Recent Blog Posts



All Recent Posts

Bullying Beijing

Over the weekend, Chinese protesters, denouncing a list of issues from Japan to censorship, massed in small cities amid large contingents of riot police. But, within official circles, according to Dr. Satoshi Amako, anti-Japan protest seems to have had more impact. Amako makes a case for blaming the The Senkaku Islands incident on factions within the ruling Communist party.

…How should we interpret the recent sequence of events? After the incident occurred on September 7, the current situation was set in train by Japan’s rigid stance, arresting the Chinese sea captain and extending his period of detention. On the Chinese side, economic transactions and large scale tourist group trips bound for Japan were quickly cancelled, and additional harsh action also appeared to be in the offing. Japan conceded releasing the ship’s captain, and still China didn’t yield, demanding an apology and financial compensation, and detaining four Fujita Corporation employees. However, before long embargoed Japan bound rare earth exports resumed, and three, and then eventually the four, Fujita employees were released.

(…)

The first problem is whether this incident was accidental or intentional.

Foreign Minister Maehara, having seen the video evidence, described it as ‘clearly a ramming’, asserting that it was intentional. China on the other hand claims the incident was accidental as the collision happened while the fishing boat was attempting to escape from being encircled by patrol boats. Putting all this together, I see it as an intentionally planned action by the Chinese side. The main reasons for this are: (1) the large gathering of Chinese fishing boats in the area; (2) the recent assertive actions by China in the South China Sea regarding Chinese territorial claims and the expansion of maritime interests; (3) the Chinese authorities’ consecutive stubborn actions leaving no scope for negotiation in the immediate aftermath; and (4) Japan’s willingness to publicly release the video, demonstrating a positive approach.

The second problem is why the situation played out this way. There are number of interpretations. First, it was a sphere of influence battle between Japan and China over the East China Sea, including territory. If China were to recognize Japan’s at-first-stubborn-actions and its handling of the issue according to domestic law, China would be seen to be yielding to Japan. Accordingly China sought to make Japan, who at one stroke had taken a stubborn line, yield. Second, it was a manifestation of a rising China’s great-power-hegemonic-consciousness. China’s GDP has surpassed Japan, and its rapid economic growth rate of around 10 per cent continues. China’s military strength has already overtaken that of Japan, and China is now said to be engaged in the construction of aircraft carriers. With the intention of displaying its own strength, China came out with an equally stubborn stance. Third, it is a reflection of a domestic conflict in China between the ever increasingly powerful vested interests groups — particularly in this case surrounding the issue of marine resources development between those who assert independent development by China and those who give precedence to joint Sino-Japanese development. Finally, it is a reflection of a leadership struggle within the CCP. With the Central Committee of the CCP’s 5th Plenum in prospect and now under way, and heading toward the CCP National Congress in 2012, serious tension is said to be emerging within the ruling circle of top leaders — over broad personnel changes. Those opposed to the leadership of Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao are thought to have made use of Japan-China relations to shake the balance.

Perhaps all four interpretations, intricately intertwined, contributed to the overall situation.

The increasing influence of vested interest groups on policy decisions is also remarked upon by many Chinese. Since the incident broke out just as Japan and China were looking toward negotiations to conclude a treaty on gas fields in the East China Sea, we cannot rule out the possibility that opposing factions manoeuvred to thwart the negotiations. Following the release of the ship captain on the September 24, China high-handedly continued to demand an ‘apology and financial compensation’. So why did China turn about face resuming rare earth exports, releasing the Fujita employees, and moving to mend relations? The forces that opposed joint development of the resources were successful throwing that off course. Still, they feared that with Japan’s courting of international public opinion, excessive pressure or high-handedness would produce a lasting anti-China backlash. It seems a re-positioning took place within ruling circles in China on September 25. The issue for the future is how Japan and China will find a launching pad to mend their relations.

Amako fails to emphasize it, but it takes two to make a quarrel a crisis. So, I think #4 is the clincher. But, in all four, there is a confluence of domestic willingness (#3) and structural opportunity (#2) that makes for that perfect combination of factors. Standing up to a bully is never easy, but Tokyo now faces a future where just appearing tough is not enough. The Japanese need to be wiser than possible, and luckier than probable.

Powered by ScribeFire.


Filed under: Academia, East Asia, Maritime, Politics Tagged: china, daioyu, east china sea, japan, senkaku

Seeing No Evil

Do you have a preference in the Apple vs. Google war? Still hating Microsoft? Thomas Hazlett and Russ Roberts reveal how remarkably similar is the strategy both Apple and Google follow, to make the illusion of Apple vs. Google so compelling.

All great market innovations challenge entrepreneurs to do two things: (a) get other firms
to help create specialized products, and (b) maintain sufficient control to guide the
process while extracting a generous portion of its returns. These tasks carry obvious
tensions. Builders of complex ecosystems handle them differently.

The iPhone/iPod/iPad/iTunes product space embeds numerous Apple-set restrictions.
Buyers purchase devices on the proviso that they lock-in for applications purchased down
the road. So long as the innovator incentivizes its developers to bring exciting new stuff
to market, while producing slick, iconic handheld devices that insert themselves into the
dreams of teen-age girls and boys, vast riches ensue.

Google’s structure features more semi-independent partnership layers. But calling it
“free” or “open” is less an economic description than a stroke of marketing genius.
Google’s enterprise is to capture new game to feed to its vaunted search engine. That
product enjoys overwhelming dominance – perhaps 75 per cent market share — due to its
competitive superiority. No other firm can rival its popularity. Moreover, the firm’s
innovation cluster brilliantly scales – its lead over rivals becomes more formidable as the
web expands.

Because the market position of Google Search is so secure, distributing “free” access to
Android is simply another form of Apple-like tie-in. Once the customer web searches,
Google reasonably expects to profit. And no “open platform” governs. Google prices
access to its engine – with its proprietary databases, secret algorithms, and private global
transport network – to maximize firm profit.

The Apple and Google models are two sides of the same coin. Both leverage innovations
in the smart phone market for revenues in ancillary services. Apple has in many respects
the more ambitious mobile plan, integrating heavily into hardware design and
manufacturing, and has been an industry disruptor forcing Google to mostly play catchup.
It makes its economic demands explicit, requiring iPhone users to patronize the App
Store and iTunes. Google need not be so fussy; with what the U.S. Department of Justice
would likely characterize as “dominance in the search market,” it simply leaves
customers to their own devices.

Since January 1, 2007, when the iPhone was announced (Android launched later in
2007), Apple shares have risen about 200 per cent while Google shares have slightly
declined. Lots else is happening, but mobile strategies are clear pivots for both firms.
Because the bottom line is the bottom line, not market share, the game so far belongs to
Apple. Google just plays.

But it is playing to win, and on terms not so different than Apple’s. Resistance to
openness is not futile — it’s ubiquitous. What looks “open” or “free” is a misdirection
hand gesture, diverting attention from where proprietary products are inserted into the
chain, with returns surgically extracted. All the rest is “revolutionary” hype.

Hazlett discusses many under-appreciated facts of the Apple-Microsoft rivalry, another convenient illusion, and, for those considering net neutrality, Roberts offers the reality of the “network of networks” that has evolved qualitatively from the DARPA

Mistakes we make are generally looking at market outcomes and seeing them as somehow either mistakenly the result of some policy intervention–as in the case of thinking the Internet is a government project that came from DARPA, which is really a common view that I think is quite misguided. Why? The DARPA network had a lot of inputs that became useful in modern networks, but the network of networks today is all these products–computers, chips, software, wireless, applications. Not master crafted on some blueprint by the Department of Defense, nor designed to withstand nuclear attack, by the way. Vision incorrect. The idea that networks are open end to end, control only at the edges of the network: that’s in some sense an optical illusion. There is control that takes place at the core, but to the extent the illusion is correct there is an incentive for a lot of standardization within the core of the network in pushing innovation out toward specialized innovations. What does that mean for regulation–we should enforce rules like network neutrality that maintained that the only kind of innovation that can take place in terms of structure has to be on the edge–and that again is a misreading. Consumer products–the edge–content and applications, Mass market customers have access to directly. Google is highly integrated with core networks in terms of how it transports its applications around the world; world more productive for that. Many other edge applications integrating into faster transit to make their products better for end users. Akamai specializes in speeding up delivery, allowing all these application providers to avoid the traffic or congestion of the Internet. You want competition to not only deliver new products but new structures. Sometimes experimentation is going to be vertically oriented. That is not a sacrilege–just a religious belief, not one founded in economics.

All in all, a fascinating exchange that made me think again about why I prefer Google over Apple. But, I still don’t like iPhones.

Powered by ScribeFire.


Filed under: Academia, Business/Economy, Podcasts Tagged: apple, darpa, econ talk, google, ibm, internet, russ roberts, steve jobs, thomas hazlett

Statistically Probable Thought #3: Rock Erosion Theory

If you understand evolutionary biology in its infinitely indifferent glory, a few interesting ideas emerge. The ambient musician Moby once said "we are all made of stars," and in a way, the statement couldn't be more correct. The Big Bang flung dense burning matter toward every corner(?) of the known universe some 13.8 billion years ago, expanding spacetime in the process. All tangible matter that we sit on, sleep on and brush our teeth with, has its roots in that single heated event. If you talk about the age of your body, you're referring to its current arrangement of molecules. But the atoms themselves were created in the centres of stars, which all trace their history to the beginning of existence.

Fast forward now to the birth of our solar system. Actually, first hold on for a moment while we ponder something interesting. Isn't imagination amazing? If you stretch your imagination from the moment of the Big Bang to the beginnings of our solar system, which is but a speck in a galaxy in a universe of billions of galaxies, your imagination has just traveled through 9 billion years of history. If your imagination took three seconds to do that (and ended at the very edges of the known universe), then because speed =distance/time, the speed of your imagination in kilometres per second would be 9 billion years multiplied by the speed of light, divided by three seconds. Remember to convert the 9 billion years into seconds first. The equation would be 9,000,000,000 X 31,536,000 (seconds in a year) X 299,792 ( speed of light in km per sec) divided by 3. Now this may be a trivial observation, but it's remarkably fast. Granted, your imagination probably skipped a few details along its epic journey. Hmm, now if only I could finish my PhD at the speed of imagination.

Anyway, your mental bookmark should now be at the beginning of our solar system. Imagine a giant molecular cloud of gas and dust floating in the darkness of space. This enormous cloud would eventually give birth to several stars, including our own Sun. Gravitational compression occurs after a shockwave event passes through the cloud, almost certainly from a distant supernova. This causes the angular momentum of our patch of dust to increase, while the dust itself condenses and gains rotational speed. Gravity's influence then gets to work on the details, collecting 99.8632% of the entire mass of the cloud into the centre of a rotating sphere. The large blob in the centre eventually passes a critical mass, and the sheer weight of gravity causes ignition in the centre and an explosion of fusion energy. This blob has just become our Sun. But angular momentum manages to keep some of the matter spinning in orbit around the Sun, and these patches of dust eventually collect into smaller blobs themselves, and harden in their centres. These outliers are destined to become the planets of our solar system and their moons.

Now there are only two kinds of planets we need to think about here, seeing as poor old Pluto was recently demoted. There are the terrestrial, or 'rock' planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars), and the gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune). The gas giants are huge bundles of clouds, gas and lightning, at the centre of which is a much smaller sphere of extremely condensed metal. For example, if you were standing on Jupiter, you would actually be standing on an extremely flat land of metal, with supersonic winds and high levels of radiation. You would also be dead. Luckily our imagination gets around such inconveniences by not actually putting us there in the first place. Fantasy has its dangers.

For the purposes of this blog post, we will not focus on the gas giants, which are unlikely to harbour any life. And the purpose of this post is to talk about how life possibly began and what it is now, in a purely scientific sense. So we're going to leave the gas giants alone now, and focus on the terrestrial planets, particularly the Earth. 
In the beginning, the Earth was a very inhospitable place with a lot of volcanic activity and minimal atmosphere. But all magma eventually cools into rock. In the process, the magma releases dissolved gases into the atmosphere. A planet like Mercury, which is lifeless (as far as we know), is basically a large rock, with bits of broken rock on the surface.

But things are happening on Mercury. It's not the same as it was a few thousand years ago. That's because the radiation from the sun, as well as surface winds are eroding the surface. Rocks on the surface are slowly eroding away, due to the forces of nature. The process of rock erosion is not much of a change, but a change nonetheless.

On a lifeless Earth, and for all terrestrial planets without life, this ongoing erosion of rock is the only process that can cause change. The driving forces are wind, oxidation and radiation from the sun. And there's also meteorite impact, which is another very important phenomena.

As far as the vast majority of real scientists are concerned, life on Earth probably began soon after the formation of an atmosphere and water on the surface. Because water ice in space is invariably laced with impurities, it is always classified as a rock rather than a mineral. So we can think of water as melted rock on the surface of a rocky Earth. And you may also like to think of sand as small, tiny rocks, if you like. I certainly do.

So the Earth, once upon a time, was just a lot of different kinds of rock and no life. At this historical point in time, the Earth gets peppered with comets, which are themselves also rocks. But these are special rocks. Traveling through space as stone and dirty ice, they also contain amino acids dissolved in their centres. Amino acids are the building blocks for all bacterial, archaea, protist, plant, fungi and animal life.

So the comets brought amino acids and other chemical goodies that were dissolved within them, crashing into the Earth's warm oceans, heated by the Sun in the day and cooling off at night. At some point in time during millions of years of oceans with chemicals being warmed and cooled, the very first simple forms of life grew from a chance collision that was statistically likely to happen over such a long time. If there really is a deity that deserves worship, it would be Time itself. Its sheer magnitude and vastness eclipse the majority of other claimed miracles. The parting of oceans is but child's play, when one considers that the entire history of the existence of those oceans, is, for want of a better analogy, but an infinitesimal drop in the galactic ocean of time.
What we know is that phospholipids (chemical molecules containing phosphorus), can also spontaneously form micelles in warm water. Micelles are tiny microscopic bubbles that protect whatever is contained inside, from the outside. This is the concept of homeostasis, a prerequisite for all living organisms. And if you look at the tiny membranes of bacteria, you'll notice that they're made predominantly from phospholipids. Albeit, a little more complex nowadays. Could it be that all chemical life began from non-life? Lee's Korea Blog would like to politely put forth the notion here that unless you're worshipping a deity other than Time, it's the only likely conclusion that remains.

The beginnings of primitive life was just small simple molecular bubbles that doubled their numbers over time. Some bubbles began to collect interesting chemical bi-products in their centres, which became the essence of the cytoplasm. From this, constant trial-and-error over billions of generations formed more complex organisms. How did we Homo sapiens arise out of all this? Well, the fossil record shows that Neanderthals first emerged around 600,000 years ago. And it took 400,000 of those years for us to evolve from the common ancestor of the Neanderthal to anatomically modern humans. We achieved behavioural modernity around 50,000 years ago. In other words, we monkeys have been behaving in human-like ways for only 1/100,000th of the Earth's history. On the other hand, very simple, single-celled life has been here for more than 3/4 of the Earth's history.

But let's take a step back now and think about how this all started. There was the Earth, which was rock, and water on the surface, which is melted rock. These rocks were being changed by the processes of erosion. Then some meteorites (which are also rocks), which were floating around in space,  happened to collide with the Earth. This released their amino acids and phosphorus into our warm oceans. These chemicals eventually formed tiny micelles, which later became life. In a nutshell, the universe is made up of a whole bunch of  very hot and cold rocks.

So my point is, you and I are simply a curious part of the larger process of rock erosion. This process has been going on for countless centuries and will no doubt continue to do so for centuries more.

But you can comfort yourself in the idea that we're all made of stars.

Korean Government: "Foreign Teachers AIDSier Than Foreign Whores"

Oh, Korea. After some years here you get used a general level of ridiculousness, double standards, xenophobia, and straight-up fuckwittery. It's par for the course, and unless you want to suffer aneurisms daily, it is best just to put your head down, plow ahead, and let the water slide off your back, as it were. But sometimes the powers that be make pronouncements that are so egregious, so offensive in their blatant bias, that something gots to be said. Today is one of those times.

The Korea Times reported today that the Ministry of Health and Welfare has decided to scrap HIV tests for foreigners "seeking to acquire an entertainer's E-6 visa, and workers renewing their E-9 visas." It goes on to say that "...the tests will still be reuqired of those seeking E-2 language teaching visas."

That's right. They've done away with HIV tests for everyone except for teachers.

Let's look for a moment at the E-6 visa, known as the "entertainment visa." This visa is given to singers, dancers, musicians, professional athletes, and BAR WORKERS. I don't think that I need to tell you that many of the foreign "bar workers" in Korea are involved in A LOT MORE than pouring drinks. Just go to any of the Filipino joints on Texas street and have a chat with any of the girls working the floor. I'm sure you'd have no problem negotiating an after-work encounter - for a price.

So... the government, in its wisdom, had decide to waive the HIV tests for prostitutes, but keep them in place for teachers. That makes a lot of sense.

(INSERT SHOTGUN BARREL TO THE MOUTH, NOW)

To add shit to the dung pile, Ministry official Jeong Eun-gyeong is quoted as saying, "...HIV is not transmitted through air or water, but through human contact most of the time." That's right, folks, evidently twelve blow jobs a night doesn't quite qualify as "human contact." Later on in the article they quote an unnamed official who says, "Education is considered a very intimate relationship... it's just intended to reassure the parents." I really don't blame them here; I once heard that a child was infected with HIV through playing "hangman."

Sigh.

So according to the government, the fear of dirty foreign teachers somehow infecting their students through AIDS osmosis trumps actual hookers sleeping with hundreds of men a year, as far as public health is concerned.

Can Kim Jong-il just go ahead and nuke this place once and for all?

Kat Banyard on Sexual Violence

One misconception that screams for redress is, that rape has anything to do with sexual desire. Kat Banyard in a recent Little Atoms episode is a post-post-feminist feminist – someone who doesn’t take equality for granted – and an anti-porn feminist. She tackled the relationship between porn and rape in a brief letter (Note: UK context).

In 2007 a Ministry of Justice–commissioned report cited the following findings: a meta-analysis of 30 studies showed watching porn increased aggressive behaviour in the viewer; a second meta-analysis of 46 studies showed it made viewers more likely to commit sexual offences and experience difficulties in intimate relationships; and a third meta-analysis of nine studies showed a significant relationship between watching porn and holding attitudes supporting violence against women. Porn isn’t a medical solution, it’s a public health crisis.

Absent from Neil Denny’s interview with Banyard, though, was a discussion of anti-censorship feminism or sex-positive feminism. I think Banyard makes excellent points about the reality of prostitution and misogynistic tendencies of mainstream media and heterosexual porn. But, I’m reluctant to lump all media into that category, and definitely averse to censorship. I’m not sure stigmatizing all forms of sex-related business is optimal either, because such legalistic remedies such as zoning as Banyard discusses in the case of lap dance clubs, only drive business underground.

I’d like to hear Banyard again, but taking on an interlocutor from the anti-censorship camp.

Powered by ScribeFire.


Filed under: Human Rights, Podcasts Tagged: censorship, kat banyard, little atoms, neil denny, porn, pornography, post-feminism, prostitution, sex-positive feminism

Generation of Swine

Much has been written about Generational Trends in America. Here is a slightly edited snippet from Wikipedia defining the generations, beginning with the first adults of the 20th Century.

  • The Lost Generation, primarily known as the Generation of 1914 in Europe, is a term originating with Gertrude Stein to describe those who fought in World War I. They grew up in the 19th Century and were the adults/leaders of the first three decades of the 20th C.
  • The Greatest Generation, also known as the G.I. Generation, is the generation that includes the veterans who fought in World War II. They were born from around 1901 to 1924, coming of age during the Great Depression. Journalist Tom Brokaw dubbed this the Greatest Generation in a book of the same name.
  • The Silent Generation born 1925 to 1945 is the generation that includes those who were too young to join the service during World War II. Many had fathers who served in World War I. Generally recognized as the children of the Great Depression, this event during their formative years had a profound impact on them.
  • The Baby Boom Generation is the generation that was born following World War II, about 1946 up to approximately 1964, a time that was marked by an increase in birth rates. The baby boom has been described variously as a "shockwave” and as "the pig in the python."
  • Generation X is the generation generally defined as those born after the baby boom ended, and hence sometimes referred to as Baby Busters, with earliest birth dates ranging from 1965 to the late 70’s.
  • Millennial Generation is also known as Generation Y, Generation Next, or Echo Boomers, or Millennials. The earliest suggested birth dates ranging from late 1970s to about the 2000s. 
  • Generation Z, also known as Generation I or Internet Generation, and dubbed the "Digital Natives," is the born after 2000 generation.

Because I was born in 1968, I am a Gen Xer, also known as the Slacker Generation. We were the first Generation to turn adolescence into a lifestyle. We were the first generation where a boy could turn 18 and NOT have to do or be anything all – not a soldier, nor a student, nor a husband, nor even have a job – we were the first generation to be able to stay home and do nothing and be proud of that.  Much has been written about Gen Xers, movies made, songs written, etc.

The Millennium Generation is interesting, cuz I haven’t read much about THEM, nor thought much about them, but here’s what I’ve recently learned about Millennials, the young workers of today in the 20 – 30 age range.

Apparently, according to company managers I've spoken to recently, it is not unusual in 2010 for a parent to accompany a 20 something on a job interview, or to call the boss on behalf of their young adult child!  I suppose that is similar to a mother speaking with a teacher on behalf of her child’s report card. Anthony Burgess, author of A Clockwork Orange, might have something to say about this trend, were he still alive.

I heard about this ‘new practice’ from my cousin, who is now a forty-something gen Xer with a house and a family.  My cousin is a manager in his company and he recently told me of interviews.

I asked my cousin to be more specific. “How are the new interviewees different from say us 20 years ago?” My cousin's answer included the following.

1. “New employees at my company appear to have no problem asserting their opinions at meetings or speaking directly to superiors.  This one kid we'd recently hired was in my office and after talking to him, I said 'Do you have any questions?'”  This kid had the nerve to ask me, "What do YOU do here?  What is YOUR job exactly?  It sounds rude, I know, but when he was asking me, I could tell, he didn't think there was anything wrong with asking me that!

Considering for the longest time, PUBLIC SPEAKING was the #1 fear of Americans, I’d say, this IS a change from previous generations.

2. My cousin also told me, “I remember when I first got hired at my company, and even outside of work, I always had trouble calling bosses and OLDER people by their first names; whereas, the young people at my company prefer to address everybody by their first name. I have a problem with this trend.  The pastor at my church told my 7 year old daughter, 'Call me Steve!' I said, 'No, she’ll call you Pastor Steven!'” 

3. “Also, I find that the young employees at my company are just as smart and hardworking as anybody I've met from any generation. The problem is, often they’ll have suggestions; suggestions that aren’t bad, but suggestions that I know will not work.  Collectively, they all seem to have a problem accepting NO as an answer.  I can tell when they leave my office, they're not finished trying to push their suggestions."

Let’s look at these observations.

Penn and Teller, in their Showtime series Bullshit, did an episode on Self Esteem and the whole self-esteem movement of the 1990’s and how the effect of telling kids that they are special etc. is NARCISSISM, an inflated sense of self, and an inability to accept the answer NO.  Sociopathic behavior is a very plausible outcome of constant praise for zero accomplishments, as is the inability to cope with reality.  The INDIVIDUALITY of Americans has only grown more acute, making the part of a society aspect of young people practically non-existant.

Living in South Korea for over a decade, I was deeply ensconced in a UNION CULTURE: a culture where promotions were given by age and tenure, rather than Individual Excellence; a culture where AGE trumped all other variables; a culture where people did what they were told rather than thinking for themselves.  Like in America, there are advantages and disadvantages to favoring either SOCIETY as a whole or the INDIVIDUAL.

I remember thinking that one major difference in American and Korean business/company practices is that in America, a young man (or woman) can rise to the top in a short time; whereas in SKorea, this almost never happens, as company workers think of themselves more as part of a team, than as individuals. The whole, “It’s 5 o’clock, time to go home,” is a commonly heard statement in American companies. This is almost never said in South Korea where workers stay in the office till the boss goes home, or till their task is complete.

In keeping with this Individuality versus Society issue, in South Korea, NOBODY OLDER IS EVER SPOKEN TO BY THEIR FIRST NAME. This is simply a matter of respect.  Respect for elders keeps society in a certain check.  In America, this respect for AGE simply does not exist anymore.  Once upon a time, elders in America were respected.  For what?  Just for being old and still alive!  In A Clockwork Orange, Alex and his droogies beat up an old man just for kicks.  In modern America, an attorney like Robert Kardashian would argue that it's a hate crime!
 
As for the inability to accept NO as an answer – that’s a clear sign of Narcissism and an inflated sense of self-worth. When cell phones first became available in the 80’s with their bulky frames, only doctors and leaders carried them. Why? Because these people of importance needed to be reached. Nowadays, EVERYBODY  has their own phone. Even children!  Does everybody really need their own personal phone? Is everybody’s life so important that other people must have a direct link to them 24-7?

I don't have a cell phone.  I have a home phone with an answering machine.  Nobody NEEDS to contact me with such urgency that it can't wait till I get home.  I know the phone number of everyone I call regularly.  I can use any phone to call them if I need to.  Having a mobile phone, once upon a time, was a status symbol and reserved for those who NEEDED a phone at all times.  Nowadays, everybody NEEDS a phone at all times.  Everybody is THAT important nowadays. 

Furthermore, if you look at many so called Celebrities today, many of them have little to show for their success. Other that having shapely breasts and having a sex video on the internet, what did Kim Kardashian ever do? Is she an actress? What is she, other than Bruce Jenners step daughter?  Oh yeah, she's attorney Robert Kardashian's daughter. Does America really want to watch a TV program about her and her day to day adventures.  "I have a nail appointment in 20 minutes and Khloe has my car!"  The sinister music begins and that's the drama.  Her show airs in 30 minute episodes and can be seen on E televison for nearly six hours each day. 

In the past, everybody in the media spotlight was there for some accomplishment or because they EARNED their way on TV or onto the RADIO by being talented.  'Paying your dues' is what performers called the early years of their careers while they honed their talents and built their audience.  Not anymore, Overnight Sensations fill channels every day and every night.

For the earlier generations – Radio and TV were the only real mass media, other than print media.  Today, it’s not just the ubiquity of the internet, it’s the mindset of young adults. People don’t feel the need to EARN anything anymore. People don’t feel the need to put in the time. It’s as if experience does not mean as much as it used to. 

It’s as if Experience has no value, since all experiences can be simulated.  As if...

Perhaps if I watch enough orgy videos on the internet I can write a novel about being a swinger, and still be able to wear my purity ring.

In conclusion, my cousins and I and all who came before us in America grew up with the whole: Christmas Bonus, Your employer gives your your health insurance, 10% of the country employs the other 90%, you get a job at 25 you keep that job till 65 then get a gold watch!  Those days are over.  Those days ended in the 80's.  American factories and manufacturers no longer exist.  Young people today have no idea that America before USED TO BE a lot like SKorea is now, or should I saw was in the last decade.  SKorea too is changing like America is changing.

Today, young people's mindset are best described by Jim Morrision.

We want the world and we want it now!


Korean Retro!

( Source )

Despite everything I’ve said about Girls’ Generation (소녀시대) over the years, I’m really liking this retro look for their new mini-album Hoot (훗), to be released later this week. Heck, along with Eccentric Yoruba, I’m even liking the title track too, whereas I needed to hear DJ Areia’s trance remix before I could even begin to listen to Oh! (오!).

But I’ve actually liked Korean retro itself for a long time now, and the posters reminded me of a brief article on that from the November 2008 edition of Design Journal (디자인저널), which I thought readers may also be interested in. And in the magazine itself of course, which – although its English could be much improved as you’ll soon see – is very rare in that it has both English and Korean versions of each article, helping to open up an entire creative side of Korean life that would normally be relatively inaccessible to expats.

Alas, unfortunately I’ve just learned that there were no more issues published after July 2009. But I do hope you still enjoy the article though, and if so then you may also like the So Much Pileup blog that I subscribe to, which has examples of retro graphic design from around the world. Personally, I was hooked on it as soon as I read the following about the logotype on the right:

The way that A and the S form together as one. It’s like they’re having an incredibly intimate moment that I happened to stumble upon. Where as the r-a ligature seems a little forced. That lowercase a will undoubtedly wake up feeling used and perhaps will regret the whole experience.

And in that same spirit of turning what was once considered dull and ordinary into something fun and sexy, let me leave you with all the great examples of Korean retro mentioned below:

Any other aficionados out there?^^

Update: More retro-themed pictures of Girls’ Generation are available here:

Share


Filed under: Girl Groups, Korean Art, Korean Music Tagged: Asian Retro, Design Journal, 디자인저널, Girls' Generation, Hoot, 소녀시대, , Korean Retro, Retro
  

 

Pages

Subscribe to Koreabridge MegaBlog Feed