Why budget brands have ugly packaging

From an article about the superior, unadvertised Starbucks short cappucino on Slate. The author claims that the short cappucino is the best one, because it has the highest espresso-to-milk ratio, yet it is not even on the menu and if you order it the cashier will not yell it to the barista:

The difficulty is that if some of your products are cheap, you may lose money from customers who would willingly have paid more. So, businesses try to discourage their more lavish customers from trading down by making their cheap products look or sound unattractive, or, in the case of Starbucks, making the cheap product invisible. The British supermarket Tesco has a "value" line of products with infamously ugly packaging, not because good designers are unavailable but because the supermarket wants to scare away customers who would willingly spend more. "The bottom end of any market tends to get distorted," says McManus. "The more market power firms have, the less attractive they make the cheaper products."

Interesting and effective. While some people will never buy value brands, there are those, like me, my wife and much of my family, who will only buy value brands of certain products, mostly commodities and non-foodstuffs. The article continues, doozily

The practice is hundreds of years old. The French economist Emile Dupuit wrote about the early days of the railways, when third-class carriages were built without roofs, even though roofs were cheap: "What the company is trying to do is prevent the passengers who can pay the second-class fare from traveling third class; it hits the poor, not because it wants to hurt them, but to frighten the rich."

How do you say unspeak in Korean?

Do yourself a favor and read this review cum summary of Stephen Poole's new book Unspeak. Poole's idea is basically that politically charged terms often contain hidden presumptions. The canonical example seems to be pro-life and pro-choice, each term implying something abominable about it's opponent.
I scoured the Korean language for examples of unspeak. Korean government agencies and media outlets tend to use a lot of euphemism (for instance, in the current avian influeanza outbreaks). Outright unspeak is a little more difficult to come across. and so far the best one I've come up with is 'chamdarae' (참다래) which is a recently created term for kiwifruit grown domestically. Imported kiwifruit are still called kiwi (키위). The unspeakableness comes from the fact that 'chamdarae' means 'real kiwi' ('cham' meaning real and 'darae' being some kind of disused earlier term for the kiwi tree unknown to most non-experts). So if the domestically grown kiwis are 'real kiwi', that contrasts with a imported kiwis which must be 'gajjadarae' (fake kiwi).
The Slate article links to a list of reader submissions, many of which I think miss the meaning of the word unspeak. For example a lot of Slate readers seem to think that the term 'troop surge' qualifies. I fail to see a hidden supposition. The term surge was used specifically to refer to a temporary, sudden increase in troops. This could be accurate or not (i.e. the increase in troop numbers may persist) but it would continue to lack an internal presupposition. Another couple that readers submitted were 'heritage' and 'mass casualty event'. I think these would best be described as euphemisms. They don't seem to fear much of a buried presupposition. This brings me back to the original paint roller concept behind the blog. People, especially sloppy-minded folks these days, don't seem to have what it takes to keep a half-way rigid definition of a word in their head. I can see this book being a big hit and the term unspeak entering the lexicon and becoming another synonym for newspeak, political correctness and euphemism. Anything that people consider politically motivated speech eventually gets slapped with one of these labels, and now we have one more arrow in our quivers. Yay.

Hagiography for Ban Ki-moon

My computer has crashed twice while trying to write this, and I think the Korean CIA is doing it, so I'll keep it short and sweet. check out this article from The New York Times that tries to make Korea out as some sort of mystical land where tradition and modernism meet, and remember that Korean traditional culture was effectively destroyed by the Japanese during the colonial era, and what's is left now is whatever is useful to the government in stirring up irrational nationalism to distract people from the nation's real problems, like an education system fit to collapse. Read this and know that every time the article mentions ancient traditions, feng shui, ginseng farming and prophecies, the real life of almost all Koreans consists of watching TV, listening to soulless pop music, talking on their cell phones and hanging around department stores. Basically, every time the article says 'feng shui master', think 'civil war buff'. and when it says '22,000 practitioners of feng shui, or pungsu in Korean, as well as a few Buddhists' think '2,000 senior citizens on group tours to see Ban Ki-moon's home town, drink sweet potato liquor and buy chestnuts from farm stands, as well as a few fervent nationalists looking to fervor it up'.