Love and marriage in Japan | White weddings | Economist.com
An amusing article about "fake" Western weddings at one particular fake church in Japan:
Weddings are what it does, at ¥5m ($46,000) a time for 100 guests, five times a day.
The couples who come have already married before at a city registrar. Their wedding at St Grace Cathedral and similar places offers only the outward trappings of a Christian wedding. Most establishments get couples and their guests through the service in 40 minutes; one cut-rate place does it in 20. Catering is where the money is made, while most other wedding services—flowers, choir, even harpist—are subcontracted.
The most sought-after is the Western “priest”. These are supplied by an ecclesiastical talent agency complete with fake ordination papers, should anyone bother to ask. For impoverished actors, models and English-language teachers, the work is manna: the pay is ¥10,000-15,000 a service, and you can do eight a day. One young Westerner, who earns ¥10m a year for a three-day week, says the work is not easy: unlike acting, where at least you get a break, you have to be a priest all day, and speak flawless Japanese to boot.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Zarqawi in pre-war Iraq
Their Man in Baghdad
Stephen Hayes article above, about Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the war is important.
The Atlantic agrees that he was there, but caims that Zarqawi was not really connected with al-Qaeda at all during that time. However, it seems that the article does not really explain what he was doing in the Sunni triangle prior to the war.
All very interesting.
Stephen Hayes article above, about Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the war is important.
The Atlantic agrees that he was there, but caims that Zarqawi was not really connected with al-Qaeda at all during that time. However, it seems that the article does not really explain what he was doing in the Sunni triangle prior to the war.
All very interesting.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Anti terrorism story missed
Captain's Quarters
I missed this from earlier in the week:
A terrorist cell plotted to shoot down an Israeli airliner over Switzerland but was foiled by intelligence services, Swiss prosecutors said yesterday.
Seven people of north African origin are under arrest in connection with the alleged plot, said a statement from the federal prosecutor's office.
I guess it must be all those Swiss soldiers in Iraq that provoked this terrorist plan that (no doubt) would have endangered Swiss lives.
I missed this from earlier in the week:
A terrorist cell plotted to shoot down an Israeli airliner over Switzerland but was foiled by intelligence services, Swiss prosecutors said yesterday.
Seven people of north African origin are under arrest in connection with the alleged plot, said a statement from the federal prosecutor's office.
I guess it must be all those Swiss soldiers in Iraq that provoked this terrorist plan that (no doubt) would have endangered Swiss lives.
Death on the beach
Artillery fire kills 12, wounds dozens on Gaza beach | Jerusalem Post
Bad time for such an incident to happen. That it was an accident would seem to be strongly supported by this (from the report in the The Jerusalem Post):
According to Galant, the IDF is currently investigating two possible options: misfiring of an artillery round or a dud that exploded on the Gaza beach.
"Even when a tragic and unfortunate incident takes place, it does not mean that we are not committed to defending the citizens of southern Israel who face continuous barrages of Kassam rockets," he said.
The IDF confirmed the Gaza coast deaths, saying that it regretted the harm done to innocent civilians and offering the Palestinians any assistance needed, including evacuation to Israeli hospitals.
Neither The Age , the ABC nor The Australian's reports mention this offer of help in Israeli hospitals. (In fact, The Australian's story is one of the least balanced and inflammatory versions I have read.) The Guardian, to its credit, does mention the offer of assistance. Funny what gets left out of reporting on the Middle East.
Bad time for such an incident to happen. That it was an accident would seem to be strongly supported by this (from the report in the The Jerusalem Post):
According to Galant, the IDF is currently investigating two possible options: misfiring of an artillery round or a dud that exploded on the Gaza beach.
"Even when a tragic and unfortunate incident takes place, it does not mean that we are not committed to defending the citizens of southern Israel who face continuous barrages of Kassam rockets," he said.
The IDF confirmed the Gaza coast deaths, saying that it regretted the harm done to innocent civilians and offering the Palestinians any assistance needed, including evacuation to Israeli hospitals.
Neither The Age , the ABC nor The Australian's reports mention this offer of help in Israeli hospitals. (In fact, The Australian's story is one of the least balanced and inflammatory versions I have read.) The Guardian, to its credit, does mention the offer of assistance. Funny what gets left out of reporting on the Middle East.
John Marsden again
The reputation rapists at large - Opinion - smh.com.au
Mike Carlton comes to John Marden's defence in the Sydney Morning Herald today. He says (of the successful criminal injuries compensation case):
[Judge]Taylor did not find that Marsden had abused anybody, let alone the eight-year-old boy. He came to no such conclusion.
This was a civil case - not a criminal trial with rules of evidence, cross-examination and a jury - in which a man, referred to as "F", had sought money from the Victims Compensation Tribunal for sexual abuse he claimed to have suffered as a child in the '60s.
The tribunal had turned him down. In 2001, F appealed before Taylor in the District Court. There was general medical and specialist psychiatric evidence to support his case. The judge accepted that evidence, found that F had been sexually assaulted, and awarded compensation of $40,000.
But at no stage during the hearing, nor in Taylor's written judgement of July 6, 2001, was any offender or alleged offender named. The word "Marsden" never appeared. Despite the emphatic assertions of Hicks and Fife-Yeomans, it did not happen. Not verbally. Not in print - I have read the judgement. There was no laying of guilt.
For some extracts from the initial report, see my previous post here.
There's something fishy about this, I think. While Carlton is presumably correct about what the judgement says, he seems to be suggesting that in the whole process of making this claim Marsden's name was not brought up. But that surely can't be correct, can it? When a victim makes a claim for compensation in New South Wales, he or she does not have to name the alleged offender? For that matter, if they fail, why is the name not mentioned in the appeal?
Also, I am pretty sure that the original report about this (the link is now dead) said that the successful victim claims he was warned off proceeding with a criminal case by Marsden. (Behaviour which would not be inconsistent with what happened in the defamation action. But then again it might be a recent invention based on the reporting of the defamation case.)
I would love to see a more detailed explanation of what happened in this victim's case. Will the ABC, which pursues other controversial legal cases, take this on in a documentary? (I think it deserves more than a 30 minute Australian Story, though.)
I am also surprised that journalist David Marr has not taken this on. He must have known Marsden, surely, and be "outraged" (I can hear his plummy voice saying it already) by slurs against a fellow gay lawyer. Or does Marr know something about Marsden he would prefer not to say? (Just a guess...)
Mike Carlton comes to John Marden's defence in the Sydney Morning Herald today. He says (of the successful criminal injuries compensation case):
[Judge]Taylor did not find that Marsden had abused anybody, let alone the eight-year-old boy. He came to no such conclusion.
This was a civil case - not a criminal trial with rules of evidence, cross-examination and a jury - in which a man, referred to as "F", had sought money from the Victims Compensation Tribunal for sexual abuse he claimed to have suffered as a child in the '60s.
The tribunal had turned him down. In 2001, F appealed before Taylor in the District Court. There was general medical and specialist psychiatric evidence to support his case. The judge accepted that evidence, found that F had been sexually assaulted, and awarded compensation of $40,000.
But at no stage during the hearing, nor in Taylor's written judgement of July 6, 2001, was any offender or alleged offender named. The word "Marsden" never appeared. Despite the emphatic assertions of Hicks and Fife-Yeomans, it did not happen. Not verbally. Not in print - I have read the judgement. There was no laying of guilt.
For some extracts from the initial report, see my previous post here.
There's something fishy about this, I think. While Carlton is presumably correct about what the judgement says, he seems to be suggesting that in the whole process of making this claim Marsden's name was not brought up. But that surely can't be correct, can it? When a victim makes a claim for compensation in New South Wales, he or she does not have to name the alleged offender? For that matter, if they fail, why is the name not mentioned in the appeal?
Also, I am pretty sure that the original report about this (the link is now dead) said that the successful victim claims he was warned off proceeding with a criminal case by Marsden. (Behaviour which would not be inconsistent with what happened in the defamation action. But then again it might be a recent invention based on the reporting of the defamation case.)
I would love to see a more detailed explanation of what happened in this victim's case. Will the ABC, which pursues other controversial legal cases, take this on in a documentary? (I think it deserves more than a 30 minute Australian Story, though.)
I am also surprised that journalist David Marr has not taken this on. He must have known Marsden, surely, and be "outraged" (I can hear his plummy voice saying it already) by slurs against a fellow gay lawyer. Or does Marr know something about Marsden he would prefer not to say? (Just a guess...)
Sea level again
Christopher Pearson: Rising tide of bad science | Opinion | The Australian
From what I can recall of past columns, Pearson's scepticism of global warming may be too extreme, but his column today on sea level rise is pretty good. (Basic message: it's defintely not the case that any islands are currently suffering from global warming induced sea level rises, and indeed any serious effect is quite a way off yet.)
He is right to criticise Labor on this. As I noted in a past post, Albanese is well and truly a gullible dill who does not appear capable of independent fact checking. As Pearson says:
Our island neighbours may well have claims on our foreign aid, but as a matter of charity rather than any sort of entitlement. In the absence of compelling evidence, and in defiance of Darwin's model, Labor shouldn't be encouraging them to believe that they are the victims of profligate coal, gas and oil-fired economies. Nor should it be creating unrealistic expectations that, as the largest regional consumer of fossil fuels, Australia has endless obligations to a new class of mendicants from Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Carteret or the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia.
My other posts on sea level rises are here, here here and here.
From what I can recall of past columns, Pearson's scepticism of global warming may be too extreme, but his column today on sea level rise is pretty good. (Basic message: it's defintely not the case that any islands are currently suffering from global warming induced sea level rises, and indeed any serious effect is quite a way off yet.)
He is right to criticise Labor on this. As I noted in a past post, Albanese is well and truly a gullible dill who does not appear capable of independent fact checking. As Pearson says:
Our island neighbours may well have claims on our foreign aid, but as a matter of charity rather than any sort of entitlement. In the absence of compelling evidence, and in defiance of Darwin's model, Labor shouldn't be encouraging them to believe that they are the victims of profligate coal, gas and oil-fired economies. Nor should it be creating unrealistic expectations that, as the largest regional consumer of fossil fuels, Australia has endless obligations to a new class of mendicants from Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Carteret or the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia.
My other posts on sea level rises are here, here here and here.
Friday, June 09, 2006
An unusual death
The Japan Times Online - Brake, software probed in Tokyo elevator death
What surprises me, in a way, is that elevator deaths seem so uncommon. I mean, I just would have thought they would malfunction with dangerous consequences much more often.
What surprises me, in a way, is that elevator deaths seem so uncommon. I mean, I just would have thought they would malfunction with dangerous consequences much more often.
Polar bears' problem
The Japan Times Online - '98 Arctic thaw laid to warm ocean, not hot air
Not sure whether this is really relevant to global warming arguments or not, but still it's interesting.
Not sure whether this is really relevant to global warming arguments or not, but still it's interesting.
An Austin Powers moment
The Aljazeera.net reporting of the death of Al Zarqawi contains an item about the reaction of his family. It seems that even though they had to distance themselves from him after the (very unpopular) hotel bombings in Amman, they are now happy to talk of him being a martyr.
There is also mention of how a nephew feels "so sad" about it. When reading this, I had a sudden reminder of the funny/clever part of the first Austin Powers movie, where the death of one of the evil henchmen is followed by scenes of how his very "all american" family are upset by the news.
There is also mention of how a nephew feels "so sad" about it. When reading this, I had a sudden reminder of the funny/clever part of the first Austin Powers movie, where the death of one of the evil henchmen is followed by scenes of how his very "all american" family are upset by the news.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Euthanasia and consequences
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Call for no-consent euthanasia
The key part of this argument is all to do with moral philosophy:
Prof Doyal says withdrawing life-saving treatment from severely incompetent patients - which may involve turning off a ventilator, ending antibiotics or withdrawing a feeding tube - is "believed to be morally appropriate because it constitutes doing nothing. It is disease that does the dirty work, not the clinician. Yet this argument cannot wash away the foreseeable suffering of severely incompetent patients sometimes forced to die avoidably slow and distressing deaths."
He draws a parallel with a father who sees his baby drowning in the bath and fails to do anything to save it. The father foresaw the certainty of the death and did nothing and would therefore be morally considered to have killed the child.
"Clinicians who starve severely incompetent patients to death are not deemed by law to have killed them actively, even if they begin the process by the removal of feeding tubes. The legal fiction that such starvation is not active killing is no more than clumsy judicial camouflage of the euthanasia that is actually occurring."
First of all, I thought that there was quite a lot of confidence that most cases of withdrawal of treatment did not cause unnecessary suffering. (Or at least, if suffering was detected, there is no issue with administering pain relief, even if an unintended consequence is shortening life.) So I am not sure that unnecessary suffering is really the issue.
But this Professor's arguments are all based on an acceptance that consequentialism is the right way to make ethical decisions. Peter Singer is also a "consequentialist", which should send up warnings.
Rather than have me bang on about why it consquentialism is a problem, have a look at the good Wikipedia article about its critics. (All hail Wikipedia.)
The key part of this argument is all to do with moral philosophy:
Prof Doyal says withdrawing life-saving treatment from severely incompetent patients - which may involve turning off a ventilator, ending antibiotics or withdrawing a feeding tube - is "believed to be morally appropriate because it constitutes doing nothing. It is disease that does the dirty work, not the clinician. Yet this argument cannot wash away the foreseeable suffering of severely incompetent patients sometimes forced to die avoidably slow and distressing deaths."
He draws a parallel with a father who sees his baby drowning in the bath and fails to do anything to save it. The father foresaw the certainty of the death and did nothing and would therefore be morally considered to have killed the child.
"Clinicians who starve severely incompetent patients to death are not deemed by law to have killed them actively, even if they begin the process by the removal of feeding tubes. The legal fiction that such starvation is not active killing is no more than clumsy judicial camouflage of the euthanasia that is actually occurring."
First of all, I thought that there was quite a lot of confidence that most cases of withdrawal of treatment did not cause unnecessary suffering. (Or at least, if suffering was detected, there is no issue with administering pain relief, even if an unintended consequence is shortening life.) So I am not sure that unnecessary suffering is really the issue.
But this Professor's arguments are all based on an acceptance that consequentialism is the right way to make ethical decisions. Peter Singer is also a "consequentialist", which should send up warnings.
Rather than have me bang on about why it consquentialism is a problem, have a look at the good Wikipedia article about its critics. (All hail Wikipedia.)
A Danny Katz piece
Subliminal scholarship, schoolboy-style - Danny Katz - Opinion - theage.com.au
I have mentioned before how I think Danny Katz is a great humourist. If only he could write something decent for Australian TV comedy. (Who knows, maybe he does?)
Anyway, his column above made me laugh.
I have mentioned before how I think Danny Katz is a great humourist. If only he could write something decent for Australian TV comedy. (Who knows, maybe he does?)
Anyway, his column above made me laugh.
More detail, Ken
Nuclear electricity is just more expensive - Opinion - theage.com.au
Kenneth Davidson in The Age, talking about nuclear power, makes this surprising comment:
Lovelock's Gaia theory, which treats the Earth as a kind of living organism, is as revolutionary as the Renaissance was 500 years ago when man displaced God at the centre of the world. It means that the survival of the Earth as a self-regulating ecosystem must take precedence over individual rights.
All hail Mother Gaia!
I think Ken should specify which "individual rights" he has in mind here.
Kenneth Davidson in The Age, talking about nuclear power, makes this surprising comment:
Lovelock's Gaia theory, which treats the Earth as a kind of living organism, is as revolutionary as the Renaissance was 500 years ago when man displaced God at the centre of the world. It means that the survival of the Earth as a self-regulating ecosystem must take precedence over individual rights.
All hail Mother Gaia!
I think Ken should specify which "individual rights" he has in mind here.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Bugs in Japan
Japundit � Duck Season . . . Rabbit Season . . . BUG SEASON!
See the link above for a short discourse on the rather odd Japanese kids obsession with Rhino Beetles. I contributed comment number 8, by the way.
See the link above for a short discourse on the rather odd Japanese kids obsession with Rhino Beetles. I contributed comment number 8, by the way.
The open letter
Janet Albrechtsen in today's Australian rips into John Howard for backing down on the sale of the Snowy River scheme. Personally, I don't see it as an issue worth getting too worked up about either way.
Still, her column does have this paragraph which I can agree with:
But perhaps most irritating is the fact that Howard's backflip only encourages our collective letter writers to keep on writing. The apparent victory by the 57 assorted luvvies, political has-beens and political never-beens will make them think their sentimental jottings have policy substance. These letters are blots on the political landscape that invariably feature artistes trying to prove they can do more than memorise scripts by signing up to something drafted by retirees suffering relevance deprivation syndrome.
One hopes that their saccharine superficiality has been carried prominently by newspapers such as The Australian as a cute reminder that collectivists are now reduced to the pathetic business of writing collective letters. But after Howard's surrender last week, they received a fillip.
Yes, this "open letter" tactic has irritated for a long time. Firstly, how many people actually read them (or, more importantly, people who have not yet made up their mind about an issue.) Do they think that people care what actors and former diplomats and such like think about economic and other issues? I guess some people might if the actor has some particularly high public profile for, I don't know, niceness and the common touch. But once they are highly successful, people surely just see them as rich and idle enough to dabble in politics. And even if one of them could influence the public, joining in the collective letter dilutes their own input.
No, it always seems to be mostly about posturing from a political side that everyone already knows is nearly ubiquitous in the arts world. (And in the world of retired diplomats, too.)
Still, her column does have this paragraph which I can agree with:
But perhaps most irritating is the fact that Howard's backflip only encourages our collective letter writers to keep on writing. The apparent victory by the 57 assorted luvvies, political has-beens and political never-beens will make them think their sentimental jottings have policy substance. These letters are blots on the political landscape that invariably feature artistes trying to prove they can do more than memorise scripts by signing up to something drafted by retirees suffering relevance deprivation syndrome.
One hopes that their saccharine superficiality has been carried prominently by newspapers such as The Australian as a cute reminder that collectivists are now reduced to the pathetic business of writing collective letters. But after Howard's surrender last week, they received a fillip.
Yes, this "open letter" tactic has irritated for a long time. Firstly, how many people actually read them (or, more importantly, people who have not yet made up their mind about an issue.) Do they think that people care what actors and former diplomats and such like think about economic and other issues? I guess some people might if the actor has some particularly high public profile for, I don't know, niceness and the common touch. But once they are highly successful, people surely just see them as rich and idle enough to dabble in politics. And even if one of them could influence the public, joining in the collective letter dilutes their own input.
No, it always seems to be mostly about posturing from a political side that everyone already knows is nearly ubiquitous in the arts world. (And in the world of retired diplomats, too.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)