Kathreb

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Weekend

I think it was Thanksgiving back in the US. I think this because a former student colleague flew over here for the 'long' weekend - I assume that means the Thanksgiving weekend. A small group of us went for some beers on Friday night. The group comprised two Americans and the conversation quickly got into US politics. It was a bit weird to be discussing US politics in London. Living in DC I stayed well-informed on the issue but less so over here. Saturday we went to Worthing to stay overnight at a friend's house - the main drawcard being that they have SKY and access to view the Ashes going on in Australia. We sat up to watch England batting (badly). We decided to give up and go to sleep after the second wicket fell before they had even got 100 on the board. Although I heard that English did pick up after that a bit.

And on the topic, I think it is a tragedy of justice that Murdoch can put the cricket on pay-per-view and exclude so many cricket fans from being able to watch the game. That kind of monopoly should be outlawed.

Permalink Post a Comment

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Korean TV Dramas - responding to the critics

I have received a comment by Charles in the comments section and the other by Kevin about my post on Korean TV dramas. I am flattered you both read my post (but am more freaked than flattered by some of Kevin's comments).

Charles notes that women also like Lost and many other American TV dramas. Absolutely, I agree. And particularly with regard to Lost, I have heard many good things about it and did not mean to imply that Lost and other US dramas are solely aiming for the male audience. My point was more generally aimed at the idea of shows being attractive to certain people and not attractive to others.

Charles says "Perhaps [Korean TV drama watchers] prefer predictability because its all they ever knew". Do people who watch Korean TV dramas only like them because they don't know what else is out there? Possibly for some this is true. But generally I don't think so. I know US TV dramas. I have lived in the US, I am Australian and have spent my life watching US TV...and yet...I don't think Korean TV dramas are crappy (although they are predictable). Given their international popularity (ok - Asian popularity) would also indicate that people have choices on what they watch and choose to watch Korean TV dramas.

Perhaps greater exposure to international/US TV in Korea will lead to better Korean TV production, as Charles hopes. But, using Australia as my benchmark, I see no evidence that exposure to US TV leads to better domestic programming.

Kevin looks more closely at how we might compare between US and Korean TV drama to see which is best. But I remain unconvinced that this would further the discussion. You could do the comparison and find out (probably) that US TV drama is just better than Korean TV drama in every aspect. But that might only lead you to be more perplexed than ever with regard to knowing what it is that people like about Korean TV dramas. Can 'appeal' be measured, does it need much budget, does it rely on good script writing?

And now I must attend to my stable of chiseled beaux-hunks.

Permalink Post a Comment

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Bad Options Should Not Become Policy Considerations

A recent article out by Cato Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter appears to be his latest push to advance a proliferation strategy for Asia. He has said similar stuff in The National Interest and I suspect his co-authored book discusses his argument in more detail. He proposes that

Instead of putting a leash on Japan and South Korea, U.S. officials should inform Pyongyang -- and Beijing -- that if the North insists on wielding nuclear weapons, Washington will urge Tokyo and Seoul to make their own decisions about whether to acquire strategic deterrents.

It then goes on to say

The United States does not need to press Tokyo and Seoul to go nuclear. That would be inappropriate. It is sufficient if Washington informs those governments that the United States would not object to their developing nuclear weapons. In addition, the United States needs to let Seoul and Tokyo know that we intend to withdraw our military forces from South Korea and Japan.

To say that US need not press Japan and South Korea is erroneous. If US military were to repeal its nuclear umbrella it would be little wonder if both countries ran to fill the gap. Its like leaving the door open to the bank and swearing you had no responsibility for the subsequent and inevitable robbery.

Advocating of a new type of nuclear balance of power, to me, seems odd. The US already provides a nuclear balance of power in the region already. The presence of US' nuclear umbrella negates the need for Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear weapons. If Japan and South Korea did develop nuclear weapons, how exactly would this alter the current situation, other than the absence of American military?

It begs the question of whether this policy consideration is aimed at reducing tension in the region or simply withdrawing US interest in the region? The policy proposal of urging Japan and South Korea to start a nuclear arms race in Northeast Asia, once US has pulled out, is less to do with creating a stable region and more with extracting the US from the current mess that exists there.

Such a policy would create more problems than it solves. First of all, rather than encouraging North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons, it would validate North Korea's right to have its own nuclear deterrent against a nuclear Northeast Asia.

Second of all, a nuclear Japan encompasses so many more issues than simply the creation of a new balance of power structure in Northeast Asia sans US. I doubt South Korea would see itself as Japan's ally against North Korea in such circumstances, I doubt China would be so willing to pressure North Korea alongside a nuclear Japan. I strongly suspect there would be further unintended and unexpected consequences to Japan and South Korea going nuclear on US' urging. One of which would be the message it sends to the world that US decides which countries and when they should develop their own nuclear arsenal.

Permalink Post a Comment

Friday, November 17, 2006

Korean TV Dramas - love 'em or loathe 'em?

Over at Big Hominid there has been some discussion about Korean TV dramas. The discussion has been quite negative. It seems that the discussants, Kevin, Charles and Gord are no fans of this genre. Some of the reasons for not liking the dramas are lack of budget, poor script, and predictability.

Unless I am very much mistaken out discussants are all male (and I also think that they all grew up in the US). Not that there is anything wrong with that. I point that out only to suggest that Korean TV dramas are not aimed at US/Western males and therefore, it is hardly surprising that they do not like them. For example, I can't stand Star Trek and I have never seen 24 or Lost. I have zero desire to watch these programs based on what I understand these shows are about. They are not aimed to appeal to people like me. So while many people may praise these US TV dramas and wonder why others don't see their appeal, the same applies to Korean TV dramas. The problem lies not in the genre, but that the genre does not have you in mind.

I also think it is unfair to compare Korean dramas to US dramas for two reasons. Comparing the budget of Korean TV dramas and those of US is unfair - the size of the industries are too different to criticise one for not being as good as the other. The budget issue impacts all the other criticisms made. In terms of script and the presence of logical gaps, Big Hominid has already pointed out there are plenty of US shows with logical gaps. I imagine that US and Korea are not alone in having dramas that have logical gaps.

The predictability of Korean TV dramas can be viewed as a positive thing. You know exactly what you are getting - not only in terms of storyline. You can also be reassured that there will be no bad language, no real violence, and no smut (not sure that is the right word but we all know that Korean TV is far more conservative than US). And why not change the plot to viewer demand? The shows are made for the fans, listening to them makes good sense. I'd also be interested to know exactly how often that really happens. Korean TV dramas know their audience and they pander exactly to what we want to see. I think they are great.

Permalink

Post a Comment

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Post-Koizumi Japan

Prime Minister Abe takes the top job in Japan at a very crucial time. In addition to himself, his whole cabinet is being carefully watched to gauge Japan's policy, both national and international, direction. There have been initial positive signs such as Abe's visit to China and Japan on immediately taking office. However, a friendly handshake does not mean agreement on how to deal with long-term regional spats, let alone the whole nuclear North Korea issue. Of course, Japanese officials are busy assuring the world that there is nothing to fear and a recent speech by the spokesman for the Foreign Minister is a good example.

We are happy to hear that Abe is not a nationalist or a scary neo-con but rather a modern, international-savvy man-about-the-world. The nuclear debate is not a debate about whether to get nukes or not, but rather a debate about whether there should be a debate about that topic. And as for Abe's wife, she loves Korea, speaks Korean fairly well and enjoys Korean soaps. Ahhh, we can all sigh with relief....

Except for the fact that some of his words did not fully dispel concern. For example, his defnintion of 'nationalist' was far too narrow. His definition describes more a racist fanatical than a politician. But more disconcerting is the continuing disjunct between how Japanese see themselves and how other Asian countries see them.

The thinker-cum-bureaucrat made a fascinating argument of "what-if-Japan-was-in-Europe" in his thought-provoking book, The Breaking of Nations.

He said, and I quote, "Of non-European countries, Japan is by inclination a postmodern state. It has self-imposed limits on defense spending and capabilities. It is no longer interested in acquiring territory nor in using force. It would probably be willing to accept intrusive verification. It is an enthusiastic multilateralist. Were it not on the other side of the world, it would be a natural member of organizations such as the OSCE or the European Union.

Unfortunately for Japan it is a postmodern country surrounded by states firmly locked into an earlier age: postmodernism in one country is possible only up to a point and only because its security treaty with the US enables it to live as though its neighborhood were less threatening", unquote.

The impression I got is that Japan feels that it should be a normal country (sans nukes) and part of regional happy family if it weren't for the long-held anger that other nations hold against it - unlike Germany. But we should note that a) Japan cannot expect to be as well reconciled with former war opponents as Germany without making the same efforts and steps that Germany has made and b) Japan would not be a welcome member of the EU because all EU nations MUST abolish the death penalty and Japan refuses to do so.

It is true that as the second richest nation on earth and strong democracy, it is geographically isolated from other rich democratic nations, but it is not geography which keeps Japan isolated in the region. Indeed, as a rich democracy you would think it could make friends more easily than other nations, especially with the also-rich and democratic South Koreans. The trips to China and Korea were a positive sign but it will take more than that trip and a few political speeches before Japan is viewed differently in the region.

Permalink Post a Comment

Home