Propaganda Archives

June 18, 2005

It Starts Young

Koreans are upset with Japan about an issue with ownership about some rocks which are many kilometers from either country. As the ownership of the rocks gives territorial rights over the surrounding waters and perhaps some hydrocarbon resources this is actually a pretty big deal. But when I see the products of the way children are being taught about this issue in Korea it disturbs me.

Check out the imagery in a display at a Korean Subway station here and here.

Couple this with Japan/China tensions and it is shaping up to be a very interesting century.

June 20, 2005

Not again...

Seth is wrong again. He claims there is no trickery or insincerity in marketing. Of course there is. We all know this. We also know that Seth is doing this to attract attention. Attracting attention is the is the third pillar of marketing. So Seth here is doing a fine job of proving that marketing is about trickery, insincerity in the service of attracting attention even as he claims it is not. Wonderful.

OK, he might not be insincere. He might just not know any better.

Now I have no dispute about the utility of marketing. It IS essential. Someone has to bellow out "Hot Dogs" if you want to sell any. But don't go claiming that marketing doesn't encompass everything from figuring out what people want to rolling back the odometers with a cordless drill. It does. You can't just limit it to the more savory parts of town.

And I have to add that the marketing of "ideas" that you want to spread is not always "right" or sufficient. When you leave the realm of self-help books and iPods and enter the world of political and social ideas serious examination of what you believe passionately in should be a requirement. Unfortunately there are many who don't attempt to dig deeper than what others have told them to believe.

In this world passion is in abundance, truth is in short supply.

August 27, 2005



"They're used to teach people that there's no God, and they're used to brainwash people," he said. "Evolutionists get very upset when we use dinosaurs. That's their star."

Seems that these
concrete dinosaurs

are now being used as missionaries.
"We like to think of [dinosaurs] as creation lizards, or missionary lizards," said Frank Sherwin, a museum researcher and author.

The claim being that dinosaurs co-existed with man and were vegetarian up until the time Eve bit the apple. Then things got ugly. I'm wondering what "theory" there is for their disappearance... Oh, here it is, the dinosaurs still exist!
Carl Baugh opened his Creation Evidence Museum in the 1980s near Dinosaur Valley State Park in Glen Rose, Texas, where some people said fossilized dinosaur tracks and human footprints crisscrossed contemporaneously. The Texas museum sponsors a continuing hunt for living pterodactyls in Papua New Guinea. Baugh said five colleagues have spotted the flying dinosaurs, "but all the sightings were made after dark, and we were not able to capture the creatures."

I'm as open-minded as the next person, but I'm having a bit of trouble believing in this chronology. Of course I've been brainwashed since childhood so that may have something to do with it.

Details at this LA Times Article:,0,6894033.story?

December 7, 2005

Oh so special!

I got an email today from a "web 2.0" company/thing. I'm not sure what it is that is so annoying about it. The false exclusivity, the permission to blog about it (and the implicit suggestion that you do) or the fake name of the "senior director of community development". Is the world really half full of propaganda or is it half empty? Anyway, here is the note. I've cut off any indentifying labels.

You may notice something special about *doo today.

We have quietly — and completely — moved out of the closed beta test... and into a public beta.

That means that anyone can visit *doo, find lenses, claim lenses, and build their own. We're thrilled to open our doors to the public, and to let everyone use the platform that you've been helping us test and improve these last few weeks.

But we're not going to tell anyone yet.

Except you.

So, now's the time for you to share what you've been working on during the secret beta test. Email your lenses to friends. Post a lens to your blog. Tell your mom. And, for a limited time, your friends will be the only people to know that *doo is finally live.

Thanks for working with us over the past two months. We can't wait to see how the general public responds to what you’ve been building!

Ready. Set. *doo.

Heath Row
Senior Director of Community Development

P.S.: Yes, it's OK to blog about this.

"Secret beta", gack!

February 7, 2006

Pinky blue, green and orange

Web 2.0 is all that and MORE!
Still I'm perplexedly underwhelmed...

Source: Stabilo Boss via Gen Kanai

October 10, 2006

Spinning on the axis

Thinking deeply is difficult because, well, it requires thinking deeply. So sometimes it is more expedient to just throw thoughts out into the air as seeds for further thought to crystalize around. This is what I will attempt today as the topic is one which the amount of thought to get it correct is astounding.

Warning: For those looking for thoughts on Agile, or Theory of Constraints or Project 2007 you might as well hit the back button right now. I'm straying from the usual project management topics.

North Korea has stated they have tested a nuclear device. Iran has stated that they are proceeding to develop their nuclear capabilities. In a way these are "All-American" sorts of initiatives. They smell of the former brashness and pluck that characterized the pre-worldpower version of the US. From a North Korean perspective, the argument is little different from that of an NRA member who believes that they need a handgun for self-defense in their home and car. I'd venture that Iran sees things in a similar light. The motivations for developing weapons are very similar to those which motivated the US to pursue development in these technologies throughout the 20th century. The motivation appears to be fear, coupled with a desire for self-determination and national pride. It is hard to be more righteous than that. (Note: this is where the lack of deep thought is invoked, there may be financial motivation for North Korea to develop such weapons as they aspire to the retail weapons trade currently dominated by the US and China - but let us leave that alone for now)

Now, I think we can all agree, and in fact most of the world HAS agreed that more nuclear weapons are generally a bad thing. We have signed treaties to limit nuclear proliferation. This is relatively easy to do once the basic motivations have been fulfilled. The US for example already has nuclear weapons. The US already has a powerful position in the world and has enough self-determination and national pride to go around. The US is relatively free of fear as well. I say relatively because fear is never entirely absent, but it looks to me that fear has been on the upswing this century. I'm not sure I see that going away soon. But overall, I think it is great that a large portion of the world's governments agree to this basic principle.

So what would be the best way to deal with the issue of those who do not agree with this principle? I would think that at a minimum, any approach should address the motivations of the countries pursuing this approach. If fear is a factor, then reducing fear would appear to be a productive step. Unfortunately, the US has not pursued reducing fear. Or if they have, it has not been public. In the famous "Axis of Evil" speech, George Bush painted a big red and white target on the upper half of the Korean Peninsula and around the countries of Iran and Iraq. It then unilaterally attacked Iraq. If I were Iranian, I'd wonder "are we next?" and indeed many Iranians I've talked to in this country have wondered the same thing. To them, having nuclear weapons is a matter of self-defense, just as the US development of nuclear weapons was a matter of self-defense.

Now, there is the issue of appeasement. I'm not sure how to address it, probably because it is so free of clear definitions. To some it is being "soft" or accomodating the desires of another country. It got a bad name because a country which was on ann expansionist tear was dealt with in this way and was allowed to continue their trajectory of annexation and conquest. One can see that appeasement is probably a bad way to deal with cancers or other growing things. Indeed, it seems that at least at one point in time, Iraq was expansionist and appeasement would have been a poor way to deal with that. But are Iraq and North Korea pursuing expansionist policies? Is there any realistic chance that North Korea will attempt to annex parts of China, Russia or Japan? Would nuclear weapons help them along this path? What about Iran? Iran seems content to stay within their own borders and build alliances with surrounding countries rather than invading and occupying. Indeed, one can see that the approach of occupation is a difficult one at best.

Given this state of affairs, is an approach of escalation and vilification one that will reduce the motivations of Iran and North Korea? To me it seems quite the opposite. There are many who would deem South Korea's "Sunshine" policy to be a failure in light of current events, but I think that if it is, it is because the approach is coming from the wrong party. The root of fear in North Korea is fear of the US, not fear of South Korea.

Now a disclaimer. North Korea is guilty of terrible abuses of its people perpetuated by a series of leaders of questionable sanity. The suffering of people in North Korea is immensely sad. I can't say that I know anything good about the current leadership in Iran either. But, cornering a paranoid, vicious anxious dog is more likely to provoke a bite than treating its anxieties in a productive manner would ever be. It is not a time to fight fear with fear.

About Propaganda

This page contains an archive of all entries posted to Project in the Propaganda category. They are listed from oldest to newest.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.34