1. Sohyun Chun (stella) 2.North Korea pianist play for freedom 3. When I encountered this article, I was so touched by this pianists action to perform his play infront of famous and influencial people of the U.S. Furthermore, I was more astonished by American government who allowed this north korean pianists to perform inside the state department of washington D.C. I think American governemnt give chance to people is dilligent and smart. Moreover, I thought how culture- art and music can be one of the affective diplomacy that can offer message to the whole universe. Also, when I encountered this, I hope North Korean can have chance to develop their talent in various sector. ------------------------------ N.Korean Pianist Plays for Freedom
The Benjamin Franklin Room of the U.S. State Department in Washington D.C. was filled at lunchtime on Monday with the sound of a piano played by Kim Cheol-woong, a defector from North Korea. Kim, who was the first pianist with the Pyongyang National Orchestra, drew a standing ovation from the 100 or so people in the audience who had come to hear his own arrangements of “Arirang” and “Song of Joy,” a popular piece in North Korea about independence from Japanese colonial rule. Kim was there at the invitation of senior State Department officials. He escaped from North Korea and defected to the South in 2003 because he said he wanted to play the piano freely. Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky and Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor David Kramer hosted the event to raise funds for adolescent North Korean defectors. “That a North Korean defector held a recital in the State Department, which plays the most influential role in solving the human rights violation problem in North Korea, means a lot,” Kim said. “I hope this recital can bring the issue to the discussion table again.”
Born to a high-ranking official in the North Korean Workers’ Party and a professor, Kim received musical training from an early age and became an elite musician. After graduating from a national conservatory in Pyongyang, he studied at the prestigious Tchaikovsky Conservatory in Moscow. He escaped North Korea to China in 2001, and dreamed of going to South Korea as he listened to South Korean radio programs aired by KBS and Far East Broadcasting Corporation in China. He finally arrived in Seoul in 2003
1. Gowoon JUNG 2. South Africa to sell ivory to China, Japan 3. This article is about illegal trade between nations. I am sure that there would be lots of behind stories in this matter. The interesting thig here is that there are no exact standards for a country to act or not to act between countries. We can see that each country accept some rules according to their situations and their own interests. The article also shows us this case. We can see that Chia and Japan allowed ivory trade with South Africa even though environmentalists started to regulate. From this thoughts, I became to have a question : what is the purpose of nation? why does a country exist?
Now, it seems to me that a country exist to serve for a people' interests and help people to achieve their goals.
---------------------- The South African government says it will press ahead with plans to sell 51 tons of ivory to China and Japan under a special exemption to the international ban on trade. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES, last year said a handful of African countries with large stockpiles of elephant tusks would be allowed to make a one-off sale of ivory.
This was despite fears by some environmentalists that it might encourage smuggling and poaching.
South African wildlife experts visited China and Japan in September and said Thursday they were satisfied that both countries would meet the stringent conditions set by the international pact on trade in endangered species and would not re-export ivory to supply the black market.
1. Ji-A, Ryu 2. title: the least conditions in order to be called democracy 3. I think there are many different definitions about democracy depending on many people. However, I think if some institutions of a particular nation want to be called "democracy", the institutions of that nation can guarantee the freedom of speech and the leader of that nation has to be acceptable about the different opinions against his or hers at least. At the front part of this article shows why the progressive alliance happened in Korea even though Korea has been thought as the only nation has been successfully developed democracy and economic growth after World War II. I think just before Lee was elected as the president, it was natural to be called that way. However, after that, situations changed quite differently. As this news shows, Lee administration infringes the freedom of speech with some kinds of violence like water cannon. Also, nowadays they show their purposes to govern the internet trying to make a law which so called "actress Choi's law". I doubt these kinds of behaviors could be acceptable under the name of democracy. Moreover, I heard some ridiculous behavior of President Lee on YTN. About Melamine, when he visited the factory which was known for making snacks including melamine, he didn't know what it was. Even though the expert near him tried to explain what it was, the president didn't listen to him and asserted his opinion only. I think the attitude of the leader of the nation is very important for the state. Even though the nation insists on democracy in appearance, if the behaviors of the leader or bureaucrats were not in content, could it be called democracy? We need some more sharp implements to analyse the institutions of the nation and the bureaucrats in order to distinguish what is democracy. At this moment, it is necessary we all be the watchdog about the government.
Korea is often described as the only country liberated after World War II to achieve both democracy and economic growth.
So foreigners here might wonder why representatives of the nation's civic groups, labor unions, environmentalists, college professors and Catholic priests held an ``emergency conference'' Thursday and decided to launch a new solidarity organization to cope with a crisis of ``democracy and public livelihood.''
To sum up, this is a semi-national alliance against the Lee Myung-bak administration by a different name, or the biggest anti-government group since the nation was democratized in 1987. Why is the seven-month administration producing such massive civil disobedience?
The declaration, adopted at the meeting, said the Lee administration is ``completely going backward,'' by trying to nullify what the Korean society has achieved. It then cited as examples the government's retaliation against the participants of candlelit protests, wielding anew the anti-Communist law to silence dissidents, revising history textbooks in ways to please rightist groups and infringing on freedom of speech by dominating broadcasting stations as well as restricting Internet use.
The participants also attacked the tax cuts for owners of expensive properties, the hasty privatization of state enterprises and the push for pliable labor markets as policies widening the gap between the haves and have-nots while at the same time hurting the public interest.
In short, they are opposing the reemergence of authoritarian rule in the name of enhancing law and order in politics as well as neo-liberalistic market idolatry in the economy.
One can feel the ideological battle that has gripped this society over the past decade or so is about to go into full swing instead of diminishing at a time when most other countries are trying their best to get out of the global economic turmoil.
Even so, the Lee administration can hardly complain, as the escalating war between the conservatives and progressives is largely of its own making, with the President himself at its vanguard. Lee said recently, for instance, ``Although we have retaken power after a decade, the roots of (the leftists) are very deep and wide.'' We beg to differ. Most of all, the President seems to be color-blind as far as ideology is concerned. Lee calls the two previous administrations ``leftist'' governments, but the governments of Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun tried and failed to imitate the elementary stage of European-style social democracy only to return to typical neo-liberalistic policies in the face of an unfavorable environment abroad and strong challenges from conservative interest groups at home.
Koreans elected Lee believing he was qualified to salvage the struggling economy, but they are increasingly finding the president not much more than a former corporate CEO, one less than capable of running a country.
Granted, the management of a modern country is too complex to leave to just top leaders and their aides so they have to mobilize the talents and capacities of the entire nation, regardless of political or ideological inclination, but Lee is splitting, not unifying, the nation. If this is to pass the responsibility of poor administration to progressives, the nation is doomed for the rest of his tenure.
Ironically, the success or failure of the progressives' alliance depends on how the President and his administration do. We hope the participants need not push ahead with their decision, as the government more attentively listens to people from various walks of life and better reflect their voices on state governance.
1.Lu Yao 2.Chinese defense ministry condemns US for Taiwan arms sale
3. This week in the lecture we have talked about the military or arm power. Then when I found this news about China and the US's military ties. The news mainly talk about the conflict between China and the US on Taiwan issue and the military trade. As I mentioned in the discussion in lecture, I think sometimes keep the present situation is the best way for each sides--I mean the mainland China and Taiwan. According to what I have seen and heard when the Tibet issue attracts so much attention, there are so many people especially foreigners who has little knowlegde about the truth but act very actively. Without knowing the history and truth of the issue, people are easily mislead by the media. I have met so many angry Korean students who want to argue with me about the Tibet and Taiwan issue even though they don't know where exactly the two places are. No matter what will happen in the future for Taiwan, the people live there are our relatives, we speak the same language and share the same culture. If each of the two side or another third party push them too hard and unevitably cause a 'war' or 'fight', the one who suffers most is the common people. If Taiwan successfully get rid of China, there will be no relationship for a long time which will bring huge damage to both economic. Keep the present and find a way to get rid of other countries intervence is very important to both economic, and stable society. Also it can make each side focus on more important issues. On the other hand, sometimes unstability and bring more attention and then leads to development. There are five independent-governing provinces in China, they are Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, Ningxia and Guangxi. There lives many minority races. They are the least developed areas of China. But Tibet and Xinjiang attract more attention because of the unstability. Although my hometown is also neboured to Mongolia which is a foreign country, but the people of Mongolia race in Inner Mongolia do not want to get independent from China. So China's government always pay more attention to Xinjiang and Tibet which often raise the problem of independent movement and as a result these two provinces get more fiscal aid and development. Also the unstability cannot live without external aid and support. From this news we can only see the China's government view and stand for Taiwan issue and the relationship to the US. This is a simple example to see the internal element (Taiwanness's independent will because of the historical reason) and the external element (the US's purpose of support Taiwan's independence). --------------------------- 4. Chinese defense ministry condemns US for Taiwan arms sale(Xinhua) Updated: 2008-10-09 23:50 Comments(30) BEIJING - Chinese Defense Ministry blamed on Thursday the United States for its arms sale to Taiwan, saying China is strongly discontented and firmly opposed to the recent comments from the U.S. side on bilateral military ties.
Huang Xueping, spokesman of the Chinese Defense Ministry, said China had noticed a Pentagon spokesman's recent comments on U.S.-China military ties, referring to Stuart Upton's remarks on Monday that Washington's arms sales were consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act.
Upton also said "uncertainty over the motivations and direction of China's military expansion leads others to hedge," and "this could lead to a security environment less favorable to China's interests, the region's, and our own."
"We are strongly dissatisfied and opposed to the Pentagon spokesman's remarks. The so-called 'Taiwan Relations Act' severely ran counter to the principles of the three Sino-U.S. joint communiques and the fundamental norms governing international relations," said Huang.
He added the United States had no right to place domestic law above international ones, or use it as an excuse to sell weapons to Taiwan.
"The U.S. side carped at China's righteous national defense building, which was totally confounding right and wrong to mislead the public," said the spokesman.
He said China firmly takes the road of peaceful development and follows an independent foreign policy of peace and a national defense policy that is defensive in nature.
"China develops limited defense power with an aim to safeguard national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity," he said. "We had made solemn undertakings to the world time and again that China would never seek hegemony or expansionism, nor an arms race."
China's development serves as active force to promote world and regional peace and poses no threat to anybody, Huang added.
Concerning bilateral military ties, he said China has made positive and concerted efforts over the years to strengthen military exchanges with the United States.
The U.S. side, regardless of China's repeated strong opposition, insisted to notify the Congress about its plan to sell arms to Taiwan, which seriously harmed bilateral military ties and blocked exchanges and cooperation between the two armed forces in various areas including high-level visits, Huang said.
The U.S. side should take full responsibilities for the current situation, he added.
The Chinese armed forces firmly support the solemn stance of the Chinese government, he said, urging the U.S. side to deal with bilateral military ties from a strategic height and long-term point of view, and take practical actions to honor the one-China policy and obey the three Sino-U.S. joint communiques.
The spokesman also called on the United States to abide by its commitments for China on the Taiwan issue, cancel relevant arms sale programs to Taiwan immediately and cut off military ties with the island, to prevent harming the overall bilateral military ties.
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei has summoned the charge d'affaires of the U.S. Embassy to China to raise strong protest against the U.S. move. Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao and Qin Gang had earlier expressed strong condemnation over the U.S. decision, respectively.
1. Mark Whitaker 2. The Revolving Door, Example of Goldman Sachs, is it public or private or both? 3. The origins of power from Arendt's point of view are public sources. Same in the pluralists' model of public democratic power. Neomarxist tend to look to private ownership and private interests of economics dominating social relations. This example shows a strange mix in 'the revolving door,' the back-and-forth exchange of personnel across public and private institutions so that it's hard to classify some of these institutions involved as clearly one or the other. To summarize in any society which institutions are the revolving doors (and avoid worrying about general theorietial issues) may help resolve issues about whether 'the ruling class does not rule' or otherwise that was of such concern from the 1970s by many NeoMarxists.
I think one hypothesis would be that there are a few institutions (instead of large classes of groups) that have public/private access more than others as 'capitalists' and public democratic agents are kept out of access in the state.
Goldman Sachs is a good example of a revolving door. So is Monsanto by the way.
The following article is about Goldman Sachs. The article fails to summarize all the Goldman Sachs connections to the Bush Administration either.
Explaining why certain 'revolving doors' occur in certain institutions (instead of other institutions) may help resolve issues of what is the state and associated issues of relative autonomy of the state.
It seems to be that the most well protected criminal elites keep their connections in the state, given Paulson's earlier heritage in the Nixon Administration where his boss went to jail for organizing 'dirty tricks'.
One of the issues here is the institution itself may not be the issue. It may be that many individuals in the institution are involved in covert operations that have taken over the institution, an institution within the institution, and it is the covert institution that is 'operating' Goldman Sachs to its advantage publicly and privately where not everyone is aware of that even if they are members of the institution itself.
Elite socialization studies are important here. I'll talk later about Bohemian Grove, a major U.S. private international club in the California redwood trees, and its position in the USA. Some sociologists have written about it as well, particularly the person who puts together "Project Censored" in the USA (it is a list of 20 the most non-popularized, though major, news stories of the past year that the U.S. media fails to cover.)
------------------------
Who is Henry Paulson? By Tom Eley 23 September 2008
The plan to rescue the US financial industry arrogates virtually unlimited money and power over the financial affairs of the state to the office of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Paulson is a figure with a long history of intimate connections to the political and financial elite.
In 1970, fresh from the Masters program of the Harvard Business School, Paulson entered the Nixon administration, working first as staff assistant to the assistant secretary of defense. In 1972-73, Paulson worked as office assistant to John Erlichman, assistant to the president for domestic affairs. Erlichman was one of the key figures involved in organizing President Richard Nixon’s notorious “plumbers” unit that carried out illegal covert operations against the president’s political opponents, including espionage, blackmail, and revenge. Ehlichman resigned in 1973, and in 1975 he was convicted of obstruction of justice, perjury, and conspiracy, and was imprisoned for 18 months.
Utilizing his connections, Paulson went to work for Goldman Sachs in 1974. In a 2007 feature, the British newspaper the Guardian wrote, “Not only was he well connected enough to get the job [in the Nixon White House], but well connected enough to resign in the thick of the Watergate scandal without ever getting caught up in the fallout. He went straight to Goldman back home in Illinois.”
Paulson rose through the ranks of Goldman Sachs, becoming a partner in 1982, co-head of investment banking in 1990, chief operating officer in 1994. In 1998 he forced out his co-chairman Jon Corzine “in what amounted to a coup,” according to New York Times economics correspondent Floyd Norris, and took over the post of CEO.
Goldman Sachs is perhaps the single best-connected Wall Street firm. Its executives routinely go in and out of top government posts. Corzine went on to become US senator from New Jersey and is now the state’s governor. Corzine’s predecessor, Stephen Friedman, served in the Bush administration as assistant to the president for economic policy and as chairman of the National Economic Council (NEC). Friedman’s predecessor as Goldman Sachs CEO, Robert Rubin, served as chairman of the NEC and later treasury secretary under Bill Clinton.
Agence France Press, in a 2006 article on Paulson’s appointment, “Has Goldman Sachs Taken Over the Bush Administration?” noted that, in addition to Paulson, “[t]he president’s chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Jeffery Reuben, are Goldman alumni.”
“But the flow goes both ways,” the article continued, “Goldman recently hired Robert Zoellick, who stepped down as the US deputy secretary of state, and Faryar Shirzad, who worked as one of Bush’s national security advisors.”
Prior to being selected as treasury secretary, Paulson was a major individual campaign contributor to Republican candidates, giving over $336,000 of his own money between 1998 and 2006.
Since taking office, Paulson has overseen the destruction of three of Goldman Sachs’ rivals. In March, Paulson helped arrange the fire sale of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan Chase. Then, a little more than a week ago, he allowed Lehman Brothers to collapse, while simultaneously organizing the absorption of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America. This left only Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley as major investment banks, both of which were converted on Sunday into bank holding companies, a move that effectively ended the existence of the investment bank as a distinct economic form.
In the months leading up to his proposed $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, Paulson had already used his office to dole out hundreds of billions of dollars. After his July 2008 proposal for $70 billion to resolve the insolvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed, Paulson organized the government takeover of the two mortgage-lending giants for an immediate $200 billion price tag, while making the government potentially liable for hundreds of billions more in bad debt. He then organized a federal purchase of an 80 percent stake in the giant insurer American International Group (AIG) at a cost of $85 billion.
These bailouts have been designed to prevent a chain reaction collapse of the world economy, but more importantly they aimed to insulate and even reward the wealthy shareholders, like Paulson, primarily responsible for the financial collapse.
Paulson bears a considerable amount of personal responsibility for the crisis.
Paulson, according to a celebratory 2006 BusinessWeek article entitled “Mr. Risk Goes to Washington,” was “one of the key architects of a more daring Wall Street, where securities firms are taking greater and greater chances in their pursuit of profits.” Under Paulson’s watch, that meant “taking on more debt: $100 billion in long-term debt in 2005, compared with about $20 billion in 1999. It means placing big bets on all sorts of exotic derivatives and other securities.”
According to the International Herald Tribune, Paulson “was one of the first Wall Street leaders to recognize how drastically investment banks could enhance their profitability by betting with their own capital instead of acting as mere intermediaries.” Paulson “stubbornly assert[ed] Goldman’s right to invest in, advise on and finance deals, regardless of potential conflicts.”
Paulson then handsomely benefited from the speculative boom. This wealth was based on financial manipulation and did nothing to create real value in the economy. On the contrary, the extraordinary enrichment of individuals like Paulson was the corollary to the dismantling of the real economy, the bankrupting of the government, and the impoverishment of masses the world over.
Paulson was compensated to the tune of $30 million in 2004 and took home $37 million in 2005. In his career at Goldman Sachs he built up a personal net worth of over $700 million, according to estimates.
After Paulson’s ascension to the treasury, his colleagues at Goldman Sachs carried on the bonanza. At the end of 2006, Paulson’s successor Lloyd Blankfein was handed over a $53.4 million year-end bonus, while 11 other Goldman Sachs executives raked in $150 million in year-end bonuses combined. That year, the top investment firms Goldman Sacks, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, and Bear Stearns handed out $36 billion in bonuses. At the end of 2007, the executives of the same firms, excepting Merrill, were handed another $30 billion.
1. Mark Whitaker 2. Different forms of Elite Settlement, Let's add one: Elite Gatekeeping 3. In the Elite Settlements article, he creates a Weberian style typology of different kinds of elite settlments or agreements on power in states; I would add one more or at least clarify how #3 in that typology works: elite gatekeeping. I'll talk more about this article on Friday. I will use this as an example of how we can do the "3M" issue--tie elites to larger state social movements and political contexts by looking at how gatekeeping is accomplished in polities. It's the second face of power argument once more though I think instead of just the mobilization of bias institutionally, we have the selective repression of other alternatives involved in action to maintain elite status. Example to be discussed in class:
-----------------------
newswire article reporting united states 16.Oct.2008 00:11 actions & protests | imperialism & war Update - Iraq Vets stopped at the doors to debates author: Ben Waiting IVAW is reporting arrest(s) outside of the last presidential debates http://ivaw.org/node/4405
10 Veterans Were Arrested vets and debates 2008 vets and debates 2008 IVAW members arrested while attempting to present questions to Obama and McCain One hour before the final presidential debate of the 2008 campaign, fourteen members of IVAW marched in formation to Hofstra University to present questions for the candidates. IVAW had requested permission from debate moderator Bob Schieffer to ask their questions during the debate but got no response.
The contingent of veterans in dress uniforms and combat uniforms attempted to enter the building where the debate was to be held in order to ask their questions but were turned back by police. The IVAW members at the front of the formation were immediately arrested, and others were pushed back into the crowd by police on horseback. Several members were injured, including former Army Sergeant Nick Morgan who suffered a broken cheekbone when he was trampled by police horses before being arrested.
(Here is a YouTube video clip that I found by a simple search) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZDf_J2UoNM)
Below is (website link) the letter that was sent requesting a moment of the debates time from these Iraq Veterans
http://tinyurl.com/4opzsz
Subject: They've received their warning...
Just wanted to make sure this made it out to you all. A clear demand, and clear intent to lead a non-violent action to ensure that our voices are heard.
Dear Mr Schieffer,
I'm writing you today as a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War to make clear the details of a demonstration we will be leading Oct. 15th at Hofstra University prior to the final presidential debate and what our demands are and will be.
We in IVAW demand that two of our members, myself and Kristofer Goldsmith, be permitted entry to the debate and be allowed to ask each candidate one question. If this demand is not agreed to IN FULL by 7 p.m. EST on the 15th, members of IVAW will lead a large contingent of veterans and our supporters on a NON-VIOLENT procession to the debate center and are prepared to risk arrest and/or bodily harm attempting to enter to have our voices heard. (This action will look very similar to our marches at the DNC and RNC which were widely covered in the media and on youtube, should you wish to see what's coming.)
As the economy has continued its downhill slide this election season, the issue of Iraq has been pushed further and further away from peoples' minds, as well the platforms of the candidates. In addition, little to no attention has been paid this election season to the abysmal failure of the Veterans Administration to adequately care for our returning troops and their families and how we can work as a nation to fix this problem.
As a result, more and more veterans are falling into debt, starving, going homeless and killing themselves while the government REFUSES to allocate sufficient funds for our much needed and deserved care while simultaneously lining the pockets of the richest with $700 billion in taxpayer (including servicemembers and veterans) money.
Such blatant betrayals of our services and sacrifices cannot go unaddressed by IVAW, thus we will have our voices heard on the issues one way or the other, be it from inside the debate hall, or be it to a hoard of domestic and international press outside the event who have already expressed great interest in and dedication to covering our demonstration.
What yourself and the candidates must decide now, Mr. Schieffer, is what the legacy of this debate will be. Will this be remembered as an event where both sides of the isle and the media came together to hear from our nation's heroes, even if only for five minutes, or will the words and promises of both candidates be forever shrouded in the image of a host of uniformed veterans and their supporters going to jail because these campaigns cared too little to hear from them?
Again, we are dedicated to 100% non-violence during this demonstration and will resist no arrest. However, we will NOT, I repeat, we will NOT back down, be intimidated or moved in any way shape or form until our demands are met or we are arrested.
I thank you for your time, sir, and look forward to meeting you in person.
I additionally assembled some information on military clientelism of the U.S. worldwide to frame our discussions of the limitations of looking only internal to states as the basis of politics instead of networks of geopolitics--the same argument that Sassen points out about sociological method limitations, when she coins the idea of a 'global city' in different parts of the world simultaneously versus their own local states they become disconnected from typically. As I said, Sassen published before the 'soverign wealth funds' issues developed, so perhaps territorial states may gain forms of sovereignty back, or many just compete in private investments with (or join with) the global city infrastructure of financial services as the leading sector of the world (which lost several trillion dollars in the past month or so...)
1. Mark Whitaker 2. Echoes of the Global City Still Resound in Seoul, Despite Desires of some to Decentralize Development in Koera 3. Just something I wanted to post to remind us of how the global city concept can illustrate the global contexts of the 'national' Korean processes of development location.
Lawmakers claimed Tuesday that Seoul and its vicinity have outgrown the rest of the country due to preferential policies that only benefits businesses based in the capital and its adjacent areas.
At a National Assembly inspection of the Gyeonggi provincial government, ruling and opposition party lawmakers, whose electoral districts are based in other provinces, joined forces to attack Gyeonggi Governor Kim Moon-soo, an advocate of bold deregulation on businesses based in Seoul and nearby cities.
National Assemblymen faced off about the plan to ease regulations on businesses in Seoul and Gyeonggi Province not by party line but by electoral constituencies.
Legislators had divided reactions after Kim reiterated the need for deregulation during the parliamentary audit, insisting that easing regulation will help the economy recover from the economic difficulties facing the nation.
Rep. Jeong Kab-yoon of the governing Grand National Party (GNP) said the number of start-up businesses in the province, totaling 17,511, is more than double the 8,366 companies that have pulled out of the province since 2000.
Jeong made the remarks regarding Kim's comments that businesses in Gyeonggi Province complained about heavy regulations and some were looking to move to other regions.
``In fact, other provinces are suffering as more and more businesses prefer Seoul and Gyeonggi Province,'' Jeong said.
He added that preferential policy packages set by the government prompted businesses to prefer the Seoul-Gyeonggi region, referring to a set of measures unveiled by the Ministry of Strategy and Finance.
In June, the ministry announced a tax cut for start-up businesses in Seoul and its vicinity as well as measures to ease regulations on protected military zones and facilities.
Opponents say these measures will motivate business leaders to consider the region as a better place offering a more business-friendly climate than other provinces.
Rep. Choi In-kee of the largest opposition Democratic Party (DP) claimed that balanced regional development should be sought as a policy priority.
``If the government places a priority on deregulation in the capital area, it will only deepen the development divide between the region and other provinces as the latter will be left behind,'' he said.
GNP lawmaker Kim Seong-jo said 56.6 percent of manufacturers and 88 percent of conglomerates' headquarters are based in Seoul and its surrounding area, while 67 percent of financial transactions in the economy took place there.
``Approximately 980,000 jobs were created between 2003 and 2006, and more than 90 percent of them were at businesses based in the capital city region. In contrast, jobs are disappearing in other provinces and cities,'' he said.
Some lawmakers including Won Yoo-chul of the GNP, however, sided with the governor, insisting the government will be able to boost the growth rate of gross domestic product by 2.7 percentage points.
Rep. Kim Tae-won said regulation will hold back the economy. Both Won and Kim have constituencies in Gyeonggi Province.
1. Gowoon JUNG 2. Ex-Beijing official gets death sentence 3. I have ever heard this news before, but I was once again shocked after reading the news. In china, this is quite common to make a death sentence for a person who committed a crime.
I wonder how this kind of penalty can work and can be allowed in a society. I know that taking a bribe is severe problem for a robust modernization. However, I think that protecting a life in a peaceful environment is much more important value for a country to occupy than robust modernization. More interesting thing is that it seems for citizens to allow this norm in their society. Probably, the country's political situation would make this possible.
---------------------
BEIJING, China (AP) -- A former Beijing vice mayor in charge of overseeing Olympic construction projects has been given a death sentence for corruption, a court clerk and his lawyer said Sunday.
The Intermediate People's Court in Hengshui, a city outside Beijing, ordered the death sentence Saturday after finding Liu Zhihua guilty of taking bribes, said a court clerk who would only give his surname, Ma.
However, the sentence was "suspended" for two years, Ma said. The reprieve means if Liu shows good behavior, his sentence will be commuted to life imprisonment.
The government squelched all reporting on Liu's prosecution in the months leading up to the August Olympic Games to avoid tarnishing its image on the global stage.
Officials said Liu's misdeeds had nothing to do with Olympic projects, but his dismissal put a cloud over preparations for the games and prompted authorities to ratchet up anti-corruption efforts.
Liu was elected to his post as vice mayor of Beijing in 1999, and dismissed and kicked out of the Communist Party in 2006.
Liu faced 10 charges for accepting bribes totaling about 7 million yuan ($1 million) and gifts in return for favors to property development companies while vice mayor, his lawyer Mo Shaoping said.
Don't Miss Wen: Govt. partly to blame for milk scandal Mo said some of the allegations were dubious. "Liu will probably appeal the verdict, and the final decision will be made soon," Mo said.
China reportedly spent $38 billion on urban renewal and infrastructure construction for the Olympics. Many officials have been charged with corruption in construction and real estate deals in the rapidly growing capital.
1. Ji-A Ryu 2 title: Could collapsing be another way of making a state as a precondition? 3. We talked about revolution as a way of making states. At that time, even a very short moment, I thought, to make a state, what else would be possible? only the way of revolution? When I read this news article, I thought what if 'the announcement' would be the leader Kim's retirement. If dear leader Kim Jong-il retires formally, would it be possible the chance collapsing North Korea as the news said? If so, collapsing does not mean revolution, right? and after collapsing one particular state, there maybe another state would be made. With this, how can we explain the phenomenon? If the strong and very centralized leadership suddenly vanished like health problem, then, owing to that, the state lost the centralizing thing, then collapsing. I want to know about another way of making a state like collapsing. I wonder collapsing could be the way of making a state or breaking down a state. Even though it should be called breaking down, to consist of one nation, the step of breaking down should be first, then making another state, right? In the context of that, I want to know and think more about another way of making a state.
NK Diplomats Ordered to Stand by for 'Important Announcement'
North Korea issued an emergency order to its overseas diplomats to be ready for an “important announcement,” allegedly related to the health of the Stalinist country’s leader Kim Jong-il, a Japanese newspaper said Saturday.
Citing a well-placed source, Yomiuri Shimbun said the North Korean regime told its overseas diplomats to refrain from travel and stay in the same place.
This anonymous source said North Korea is likely to make an “important announcement” in the coming few days, which is likely to be related to Kim’s health or something about the inter-Korean relationship.
Commenting on the report, a National Intelligence Service spokesman said the intelligence agency is in the process of confirming it but declined to elaborate further, according to Yonhap News.
After Kim Jong-il’s “visible” absence from the Sept. 9 ceremony that marked the 60th anniversary of the founding of the country, both intelligence and speculations surrounding Kim’s health have run amok. The South Korean government said Kim had a brain surgery in mid-August.
Pyongyang released photos of Kim inspecting a military facility in an apparent move to quench the thirsty international media hound. North Korea fears that such news on the dire health of its leader, once leaked to its people, might destabilize the communist country.
Meanwhile, some claimed that the photos of Kim may have been taken earlier, leading to speculation that Kim may be in a state of partial paralysis.
1. Mark Whitaker 2. When a State Collapses How do we think about that?, asks Ji-A.
3. Well, I think Ji-A and myself are the only ones closely following that something strange is happening with N. Korea perhaps.
It is rumored that a large family of major N. Korean diplomats have already defected, once stationed in China.
We can talk a bit about democratic breakdown as well as the internal state breakdown issues analyzed by Skocpol where some led further to social revolution and some did not.
From much of my own research, dynastic states like N. Korea can act like forms of elite elections--where elite settlements might continue or they might open into violence as sections kill off elite groups that refuse to cooperate or support 'their new leader'. This is because changes in polical power in dynastic-dominated one-party states sometimes awaken silent factions into action, factions that have lost in the previous elite settlement 'election' though have been waiting for a political opening. They are suddenly able to mobilize pressures for electing their cliques loyal 'candidate'.
I imagine a lot of this jockeying for position is happening right now in N. Korea, whether Kim Jong-Il is dead or alive--if he really suffered a stroke.
Ji-A asks about state formation and state collapse, particularly in regards to North Korea.
Well, I don't think that the death of the previous Kim led to collapse of N. Korea so I doubt the next Kim will lead to collapse of N. Korea either. States are pretty durable things, particularly if other alternatives are unavailable during crises.
Collapse might be from when the elites themselves get tired of being North Koreans, and pull the state apart attempting to get out or change things against N. Korean loyalists. This would then be a form of 'elite pact breakdown' going on particularly the previous story by Stella posted above about another N. Korean high diplomatic family playing piano in the U.S. State Department publicly. That's bound to destroy morale in the diplomatic core that one of their own is happily playing piano in public in the land of the historic enemy and he's still alive.
I think S. Korea should be concerned if an 'internal elite civil war' starts in N. Korea because it may lead to a large population exodus of N. Koreans into S. Korean territory? And it definitely would lead to U.S./S. Korean invasion of N. Korea then I guess if they could be assured that its missiles teams were loyal to S. Korean actions.
For vocabulary about revolution and state breakdown, remember to read about 'elite pact breakdown' as well as in the future ideas about States and Social Revolutions from the Skocpol excerpt we will be reading in packet #2. I'll talk some about my own research of environmental issues involved in state breakdown historically in the past--and I would argue perhaps in the future....
I've already emailed out the final exam to you as well.
--------------------------
North Korean diplomats prepare for 'Kim Jong-il announcement' North Korean diplomats abroad have been ordered to stay close to their embassies and await an "important announcement," according to a Japanese newspaper.
By Julian Ryall in Tokyo Last Updated: 5:14PM BST 18 Oct 2008
The news has prompted speculation that North Korea's officials are to be informed that "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il has died or that Pyongyang is carrying out its threat to sever all ties with South Korea.
Despite supporting Washington's decision to revoke Pyongyang's status of a supporter of terrorism, Seoul has incurred the North's anger over what it sees as hardline policies.
An announcement is expected within the next two days, but Toshimitsu Shigemura, a professor of international relations at Tokyo's Waseda University, believes it may not be related to Kim's health.
"If he was dead, the North Koreans would have sealed the borders and not be letting anyone in or out, just as they did when his father, Kim Il-sung, died," he said.
The rumours circulating that Kim is dead have caused instability in North Korea's diplomatic corps, Professor Shigemura said, and the announcement may very well be a carefully worded instruction to remain loyal to the regime or have the diplomats' families still in North Korea face the consequences.
Professor Shigemura's contacts have told him that a family of high-ranking North Korean diplomats have defected and are seeking asylum.
"I understand that they were based in China but that they may have got to the United States," he said.
"At the moment, the North Korean authorities are trying to find them but also want to stop any others from defecting."
Kim Myong Chol, as executive director of the Center for U.S.-North Korea Peace the mouthpiece for Pyongyang, played down the importance of the report, describing the report in the Yomiuri newspaper as "unfounded."
"I have never heard of this sort of order being given in the past and I've not heard anything of importance from the embassies in Beijing or New York," he said. "I do not think anything of importance is happening."
2. Another "Putnam-Style" Regionalization Story about Korea: civic culture measured by trust of police
3. Another way to measure civic culture that even Putnam didn't address was 'how much do people trust the police' in different regions of Italy. Here's something about the trust of police in different regions of Korea. Does it make sense of some common perceptions of regional cultures in Korea to you? Tell me!
---------------------------
10-21-2008 18:19 36 Percent of People Distrust Police
By Kim Rahn Staff Reporter
More than three out of every 10 people here do not trust the police.
According to a survey conducted on 1,235 adults by Gallup Korea earlier this month, about 36 percent said they had no confidence in the police, while the rest were satisfied and thought police were adequately performing their duties, Rep. Kim Tae-won of the Grand National Party said. Tuesday was ``Police Day.''
Those in their 30s and 40s distrusted the police most, with 47.8 percent and 44.8 percent of them saying so, respectively. By region, 51 percent of citizens in Gwangju were unhappy with police performance.
``Many people do not trust the police. Under such distrust, police cannot enforce the law properly,'' Rep. Kim said.
Citizens expressed concern over public security, with four out of every 10 surveyed saying they do not like walking alone in alleys near their homes at night for fear of being robbed or sexually assaulted, among other crimes.
Sixty two percent of female respondents in their 30s and 57 percent of females aged between 19 and 29 expressed fear about walking alone at night.
A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an environmental sociologist interested in establishing material and organizational sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for interesting materials/technologies, inspiring ideas, or institutional examples of sustainability to inspire others to recognize their choices now. To be fatalistic about an unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, given all our options.
*(If "earth" is defined in a planetary sense, concerning comparative historical knowledge and interest in the past 10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.
15 comments:
1. Sohyun Chun (stella)
2.North Korea pianist play for freedom
3. When I encountered this article,
I was so touched by this pianists
action to perform his play
infront of famous and influencial
people of the U.S. Furthermore,
I was more astonished by American government who allowed this north
korean pianists to perform
inside the state department
of washington D.C. I think
American governemnt give chance to people is dilligent and smart.
Moreover, I thought how culture-
art and music can be one of
the affective diplomacy that
can offer message to the whole
universe. Also, when I encountered
this, I hope North Korean can
have chance to develop their
talent in various sector.
------------------------------
N.Korean Pianist Plays for Freedom
The Benjamin Franklin Room of the U.S. State Department in Washington D.C. was filled at lunchtime on Monday with the sound of a piano played by Kim Cheol-woong, a defector from North Korea. Kim, who was the first pianist with the Pyongyang National Orchestra, drew a standing ovation from the 100 or so people in the audience who had come to hear his own arrangements of “Arirang” and “Song of Joy,” a popular piece in North Korea about independence from Japanese colonial rule.
Kim was there at the invitation of senior State Department officials. He escaped from North Korea and defected to the South in 2003 because he said he wanted to play the piano freely.
Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky and Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor David Kramer hosted the event to raise funds for adolescent North Korean defectors. “That a North Korean defector held a recital in the State Department, which plays the most influential role in solving the human rights violation problem in North Korea, means a lot,” Kim said. “I hope this recital can bring the issue to the discussion table again.”
Born to a high-ranking official in the North Korean Workers’ Party and a professor, Kim received musical training from an early age and became an elite musician. After graduating from a national conservatory in Pyongyang, he studied at the prestigious Tchaikovsky Conservatory in Moscow. He escaped North Korea to China in 2001, and dreamed of going to South Korea as he listened to South Korean radio programs aired by KBS and Far East Broadcasting Corporation in China. He finally arrived in Seoul in 2003
-------------
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200810/200810090003.html
1. Gowoon JUNG
2. South Africa to sell ivory to China, Japan
3. This article is about illegal trade between nations. I am sure that there would be lots of behind stories in this matter. The interesting thig here is that there are no exact standards for a country to act or not to act between countries. We can see that each country accept some rules according to their situations and their own interests. The article also shows us this case. We can see that Chia and Japan allowed ivory trade with South Africa even though environmentalists started to regulate. From this thoughts, I became to have a question : what is the purpose of nation? why does a country exist?
Now, it seems to me that a country exist to serve for a people' interests and help people to achieve their goals.
----------------------
The South African government says it will press ahead with plans to sell 51 tons of ivory to China and Japan under a special exemption to the international ban on trade. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES, last year said a handful of African countries with large stockpiles of elephant tusks would be allowed to make a one-off sale of ivory.
This was despite fears by some environmentalists that it might encourage smuggling and poaching.
South African wildlife experts visited China and Japan in September and said Thursday they were satisfied that both countries would meet the stringent conditions set by the international pact on trade in endangered species and would not re-export ivory to supply the black market.
-----------
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/10/09/SouthAfrica
1. Ji-A, Ryu
2. title: the least conditions in order to be called democracy
3. I think there are many different definitions about democracy depending on many people. However, I think if some institutions of a particular nation want to be called "democracy", the institutions of that nation can guarantee the freedom of speech and the leader of that nation has to be acceptable about the different opinions against his or hers at least. At the front part of this article shows why the progressive alliance happened in Korea even though Korea has been thought as the only nation has been successfully developed democracy and economic growth after World War II. I think just before Lee was elected as the president, it was natural to be called that way. However, after that, situations changed quite differently. As this news shows, Lee administration infringes the freedom of speech with some kinds of violence like water cannon. Also, nowadays they show their purposes to govern the internet trying to make a law which so called "actress Choi's law".
I doubt these kinds of behaviors could be acceptable under the name of democracy. Moreover, I heard some ridiculous behavior of President Lee on YTN. About Melamine, when he visited the factory which was known for making snacks including melamine, he didn't know what it was. Even though the expert near him tried to explain what it was, the president didn't listen to him and asserted his opinion only. I think the attitude of the leader of the nation is very important for the state. Even though the nation insists on democracy in appearance, if the behaviors of the leader or bureaucrats were not in content, could it be called democracy? We need some more sharp implements to analyse the institutions of the nation and the bureaucrats in order to distinguish what is democracy. At this moment, it is necessary we all be the watchdog about the government.
------------------------------------------------------------------
10-10-2008 19:15
Progressives’ Alliance
This Is No Time to Wage Ideological War
Korea is often described as the only country liberated after World War II to achieve both democracy and economic growth.
So foreigners here might wonder why representatives of the nation's civic groups, labor unions, environmentalists, college professors and Catholic priests held an ``emergency conference'' Thursday and decided to launch a new solidarity organization to cope with a crisis of ``democracy and public livelihood.''
To sum up, this is a semi-national alliance against the Lee Myung-bak administration by a different name, or the biggest anti-government group since the nation was democratized in 1987. Why is the seven-month administration producing such massive civil disobedience?
The declaration, adopted at the meeting, said the Lee administration is ``completely going backward,'' by trying to nullify what the Korean society has achieved. It then cited as examples the government's retaliation against the participants of candlelit protests, wielding anew the anti-Communist law to silence dissidents, revising history textbooks in ways to please rightist groups and infringing on freedom of speech by dominating broadcasting stations as well as restricting Internet use.
The participants also attacked the tax cuts for owners of expensive properties, the hasty privatization of state enterprises and the push for pliable labor markets as policies widening the gap between the haves and have-nots while at the same time hurting the public interest.
In short, they are opposing the reemergence of authoritarian rule in the name of enhancing law and order in politics as well as neo-liberalistic market idolatry in the economy.
One can feel the ideological battle that has gripped this society over the past decade or so is about to go into full swing instead of diminishing at a time when most other countries are trying their best to get out of the global economic turmoil.
Even so, the Lee administration can hardly complain, as the escalating war between the conservatives and progressives is largely of its own making, with the President himself at its vanguard. Lee said recently, for instance, ``Although we have retaken power after a decade, the roots of (the leftists) are very deep and wide.'' We beg to differ. Most of all, the President seems to be color-blind as far as ideology is concerned. Lee calls the two previous administrations ``leftist'' governments, but the governments of Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun tried and failed to imitate the elementary stage of European-style social democracy only to return to typical neo-liberalistic policies in the face of an unfavorable environment abroad and strong challenges from conservative interest groups at home.
Koreans elected Lee believing he was qualified to salvage the struggling economy, but they are increasingly finding the president not much more than a former corporate CEO, one less than capable of running a country.
Granted, the management of a modern country is too complex to leave to just top leaders and their aides so they have to mobilize the talents and capacities of the entire nation, regardless of political or ideological inclination, but Lee is splitting, not unifying, the nation. If this is to pass the responsibility of poor administration to progressives, the nation is doomed for the rest of his tenure.
Ironically, the success or failure of the progressives' alliance depends on how the President and his administration do. We hope the participants need not push ahead with their decision, as the government more attentively listens to people from various walks of life and better reflect their voices on state governance.
---------
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2008/10/137_32495.html
1.Lu Yao
2.Chinese defense ministry condemns US for Taiwan arms sale
3. This week in the lecture we have talked about the military or arm power. Then when I found this news about China and the US's military ties. The news mainly talk about the conflict between China and the US on Taiwan issue and the military trade.
As I mentioned in the discussion in lecture, I think sometimes keep the present situation is the best way for each sides--I mean the mainland China and Taiwan. According to what I have seen and heard when the Tibet issue attracts so much attention, there are so many people especially foreigners who has little knowlegde about the truth but act very actively. Without knowing the history and truth of the issue, people are easily mislead by the media. I have met so many angry Korean students who want to argue with me about the Tibet and Taiwan issue even though they don't know where exactly the two places are. No matter what will happen in the future for Taiwan, the people live there are our relatives, we speak the same language and share the same culture. If each of the two side or another third party push them too hard and unevitably cause a 'war' or 'fight', the one who suffers most is the common people. If Taiwan successfully get rid of China, there will be no relationship for a long time which will bring huge damage to both economic. Keep the present and find a way to get rid of other countries intervence is very important to both economic, and stable society. Also it can make each side focus on more important issues.
On the other hand, sometimes unstability and bring more attention and then leads to development. There are five independent-governing provinces in China, they are Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, Ningxia and Guangxi. There lives many minority races. They are the least developed areas of China. But Tibet and Xinjiang attract more attention because of the unstability. Although my hometown is also neboured to Mongolia which is a foreign country, but the people of Mongolia race in Inner Mongolia do not want to get independent from China. So China's government always pay more attention to Xinjiang and Tibet which often raise the problem of independent movement and as a result these two provinces get more fiscal aid and development. Also the unstability cannot live without external aid and support.
From this news we can only see the China's government view and stand for Taiwan issue and the relationship to the US. This is a simple example to see the internal element (Taiwanness's independent will because of the historical reason) and the external element (the US's purpose of support Taiwan's independence).
---------------------------
4.
Chinese defense ministry condemns US for Taiwan arms sale(Xinhua)
Updated: 2008-10-09 23:50 Comments(30)
BEIJING - Chinese Defense Ministry blamed on Thursday the United States for its arms sale to Taiwan, saying China is strongly discontented and firmly opposed to the recent comments from the U.S. side on bilateral military ties.
Huang Xueping, spokesman of the Chinese Defense Ministry, said China had noticed a Pentagon spokesman's recent comments on U.S.-China military ties, referring to Stuart Upton's remarks on Monday that Washington's arms sales were consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act.
Upton also said "uncertainty over the motivations and direction of China's military expansion leads others to hedge," and "this could lead to a security environment less favorable to China's interests, the region's, and our own."
"We are strongly dissatisfied and opposed to the Pentagon spokesman's remarks. The so-called 'Taiwan Relations Act' severely ran counter to the principles of the three Sino-U.S. joint communiques and the fundamental norms governing international relations," said Huang.
He added the United States had no right to place domestic law above international ones, or use it as an excuse to sell weapons to Taiwan.
"The U.S. side carped at China's righteous national defense building, which was totally confounding right and wrong to mislead the public," said the spokesman.
He said China firmly takes the road of peaceful development and follows an independent foreign policy of peace and a national defense policy that is defensive in nature.
"China develops limited defense power with an aim to safeguard national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity," he said. "We had made solemn undertakings to the world time and again that China would never seek hegemony or expansionism, nor an arms race."
China's development serves as active force to promote world and regional peace and poses no threat to anybody, Huang added.
Concerning bilateral military ties, he said China has made positive and concerted efforts over the years to strengthen military exchanges with the United States.
The U.S. side, regardless of China's repeated strong opposition, insisted to notify the Congress about its plan to sell arms to Taiwan, which seriously harmed bilateral military ties and blocked exchanges and cooperation between the two armed forces in various areas including high-level visits, Huang said.
The U.S. side should take full responsibilities for the current situation, he added.
The Chinese armed forces firmly support the solemn stance of the Chinese government, he said, urging the U.S. side to deal with bilateral military ties from a strategic height and long-term point of view, and take practical actions to honor the one-China policy and obey the three Sino-U.S. joint communiques.
The spokesman also called on the United States to abide by its commitments for China on the Taiwan issue, cancel relevant arms sale programs to Taiwan immediately and cut off military ties with the island, to prevent harming the overall bilateral military ties.
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei has summoned the charge d'affaires of the U.S. Embassy to China to raise strong protest against the U.S. move. Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao and Qin Gang had earlier expressed strong condemnation over the U.S. decision, respectively.
------------
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-10/09/content_7092238.htm
1. Mark Whitaker
2. The Revolving Door, Example of Goldman Sachs, is it public or private or both?
3. The origins of power from Arendt's point of view are public sources. Same in the pluralists' model of public democratic power. Neomarxist tend to look to private ownership and private interests of economics dominating social relations. This example shows a strange mix in 'the revolving door,' the back-and-forth exchange of personnel across public and private institutions so that it's hard to classify some of these institutions involved as clearly one or the other. To summarize in any society which institutions are the revolving doors (and avoid worrying about general theorietial issues) may help resolve issues about whether 'the ruling class does not rule' or otherwise that was of such concern from the 1970s by many NeoMarxists.
I think one hypothesis would be that there are a few institutions (instead of large classes of groups) that have public/private access more than others as 'capitalists' and public democratic agents are kept out of access in the state.
Goldman Sachs is a good example of a revolving door. So is Monsanto by the way.
The following article is about Goldman Sachs. The article fails to summarize all the Goldman Sachs connections to the Bush Administration either.
Explaining why certain 'revolving doors' occur in certain institutions (instead of other institutions) may help resolve issues of what is the state and associated issues of relative autonomy of the state.
It seems to be that the most well protected criminal elites keep their connections in the state, given Paulson's earlier heritage in the Nixon Administration where his boss went to jail for organizing 'dirty tricks'.
One of the issues here is the institution itself may not be the issue. It may be that many individuals in the institution are involved in covert operations that have taken over the institution, an institution within the institution, and it is the covert institution that is 'operating' Goldman Sachs to its advantage publicly and privately where not everyone is aware of that even if they are members of the institution itself.
Elite socialization studies are important here. I'll talk later about Bohemian Grove, a major U.S. private international club in the California redwood trees, and its position in the USA. Some sociologists have written about it as well, particularly the person who puts together "Project Censored" in the USA (it is a list of 20 the most non-popularized, though major, news stories of the past year that the U.S. media fails to cover.)
------------------------
Who is Henry Paulson?
By Tom Eley
23 September 2008
The plan to rescue the US financial industry arrogates virtually unlimited money and power over the financial affairs of the state to the office of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Paulson is a figure with a long history of intimate connections to the political and financial elite.
In 1970, fresh from the Masters program of the Harvard Business School, Paulson entered the Nixon administration, working first as staff assistant to the assistant secretary of defense. In 1972-73, Paulson worked as office assistant to John Erlichman, assistant to the president for domestic affairs. Erlichman was one of the key figures involved in organizing President Richard Nixon’s notorious “plumbers” unit that carried out illegal covert operations against the president’s political opponents, including espionage, blackmail, and revenge. Ehlichman resigned in 1973, and in 1975 he was convicted of obstruction of justice, perjury, and conspiracy, and was imprisoned for 18 months.
Utilizing his connections, Paulson went to work for Goldman Sachs in 1974. In a 2007 feature, the British newspaper the Guardian wrote, “Not only was he well connected enough to get the job [in the Nixon White House], but well connected enough to resign in the thick of the Watergate scandal without ever getting caught up in the fallout. He went straight to Goldman back home in Illinois.”
Paulson rose through the ranks of Goldman Sachs, becoming a partner in 1982, co-head of investment banking in 1990, chief operating officer in 1994. In 1998 he forced out his co-chairman Jon Corzine “in what amounted to a coup,” according to New York Times economics correspondent Floyd Norris, and took over the post of CEO.
Goldman Sachs is perhaps the single best-connected Wall Street firm. Its executives routinely go in and out of top government posts. Corzine went on to become US senator from New Jersey and is now the state’s governor. Corzine’s predecessor, Stephen Friedman, served in the Bush administration as assistant to the president for economic policy and as chairman of the National Economic Council (NEC). Friedman’s predecessor as Goldman Sachs CEO, Robert Rubin, served as chairman of the NEC and later treasury secretary under Bill Clinton.
Agence France Press, in a 2006 article on Paulson’s appointment, “Has Goldman Sachs Taken Over the Bush Administration?” noted that, in addition to Paulson, “[t]he president’s chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Jeffery Reuben, are Goldman alumni.”
“But the flow goes both ways,” the article continued, “Goldman recently hired Robert Zoellick, who stepped down as the US deputy secretary of state, and Faryar Shirzad, who worked as one of Bush’s national security advisors.”
Prior to being selected as treasury secretary, Paulson was a major individual campaign contributor to Republican candidates, giving over $336,000 of his own money between 1998 and 2006.
Since taking office, Paulson has overseen the destruction of three of Goldman Sachs’ rivals. In March, Paulson helped arrange the fire sale of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan Chase. Then, a little more than a week ago, he allowed Lehman Brothers to collapse, while simultaneously organizing the absorption of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America. This left only Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley as major investment banks, both of which were converted on Sunday into bank holding companies, a move that effectively ended the existence of the investment bank as a distinct economic form.
In the months leading up to his proposed $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, Paulson had already used his office to dole out hundreds of billions of dollars. After his July 2008 proposal for $70 billion to resolve the insolvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed, Paulson organized the government takeover of the two mortgage-lending giants for an immediate $200 billion price tag, while making the government potentially liable for hundreds of billions more in bad debt. He then organized a federal purchase of an 80 percent stake in the giant insurer American International Group (AIG) at a cost of $85 billion.
These bailouts have been designed to prevent a chain reaction collapse of the world economy, but more importantly they aimed to insulate and even reward the wealthy shareholders, like Paulson, primarily responsible for the financial collapse.
Paulson bears a considerable amount of personal responsibility for the crisis.
Paulson, according to a celebratory 2006 BusinessWeek article entitled “Mr. Risk Goes to Washington,” was “one of the key architects of a more daring Wall Street, where securities firms are taking greater and greater chances in their pursuit of profits.” Under Paulson’s watch, that meant “taking on more debt: $100 billion in long-term debt in 2005, compared with about $20 billion in 1999. It means placing big bets on all sorts of exotic derivatives and other securities.”
According to the International Herald Tribune, Paulson “was one of the first Wall Street leaders to recognize how drastically investment banks could enhance their profitability by betting with their own capital instead of acting as mere intermediaries.” Paulson “stubbornly assert[ed] Goldman’s right to invest in, advise on and finance deals, regardless of potential conflicts.”
Paulson then handsomely benefited from the speculative boom. This wealth was based on financial manipulation and did nothing to create real value in the economy. On the contrary, the extraordinary enrichment of individuals like Paulson was the corollary to the dismantling of the real economy, the bankrupting of the government, and the impoverishment of masses the world over.
Paulson was compensated to the tune of $30 million in 2004 and took home $37 million in 2005. In his career at Goldman Sachs he built up a personal net worth of over $700 million, according to estimates.
After Paulson’s ascension to the treasury, his colleagues at Goldman Sachs carried on the bonanza. At the end of 2006, Paulson’s successor Lloyd Blankfein was handed over a $53.4 million year-end bonus, while 11 other Goldman Sachs executives raked in $150 million in year-end bonuses combined. That year, the top investment firms Goldman Sacks, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, and Bear Stearns handed out $36 billion in bonuses. At the end of 2007, the executives of the same firms, excepting Merrill, were handed another $30 billion.
---
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/paul-s23.shtml
1. Mark Whitaker
2. Different forms of Elite Settlement, Let's add one: Elite Gatekeeping
3. In the Elite Settlements article, he creates a Weberian style typology of different kinds of elite settlments or agreements on power in states; I would add one more or at least clarify how #3 in that typology works: elite gatekeeping. I'll talk more about this article on Friday. I will use this as an example of how we can do the "3M" issue--tie elites to larger state social movements and political contexts by looking at how gatekeeping is accomplished in polities. It's the second face of power argument once more though I think instead of just the mobilization of bias institutionally, we have the selective repression of other alternatives involved in action to maintain elite status. Example to be discussed in class:
-----------------------
newswire article reporting united states 16.Oct.2008 00:11
actions & protests | imperialism & war
Update - Iraq Vets stopped at the doors to debates
author: Ben Waiting
IVAW is reporting arrest(s) outside of the last presidential debates
http://ivaw.org/node/4405
10 Veterans Were Arrested
vets and debates 2008
vets and debates 2008
IVAW members arrested while attempting to present questions to Obama and McCain
One hour before the final presidential debate of the 2008 campaign, fourteen members of IVAW marched in formation to Hofstra University to present questions for the candidates. IVAW had requested permission from debate moderator Bob Schieffer to ask their questions during the debate but got no response.
The contingent of veterans in dress uniforms and combat uniforms attempted to enter the building where the debate was to be held in order to ask their questions but were turned back by police. The IVAW members at the front of the formation were immediately arrested, and others were pushed back into the crowd by police on horseback. Several members were injured, including former Army Sergeant Nick Morgan who suffered a broken cheekbone when he was trampled by police horses before being arrested.
(Here is a YouTube video clip that I found by a simple search)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZDf_J2UoNM)
Below is (website link) the letter that was sent requesting a moment of the debates time from these Iraq Veterans
http://tinyurl.com/4opzsz
Subject: They've received their warning...
Just wanted to make sure this made it out to you all. A clear demand,
and clear intent to lead a non-violent action to ensure that our voices
are heard.
Dear Mr Schieffer,
I'm writing you today as a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War to
make clear the details of a demonstration we will be leading Oct. 15th
at Hofstra University prior to the final presidential debate and what
our demands are and will be.
We in IVAW demand that two of our members, myself and Kristofer
Goldsmith, be permitted entry to the debate and be allowed to ask each
candidate one question. If this demand is not agreed to IN FULL by 7 p.m. EST on the 15th, members of IVAW will lead a large contingent of veterans and our supporters on a NON-VIOLENT procession to the debate center and are prepared to risk arrest and/or bodily harm attempting to enter to have our voices heard. (This action will look very similar to our marches at the DNC and RNC which were widely covered in the media and on youtube, should you wish to see what's coming.)
As the economy has continued its downhill slide this election season,
the issue of Iraq has been pushed further and further away from peoples'
minds, as well the platforms of the candidates. In addition, little to
no attention has been paid this election season to the abysmal failure
of the Veterans Administration to adequately care for our returning
troops and their families and how we can work as a nation to fix this
problem.
As a result, more and more veterans are falling into debt, starving,
going homeless and killing themselves while the government REFUSES to
allocate sufficient funds for our much needed and deserved care while
simultaneously lining the pockets of the richest with $700 billion in
taxpayer (including servicemembers and veterans) money.
Such blatant betrayals of our services and sacrifices cannot go
unaddressed by IVAW, thus we will have our voices heard on the issues one way or the other, be it from inside the debate hall, or be it to a hoard of domestic and international press outside the event who have already expressed great interest in and dedication to covering our demonstration.
What yourself and the candidates must decide now, Mr. Schieffer, is
what the legacy of this debate will be. Will this be remembered as an
event where both sides of the isle and the media came together to hear from our nation's heroes, even if only for five minutes, or will the words
and promises of both candidates be forever shrouded in the image of a
host of uniformed veterans and their supporters going to jail because
these campaigns cared too little to hear from them?
Again, we are dedicated to 100% non-violence during this demonstration and will resist no arrest. However, we will NOT, I repeat, we will NOT back down, be intimidated or moved in any way shape or form until our demands are met or we are arrested.
I thank you for your time, sir, and look forward to meeting you in
person.
For honor and country,
Matthis Chiroux
homepage: homepage: http://ivaw.org/node/4405
---
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/10/380790.shtml
I additionally assembled some information on military clientelism of the U.S. worldwide to frame our discussions of the limitations of looking only internal to states as the basis of politics instead of networks of geopolitics--the same argument that Sassen points out about sociological method limitations, when she coins the idea of a 'global city' in different parts of the world simultaneously versus their own local states they become disconnected from typically. As I said, Sassen published before the 'soverign wealth funds' issues developed, so perhaps territorial states may gain forms of sovereignty back, or many just compete in private investments with (or join with) the global city infrastructure of financial services as the leading sector of the world (which lost several trillion dollars in the past month or so...)
1. Mark Whitaker
2. Echoes of the Global City Still Resound in Seoul, Despite Desires of some to Decentralize Development in Koera
3. Just something I wanted to post to remind us of how the global city concept can illustrate the global contexts of the 'national' Korean processes of development location.
------------------------
10-14-2008 16:30
Legislators Lament Deepening 'Development Divide'
By Kang Hyun-kyung
Staff Reporter
Lawmakers claimed Tuesday that Seoul and its vicinity have outgrown the rest of the country due to preferential policies that only benefits businesses based in the capital and its adjacent areas.
At a National Assembly inspection of the Gyeonggi provincial government, ruling and opposition party lawmakers, whose electoral districts are based in other provinces, joined forces to attack Gyeonggi Governor Kim Moon-soo, an advocate of bold deregulation on businesses based in Seoul and nearby cities.
National Assemblymen faced off about the plan to ease regulations on businesses in Seoul and Gyeonggi Province not by party line but by electoral constituencies.
Legislators had divided reactions after Kim reiterated the need for deregulation during the parliamentary audit, insisting that easing regulation will help the economy recover from the economic difficulties facing the nation.
Rep. Jeong Kab-yoon of the governing Grand National Party (GNP) said the number of start-up businesses in the province, totaling 17,511, is more than double the 8,366 companies that have pulled out of the province since 2000.
Jeong made the remarks regarding Kim's comments that businesses in Gyeonggi Province complained about heavy regulations and some were looking to move to other regions.
``In fact, other provinces are suffering as more and more businesses prefer Seoul and Gyeonggi Province,'' Jeong said.
He added that preferential policy packages set by the government prompted businesses to prefer the Seoul-Gyeonggi region, referring to a set of measures unveiled by the Ministry of Strategy and Finance.
In June, the ministry announced a tax cut for start-up businesses in Seoul and its vicinity as well as measures to ease regulations on protected military zones and facilities.
Opponents say these measures will motivate business leaders to consider the region as a better place offering a more business-friendly climate than other provinces.
Rep. Choi In-kee of the largest opposition Democratic Party (DP) claimed that balanced regional development should be sought as a policy priority.
``If the government places a priority on deregulation in the capital area, it will only deepen the development divide between the region and other provinces as the latter will be left behind,'' he said.
GNP lawmaker Kim Seong-jo said 56.6 percent of manufacturers and 88 percent of conglomerates' headquarters are based in Seoul and its surrounding area, while 67 percent of financial transactions in the economy took place there.
``Approximately 980,000 jobs were created between 2003 and 2006, and more than 90 percent of them were at businesses based in the capital city region. In contrast, jobs are disappearing in other provinces and cities,'' he said.
Some lawmakers including Won Yoo-chul of the GNP, however, sided with the governor, insisting the government will be able to boost the growth rate of gross domestic product by 2.7 percentage points.
Rep. Kim Tae-won said regulation will hold back the economy. Both Won and Kim have constituencies in Gyeonggi Province.
hkang@koreatimes.co.kr
---
http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/10/113_32648.html
1. Gowoon JUNG
2. Ex-Beijing official gets death sentence
3. I have ever heard this news before, but I was once again shocked after reading the news. In china, this is quite common to make a death sentence for a person who committed a crime.
I wonder how this kind of penalty can work and can be allowed in a society. I know that taking a bribe is severe problem for a robust modernization. However, I think that protecting a life in a peaceful environment is much more important value for a country to occupy than robust modernization. More interesting thing is that it seems for citizens to allow this norm in their society. Probably, the country's political situation would make this possible.
---------------------
BEIJING, China (AP) -- A former Beijing vice mayor in charge of overseeing Olympic construction projects has been given a death sentence for corruption, a court clerk and his lawyer said Sunday.
The Intermediate People's Court in Hengshui, a city outside Beijing, ordered the death sentence Saturday after finding Liu Zhihua guilty of taking bribes, said a court clerk who would only give his surname, Ma.
However, the sentence was "suspended" for two years, Ma said. The reprieve means if Liu shows good behavior, his sentence will be commuted to life imprisonment.
The government squelched all reporting on Liu's prosecution in the months leading up to the August Olympic Games to avoid tarnishing its image on the global stage.
Officials said Liu's misdeeds had nothing to do with Olympic projects, but his dismissal put a cloud over preparations for the games and prompted authorities to ratchet up anti-corruption efforts.
Liu was elected to his post as vice mayor of Beijing in 1999, and dismissed and kicked out of the Communist Party in 2006.
Liu faced 10 charges for accepting bribes totaling about 7 million yuan ($1 million) and gifts in return for favors to property development companies while vice mayor, his lawyer Mo Shaoping said.
Don't Miss
Wen: Govt. partly to blame for milk scandal
Mo said some of the allegations were dubious. "Liu will probably appeal the verdict, and the final decision will be made soon," Mo said.
China reportedly spent $38 billion on urban renewal and infrastructure construction for the Olympics. Many officials have been charged with corruption in construction and real estate deals in the rapidly growing capital.
------------------
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/19/china.corruption.ap/index.html
1. Ji-A Ryu
2 title: Could collapsing be another way of making a state as a precondition?
3. We talked about revolution as a way of making states. At that time, even a very short moment, I thought, to make a state, what else would be possible? only the way of revolution? When I read this news article, I thought what if 'the announcement' would be the leader Kim's retirement. If dear leader Kim Jong-il retires formally, would it be possible the chance collapsing North Korea as the news said? If so, collapsing does not mean revolution, right? and after collapsing one particular state, there maybe another state would be made. With this, how can we explain the phenomenon? If the strong and very centralized leadership suddenly vanished like health problem, then, owing to that, the state lost the centralizing thing, then collapsing. I want to know about another way of making a state like collapsing. I wonder collapsing could be the way of making a state or breaking down a state. Even though it should be called breaking down, to consist of one nation, the step of breaking down should be first, then making another state, right? In the context of that, I want to know and think more about another way of making a state.
-------------------------------------------------------------
10-18-2008 19:39
NK Diplomats Ordered to Stand by for 'Important Announcement'
North Korea issued an emergency order to its overseas diplomats to be ready for an “important announcement,” allegedly related to the health of the Stalinist country’s leader Kim Jong-il, a Japanese newspaper said Saturday.
Citing a well-placed source, Yomiuri Shimbun said the North Korean regime told its overseas diplomats to refrain from travel and stay in the same place.
This anonymous source said North Korea is likely to make an “important announcement” in the coming few days, which is likely to be related to Kim’s health or something about the inter-Korean relationship.
Commenting on the report, a National Intelligence Service spokesman said the intelligence agency is in the process of confirming it but declined to elaborate further, according to Yonhap News.
After Kim Jong-il’s “visible” absence from the Sept. 9 ceremony that marked the 60th anniversary of the founding of the country, both intelligence and speculations surrounding Kim’s health have run amok. The South Korean government said Kim had a brain surgery in mid-August.
Pyongyang released photos of Kim inspecting a military facility in an apparent move to quench the thirsty international media hound. North Korea fears that such news on the dire health of its leader, once leaked to its people, might destabilize the communist country.
Meanwhile, some claimed that the photos of Kim may have been taken earlier, leading to speculation that Kim may be in a state of partial paralysis.
---
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/10/113_32898.html
1. Mark Whitaker
2. When a State Collapses How do we think about that?, asks Ji-A.
3. Well, I think Ji-A and myself are the only ones closely following that something strange is happening with N. Korea perhaps.
It is rumored that a large family of major N. Korean diplomats have already defected, once stationed in China.
We can talk a bit about democratic breakdown as well as the internal state breakdown issues analyzed by Skocpol where some led further to social revolution and some did not.
From much of my own research, dynastic states like N. Korea can act like forms of elite elections--where elite settlements might continue or they might open into violence as sections kill off elite groups that refuse to cooperate or support 'their new leader'. This is because changes in polical power in dynastic-dominated one-party states sometimes awaken silent factions into action, factions that have lost in the previous elite settlement 'election' though have been waiting for a political opening. They are suddenly able to mobilize pressures for electing their cliques loyal 'candidate'.
I imagine a lot of this jockeying for position is happening right now in N. Korea, whether Kim Jong-Il is dead or alive--if he really suffered a stroke.
Ji-A asks about state formation and state collapse, particularly in regards to North Korea.
Well, I don't think that the death of the previous Kim led to collapse of N. Korea so I doubt the next Kim will lead to collapse of N. Korea either. States are pretty durable things, particularly if other alternatives are unavailable during crises.
Collapse might be from when the elites themselves get tired of being North Koreans, and pull the state apart attempting to get out or change things against N. Korean loyalists. This would then be a form of 'elite pact breakdown' going on particularly the previous story by Stella posted above about another N. Korean high diplomatic family playing piano in the U.S. State Department publicly. That's bound to destroy morale in the diplomatic core that one of their own is happily playing piano in public in the land of the historic enemy and he's still alive.
I think S. Korea should be concerned if an 'internal elite civil war' starts in N. Korea because it may lead to a large population exodus of N. Koreans into S. Korean territory? And it definitely would lead to U.S./S. Korean invasion of N. Korea then I guess if they could be assured that its missiles teams were loyal to S. Korean actions.
For vocabulary about revolution and state breakdown, remember to read about 'elite pact breakdown' as well as in the future ideas about States and Social Revolutions from the Skocpol excerpt we will be reading in packet #2. I'll talk some about my own research of environmental issues involved in state breakdown historically in the past--and I would argue perhaps in the future....
I've already emailed out the final exam to you as well.
--------------------------
North Korean diplomats prepare for 'Kim Jong-il announcement'
North Korean diplomats abroad have been ordered to stay close to their embassies and await an "important announcement," according to a Japanese newspaper.
By Julian Ryall in Tokyo
Last Updated: 5:14PM BST 18 Oct 2008
The news has prompted speculation that North Korea's officials are to be informed that "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il has died or that Pyongyang is carrying out its threat to sever all ties with South Korea.
Despite supporting Washington's decision to revoke Pyongyang's status of a supporter of terrorism, Seoul has incurred the North's anger over what it sees as hardline policies.
An announcement is expected within the next two days, but Toshimitsu Shigemura, a professor of international relations at Tokyo's Waseda University, believes it may not be related to Kim's health.
"If he was dead, the North Koreans would have sealed the borders and not be letting anyone in or out, just as they did when his father, Kim Il-sung, died," he said.
The rumours circulating that Kim is dead have caused instability in North Korea's diplomatic corps, Professor Shigemura said, and the announcement may very well be a carefully worded instruction to remain loyal to the regime or have the diplomats' families still in North Korea face the consequences.
Professor Shigemura's contacts have told him that a family of high-ranking North Korean diplomats have defected and are seeking asylum.
"I understand that they were based in China but that they may have got to the United States," he said.
"At the moment, the North Korean authorities are trying to find them but also want to stop any others from defecting."
Kim Myong Chol, as executive director of the Center for U.S.-North Korea Peace the mouthpiece for Pyongyang, played down the importance of the report, describing the report in the Yomiuri newspaper as "unfounded."
"I have never heard of this sort of order being given in the past and I've not heard anything of importance from the embassies in Beijing or New York," he said. "I do not think anything of importance is happening."
---
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/3221859/North-Korean-diplomats-prepare-for-Kim-Jong-il-announcement.html
1. Mark Whitaker
2. Another "Putnam-Style" Regionalization Story about Korea: civic culture measured by trust of police
3. Another way to measure civic culture that even Putnam didn't address was 'how much do people trust the police' in different regions of Italy. Here's something about the trust of police in different regions of Korea. Does it make sense of some common perceptions of regional cultures in Korea to you? Tell me!
---------------------------
10-21-2008 18:19
36 Percent of People Distrust Police
By Kim Rahn
Staff Reporter
More than three out of every 10 people here do not trust the police.
According to a survey conducted on 1,235 adults by Gallup Korea earlier this month, about 36 percent said they had no confidence in the police, while the rest were satisfied and thought police were adequately performing their duties, Rep. Kim Tae-won of the Grand National Party said. Tuesday was ``Police Day.''
Those in their 30s and 40s distrusted the police most, with 47.8 percent and 44.8 percent of them saying so, respectively. By region, 51 percent of citizens in Gwangju were unhappy with police performance.
``Many people do not trust the police. Under such distrust, police cannot enforce the law properly,'' Rep. Kim said.
Citizens expressed concern over public security, with four out of every 10 surveyed saying they do not like walking alone in alleys near their homes at night for fear of being robbed or sexually assaulted, among other crimes.
Sixty two percent of female respondents in their 30s and 57 percent of females aged between 19 and 29 expressed fear about walking alone at night.
rahnita@koreatimes.co.kr
---
http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/10/113_33063.html
Post a Comment