A bit of color on your comment. Japan is interesting (and this transfers to other places) in that if you went back to before Meiji, everyday Japanese would probably never even define themselves as Japanese, they were from their fiefdom. And before the unification of Japan as what we think of as a nation state (1615), that was even more the case. However, the Meiji Restoration made a goal of creating a a polity that exhibits the characteristics that wonkie mentions.
One of the things they did was make it part of education extend the notion of nationhood back thru time. In fact, every Japanese student learns the historical date of 1192 as ii kuni skuro which is a goroawase, a mnemonic peculiar to Japanese. It marks the establishment of the Kamakura shogunate and means 'let's make a beautiful country', even though the idea of a nation-state is ahistoric. But it helps solidify an 'our nation' ethos that you see not only in Takaichi's philosophy, but more generally among the Japanese population. (ed to fix the italics, cause it really bugs me...)
Sure, Leslie isn't implying that. But since Gay starts her essay with Vance's demand for civility, don't you think it is a bit disingenuous to summarize Gay's argument by not even noting that? Unfortunately, he starts off by taking issue with Gay in order to valorize civility when Gay places it in a particular context.
I found what is close to a transcript of Gay's TED talk here
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/02/bad-feminist-roxane-gay-extract
About stakes, I think it is worthwhile to work from cases we might all agree with and then move out to edge cases where we have to tease out things. So, a case that might serve would be the weaponization of anti-antisemitism. While I'm thinking of the Trump administration going after universities because of a claimed failure in dealing with antiseminism. I think, if you look at this in hindsight, you can draw a line to the antisemitism accusations against Labour and Corbyn. It doesn't absolve anyone from charges of anti-semitism, but recognizing that many of the people who are baying for blood have absolutely no stake in it, except as a way to undercut their political opposition is essentially a question of 'stakes'. Going back to civility, if the accusations were being made by a person who actually acknowledged how much their stake is, I think we would have some foundation for civility. But when it is done by someone who has no 'stake' in the issue, it means that civility is a sham.
I won't bring up recent events here, except to say that when someone drops in to specifically set people against each other, that is not linked to any definition of civility in my dictionary, and it would suggest that the person would argue the opposite side if they thought it would achieve their aims.
There is also the problem of fighting distant problems while turning a blind eye to problems closer to home. Chinese must feel this happens when they see people going on about Uyghur and Taiwan, or the usual suspects complaining about how women are treated in Islamic countries. These problems definitely exist, but looking at who has a 'stake' in it can be relevatory.
I've been reading the Memoranda of Conversations in the run up to Nixon going to China. Basically, Kissinger was throwing Taiwan under the bus in order to achieve a rapproachment with China
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v17/d139
Now, Nixon had to take all this back to Congress and the China Lobby basically took out a lot of these things. Understanding US history and politics can make this understandable, but when viewed from the Chinese side, it seems like Taiwan is not something that the US is interested in unless it is a way to undercut China. I don't suggest that we cede Taiwan to China, though I'm not sure how far the US should go in defending it (cf Ukraine), but it reveals, at least to me, that people who make Taiwan their key point in opposing China are perhaps responding to prejudices they have about China rather than considering the actual history and circumstances.
If I were to speak to your particular situation, I'd need to have a pan-opticon view of your exchanges and ideas and the context of those, so yes, in the absence of having complete knowledge of that, one has to grant people principles that they feel they hold deeply. To transpose your example, Australians have been at the forefront of anti-racism efforts and the efforts by individual Australians, such as Peter Norman. But when politicians argue that somehow they, by being members of an Australian polity, are somehow anti racist, that seems a bit strained, not only given Australia's problems of race relations, but also in regard to specific policies and programs. Those principles can and should be examined to reveal places where they might not match up with other principles brought forward. And if those become the topic of conversation among individuals, folks should give the respondent the time and space to make their case, something that is not always easy or even possible. But rather than pretend that we will reach agreement, I think civility demands that we accept that there are going to be points that we just disagree on. Fortunately, we are all works in progress and we do have the possibility of change so ideally, in an environment that has civility, people will be able to change. However, if civility carries the demand that we have to reach agreement, it is, as Gay points out, performative.
Not quite Russell-esque in length and certainly not in content, but we do our best.
Leslie plucks a small bit out of Gay's essay (the full essay (from a facebook friend) is at
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/24/opinion/civility-fantasy-power-kirk.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ok8.2ekW.yooo9wXkJKQX
but seems to have missed the first paragraph
After encouraging podcast listeners of the recently deceased Charlie Kirk to become online vigilantes in search of anyone “celebrating” Mr. Kirk’s death, Vice President JD Vance said last week: “We don’t believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility. And there is no civility in the celebration of political assassination.”
Vance was doing what conservatives often do — conjuring people up so his followers have someone specific to foment against. This brand of demagoguery is incredibly dangerous, because when informally deputized vigilantes realize that few real enemies exist, they accept any substitute. They direct their manufactured ire toward innocent people, marginalized groups and, eventually, one another.
I'm curious if Leslie thinks Vance (and others) are practicing 'civility' by making claims that a large portion of the left was somehow celebrating Charlie Kirk's death. It seems to me that civility has to start with some sort of acceptance of reality, not creating a false one and then demanding that everyone kowtow to that.
Gay also gets a shot in at Klein when she writes; In the fantasy of civility, if we are polite about our disagreements, we are practicing politics the right way. If we are polite when we express bigotry, we are performing respectability for people whom we do not actually respect and who, in return, do not respect us. The performance is the only thing that matters. Ouch.
A couple more paragraphs And the notion of two groups— civil and not — is predicated on the idea that we’re all playing by the same rules, and we’re standing on equal footing, untroubled by the inequities and bigotries of the world. As I said, civility is a fantasy, because our political discourse never happens in a vacuum. It happens in the beautiful mess of the real world. It is naïve, at best, to believe civility is more important than who we are, what we stand for and how.
and these two Calling for civility is about exerting power. It is a way of reminding the powerless that they exist at the will of those in power and should act accordingly. It is a demand for control.
Civility is wielded as a cudgel to further clarify the differences between “us” and “them.” It is the demand of people with thin skin who don’t want their delicate egos and impoverished ideas challenged. And it is a tool of fearful leaders, clinging to power with desperate, sweaty hands, thrilled at the ways they are forcing people, corporations and even other nations to bend to their will but terrified at what will happen when it all slips away.
Good stuff, and I recommend her book 'Bad Feminist'. Her TED talk is here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fxt_MZKMdes
For berserk, there are two etymologies, one is bare-shirt (suggesting that the warriors wore no armor) or bear shirt (wore bear skins). It's in Old Norse, but doesn't appear in Old English. My Old English teacher favored the bear shirt etymology, because of the etymology of the word bear, 'brown one' in Indo European, This is because the actual word for bear (*rktos) was a taboo word, and no one wanted to summon or anger one of those bad boys. Which is precisely the opposite of having something like 'going postal' become an everyday phrase of annoyance.
I should also note that 'gawp' tends to have a positive meaning, so it is not the right word. Appalled or aghast might be closer, but there's not a word for when something just short circuits any sort of judgement and you just stand there, slack-jawed.
Interesting stuff. My own feeling is that a big problem arises when people take positions that they don't really have a stake in, but use it to fight against the other side. This raises the question of whether an issue is something that a person is really committed to or if it is 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. So when Charles argues, after a long history of arguing for libertarian principles, how front doors of ICE facilities need National Guard protection, I wonder if he's for real or just trolling or possibly just doesn't know the difference.
It is rather illiberal to argue that someone's opinions doesn't matter, but I can think of a number of examples on both sides of people seemingly taking on opinions that don't really have a lot to do with them but arguing for them vehemently. This goes hand in hand with the larger issue of astroturfing and fake identities. It may be a lost cause, especially for larger platforms, but we can try to do a Candide and cultivate our gardens.
I don't know if it is because I have been digging around the archives, but my sense is that Charles is trying to replicate those glorious conversations of old between liberal and conservative voices. Unfortunately, Charles (and Grok, I assume) are really only a pale imitation of those commenters past. First rule of holes, Charles.
The debt is owned primarily by the BOJ (about half) and then domestic banks and insurance companies.
Japan has an additional problem with Tokyo and other urban areas taking up all the economic growth and depopulation in rural areas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaL-ocOtooM
"If just [Tokyo] was its own country, it would be the eighth largest in the world, ranking ahead of Italy and falling just behind Canada."
about 4), one advantage Japan has is availability of public transport, hard to imagine Grandpa Toshio going to work if he has to drive a car there and back.
They are going to revoke permanent residency visas of foreigners not paying taxes or dodging social insurance contributions. I will point out that it is a much larger number of Japanese who are doing this, and it is exacerbated by business owners either gaming the system so people work just below the reporting requirement or paying under the table which put additional pressure on the system. But note how they [meaning the Japanese government] do this in a way that goes below the radar.
Another article related to citizenship here in Japan.
https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/16060490
Michael, thanks for that. Some could take my posting about the 80 year old rugby players as some kind of Japanese exceptionalism, but my point was that Japan was adapting to their demographic and, as wj points out, Japan is just the tip of the iceberg.
I'm happy to tinker, and I would like it to be usable. I'm trying to figure out what I need to do to make it more smartphone friendly and wondering how many posts should be on the front page. After things settle down with classes, I should have time to try some more things.
I'd note that Bill Kristol wrote an internal memorandum for the Republican party essentially saying that passing health care under Clinton would mean the end of the Republican party. The memorandum is here
"The President's health care proposal is the most important domestic political event of his presidency. Its defeat is the most important immediate goal of the Republican party. It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government.
So it was shitty that Obama undercut Clinton, but Republican opposition was pretty much a constant, so one could argue that it wasn't a policy choice, it was what Obama had to do to undercut Republican opposition. This isn't to give Obama a pass, it is just to acknowledge that these policy arguments were not playing out on a blank slate.
First, thanks GftNC for the additional link, it's really appreciated.
I'm going to start categorizing posts and this one is Politics, though I think it is more (though isn't everything nowadays) I wish Klein had taken a bit more onboard from Coates and not kept trying to nail Coates down on where he would draw the line. I appreciate that they must have had discussions before and Klein really must have taken offense at Coates saying that he whitewashed Kirk, but Coates could have asked what Charlie Kirk would have to had said before Klein would have to conclude that he shouldn't write about Kirk. I also thought it was telling that Coates pointed out that MLK was actually speaking about love and he got assassinated. Klein should get credit for not hiding, but I still think he should take a dose of self-reflection.
Great points, novakant. I don't know as much as I should about Iran and its history, so I agree that Wood's background and in-country experience is not something I dismiss out of hand. Of course, claiming to represent civilization isn't something restricted to Iranians, Stephen Miller said this at Charlie Kirk's memorial We are the storm. And our enemies cannot comprehend our strength, our determination, our resolve, our passion. Our lineage and our legacy hails back to Athens, to Rome, to Philadelphia, to Monticello. Our ancestors built the cities. They produced the art and architecture. They built the industry.
Erika stands on the shoulders of thousands of years of warriors, of women who raised up families, raised up city, raised up industry, raised up civilization, who pulled us out of the caves and the darkness into the light.
Words fail.
I would recommend Marjane Satrapi's graphic novels Persopolis (1 and 2) are excellent and her newest, Women, Life and Freedom is something I'm getting for my school library.
bc, thanks for this too. I knew of Charlie Kirk, but I didn't follow much, so I'm not going to try and dig up stuff, I think that was a mode of commenting that caused/causes a lot of problems (remember fisking?)
However, I have to say that his turn to Christianity seems a bit of a grift. In a podcast recently, he claimed it was 5th grade when he saw the light, but there is no sign of that until after Trump's second election. While it's possible that his marriage was an important influence (his wife graduated from Liberty University), the claim about the 5th grade conversion is probably a lie.
btw, you can see turning point ads (and find other ads) here
https://www.ispot.tv/ad/1E9X/turning-point-usa-help-us-take-back-our-country
There are a few with nods to Christianity, but those seem to be in conjunction with Trump trying to please that demographic.
Thanks bc! Glad you liked it. I had a checkered career as a horn player (I've hung it up) and one disappointment is that I never played much French orchestral music. I mentioned that to the conductor of the university orchestra here and he said well, French orchestral music, as opposed to German (and I suppose that Tchaikovsky et al is really stuff in the German tradition) requires a lot more from the strings.
I worked on a paper for a while where I argued that we might want to consider autism a cultural trait. Here in Japan, students often behave in ways that are similar to what people have said are symptoms of autism. Unfortunately, though I thought it was very enlightening (and continues to be as I deal with student post covid and see their adaptations to changed circumstances) I was never able to get the right tone. It may have been, like novakant says, I was instrumentalizing autism to deal with some debates about Japanese students and education, but I did think I was on to something interesting.
btw, I love the first link with the links to papers in each section. So much better than trying to follow Youtube vids!!
1912, from German Autismus, coined 1912 by Swiss psychiatrist Paul Bleuler from Greek autos "self" (see auto-) + -ismos suffix of action or of state (see -ism). The notion is of "morbid self-absorption."
but I like your etymology better. I was looking for some indication of what Bleuler was thinking, but a quick search didn't find anything.
wonkie, that's a neat observation, and I will shamelessly use it to launch into what is happening with the archive. There are just under 9000 posts and here are the categories with how many posts in each. The categories are non-exclusive and uncategorized is the default
abroad 49
books 6
corruption 32
culture-and-stuff 200
current-affairs 778
economy 59
energy-environment 5
ethics 52
film 2
food-and-drink 6
foreign-affairs 97
geekstuff 87
health-care 81
humor 131
iraq-and-terrorism 867
law 224
maher-arar 55
music 4
national-security 18
Not Yet A Buddha 136
nothing-else-fit 329
policy-wonkery 36
politics 2,050
religion 59
science 56
sports 36
technical-issues 93
telecom 40
television 2
torture-and-detention 138
travel 5
uncategorized 3,167
versifying 25
web-tech 10
Weblogs
weblogs 7
what-would-brian-boitano-do 162
Why Are They Saying Those Things? 177
I just added that to the sidebar (the design only has a right sidebar instead of two and I've not implemented a pulldown menu for either the archive date or the categories because I'm dropping in to try and catch errors) The founders up to hilzoy and publius were pretty careful about adding categories. After that, Eric didn't really categorize but Gary did, so at about 2010, you only have the occasional category and it looks like in 2012, they just aren't used. I've never really used a category and I'm still trying to find the origin of what-would-brian-boitano-do.
We also had tags, but only fiddler and Gary used them to any great extent.
Finally, hsh’s joke reminds me of my favorite jokes where a guy goes to Picasso while he is standing next to his portrait of his wife Jacqueline, and the guy says ‘geez, how can you say that looks like your wife? It doesn’t look anything like it’. Picasso says ‘do you have a picture of your wife?’. The guy gets a photo out of his wallet and shows it to Picasso, and says ‘this is exactly what my wife looks like’. Picasso looks at it for a moment and then says ‘your wife has a very small head…’
On “WTF moments at cultural borders”
A bit of color on your comment. Japan is interesting (and this transfers to other places) in that if you went back to before Meiji, everyday Japanese would probably never even define themselves as Japanese, they were from their fiefdom. And before the unification of Japan as what we think of as a nation state (1615), that was even more the case. However, the Meiji Restoration made a goal of creating a a polity that exhibits the characteristics that wonkie mentions.
One of the things they did was make it part of education extend the notion of nationhood back thru time. In fact, every Japanese student learns the historical date of 1192 as ii kuni skuro which is a goroawase, a mnemonic peculiar to Japanese. It marks the establishment of the Kamakura shogunate and means 'let's make a beautiful country', even though the idea of a nation-state is ahistoric. But it helps solidify an 'our nation' ethos that you see not only in Takaichi's philosophy, but more generally among the Japanese population. (ed to fix the italics, cause it really bugs me...)
On “Where are the 5 words?”
Sure, Leslie isn't implying that. But since Gay starts her essay with Vance's demand for civility, don't you think it is a bit disingenuous to summarize Gay's argument by not even noting that? Unfortunately, he starts off by taking issue with Gay in order to valorize civility when Gay places it in a particular context.
I found what is close to a transcript of Gay's TED talk here
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/02/bad-feminist-roxane-gay-extract
About stakes, I think it is worthwhile to work from cases we might all agree with and then move out to edge cases where we have to tease out things. So, a case that might serve would be the weaponization of anti-antisemitism. While I'm thinking of the Trump administration going after universities because of a claimed failure in dealing with antiseminism. I think, if you look at this in hindsight, you can draw a line to the antisemitism accusations against Labour and Corbyn. It doesn't absolve anyone from charges of anti-semitism, but recognizing that many of the people who are baying for blood have absolutely no stake in it, except as a way to undercut their political opposition is essentially a question of 'stakes'. Going back to civility, if the accusations were being made by a person who actually acknowledged how much their stake is, I think we would have some foundation for civility. But when it is done by someone who has no 'stake' in the issue, it means that civility is a sham.
I won't bring up recent events here, except to say that when someone drops in to specifically set people against each other, that is not linked to any definition of civility in my dictionary, and it would suggest that the person would argue the opposite side if they thought it would achieve their aims.
There is also the problem of fighting distant problems while turning a blind eye to problems closer to home. Chinese must feel this happens when they see people going on about Uyghur and Taiwan, or the usual suspects complaining about how women are treated in Islamic countries. These problems definitely exist, but looking at who has a 'stake' in it can be relevatory.
I've been reading the Memoranda of Conversations in the run up to Nixon going to China. Basically, Kissinger was throwing Taiwan under the bus in order to achieve a rapproachment with China
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v17/d139
Now, Nixon had to take all this back to Congress and the China Lobby basically took out a lot of these things. Understanding US history and politics can make this understandable, but when viewed from the Chinese side, it seems like Taiwan is not something that the US is interested in unless it is a way to undercut China. I don't suggest that we cede Taiwan to China, though I'm not sure how far the US should go in defending it (cf Ukraine), but it reveals, at least to me, that people who make Taiwan their key point in opposing China are perhaps responding to prejudices they have about China rather than considering the actual history and circumstances.
If I were to speak to your particular situation, I'd need to have a pan-opticon view of your exchanges and ideas and the context of those, so yes, in the absence of having complete knowledge of that, one has to grant people principles that they feel they hold deeply. To transpose your example, Australians have been at the forefront of anti-racism efforts and the efforts by individual Australians, such as Peter Norman. But when politicians argue that somehow they, by being members of an Australian polity, are somehow anti racist, that seems a bit strained, not only given Australia's problems of race relations, but also in regard to specific policies and programs. Those principles can and should be examined to reveal places where they might not match up with other principles brought forward. And if those become the topic of conversation among individuals, folks should give the respondent the time and space to make their case, something that is not always easy or even possible. But rather than pretend that we will reach agreement, I think civility demands that we accept that there are going to be points that we just disagree on. Fortunately, we are all works in progress and we do have the possibility of change so ideally, in an environment that has civility, people will be able to change. However, if civility carries the demand that we have to reach agreement, it is, as Gay points out, performative.
Not quite Russell-esque in length and certainly not in content, but we do our best.
"
Leslie plucks a small bit out of Gay's essay (the full essay (from a facebook friend) is at
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/24/opinion/civility-fantasy-power-kirk.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ok8.2ekW.yooo9wXkJKQX
but seems to have missed the first paragraph
After encouraging podcast listeners of the recently deceased Charlie Kirk to become online vigilantes in search of anyone “celebrating” Mr. Kirk’s death, Vice President JD Vance said last week: “We don’t believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility. And there is no civility in the celebration of political assassination.”
Vance was doing what conservatives often do — conjuring people up so his followers have someone specific to foment against. This brand of demagoguery is incredibly dangerous, because when informally deputized vigilantes realize that few real enemies exist, they accept any substitute. They direct their manufactured ire toward innocent people, marginalized groups and, eventually, one another.
I'm curious if Leslie thinks Vance (and others) are practicing 'civility' by making claims that a large portion of the left was somehow celebrating Charlie Kirk's death. It seems to me that civility has to start with some sort of acceptance of reality, not creating a false one and then demanding that everyone kowtow to that.
Gay also gets a shot in at Klein when she writes; In the fantasy of civility, if we are polite about our disagreements, we are practicing politics the right way. If we are polite when we express bigotry, we are performing respectability for people whom we do not actually respect and who, in return, do not respect us. The performance is the only thing that matters. Ouch.
A couple more paragraphs
And the notion of two groups— civil and not — is predicated on the idea that we’re all playing by the same rules, and we’re standing on equal footing, untroubled by the inequities and bigotries of the world. As I said, civility is a fantasy, because our political discourse never happens in a vacuum. It happens in the beautiful mess of the real world. It is naïve, at best, to believe civility is more important than who we are, what we stand for and how.
and these two
Calling for civility is about exerting power. It is a way of reminding the powerless that they exist at the will of those in power and should act accordingly. It is a demand for control.
Civility is wielded as a cudgel to further clarify the differences between “us” and “them.” It is the demand of people with thin skin who don’t want their delicate egos and impoverished ideas challenged. And it is a tool of fearful leaders, clinging to power with desperate, sweaty hands, thrilled at the ways they are forcing people, corporations and even other nations to bend to their will but terrified at what will happen when it all slips away.
Good stuff, and I recommend her book 'Bad Feminist'. Her TED talk is here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fxt_MZKMdes
On “WTF moments at cultural borders”
For berserk, there are two etymologies, one is bare-shirt (suggesting that the warriors wore no armor) or bear shirt (wore bear skins). It's in Old Norse, but doesn't appear in Old English. My Old English teacher favored the bear shirt etymology, because of the etymology of the word bear, 'brown one' in Indo European, This is because the actual word for bear (*rktos) was a taboo word, and no one wanted to summon or anger one of those bad boys. Which is precisely the opposite of having something like 'going postal' become an everyday phrase of annoyance.
"
Hartmut, holy shit...
I should also note that 'gawp' tends to have a positive meaning, so it is not the right word. Appalled or aghast might be closer, but there's not a word for when something just short circuits any sort of judgement and you just stand there, slack-jawed.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
Interesting stuff. My own feeling is that a big problem arises when people take positions that they don't really have a stake in, but use it to fight against the other side. This raises the question of whether an issue is something that a person is really committed to or if it is 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. So when Charles argues, after a long history of arguing for libertarian principles, how front doors of ICE facilities need National Guard protection, I wonder if he's for real or just trolling or possibly just doesn't know the difference.
It is rather illiberal to argue that someone's opinions doesn't matter, but I can think of a number of examples on both sides of people seemingly taking on opinions that don't really have a lot to do with them but arguing for them vehemently. This goes hand in hand with the larger issue of astroturfing and fake identities. It may be a lost cause, especially for larger platforms, but we can try to do a Candide and cultivate our gardens.
"
I don't know if it is because I have been digging around the archives, but my sense is that Charles is trying to replicate those glorious conversations of old between liberal and conservative voices. Unfortunately, Charles (and Grok, I assume) are really only a pale imitation of those commenters past. First rule of holes, Charles.
"
a good survey of the Portland situation!=criticisms for both sides
On “Japan unleashed”
There is a lot of discussion about Sanseito and Kamiya that I'll probably get to in another post.
"
About selling off debt,
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2025/09/19/economy/bank-of-japan-september-rates/
Fun quote from the article
It would take more than 100 years to sell off all the ETFs held by the BOJ at the speed decided on Friday, Ueda added.
"
Michael, interesting points. IANAE either, but some connected points
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2025/09/19/economy/bank-of-japan-september-rates/
The debt is owned primarily by the BOJ (about half) and then domestic banks and insurance companies.
Japan has an additional problem with Tokyo and other urban areas taking up all the economic growth and depopulation in rural areas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaL-ocOtooM
"If just [Tokyo] was its own country, it would be the eighth largest in the world, ranking ahead of Italy and falling just behind Canada."
about 4), one advantage Japan has is availability of public transport, hard to imagine Grandpa Toshio going to work if he has to drive a car there and back.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
https://teachdemocracy.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-16-3-c-the-rescue-movement-pushing-the-limits-of-free-speech
Wonder why no one called in the military or even the national guard during these protests. Funny that.
On “Citizenship”
Leave it to Japan to show you how it is done
https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/16057632
They are going to revoke permanent residency visas of foreigners not paying taxes or dodging social insurance contributions. I will point out that it is a much larger number of Japanese who are doing this, and it is exacerbated by business owners either gaming the system so people work just below the reporting requirement or paying under the table which put additional pressure on the system. But note how they [meaning the Japanese government] do this in a way that goes below the radar.
Another article related to citizenship here in Japan.
https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/16060490
On “Where are the 5 words?”
wj, I always wonder if Charles misses the sarcasm in his responses...
On “Japan unleashed”
Michael, thanks for that. Some could take my posting about the 80 year old rugby players as some kind of Japanese exceptionalism, but my point was that Japan was adapting to their demographic and, as wj points out, Japan is just the tip of the iceberg.
On “Ad futurum”
I'm happy to tinker, and I would like it to be usable. I'm trying to figure out what I need to do to make it more smartphone friendly and wondering how many posts should be on the front page. After things settle down with classes, I should have time to try some more things.
On “Ezra Coates DESTROYS Ta-Nehisi Klein!!!”
I'd note that Bill Kristol wrote an internal memorandum for the Republican party essentially saying that passing health care under Clinton would mean the end of the Republican party. The memorandum is here
"The President's health care proposal is the most important domestic political event of his presidency. Its defeat is the most important immediate goal of the Republican party. It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government.
So it was shitty that Obama undercut Clinton, but Republican opposition was pretty much a constant, so one could argue that it wasn't a policy choice, it was what Obama had to do to undercut Republican opposition. This isn't to give Obama a pass, it is just to acknowledge that these policy arguments were not playing out on a blank slate.
"
Glad you found us Marty!
"
First, thanks GftNC for the additional link, it's really appreciated.
I'm going to start categorizing posts and this one is Politics, though I think it is more (though isn't everything nowadays) I wish Klein had taken a bit more onboard from Coates and not kept trying to nail Coates down on where he would draw the line. I appreciate that they must have had discussions before and Klein really must have taken offense at Coates saying that he whitewashed Kirk, but Coates could have asked what Charlie Kirk would have to had said before Klein would have to conclude that he shouldn't write about Kirk. I also thought it was telling that Coates pointed out that MLK was actually speaking about love and he got assassinated. Klein should get credit for not hiding, but I still think he should take a dose of self-reflection.
On “Ran, ran, ran, I blog Iran”
Great points, novakant. I don't know as much as I should about Iran and its history, so I agree that Wood's background and in-country experience is not something I dismiss out of hand. Of course, claiming to represent civilization isn't something restricted to Iranians, Stephen Miller said this at Charlie Kirk's memorial
We are the storm. And our enemies cannot comprehend our strength, our determination, our resolve, our passion. Our lineage and our legacy hails back to Athens, to Rome, to Philadelphia, to Monticello. Our ancestors built the cities. They produced the art and architecture. They built the industry.
Erika stands on the shoulders of thousands of years of warriors, of women who raised up families, raised up city, raised up industry, raised up civilization, who pulled us out of the caves and the darkness into the light.
Words fail.
I would recommend Marjane Satrapi's graphic novels Persopolis (1 and 2) are excellent and her newest, Women, Life and Freedom is something I'm getting for my school library.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/mar/16/marjane-satrapi-interview-persepolis-woman-life-freedom
On “Precursors”
bc, thanks for this too. I knew of Charlie Kirk, but I didn't follow much, so I'm not going to try and dig up stuff, I think that was a mode of commenting that caused/causes a lot of problems (remember fisking?)
However, I have to say that his turn to Christianity seems a bit of a grift. In a podcast recently, he claimed it was 5th grade when he saw the light, but there is no sign of that until after Trump's second election. While it's possible that his marriage was an important influence (his wife graduated from Liberty University), the claim about the 5th grade conversion is probably a lie.
btw, you can see turning point ads (and find other ads) here
https://www.ispot.tv/ad/1E9X/turning-point-usa-help-us-take-back-our-country
There are a few with nods to Christianity, but those seem to be in conjunction with Trump trying to please that demographic.
On “Un morceau de blog”
Thanks bc! Glad you liked it. I had a checkered career as a horn player (I've hung it up) and one disappointment is that I never played much French orchestral music. I mentioned that to the conductor of the university orchestra here and he said well, French orchestral music, as opposed to German (and I suppose that Tchaikovsky et al is really stuff in the German tradition) requires a lot more from the strings.
"
I worked on a paper for a while where I argued that we might want to consider autism a cultural trait. Here in Japan, students often behave in ways that are similar to what people have said are symptoms of autism. Unfortunately, though I thought it was very enlightening (and continues to be as I deal with student post covid and see their adaptations to changed circumstances) I was never able to get the right tone. It may have been, like novakant says, I was instrumentalizing autism to deal with some debates about Japanese students and education, but I did think I was on to something interesting.
btw, I love the first link with the links to papers in each section. So much better than trying to follow Youtube vids!!
"
Nous, enlightenment!
"
Hartmut,
Etymon online has this
1912, from German Autismus, coined 1912 by Swiss psychiatrist Paul Bleuler from Greek autos "self" (see auto-) + -ismos suffix of action or of state (see -ism). The notion is of "morbid self-absorption."
but I like your etymology better. I was looking for some indication of what Bleuler was thinking, but a quick search didn't find anything.
wonkie, that's a neat observation, and I will shamelessly use it to launch into what is happening with the archive. There are just under 9000 posts and here are the categories with how many posts in each. The categories are non-exclusive and uncategorized is the default
abroad 49
books 6
corruption 32
culture-and-stuff 200
current-affairs 778
economy 59
energy-environment 5
ethics 52
film 2
food-and-drink 6
foreign-affairs 97
geekstuff 87
health-care 81
humor 131
iraq-and-terrorism 867
law 224
maher-arar 55
music 4
national-security 18
Not Yet A Buddha 136
nothing-else-fit 329
policy-wonkery 36
politics 2,050
religion 59
science 56
sports 36
technical-issues 93
telecom 40
television 2
torture-and-detention 138
travel 5
uncategorized 3,167
versifying 25
web-tech 10
Weblogs
weblogs 7
what-would-brian-boitano-do 162
Why Are They Saying Those Things? 177
I just added that to the sidebar (the design only has a right sidebar instead of two and I've not implemented a pulldown menu for either the archive date or the categories because I'm dropping in to try and catch errors) The founders up to hilzoy and publius were pretty careful about adding categories. After that, Eric didn't really categorize but Gary did, so at about 2010, you only have the occasional category and it looks like in 2012, they just aren't used. I've never really used a category and I'm still trying to find the origin of what-would-brian-boitano-do.
We also had tags, but only fiddler and Gary used them to any great extent.
Finally, hsh’s joke reminds me of my favorite jokes where a guy goes to Picasso while he is standing next to his portrait of his wife Jacqueline, and the guy says ‘geez, how can you say that looks like your wife? It doesn’t look anything like it’. Picasso says ‘do you have a picture of your wife?’. The guy gets a photo out of his wallet and shows it to Picasso, and says ‘this is exactly what my wife looks like’. Picasso looks at it for a moment and then says ‘your wife has a very small head…’