posting blind

...and not loving life.

Blogger is giving me the shits right now. Its EFF (Equine Fellatio Factor) has shot into the stratosphere. I haven't been able to access Blogger (that's where I go to post these entries)... and Blogspot (the site on which my blog appears) hasn't been responsive in the hours I've been in this PC-bahng. Blogger only just became available, so I'm posting blind.

Some notes...

Salon's got a very good article about Bjork, a singer/songwriter/all-around creative screaming pixie adored by my brother Sean. Sean's got a pretty deep background in music theory and is fascinated with Bjork's music (and life history, I think) on multiple levels. Although I'm not quite as entranced by Bjork as Sean is (I find she appeals more to my intellectual faculties; my emotional faculties remain in thrall to sweeping orchestral music), Sean's theory-laced explanations of where Bjork is coming from have increased her appeal to me. Plus, she's kinda cute. I've told Sean I'd like to visit Iceland. We haven't seriously planned a trip yet, but I do hope to get out there at some point, maybe even visit Bjork's island (given to her by Iceland's government in recognition of her achievements, since she's Iceland's only real export).

Dammit.

Blogger's once again proving antsy, so I can't provide you any links right now (and in the case of Salon, where they make you pay or watch long ads to view core content, I'm never going to link, ever). This stinks because I was hoping, when I got to this PC-bahng a couple hours ago, to write my big-ass essay on gay marriage. Hoping against hope that Blogger and Blogspot would come out of their cyberfunk, I've been puttering about in cyberspace, watching movie previews, biding my time. But my brain lost its stiffie, so now you're left with these flaccid, fumbling, blindworm ruminations.

Two previews that caught my eye during my desultory surfing: "The Matrix Revolutions" and "Kill Bill." Wachowskis and Tarantino. Tarantino's advertising this as "Quentin Tarantino's Fourth Film." It's self-aggrandizing; he's saying, "Hey, man-- I revolutionized a fucking decade and I'm only on FILM NUMBER FOUR!" Well, he's entitled. I would kill to have written "Pulp Fiction." That was one amazing, amazing screenplay, and I thoroughly enjoyed that movie.

"The Matrix" was revolutionary in its own way, too, not in terms of story and dialogue so much as in terms of visuals. It was, to my mind, one of the only truly successful attempts at transferring the wacky world of comics and graphic novels to the screen. Then it got copycatted to death, then along came "The Matrix Reloaded," which definitely suffered from its predecessor's success, as well as its own pretentiousness. All the same: I think the Wachowskis are this generation's George Lucas, and the "Matrix" series is the new "Star Wars." Lucas himself seems to have suffered major dick-shrivel. Meantime, I plan to be first in line for "The Matrix Revolutions." The preview doesn't give any clues as to my "metaphysical bet" (see link on the margin, near the bottom) that the world of Zion is a meta-Matrix, but the conclusion looks like it'll be sweet, all the same. Gloria Foster died before shooting began for "Revolutions"; the preview contains an Oracle voiceover, and you can hear that it's not Foster's throaty, soulful smoker's voice. A shame.

Tarantino's "Kill Bill" appears, in some ways, to be riding the "Matrix" coattails: it'll be heavy on martial arts, and the fight choreographer is once again Yuen Wo-ping ("Matrix," "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"), a man who will never run out of work in the United States. But "Kill Bill" promises to be a lot bloodier than anything Yuen has previously worked on; I found this out from reading some spoiler sites. Bloodier-- as in the MPAA may have to ask for some serious reediting, from what I read. "Kill Bill" has already debuted at some film festivals.

For those not into the Hong Kong action genre (and I'm at best a dabbler, I admit), you might not have understood what I meant by the above. This genre is no stranger to spurting/flowing blood, amputations, and gunshot wounds. For example, "Hard Boiled," which starred Chow Yun-fat, culminates in the bad guy getting shot through the eye, with a closeup of the bullet entering the guy's head, and there's plenty of bloodletting before we reach that moment of orbital penetration. But Hong Kong films generally subscribe to a comic-book ethic. They're rarely visceral. They're rarely mean.

Tarantino, on the other hand, is all over viscerality, though not necessarily in the physical sense. When he's at his best, he artfully combines the prurient, the morbid, and the suspenseful, and this is why I'll always watch his films (even the plodding "Jackie Brown"). I was introduced to "Reservoir Dogs" by a friend of mine (Dr. Stephen doCarmo, to whom I've given a couple links on the left margin-- go! Go!), and for me, that is still the most disturbing movie I've ever seen. It's a testament to Tarantino's skill in "Dogs" that I end up, even years later, counting it as more compelling than such works as "Schindler's List" and "The Killing Fields," which both showcase human evil on a horrific scale. Tarantino's dramatic genius in "Dogs" was to make evil quite intimate, and you know exactly which scene I'm talking about, don't you.

Yes. The ear-removal scene.

The whole movie is amazing, but that particular scene (incredibly acted, by the way) remains imprinted in my consciousness in a way no other movie scene ever has been. "Reservoir Dogs" is an artistic argument for the existence of evil. Maybe others don't view it this way, but few movies rival the inhumanity compacted in that one scene, and because this was compounded by the rest of "Reservoir Dogs"'s general meanness, I was left with a feeling I'd never felt before, one I can't describe.

So I think it's important that Tarantino is now staking territory in the Hong Kong genre. Future Hong Kong films may prove to be a lot grittier than what the current market offers. Even if they aren't, I think Tarantino can still be seen as throwing down the gauntlet before the Hong Kong bigwigs and boasting, "Yeah, fine, but do you have any balls?"

The other reason I'm looking forward to "Kill Bill" is David Carradine.

I have no idea why I like this guy, but I always liked the first "Kung Fu" series, which was one of the best of the "powerful, wandering do-gooder" genre, head and shoulders above shows like "The Incredible Hulk" and "Highway to Heaven." Carradine really isn't much of a martial artist; he's routinely described as "adept in the martial arts," but in his book Spirit of Shaolin he admits he's a dancer by training, and began serious work in Chinese martial arts, especially mantis style kung fu, only after the first year of "Kung Fu" (I think I'm remembering this correctly; someone correct me if they've got his book handy). Carradine was fast in the 1980s, but I've never been convinced that his moves had any real power. He's more martial actor than martial artist, and as a dramatic actor, he's not much better than Keanu Reeves.

So-- what's to like?

I don't know. Maybe it's that Carradine's actually not bad when viewed within his narrow range and strictly in a B-movie context-- in other words, not to be compared with other narrow-rangers like the iconic Clint Eastwood, the gruff Gene Hackman, or the operatic Al Pacino. So long as Carradine's waxing faux-Buddhist (and damn, if his sleepy delivery hasn't influenced a slew of Western "Buddhist" poseurs), he's on solid ground. "Circle of Iron" features Carradine as a sort of wandering sage who delivers Zen lessons to his disciple, Cord (the nose-breaking scene is priceless). The movie could have been great in the hands of someone like Steven Spielberg. As it stands, the movie was only "good" in a B-movie sense... but much of that goodness radiated from Carradine's self-assured, I-really-am-a-sage performance.

So, yes: having read Spirit of Shaolin, I think Carradine sincerely believes in his own Zen-ness. Perhaps this absurd conviction, this completely un-Shatnerish lack of a sense of self-parody, is what makes his on-screen posing so entertaining, so fascinating for B-movie lovers. And I think it makes him the perfect choice for a Tarantino genre experiment.

I'm curious to see in what manner he'll be killed. Carradine, you see, plays the title role of "Bill" in "Kill Bill," an assassin ringleader who has shot Uma Thurman in the head on her wedding day and left her for dead. Uma, who used to work for Bill, revives from a five-year coma and goes on a rampage, tracking down her former teammates and saving Bill for last. Simple plot, yes? And unfortunately, it's going to take two movies to tell it. I think "Kill Bill, Volume One" comes out in October; am not sure if there's a release date yet for Volume Two.

This, finally, is where "Bill" will differ utterly from the "Matrix" films. From what I've read, the plot and dialogue are deliberately minimalist; it's all about the Ultra-violence. I don't think Tarantino has ever been interested in a "message" or in exploring epistemological or religious issues, at least not in as grand a manner as the Wachowksis seem to be doing. For Tarantino, it really is more about art, emotion, bringing it home to you. When Tarantino fails, and I think he failed on several levels with "Jackie Brown," you can tell it's a Tarantino failure, not a Hollywood studio failure. This isn't so clear with the "Matrix" movies, if "Reloaded" was any guide. The Wachowskis appear ready to take certain artistic risks, as they did in "Reloaded," but the movie also suffered from a good deal of Hollywood-style bloat. All the same, I'm eager to see both "Kill Bill" and "The Matrix Revolutions."

And on that note, I do believe I'll let you get on with whatever you're getting on with. Meditate on whether a Wachowski-Tarantino collaboration might produce a "Kill Bill and Ted" with a Keanu-versus-Carradine matchup.
_

oh, please

Go read the Marmot's recent post, "Shut up, Peanuts!"

Then get a load of this:

TOKYO - Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said on Friday a "combined commitment" by the United States and other nations to guarantee North Korea's security could help defuse the crisis over the communist nation's nuclear weapons program, a standoff he called the "greatest threat in the world" to peace.

Carter blamed Washington and Pyongyang for the unraveling of a landmark U.S.-North Korean agreement that he helped mediate in 1994 but said he believed the current crisis could be resolved diplomatically with concessions on both sides.

The man's just upset his legacy turned out to be a freakin' sham.

Over at the trusted BBC, we read:

North Korea's alleged threat at last week's diplomatic talks in Beijing to test a nuclear weapon sent a chill through the region.

Most analysts believe the threat was most likely to be a negotiating ploy, as the secretive state attempts to extract maximum concessions in return for ending its nuclear ambitions.

But given the unpredictable nature of Kim Jong-Il's regime, few are prepared to dismiss the threat out of hand.

"It just isn't in their interests right now," said Gary Samore, from the International Institute of Strategic Studies.

"It would make it easier for the US to mobilise international support to sanction North Korea," he told BBC News Online.

Even China and Russia, North Korea's closest allies in the region and those most opposed to sanctioning the impoverished state, would likely turn against Pyongyang if it went ahead with a test.

And of course, Japan's not liking this.

Investment in the region would be affected and Japan - China's main diplomatic competitor - might feel the need to bolster its defences, even to the extent of considering a nuclear arsenal itself.

This pretty much sums it up:

Threatening a nuclear test gives North Korea diplomatic leverage.

But carrying one out would set off a chain reaction of crisis moves by the international community which could jeopardise Kim Jong-il's regime.

"I think (a nuclear test) would be a costly mistake. But that does not mean that they won't do it," said James Clay Moltz.

In-young Chun at Seoul National University agreed that such a warning could not be simply ignored.

"We cannot take lightly that kind of threat," he said.

A nuclear test would answer the long-debated question as to whether North Korea really has nuclear weapons and would give further ammunition to hawks in Washington who are pushing for regime change in Stalinist North Korea.

I did notice some online comments, however, that if we've suspect that NK's had nukes all this time... why should we be acting surprised now?

Good point.

Colin Powell, meanwhile, claims he's unimpressed by NK blather:

"We are looking for a diplomatic solution," Powell said. "We have no intention of invading North Korea or attacking North Korea."

In contrast, he said, North Korea has engaged in "threats and truculent statements that are designed to frighten us. We will not be frightened, nor will we be caused by such threats to take actions that we do not believe are in our interests or the interests of our partners."

Go, Colin.

Maybe we should have Al Sharpton speak directly to NK. Or Arnold.
_

a meditation from Glenn

There's White Glenn (Satan's Anus) and there's just good ole Glenn (Hi! I'm Black!).

Glenn has an interesting meditation on a deep division in the blogosphere. Here's his post in full:

Does it make any sense to rant and rave against an institution you have absolutely no chance of changing?

Everyday Bloggers vs. Pundit Bloggers. The Pundits are clearly winning the war.

Why? Do people not watch enough C-Span, or CNN, or *gasp* Fox "News"?

I go to some of the more popular Pundit blogs and I'm bored to tears. I swear to God, I'm bored to tears. Israel, Clinton, Bush, Presidential race, blah blah blah. IT'S B-O-R-I-N-G. (BTW, the only pundit blogger that holds my attention is Bill Dennis)

I don't find too many everyday bloggers all that interesting either. But let me tell you, the majority of blogs that I find interesting are everyday blogs by a ratio of at least 3 to 1.

It's not that I don't care about politics. It's not that I don't think they're important. I just think they're boring and dry. I think most politicians are actors and phonies and only do things that keep them in office.

So, it pisses me off that Pundit bloggers get all the f'ing pub. Most think they're frigging Sam Donaldson or Ted Koppel and what they write actually changes things. You ever read on some pundit blogs where they claim peeps in Washington are reading blogs and that it may affect policy? Are you out of your fucking mind? Are you delusional? You have got to be fucking kidding me.

I am mad. I will hurt someone.

Glenn gives me pause. I'm no pundit, after all: just a hairy asshole with a blog. As Glenn has noted previously, we bloggers have a narcissistic streak. Hmmmm.
_

the unimpressed, the testicle-free, and Andrew Sullivan on gay marriage

The Unimpressed

Neither of my closest friends seemed impressed by my link yesterday. They both wrote asking, basically, "And... what, exactly, were we supposed to see?" Well, as I said, this was a "captured on film" moment for me: a freeze-frame on a sweeping scale of some of the more urgent ideological debates going on inside (and outside) US borders. So the best answer I can give is: one-stop shopping. You get to see a lot on a single scrolling page. Many issues covered, many personality types in view. Summaries and subtext. Other comment threads have this as well, I grant, but I think I was also charged up by Glenn Reynolds's intro to the link. Some of the liberal posters seemed to confirm Reynolds's sentiment. If you didn't find the thread as enlightening as I did, that's probably because you're not lazy and you already scan a lot of different political sites for your daily intake of ideology. I, however, have always had a Cliff's Notes, survey-course streak in me, and this kind of link fit the bill too nicely for me to sit on it with out saying anything. That's why I said something. Still not impressed? That's fine. It's a free country, I think. Mr. Ashcroft? It... is still a free country, yes? Heh.

Gawd. I graduated from Catholic University last year, in May. Ashcroft was our speaker during the "main" portion of the graduation ceremony. I don't remember a thing he said. Lynne Cheney spoke to the School of Languages and Linguistics undergrads (or just-grads) in 1991. I remember she had, like, Three Points to Remember. Or was it Five Points? Hell if I know. Maybe it was Five Pillars, or Four Noble Truths, or something.

The Testicle-free

Yours truly. Ball-less, after spending 40 minutes inside a Hello Kitty shop on Chongno Street. I could actually feel my scrotum shrinking while I was walking around, examining pink thermoses and glossy, kitten-patterned lunchboxes to send my goddaughter for her birthday (happily, one day after North Korea's anniversary... HAPPY NUKE TEST, RACHAEL!). If the Infidel were to accuse me of being a girly-man right now, I'd have no choice but to acknowledge the truth. I have no balls at this moment. (They're currently soaking in re-masculation solution and should be full size again tomorrow morning.)

Hello Kitty is like a focused Kryptonite beam aimed straight at the male crotch. I'm not kidding-- that ENTIRE SHOP was floor-to-ceiling plastic pussy.

Andrew Sullivan on Gay Marriage

I'm all for homosexual matrimony being fully recognized and providing all the benefits to gay and lesbian couples currently enjoyed by hetero couples. Before I write my own specific material, however, I want Andrew Sullivan to do a lot of my talking for me. I'll be quoting excerpts from some of his essays on gay marriage, not so much in response to anything the Maximum Leader or anyone else has written, but because Sullivan, being in the thick of it, has written voluminously and eloquently on the subject. The following selections won't address everything I want to cover, so a second post with more Hominid-heavy content will be excreted soon.

Let's start with Sullivan's latest post. He provides an excerpt from a Washington Post article by Alan Simpson. That excerpt in full:

In our system of government, laws affecting family life are under the jurisdiction of the states, not the federal government. This is as it should be. After all, Republicans have always believed that government actions that affect someone's personal life, property and liberty - including, if not especially, marriage - should be made at the level of government closest to the people. Indeed, states already actively regulate marriage. For example, 37 states have passed their own version of the Defense of Marriage Act.

I do not argue in any way that we should now sanction gay marriage. Reasonable people can have disagreements about it. That people of goodwill would disagree was something our Founders fully understood when they created our federal system. They saw that contentious social issues would best be handled in the legislatures of the states, where debates could be held closest to home. That's why we should let the states decide how best to define and recognize any legally sanctioned unions - marriage or otherwise.

As someone who is basically a conservative, I see not an argument about banning marriage or "defending" families but rather a power grab. Conservatives argue vehemently about federal usurpation of other issues best left to the states, such as abortion or gun control. Why would they elevate this one to the federal level?

Sullivan's comment to the above:

Why indeed? Unwarranted fear; baseless panic; fundamentalist fervor. Three things conservatives have always been against. And should be today.

Yes, I think there's a certain unwarranted something happening in the mind of anyone who puts forth a "hell in a handbasket" argument. Maybe it's fear. Maybe it's defensiveness. Maybe it's something else entirely. I want to discuss this at length in my second, Hominid-heavy post.

Moving now to Sullivan's essays...

Sullivan writes in a 1989 piece titled "Here Comes the Groom":

Legalizing gay marriage would offer homosexuals the same deal society now offers heterosexuals: general social approval and specific legal advantages in exchange for a deeper and harder-to-extract-yourself-from commitment to another human being. Like straight marriage, it would foster social cohesion, emotional security, and economic prudence. Since there's no reason gays should not be allowed to adopt or be foster parents, it could also help nurture children. And its introduction would not be some sort of radical break with social custom. As it has become more acceptable for gay people to acknowledge their loves publicly, more and more have committed themselves to one another for life in full view of their families and their friends. A law institutionalizing gay marriage would merely reinforce a healthy social trend. It would also, in the wake of AIDS, qualify as a genuine public health measure. Those conservatives who deplore promiscuity among some homosexuals should be among the first to support it. Burke could have written a powerful case for it.

The argument that gay marriage would subtly undermine the unique legitimacy of straight marriage is based upon a fallacy. For heterosexuals, straight marriage would remain the most significant--and only legal social bond. Gay marriage could only delegitimize straight marriage if it were a real alternative to it, and this is clearly not true. To put it bluntly, there's precious little evidence that straights could be persuaded by any law to have sex with--let alone marry--someone of their own sex. The only possible effect of this sort would be to persuade gay men and women who force themselves into heterosexual marriage (often at appalling cost to themselves and their families) to find a focus for their family instincts in a more personally positive environment. But this is clearly a plus, not a minus: gay marriage could both avoid a lot of tortured families and create the possibility for many happier ones. It is not, in short, a denial of family values. It's an extension of them.

Of course, some would claim that any legal recognition of homosexuality is a de facto attack upon heterosexuality. But even the most hardened conservatives recognize that gays are a permanent minority and aren't likely to go away. Since persecution is not an option in a civilized society, why not coax gays into traditional values rather than rain incoherently against them?

There's a less elaborate argument for gay marriage: it's good for gays. It provides role models for young gay people who, after the exhilaration of coming out, can easily lapse into short-term relationships and insecurity with no tangible goal in sight. My own guess is that most gays would embrace such a goal with as much (if not more) commitment as straights. Even in our society as it is, many lesbian relationships are virtual textbook cases of monogamous commitment. Legal gay marriage could also help bridge the gulf often found between gays and their parents. It could bring the essence of gay life--a gay couple--into the heart of the traditional straight family in a way the family can most understand and the gay offspring can most easily acknowledge. It could do as much to heal the gay-straight rift as any amount of gay rights legislation.

If these arguments sound socially conservative, that's no accident. It's one of the richest ironies of our society's blind spot toward gays that essentially conservative social goals should have the appearance of being so radical. But gay marriage is not a radical step. It avoids the mess of domestic partnership; it is humane; it is conservative in the best sense of the word. It's also about relationships. Given that gay relationships will always exist, what possible social goal is advanced by framing the law to encourage those relationships to be unfaithful, undeveloped, and insecure?

Sullivan is right to take conservatives to task on this issue, which by all rights should be a conservative one.

In a 2001 piece, "Unveiled," Sullivan writes:

Perhaps concerned that their movement is sputtering, the opponents of same-sex marriage have turned to new arguments. Stanley Kurtz, the sharpest and fairest of these critics, summed up the case last week in National Review Online. For Kurtz and other cultural conservatives, the deepest issue is sex and sexual difference. "Marriage," Kurtz argues, "springs directly from the ethos of heterosexual sex. Once marriage loses its connection to the differences between men and women, it can only start to resemble a glorified and slightly less temporary version of hooking up."

Let's unpack this. Kurtz's premise is that men and women differ in their sexual-emotional makeup. Men want sex more than stability; women want stability more than sex. Heterosexual marriage is therefore some kind of truce in the sex wars. One side gives sex in return for stability; the other provides stability in return for sex. Both sides benefit, children most of all. Since marriage is defined as the way women tame men, once one gender is missing, this taming institution will cease to work. So, in Kurtz's words, a "world of same-sex marriages is a world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50 percent divorce rates."

But isn't this backward? Surely the world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50 percent divorce rates preceded gay marriage. It was heterosexuals in the 1970s who changed marriage into something more like a partnership between equals, with both partners often working and gender roles less rigid than in the past. All homosexuals are saying, three decades later, is that, under the current definition, there's no reason to exclude us. If you want to return straight marriage to the 1950s, go ahead. But until you do, the exclusion of gays is simply an anomaly--and a denial of basic civil equality.

A point I've tried to make in discussions with friends is that, given how tiny the gay minority is, whatever "degradation" may occur in the institution of marriage will occur primarily because of the failings of hetero couples (speaking on the whole, not about particular couples, obviously). Gays comprise too small a slice of the pie graph to represent any kind of threat to the institution, or even the notion, of marriage. And I reject the idea that gay marriage is in any way degrading. We can view such change positively, negatively, neutrally, or whatever. But it's our view that layers value on top of reality.

Sullivan continues:

...given the enormous step in gay culture that marriage represents, and given that marriage is entirely voluntary, I see no reason why gay male marriages shouldn't be at least as monogamous as straight ones. Perhaps those of us in the marriage movement need to stress the link between gay marriage and monogamy more clearly. We need to show how renunciation of sexual freedom in an all-male world can be an even greater statement of commitment than among straights. I don't think this is as big a stretch as it sounds. In Denmark, where de facto gay marriage has existed for some time, the rate of marriage among gays is far lower than among straights, but, perhaps as a result, the gay divorce rate is just over one-fifth that of heterosexuals. And, during the first six years in which gay marriage was legal, scholar Darren Spedale has found, the rate of straight marriages rose 10 percent, and the rate of straight divorces decreased by 12 percent. In the only country where we have real data on the impact of gay marriage, the net result has clearly been a conservative one.

When you think about it, this makes sense. Within gay subculture, marriage would not be taken for granted. It's likely to attract older, more mainstream gay couples, its stabilizing ripples spreading through both the subculture and the wider society. Because such marriages would integrate a long-isolated group of people into the world of love and family, they would also help heal the psychic wounds that scar so many gay people and their families. Far from weakening heterosexual marriage, gay marriage would, I bet, help strengthen it, as the culture of marriage finally embraces all citizens. How sad that some conservatives still cannot see that. How encouraging that, in such a short time, so many others have begun to understand.

In his 2000 "Marriage or Bust," Sullivan makes clear that he is not satisfied to "settle for" such compromises as civil unions and domestic partnerships.

The conditions, in short, were ripe for a compromise: a pseudomarital institution, designed specifically for gay couples, that would include most, even all, of the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage but avoid the word itself. And last week, in a historic decision, Vermont gave it to us: a new institution called "civil union."

Understandably, many gay rights groups seem ready to declare victory. They have long been uncomfortable with the marriage battle. The platform of this weekend's Millennium March on Washington for gay rights merely refers to security for all kinds of "families." The Human Rights Campaign, the largest homosexual lobbying group, avoids the m-word in almost all its literature. They have probably listened to focus groups that included people like my mother. "That's all very well," she told me in my first discussion with her on the subject, "but can't you call it something other than 'marriage?'"

The answer to that question is no. Marriage, under any interpretation of American constitutional law, is among the most basic civil rights. "Separate but equal" was a failed and pernicious policy with regard to race; it will be a failed and pernicious policy with regard to sexual orientation. The many advances of recent years--the "domestic partnership" laws passed in many cities and states, the generous package of benefits finally granted in Hawaii, the breakthrough last week in Vermont--should not be thrown out. But neither can they be accepted as a solution, as some straight liberals and gay pragmatists seem to want. In fact, these half-measures, far from undermining the case for complete equality, only sharpen it. For there are no arguments for civil union that do not apply equally to marriage. To endorse one but not the other, to concede the substance of the matter while withholding the name and form of the relationship, is to engage in an act of pure stigmatization. It risks not only perpetuating public discrimination against a group of citizens but adding to the cultural balkanization that already plagues American public life.

I'm curious about the part Sullivan glosses over: gay discomfort with the term "marriage." How widespread is this discomfort? How representative, then, is Sullivan's viewpoint?

Sullivan continues (after quoting Hillary Clinton on the subject of gay marriage):

So, if we accept that religion doesn't govern civil marriage and that civil marriage changes over time, we are left with a more nebulous worry. Why is this change to marriage more drastic than previous ones? This, I think, is what Clinton is getting at in her second point: "I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been: between a man and a woman." On the face of it, this is a statement of the obvious, which is why formulations of this kind have been favorites of those behind "defense of marriage" acts and initiatives across the country. But what, on further reflection, can it possibly mean? There are, I think, several possibilities.

The first is that marriage is primarily about procreation. It is an institution fundamentally designed to provide a stable environment for the rearing of children--and only a man and a woman, as a biological fact, can have their own children within such a marriage. So civil marriage is reserved for heterosexuals for a good, demonstrative reason. The only trouble with this argument is that it ignores the fact that civil marriage is granted automatically to childless couples, sterile couples, couples who marry too late in lifeto have children, couples who adopt other people's children, and so on. The proportion of marriages that conform to the "ideal"--two people with biological children in the home--has been declining for some time. The picture is further complicated by the fact that an increasing number of gay couples, especially women, also have children. Is there some reason a heterosexual couple without children should have the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage but a lesbian couple with biological children from both mothers should not? Not if procreation is your guide.

Indeed, if it is, shouldn't we exclude all childless couples from marriage? That, at least, would be coherent. But how would childless heterosexual couples feel about it? They would feel, perhaps, what gay couples now feel, which is that society is diminishing the importance of their relationships by consigning them to a category that seems inferior to the desired social standard. They would resist and protest. They would hardly be satisfied with a new legal relationship called civil union.

A friend of mine has written some very compelling emails about the powerful experience of becoming a husband, and then a father. This, he feels, is the unique province of hetero couples and constitutes a fundamental difference between hetero and gay marriage. He doesn't use the phrase "character building," but there is something of that in what my friend is saying when he contends that one is radically, profoundly, positively changed by the experience of married life and fatherhood.

Sullivan says:

Leave aside the odd idea that heterosexual relationships are more difficult than gay ones. The problem with the character-building argument is that today's marriage law is utterly uninterested in character. There are no legal requirements that a married couple learn from each other, grow together spiritually, or even live together. A random woman can marry a multimillionaire on a Fox TV special and the law will accord that marriage no less validity than a lifelong commitment between Billy Graham and his wife. The courts have upheld an absolutely unrestricted right to marry for deadbeat dads, men with countless divorces behind them, prisoners on death row, even the insane. In all this, we make a distinction between what religious and moral tradition expect of marriage and what civil authorities require to sanction it under law. It may well be that some religious traditions want to preserve marriage for heterosexuals in order to encourage uniquely heterosexual virtues. And they may have good reason to do so. But civil law asks only four questions before handing out a marriage license: Are you an adult; are you already married; are you related to the person you intend to marry; and are you straight? It's that last question that rankles. When civil law already permits the delinquent, the divorced, the imprisoned, the sterile, and the insane to marry, it seems--how should I put this?--revealing that it draws the line at homosexuals.

Indeed, there is no moral reason to support civil unions and not same-sex marriage unless you believe that admitting homosexuals would weaken a vital civil institution. This was the underlying argument for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which implied that allowing homosexuals to marry constituted an "attack" on the existing institution. Both Gore and Bush take this position. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have endorsed it. In fact, it is by far the most popular line of argument in the debate. But how, exactly, does the freedom of a gay couple to marry weaken a straight couple's commitment to the same institution? The obvious answer is that since homosexuals are inherently depraved and immoral, allowing them to marry would inevitably spoil, even defame, the institution of marriage. It would wreck the marital neighborhood, so to speak, and fewer people would want to live there. Part of the attraction of marriage for some heterosexual males, the argument goes, is that it confers status. One of the ways it does this is by distinguishing such males from despised homosexuals. If you remove that social status, you further weaken an already beleaguered institution.

This argument is rarely made explicitly, but I think it exists in the minds of many who supported the DOMA. One wonders, for example, what Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich, both conducting or about to conduct extramarital affairs at the time, thought they were achieving by passing the DOMA. But, whatever its rationalization, this particular argument can only be described as an expression of pure animus. To base the prestige of marriage not on its virtues, responsibilities, and joys but on the fact that it keeps gays out is to engage in the crudest demagoguery. As a political matter, to secure the rights of a majority by eviscerating the rights of a minority is the opposite of what a liberal democracy is supposed to be about. It certainly should be inimical to anyone with even a vaguely liberal temperament.

Special note: my friend has no trouble with the idea of gays getting married, and seems to be for legalization (we'll get into this more later). Sullivan's argument, as you see above, is aimed at those not in favor of gay marriage, including those who would settle for civil unions and domestic partnerships. My friend finds himself in the unique position of feeling that legalizing gay marriage is indeed "the right thing" to do, while simultaneously subscribing to the "hell in a handbasket" view that the institution of marriage is somehow degraded ("we all lose") when it becomes more inclusive. More on this in another post.

Sullivan's continues:

There remains the more genuine worry that marriage is such a critical institution that we should tamper with it in any way only with extreme reluctance. This admirable concern seems to me easily the strongest argument against equal marriage rights. But it is a canard that gay men and women are unconcerned about the stability of heterosexual marriage. Most homosexuals were born into such relationships; we know and cherish them. It's precisely because these marriages are the context of most gay lives that homosexuals seek to be a part of them. But the inclusion of gay people is, in fact, a comparatively small change. It will affect no existing heterosexual marriage. It will mean no necessary change in religious teaching. If you calculate that gay men and women amount to about three percent of the population, it's likely they will make up perhaps one or two percent of all future civil marriages. The actual impact will be tiny. Compare it to, say, the establishment in this century of legal divorce. That change potentially affected not one percent but 100 percent of marriages and today transforms one marriage out of two. If any legal change truly represented the "end of marriage," it was forged in Nevada, not Vermont.

But if civil union gives homosexuals everything marriage grants heterosexuals, why the fuss? First, because such an arrangement once again legally divides Americans with regard to our central social institution. Like the miscegenation laws, civil union essentially creates a two-tiered system, with one marriage model clearly superior to the other. The benefits may be the same, as they were for black couples, but the segregation is just as profound. One of the greatest merits of contemporary civil marriage as an institution is its civic simplicity. Whatever race you are, whatever religion, whatever your politics or class or profession, marriage is marriage is marriage. It affirms a civil equality that emanates outward into the rest of our society. To carve within it a new, segregated partition is to make the same mistake we made with miscegenation. It is to balkanize one of the most important unifying institutions we still have. It is an illiberal impulse in theory and in practice, and liberals should oppose it.

And, second, because marriage is not merely an accumulation of benefits. It is a fundamental mark of citizenship. In its rulings, the Supreme Court has found that the right to marry is vested not merely in the Bill of Rights but in the Declaration of Independence itself. In the Court's view, expressed by Chief Justice Earl Warren in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, "the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." It is one of the most fundamental rights accorded under the Constitution. Hannah Arendt put it best in her evisceration of miscegenation laws in 1959: "The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which `the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one's skin or color or race' are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to `life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' ... and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs."

Prior even to the right to vote! You can see Arendt's point. Would any heterosexual in America believe he had a right to pursue happiness if he could not marry the person he loved? What would be more objectionable to most people--to be denied a vote in next November's presidential election or to no longer have legal custody over their child or legal attachment to their wife or husband? Not a close call.

In some ways, I think it's because this right is so taken for granted that it still does not compute for some heterosexuals that gay people don't have it. I have been invited to my fair share of weddings. At no point, I think, has it dawned on any of the participants that I was being invited to a ceremony from which I was legally excluded. I have heard no apologies, no excuses, no reassurances that the couple marrying would support my own marriage or my legal right to it. Friends mention their marriages with ease and pleasure without it even occurring to them that they are flaunting a privilege constructed specifically to stigmatize the person they are talking to. They are not bad people; they are not homophobes. Like whites inviting token black guests to functions at all-white country clubs, they think they are extending you an invitation when they are actually demonstrating your exclusion. They just don't get it. And some, of course, never will.

There's one more thing. When an extremely basic civil right is involved, it seems to me the burden of proof should lie with those who seek to deny it to a small minority of citizens, not with those who seek to extend it. So far, the opposite has been the case. Those of us who have argued for this basic equality have been asked to prove a million negatives: that the world will not end, that marriage will not collapse, that this reform will not lead to polygamy and incest and bestiality and the fall of Rome. Those who wish to deny it, on the other hand, have been required to utter nothing more substantive than Hillary Clinton's terse, incoherent dismissal. Gore, for example, has still not articulated a persuasive reason for his opposition to gay marriage, beyond a one-sentence affirmation of his own privilege. But surely if civil marriage involves no substantive requirement that adult gay men and women cannot fulfill, if gay love truly is as valid as straight love, and if civil marriage is a deeper constitutional right than the right to vote, then the continued exclusion of gay citizens from civil marriage is a constitutional and political enormity. It is those who defend the status quo who should be required to prove their case beyond even the slightest doubt.

I'm not completely comfortable with Sullivan's country club analogy. I think plenty of hetero folks will invite gay friends, fully conscious of the harsh realities facing gays, but wanting those gay friends to attend their wedding not because they are "the token gays," but because they are simply friends. Perhaps there are indeed hetero couples who feel that having gay friends confers some kind of status or makes them look more open-minded. But I agree that, for too long, the burden of proof has rested on the wrong side of the discussion.

More on this later. Have fun digesting your Sullivan. His essays, from which I quoted above, are all available here.
_

holy crap

If you read nothing else today, follow this link. I'm borrowing this from Instapundit, and it's a fascinating read. Glenn Reynolds introduces the link in that understated way of his: "The left continues to self-destruct. It's not pretty."

The important thing is: READ THE COMMENTS THREAD. I mean this. I don't care what part of the political spectrum you're currently perched on; but take the time to read the original post, the update, and especially the comments thread. This is a "captured on film!" moment for me, and very educational. Maybe even worthy of a permalink unto itself. Consider it a Primer on the Big Internal Debate.

This is my comments thread. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

For another aspect of the Big Internal Debate, read Den Beste's critique of the current US State Department.

_

haiku from a friend

A friend of mine sent me the following haiku:

It hurts to get shot
Now he lives in a wheelchair
Unemployed hit man.

Fell down by the pool
Traumatic Brain Injury
Oops. That's gotta hurt.

Burn another rock
Meth is fun till you throw a
Blood clot to the brain.

Julie works in the medical field, in case you were wondering. I imagine the hospital is a great source for haiku topics. She also sent me these Korea- and defecation-related gems:

excremental wind
it blows billowing hallward
i think i will faint

Kim Jong Il has hair
I don't know if it's his hair
It's pretty floofy

eating dog is brave
testicular fortitude
i do not possess.

I should try some medical haiku, but I'm not up on my terminology.

"seminiferous"
how I love to say that word
stop laughing-- FUCK YOU!

I used to love the intense scenes on "ER." That was my favorite series for a long time. "A soap opera with a brain," as one of my close friends described it, and that about nails it. The dialogue was always impenetrable during the emergency scenes, when the paramedics would come bursting in with the latest victims of the Knife and Gun Club, but even though the characters were yelling in Greek, they were intense about it, what with everyone shouting at the same time.

"This guy's hemo-cryogenic rate is skyrocketing! Give me the 16-gauge pornographator, stat!"

"His B-52s are flatlining! And his nipples appear to be caving in!"

"Oh, that can't be good. Should we take out his heart temporarily and see what happens?"

"Nurse, hand me that circular saw. There's only one cure for priapism in this hospital."

"What!? You're going to cut off this man's dick?"

"I'm a surgeon by training, and dammit, surgeons cut. Stand aside, nurse."

"Christ, another chest-bursting alien! Carter, hand me that flamethrower."

Ah, life in the e.r. I miss watching that show.
_

my brother David writes...

Stop writing about north korea. Write about interesting, engaging topics and not of old, stale things. We've had 50+ years to talk about North Korea, why not enhance your conversational canvas and paint a new dialogue.
_

Ye Olde Blogge

From the Maximum Leader, re: my "sharp exchange" with the Infidel (btw, Infidel, I'm just yanking yer chain. I truly do enjoy your blog, whatever my disagreements, and admit I'm about as sharp as a bowling ball.):

You know, at one point he mentions that NK has to choose between nukes and artillery... Actually they don't. They have already bought and paid for the artillery and the shells. That stuff sits around for decades and is still good.

He has a good point on the whole NK army being starving. The only way NK "wins" anything is if they start shooting. I think anyone can expect that if shooting begins all of the major civilian casualties will occur (in the South at least) in the first 1-4 days. I don't think the starving NKs can put up a steady resistance for much longer. But once shooting starts, no telling how messy it would get.

UPDATE: I see that the Maximum Leader already posted his thoughts.

A Washington Times article pointed out by Kevin at IA remarks that the NK troops aren't starving, and are in fact pretty well-fed. Hmmm... sounds like it's time for me to go and do some more research on this question. Journalists'll say anything. Heh.

Ch'u-sok is coming. The harvest moon festival. The actual date this year is hard to forget (it's determined by the lunar calendar), because on the solar calendar (i.e., the Western calendar), it's September 11 this year. The holiday, three days long (maybe five, since it bleeds into the weekend), starts on the 10th and ends the 12th. For those not in the know, Ch'u-sok is one of two really big holidays in Korea, the other major holiday being Seol-nal (pronounce it "sull-lahl"), or Lunar New Year. This Ch'u-sok, I'll be over at the k'eun-jip (literally, "big house"), which is generally the house of the eldest son, where the rest of the family will congregate. We'll arrive in the morning, probably around 9AM, go to the family altar and bow to our ancestors. The ritual is quite complex and I'd love to take notes, but can't, dammit, because I'm a male relative and have to participate! Where are the women? you ask. Well, Ji-hyon, one of my female cousins, will be in the room with us, because she's of our generation (remember, in Korea, you can own your own web design business at age 27 and still be a child in the older generation's eyes... same applies to this 34-year-old fart). The other ladies, the moms, will be-- you guessed it-- in the kitchen, getting everything ready. Much food will be eaten, and since we impatient younger folks will be itching to leave the joint early (after an afternoon siesta), my ass will likely quit the compound sometime before dinner.

Korean names are usually done as three Chinese characters. The first (read 'em left to right) is the surname. The next two characters are the given name. In the case of a slew of male siblings, it's quite common for all the siblings to share the same Chinese character as one of the two in their given names. So in our family's case, you see something like this:

My mother's four cousins:

Yoo Geun-sae
Yoo Geun-shik
Yoo Geun-seong (generally pronounce "eo" in between "aw" and "uh"; I'm not consistent in my romanization, however)
Yoo Geun-gyu

Geun-sae's children (two sons): Byeong-yeol and Kang-yeol.
Geun-shik's children: Seong-yeol (son) and Ji-hyon (daughter, hence totally different name).
Geun-seong's children (two sons): Gi-yeol and Jae-yeol.
Geun-gyu's son: Seung-yeol. (pronounce the "eu" like "eu" in French to have some idea what it sounds like. In many cases, that vowel, written as a simple horizontal dash, almost isn't there)

Geun-gyu had another son who died two years ago, Jun-yeol.

As you see, sometimes the "shared Chinese character" is the first syllable of the given name, and sometimes it's the second.

Most Koreans follow this traditional Chinese nomenclature. So it's jarring, even to foreigners, to see Koreans with 2-syllable or 4-syllable names. A modern trend is to move away from Chinese and use "pure Korean" names for the kids. The syllablic structure is usually preserved, however, so there's still a natural rhythm to the 3-syllable name. Example: people who name their daughters nara (country) or haneul (sky, heaven). The Sino-Korean characters for these are guk and ch'eon, respectively. (Chinese speakers might recognize some phonetic resemblance to tian in the bastardized Korean ch'eon.)

My relatives run the religious gamut from mu-gyo (no religion) to kidok-gyo (Christian) to bul-gyo (Buddhist). Generally, when you prostrate yourself before the ancestral altar, your face goes down to the floor. But my Christian relatives simply stop the prostration when their knees hit the floor, then wait for everyone else to finish their bowing, so they can take up the rising motion with the rest of the group. I don't know whether all Korean Christians do this, but this reminds me of some Muslims who claim they can bow to no one but God.

True story: I was teaching English to a very nice gent (late 20s, early 30s, I guess) named Osama al-Safi, from the United Arab Emirates, a couple years ago in northern Virginia. Very polite, very devout Muslim. Already spoke excellent English, and was actually a singer of some note in the UAE (he even gave me a copy of one of his albums). Osama (Jesus, that name!) was very interested in learning kung fu, and I happened to know of a local master, Yoo Jun-saeng, who's fairly well-established in the NoVA area. Master Yoo's a beast of a man: short, but built like a fucking truck. He grew up learning kung fu first, then took on hapkido and taekwondo as extensions. He's also produced quite a few TKD champions and has a reputation as a very hard teacher. One very young child I know, the son of one of my mother's Korean friends, was regularly reduced to tears in Master Yoo's class, because the man is simply scary (not to mention a typically traditional Korean disciplinarian). Now the kid loves going to TKD class. Anyway, I took Osama to meet Master Yoo, but we never got beyond the school's entrance.

You see, it's standard practice in a dojang (Korean way to say dojo; same two Chinese characters) to remove your shoes and bow to the flags when you're crossing the threshold. This practice carried over into non-Korean lands as a gesture of respect to the host country. So in many American dojang you'll see a Korean and American flag flying together (is "flying" the right term if they're indoors? I hate to say hanging together). Osama politely refused to bow to the flags. Master Yoo's demeanor remained cheerful, but he physically interposed himself between us and the threshold and said, "Then I can't let you in. I'm sorry." The incident ended with shrugs and smiles (and some strong suggestions from Master Yoo that Osama change his thinking), and we left, not having seen a single swung saber or wooden practice halberd. What a shame. Osama took it all in stride and said he understood Master Yoo's position completely.

I asked Osama how martial arts are practiced in the UAE if other Muslims also believe you can't bow to each other. Bowing is simply a fact of life in most martial arts; it's a simple, abbreviated gesture of respect, and carries no religious weight, so this no-bowing injunction boggled my mind. No bowing!? Osama said there's a special salute some Muslim martial artists use that's done with a rising motion of the hands and arms, and a lifting of the body onto tiptoe. Sounded awfully strange to me, and I had trouble visualizing it (so I may be describing it poorly here).

Epilogue: It turns out that, as with all phenomena, you can't paint all Muslims with the same brush. Not all Muslims take such a narrow view of whom you can bow to. (Parse something and look for its essence. It ain't there.) Osama's back in the UAE, married, hopefully happy, hopefully still churning out albums. He's also been known to speak at local mosques, so here's hoping his sermons/dharma talks/homilies are about peace and compassion, which aren't bad things to hear about, now and then.

Segue into NOTE TO SELF: Look for Muslim-run blogs that decry terrorism and promote peace. They're out there. I just haven't made the effort to look.
_

Hominid vs. Infidel

My second guest blog on the Big H's site. I was prompted to write this by the sharp exchange between the Big Hominid and the Infidel. I have only one small quibble about something the Infidel wrote. He mentioned that North Korea has to choose between nukes and artillery... Actually they don't. They have already bought and paid for the artillery and the shells. That stuff sits around for decades and is still good.

On the other hand (to use an ancient style of equivocation), the Infidel makes a good point on the whole North Korean army starving. The only way North Korea "wins" anything is if they start shooting. I think if you look at it objectively, one can expect that if shooting begins all of the major civilian casualties will occur (in the South at least) in the first 1-4 days. I don't think the starving NKs can put up a steady resistance for much longer. But once shooting starts, no telling how messy it would get.

That is my $.02 for what it is worth. (Or since we are speaking about Korea, should it be my 25 Won? I presume my reading of exchange rates is accurate.)

only a brief fart this evening

I got home too late to work on calligraphy last night, so I'm planning to do some this evening.

Am still contemplating a reply to the Naked Villain's opus on "Homosexual Marriage, Equality, and the State." In the meantime, there's this Washington Times article, courtesy of a link I saw on Andrew Sullivan: a conservative speaks out against a constitutional amendment to prohibit recognition of gay marriage:

Conservatives should squelch a rash constitutional amendment pending in the House of Representatives to prohibit states from recognizing homosexual marriages and thus place the issue off-limits for popular democratic discourse. The amendment would enervate self-government, confound the cultural sacralization of traditional marriage and child-rearing, and clutter the Constitution with a nonessential.

Sullivan's comment is brief and eloquent:

The arguments are rock-solid. George Will and Bob Barr have been there already, of course. Opposing a measure that would trivialize the constitution and destroy states' rights should be a no-brainer for conservatives.

Republicans need to rediscover a measure of self-consistency, I think, in this matter of states rights and the power of the government. Sullivan is on target here.

In other news, I discovered that one of my Three Readers appears to be The Infidel Himself, because he's devoted quite a lot of space to a topic about which he is continually dismissive: Korea!

This is an honor. I really like the Infidel's blog, even when I think he's full of shit. He knows stuff, a lot more than I'll ever know. I just disagree with what he does with his knowledge. In his long reaction to my brief remark, the Infidel makes excellent points, so I recommend you read the above-linked post, and a more recent entry.

This frees me to harp on the Infidel's small-mindedness in reacting so voluminously to my Pollyanna remark. I mention this purely as a function of my own immaturity and insect-torturing sense of play.

He writes:

Because the Korean Peoples' Army is an adversary, it deserves respect, but not unwarranted adulation.

And:

I do not need to lectured by you about the lethality of North Korean artillery; I learned what you picked up second-hand by direct observation. It took American public opinion decades to learn that old rag, and now, it is old.

And:

Pyongyang deserves equality at the negotiation table, but nothing more. Seoul is cowardly and treasonous, but Americans, who wail about North Korean artillery and nukes only, are Chicken Little, albeit fools for questionable causes (i.e. South Korea and American incompetence).

He also writes:

For those like BigHo, SDB, and Drezner who quiver at the sound of Pyongyang's arrogance, I should remind them that this sort of behavior epitomizes a regime which stalled negotiations because of the length of flagpoles and table legs and planted insurgents within the ranks of a POW population to start a riot.

In philosophy, this is called reductio ad testiculum, or the My Balls Are Far Larger and Heavier Than Your Balls Argument. The technique is generally employed when the insecurity that underlies preceding bluster is too much to bear.

We all resort to this at some point. Even women, pushed too far, may begin to claim their balls are bigger than yours. I'm sure that, when I'm as old as the Infidel and as far away from current danger as he is, I'll be brazenly waving my scrotes about, too.

Seriously, though, man... I agree with most of what you're saying. If you read my previous posts you'll see that, in most cases, you and I are arguing for much the same thing (and your anticipation of NK's about-face was already anticipated by a few of us... so now who's got the bigger balls, eh!? EH!?).

When I did my research in reply to Captain Scarlet (how DOES he live with that moniker?), I found the results rather sobering. I don't think we can afford to repose our confidence in the delapidation of NK equipment, the lack of training for its army, and other such factors. The implication of your line of thinking seems to be: if push comes to shove, it's all gravy for the US. I don't buy this. Meantime, of course I agree that for the moment it all comes down to diplomacy. This is painfully obvious. Mr. Spock said it in "Star Trek 6": "It resides in the purview of the diplomats." Dammit, SPOCK SAID IT! If it's a given that no one wants to see war break out, then what other options do we have?

So we agree here. We agree that the US would win a war on the peninsula. Where we don't agree, apparently, is in whether a victory would be clean or pyrrhic. Mainly because I think underestimating the opponent is unwise, I vote "pyrrhic" barring conclusive proof to the contrary-- which you don't have. Does this mean I'm sitting here paralyzed with fear? Dude, I'm the one near the artillery right now, and most of the time don't give it a second thought, except when blogging. Your confidence seems sourced in the idea that we would roll into NK and kick ass, end of story. This strikes me as Iraq Hypnosis: all victories will be like Iraq. And since the Iraq question isn't close to being settled, I say: Dream on. What also worries me about your attitude is how it seems to ignore the very real possibility of South Korean casualties. I mean, you're constantly claiming this peninsula isn't worth the discussion, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised, eh?

But I don't want to leave you with the impression that a cautious attitude should lead to limp diplomatic rhetoric on our part. It shouldn't. I'm right beside you when you say we should accord NK equality at the negotiating table and nothing else. That makes eminent sense. And I'm also for playing whatever head games are necessary to keep NK buzzing and agitated-- whatever generates the heat to make the meltdown happen sooner. Pressure on China? We agree here as well. Be happy: the State Department will be losing Colin Powell the next presidential term, and Rumsfeld will still be holding the reins at the Pentagon. You're about to get everything you want, especially if Bush is reelected.

Well, now I've crapped a pile to match yours. I highly recommend the corn and peanuts. Avoid the kimchi flecks.
_

le parcours

Apologies for slow blogging, My Three Readers. I've been involved in a fascinating email discussion with one of my best friends about gay marriage. It's bizarre... we agree on 99%, but it's that damn 1% remainder that's turned us into Talmudic scholars intensively going over a single line of scripture. This, friends, is what "attachment to words" is all about. True for both interlocutors.

One of my other best friends, the Maximum Leader, has just written an involved post on the subject that approaches the issue from the conservative side, and through the lens of history, politics, and philosophy (in all of which the ML is well-versed, so watch yer ass). I suggest you check his post out. You may agree; you may disagree. Or, like me, you may find yourself agreeing with certain points and disagreeing with others. I encourage you to WRITE him (even though you never write me, goddammit) if his article moves you to. I'm contemplating a blogged response to his post (since I'm basically for gay marriage), but have been hesitant to engage in extensive cross-blog debates, especially with friends. I might make an exception, though, since this seems to be the Email Topic de la Semaine.

Check out Frank J at IMAO for his latest slew of possibly-related thoughts. Had me busting a gut. Best lines:

* An asteroid could hit us in 2014. I hope we have the technology to nudge it and make sure it just hits France.

* Arnold Schwarzenegger says he'll do a debate. It would be cool if he says, "Here is my rebuttal... my re-headbuttal!" and then head butts Cruz Bustamante. Then he could pick up Gray Davis and throw him against a wall. That would be the coolest debate since the time Reagan cold-cocked Jimmy Carter!

* Did you hear that Cruz Bustamante is a member of some group called Robo or something? It's motto is "For the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing." Why don't they just make their motto, "We're a bunch of racist numb-nuts."?

* Maybe instead they could have their motto be, "For the race, everything. For those outside the race, free scoops of ice cream." Then, instead of people being threatened, they'd be like, "Yay! Free ice cream!"

* Actually, I thought "Hispanic" was an ethnicity, not a race. Bustamante should clarify whether he hates other races or other ethnicities.

Check out Kim Jong Il's blog for its latest.

Steven Den Beste blogs about the 6-way talks-- finally.

Den Beste's a bit behind on the news: the CURRENT hotness is that China may be basking in its new "important" role (cough), but the onus is once again being placed on America: it's all up to us, you see, to find a resolution for this crisis. Is this is the globalization of the victim mentality, or did we, in some way, do this to ourselves? I'm leaning toward the former, but am open to discussion.

Den Beste writes:

Of course, in overt terms this is not a good thing. But there was never any chance of a real solution in this situation unless China was willing to apply serious pressure, mostly because China is the only nation remaining that has the ability to do so.

This is actually an excellent point. Much of China's current self-congratulation is misplaced: its role was almost inevitable. Could the US realistically have persuaded an NK delegation to come meet with it in Washington, along with four other countries? I doubt it. NK might have accepted if the hypothetical proposal called for exclusively bilateral talks, but we weren't about to concede that (and we were right not to).

Den Beste writes:

North Korea has been a growing tumor for a long time now, and it's reached the point where it can't be ignored any longer. Chinese policy was to try to con the US into accepting bilateral talks with North Korea in hopes that the US would make major concessions to put the lid back on. As the Bush administration stood firm, with a policy I characterized as "engaged apathy", the Chinese have more and more switched to the idea that it was North Korea which would have to be forced to change.

And that's the old news. The new news is that it's supposedly all up to the US to show some flexibility. I noticed some other China- and Koreablogs complaining about US inflexibility. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING? ALL concessions have come from the US side. ALL. And WE'RE the ones who aren't flexible? Stop eating what you're crapping, and keep a picture of Bill Clinton in front of you at all times for a recent example of US flexibility.

Den Beste:

On the other hand, if NK actually performs a nuclear test in some sort of spectacular fashion, such as firing a nuclear-armed missile over Japan to detonate in the North Pacific, then for the Chinese (and everyone else) that's even worse.

I haven't seen enough professional speculation on NK's nuke testing. Will it happen? There's a chance it won't. There's a chance they'll say it happened underground and (like License2KimJongIl on that hilarious blog) push out some Orwellian bullshit that our satellites simply couldn't pick up the test because it was deep underground. Heh.

My feeling, based on absolutely nothing: any nuclear test is 90% likely to be underground. An aboveground test of a low-yield nuke might not do much real damage in terms of wussy radiation, but the psychological impact on the surrounding countries (and this blogger) might be extreme.

For more on Korean strategic issues, I give you an incredible old post from Anticipatory Retaliation re: "Deterrence and Ideology."

Kevin at Incestuous Amplification is up to his usual excellent standards. His latest posts are worth reading through.

1. Is the White House Cracking?

I sure hope the White doesn't crack. I think NK needs to see major inflexibility from our end. I don't want to see us try a preemptive strike, because that's simply Endgame, but I also think that burblings about a strike need to be leaked regularly to NK, to keep those assholes on their toes.

Of course, there's the issue of diplomatic capital. Best card we can play: keep insisting (to all relevant parties) on multilateral talks, on a multilateral solution. Talks to be hosted by China? Who cares? Sure, why not? I'm not against that. Meantime, more pressure on China and SK to reduce their aid and, in SK's case, stop its rampant appeasement.

2. Hammered From All Sides

Kevin's not the only one who sees the walls closing in. SK's crisis is in many ways tied to NK's crisis. Time is running out for NK; while it may be "winning" when it gains the chance to maintain the status quo (and keep fiddling with nukes in secret), the harsh reality is that the country is dying. Like a drowning victim's body, in which the brain hogs all the oxygen, NK is exhibiting quite similar symptoms. So long as Kim Jong Il is plump while his citizens in the hinterlands (and that's most of them) are rooting around for grass, you can be sure the situation will continue to slide toward cascade failure.

Was that a suck-ass mix of imagery or what? Sorry about that.

Check out the Marmot's "Keep Dreaming" post, re: the NK cheerleading squad that seemed to hog the headlines during the much-touted Taegu Universiade (an event I had no urge to follow through the news). Gem:

Personally, I'm all in favor of reform in South Korea - it's a nation in dire need of change, and Infidel's post from yesterday does an excellent job of explaining why. But the LAST thing this nation needs to do is gear reform to the North Koreans, i.e. making South Korea look more attractive to the North Korean leadership. The North Korean state is an anachronism left over from an uglier time in human history, and the sooner it is consigned to the dust bin of progress, the better. Is South Korea's society "too" competitive? Depends on who you ask. Will it be difficult for North Koreans to adjust to said society? Hell, yes. But it's South Korea's competitive drive (i.e. "where people are forced to be hostile and jealous of one another rather than work together") that is in large part responsible for this nation becoming the economic powerhouse that it is. And its current economic woes are due not to excessive competition and wealth inequalities, but to a lack of competition derived from trade and investment barriers, protected markets, and highly interventionist economic policies. Look, not that making South Korea look more like the North would bring about unification faster, but even if it did, why would you want to unify the two if you're left with a nation that is even less able to compete in the global economy?

The Marmot is reacting to an article he's quoted and translated (at least in part). He writes:

To be fair, it should be pointed out that Kim [the author of the article] is under the assumption, as are many deluded souls both here and abroad, that North Korea can somehow be reformed. Judging from something Kim says towards the end, he appears to believe that the North's "rigid" system is a product of the nation's confrontation with the United States, i.e. it's due to the American "threat" that North Korea must take the extreme security measures that it does. Of course, the writer would hardly be the first to make such a mistake - Western apologists used to say much the same thing about Stalin and Mao when they unleashed equally brutal reigns of terror on their own citizens ("useful idiots" was the term Lenin applied to them, I seem to recall). What Kim fails to understand is that without a rigid system, the North Korean state would simply cease to be - the American "threat" is simply an ideological crutch. The bizarre behavior exhibited by North Korean citizens - so often interpreted as deep respect and affection for their Dear Leader - is the product of a totalitarian system with a stranglehold on information and complete control over life and death. Loosen social controls, and what you have is not reform, but the start of a revolution - a revolution North Korean leaders, many of whom are likely to face charges of crimes against humanity should they loose power, are determined to prevent.

This is relevant to understanding the current misunderstanding that the onus for a resolution is now entirely on American shoulders. Blame needs to be properly assigned.

Marmot's deadly punchline about reunification:

There can be no "negotiated unification" - the two systems are diametrically opposed, and what's more, one of those systems no longer works.

Amen to that. I have a Korean buddy who thinks in terms of compromise when it comes to reunification. If the current sorry situation in Western Europe is any indication, though, the 50-50 mix (am I getting this proportion right?) of socialism and democratic principles doesn't lead to very much. Such a mixed system would probably produce a similar avorton in Korea.

The Infidel's September 1 post was interesting; the Marmot talks about it here. I, however, have a bone to pick with one major paragraph:

Pyongyang has bluff, and little more. The longer North Korea blathers on, the more probable some kind of mistake splits the 6-party coalition, and North Korea gets stronger. Everytime an American or Seoulite points out imaginary artillery shells and nuclear missiles raining from the sky, Pyongyang gets stronger. No matter what Pyongyang has, a missile or a new piece of hardware needs testing, to determine its viability. Hardware also costs hard currency. Pyongyang's artillery tubes are respectable, but they sit in protected lairs and reservists, strung out on meager rations, get little or no training. Personnel turnover neutralizes even that advantage. Interdiction of all North Korean vessels in international waters and diplomatic pressure applied to Iran and Pakistan will disrupt both ends of North Korea's lifeline. But, Seoul has to stop funneling unconditional aid northward, and ignore the temper tantrums from Pyongyang and from progressives at home.

"Imaginary artillery shells"?

Sigh...

This is the Captain Scarlet of Silent Running school of thought. It's pure Pollyanna, along the lines of "Nothing major will happen to Seoul!" People, go read the think tanks. I've got a link to a list of them on my left margin. Then go ahead and say they're all wrong.

If you choose to let your guard down in the dojang, expect to get your ass hit. I personally choose to view NK with a lot more caution, and accord them the respect that should be accorded a dangerous adversary. The Pollyanna School's confidence is misplaced.

I do, however, strongly agree with the last sentence of that paragraph. In the meantime, though, if Infidel is insinuating that we'd quickly and easily clean NK's clock, I beg to differ. We'll win, yes, but I don't kid myself that Seoul will survive the conflict unscathed, or that a war will last only three weeks here, or that South Korea's economy won't suffer horribly for a long, long time.

Winds of Change on force options in Iraq.

Andrew Sullivan is back. One of his latest posts deserves lengthy quoting:

MISSION UNACCOMPLISHED: And then there's the war. I could forgive this administration almost anything if it got the war right. But, after a great start, it's getting hard to believe the White House is in control of events any more. Osama bin Laden is regrouping in Afghanistan; Saddam, perhaps in league with al Qaeda, is fighting back in Iraq. The victims of terror in Iraq blame the United States - not the perpetrators - for the chaos. And the best news of the war - that Shi'a, Sunnis, and Kurds were not at each others' throats - is now fraying. Worse, the longer the impasse continues the harder it will be to get ourselves out of it.

About this we hear two refrains from the White House: a) everything is going fine, actually; and b) this new intensity of terror in Iraq is a good thing because it helps us fight the enemy on military, rather than civilian, terrain. The trouble that we're discovering is that a full-scale anti-terror war is not exactly compatible with the careful resusictation of civil order and democratic government, is it? And if we are in a new and vital war, why are we not sending more troops to fight it? And why are we not planning big increases in funding for the civil infrastructure at the same time? The response so far does not strike me as commensurate with the problem, and I say this as a big supporter of this war.

What to do? I'd be hard put to express it better than John McCain Sunday: more troops, more money, more honesty from the president about the challenges, swifter devolution of power to Iraqis, and so on. And yet the White House in August decided to devote the president's public appearances to boosting his environmental credibility. Are they losing it? So far, I've been manfully trying to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, especially given the media's relentlessly negative coverage of Iraq. But they're beginning to lose me, for the same reasons they're losing Dan Drezner. They don't seem to grasp the absolutely vital necessity of success in Iraq. And I can't believe I'm writing that sentence.

[Paragraphing added; Sullivan's blog tends toward paragraphic chunkiness. The above was originally a unigraf.]

Your thoughts?

Sinister news out of Israel.

A word about Charles Bronson, who recently died. He's the star of one of my absolute favorite 70s B-movies: "The Mechanic." (One of my Top three, along with the first "Dirty Harry" and "Enter the Dragon.") But the best line out of that flick goes to Jan Michael Vincent (posing as a delivery guy, standing at the front door): "Chick'n Lick'n is... lickin' chicken!"

Hats off to Bronson for his cinematic achievements. Unfortunate that he got stuck in the increasingly ridiculous "Death Wish" rut, but what big-time action star doesn't have that particular skeleton in his closet? He was a hard worker, a cool star, and the best pool boy our family ever had.

OK, that last part was a joke.

Good God... Comrade Queef's birthday isn't far from mine!

I think I'm going to cut it off here for the evening. Morning. Whatever it is. One of my birthday gifts included an infusion of cash from a Party Who Must Not Be Named (but Who Should Be Thanked Profusely and in Private). I went out and indulged in a very basic Chinese calligraphy set-- two brushes, paper, blotter, inkwell, ink, and wooden blocks to hold the paper down. Also got a quick-and-dirty calligraphy lesson from the shopowner. Am now going to practice my hanja, try to draw Bodhidharma and tigers and dragons, and see what other graphic mischief I can come up with. If I produce anything good, and get to work on the add-graphics-to-blog project, I'll be sure to showcase my scribbles. Or "chicken scrawl," as my high school physics teacher used to call it whenever I'd sign my name in Korean.
_

for my Dadso

I don't think my Dad actually reads my blog, but I thought he'd find this interesting (Post article reprinted in its entirety at risk of litigation):

Researchers Ape Nature With Flapping-Wing Aircraft
Versatile Ornithopters Hold Promise for Space or Military Missions

By Sumitra Rajagopalan
Special to The Washington Post
Monday, September 1, 2003; Page A09


"Mentor" looked like a cross between a dragonfly and a Chinese lantern as it soared toward the ceiling of a Toronto research center, its wings flapping furiously. Below, a bespectacled young man gingerly worked the joystick on a remote control. Mentor started hovering in place, and suddenly the sound of flapping was drowned by thunderous applause.

Mentor's maiden flight last spring marked a milestone in the age-old quest to build ornithopters -- aircraft propelled by flapping wings. Developed by the University of Toronto's Institute for Aerospace Studies and SRI International, a nonprofit research and development corporation in Menlo Park, Calif., Mentor is the world's first hovering ornithopter.

Mentor came into being in response to a vision of a "fly-on-the-wall spy" put forward by James McMichael at the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in 1997. He envisioned stealth "micro-air vehicles" with the size and flying ability of insects deployed to gather intelligence on enemy terrain.

Flapping wings offer several advantages over the fixed wings of today's reconnaissance drones, such as the Predator used by U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Flapping wings allow insects and birds to fly at low speeds, hover, make sharp turns and even fly backward.

Flapping produces a vortex -- a tiny tornado -- beneath each wing that creates the push necessary for birds and insects to take to the sky.

But vortices alone do not account for the versatile flight capabilities of birds and insects. Notable among the faculties that flying insects and birds employ is the "clap-fling" mechanism. Like a baritone taking a deep breath before belting out the first note, they draw in air by clapping their wings together, then flinging them apart at high speeds. This creates lift by hurling regions of high pressure below and behind.

Intrigued by McMichael's vision and armed with DARPA funding, James DeLaurier, a professor at the University of Toronto, chose the hummingbird as his model for Mentor for its ability to "hover beautifully" as well as its "smooth, elegant style of switching from hovering to horizontal flight."

With the help of mathematical models created by Roy Kornbluh and his team at SRI International, DeLaurier's team was able to replicate the "clap-fling" mechanism in Mentor. Researchers have been able to build flapping robots that can hover stably and fly horizontally -- though the transition is still very shaky -- with either gas- or battery-powered motors. This and a host of other sophisticated features allow Mentor to remain airborne for as many as 10 minutes -- a record for small-scale ornithopters.

DARPA, pleased with the results of the first phase of research, is now funding more advanced concepts. The program, slated to be funded in 2004, is also backed by a call for proposals by the Pentagon's Army Research Office and the Office of Naval Research. NASA is interested in the possibilities of "bio-inspired flight" for planetary exploration, and held a conference on the topic at its Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va., last month.

When Ephrahim Garcia read about McMichael's "fly-on-the-wall" vision, he, too, figured it was a perfect opportunity to explore ideas he had entertained since he was a young research fellow at the CIA.

"It dawned on me that the key to survival and victory in today's battlefield is information," said Garcia, now a professor of mechanical engineering at Cornell University. He had long toyed with many scenarios, including one in which soldiers would deploy a swarm of camera-equipped robotic insects to probe inaccessible terrain.

While studying insects' flight, Garcia noticed that their wing motion originated in the thorax -- the body of the insect. "Tiny dorsal muscles in the thorax cause [it] to vibrate," said Garcia, and the insect's body amplifies these tiny vibrations to cause large-scale wing motion.

Based on these observations, Garcia, along with his colleague Michael Goldfarb, also set out to design a flying robotic insect. A light metal skeleton formed the thorax while piezoelectric actuators -- materials that bend when electrically activated -- were used to induce vibrations. Using this approach, Garcia and Goldfarb were able to produce the flapping wing motion and 60 percent of the air pressure required to generate lift.

Research into "micro air vehicles" is also afoot at the Canadian Space Agency, a leader in space robotics where researchers have long worked on bio-inspired robots. They developed Canadarm I, the six-jointed robotic arm reminiscent of a human limb, that is in service aboard the international space station, as well as Canadarm II, a mobile robotic vehicle capable of crawling along the body of the space station on its two "hands," end over end, like an inchworm.

Mars exploration has top priority at the CSA, and research and development coordinator Jean-Claude Piedboeuf is once again looking to nature to develop a new generation of planetary probes. He envisions a flock of small, lightweight robots hovering over Martian land rovers and guiding them to places of interest. When it comes to designing small-scale robots, he said, "nature can provide ready-made solutions."

Piedboeuf's team is working on mathematical models of flight conditions on Mars and calculating the optimal wing span for robotic insects capable of flying in the Red Planet's thin atmosphere.

Similar research is underway at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. As manager of Bio-engineered Exploratory Systems, Sarita Thakoor is spearheading an effort to develop advanced planetary probes inspired by the insect world because, she says, "centuries of evolution have produced structures and systems that work very well."

The absence of a magnetic field on distant planets would require robotic flyers to rely on their own resources to navigate and achieve flight control -- just like insects. With this in mind, Thakoor and her team have developed and successfully tested autonomous control and navigation systems based on honeybees and dragonflies. Thakoor hopes to see insect-inspired probes in action on a future mission to Mars slated for 2009.

Before miniature flying robots can become more than laboratory toys, however, researchers will have to boost their performance.

Having spent the past decade developing rubbery muscle-like materials that contract and relax when activated electrically, Kornbluh at SRI is now looking to use these artificial muscles to generate wing motion. Meanwhile, DeLaurier is exploring mechanisms that would allow Mentor to shift smoothly from hovering to horizontal flight, just like a hummingbird.

Another major obstacle is that the prototypes consume an enormous amount of energy, Garcia said. Advances in flying robotic insects will have to go hand-in-hand with research into smaller, more efficient engines, he said.

"Imagine this," he exclaimed, "we send this super-sophisticated flying probe to Mars, only to learn that 10 minutes into the operation, it has run out of gas!"


(c) 2003 The Washington Post Company

being 34

I was really, really down when I found out a while back that Gregory Hines had died of cancer. There's a scene in "Running Scared" in which Gregory's character, Hughes, is in a bar along with Billy Crystal's character, Costanza. Costanza has just loudly announced to all the patrons that it's Hughes's birthday, and he's 35.

"Thirty-four!" Hughes corrects him repeatedly, to no avail.

I couldn't help thinking about that scene. Feels like that film came out yesterday.

Hats off to you, Gregory.

So now I'm older than Jesus, but didn't get to have my "I Outlived Jesus" party, which my Korean Christian relatives would have frowned on (I ate a mess of Korean short ribs with them, after five hours at temple doing ch'am-seon and listening to what turned out to be an extra-long dharma talk from Hyon Gak sunim). It occurred to me, though, that I can wait: I won't be getting any younger, so technically speaking, an "I Outlived Jesus" party can happen any time between age 34 and, well, DEATH.

Since my circle of closest friends will all be 34 by the end of November, and I'll be home from about post-Thanksgiving to a little past New Year's, maybe we should just fete this as a group. What say you, gentlemen?

I guess you could say I'm in my mid-thirties now. It's official. I'd engage in some public self-assessment, but (1) that's pretty masturbatory, even for a blog, (2) you'd be bored out of your gourd, and (3) I'm just too damn tired right now, since it's around 5 in the AM here in Seoul.

So I leave you with a haiku expressing what it's like, right at this moment, to be 34.

at one with the Tao
life is bountiful, just like
my six testicles
_

Buddhism question: redux

I'd answered an email from Zsolt previously.

Zsolt writes back (email slightly edited here):

I can't do anything else, but do what Hui-neng did to Shen-hsiu, answer.

Katagiri-roshi wrote a book titled, "You Have to Say SOMETHING!" Yes, we have to answer. Hui-neng did that. Silence is usually a cop-out. I certainly don't blame Hui-neng for crafting such an intelligent response.

I don't know, if there's a scale to elightenment, but I view his response as pretty enlightened, exactly why you say he's not so enlightened.

Oh, I'm sure he was enlightened-- if the incident really occurred. A good book that devotes some space to the subject is Ray Grigg's "The Tao of Zen." Grigg (citing scholars) contends that Hui-neng may actually have existed, but his life has been so thoroughly fictionalized that we don't really know anything about it, including whether an unlettered worker could really have crafted a poetic response.

To me, there's no "absolute answer" to all the questions, but some answers are considered enlightened relative to their questions. So, one of the meanings of this story is exactly this.

I agree: no absolute answers.

One of the interesting things about commentaries on basic texts (such as koan and mondo) is that many commentators use the "So-and-So wasn't really enlightened" or "So-and-So made a big mistake in speaking thus" technique. It's not necessarily a put-down, especially if the commentator is himself/herself a Zen practitioner. I was going for something in that spirit. It's wise to remember that we shouldn't attach to words-- constant advice from the living masters. You often read or hear stuff like this in Zen:

Master B: Who are you?
Student: I was sent to you from Master A, under whom I've been studying for 10 years.
Master B: Master A's Zen is garbage. Throw it out.

Master B isn't necessarily dumping on Master A when he does this. Master A and Master B both have, as their central concern, moving the student (or, rather, inspiring the student to move) beyond language, teaching, concepts, etc. This is why, in Zen, it's sometimes important to kick the shins of the elders. Heh.

I was aware of this story, in fact, my intention was to remind you about it. And remind you about a story with a similar interpretation (by me, of course), the one with the two monks arguing about the waving flag, and Hui-neng telling them, that only their mind is moving.

Yes, a shortie but a goodie. I stand reminded.

I used to believe in Buddhism for 2-3 years, I really enjoyed these funny (and sometimes really thought-provoking) stories. Now, I think I'm living my way, but usually on the road laid out by others.

I myself am no Buddhism expert; I'm a Christian. But Buddhism is my field of study; my specific interest is Korean Zen. I hope to do doctoral work in this area, but learning Korean is proving awfully difficult, despite the fact that I have a Korean mom with whom I (very) occasionally practice when I'm back in the States.

Good fortune to you! I'll submit, though, that one doesn't "believe in Buddhism," because Buddhism at heart isn't about beliefs the way many other religions are. Truth is what you discover through assiduous practice; as Zen Master Seung Sahn says: BOOM! Your experience!

Please accept my apologies for my mistakes in my English, I'm far from a native speaker (I live in Eastern Europe).

Your prose is great! I knew a Romanian woman who spoke absolutely perfect, beautiful French (though I guess that's not surprising, given how many Romanians speak fluent French), so I don't think living in Eastern Europe is any barrier to having a wonderful command of English.

Hapjang,


Kevin

PS: Thanks for the birthday wishes.

PPS: Also, many thanks to the Maximum Leader for his birthday wishes-- and this is a red-letter day, because this is Mike's very first GUEST BLOG! WOO-HOO! Here's hoping for more.
_