1st Week Aug 2016
Speaking in English: NYT & TED
The Long War on Terror
By DAVID RIEFF JULY 23, 2016
In the wake of the mass casualty attacks in Dhaka,
Bangladesh, Orlando, Fla., and Nice, France — as well as
numerous smaller ones by so-called lone wolves — it is
simply a fact that no public space anywhere in the world
can be considered safe. To the contrary, the tempo of these
attacks is rising. President Obama may have been right
when he said in February 2015 that terrorism did not pose
an “existential threat to the United States or the world
order.” But this is cold comfort. People are afraid, and they
have every reason to be. At the same time, this legitimate
fear seems to be poisoning our politics both in the United
States and in Europe, feeding the demagogues and
shaking our institutions.
What can be done in response? To answer that question, it is first necessary to face what can’t. Not all
these attacks can be stopped. It is one thing to increase security at ports and airports — and even there, as
the attacks on airports in Brussels and Istanbul show, such measures are hardly foolproof. But there is
simply no way to police every subway station, cafe and public square from Berlin to Honolulu. So the one
sure thing is that these attacks will continue. Even assuming that the Islamic State can be defeated in
Syria and Iraq, the group’s efforts to inspire people via the internet to carry out attacks on their own are
likely to continue to resonate.
This is not something to which people are going to simply resign themselves. To the contrary, every
attack makes the demagogues’ arguments seem more credible. It seems only a matter of time before one
of the extreme right-wing populist parties in Western Europe comes to power. (Arguably, one already has
in Hungary.) To be sure, the danger of terrorism is not the only thing that has fueled their rise. But
whether terrorism does or doesn’t represent an existential threat, it has engendered a level of existential
dread that, mixed with the dislocations of mass migration in Europe and the discrediting of the political
elite throughout the developed world, cannot be wished away.
One does not have to be a populist to see that the elites have much to answer for. When the crowd at a
commemoration of the 84 victims of the Nice attack booed the French prime minister, Manuel Valls,
it was not just because the French government’s response to the terrorist threat has been inadequate.
Behind that may have been the sense that across Europe, the political elite has ignored the festering
social environment in which a large cohort of badly educated, despairing and often violence-prone young
people born of immigrant parents came to adulthood. The alienation that makes a small minority of these
young people ideal candidates to serve as cannon fodder for the Islamic State is obvious to anyone who
spends any time in the suburbs of Paris, Brussels, Berlin or London.
The stark truth is that the Western political elite remains in denial, and not just about terrorism but about
the anger and frustration over the effects of globalization, which have nourished xenophobia in most if
not all rich countries. Until elites fully acknowledge these problems, the rise of the demagogues is all but
assured. If the only choice people have is between a political elite that denies or dismisses the legitimacy
of their fears and politicians who, whatever their motives, tell them they’re not wrong to harbor them,
more people will join the parties of fear.
Many would argue that, far from being in denial about terrorism, the Western elite harps on it too much.
But this is not the way most people perceive their governments. In France, for example, the state of
emergency, proclaimed after the November 2015 attacks in Paris, was less than two weeks away from
expiration when the Nice attack took place. This vacillation discredits governments — and the French
are hardly alone in this — in the eyes of their electorates and seems to make a mockery of rhetorical
I
1st Week Aug 2016
Speaking in English: NYT & TED
commitments to quash terrorism. Public fear and anger have now reached the point that unless the
European and American political elites want to cede the field to the populists and xenophobes, they are
going to have to take drastic steps.
One option is simply to say that for the foreseeable future terrorism is here to stay and that, as Mr. Valls
said recently, “Times have changed, and we should learn to live with terrorism.” There is probably some
truth to this, but in effect telling people there is little that can be done is simply not something Western
electorates are prepared to hear. And in practice, learning to live with something surely means growing
accustomed to it. As the rise of the radical right in Europe and of Donald J. Trump in the United States
shows, resignation remains too bitter a pill for many people to swallow.
The stark truth is that the number and lethality of terrorist attacks are far likelier to rise than to diminish
for the foreseeable future. But there is a duty to try to stop them. In that, the West faces a choice: either
the walls Mr. Trump wants to build and the mass deportations that many right-wing European
politicians have begun calling for, or a vast expansion of the national security apparatus. That would
require serious increases both in budgets and personnel and in the methods at their disposal.
For what the attacks at the Brussels airport, at the gay club in Orlando and at the Bastille Day celebrations
in Nice demonstrate is that the measures taken to date, however far-reaching (some would say dangerous)
in terms of civil liberties they seem, are not working. At present, we have the worst of both worlds, a
secretive and worryingly unaccountable intelligence establishment that at the same time simply does not
have the manpower or the technical capacity needed to keep close tabs on the thousands — if not tens of
thousands — of terrorist sympathizers in Europe and in North America who have been radicalized
through social media.
This prospect is awful but is there an alternative? The war on terror is a strange, asymmetrical war, but
it is a war just the same. In any war — including a just war — we lose a certain amount of our humanity. At
a minimum, we have to control the worst excesses. By way of historical analogy, it is to avoid
firebombing Dresden in the name of defeating Nazism.
In the case of the war against the Islamic State’s foot soldiers in Europe and America, this means the
maintaining of civilian control over and close monitoring of the security services, the unswerving
prohibition on torture (which risks coming back on the agenda with a vengeance) and a rejection of the
war of civilizations argument so beloved by both the populist right and by the jihadists.
But absent some miraculous end to terrorism, in fighting it we are going to compromise some of our
values. The best we can hope for is to hold on to enough of our humanity to have a chance of clawing back
the rest when the war ends, as all wars do.
Discussion guide
1. The author claims that the terrorist attacks become the basis that the extreme right-wing populist
parties (or politicians) come to power. Would you agree or disagree? How are they (terrorist
attacks and the rise of extreme right-wing politicians) related with each other?
To the contrary, every attack makes the demagogues’ arguments seem more credible. It seems
only a matter of time before one of the extreme right-wing populist parties in Western Europe
comes to power.
2. According to the author, the following is why young people would become candidates of terrorists
in Europe. What does the following statement mean? Would you agree or disagree that people
who feels isolated and devastated in the society for some reasons (e.g., high jobless rate, lack of
welfare, social inequality) will become more likely prone to terrorism? Why?
II
1st Week Aug 2016
Speaking in English: NYT & TED
The alienation that makes a small minority of these young people ideal candidates to serve as
cannon fodder for the Islamic State is obvious to anyone who spends any time in the suburbs of
Paris, Brussels, Berlin or London.
3. According to the author, the politicians are in denial not just about terrorism but also the anger
and frustration over effects of globalization. What do you think is the globalization? What are pros
and cons of it. Do you like it or not?
The stark truth is that the Western political elite remains in denial, and not just about terrorism
but about the anger and frustration over the effects of globalization, which have nourished
xenophobia in most if not all rich countries.
4. The public fear and anger have reached the point where the Western political elites have to take
drastic steps. Did we have such situations in Korea before when we are in anger and frustration?
How did we get out of that situation? What would be ways to get over that situation?
a. Homicide of a girl near Gang-Nam subway station (misogyny)
b. Comfort women agreement with Japan (anger against the government)
c. The conversation of a government administrator who described people as animals (e.g.,
dog, pigs) (anger against the privileges)
5. The author claims that we may have to accept the fact that we are living with terrorism and find
ways to fight against it. We may have to sacrifice some of our values as a human, which would be
an individual freedom, a right for privacy, etc. Would you agree that compromising our values
would be unavoidable to fight against terrorism? How much would you yield your rights for public
safety?
But absent some miraculous end to terrorism, in fighting it we are going to compromise some of
our values.
6. How much likely do you think that Korea will have a terrorist attack in five years? Why?
The Incalculable Value of Finding a Job You Love
By ROBERT H. FRANK JULY 22, 2016
Social scientists have been trying to identify the conditions
most likely to promote satisfying human lives. Their findings
give some important clues about choosing a career: Money
matters, but as the economist Richard Easterlin and others
have demonstrated, not always in the ways you may think.
Consider this thought experiment. Suppose you had to choose
between two parallel worlds that were alike except that people
in one had significantly higher incomes. If you occupied the
same position in the income distribution in both — say, as a
median earner — there would be compelling reasons for
choosing the richer world. After all, societies with higher
incomes tend also to enjoy cleaner air and water, better schools, less noisy environments, safer working
conditions, longer life expectancy and many other obvious benefits.
But context also matters. If you faced a choice between being a relatively low earner in a high-income
society or being near the top in a society in which your income was lower in absolute terms, the answer
would be less clear.
III
1st Week Aug 2016
Speaking in English: NYT & TED
If the income difference was very small, being a top earner in the poorer world would probably be more
satisfying. Your house would be smaller in absolute terms, but because it would be bigger than most other
people’s, you would be more likely to regard it as adequate.
For sufficiently large income differences, however, that conclusion could easily flip. This time you would
confront a different kind of difficulty. Although your house in the wealthier world would be larger in
absolute terms, its relatively small size in that universe would mean that your children would be more
likely to attend schools regarded there as substandard.
It’s not just that more money doesn’t provide a straightforward increase in happiness. Social science
research also underscores the importance of focusing carefully on the many ways in which jobs differ
along dimensions other than pay. As economists have long known, jobs that offer more attractive working
conditions — greater autonomy, for example, or better opportunities for learning, or enhanced workplace
safety — also tend to pay less.
One of the most important dimensions of job satisfaction is how you feel about your employer’s mission.
Suppose you’re weighing two offers for jobs writing advertising copy: One is for an American Cancer
Society campaign to discourage teenage smoking, the other for a tobacco industry campaign to encourage
it.
If pay and other working conditions were identical, which job would you choose? I once posed this
question to Cornell seniors about to enter the job market, and almost 90 percent said they would pick the
American Cancer Society position. And when I asked them how much more the pro-tobacco job would
have to pay before they would change their minds, they demanded an average salary premium of more
than 80 percent.
These magnitudes make sense. When most people leave work each evening, they feel better if they have
made the world better in some way, or at least haven’t made it worse.
But moral satisfaction alone won’t pay the rent. You’ll be more likely to land a job that offers attractive
working conditions and pays well if you can develop deep expertise at a task that people value highly. As
the economist Philip Cook and I have argued, those who become really good at what they do are capturing
a much larger share of total income in almost every domain, leaving correspondingly smaller shares
available for others. Moral: Become an expert at something!
That’s obviously easier said than done. The psychologist K. Anders Ericsson and his co-authors have
estimated that many thousands of hours of difficult practice are required for true expertise at any task.
That’s why my first response when students seek advice on how to succeed is to ask whether any activity
has ever absorbed them completely. Most answer affirmatively. I then suggest that they prepare
themselves for a career that entails tasks as similar as possible to that activity, even if it doesn’t normally
lead to high financial rewards. I tell them not to worry about the money.
My point is that becoming an expert is so challenging that you are unlikely to expend the necessary effort
unless the task is one that you love for its own sake. If it is, the process will be rewarding apart from
whether it leads to high pay.
The happiness literature has identified one of the most deeply satisfying human psychological states to be
one called “flow.” It occurs when you are so immersed in an activity that you lose track of the passage of
time. If you can land a job that enables you to experience substantial periods of flow, you will be among
the most fortunate people on the planet. What’s more, as the years pass, you will almost surely develop
deep expertise at whatever it is you’ve been doing.
At that point, even if few people in any one location place high value on what you do, you may find that
your services become extremely valuable economically. That’s because technology has steadily extended
the geographic reach of those who are best at what they do. If even a tiny fraction of a sufficiently large
group of buyers cares about your service, you may be worth a fortune.
IV
1st Week Aug 2016
Speaking in English: NYT & TED
There is, of course, no guarantee that you’ll become the best at what you choose to do, or that even if you
do you’ll find practical ways to extend your reach enough to earn a big paycheck. But by choosing to
concentrate on a task you love, you’ll enjoy the considerable proportion of your life that you spend at
work, which is much more than billions of others can say.
Again, you’ll have bills to pay, so salary matters. But social science findings establish clearly that once you
have met your basic obligations, it’s possible to live a very satisfying life even if you don’t earn a lot of
money.
The bottom line: Resist the soul-crushing job’s promise of extra money and savor the more satisfying
conditions you’ll find in one that pays a little less.
Discussion guide
1.
What would be your choice in the following situation? Why?
a. If you can be a top earner (but your payment would be lower than your current one
considering the exchange rate) in a country like India, Afghanistan, North Korea,
Indonesia, would you consider a move?
b. If you can a job in a country like America, Japan, Denmark, Singapore and your payment
is a little lower than average (but your payment would be higher than your current one
considering exchange rate), would you consider a move?
2. What was the most important factor that you considered when you got the first job? How has it
been changed now? If you can get back to when you just graduated from University, what job
would you have chosen?
3. Are you satisfied with your current job? Why/Why not? How do you relate a job with your
happiness? Are there any activities that you are doing for the future chance of getting a better job?
4. What do you think is the most important factor that a company needs to consider for its
employees?
5. What are activities that you are easily immersed into? Would you agree with the following
statement? What would be difficulties that people can’t choose a job that they are immersed into?
The happiness literature has identified one of the most deeply satisfying human psychological
states to be one called “flow.” It occurs when you are so immersed in an activity that you lose
track of the passage of time.
6. Would you agree with the following statement? What do you think is the social mission of
companies in general in the market? How much do you consider it when you choose a job?
One of the most important dimensions of job satisfaction is how you feel about your employer’s
mission.
V