I just read the 日経新聞 (Nikkei Shimbun) today — I hadn't gotten a chance to read a Japanese newspaper in quite a while. I came across a number of interesting stories I wanted to mention...
First, non-smoking areas in hotels are continuing to spread, due in part to a "health promotion law" that was passed a while ago. It's also due to families complaining about the smoke. Some hotels have prohibited smoking in their restaurants or lobbies (including the Four Seasons in Tokyo), and some are just prohibiting it on weekends to cater to family travellers. I think this is a great thing. Japan is far too smoky in public places.
Next, I read an interesting article about what they called 「Ｊ感覚」, or "Japanese Feel" goods. In this they were referring to all the cute characters and related products that have come to symbolize Japanese consumer culture to a large extent. The subtitle of the story was 「『カワイイ』を作る」, or "Creating 'Kawaii'", which means 'cute' in Japanese. They mentioned that in places like Taiwan and Thailand now, most younger people understand and use the word 'kawaii' in everyday speech due to the Japanese influence.
The interesting thing was how Sanrio and other companies with a repertoire of such characters have finally begun to develop the Chinese market thanks to recent crackdowns on piracy and counterfeit goods in China. This is a great move for Japan, considering the pressing need for them to move from a manufacturing-based economy to a service- and knowledge-based economy. Japan could really take advantage of their highly developed sense of 'kawaii' in selling it to the world, as long as it's not stolen and copied by the workers on the factory floor.
First of all, this is my 100th post! I'm pretty amazed that I've actually continued blogging this long... It may be some sort of testament to the addictiveness of it. ;)
I wanted to add my 2 cents to the question of what sort of footage of POWs would be a violation of the Geneva convention. It prohibits turning them into a so-called "public curiosity," i.e. a freak show...
Firstly, I don't think that is what the footage of Iraqi soldiers shown by U.S. stations is doing. The real point of this coverage is to show both the fact that some are surrendering, and the processes our forces are going though during the surrender. There is no freak show -- only generic footage of men walking with hands over their heads, or turning around, kneeling, and being handcuffed...
Secondly, some of the footage aired by Al Jazeera did turn the U.S. POWs into a public curiosity. It showed the dead bodies of soldiers in disarray, in close-up shots. This was too much. But the footage of the live soldiers is more on the borderline. I couldn't say definitively whether this bit was a violation or not, but probably not in my opinion...
Hopefully, both sides will reconsider this issue now, although I don't expect any better journalistic ethics to surface among the Iraqi state media...
Yes, everyone in the country has been glued to their TVs for days now.
I felt something very different in the first few days of the war -- a new optimism about the future, about how things are going to change for the better after this is all over. The daily display of U.S. soldiers' professionalism, focus, and honor is so impressive it's contagious. It's inspiring. I hope it rubs off on people. :)
I know a lot of people who read this blog disagree, but I honestly think that this is the right thing to do, and if we can be successful, it will be the beginning of a new age of progress for the middle east, and stability and confidence in U.S. and global markets. If we don't succeed (unlikely in my opinion), at least we tried.
I've also become somewhat weary of boring shaky camera footage. I think I'm going to try to watch less TV coverage -- 90% of it is footage of the back of another person or vehicle. 10% of it is incredible though, so what can you do?
Maybe I'll try to catch the latest from web and print media more...
Ok. This is just a straight out rant. Can we just banish the phrase 'in a bid to' from the media already? "In a bid to influence the WTO, ..." I have heard this phrase way too often, and I'm sick of it. Why can't anyone just say "Yesterday, Finance Ministry officials attempted to influence the WTO by...?"
Why do those in the media feel it necessary to always use the same tired old clichés?? This is one reason I like to read the Wall Street Journal, and the few remaining publications where reporters just write what they mean, rather than gluing together clichés... Argh.
I think the AP and Reuters are probably largely to blame for this shoddy McCrap. Is it really that hard to write something in your own words, guys? Argh2.