UPDATE: Another blogger from Canada has weighed in on how war can save lives, using game theory and the Prisoner's Dilemma to bolster their argument. Well worth a read, whichever side of the argument you agree with.

Author's note: I get the feeling I'm going to get a lot of comments on this one. I'm not out to be controversial just to be controversial, and I'll freely admit to being out of my field of expertise. I also dislike bringing up the topic with the holidays approaching. With that said, I have an opinion and this is my platform - so here goes nothing.

The recent Hankyoreh article entitled "Why War Cannot Be the Answer" by former Unification Minister Lee Jong Seok is a reminder of how much South Korea supposedly has to lose. After mentioning how "devastated" North Korea has become, Lee asks, "how much more serious a situation South Korea would face, developed as it is in all directions, were a single North Korean shell to fall in Gyeonggi Province?"

There would almost certainly be loss of property, and possibly loss of life depending on where in Gyeonggi-do it hits. Remember that while Gyeonggi-do has over 10,000,000 million people living in an area smaller than the size of Connecticut, there's a surprisingly large amount of undeveloped land and mountains. Assume North Korea's targeting system is accurate, and that fear does become more real.

But does that fear necessarily damage or paralyze the economy? In the days following the Yeonpyeong-do bombing, the KOSPI did not - repeat, not - take a beating:


Source: screenshot from Bloomberg.com showing 3 month data of the KOSPI.

Ups and downs just like any other stock market. Even though the attacks happened after the stock market day closed, there was no big dropoff the next day. Were there some genuine concern of North Korea in the South Korean financial world, there would almost certainly be some sign found here. Instead, the KOSPI is back above 2,000 - perhaps the Dow Jones equivalent of the 10,000 milestone - and remains there even now.

Another quote from the Hankyreh article:

We often see reports about how key figures in the Lee administration believe there is a strong chance the North Korean regime will soon collapse due to its vulnerability. These predictions have generated a lot of controversy. But if the administration's diagnosis is correct, it makes even less sense that it would be willing to opt for war against a system that is soon to fail, when war means that South Korea could well be destroyed along with it.

The South Korean government has been predicting the collapse of the North Korean government for decades. Each and every time, that prediction has been proved wrong. Unless there is some reason to believe that this prediction is somehow different, I find little reason to believe in the government that cries "Collapse!", just as people stop listening to the boy that cried wolf. Perhaps this is the first prediction based on actual evidence - if so, let's see it.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe a North Korean collapse would be orderly or kept within its borders. At best, South Korea and China would struggle to keep millions or tens of millions of people from attempting to emigrate. At worst, someone bent on using those nuclear missiles might use the government's collapse as an opportunity to take control of - or even fire - the missiles in question. It may not take a war to collapse a nation supposedly collapsing on its own, but a swift strike on the people that hold the power would at least be an element in our control.

Speaking of nuclear missiles, there seems no one in charge that understands one simple thing: North Korea will never give up that nuclear technology. I picture in my head a standoff, where two people are holding a gun at each other's heads:



Source

All things being equal, giving something up to the other guy or putting your gun down puts you at a disadvantage. And what a disadvantage North Korea would have. With exception of a couple outliers, the rest of the world has shown it can effectively cut off North Korea from the outside world. What few outside products that make it in have to be smuggled in, under penalty of a prison camp or death.

There will not be a peaceful unification between North and South Korea. I'd like to be proven wrong, but the odds are stacked against that happening for more reasons than I can elaborate.

One final quote from the article:

The reason we are showing restraint is because of the disaster a war would bring. It would instantaneously bring down the economy we have worked so hard to build since the armistice and lead the Korean people once again onto the road to ruin. This is why the fuse must not be lit recklessly.

On this point, I'll partially agree - war might bring a disaster. I could break out any number of sayings to serve as faux proverbs; 'you can't make an omelet without breaking an egg' comes to mind immediately. It's going to end badly any way you slice it, so why not end it in a manner that's more advantageous to you in the long-term?

This current Korean economy was created through the hard work and never-give-up attitude of multiple generations. Those traits certainly haven't gone anywhere, have they? If South Koreans are once again called to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, could they not recover in much the same way New Yorkers did in the days following 9/11? They might have to pull themselves away from Starcraft and stop taking pictures of their mocha lattes.

Shock and horror!

Kids might have to cut back from going to four different private schools to three because one of the buildings was damaged. Perhaps over-elaborate productions of big-budget, borderline-anorexic, barely dressed teenagers singing what they call music might have to stop for awhile. If that is the price of peace on the Korean peninsula, I welcome it.

Finally, the author quotes from the Art of War, the timeless classic by Sun Tzu. I read it in college - twice, one out of personal interest and once for class - and have a copy sitting on my bookshelf. Like the Bible and Koran, the book has an unfortunate tendency to be used in whatever way a write would like (as I am about to do myself, admittedly). I refer to an online version found on MIT's website:

Section 2, 6: There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

Having been at war (even if at a technical level) for 60+ years has shown little benefit to Korea's development; it has hurt the long-term investment opportunities coming from overseas.

Section 8, 11: The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.

If South Korea's holding back because it's not ready, God help us all. The response from Yeonpyeong-do raises enough questions to justify a more extensive audit.

Section 9, 26. Peace proposals unaccompanied by a sworn covenant indicate a plot.

Two words: Wolf Blitzer. Let the history books serve as record of peace proposals offered - from either side - and plots abound.

Taking care of the North Korea problem ensures several things: long-term peace / stability in the East Asian area, increased foreign direct investment, and any number of benefits gained from adding land mass to Dae Han Min Guk.

Easy to do? No. Cheap? Heck no. Likely to be a long-term process that takes years to settle down? Yes. Let's not get any misconceptions about the aftermath, but we'd have to deal with that anyway. Let's do it on our timetable, not North Korea's.

© 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.

( Source )

Well, this is embarrassing.

Now as you’re probably aware, I simply love this song, and must have listened to it well over a hundred times. And the music video is amazing too.

But now that I’ve actually studied the lyrics? Hell, but for the word “2010″ at the beginning, I actually had no idea that so much of the song was in English.

On the positive side though, that’s given me a renewed appreciation for the difficulties many Koreans have in realizing that a (frustrated) foreigner is actually speaking Korean to them, albeit in a strange accent. And I don’t mind how nonsensical all the English in the song is either, as that’s quite normal for K-pop.

But unfortunately the Korean too seems literally thrown together in many places, which made it difficult for even my Korean wife to understand. And as you’ll soon see, the small amount of it below belies how much time and effort went into translating it.

And knowing all that about the song now? To be frank, it’s made it lose just a bit of its magic for me.

Lest the same happen to you, read on at your peril!

The first part obviously doesn’t need an explanation, although I’d be interested in learning what “la couture” means exactly:

Sing it with me now

2010, We bringing new love to the floor

Rocking what’s real la couture

We opening new doors new show new world new control

Can you keep up oh!

Hallo! Hallo! Hallo! Hallo! Hallo!

Hallo! Hallo! Hallo! Hallo! Hallo!

Hallo! Hallo! Hallo! Hallo! Hallo! Catch!

Hallo! Hallo! Catch! Catch! Hallo! Hallo!

( Source )

겁먹지마 니 심장소리가 들켜 (쉿!)

뒤에 서서 침착하게 지켜봐봐

탐난다고 서두르단 결국 Game set

유연하게 행동해봐 As usual it’s mine

Hide your fear, your heartbeat will be detected (shh!)

Stand behind [me], calmly try to keep watch

Even if it is desirable, if you hurry in the end Game set

Try to be flexible As usual it’s mine

( Source )

Most of that was pretty basic, provided you know that adding “보다” to the end of a verb, and conjugated in banmal (반말; informal speech) as “봐”, simply means try to do the verb. At the end of line 2, it’s added to “지켜보다” (to keep watch), hence the “지켜봐봐”.

But I don’t understand line 3 at all: “탐난다” means “be desirable” (not “burn” as given everywhere else: that’s “타다”), which is simple enough, but then it’s given as indirect speech, as indicated by the “~ㄴ다고” ending. But who said what is desirable? And what’s the connection to “서두르다” (hurry) after that for that matter, and while we’re at it what’s the “ㄴ” doing at the end of that too?

To make sense of it then, I suggested to my wife that possibly something like “탐나더라도” was intended, the “더라더” being a grammar pattern meaning “no matter how much, even though, I don’t care if”, and so on, and she concurred.

Finally, line 4 is literally “flexibly act/behave-try-to”.

( Source )

Next, there’s the main chorus. As you can see though, there’s just one Korean line in it, and its simply “Go/climb high, try to grab/take all the world”:

(Eo eo eo) It’s  mine

(Eo eo eo) This is mine

(Eo eo eo) This is mine

(Eo eo eo)

높이 올라 가 (Ye Ye Ye) 세상을 다 가져봐 (Ye Ye Ye)

Never back it up Back it it up (it it up)

Never turn it up Turn it it up (it it up)

( Source )

Hallo! Hallo! Hallo! Hallo! Hallo! Catch!

Hallo! Hallo! Catch! Catch! Hallo! Hallo!

한눈팔면 기회조차 뺏겨버려 (쉿!)

누구보다 한발 먼저 다가가 봐

남들처럼 티내다간 결국 Game set

유연하게 행동해봐 As usual it’s mine

If you so much as glance away, you’ll throw away your chance (shh!)

You should take the first step and try to approach

If you have the air of everyone else in the end Game set

Try to be flexible As usual it’s mine

( Source )

In Line 1 (of the Korean), “한눈” is literally “one eye”, and “팔다” sell, but hopefully it’s not too much of a jump to see that “selling one eye” means “look (or glance) away”, especially as the listener was already told to keep watch in the last verse.

Then, next to “기회” (chance, opportunity) there is the grammar pattern “조차”, which basically means “even, to boot, in addition”, as in “목이 아파서 밥은커녕 물한 잔조차 마실 수 없다” for example, or “My throat is so sore that I can’t even drink a glass of water, let alone eat rice”.

But with the next, “뱃기다” (be dispossessed of) plus the grammar pattern “버리다” added to it, which adds a sense of completely ruining or throwing away something, then in English the “even” seemed a bit awkward. So I came up with “If you so much as glance away, you’ll throw away your chance” instead.

Then line 2 is literally “who than- one step – first – approach try to”, so I think “You should take the first step and try to approach” gets the gist of that. And the “who” (or rather “they”) referred to is the “남들” in line 3, which I originally thought was an abbreviation for men (“남자” plus the plural marker “들”),  but it turns out to mean “other people” instead. But note though, that that’s not in the sense that the male is used the default for both genders like in Spanish(?), as they’re different words: the “남” in “남들” has no hanja (Chinese character) root, whereas that for “남자” does, and indeed you’ll often see it – 男 – on doors to toilets and men’s changing rooms and so on (and while we’re on the topic, here’s the one for women {여} too: 女).

Finally, in line 3 “티내다” wasn’t in my electronic dictionary, but “티” can mean “an air”, and pulling a thick print dictionary from my bookcase with more examples  of that usage confirmed it.

( Source )

Next, the chorus is repeated, then you have:

이제 차근차근 걸어나가봐

세상 하나하나 전부 가득 담아봐

특별하길 원하니 네 것이길 바라니

시작해 Uh! Yeah, yeah!!

Now try to step out slowly and carefully

Try to fill in each and every part of the whole world

Do you want to be special? Do you hope it will be yours?

Start Uh! Yeah, yeah!!

( Source )

First up, in line 1, “차근차근” can mean “scrupulously”, “methodically”, “systematically”, and so on, but the final, more literal meaning of “step by step” seems most appropriate here. But then “Step out step by step” sounds awkward in English though, so I changed it to “slowly and carefully” instead. That does seem to contradict the carpe diem spirit of the song a little unfortunately, but I think that’s the fault of the original Korean!

Then you have “걸어나가다”, which was annoying for me as a beginner (Yet another word for “walk”?? And Koreans complain about learning English!), but is quite easy to understand really. You see, “걷다”, which is irregular and so conjugates as “걸어~”, is your basic “walk”.  But then you can have things like “가다” and “오다” added to them, giving “걸어오다” and “걸어가다”, and which simply mean “walk” plus “come” and “go” respectively, or “walk towards [the speaker]” and “walk away from [the speaker]” in English. And with “걸어나가다” in the song, “나가다” simply means “go/step out”, giving “walk out”. Granted, it can also mean “walk towards, approach” according to the dictionary, (and don’t forget that “다가가다” from the last verse means “approach” too!), but “walk out” seems much more appropriate given the context of the previous verses.

Line 2 was very annoying though. Literally, it is “world – one by one – all parts/whole – full – fill/put in try to”, which can probably be translated many different ways (but not one by one as in separate worlds though), and “Try to fill in each and every part of the whole world” was the best I could do.

But that was a doddle compared to line 3. First up, “특별하다” means “to be special”, but then adding “기” at the end changes it to a noun, and then the “ㄹ” makes it the object. So, “specialness”, with the “원하다” being “want” plus the “니” at the end being an informal question form, and usually implying that the speaker places themself slightly higher than the listener – usually determined by age, as explained by Seamus Walsh in his comments to a translation of another song (a belated thanks for those by the way!). Which gives “Do you want specialness”, or “Do you want to be special?”.

Then you have “것이길 바라니”. “바라다” means “desire”, “hope for”, and “look forward to” (you’ll often see the formal form “바랍니다” at the end of signs on the subway and so on), and it includes the “니” form at the end as just explained. But “것이길”? I guess it’s “것” (thing) plus “이다” (to be) plus “기” to make it a noun, then “ㄹ” to make all that an object. So literally “your thing – the act of beingness – hope for”!

And that’s it, but for the 2nd half of the chorus again:

높이 올라 가 (Ye Ye Ye) 세상을 다 가져 봐 (Uh yeah)

Never back it up Back it it up (it it up)

Never turn it up Turn it it up (uh yeah, yeah!!)

As a reward for slogging your way through all that, let me present you with the DJ Amaya vs Groovebot Hard Club Edit, which reminds me a lot  of what I used to dance to in clubs 10-15 years ago (wistful sigh):

Originally, this particular KARA fan didn’t like it much. But it rapidly grew on her, and you can see how she felt when it finally finished:

Next week: I Don’t Care by 2NE1.

Filed under: Girl Groups, Korean Music, Song Lyrics & Translations Tagged: 루팡, 카라, Kara, Lupin

Korea How interviews England native Simon Bond, who is currently living in Suncheon, Korea. His work has been featured in galleries and publications around the world. Although he is most well-known for his perspective-bending glass ball photographs, the popularity of his collection on Getty Images is proof that he has an eye for great travel images as well.

Q: How long have you lived in Korea?
A: 4 years.

Q: What’s your job?
A: English teacher and a freelance photographer.

Q: Where did you take this photo?
A: Yangshuo, China.

Q: What’s the story behind the photo?
A: This photo was taken on a distinctly unpromising day for landscape photography. I remember the day was grey, and visibility was nothing special. We’d paid for a riverboat cruise from Guilin down to Yangshuo.

In the afternoon we got taken to another river, and it was there I took the shot. The photo was taken at full zoom on a 70-300mm lens with a Canon 40D, making the focal length effectively 500mm (this is to do with the conversion to focal length you need to make for cameras with crop sensors).

Q: Why did you include the people in the photo?
A: We were on a bamboo raft and had just got to a riverbank and I saw a scene within the scene in front of us. The two people in the bottom right of the photo added a lot to this image as the people give the mountains in the background a sense of scale.

The two people standing as they were also reminded me of a photo I’d taken in the UK two years previously. I think this helped me “see“ this photo faster and indeed I only really had time to take one or two shots before these people had gone. I feel for me the photo has a romantic side of two people standing together against the backdrop of the grandeur of these mountains.

Q: How did you get that layered look with the mountains in the background?
A: I think the layered look was helped by the fact I’ve used a telephoto lens here, with the mountains being some way in the background this allows them all to be framed in the one photograph as the angle for the point of view is quite narrow. I’ve taken photographs in S.Korea that have this layered mountain look, and that has also been with the aid of a telephoto lens. It also has to be said that the geography in this area of China helps a lot when creating this layered mountain look, as there are many karst mountains here.

Q: Do you have any tips for taking better travel photographs?
A: When it comes to travel photography it’s often a good idea to research the place you’re going to visit, and then plan the type of photographs you’d like to take.

If you can possibly plan your trip so you’ll be there when the weather is at it’s best. The weather is not all important though, as it should be possible to take good shots in the rain or the sunshine, just you’ll have to think of some different types of photos.

In an ideal world you’d also have several days in a place to consider the photos you’d want to get. Perhaps there is somewhere that works for a photo much better at sunrise, in which case coming back to that location at the optimum time is desirable.

As was said in a previous post, it’s also a good idea not to stay in any one location for too long. If you are on a time limit getting that good shot and then moving on is important because what you’re really looking to do with travel photography is to tell the story of a place and this is often achieved through a variety of shots.

One last thing I should mention is be quick on the draw like a cowboy in a good western movie, because once that “moment” is gone you’re not going to get it back.

Q: Wow, thanks for all that great advice. What’s your favorite travel quote?
A: “Photography, as we all know, is not real at all. It is an illusion of reality with which we create our own private world.” ~ Arnold Newman

You can see more of Simon Bond’s work here:

Blog: 369 Photo
On Flickr: Mr. Bond
Website: 369photography.co.uk (under construction at time of writing)

In case you missed it: check out the previous Travel Photo of The Week of Seoul, Korea by Gregory Curley.