If you weren’t convinced that listening to our President speak in public is like watching a drunk make his way across 32 lanes of fast moving traffic frogger-style, while you stand on the other side watching helplessly, unable to do anything about it, then just read this interview he gave to NHK last week.
He’s just a — well — he’s just a bad speaker. He doesn’t speak well. He’s just — inarticulate — I think that’s what it’s called. And when he talks, it just isn’t — I mean, he just can’t say — he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about.
Here are a few of my favorite nuggets:
On Japan’s concern that it might be drawn into U.S. international strategy:
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, Japan makes the decisions that the government thinks is necessary. Japan is, of course, a sovereign nation.
Glad that’s cleared up, but I’m even more glad no one asked him about Taiwan.
On the SDF redeployment:
Q:And will you be urging Prime Minister Koizumi to prolong its deployment period as the mandate expires next month?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m aware the mandate does expire.
Oh, well that’s good that you know and all, ’cause y’know, the reporter just told you five seconds ago.
And finally, on beef imports:
Q: Lastly, it has been two years since Japan has banned imports of beef.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. (Laughter.)
Q: What do you expect?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I understand this is a very — that the — this is a difficult issue. I’m also pleased to see that the food safety commission — I think that’s what it’s called —
Q: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: — has ruled that U.S. beef is safe. Of course, our cattlemen here believe the beef is safe. I’m more than willing to eat U.S. beef, and do — eat a lot of it. And my point is, is that I hope that the government follows through with the recommendations of the safety commission — or just decides about opening the market and listens to the safety commission because we feel like not only our beef is safe, but it’s an important part of our cattle industry to be able to sell to the Japanese consumer.
Wait a minute, what was your point again?
I feel sorry for whoever had to translate this into Japanese.
The five friendlies are an incredible little family carefully chosen by Beijing 2008 to represent all of China to carry a message of friendship to the children of the world.
So said International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge over the weekend in a statement that was read at a nationally televised gala at a Beijing sports arena to mark the 1,000-day countdown until the Games.
With that usual Chinese flair for combining numeration and words that sound like they should have no plural in English, Beijing announced its mascot(s) for the 2008 Olympics, “The Five Friendlies.”
Reading the story got me curious about past Olympic mascots, so I set out to do a little research on the topic. On a side note, for those who want to put a wager on the Olympics, they can conveniently do so on sites such as 홈카지노.
The tradition of selecting a mascot for the games began in 1968 with the Winter Olympics held in Grenoble. The first mascot was Schuss, and was a figure with a large round head crouched down on a pair of skis. Schuss was followed four years later by Waldi, the first official mascot, which was a multicolored Dachshund chosen to represent Munich in the 1972 Winter Games.
Since then, every host county has chosen a mascot that more or less symbolized some representative aspect of local culture or that was symbolic of the games themselves. Los Angeles had Sam the Eagle in 1984, Moscow had Misha the Bear in 1980, and Montreal had Amik the Beaver in 1976. At least three of Waldi’s colors were official Olympic colors, and Japan chose four mascots to symbolize the four years between the games. (The one possible exception, which I like to tell myself is no symbolic reflection on U.S. culture, is Izzy, the cosmic nightmare that Atlanta dreamed up for the 1996 Summer Games.)
So now we add to those ranks The Five Friendlies. But what of their symbolism? Apart from the obvious meanings (e.g. Panda, the Tibeten Antelope, etc…), are their names – Bei Bei, Jing Jing, Huan Huan, Ying Ying, and Ni Ni. Perceptive readers with a some knowledge of the Chinese language will recognize that taking the first syllable of each name yields the phrase, 北京欢迎你, or “Beijing welcomes you.”
This is not the first attempt at such punnery. The Japanese chose as their mascots for the 1998 Nagano Olympic Games, the Snowlets, four owls with the names, Lekki, Tsukki, Sukki, and Nokki. Taking the first syllable of each of their names produces the wonderfully Japanese phrase, レッツ・スノー, which rendered into English is, “Let’s Snow,” something that makes sense (even in English) only to Japanese or to gaijin who spent time in country (and even then, the verbal usage of “let’s” as a verb can prove confusing for foreigners.)
These choices reminded me of something an undergraduate history professor of mine once said about the Japanese and Chinese languages. He told our class that the first thing a Chinese teacher does is to give every student a Chinese name in Chinese characters. From then on, that is your name when you are speaking Chinese. The Japanese not only don’t give anyone a Japanese name, but they have an entirely separate phonetic system to express the Japanese version of foreign names.
Those readers who have spent time in either of these countries probably already see what he was getting at, but it has to do with the degree of inclusiveness of each culture. And at the risk of sounding too culturally deterministic, I think there is something similar to be said about the choice of mascots by these two countries. Japan’s Snowlets were clearly meant for a domestic audience, which is fair enough. After all, Japan was hosting the games. But their attempt at linguistically and symbolically reaching out pales in comparison to the Chinese effort. (It also shows one of the things Japan does best these days – cuteness.) While I’m sure China no doubt hopes the Five Friendlies will be a hit domestically, everything from the choice of the word “friendly” to the welcoming pun formed from their name indicates the kind of message Beijing hopes to send to the world.
China’s choice also says something about the degree to which its “peaceful rise” diplomacy has been incorporated in creative and non-traditional ways into popular culture. Whether one buys into the message or not, one can’t accuse the Chinese of not trying.
That said, their efforts proved vain in winning my heart for the best Olympic mascot ever, which hands down goes to the unofficial mascot of the Sydney Games…
The Yomiuri Shimbun: Opinion polls have shown you to be the front-runner in the race for the post-Koizumi era. Are you willing to take power?
Shinzo Abe: I’m in a position in which I must fulfill my duties as Prime Minister Koizumi’s right-hand man. I therefore must refrain from speaking out about my own political agenda.
How would you make good use of your current position as you seek to take power?
I’m still immature as a politician, really. As chief cabinet secretary, I must play a leading role in coordinating policy making processes in which all ministries and agencies are involved. I’m sure I’ll face a number of ordeals. My position will give me a chance to continue working hard as a politician.
Tight-lipped you say?
I’d say he’s made it rather clear in these comments that he fully intends to make a run for the LDP presidency next fall (not that anyone who is paying attention really needed another confirmation of this).
One of the most common criticisms of Abe as a candidate for Prime Minister is his lack of political experience. And one frequent commentary on Koizumi’s appointment of Abe as Chief Cabinet Secretary was that it was a move calculated to make up for Abe’s lack of experience. Now, here we have Abe first recognizing this weakness, and then hinting that his new role will provide ample opportunity for him to lessen it.
Don’t be surprised if next Semptember we hear it pointed out that, “when Abe first took this position, he was still rather immature as a politician. However, he’s faced a number of ordeals and come out of them more mature and experienced.”
p.s. He also wasn’t very tight-lipped about policy towards North Korea, including the use of sanctions to force the return of all abductees, even those merely “belived to be abducted.” Given the grass-roots popularity for the abductee issue, if that’s not openly campaigning for office, I don’t know what is.
Curzon over at ComingAnarchy.com has this to say on Japan’s scientific whaling program, which incidentally will double the number of minke whales caught this year:
Be against whaling if you like, it’s all a distraction from the vast overfishing of fish, not whales, that is the real environmental issue of the day. And as for the ban on hunting whales, nothing makes people want to eat this relatively untasty meat than being told they can’t eat it by a bunch of self-righteous outsiders.
I’ve never been all that opposed to, or all that bothered by Japan’s whaling policies, so I don’t see much point in beating a close ally over the head about this. And Curzon’s right that there’s no better way to really make whale meat a part of Japan’s culture then to tell the Japanese that it isn’t.
So, I don’t have much to add to that.
However, with regards to the program’s function as a distraction, I think Japan should be glad that environmentalists were too busy gearing up for this fight to pay much attention to the Taiji Dolphin Slaughter. (Japan might also be glad that one of their nickname for the whales, 海のゴキブリ or “cockroach of the sea” hasn’t been widely translated in to English. Why in God’s name anyone would want to eat a cockroach, I’ve not the slightest idea.)
Actually, I almost didn’t hear about it either. In fact, the only reason I even knew about it was a full page advert in the NYT announcing it. And then I forgot all about it until I read Curzon’s post earlier today.
Anyway, go check out some video and what happens when an environmentalist with a computer has way too much time on his hands here.
Sure, this is some pretty greusome stuff. But I’m not sure it’s all that different from the still moving fish, with its belly meat lined up on a bed of grated daikon, one pays damned good money to be served on a plate at a nice sushi restaurant.
Besides, Japan fought to save the dugong. Don’t they deserve some credit for that?
Even though this post has nothing to do with toads or amusement parks, I chose the title in keeping with the anurian theme of this blog. But boy, wouldn’t this month’s Nikkei 255 make one hell of an exciting coaster ride?
I smoothed the line just for a more pleasing visual effect, but the bounce back from the “Livedoor Shock” is clearly official. In fact, for the past two days the Nikkei 225 average has closed at highs not seen since September 2000.
Lacking the sophistication to explain the reasons behind this (and having had it correctly pointed out to me over the weekend that I am wont to jump to unsupported conclusions about Japan) I’m going to defer to the opinion of the “professionals” on interpreting this one. Analysts are citing several factors for the latest rally.
First, a nmber of positive economic indicators appear to have improved the confidence of investors. Starting with the labor market, employment data for December showed a marked improvement, with the ratio of job offers to job seekers balancing out at one to one, the highest it’s been since September 1992. The unemployment rate fell an additional 0.2 percent, to 4.4. percent, the lowest level in seven years.
Housing figures also look promising. Starts in 2005 rose for the third strait year, up 4% to 1,236,122.
Industrial production also rose by 1.4% (seasonally adjusted) in December.
Finally, gains by individual companies also seem to have played a roll.
A fall in the yen-dollar exchange rate has been a boon to profits of exporters such as Toyota, Honda and Advantest, all of whom closed higher on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, rising oil prices equal increased profits for companies like Nippon Oil and AOC Holdings, Inc.
Looked at as a whole, all of these figures (except perhaps for the higher oil prices) appear to suggest movement towards a stronger economy – higher corporate profits, more hiring, and increased consumption, etc…
But, while those factors are fine for institutional investors who have the resources to pay anti-social quant jocks to stare at computer monitors all day while mentally multi-tasking the application of Einstein’s general theory of relativity to global securities markets. But what about individual investors? The average Tanaka on the street, punching trades into his cell phone?
Well, in my humble, albeit relatively uninformed opinion, these guys might be basing their investment decisions on this:
Now, aren’t you sorry you didn’t buy in last fall?
[N]o sooner do we depart from sense and instinct to follow the light of a superior principle, to reason, meditate, and reflect on the nature of things, but a thousand scruples spring up in our minds concerning those things which before we seemed fully to comprehend. Prejudices and errors of sense do from all parts discover themselves to our view; and, endeavoring to correct these by reason, we are insensibly drawn into uncouth paradoxes, difficulties, and inconsistencies, which multiply and grow upon us as we advance into speculation, till at length, having wandered through many intricate mazes, we find ourselves just where we were, or, which is worse, sit down in a forlorn Skepticism.
– George Berkeley, The Principles of Human Knowledge
In daily life, we assume as certain many things which, on a closer scrutiny, are found to be so full of apparent contradictions that only a great amount of thought enables us to know what it is that we really may believe. In the search for certainty, it is natural to begin with our present experiences, and in some sense, no doubt, knowledge is to be derived from them. But any statement as to what it is that our immediate experiences make us know is very likely to be wrong.
– Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy
The passages above describe eloquently an idea that has long lingered troublingly in the back of my mind, but remained unarticulated due to principally to my own laziness in fleshing it out. I don’t expect to exorcize all of my demons on the subject here, but at least it will be a start.
I’ve never perceived myself as being the type to fall easily into one camp or another on things. Consequently, I either find myself taking a position of devil’s advocate in order to participate in a conversation, or find myself sinking into a disappointed indecision. If I’m around conservatives, for example, I usually feel myself inexorably being pulled in the opposite direction. When around liberals, the opposite is true.
In either instance, I am left wondering, “how can this or that person be so sure about himself or herself?” Furthermore, I wonder, “how can I be so unsure of myself?” Granted, I may be objecting to attitudes more than to opinions in the aforementioned examples, but the questions still remain unanswered.
It’s not that I lack the ability to construct a logical argument and follow through on the conclusion. But on what basis are such conclusions ultimately derived?
Consider the following question: Is abortion right?
Now consider the following two answers to this question:
– Life begins at conception.
– The taking of a life is wrong.
– Abortion takes a life.
– Therefore, abortion is wrong.
Fine, but what about this:
– A fetus is part of a woman’s body.
– A woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases.
– Therefore, if she wishes to have an abortion, she is justified.
They are both simplified examples to be sure, and while I’m no logician, they suit my purposes here. There appears to be no problem with the arguments themselves; the rub lies in the assumptions. Then we are forced to ask: which assumption is right? That just leads to another argument, founded on other, more basic assumptions.
But if we keep digging, what eventually remains? I wonder how often people stop to ask themselves this question. It seems possible that one could rely on “sense and instinct” clothed in the type of arguments above without ever considering the soundness of their assumptions. For practicality’s sake we must we draw a mental line somewhere if we are to avoid a slippery slope that leads to relativism or worse. We can’t go around denying the existence of tables all day long. But where and when should that line be drawn?
The most recent edition of Prime Minister Koizumi’s email magazine features an interesting article by Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Nakayama Nariaki.
In the article, titled “My Proposal: The Encouragement of Martial Arts,” Nakayama writes:
Along with changes in socioeconomic factors in recent years, our children’s environment has changed drastically. Problems requiring our great concern are taking many different shapes, such as the deterioration of physical strength, the confusion of basic living habits, and common outbreaks of youth violence.
One of the causes of these problems is that in the post-war era, following the shock of our first defeat in recorded history, even Japan’s excellent traditions have been completely rejected. As one countermeasure to this condition, I would like to suggest the advancement of martial arts.
Martial arts have been developed by our forbearers throughout a long history and are a unique part of Japan’s traditional culture. Of course these arts aim to develop the body and mind through training, but they also seek to ultimately development one’s character, fostering a spirit of respect for civility and for one’s opponent. Thus, from the perspective of youth development, the advancement of martial arts is significant.
After reading the article, I took a look at Nakayama’s website only to discover that there is not a single mention of his rather impressive martial arts accomplishments (he has earned a 6th degree black belt in Karate and a 3rd degree black belt in Aikido). I found this rather disappointing and was even more disappointed to learn that that under his hobbies he had listed “reading” and “golf.”
Golf?
How is golf any better than dancing, which Nakayama criticizes as a waste of time?
To be fair, Nakayama was arguing in favor of the personal, spiritual, and moral benefits of martial arts during a youth’s formative years in junior high and high school. (He does tell us that his practice of martial arts had a great influence on his character development during his own early years.) Furthermore, since martial arts such as karate and aikido may be viewed as uniquely Japanese traditions I can certainly understand how their practice might, in addition to developing a strong character and other such benefits, also instill a healthy sense of national pride in Japanese youth.
However, I must respectfully disagree with the Minister that other disciplines, even non-Japanese ones, are a waste of time. Of course one’s dance or golf coach is probably not going to spend time lecturing on the fundamentals of ki or urging the use of force as only as a last resort. But when it comes to developing discipline, self-respect, perseverance, or other such universally admired characteristics, even sports such as golfing or dancing have a great deal to offer.
Surely even Mr. Nakayama could not look at Tiger Woods and with a straight face deny that golf has had a profound influence on his life in many of the same ways that martial arts probably had on Mr. Nakayama’s own life.
Yesterady we posted an article from the Yomiuriabout some malcontented Japanese youth who vented their Greenspan-fatigue on homeless Alan look-a-likes.
Now, the latest edition of the Onion‘s “What do you think?” has another example of the cosmic record-skip that Bernanke’s appointment is causing.
Francis Englund, area Programmer, had this to say:
“He’s irreplaceable. This Bernanke guy may be an anti-inflation fiscal conservative, but you just can’t run the Fed if you’ve never screwed Ayn Rand.”
Well said my friend. You took the words right out of my mouth.
I found this a few minutes ago while digging around on the PM’s residence site looking for press conference transcripts (no luck).
In spite of the majic mushrooms getting a shout out, this is unquestionably the creepiest bit of PR that he’s managed to pull out. I like the electronic newsletter, but the violin music in the background, combined with the sickeninly soft tone of his voice (he’s talking about postal privitization for God’s sake!) and the interviewer’s cluelessness make it sound like the beginning of some kind of bad porn flick.
“I’m the greatest, no?”
“Hai.”
“I really showed those monkeys in the upper house who’s boss, didn’t I?”
Okay, sorry about that. I try to make an effort to keep things somewhat serious on my posts, but if Koizumi is going to use taxpayer money to make radio advertisements for his spaghettiwestern soundtrack…
Okay, okay. I was just kidding about the kabuki bit in the subject line.
But listen:
One of the news stories currently making the rounds is a proposal by the LDP Fiscal Reform Study Group to hike consumption taxes from the current 5 per cent level to somewhere between 10 to 15 per cent. Increased revenues would then be used to pay for governmental expenditures on welfare, specifically public pension and insurance programs.
Now, Koizumi has said on numerous occasions that he would not increase the consumption tax during his tenure (which ends next September), but following the announcement by the study group did acknowledge the necessity of doing so (after he leaves office, of course). So, here we have the Prime Minister and his party saying that a tax hike is unavoidable sometime in the near future, but they’re not gonna do it just yet.
Of course, we didn’t hear much talk about raising taxes from the LDP before September’s general election. In fact, if I recall correctly, about the only thing we did hear was Koizumi saying that he wouldn’t raise the consumption tax while he was in office. The DPJ, on the other hand, included in their Manifesto a proposal to raise the consumption tax to 8%. And what were they going to do with this windfall inflow? Why, pay for governmental expenditures on welfare, of course.
And what is the LDP reaction to this attempt to steal their thunder on even an unpopular issue such as tax hikes? Criticize them for not going far enough.
“I am not sure that the DPJ plan is enough,” Koizumi said. “There will certainly be calls for tax revenues to cover not only pension programs but also medical and nursing programs.”
The man talks a great game: he speaks to the public about the necessity of making tough decisions, makes the DPJ look like the protectors of the status quo in the process, but refuses to take action himself. Meanwhile, the DPJ gets clock cleaned and its initiative stolen.
