OneFreeKorea Disclaimers & Comment Policy

The views expressed in this blog are those of the authors alone. They are not the views of any other organization, entity, agency, company–in short, of anyone but the author. They are imperfect, flawed, occasionally veer wildly toward complete non-sequiturs. They often border on the seditious.

Perfect solutions to the crises in North Korea have never existed; the good ones left town in 1945, and the less dangerous ones were last seen in 1994. From the few murky facts we know from a handful of dubious sources, the situation is calamitous, breathtakingly dangerous, and getting worse fast. Readers are invited to persuade me that their conflicting views are less imperfect or flawed than those of the authors.

There is no need to ferret out this blogger’s hidden agenda, because nothing is hidden. I am a proponent of policies that will help the North Korean people overthrow their government. I wish I saw any practicable and peaceful way for conditions in North Korea to change for the better in the foreseeable future, but I just don’t.

More specifically, I’m biased and opinioned toward the following ends:

• Regime change by the North Korean people
• Support for refugees and resistance
• Sanctions against the regime
• Food & radio drops for the people
• The ruthless application of soft power in support of a united and democratic Korea
• Reunification now, healing later
• Respect and gratitude for those who serve
• Drastic USFK downsizing
• South Korean & Japanese self-reliance

And against these:

• Appeasement, payoffs, or bribes
• Today’s “realism,” tomorrow’s grievance
• Unenforceable, illusory arms agreements
• Trade without sincere reform as an express condition
• Inflexibly entangling foreign alliances
• The China Co-Prosperity Sphere
• A Chinese invasion, a “green light” for one
• A U.S. invasion

• Nothing you read on this blog is learned from or in any way related to my employment, which has nothing to do with human rights in North Korea or U.S. foreign policy.
• Finally, although I am a lawyer, I’m not YOUR lawyer. I do not form attorney-client relationships on this blog. Any legal analysis or conclusions you read here are for discussion purposes only. Do not act on them without consulting your own attorney.

I take this very seriously. I invite anyone who suspects I’ve made an inaccurate statement on this blog to correct the record, either in a comment or in a private e-mail:

I invite comments because they’re useful for fact-checking, for adding additional facts, and for giving me my much-needed argument fix. Flaming doesn’t do much for that fix, but good argument does make me think and strengthens my own arguments.

1. Expressions of racial, national, or ethnic hatred, or the gratuitous use (as opposed to the subtle and tasteful use) of profanity will get your comment or you banned.
2. Have a point. State it immediately. Proceed by stating facts that support it. Insert links for support if you’re on shaky ground or introducing facts that aren’t well known. The following are not reliable sources to support the facts asserted: World Net Daily, Daily Kos, Indymedia, Common Dreams, ZNet, and the like; they may be reliable sources to support the fact that a silly argument was actually made at one of the aforementioned.
3. You may get a break if you’re funny, but keep reading . . . .
4. I reserve the right to ban commenters who drag down the quality of the debate by dragging it into the fever swamps, to wit: Bush=Hitler, John Bolton is a fascist, Abu Ghraib is Mauthausen, etc. We do not have time to argue this crap. If you can’t distinguish between a gas chamber and a fart in a crowded elevator, your views are unlikely to enlighten us. Of course, that rule will bend in the unlikely event you can actually link to a probable fact that supports your comparison or assertion. The OFK corollary to Godwin’s law is that you may compare someone to Hitler or the Nazis if you can actually cite empirically verifiable facts to support your comparison.
5. Please be civil; I won’t host flame wars because I tend to get dragged into them and hate myself in the morning. Rules of civility will vary according to the tone of your interlocutor, but be warned that I may cut off debate and leave your interlocutor with the last word.
6. The most valued commenters of all are those who hold opposing views and argue them intelligently. Those are the views that advance the quality of my own arguments the most, and I’ll treat those views with an extra degree of deference to prevent the “echo chamber” effect and maintain the vibrancy of the debate.
7. The overall theme? I seek intelligent and civil debate that introduces new facts and exposes weak arguments and factual inaccuracies, especially my own. I seek comments that are well written and funny. I have no use for Korea-bashing, America-bashing, or any other kind of ad hominem attack. I have no use for flame wars; there are millions of battlegrounds for that elsewhere. I seek commmenters who are good writers, who are well informed, who have special insight or knowledge, and who can write clear sentences, advance the debate toward objective truth, and make us laugh.
8. I will strive to be content neutral in applying these limits, because that’s how one advances good debate.
9. Remember that blogs (like other media) are oligarchies, but (unlike other media), they are a free service. True love means knowing there’s no refund to ask for.