Dokdo or Takeshima; What's the real problem?

             In March 1st 2010, this advertisement was played in Times Square. It was designated by Korean Professor Seo and sponsored by Mr. Kim who is famous singer in Korea. The reason they made this advertisement was simple; To let people know that Dokdo is Korea’s territory not Japan’s. Then why do they want to advertise Dokdo and why the Dokdo is so important for them?

             Dokdo is a small island located in East Sea (East Sea is well known for Sea of Japan, but there’s a dispute between Korea and Japan about its name; Its name was recognized as East Sea for long period among people around the world including Japanese, but during colonial period, Japan modified its name to Sea of Japan). The island forms under 1% of whole Korea’s total territory area. People would argue “Why do Koreans care about that kind of small island so much?” Because after Japan illegally possessed Dokdo as its military strategy purpose during Russo-Japanese War, although after World War II, they admitted to give Dokdo back to Korea, they continuously insist that Dokdo is their territory. This is why Koreans care about Dokdo and advertise its right in Dokdo; Koreans try to protect their sovereignty and right in Dokdo. Then why do Japanese care about Dokdo though they gave it back after WW II.

             In Japan, Japanese do not concern about Takeshima as much as Koreans (Japanese called Dokdo as Takeshima). The Dokdo matter was treated by right wing politicians as one of the methods to drag attention and inspire nationalism among Japanese. For example, in August 2011, some Japanese the extreme right politicians tried to visit Ulung-do which is located nearby Dokdo. They knew that they could not get permission to enter Korea with that purpose but they actually came to Korea. Though they were expelled from the airport, they completed their true goal; Dragging attention among Japanese and getting support under the name of nationalism.

             From past to present, politicians and people who want to influence or persuade others use a variety of methods to achieve their goal. Like Dokdo dispute example, those people can achieve their ‘true purpose’ by making something nation’s matter; enlarging the problems’ range of application and also using ideologies to persuade people such as nationalism. Therefore, we need to think and ask ourselves “Do we accept some intents or concepts that could have other purposes or other ideologies under its surface without any critique or reflection in our daily lives?”

Republicans killed the pipeline

As I looked through few newspapers’ editorials to analyze, I found a notable article that has the title “Republicans killed the pipeline”. When I saw the title, it was hard to guess what contents or opinions that article may have. However, after I started to read, it was not that hard to understand what the author says because purpose and style of his writing is clear.

In the article, it mentioned about the Republicans’ proposal that set a 60-day deadline for deciding the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline. The administration insisted the Republicans’ proposal would prevent officials from reviewing a full and necessary consideration of the pipeline’s impact especially as it related to the health and safety of millions of Americans. Therefore, on Wednesday as a result of that deadline, the president agreed to deny that proposal based on the State Department’s recommendation that the proposal must be denied. By showing this dispute about the pipeline issue, the author shows his political view and tries to make people recognizable about the backgrounds under the Republicans’ disagreements.

Author did not clearly show why the Republicans opposed several policies which could bring good impacts such as improving energy security creating jobs, improving economy or etc. He showed that those Republicans’ disagreements are focused to voting down the administration and the ruling party’s proposals rather than focusing to Americans’ benefits.

In his article, he used some strategies to let people know about his opinion. He used lots of facts that support his idea. For example, he showed the U.S.’s oil and gas production and foreign imports figures during Obama’s period to support that the administration’s movements improved the U.S. a lot better. By doing this, he emphasized that the Republicans’ unreasonable disagreements, though the administration’s proposals could bring many benefits for the U.S.

While I read this, I could not totally agree with his opinion. Although, the author used many facts to support his idea, as I learned the facts could be different what angle, in other words, the ideology that facts may have. I could have confidence about my thought in the end after I saw that the author is an energy adviser to President Obama. Therefore, I think this article could be different, if other person who may not have same political view and ideology write about this topic.

Welcome all
This is going to be the spot where I post somethings about LA101H during spring 2012 semester.