Catfish - Living Two Life

   People always want new experience. Well, at least all people want pleasurable experience, if not new experience. That is why people enjoy novels, movies, musicals, and overall, stories. They match themselves with the characters in the stories, and feel as the characters feel. They experience new conditions, new adventures, new events, or new life through such ways. Still, not all of such experience is good for one. Some of such experience make people live numb in fantasies. Sometimes people get too used to the fake world that they confuse it from real world, or the other way around. Computer games would be the most acceptable example.

[Part of comic by a Korean guy]

"21 female :) Nice to meet you"

...

"Ha! You think you got me?"

"I knew it was detachable hair!"

   My question is, 'Is what Angela did good for her?' There are lots of people who pretend to be someone else online. Some crazy guys pretend to be girls, for instance. It is hard for me to understand why they are doing such things, but probably they want some new experience. The difference is that those who read novels only imagine in their heads, but those like Angela shows their imagination online. It's fairly a good choice because it is hard to figure out whether it is real or not in online world. I think that such mockery meaningless. The thing is, imagining inside one's head changes the outward of the one. Of course such imagination ought to be good one, not by computer games. When we watch a movie, or read a novel, we learn something by matching ourselves to the character, and eventually that would change our life. However such "facebook" mockery, will just consume one's life. I believe it is denying oneself in real world, and hiding in deceptions, feeling dumb relief.



Motions
1. THB : online accounts must show user's real name.
2. THB : online crimes must be treated more severely.
3. THB : social network service is harmful for teenagers.

May 18 flawsheet

MOTION : THBT US assassination of Bin Laden is justified.
Date:	5.18	GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Seungmin Oh		Changwoo Lee
Delivery	6 /10	Good try. Need to be more fluent and organized.	8 /10	Good work. Good speed, good organization. Maybe a little more impact or energy.
Arguments	7 /10	1.     Assassinating Bin Laden protected human rights terrorism killed people Bin Laden was harming human rights. 2.     Strong message to public. : Terrorism is inacceptable. 9.11. scared people. By assassinating Bin Laden US prevented further terrorism. Need more logical explanations.	7 /10	1.     Killing Bin Laden disobeys international law. US government needed international permission. Right to be innocent until proven guilty. Nazi and Hussein was judged. 2.     Lose of morality. The mission was to kill him. Although they could capture Bin Laden who did no resistance, US assassinated him, and they don’t have right reason. Therefore, it cannot be justified. Morality cannot be firm reason; it is disputable.
Notes	Tot 13 /20	Definition : Bin Laden – terrorist who killed many people Assassination : killing without procedure. 1.     Laden was protecting human rights 2.     Wide social message to other terrorists 3.     Speedy action was required to prevent further terrorism	Tot 15 /20	Every people have natural rights. Rebuttal 1.     Every people have right to be judged by the law. 2.     Even when a strong attacks a weak, the weak will revenge. Arguments 1.     Killing of Bin Laden disobeys international law. 2.     Disobey morality. 3.     ???
Rebuttal One	Pts	Jegug Lee	Pts	Wonhyuk Lee
Delivery	7 /10	Fairly good. Little bit emotional.	8 /10	Good voice and organization.
Arguments	5 /10	Full of assumptions. Not logical, but emotional	8 /10	Nice rebuttal and fair organization of arguments.
Notes	Tot 12 /20	Rebuttal 1.     Terrorists are dangering other civilians human rights, so terrorists should not be respected. 2.     Killing terrorists also give message to public, preventing terrorists 3.     War against terrorism. So we have right to kill terrorism (Unlogical!) 4.     Video : Confession by Bin Laden of his hijacking. 5.     He had guards and he was offensive against US(???) Argument Senario : escape So much power! Dangerous! (???) Trigger another terrorism (Self-rebutting Anyway he will be killed even through judge of the law?	Tot 16 /20	Rebuttal 1.     Human right is not the concept of good or bad. Criminals also have human rights. 2.     The mission was nothing like a war. Argument. Purposeless mission unless revenge. Killing the symbol of terrorism ineffective : angering terrorism “planning to reveng” Capturing could provide hostage or information. So, it was ineffective in preventing terrorism. It was emotional decision of US Tripling the security actually means terrorism fear increased.
Rebuttal Two	Pts	Seongchan Kim	Pts	Sumin Park
Delivery	8.5 /10	Very good.	7 /10	Good tone, but too long
Arguments	7.5 /10	Still lacks some logical explanation. Organized clashes well	7 /10	Good arguments but need to be more compact
Notes	Tot 16 /20	1.     Human Right vs. Government action This is the War! (?) No further barrier to kill It was hard to tell Bin Laden was disarmed. 2.     Speedy Action needed? Court or Judicial have possibility of escape. Or further terrorism.	Tot 14 /20	Cold – Cola : short term way of US government. 1.     Efficiency in preventing terrorism Assassination will bring short stop, but in long term, it will bring chaos. Counter terrorism and attack did not follow the proper procedure.
Conclusion	Pts	Name	Pts	Name
Delivery	/10		/10
Arguments	/10		/10
Notes	Tot /20		Tot /20

United States of America, the new empire of the world.

   The idea of one powerful country being the arbiter of the world might not be that bad. Looking back in history, whenever there wasn't one big country ruling a continent, many small fought harshly to dominate others. For example, in ancient China, there was an era when several countries fought to rule the entire continent. We have not made a powerful enough world organization that is unbiased to every nation. We have UN, but still it is controlled by powerful nations in Europe and USA.

Vid. The USA has the strongest military power on this planet.

   However, there is a crucial problem to that kind of system. What if the powerful country do what it wants to do? Basically there would be no solution to stop the country. Now, all countries naturally, and should, work as hard as they can for their own benefits. A nation is not some kind of volunteering service. Still, under social and moral regulations, some countries try to appear nicer than others. Some try to keep tradition, mannerism, and so on. Such countries being the arbiter of the entire world might not be that dangerous.



Pic. What happened in the past can happen in the future.

   The United States of American as the dominant ruler? Well, I'm not an expert in such problem, but I want to say that would be little bit dangerous. I believe that the USA is too commercial to do so. American is the most commercial country in the world. Most of international companies are of America: McDonald's, Nike, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, HP, GM, and so on. What I'm worrying is that these companies might take over the country, just as they did in the Gilded Age. A French novelist, Bernard Werber once wrote a short story about a future where there are no countries but only companies, fighting war against each other to make more profits.


THB : US army should leave from Korea.
THB : All countries must have same power in the UN.
THB : A government of a country must be able to control its own destiny

God exists, not Religion.

     Before I start, I want to define "god" in my way. Thanks to all the religion in the world, most people now and before think that god is a mighty individual or mighty individuals who created the world and has been ruling everything. Christians believe that "he" is a good-looking, charismatic middle-aged man with European appearance. Hindus, ancient Egyptians, and many others believe gods look like a combination of human and animal. Still almost all the religions say their gods exist in firm shape. I believe god is something different. God is something that we can deduce from asking "Why?" At any question of phenomenon, if we keep asking "Why?" we will eventually reach to the very question that how the universe began to exist. There is a theory called the Big Bang, but we still can not even guess what caused the Big Bang. I believe when we finally reached the very question what was the cause of the beginning, it would be the perfect time to believe in god. God is not someone nor something. God is that which had ignited the entire world, and therefore, god is the most fundamental answer for everything in the world.

-Uhh, so Mr.God is European? Asians don't have any chance?

     Wo, that was a long first paragraph, but I think I explained enough about that "god exists." Religion, on the other hand, is the very primitive way of worshiping the god. Presumably the founder of religions might concluded that god is someone who just looks like themselves -with some variations- , because human has been the only intelligent species that can be observed on the earth. For example, the Bible says that the god created the first man, Adam, to resemble himself. For those who believe in religion, god is something like a king, the most powerful authority in the bureaucracy of the earth. This kind of presumption is acceptable, but it can never be the final conclusion human being is trying to reach; religion is a part of trials and errors of human species. Now with all the development of technology, we can see that all the religions bare a same lethal error: inconsistency in themselves. Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and all the other religion assert that their god is one which is the only valid one, and all of them use same logic of the presumption of bureaucratic god resembling human. All of them refute each other, and there is none which is special or which adopts different logics. Thus, the only possible conclusion is that none of them is valid. God exists, but no religion is true, and no god lives in religion.

-A Lecture of Richard Dawkins
He doesn't believe in any god, and I disagree with that point. Still I firmly agree with what he says in this video clip.

Disappearing Language, and Disappearing Culture

   As we saw in the video, English is becoming the world language. Partly, it is a corollary of the Britain and the US being the most powerful nations in the world. However, some part of the globalization of English is due to a planned, intentional effort : standardized English tests, universities requiring the tests, and even the government trying to teach English to the students of the nation. The government of South Korea is trying really hard to make the students learn English. In public schools, students spend more, at least equal, time to learn English than to learn their native language.

   Some might think that there would be no difference even if a language disappears. They might think that English can replace the language. I completely disagree. There is a culture in the language. When a language dies, a huge part of the culture disappears. For a solid evidence, a language of a culture has its own unique words. For example, the tribes in Arctic area has dozens of different words indicating snow or ice. They try to classify different types of snow (dry, melting, half-melted, of fine particles, lumpy, etc) with separate words. It is a significant portion of their culture.

   Still we need a global language, and English is likely to be the best candidate. Therefore, we need to learn English, but what I want to say here is that English cannot be the primary goal over our culture and native language. These days, students of South Korea lack the ability to use their native language then before. For a short example, the lyrics for popular music is getting worse and worse. As a result, we can see that teenagers these days do not have a firm national identity. This is terribly wrong. Teachers, parents from the first place must teach what must be taught.




개똥벌레 Firefly (1987)
(For some reasons -linguistic one or whatever-, Koreans call "firefly" "dog-poop bug")


아무리 우겨봐도 어쩔수 없네
Though I insist, it goes as it should.
저기 개똥 무덤이 내 집인걸
That little grave of poop is my home.
가슴을 내밀어도 친구가 없네
Though I approach them, none come to be my friend.
노래 하던 새들도 멀리 날아가네
Singing birds stop singing and fly far far away.
가지마라 가지마라 가지말아라
Do not go, Do not go, Please stay with me.
나를 위해 한번만 노래를 해주렴
I beg you sing a single song for me.
나나 나나나나 쓰라린 가슴안고
nana- nananana- holding my painful heart,
오늘 밤도 그렇게 울다 잠이든다
I fall asleep this night tearing, as I used to.

-Coarse Translation : l



Shy Boy (2011)


뚜루왑 두밥 두밥 뚜루왑 두밥 두밥 뚜루왑 두밥 두밥 뚜루왑 두밥 두밥
Du-ru Wap Du bop Du bop Du-ru Wap Du bop  Du bop Du-ru Wap Du bop Du bop
Time Time Time To Shine Time Time Time Secret Time
Time Time Time To Shine Oh Oh Oh Secret Time
우쭐대지 마 아 아 넌 넌 장난치지 마 아 아 넌 넌
Don't be arrogant, Ah Ah You You Don't make joke with me, Ah Ah You You
오오오 오오오 더는 못 참겠어 그만
OhOhOh OhOhOh I can't stay any long Stop
제발 있는 척 좀 마 아아 No No 이젠 너 같은 남자 아 아 No No
Please don't pretend anymore Ah Ah No No Man like you - no more Ah Ah No No
오오오 오오오 더는 못 보겠어 그만
OhOhOh OhOhOh I can't see it anymore. Stop.

(WTF. It doesn't even require much translation.)


Motions
1. English must be a mandatory course for elementary school students.
2. English must be the global language.
3. Teaching foreign language to those under 13 is harmful.

30 Days in Slave Ship

   "30 Days" documentary series shows us people in interesting situations for 30 days. For example, we saw a straight man living among gays for 30 days, and there are other episodes such as a person living with the minimum wage and a Christian living among Muslims. Overall, this documentary series makes people think about other culture, other people, and other lives.

   My original scenario for this document is to hold 30 days in the slave ship. Slavery had been an important conflict in the history of the world, and especially in the history of the United States. Slavery is also on of the biggest shame in human history. Living as a slave was really agonizing, but becoming a slave from a free man should have been equally painful. Africans captured by whites, specifically the white merchants from American colonies, were transported via ships, the slave ships. The most common route of such ships in the 17th and 18th century were from western coast of Africa to south-east coast of America and Europe, and this passage was know as the "Middle Passage."



   To maximize profits, those whites shrank the room for each Africans as much as they could. The Africans were locked in a place with extremely low ceiling, that some of them were even unable to turn their body around. They were chained together, and were provided only a little amount of food and water. The hygiene condition was not good; most ships didn't have any system to remove excrement instantly. The high mortality rate was a corollary. Usually a slave ship carried a couple hundred kidnapped Africans, and about 15% of them didn't make it to the land where they would be slaves.

a short cut from a movie - captured Africans embarking on a slave ship

   I know this scenario can be very dangerous to the participant, but believe under well-controlled conditions, this would make an extremely real documentary of what slaves had to suffer in the history.

Sir Ken Robinson Believes - Education Kills Creativity.

     What is education? Is it teaching facts and information? Well, if the purpose of the education is to make a person, or a kid, capable of establishing logical and scientific thinking or expressing the aesthetic sense, giving information can never be education. Unfortunately, a large part of current society adopts such method; the schools inject information into the students' heads. Teachers tend to give lectures, in which they just read what's on the text book, for an hour. They tend to do this more especially in some nations where public education has short history. They never ask "what do you think?" Instead, they ask "is this right or wrong?" They try to keep their students focused on the class, and they don't care how : corporal disciplines, verbal violence, and mostly, system of public education. This system, so tangled and so stagnant, never actually changed, and it constantly directs students, mostly mandatorily, to university. So, when we look at this system, we can see that it is not for making a student intellectually refined person, but a university student.

     Let's look back in the history. Is there any great man who made his or her achievement with the help of public education? Not even a single person. Some did learn from public education,but mostly when they had grown up, and more felt, and was blamed that they were inadequate. All those people who brought great renovation to human society were not made from public education. Rather they had studied and cogitated themselves, or at most they had a tutor, who chose educational methods far, far different from what public education has chosen. History shows us that public education never gives birth to great mind.

     Public education can be a great way to keep a society working, just like a waterwheel which rotates constantly, but without any change. It will produce a loyal component of the machine called stable society. Still, it lacks the ability to inspire the kids, make them try new things, encourage them to invent something, and to reveal the innate creativity of them.



Oh, the motions.

1. Public education must be optional for those over 13.
2. Firing public school teachers should be allowed.
3. High schools in Korea do more harm than benefit to students.

Moore's High School Newspaper

     Moore is trying to encourage high school students, who he claims to be suppressed by adults, to express their own thoughts and criticism. Some parts of his idea may seem to be too radical, specifically when it comes to be political debates, but in my opinion, at least in South Korea, such chances are welcomed by me, and many other students.

     Indeed, students, and specifically high school students in South Korea are oppressed. No one can say "no."  Almost all the teachers forbid students from doing everything except studying. Regular Korean high school students, who go to the high schools controlled by the government, study from 8 am to 10 pm. (Some students suffer from much severe curriculum.) They are literally "jailed" inside the school; even though ordinary school time finishes around 5 or 6 pm, they are "obliged" to participate in what teachers and others call "voluntary self-studying" time. Many of, or maybe most of, the teachers believe that a student's primary goal, indeed the only goal, is to enter one of the prestigious universities. They do not want students to have any idea of change, to try something new, or to resist the system, but to be a "brick in the wall."

     Even some parents seem to share the same thought. After more than 12 hours of study in school, they force their children to go to private academy, or study with private tutor, just to raise their children's grades. They think that their children are making nonsense because the children are just "temporarily" tired when the children try to express his or her thought or idea about changing the system. Both teachers and parents believe that any student can not change the system, urging the students to "hold on" for just three years.

     In this situation, students in South Korea do need a way, an outlet, to express their idea. They need somewhere to organize their claims, support them logically, and make a rational debates. The idea of students, which adults believe to be excessively and unnecessarily revolutionary, should be listened and respected, for the sake of both adults and students; if not, students will go insane and irrational in a closed jail where their mouths are completely concealed. Even though their are some dangerous topics to be discussed in high school, such problems can never be a reasonable excuse to ban and censor what students want to speak.

Motions

1. THB : the communities of high school students must be censored by adults.

2. THB : students must be kept away from political issues.

3. THB : students have the same full right as adults.

Story of Stuff

What Annie Leonard claimed in the video "Story of Stuff" was quite interesting. However, I think that only half of her assertion is true : that over consuming must be stopped. Truly people nowadays consume too much. We eat too much, we use too much, and we waste too much compared to how people lived decades ago. Most of such consumptions are unnecessary and, as Leonard claimed, using up much natural resources and polluting our planet. Furthermore, such extravagant consumption is not even evenly allocated. Only some nations are wealthy and prosperous. Only some people in the same wealthy nation hold most of the fortune. We can never say this kind of world is operating fine.

On the other hand, the other half of her claim just seemed to be an attempt to attack the government and large corporations. She said that the government and large companies were making people to spend through several ways including advertisement. She alleged that this system of consumption is something planned by them. I believe, nonetheless, that the primary source, which make the system running on, is common people. Even though it is true that corporations are promoting people to use more, people are never forced to spend their money, and how people act can completely change the corporations since it is people whom the corporation need to make profits. People always have choices : choice to save energy and resources, choice to resist temptations of large companies, and choice to save the planet. It is a meaningless excuse that the corporations and the government coerced us to be in such consumption-based system.

MOTIONS

1. Showing any one-sided argument to those in middle or elementary school must be banned.

2. Advertisements that seduce unnecessary consumption with exaggerated information should be forbidden.

3. Using labor force and resources of other nations by large companies is justifiable.