Inferior Child-Like "Journalists"

I recently stumbled upon a gossip piece from what I think is a non-gossip online news site. The piece focused on Kim Jong Un's "mystery woman" who appeared in photos released by North Korea. Eventually the country affirmed her relationship with Kim (her husband). According to the piece, North Korea typically refrains from releasing any information, and given the debasing tone of the article I'd stumbled upon, I see why....

Rumor mills apparently believed the woman was North Korean pop star Hyon Song Wol, a singer whose most popular song, according to the Wikipedia article I just linked... is "A Girl In The Saddle Of A Steed" which, according to the Wikipedia article I just linked... really, Wikipedia... is oft mistranslated as "Excellent Horse-Like Lady. I honestly don't believe it's mistranslated. I think one person chose the name for kicks and everyone else accepted it out of humor and laziness. I would expect want a journalist to break the cycle, but that is not happening at The Atlantic....


theatlantic.com's Max Fisher denigrates North Korea's pop star, Hyon Song Wol, in perpetuating the insulting association between her and a horse started by a Youtube user by referring to Hyon as an "Excellent Horse-Like Lady". In this case, the comparison is not only insulting but irresponsible given the song never makes such an association. A credible and competent journalist would have avoided such a mistake by simply minding the translation of the lyrics - either those provided in the article or in the description section of Youtube:

"I'm a maiden on a well-bred horse" (theatlantic.com) or "Why they tell me I am a virgin on a stallion" (Youtube) 

Given either of those lines, "well-bred horse maiden" appears to be an honorary title to one who rides horseback (for the sake of productivity in this case). Also, that same line reads "They say I am a virgin on a stallion" on the Youtube translation....

Translating the above into "Excellent Horse-Like Lady" illustrates either grossly inept skills in comprehension (which should automatically disqualify one from being an "associate editor") or journalistic laziness (which should automatically disqualify one from being an "associate editor") in haphazardly accepting a Youtube author's video description....

Whether this baseless insult is due to a basic failure in reading or understanding or blind acceptance of incredible social media authors, it is this commenter's opinion that the "difficult, baffling, and at times outright absurd" standards of journalism in America today merit North Korea keeping its business to itself....

NRA "Concern" over the UN Arms Trade Treaty

United Nations' Concerns Over Illicit Arms Trade

The global trade in conventional weapons – from warships and battle tanks to fighter jets and machine guns – remains poorly regulated. No set of internationally agreed standards exist to ensure that arms are only transferred for appropriate use.

Many governments have voiced concern about the absence of globally agreed rules for all Countries to guide their decisions on arms transfers. That is why they have started negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty. Preparations to address this issue have been underway since 2006 and will culminate in the Conference on an Arms Trade Treaty in July 2012. (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs)

National Rifle Association Warns of ATT Rejection by US Senate

NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre briefly addressed the UN ATT Preporatory Committe a year ago, stating "civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT" and that civilian ownership of firearms must not be affected in any way, lest the U.S. Senate reject President Obama's signing of the ATT. Last year, 45 Republican Senators (more than the 34 needed to prevent ratification of the treaty in the US) said they would oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty that in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding American gun owners. (Press Release from Sennator Orrin; R - Utah).

UN Attempts to Quell NRA Concerns

The United Nations, since 2006, remains stalwart in its claims that no intention exists "to attack the legal use of and trade in arms, or to draft a global treaty banning that trade." In 2010 Roberto García Moritán, Chairman of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, said the purpose of the proposed arms trade treaty was not to disarm anyone, prohibit sales or hinder national decisions on how weapons were handled, but to ensure common international import and export standards.

My take

The NRA needs a rights issue to keep its members energized while appearing to fight for their rights, and the organization is taking advantage of the ATT to accomplish this. The UN doesn't care about the United States' other than to stop our country from explicitly selling weapons to those who kill or run over people in other countries. Those across the net who think their guns will be taken away by a UN mandate either have no idea what the treat is about or are giving into an absurd slippery slope in reasoning.