Chain Writing - The Honjeong Bread Incident

If it can be said that “there would be no more honjeong bread” the whole school would fall into panic. For all students, without exception, honjeong bread is the only reason they are in this school. Students revere Mr. Hwang, the great creator of the most delicious and fantastic food in the entire universe, whose job is to make honjeong bread every day. One day at morning assembly, Mr. Hwang announced that there would be no more honjeong bread. At this declaration, most students thought “What?” while some thought it was merely a prank. However, that night after honjeong, there really was no bread. At this, the entire student body went into a state of panic. People could not properly indulge in academics during the 2^nd self-study period because there was no honjeong bread. The most delicious and fantastic food in the entire universe, which had kept students working throughout the whole day, had disappeared from KMLA.

So what did the students do? They went on a strike! Each and every student of KMLA refused to attend classes, not to mention advisor-times. They stayed in their rooms for the entire day, and at mealtimes, everyone ordered chicken to their dormitory rooms and had the bewildered dorm parents pay for their purchases. The leftover chickens were thrown out the windows. Soon, the smell of chicken, fried, spiced, and rotten, vibrated in the dormitory halls as well as in rooms. 3^rd graders made a wall in front of the entrances to their floor, isolating themselves from the reach of others.

A month passed without anyone doing anything constructive to solve the chaotic situation. Although the school did threaten students to expel them if they didn’t end the strike, no one was stupid enough to believe it. The school couldn’t possibly expel all the students. Or so they thought.

The president of the legislative council Lee Joo-Hyung tried to bring about the resurrection of honjeong bread. He believed that through collective bargaining, students could persuade Mr. Hwang to make honjeong bread again, to be eaten after honjeong. However, the negotiation proved useless because both the students and teachers held their own positions rather than yielding and looking for an agreement. Instead of a peaceful resolution, parents and the school forcibly broke the strike. In the aftermath of the resistance, some students who were the leaders of the demonstration were expelled from the school. The incident ended with numerous casualties.

Honjeong bread is definitely an important thing. It is the only source of food we can normally get (if we do not resort to measures such as ordering from the Internet or bringing some from home), since there is no snack bar in this isolated school. However, the sudden strike was too radical. It would have been better had the students acted more politely and tried to negotiate with the school faculties through executive and legislative members.

Development vs Revolution 2nd Draft

     “Humans are social animals,” said Aristotle. More than two millennia after his death, the great Greek philosopher’s statement seems ever more valid. Among the rapidly developing technologies of the modern society, a large portion is dedicated to the goal of connecting more and more people. The telephone marked the beginning of this trend, and other technologies, such as the World Wide Web and MSN, followed. The most recent social technology, Facebook, has caused a global sensation, acquiring more than 600 million users as of January 2011. Thus, it is not surprising that Mark Zuckerberg, the creator of Facebook, became the ‘Person of the Year’ in 2010, a title given by Time Magazine to the most influential person of the year. However, it is controversial as to who is more deserving of the title – with particular consideration of Julian Assange.

     Last year, the aggressive actions of North Korea towards its southern counterpart aroused questions as to whether the unification of two Koreas was possible. In the midst of speculations, a secret diplomatic document between China and the United States was revealed. The document enclosed information about the benefits China would receive in the case of Korea’s unification. An equally secretive organization, WikiLeaks, composed of unidentified members who operate all over the world and extract secret documents and information from government facilities and corporations, was identified as responsible for the leak. The information extracted by the organization was posted on its website for the world to see. Among the information were documents concerning the inhumane treatments of prisoners in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and even one on UFOs and aliens. Although the specific constituents of the group were not revealed, a person assumed to be the director, Julian Assange, was arrested.

     The WikiLeaks incident caused a worldwide commotion. Before the incident, the public opinion was of a considerable trust of corporations and governments. Although people acknowledged that there were some things that could not be revealed to the public for national security reasons, such as military operation plans or state-of-the-art technologies, most believed that the unrevealed portions were minimal and ignorable. However, WikiLeaks overturned this belief completely. People realized that governments and corporations were hiding their negative aspects, secret contracts and immoral deeds from the public eye. People were horrified at these facts, and their belief about the openness of their governments was challenged as they saw the truth behind the mask. In other words, WikiLeaks had radically altered the way people view reality.

     Advocates of Zuckerberg justify Time’s decision of naming him the ‘Person of the Year’ by asserting that Zuckerberg revolutionized the way people communicate. Indeed, Zuckerberg and his creation Facebook made it possible for people to exchange information simultaneously and to a large number of people by posting their daily actions and feelings online. It made communication easier in contrast to other measures such as e-mail, blogs, or homepages. However, Mark Zuckerberg’s achievement is not a revolution, but a development. It changed the way people communicate, but it is still within the already known boundary of ‘communication.’ On the other hand, Julian Assange completely overturned and changed the way people view the world by making it clear that what is usually seen by the public is not the actual truth. He showed that it is only the tip of the iceberg that is shown. This is why Assange has made a more notable achievement than Zuckerberg, the official ‘Person of the Year.’ This is why more votes were actually cast for Assange in deciding who deserves the title, and why Assange was announced as the ‘Readers' Choice for TIME's Person of the Year 2010.’

     The parody of Assange says “What are the difference between Mark Zuckerberg and me? I give private information on corporations to you for free, and I am a villain. Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he’s Person of the Year.” This statement can be translated as meaning that while Zuckerberg gave the ultimate benefits to a small number of corporations, Assange ultimately benefited the public. Since the benefits of Assange stretch over a larger audience than those of Zuckerberg, Assange deserves to be the real ‘Person of the Year,’ not Zuckerberg.

Hi! My Name Is...

“Hello. Nice to meet you.”

“Hi. A pleasure. And your name is…?”

“Umm…you can call me HJ.”

“HJ?”



What?!

 

The brows wrinkled in confusion, the slightly dilated pupils, the expression of consternation. I’ve seen them numerous times, yet I still seem to be unable to get used to them.

“Yes, HJ. I use my initials, you see.”

“Oh…”

     In such a situation, the majority of people I know don’t have to encounter the wrinkled brows, the enlarged pupils, and whatever signs that might accompany bewilderment. Rather, they continue a normal conversation, discussing the latest blockbuster movie, their favorite female singer, and the awkward moment they had faced when some eccentric guy told them his initials when asked his name. This majority of people have something in common: they call themselves Charles, John, George, or whatsoever when talking to an English speaker.

     In contrast, I’m HJ. I’m that “eccentric” guy that doesn’t even have an English name in this globalized, modern world. However, I wasn’t always HJ, and what’s more, there’s a good reason as to why I don’t adopt an English name now. There was a time when I was called Larry, Michael, and even Stanley.

     I got my first English name when I was about 6 or 7, when I entered kindergarten. I attended a kindergarten school that can be said to be quite atypical - an English kindergarten, in which there were a considerable – as I recall – number of bilingual foreign teachers who were fluent in Korean and English. There were regular sessions when students were required to speak a substantial amount of, if not all, their normal conversations in English. If I remember correctly, an English name was mandatory for all students. So my parents strove to devise me an English name, and out of their box of English names popped up ‘Larry.’ So I became Larry for the 3 or 4 hours I spent outside my home. I don’t know why they chose this particular name for me and nor have I ever thought of asking them the reason, but one thing is for sure. I despised the name. I hated its ring. I detested the way the tongue brushed the inside of the front teeth at the ‘L’ and coiled up into my throat at the ‘rr.’ Most of all, I loathed the fact that it was a two syllable word, and yet was only five letters. But what was done was done – I could not go to my kindergarten teacher and tell her, in my young and feeble vocabulary and pronunciation, “Teecher, I change me name.” So I stayed Larry for five years until I had a chance to change it.



Phelps - He's a Michael...



     The chance came when I was third grade of my elementary school. It was decided that I would go abroad to Toronto for two years with my mother in order to learn English. I was asked if I want to maintain my old English name, and said no without a moment’s hesitation. I had been greatly inspired by a short biography of the legendary basketball player Michael Jordan I had read a few days ago, so I announced that I would be Michael. I lived for two years with this name. However, I was far from satisfied. During my stay in Toronto, I encountered many Michaels and developed an image conveyed by the name: a burlesque, masculine and coarse figure, an impression I was certain did not fit me. I decided to drop the name as soon as I could.

     When I came back to my home country and started attending English hakwons, the first thing they asked me was what my English name was. A million names went through my head for a split second when I was asked the question – Leopold, Nathaniel, Josiah, Tobias, and other posh names that I am embarrassed to even write down. Then I gave up trying to choose one of them, and said, “No, I don’t.” A short conversation ensued.

“Well, do you want to make one right now?”

“Uh…”

“If you don’t want to, you can use your initials instead. In fact, there’s a kid in your class called JH.”

“Ah…Then I’ll just use my initials, HJ.”

To be clear, I didn’t resort to ‘HJ’ because there was a guy in my class with a pseudonym name. I guess I was simply tired of searching for an English name that fits my image. Several years later, my friends named me Stanley for a few months, but I refused to be called by that name, and the name found its way to oblivion.

     So I don’t have an English name. Does it matter? I don’t think so. If the concept of name was first devised by our ancient, less-than-human ancestors who were more Pan troglodytes than Homo sapiens¸ it would have been to identify each other with auditory organs. This primitive concept of names would have developed gradually to signify and represent the person who holds that name – the personality, character, and other traits. If this is true, then I am Lee Hwee-Jun, and nobody else. ‘Lee Hwee-Jun’ is the name that has stayed with me for 18 years since birth, and thus there is no name that is more ‘me.’ So if an English name only serves the purpose of being easy to pronounce for English speaking people who just can’t imagine how to create that ‘Hwee’ sound, then I think that HJ suffices.

Homo Sapiens - a.k.a.



 

Pan troglodytes - a.k.a Common Chimpanzee



    

     One of my favorite books, I shamefully confess, was the fantasy trilogy ‘The Bartimaeus Trilogy.’ In the third book of the series, the main character, a djinni (a spirit from another dimension) says that in that dimension, all beings are one, but that when a magician calls their name, the ultimate limit, it restricts them from an infinite being to a finite one. A similar concept is discussed in the poem ‘Flower,’ written by a renowned Korean poet, Kim Chun-soo. According to both, a name defines a person. I am defined fully by my Korean name. Whatever others say about my ‘English name’ and however they view me, I have no intention to create an English name for me in the near future and more until I change my mind.

30 Things About Me

1. I live by the name of Hwee-Jun Lee.
2. I do not currently have an English name.
3. My history of English names changed from Larry, Michael, Stanley
4. I was born on August 13, 1994
5. I was born in Seoul.
6. I moved to Chuncheon when I was 2 and then to Jejudo when I was 4. I lived in Jejudo until 7.
7. I lived in Toronto, Canada for 2 years.
8. I have been to Korea, Japan, China, Canada, USA, England, France, Italy, Switzerland, Hungary, Czech, Vatican, Germany, Indonesia, and Cuba.
9. My favorite sports is skiing.
10. I like to take photographs.
11. I used to want to become an architect until I came to face reality and decided to pursue other occupations.
12. I like to be considered erratic and unique.
13. I have not yet decided on a major or a future job because I like every subject and studying them.
14. I used to be a person who slept a lot unntil I came to KMLA, when I started to sleep as little as 45 minutes a day.
15. If I face something difficult, I try until either I succeed or I collapse.
16. In number 15, I find that until now it usually has been the former.
17. I have recently been addicted to webtoons due to the influence of my roommates.
18. I love the American drama 'West Wing.'
19. I hate horror movies and the first time I really watched one was in KMLA, second semester of first grade.
20. I think I am adjusted to a scientific way of thinking, because I often have difficulties with subjects such as philosophy, etc.
21. I like to play guitar, but have rarely had a chance to since I entered KMLA.
22. I'm going to concentrate on studying.
23. I hate US History.
24. Although I try to live like a good person, I like to rebel against people(adults) I despise.
25. I usually view most aspects of people critically in the beginning, but when I become friends, I defend all of them.
26. I did not take interest in contemporary music until middle school third grade.
27. My favorite color is yellow.
28. I currently wear glasses with KAIST written on it, so people often ask me about it.
29. I want to go home.
30. I lost about 10 kg last year in KMLA, but I think I've adjusted a lot this year.

Development vs Revolution

     “Humans are social animals,” said Aristotle. More than two millennia after his death, the great Greek philosopher’s statement seems ever more valid. A large portion of the rapidly developing technologies of the modern society are centered around the goal of connecting more and more people. The telephone marked the beginning of this trend, and other technologies such as the World Wide Web and MSN followed. The most recent social technology, Facebook, has caused a sensation in the world, acquiring more than 600 million users in January 2011, of which over 15 million were active. Thus, it is not surprising that Mark Zuckerberg, the creator of Facebook, became the ‘Person of the Year,’ a title given by the Times to the most influential person of the year. However, it is controversial as to whether another person deserves the title. Upon inspection, it is reasonable that the title should be given to another person – Julian Assange.

     Last year, the aggressive actions of North Korea towards its southern counterpart aroused issues concerning the possibility of unification between the two divided Koreas. In the midst of speculations, a secret diplomatic document between China and the United States was revealed by an equally secretive organization, WikiLeaks. The document enclosed information about the advantages China would receive in the case of Korea’s unification. WikiLeaks is an organization composed of unidentified members who operate all over the world and extract secret documents and information from government facilities and corporations. This information is posted on its website for the world to see. Among the information the organization leaked are documents concerning the inhumane treatments of prisoners in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and even one on UFOs and aliens. Although the specific constituents of the group were not revealed, a person assumed to be the director, Julian Assange, was arrested.

     The WikiLeaks incident caused a worldwide commotion. Before the incident, the public opinion was of trust of corporations and governments. Although people acknowledged that there were some things that could not be revealed to the public for national security reasons, such as military operation plans or state-of-the-art technologies, most believed that the unrevealed portions were minimal and ignorable. However, WikiLeaks overturned this belief completely. People realized that governments and corporations were hiding their negative aspects, secret contracts and immoral deeds from the public eye. People were horrified at these facts, and their belief about the openness of their governments was challenged as they saw the truth behind the mask.

    Advocates of Zuckerberg justify the Time’s decision of naming him the ‘Person of the Year’ by asserting that Zuckerberg revolutionized the way people communicate. Indeed, Zuckerberg and his creation Facebook made it possible for people to exchange information simultaneously and to a large number of people by posting their daily actions and feelings. It made communication easier in contrast to other measures such as e-mail, blogs, or homepages. However, Mark Zuckerberg’s achievement is not a revolution, but a development. It changed the way people communicate, but it is still within the already known boundary of ‘communication.’ On the other hand, Julian Assange completely overturned and changed the way people view the world by making it clear that what is usually seen by the public is not the actual truth. He showed that it is only the tip of the iceberg that is shown. This is why Assange has made a more notable achievement than Zuckerberg, the official ‘Person of the Year.’ This is why more votes were actually casted for Assange in the deciding of the ‘Person of the Year,’ and why Assange was announced the ‘Readers' Choice for TIME's Person of the Year 2010.’

     In a parody about Mark Zuckerberg and Julian Assange, the fake Assange says “What are the difference between Mark Zuckerberg and me? I give private information on corporations to you for free, and I am a villain. Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he’s Person of the Year.” This statement can be translated as that while Zuckerberg gave the ultimate benefits to a small number of corporations, Assange ultimately benefited the public. Since the benefits of Assange stretch over a larger audience than those of Zuckerberg, Assange deserves to be the real ‘Person of the Year,’ not Zuckerberg.

Time Magazine Man of the Year Outline

<Outline>
I. Intro
- anecdote
  - when I first started facebook
  - how time passed quickly
  - illustrate the difference between Facebook and other similar sites
- Zuckerberg named 'Man of the Year'
  - Man of the Year: title given to most influential person of the year by Times
- controversy, but Assange deserves it more

II. Body
1) Achievements of Julian Assange
- explain situation during WikiLeaks
- explain the organization
- clarify position of Assange in the case
2) Impact of WikiLeaks
- brought worldwide commotion
- made clear to the world that there is more to international politics than meet the eye
3) Contrast to Facebook
- Zuckerberg changed way people communicate
- however, still within the already known category of 'communication'
- Assange revealed an unknown aspect of politics

III. Conclusion
- quote by Assange concerning Zuckerberg
  - acknowledge that the quote is used a lot
- clarify quote
- more influence by Assange on larger number of people
- thus deserves to be Man of the Year

Photograph

 

Photography

Beautiful        Difficult

Capturing        Remembering        Recording

Composition        Hue        F-Stop        ISO

Carrying        Pointing        Pressing

Mechanical        Useful

Camera

Paradiso & Inferno