Reminiscing..

With the end of the year in view, I feel it’s appropriate to look back at this blog all the

way from its genesis in September. Over the course of the last three months, I started out as a

novice in the world of blogging, not to mention blogging about political, social and other pertinent

world issues. In fact, the only blogging I was familiar with was me complaining and whining

about my life and my parents, and how “unfair” life was.. in high school. That said, I feel

confident in saying that I’ve made some leaps and bounds over the course of this blog’s duration.

Indeed, as I’ve looked outward towards the world, I ended up looking inward, finding things

about myself that I didn’t think I had in me. I’ve always thought of myself as educated, but at

the same time I would also admit that I wasn’t exactly the most politically or socially conscious

person. I’ve grown over the course of the last few months in that I’ve realized I do have views

and opinions that are heard, and that the world isn’t as far away as I think it is. In this entry, I

will string together several of my posts from the past three months that I feel reflect my

development and progress from beginning to end. I think it’s only fair to do this, to see where

I’ve been, so that I can look forward and face new challenges with confidence in the future. The

following posts range, in terms of post date, from the middle of September to the end of

November, and I feel each reflected a unique aspect, as well as growth, in my written works.

The first post, on Uganda, was actually the first post ever made on my blog, and I think it shows

the passion for world issues that I never thought I had before. The second post, “A Bad Name

Indeed”, represents an expansion of my vision as it was my first post outside of politics and

world issues. Furthermore, it was also a direct response to a fellow blogger’s previous post, a

sort of networking I hadn’t been comfortable about jumping into until that point. My last

selected post, “Rock Hard”, I think represents a combination of my earlier endeavors in political

blogging with my personal interests. As it talks about music, a love of mine, and its role in China

and North Korea, the repressive regimes, I feel it reflects how I took what I learned over the

course of this blog’s life and branching out in talking about something more personal.

(From the post “Uganda: What is the Opportunity Cost of Hosting Chogm” from 9/14/07)

Earlier today, I read this article by Sam Akaki of The Monitor regarding Uganda and its hosting of Chogm (which stands for Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting). In short, Chogm is a biennial summit meeting of the heads of government from all Commonwealth nations hosted by a different member nation each meeting. The purpose and the theme of Chogm has been "Transforming Commonwealth societies to achieve political, economic and human rights" but the article expresses the irony that arises from the said goals and with Uganda being the host country this year.

The intention of the event itself is perfectly acceptable as it is a time to meet with the commonwealth nations to debate, negotiate and discuss issues that affect various member nations. While that may have been easier in practice in its earlier years, with the growing number of members (there are over 50 member nations in Chogm) and leniency/relaxation in its agendas, there have been questions raised about not only its relevance but also its ability to establish any sort of political consensus.

A fact that gets lost in the shuffle is that Uganda is the host country for the 2007 Chogm conference. With the budget for the conference rising above 1 trillion schillings for the nation of Uganda and asked in the parliament how much the UK government would provide of that total, the Foreign Office Minister Ian McCartney replied, "The government of Uganda will meet the full costs of hosting Chogm. The [British] government will [not] contribute [anything] to these costs". And in this is where the contradiction lies, the fact that a nation whose history has been plagued by economical, political and social problems that needs help more than anyone else has been asked to help in solely hosting its events and the financial costs that come with it. The article states my thoughts perfectly:

Given that Uganda is facing catastrophic social, economic and political crises including explosive population growth; rapid deforestation; falling food production; violent scramble for land; increasing unemployment among graduates; growing rural-urban migration; power shortages; crumbling health, education and road infrastructure; over one million citizens who have been living in the Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps for the last 20 years; louder and wider complaints about ethnic marginalisation; political opponents dying or disappearing in detention; non-existent prospect for peaceful change through free and fair elections; calls for secession in Buganda and the north - all making lethal cocktail that will sure tear Uganda apart; one would expect hosting Chogm at a cost of one trillion shillings to be the last thing in the minds of Ugandan rulers and its western backers.

The irony cuts deep in that while Uganda hosts Chogm, an event that promotes the well being of the commonwealth nations, the host country is receiving a lack of help in these times when they need assistance in all those said areas. Regarding the title of the article, the opportunity cost of an action is defined as "the monetary cost of an alternative that must be forgone in order to pursue another action; or the benefits you could have received by taking that alternative action". This refers to what could have been if the responsibilities and burdens placed on Uganda could have been lightened or redirected. The article, in fact, mentions several of areas of benefits that could be realized if an alternative action was taken.

Why didn't we spend that money to resettle over one million men, women and children who have spent 20 years in camps; or create decent jobs for tens of thousands of graduates and other professionals who are working as security guards, hotel waiters, petrol station attendants, international drug traffickers, mercenaries in Iraq, or walking the streets looking for employment?

Why not spend the money to renovate Mulago Referral Hospital, and provide equipment and staff for the badly needed specialist units for treatment of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, neurological disorders and burns?

How many more new doctors, nurses, primary and secondary school teachers would be trained with this amount of money? What if some of the money had been spent on increasing the salaries for doctors, nurses, teachers, policemen, civil servants and university lecturers?

Why not spend the money on building one first class primary school in every parish, fully staffed with properly trained and remunerated teachers, and build one first class secondary school in every county, well equipped with science laboratories and fully staffed with properly trained and remunerated teachers?

Why not spend the money on providing descent accommodation for our police officers who are sharing one room with married colleagues?

Why not properly maintain or purchase brand new military transport vehicles to avoid frequent needless deaths in freak accidents?

Why not spend the money to recruit and train more judges and other judiciary officials to deal with the huge backlog of cases in which thousands of Ugandans are on remanded for alleged defilement, murder and treason without trial for decades?

Why not use the money to build at least two water boreholes in every parish throughout the country; or renovate the Owen Falls Dam and accelerate the construction of two or more hydro power stations to arrest the terrible power shortage?

Why not use the money to organise an effective population control programme including reproductive health education, safe pregnancy termination clinics, cash rewards to families with fewer than three children and imposing taxation on those with more?

Why not use the money to implement the recommendations of the Commonwealth Observer report to ensure free and fair elections in 2011 and avert the prospect for violence?

For myself, this is an issue that is a personal burden for me, having gone to Uganda this summer as part of an short term summer mission with my campus Christian ministry, Korean-American Campus Mission (KCM). Personally seeing with my own eyes the poverty, the homeless and ill kids, the pain and just the lack of help and resources was a humbling experience. Realistically, change won't occur at a miraculous overnight pace, but things could be done better in helping this nation stand for itself. The one enduring and unfortunate fact that was evident in my month-long stay was the fact that there is a pervasive beggar culture. Just seeing so many beggars, homeless and people who would offer me their children for money made me realize that even if there is foreign aid, it's not enough to just donate, but to take initiative and help them to stand on their own. Unfortunately, as this article indicates, there has been more that's been hurting rather than helping the people of Uganda.

(From the post “A Bad Name Indeed” from 11/16/07)

In a recent posting on the Ketch Up blog entitled, "A Bad Name for USC", the blog refers to the incident involving former USC college student, Holly Ashcraft, who is best known for having been tried for charges stemming from her dumping newborn baby in a trash bin on 29th street in 2005. In fact, it was just a year prior in 2004, when she gave birth to another child in a dormitory bathroom, whose remains remain unfounded to this day.
As noted in Ketch Up, there is something to be said about the fact that Ashcraft went from facing charges of murder three times, to having the case dismissed citing lack of evidence, and recently having bail reduced just last week. She expresses this sentiment in stating:

Seems to me that the authorities are going way to easy with this woman even though she has done this before. The prosecutors in this case continue to believe that Ashcraft's baby was born alive and she dumped it in the trash bin in order to get rid of her son while the defense lawyer, Mark Geragos, continues to argue that there is no evidence Ashcraft knew she was pregnant or that the baby was born alive. Also arguing that putting the child in a box in the dumpster was not intentional. What kind of defense is that?

As appalling and as unbelievable as her crimes and acts may have been, the circumstances in the trials have been just as unbearable. And this is just for the 2005 incident. One would think that the previous incident in 2004 would corroborate charges and suspicions against Ashcraft, but so far, she hasn't faced anything near the justice that is necessary. Also pointed out is the fact that the defense lawyer, Geragos, is arguing that the woman did not know she was pregnant nor that it was alive. I would think that if you give birth and hear a baby crying, those would be pretty clear signs of whether you were pregnant and whether the baby was alive or not. But I guess that is the sticking point, that no one knows for sure if the baby was still-born or still alive when it was abandoned in the dumpster. At the same time, it is puzzling that he also argues for Ashcraft that abandoning the baby in the dumpster was not intentional. If so, did she accidentally throw her baby away? I'd like to see how you would do that.
In the concluding paragraph, Ketch Up noted:

Not only does this woman need a psychological evaluation but she needs to go to jail. She intentionally took the life of her two children and is not suffering any consequences. Holly continues to say she is not guilty. Only time will tell if Holly will ever have to go to jail. But it seems the longer this case continues, the more lenient the circumstances are for this woman.

There are multiple levels of trespasses committed by Ashcraft. The murders are one thing, but I think there is something to be said about her psychologically if she is sleeping around, getting pregnant, giving birth and then killing/abandoning her baby in some sort of a sick little cycle. And as noted earlier, as distressing as this situation is, it seems as time passes by, indeed she faces less and less justice. One can only hope that, in time, this case will move forward and reach a conclusion, for Ashcraft's punishment and for the memory of her children who never lived to say a word to their mother.

(From the post “Rock Hard” from 11/30/07)

Recently, Communication Breakdown posted this commentary on the issue of the western music making its way into China and its impact. It had to do with a lot of music sales being down and out largely due to the rise of shareware programs like torrents, IRC, limewire, etc and how western artists are seeking new artists and opportunities in the East:

Western music is looking to the East to play live shows, and capitalize from merchandise and technology. Peter Grosslight, worldwide head of music for the William Morris Agency believes that “China is on the tip of everyone’s tongue. There are 1.3 billion people there. It’s becoming a much wealthier place. How can we ignore that?” According to “For all the Rock in China” printed in Sunday’s New York Times, China has come to embrace Western music again as they “were once largely closed to foreign music, but the country has gradually loosened it’s restrictions,” and has thereby become a necessary destination for pop music.

This is no problem at all. In fact, it's smart business and this isn't the first time (or the last) that western industries seek bigger pastures on the other side of the yard. A notable example that comes in mind for me is professional American sports organizations such as the MLB and the NBA going over to China to expand its business and take advantage of the rising population and wealth there. In terms of music, I think the best and most recent example of (though it went further than just east) would be Michael Jackson and the sheer number of concerts, album sales, etc, that were acquired outside the U.S. Similarly, due to opportunity AND necessity, western artists seem to be heading east.
At the same time, China is still under a repressive regime, and unsurprisingly the authority extends to concerts, music, lyrics, you name it. So on the one hand, we have artists from the west, more specifically, America, such as Linkin Park, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Beyonce, etc, etc, seeking new opportunities in the east, including China. But on the other hand, China offers nothing but its authoritarian regime who decides everything from the lyrics, to set list, to venue, sound, etc. Communication Breakdown offers a very real perspective on the issues that obviously arise out of the conflict:

What is more important to a musician- playing sold out concerts in China where lyrics and every minutia of your set is scrutinized or playing in a small club where you are free to play your music as you intended it? As an artist I cannot easily understand why so many US music groups are willing to hand over their creativity to the Chinese Ministry. The discrepancy between the band’s China sponsors and the music they actually sell illustrates the point that China is only out to make a profit… even if that means disrupting a global marketing plan along the way.

This is especially interesting because in a recent article entitled, Concert Without Strings, the New York times talked about a similar issue in North Korea. The article refers to the New York Philharmonic considering performing in Pyongyang, North Korea. The article further commentates about how just like in China, everything from the guest list, to the venue, set list and everything is determined by the government, in this case, it would be Kim Jong-Il. The article also refers to examples of when there has been any detraction in terms of unwavering allegiance to the North's music, program and organization as to what is to be listened to. One such example was the story of a Ji Hae Nam who was imprisoned for 3 years and suffered physical abuse to the point she couldn't walk for a month. With all this said, the authors offered a sort of an open ended challenge:

If, as some starry-eyed commentators have suggested, the dictator’s willingness to let the Philharmonic perform demonstrates a new level of “openness,” then the orchestra should be able to make reasonable demands: that the orchestra alone set its program; that the performance be broadcast on state radio for everyone to hear; that the concert hall be open to the public, not just the elite; and that the Western press be allowed to attend. If the regime refuses these conditions, the Philharmonic should, in the name of artistic freedom, decline to perform in North Korea.

In considering this case as well as the Communications Breakdown post from earlier, it is indeed important to ask ourselves, especially musicians, if business ventures and breaking through to China, North Korea, wherever, if it is at the cost of artistic integrity. Indeed, I would say that it's not really breaking through if you are not allowed to do it on your terms. Just because an artist may be performing in China or North Korea doesn't mean that their music is going to progress any further than that. The interesting question at this point is if the artist stays or goes, and if the artist stays are they really willing to be at the mercy of the local government's imposing will? Or, if the artist leaves, they face a set of entirely different and similar problems back home, especially in America with its RIAA and downloading epidemic. Either way, it's clear that there are questions everywhere, both at home and abroad for western musicians.