Last week, I asked three rhetorical questions that I hope will help me guide this blog. I'm sure I'll continue to evolve or have fun sidebars, but those guiding questions will be:
1) What needs to be built up instead of tear down?
2) What are you willing to sacrifice in order to build?
3) What is the work that is going unnoticed that deserves attention?
I'm still not sure exactly how to go about answering those questions -- if they were easy answers, they wouldn't be hard questions -- but I'm considering finding hot-button but off-the-radar topics that I can try to dive into in-depth. If you have ideas or topics you'd like to see in this space, send me a Facebook message or call me or contact me. I've already featured several reader topics here already, and answering other people's questions is a lot more fun anyway.
Topics I'm considering deeper dives into: Gerrymandering/Redistricting (One of my favorites), Transportation (another personal favorite), the F-35 program (I've talked about this before) and Health Care Reform. Again: Send me your topics, tips or ideas!
Vengeance is Mine, Sayeth the N.C. GOP
To answer question 3, that goes both ways. If there's work being done maliciously, that deserves just as much attention as the good work that I'd normally want to point out. And there's a good example of malicious partisan work on the state level taking place in North Carolina.
A few things to remember real quick before I dive deeper: 1) North Carolina is a hotly contested swing state, so it's a fairly split state in terms of partisanship. 2) It's also incredibly gerrymandered. So much so that courts have struck down their districts and ordered new elections next year because the districts were so unfair. But those elected in the unfair districts still serve until then.
Anyway, after a fierce campaign, Democrat Roy Cooper won the gubernatorial (fun adjective form of governor) race over incumbent GOP Gov. Pat McCrory by about 10,000 votes. This was a surprise — a Democrat winning the governor race in a state that voted for Trump. The GOP-controlled state legislature is lashing out, calling an unplanned special session (!) to make drastic changes to the power of the governor, who suddenly isn't the same party as they are anymore. They've introduced the following bills, and they have the power/ability to pass them all before Cooper takes office:
1) County election boards currently have 3 members, with 2 in the governor's party and 1 in the minority's party. The N.C. GOP is trying to change it to 4 members, with 2 from each party.
2) The State Board of Elections, which has 9 members and 5 from the governor's party, would move to 10 members, with 5 from each party. This board appoints the county election board members.
3) Require State Senate approval of the governor's Cabinet.
4) Strip the governor of the right to pick trustees of the University of North Carolina
5) Grant Civil Service protection (can't be fired by the incoming governor) to hundreds of agency managers who were appointed by GOP Gov. McCrory.
In covering and watching politics for so long, I am often hesitant to answer the question of intentions. Is a politician doing this bad thing because they think they're doing the right thing, or are they presenting a front of sensibility while having malicious intent? It's hard to know without being inside someone's head, and even then — sometimes you can fool yourself. And to label someone as bad without knowing the answer to that intent question is to say you know more about someone's psychology than they do.
However, looking at the actions listed above, the intentions are clearly vindictive. The GOP had no problem benefiting from the governor's party-leaning boards and appointees in the past. Now they find themselves about to lose that power, and they are calling an unplanned, last-minute special session to wrest some of that power back. One lawmaker was quoted as saying Republicans in North Carolina would "work to establish that we are going to continue to be a relevant party in governing the state." That's the most blatant example of putting party above the will of the people I've seen.
Related note: Democrat Mike Morgan won election to the N.C. State Supreme Court, giving Democrats a 4-3 edge. Some thought Morgan only won because people thought he was actually a Republican. Rumors abounded after Cooper won the governorship that the GOP would add two (implied Republican) seats to the State Supreme Court, but those didn't happen. Instead, they have filed a bill to add party designations to State Supreme Court elections.
Clean Out Your Cabinet
For my first foray back into politics after a while, I wanted to look at the Cabinet that President-Elect Trump (that will not get any easier to say/write) is assembling. I wrote detailed analysis of each of these folks before I had the big revelation last week about what I wanted this site to do. So instead of running those in full, I'll just sum them up here:
Good picks
Chief of Staff -- Reince Priebus
U.N. Ambassador -- Nikki Haley
Secretary of Transportation -- Elaine Chao
Secretary of Commerce -- Wilbur Ross
Secretary of Treasury -- Steve Mnuchin
Secretary of Defense -- Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis
Small Business Administration... administrator (needs a new title) -- Linda McMahon
Reservations, from Least to Most
HHS Secretary -- Tom Price
Secretary of Labor -- Andy Puzder
CIA Director -- Mike Pompeo
EPA Administrator -- Scott Pruitt
HUD Secretary -- Ben Carson
Secretary of Energy -- Rick Perry
Secretary of Homeland Security -- Gen. John Kelly
Secretary of State -- Rex Tillerson (I think he's unlikely to get approved, actually)
Highly Troubling
Attorney General -- Jeff Sessions
Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor -- Steve Bannon
National Security Advisor -- Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Mike Flynn
Secretary of Education -- Betsy DeVos
One final note: Of the 26 Cabinet-level or White House staff positions, there are only 4 women so far. The highest ranking is Secretary of Education. There are only 3 persons of color: 1 African-American (Carson), one Asian-American (Chao), and one Indian-American (Haley). This is a white male Cabinet. While I'm not advocating affirmative action, to imagine the selection of an almost entirely white male Cabinet is... a product of a bygone era.
Unnamed Emotions
Facebook has added new response buttons beyond the "like." They're useful, so I don't have to "like" someone's relative dying or "like" frustrating news. But I need one called "defeated sigh." It's an emotion we have all the time, but none of the buttons fit it... sad might be the closest. The Royals trade away a key player or the Chiefs/Sooners/Thunder blow a big game? Defeated sigh. Most political news stories (especially those to come over the next four years)? Defeated sigh. Forecast for the weekend is in the single digits with snow when my kids desperately need some outdoors time? Defeated sigh. Looking for that one ingredient you need for the dinner you're already cooking when you remember you don't have it? Defeated sigh. Stomach rumbles unpolitely Monday morning after everyone in your family has been sick with the stomach bug over the weekend? Defeated sigh. It's the feeling of "Oh, right... I should have seen this coming, though I hoped it wouldn't."
Summary Judgments
I was fooled by this story, too. I thought it had some embellishment (My first red flag: the kid somehow had a full conversation before immediately dying?), but didn't consider whether the story was true in general. I should have never put my faith in a man who looks like — but isn't — Santa Claus! • • • ISIS is not what it was. President Obama deserves a lot of credit for this, because the centralized ISIS (Iraq and Syria) is starting to fall apart. The only problem is that it's moving into a splintered international organization, like Al Qaeda used to be. That means new challenges for the incoming administration. • • • I love the idea behind the Australian word of the year, "Democracy Sausage." • • • The Cleveland Browns are their own punchline, but this takes the cake. An opposing player called a Browns wide receiver "garbage" after their game this week. Browns wide receiver Terrelle Pryor's response? "He was right. It was an accurate statement." • • • Asparagus pee is a hotly debated topic in my own household. I think of it as a problem. Alyson doesn't know what I'm talking about. Finally, a story comes out... and it turns out there's a reason for both of our views. • • • We're starting potty training with Evie (Roland is not ready.). She's sitting, but not really doing anything so far. The other day at dinner, I heard a noise from her, and I asked her if she tooted or went poo-poo. "I tooted. I tooted all night!"
Thursday, December 15, 2016
Thursday, December 8, 2016
How Tomi Lahren's Daily Show Appearance Made Me Reconsider My Purpose
I intently watched the numerous Jon Stewart-Bill O'Reilly interviews, because they were fascinating and two men with differing worldviews sitting down and having a give-and-take. It was a chance for both to show a little self awareness, have an honest discussion, and truly reveal themselves a bit when presented with a proper foil — a literary term for contrasting opposite. (Note: The perils of parallel construction: USA Today beat me to this comparison.)
So it was with the same sort of curiosity that I watched Trevor Noah interview The Blaze host and conservative firebrand Tomi Lahren. The full interview goes on for 26 minutes, and I've watched it several times. I've read as many views about the Lahren-Noah interview as I can. Some saw it as a star turn from Trevor Noah, revealing his unique perspective as a product of apartheid South Africa. Some on the right saw it as Lahren rising above Noah and his bias or that Noah had bad intentions. Some said Noah "destroy[ed]", "skewered," "fried," "obliterated" her and one that said she "eviscerated" him (I had a link, but lost it). CNN called the interview "fiery," which is a gross mischaracterization of the interview. Some called the interview a "failure." I don't think any of those are true.
After reading all of these perspectives and more, I think it was an attempt for one side to understand the other, but it was not reciprocated. I don't think anyone was shamed or disemboweled or that it failed — every bridge begins with a first step toward the other, which this interview resembled. It was civil in that neither talked over the other. I can appreciate a good dialogue. I liked this perspective by The Ringer about the inconsequential nature of the debate, but thought it missed some of the importance. I thought this was an interesting perspective that the debates the two had were on issues that were relatively inconsequential for white people, but a matter of severe importance to minorities. Here's another perspective by The Ringer that made me rethink everything.
On one hand, I was sad, because the two were ready for two different events. Noah came looking for a conversation while Lahren came for a fight. For as much as those like Lahren feel they've been misunderstood by the left, they have a hard time understanding the views of the left. Throughout the interview, I feel that Noah was trying to understand. Several times he repeated back what she was saying in a "Am I stating your views right?" sort of way. An interviewer holds a lot of power: Think of it as playing as the white pieces in chess. He was quieter, listened more, and offered answers when Lahren would throw out rhetorical questions. Afterward, he praised her on Twitter and thanked her for coming on his show — an olive branch. But I don't think Tomi Lahren and her kind (punditry) are interested in meeting halfway. She reacted to the interview with an anger-filled segment about how right she is and how wrong the liberals are.
Originally, I wrote many paragraphs analytically breaking down the interview. After some reflection, I decided that wasn't the right tactic. I've been wrong in the way I react to these events. Breaking them down analytically becomes post-game analysis, as though politics — with its effects on people and their lives — is a sport to be won. They're wrong and we're right, and we're only happy when we win and they lose. That's unhealthy outside of sports.
I'm trying to figure out what I want this space to be and how I want to use my voice as a writer. The purpose has already changed since it began, but I haven't found satisfaction with the path I'm on. Nietzsche once wrote "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster; and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." I fear that in my own battles with partisanship, I've become the monster I was fighting.
I've been trying to come up with some guiding questions for this blog, and I don't quite have them nailed down yet. But I do have a few thoughts that are shaping my development of those questions.
The first is an adage I don't know where I heard and I can't find in any book, but is easily verified by basic research. Demolition costs a fraction of the cost of new construction because it's easier to tear down than build something new. It's harder to build than tear down, and I want to be in the construction business. Construction means safety, security, and a path forward. Construction is more important because it is harder.
But construction has its costs. In order to build, you have to be willing to sacrifice something: land, time, money, etc. Politically, this has its meaning, too: Everything comes with sacrifices and trade-offs. What are you willing to sacrifice in order to build? Building a new path doesn't come without its costs.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly for this site: What is the hard work that deserves more attention? If I want to value the difficult, unpopular construction of compromises and trade-offs, then I need to actually value that work.
I don't know what this will look like yet. Construction isn't easy. But I hope you'll help me build.
Do News Values Create More Harm than Good?
I've been thinking about the purpose of journalism these days. When I was in journalism classes, we learned the (usually 6-9) factors in newsworthiness/news value/news judgment. Some expand the factors to 12.
One of those news factors has garnered most of my attention: conflict. I think journalism is very good at conflict. It's the reason sports pages do well and the reason politics is so highly covered. It's why, whenever there's an argument or a Twitter fight between famous people or disagreement, that conflict is in the news. Journalists are great at describing this side v. that side. Prosecution v. defense. Liberals v. conservatives. Rural v. urban. Chiefs v. Raiders. This side has these qualities and these arguments and that side has those qualities and those arguments.
But it's interesting that conflict's is among the factors, but resolution is not. Journalists don't do resolution very well. They almost never offer solutions, the ending to battles is less newsworthy than the battle itself, and most arguments tend to fizzle out, which doesn't make for great stories. Conflict is newsworthy, but resolution is necessary.
I'm worried that this focus on conflict is harmful. It's the unhealthy aspect I noted earlier. If journalists value conflict more than resolution, they're sharing that subconsciously with their readers: Resolution's not worth our time (and therefore yours).
Summary Judgments
Loved this story on Mike Schur (who's created many of the best comedies on TV right now) and how he creates cold opens. • • • Every year, I read the "Hater's Guide to the Williams-Sonoma Catalog" with gusto. It's immature, I know, but I love every bit of it. Alyson and I wait and read it together because it's usually so ridiculous. Our favorite of all time is the acorn-shaped kitchen twine holder. So luxurious. So useless. • • • SAVE THE GIRAFFES! • • • I'm not eating particularly well lately. It's the holidays, which is my excuse. And I've yet to make Christmas cookies, so that's not great. But at least I'm not drinking as much pop as I used to, so... win? • • • Christmas cookie plans: Puppy chow, icebox cookies, rice krispie treats, sugar cookies. NOMNOMNOM • • • We have had a mouse problem lately. After two weeks of setting multiple traps and baits out, a trap in our silverware drawer (Ew...) finally got him. As the man of the house, I had the job of removing the dead mouse from the house. I won't act like I was particularly brave or not-grossed-out by this. But you can pretend I was! • • • Mom asked me what the kids think of Christmas/Santa. It's hard to tell with kids with a limited vocabulary, but they understand Santa is a thing, but don't quite know what Christmas/Santa means. Roland's said "Jesus' Birthday" a few times, but he's also confused Santa with Jesus, so I don't know what he thinks.
So it was with the same sort of curiosity that I watched Trevor Noah interview The Blaze host and conservative firebrand Tomi Lahren. The full interview goes on for 26 minutes, and I've watched it several times. I've read as many views about the Lahren-Noah interview as I can. Some saw it as a star turn from Trevor Noah, revealing his unique perspective as a product of apartheid South Africa. Some on the right saw it as Lahren rising above Noah and his bias or that Noah had bad intentions. Some said Noah "destroy[ed]", "skewered," "fried," "obliterated" her and one that said she "eviscerated" him (I had a link, but lost it). CNN called the interview "fiery," which is a gross mischaracterization of the interview. Some called the interview a "failure." I don't think any of those are true.
After reading all of these perspectives and more, I think it was an attempt for one side to understand the other, but it was not reciprocated. I don't think anyone was shamed or disemboweled or that it failed — every bridge begins with a first step toward the other, which this interview resembled. It was civil in that neither talked over the other. I can appreciate a good dialogue. I liked this perspective by The Ringer about the inconsequential nature of the debate, but thought it missed some of the importance. I thought this was an interesting perspective that the debates the two had were on issues that were relatively inconsequential for white people, but a matter of severe importance to minorities. Here's another perspective by The Ringer that made me rethink everything.
On one hand, I was sad, because the two were ready for two different events. Noah came looking for a conversation while Lahren came for a fight. For as much as those like Lahren feel they've been misunderstood by the left, they have a hard time understanding the views of the left. Throughout the interview, I feel that Noah was trying to understand. Several times he repeated back what she was saying in a "Am I stating your views right?" sort of way. An interviewer holds a lot of power: Think of it as playing as the white pieces in chess. He was quieter, listened more, and offered answers when Lahren would throw out rhetorical questions. Afterward, he praised her on Twitter and thanked her for coming on his show — an olive branch. But I don't think Tomi Lahren and her kind (punditry) are interested in meeting halfway. She reacted to the interview with an anger-filled segment about how right she is and how wrong the liberals are.
Originally, I wrote many paragraphs analytically breaking down the interview. After some reflection, I decided that wasn't the right tactic. I've been wrong in the way I react to these events. Breaking them down analytically becomes post-game analysis, as though politics — with its effects on people and their lives — is a sport to be won. They're wrong and we're right, and we're only happy when we win and they lose. That's unhealthy outside of sports.
I'm trying to figure out what I want this space to be and how I want to use my voice as a writer. The purpose has already changed since it began, but I haven't found satisfaction with the path I'm on. Nietzsche once wrote "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster; and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." I fear that in my own battles with partisanship, I've become the monster I was fighting.
I've been trying to come up with some guiding questions for this blog, and I don't quite have them nailed down yet. But I do have a few thoughts that are shaping my development of those questions.
The first is an adage I don't know where I heard and I can't find in any book, but is easily verified by basic research. Demolition costs a fraction of the cost of new construction because it's easier to tear down than build something new. It's harder to build than tear down, and I want to be in the construction business. Construction means safety, security, and a path forward. Construction is more important because it is harder.
But construction has its costs. In order to build, you have to be willing to sacrifice something: land, time, money, etc. Politically, this has its meaning, too: Everything comes with sacrifices and trade-offs. What are you willing to sacrifice in order to build? Building a new path doesn't come without its costs.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly for this site: What is the hard work that deserves more attention? If I want to value the difficult, unpopular construction of compromises and trade-offs, then I need to actually value that work.
I don't know what this will look like yet. Construction isn't easy. But I hope you'll help me build.
Do News Values Create More Harm than Good?
I've been thinking about the purpose of journalism these days. When I was in journalism classes, we learned the (usually 6-9) factors in newsworthiness/news value/news judgment. Some expand the factors to 12.
One of those news factors has garnered most of my attention: conflict. I think journalism is very good at conflict. It's the reason sports pages do well and the reason politics is so highly covered. It's why, whenever there's an argument or a Twitter fight between famous people or disagreement, that conflict is in the news. Journalists are great at describing this side v. that side. Prosecution v. defense. Liberals v. conservatives. Rural v. urban. Chiefs v. Raiders. This side has these qualities and these arguments and that side has those qualities and those arguments.
But it's interesting that conflict's is among the factors, but resolution is not. Journalists don't do resolution very well. They almost never offer solutions, the ending to battles is less newsworthy than the battle itself, and most arguments tend to fizzle out, which doesn't make for great stories. Conflict is newsworthy, but resolution is necessary.
I'm worried that this focus on conflict is harmful. It's the unhealthy aspect I noted earlier. If journalists value conflict more than resolution, they're sharing that subconsciously with their readers: Resolution's not worth our time (and therefore yours).
Summary Judgments
Loved this story on Mike Schur (who's created many of the best comedies on TV right now) and how he creates cold opens. • • • Every year, I read the "Hater's Guide to the Williams-Sonoma Catalog" with gusto. It's immature, I know, but I love every bit of it. Alyson and I wait and read it together because it's usually so ridiculous. Our favorite of all time is the acorn-shaped kitchen twine holder. So luxurious. So useless. • • • SAVE THE GIRAFFES! • • • I'm not eating particularly well lately. It's the holidays, which is my excuse. And I've yet to make Christmas cookies, so that's not great. But at least I'm not drinking as much pop as I used to, so... win? • • • Christmas cookie plans: Puppy chow, icebox cookies, rice krispie treats, sugar cookies. NOMNOMNOM • • • We have had a mouse problem lately. After two weeks of setting multiple traps and baits out, a trap in our silverware drawer (Ew...) finally got him. As the man of the house, I had the job of removing the dead mouse from the house. I won't act like I was particularly brave or not-grossed-out by this. But you can pretend I was! • • • Mom asked me what the kids think of Christmas/Santa. It's hard to tell with kids with a limited vocabulary, but they understand Santa is a thing, but don't quite know what Christmas/Santa means. Roland's said "Jesus' Birthday" a few times, but he's also confused Santa with Jesus, so I don't know what he thinks.
Thursday, December 1, 2016
South (Korea) Park
While I'm still trying to rid myself of the stink of American politics, I've been fascinated by politics taking place across a Big Pond. No, not the Atlantic, but rather the Pacific.
South Korea is about to ouster their President, Park Geun-Hye. If it were happening in America, we would be frothing at the mouth with media attention. Why? Well, the words "cult," "Samsung," "assassination," and "Viagra" are all involved. Let's try to make sense of it, shall we?
Note: I took East Asian History 1500-present in college. The country whose names I had the most trouble with were North/South Korea. So to make things easier, I'm going to give a terribly Americanized version of each major figure's name after the first use, and then use that American version going forward. I'm sorry if this offends my (I'm-sure-they-exist) Korean readers, but it'll be easier on American readers.
In order to understand everything, we have to start chronologically. Park Geun-Hye (Let's call her Jenny Park)'s parents were Park Chung-Hee (Charlie Park) and Yuk Young-Soo (Sue York). Very long story in four sentences, Charlie Park was the leader of a coup d'état that created a dictatorship in South Korea in the 1960s/1970s. He was the elected president for most of those two decades, but he also created the dangerously empowered Korean CIA and created a highly authoritarian new constitution. He did some good things (made South Korea a much stronger economy and stronger army), but was still a dictator. Many Koreans consider him the best president ever, while many younger Koreans think of him as a dictator.
His wife, Sue York, was assassinated in 1974 by a North Korean sympathizer in a messier, more botched version of the Lincoln assassination — her husband was giving a speech in a theater, but the assassin shot all his rounds at him wildly, only hitting her. Charlie Park himself was assassinated five years later in 1979 by the director of the Korean CIA (!) inside the Blue House presidential compound (the Korean version of the White House). Think of Charlie Park's assassination as the South Korean version of the JFK assassination — it was a where-were-you-when-you-heard event for South Korea, as I understand it.
So when Jenny Park's mom, Sue York, was assassinated, she was befriended by a former police officer turned cult leader named Choi Tae-min (I'll call him Tim Joy) who told Jenny that Sue had appeared to him in a dream. Thanks to WikiLeaks, we know that the American embassy considered him to be a Korean Rasputin to young Jenny Park. Jenny also became very close friends with Tim's daughter, Choi Soon-sil (Sunny Joy).
Zoom forward several decades, and Jenny Park has become South Korea's 11th president. Sunny Joy's now-ex husband had once served as Jenny's chief of staff. The more pressing issue was that Jenny and Sunny regularly talked about policy and shared confidential material. Sunny used her friendship with help from Jenny's staff to extort roughly $75 million from major conglomerations, possibly including Samsung, into her own foundations. Sunny also pressed a major South Korean university into changing their admission rules to get her daughter into the school. Jenny's staff, now under arrest for corruption, say they were following Jenny's orders. Sunny is under arrest, too. It's important to note here that the South Korean Constitution grants immunity to presidents like Jenny while they're in office.
So Jenny, already an unpopular leader, became even more unpopular amongst South Koreans once the news of her colluding with Sunny broke in October. Her approval rating dropped to around 5 percent (!) and is lower among the youngest in South Korea, roughly 1-2 percent. By comparison, Trump and Clinton's approval ratings are usually in the 30-50 percent range.
Major protests took place across the country last month, drawing 1-2 million people each Saturday for the last few weeks (There has been some violence, but the crowds are trying very hard to show how peaceful they are and are cleaning up after themselves before dispersing). The American equivalent of those numbers are 6-12 million people. Jenny gave a speech on Tuesday to say she would step down if the South Korean Congress wants her to and if they work with her for the transition process. She also didn't admit to wrongdoing, sort of pulling a "I did what I thought was right, but I should have managed my terrible staff better." South Korea's Congress: Nope, you're just avoiding impeachment, which is going to happen as planned.
Think that's crazy? There's more, because you may be wondering how Viagra works into all this. On Wednesday, after her big speech, Jenny's staff admitted to buying 360 Viagra pills using government money. The excuse was that her staff was making a trip to Africa, and wanted to treat altitude sickness, but they ended up never using the drugs. (Sometimes South Korean doctors prescribe Viagra-style drugs for climbers. Jenny's staff was not climbing in Africa.)
This story is wild, and there's nothing really like it. If you think our politics are scandalous already, imagine what it would be like if he were as corrupt as Park Geun-Hye.
Broken Campaign Promises
One of the three major chants you heard at Trump rallies is already a broken promise. You can make an argument that all three are likely to be broken. In order, those three chants were: Build the Wall, Lock Her Up and Drain the Swamp.
On the Tuesday before Thanksgiving, the Trump administration announced they would not be pursuing charges for Clinton for either the email scandal or for the Clinton Foundation. He won't seek a special prosecutor as he said during the second debate. He won't Lock Her Up. There's no way of sugarcoating this or pretending it's not a broken promise. It has the benefit of making Trump look like the one extending the olive branch, but he's also the one who was pressing the issue in the first place. It means his rhetoric was hollow, which was kind of what his opponents said all along.
Further, on the Drain the Swamp chant, most of his administration is insiders so far. I can think of one to two outsiders, but almost everyone else has been a sitting legislator or a recently involved political leader. More on this when I get back to talking politics in a week or two.
Finally, the Build the Wall chant is another (economically) nationalist chant. But now he's saying it could just be a fence. That's not a "big, beautiful wall."
He's not even president. If these three major chants at his rallies mean nothing to him, then what does?
This Ain't Checkers
I was in the chess club as a high school freshman. Then, as a sophomore, there was a schoolwide call to organize the Chess Club the next year. I was the only one who showed up. So with all that in mind, I have LOVED the coverage by FiveThirtyEight's Oliver Roeder of the ongoing chess showdown between No. 1 Magnus Carlsen of Norway and No. 7(ish) Sergey Karjakin of Russia. Here's his story on the final matches.
The two played 12 regular games, lasting up to 7 hours. They ended in a tie, with 10 draws and each winning a game. That sent it to chess overtime, which is a faster version: 25 minutes a side, but four matches total, with each on white twice. If they were even after that, they'd go to crazy fast chess: 5 minutes a side, each gets a turn at white. If they were even after THAT, they'd go to "armageddon" chess: 5 minutes for white, 4 for black, but a draw is a win for black.
Luckily, they never had to go to crazy fast chess or armageddon. The first overtime of four faster versions of chess settled it. The first overtime game was a blah draw. The second was a draw, but Carlsen had chances to capitalize on and couldn't. The third game was where the fireworks happened, when Karjakin's time was running down, and he made an error that brought about eventual checkmate. The fourth game was a matter of Karjakin, one of the best at playing defense, trying too hard to play offense and getting caught by Carlsen. The "Mozart of Chess" won the World Championships again. I'm sorry for these three paragraphs, but I've loved following it — it's like the Olympics or the World Cup in that I only care for like, two weeks every 2-4 years.
Summary Judgments
Oh, man. I spent so many hours playing Super Smash Bros, and now Melee is 15 years old. Now I feel ancient. Thanks, passage of time. • • • I watched so many episodes of Double Dare as a kid. So that made the oral history of the Double Dare obstacle course a worthwhile read. • • • I don't have any running stories, since I'm not running until mid-January. My season is over this year. • • • Oh, the kids have been fighting lately. Evie will extend her arm out and flap at Roland. Roland will complain that she hit him. Or later, Roland will jump on the couch over and over, increasingly close to her until his arm or leg flops on her. Then she'll push him in the face. She's more aggressive of the two, but Roland is good at emotionally manipulating her. They need to teach classes to only children who grow up to be parents on how to deal with this, because I am not ready.
South Korea is about to ouster their President, Park Geun-Hye. If it were happening in America, we would be frothing at the mouth with media attention. Why? Well, the words "cult," "Samsung," "assassination," and "Viagra" are all involved. Let's try to make sense of it, shall we?
Note: I took East Asian History 1500-present in college. The country whose names I had the most trouble with were North/South Korea. So to make things easier, I'm going to give a terribly Americanized version of each major figure's name after the first use, and then use that American version going forward. I'm sorry if this offends my (I'm-sure-they-exist) Korean readers, but it'll be easier on American readers.
In order to understand everything, we have to start chronologically. Park Geun-Hye (Let's call her Jenny Park)'s parents were Park Chung-Hee (Charlie Park) and Yuk Young-Soo (Sue York). Very long story in four sentences, Charlie Park was the leader of a coup d'état that created a dictatorship in South Korea in the 1960s/1970s. He was the elected president for most of those two decades, but he also created the dangerously empowered Korean CIA and created a highly authoritarian new constitution. He did some good things (made South Korea a much stronger economy and stronger army), but was still a dictator. Many Koreans consider him the best president ever, while many younger Koreans think of him as a dictator.
His wife, Sue York, was assassinated in 1974 by a North Korean sympathizer in a messier, more botched version of the Lincoln assassination — her husband was giving a speech in a theater, but the assassin shot all his rounds at him wildly, only hitting her. Charlie Park himself was assassinated five years later in 1979 by the director of the Korean CIA (!) inside the Blue House presidential compound (the Korean version of the White House). Think of Charlie Park's assassination as the South Korean version of the JFK assassination — it was a where-were-you-when-you-heard event for South Korea, as I understand it.
So when Jenny Park's mom, Sue York, was assassinated, she was befriended by a former police officer turned cult leader named Choi Tae-min (I'll call him Tim Joy) who told Jenny that Sue had appeared to him in a dream. Thanks to WikiLeaks, we know that the American embassy considered him to be a Korean Rasputin to young Jenny Park. Jenny also became very close friends with Tim's daughter, Choi Soon-sil (Sunny Joy).
Zoom forward several decades, and Jenny Park has become South Korea's 11th president. Sunny Joy's now-ex husband had once served as Jenny's chief of staff. The more pressing issue was that Jenny and Sunny regularly talked about policy and shared confidential material. Sunny used her friendship with help from Jenny's staff to extort roughly $75 million from major conglomerations, possibly including Samsung, into her own foundations. Sunny also pressed a major South Korean university into changing their admission rules to get her daughter into the school. Jenny's staff, now under arrest for corruption, say they were following Jenny's orders. Sunny is under arrest, too. It's important to note here that the South Korean Constitution grants immunity to presidents like Jenny while they're in office.
So Jenny, already an unpopular leader, became even more unpopular amongst South Koreans once the news of her colluding with Sunny broke in October. Her approval rating dropped to around 5 percent (!) and is lower among the youngest in South Korea, roughly 1-2 percent. By comparison, Trump and Clinton's approval ratings are usually in the 30-50 percent range.
Major protests took place across the country last month, drawing 1-2 million people each Saturday for the last few weeks (There has been some violence, but the crowds are trying very hard to show how peaceful they are and are cleaning up after themselves before dispersing). The American equivalent of those numbers are 6-12 million people. Jenny gave a speech on Tuesday to say she would step down if the South Korean Congress wants her to and if they work with her for the transition process. She also didn't admit to wrongdoing, sort of pulling a "I did what I thought was right, but I should have managed my terrible staff better." South Korea's Congress: Nope, you're just avoiding impeachment, which is going to happen as planned.
Think that's crazy? There's more, because you may be wondering how Viagra works into all this. On Wednesday, after her big speech, Jenny's staff admitted to buying 360 Viagra pills using government money. The excuse was that her staff was making a trip to Africa, and wanted to treat altitude sickness, but they ended up never using the drugs. (Sometimes South Korean doctors prescribe Viagra-style drugs for climbers. Jenny's staff was not climbing in Africa.)
This story is wild, and there's nothing really like it. If you think our politics are scandalous already, imagine what it would be like if he were as corrupt as Park Geun-Hye.
Broken Campaign Promises
One of the three major chants you heard at Trump rallies is already a broken promise. You can make an argument that all three are likely to be broken. In order, those three chants were: Build the Wall, Lock Her Up and Drain the Swamp.
On the Tuesday before Thanksgiving, the Trump administration announced they would not be pursuing charges for Clinton for either the email scandal or for the Clinton Foundation. He won't seek a special prosecutor as he said during the second debate. He won't Lock Her Up. There's no way of sugarcoating this or pretending it's not a broken promise. It has the benefit of making Trump look like the one extending the olive branch, but he's also the one who was pressing the issue in the first place. It means his rhetoric was hollow, which was kind of what his opponents said all along.
Further, on the Drain the Swamp chant, most of his administration is insiders so far. I can think of one to two outsiders, but almost everyone else has been a sitting legislator or a recently involved political leader. More on this when I get back to talking politics in a week or two.
Finally, the Build the Wall chant is another (economically) nationalist chant. But now he's saying it could just be a fence. That's not a "big, beautiful wall."
He's not even president. If these three major chants at his rallies mean nothing to him, then what does?
This Ain't Checkers
I was in the chess club as a high school freshman. Then, as a sophomore, there was a schoolwide call to organize the Chess Club the next year. I was the only one who showed up. So with all that in mind, I have LOVED the coverage by FiveThirtyEight's Oliver Roeder of the ongoing chess showdown between No. 1 Magnus Carlsen of Norway and No. 7(ish) Sergey Karjakin of Russia. Here's his story on the final matches.
The two played 12 regular games, lasting up to 7 hours. They ended in a tie, with 10 draws and each winning a game. That sent it to chess overtime, which is a faster version: 25 minutes a side, but four matches total, with each on white twice. If they were even after that, they'd go to crazy fast chess: 5 minutes a side, each gets a turn at white. If they were even after THAT, they'd go to "armageddon" chess: 5 minutes for white, 4 for black, but a draw is a win for black.
Luckily, they never had to go to crazy fast chess or armageddon. The first overtime of four faster versions of chess settled it. The first overtime game was a blah draw. The second was a draw, but Carlsen had chances to capitalize on and couldn't. The third game was where the fireworks happened, when Karjakin's time was running down, and he made an error that brought about eventual checkmate. The fourth game was a matter of Karjakin, one of the best at playing defense, trying too hard to play offense and getting caught by Carlsen. The "Mozart of Chess" won the World Championships again. I'm sorry for these three paragraphs, but I've loved following it — it's like the Olympics or the World Cup in that I only care for like, two weeks every 2-4 years.
Summary Judgments
Oh, man. I spent so many hours playing Super Smash Bros, and now Melee is 15 years old. Now I feel ancient. Thanks, passage of time. • • • I watched so many episodes of Double Dare as a kid. So that made the oral history of the Double Dare obstacle course a worthwhile read. • • • I don't have any running stories, since I'm not running until mid-January. My season is over this year. • • • Oh, the kids have been fighting lately. Evie will extend her arm out and flap at Roland. Roland will complain that she hit him. Or later, Roland will jump on the couch over and over, increasingly close to her until his arm or leg flops on her. Then she'll push him in the face. She's more aggressive of the two, but Roland is good at emotionally manipulating her. They need to teach classes to only children who grow up to be parents on how to deal with this, because I am not ready.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)