From the Northwest Florida Daily News comes this story of a Crestview couple who drove their car to Wal-Mart, only to have their car break down in the parking lot. The man told his wife to carry on with the shopping while he fixed the car in the lot.
The wife returned later to see a small group of people near the car. On closer inspection, she saw a pair of male legs protruding from under the chassis. Although the man was in shorts, his lack of underpants turned private parts into glaringly public ones. Unable to stand the embarrassment, she dutifully stepped forward, quickly put her hand UP his shorts, and tucked everything back into place.
On regaining her feet, she looked across the hood and found herself staring at her husband who was standing idly by. The mechanic, however, had to have three stitches in his forehead.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
It was a different week here in Korea. My co-worker had her birthday party and we went to Itewon and I stayed awake until 0500 on Sunday morning. I have got to quit doing that.
Last week on the 19th It was Korea Thanksgiving. My students have been telling me of what they do. They went to their grandparents house and ate a lot of different types of foods and they went to the cemeteries to pay respect to their ancestors.
A few of us gathered at my co-workers place and had a Cook-out. I was listening to everybody talk and the point of family came out. My co-worker made the point that the foreigners here in our little circle are a family. We argue, bitch and generally try and help each other. I was looking at this motely crew who we have here, 2 from New Zealand, 2 from Australia, 3 from USA, a few from Canada and others that seem to come and go, depending on which way the winds blow on that day.
It should be an intresting year here in Daejeon.
Last week on the 19th It was Korea Thanksgiving. My students have been telling me of what they do. They went to their grandparents house and ate a lot of different types of foods and they went to the cemeteries to pay respect to their ancestors.
A few of us gathered at my co-workers place and had a Cook-out. I was listening to everybody talk and the point of family came out. My co-worker made the point that the foreigners here in our little circle are a family. We argue, bitch and generally try and help each other. I was looking at this motely crew who we have here, 2 from New Zealand, 2 from Australia, 3 from USA, a few from Canada and others that seem to come and go, depending on which way the winds blow on that day.
It should be an intresting year here in Daejeon.
I have never been a fan of Norte Dame Fottball at all. When I read this I thought, Well done sir.
SOUTH BEND, Ind. (AP) -- Charlie Weis doesn't usually let anyone else call plays on offense. He made an exception for 10-year-old Montana Mazurkiewicz.
The Notre Dame coach met last week with Montana, who had been told by doctors weeks earlier that there was nothing more they could do to stop the spread of his inoperable brain tumor. ``He was a big Notre Dame fan in general, but football especially,'' said his mother, Cathy Mazurkiewicz.
Weis showed up at the Mazurkiewicz home in Mishawaka, just east of South Bend, and talked with Montana about his tumor and about Weis' 10-year-old daughter, Hannah, who has global development delay, a rare disorder similar to autism. He told Montana about some pranks he played on Joe Montana -- whom Montana was named after -- while they were roommates at Notre Dame.
``I gave him a chance to hammer me on the Michigan State loss, which he did very well. He reminded me of my son,'' said Weis, whose son, Charlie Jr., is 12 years old. Weis said the meeting was touching.
``He told me about his love for Notre Dame football and how he just wanted to make it through this game this week,'' Weis said. ``He just wanted to be able to live through this game because he knew he wasn't going to live very much longer.'' As Weis talked to the boy, Cathy Mazurkiewicz rubbed her son's shoulder trying to ease his pain. Weis said he could tell the boy was trying not to show he was in pain.
His mother told Montana, who had just become paralyzed from the waist down a day earlier because of the tumor, to toss her a football Weis had given him. Montana tried to throw the football, put could barely lift it. So Weis climbed into the reclining chair with him and helped him complete the pass to his mother.
Before leaving, Weis signed the football. ``He wrote, 'Live for today for tomorrow is always another day,''' Mazurkiewicz said.
``He told him: 'You can't worry about tomorrow. Just live today for everything it has and everything you can appreciate,'' she said. ``He said: 'If you're (in pain) today you might not necessarily be in pain tomorrow, or it might be worse. But there's always another day.''
Weis asked Montana if there was something he could do for him. He agreed to let Montana call the first play against Washington on Saturday. He called ``pass right.'' Montana never got to see the play. He died Friday at his home.
Weis heard about the death and called Mazurkiewicz on Friday night to assure her he would still call Montana's play.
``He said, 'This game is for Montana, and the play still stands,''' she said. Weis said he told the team about the visit. He said it wasn't a ``Win one for the Gipper'' speech, because he doesn't believe in using individuals as inspiration. He just wanted the team to know people like Montana are out there. `That they represent a lot of people that they don't even realize they're representing,'' Weis said.
When the Irish started on their own 1-yard-line following a fumble recovery, Mazurkiewicz wasn't sure Notre Dame would be able to throw a pass. Weis was concerned about that, too. So was quarterback Brady Quinn. ``He said what are we going to do?'' Weis said. ``I said we have no choice. We're throwing it to the right.''
Weis called a play where most of the Irish went left, Quinn ran right and looked for tight end Anthony Fasano on the right.
Mazurkiewicz watched with her family. `I just closed my eyes. I thought, 'There's no way he's going to be able to make that pass. Not from where they're at. He's going to get sacked and Washington's going to get two points,''' she said.
Fasano caught the pass and leapt over a defender for a 13-yard gain.
``It's almost like Montana was willing him to beat that defender and take it to the house,'' Weis said.
Mazurkiewicz was happy. `It was an amazing play. Montana would have been very pleased. I was very pleased,'' she said. ``I was just so overwhelmed. I couldn't watch much more.''
Weis called her again after the game, a 36-17 victory by the 13th-ranked Fighting Irish, and said he had a game ball signed by the team that he wanted to bring to the family on Sunday. `He's a very neat man. Very compassionate,'' she said. ``I just thanked him for using that play, no matter the circumstances.''
SOUTH BEND, Ind. (AP) -- Charlie Weis doesn't usually let anyone else call plays on offense. He made an exception for 10-year-old Montana Mazurkiewicz.
The Notre Dame coach met last week with Montana, who had been told by doctors weeks earlier that there was nothing more they could do to stop the spread of his inoperable brain tumor. ``He was a big Notre Dame fan in general, but football especially,'' said his mother, Cathy Mazurkiewicz.
Weis showed up at the Mazurkiewicz home in Mishawaka, just east of South Bend, and talked with Montana about his tumor and about Weis' 10-year-old daughter, Hannah, who has global development delay, a rare disorder similar to autism. He told Montana about some pranks he played on Joe Montana -- whom Montana was named after -- while they were roommates at Notre Dame.
``I gave him a chance to hammer me on the Michigan State loss, which he did very well. He reminded me of my son,'' said Weis, whose son, Charlie Jr., is 12 years old. Weis said the meeting was touching.
``He told me about his love for Notre Dame football and how he just wanted to make it through this game this week,'' Weis said. ``He just wanted to be able to live through this game because he knew he wasn't going to live very much longer.'' As Weis talked to the boy, Cathy Mazurkiewicz rubbed her son's shoulder trying to ease his pain. Weis said he could tell the boy was trying not to show he was in pain.
His mother told Montana, who had just become paralyzed from the waist down a day earlier because of the tumor, to toss her a football Weis had given him. Montana tried to throw the football, put could barely lift it. So Weis climbed into the reclining chair with him and helped him complete the pass to his mother.
Before leaving, Weis signed the football. ``He wrote, 'Live for today for tomorrow is always another day,''' Mazurkiewicz said.
``He told him: 'You can't worry about tomorrow. Just live today for everything it has and everything you can appreciate,'' she said. ``He said: 'If you're (in pain) today you might not necessarily be in pain tomorrow, or it might be worse. But there's always another day.''
Weis asked Montana if there was something he could do for him. He agreed to let Montana call the first play against Washington on Saturday. He called ``pass right.'' Montana never got to see the play. He died Friday at his home.
Weis heard about the death and called Mazurkiewicz on Friday night to assure her he would still call Montana's play.
``He said, 'This game is for Montana, and the play still stands,''' she said. Weis said he told the team about the visit. He said it wasn't a ``Win one for the Gipper'' speech, because he doesn't believe in using individuals as inspiration. He just wanted the team to know people like Montana are out there. `That they represent a lot of people that they don't even realize they're representing,'' Weis said.
When the Irish started on their own 1-yard-line following a fumble recovery, Mazurkiewicz wasn't sure Notre Dame would be able to throw a pass. Weis was concerned about that, too. So was quarterback Brady Quinn. ``He said what are we going to do?'' Weis said. ``I said we have no choice. We're throwing it to the right.''
Weis called a play where most of the Irish went left, Quinn ran right and looked for tight end Anthony Fasano on the right.
Mazurkiewicz watched with her family. `I just closed my eyes. I thought, 'There's no way he's going to be able to make that pass. Not from where they're at. He's going to get sacked and Washington's going to get two points,''' she said.
Fasano caught the pass and leapt over a defender for a 13-yard gain.
``It's almost like Montana was willing him to beat that defender and take it to the house,'' Weis said.
Mazurkiewicz was happy. `It was an amazing play. Montana would have been very pleased. I was very pleased,'' she said. ``I was just so overwhelmed. I couldn't watch much more.''
Weis called her again after the game, a 36-17 victory by the 13th-ranked Fighting Irish, and said he had a game ball signed by the team that he wanted to bring to the family on Sunday. `He's a very neat man. Very compassionate,'' she said. ``I just thanked him for using that play, no matter the circumstances.''
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Just when I think the North Korea Story cant get any weirder, Here comes good old Ted Turner...
Ted Turner's never met a communist he didn't love.
Sometimes I really feel for Wolf Blitzer. Not only does CNN make him work on camera 60 hours a week, they still only let him have a chair about one segment an hour. Anyway, on The Situation Room today on Wolf-TV, the founder was interviewed. Ted Turner and Wolf on North Korea. Keep in mind all the atrocities that have been documented by Claudia Rosett and others.
WB: You spent some time recently in North Korea, Ted. Did this agreement come to you as a surprise?
TT: No. No, I talked with quite a few of the North Korean leaders and South Korean leaders, too, and spent really the most time with the head negotiator for North Korea. And I was really over there to try and persuade North and South Korea to make the DMZ into an international peace park when they sign a peace treaty, which I anticipate will be fairly soon, now that we have these six-party talks. We have agreement there. But I had a great time. I am absolutely convinced that the North Koreans are absolutely sincere. There's really no reason for them to cheat or do anything to violate this very forward agreement. I think we can put the North Korea and East Asia problems behind us, and concentrate on Iran and Iraq, where we still have some ongoing difficulties.
WB: I've got to tell you, Ted, given the record of North Korea, especially the fact that in the Clinton administration, in '93-'94, they made a similar pledge which they violated and they backed out of. I'm not exactly sure that I accept all your optimism.
TT: Well, you know, I was optimistic about the Cold War when I got to Russia, too. But I looked 'em right in the eyes, and they look like they meant the truth. I mean, you know, just because somebody has done something wrong in the past, it doesn't mean they can't do right in the future, or in the present. That happens all the time.
WB: But this is one of the most despotic regimes, and Kim Jung Il is one of the worst men on Earth. Isn't that a fair assessment?
TT: Well, I didn't get to meet him, but he didn't look...in the pictures I've seen of him on CNN, he didn't look too much different than most of the other people I've met.
WB: But look at the way he's treating his own people.
TT: Well, hey. Listen, I saw a lot of people over there. They were thin, and they were riding bicycles instead of driving in cars. But I didn't see any brutality in the capitol, or out in the DMZ. We drove through the countryside quite a bit to down to P'annumjom and Kaesong. We traveled around. I'm sure we were on a special route, but I don't see...there's really no reason...North Korea's got enough problems with their economy and their agriculture. I think they want to join the Western world, and improve the quality of life for their people, just like everybody else. And I think that we should give them another chance. It doesn't cost us anything. They already have agreements, and then North Korea never posed any significant threat to the United States. I mean, the whole economy of North Korea is only $30 billion dollars a year. It's less than the city of Detroit. It's a small place, and we do not have to worry about them attacking us.
WB: You know, they have a million troops within literally a few miles...
TT: A half million.
WB: Well, best estimates are a million. A million troops along the DMZ...
TT: Yes, and we have a half a million troops, of which 28,000 are Americans, and they've been there for fifty years. One of the things I've said in both North and South Korea is, it's time to end the Korean War officially, and move on and get those hundreds of thousands of young men that are sitting there back building hospitals and roads and schools in both North and South Korea, and improving the gross national product. It's just a waste of time and energy for them just to sit there.
WB: I think the bottom line, though, Ted, and I think you'd agree. They had this opportunity in the nineties, when they signed this first agreement, and they cheated. They didn't live up to it. Now they have a second chance. I hope you're right. I certainly do.
TT: Well, I hope I'm right, too. But, you know, in the Bible, it says you're supposed to forgive seven times seventy, or something like that. Just because...in 1940, the Germans were our enemies. For the last fifty years, they've been our allies. The same with the Russians...The Russians were our enemies before '91 when the Cold War ended. Let's give them a break. Give them a break. Besides, even if they do threaten us again, the threat is non-existent to the United States. They can't threaten us. I mean, it's like a flea attacking an elephant.
WB: What about those ground-to-ground missiles, and the...
TT: They can't reach us.
WB: They can reach Japan. They can reach South Korea. They can reach a lot of our allies.
TT: They can't reach the U.S.A., and we can pound them into oblivion in 24 hours.
WB: But you don't want to get to that. There's some estimates, by the way, they could reach Alaska.
TT: Well, what? The Aleutian Islands? There's nothing up there but a few sea lions.
WB: Well, you know, this is a serious issue. I hope you're right, as I said. But...
TT: I know it's a serious issue. I mean, I didn't go over there to waste my time.
WB: No, no, no. I'm just saying the point that you said...
TT: Have you ever been there?
WB: I've been to South Korea. I've been to the DMZ.
TT: Have you ever been to North Korea?
WB: No. I've never been to North Korea.
TT: Well, you know, at least go up there and look in their eyes and have a chat with them, before you accuse them of...
WB: I've made several requests, but they haven't let me into North Korea.
TT: Then go on your vacation.
WB: Maybe if I go with you the next time.
TT: All right. I took Christianne Ammanpour with me this time.
WB: Kim Jung Il, I'll look him in the eyes, and we'll see how he's doing.
End of lunacy.
People are thin and ride bicycles instead of cars? What an evil man Ted Turner is to not recognize that countless people have starved to death because of this psycho in pajamas. Wolf at least asked the appropriate questions to follow up, but you know he's having a bad day when he gets into an argument with the founder of the network he works for, and knows he's arguing with a crazy person. No wonder Turner doesn't see a problem with Kim Jung Il. Crazies don't often see problems with other crazies.
As for the Aleutian Islands, or Alaska for that matter, if Ted has such disdain for all the nothing that's up there, how could he possibly object to drilling for oil, since there's nothing up there but sea lions?
Turner is a goofball, and the only reason anyone cares about what he says is because he's a goofball with a lot of money
Good old Ted he went from a Billionare to a millionare with the AOL-Time Warner merger...
Ted Turner's never met a communist he didn't love.
Sometimes I really feel for Wolf Blitzer. Not only does CNN make him work on camera 60 hours a week, they still only let him have a chair about one segment an hour. Anyway, on The Situation Room today on Wolf-TV, the founder was interviewed. Ted Turner and Wolf on North Korea. Keep in mind all the atrocities that have been documented by Claudia Rosett and others.
WB: You spent some time recently in North Korea, Ted. Did this agreement come to you as a surprise?
TT: No. No, I talked with quite a few of the North Korean leaders and South Korean leaders, too, and spent really the most time with the head negotiator for North Korea. And I was really over there to try and persuade North and South Korea to make the DMZ into an international peace park when they sign a peace treaty, which I anticipate will be fairly soon, now that we have these six-party talks. We have agreement there. But I had a great time. I am absolutely convinced that the North Koreans are absolutely sincere. There's really no reason for them to cheat or do anything to violate this very forward agreement. I think we can put the North Korea and East Asia problems behind us, and concentrate on Iran and Iraq, where we still have some ongoing difficulties.
WB: I've got to tell you, Ted, given the record of North Korea, especially the fact that in the Clinton administration, in '93-'94, they made a similar pledge which they violated and they backed out of. I'm not exactly sure that I accept all your optimism.
TT: Well, you know, I was optimistic about the Cold War when I got to Russia, too. But I looked 'em right in the eyes, and they look like they meant the truth. I mean, you know, just because somebody has done something wrong in the past, it doesn't mean they can't do right in the future, or in the present. That happens all the time.
WB: But this is one of the most despotic regimes, and Kim Jung Il is one of the worst men on Earth. Isn't that a fair assessment?
TT: Well, I didn't get to meet him, but he didn't look...in the pictures I've seen of him on CNN, he didn't look too much different than most of the other people I've met.
WB: But look at the way he's treating his own people.
TT: Well, hey. Listen, I saw a lot of people over there. They were thin, and they were riding bicycles instead of driving in cars. But I didn't see any brutality in the capitol, or out in the DMZ. We drove through the countryside quite a bit to down to P'annumjom and Kaesong. We traveled around. I'm sure we were on a special route, but I don't see...there's really no reason...North Korea's got enough problems with their economy and their agriculture. I think they want to join the Western world, and improve the quality of life for their people, just like everybody else. And I think that we should give them another chance. It doesn't cost us anything. They already have agreements, and then North Korea never posed any significant threat to the United States. I mean, the whole economy of North Korea is only $30 billion dollars a year. It's less than the city of Detroit. It's a small place, and we do not have to worry about them attacking us.
WB: You know, they have a million troops within literally a few miles...
TT: A half million.
WB: Well, best estimates are a million. A million troops along the DMZ...
TT: Yes, and we have a half a million troops, of which 28,000 are Americans, and they've been there for fifty years. One of the things I've said in both North and South Korea is, it's time to end the Korean War officially, and move on and get those hundreds of thousands of young men that are sitting there back building hospitals and roads and schools in both North and South Korea, and improving the gross national product. It's just a waste of time and energy for them just to sit there.
WB: I think the bottom line, though, Ted, and I think you'd agree. They had this opportunity in the nineties, when they signed this first agreement, and they cheated. They didn't live up to it. Now they have a second chance. I hope you're right. I certainly do.
TT: Well, I hope I'm right, too. But, you know, in the Bible, it says you're supposed to forgive seven times seventy, or something like that. Just because...in 1940, the Germans were our enemies. For the last fifty years, they've been our allies. The same with the Russians...The Russians were our enemies before '91 when the Cold War ended. Let's give them a break. Give them a break. Besides, even if they do threaten us again, the threat is non-existent to the United States. They can't threaten us. I mean, it's like a flea attacking an elephant.
WB: What about those ground-to-ground missiles, and the...
TT: They can't reach us.
WB: They can reach Japan. They can reach South Korea. They can reach a lot of our allies.
TT: They can't reach the U.S.A., and we can pound them into oblivion in 24 hours.
WB: But you don't want to get to that. There's some estimates, by the way, they could reach Alaska.
TT: Well, what? The Aleutian Islands? There's nothing up there but a few sea lions.
WB: Well, you know, this is a serious issue. I hope you're right, as I said. But...
TT: I know it's a serious issue. I mean, I didn't go over there to waste my time.
WB: No, no, no. I'm just saying the point that you said...
TT: Have you ever been there?
WB: I've been to South Korea. I've been to the DMZ.
TT: Have you ever been to North Korea?
WB: No. I've never been to North Korea.
TT: Well, you know, at least go up there and look in their eyes and have a chat with them, before you accuse them of...
WB: I've made several requests, but they haven't let me into North Korea.
TT: Then go on your vacation.
WB: Maybe if I go with you the next time.
TT: All right. I took Christianne Ammanpour with me this time.
WB: Kim Jung Il, I'll look him in the eyes, and we'll see how he's doing.
End of lunacy.
People are thin and ride bicycles instead of cars? What an evil man Ted Turner is to not recognize that countless people have starved to death because of this psycho in pajamas. Wolf at least asked the appropriate questions to follow up, but you know he's having a bad day when he gets into an argument with the founder of the network he works for, and knows he's arguing with a crazy person. No wonder Turner doesn't see a problem with Kim Jung Il. Crazies don't often see problems with other crazies.
As for the Aleutian Islands, or Alaska for that matter, if Ted has such disdain for all the nothing that's up there, how could he possibly object to drilling for oil, since there's nothing up there but sea lions?
Turner is a goofball, and the only reason anyone cares about what he says is because he's a goofball with a lot of money
Good old Ted he went from a Billionare to a millionare with the AOL-Time Warner merger...
I was going to give the Korea Times a pass on this article but when I review it today. It made me a little mad.
New Dispute on Old Soldier
Historical Reappraisal Should Be Rational Than Emotional
U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur has neither died nor faded away, but stands at the center of renewed ideological battles in Korea. It is regrettable to see what should be an academic debate turn into a political and even diplomatic dispute. Historical reassessment of the Korean War and the U.S. military operations here should be made, but in rational, not emotional, ways. It appears abrupt and fussy for the nation to tussle over a foreign soldier who died 41 years ago.
The problem is that MacArthur has recently become a symbol of two polarizing sets of perceptions on modern Korean history. Young leftist groups see the late general as the head of occupying forces who divided the Korean Peninsula and would have annihilated its northern half with atomic bombs given the chance. Old rightists regard him as a savior and liberator, first from Japanese colonialists and then from North Korean communists. The truth, however, may be that MacArthur ㅡ or America ㅡ had both aspects.
There are mixed evaluations of Gen. MacArthur in the United States, too. He seemed to be a solider with big political ambitions and an extreme abhorrence of communism but was frustrated by American public opinion, which wanted no further escalation of war in Asia. Regardless of the U.S. appraisal of the late general, his statue was erected to commemorate the Inchon Landing, one of the most decisive battles of the 1950-53 war, which turned the tide of the war. No more ㅡ and no less.
Events, even ones not so proud, should have their own places in history and be remembered for good or bad reasons. So the attempted removal of MacArthur's statue can change nothing really, but shows our own historical immaturity. Moreover, it is true that many South Koreans fought to their deaths not to be communized by their northern compatriots, and the U.S. spearheaded global support for such a struggle, whatever its motivations may have been. It was apparent 55 years ago who our enemies were and who were our friends.
As long as Korean War veterans are still alive, the leftist revision of modern history may not be easy. The civic groups' efforts are attempts to bring the hitherto conservative, ideology-driven historical pendulum to a progressive, nation-oriented one. It will stop near the center, not artificially and forcefully, but in due course of time. This is the time not for emotional or physical conflicts over historical events and individuals but for a calm analysis of their merits and demerits. Only time will tell.
As President Roh made it clear that it is the government's position to keep the statue, U.S. lawmakers had better wait and see. Nor is this an issue for partisan wrangling domestically. Related officials can consider relocating it to a war memorial from the present public park someday. We have never heard of a statue of Dwight Eisenhower in Normandy to commemorate D-Day. (This is a lie)
Somebody called them out in this Letter to the Editor.
Regarding your editorial of Sept. 20,New Dispute on Old Soldier, you write "We have never heard of a statue of Dwight Eisenhower in Normandy to commemorate D-Day."
Perhaps you should spend more time on fact checking before you write erroneous information for public dissemination!
There is in fact not only a statue of Eisenhower, but a whole plaza dedicated to the general in Bayeux, France _ which is in the Normandy region.
The statues, parks, and plazas that have been dedicated to numerous generals and soldiers of many of the Allied nations are well taken care of and respected in many European countries, not only France.
Your ignorance does not make a fact, nor does it entitle you to write untruths in a public forum.
Get your facts straight!
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1994/940605/06050091.htm
In 1994 Monday June 6th.
Bayeux, France - The first monument on continental Europe to Dwight Eisenhower is unveiled by Eisenhower's son John, with U.S. Ambassador Pamela Harriman, 4:30 a.m.
This took 1 minute on a yahoo search engine...
And If you can look above here is 2 photos of this statue that I found on this site
http://www.pierrecarion.com/blog/archives/2003/07/14/0909.html
We demand an apology and better facts checking from this newspaper
If you remember a statment that I made a few post ago about The Fucking MacArthur song..
Ok Mr. Park please show your records of this so-called statment, I am A world history major and I couldnt not find any records of this statment. Now release the statment or shut the fuck up!
Well guess where he got this from...North Korea...
You’ll remember “Fucking USA” singer Park Seong-hwan recently did a song calling Gen. Douglas MacArthur a murderer and accusing him of ordering atrocities during the Korean War. In the song, he does a bit of narration:
Between verses two and three, Park adds his own narration. “Seize Seoul. There are girls and ladies there. For three days, Seoul will be yours — UN Commander Douglas MacArthur, September 1950.” Park says historical records confirm that this is an authentic quote by the maverick commander.
Well, this sparked OhMyNews’ Son Byeong-gwan’s curiousity, namely as to where the quote came from. So he called up the singer, who told him he got the quote from a June 25 op-ed by Jang Chang-hun, a researcher with a center attached to a particular left-wing civic group. Son then calls up Jang, who says he found the quote via an Internet search when he was writing a 2002 report, and while he couldn’t remember the source exactly, he believed it to be Sungkonghoe University professor Han Hong-gu. Hong, however, denies ever saying such a thing, even though he was quick to note that in his view, MacArthur isn’t the kind of person you should build a statue to (one might wonder about Han’s thoughts on a Kim Il-sung statue, though). He also noted that he didn’t know if Big Mac ever directly ordered atrocities, although his subordinates might have.
So Son asked Park Se-gil, the writer of “Rewriting Modern Korean History,” where the MacArthur quote might have come from. Park answered that one could guess he might have said something like that because there were materials related to it, but he didn’t know the exact source.
This didn’t satisfy Son, or another university professor familiar with modern Korean history (who chose to remain nameless, I guess lest his commie friends give him grief during faculty drinking parties) that it was nonsense that MacArthur ordered the massacre of civilians, and that he was concerned about some of the claims that were currently being pushed that were not grounded in fact.
Anyway, to make a long story short, Son concluded in his first piece that one could not, as of around noon Friday, say that Park’s song was based on objective fact. About this, the singer said, “Because we aren’t scholars… we’re going to have to look a little more for material [to prove the lyrics].”
Later on Friday afternoon, however, Son got his answer. Jang Chang-hun wrote OhMyNews to tell them that he had found the source of the quote — a North Korean history book that had been translated by pro-North Korean scholars in Japan in 1972 and retranslated into Korean in South Korea in 1991. Jang noted, however, that the book did not attibute sources, either, and said:
“One could easily dismiss it as groundless North Korean propaganda and fabrications… But one cannot conclude that the statements are ‘groundless’ or ‘fabricated’ just because concrete sources for MacArthur’s comments aren’t clarified.”
What the f... So the quote comes from a history book with no real source and this is the truth?
Mr. Park once again I say, please show your records of this so-called statment, I am A world history major and I couldnt not find any records of this statment. Now release the statment or shut the fuck up!
So sir please be quiet and shut up and never sing your lies ever again.
Ok Mr. Park please show your records of this so-called statment, I am A world history major and I couldnt not find any records of this statment. Now release the statment or shut the fuck up!
Well guess where he got this from...North Korea...
You’ll remember “Fucking USA” singer Park Seong-hwan recently did a song calling Gen. Douglas MacArthur a murderer and accusing him of ordering atrocities during the Korean War. In the song, he does a bit of narration:
Between verses two and three, Park adds his own narration. “Seize Seoul. There are girls and ladies there. For three days, Seoul will be yours — UN Commander Douglas MacArthur, September 1950.” Park says historical records confirm that this is an authentic quote by the maverick commander.
Well, this sparked OhMyNews’ Son Byeong-gwan’s curiousity, namely as to where the quote came from. So he called up the singer, who told him he got the quote from a June 25 op-ed by Jang Chang-hun, a researcher with a center attached to a particular left-wing civic group. Son then calls up Jang, who says he found the quote via an Internet search when he was writing a 2002 report, and while he couldn’t remember the source exactly, he believed it to be Sungkonghoe University professor Han Hong-gu. Hong, however, denies ever saying such a thing, even though he was quick to note that in his view, MacArthur isn’t the kind of person you should build a statue to (one might wonder about Han’s thoughts on a Kim Il-sung statue, though). He also noted that he didn’t know if Big Mac ever directly ordered atrocities, although his subordinates might have.
So Son asked Park Se-gil, the writer of “Rewriting Modern Korean History,” where the MacArthur quote might have come from. Park answered that one could guess he might have said something like that because there were materials related to it, but he didn’t know the exact source.
This didn’t satisfy Son, or another university professor familiar with modern Korean history (who chose to remain nameless, I guess lest his commie friends give him grief during faculty drinking parties) that it was nonsense that MacArthur ordered the massacre of civilians, and that he was concerned about some of the claims that were currently being pushed that were not grounded in fact.
Anyway, to make a long story short, Son concluded in his first piece that one could not, as of around noon Friday, say that Park’s song was based on objective fact. About this, the singer said, “Because we aren’t scholars… we’re going to have to look a little more for material [to prove the lyrics].”
Later on Friday afternoon, however, Son got his answer. Jang Chang-hun wrote OhMyNews to tell them that he had found the source of the quote — a North Korean history book that had been translated by pro-North Korean scholars in Japan in 1972 and retranslated into Korean in South Korea in 1991. Jang noted, however, that the book did not attibute sources, either, and said:
“One could easily dismiss it as groundless North Korean propaganda and fabrications… But one cannot conclude that the statements are ‘groundless’ or ‘fabricated’ just because concrete sources for MacArthur’s comments aren’t clarified.”
What the f... So the quote comes from a history book with no real source and this is the truth?
Mr. Park once again I say, please show your records of this so-called statment, I am A world history major and I couldnt not find any records of this statment. Now release the statment or shut the fuck up!
So sir please be quiet and shut up and never sing your lies ever again.
N.Korea Agreement Hits Snag Already
With the ink not yet dry on a joint statement of principles that ended a grueling round of six-nation talks on North Korea’s nuclear program on Monday, the Stalinist country is already locking horns again with the U.S. over a light-water nuclear reactor it wants and the timeframe for abandoning its nuclear arms.
The North Korean Foreign Ministry on Tuesday offered an idiosyncratic reading of Monday’s agreement, saying the country would rejoin the Non-Proliferation Treaty and come back into full IAEA compliance “when the U.S. provides us with a light-water reactor that can be the basis of bilateral confidence.” It said Pyongyang was “fair and square, consistent and deep-rooted like a rock. The U.S. should not even dream of asking us to give up the nuclear deterrent we already have before providing a light-water nuclear reactor. That is the security of building bilateral confidence, physical security.” The statement of principles was understood to be merely envisaging “discussion” on the thorny issue that had threatened to scupper the talks.
The U.S. reiterated that the North must completely dismantle its nuclear weapons program before talks on the light-water nuclear reactor can begin. The U.S. State Department told reporters the six-party statement referred to the light-water reactor as a “future issue” that should be taken up at an “appropriate time.” When asked to define “appropriate time,” U.S. officials said, “When [North Korea] has rejoined the NPT and once again comes into compliance with IAEA stipulations.”
A senior South Korean official said the North Korean statement suggested Pyongyang was determined to get the maximum benefits it can from the agreement.
To be honest, why is anybody surprised?
South Korea is still giving free food, electricity, ect ect. without any inspections. Sound familiar?
Now for the US response..
U.S. Dismisses N. Korea Reactors Demand
The Bush administration is dismissing North Korea's demand for civilian nuclear reactors and appears confident of a final agreement to end that nation's nuclear weapons program. Still, the administration and South Korea foresee difficulties.
The next round of negotiations is planned for early November. In the interim, informal discussions among the six negotiating nations — the United States, North Korea, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia — are expected. "We are going to get this done," U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill told The Associated Press in an interview. He stressed that North Korea must agree to international restraints before its demand can be considered seriously.
In New York, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said "we will not get hung up" on the North Korean statement. "We can make progress if everybody sticks to what was actually agreed to," Rice said amid meetings with foreign ministers attending the U.N. General Assembly session. "I think we will just stick with the text of the Beijing agreement to which the North Koreans signed on," she said.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, meanwhile, said that if North Korea needed some time to reflect on the agreement reached this week, "We'll give it to them." McClellan told reporters traveling with President Bush to survey Hurricane Katrina relief efforts that the agreement spelled out the steps needed to be taken. "Once they take those steps, then we would be prepared to talk further," he said.
Bush spoke by telephone with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and they agreed that verification of North Korea's pledge to abandon its weapons program was critical, McClellan said. Roh's office in Seoul took note of the prospect of "various difficulties" in resolving the nuclear issue and said the South Korean president told Bush he appreciated U.S. "flexibility" during the negotiations in Beijing.
State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said: "There are going to be differences. That's to be expected." Describing North Korea's demand as remote, Ereli said, "We're not even close to going that far." North Korea said Tuesday it would not dismantle its nuclear weapons program until the United States first provided light-water reactors.
"Life is too short to overreact to every statement coming out of Pyongyang," Hill said upon his return from negotiations in Beijing. "It obviously was not a helpful statement. But it was not unexpected, either." Still, Hill said North Korea's demand would be discussed at the next round, although he ruled out any such arrangement until North Korea rejoined an international treaty designed to limit the spread of nuclear technology and agreed to international supervision.
Under the tentative agreement, South Korea would provide North Korea with the energy it says it needs, Hill said. "They know what they signed on to," Hill said. "We are not surprised by these sorts of statements. There probably will be more of them."
Asked if he was confident the breakthrough agreement would be concluded, Hill replied, "I wouldn't have supported it if I did not think it would get done." He noted the agreement is not with the United States alone but with North Korea's neighbors. "That means something in Asia," he said.
With the ink not yet dry on a joint statement of principles that ended a grueling round of six-nation talks on North Korea’s nuclear program on Monday, the Stalinist country is already locking horns again with the U.S. over a light-water nuclear reactor it wants and the timeframe for abandoning its nuclear arms.
The North Korean Foreign Ministry on Tuesday offered an idiosyncratic reading of Monday’s agreement, saying the country would rejoin the Non-Proliferation Treaty and come back into full IAEA compliance “when the U.S. provides us with a light-water reactor that can be the basis of bilateral confidence.” It said Pyongyang was “fair and square, consistent and deep-rooted like a rock. The U.S. should not even dream of asking us to give up the nuclear deterrent we already have before providing a light-water nuclear reactor. That is the security of building bilateral confidence, physical security.” The statement of principles was understood to be merely envisaging “discussion” on the thorny issue that had threatened to scupper the talks.
The U.S. reiterated that the North must completely dismantle its nuclear weapons program before talks on the light-water nuclear reactor can begin. The U.S. State Department told reporters the six-party statement referred to the light-water reactor as a “future issue” that should be taken up at an “appropriate time.” When asked to define “appropriate time,” U.S. officials said, “When [North Korea] has rejoined the NPT and once again comes into compliance with IAEA stipulations.”
A senior South Korean official said the North Korean statement suggested Pyongyang was determined to get the maximum benefits it can from the agreement.
To be honest, why is anybody surprised?
South Korea is still giving free food, electricity, ect ect. without any inspections. Sound familiar?
Now for the US response..
U.S. Dismisses N. Korea Reactors Demand
The Bush administration is dismissing North Korea's demand for civilian nuclear reactors and appears confident of a final agreement to end that nation's nuclear weapons program. Still, the administration and South Korea foresee difficulties.
The next round of negotiations is planned for early November. In the interim, informal discussions among the six negotiating nations — the United States, North Korea, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia — are expected. "We are going to get this done," U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill told The Associated Press in an interview. He stressed that North Korea must agree to international restraints before its demand can be considered seriously.
In New York, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said "we will not get hung up" on the North Korean statement. "We can make progress if everybody sticks to what was actually agreed to," Rice said amid meetings with foreign ministers attending the U.N. General Assembly session. "I think we will just stick with the text of the Beijing agreement to which the North Koreans signed on," she said.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, meanwhile, said that if North Korea needed some time to reflect on the agreement reached this week, "We'll give it to them." McClellan told reporters traveling with President Bush to survey Hurricane Katrina relief efforts that the agreement spelled out the steps needed to be taken. "Once they take those steps, then we would be prepared to talk further," he said.
Bush spoke by telephone with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and they agreed that verification of North Korea's pledge to abandon its weapons program was critical, McClellan said. Roh's office in Seoul took note of the prospect of "various difficulties" in resolving the nuclear issue and said the South Korean president told Bush he appreciated U.S. "flexibility" during the negotiations in Beijing.
State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said: "There are going to be differences. That's to be expected." Describing North Korea's demand as remote, Ereli said, "We're not even close to going that far." North Korea said Tuesday it would not dismantle its nuclear weapons program until the United States first provided light-water reactors.
"Life is too short to overreact to every statement coming out of Pyongyang," Hill said upon his return from negotiations in Beijing. "It obviously was not a helpful statement. But it was not unexpected, either." Still, Hill said North Korea's demand would be discussed at the next round, although he ruled out any such arrangement until North Korea rejoined an international treaty designed to limit the spread of nuclear technology and agreed to international supervision.
Under the tentative agreement, South Korea would provide North Korea with the energy it says it needs, Hill said. "They know what they signed on to," Hill said. "We are not surprised by these sorts of statements. There probably will be more of them."
Asked if he was confident the breakthrough agreement would be concluded, Hill replied, "I wouldn't have supported it if I did not think it would get done." He noted the agreement is not with the United States alone but with North Korea's neighbors. "That means something in Asia," he said.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon has sent a written response to Rep. Hyde stating the Korean government’s position not to permit the statue of Gen. MacArthur to be removed or damaged. He also mentioned that high-ranking Cheong Wa Dae officials planned to meet with those calling for the statue to be removed to explain to them the importance of the Korea-U.S. alliance and the sacrifices made by Gen. MacArthur. On a more feel-good note, he also said neither the Korean government nor the Korean people have forgotten the sacrifices made by Americans in protecting democracy in Korea, and that they remember Gen. MacArthur as a “great and brave hero of the Korean War.” He also noted that when, thanks to the North Korean nuclear issue, the importance of a strong Korean-U.S. alliance was been highlighted, he was sure that the regrettable actions of some would not influence the bilateral relationship.
HERE IS THE WHOLE ARTICLE.
Ban sends letter to U.S. Congress to pledge statue protection
NEW YORK, Sept. 16 (Yonhap) -- South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon has sent a letter to Henry Hyde, chairman of the U.S. House Committee on International Relations, to commit the Seoul government to preventing the demolition of a controversial statue of U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur.
Ban, visiting here to attend the special session marking the 60th anniversary of the United Nations, said he recently sent the letter on the order of President Roh Moo-hyun.
In the letter, Ban pledged his government to do its best in thwarting any attempt to demolish or damage the statue, saying such a bid runs counter to the "mature perception of history by South Koreans".
Ban reiterated that Roh had officially opposed destruction of the statue on multiple occasions, saying he was confident attempts by a minority of Koreans to harm the statue will not adversely affect the South Korea-U.S. relationship.
The South Korean people and government will never forget the sacrifices Americans made to defend democracy in South Korea, Ban said, adding most South Koreans remember MacArthur as a "great and courageous hero" of the Korean War.
The House Committee on International Relations sent a letter to Roh Thursday, saying the U.S. Congress was "disturbed" by reports of protests around the statue of MacArthur whom protesters describe as a "war criminal." The letter, signed by five members of the committee, including Hyde, urged Roh to take "all necessary action" to prevent defilement or destruction of the statue.
"If this is not the case, however, and the violent attempts to topple the statue continue, we would respectfully suggest that, rather than allowing the General's statue to be defaced or torn down, the people of (Incheon) and all of South Korea turn over the statue of General MacArthur to the American people," said the letter. Roh has denounced the liberal activists who are calling for the demolition of the statue, which commemorates the generals contribution to the defense of South Korea in the 1950-53 Korean War.
The president dismissed any effort to dismantle the statue as an "unwise act" unhelpful to South Korea's relationship with the U.S. Roh said any demolition of the statue would not only "greatly undermine the pride of American people" but also seriously aggravate U.S. sentiment against South Korea and U.S. citizens' perception of Korea.
"I do not know the reason why the statue should be demolished," he said. "I like that they would recognize history as it is and I do not understand why they are trying to abolish all of the past now." Once revered as a hero of the Korean War in South Korea, MacArthur recently became a controversial figure, with some civic organizations holding demonstrations near the statue to demand its relocation. Critics say the statue is incompatible with ongoing inter-Korean efforts to promote reconciliation. Korean War veterans groups have also staged rallies to counter the campaign to remove the statue.
MacArthur directed the famous landing at Incheon on September 15, 1950, in the third month of the war that turned the tide of battle and helped U.N. forces restore most of South Korea. MacArthur later sent U.N. forces into North Korea that advanced to China's border before being forced to retreat in the face of overwhelming intervention by Chinese forces.
The 5-meter-tall bronze statue, established at Freedom Park in Incheon in 1957, depicts the U.S. general looking over the port and holding a pair of binoculars. The MacArthur issue emerged as South Korea began to question long-standing historical assumptions with the launch of the Roh administration in early 2003.
Elected on various liberal election campaign pledges, one of which included a call for a more equal footing in the country's relationship with the U.S., which stations 32,500 U.S. troops in the South Korea, Roh has pursued greater independence from Washington than his predecessors on the North Korean nuclear issue and other security matters.
I agree with the Marmot that President Roh should of been the one to have sent the response himself clearly stating the policy of the Republic of Korea. Instead President Roh has decided to have Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon to respond instead. President Roh can't even write a letter himself stating his own government's policy much less thank 32,000 American soldiers serving in his country.
See also my article about the 2002 attack any you see why I really doubt Presidents Roh words. Mr President, words are nice, I value action and right now all is see is a whole bag of noting.
HERE IS THE WHOLE ARTICLE.
Ban sends letter to U.S. Congress to pledge statue protection
NEW YORK, Sept. 16 (Yonhap) -- South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon has sent a letter to Henry Hyde, chairman of the U.S. House Committee on International Relations, to commit the Seoul government to preventing the demolition of a controversial statue of U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur.
Ban, visiting here to attend the special session marking the 60th anniversary of the United Nations, said he recently sent the letter on the order of President Roh Moo-hyun.
In the letter, Ban pledged his government to do its best in thwarting any attempt to demolish or damage the statue, saying such a bid runs counter to the "mature perception of history by South Koreans".
Ban reiterated that Roh had officially opposed destruction of the statue on multiple occasions, saying he was confident attempts by a minority of Koreans to harm the statue will not adversely affect the South Korea-U.S. relationship.
The South Korean people and government will never forget the sacrifices Americans made to defend democracy in South Korea, Ban said, adding most South Koreans remember MacArthur as a "great and courageous hero" of the Korean War.
The House Committee on International Relations sent a letter to Roh Thursday, saying the U.S. Congress was "disturbed" by reports of protests around the statue of MacArthur whom protesters describe as a "war criminal." The letter, signed by five members of the committee, including Hyde, urged Roh to take "all necessary action" to prevent defilement or destruction of the statue.
"If this is not the case, however, and the violent attempts to topple the statue continue, we would respectfully suggest that, rather than allowing the General's statue to be defaced or torn down, the people of (Incheon) and all of South Korea turn over the statue of General MacArthur to the American people," said the letter. Roh has denounced the liberal activists who are calling for the demolition of the statue, which commemorates the generals contribution to the defense of South Korea in the 1950-53 Korean War.
The president dismissed any effort to dismantle the statue as an "unwise act" unhelpful to South Korea's relationship with the U.S. Roh said any demolition of the statue would not only "greatly undermine the pride of American people" but also seriously aggravate U.S. sentiment against South Korea and U.S. citizens' perception of Korea.
"I do not know the reason why the statue should be demolished," he said. "I like that they would recognize history as it is and I do not understand why they are trying to abolish all of the past now." Once revered as a hero of the Korean War in South Korea, MacArthur recently became a controversial figure, with some civic organizations holding demonstrations near the statue to demand its relocation. Critics say the statue is incompatible with ongoing inter-Korean efforts to promote reconciliation. Korean War veterans groups have also staged rallies to counter the campaign to remove the statue.
MacArthur directed the famous landing at Incheon on September 15, 1950, in the third month of the war that turned the tide of battle and helped U.N. forces restore most of South Korea. MacArthur later sent U.N. forces into North Korea that advanced to China's border before being forced to retreat in the face of overwhelming intervention by Chinese forces.
The 5-meter-tall bronze statue, established at Freedom Park in Incheon in 1957, depicts the U.S. general looking over the port and holding a pair of binoculars. The MacArthur issue emerged as South Korea began to question long-standing historical assumptions with the launch of the Roh administration in early 2003.
Elected on various liberal election campaign pledges, one of which included a call for a more equal footing in the country's relationship with the U.S., which stations 32,500 U.S. troops in the South Korea, Roh has pursued greater independence from Washington than his predecessors on the North Korean nuclear issue and other security matters.
I agree with the Marmot that President Roh should of been the one to have sent the response himself clearly stating the policy of the Republic of Korea. Instead President Roh has decided to have Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon to respond instead. President Roh can't even write a letter himself stating his own government's policy much less thank 32,000 American soldiers serving in his country.
See also my article about the 2002 attack any you see why I really doubt Presidents Roh words. Mr President, words are nice, I value action and right now all is see is a whole bag of noting.
Now the US Newspapers are starting to follow this story. The LA Times writter, who I have quoted upon in the past, has written this story. This is from the Boston Newspaper www.boston.com.
S. Koreans battle over MacArthur legacy
By Barbara Demick, Los Angeles Times | September 17, 2005
INCHON, South Korea -- General Douglas MacArthur can't be seen around these parts without his bodyguards.
The old soldier stands high on a bluff here looking out to sea, binoculars slung around his neck and an officer's cap perched jauntily on his head. In a cordon in front of him are several burly riot policemen, their shields raised in defensive posture. At least a dozen other officers, some in plainclothes with wires dangling in their ears, are fanned out around the flowerbeds, on the lookout for trouble.
For nearly half a century, a 16-foot bronze likeness of the late war hero has dominated a park near the shores where thousands of US troops under his command landed Sept. 15, 1950, to expel North Korean forces. It is considered one of the decisive battles of the Korean War, one that many here credit for the eventual success of the prosperous, free-market nation that is South Korea.
But not all. A movement to tear down the statue has been gaining momentum recently among some younger South Koreans, who call it a symbol of US occupation and oppression.
MacArthur, remembered for his quote that ''old soldiers never die, they just fade away," has hardly faded when it comes to the controversy surrounding his life and legacy.
On Sept. 11, more than 4,000 anti-MacArthur demonstrators armed with bamboo sticks clashed with an almost equal number of riot police.
From the sidelines, nearly 1,000 conservative defenders of the statue, many of them Korean War veterans, threw eggs and garbage at the protesters. Some blocked an ambulance carrying away injured protesters, screaming that communists didn't deserve to be rescued, witnesses said.
''We've had demonstrations here before, but this is the first they've turned violent," said Kim Kyeong Ho, a police official surveying the site Wednesday. ''There is a real clash of values going on. People consider him either a savior or a war criminal."
The protesters are led by a coalition of student and labor groups, including the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions and the Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union. Their argument is that the US effort in the Korean War was not so much an altruistic defense of South Korea's freedom as an attempt to gain hegemony over the region, and that it needlessly caused the division of the peninsula.
''It is time to reappraise MacArthur's role in history. If it were not for him, our country would not have been colonized and divided as it was," said Kim Guk Rae, a 40-year-old activist from Inchon who is one of the leaders of the movement.
Getting in on the act, a popular radical performer, Park Seong Hwan, whose song with an obscene reference to the US was the ballad of demonstrators during a string of anti-American protests in 2002, came out last week with a piece calling for the removal of the statue.
The drive to remove the statue has inspired a determined backlash. On Park's Web page, furious veterans have denounced the singer as an ''ungrateful commie" and suggested that he move to North Korea. Defenders of the statue are planning a major demonstration Thursday to mark the 55th anniversary of the Inchon landing, and police are girding for another brawl.
Even before the historical revisionism, MacArthur was a controversial figure in this country and at home.
He was removed from his command by President Harry S. Truman for insubordination in 1951 after he pressed to expand the war across the border into China, and some historians believe he needlessly prolonged the war.
Regardless of their feelings about MacArthur, many South Koreans seem to be deeply embarrassed by the clash on Sept. 11.
The wave of anti-American demonstrations in 2002, sparked by the accidental death of two schoolgirls hit by a US military vehicle, damaged South Korea's relations with the United States and its image abroad. Anti-Americanism is believed to be bad for business here, and many fear that a brouhaha over MacArthur will play badly with American conservatives.
S. Koreans battle over MacArthur legacy
By Barbara Demick, Los Angeles Times | September 17, 2005
INCHON, South Korea -- General Douglas MacArthur can't be seen around these parts without his bodyguards.
The old soldier stands high on a bluff here looking out to sea, binoculars slung around his neck and an officer's cap perched jauntily on his head. In a cordon in front of him are several burly riot policemen, their shields raised in defensive posture. At least a dozen other officers, some in plainclothes with wires dangling in their ears, are fanned out around the flowerbeds, on the lookout for trouble.
For nearly half a century, a 16-foot bronze likeness of the late war hero has dominated a park near the shores where thousands of US troops under his command landed Sept. 15, 1950, to expel North Korean forces. It is considered one of the decisive battles of the Korean War, one that many here credit for the eventual success of the prosperous, free-market nation that is South Korea.
But not all. A movement to tear down the statue has been gaining momentum recently among some younger South Koreans, who call it a symbol of US occupation and oppression.
MacArthur, remembered for his quote that ''old soldiers never die, they just fade away," has hardly faded when it comes to the controversy surrounding his life and legacy.
On Sept. 11, more than 4,000 anti-MacArthur demonstrators armed with bamboo sticks clashed with an almost equal number of riot police.
From the sidelines, nearly 1,000 conservative defenders of the statue, many of them Korean War veterans, threw eggs and garbage at the protesters. Some blocked an ambulance carrying away injured protesters, screaming that communists didn't deserve to be rescued, witnesses said.
''We've had demonstrations here before, but this is the first they've turned violent," said Kim Kyeong Ho, a police official surveying the site Wednesday. ''There is a real clash of values going on. People consider him either a savior or a war criminal."
The protesters are led by a coalition of student and labor groups, including the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions and the Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union. Their argument is that the US effort in the Korean War was not so much an altruistic defense of South Korea's freedom as an attempt to gain hegemony over the region, and that it needlessly caused the division of the peninsula.
''It is time to reappraise MacArthur's role in history. If it were not for him, our country would not have been colonized and divided as it was," said Kim Guk Rae, a 40-year-old activist from Inchon who is one of the leaders of the movement.
Getting in on the act, a popular radical performer, Park Seong Hwan, whose song with an obscene reference to the US was the ballad of demonstrators during a string of anti-American protests in 2002, came out last week with a piece calling for the removal of the statue.
The drive to remove the statue has inspired a determined backlash. On Park's Web page, furious veterans have denounced the singer as an ''ungrateful commie" and suggested that he move to North Korea. Defenders of the statue are planning a major demonstration Thursday to mark the 55th anniversary of the Inchon landing, and police are girding for another brawl.
Even before the historical revisionism, MacArthur was a controversial figure in this country and at home.
He was removed from his command by President Harry S. Truman for insubordination in 1951 after he pressed to expand the war across the border into China, and some historians believe he needlessly prolonged the war.
Regardless of their feelings about MacArthur, many South Koreans seem to be deeply embarrassed by the clash on Sept. 11.
The wave of anti-American demonstrations in 2002, sparked by the accidental death of two schoolgirls hit by a US military vehicle, damaged South Korea's relations with the United States and its image abroad. Anti-Americanism is believed to be bad for business here, and many fear that a brouhaha over MacArthur will play badly with American conservatives.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
A great link to whats has been going on is http://jetiranger.tripod.com/BLOG/
Please read the following article from his site today.
US Congress Speaks Out on MacArthur Statue Debate
The MacArthur Statue controversy has now taken a new twist with the US Congress now weighing in on the controversy and they are voicing their displeasure of the Korean government's handling of this situation:
Members of the U.S. House Committee on International Relations on Thursday protested at calls in Korea to topple a statue of U.S. general Douglas MacArthur in Incheon. Their protest came in a letter to President Roh Moo-hyun signed by committee chairman Henry Hyde and others.
The letter said but for the 1950 Incheon landing led by MacArthur, the Korea of today would not exist. If attempts to damage the statue continued, it would be better to hand it over to the Americans, the signatories said.
Needless to say Mr. President the Congress of the United States and the American people would never subscribe to such a description of a hero who led the allied forces which liberated the Republic of Korea twice, first from the yoke of Japanese colonialism 60 years ago this summer and secondly through the brilliant execution of the Inchon landing 55 years ago this month. Our critical bilateral alliance was forged in the crucible of Inchon. The common sacrifices, goals, and achievements which sprang out of Inchon form, in our opinion, the continuing basis for our alliance. We presume that the government of the Republic of Korea shares this view of the critical importance fo the Inchon Landing and the leadership of General Douglas MacArthur.
Reading in between the lines of this paragraph the Congressmen wanted to remind President Roh that America did in fact liberate South Korea twice and that Inchon is the symbolic representation of the liberation given to Korea through American intervention and that by denying Inchon and MacArthur you deny the US-ROK alliance as well. The last part about presuming that the Korean government shares these views is, I believe, the Congressmen trying to call President Roh's bluff. President Roh has spoke out before that the protests are straining US-ROK relations but he has never condemned the ideology that the hate groups stand for.
It appears to me that the Congressmen want to know if President Roh believes General MacArthur is someone who helped liberate Korea or if he believes the general is a war criminal. President Roh has been trying to dodge this question because he knows MacArthur helped liberate Korea, but he doesn't want to say it because then he would be denying the revisionists beliefs of his own political party and would give the appearance that he is giving in to American demands, which is something he has vowed not to do during his election campaign. It would be interesting to see the response to this letter; to see if President Roh actually confirms that MacArthur helped liberate Korea.
Here is another passage I thought was very well written:
In the chamber of the US House of Representatives, directly behind the speaker's podium hang two portraits. On one side is that of a foreign friend, a soldier who came from a far to assist in the common cause of American independence. That portrait is of the Marquis de Lafayette. For more than 200 years his memory has been implanted deep in the hearts of the American people. We would hope that General MacArthur is so remembered in the hearts of the South Korean people.
I wouldn't call Lafayette "implanted deep in the hearts of the American people", because many Americans don't know who he is, but many Americans do know that the French did aid the US in winning our war for independence from the British even if they don't know the name of the Frenchmen who was a trusted friend and officer for George Washington's Continental Army. However, people that do study history and know who Lafayette was cannot deny that he and the other Frenchmen who came to America to fight the British were directly responsible in helping the US colonies achieve independence no matter what the current bilateral relationship between the two countries stands at today.
I tend to think that the Statue of Liberty stands as another great example of the US appreciating the shared history between the US and France. The Statue of Liberty was a gift from France that reprents the friendship between the two countries that was originally forged in blood, just like the US-ROK alliance. No one would ever dream of tearing down the Statue of Liberty to deny this shared history due to poor bilateral relations today.
I want to clarify that I think these hate groups can protest all they want but they don't have the right to assault people and destroy property and get away with it. I also think that when they spread blatant lies and propaganda concerning the shared history of the US and Korea, that the Korean government has a responsibility to state their stance to something that clearly effects the very credibility of the US-ROK alliance. When the government doesn't voice strong opposition to these hate groups it only gives these people more credibility with the public and encouragement to continue their violent activities.
So on this note, I have to dispute the Marmot's belief that the MacArthur statue controversy is a domestic debate within Korea that the US Congress shouldn't have intervened in. I tend to think that if the Korean government would have clearly stated their opposition to the hate groups from the beginning instead of making vague statements and arrested those that provoked violence and property damage, then the US Congress would have never gotten involved in the controversy to begin with.
With the Korean government taking no firm action and with the Pyongtaek land deal issue to relocate US forces away from the DMZ still waiting to be completed due to anti-American protests, I believe the Congressmen felt they had to make a stand on this issue to test the resolve of the Korean government to defend the US-ROK alliance. So as I stated before, the focus of the Congressional letter when you read between the lines is not really addressing the physical well being of the statue; it is addressing what the statue represents. Does the Korean government believe in the US-ROK alliance and are they willing to really publicly defend it?
If the Korean government is not willing to strongly defend what MacArthur represents then why should the US government believe that Korea would support the US in the up coming land deal in Pyeongtaek or more importantly with any hostilities with the North Koreans? Especially with the nuclear crisis still brewing. This is what makes the MacArthur statue more than just a Korean domestic matter. It is a test of the resolve of the Korean government to continue the US-ROK alliance in it's current form. Or am I reading to much into this and the Congressmen just want a new statue to put up at the US Capitol building? Well, you be the judge.
With this in mind, I have to give huge props to the House International Relations Committee for finally standing up against the ridiculous disinformation, violence, and anti-Americanism being preached by the hate groups here which the Korean government does little to respond to.
Here is a list of the Congressmen responsible for the letter. If you are from their district I encourage you to drop them e-mail on their site thanking them for speaking out on this issue:
Henry Hyde (R-IL): Chairman of House International Relations Committee
Dana Rohrabacher (D-CA)
Ed Royce (R-CA)
Joseph Crowley (D-NY)
Eni Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa)
Once again thank you congress.
Please read the following article from his site today.
US Congress Speaks Out on MacArthur Statue Debate
The MacArthur Statue controversy has now taken a new twist with the US Congress now weighing in on the controversy and they are voicing their displeasure of the Korean government's handling of this situation:
Members of the U.S. House Committee on International Relations on Thursday protested at calls in Korea to topple a statue of U.S. general Douglas MacArthur in Incheon. Their protest came in a letter to President Roh Moo-hyun signed by committee chairman Henry Hyde and others.
The letter said but for the 1950 Incheon landing led by MacArthur, the Korea of today would not exist. If attempts to damage the statue continued, it would be better to hand it over to the Americans, the signatories said.
Needless to say Mr. President the Congress of the United States and the American people would never subscribe to such a description of a hero who led the allied forces which liberated the Republic of Korea twice, first from the yoke of Japanese colonialism 60 years ago this summer and secondly through the brilliant execution of the Inchon landing 55 years ago this month. Our critical bilateral alliance was forged in the crucible of Inchon. The common sacrifices, goals, and achievements which sprang out of Inchon form, in our opinion, the continuing basis for our alliance. We presume that the government of the Republic of Korea shares this view of the critical importance fo the Inchon Landing and the leadership of General Douglas MacArthur.
Reading in between the lines of this paragraph the Congressmen wanted to remind President Roh that America did in fact liberate South Korea twice and that Inchon is the symbolic representation of the liberation given to Korea through American intervention and that by denying Inchon and MacArthur you deny the US-ROK alliance as well. The last part about presuming that the Korean government shares these views is, I believe, the Congressmen trying to call President Roh's bluff. President Roh has spoke out before that the protests are straining US-ROK relations but he has never condemned the ideology that the hate groups stand for.
It appears to me that the Congressmen want to know if President Roh believes General MacArthur is someone who helped liberate Korea or if he believes the general is a war criminal. President Roh has been trying to dodge this question because he knows MacArthur helped liberate Korea, but he doesn't want to say it because then he would be denying the revisionists beliefs of his own political party and would give the appearance that he is giving in to American demands, which is something he has vowed not to do during his election campaign. It would be interesting to see the response to this letter; to see if President Roh actually confirms that MacArthur helped liberate Korea.
Here is another passage I thought was very well written:
In the chamber of the US House of Representatives, directly behind the speaker's podium hang two portraits. On one side is that of a foreign friend, a soldier who came from a far to assist in the common cause of American independence. That portrait is of the Marquis de Lafayette. For more than 200 years his memory has been implanted deep in the hearts of the American people. We would hope that General MacArthur is so remembered in the hearts of the South Korean people.
I wouldn't call Lafayette "implanted deep in the hearts of the American people", because many Americans don't know who he is, but many Americans do know that the French did aid the US in winning our war for independence from the British even if they don't know the name of the Frenchmen who was a trusted friend and officer for George Washington's Continental Army. However, people that do study history and know who Lafayette was cannot deny that he and the other Frenchmen who came to America to fight the British were directly responsible in helping the US colonies achieve independence no matter what the current bilateral relationship between the two countries stands at today.
I tend to think that the Statue of Liberty stands as another great example of the US appreciating the shared history between the US and France. The Statue of Liberty was a gift from France that reprents the friendship between the two countries that was originally forged in blood, just like the US-ROK alliance. No one would ever dream of tearing down the Statue of Liberty to deny this shared history due to poor bilateral relations today.
I want to clarify that I think these hate groups can protest all they want but they don't have the right to assault people and destroy property and get away with it. I also think that when they spread blatant lies and propaganda concerning the shared history of the US and Korea, that the Korean government has a responsibility to state their stance to something that clearly effects the very credibility of the US-ROK alliance. When the government doesn't voice strong opposition to these hate groups it only gives these people more credibility with the public and encouragement to continue their violent activities.
So on this note, I have to dispute the Marmot's belief that the MacArthur statue controversy is a domestic debate within Korea that the US Congress shouldn't have intervened in. I tend to think that if the Korean government would have clearly stated their opposition to the hate groups from the beginning instead of making vague statements and arrested those that provoked violence and property damage, then the US Congress would have never gotten involved in the controversy to begin with.
With the Korean government taking no firm action and with the Pyongtaek land deal issue to relocate US forces away from the DMZ still waiting to be completed due to anti-American protests, I believe the Congressmen felt they had to make a stand on this issue to test the resolve of the Korean government to defend the US-ROK alliance. So as I stated before, the focus of the Congressional letter when you read between the lines is not really addressing the physical well being of the statue; it is addressing what the statue represents. Does the Korean government believe in the US-ROK alliance and are they willing to really publicly defend it?
If the Korean government is not willing to strongly defend what MacArthur represents then why should the US government believe that Korea would support the US in the up coming land deal in Pyeongtaek or more importantly with any hostilities with the North Koreans? Especially with the nuclear crisis still brewing. This is what makes the MacArthur statue more than just a Korean domestic matter. It is a test of the resolve of the Korean government to continue the US-ROK alliance in it's current form. Or am I reading to much into this and the Congressmen just want a new statue to put up at the US Capitol building? Well, you be the judge.
With this in mind, I have to give huge props to the House International Relations Committee for finally standing up against the ridiculous disinformation, violence, and anti-Americanism being preached by the hate groups here which the Korean government does little to respond to.
Here is a list of the Congressmen responsible for the letter. If you are from their district I encourage you to drop them e-mail on their site thanking them for speaking out on this issue:
Henry Hyde (R-IL): Chairman of House International Relations Committee
Dana Rohrabacher (D-CA)
Ed Royce (R-CA)
Joseph Crowley (D-NY)
Eni Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa)
Once again thank you congress.
Holly Cow, Somebody finally noticed..
as you can see in the photos posted below I have copied the 3 page letter from a few members of congress to the South Korea President. All I can say it is about time.
http://freekorea.blogspot.com/ the following was reported..
Meanwhile, the Chosun Ilbo unintentionally shows us how far the objective study of history has to go in Korea when it says that "phrases in the U.S. lawmakers' letter like 'liberating Korea twice' are apt to hurt Korean pride." The Chosun could stand to run that sentence through the same grinder as the slander about MacArthur. I suspect that I'm not the only American, Briton, Australian, or Chinese who is more than a little peeved that Korea has forgotten that it was pried out of the Japanese Empire because of things that happened at Tarawa, Okinawa, the Coral Sea, and a thousand forgotten battles between Nanking and the Burma Road.
Amen...
as you can see in the photos posted below I have copied the 3 page letter from a few members of congress to the South Korea President. All I can say it is about time.
http://freekorea.blogspot.com/ the following was reported..
Meanwhile, the Chosun Ilbo unintentionally shows us how far the objective study of history has to go in Korea when it says that "phrases in the U.S. lawmakers' letter like 'liberating Korea twice' are apt to hurt Korean pride." The Chosun could stand to run that sentence through the same grinder as the slander about MacArthur. I suspect that I'm not the only American, Briton, Australian, or Chinese who is more than a little peeved that Korea has forgotten that it was pried out of the Japanese Empire because of things that happened at Tarawa, Okinawa, the Coral Sea, and a thousand forgotten battles between Nanking and the Burma Road.
Amen...
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Once again suprised by what I am reading. I'm glad somebody has finally said this is enough. As I have said many time to appease a dictator only goes to make him more hungry.
http://english.chosun.com/
It Was High Time Someone Stood Up to North Korea
Hyundai Group chairwoman Hyun Jeong-eun on Monday publicly rejected a North Korean demand to reinstate Kim Yoon-kyu, the disgraced vice chairman of Hyundai Asan who had dealt with the North for many years in arranging their joint tourism projects. "I now seem to stand at a crossroads of whether to continue or quit our North Korea projects," she said. Since Hyundai's ouster of Kim, Pyongyang has applied pressure on the group by slashing the quota for the Asan’s Kumgang Mountains tours and blanking requests for negotiations on stalled projects to Kaesong and Mt. Baekdu. When Hyun visited the Kumgang Mountains, she says, authorities forced her to open her handbag, a gesture she interpreted as contempt, and she concluded, “I'll choose honest conscience rather than opportunistic servility."
It is standard practice in inter-Korean economic cooperation to put up with Pyongyang’s demented behavior. That makes Hyun’s statement all the more significant. Her resolve not to allow North Korean pressure to meddle in her corporation's managerial rights is the natural choice for a top executive, but in the reality of inter-Korean relations things rarely take their natural course.
The government has taken the lead in feebly succumbing to pressure from the North. In 2000, South Korean Red Cross president Chang Chung-shik had to resign because of North Korean protest after he remarked at a press conference, "There is no freedom in North Korea." In 2001, Unification Minister Hong Soon-young was replaced in a Cabinet reshuffle after the North demanded his dismissal more than 10 times following a ruckus at an inter-Korean ministerial conference. Under the current government, naval commanders were reprimanded over problems involving their reporting channel after they repulsed a North Korean patrol boat that had crossed into Korean waters.
The government leads the surrender, and businesses follow. It is commonplace for our businesses to make informal payments to Pyongyang when they do business in the North; no business can be conducted there without them. Hyundai had to give to the North US$400 million for the first inter-Korean summit; former Hyundai Asan chairman Chung Mong-hun committed suicide while engaged in North Korea projects.
Pyongyang should know that many South Koreans feel refreshed by chairwoman Hyun's resolute attitude, because they have been uneasy about the way inter-Korean business is conducted. Economic cooperation that requires South Korean taxpayers' money cannot succeed without public support. What North Korea is trying to do by offering the Kaesong tourism project to another South Korean corporation is drive a wedge between South Korean businesses. One wonders, then, if an oddly timed investigation by the National Tax Service of Hyundai Elevator, Hyundai Group’s de facto holding company, is not another flank in the North’s attack on the group.
as one writter stated this should be intresting to see where this path will lead.
http://english.chosun.com/
It Was High Time Someone Stood Up to North Korea
Hyundai Group chairwoman Hyun Jeong-eun on Monday publicly rejected a North Korean demand to reinstate Kim Yoon-kyu, the disgraced vice chairman of Hyundai Asan who had dealt with the North for many years in arranging their joint tourism projects. "I now seem to stand at a crossroads of whether to continue or quit our North Korea projects," she said. Since Hyundai's ouster of Kim, Pyongyang has applied pressure on the group by slashing the quota for the Asan’s Kumgang Mountains tours and blanking requests for negotiations on stalled projects to Kaesong and Mt. Baekdu. When Hyun visited the Kumgang Mountains, she says, authorities forced her to open her handbag, a gesture she interpreted as contempt, and she concluded, “I'll choose honest conscience rather than opportunistic servility."
It is standard practice in inter-Korean economic cooperation to put up with Pyongyang’s demented behavior. That makes Hyun’s statement all the more significant. Her resolve not to allow North Korean pressure to meddle in her corporation's managerial rights is the natural choice for a top executive, but in the reality of inter-Korean relations things rarely take their natural course.
The government has taken the lead in feebly succumbing to pressure from the North. In 2000, South Korean Red Cross president Chang Chung-shik had to resign because of North Korean protest after he remarked at a press conference, "There is no freedom in North Korea." In 2001, Unification Minister Hong Soon-young was replaced in a Cabinet reshuffle after the North demanded his dismissal more than 10 times following a ruckus at an inter-Korean ministerial conference. Under the current government, naval commanders were reprimanded over problems involving their reporting channel after they repulsed a North Korean patrol boat that had crossed into Korean waters.
The government leads the surrender, and businesses follow. It is commonplace for our businesses to make informal payments to Pyongyang when they do business in the North; no business can be conducted there without them. Hyundai had to give to the North US$400 million for the first inter-Korean summit; former Hyundai Asan chairman Chung Mong-hun committed suicide while engaged in North Korea projects.
Pyongyang should know that many South Koreans feel refreshed by chairwoman Hyun's resolute attitude, because they have been uneasy about the way inter-Korean business is conducted. Economic cooperation that requires South Korean taxpayers' money cannot succeed without public support. What North Korea is trying to do by offering the Kaesong tourism project to another South Korean corporation is drive a wedge between South Korean businesses. One wonders, then, if an oddly timed investigation by the National Tax Service of Hyundai Elevator, Hyundai Group’s de facto holding company, is not another flank in the North’s attack on the group.
as one writter stated this should be intresting to see where this path will lead.
I read it and I still dont believe it.
Well the Korea Hate-Group wanted a Korean repsonse on September 11, 2005 and today The Korea Times has answered back.
Violence Over Statue
Obsolete Ideological Strife Hampers National Unity
The conflict between leftist and rightist activists over the statue of U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur turned to violence on Sunday, with dozens injured on both sides following their separate rallies near a public park in Inchon where it stands. It was their second physical confrontation in less than two months, triggered by the anti-U.S. activists' attempt to remove the statue, which was erected in tribute to MacArthur for his contribution to saving the South from a North Korean invasion. The feud, which is considered as conflict between the progressives and the conservatives, is further deepening the division of the nation in obsolete ideological discord, the tragic legacy of the internecine Korean War (1950-53). What is more serious is the fact that there is no solution to the conflict. It is feared that it will add fuel to the currently dormant but explosive confrontation between the progressives and the conservatives over the fate of the anti-communist law.
By any standard, leftist activists have gone too far, led by their belief that the statue's significance hinders inter-Korean reconciliation and unification. With the 55th anniversary of the Sept. 15, 1950 Inchon Landing around the corner, they have been stepping up their demand for an end to U.S. military presence in the South, using the MacArthur statue as their rallying point. Their extreme position can be glimpsed by that of a college professor who claimed in July that the Korean War was a war for the reunification of the divided peninsula staged by North Korea, which was aborted due to the intervention of U.N. allied forces led by U.S. troops.
It is impossible to imagine that we can enjoy the freedom of life as we do now if the South were communized by the North aided by China and the former Soviet Union. Even though we lived under suppression from authoritarian rulers of the past, it was no worse than what the people in the North have been suffering since the division of the peninsula. Nobody can deny that the North is one of the most severe violators of human rights, starving many of its people to death despite enormous food aid from the international community.
As leftist activists argued, inter-Korean cooperation should be further expanded to pave the way for the reunification of the peninsula. However, it is dangerous to achieve that aim at the expense of half-decade alliances between Seoul and Washington. To point out the prevailing tensions and instability on the peninsula because of the North's nuclear ambitions is now redundant. In this regard, anti-U.S. protestors ought to immediately stop their movement to remove the MacArthur statue for the sake of national unity.
09-12-2005 19:48
"They have gone too far"
I just love it, just when I think the Korea Times will never change, they surprise me.
Well the Korea Hate-Group wanted a Korean repsonse on September 11, 2005 and today The Korea Times has answered back.
Violence Over Statue
Obsolete Ideological Strife Hampers National Unity
The conflict between leftist and rightist activists over the statue of U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur turned to violence on Sunday, with dozens injured on both sides following their separate rallies near a public park in Inchon where it stands. It was their second physical confrontation in less than two months, triggered by the anti-U.S. activists' attempt to remove the statue, which was erected in tribute to MacArthur for his contribution to saving the South from a North Korean invasion. The feud, which is considered as conflict between the progressives and the conservatives, is further deepening the division of the nation in obsolete ideological discord, the tragic legacy of the internecine Korean War (1950-53). What is more serious is the fact that there is no solution to the conflict. It is feared that it will add fuel to the currently dormant but explosive confrontation between the progressives and the conservatives over the fate of the anti-communist law.
By any standard, leftist activists have gone too far, led by their belief that the statue's significance hinders inter-Korean reconciliation and unification. With the 55th anniversary of the Sept. 15, 1950 Inchon Landing around the corner, they have been stepping up their demand for an end to U.S. military presence in the South, using the MacArthur statue as their rallying point. Their extreme position can be glimpsed by that of a college professor who claimed in July that the Korean War was a war for the reunification of the divided peninsula staged by North Korea, which was aborted due to the intervention of U.N. allied forces led by U.S. troops.
It is impossible to imagine that we can enjoy the freedom of life as we do now if the South were communized by the North aided by China and the former Soviet Union. Even though we lived under suppression from authoritarian rulers of the past, it was no worse than what the people in the North have been suffering since the division of the peninsula. Nobody can deny that the North is one of the most severe violators of human rights, starving many of its people to death despite enormous food aid from the international community.
As leftist activists argued, inter-Korean cooperation should be further expanded to pave the way for the reunification of the peninsula. However, it is dangerous to achieve that aim at the expense of half-decade alliances between Seoul and Washington. To point out the prevailing tensions and instability on the peninsula because of the North's nuclear ambitions is now redundant. In this regard, anti-U.S. protestors ought to immediately stop their movement to remove the MacArthur statue for the sake of national unity.
09-12-2005 19:48
"They have gone too far"
I just love it, just when I think the Korea Times will never change, they surprise me.
Monday, September 12, 2005
I helped a girl buy a cat.
I work with another american at my school, she is from Pittsburgh PA. We talk and hang out every now and then. I took her and another teacher to the Osan AB ville and showed them around. We had a grat time and she wanted to buy a cat, So she bought this very small cat and then we proced to go on the taxi, subway and train with a small cat in tow. We even went into Home Plus with this cat, I found a few items for the cat and we all looked crazy trying to get cat products and hold onto a cat at the same time. It was a nice experience, she has a cat and she is happy.
I work with another american at my school, she is from Pittsburgh PA. We talk and hang out every now and then. I took her and another teacher to the Osan AB ville and showed them around. We had a grat time and she wanted to buy a cat, So she bought this very small cat and then we proced to go on the taxi, subway and train with a small cat in tow. We even went into Home Plus with this cat, I found a few items for the cat and we all looked crazy trying to get cat products and hold onto a cat at the same time. It was a nice experience, she has a cat and she is happy.
IPODS are invading Korea.
I was reading an artice in the Korea Times paper over the weekend when I started to do a double take at the following comment..
Korean companies are threatened by Apple’s low price policy as Apple said it will retail the 2-gigabyte iPod Nano for only $199 and the 4-gigabyte model for $249, prices much lower than rival products with similar storage capacities.
Given that leading Korean MP3 player makers currently sell their 512-megabyte flash models for little more than $200 or 200,000 won, it is virtually impossible to compete with Apple if the U.S. giant continues to pursue the low price policy. ReignCom, parent company of Korea’s biggest digital portable juke box seller iRiver, doesn’t expect Apple to deal a serious blow to Korean rivals in the domestic market with its iPod Nano but the Nano would be a threat in the overseas market.
``Korean consumers are not as fond of Apple products as U.S. and Japanese consumers. Moreover, iPods do not support various music file formats that are downloaded from domestic fee-based music Web sites, which Korean consumers consider to be a big inconvenience,’’ said Kim An-na, public relations manager of ReignCom.
I was looking at the above quote and I was like WTF? I couldn't believe what I was reading. Sad to say it only got worse..
`Our plan is to maintain 10-12 percent global market share. Although Apple’s foray into the flash model segment is quite intimidating, we will cope with the threat by positioning of our products differently, as we have done with the U10. We’ll also continue our multi-functional and premium product policy,’’ Kim added. ReignCom predicts that it would manage to defend its market share against Apple but many smaller MP3 player vendors worldwide may see the iPod Nano eating up their market shares as the low price will allow budget conscious buyers to get a taste of the iPod rather than a product made by a nameless venture firm.
Korea’s third-biggest MP3 maker Cowon said it is drawing up specific measures to cope with Apple’s low-price foray into the flash MP3 player market, and that it would also be able to lower its prices as international flash memory chip prices continue to slip. In contrast, Samsung Electronics said it has no plans to lower its Yepp MP3 player prices and will keep up its premium price policy.
Once again I was reading this article and I was once again like WTF? This made no logic at all until I recalled my last visit to COSTCO. I was looking at the ipods here and Korea and the 60gb one was selling for 669,000 won. a huge increase from the USA price that I just received from amazon.com which has it at $384.99. My new question is why the huge difference in cost? Is Korea protecting their business while screwing over the citizens? I have no real answer and I would like to here all comments on this. I later called COSTCO and the new price is about 440,000 won for a 60gb Ipod
On Saturday night I showed the article to 2 people who are from Canada and live here in Korea with their Korean wifes, neither of them could believe the article either. I asked so Korea is having all of these win a free Ipod contest from Pepsi and other outlets and the average korean hates Ipods as Kim An-Na WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE? It drew a huge laugh for the people that were listening to that crazy statment of mine.
Like I have always said, The truth wil be stranger than any fiction that I could create.
I was reading an artice in the Korea Times paper over the weekend when I started to do a double take at the following comment..
Korean companies are threatened by Apple’s low price policy as Apple said it will retail the 2-gigabyte iPod Nano for only $199 and the 4-gigabyte model for $249, prices much lower than rival products with similar storage capacities.
Given that leading Korean MP3 player makers currently sell their 512-megabyte flash models for little more than $200 or 200,000 won, it is virtually impossible to compete with Apple if the U.S. giant continues to pursue the low price policy. ReignCom, parent company of Korea’s biggest digital portable juke box seller iRiver, doesn’t expect Apple to deal a serious blow to Korean rivals in the domestic market with its iPod Nano but the Nano would be a threat in the overseas market.
``Korean consumers are not as fond of Apple products as U.S. and Japanese consumers. Moreover, iPods do not support various music file formats that are downloaded from domestic fee-based music Web sites, which Korean consumers consider to be a big inconvenience,’’ said Kim An-na, public relations manager of ReignCom.
I was looking at the above quote and I was like WTF? I couldn't believe what I was reading. Sad to say it only got worse..
`Our plan is to maintain 10-12 percent global market share. Although Apple’s foray into the flash model segment is quite intimidating, we will cope with the threat by positioning of our products differently, as we have done with the U10. We’ll also continue our multi-functional and premium product policy,’’ Kim added. ReignCom predicts that it would manage to defend its market share against Apple but many smaller MP3 player vendors worldwide may see the iPod Nano eating up their market shares as the low price will allow budget conscious buyers to get a taste of the iPod rather than a product made by a nameless venture firm.
Korea’s third-biggest MP3 maker Cowon said it is drawing up specific measures to cope with Apple’s low-price foray into the flash MP3 player market, and that it would also be able to lower its prices as international flash memory chip prices continue to slip. In contrast, Samsung Electronics said it has no plans to lower its Yepp MP3 player prices and will keep up its premium price policy.
Once again I was reading this article and I was once again like WTF? This made no logic at all until I recalled my last visit to COSTCO. I was looking at the ipods here and Korea and the 60gb one was selling for 669,000 won. a huge increase from the USA price that I just received from amazon.com which has it at $384.99. My new question is why the huge difference in cost? Is Korea protecting their business while screwing over the citizens? I have no real answer and I would like to here all comments on this. I later called COSTCO and the new price is about 440,000 won for a 60gb Ipod
On Saturday night I showed the article to 2 people who are from Canada and live here in Korea with their Korean wifes, neither of them could believe the article either. I asked so Korea is having all of these win a free Ipod contest from Pepsi and other outlets and the average korean hates Ipods as Kim An-Na WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE? It drew a huge laugh for the people that were listening to that crazy statment of mine.
Like I have always said, The truth wil be stranger than any fiction that I could create.
I will be posting alot over the following weekends activities after work today but i will start these posting by an editorial of the newpaper "JoongAng Daily Opinion"
I cant believe that me and a Korean newspaper actually agree on something..
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200509/11/200509112208421739900090109011.html
EDITORIALS]Cockeyed nationalism
We are concerned that a few opposition groups advocating the removal of U.S. General Douglas MacArthur’s statue from Incheon’s Freedom Park are becoming more organized in their operations. Repeated demonstrations are now just the basics. Recently, a professor wrote in a published article that the “statue of war-crazy MacArthur must be thrown back into history.” Then came a song with lyrics such as “General MacArthur is a murderer” that is currently being widely distributed. At a rally yesterday, demonstrators yelled that the statue of General MacArthur ― “which symbolizes occupation and slaughter” ― will soon be dismantled.
These people seem to think that the world is theirs to rule. Their manner of speech seems haughty because they talk stubbornly and with sophistication without the backing of a majority of the people. They claim that General MacArthur is a warmonger, a symbol of imperialism and a “head of the occupation forces.” This is not only a distortion of reality, it is also agit-prop with evil intentions to damage the legitimacy of the South Korean government. Shouldn’t the “warmonger” be Kim Il Sung, who attacked the South? And isn’t the “Imperialist” the former Soviet Union, the country that secretly supported Kim Il Sung?
General MacArthur only led a war to end the provocation by communist imperialist forces. Why is it that these people mouth such strange logic? If, for some reason, they intend to spur anti-U.S. sentiment by their demonstrations to remove the statue, they should stop immediately. If they think Koreans are going to fall for that sort of instigation, they should know that they are making a huge mistake.
General MacArthur is the man who saved our country in the Korean War through his success in the Incheon landings, which turned the tide of the war. Moreover, his statue is a symbolic memorial of the struggle to protect the precious democracy that we enjoy today. Therefore, people who demand the removal of the statue should bear in mind that what they are saying is almost the same thing as longing for unification under communism.
Even here, these people have distorted the facts. They claim that “MacArthur only protected the freedom of a few pro-American people.” Is that true? They should be thankful to General MacArthur and the free democratic system that allows them to demonstrate like this.
Now for the Anti-MacArthur song, which I call a Outright lie.
Folk Singer Calls MacArthur a ‘Murderer’
A Korean folk singer has released a song calling U.S. General Douglas MacArthur a “murderer, timed to go off like a time bomb amidst tensions between conservative and progressive groups over a statue of the old soldier in Incheon's Freedom Park.
The song blames MacArthur for the massacre of Korean civilians in Jeju Island on April 3, 1948 and the slaughter of civilians at Nogeun-ri during the Korean War. It joins calls for the statue to be pulled down. "I released the song ahead of protests planned for Sunday calling for the statue to be removed,” singer Park Seong-hwan told the Chosun Ilbo on Friday. “I wanted to teach people about the side of MacArthur ordinary people don’t know about."
Asked if the lyrics might be too radical, Park said, "MacArthur is a war criminal who directly ordered massacres of civilians... As UN commander at the time, there are things he must take responsibility for."Between verses two and three, Park adds his own narration. "Seize Seoul. There are girls and ladies there. For three days, Seoul will be yours -- UN Commander Douglas MacArthur, September 1950." Park says historical records confirm that this is an authentic quote by the maverick commander. Park made a name for himself following the deaths of two middle school girls crushed by a U.S. armored vehicle in 2002 with the song "Fucking USA."
(englishnews@chosun.com)
Ok Mr. Park please show your records of this so-called statment, I am A world history major and I couldnt not find any records of this statment. Now release the statment or shut the fuck up!
(http://aboutjoel.com/blog/?p=333)
This is where I observed an English translation of this so called Bull Shit song..
MacArthur Lyrics
1.What are you thinking while gazing at someone else’s country’s Incheon sea?
With your binoculars in hand where do keep looking like that?
While you keep repeating, “Old soldiers don’t die they just disappear” do you learn it by heart?
Contradicting recommendations from home, are you asking why you are standing here? Macarthur.
2.Do you recall that day in September 45 years ago when you seized control of this country?
Do you recall announcing your declaration and opening fire on the citizens?
Do you recall putting the pro-Japanese at the front and breaking this country into pieces?
Do you recall massacring the citizens of Chejudo who desired unity and independence? Macarthur.
3. The man who ordered the good citizens of Nogeun-ri shot and killed. Macarthur.
The man that burned and killed the good citizens of Shincheon with oil. Macarthur.
Macarthur who intended to kill this entire people by exploding nuclear bombs.
What kind of benefactor is this? Take down the statue of the murderer Macarthur!
(Chorus)
Macarthur, Macarthur, Macarthur, take down the statue!
Now, now don’t serve that false idol
Macarthur, Macarthur, Macarthur, take down the statue!
Now, now don’t erect a statue to carnage, take it down!
(Narration)
“Seize Seoul. There are girls and ladies there. For three days, Seoul will be yours — UN Commander Douglas MacArthur, September 1950.”
Lest we jump on the “Koreans are ungrateful commie bastards” bandwagon, as other blogs have pointed out, Park is getting absolutely crucified on his homepage’s BBS. Its in Korean
http://www.namusori.pe.kr/bbs/view.php?id=bbs&page=1&sn1=&divpage=1&sn=off&ss=on&sc=on&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=1354
http://www.namusori.pe.kr is his official site with his cell phone number...
I cant believe that me and a Korean newspaper actually agree on something..
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200509/11/200509112208421739900090109011.html
EDITORIALS]Cockeyed nationalism
We are concerned that a few opposition groups advocating the removal of U.S. General Douglas MacArthur’s statue from Incheon’s Freedom Park are becoming more organized in their operations. Repeated demonstrations are now just the basics. Recently, a professor wrote in a published article that the “statue of war-crazy MacArthur must be thrown back into history.” Then came a song with lyrics such as “General MacArthur is a murderer” that is currently being widely distributed. At a rally yesterday, demonstrators yelled that the statue of General MacArthur ― “which symbolizes occupation and slaughter” ― will soon be dismantled.
These people seem to think that the world is theirs to rule. Their manner of speech seems haughty because they talk stubbornly and with sophistication without the backing of a majority of the people. They claim that General MacArthur is a warmonger, a symbol of imperialism and a “head of the occupation forces.” This is not only a distortion of reality, it is also agit-prop with evil intentions to damage the legitimacy of the South Korean government. Shouldn’t the “warmonger” be Kim Il Sung, who attacked the South? And isn’t the “Imperialist” the former Soviet Union, the country that secretly supported Kim Il Sung?
General MacArthur only led a war to end the provocation by communist imperialist forces. Why is it that these people mouth such strange logic? If, for some reason, they intend to spur anti-U.S. sentiment by their demonstrations to remove the statue, they should stop immediately. If they think Koreans are going to fall for that sort of instigation, they should know that they are making a huge mistake.
General MacArthur is the man who saved our country in the Korean War through his success in the Incheon landings, which turned the tide of the war. Moreover, his statue is a symbolic memorial of the struggle to protect the precious democracy that we enjoy today. Therefore, people who demand the removal of the statue should bear in mind that what they are saying is almost the same thing as longing for unification under communism.
Even here, these people have distorted the facts. They claim that “MacArthur only protected the freedom of a few pro-American people.” Is that true? They should be thankful to General MacArthur and the free democratic system that allows them to demonstrate like this.
Now for the Anti-MacArthur song, which I call a Outright lie.
Folk Singer Calls MacArthur a ‘Murderer’
A Korean folk singer has released a song calling U.S. General Douglas MacArthur a “murderer, timed to go off like a time bomb amidst tensions between conservative and progressive groups over a statue of the old soldier in Incheon's Freedom Park.
The song blames MacArthur for the massacre of Korean civilians in Jeju Island on April 3, 1948 and the slaughter of civilians at Nogeun-ri during the Korean War. It joins calls for the statue to be pulled down. "I released the song ahead of protests planned for Sunday calling for the statue to be removed,” singer Park Seong-hwan told the Chosun Ilbo on Friday. “I wanted to teach people about the side of MacArthur ordinary people don’t know about."
Asked if the lyrics might be too radical, Park said, "MacArthur is a war criminal who directly ordered massacres of civilians... As UN commander at the time, there are things he must take responsibility for."Between verses two and three, Park adds his own narration. "Seize Seoul. There are girls and ladies there. For three days, Seoul will be yours -- UN Commander Douglas MacArthur, September 1950." Park says historical records confirm that this is an authentic quote by the maverick commander. Park made a name for himself following the deaths of two middle school girls crushed by a U.S. armored vehicle in 2002 with the song "Fucking USA."
(englishnews@chosun.com)
Ok Mr. Park please show your records of this so-called statment, I am A world history major and I couldnt not find any records of this statment. Now release the statment or shut the fuck up!
(http://aboutjoel.com/blog/?p=333)
This is where I observed an English translation of this so called Bull Shit song..
MacArthur Lyrics
1.What are you thinking while gazing at someone else’s country’s Incheon sea?
With your binoculars in hand where do keep looking like that?
While you keep repeating, “Old soldiers don’t die they just disappear” do you learn it by heart?
Contradicting recommendations from home, are you asking why you are standing here? Macarthur.
2.Do you recall that day in September 45 years ago when you seized control of this country?
Do you recall announcing your declaration and opening fire on the citizens?
Do you recall putting the pro-Japanese at the front and breaking this country into pieces?
Do you recall massacring the citizens of Chejudo who desired unity and independence? Macarthur.
3. The man who ordered the good citizens of Nogeun-ri shot and killed. Macarthur.
The man that burned and killed the good citizens of Shincheon with oil. Macarthur.
Macarthur who intended to kill this entire people by exploding nuclear bombs.
What kind of benefactor is this? Take down the statue of the murderer Macarthur!
(Chorus)
Macarthur, Macarthur, Macarthur, take down the statue!
Now, now don’t serve that false idol
Macarthur, Macarthur, Macarthur, take down the statue!
Now, now don’t erect a statue to carnage, take it down!
(Narration)
“Seize Seoul. There are girls and ladies there. For three days, Seoul will be yours — UN Commander Douglas MacArthur, September 1950.”
Lest we jump on the “Koreans are ungrateful commie bastards” bandwagon, as other blogs have pointed out, Park is getting absolutely crucified on his homepage’s BBS. Its in Korean
http://www.namusori.pe.kr/bbs/view.php?id=bbs&page=1&sn1=&divpage=1&sn=off&ss=on&sc=on&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=1354
http://www.namusori.pe.kr is his official site with his cell phone number...
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Well it was a nice weekend here in Korea. Friday it was the all you can drink 20,000 won and had a nice time with fellow teachers.
Saturday was awesome. I went to the CGV and watched a movie. I saw a sign that stated baseball was going to be played at 1830 on 3 Sept. I got a taxi and went to the stadium. I asked for the best seat and it cost me 10,000 won (10$) and I was like.. Holly Cow.
My seat was behind the catcher, I was sitting next to the scouts from the Hyundia Unicorns. I now realize why people in USA love these seats. It was a very nice game. (Daejeon won 4-1)
Sunday I just traveled around Seoul and Osan, it was a nice weekend.
Monday was an US holiday but since I'm here in Korea IT WAS WORK AS USUAL. I have the 19th off, its Korean Thanksgiving, no plans just stay at home and enjoy the rest.
Saturday was awesome. I went to the CGV and watched a movie. I saw a sign that stated baseball was going to be played at 1830 on 3 Sept. I got a taxi and went to the stadium. I asked for the best seat and it cost me 10,000 won (10$) and I was like.. Holly Cow.
My seat was behind the catcher, I was sitting next to the scouts from the Hyundia Unicorns. I now realize why people in USA love these seats. It was a very nice game. (Daejeon won 4-1)
Sunday I just traveled around Seoul and Osan, it was a nice weekend.
Monday was an US holiday but since I'm here in Korea IT WAS WORK AS USUAL. I have the 19th off, its Korean Thanksgiving, no plans just stay at home and enjoy the rest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)