The sound of moving water: It is thunder in the white sky. The endless breaking of the ocean haunts the girl in the cage. It roars and rampages, loud enough to scare the little girl away. Then next moment, it becomes a lullaby, the most powerful mistress of the dark night. It whispers with its sweet and tender lips: the invitation of the night. Embracing the girl in the darkness, the lullaby never seems to stop.
Scent of her hair: When she let her hair down, the glimpse of a dark cascade running through her delicately curved shoulder and to the bottom of her spine blinded a boy. The candle light in the room reflected its bright darkness. While soaking fingers through the shiny cascade, the heavenly scent of her hair tickled his nose. Even a glass of tropical cocktail sipped near the Indian Ocean cannot be as heavenly as this.
Seeing a flamenco dancer: In the picture, she wears a satin bra with sleeves and a split skirt that reveals the entire length of her legs as she lunges on the ground. Her eyes are smudged in dark makeup, and on her lips, there sits a seductive smile. She is driven into ecstasy and knew in every fibre of her being that she had been dancing like that for thousands of years. She seems to indulge herself in the whirl of wind and divine madness.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Letter by Hussein, Written After Conviction.
Saddam Hussein wrote soon after receiving his death sentence,
“I say goodbye to you, but I will be with the merciful God who helps those who take refuge in him and who will never disappoint any honest believer,” the letter said. “I call on you not to hate, because hate does not leave space for a person to be fair and it makes you blind and closes all doors of thinking.” The letter, which was posted on a Baath Party Web site and received extensive coverage on Arabic TV news stations.
Being convicted of crimes against humanity for his part in the execution of 148 men and boys in the northern town of Dujail, Hussein might aim to redempt himself through this message or he simply still stive to seek sorts of justification/inevitability concerning the matter for calling out for his final revolt. Whichever reason he had in his mind at that time, he certainly seemed much more fragile and fatigued just like an ordinary old man next door. This made me wonder how putting an old man into death would bring out justice and political impacts as the majority - here, majority means those in power within Iraq and outside of the nation - wishes. I have to say I am concerned it will more or less result in the exact opposite consequences from what those in power believe because of a few obvious reasons as below.
First, he still isn't fully aware why he has to be judged by those who he doesn't acknowledge as legitimate. This means he will be unlikely cease to persuade those still following him that all his conducts were righteous and his suffers at the present is caused only because the power is in wrong hands, if not saying it should belong to him. Second, he perceived himself as a righteous martyr, this certainly doesn't help to redempt himself within the jurisdiction thereof. Third, currently leaders in Iraq, strongly backed by the U.S. want him dead badly, which can potentially make Hussein a sacrified victim by the west. Remember, the west practicalism, in particular, the American ones are not quite popular in the region. If this happens, the U.S. will only receive much more entangled hostile reactions from the indigenious people after his death, which is the last thing the west wishes to see. Having Hussein as a national hero slaugtered by the U.S. will only make it harder for the U.S. to proceed whatever they need to do in the region. In addition, now Hussein is a 70-year-old man, no where else to run, what's the point to be so hurry?
We see arguments everyday to ban the execution by law. Depriving rights to speak and move freely will probably bring about what everybody wants rather than murdering him, thereby possibly triggering backfires in already excessively complicated situations. You see, the last thing we want to see is making him remembered as a martyr died for what he believed, which will only give him a chance to live eternality.
“I say goodbye to you, but I will be with the merciful God who helps those who take refuge in him and who will never disappoint any honest believer,” the letter said. “I call on you not to hate, because hate does not leave space for a person to be fair and it makes you blind and closes all doors of thinking.” The letter, which was posted on a Baath Party Web site and received extensive coverage on Arabic TV news stations.
Being convicted of crimes against humanity for his part in the execution of 148 men and boys in the northern town of Dujail, Hussein might aim to redempt himself through this message or he simply still stive to seek sorts of justification/inevitability concerning the matter for calling out for his final revolt. Whichever reason he had in his mind at that time, he certainly seemed much more fragile and fatigued just like an ordinary old man next door. This made me wonder how putting an old man into death would bring out justice and political impacts as the majority - here, majority means those in power within Iraq and outside of the nation - wishes. I have to say I am concerned it will more or less result in the exact opposite consequences from what those in power believe because of a few obvious reasons as below.
First, he still isn't fully aware why he has to be judged by those who he doesn't acknowledge as legitimate. This means he will be unlikely cease to persuade those still following him that all his conducts were righteous and his suffers at the present is caused only because the power is in wrong hands, if not saying it should belong to him. Second, he perceived himself as a righteous martyr, this certainly doesn't help to redempt himself within the jurisdiction thereof. Third, currently leaders in Iraq, strongly backed by the U.S. want him dead badly, which can potentially make Hussein a sacrified victim by the west. Remember, the west practicalism, in particular, the American ones are not quite popular in the region. If this happens, the U.S. will only receive much more entangled hostile reactions from the indigenious people after his death, which is the last thing the west wishes to see. Having Hussein as a national hero slaugtered by the U.S. will only make it harder for the U.S. to proceed whatever they need to do in the region. In addition, now Hussein is a 70-year-old man, no where else to run, what's the point to be so hurry?
We see arguments everyday to ban the execution by law. Depriving rights to speak and move freely will probably bring about what everybody wants rather than murdering him, thereby possibly triggering backfires in already excessively complicated situations. You see, the last thing we want to see is making him remembered as a martyr died for what he believed, which will only give him a chance to live eternality.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
장준하. (Jang, Jun-ha)
다음은 명동성당에서 있었던 장준하의 영결미사때 추기경 김수환이 한 강론의 일절입니다.
"그의 죽음은 별이 떨어진 것이 아니라 죽어서 새로운 빛이 되어 우리의 갈길을 밝혀주기 위하여 잠시 숨은 것 뿐입니다."
Below is a prayer by the Cardinal Kim, Su-hwan at Jang's funeral held in the Myoung-dong Cathedral in 1975.
"His death does not imply a bright star vanishing into the oblivion, but a star being reborn as a new light guiding us to a pathway that we're supposed to follow."
"그의 죽음은 별이 떨어진 것이 아니라 죽어서 새로운 빛이 되어 우리의 갈길을 밝혀주기 위하여 잠시 숨은 것 뿐입니다."
Below is a prayer by the Cardinal Kim, Su-hwan at Jang's funeral held in the Myoung-dong Cathedral in 1975.
"His death does not imply a bright star vanishing into the oblivion, but a star being reborn as a new light guiding us to a pathway that we're supposed to follow."
Alexa: Indeed, for some, death isn't an end, but is a magnificent new start to live eternity.
leaving vs. staying
Reading Ham Seok-heon's writings in his book containing his perspectives on history and Korea therein tossed me a question this morning. He described leaving as a habitual status of preemptive mankind whom no civilization or fertile intellectual heritage were given to be cultivated. He defined it was only after the mankind decided to settle down when it began to develop civilization and prevail the wealth. Is it really leaving deprives the prosperity and settling secures it contrarily?
Leaving.
People leaves where they belong for some time of their life for various reasons. Certainly, there are political reasons for those troubled for their political believes in their mother countries and left with not much choice but leaving. For those ambitious enough to be willingly pushing themselves in a bigger market may also choose to leave for the hopeful betterment. Yes, maybe the common ground for those chosen to leave is no possession. They are often a group of people who got nothing more to lose. Either they are yound and full of energy, i.e., poor and impulsive so that unknown world and hidden danger therein only encourages their curiosity, but not deserts them in an ambiguous hesitation. In this sense, having no possession may be a pre-requisition for leaving where you belong. Here status of "no-possession" can not only be interpreted as a physical non-possession, but also as a mental non-possession.
Staying.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Holiday.
I send the warmest hug and kiss to everyone, have a merry Christmas and happy new year!
- Season's Greetings from Seoul -
Thursday, December 14, 2006
The Pattern May Change, if ...
December 10, 2006
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
AFTER a 217-year march of major presidential nominees who were, without exception, white and male, the 2008 campaign may offer voters a novel choice.
But as Barack Obama, the senator from Illinois whose father is from Kenya, spends this weekend exploring a presidential bid in New Hampshire, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first woman to represent New York in the Senate, calls potential supporters in Iowa, the question remains: are Americans prepared to elect an African-American or a woman as president?
Or, to look at it from the view of Democrats hungry for victory in 2008, is the nation more likely to vote for a woman or an African-American for president?
Without question, women and blacks have made significant progress in winning office. The new Congress will include 71 women — one of whom will be the first female speaker of the House — compared with 25 when Representative Geraldine Ferraro, a Queens Democrat, became the first woman to run as a major-party vice presidential candidate in 1984. There will be 43 blacks in the new Congress, compared with 13 when the Congressional Black Caucus was formed in 1969. A Gallup Poll in September showed a steady rise in the number of people who expect the nation to elect a woman or an African-American as president one day: Americans, it seems, are much more open to these choices than, say, someone who is an atheist or who is gay.
Times are indeed changing. But how much?
Over the past of the past eight years, in the view of analysts from both parties, the country has shifted markedly on the issue of gender, to the point where they say voters could very well be open to electing a woman in 2008. That is reflected, they say, in polling data and in the continued success of women running for office, in red and blue states alike. “The country is ready,” said Senator Elizabeth Dole, the North Carolina Republican, who ran unsuccessfully for president in 2000. “I’m not saying it’s going to happen in ’08. But the country is ready.”
By contrast, for all the excitement stirred by Mr. Obama, it is much less certain that an African-American could win a presidential election. Not as many blacks have been elected to prominent positions as women. Some high-profile black candidates — Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat running for the Senate in Tennessee, and Michael Steele, a Republican Senate candidate in Maryland — lost in November. And demographics might be an obstacle as well: black Americans are concentrated in about 25 states — typically blue ones, like New York and California. While black candidates cannot assume automatic support from black voters, they would at least provide a base. In states without big black populations, the candidate’s crossover appeal must be huge.
“All evidence is that a white female has an advantage over a black male — for reasons of our cultural heritage,” said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, the civil rights leader who ran for president in 1984 and 1988. Still, he said, for African-American and female candidates, “It’s easier — emphatically so.”
Ms. Ferraro offered a similar sentiment. “I think it’s more realistic for a woman than it is for an African-American,” said Ms. Ferraro. “There is a certain amount of racism that exists in the United States — whether it’s conscious or not it’s true.”
“Women are 51 percent of the population,” she added.
Many analysts suggested that changing voter attitudes can best be measured in choices for governors, since they, like presidents, are judged as chief executives, rather than legislators. There will be one black governor next year — Deval L. Patrick in Massachusetts, the second in the nation since Reconstruction.
By contrast, women will be governors of nine states, including Washington, Arizona and Michigan, all potential battleground states in 2008, a fact that is no doubt viewed favorably by advisers to Mrs. Clinton.
“Voters are getting more comfortable with seeing governors as C.E.O.’s of states,” said Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Kansas Democrat. Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm, a Michigan Democrat who won a second term last month, said in an interview that when she first ran, she had to work harder. “Not this time,” she said in an interview. “They are used to a woman being governor.”
Of course, governors don’t have to handle national security. And Mrs. Clinton has used her six years in the Senate to try to counter the stereotype that women would not be as strong on the issue, especially with the nation at war. Mrs. Clinton won a seat on the Armed Services Committee, and was an early supporter of the war in Iraq.
Mr. Obama is in many ways an unusual African-American politician, and that is why many Democrats, and Republicans, view him as so viable.
Mr. Obama is a member of a post-civil-rights generation of black politicians and is not identified with leaders like Mr. Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York, who are polarizing to many white voters. He has a warm and commanding campaign presence that, as he showed in Illinois, cut across color lines.
Donna Brazile, a prominent Democratic strategist who is black, said that she had been deluged with e-mail messages from people looking to volunteer for Mr. Obama — and that most of the requests were from white voters.
Moreover, there is abundant evidence that attitudes toward black candidates are changing among white voters. In Tennessee, Mr. Ford lost his bid to become the state’s first black senator since Reconstruction, but by only three percentage points.
Surveys of voters leaving the polls showed that 40 percent of white voters supported Mr. Ford, compared with 95 percent of black voters. More intriguing, the final result was the same as what the exit polls had suggested. Before this, in many races involving black candidates, the polls predicted that they would do better than they actually did — presumably because voters were reluctant to tell questioners they did not support the African-American.
That said, Mr. Ford lost his race after Republicans aired an advertisement that Democrats said was explicitly racist. Many Democrats said a lesson of the loss was that racial appeals still have force, particularly in the South.
Race and gender are big issues in American politics, but they are not the only ones, particularly in the coming race. Mr. Obama, should he run, may find his lack of experience will be far more troublesome to voters than his color. He is 45 and serving his first term as senator.
Mr. Obama said that many black voters he spoke with have serious questions about whether America is ready to elect an African-American president.
“I think there is a protectiveness and a skepticism within the African-American community that is grounded in their experiences,” Mr. Obama said in an interview. “But the skepticism doesn’t mean there’s a lack of support.”
David A. Bositis, senior political analyst with the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a nonpartisan Washington group that studies black issues, said that it would certainly be hard, but not impossible for an African-American candidate to win.
“I certainly felt in the ’90s that if Colin Powell had been nominated on a major party ticket, he would have had a very good chance to win,” Mr. Bositis said. “If it’s the right black candidate, I do think there is propensity to elect a black. But it has to be the right black candidate.”
Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting.
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
AFTER a 217-year march of major presidential nominees who were, without exception, white and male, the 2008 campaign may offer voters a novel choice.
But as Barack Obama, the senator from Illinois whose father is from Kenya, spends this weekend exploring a presidential bid in New Hampshire, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first woman to represent New York in the Senate, calls potential supporters in Iowa, the question remains: are Americans prepared to elect an African-American or a woman as president?
Or, to look at it from the view of Democrats hungry for victory in 2008, is the nation more likely to vote for a woman or an African-American for president?
Without question, women and blacks have made significant progress in winning office. The new Congress will include 71 women — one of whom will be the first female speaker of the House — compared with 25 when Representative Geraldine Ferraro, a Queens Democrat, became the first woman to run as a major-party vice presidential candidate in 1984. There will be 43 blacks in the new Congress, compared with 13 when the Congressional Black Caucus was formed in 1969. A Gallup Poll in September showed a steady rise in the number of people who expect the nation to elect a woman or an African-American as president one day: Americans, it seems, are much more open to these choices than, say, someone who is an atheist or who is gay.
Times are indeed changing. But how much?
Over the past of the past eight years, in the view of analysts from both parties, the country has shifted markedly on the issue of gender, to the point where they say voters could very well be open to electing a woman in 2008. That is reflected, they say, in polling data and in the continued success of women running for office, in red and blue states alike. “The country is ready,” said Senator Elizabeth Dole, the North Carolina Republican, who ran unsuccessfully for president in 2000. “I’m not saying it’s going to happen in ’08. But the country is ready.”
By contrast, for all the excitement stirred by Mr. Obama, it is much less certain that an African-American could win a presidential election. Not as many blacks have been elected to prominent positions as women. Some high-profile black candidates — Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat running for the Senate in Tennessee, and Michael Steele, a Republican Senate candidate in Maryland — lost in November. And demographics might be an obstacle as well: black Americans are concentrated in about 25 states — typically blue ones, like New York and California. While black candidates cannot assume automatic support from black voters, they would at least provide a base. In states without big black populations, the candidate’s crossover appeal must be huge.
“All evidence is that a white female has an advantage over a black male — for reasons of our cultural heritage,” said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, the civil rights leader who ran for president in 1984 and 1988. Still, he said, for African-American and female candidates, “It’s easier — emphatically so.”
Ms. Ferraro offered a similar sentiment. “I think it’s more realistic for a woman than it is for an African-American,” said Ms. Ferraro. “There is a certain amount of racism that exists in the United States — whether it’s conscious or not it’s true.”
“Women are 51 percent of the population,” she added.
Many analysts suggested that changing voter attitudes can best be measured in choices for governors, since they, like presidents, are judged as chief executives, rather than legislators. There will be one black governor next year — Deval L. Patrick in Massachusetts, the second in the nation since Reconstruction.
By contrast, women will be governors of nine states, including Washington, Arizona and Michigan, all potential battleground states in 2008, a fact that is no doubt viewed favorably by advisers to Mrs. Clinton.
“Voters are getting more comfortable with seeing governors as C.E.O.’s of states,” said Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Kansas Democrat. Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm, a Michigan Democrat who won a second term last month, said in an interview that when she first ran, she had to work harder. “Not this time,” she said in an interview. “They are used to a woman being governor.”
Of course, governors don’t have to handle national security. And Mrs. Clinton has used her six years in the Senate to try to counter the stereotype that women would not be as strong on the issue, especially with the nation at war. Mrs. Clinton won a seat on the Armed Services Committee, and was an early supporter of the war in Iraq.
Mr. Obama is in many ways an unusual African-American politician, and that is why many Democrats, and Republicans, view him as so viable.
Mr. Obama is a member of a post-civil-rights generation of black politicians and is not identified with leaders like Mr. Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York, who are polarizing to many white voters. He has a warm and commanding campaign presence that, as he showed in Illinois, cut across color lines.
Donna Brazile, a prominent Democratic strategist who is black, said that she had been deluged with e-mail messages from people looking to volunteer for Mr. Obama — and that most of the requests were from white voters.
Moreover, there is abundant evidence that attitudes toward black candidates are changing among white voters. In Tennessee, Mr. Ford lost his bid to become the state’s first black senator since Reconstruction, but by only three percentage points.
Surveys of voters leaving the polls showed that 40 percent of white voters supported Mr. Ford, compared with 95 percent of black voters. More intriguing, the final result was the same as what the exit polls had suggested. Before this, in many races involving black candidates, the polls predicted that they would do better than they actually did — presumably because voters were reluctant to tell questioners they did not support the African-American.
That said, Mr. Ford lost his race after Republicans aired an advertisement that Democrats said was explicitly racist. Many Democrats said a lesson of the loss was that racial appeals still have force, particularly in the South.
Race and gender are big issues in American politics, but they are not the only ones, particularly in the coming race. Mr. Obama, should he run, may find his lack of experience will be far more troublesome to voters than his color. He is 45 and serving his first term as senator.
Mr. Obama said that many black voters he spoke with have serious questions about whether America is ready to elect an African-American president.
“I think there is a protectiveness and a skepticism within the African-American community that is grounded in their experiences,” Mr. Obama said in an interview. “But the skepticism doesn’t mean there’s a lack of support.”
David A. Bositis, senior political analyst with the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a nonpartisan Washington group that studies black issues, said that it would certainly be hard, but not impossible for an African-American candidate to win.
“I certainly felt in the ’90s that if Colin Powell had been nominated on a major party ticket, he would have had a very good chance to win,” Mr. Bositis said. “If it’s the right black candidate, I do think there is propensity to elect a black. But it has to be the right black candidate.”
Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting.
On war.
If there's any that I have believed since puberty, a war cannot be an option in whatsoever circumstances. But, today I unexpectedly faced a strong argument claiming that it is worth having wars sometimes. An article from the New Yorker, chronicling the life and political believes of a second-elected Democrat, Mr. Barrack Obama, contained slightly different perspective from what I thought he had. Hear me out.
I could definitely see why Americans are so excited by Mr. Obama's political emergence. Just by looking closely at his biography, one can easily recognize his life well representing that of a contemporary everyman of America . He was born as a result of an inter-racial marriage, which made him keenly involved in the immigration reform bill. He appears as a black (his father was an African foreign student from Kenya) but lived with the whites. (his father left him and his mother when he was two and went back to Kenya, since then he mostly lived with his grand parents. He describes in his book "Dreams from my father" that his father's complexion being pitch black, whereas his mom's being milkish white.) Additionally, he's been through certain amounts of despair and solitude as a child whose background was relatively marginalized from a perspective of a standardized social hierarchy - a black kid from a broken family. Having grown up with his grandparents, one of whom worked as an insurance dealer, which turned out to be unsuccessful, he never felt that he was privileged, at least in terms of the capitalist social norm that has been prevailing in the nation. The dramatic turn of this fourty-someting man came with his entrance to the Harvard Law School. Upon completing the degree and earning a stepstone to move up, he decided to land himself in a desolate place in Chicago instead of taking offers from the top legal firms in the country. (His close friends testifies in the book that he could've gotten any position if he wanted by the time of his graduation.) Providing legal services to mostly less educated and less benefited African Americans and new immigrants populated in the little town he stayed, in many ways, cultivated his political ambition. The most impressive factor of his CV is not that he successfully became able to present himself in a higher social class in spite of a less previliged background he had, but he still seems managing to keep his faith to support those he grew up with, i.e.. those who need assistance to sustain themselves as his priority. That indicates how strongly he is self-disciplined and dedicated for what he believes. Certainly, putting oneself into difficult positions for someone's else's sake is not the best thing most of the ordinary would hope, in fact, most of us are busy for avoiding those if possible.
Now, this is a script of Q&A session held in downtown Chicago in the fall of 2002.
“I noticed that a lot of people at that rally were wearing buttons saying, ‘War Is Not an Option,’ ” he said. “And I thought, I don’t agree with that. Sometimes war is an option. The Civil War was worth fighting. World War Two as well. So I got up and said that, among other things.” What he said, among other things, was “I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.” Invading and occupying Iraq, he said, would be “a rash war, a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.”
Upon reading his answer, the familiar slogan of his, "War is not an option," became a stranger to me, because I have understood it as he was agaisnt all wars regardless of any circumstances. Upon directly/indirectly witnessing so many fights waged between parties of which believed in the motives they had and seeing more of destruction and despair rather than hope and future therein, the conclusion I come up with was there is no excuse strong enough to rationalize a cause of war. But now Obama, one of the rare I begin to look at closely hoping that I finally found someone I can be role-modeled, said that some wars are worthy of fighting. That evokes some old questions. Now. then, who would ever be entitled to judge which wars are worth fighting and which are not. And how would they get the legitimacy of their judgement? Or, wouldn't there be any other option but to wait until the history makes its own judgement of the events? Then, how does his argument have a legitimacy until he confirms with the judgement in front of the history??
On the other hand, we need to keep in mind that most of human developments have been achieved through fights between groups whose interests were acutely conflicting to each other. Women's suffrage finally achieved in 1940s after a lot of people shed efforts and sacrifices, Gandh's non-violence resistance won the independence from the imperial Britain after claiming countless lives, Martin Ruther King's famous speech of "I have a dream" moved hearts of the world but later on he had to pay it with his own life, and the 3.1 Movement became the initiative of independence movement against the imperial Japan in Korea but also claimed many casualties. All of the above examples were fights in a sense that one or both part(ies) got wounded as a consequence, and most of us will probably evaluate them as great achievements in human history. However, look at the middle east today. People there fight, probably they've been fighting since the mankind began to exist on this planet, and seemingly they will not stop in any foreseeable future. There have been young men willingly dedicated their lives for attacks on many many occasions. From the perspective of Arabs (Palestines), there were divine sacrifices for greater causes, whereas from the rest of the world, they're more likely seen as hostile actions against innocents - media in the west conveniently call it a terrorist action. Then, think hard here. Is this a worth war or not? If you can answer this, how can you distinguish your reason from those advocating the rationalization of Gandhi's non-volence resistance, the 3.1 movement, and Rev. King Sr.'s resistance movement?
As another example, the death of Pinocchete. He fought for his office by having the U.S. supported military strength, and ruled the nation for many years. In the course of his regime, many had suffered from tortures, imprisonment, and even death. Now he is dead. And would everyone be happy?? To everybody's surprise, still fair number of people in the nation were reportedly was mourning for him. What about Fidel Castro? He is more adored by his people than the Pinnochete by his. Then, really,, who are we to judge which fights are worth waging and which are not??
I could definitely see why Americans are so excited by Mr. Obama's political emergence. Just by looking closely at his biography, one can easily recognize his life well representing that of a contemporary everyman of America . He was born as a result of an inter-racial marriage, which made him keenly involved in the immigration reform bill. He appears as a black (his father was an African foreign student from Kenya) but lived with the whites. (his father left him and his mother when he was two and went back to Kenya, since then he mostly lived with his grand parents. He describes in his book "Dreams from my father" that his father's complexion being pitch black, whereas his mom's being milkish white.) Additionally, he's been through certain amounts of despair and solitude as a child whose background was relatively marginalized from a perspective of a standardized social hierarchy - a black kid from a broken family. Having grown up with his grandparents, one of whom worked as an insurance dealer, which turned out to be unsuccessful, he never felt that he was privileged, at least in terms of the capitalist social norm that has been prevailing in the nation. The dramatic turn of this fourty-someting man came with his entrance to the Harvard Law School. Upon completing the degree and earning a stepstone to move up, he decided to land himself in a desolate place in Chicago instead of taking offers from the top legal firms in the country. (His close friends testifies in the book that he could've gotten any position if he wanted by the time of his graduation.) Providing legal services to mostly less educated and less benefited African Americans and new immigrants populated in the little town he stayed, in many ways, cultivated his political ambition. The most impressive factor of his CV is not that he successfully became able to present himself in a higher social class in spite of a less previliged background he had, but he still seems managing to keep his faith to support those he grew up with, i.e.. those who need assistance to sustain themselves as his priority. That indicates how strongly he is self-disciplined and dedicated for what he believes. Certainly, putting oneself into difficult positions for someone's else's sake is not the best thing most of the ordinary would hope, in fact, most of us are busy for avoiding those if possible.
Now, this is a script of Q&A session held in downtown Chicago in the fall of 2002.
“I noticed that a lot of people at that rally were wearing buttons saying, ‘War Is Not an Option,’ ” he said. “And I thought, I don’t agree with that. Sometimes war is an option. The Civil War was worth fighting. World War Two as well. So I got up and said that, among other things.” What he said, among other things, was “I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.” Invading and occupying Iraq, he said, would be “a rash war, a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.”
Upon reading his answer, the familiar slogan of his, "War is not an option," became a stranger to me, because I have understood it as he was agaisnt all wars regardless of any circumstances. Upon directly/indirectly witnessing so many fights waged between parties of which believed in the motives they had and seeing more of destruction and despair rather than hope and future therein, the conclusion I come up with was there is no excuse strong enough to rationalize a cause of war. But now Obama, one of the rare I begin to look at closely hoping that I finally found someone I can be role-modeled, said that some wars are worthy of fighting. That evokes some old questions. Now. then, who would ever be entitled to judge which wars are worth fighting and which are not. And how would they get the legitimacy of their judgement? Or, wouldn't there be any other option but to wait until the history makes its own judgement of the events? Then, how does his argument have a legitimacy until he confirms with the judgement in front of the history??
On the other hand, we need to keep in mind that most of human developments have been achieved through fights between groups whose interests were acutely conflicting to each other. Women's suffrage finally achieved in 1940s after a lot of people shed efforts and sacrifices, Gandh's non-violence resistance won the independence from the imperial Britain after claiming countless lives, Martin Ruther King's famous speech of "I have a dream" moved hearts of the world but later on he had to pay it with his own life, and the 3.1 Movement became the initiative of independence movement against the imperial Japan in Korea but also claimed many casualties. All of the above examples were fights in a sense that one or both part(ies) got wounded as a consequence, and most of us will probably evaluate them as great achievements in human history. However, look at the middle east today. People there fight, probably they've been fighting since the mankind began to exist on this planet, and seemingly they will not stop in any foreseeable future. There have been young men willingly dedicated their lives for attacks on many many occasions. From the perspective of Arabs (Palestines), there were divine sacrifices for greater causes, whereas from the rest of the world, they're more likely seen as hostile actions against innocents - media in the west conveniently call it a terrorist action. Then, think hard here. Is this a worth war or not? If you can answer this, how can you distinguish your reason from those advocating the rationalization of Gandhi's non-volence resistance, the 3.1 movement, and Rev. King Sr.'s resistance movement?
As another example, the death of Pinocchete. He fought for his office by having the U.S. supported military strength, and ruled the nation for many years. In the course of his regime, many had suffered from tortures, imprisonment, and even death. Now he is dead. And would everyone be happy?? To everybody's surprise, still fair number of people in the nation were reportedly was mourning for him. What about Fidel Castro? He is more adored by his people than the Pinnochete by his. Then, really,, who are we to judge which fights are worth waging and which are not??
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Peanut Brittle.
This fast version of peanut brittle is yummy and kid-friendly with its measuring and mixing, but particularly good for a game of Candy Land while it's cooling. Note: the microwave makes this a simple, fast treat, but the syrup comes out very hot, and pouring it is a parent's job.
INGREDIENTS1 cup sugar1/2 cup light corn syrup1 cup dry-roasted peanuts1/8 teaspoon salt1 teaspoon butter or margarine1 teaspoon vanilla extract1 teaspoon baking soda
HOW TO MAKE ITIn a 1 1/2-quart microwave-safe bowl, stir together the sugar, syrup, peanuts, and salt, mixing well. Microwave on high for 6H minutes. (Times will vary depending on microwave wattage. We based these times on an 850-watt oven.) Carefully swirl the butter or margarine and vanilla extract into the mixture; don't stir. Microwave for another 30 seconds. The peanuts should be light brown, the syrup will have darkened slightly, and the mixture will be very hot (300° on a candy thermometer). Add baking soda and gently stir the mixture until it's light and foamy. Pour it onto a lightly buttered cookie sheet. (Tip: For a thinner brittle, first warm the sheet in the oven.) Let the brittle cool for 30 minutes to 1 hour, then break it into small pieces. Makes 2 pounds.
WRAPPING IT UPOur colorful gift boxes are simply plain candy boxes, available in several sizes from stores that sell candy-making supplies. We stamped ours using inexpensive patterned stamps (available at craft and fabric stores) and acrylic paint in bold holiday colors. You can also use homemade potato stamps and the like. Tip: For mess-free stamping, we like to use aluminum pie tins. Squirt in some paint, spread it into a thin layer with a paintbrush, then dip in the stamps. Once the gift boxes are dry, layer the brittle with waxed paper to keep the pieces from clumping. To give your presents an even more elegant look, first line the boxes with paper doilies.
INGREDIENTS1 cup sugar1/2 cup light corn syrup1 cup dry-roasted peanuts1/8 teaspoon salt1 teaspoon butter or margarine1 teaspoon vanilla extract1 teaspoon baking soda
HOW TO MAKE ITIn a 1 1/2-quart microwave-safe bowl, stir together the sugar, syrup, peanuts, and salt, mixing well. Microwave on high for 6H minutes. (Times will vary depending on microwave wattage. We based these times on an 850-watt oven.) Carefully swirl the butter or margarine and vanilla extract into the mixture; don't stir. Microwave for another 30 seconds. The peanuts should be light brown, the syrup will have darkened slightly, and the mixture will be very hot (300° on a candy thermometer). Add baking soda and gently stir the mixture until it's light and foamy. Pour it onto a lightly buttered cookie sheet. (Tip: For a thinner brittle, first warm the sheet in the oven.) Let the brittle cool for 30 minutes to 1 hour, then break it into small pieces. Makes 2 pounds.
WRAPPING IT UPOur colorful gift boxes are simply plain candy boxes, available in several sizes from stores that sell candy-making supplies. We stamped ours using inexpensive patterned stamps (available at craft and fabric stores) and acrylic paint in bold holiday colors. You can also use homemade potato stamps and the like. Tip: For mess-free stamping, we like to use aluminum pie tins. Squirt in some paint, spread it into a thin layer with a paintbrush, then dip in the stamps. Once the gift boxes are dry, layer the brittle with waxed paper to keep the pieces from clumping. To give your presents an even more elegant look, first line the boxes with paper doilies.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
나는 누구인가?
나는 누구인가?
남들은 종종 내게 말하기를
감방에서 나오는 나의 모습이
어찌나 침착하고 명랑하고 확고한지
마치 성에서 나오는 영주 같다는데
나는 누구인가?
남들은 종종 내게 말하기를 간수들과 대화하는 내 모습이
어찌나 자유롭고 사근사근하고 밝은지
마치 내가 명령하는 것 같다는데
나는 누구인가?
남들은 종종 내게 말하기를
불행한 나날을 견디는 내 모습이
어찌나 한결같고 벙글거리고 당당한지
늘 승리하는 사람 같다는데
남들이 말하는 내가 참 나인가?
나 스스로 아는 내가 참 나인가?
새장에 갇힌 새처럼 불안하고 그립고 병약한 나
목 졸린 사람처럼 숨을 쉬려고 버둥거리는 나
빛깔과 꽃, 새소리에 주리고
따스한 말과 인정에 목말라하는 나
방자함과 사소한 모욕에도 치를 떠는 나
좋은 일을 학수고대하며 서성거리는 나
멀리있는 벗의 신변을 무력하게 걱정하는 나
기도에도, 생각에도, 일에도 지쳐 멍한 나
풀이 죽어 작별을 준비하는 나인데
나는 누구인가?
이것이 나인가? 저것이 나인가?
오늘은 이 사람이고 내일은 저 사람인가?
둘 다인가?
사람들 앞에서는 허세를 부리고,
자신 앞에선 천박하게 우는소리 잘하는 겁쟁이인가?
내 속에 남아있는 것은
이미 거둔 승리 앞에서 꽁무니를 빼는 패잔병 같은가?
- Dietrich Bonhoeffer -
남들은 종종 내게 말하기를
감방에서 나오는 나의 모습이
어찌나 침착하고 명랑하고 확고한지
마치 성에서 나오는 영주 같다는데
나는 누구인가?
남들은 종종 내게 말하기를 간수들과 대화하는 내 모습이
어찌나 자유롭고 사근사근하고 밝은지
마치 내가 명령하는 것 같다는데
나는 누구인가?
남들은 종종 내게 말하기를
불행한 나날을 견디는 내 모습이
어찌나 한결같고 벙글거리고 당당한지
늘 승리하는 사람 같다는데
남들이 말하는 내가 참 나인가?
나 스스로 아는 내가 참 나인가?
새장에 갇힌 새처럼 불안하고 그립고 병약한 나
목 졸린 사람처럼 숨을 쉬려고 버둥거리는 나
빛깔과 꽃, 새소리에 주리고
따스한 말과 인정에 목말라하는 나
방자함과 사소한 모욕에도 치를 떠는 나
좋은 일을 학수고대하며 서성거리는 나
멀리있는 벗의 신변을 무력하게 걱정하는 나
기도에도, 생각에도, 일에도 지쳐 멍한 나
풀이 죽어 작별을 준비하는 나인데
나는 누구인가?
이것이 나인가? 저것이 나인가?
오늘은 이 사람이고 내일은 저 사람인가?
둘 다인가?
사람들 앞에서는 허세를 부리고,
자신 앞에선 천박하게 우는소리 잘하는 겁쟁이인가?
내 속에 남아있는 것은
이미 거둔 승리 앞에서 꽁무니를 빼는 패잔병 같은가?
- Dietrich Bonhoeffer -
Isaiah 50 - Israel's sin and the servant's obedience
2 When I came, why was there no one? When I called, why was there no one to answer? Was my arm too short to ransom you? Do I lack the strength to rescue you? By a mere rebuke I dry up the sea, I turn rivers into a desert; their fish rot for lack of water and die of thirst.
Jonah's Prayer
1 From inside the fish Jonah prayed to the LORD his God. 2 He said: "In my distress I called to the LORD, and he answered me. From the depths of the grave [a] I called for help, and you listened to my cry.
3 You hurled me into the deep, into the very heart of the seas, and the currents swirled about me; all your waves and breakers swept over me.
4 I said, 'I have been banished from your sight; yet I will look again toward your holy temple.'
5 The engulfing waters threatened me, [b] the deep surrounded me; seaweed was wrapped around my head.
6 To the roots of the mountains I sank down; the earth beneath barred me in forever. But you brought my life up from the pit, O LORD my God.
7 "When my life was ebbing away, I remembered you, LORD, and my prayer rose to you, to your holy temple.
8 "Those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs.
9 But I, with a song of thanksgiving, will sacrifice to you. What I have vowed I will make good. Salvation comes from the LORD."
10 And the LORD commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah onto dry land.
3 You hurled me into the deep, into the very heart of the seas, and the currents swirled about me; all your waves and breakers swept over me.
4 I said, 'I have been banished from your sight; yet I will look again toward your holy temple.'
5 The engulfing waters threatened me, [b] the deep surrounded me; seaweed was wrapped around my head.
6 To the roots of the mountains I sank down; the earth beneath barred me in forever. But you brought my life up from the pit, O LORD my God.
7 "When my life was ebbing away, I remembered you, LORD, and my prayer rose to you, to your holy temple.
8 "Those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs.
9 But I, with a song of thanksgiving, will sacrifice to you. What I have vowed I will make good. Salvation comes from the LORD."
10 And the LORD commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah onto dry land.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Judged by the way to judge others - following Arar's case upon Zaccardelli's foreseeable resignation
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Giulliano Zaccardelli is sworn-in, before he testifies before the Commons public safety committee on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Tuesday, Dec. 5, 2006.
CREDIT: Canadian Press/Tom Hanson
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Giulliano Zaccardelli is sworn-in, before he testifies before the Commons public safety committee on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Tuesday, Dec. 5, 2006.
OTTAWA — RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli said today he may have made mistakes when he first testified about the Arar affair before the Commons public safety and national security committee in September, but refused to say he misled the committee.
“I believe some aspects of my prior testimony could have been more precise or clearly stated. A number of misconceptions have resulted,” Zaccardelli told MPs, who peppered him with questions for nearly two hours, during his second appearance before the committee.
Later in the House of Commons, where queries about Zaccardelli dominated the opening of question period, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he was “surprised” by Zacardelli’s change of story and that government “will study his testimony.”
However, he resisted demands to fire the commissioner immediately. “You can’t, in the government, just go out and fire people without due process,” Harper said.
Mahar Arar, a Canadian citizen, was arrested and deported by U.S. authorities in October 2002 and held in Syria until October 2003.
Justice Dennis O’Connor conducted an inquiry on the case and concluded in his report this fall that misinformation from the RCMP very likely led to Arar’s arrest in the United States and his deportation.
When Zaccardelli appeared before the committee on Sept. 28, he said he first learned of RCMP mistakes some time after Arar was imprisoned and that he informed senior government officials about the problems. Zaccardelli testified that he knew the RCMP were trying to correct the record with their U.S. counterparts while Arar was being detained in Syria.
But at a speech Monday and again at the committee meeting this morning, Zaccardelli told a different version of events.
He told MPs that he knew Arar was a “person of interest,” but did not learn that the RCMP had passed inaccurate information to U.S. authorities until much later, when he read O’Connor’s report.
Zaccardelli said today that his senior officers were not aware that Arar had been mislabeled or that false information had been passed on to U.S. authorities and, therefore, there’s no way he could have known because his senior officers are responsible for briefing him on such matters. Throughout his testimony, Zaccardelli repeated that he only learned the full scope of how the RCMP mishandled the Arar case when he read the inquiry report.
Zaccardelli explained the confusion about his earlier testimony by saying he was rushed to appear before the committee and inaccuracies may have arisen from his answers because he did not have sufficient time to prepare for his appearance.
He wanted to appear again before the committee today to “set the record straight,” Zaccardelli said.
He again shrugged off calls for his resignation, saying he never purposely withheld information or misrepresented facts.
“If I had been guilty of such actions, no one would have to ask for my resignation Mr. chairman. The facts of the matter are, however, that due to circumstances I have described we were unaware of some important information until the completion of Justice O’Connor’s inquiry this year. My colleagues and I deeply regret that mistakes were made but it is important to recognize that at all times we acted in good faith,” Zaccardelli said.
Also in question period, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day denied accusations by Liberal MP Mark Holland that he interfered with the RCMP’s response to Justice Dennis O’Connor’s report.
Day, who in September said he had full confidence in Zaccardelli when he first testified before a parliamentary committee, was rather guarded in his support for the commissioner today.
“We want to study our response and we will come to our decision in a professional way,” Day told the House of Commons.
The minister would not answer whether Zaccardelli’s resignation had been asked for, saying only that the government is reviewing the facts, and did not answer a direct question about whether or not he still had confidence in Zaccardelli.
CanWest News Service
© CanWest News Service 2006
- Still further reading -
Arar's case blog at http://www.maherarar.ca/
Upon following the Arar's case, it seems apparent that there hasn't been much trace of justice to protect the human right of innocent personnel not only in North Korea but also both Canada and the US. Now the question is, would there be justice to recognize the injustice.
CREDIT: Canadian Press/Tom Hanson
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Giulliano Zaccardelli is sworn-in, before he testifies before the Commons public safety committee on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Tuesday, Dec. 5, 2006.
OTTAWA — RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli said today he may have made mistakes when he first testified about the Arar affair before the Commons public safety and national security committee in September, but refused to say he misled the committee.
“I believe some aspects of my prior testimony could have been more precise or clearly stated. A number of misconceptions have resulted,” Zaccardelli told MPs, who peppered him with questions for nearly two hours, during his second appearance before the committee.
Later in the House of Commons, where queries about Zaccardelli dominated the opening of question period, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he was “surprised” by Zacardelli’s change of story and that government “will study his testimony.”
However, he resisted demands to fire the commissioner immediately. “You can’t, in the government, just go out and fire people without due process,” Harper said.
Mahar Arar, a Canadian citizen, was arrested and deported by U.S. authorities in October 2002 and held in Syria until October 2003.
Justice Dennis O’Connor conducted an inquiry on the case and concluded in his report this fall that misinformation from the RCMP very likely led to Arar’s arrest in the United States and his deportation.
When Zaccardelli appeared before the committee on Sept. 28, he said he first learned of RCMP mistakes some time after Arar was imprisoned and that he informed senior government officials about the problems. Zaccardelli testified that he knew the RCMP were trying to correct the record with their U.S. counterparts while Arar was being detained in Syria.
But at a speech Monday and again at the committee meeting this morning, Zaccardelli told a different version of events.
He told MPs that he knew Arar was a “person of interest,” but did not learn that the RCMP had passed inaccurate information to U.S. authorities until much later, when he read O’Connor’s report.
Zaccardelli said today that his senior officers were not aware that Arar had been mislabeled or that false information had been passed on to U.S. authorities and, therefore, there’s no way he could have known because his senior officers are responsible for briefing him on such matters. Throughout his testimony, Zaccardelli repeated that he only learned the full scope of how the RCMP mishandled the Arar case when he read the inquiry report.
Zaccardelli explained the confusion about his earlier testimony by saying he was rushed to appear before the committee and inaccuracies may have arisen from his answers because he did not have sufficient time to prepare for his appearance.
He wanted to appear again before the committee today to “set the record straight,” Zaccardelli said.
He again shrugged off calls for his resignation, saying he never purposely withheld information or misrepresented facts.
“If I had been guilty of such actions, no one would have to ask for my resignation Mr. chairman. The facts of the matter are, however, that due to circumstances I have described we were unaware of some important information until the completion of Justice O’Connor’s inquiry this year. My colleagues and I deeply regret that mistakes were made but it is important to recognize that at all times we acted in good faith,” Zaccardelli said.
Also in question period, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day denied accusations by Liberal MP Mark Holland that he interfered with the RCMP’s response to Justice Dennis O’Connor’s report.
Day, who in September said he had full confidence in Zaccardelli when he first testified before a parliamentary committee, was rather guarded in his support for the commissioner today.
“We want to study our response and we will come to our decision in a professional way,” Day told the House of Commons.
The minister would not answer whether Zaccardelli’s resignation had been asked for, saying only that the government is reviewing the facts, and did not answer a direct question about whether or not he still had confidence in Zaccardelli.
CanWest News Service
© CanWest News Service 2006
- Still further reading -
Arar's case blog at http://www.maherarar.ca/
Upon following the Arar's case, it seems apparent that there hasn't been much trace of justice to protect the human right of innocent personnel not only in North Korea but also both Canada and the US. Now the question is, would there be justice to recognize the injustice.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Season's greetings!
Sometimes, we are surprised realizing how life can be lit up with an exquisite joy by such a simple thing. If you're lucky enough, this is when you truly acknowledge the value of life and appreciate your existence on this over-crowded planet. Withdrawing myself from leisurely social life for sometime and being an inert as a result, the life style I have had could've been worrisome for some of my beloveds. Then, a friend, more precisely the whole family of a friend flew over all the way from Vancouver and saved my arse from being a complete couch potato this weekend. Still having an acute pain in the head and wondering if that's because of too much sleep over the weekend or still a lack of rest stacked from all the stress I earned from the previous week-long labor, I removed myself from the comport zone of the preciously warmed sofa and tv and prepared for an outing. Our rendezvous was arranged as usual at a downtown hotel lobby, whereabouts is famous for night scenery particularly during the winter since the city's mayor decided to decorate the district with thousands of different colored lights completing even more kinds of festive shapes. No doubt, there were shapes of Santa, snow, trees covered with snow, houses covered with snow over which Santa was flying on a sleigh carried by Rudolf, the reindeer. And this time of the year, you can frequently spot lovers kissing/embracing each other, young couples holding hands of their children running errands, a few weirdoes peeping at them with some unknown curiosity like myself. Although, eyes almost blinded by surrounding neon, I didn't cease to stare every single of them. Consequently, some moments later, the lights slowly faded into a big blurriness encompassing the whole world. How fascinating it was. Surely, the dinner with friends went smooth and even pleasant while we exchanging casual jokes to each other; remember, we don't joke around in Korea. Despite I always complain about people here being damn serious for literally about everything and anything, sometimes, realizing that I have become one of them gives me a sense of eeriness. Suffocated from constantly being serious at all times, I did enjoy making fun of each other and saying silliest ever comments in most awkward ways, which brought me a refreshing sense of vitality on life. Then again, I murmured to myself, "how jolly life can be!" Yey, the holiday season is around us now, and this time, I feel wonderful, and even become nervous as if I am a child waiting for a socks' full of presents from the Santa.
I send you the warmest hug and kiss for this Christmas!
I send you the warmest hug and kiss for this Christmas!
Friday, December 01, 2006
Harper supports for having a Quebecois nation within a united Canada
Harper wants to recognize Quebec as nation within a united Canada
Carly Weeks
CanWest News Service
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
CREDIT: CP PHOTO/Jonathan Hayward
Prime Minister Stephen Harper (centre) receives a standing ovation as he introduces a motion to recognize that Quebecers form a nation within Canada during a speech in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Wednesday Nov. 22, 2006.
CREDIT: CP PHOTO/Jonathan Hayward
Prime Minister Stephen Harper (centre) receives a standing ovation as he introduces a motion to recognize that Quebecers form a nation within Canada during a speech in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Wednesday Nov. 22, 2006.OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper surprised the House of Commons today by announcing his party wants to recognize Quebec as nation within a united Canada.Harper said the party is putting forward a motion to recognize Quebec’s nationhood within Canada in order to supersede a Bloc Quebecois motion that he says would virtually be a vote for separation from the rest of Canada. The prime minister said under the BQ motion that: “If we recognize Quebecers as a nation, we have to vote ‘yes’ in a referendum on separation.”An emotional Liberal Leader Bill Graham responded to Harper’s announcement by saying MPs have to “transcend” partisan differences to ensure Canada remains a united, strong country. The multicultural composition of Canada, which is the envy of the world, came to be because of Canada’s history as a bilingual nation, Graham said.He said it’s up to MPs to fight for the rights of a united Canada. Harper said Quebec forms a nation within Canada, but does not and should never form an independent society, he said. “Do Quebecers form an independent nation from Canada? The answer is no and it will always be no,” Harper said. Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe shot back, saying Quebec is a nation and should given rights, and that sovereignty is the best way for Quebec to develop fully.He said the only respectful option is to recognize Quebec as a nation without any conditions and said it’s not up to the prime minister to decide the future for Quebecers. The prime minister said Canada is an excellent example of unity and harmony in a divided world and said the party will “do what it must” to make sure the country remains united and free. Harper’s announcement follows news on Tuesday that the Bloc Quebecois would table on Thursday a motion calling on the House of Commons to recognize Quebec as a nation.The Conservative announcement comes as the Liberal party is putting together the final preparations for its leadership convention, scheduled to take place in Montreal starting, next week. The controversy began last month when the Liberal party’s Quebec wing endorsed a resolution to recognize Quebec as a nation.The resolution is to be debated at the convention. Michael Ignatieff, considered by many to be the front-runner in the leadership race, has made the issue a major focal point of his platform and has called for the eventual constitutional recognition of Quebec nationhood.CanWest News Service
© CanWest News Service 2006
Carly Weeks
CanWest News Service
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
CREDIT: CP PHOTO/Jonathan Hayward
Prime Minister Stephen Harper (centre) receives a standing ovation as he introduces a motion to recognize that Quebecers form a nation within Canada during a speech in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Wednesday Nov. 22, 2006.
CREDIT: CP PHOTO/Jonathan Hayward
Prime Minister Stephen Harper (centre) receives a standing ovation as he introduces a motion to recognize that Quebecers form a nation within Canada during a speech in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Wednesday Nov. 22, 2006.OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper surprised the House of Commons today by announcing his party wants to recognize Quebec as nation within a united Canada.Harper said the party is putting forward a motion to recognize Quebec’s nationhood within Canada in order to supersede a Bloc Quebecois motion that he says would virtually be a vote for separation from the rest of Canada. The prime minister said under the BQ motion that: “If we recognize Quebecers as a nation, we have to vote ‘yes’ in a referendum on separation.”An emotional Liberal Leader Bill Graham responded to Harper’s announcement by saying MPs have to “transcend” partisan differences to ensure Canada remains a united, strong country. The multicultural composition of Canada, which is the envy of the world, came to be because of Canada’s history as a bilingual nation, Graham said.He said it’s up to MPs to fight for the rights of a united Canada. Harper said Quebec forms a nation within Canada, but does not and should never form an independent society, he said. “Do Quebecers form an independent nation from Canada? The answer is no and it will always be no,” Harper said. Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe shot back, saying Quebec is a nation and should given rights, and that sovereignty is the best way for Quebec to develop fully.He said the only respectful option is to recognize Quebec as a nation without any conditions and said it’s not up to the prime minister to decide the future for Quebecers. The prime minister said Canada is an excellent example of unity and harmony in a divided world and said the party will “do what it must” to make sure the country remains united and free. Harper’s announcement follows news on Tuesday that the Bloc Quebecois would table on Thursday a motion calling on the House of Commons to recognize Quebec as a nation.The Conservative announcement comes as the Liberal party is putting together the final preparations for its leadership convention, scheduled to take place in Montreal starting, next week. The controversy began last month when the Liberal party’s Quebec wing endorsed a resolution to recognize Quebec as a nation.The resolution is to be debated at the convention. Michael Ignatieff, considered by many to be the front-runner in the leadership race, has made the issue a major focal point of his platform and has called for the eventual constitutional recognition of Quebec nationhood.CanWest News Service
© CanWest News Service 2006
photos
http://blog.naver.com/eunbokkim/130011267100
��� �� has invited you to view photos on Yahoo! Photos (101 photos).
����� has sent some photos to you!
If you can't see the button above, use this link: http://new.photos.yahoo.com/album?c=eunbok7&aid=576460762338939022&pid=&wtok=GGOThP_C2De6O1xBX6vXvg--&ts=1164035495&.src=phNote: This email invitation will expire after 90 days.
��� �� has invited you to view photos on Yahoo! Photos (101 photos).
����� has sent some photos to you!
If you can't see the button above, use this link: http://new.photos.yahoo.com/album?c=eunbok7&aid=576460762338939022&pid=&wtok=GGOThP_C2De6O1xBX6vXvg--&ts=1164035495&.src=phNote: This email invitation will expire after 90 days.
"The Tank Man"
Here is a film info. showed in 2006 Vancouver Amnesty International Film Festival, called "The Tank Man," in search of an anonymous young man who stopped a column of tanks rolling down the Tiananmen Square in the spring of 1989. For more details, visit http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/view/. It certainly contains some mind-awakening images.
Seventeen years later, veteran filmmaker Antony Thomas goes to China in search of "The Tank Man." Who was he? What was his fate? And what does he mean for a China that today has become a global economic powerhouse?
Drawing on interviews with Chinese and Western eyewitnesses, Thomas recounts the amazing events of the spring of 1989, when a student protest that began in Tiananmen Square, the symbolic central space of the nation, spread throughout much of the rest of China. Several weeks later, when the government sent in the army to end the demonstrations, the citizens of Beijing poured into the streets in support of the students. "You had a million people on the street, minimum. ... That was unprecedented, definitely in modern Chinese post-revolutionary history," says John Pomfret, who was in Beijing at the time, reporting for the Associated Press.
The demonstrations ended in a massacre on the night of June 3-4, when the government sent the troops into the city with orders to clear Tiananmen Square. Eyewitnesses recount what happened -- from the first shots fired in the city's outskirts, to the students' withdrawal from the square in the early hours of June 4, to the Tank Man's courageous stand the following day.
From there, Thomas looks at what the Tank Man's life might be like in today's China. China observers and scholars, including Orville Schell, talk about the turning point the nationwide unrest of 1989 represented. "After the massacre of 1989, [Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping] in effect said, 'We will not stop economic reform; [but] we will, in effect, halt political reform.'"
Almost two decades later, the educated elite who led the protests of 1989 have benefited handsomely from China's rapid economic growth, but many Chinese workers still face brutal working conditions and low wages. "A lot of factories do not even have one day off," says labor expert Dr. Anita Chan who has been researching working conditions inside China for 15 years. "That means seven days a week, 13 hours a day."
In fact, some experts see the emergence of two Chinas: one modern, wealthy and urban; the other rural, poor and disenfranchised. There is evidence that unrest among workers and peasants is growing; in 2005, there were more than 87,000 "civil disturbances" in the country.
"China is on a knife's edge," says Dr. Nicholas Bequelin of Human Rights Watch. "If we in the West are not aware of this, the leaders in Beijing are very much so, and this is their top concern. They know that the stability is very fragile."
The Chinese government has responded to this threat by cracking down on dissent, and on the media. The regime has managed to erase the Tank Man's image, famous throughout the world, from Chinese memory. Thomas shows the iconic picture to undergraduates at Beijing University, the nerve center of the 1989 protests; none of them recognize it. Central to the regime's struggle to control information is its filtering of the Internet, a complex undertaking that raises serious issues about the role of Western IT companies in China's censorship strategy.
In the face of official silence about 1989 and the Tank Man, the program concludes with Thomas' quest to find out what became of the Tank Man and who he was. In the end, his identity remains a mystery, but the symbolism of his act of defiance continues to have power. "That story ... is not getting weaker because of time. Because we don't know who he is, it's actually getting stronger," says Xiao Qiang of the China Internet Project at the University of California at Berkeley. "In the long frame of history ... human freedom, courage, dignity will stay and prevail, and that's what that picture will testify [to] forever."
Seventeen years later, veteran filmmaker Antony Thomas goes to China in search of "The Tank Man." Who was he? What was his fate? And what does he mean for a China that today has become a global economic powerhouse?
Drawing on interviews with Chinese and Western eyewitnesses, Thomas recounts the amazing events of the spring of 1989, when a student protest that began in Tiananmen Square, the symbolic central space of the nation, spread throughout much of the rest of China. Several weeks later, when the government sent in the army to end the demonstrations, the citizens of Beijing poured into the streets in support of the students. "You had a million people on the street, minimum. ... That was unprecedented, definitely in modern Chinese post-revolutionary history," says John Pomfret, who was in Beijing at the time, reporting for the Associated Press.
The demonstrations ended in a massacre on the night of June 3-4, when the government sent the troops into the city with orders to clear Tiananmen Square. Eyewitnesses recount what happened -- from the first shots fired in the city's outskirts, to the students' withdrawal from the square in the early hours of June 4, to the Tank Man's courageous stand the following day.
From there, Thomas looks at what the Tank Man's life might be like in today's China. China observers and scholars, including Orville Schell, talk about the turning point the nationwide unrest of 1989 represented. "After the massacre of 1989, [Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping] in effect said, 'We will not stop economic reform; [but] we will, in effect, halt political reform.'"
Almost two decades later, the educated elite who led the protests of 1989 have benefited handsomely from China's rapid economic growth, but many Chinese workers still face brutal working conditions and low wages. "A lot of factories do not even have one day off," says labor expert Dr. Anita Chan who has been researching working conditions inside China for 15 years. "That means seven days a week, 13 hours a day."
In fact, some experts see the emergence of two Chinas: one modern, wealthy and urban; the other rural, poor and disenfranchised. There is evidence that unrest among workers and peasants is growing; in 2005, there were more than 87,000 "civil disturbances" in the country.
"China is on a knife's edge," says Dr. Nicholas Bequelin of Human Rights Watch. "If we in the West are not aware of this, the leaders in Beijing are very much so, and this is their top concern. They know that the stability is very fragile."
The Chinese government has responded to this threat by cracking down on dissent, and on the media. The regime has managed to erase the Tank Man's image, famous throughout the world, from Chinese memory. Thomas shows the iconic picture to undergraduates at Beijing University, the nerve center of the 1989 protests; none of them recognize it. Central to the regime's struggle to control information is its filtering of the Internet, a complex undertaking that raises serious issues about the role of Western IT companies in China's censorship strategy.
In the face of official silence about 1989 and the Tank Man, the program concludes with Thomas' quest to find out what became of the Tank Man and who he was. In the end, his identity remains a mystery, but the symbolism of his act of defiance continues to have power. "That story ... is not getting weaker because of time. Because we don't know who he is, it's actually getting stronger," says Xiao Qiang of the China Internet Project at the University of California at Berkeley. "In the long frame of history ... human freedom, courage, dignity will stay and prevail, and that's what that picture will testify [to] forever."
A correspondence on Nov. 14, 2006
Thanks for your intuitive email that I now only received this morning (sorry, i haven't checked emails for a couple of days). It seems many agree it is the Kim Jeong-il's regime that causes this abyss not the people, and this is why the humanitarian aids from the outside should not be annulled. Some may see this as irresponsible since they claim that most of aids go and maintain the military guarding the regime. However, it also is true there have been more and more North Korean defectors coming out of the nation and seeking refugee status in neighboring countries, since the NK widened its economic and cultural contacts with other countries. More contacts with the outside may fatten the regime partially, but we shouldn't disregard that it would also enlighten people therein, who had been blinded and brainwashed for a half century. They say workers at Gaeseong Industrial Zone get paid almost three times more than any average paid workers in the nation, and South Korean tourists visiting Mt. Geungang have become a direct and/or indirect source to deliver the news from the outside to the people in the enclosed country.
At the end, it would be people who change things, or am I too naive?? I think "stick" foreign policy of the Bush administration will only tighten up the NK and only be manipulated by the Kim's regime to more intensively propagandize its people, e.g., the hostile American will stike them, hence they need to be armed or even preemptively stike the US's allies, etc.
One of the critical differences in a point of view between people there (in the west, or somewhere NK's nuke missile cannot reach) and here (including South Korea, Japan, and China), we cannot just afford to take a risk of observing the current on-going situation as NK having "only" played with its bargaining tool to get what they want. We simply can't ignore the slightest chance of possibility that NK would do what it said to do. In this sense, Japanese react on the occasion is somewhat interesting.
Weather here now is quite crisp yet very pleasant most of time except the early dawn that I have to get up for work. Tomorrow, I have a dinner party (well, more likely a simple supper) with colleagues from the last year, which is kind of exciting since I haven't seen some of them for a while. Oh, and I found a nice and quiet cafeteria nearby my office that I can be less bothered by coworkers, so that I can read leisurely and actually breathe. They make the best chocolate, and freshly baked cheese sandwich in town, no doubt!
I wish you're well,
Alexa.
At the end, it would be people who change things, or am I too naive?? I think "stick" foreign policy of the Bush administration will only tighten up the NK and only be manipulated by the Kim's regime to more intensively propagandize its people, e.g., the hostile American will stike them, hence they need to be armed or even preemptively stike the US's allies, etc.
One of the critical differences in a point of view between people there (in the west, or somewhere NK's nuke missile cannot reach) and here (including South Korea, Japan, and China), we cannot just afford to take a risk of observing the current on-going situation as NK having "only" played with its bargaining tool to get what they want. We simply can't ignore the slightest chance of possibility that NK would do what it said to do. In this sense, Japanese react on the occasion is somewhat interesting.
Weather here now is quite crisp yet very pleasant most of time except the early dawn that I have to get up for work. Tomorrow, I have a dinner party (well, more likely a simple supper) with colleagues from the last year, which is kind of exciting since I haven't seen some of them for a while. Oh, and I found a nice and quiet cafeteria nearby my office that I can be less bothered by coworkers, so that I can read leisurely and actually breathe. They make the best chocolate, and freshly baked cheese sandwich in town, no doubt!
I wish you're well,
Alexa.
To whom it may concern;
One day prior to 2006 Election in the U.S., and one day after Saddam Hussein got sentenced to death by hanging, this morning the climate in Seoul was dropped down to around 3~4℃, a huge change only within a few hours of time. One of my friends who live just outskirt of Seoul sent a text message through cell phone this morning to welcome the first snow of the year, which wasn’t actually happening in the city I live. Indeed, the winter has arrived.
How are you? I am sure the weather change there won’t be as dramatic as the one here, but since the whole northern hemisphere now turns into the opposite side from the sun, it’s probably a good idea to prepare a scarf, gloves, and some of usual winter gears, oh, not to mention your umbrella.
North Korea’s nuke issue seemed to be relatively sunk below the surface, well at least for now since the Bush administration is so busy with defending itself for the coming election. The polls indicate, according to the New York Times, democrats will overweigh the republicans, which seems rather predictable even for me. The current administration has provided enough reasons for people to be against; suspension of Habeas corpus during “war on terror,” which led the U.S. to violate some fundamental concepts of human rights and eventually deprive its persuasiveness when it denounced the human rights violation in the North Korea; abyss created by the U.S. military involvement in Middle East; accordingly increasing American casualties, not to mention the casualties of the indigenous; substantially neglecting the nuke development of NK by failing its hawkish foreign policy therein; causing a devaluation of the currency; etc. This can go on and on. In accordance with the consequence of the election, the Korean politics will inevitably be influenced, like most of the other nations in the world, hopefully for the better. In case the democrats win, the “sunshine policy,” which has been pursued by the former president Kim, Dae-jung and the current president Noh will find its way out from the mudhole elaboratively planned by the hardliners in the nation. You wouldn’t believe how disgraceful these political games prepared by the hawk look at the moment. For example, last week, the main opposition party, Grand National Party that used to be led by the daughter of the notorious deceased general Park, Jeong-hee, claimed that a few lawmakers of a progressive party are guilty of being espionages of the North Korea, for the god’s sake, the MCcarthyism is reviving in this country, and you will be awed how powerfully destructive to be labeled as a communist is here.
Apparently, not being able to hermit himself in the critical moments, the former Nobel Peace laureate, Kim Dae-jong broke the silence and publicly has had some meetings with some important political players domestically and internationally. It is true the current administration has lost significant voting power since it has not been so successful in some fields, most significantly, not able to meet the expectation of his main supporting group consisting of youth, farmers, and other relatively left-wing tendency voters. What I am afraid is the nation may soon turn back to its authoritarian-like era that everything was so rigid mostly in very unproductive ways.
I occasionally hear about Vancouver through friends visiting here from time to time, and every time I encounter them, I become very awed how fast time goes by. Can you believe it has been almost a year and nine months since I left the city if not counting the short visit there last winter?
I hope all are fine with you, and talk to you soon.
Truthfully yours,
How are you? I am sure the weather change there won’t be as dramatic as the one here, but since the whole northern hemisphere now turns into the opposite side from the sun, it’s probably a good idea to prepare a scarf, gloves, and some of usual winter gears, oh, not to mention your umbrella.
North Korea’s nuke issue seemed to be relatively sunk below the surface, well at least for now since the Bush administration is so busy with defending itself for the coming election. The polls indicate, according to the New York Times, democrats will overweigh the republicans, which seems rather predictable even for me. The current administration has provided enough reasons for people to be against; suspension of Habeas corpus during “war on terror,” which led the U.S. to violate some fundamental concepts of human rights and eventually deprive its persuasiveness when it denounced the human rights violation in the North Korea; abyss created by the U.S. military involvement in Middle East; accordingly increasing American casualties, not to mention the casualties of the indigenous; substantially neglecting the nuke development of NK by failing its hawkish foreign policy therein; causing a devaluation of the currency; etc. This can go on and on. In accordance with the consequence of the election, the Korean politics will inevitably be influenced, like most of the other nations in the world, hopefully for the better. In case the democrats win, the “sunshine policy,” which has been pursued by the former president Kim, Dae-jung and the current president Noh will find its way out from the mudhole elaboratively planned by the hardliners in the nation. You wouldn’t believe how disgraceful these political games prepared by the hawk look at the moment. For example, last week, the main opposition party, Grand National Party that used to be led by the daughter of the notorious deceased general Park, Jeong-hee, claimed that a few lawmakers of a progressive party are guilty of being espionages of the North Korea, for the god’s sake, the MCcarthyism is reviving in this country, and you will be awed how powerfully destructive to be labeled as a communist is here.
Apparently, not being able to hermit himself in the critical moments, the former Nobel Peace laureate, Kim Dae-jong broke the silence and publicly has had some meetings with some important political players domestically and internationally. It is true the current administration has lost significant voting power since it has not been so successful in some fields, most significantly, not able to meet the expectation of his main supporting group consisting of youth, farmers, and other relatively left-wing tendency voters. What I am afraid is the nation may soon turn back to its authoritarian-like era that everything was so rigid mostly in very unproductive ways.
I occasionally hear about Vancouver through friends visiting here from time to time, and every time I encounter them, I become very awed how fast time goes by. Can you believe it has been almost a year and nine months since I left the city if not counting the short visit there last winter?
I hope all are fine with you, and talk to you soon.
Truthfully yours,
Song of Solomon
I am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys.
Like a lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters.
Like an apple tree among the trees of the woods, so is my beloved among the sons.
I sat down in his shade with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
Song of Solomon 2:1 - 4
Like a lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters.
Like an apple tree among the trees of the woods, so is my beloved among the sons.
I sat down in his shade with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
Song of Solomon 2:1 - 4
Ginkakuji Vs. Kinkakuji Temple in Kyoto
The glitz of its brilliant interior of Kinkaku-ji(金閣寺) reflects a glorious past it once savored. But I have to say gold doesn't have the gentle dignity of silver which becomes more charming as it ages, and so the temple seemed t be decorated like an old woman with too much makeup, whereas there was real artistry in the fade color of wooden structure perfectly harmonized with its surrounding green of the hills where Gingkgku-ji(銀閣寺) was serenely embraced.
Gingkaku-ji(銀閣寺); shown left and right below.
In 1482 Shogun Ashikaga Yoshmasa constructed a villa here as a genteel rtreat from the turmoil of civil w. The villa's name translates as 'Silver Pavilion,' but the shogun's amition to cover the building with silver was never realised. After Yoshimasa'sdeath, the villa was converted into a temple.
Walkways found after approaching the main gate between tall hedges prior turning sharply into the extensive grounds include meticulously raked cones of white sand (assumingly symbols of a mountain and a lake), tall pines and a pond in front of the temple.
Kingkaku-gi(金閣寺); shown right top.
The famous Golden Temple is one of Japan's best-known sights no matter how I felt about the structure compared to Gingkaku-gi. The original building was constructed in 1397 as a retirement villa for Shogun Ashikaga Yoshimitsu. His son converted it into a temple. In 1950 a young monk consummted his obsession with the temple by burning it to the ground. The monk's story was fictionalised in Mishima Yukio's The Golden Pavilion.
In 1955, a full reconstruction was completed that exactly followed the original design, but the gold-foil covering was extended to the lower floors.
setLayoutPhoto2Preview("free", "1", "0", "0", "http://blogfiles.naver.net/data18/2006/11/5/295/SSA40473-eunbokkim.jpghttp://blogfiles.naver.net/data20/2006/11/5/70/SSA40464-eunbokkim.jpghttp://blogfiles.naver.net/data18/2006/11/5/91/SSA40479-eunbokkim.jpg");
Gingkaku-ji(銀閣寺); shown left and right below.
In 1482 Shogun Ashikaga Yoshmasa constructed a villa here as a genteel rtreat from the turmoil of civil w. The villa's name translates as 'Silver Pavilion,' but the shogun's amition to cover the building with silver was never realised. After Yoshimasa'sdeath, the villa was converted into a temple.
Walkways found after approaching the main gate between tall hedges prior turning sharply into the extensive grounds include meticulously raked cones of white sand (assumingly symbols of a mountain and a lake), tall pines and a pond in front of the temple.
Kingkaku-gi(金閣寺); shown right top.
The famous Golden Temple is one of Japan's best-known sights no matter how I felt about the structure compared to Gingkaku-gi. The original building was constructed in 1397 as a retirement villa for Shogun Ashikaga Yoshimitsu. His son converted it into a temple. In 1950 a young monk consummted his obsession with the temple by burning it to the ground. The monk's story was fictionalised in Mishima Yukio's The Golden Pavilion.
In 1955, a full reconstruction was completed that exactly followed the original design, but the gold-foil covering was extended to the lower floors.
setLayoutPhoto2Preview("free", "1", "0", "0", "http://blogfiles.naver.net/data18/2006/11/5/295/SSA40473-eunbokkim.jpghttp://blogfiles.naver.net/data20/2006/11/5/70/SSA40464-eunbokkim.jpghttp://blogfiles.naver.net/data18/2006/11/5/91/SSA40479-eunbokkim.jpg");
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)