To a certain generation she will always be an icon of Sixties counterculture and the unique contralto voice who, along with late former husband Sonny Bono, gave the world "I Got You Babe."
"Sixties counterculture icon"? That's a bit of a stretch. She has done many amazing things in her career since and that cannot be argued but even then people saw that song for what it was; a cheap and tacky attempt by Bono to cash-in on Dylan and the actual youth/counterculture.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
To the surprise of absolutely no one.
*Added to the growing list of boycotted vendors.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Maybe those easily offended by skin art need to cover their precious eyes instead.
13 ( +16 / -3 )
maybeperhapsyes I'm just curious. In your case, what was the evidence (assuming there was some!) provided by the plaintiff that won over the police and insurance people?
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Their merit is their ability to produce evidence that can’t be ignored.
While I agree with the pretense - Rodney King.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
expat good point!
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Two years after announcing strict volunteer requirements for the Tokyo 2020 Olympics and realizing they could not get enough help for free,
I don't often laugh out loud reading the newspaper in the morning but this is an absolute diamond of an opening sentence.
7 ( +7 / -0 )
TigerTokyoDome those are great questions and this type of conversation is exactly what I think is a good outcome of this.
I don’t know how she should be depicted. I wasn’t personally offended by this and I am also trying my best to understand it. I'm doing my best to listen.
I didn’t at any time say he shouldn’t have drawn it or it shouldn’t have been published. I’m not for censorship. Just simply that views and feelings that are not our own maybe ought not to be dismissed so easily. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t depict African Americans or anyone for that matter in cartoons. Just that we shouldn’t all be so quick to dismiss feelings from perspectives we may not fully grasp.
What you say in your second paragraph may all be true generally. I’m not saying that white people have not ever anywhere been in the crosshairs of racism. I am saying in the American context anyway, there isn’t the same history of racist stereotypes in cartoon form utilized to attack an entire race of people just for the audacity of being born with a different skin color. It’s perhaps more loaded for African Americans than it is for white people.
I’ll not respond to your third paragraph as I’m not 100% sure I understand what you mean.
The part I agree with is that none of this means that the cartoonist is racist or that the cartoon itself is racist but that doesn’t mean that some people do not legitimately feel hurt by it. There is no finger pointing intended on my behalf at all but is it too much to ask to listen without being defensive, to people express how this makes them feel and the reasons for it? In some ways we have to have faith that the cartoonist did not intend to create a cartoon that would be taken as racist as much as we do that people who are hurt or offended by it are not looking to be offended or playing race cards or all the other defensive reactions when sensitive matters like this arise. It works both ways.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
If a white, skinny, long-nosed person was characterised as being extra white, especially skinny, and extremely long-nosed in a cartoon, why do we never hear accusations of racism.??
Maybe because there is little-to-no long and extremely painful history of that type of racism solely focused on Caucasians? There is of Jewish people however and you might find a similar feelings from some of that community if this hypothetical person were Jewish.
5 ( +7 / -2 )
Perhaps the problem with that is that there is no such thing as universal common sense and the people you label as PC approach life among those who are different in that way?
4 ( +4 / -0 )
mrtinjp again, I think you misunderstand my point. I wasn't calling him racist. I don't know him or his cartoons. I wasn't even calling the cartoon necessarily racist. I was not expressing my opinion on it in that way at all. I was suggesting that perhaps some people might feel that way about it and it might not be a completely alien idea or one that deserves to be written off.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Gremlin.Gaijin my point was not to call out anyone as racist. My point was to explain my, perhaps, some people might feel that way about this. How the cartoonist or people who are not aware of this particular history might take this in that light but how some others might. To be blunt, a caricature of a white person that exaggerates physical features and one that does so of a black person might not carry the same weight because the history is radically different. I don't know (although I could be wrong!) of any history of comics and caricature targeting white people because of their race in the West. And don't get it twisted, I'm not even implying that is what the cartoonist did here. Far from it. I'm speaking to how it might make some people feel that way because of how it was done in the past. Whether a cartoonist from Australia should be expected to understand this history and be sensitive to it may be another matter altogether. At least discussing and trying to understand it from perspectives that are not native to us can't hurt can it?
I'm not black but I would like to think that I try my best to understand this from a black person's view the best I can. Or anyone in any situation. Empathy is the goal.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Perhaps the cartoonist did not intend to be racist and went about making a caricature the way he would for anyone. I'm certainly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Where the disconnect perhaps lies between many people to whom this strikes as racist and those who only see satire or lampooning is a knowledge of or sensitivity toward the history, particularly in the USA, of exaggerating features creating a primitive image of African Americans in cartoon form as propaganda weaponized against a people already struggling in a society that labelled them second class. It takes a bit of empathy perhaps unless you are black, to understand how the same approach might feel different when as an African American you live in a world or society that has yet to fully get past these silly stereotypes about you and your racial identity. Would people feel the same way if, for example, Osaka's features were exaggerated in the way that was popular in the US in wartime propaganda?
Perhaps a response of finger pointing and accusations of racism might not be the best way to handle this issue, although I certainly understand those who would react that way. Any discussions that help us to understand what it is like or how it feels to be in the shoes of another person and accepting that you may not already know that is a way that you can turn this into a positive.
1 ( +5 / -4 )
Unless getting in some handheld 2K during the Boston marathon...I mean, really?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
It was a very thoughtful and considered comment. And I surely do agree with your second sentence. But I wonder what inconvenience seeing ink on someone’s skin causes them? It's nice that you cover your own tattoos but what about people who cannot cover their tattoos without something akin to a burka? I realize that is an extreme case but they do exist.
Japan also taught me a great deal about being mindful of others as I come from a more individual-centered culture. That has been a great lesson and one I try to keep with me at all times. Even when I am not in Japan.
We know why such tattoo policies were created and we can all (I think!) probably agree that it is a false pretense that all people with tattoos are criminals. So by following these rules/policies we are, in my opinion, tacitly agreeing with them and allowing the ignorant minority to rule. If this includes paying to visit places that enforce such policies then we are even more convincingly tacitly agreeing with and even supporting such small mindedness.
Overall what bothers me is not just about tattoos. It is that people can be allowed to discriminate based on what someone looks like and create policy that enforces this. If we tacitly agree to this then why not allow them to discriminate on other cosmetic choices like hair color, dental work, hair style? Where would that end?
In fact many schools in Japan have already been called out for forcing students with natural hair color that is not black to dye it black. This isn't even a cosmetic choice for that person. Should we also allow schools to force our children to dye their hair, implant some subconscious self-loathing or otherness just to appease the minority of ignorant people who use culture as an excuse to discriminate and make everyone the same?
I struggle with walking this line myself and I certainly do not have all the answers. Sometimes I wonder what constitutes “culture” and whether the heavy-handed enforcement of old rules by a minority that still actually holds to it can qualify for that term.
I personally will not cover mine if I do not feel like covering them any more than I would ask a friend to suck his gut in because other people might not like to see it and will not patronize any business that discriminates based on appearance. I guess there are many choices.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
This is my worst nightmare. If you have little ones in daycare be vigilant with the staff to make sure they are following the rules at all times and report any time they don't; even if it isn't affecting your kids specifially.
The law in this case is not enough. 2 people watching 19 kids?! In any context that's simply not enough. But in a swimming pool?
My heart breaks for the little one and her parents.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
The prime minister is pushing constitutional revisions including adding an explicit reference to the Self-Defense Forces in the war-renouncing Article 9 to ensure there is no room to view them as "unconstitutional."
So all he wants to make something that already has existed for decades clearly constitutional? That's all huh?
He has no need for first strike capabilities for the, um, Self-DEFENSE Forces?
Seems like a lot of work for something that is already a well-worn convention.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
The catholic church is a corporation. If any corporation did what they did to hide criminals and other conspiracy do you think an apology would cut it? No, the US would use the RICO act to take it down. Exactly what should happen to this business.
If they want to be a business and pull profits like other businesses they need to be held to the same standards.
Oh, and forgive? No way.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
“Language skills and a high educational background were what Narita International Airport was looking for”
“Japanese are turned off by the hard work and long hours that airport jobs often entail.”
“"While airports appear glamourous, the work carried out there is often tough, dirty and dangerous,"
“Japanese people are choosing jobs with better working conditions”
I am forming a mental picture now...
Maybe when the Olympics are over they can hire these highly educated non-Japanese people to do more dirty dangerous jobs like cleaning up around Fukushima? How wonderful!
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
Not editing for content and length (unless you are an academic or a medical doctor why do you think your resume should be more than 4 pages long?). This indicates to your potential employer that you are unable to decipher important and significant tasks/achievements from the others and may be an indicator as to your ability to prioritize.
Not recognizing the difference between your own accomplishments and that of the company in general.
Not formatting the resume in point form. No one wants to read your career history in narrative form.
Not running a spell check. This one just baffles me. If you aren't going to put in the effort to run a simple spell check when you are applying for a job what does it say about your prospects for effort and attention to detail once you are actually in the position.
Revealing your age, martial status, race or any other personal information that can be used to discriminate unlawfully. Why put your hiring manager in that position?
Not knowing the difference between a cover latter and a CV. If you are writing in the first-person it is wrong. Keep the motivations and background stories to the cover letter. If it isn't factual it does not belong on a resume. Full-stop.
Not including complete education records or verifying information about professional or academic claims such as article or books you have written.
10 ( +10 / -0 )
Perhaps it is time for the world to start considering sanctions against the United States for human rights violations.
10 ( +10 / -0 )
I don't believe you
0 ( +2 / -2 )
"Booze and tobacco still dominates all other abused substances in Japan by a longshot". There, fixed it.
12 ( +13 / -1 )
Is that his approach to his entire life?
5 ( +5 / -0 )
(in regards to the accompanying picture for this story and besides Abe's face) Yeah, that is exactly the look I would expect from a group of people who know they are jamming in a knife from behind and throwing their colleagues under the bus. I mean my god if it's possible to look any guiltier I'm not sure I have seen it before.
8 ( +9 / -1 )
The ministry has admitted that parts of the documents were rewritten to make them consistent with Sagawa's testimony to parliament, including removing references to Akie Abe and the "special circumstances" of the sale.
But prosecutors were apparently unable to determine that the changes were substantial enough to constitute a criminal offense.
Well that's obviously an extremely dangerous precedent to set. Not that I believe for a second that Sagawa in any way took it upon himself to put himself on the line by making the decision to alter these documents. I'm sure he didn't get to where he was by ignoring the strict hierarchy we all know and love.
But come on, just the changes that have already been admitted are pretty darn substantial. I agree, this smells ratty.
11 ( +11 / -0 )
One of the local old idiots went through my garbage to find an envelope with a name on it and called the cops
I believe that nosing through other people's mail is perhaps a more serious crime (even in Japan) than putting out your garbage a day early. Perhaps you can press charges against your busybody neighbor (not that I think that would actually go anywhere)?
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Your employer is allowed to tell you what is and isn’t acceptable for you to do.
That's quite a statement. I'm not sure that bondage is a typical feature of modern employment contracts. May even have been what the civil war was fought over.
As far as I'm concerned standing, bowing or avoiding being present for the national anthem are all political acts. One that these employees (the players) are being forced into simply by the teams/league playing the anthem over the stadium speakers as a mandatory feature of the sporting event. I'm not saying anything morally about national anthems or patriotism one way or the other. Just that putting people in the position to be present at the playing of the anthem puts them in a position wherein they are required to express themselves politically so the owners/league/president (should?) have no right to tell them what/how they must express.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Forcing people to stand for the national anthem under threat of fine in the workplace? Certainly a discussion on the constitutionality of this is just around the corner. Is being a flag waver a prerequisite for being a professional football player? I fail to see the connection.
5 ( +7 / -2 )
I sure hope this comes to Tokyo. I'd love the chance to see this masterwork in fully glory. Hopefully this "unrestored" idea will become more popular. There are many films that many people have likely never had the chance to see as the filmmakers intended.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Posted in: N Korea warns U.S. over sanctions