Kim Jong Il Will Not Rest in Peace

Foreign Policy has an article (subscribers only) about Kim Jong Il, North Korea's dictator. It is written by Kim Hyun Sik, a North Korean defector who has known Jong Il since the fledgling despot was 17. He taught him Russian and remained close to the family until Hyun Sik failed to return to the country after illegally meeting with his estranged sister in Russia. (Hyun Sik's immediate and extended family was promptly taken and executed -- all of them.)

In the article, Hyun Sik recounts this and other horrible stories about the reign of Kim Jong Il. He portrays him as a megalomaniac with a constant need to fuel his own pride. It's clear that he will never step down from his post because it is the nation that forms and perpetuates his distorted self-image. In a telling story, a young Jong Il asks his father, Kim Il Sung, "what good is this earth without North Korea?" In other words, Kim Jong Il would rather destroy everything than let North Korea cease to exist.

Hyun Sik also speaks of an otherwise ethical people driven to horrible acts for self-survival, like when a doctor assisted in the systematic removal of short people from the capital city, Pyongyang, prior to a national event orchestrated to rival the successful 1988 Olympics in Seoul. This was in an effort for North Koreans to appear to be greater physical specimens than their South Korean counterparts. At Jong Il's instruction, he divided them into men and women (so they could not procreate) and left them on an uninhabited island to die. They were never heard from again.

This past week, news broke that Kim Jong Il might have suffered a severe stroke and maybe nearing death. I wonder if such frailty is frightening to such a prideful man, or does his gross delusion continue even in the face of death. One thing is for sure -- the brief moment his physical life ends he will face an eternity experiencing the full weight of the Supreme Lordship of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. No more delusions.

"Let Justice roll like a river. Like a river, let it roll."

10 Worst Ideas

Foreign Policy's take on John McCain and Barack Obama's 10 worst ideas.

Radiohead Live

NPR Music has made available a 2-hour Radiohead concert for streaming. It is excellent and free!

Paralipsis (New Word No. 4)

[A long time ago I started an indefinite series on New Words I learn. I haven't posted one in a long time, and it's not because I have had ready definitions for every word I've seen lately. It's because I've been lazy. I'll try to be more consistent.]

Here's a great one! Paralipsis is a rhetorical turn of "emphasizing or drawing attention to something by professing to say little or nothing about it, or affecting to dismiss it.” You should have plenty of opportunity to employ this in the upcoming months of electioneering.

The classic example is Ronald Reagan's one-liner during a presidential debate with Walter Mondale in 1984: "I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." Brilliant and dirty!

There is a goldmine of recent examples for the more cynical readers. For instance, Hillary claimed that Obama was not a Muslim "as far as I know." One wonders if it's also behind the high-minded insistence that Gov. Sarah Palin's family is "off-limits" -- in other words, toxic.

[I'm trying to think of similar Republican slights of hand, but I can't think of any. Surely this is due to my partisan blindedness, not due to the innocence of Republicans everywhere. If you remember some, feel free to drop it in the comments.]

Perhaps we give them too much credit. But for political-watchers, it's fun to imagine.

Already Not Yet

Inaugurated eschatology seems to be on a lot of people's minds these days.

Past Mistakes and Present Credibility, Part 2

I posted earlier a link and comments about an insightful article documenting William F. Buckley and his conservative movement's contemptible laissez-faire attitude toward civil rights in the 1950s and 60s.

To be fair, I thought I should post this article documenting the Democratic Party's likewise dismal civil rights record. In "The Democrats' Missing History," Jeffrey Ford notes the convenient glossing over significant portion's of its history on the DNC's official website. "Literally, the DNC official history, which begins with the creation of the party in 1800, gets to the creation of the DNC itself in 1848 and then--poof!--the next sentence says: "As the 19th Century came to a close, the American electorate changed more and more rapidly." Perhaps by change, they are referring to the systematic marginalization of black people through Jim Crow laws and economic oppression. Jeffrey Ford fills in the gap for us.

It reiterates the point from my earlier post -- our present credibility is compromised by a history of failure. The impulse to hide mistakes, however, must be avoided for several reasons. First, it's dishonest. Second, when found out, our credibility is damaged to a far greater degree than if we had been truthful. Third, we fail to learn from history. Fourth, and perhaps most important, we fall prey to our own trap. The illusion of perfection is internalized, becoming delusion. We feel we can do no wrong. Maybe if we remembered our checkered past, we would keep the present in perspective.

Let the Heckling Begin!

We will be assembling a team. Spots go to the 10 best one-liners in the comments section.

Surprises

School has kept me from serious extracurricular reflection, so I hope you don't mind me substituting it with funny stuff I find. Here's some great physical comedy from SNL.

Garfield Minus Garfield

Garfield Minus Garfield is a website dedicated to:

removing Garfield from the Garfield comic strips in order to reveal the existential angst of a certain young Mr. Jon Arbuckle. It is a journey deep into the mind of an isolated young everyman as he fights a losing battle against loneliness and depression in a quiet American suburb.

Pretty funny stuff. Check it out here.

(HT: James Kotecki @ POLITICO.com)

Rick Warren and Politics

A helpful profile on Rick Warren and politics by the WSJ. Check it out.

Safety (or just Litigious) Nation

Following up on the last post, here is another WSJ editorial, "Why Safe Kids Are Becoming Fat Kids" by Philip Howard. He complains about the constant reigning in of child's play in the name of safety (but, in reality, of legal liability). For instance, Broward County, FL has outlawed running at recess. What is recess without running?!

His thesis: When play is robbed of risk, it's no fun to be outside. When it's no fun to be outside, kids stay inside. When they stay inside, they get fat. And that's not the only problem facing too-safe kids.

Risk is important in child development. Allowing children to test their limits in unstructured play, according to the American Association of Pediatrics, "develop[s] their imagination, dexterity, and physical, cognitive, and emotional strength." Scrapes and bruises are how children learn their limits, and the need to take personal responsibility.

On a related note, NPR had a wild story about a camp in California meant to counter just this impulse in parents. Here's a description of the story:

Software engineer Gever Tulley felt that his friends who were parents were overprotective of their children. So he started the Tinkering School, a summer camp that encourages kids to play with fire, throw spears and take risks.

Apparently, parents have to sign a release of liability form that says they understand their child could be seriously injured or die while at this camp. I have to admit -- I'd be skeptical about sending my child there. Give it a listen.

Hypochondriac Nation

Have you ever felt like everything causes cancer? Personally, the endless articles on the health dangers of cell phones, chocolate, free-range salmon and farmed salmon have made me more reckless. If the Diet Coke doesn't kill me, driving with flip-flops will.

Ronald Bailey reviews what looks like an interesting book by Geoffrey C. Kabat, Hyping Health Risks. In "Scared Senseless" (WSJ), he recount's Kabat's claim that epidemiologists should not always be trusted. Here's the introduction:

Does the wearing of shoes with heels cause schizophrenia? That was the contention made in 2004 by a Swedish physician in Medical Hypotheses, a scientific journal that specializes in out-of-the-box thinking. "Heeled footwear," the physician observed, "began to be used more than 1,000 years ago, and led to the occurrence of the first cases of schizophrenia." As heeled shoes sprinted across the world, he said, so did the incidence of the disease. He called for epidemiological studies to check his hypothesis.

It is possible that some epidemiologist somewhere is crunching heeled-shoe data and preparing a paper on the subject. And if such a paper appears, the media will treat it with sober regard -- assuming that it confirms the doctor's wild idea. A Nexis survey of newspaper headlines from the past week finds epidemiological studies playing a role in all sorts of claims: that sleep apnea increases the risk of early death; that thunderstorms provoke asthma attacks; that cellphones might cause cancer; that flu shots may not help the elderly; that consuming fruit drinks increases the risk of diabetes in women. Some of these reports may turn out to be important but most will amount to a kind of scientific noise, adding to our uneasy sense that, in the modern world, danger lurks on every side.

In "Hyping Health Risks," Geoffrey Kabat, an epidemiologist himself, shows how activists, regulators and scientists distort or magnify minuscule environmental risks. He duly notes the accomplishments of epidemiology, such as uncovering the risks of tobacco smoking and the dangers of exposure to vinyl chloride and asbestos. And he acknowledges that industry has attempted to manipulate science. But he is concerned about a less reported problem: "The highly charged climate surrounding environmental health risks can create powerful pressure for scientists to conform and to fall into line with a particular position."

Chalk another one to the postmodernists. There's no such thing as naked facts. If you have a chance to read Kabat's book, let me know what you think.

Revelation 23?

I wholeheartedly agree that Barack Obama's candidacy is both significant and encouraging, as the first promising run for the presidency by a black American -- a testimony to much progress in American civil rights (with still a long way to go). But this quote was so extraordinary I couldn't post it in good conscience without verifying it. And, here it is.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), son of the one-time presidential contender, said Obama’s victory overwhelmed him.“I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years,” he said. “What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.” [italics added]

Wow. Someone has their sights set far too low. For previous thoughts on political religion, see posts here and here.

[HT: Ross Douthot, CFI]

Dishonesty and Political Discourse

In the run-up to the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, there is very little politics worth paying the slightest attention to. It may seem like the debates have already begun, but it's just grandstanding.

Most of the political headlines are taken up with campaign tactics rather than campaign platforms. It's a competition over who can be more outraged at the other -- Obama's "playing the race card;" McCain is "going negative." Each wants to paint the other as a shameless politician, pulling for our sympathy. And, really, both make a good case. This week, McCain compared Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton -- Mrs. Hilton is absolutely right, a waste of money. Obama valiantly called for full inclusion of Michigan and Florida -- too bad he didn't mention anything three months ago when it could have mattered.

But how does the endless debate over politik help us choose a president? James Bowman has a good post over at The New Criterion blog, Arma Virumque. "An Affair of Honor" discusses the effect of calling into question the other candidate's honor:

To question an opponent’s good faith is not to engage in debate but to put an end to debate. The only honorable recourse to such a charge is a violent one, which is why accusations of lying or cowardice were once thought automatically to require a challenge by the man so impugned to mortal combat with his accuser...

There is a reason why that will never happen, alas. It is because the culture of authenticity which has succeeded the honor culture in this country and which believes that, much more shameful than a mere lie, is insincerity and a refusal publicly to air what one really believes. Or feels to use the common and telling idiom of the day. Paradoxically, the result of this cult of sincerity is that hardly anyone ever does say what he really believes — unless there is a calculation that the scandal of it will fall more on one’s opponent than upon oneself.

Maybe that's what the politician's want. No debate, just name-calling. Read the whole thing.