Friday, July 6, 2012

Ten Year Old Glenmorangie at Sunset

At the behest of my good friend Will Haas we're trading guest blogs.

I taste tested this new single malt Scotch whiskey Glenmorangie Original at Taguchi beach park this evening.  While I like the taste and may add it to my regular scotch collection it doesn't have enough bite for my preference.  I like biting scotch and this particular single malt it a bit too smooth and sweet for me.  A bit of a floral taste sweeter than other single malts I've tasted.  It does have a beautiful look especially in the warm glow of the setting sun over the East China Sea.  It has a bit of a woody taste to it, which isn't unusual for single malts and it is quite smooth.  Not the smoothest taste I've had but pretty good.  Looking forward to having more.  Don't worry the bottle and glass survived the trip to the beach and I am actually sitting at my desk enjoying another glass as I write this.  I'm not quite the connoisseur that Will is, but if you'd like to read more of his reviews on other whiskeys I encourage you to check out his blog.  Whatever the case, if you're looking for a good single malt to go with a good cigar (which I don't have, because I haven't found a good cigar shop here on island yet) or just to sit back and enjoy sometime try this the original Glenmorangie.  You won't be disappointed.

So blessed to live in such a beautiful place

Couldn't convince Michelle to stop taking pictures of me

See what I mean about it being yellow

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Happy Fourth of July!

Short and sweet today...

Spent a lot of time at the beach today, but the tide was very low and we walked around on the coral most of the time and I got roasted.

Short update on my philosophy study: I've been listening to the History of Philosophy podcast, though we're still on the pre-socratics.  The podcast is well put together though solely western philosophy focused.  I bought a Korean philosophy book but haven't had the time to start it.  It's called 웃기는 철학, 우스운 철학(넥서스) "Funny Philosophy, Silly Philosophy (Nexus)" I haven't even started reading it, it might be about western philosophy hopefully it's about eastern philosophy.

Got this funny picture from a friend, it seems silly but it's pretty close to correct Korean pronunciation and if you learn it this way you will, more or less be able to pronounce all the Korean letters and read it phonetically:

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Guest Blogger #1 Eric Flynn

My first guest blogger!!

Eric Flynn and I attended the Defense Language Institute at about the same period of time though he was in the Arabic course and I took the Korean course. He's out of the Air Force now and been teaching English in Korea for a few years.

---When you ask someone "What's the best way to learn a foreign language?", usually the answer will be "Live in another country." Well, that's mostly true, but not so much when that country happens to be South Korea. It's still kind of true... but not as much as you'd think.

I've been living in South Korea for almost three years now. Before I came here, I imagined myself in the future, having lived abroad for several years, and returning to impress my friends and family with my mastery of Korean. I learned very quickly that this was not to be. From time to time I recall a scene from a movie called The Thirteenth Warrior in which Antonio Banderas (pronounced Bahndehrrassss, in a breathy tone) plays an Arabic scholar (or something) who finds himself in league with a band of Vikings. For a portion of the movie he finds himself flummoxed with this inability to comprehend their language (which is called "Vikish" for those of you who are not experts in world languages). Finally, in one scene, we see him listening to the conversation of his Scandanavian companions as they talk around a fire and, suddenly, he finds himself able to comprehend their speech simply by listening to it and absorbing it.

Yeah, right.

Of course, humans do have the capacity to learn language intuitively; that is, simply through "absorbing" it. This ability is present during our formative years and diminishes steadily as we age. Though I've never lived in a country which speaks Spanish, Italian, etc., I'd imagine that it's still possible to absorb language in such a way. Certainly not to the extent that we can absorb our mother tongue (why does that term always make me uncomfortable?) when we're young, but still enough for it to be of some use. A person with a rudimentary education in Spanish, for instance, can go and live in a Spanish-speaking country and gradually become fluent in Spanish. At least, that's what people tell me: people who use Spanish at every available opportunity to prove how good they are at Spanish, even going so far as to pronounce Mexico "Meh HEE Ko" when it comes up in conversation. However, with Korean it's different. It's very common to meet people who have lived in South Korea for six years or more and who still have only a basic working knowledge of the language.

Now, most of you who have never lived in Korea might think this is because everyone in South Korea speaks enough English that a foreigner can get by without speaking Korean. Therefore, there's no reason to use Korean, let alone learn it. This is not really true. While much of the South Korean youth have a rudimentary knowledge of English, and it has found its way into the Korean culture (albeit in often improperly-applied ways), one shouldn't think that he or she can take care of such things as banking, internet service, or even grocery shopping without knowledge of Korean. There is a language barrier here, so much so that foreigners need someone else to rely on (someone who speaks Korean) to make sure most of their basic needs are met. So it isn't simple laziness that prevents people from absorbing the language here. It's my theory that the reason so few foreigners in Korea are able to learn the language is that Korean and English are so fundamentally different that nothing short of intense studying can help you learn it.

Evidence can be found in the Korean youth. English is taught in public schools from as early as elementary school, and probably even kindergarten, if I had to guess. And yet, most of my high school students don't even know that "nice to meet you" is an inappropriate phrase when greeting someone whom you've been seeing five days a week for the last six months of your life.

Beyond the fact that Korean students are apathetic towards English, it's really hard for them to learn. I personally have studied Arabic intensively for two years of my life, and I can say that learning Arabic is a walk in the park compared to Korean.

That's not saying that Korean is poorly thought-out language or inefficient (a native of speaker of English calling another language inefficient seems a lot like the proverbial kettle calling the metaphorical pot "cookware"). In fact, I'm told that, much like it's easy for English speakers to learn Spanish, it's similarly easy for speakers of Japanese to learn Korean. But I'd venture that it's safe to assume that a Spanish speaker would find it every bit as difficult to learn Korean as I – uh, I mean English speakers – do.
So just how different are the two languages? Well, I think the best example is simple use of the word "what". Imagine that we're eating dinner together and I'm staring at you funny. You're not sure if it's because I'm trying to use my psychic powers to make your head explode, like that guy in the movie Scanners, or if I'm fascinated/disgusted by the goiter on your neck that makes "Kuwato" from Total Recall look like a freckle. So, in order to surmise why I'm staring at you the way I am, you'll stop chewing your tofu-dog and say:

"What?"

Both being native speakers of English, we know that this is a short way of asking "What is the reason for which you are staring at me, you freaking weirdo?" However, if we were Koreans, you would stop chewing your still-squirming octopus, perhaps shoving a tentacle back in your mouth as it tries to escape and say:

"Why?"

A seemingly small difference, but imagine that applied to everything you say. Not only must one learn vocabulary, but there is also an element of culture, and learning how to phrase things. Let's look at another example. Let's say we're eating dinner together again and you're wondering if it's possible that anyone out there could fall in love with the pathetic slob in front of you, who didn't even bother to put on pants when he left the house, but still chose to wear a mustard-stained Poison t-shirt. So you ask:

"Are you married?"

In Korean, the way they choose to phrase this question is "Did you marry?"

When learning Arabic, I found that, once one gained mastery of the various grammatical concepts, it was generally okay to translate what you wanted to say word-for-word. Even expressions such as "on the other hand" occasionally translate to mean exactly the same thing. But was we can see from the above example, even when asking a simple question, one must change it so that we are no longer using an adjective, but rather a past-tense verb.

Now, I should point out that my understanding of Korean is very rudimentary, and I'm sure that there is more than one way to posit the above question in a way that's more akin to English verbiage, but the very fact that the question is generally stated in that way hints at how difficult it is to learn Korean.

On final example of the differences between English and Korean: I was in my co-workers' office one day. They had seen fit to let me out of my cage at that time, since they understand that it's good to let me stretch my legs once in a while. The young, highly attractive student teacher was sitting off to the side, not noticing my existence, as she was wont to do. Suddenly her sweater (the periwinkle-colored one that complemented her eyes nicely, and that she usually wore on Tuesdays, but today was wearing on a Wednesday, for some reason) had slipped off the back of her chair upon which it was hanging and fell to the floor. Before I could dash over and pick up, presenting the sweater to her in the same way a dog presents a pair of slippers before his master, eagerly wagging his tail and hoping for praise, my co-teacher pointed to the sweater and uttered one single word which, I was told, is Korean for "fell".

Now, had the same thing happened in the U.S., or Canada, she would have more likely said something like "Oh, your sweater fell on the floor." But in Korean, this entire sentence was condensed to a single word.

This brevity of language can be evidenced with students. When speaking in English, they often tend to use only minimal sentence fragments when conferring their ideas, and frequently need to be reminded to implement subjects and other things when speaking.

If the above examples haven't driven home just how different Korean and English is, maybe this will: a common task of English teachers in Korea is teaching students how to organize essays when writing in English. The tactic of using and introduction, then body (with supporting details) and finally, a conclusion, is a concept that is completely alien to speakers of Korean. Of course, not being able to fully read Korean, I can't read any essays or papers written in that language, which only leaves me to fantasize at what sort of roundabout stream-of-consciousness three-ring-circuses their papers must be. When I've asked my Korean friends about Korean essay writing, it's been explained that such linear organization as is found in western papers is unnecessary to accommodate the eastern way of thinking.

Of course, this alternate way of thought expression involved in the learning of Korean is only one of several hurdles English speakers have to overcome. Add to it things such as foreign sounds (such as the notoriously difficult-to-pronounce "eu"), verb conjugation, different speech patterns depending on level of formality, and words that simply have no equivalent in English, and one can clearly see the myriad obstacles that English speakers encounter on their way to becoming fluent in Korean. I'd like to see Antonio Banderas and his rugged Latino good looks deal with that.---

Monday, July 2, 2012

Happy Monday! Time for Scotch

If you regularly read my blog you'll know that I've been invited by my friend Will Haas to write a blog on scotch, and that I was having trouble finding a good single malt scotch whiskey and that I was considering trying a blended scotch.  Well, tonight while on an ice run to the store I found a 10 year old Glenmorangie single malt.  Hopefully it lives up to the other scotch whiskeys that I've tried.  Probably not tomorrow, maybe on the fourth.

This is where I plan to sample said scotch:


Friday, June 29, 2012

Being an Expert

A wise man once told me the definition of 'expert,' someone who lives at least a thousand miles away. (Thanks dad, I've always loved that practical wisdom!) The main reason I bring this up is the Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare" today. Well, when it was announced Tyler Starline posted a funny meme photo about the ruling:


I read an interesting article on Google+ (that I can't find now, unfortunately) about the decision. To sum up the article it was written by a woman that was actually at the hearing to announce the decision which is a pretty cool perspective. The article talked about the presentation of their decision and how John G. Roberts actually seemed to disagree with the passing of the law but still found it to be constitutional. The crux of the matter, according to the article is that it's a tax. The government cannot, constitutionally, force people to purchase anything. However, since the law is set up so that you don't have to buy healthcare as long as you pay the tax. It's like an optional tax, that you can decide to whom you want to pay the healthcare tax. If you want to personally procure it then by all means go right ahead, if you don't want to buy it, you pay a special tax. Therefore, it's constitutional as a special tax. Much like if you don't want to buy a house you don't have to pay property taxes. Anyways, the way it was written made me think about the qualities of true experts.

My dad always made that joke (that I started out with) in reference to his time in the business world when they would hire a consultant (read: expert) to come in and give the company advice on how to resolve some problem. Well, after reading the article people continue to blast the law and talk about how unconstitutional it is, etc. etc. etc. My response to these busybodies: Really!? You're more knowledgeable than the Supreme Court Justices!? Somehow I don't think Joe Schmoe Facebooker knows more about constitutional law than the Supreme Court. If you want to continue to debate the idea and discuss the dissenting views that's one thing, but to say flat out that they're wrong is akin to claiming you're better than the real experts.

As much as I don't like it, it's here to stay (unless recalled by the senate). Write your congressman, or vote for a different one if you really want to affect change.

Alex learning to snorkel

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Language Change (among other things)

First, a word from the text I've been reading about linguistics. The second half of the first chapter is about language change. The main point being to NOT be too pessimistic or conservative towards language change, because, frankly speaking it's going to happen whether you like it or not. As I talked about in a previous post the Academies in Europe failed at preserving their respective languages, there's no way to stop it. To put it in the vernacular don't get your panties in a twist you can't do anything about the change. The problems pessimists complain about now are the same, or at least similar to the pessimists of the past, language change is nothing new. Also, there's no predicting language change; it doesn't follow patterns, it doesn't 'evolve' as evolution is generally defined. It doesn't progress or regress. There are (to some extent) predictable changes to languages, if one looks at a larger social/cultural picture, but by and large it's an ebb and flow of change not a progression.

On the topic of philosophy, I've continued on to the second in the series on the History of Philosophy.  Today's topic was the next in line from Thales on pre-Socratic philosophy. The only thing interesting (to me) was this next set of thinkers (attempted to) conceptualize the idea of the infinite. One postulated an infinite intangible 'thing' that everything comes from. The other thought of air as the infinite source of all existence. Of course, that may not seem significant but really the attempt to conceptualize the infinite(ness) is an important step in philosophy. Honestly, no matter how hard we, as humans, try we will NEVER be able to understand the infinite. Think about this concept: if evolutionary/atheistic theory is correct, the universe is infinite. There is no such thing as time, it has always gone on and will always continue. Of course, if the theistic view from the Bible is true then only God is infinite. There's no way we can conceive this; we see such a tiny picture of reality.

One last topic, I've been invited by my friend Will Haas to write a post on scotch whiskey, and he's going to reciprocate with a post on photography here. I generally prefer single malt scotch whiskey, however, there's only Glenfiddich and Glenlivet here at the on-base liquor store and I've had both of them on multiple occasions. I'm thinking about branching out and trying a blended malt and the options there are slim too. So, I need recommendations, should I go for a Johnnie Walker, or venture out to a local liquor store and see if they have other options (assuming I can read the labels). I have a Japanese friend that we went to church with in Omaha, he said that scotch whisky is popular in Japan. Of course he is from mainland Japan and things might be different here on the island. I need a good one to write up a review on.

Underwater photography is fun!

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Don't Ask Don't Tell

Yeah another topic I don't generally feel comfortable writing about for several reasons.  Mainly, I don't really care all that much about people's sexual preference and whether or not they choose to serve in the military.  However, I read an article the other day and saw a commercial on Armed Forces Network (AFN) TV this morning that angered me.

I don't generally mind stuff that I consider "reverse discrimination" like African American History month, Hispanic Heritage month etc.  I can understand some amount of memorial time for past (and to some degree) present racial inequalities, but this it TOTALLY different.  It's like sexual preference reverse discrimination.

I don't go around accosting people that profess to be homosexual with the Bible and insisting that they repent of their sins ere they die and go to hell.  I don't think that's the best way to approach the issue.  It's pretty clear both biblically and biologically that homosexuality is not natural, so people that choose that lifestyle are not going to respond to that kind of approach.  All that being said...  I can't stand militant, *insert philosophy here*...

Apparently, along with the Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal the Department of Defense is now having some kind of gay pride celebration month.  This morning I was eating my breakfast and the AFN sports channel was playing (as always) and a commercial with a message from the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), Leon Panetta, welcoming gays and members of the LBGT community into the military.  Now, I know the SECDEF says thank you to everyone serving fairly regularly, but when was the last time he said ...we appreciate all heterosexual monogamous couples serving...  Celebrate diversity in gender, race, and culture among other things, but let's not celebrate sin.


Monday, June 25, 2012

About Blog Layout

My wife (Michelle) recently commented that she couldn't read my blog because the formatting and letter color. That, coupled with the format I was using was (for no reason at all) changing the formatting to highlighted, which was completely illegible. So, in order to make my blog a little easier on the eyes and to avoid having to redo the formatting on every post, I've changed to a much simpler style. If you have any comments on readability of the text (or on the content) please let me know.

Wesley, taking a picture of his own foot while swimming

Grammar

I'm sure you're reading the title of this post and groaning, I don't know many people who like grammar or even the idea of grammar but as I'm reading the first chapter of The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, (I know, sounds like enthralling reading eh?) I'm trying to formulate my opinion regarding prescriptivism and descriptivism in regards to grammar.

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it) my opinion on prescriptivist versus descriptivist gramar ends with one word that can be used in many many different areas of life; balance. According to the text modern grammarians/linguists agree with me, there should be a balance of some sort between prescribing rules and describing patterns. In the past I have always fallen on the more prescriptive side of the house, and I still correct people's grammar (especially my children and sometimes my wife). However, I'm not blind nor am I an idiot. Language change happens and there's nothing we can do about it. The academies set up in several European countries (noticeably NOT in England, and NOT in the US) failed to stop language change. According to the text I'm reading even the LAW in France couldn't stop the anglicization of French so some degree. The realist in me says if they couldn't stem the tide of language change what makes me think that I can? The traditionalist (read: conservative) in me says NOOOO, language has rules and grammar for a logical reason, so that we can all understand each other and have a common framework with which to communicate.

Reading this text, and in no small way, my recent Korean review class; I've decided to try to be a little more openminded toward language change. My current postulate on the issue is such: Teach correct grammar, syntax, spelling and other language rules, and when anomalies occur when they've been accepted by the general public and are commonly understood by the general culture, accept them as language change. Then after an anomaly has become accepted by culture to the point where everyone understands it and has used it for a long time ('long time' being subjective on purpose) then incorporate it into teaching. However, that all being said there should be plenty of recorded history of language as it once was. The comprehensive dictionary, (of course limited dictionaries will have to pare down their lists of words to fit in compact volumes) for example, should NEVER take out words, words that have fallen out of common usage should simply have some kind of note stating such. I'm sure some of my ideas are already in use, especially the one about archaic words being noted as such in the dictionary, as I've seen such notations in the dictionary in the past.

Much of my reservations on this topic stem from our future generations' becoming even worse than we are at forgetting our traditions and history. I feel that we, as a global society, are constantly losing touch with our history. The pervasive thought (seemingly worldwide) is that newer is better and older is worse. A funny quote that I've only heard in the children's cartoon movie The Incredibles, one of the final scenes two old men are talking:

"See that?"
"Eh"
"That's the way to do it, that's old school."
"Yeah, no school like the old school."

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Morality and Marriage


It's an interesting paradox that I chose to name my blog "Life Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness" because many people would use that quote to defend homosexual marriage.  I read an interesting opinion piece from The New York Times about how the author changed his opinion about gay marriage.  Accordingly I thought I'd take a crack at the topic.  I know it's a hot topic that gets people up-in-arms quite quickly.

My first thought when reading that opinion piece was that many of the points the writer made were actually great arguments against gay marriage.  I.e. "...children have the right, insofar as society makes it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. I didn’t just dream up this notion: the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which came into force in 1990, guarantees children this right."  I have also been reading a small pamphlet about what the Bible says about various social issues.  The chapter on gay marriage what written by Answers in Genesis' Ken Ham.  A respected author that I admire.  His comments on the subject were, not surprisingly, rooted in the Genesis account and started off with the old atheists' attempt at casting doubt on the Genesis story about Cain and Able; "Where did Cain get his wife?"  While that might not really seem to be connected to the issue (other than the question is about marriage) he easily turns question around and links the issue of gay marriage with a much deeper issue of morality.

I used to say something to the effect of; if our country/culture which is built on freedom defines marriage as any person with any other person then as the majority decides, so be it.  So as that New York Times opinion article is titled, I have also changed my view on gay marriage.  Of course my opinion has changed in the opposite direction, I now feel that, as a nation we should resist the loss of morality as evidenced in the acceptance of gay marriage.  I'm not going to go on any rampage and protest or join the crazies from Westboro Baptist Church (which by the way if you've never looked into it, is actually very politically motivated).  It's still a biblical mandate to love one another and to show God's love but I do not accept gay marriage at all.

There are many other arguments against gay marriage including a very simple biological argument that says, two people of the same gender cannot reproduce, therefore it is not natural that two such people should have that type of relationship.  There's another, albeit less viable argument that says, children raised in same gender homes have developmental problems.  The main problem with that argument is that it hasn't been completely proven to be true.

So, I'm going to stick to my guns on this issue.  God decides what is right and wrong, and has clearly stated that homosexuality and gay marriage is wrong.  Therefore it is wrong and should be abhorred.  Any trip down the road towards a loss of morality only leads to a more debased culture/society and eventually a breakdown in society itself.  Without a moral standard, a clear statement of right versus wrong, all reasons and foundations for rule of law are worthless.  Without the rule of law society breaks down and there's nothing but anarchy.