Special Agent K, who is much more observant than I am, said something that I often forget to mention about living abroad. That the sense of accomplishment that can be had from figuring out how to do stuff, especially in another language or culture, is like proof that your brain still works. Despite some out of date directions, I was able to successfully get to the right office, fill out the right papers and get a re-entry permit. That really felt good. It was like winning a sports match and figuring out a puzzle at the same time.
Riding high on that mark in the win column, I decided to look up a guy I met who said his shop sold big and tall suits. (That's another nice thing about living here. There are people who are willing to be civil, or even kind, just for the sake of being friendly to a foreigner. I'll have to remember to try and be good to other people someday...) So I went to his shop, and found they did have big and tall suits. Suits for people with up to a 130cm waist and 185 cm height.
Have I told you yet that I'm about 190 cm tall?
That was kind of a come down: to be reminded that, even by extra-normal standards, you don't fit.
Then again, no one leaves their home country to live abroad with an realistic goal of "fitting in." Mostly I was cheesed off because I really wanted a new suit. And really, the guy from the store seemed geniunely disappointed that they didn't have anything that would fit me.
So let's score the day a win by split decision. 'Cause in the end, I did figure out how to do some stuff. And I was never able to buy suits easily in the US anyway.
28 April 2003
23 April 2003
Since that last post was a little too desperate to leave out for everyone to see, it's been relocated here.
On a totally unrelated point, just when you think it's safe to start sterotyping people again, you meet a criminal court Judge from Tokyo who openly admits to being an animated film addict who spent so much of his time watching TV in university that he had to drop his Anglo-American Law class due to poor attendance, even though he's preparing to go to Philidelphia for a year to study the American Legal System.
It's really tough to stay bored here as long as you can talk to a few people.
On a totally unrelated point, just when you think it's safe to start sterotyping people again, you meet a criminal court Judge from Tokyo who openly admits to being an animated film addict who spent so much of his time watching TV in university that he had to drop his Anglo-American Law class due to poor attendance, even though he's preparing to go to Philidelphia for a year to study the American Legal System.
It's really tough to stay bored here as long as you can talk to a few people.
16 April 2003
It looks like the war is pretty much over, so now we can concentrate on more important things.
Like ignoring the reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Or the evisceration of the average American's constitutional protections.
Hell, maybe we can even get back to asking why it is after cutting taxes and raising spending, the US economy is still spashing around in the toilet?
No wait. There's gotta be someone else to invade first. How about North Korea? They're part of that Axis of Evil thing and they are actively pursuing Nuclear technology. Oh, wait, they don't have anything under their despot except for starving, oppressed people. They don't have any oil or coal. And they've already tested all the swell new bombs and guns that had been stored up since 1992. I guess we can continue through diplomatic channels with North Korea.
Fucking hell, what a country.
Like ignoring the reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Or the evisceration of the average American's constitutional protections.
Hell, maybe we can even get back to asking why it is after cutting taxes and raising spending, the US economy is still spashing around in the toilet?
No wait. There's gotta be someone else to invade first. How about North Korea? They're part of that Axis of Evil thing and they are actively pursuing Nuclear technology. Oh, wait, they don't have anything under their despot except for starving, oppressed people. They don't have any oil or coal. And they've already tested all the swell new bombs and guns that had been stored up since 1992. I guess we can continue through diplomatic channels with North Korea.
Fucking hell, what a country.
11 April 2003
Who Profits?
It's worth noting that my recent complaint about the firing of journalist Peter Arnett was not completely informed. C-Los, thank you for pointing that out. There were concerns about his journalistic integrity. I don't know whether or not he accepted payola for his reports about the status of America's initial assaults. If he did take cash in exchange for misrepresenting the facts, he should have been fired at once.
We rely on the media to deliver the truth about places and events that the majority of us cannot see or get into first hand. There is an expectation that the media will deliver the truth. The nature of the editorial is to deliver opinions, and the public has to remember that while we hope for an objective truth, we're often getting a subjective report.
Were Arnett's statements biased as a result of his personal opinions or because of a pay-off? I don't know. What I intended to object to was the repression of dissenting views. If his stated view of events was different because of personal opinion, that's one matter, and we should question the people we're trusting to tell us the truth. But if he made those specific claims in exchange for money, then his view is no more deserving of respect than that of any other type of propaganda.
If we, as rational individuals, are going to make good decisions, it seems we're going to have to ask the same questions every time we turn on the news: Who profits? Who stands to gain from telling us these things in this way?
We rely on the media to deliver the truth about places and events that the majority of us cannot see or get into first hand. There is an expectation that the media will deliver the truth. The nature of the editorial is to deliver opinions, and the public has to remember that while we hope for an objective truth, we're often getting a subjective report.
Were Arnett's statements biased as a result of his personal opinions or because of a pay-off? I don't know. What I intended to object to was the repression of dissenting views. If his stated view of events was different because of personal opinion, that's one matter, and we should question the people we're trusting to tell us the truth. But if he made those specific claims in exchange for money, then his view is no more deserving of respect than that of any other type of propaganda.
If we, as rational individuals, are going to make good decisions, it seems we're going to have to ask the same questions every time we turn on the news: Who profits? Who stands to gain from telling us these things in this way?
It looks as if Bagdad is under US/UK control now. And I will not disagree with the idea that a change of leaders seems to make the average Iraqi very happy. From all accounts, Hussein was a rotten sonuvabitch who relied on intimidation, torture and murder to control Iraq. His removal was probably a very good thing for the average guy.
But should it have been done by outside forces without a mandate from the people? Should it have been done without international approval? Perhaps the most troubling question to me is one of motive. Should it have been done by people whose primary goal doesn't seem to have been freedom or liberty, but control of a deep water port and a damn lot of oil?
The only clear message from the White House concerning the reconstruction of Iraq is that is it's something they prefer to leave to the Iraqi leaders who've been exiled since the 70's and the big oil companies, most of which were last able to make big money from Iraqi oil in the 70's.
Oh, there's a shock. Someone connected with Big Oil stands to make assloads of money. You'd almost think that the people who wanted to go to war most had some reason to be connection with the Oil industry. Next you'll tell me that the defense contractors who are going to get huge contracts to replace the thousands of missles and bombs used also have direct financial connections with the White House.
No, wait, you don't have to tell me. The damnned White House has said openly that this will mean enormous profits for the company that Cheney used to work for.
You lie to people when you worry that they can take action against you if they find out. What's it mean when you can brazenly say exactly what you're doing? If nothing else, the message is finally clear: "Bend over. Try not to think about it: there's gonna be some deep drilling, and if you struggle it's just gonna hurt more."
How do you think Iran and North Korea feel right about now?
But should it have been done by outside forces without a mandate from the people? Should it have been done without international approval? Perhaps the most troubling question to me is one of motive. Should it have been done by people whose primary goal doesn't seem to have been freedom or liberty, but control of a deep water port and a damn lot of oil?
The only clear message from the White House concerning the reconstruction of Iraq is that is it's something they prefer to leave to the Iraqi leaders who've been exiled since the 70's and the big oil companies, most of which were last able to make big money from Iraqi oil in the 70's.
Oh, there's a shock. Someone connected with Big Oil stands to make assloads of money. You'd almost think that the people who wanted to go to war most had some reason to be connection with the Oil industry. Next you'll tell me that the defense contractors who are going to get huge contracts to replace the thousands of missles and bombs used also have direct financial connections with the White House.
No, wait, you don't have to tell me. The damnned White House has said openly that this will mean enormous profits for the company that Cheney used to work for.
You lie to people when you worry that they can take action against you if they find out. What's it mean when you can brazenly say exactly what you're doing? If nothing else, the message is finally clear: "Bend over. Try not to think about it: there's gonna be some deep drilling, and if you struggle it's just gonna hurt more."
How do you think Iran and North Korea feel right about now?
07 April 2003
In Japan, today is Monday, August 7, 2003. A day that is significant for a couple of reasons.
Today is the first day of the school year. It is also the first day of the business or fiscal year. (Maybe it makes more sense to start things like education and business when the world itself seems to be in a state of rebirth and bloom, rather than in September's final days of warmth or October's cold. But I digress.)
It's also the day that Astro Boy was supposed to be activated. Do you remember Astro Boy? A cartoon about a robot boy with rocket feet and a jet-age, futuristic hairstyle? First written in the 50's by Osamu Tezuka, Astro Boy was a story about human nature and the possibilities of technology. In a world threatened by evil run amok, Astro Boy was a mechanized force for justice, kindness and innocence. And this story was so widely embraced by Japan that Astro Boy's "birthday" is being commemorated all month with parties, sales, stamps, toys, television specials about comics, robotics and technology, and of course, a new Astro Boy cartoon.
The only comparisons I could think of from America were August 4, 1997, the day that Skynet (the computer that would create Arnold Schwartzenneger's "Terminator") was supposed to come on-line, and January 12, 1992, the day that HAL 9000 (of Clarke and Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey") was supposed to have been activated.
While I'm not sad to have missed the devastation of mankind by a berserk computer, I do have to ask a few questions:
Why does Japan still seem to believe that technology can be used to save humanity, while America seems to be ready to (ideologically) abandon the future for the pastoral embrace of the "The Lord of The Rings?" There's no end of stories here about people using their wits and their machines to fight for justice. But from Tolkien to "Minority Report," heroes seem to have to abandon his tech and rely on his wits, muscles or innate humanity to fight the systems of machines, cruelty and evil.
Do you believe in technology's potential to improve human life? Do you believe in technology at all? I mean, in the way some people believe in horoscopes, UFOs or god? Do you have faith that it works?
And this is 2003, where the hell are all the flying cars, space age fashions and wise-cracking robots? I feel severely let down that the best we can do is that stupid Aibo robot dog.
Dammit, where's all the Fem-Bots?
Anyway, happy birthday, Astro Boy.
Today is the first day of the school year. It is also the first day of the business or fiscal year. (Maybe it makes more sense to start things like education and business when the world itself seems to be in a state of rebirth and bloom, rather than in September's final days of warmth or October's cold. But I digress.)
It's also the day that Astro Boy was supposed to be activated. Do you remember Astro Boy? A cartoon about a robot boy with rocket feet and a jet-age, futuristic hairstyle? First written in the 50's by Osamu Tezuka, Astro Boy was a story about human nature and the possibilities of technology. In a world threatened by evil run amok, Astro Boy was a mechanized force for justice, kindness and innocence. And this story was so widely embraced by Japan that Astro Boy's "birthday" is being commemorated all month with parties, sales, stamps, toys, television specials about comics, robotics and technology, and of course, a new Astro Boy cartoon.
The only comparisons I could think of from America were August 4, 1997, the day that Skynet (the computer that would create Arnold Schwartzenneger's "Terminator") was supposed to come on-line, and January 12, 1992, the day that HAL 9000 (of Clarke and Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey") was supposed to have been activated.
While I'm not sad to have missed the devastation of mankind by a berserk computer, I do have to ask a few questions:
Why does Japan still seem to believe that technology can be used to save humanity, while America seems to be ready to (ideologically) abandon the future for the pastoral embrace of the "The Lord of The Rings?" There's no end of stories here about people using their wits and their machines to fight for justice. But from Tolkien to "Minority Report," heroes seem to have to abandon his tech and rely on his wits, muscles or innate humanity to fight the systems of machines, cruelty and evil.
Do you believe in technology's potential to improve human life? Do you believe in technology at all? I mean, in the way some people believe in horoscopes, UFOs or god? Do you have faith that it works?
And this is 2003, where the hell are all the flying cars, space age fashions and wise-cracking robots? I feel severely let down that the best we can do is that stupid Aibo robot dog.
Dammit, where's all the Fem-Bots?
Anyway, happy birthday, Astro Boy.
02 April 2003
Do you know what's happening in Iraq right now? I'm sure you can watch CNN, Fox News, or some other channel and get the latest reports on troop locations, the difficulties of securing enough MREs for the refugees or the Pentagon PR updates. But were you aware that NBC shitcanned a reporter for voicing his personal opinions on the progress of the war? Think about that. A person whose job is to observe events and summarize them was fired for observing and summarizing in a way that didn't glorify America.
Peter Arnett, a New Zealand-born reporter with experience in Vietnam, where he won a Pulitzer, as well as the earlier Gulf War, has been observing the events in Iraq for NBC. He was asked his opinion of the status of an offensive by reporters from Iraqi TV. Arnette's view was that the first offensive was not completely successful in removing Hussein from power due to Iraqi resistance, and that the offensive strategists were "trying to write another plan."
His opinion ran contrary to the claims of the Pentagon and he was subsequently fired for "granting an interview to state-controlled Iraqi television,especially at a time of war" and because "it was wrong for him to discuss personal observations and opinions in that interview." An individual voiced an opinion counter to the official line, and was fired. He said something that the US government didn't want anyone to think about, that they might not be all powerful, and he was removed from the capacity in which he reached people.
Could Arnett have been totally incorrect in his estimation of the situation? Yes. Is it possible that the US government is counting on solidarity from the news media to reinforce the idea that they are an overwhelming force that cannot possibly be stopped? Of course. In terms of numbers, resources, and technology, that is probably true. Is it possible that Arnette's non-Arab face saying America wasn't all-powerful could have served to encourage Iraqi troops? Sure. Is it reasonable for a reporter to be silenced for telling what he thought was the truth? Is it?
Has it sunk in yet? You're not getting the whole story. You don't get to see everything. You don't get to see any more than they want you to know. None of us do.
It's paranoia if you think there are powers aligned against you. But what do you call it when those powers are aligned against everyone who isn't one of them?
Peter Arnett, a New Zealand-born reporter with experience in Vietnam, where he won a Pulitzer, as well as the earlier Gulf War, has been observing the events in Iraq for NBC. He was asked his opinion of the status of an offensive by reporters from Iraqi TV. Arnette's view was that the first offensive was not completely successful in removing Hussein from power due to Iraqi resistance, and that the offensive strategists were "trying to write another plan."
His opinion ran contrary to the claims of the Pentagon and he was subsequently fired for "granting an interview to state-controlled Iraqi television,especially at a time of war" and because "it was wrong for him to discuss personal observations and opinions in that interview." An individual voiced an opinion counter to the official line, and was fired. He said something that the US government didn't want anyone to think about, that they might not be all powerful, and he was removed from the capacity in which he reached people.
Could Arnett have been totally incorrect in his estimation of the situation? Yes. Is it possible that the US government is counting on solidarity from the news media to reinforce the idea that they are an overwhelming force that cannot possibly be stopped? Of course. In terms of numbers, resources, and technology, that is probably true. Is it possible that Arnette's non-Arab face saying America wasn't all-powerful could have served to encourage Iraqi troops? Sure. Is it reasonable for a reporter to be silenced for telling what he thought was the truth? Is it?
Has it sunk in yet? You're not getting the whole story. You don't get to see everything. You don't get to see any more than they want you to know. None of us do.
It's paranoia if you think there are powers aligned against you. But what do you call it when those powers are aligned against everyone who isn't one of them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
