, or “하루정일”, as given the next part then that would make sense in English at least.

That next part was “수십번”, rather confusedly “several” and/or “many times” according to my dictionary, but clearly the latter is more appropriate in the context of the song. Then, “꺼져있다”  was a little confusing for a moment, as it has many meanings. And for a while, I thought that the 2 most suitable here – “fade/die out/extinguish” and “be turned off” give slightly different nuances to the song: does the boyfriend’s phone “keep on dying”, like the lyrics in one of the videos above gives, or is it turned off, presumably deliberately in order to avoid the girlfriend? But either way, note that it’s actually “꺼지다” + “있다”, meaning that the phone is left in the state of dying and/or being turned off for a long time…and I guess that the 2 meanings actually amount to pretty much the same thing in the end.

Finally, the “만” in line 3 doesn’t mean “only”, but is just used for emphasis, as we’ve seen in many previous song translations.

(Source)

그저 친구라는 수많은 여자친구

날 똑같이 생각하지마 I won’t let it ride

이제 니 맘대로 해 난 미련은 버릴래

한땐 정말 사랑했는데 oh oh

All those girls you call just your friends

Don’t think of me as the same, I won’t let it ride

Now just do what you like, I want to be rid of my lingering affection for you

I really loved you once

(Source)

Pretty easy, although my wife said that “그저” in line 1 meant “just”, which wasn’t one of the meanings in my dictionary, and that “한땐” in line 4 was “한때” + “는”, or “once”.

But as for the jump in the middle of the song, between sounding like they’re still together and she’s working at improving the relationship, to sounding like she, well, just doesn’t care, presumably them having split up? I’m just as stuck as you!

Update: In hindsight, it’s strange that she wants to be more than just one of his female friends? I thought that she already was, and the problem was that all of those female friends of his were actually women he’s cheated on her with?

( Source )

가끔씩 술에 취해 전활 걸어 지금은 새벽 다섯시 반

넌 또 다른 여자애 이름을 불러 no no

I don’t care 그만할래 니가 어디에서 뭘 하던

이제 정말 상관 안할게 비켜줄래

이제와 울고불고 매달리지마

Frequently when you’re drunk you call me at 5:30 in the morning

And again you call me by another woman’s name no no

I don’t care, I want to end this, Wherever you are, Whatever you do

Now I won’t have anything to do with it, Get out of my way

Don’t suddenly hold on to me and start weeping

( Source )

A long section, but pretty easy. Just a couple of points: first, don’t be confused by the “걸다” in “전활를 걸다” (shortened to “전활 걸어” here), as I often used to be; although by itself it does mean “hang”, “”전활를 걸다” does not mean “hang up the phone” but rather “to make a phone call”, the complete opposite.

Next, my wife says “이제와” is short for “이제와서”, which means “suddenly”. Frankly I don’t get that, so I’ll have to take her word for it, but if anybody else has an explanation then that would be appreciated!

Meanwhile, the next part is very easy, so I’ll skip an explanation:

(Source)

Cause I don’t care e e e e e

I don’t care e e e e e

Cause I don’t care e e e e e

I don’t care e e e e e

Boy I don’t care

다른 여자들의 다리를 훔쳐보는

니가 너무너무 한심해

매일 빼놓는 커플링 나 몰래 한 소개팅

더 이상 못 참을 것 같아 oh oh

You steal a glance at other women’s legs

You’re so pitiful

Every day you take off your couple ring and secretly go on a blind date

I guess I can’t take it any more oh oh

( Source )

넌 절대 아니라는 수많은 나의 친구

난 너 땜에 친구들까지 다 잃었지만

차라리 홀가분해 너에게 난 과분해

내 사랑이라 믿었는데 oh oh

My many friends that said you weren’t right for me

I lost all of them because of you, but

That’s actually a relief

You don’t deserve me

I believed you were my true love oh oh

( Source )

And as if to make up for the easy part, that was quite difficult. True, the basic translations are easy enough, but an important part was unspoken, then yet again some sentences seem to contradict the others, then finally one way of saying something in English is said completely the opposite way in Korean!

Dealing with each in turn, line 1 is literally “you-absolutely-not-many-my friends”, but the “not” part is a relative clause incorporating the “many-my friends”. But what is the boyfriend “not”? Presumably, right for her, and presumably they said that to her too.

Next, I don’t how on Earth losing all her friends was “차라리 흘가분해”, literally “rather [a] relief” but that’s what it says: maybe because they weren’t really her friends or something.

Finally, just after that you have literally “you-to-me-unworthy”. Which sounds fine in English when put like that, but then the “me” is the subject here, as indicated by the addition of the “ㄴ”, short for “는”, and Korean is made much easier by thinking of “는” and “은” as meaning “as for” in English. So with those qualifications, now you have “you-to-as for me-unworthy”, which would be best re-ordered in English to “as for me-to-you-unworthy”. But rest assured, it is definitely still he that is unworthy of her in the Korean nonetheless…

There are only 2 new lines in the next section, and they’re pretty easy, so again I’ll skip an explanation. Yeah, I ‘m beginning to notice a pattern too:

(Source)

오늘도 바쁘다고 말하는 너 혹시나 전화해봤지만

역시 뒤에선 여자 웃음소리가 들려 oh no

I don’t care 그만할래 니가 어디에서 뭘 하던

이제 정말 상관 안할게 비켜줄래

이제와 울고불고 매달리지마

Cause I don’t care e e e e e

I don’t care e e e e e

You said you were busy today too, but by chance I got a hold of you and

In the background I heard a woman’s laugh oh no

I don’t care, I want to end this, Wherever you are, Whatever you do

Now I won’t have anything to do with it, Get out of my way

Don’t suddenly hold on to me and start weeping

Cause I don’t care e e e e e

I don’t care e e e e e

(Source)

난 너 땜에 울며 지새던 밤을 기억해 boy

더 후회할 걸 생각하면 맘이 시원해 boy

날 놓치긴 아깝고 갖기엔 시시하잖니

있을때 잘하지 너 왜 이제와 매달리니

I remember the night I cried until dawn because of you boy

I think I will regret it more if we stay together, now I feel relieved boy

When I’m gone I’m valuable, but when we were together I was nothing

You should have done better back then, why are you are hanging on to me now?

(Source)

As per the pattern, you’d expect this verse to be difficult. And indeed, although line 1 was fine, frankly I can’t make head or tail of line 2 especially, and invite alternative translations.

Literally, it is “more-regret [will]-think [if]-my heart & mind-relief”. But regret what? Not splitting up? And if you think? Arrgh!

As you can see, I came up with something for line 2 that certainly sounds okay, but it’s largely guesswork really. Line 3 and 4 at least though, were simple enough, with my wife telling me that the “있을때 잘하지” in the latter (when you have [them], you have to do well) is often used to express regret about relationships.

(Source)

속아준 거짓말만 해도 수백번

오늘 이후로 난 남자 울리는 bad girl

이젠 눈물 한방울 없이 널 비웃어

사랑이란 게임 속 loser

무릎꿇고 잘못을 뉘우쳐

아님 눈 앞에서 당장 꺼져

Now clap your hands to this

I also know about the hundreds of lies you’ve tricked me with

As of today, I’m a bad girl that makes men cry

Now, without so much as a tear I laugh at you

Love is a loser in this game

Get on your knees and repent

Or get out of my sight

( Source )

With great relief, the pattern was maintained with this last verse(!), and so it was quite easy, only the “속아준” in line 1 throwing me off a little. Normally, saying a verb + “주다” means to do the verb for the speaker, i.e. a request, but how do you  be tricked” for someone (note that “속다” means “be tricked”, wheres “속이다” means ” to trick”)? I gave up, but the native speaker in the other room told me that it basically means that, she, the singer, knows or knew she was being tricked.

I’ll take my wife’s word for it. Other pearls of wisdom from her include “오늘 이후로” in line 2 meaning “as of today”, and “잘못을 뉘우쳐” in line 5 as a whole meaning “repent”, my dictionary just giving the 2nd word.

And not before time, there’s just the chorus after that:

I don’t care 그만할래 니가 어디에서 뭘 하던

이제 정말 상관 안할게 비켜줄래

이제와 울고불고 매달리지마

you know I don`t care e e e e e

I don`t care e e e e e

you know I just don`t care e e e e e

I don`t care e e e e e

Boy I don`t care

And on that note, I hope you enjoyed it, and as always I’m open to and grateful for any help and suggestions for anything you think I made a mistake with, and/or – in this case – simply couldn’t understand.

Before I wrap this up though, one thing I was very surprised about in it was that no matter how bad her boyfriend has been, and no matter how much of a “bad girl” the singer supposedly is now, that she would still take him back if he did indeed repent. Granted, confession and expression of remorse carries considerably more weight in Korean (and Japanese) society than in Western ones. But still, perhaps 2ne1 is not quite as “bad” as I’ve been led to believe all these years then (or only is by restrictive Korean standards for female performers), and it’ll be very interesting to see just how provocative (or not) their lyrics in their other songs are now.

But first, I’ll be translating Like The First Time (처음처럼), by T-ara (티아라):

Share


Filed under: Girl Groups, Korean Music, Song Lyrics & Translations Tagged: 2NE1, I Don't Care, 투애니원
  

 

[Fourteen] Teddy Bear Museum (Jeju Island Part II)

Dear readers,

I hope that you're having a great day, wherever you may be. 그리고, 좀 있으면 벌써 2011년이네요!
모두들 새해 복 많이 받으세요! The new year is just around the corner! I wish you many blessings for 2011!

I never had the chance to do a part II for my blog entry on Jeju Island, so I thought that I would share some pictures that I took at the Teddy Bear Museum there. It's an amazing place, if you like teddy bears. :)



So, apparently, this  teddy bear museum is one of a kind in Korea


This place was really fun to go to. And, don't worry, it wasn't just for kids. I think I saw more adults in there actually :) don't we all love our teddy bears?


When you first enter the museum, you are introduced to the history of teddy bears. Did you know that "teddy" got its name from the US President Theodore Roosevelt?


You are looking at how some of the earliest teddy bears looked like!

After some history, it's just teddy bear madness. Basically, teddy bears in every setting and scenary that you can imagine :)

at picnic

LV bears

Korean (?) teddy bears getting married haha




and... no way... it's that famous painting by Michaelangelo!


Yes, recreated with bears!



*


They also showcase famous bears such as the one pictured below.

Do you remember this little fellow?


He was featured in the drama "Princess Hours" (Goong/ MBC 드라마 궁)


Ta-da! Isn't he adorable?

*




The really cool part of this museum is that, after going to the gift shop, there's even more to see outdoors.

Outdoors, there are various fountains, statues, etc. featuring (what else?) bears! The fountain pictured above was interesting because at every hour bears come out of it and give a mini performance. It's kind of like those cuckoo clocks.

polar bears!

I hope that you'll have a chance to visit the museum one day :) I had a great time there with my family!


Once again, happy new year to you and I will meet you once again through another post!

Yours truly,


-sunflowerchocolate-
Follow sunflowerchoco on Twitter

Pages

Subscribe to Koreabridge MegaBlog Feed