Charles Ian Chun: What went wrong? -- Blaaarg

November 26, 2008 - I ain't raisin' no slacker.

When I'm a father, I'm going to take my children to a factory to teach them the value of hard work (and because their baby food won't be cheap).

November 22, 2008 - I'm always the last one to figure things out.

Haven't thought about it for decades. I just realized what people meant by "Smooth move, Ex-lax!"

November 21, 2008 - Surround yourself with loved ones.

I really don't think cronyism is that bad, as long as the cronies are friends of mine.

November 14, 2008 - beats earning one . . .

If anyone is interested in ordering a PhD online, you can e-mail "Williams Kemp" at ElliotumbrellaWiley@merriam-webster.com or call (305) 390-0269.

Thanks for the e-mail, "Williams Kemp"!

November 7, 2008 - Americans agree: not as bad is good enough! Version 2.0
(shortened and submitted to Kangnam University's newspaper, Kangnam Hakbo)

Shortly before the presidential election, a New York Times/CBS news poll found that 85% of Americans think the country has been going in the wrong direction. Last week, Americans resoundingly chose the Democratic Party’s Barack Obama to be their next president, hoping he will bring about desperately needed change.

While Obama’s victory certainly represents an important change in American politics (the first African-American president), one wonders if the change stops there. When predicting what a politician will do in office, one examines that person’s voting record and associations. As a lawmaker, Obama has voted to make it more difficult for citizens to take legal action against companies, has voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act (a bill commonly described as the worst attack on our civil liberties in recent history), and has voted to give immunity to telecommunications companies who participated in President Bush’s program to spy on Americans. He intends to increase military spending and expand America’s war in Afghanistan. He supports the death penalty. He advocates offshore oil drilling. Last month, he voted to have taxpayers spend over $700 billion to rescue a fraudulent banking industry. Despite popular sentiment in America, Obama doesn’t support a single-payer national health plan. And why would he? According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Obama received $708,000 in contributions from medical interests between 2001 and 2006. In fact, Obama’s campaign marks the first time a Democratic Party candidate has raised more money from corporate interests than a Republican. These donors have invested in Obama and expect a return on their investment.

Despite these drawbacks, Americans voted for Obama anyway. Part of the reason why is they felt John McCain of the Republican Party was the only alternative (As many skeptical voters have expressed, Barack Obama was the lesser of two evils.). Students may be surprised to know that there were other choices for president. Some notables included independent candidate Ralph Nader, the Green Party’s Cynthia McKinney, the Libertarian Party’s Bob Barr, and the Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin. Thanks to the domination of America’s two-party political system and what are derisively referred to as the "mainstream media," however, people know little to nothing about these third-party candidates.

Why should voters consider third-party candidates in the first place? Third-party candidates take strong and specific stands on issues that have represented some of the best things about America. Historical issues such as the abolition of slavery, women’s right to vote, and the rights of workers did not rise out of the offices of the major parties, but out of third parties. Presently, the country’s switch to renewable sources of energy and a single-payer national health care system, as well as corporate accountability and a reversal of the United States government’s dangerous foreign policy are issues being taken up only by the third parties.

The two major parties, however, have crafted the American election process in a way that makes it nearly impossible for third-party candidates to win the highest office. First, access to state voting ballots is a costly and deliberately obstructive process meant to drain the already meager resources of third-party candidates. Second, the Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation chaired by former heads of the Democratic and Republican parties and directly tied to multinational corporations, excludes third-party candidates from participation in the crucially important presidential debates. Third, our Electoral College creates a winner-take-all situation for each state, which minimizes popular votes and marginalizes third-party candidates. And while the two major parties cannot be blamed for this inherently undemocratic voting mechanism, they also have little incentive to change it.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to the success of third-party candidates, and what we could honestly call "real change", however, are the voters themselves. Despite all the benefits of living in the Information Age, the deep entrenchment of two-party politics in our country has created the false idea that voters have only two viable choices. As a result, voters do not take the time to learn about third-party candidates or their platforms and unquestioningly accept a contemptuous media's characterization of them as spoilers or crazies. Or, if voters do believe in a third-party candidate, they don’t vote for them because they believe they can’t win. More than for someone who is right, voters want to vote for someone who will win. How’s that for democracy?

The late comedian George Carlin joked that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Americans demand change, yet continue to elect the same mediocre people into office expecting different results. It’s incomprehensible and, possibly, a symptom of insanity. Until Americans decide to vote for a person who will do what’s good for the people, rather than a candidate from, as Noam Chomsky puts it, one of the "two factions of the business party," Americans can continue to expect more of the same from their government.

November 6, 2008 - Keep it short and sweet.

I was just told that my submission to my university's paper Kangnam Hakbo is way too long. They asked if they could run the piece over three separate installmants. Unfortunately, it's not that kind of essay. So, it's time to prep the patient for surgery. (sigh)

And, you know, I correctly estimated that the paper would probably give me only enough room for 800 words or so. I gave them 2,500! What the hell is wrong with me?

November 6, 2008 - Thank god we haven't completely lost our bigotry! (and other stuff about the election)

Whew! I was afraid that, with Barack Obama's electoral victory, bigotry had become a thing of the past. That's why I'm grateful to the residents of California, Arizona, and Florida for demonstrating that Americans have not forsaken values that teach us that there are, indeed, citizens who deserve their second-class status. By approving ballot initiatives that ban gay marriage, the United States has shown the world that we like to take our sweet time with our social evolution. Well done!

Though I'm glad to know John McCain will not be our next president and that I am living during a time that will be highlighted in future American history textbooks, I'm sad to see such low numbers (relatively high, but I won't be satisfied with less than 5%) for Ralph Nader at the voting booth (660,094 or 1%). If voters had based their decision only on the issues, Nader might have done much better. On October 28, the Upper School Student Council at The Berkeley Carroll School in New York City hosted a mock campaign/election based solely on the issues. Without realizing for whom they were voting, 46% of the students voted for Nader, while only 29% voted for Obama.

To Americans, however, personal qualities take primacy over issues, which the media showcase with all the hyperbole and vacuity we've come to expect. Thus, I'm saddened also by the recent controversy surrounding Nader's racially-charged remarks about Obama. You can read the article and see the video from Rocky Mountain News and a FUX News clip on YouTube for yourself. I don't disagree with what Nader said; his critiques of Obama are worth taking seriously and are like the elephant in the living room no one really wants to talk about. Yet, I also agree, even with that dickhead Shepard Smith who, with all of his perfectly-crafted, phony indignation (fuck his panelists, too!), said that Nader should have used a phrase other than "Uncle Tom". Nader's more brilliant and has more integrity that McCain and Obama put together. Why didn't he also have the sense to know that Americans and an already-contemptuous media would jump all over that? It makes me think of Bush talking about "crusades" and "an axis of evil." By the way, how much do you want to bet that everyone who talks critically about Ralph Nader will now use the word "irrelevant" to describe him? We love our buzzwords, don't we? Like trained seals.

Besides, I don't think Barack Obama himself has been above making racially-charged remarks. When he talked about some Americans, frustrated over their economic situation, turning to guns and religion, I didn't form a mental picture of a black guy. I thought white trash.

Here's an e-mail I got from the Nader Campaign, which states his issues with Obama in a more eloquent and substantive way than many are likely to see on the news.

November 3, 2008

Open letter to Senator Barack Obama

Dear Senator Obama:

In your nearly two-year presidential campaign, the words "hope and change," "change and hope" have been your trademark declarations. Yet there is an asymmetry between those objectives and your political character that succumbs to contrary centers of power that want not "hope and change" but the continuation of the power-entrenched status quo.

Far more than Senator McCain, you have received enormous, unprecedented contributions from corporate interests, Wall Street interests and, most interestingly, big corporate law firm attorneys. Never before has a Democratic nominee for President achieved this supremacy over his Republican counterpart. Why, apart from your unconditional vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, are these large corporate interests investing so much in Senator Obama? Could it be that in your state Senate record, your U.S. Senate record and your presidential campaign record (favoring nuclear power, coal plants, offshore oil drilling, corporate subsidies including the 1872 Mining Act and avoiding any comprehensive program to crack down on the corporate crime wave and the bloated, wasteful military budget, for example) you have shown that you are their man?

To advance change and hope, the presidential persona requires character, courage, integrity-- not expediency, accommodation and short-range opportunism. Take, for example, your transformation from an articulate defender of Palestinian rights in Chicago before your run for the U.S. Senate to an acolyte, a dittoman for the hard-line AIPAC lobby, which bolsters the militaristic oppression, occupation, blockage, colonization and land-water seizures over the years of the Palestinian peoples and their shrunken territories in the West Bank and Gaza. Eric Alterman summarized numerous polls in a December 2007 issue of The Nation magazine showing that AIPAC policies are opposed by a majority of Jewish-Americans.

You know quite well that only when the U.S. Government supports the Israeli and Palestinian peace movements, that years ago worked out a detailed two-state solution (which is supported by a majority of Israelis and Palestinians), will there be a chance for a peaceful resolution of this 60-year plus conflict. Yet you align yourself with the hard-liners, so much so that in your infamous, demeaning speech to the AIPAC convention right after you gained the nomination of the Democratic Party, you supported an "undivided Jerusalem," and opposed negotiations with Hamas-- the elected government in Gaza. Once again, you ignored the will of the Israeli people who, in a March 1, 2008 poll by the respected newspaper Haaretz, showed that 64% of Israelis favored "direct negotiations with Hamas." Siding with the AIPAC hard-liners is what one of the many leading Palestinians advocating dialogue and peace with the Israeli people was describing when he wrote "Anti-semitism today is the persecution of Palestinian society by the Israeli state."

During your visit to Israel this summer, you scheduled a mere 45 minutes of your time for Palestinians with no news conference, and no visit to Palestinian refugee camps that would have focused the media on the brutalization of the Palestinians. Your trip supported the illegal, cruel blockade of Gaza in defiance of international law and the United Nations charter. You focused on southern Israeli casualties which during the past year have totaled one civilian casualty to every 400 Palestinian casualties on the Gaza side. Instead of a statesmanship that decried all violence and its replacement with acceptance of the Arab League's 2002 proposal to permit a viable Palestinian state within the 1967 borders in return for full economic and diplomatic relations between Arab countries and Israel, you played the role of a cheap politician, leaving the area and Palestinians with the feeling of much shock and little awe.

David Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, described your trip succinctly: "There was almost a willful display of indifference to the fact that there are two narratives here. This could serve him well as a candidate, but not as a President."

Palestinian American commentator, Ali Abunimah, noted that Obama did not utter a single criticism of Israel, "of its relentless settlement and wall construction, of the closures that make life unlivable for millions of Palestinians. ...Even the Bush administration recently criticized Israeli's use of cluster bombs against Lebanese civilians [see www.atfl.org for elaboration]. But Obama defended Israeli's assault on Lebanon as an exercise of its 'legitimate right to defend itself.'"

In numerous columns Gideon Levy, writing in Haaretz, strongly criticized the Israeli government's assault on civilians in Gaza, including attacks on "the heart of a crowded refugee camp... with horrible bloodshed" in early 2008.

Israeli writer and peace advocate-- Uri Avnery-- described Obama's appearance before AIPAC as one that "broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning, adding that Obama "is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future-- if and when he is elected president.," he said, adding, "Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people."

A further illustration of your deficiency of character is the way you turned your back on the Muslim-Americans in this country. You refused to send surrogates to speak to voters at their events. Having visited numerous churches and synagogues, you refused to visit a single Mosque in America. Even George W. Bush visited the Grand Mosque in Washington D.C. after 9/11 to express proper sentiments of tolerance before a frightened major religious group of innocents.

Although the New York Times published a major article on June 24, 2008 titled "Muslim Voters Detect a Snub from Obama" (by Andrea Elliott), citing examples of your aversion to these Americans who come from all walks of life, who serve in the armed forces and who work to live the American dream. Three days earlier the International Herald Tribune published an article by Roger Cohen titled "Why Obama Should Visit a Mosque." None of these comments and reports change your political bigotry against Muslim-Americans-- even though your father was a Muslim from Kenya.

Perhaps nothing illustrated your utter lack of political courage or even the mildest version of this trait than your surrendering to demands of the hard-liners to prohibit former president Jimmy Carter from speaking at the Democratic National Convention. This is a tradition for former presidents and one accorded in prime time to Bill Clinton this year.

Here was a President who negotiated peace between Israel and Egypt, but his recent book pressing the dominant Israeli superpower to avoid Apartheid of the Palestinians and make peace was all that it took to sideline him. Instead of an important address to the nation by Jimmy Carter on this critical international problem, he was relegated to a stroll across the stage to "tumultuous applause," following a showing of a film about the Carter Center's post-Katrina work. Shame on you, Barack Obama!

But then your shameful behavior has extended to many other areas of American life. (See the factual analysis by my running mate, Matt Gonzalez, on www.votenader.org). You have turned your back on the 100-million poor Americans composed of poor whites, African-Americans, and Latinos. You always mention helping the "middle class" but you omit, repeatedly, mention of the "poor" in America.

Should you be elected President, it must be more than an unprecedented upward career move following a brilliantly unprincipled campaign that spoke "change" yet demonstrated actual obeisance to the concentration power of the "corporate supremacists." It must be about shifting the power from the few to the many. It must be a White House presided over by a black man who does not turn his back on the downtrodden here and abroad but challenges the forces of greed, dictatorial control of labor, consumers and taxpayers, and the militarization of foreign policy. It must be a White House that is transforming of American politics-- opening it up to the public funding of elections (through voluntary approaches)-- and allowing smaller candidates to have a chance to be heard on debates and in the fullness of their now restricted civil liberties. Call it a competitive democracy.

Your presidential campaign again and again has demonstrated cowardly stands. "Hope" some say springs eternal." But not when "reality" consumes it daily.

Sincerely,
Ralph Nader

Yet, in the end, the voters chose Obama. Although no one entertained the fantasy that Nader would win this election, I still would have liked it to be proof that Americans are looking for change that the two major parties and their masters insist on denying us. Voter turnout this year was the highest in a century, at about 64%. Perhaps the remaining 36% are the proof. I don't know. I do know that I don't expect Obama to be anything other than a corporate centrist who may, admittedly, improve America's image around the world. Unless, as Michael Moore hopes, Obama turns out to be a "good" politician and breaks his promises (in this case, to his corporate masters), Obama may ultimately disillusion his voters and turn out to be nothing (to borrow his own analogy) but paper wrapped around a fish. As the Democrats have strengthened their position in Congress, I hope they will push Obama to make all of his rhetoric on change actually mean something. I encourage Americans to help make this happen by signing up at november5.org.

November 5, 2008 - . . . because it would be fun.

I'm watching news coverage of the election as votes are still being counted. As far as electoral college votes go, it's 220 for Obama and 114 for McCain. If Barack Obama does win, he should have, when he gives his victory speech, a big banner behind him that says "Mission Accompslished!"

November 2, 2008 - Americans agree: not as bad is good enough!
(submitted to Kangnam University's newspaper, Kangnam Hakbo)

Americans often complain about their government, especially the leaders we elect to run it. According to a recent New York Times/CBS news poll, 85% of the respondents think the country is going in the wrong direction. By the time this article goes to print, Americans will have voted for the next president of the United States -- someone whom they hope will put the country back on track. If the polls are to be trusted, an Obama presidency is more or less assured.

Will I be happy with Barack Obama as president? I certainly think he would be a better president for the United States (and the world) than John McCain. Yet, I’m not actually asking myself who is better fit to lead the United States, John McCain from the Republican Party or Barack Obama from the Democratic Party. Instead, I’m shaking my head asking why, election after election, American voters continue to believe that only two choices are available to them.

There are/were other choices, though, thanks to what are derisively referred to as the “mainstream media”, people know little to nothing about them. Here are some of the notable third-party or independent candidates for the 2008 election of whom you may not have heard: Independent candidate Ralph Nader, Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney, Libertarian party candidate Bob Barr, and Constitution party candidate Chuck Baldwin. I will assume for our students, and even some of my colleagues, that several of these names are unfamiliar. If so, I’m not surprised. Too many powerful interests, corporations and the two major parties in particular, have no interest in having third party and independent candidates enter the electoral conversation.

Why should voters seriously consider third party or independent candidates in the first place? Voters always complain that things never change in Washington. Politicians speak in sound bites, short and memorable parts of a longer speech that can be easily used in news stories and broadcasts -- like a hook in a song (“I want nobody, nobody but you . . .”). Politicians running for office seldom, if ever, address issues specifically and instead make general promises that they will either break or make effectively meaningless once they enter office. They don’t serve the people’s interests, but, rather, what we call “special interests”, political groups with money and influence.

Third party and independent candidates, on the other hand, take strong and specific stands on issues that are deliberately ignored by the major parties. Historical issues such as the abolition of slavery, women’s right to vote, and the formation of labor unions did not rise out of the offices of the major parties, but out of third parties or the efforts of small communities working together, what’s called grassroots organization. Presently, the country’s switch to renewable sources of energy and a single-payer national health care system, as well as accountability for corporate criminals, and a reversal of the United States’ dangerous Middle Eastern policy are issues being taken up only by third party and independent candidates. Unfortunately, the American election process is set up in a way that makes it nearly impossible for third-party candidates to win the highest office and extremely difficult to even get their messages heard.

Perhaps the first major challenge is getting a candidate’s name on the voting ballot. Generally speaking, candidates from the two major parties are automatically listed. This is not the case for third party or independent candidates, who must first prove that enough people want their names there in the first place. While this is reasonable, it is a costly and deliberately obstructive process meant to drain the resources of these candidates. In addition to this basic difficulty, each state has its own rules for getting a candidate’s name on a ballot. If that were not enough, the major parties provide legal obstructions along the way.

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. In 2004, in Texas alone, Nader’s campaign had to collect 68,000 verified signatures during a two-month period in order to have his name appear on the voting ballot. Because past experience has taught him that any excuse would be used to reject a signature, Nader’s campaign wisely collected 140,000. Hindering this task even further, people who voted in the primary elections, which help determine who will represent the party in the general November election, were not allowed to sign Nader’s petition. In the state of Arizona, on pain of prosecution, only Arizona residents could sign Nader’s petition, despite it being a federal election. Moreover, the Democratic Party felt so threatened by Ralph Nader’s candidacy, they filed 24 lawsuits to keep his name off the ballots in 18 states. Try to imagine the enormous human and financial resources that were mustered to get Ralph Nader and Bob Barr each on 45 state ballots this campaign, and you have some idea of how our “democratic” elections are rigged in favor of major party candidates.

After they get on a ballot, candidates are then given a chance to debate each other on issues important to Americans. At least, that is what would happen if the process were truly democratic. Unfortunately, for Americans and democracy, the co-chairs of the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a private corporation, are former chairmen of the Democratic and Republican parties. One has even worked as a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry, the other a gambling lobby. Most of its board members work for multinational corporations, often as partners in corporate law firms. Sponsors (who always wield enormous influence) have included beer, cigarette, chemical, car, and telecommunications companies. Somehow I think Americans wouldn’t want this group privately deciding who gets to compete for the presidency. As it’s well understood that a candidate who does not get on the debates will not have a shot at winning the election, it’s not difficult to understand why third party and independent candidates are not invited.

The CPD did allow one independent candidate to participate in the 1992 debates, the Texas billionaire Ross Perot. His impact on that year’s election was so frightening to both parties and the corporate interests they’re tied to, the CPD excluded him from the debates in 1996, claiming he did not have “a realistic chance of victory.” Keep in mind he received 19% of the popular vote in the 1992 election. To prevent other outsiders from meddling in the future, the CPD, in addition to requiring candidates to be on enough state ballots that would allow them to mathematically win enough electoral votes to win the presidency, tightened their criteria for entry into the debates by requiring candidates to poll nationally at 15% or higher. Many consider this unreasonably high, as the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act gives public funds to candidates whose party is on ten states ballots and wins only 5% of the popular vote in previous elections.

Polls have repeatedly shown that Americans want third party and independent candidates to participate in presidential debates, even if they don’t actually plan to vote for them. The reason is simple: Americans want candidates to actually challenge each other on the issues. By guaranteeing that the two debaters will be from nothing other than, as Noam Chomsky puts it, “two factions of the business party”, the Republican and Democratic candidates can feel safe giving voters about as much information as beauty pageants do.

Election Day itself presents many challenges to third parties and democracy. For those who have been keeping up with the news, stories of “malfunctioning” voting machines, efforts to disenfranchise minorities, and simple voter fraud are numerous. Another important obstacle, however, is the Electoral College, something many Americans see as inherently undemocratic.

If you’re not familiar with the Electoral College, it is basically this. Each of the fifty states is given a certain number of electors, for a total of 538. These electors cast votes for their state based on whichever candidate received the most votes in that state. Thus, we say that a presidential candidate has won a particular state and all of its electoral votes. If you’ve ever seen an American campaign map covered in red and blue states, that’s what that is.

The Electoral College presents grave implications for democracy, however. As some states have more electoral votes than others, campaigns routinely concentrate on what are called “battleground” or “swing” states, giving less attention to states considered safe or not having enough electoral votes to matter. On Election Day, with as few as 537 more votes than the other candidate in a given state, the Electoral College creates a winner-take-all situation. Moreover, a candidate who receives the most popular votes across the country could still lose the election. Both situations were the case in the 2000 election.

The Electoral College also makes democracy difficult for third party and independent candidates. Given the obstacles mentioned above, it is nearly impossible for them to win the popular vote in a single state. As a result, they don’t appear on the electoral map at all after the votes are counted. This perpetuates the idea that third party and independent candidates can have no positive impact on elections, while additionally discouraging future candidates from even running.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to the success of third party and independent candidates, and what we could honestly call “real change”, are the voters themselves. Despite all the benefits of living in the Information Age, the deep entrenchment of two-party politics in our government has created the false idea that voters have only two viable choices. Instead of learning about the issues third party and independent candidates represent, they unquestioningly accept the media’s characterizations of them as spoilers and crazies. With the major party candidates, voters eagerly consume news stories on their personal qualities rather than the issues they stand for and have voted on.

Here’s an example of what I mean. The New York Times/CBS News poll mentioned above found that 64% of the respondents think Illinois Senator Barack Obama would bring about real change. It’s no wonder. His campaign slogan is “Vote for Change.” In his speeches, he repeatedly talks about change. Yet, conventional wisdom teaches voters to look past the speeches and actually examine a candidate’s record.

Ralph Nader’s running mate Matt Gonzalez effectively argues that Obama’s record is at considerable odds with the views of his voters. In 2005, he voted for legislation that makes it more difficult for class-action lawsuits (lawsuits in which a person or small group represents a much larger group) to be brought to a state court, which is precisely where such lawsuits have been successful in protecting consumers, raising wages, and improving working conditions. Last month, Senator Obama, along with McCain, voted to have taxpayers give over $700 billion to rescue a fraudulent banking industry. Obama’s running mate, Senator Joe Biden doesn’t appear to represent “working people” or the middle class either. He voted for the Bankruptcy Reform Bill in 2005, which makes it harder for people to protect themselves by declaring bankruptcy, while doing nothing to control abuses by creditors.

Senator Obama also voted in 2005 to reauthorize the Patriot Act, a bill commonly described as the worst attack on our civil liberties in recent history. This year, he voted for a bill amendment that gives immunity to telecommunications companies who participated in President Bush’s program to spy on Americans. He also plans to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, while increasing the military budget and troops levels in Afghanistan. Obama also advocates offshore oil drilling, despite its negative impact on the environment and negligible impact on fuel prices. Despite the wishes of his voters, he doesn’t support a single-payer national health plan, but instead promises to convince the four health care corporations (whose business is profiting off illness by denying insurance claims) to do the right thing and make things easier for patients. One wonders how that’s possible since, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Obama has received $708,000 in contributions from medical interests between 2001 and 2006. And for someone who’s made so much noise about raising lots of money from selling buttons and t-shirts, Obama sure has been getting a lot of campaign contributions from corporate lawyers and bankers. He even supports the death penalty! What Gonzalez and I want to know is of what kind of change are Obama and his supporters thinking?

If you’ve read this far, it’s obvious I would like Ralph Nader to be president. I think he could bring about real and positive change. If you compare Obama and Nader’s rhetoric to their records, there’s a stark difference. Even a look at the issues on their campaign websites shows what real change actually looks like. If voters knew what Nader’s positions were, he would have a much better chance at winning the presidency. Instead, they share the Democratic Party and media’s contempt for Nader’s candidacy by dismissing him a spoiler (a view that not even Al Gore shares, and his opinion matters). Or, if voters do believe in candidates like Nader, they don’t vote for him because they say he can’t win. Voters want to vote for the person who will win. What a great tenet for democracy! Why don’t voters help themselves by helping candidates like Nader have a fair chance at the presidency? Even if voters ultimately reject Nader or any other minor party candidate because of their positions, isn’t that better than voting for someone simply because you didn’t know there were other choices?

A recent New York Times article quotes a North Carolina resident who voted early for Obama and said, “I generally vote Republican, but this year I voted Democrat. I just don’t feel we can go through any more of the same old thing that we’ve been going through with the Republican Party.” And Coca-Cola tastes terrible, so I’m going to drink Pepsi instead.

The late comedian George Carlin joked that if you vote, you have no right to complain. I’m inclined, however, to agree with Carlin. Americans demand change, yet continue to elect the same mediocre people into office expecting different results. It’s incomprehensible and, possibly, a symptom of insanity. As I said before, an Obama presidency would be better than a McCain one. Yet, I don’t foresee any of the “real change” that people seem to be asking for -- just more mediocrity.

That is how citizens are voting, though, for “the lesser of two evils”; and Obama is not as bad as McCain. Even respected leftist writers such as Noam Chomsky and Norman Solomon have encouraged tactical voting, telling Americans in swing states to vote for Obama rather than a third party candidate they truly believe in. Both warn, however, that voters should do so with the full understanding that Obama does not actually represent their interests. I think Americans (citizens of any country, for that matter) deserve much better than that. The two major parties, the media, and the powerful interests they serve, however, have no plans to give it to us.

October 21, 2008 - Carpe Diem!

Today was the big day, and I was pleased. I ended most of my classes early, to my students delight. I managed to squeeze in about 45 minutes of singing practice at a noraebang down the hill. I was disappointed to hear myself sing even worse than on the previous night. Eldin, Joseph, and I then had a quiet practice in our office at around 3:00, leaving us with the familiar feeling of resignation. Dead men walking . . .

Sound check was scheduled for 5:00 pm, starting customarily at about 6:30. We were pleasantly surprised to learn that Js Studio was doing the sound for the festival. I think it's fair to say that spirits were high, though my expectations had been considerably lowered by then. It did feel good to see Solip, along with our colleagues and their friends and families coming to support us. Even a few of my students came to laugh at their English teacher.

The M.C. got everyone in the audience to write wishes on large paper lanterns, which were then launched into the air, providing a fun and beautiful way to start the evening's festivities. I wrote a Korean version of "Charles and Solip 4-Ever" on mine. It was impressive seeing all the lanterns floating to their unknown destinations. I imagined a squadron of descending fireballs later burning several homes about half a kilometer away.

The concert started with a vocalist who did some ballads. A student band called Scops were the ones who really got things going. They played a set of funk/disco/hip-hop covers like pros. I've heard a lot of students band play at Kangnam University over the past year and a half and am sorry to say that I've never been impressed with them. These guys were really good, though I was disappointed to learn we were on after them. Aren't the best bands supposed to play last?

To my astonishment, our set went well. Eldin kept the crowd laughing and cheering with his legendary wit. I later learned that he had consumed six drinks in the space of an hour before the show, which explains a lot. There were lots of little mistakes throughout our short set, but nothing crippling. I was really thankful for the great sound. As someone who's done live sound, however modest those performances were, I've learned how crucial a factor a good sound/lighting crew is to a good performance (the other factors being the audience and the band themselves). Js Studio did an incredible job and I thanked them afterward for making us sound so good.

It was nice to be on a stage again. After such a high, an inevitable depression followed. Back to reality . . .

October 20, 2008 - Will we be amusing or a complete embarrassment?

Saturday's practice was cancelled as Joseph had to attend to his friend, whose father died that day in a car accident. This was just another incidence of bad luck that prevented us from getting some badly needed practice together. Eldin and I talked about taking our names off the bill for the festival, as it was clear we wouldn't be able to play as well as we'd like. We changed our minds, however, and decided to squeeze in a final practice tonight. I say final because we learned today that we would be playing tomorrow, not Thursday, as originally planned.

Joseph had finally chosen a name for the band that he thought would resonate with Korean audiences: Carpe Diem. With such a name, how could we do anything else but suck it up, do the best we can, and have a good time? After the first twenty minutes at Js Studio, however, we knew we were in trouble. I couldn't believe we could play songs so badly and for no particular reason other than we just suck. We stuck with it, though, using every minute of our studio time trying to establish some semblance of chemistry with each other. Though we did improve noticeably by the end of the two-hour session, our mood could be best described as resignation of our fate.

On our way home, Eldin and I spent about an hour or so singing in the car working on harmonies. I can't say that I became any more optimistic as a result, but it was still a lot of fun.

October 14, 2008 - How to annoy your co-workers

Eldin, Joseph, and I are scheduled to perform at next week's fall festival at Kangnam University. To create the possiblity of more frequent practices, I've moved my new drumset into the office. Our schedules haven't allowed us to get together to practice much, but why should I be worried that today is only our second time playing together?

Professors in neighboring offices were working down the hall, so we had to keep the volume low. We didn't sound that good, but we had potential. I'm looking forward to practicing at full volume on Saturday.

After the others went home, I hung around for another couple hours banging away on the kit. I'm having a great time.

October 12, 2008 - My joke

Q: Are you hungry?
A: We're called Hungarians.

October 9, 2008 - There goes the neighborhood!

I just got home from Nagweon with Eldin and his family. I bought the Roland HD-1 mentioned below at Cosmos Music. It arrives tomorrow afternoon. How's that for service? I'm stoked. After trying the kit out in the store, I fell in love with it. I've never really played before, but, according Eldin, I'm not a bad drummer. I guess years of air drumming can also be considered practice.

Rock Drumming Underground has a lot of great articles for beginner drummers like myself.

October 6, 2008 - There's no momentum

I've been having a great semester. Although it's been my busiest, it's also been my most satisfactory at Kangnam University. Although I can only imagine what my students think of me and my class, their responses to each lesson generally appear to be favorable, at least by the end of the hour.

What bothers me is there is no perceptible momentum in the disposition of my students from one lesson to the next. Even if the previous class was fun and educational, leaving students feeling positive and energetic, they always begin the next class with looks on their faces that ask why they have to be there. Is it really my job to stroke them each time?

I wanted to title this something along the lines of students needing foreplay, but decided against it. Good taste occasionally prevails on this blog, my comment about stroking notwithstanding.

October 5, 2008 - On my way to becoming a one-man band

I've wanted an electronic drum kit for a while. The drum program that comes with Music Maker is not bad for laying out a basic beat, but it's impossible for the sounds to be played with any kind of flair. Perhaps I simply lack the knowledge and patience to make the drums work. I think that's more likely to be the case. Music Maker is primarily a recording program anyway. Regardless, I've decided that getting an electronic drum kit is essential to my songwriting.

After doing some browsing on-line, I decided that the Roland HD-1 V-Drums Lite are the best choice for me. First, I don't actually know how to play the drums yet -- no reason to get the best that money can buy, relatively speaking. Second, the price is reasonable at about 1,100,000 won with the personal monitor. Third, I just don't have the living space to accomodate a bigger kit like the TD-9, which would be a more ideal, yet affordable (or do I mean purchasable?), drum kit. Finally, as the snare is mesh, the toms are rubber, and there is no kick drum beater, my playing shouldn't bother my neighbors.

The only major drawback is the limitation in sound. While the drum sounds can change depending on the velocity of each hit, every part of the drum sounds the same, no matter where I hit it. You also cannot choke cymbals. Finally, although the preset drum kit sounds are decent, I think only four of them are acoustic (three for rock, I think -- one for jazz). Two other presets are percussion (should be cool), while the remaining four belong to the world of hip-hop and electronica (nice, but unlikely to be useful). I'm happy there's a double bass setting; I'm looking forward to fooling around with that one. Roland's website, fortunately, has a lot of great demo videos, done by Johnny Rabb, which give a good idea of what I could do with the drums. In the end, do I really need a bunch of different drum kit sounds? And as long as the trigger picks up each hit, do I really care that they all sound the same? I just want the playing to feel natural, even if the sounds are not. This drum kit would still be a big improvement over a drum machine or a program.

I suppose the next time I write about this will be a review after I actually buy it.

Roland HD-1 V-Drums Lite

October 1, 2008 - Some website updates

I've been fiddling with the overall layout of my site. My monitor's resolution is at 1024x768 and cannot go higher. Though I continue to design the site with these dimensions in mind, I've formatted the pages in a way so that the content takes up the entire width of the screen or, at least, stays in the middle. Let me know if this is not the case for you.

My blarg is back up. I've re-done the layout, though it will look the same to you. There are also many entries to be filled, though it won't really matter as no one reads my blog anyway.

My photo gallery, which is also up again, can now be found under About Me. Many galleries have been moved, however, to their appropriate entries in my blog.

Finally, I've deleted Martial Arts as a main attraction on my site. Though I still enjoy them and hope to resume kickboxing very soon, I feel that it no longer defines who I am. Content once on that page can now be found on my blog.

September 20, 2008 - Charles, could you please sing with your mouth closed?

One of my colleagues, Eldin Husic, has been wanting to get a new band together for some time. He would be on guitar and I on bass. Finding a drummer, however, is always a challenge. Not many foreigners bring their kit to Korea. Then it turned out that our teacher's assistant Joseph plays the drums for his church and agreed to play with us. Eldin even asked our university's foreign teachers' coordinator if we could play a short set at the upcoming fall festival on campus. He said yes. It is now just a matter of getting together to jam and play a few songs reasonably well.

Our set list thus far consists of mostly covers: With or Without You, Knocking on Heaven's Door, Make a Memory by Bon Jovi, and a song that Eldin wrote. I'd like to play more aggressive stuff, but Joseph can't play very fast yet.

We had our first practice tonight in Suwon at a practice space/recording studio called Js Studio. It's really nice. We only had to bring our guitars and sticks. Js provided everything else and at 15,000 won an hour. It felt really nice to play in a band again. We're sloppy and uncoordinated at the moment, but a few more practices should help us from sounding like a complete embarrassment.

View other blog entries:

2008.09-12
2008.07-08
2008.01-06
2007.11-12
2007.06-10
2007.01-05
2006.07-12
2006.01-06
2005.07-12
2005.01-06
2004.11-12
2004.07-10
2004.01-06
2003.07-12
2003.01-06
2002.07-12
2002.01-06