Be a “muckraker,” and become proud complainant of society (Second Draft)

                It is true that when U.S president Theodore Roosevelt firstly used the terminology “muckraker” in his speech, this newly appeared word seemed a bit negative. The etymology of this term supports the bad nuance the word conveys to the listeners. It consists of “muck” and “raker,” which suggests a person who rakes dirty things endlessly. And it is truly an endless task for muckrakers to collect the corrupted images and hidden facts of our society’s business and politics. Muckraker journalists often unmask the truth, and it seems some of them, including Jessica Mitfold, are even proud of being called as one. From broad perspective, the muckraking should be recognized as an indispensible factor to make cleaner and healthier society and better world. Muckrakers do one of the most courageous things in society: they expose the corruption, and to eradicate the unreasonableness.

                  The best way for us to find the needs of muckraking journalists is to figure out certain periods when people of ‘power’ initially banned the activity of any muckrakers. As we can see from the history, almost every society without muckrakers was usually governed by authoritarian regime, where its business and politics didn’t have the duty to keep transparency and so even ‘muckraking’ was expelled. The military regime of South Korea from 1970 to 1980 is a precise example from a certain period. During this era, there was a coup by Jeon, who was just a military official in that time. Unfortunately, this coup succeeded along the dazed and confused political chaos of South Korea, and Jeon became the most powerful authority in South Korean political society. He became president using unfair, hidden methods in the election process, and then the military regime, which ironically advertised itself as a ‘republic’ through national propaganda, started to rule the southern Korean peninsula. Every critical and negative newspaper that criticized Jeon’s regime was forced to close its door, and similar policies were applied to individual column and report writers. Anyone who spoke the truth was arrested by national police, and perhaps even tortured. The fundamental purpose of Jeon’s regime was simple and straightforward: eliminate all bad images of the political elite and military regime. Koreans couldn’t properly resist Jeon at that time, because they couldn’t access information about their country easily. In the public market there were only the Jeon-friendly newspapers which faked the truth, praising the justness and ‘divinity’ of Jeon as president. Although this period ended with the bloody demonstrations on a national scale, the lesson it gives is obvious. Without muckraking politics can allow itself to be fabricated, and it only makes more social confusion which is connected to civilian abuse.

                  The same story can be applied to the field of business. All the more, we can say the muckrakers are more necessary in this area, since every business profits from the earnings of common people. Because of this, we can say the businesses also have a serious duty to keep their transparency, the same as politics does. One of the popular examples is the documentary-style movie “Supersize Me,” directed by Morgan Spurlock. Figuring out the uncomfortable parts of American fast foods in 2004, he showed people the serious problem of obesity in U.S by eating only the McDonald’s super-large size hamburgers for 1 month. The result of his “muckraking experiment” was strong enough to shock the public. In addition to extra 11kg he gained, Morgan had to suffer from sexual dysfunction, accumulation of fat in his liver, and other serious symptoms like mood swing. Through this movie, Morgan succeeded to wake up the public and McDonald’s, too. As the result, all the super-size hamburgers were removed from the McDonald’s menu and the company opened every ingredient of hamburgers to public, to improve its public image. In this sense, muckraking is helpful either for common costumers, who are the base of companies’ wealth, and the company itself. The shocking reports about unreasonableness inside certain domain of business will embarrass people at first, but it will let common people to have more objective eyes on analyzing those businesses. Muckrakers are the people who questioned to the fixation of the public, and they take the risks to be socially attacked by those business authorities only to find out the truth.

                  From the examples of political and economical fields, the necessity of muckraking and also enough number of muckrakers seems to get plausible reason. What muckrakers do is cleaning our society, so taking care of negative parts of important social figures and groups. In this sense, muckraker can have the same meaning with “social complainant.” They find the problems, dig it to utmost level they can reach and then speak ‘uncomfortable truth’ to the public. This truth is what the common people should realize fully to get and keep the civil society. Muckrakers complain about the irrationalities at every corner of society, and convey them through bitter tone of writing. This is why the word “muckraker” does not actually have negative connotation. The journalists and any others who are called as “muckrakers” should be proud of themselves, as honorable complainant in our world.

02 28 2011 Chang Woo Jung
AP Lang @ KMLA

Be a “Muckraker,” and Become Proud Complainant of Society

                          

        

                           It is true that when U.S president Theodore Roosevelt firstly used the terminology “muckraker” in his speech, this newly appeared word seemed a bit negative. The etymology of this term supports the bad nuance the word conveys to the listeners. It is consists of muck and raker, which means a person who rakes dirty things endlessly. And it is truly an endless task for muckrakers to collect the corrupted images and hidden facts in our society, so the public can figure out what is going wrong now in the politics and businesses. Muckraker journalists try to unmask the dirtiest parts of our society, and it seems some of them including Jessica Mitfold are even proud of being called as muckraker. In fact, these kinds of situations are hard to understand directly, since the word “muckraker” itself sounds dirty, and also there are lots of opinions which believe muckraking is not an healthy thing to do, like that of president Roosevelt. However, from much broader perspective the muckraking should be recognized as an indispensible factor to make cleaner and healthier society, and better world for all of us. What muckrakers do is maybe one of the most courageous ways to expose the corruption, and to eradicate the unreasonableness in politics and businesses, where the people with ‘power’ frequently cheat and squeeze the public for their own profits.

                  Ironically, the best way for us to desperately feel the needs of social muckraking journalists is to figure out certain periods when people of ‘power’ initially banned the activity of any muckrakers. In these cases, almost every society with no muckraking was controlled by authoritarian regime or totalitarian rules. As the history teaches us, those political backgrounds harm the transparency of politics and business, and restrain the most basic freedoms of civilians. Then, together with other rights in common civil society, reporting the wrong and even tragically designed parts of political organization, or easily ‘muckraking,’ is also expelled from society. The military regime of South Korea from 1970 to 1980 is a precise example of certain period. During this era, there was a coup by Jeon, who was just a military official in that time. Unfortunately this coup succeeded along the dazed and confused political chaos of South Korea, and Jeon became the most powerful authority in South Korean political society. He became president using unfair, hidden methods in election process, and then military regime which ironically advertised itself as a ‘republic’ by national propaganda started to rule the southern Korean peninsula. Every critical and negative newspaper toward Jeon’s regime was forced to close its door, and similar policy was applied to individual column and report writers. Anyone who said the truth was arrested by national police, and tortured. The fundamental purpose of Jeon’s regime was simple and straightforward: eliminate any bad images of the political elites and the regime originated from military. Koreans couldn’t resist properly to Jeon at that time, because they couldn’t access to the information about their country easily. In public market there were only the Jeon-friendly newspapers which faked the truth, and only the news which broadcasted the justness and ‘divinity’ of Jeon as being president. Although this period ended with the bloody demonstrations in national scale, the lesson it gives is obvious. No muckraking means the fabrication of political images, and it only makes more social confusions which are connected to civilian abuse.

                  Same story can be applied to the field of business. All the more, we can say the muckrakers are more necessary in this area, since every business has its base on the money from common people. So the corruption of certain companies means the unwanted disadvantages for normal people who are related to those businesses directly or indirectly, financially or physically. Because of this, we can say the businesses also have serious duty to keep their transparency, the same as politics do. The examples which support this argument are literally ‘numerous,’ just as many as the number of every individual companies in the world. If one got lots of money, there’s no doubt that his greed would be stimulated. Once stimulated, the greed of human began its endless circle to be satisfied-but it can’t be satisfied eternally, because more money (and thus higher social position with more power) stimulates the greed again and again. Although this argument is not scientifically proved, we can say most of the corruptions in any profit-making group follow similar process. In this situation, muckraking is helpful either for common costumers and corrupted company itself. The shocking reports about unreasonableness inside certain domain of business will embarrass people at first, but it will let common people to have more objective eyes on analyzing the truthfulness of those ‘unmasked’ businesses, and prevent more enormous corruption. If we put this in smaller scale, it’ll be easier to understand the positive effect of muckraking. In my school, there are lots of student clubs which were supported by school administration without uncovering the specific records of money use. The important thing was that those supports for clubs are originated from the regular fees from other students. At first no one had doubted, and followed the policy of club support. We paid what clubs said they need, although sometimes the reason for such huge amount of money requirement was vague. One day, student reporters from official school newspaper secretly observed the use of supporting money by every single club. And the result was very shocking. There were almost no club which spent money only for the proper purpose of club, but many of them just used the money for additional entertainments. The school newspaper reported this on the first page, and everything changed. Now the school administration strictly judges the transparency of student clubs, and provides money based on the specified plan and purpose. Thanks to those student muckrakers, the school could prevent more serious situation. Simply put, we can speak the same thing for bigger scale, international companies. Muckrakers are the people who questioned to the fixation of the public, and they take the risks to be socially attacked by those business authorities only to find out the truth.

                  From the examples of political and economical fields, the necessity of muckraking and also enough number of muckrakers seems to get plausible reason. What muckrakers do is cleaning our society, so taking care of negative parts of important social figures and groups. In this sense, muckraker can have the same meaning with “social complainant.” They find the problems, dig it to utmost level they can reach and then speak ‘uncomfortable truth’ to the public. This truth is what the common people should realize fully to get and keep the civil society. Muckrakers complain about the irrationalities at every corner of society, and convey them through bitter tone. This is why the word “muckraker” does not actually have negative connotation, and the journalists and any others who are called as “muckrakers” should be proud of themselves, as honorable complainant in our world.

02 21 2011 Chang Woo Jung
AP Lang @ KMLA

Radiohead - Killer Cars

One of my favorite B-sides from beautifully aged English Rock band.



Lyrics :

too hard on the breaks again
what if these breaks just give in?
what if they don't get out of the way?
what if there's someone overtaking?
i'm going out for a little drive
it could be the last time you see me alive
there could be an idiot on the road
the only kick in life is pumping his steel

they wrap me up in the back of the trunk
packed with foam and blind drunk
they won't ever take me alive
cause they all drive killer cars

don't die on the motorway
the moon would freeze
the plants would die
i couldn't cope if you crashed today
all the things i forgot to say
i'm going out for a little drive
could be the last time you see me alive
what if the car loses control
what if there's someone overtaking?

Review for "The Earthlings"

*Video URL (Google video) : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142#

                  How much do humans owe animals? Some might say “very much.” Perhaps, some others might say life without animal is impossible. However, the truth beyond this question is more serious than we usually think. It is pretty implausible to imagine our life without the products made out of animal skin. Moreover, it is difficult for average people to accept vegetarian life.

Literally, humans have defined animals as friends from the ancient times. Dogs were friendly companions, and courageous hunters. Today, annually 50,000 dogs are abandoned in the U.S alone. Dolphins were respected for their intelligence and wisdom for a long time, but the fishing industry in Japan kill them for meet and skin, without any merci. The animals with “good quality” furs are captured in massive number, and slaughtered. Cows provide milk for humans, but now humans ‘extract’ milk from them, locking them up in cages. Similarly, numerous species are suffering since human need has altered into greed. With advanced technologies, humans started to utilize animals for their desire, over the reasonable need.

                  However, how many of us fully understand this situation? People don’t care where the meats on the dinner table came from, and what kinds of animals were used for their fur coat. What we only see are products: the final results. No one of us wants to know about animal murder scenes, where an uncomfortable truth is prevalent. It’s too easy to overlook human cruelty towards animals. However, we should recognize animals as same, respected creatures on the earth. People should make efforts to view animals not as property, but as dignified beings the same as humans. In the documentary “Earthlings,” there are several cases where animals are treated as no more than commodities.

                  “The Earthlings” introduces the real scenes of animal ‘utilization’ by human. The film is started with one impressive, strong argument: all men are Nazis toward animals. The first part is about pets. The documentary asks us how owning and being companions can be same. It shows the pet stores and puppy mills, where dogs, cats, and other pet animals are locked in filthy, overcrowd cages. The film also talks about the euthanasia matter: do we really address animal’s need by so-called ‘comfortable death’? Animals are also lively beings, precious creatures, the same earthlings as humans. We don’t have the right to own animals, and judge their death.

                  In the second food section, the documentary directly shows the slaughterhouse scenes which were recorded by hidden camera. It says: “we would all be vegetarians if we had to kill our own meet.” In the slaughterhouse, humans decide everything over animals. The branding, dehorning, transporting, milking, bleeding, poultry, debeaking… in every process, animals don’t have any voice. Animals cannot resist to humans. Humans force animals, threaten them with electric shock, steel stick, and others. Surely, these processes cause serious problem for animals. In the slaughterhouse, they can’t even fulfill natural instincts, sometimes suffer from mental disorder, live in harsh, dirty environments, and are later slaughtered. The film says: “slaughterhouses have opaque architecture, designed to insure that we’ll not see even if we wanted to look. And who wants to look inside?”

                  In the next segment, the documentary illuminates the clothes making process, where animals die for their skin. There is one thing people forget too often: leather is dead skin. After the animals are skinned, then their meet becomes food for other animals, which are destined to be sacrificed for leather and furs. This is an endless vicious circle that consists of human greed. The next segment is about entertainment. In this section, the documentary reminds us of one important, but not a nice fact: humans are often most detestable creatures, which often enjoy the pain of other creatures. The video introduces bullfighting and circuses. At stadiums for entertainment, the animals suffer from human’s greed. They are forced to do unnatural behaviors, like jumping into the fire ring. In the case of bullfighting, they should die at the end of the show, just for human entertainment. The animals which are ‘used’ for human entertainment, shackled in chains for 95% of their whole life.

                  In the last part which covers the animal experiences in science, the documentary shows images of medical experiments and vivisections on animals. Through these five sections, “The Earthlings” conveys one essential message: treating animals as property is the same as biting the hand which feed us. What goes around comes around. If we don’t feel the problem of mass slaughter and owning of pets, someday we will be the only, lonely beings on the earth. The film argues the dignity of animals with vivid video clips of maltreatment by humans. Especially, the film stimulates our pathos by showing uncensored images of slaughtering, animal experiments, skinning, and other terrible animal abuse. Looking at the animals which mourn in pain and despair, we understand the bloody greed of humans. Moreover, the film used dark, gloomy background music and serene narrative voice tone to amplify the effect of the video.

While “The Earthlings” focuses itself on the transmission of pathos, its logic is also very strong. How can humans decide the fate of other creatures, since human beings are also one part of the creatures on the earth? The ability of thinking doesn’t symbolize the superiority of humans over animals. Rather, we should use our ability to preserve animal species. Animals also have the right to live freely, not to be owned by anyone else. This logical appeal is on the prolongation of abolitionist’s opinion on animal rights. The abolitionist approach to animal rights maintains that all sentient beings, humans or nonhumans, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others. [1] The abolitionists called animal rights groups as "new welfarist," arguing that their intervention related to various animal rights risks making the public feel more comfortable about its use of animals, because they think owing animals and treating them properly doesn’t make sense. [2]

Animal rights expert, Tom Regan also argues the dignity of animals. He introduced “Subject-of-a-life” concept for every creature, claiming ‘inherent value.’ If this is the true basis for ascribing inherent value to individuals, to be consistent we must ascribe inherent value, and hence moral rights, to all subjects-of-a-life, whether human or non-human. According to him, humans should treat animals in a proper way: like they do to infants, who are no more than animals. The basic right of all who possess inherent value have, he argues, is the right never to be treated merely as a means to the ends of others. [3]

                  Lastly, we should seriously consider whether we really need animals for our life. The development of synthetic fiber, and other alternatives for the animal products enabled us a life without slaughtering animals. Owning and killing of animals for human need was excusable in the past, when human’s technology was not fully developed to replace animal products. Now farmers use machines instead of cows, clothing companies invented numerous synthetic fibers, and veganism has proven not harmful. Since humans accomplished the techniques which enable the life without animals possible, using animals for their fur or meat is no more than greed.

                  In conclusion, human should learn to treat animals more respectfully. Although the life without animals and animal products is hard to be imagined, logically there is no right for humans to own animals. “The Earthlings” shows how our greed completely destroyed the rights and life of animals. And the abolitionist’s view and Tom Regan’s perspective represent the animal’s right not to be owned by anyone. Plus, we should learn a way of life without animals, since human technologies overcame the need of animals in human life. We should remember, from these various examples, that there is no reasonable excuse for humans to ‘own’ animals.

Bibliography

1. Animal rights: abolitionist’s approach URL http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/about/
2. Wikipedia Article: “Abolitionism (animal rights)” URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_(animal_rights)
3. Wikipedia Article: “Tom Regan” URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Regan

02 15 2011 Chag Woo Jung
AP Lang @ KMLA

Our Time Nouvelle–Vague: “I like turtles” and other newly arrived Internet humor

URL for Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072901386.html

         I swear people of primitive era couldn’t understand today’s humor at all, such as the gags from comedy shows or the newly arising Internet humor. And the opposition is also applied. For us, if there was some sort of humor for primitive human, they may seem like meaningless crying and gestures. This is very simple story, since the understanding of fallouts from certain era requires people to have similar viewpoint of the period. Let’s think about the palace performance in 16^th century. Ignoring the language and other humor codes, it’ll be hard to understand the themes and enjoy it. But after studying proper background knowledge, there’s no problem to watch it. That’s because we know why other audiences laugh and cry, and when we have to do so.

           It’s all the same story in the case of “I like turtles,” the 17 seconds fragmentary video. In this video, a reporter tried to interview one boy in Halloween zombie costume all over his face. She asked the boy-what do you think about it (the Halloween costume)?-but the answer was what the reporter (and actually anybody else who has normal psycho) can hardly expect. His answer was three words, pretty short and straightforward-“I like turtles.” Maybe some of the viewers thought the boy is abnormal or very funny, and then go over it. But the important fact is that there were other people who tittered at it and actually rewind over and over. They cut the interview part only from the whole news, and uploaded the short clip on the Internet. Next story is a cliché now. People enjoyed the interview video, and play it with various edit tools.

           At this point, what we have to concentrate on is ‘how people could do that.’  Think about 30 years, or let’s say 20 years ago. First of all, recording the TV program and making it into editable computer file was technically impossible. Moreover, people at that time didn’t have such fantastic editing tools for video and gif files. Naturally, there was no curiosity and need for the Internet humors like ‘turtle’ things. However, the time passed and we now grab the easy-access Internet, recording and AVI/MP4 transforming software and enormous Internet communities like YouTube. Now cutting TV program and making it into short clip is just a piece of cake, and people from all around the world will show interests when it uploaded on Internet.

           From this perspective, it seems the contents of turtle interview video and its derivations shouldn’t be the core of story. And it actually isn’t. The real main point is that the birth background of this new humor code. As I mentioned above, we already had everything needed for the creation of turtle boy. Recording, transformation into computer file, uploading and tools for the creation of other versions. We can think it as one of the numerous ways to utilize our contemporary technology. Like any other vogues, people at first were just interested in what arrived newly. Then they started to reproduce the primary sources in various different ways. Furthermore, there was a massive community called Internet, which contributed greatly to the growth of people's interest.

           It’s not easy to figure out where and when exactly this video became popular. Who started it and why? But overall, it’s not so important. This is the vogue of Internet-based era, and this is one of the possibilities we can play in wholly new method, which came true now. For example, there are “Double Rainbow” video and numerous remixes on the YouTube. All these things are the invention of humor in these days, which only the contemporaries can understand the code easily. I’m not going to say whether “I like turtles” is funny or not. But one obvious thing is this: it’s nouvelle-vague of our time.

02 14 2011 Chang Woo Jung
AP Lang @ KMLA