It is pretty clear to most that when you have huge crowds of people standing around in the cold who are willing to rip up the national symbol of a country who has stood by you for more than 50 years that you are not well liked. The tree we seem to be barking up is one of open hostility. As the editorial in the New York Times says, we do not stay where we are not wanted. We left the Philipines for similar reasons a few years ago and it wouldn't take all that much to leave South Korea.

Now for the misunderstanding. When did the New York Times become a mouthpiece for "conservatives of the country"? What this editorial says to someone who actually knows what the Times stands for is this call for withdrawal is even more serious than if it was only conservatives asking for us to get out. When you get a convergence of conservatives who might want us out because we are sick of seeing our national symbol torn up and dragged through the mud ("Screw the little ingrate bastards. If they want to get overrun by the commie hordes rather than live with us, let 'em!") and their counterparts on the liberal side ("You don't want us? Fine! We will take our toys and go home") then South Korea should start to see that maybe they have gone too far. Koreans, however have a hard time seeing when things get out of control. It is all a big group game until someone gets hurt.

More demonstrations are planned for next week. Let us see if certain truths have been transmitted to the leaders of those demonstrations by the incoming Roh administration. I would expect something on the order of "turn it down a couple of notches before the US really does get pissed".