Author: Saru

The meaning of Ic(h)or

During a dinner conversation with friends on Thursday night, the subject of ichor came up. (Don’t ask – the gentlemen who mentioned it writes crossword puzzles for a living.) Not surprisingly, none of us had the slightest idea what he was talking about. It turns out that ichor is essentially the blood of the Gods.

From Wikipedia:

In Greek mythology, ichor (Greek ἰχώρ) was a mineral present in the blood of the gods that kept them immortal. It was sometimes said to have been present in ambrosia or nectar. When a god was injured and bled, the ichor made their blood poisonous to mortals.

But the word did ring vaguely familiar. After a few seconds, I remembered having heard it mentioned once in an international trade theory class. Of course, the professor wasn’t talking about Greek Mythology. Not being able to recall what the acronym stood for, I sought to commit it to memory. Here’s what I found.

According to Deardorff’s Glossary of International Economics

The amount of additional capital that a developing country requires to increase its output by one unit; thus the reciprocal of the marginal product of capital. Used as an (inverse) indicator of how efficiently a country is using the scarce capital it acquires.

Sound complicated? Actually, it’s really not all that difficult. It’s basically a measure of investment efficiency. Chi Hung Kwan explains in an essay written for the Japanese Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (REITI):

When considering investment efficiency in macroeconomic terms, the “incremental capital – output ratio (ICOR)” serves as a guide. ICOR is obtained by dividing the ratio of investment to GDP with real economic growth, and the smaller it is, the more efficient the investment.

Here are some comparative figures from Mr. Kwan’s essay:

Icor

So, there you have it. The hematological and economic significance of ic(h)or. Two of the most useful words in the English (and Greek) language(s).

Beneath Japan’s Cuteness

Yesterday Roy posted on Census-kun, the Giant Baby whose cuteness will compel all ethnic Japanese (and from the look of things, quite possibly Daniel Carl) to participate in counting Japan’s declining population, which is expected to peak at 127.74 million in 2006.

Not to be outdone, today I’d like to introduce readers to a valuable online resource that is not without its own brand of cuteness…The Ministry of Finance!

That’s right, The Ministry of Finance.

Seeing Census-kun reminded me of a user-friendly tax brochure the Ministry of Finance put out several years ago. The brochure, called “Let’s Talk About Taxes,” featured a cute claymation-like family of six who explores the wonderful world of government income and expenditure.

Who us? Cute?

Who, us? Cute?

Don’t let the cuteness fool you however. The contents of the brochure are excellent and provide a great introduction and overview to Japan’s current fiscal situation that most people might otherwise shy away from if it weren’t for the cartoon characters. Think of them as sugar coating on a bitter pill, or the lime wedge following a tequila shot.

But worry not dear reader, for the cuteness doesn’t end there. In visiting the MOF site I noticed a curiously cute button just above the one that takes you to the aforementioned tax guide. I clicked on it and the next thing I know I’m in Finance Town!

Go! Go! Finance Town!

In Finance town, visitors join the Finance kids, Noboru, Wataru, and Hikaru along with their two mouse-buddies and a lazy-ass cat called Doranyago, who wears a cape and superhero get up and apparently never pays his taxes. You can go fishing, perform high-flying acrobatics on the trapeze, or play dodge ball. Play the games, learn about the importance of paying taxes, and then go take the Finance Quiz. Perform well and make Doranyago pay his taxes!

Here again, don’t let the cuteness fool you. I actually learned a few things from the quiz. I don’t want to reveal too much for those of you who haven’t taken it yet, but I had no idea that there was 入湯税 in Japan, or that the symbol for a tax office on a map is patterned after the bead on an abacus!

Is Bush to Blame?

With the rare exception of economic issues, I don’t normally discuss domestic politics on this blog. However, as a departure from my regular routine, today I offer a few quick thoughts on recent criticisms of the Bush administration in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Comments are based on an article in today’s Washington Post titled, “Critics Say Bush Undercut New Orleans Flood Control.”

Would more money have helped? Probably not. The Post article notes that the President’s Democratic accusers willingly admitted that, “even with full funding in recent years, none of the flood-control projects would have been completed in time to prevent the swamping of the city. This lag between approval of funds and completion of projects seems to suggest that there is more at blame here than just Bush’s refusal to increase spending to the Army Corps of Engineers. As former assistant secretary of the Army for civil works, Michael Parker told the Post, “[e]verybody is to blame – it transcends administrations. It transcends a party.”

And this is probably the most honest and realistic assessment of the situation in the entire article. According to Parker, there is widespread resistance in government to investing in long-term projects such as those required to protect cities like New Orleans from flood damage. And why shouldn’t there be resistance? Long-term projects are often costly and benefits are not immediately seen or reaped. Furthermore, in the case of flood control projects, they may never be reaped. It isn’t difficult to imagine that for the holders of government purse strings there are always more immediate and potentially rewarding causes. The long-term gain is simply not always worth the short-term cost, be it political or monetary.

Are criticisms of the President’s refusal to allocate more money deserved? Perhaps. The details of the budget debate are not clear to me at this time and they were not elaborated upon in the article. It would therefore be premature to make assumptions about Bush’s reasoning for cutting spending on the Corps of Engineers. If a closer investigation of the matter revealed, for example, that the initial proposal to be a public works boondoggle, would anyone have blamed the President at the time for cutting funding? On the other hand, if accusations by the Democrats that Bush’s motivation was a reshuffling of resources to pay for tax cuts and the war in Iraq are true – in other words Bush consciously prioritized tax cuts and the war over domestic spending intended to protect American citizens – then some degree of responsibility certainly lays with the President. It does not mean that he deliberately ignored the safety or well being of these citizens, but in the end he simply made an unfortunate decision. The bitterly ironic fact that in July the White House attempted to block $1 billion to be used for the restoration of coastal wetlands but just yesterday asked Congress for $10.5 billion as the first installment of aid seems to support this point.

Should Bush accept responsibility for this decision? This is irrelevant. Hoping for contriteness from this President might soothe some raw nerves around the country, but it is unlikely to happen, unrealistic to expect, and in the short-term not much will change as a result. The President will adopt a serious, but positive sounding, forward-looking stance, not acknowledging any missteps of his own, as he has done since taking office following every major catastrophe, natural or otherwise. Bush supporters will unquestionably stand behind the President as they have in the face of past criticisms over tax cuts or the war. Those who do not support Bush will continue to be out for his blood. And perhaps a small number of Americans might experience disenchantment great enough to shift their political allegiance. In the long-term, if combined with growing dissatisfaction over the war in Iraq, rising oil prices, or some other unforeseen disaster, might reflect negatively on the President, but for now the issue is rather moot.

Partisan politics aside, we are all faced with choices and no one gets everything right. We cannot expect Bush to get it all right either. Certainly the decisions he makes as President may have greater consequences than those made by you or me on a daily basis, but another point of similarity is that in the end we must all bear the consequences of our decisions and Bush is no exception. It is hard to say at this point exactly what those consequences might be.

If you thought politicians in your country were immature — Part II

In keeping with Roy’s recent post on immature politicians, my previous post on a past dissolution of the Japanese Lower House, and the recent dissolution of the current Lower House by Koizumi, I thought it apropos to write today about a past instance in Japanese politics where immatuure politics led to the dissolution of the Lower House — the バカヤロー解散, or “name-calling dissolution.”

The incident in question occured on February 23, 1953 during a meeting of the Lower House Budget Committee (衆議員予算委員会) as then Prime Minister Yoshida Shigeru (吉田茂) was questioned by Nishimura Eiichi (西村栄一) of the rightist faction in the Japan Socialist Party (右派社会党). Yoshida’s outburst during the questioning session would eventually lead to Yoshida’s dissolution of the Lower House, and finally to elections.

Here is an abridged transcription of the exchange:

西村「総理大臣が過日の施政演説で述べられました国際情勢は楽観すべきであるという根拠は一体どこにお求めになりましたか」

吉田「私は国際情勢は楽観すべしと述べたのではなくして、戦争の危険が遠ざかりつつあるということをイギリスの総理大臣、あるいはアイゼンハウアー大統領自身も言われたと思いますが、英米の首脳者が言われておるから、私もそう信じたのであります(中略)」

西村「私は日本国総理大臣に国際情勢の見通しを承っておる。イギリス総理大臣の翻訳を承っておるのではない。(中略)イギリスの総理大臣の楽観論あるいは外国の総理大臣の楽観論ではなしに、(中略)日本の総理大臣に日本国民は問わんとしておるのであります。(中略)やはり日本の総理大臣としての国際情勢の見通しとその対策をお述べになることが当然ではないか、こう思うのであります」

吉田「ただいまの私の答弁は、日本の総理大臣として御答弁いたしたのであります。私は確信するのであります」

西村「総理大臣は興奮しない方がよろしい。別に興奮する必要はないじゃないか」

吉田「無礼なことを言うな」

西村「何が無礼だ」

吉田「無礼じゃないか」

西村「質問しているのに何が無礼だ。君の言うことが無礼だ。(中略)翻訳した言葉を述べずに、日本の総理大臣として答弁しなさいということが何が無礼だ。答弁できないのか、君は……」

吉田「ばかやろう…」

西村「何がバカヤローだ。バカヤローとは何事だ。（以下略）」

(My) Translation:


Nishimura: What exactly was the basis of the Prime Minister’s statement during a recent policy speech that the international situation was optimistic?

Yoshida: I wasn’t saying that the international situation should be optimistic. I think that the British Prime Minister and President Eisenhower themselves had said that the danger of war was receeding and because the American and British heads of state said so, I also belive it to be so (abbv.)

Nishimura: I’m asking for the Prime Minister of Japan’s outlook on the international situation. It’s not like I’m asking for a translation of the British Prime Minister`s outlook. (abbv.) This isn’t about the optimism of the British Prime Minister or some other foreign Prime Minister (abbv.) The Japanese people are questioning the Prime Minister of Japan. Isn’t it natural that Japan’s Prime Minister should state his outlook and policy on international affairs? I think it is.

Yoshida: My answer just now is my answer as the Prime Minister of Japan. There’s no doubt about that.

Nishimura: I don’t think the Prime Minister should get so excited. There’s no need to get that worked up, is there?

Yoshida: Don’t be so impudent.

Nishimura: What’s impudent?

Yoshida: You’re impudent.

Nishimura: I’m just asking you questions. What’s so impudent about that? What you’re saying is impudent. (abbv.) What’s impudent about my asking you, as the Prime Minister of Japan, without using [Churchill’s*] translated words, to answer me? Can’t you answer? You…

Yoshida: You Idiot!

Nishimura: Who’s the idiot! Who are you calling an idiot?

The transcription ends here, but Nishimura went on to demand that Yoshida retract his comments, which Yoshida finally agreed to do. However, this was not enough to mollify Nishimura, whose party introduced a disciplianry measure (here’s a great new Japanese word one does not often run across –> 懲罰動議•ちょうばつどうぎ) on March 2. The measure passed in part due to the absence of a number of Yoshida’s own Liberal Party (自由党) members (it would still be two years before the formation of the LDP), notably those members close to Hatoyama Ichiro, who would later suceed Yoshida as Prime Minister, and Hirokawa Kozen, who at the time was serving as Agriculture Minister in Yoshida’s third cabinet.

But the retaliation did not stop there. Tweleve days later a motion of non-confidence was passed, which resulted in Yoshida’s dissolution of the Lower House and call for elections. Yoshida managed to be reelected Prime Minister and would hold on to power for almost two more years before resiging as Prime Minister and head of the Liberal Party.

(For the single, but excellent, online English language account I was able to locate, please see Mayumi Itoh’s article The Depurging of Hatoyama Ichiro: Power Struggles in Postwar Japan in the online journal E-ASPAC I should point out that it is from this source that I have used the english translation, “name-calling dissolution.”)

* Because the transcription provided by Wikipedia was abridged in several places it does not specifically mention Churchill’s name. However, this additional transcription found here fills in some of the gaps, including Nishimura’s criticism of Yoshida’s frequent quoting of foreign leaders, Churchill among them.

A Happening Happpening.

Since Roy and I seem to be trading rather interesting posts on language (here, here, and here), here’s another great Japanese word that I just happened upon and happen find amusing. It’s also an example of how as words become transplants from one language to another, they often undergo slight changes in meaning or nuance.

From today’s Asahi online edition:

ヤンキースタジアムで３階席の少年がネットに転落

2005年08月10日22時29分

９日の大リーグ、ヤンキース―ホワイトソックスでファンが観客席から転落するハプニングがあった。

I’ll be nice this time and spell it out, but it says: Kokonoka no dai ri-gu, yanki-zu- howaitosokkusu de fan ga kankyakuseki kara tennraku suru hapuningu ga atta.

I’m not quite sure how to translate that literally using the actual word “happening” as it is used in the original Japanese without adding additional, implied information. I guess it would read something like this: “At Tuesday’s Yankees – White Sox game there was a happening (where a fan) fell from (his) seat.”

The reason I find this word so amusing is that the word happening is overwhelmingly used in English as a verb, not as a noun – though it also occasionally shows up as an adjective. Nevertheless, it somehow managed to make the jump to Japanese as a noun and has survived. I tried to think of common usages as a noun in English, and the best I could come up with is “fortuitous happening.” A few fruitless Google searches later, I gave up and just turned to the The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, which had this to say:

A happening is an event, especially a noteworthy or dramatic one, or one staged deliberately for theatrical effect, as in Her parties were always planned to be happenings, intended to be talked about for weeks afterwards. The word is Standard.

Being very unscientific about this inquiry, I feel that using happening as a noun has always had a slightly antiquated feel to it. It’s the type of word that I might expect to hear a Brit use with regularity, but one that just somehow sounds a bit odd coming from the mouth of an American too often.

In Japanese, happening is used only as a noun (although there is an entry in 英辞朗 of the noun ハプン but I’ve never heard or seen this word used before) and refers to an unexpected or surprising event – like some kid falling out of his seat into the safety net at a Yanks-White Sox game. Here’s the definition as provided by goo 辞書:

ハプニング 1 [happening]

(1)思いがけない出来事。偶発的な事件。
「―が生じる」

(2)予想外の、意表をついた出来事の表現効果を積極的に追求する演劇・絵画などにおける前衛的芸術活動。

Coincidentally, while reading up on Japan’s September 11th general election, I happened across ハプニング once again, which I could only call a fortuitous happening. On May 19, 1980, then Prime Minister Ohira dissolved the lower house and called for elections. The name of the dissolution?

ハプニング解散

Unfit for the Salamander – A lesson in Japanese etymology

Occasionally I run across a word or phrase in Japanese that I recognize only because I know I’ve looked it up at least two or three times (if not more). Yet for some reason the meaning just won’t stick with me. This happened earlier today while reading the Asahi at work. This time I intend to do something about it, as well as provide an interesting language lesson for any of our readers who are slowly killing themselves learning Japanese.

The phrase in question today is particularly irksome because of its idiomatic nature. I know the meaning of the individual words, but haven’t an inkling what the hell the phrase as a whole means. It’s as if someone was conversing with you in English and described a situation as “unfit for the salamander.”

So now that I’ve hopefully gotten everyone’s attention, here’s the sentence with today’s mystery phrase in bold:

森氏は会議後、記者団に「はっきり言って、さじを投げた」と語った。

Literally, it means, “to throw the spoon.” So the entire sentence literally translates as:

After the meeting Mr. Mori told reporters, “Honestly speaking, [I] threw the spoon.”

So what’s it mean? It means to give up on something.

And just how did it come to mean this? Isn’t that obvious? The Japanese eat with chopsticks, don’t they? Just as the occasional foreigner who visits Japan today and manages to master the art of eating with chopsticks will be repeatedly praised by his hosts, at one time it was equally difficult for Japanese to master the art of eating with a spoon. As anyone who’s tried eating with chopsticks knows, sometimes you just want to throw them on the ground, go for a fork and just dig in. Well, apparently Japanese used to feel the same way about spoons and would often throw them down in resignation.

Okay, okay. I just made all that up. And honestly speaking, that story was about as unfit for the salamander* as one can get.

Actually, the real story as best I can tell is this. The meaning derives from a situation where a doctor diagnoses a patient’s recovery to be hopeless. At one time medicine was prepared with a spoon and once it was determined that someone was a goner, there was no further need to continue preparing medicine and the doctor could just “throw in the spoon,” so to speak.

If anyone out there can add any clarity to this little history lesson (and my money says that Roy can), I will be looking forward to any additions in the comments section.

* As of 6:41 pm on August 8, 2005, the phrase “unfit for the salamander” did not show up on a Google search. It may be a safe assumption that I am among the first, if not the first, to actually use this phrase in a sentence.

Pink is so last five-year plan

More fashion news from the North. Hot on the heels of news that short side and back haircuts are all the rage, we have this from Yahoo News:

SEOUL (Reuters) – Pink, red and yellow are the fashion colours of choice for North Korea’s nouveau-riche who no longer want to be seen in the drab black and white outfits of the proletariat, a South Korean paper reported on Monday.

Read the rest of the article…

This one is for Curzon

Maybe my posts suck because I’m too close to the center to say anything controversial. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t get a lot of comments on what I blog. And I know the reason. It’s just that I just can’t change my personality or the fact that maybe I’m not cut out for this.

But even I know Panglossian rubbish when I see it.

I found a link to this via my daily check of NewsonJapan.com. The story, “US Asks Japan For Half A Billion Dollars For Missile Defense,” originally appeared in the Daily Yomiuri, and was later posted on this site.

Let’s have a look at some of the comments in response to this article:

While the real problems on Earth like poverty remain unresolved.

Great, why don’t you fire up another doobie, and maybe things will all work out in the end. Of course poverty remains a problem! But don’t you see that the world isn’t that simple a place? It’s terrible that problems like poverty remain unsolved, but bemoaning TMD ain’t going to make things any better. Do you honestly think that the sole reason poverty continues is because no one in the system cares about them?

The US has formed alliances with a corrupt Japanese administration in order to counter their paranoia with regard to China since ww2

Sure, that was a huge mistake we made to ally ourselves with the LDP rather than the socialists and communists back in the early 1950s. Maybe if we had only changed our minds Japan could be like North Korea is today, where paranoia towards China is the last thing on anyone’s mind.

The US’ strong reaction to the European near-decision last March to lift their arms embargo against China shows how little the US wants its military position undermined. An armed to the teeth China might lead to a situation it no doubt considers among the worst of worse case scenarios in any future Far East developments.

You’re damned right the US reacted strongly. And why do you think that’s the case? Why is it that you seem to have no problem with arming China, or with Europe’s arms peddling, but cannot stomach the thought of a defensive missile system (yeah, that’s what the D stands for) for Japan and the United States?

The US is relentless however in working on Japan for it to become its Britain of the Far East with their joint research on the theater missile defense (TMD) system. This is intended to be in a developmental stage next year. The TMD is to target North Korea’s Nodong and Daepodong missiles and will also have a capability of reaching China’s Dong Feng nuclear base.

Say what you will about TMD, but trust me, “Nodong” and “Deapodong” aren’t Korean for “love thy neighbor” and “come here and give me a hug you big galoot!”

And what do you think a Dong Feng is? Have a look at this.
The I in ICBM stands for “Intercontinental.” As in, from one continent to another. As in, they can _attack_ other countries. But that’s okay, because they’re not the hegemon, right? They just need them to protect themselves from the US. Maybe so, but does that make the US any worse? Balderdash. Maybe if you actually read the pages of your history book rather than roll joints from them, you’d agree with me.

You know, now that I think about it, I’ll bet the Chinese could have fed, clothed, and housed a lot of people for the cost of those. Maybe if we set an example, they’d follow suit. Whadda ya think?

US hegemony continues -but does it make the world a safer place?

Safer than what? Sure the U.S. makes mistakes. Sure the U.S. pursues misguided policies. But what makes you think that any other hegemon would act differently? No, what makes you think they would act any better?

Don’t get me wrong. I normally don’t like to ruffle feathers. But the point of this is not to argue in defense of TMD, or US foreign policy, or anything else. And anyone who has a problem with the strength or character of my argument — which admittedly is not based on fact and is somewhat polemical — might want to reread those arguments against which it is directed.

It’s fine to criticize the United States and fine to criticize U.S. policy. I won’t call you anti-patriotic for that. But for the love of Zeus please consider the other side of things before doing it!

Failing that, just stay out of the fray and keep your mouth shut. In spite of however well meaning you are, or how correct the underlying direction of your argument is, you are making it really difficult for those of us here in reality to defend our own sensible arguments from the far right.

UPDATE:

More insanity…

What would it cost Japan if the US decided to pack up and go home?

Having lived in Japan for 12 years (including time in the Army), let me say 90% of the Japanese would love to see the US PACK UP AND GO HOME. They don’t want our bases there. They don’t want our GIs running around raping. They don’t want our arrogance.

The real reason we are still there is that Japan’s Prime Minister is just as big a dumbfuck as our President.If the people voted on it tomorrow, our ass would be out the door.

It isn’t a question of whether they want our bases there or not. It’s a question of what they will do if we leave. They may not like US bases in Japan, but something tells me they will like the alternative of having to pay for their own military expenditures as well as remilitarization even less. Not to mention the fact that they are then going to have to deal with an even more wary China and South Korea. And at some point they would have to face the question of nukes…

If the people cared about this issue as much as you say, and actually did vote (on anything), the LDP would have been out the door a long time ago. So I’m not really buying that.

Why I Write

Last night in making my regular check of my apartment building’s laundry room, which also serves as an occasional repository for tenant’s used and unwanted books, I picked up an aging copy of The Orwell Reader. In thumbing through it this morning, I happened across a short essay written in 1947 and titled, “Why I Write.”

As many of our readers host their own web-based literary enterprises, I felt sharing Mr. Blair’s motives for writing, and his insights in the mind of a writer to be an appropriate impetus for reflection upon our own efforts. (My comments follow.)

Putting aside the need to earn a living, think that there are four great motives for writing prose. They exist in different degrees in every writer, and in any one writer the proportions will vary from time to time, according to the atmosphere in which he is living. They are:

(1) Sheer egoism. Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood, etc., etc. It is humbug to pretend that this is not a motive, and a strong one. Writers share this characteristic with scientists, artists, politicians, lawyers, soldiers, successful businessmen – in short, with the whole top crust of humanity. The great mass of human beings are not acutely selfish. After the age of about thirty they abandon individual ambition – in many cases, indeed, they almost abandon the sense of being individuals at all – and live chiefly for others, or are simply smothered under drudgery. But there is also the minority of gifted, willful people who are determined to live their own lives to end, and writers belong in this class. Serious writers, I should say, are on the whole more vain and self-centered than journalists, though less interested in money.

(2) Aesthetic enthusiasm. Perception of beauty in the external world, or, on the other hand, in words and their right arrangement. Pleasure in the impact of one sound on another, in the firmness of good prose or the rhythm of a good story. Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed. The aesthetic motive is very feeble in a lot of writers, but even a pamphleteer or a writer of textbooks will have pet words and phrases which appeal to him for non-utilitarian reasons; or he may feel strongly about typography, width of margins, etc. Above the level of a railway guide, no book is quite free from aesthetic considerations.

(3) Historical impulse. Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.

(4) Political purpose – using the word “political” in the widest possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other people’s ideas of the kind of society that they should strive after. Once again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is a political attitude.

Now, about those motives.

I don’t imagine there is a soul among us in the blogosphere who does not deeply feel a desire to be perceived as clever. Mr. Blair is correct in perceiving it to be humbug to say otherwise. Even those of us who blog anonymously cannot escape it.

As for aesthetic enthusiasm, I must agree with Mr. Blair that this is at best a feeble motive, and doubly so for most bloggers. The very nature of the blog – short, timely, and regularly posted – necessitates for all but the most skillful wordsmiths among us that corners be cut. And where better to cut them than here. Our medium is such that we cannot expect readers, save for the occasional Ulysses fan, to stick around for more than a page or so. No, the focus must be on making the point, and making it quickly.

Certainly, each of us has our own style, even if our writings are posted after only a single draft. But I most often find myself sacrificing, “pleasure in the impact of one sound on another, [and] in the firmness of good prose or the rhythm of a good story,” for something that I can bang out during my lunch hour or between returning home for the evening and falling asleep.

Of course, I am rarely satisfied with the outcome, and more often than not feel as though I have left some vital part of myself exposed every time I click on the “publish” button. But the gift of the information age is that most is soon forgotten, and I move on to yet another half-assed attempt at prose. I am not a good writer, so I suppose it is just as well that I can reassure myself by labeling these efforts half-assed and be done with it.

I recall once reading in the introduction to Brave New World Revisited how displeased Aldous Huxley became in rereading the manuscript of BNW several decades after publication. And at the very least I can take comfort in knowing that much greater writers than myself struggle with the same.

I won’t deny, at least in the authors of the blogs I regularly read, a strong historical impulse. Whether or not any of our ones and zeros will be around for posterity’s sake, I cannot say. But I admire their desire to see things as they are and to find out true facts, even if I disagree with those facts.

Finally, little needs to be said about political motives I think. While some may not admit to a “desire to push the world in a certain direction,” few can deny a desire, “to alter other people’s ideas of the kind of society that they should strive after.”

I have left much unsaid, about how one’s childhood experiences shape one’s writing for example, so I encourage anyone interested to go read the entire essay before commenting.

MOFAODAPR Appeal

Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) offers a regular e-mail notification service for their “what’s new?” section of the website. One of the items in today’s mail was an overview of Japanese Official Development Assistance to China since 1979.

I haven’t the time or the strength right not to get into the politics of this, so if you haven’t been following Sino-Japanese relations lately, just skip this post.

If not, here are the numbers:

3.1331 trillion yen in loan aid (yen loans)
145.7 billion yen in grant aid
144.6 billion yen in technical cooperation

See the page for a detailed breakdown of where the yen loans have gone.

Interestingly, around 21 billion yen in loans has gone towards projects for “promotion of mutual understanding,” including funding for Japanese language study and a public broadcasting infrastructure improvement project.

That sure was money put to good use.

Given the timing of this it seems like MOFA is building a case for turning off the aid spigot.