• Home
  • About
  • Guest Post
  •  

    “This will be the answer to all of your problems”

    Posted by Sean at 05:39, January 22nd, 2007

    I’d bet I was the last gay man with an Internet connection to be turned on to this set of videos on You Tube. Part 1 is a better crack high if you want fast-burning fuel for queeny comments: though it’s hard to blame her for recommending silhouettes that plenty of other people thought were hot back then, you get the feeling that she’s not even aware matte-finished fabric exists.

    But Part 2 is, to me, more deeply and genuinely horrifying. First of all, the way the woman handles a slotted spoon and unceremoniously plunks that banana into the blender makes it abundantly clear that she couldn’t find her way around her kitchen without GPS navigation (sadly unavailable in the late ’80s). Second–given the flinty glint in her eye and her pasted-on, curled-lip smile while she gives dietary advice–you just know she’s standing there thinking, I COULD MURDER A STEAK AND BAKED POTATO RIGHT NOW! MY GRANDMOTHER’S SOUL FOR A RIBEYE!!!!!

    The not-so-surprise update to the story is that, to judge from her website, Ms. Dickson has enrolled in the beauty maintenance program at the Joan Rivers School. A real pity. She had the bone structure to age with character.


    換喩

    Posted by Sean at 23:42, January 16th, 2007

    According to the Mitsubishi Fuso website, the company name has charming origins:

    When the B46 autobus was created, the company held an internal search for a nickname, and the name that was selected was Fuso. Fuso (扶桑: “caretaking” + “mulberry”) is a Chinese word of ancient origin that refers to “sacred trees that grow in the Land of the Rising Sun on the East Sea” and was used as a variant name for Japan. The actual fuso trees are called “bussoge” and are more generally known as “[Chinese] hibiscus.”

    The site doesn’t mention that, while mitsubishi (三菱) is commonly understood to mean “three diamonds,” the hishi literally means “water chestnut,” so there’s kind of a mixed plant metaphor thing going on there. I suppose that might be considered an additional part of the charm.

    Not so charming, unfortunately, is the company’s endless string of problems with defective trucks. The latest problem is with wheel hubs that were introduced in response to previous defects:

    Mitsubishi Fuso Truck & Bus Corp. has announced it will recall tens of thousands of its large trucks because of concerns over a potential defect in the wheel hub, company sources said Tuesday.

    The wheel hub in question is a new type introduced following a large-scale recall in 2004. However, fractures and cracks in the hubs have been discovered in a number of cases since October.

    Until now, the company has maintained to the Construction and Transport Ministry that the problem would not occur under normal conditions and that it was the result of a maintenance error. However, the sources said the company now believes the new hub is simply too weak.

    Five years ago, a woman driving with her two children in Yokohama was killed when a wheel detached from a passing truck. The accident was highly publicized because it’s the kind of thing that’s not supposed to happen in Japan, with its vaunted transportation systems and technology. Note that Mitsubishi Motors, M. Fuso’s parent corporation, has had completely unrelated problems of its own with, among other things, the clutches in its cars.


    拉致

    Posted by Sean at 01:10, January 16th, 2007

    The new movie about Japanese abductee Megumi Yokota looks to be an interesting treatment of her case. Next to Hitomi Soga, who gained fame as the wife of US Army deserter Charles Jenkins, Yokota is the abductee who’s received the most publicity. Her family has been very vocal in its demands that the Japanese government use all diplomatic means possible to find out what happened to her and the other abductees who are still unaccounted for. There’s been little development on the issue lately, but those who are interested in the push and pull over the last few years can click the category button below to see some of the news items that have appeared.


    Gaucherie

    Posted by Sean at 22:35, January 15th, 2007

    Eric is hot when he gets angry.

    He, Tim Noah, Clayton Cramer, and Radley Balko have amply attended to most of what’s inane about Dinesh D’Souza’s characteristically coarse arguments. I will only add that if the combination of irreligiousness, acceptance of homosexuality, blithe rearing of children out of wedlock, and preening leftism in the universities is what exercised the terrorists who attacked on 9/11, one is left wondering why on Earth they didn’t choose Europe (say the Netherlands or somewhere in Scandinavia) as their target. Not only have those countries institutionalized those social phenomena far more thoroughly than America has, but they also have large minority Muslim populations that are inflamed with humiliation over their dependence on the largesse of the social-welfare state. The United States is clearly the single most significant global symbol of Western cultural power; the idea that it’s the most significant global symbol of Western cultural leftism strikes me as very suspect.


    迷惑の受動態

    Posted by Sean at 05:42, January 5th, 2007

    The “suffering passive” is a construction in Japanese that we foreign language students tend to have trouble wrapping our heads around at first. Today’s news brought a ghoulishly apt example of how it’s used:

    At around 7:55 on the evening of 3 January, a man’s voice reported to 110, “I killed my mother,” from the residence of [Ms.] Yaeko Tsukumo of 2 Mizue, Edogawa Ward, Tokyo.

    [Her 53-year-old third son] Minoru was suspected of having strangled her using his hands and socks at about 7 p.m. “She was getting on my case about my not having a job, and I went ballistic” he stated. Yaeko and Minoru lived together.

    The suffering passive is not used to make the direct object the subject and the subject the agent; instead, it’s used to emphasize the way the speaker (usually) was made to suffer by the action. You learn sentences such as 妹にケーキを食べきられてしまった, which doesn’t just mean “the cake was completely eaten by my younger sister” but rather “little bitch hoovered all the cake on me!” The cake is still the direct object; the verb is passive because the speaker feels powerless to do anything about his or her suffering (not an uncharacteristic Japanese attitude by any stretch).

    Mr. Tsukumo did, of course, take matters into…uh…his own hands; but he still used the suffering passive to describe his mother’s scolding. The “getting on my case” part is in the passive voice: 仕事をしていないことをなじられ –> “I was made to suffer by her taking exception to my not having any work.”

    It’s impossible to determine from that preliminary report whether the Tsukumos mère et fils had a history of arguing; however, elder abuse has become a recognized social problem in Japan, despite its image of uncommon respect for the aged. Many elderly people still live with their children–traditionally, it’s the oldest son and his wife–but households are now rarely structured around the clan, with the patriarch and matriarch presiding over several generations under one roof, or at least in one compound. Nowadays, elder care is frequently seen as a burden added onto that of stretching tight post-Bubble incomes. It also involves carving up close quarters in tiny urban apartments. The freestanding houses in major metro areas aren’t much roomier.

    The rules against venting about family problems to friends who aren’t relatives appear to have relaxed a bit, but the sense that seeking professional counseling or assistance is shameful remains strong, perhaps especially among those who would most benefit from it. There’s a major tendency to keep gritting your teeth through your frustrations until you crack. And Japanese society does revere the elderly as repositories of experience and wisdom; but as a shame and not guilt culture, it also makes it relatively easy to do nasty things if no one’s looking and you think you can get away with them.


    Excising the fabulousness gene

    Posted by Sean at 03:34, January 3rd, 2007

    Oh, come on. Michael and Henry Lewis are having a spaz over this statement by James Joyner:

    Is being gay tantamount to being deaf? My instinct is that it is not, since it impacts a much more narrow range of the human experience. At the same time, would I choose for my kids to be gay? Absolutely not. There are plenty of disadvantages that come with it and no obvious upside. If they turned out to be gay, though, they would continue to have my love and support.

    Michael and Henry both say the only downside to being gay stems from other people’s narrow-mindedness. Is that the case for everyone, though? I’ve known a fair number of gay couples who regret that they can’t have a child together. Is it really possible to believe that social pressure alone accounts for the desire to see their combined genetic heritage reflected in their child? You don’t have to be one of those mean-spirited people who think of adopted children as somehow not “real” or who assume every childless person lives a pathetic, unhappy life to recognize the human instinct to procreate and to concede that responding to it is “valid.”

    From a different angle, parents do all sorts of things to ensure happiness by their own definition for their children. The line between encouraging a child to rise to high standards and tamping down his personality isn’t always clear. Still, it’s not uncommon for parents to foist piano lessons on their children, or to pressure them into going to parochial school, or to refuse to pay for college if it’s not Ivy, when the children’s native aptitudes and interests clearly run in different directions. There’s an obvious and direct way in which rejecting an existing child’s core self and trying to substitute another of the parents’ own choosing causes unhappiness.

    Would manipulating genes have a comparable effect? It doesn’t seem to me that it would, though I can only speculate, of course. A child might feel a bit odd if told that Mom underwent some kind of drug regimen to incline him toward engineering rather than painting, but since the only life he would know would (presumably) be that of an inclination toward engineering, I can’t imagine that he’d be haunted by not having been able to live as his “natural” self. Anyway, it’s already natural for people, when they’re feeling down, to wonder whether people living different lives are happy or more productive or what have you.

    And that’s always struck me as what this debate is really about for a lot of gay people: they seem to think that accepting that some people might not want themselves or their children to be gay somehow reflects badly on us. Hence the indignant declarations that we are too happy and that prejudice from hetero-meanies is all that keeps us from being more so. I don’t see why that stance is necessary. Life is about trade-offs for everyone, and part of living in a free society is respecting people who prioritize things differently. Those of us who are out homosexuals should be more aware of that than anyone.


    亥年

    Posted by Sean at 00:02, January 3rd, 2007

    I’ve just finished former Knight Ridder Tokyo bureau chief Michael Zielenziger’s book Shutting out the Sun: How Japan Created Its Own Lost Generation. So many books have now been written about what’s wrong with post-Bubble Japan that I wish I could say that Zielenziger’s is redundant, that the big problems have already been sufficiently teased out and there isn’t much more to add to the discussion. Unfortunately, that’s not the case, and one of the virtues of Zielenziger’s book is that he focuses on the patterns that emerge from talking with individual Japanese people about their lives.

    His focus, as his subtitle implies, is on Japanese adults born in the ’60s and ’70s. He’s spoken mostly to men who’ve dropped out of society and rarely leave home and to women who are approaching middle age but unmarried. At this stage in their lives, they would be expected to have their families and careers and, for lack of a better term, life goals established pretty well. Why is it that so many do not, despite living in an affluent, well-educated, democratic society?

    One obvious but clever way he considers the question is by way of comparison: Why is it that Korea, so similar to Japan in so many ways, was specifically able to rebound from the Asian financial crisis a decade ago and is generally more receptive to social and economic reforms? One of Zielenziger’s key answers is something that, while extensively discussed in academic circles, doesn’t get much play in the mass-audience books about East Asia I know of:

    In my somewhat conventional coverage of the political and economic character of these two competing societies while working as a journalist, it had never dawned on me that the role religion played could prove so decisive in altering a people’s attitudes toward self-esteem, individuation, or communal responsibility. Nothing in my background or disposition as an American Jew prepared me to accept that the rise of Western religion–and especially the Protestant Church–had served as a vital force crucial in transforming South Korean society. It may be too simple to argue that exposure to Christianity alone has changed Korean consciousness. Yet the churches have coached the Korean people in forming social networks, building trust among strangers, and accepting universal ethics and individualism in ways that served as powerful antidotes to the autocratic worldview their grandparents–and, indeed, the Japanese–had been taught.

    I happen to think that the Japanese view of nature–as crowded with turbulent, competing and complementary forces that are, on balance, indifferent to human joy and pain–is a much more accurate reflection of reality than Christian theology. But the same imagination that allowed our Western ancestors to conceive of God as an immanent, transcendent, more super-cool version of us (complete with a highly-evolved personality) is what allowed them to conceive of principles above and beyond group-rule and of the possibility of asserting will over nature.

    There’s a danger in extending that explanation too far, of course. Korea, despite having been the Hermit Kingdom, is a peninsula attached to Asia; the neighbors with which it shares borders are huge and frequently pushy. Korea has a long history of dealing with and adapting to external forces, and since the 1950s, the South has had the proximity of the DPRK to maintain a sense of urgent mindfulness of hard reality. So Christian missionaries have not been the only source of difference in outlook between Korea and Japan; nevertheless, Zielenziger is right to pay attention to them.

    On a more amusing note of possible ill portent, the Mainichi reports the following:

    Four people suffered an ominous start to the Year of the Boar when they were attacked in the street–by wild boars.

    Local police suspect that several different wild boars attacked the four, noting that their descriptions of the animals were different.

    It may be that nature is rebelling; it’s more likely that boars are just more newsworthy right about now than they have been since twelve years ago. The New Year danger of choking on sticky rice cakes, by contrast, is an annual thing; in the Tokyo area, eleven elderly people were taken to the hospital, with five still in critical condition. In Japan, even the rice cakes have hidden dangers.

    Happy New Year, everyone.


    More questions about quake resistance

    Posted by Sean at 21:05, December 29th, 2006

    There’s been a lot going on here while I’ve been away from the blog, but some highlights will be especially cheering over the New Year holiday.

    One is that, predictably, increased vigilance spurred by the Hidetsugu Aneha scandal (he was given a five-year sentence this week) has brought some unpleasant things to the surface:

    About 7 percent of new medium-rise apartment complexes are believed to fall below the mandatory quake-resistance strength standard, an infrastructure ministry report showed. Fifteen of 221 buildings checked had a quake-resistance level of less than 0.9 against the benchmark of 1 set under the Building Standards Law, the report released Wednesday showed.

    One of the buildings in question may have a quake-resistance level of only 0.5 or even lower, which means the structure will have to be rebuilt, the report said. Buildings with less than 0.5 quake-resistance strength could collapse in a moderately strong earthquake, while buildings with strengths ranging from 0.5 to 1 can be reinforced to meet the standard, the ministry said.

    Officials said no clear falsifications of structural reports on quake-resistance have been confirmed in the survey. But the findings raised the possibility that many new medium-rise apartment buildings across the nation do not meet the quake-resistance strength standard.

    There are about 7,000 10-story or so condominium buildings that received approval for construction from 2001 through 2005. The ministry randomly picked 389 of them for the survey.

    One comfort here is that it didn’t take the actual collapse of a building to bring on greater scrutiny. (South Korea learned to take a harder line on building code enforcement after the showy Sampoong Department Store in Seoul pancaked, killing five hundred people; subsequent investigations revealed slipshod construction in many other buildings.) One non-comfort is that not even serious scandals such as this one are always sufficient to cause needed change in Japan.


    Can the thirsty stay sane / After what they’ve seen?

    Posted by Sean at 07:40, December 19th, 2006

    Virginia expresses the mild but still unnecessary worry that being nominated for this contest may imply that she’s a Mariah-like diva. Uh, no, dear lady. No way. And a good thing, too.

    I mean, see whether you can tell the difference between these two women in blue:

    mariah.jpg vipdiva.jpg

    Hmmm…. A real toughie, huh? I mean, the sense of unshowy authority just emanates equally from both. Of course, it doesn’t help Mariah that she appears to have taken Virginia’s support for elective plastic surgery to a greater extreme than one might have liked.

    Virginia’s post does raise the droll question of who might, in fact, qualify as a Mariah-like right-wing diva. Let’s see…nugatory technical flourishes…caterwauling tone…valuable sentiments hammered redundantly away at until you want to scream…I’m thinking, unsurprisingly, Ann Coulter. Of course, I don’t think she has a blog.

    One final observation: I don’t see why being a diva in the pop sense has to be worse than being a diva in the opera sense, despite the crass badness with which so many singers, in practice, handle being stars. Virginia’s not Mariah, thankfully, but I could see her as sort of like early Phoebe Snow–sober and unhurried and interested in how city and suburban living affect people.

    Added later: I remember in the late ’80s seeing some Entertainment Tonight-ish show on which a stylist (they weren’t really major public commentators then) said that things had changed to the point that looking as if your hear were all natural was no longer the prime object when wearing hairpieces. This was several years before weaves and extensions took off in a big way even in the suburbs. It was like, “If you’re at a party and no one can tell you’re wearing a hairpiece, that’s fine; and if people know, that’s fine, too. It’s just decoration.” How odd it sounded.

    I can’t imagine that even celebrities think of plastic surgery quite the same way by this point, but they do often come off as if they weren’t even trying. It seems to be pretty much assumed that everyone famous in Hollywood and New York has multiple procedures as a matter of routine, and a lot of it is so obvious that even if it doesn’t look obviously fake, it just looks bad.


    風刺

    Posted by Sean at 23:42, December 18th, 2006

    Most movies come to Tokyo pretty late. Mega-hype machines such as Casino Royale are generally here while they’re in the States. (It opened on 1 December, and I’m going this weekend.) The Devil Wears Prada, which I’ve been hearing about from friends at home for months, just got here a few weeks ago, and I went on Sunday. I still think Anne Hathaway has the most annoying voice this side of Hillary. Possibly on the far side of Hillary, for that matter. And the satire struck me as kind of muddled.

    What I’d really feared, though, was that it would end up being two hours of strung-together one-liners that could be uttered by any old bitch any old place…you know, the way a lot of sitcoms seem to be now. Good smart-ass remarks are attuned to their context, which is why you have to give five minutes of background exposition before explaining why what your best friend said at brunch last Sunday was so hilarious. The movie got that part right; most of the wisecracks fit the characters and the scene and didn’t feel as if they’d been bought by the pound and sprinkled over the script like pignoli.

    Unfortunately, not everyone who trades on bitchery does a good job at it, and Salon has a decent piece on the terminally tiresome Perez Hilton. It made me feel old in places, as when the writer said things like this:

    In fact, Perez is filling a cultural role first blazed by Steven “Coju” Cojocaru, Carson Kressley and Bobby Trendy: the bitchy gay man who has all the dish. […] In a very real way, he’s a modern-day Stepin Fetchit, cheerfully describing himself as a “media whore” for hire.

    Someone needs to tell the child about Michael Musto…though on second thought, maybe he’s better off not knowing. In any case, while the article’s kind of verbose, I liked the Bruce Vilanch quotation at the end:

    Of Hilton’s argument that he’s helping further gay civil rights, [Vilanch] says, “I don’t understand why we profit from having some bitter miserable person exposed against his will. How does that make a gay teenager happy to be gay? What kind of a role model does that establish? I don’t think it does anything for anybody.” Vilanch also sees the connection between Signorile and Hilton, saying, “It’s the same thing I said when Michelangelo Signorile was doing it: What purpose does it serve? These are professional homosexuals. They are gay people for a living. They have to respect the rights of homosexuals who aren’t professional.”

    “If somebody isn’t going to willingly announce that they are a positive individual, with a positive outlook on life,” Vilanch asks, “why would we want to include them among us?”

    I don’t think it’s every public figure’s responsibility to be a role model, exactly, and Vilanch seems to assume that anyone who’s closeted must be bitter and miserable (though he may not be generalizing the way he appears to be). Nevertheless, he’s right in the main. Who wants to join a “community” with its most shrieky, oafish members always at the ready to broadcast to everyone that you’re gay, as if even they regarded it as some kind of compromising secret, before you’ve decided how best to go about it? (Michelangelo Signorile, who’s so morally obtuse he’s practically a reflex angle, naturally contributes a quotation or two of blurry rhetoric of his own defending outing also.)