Quotulatiousness

December 16, 2010

Japan tries to restrict adult-oriented manga

Filed under: Economics, Japan, Media — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:51

Having solved all other problems, the Japanese government is now attempting to impose stricter controls on the thriving Manga book industry:

A battle has erupted between the normally placid manga community and Tokyo’s conservative governor over a new law that heavily restricts sales in the city of manga comic books with what the ordinance calls “extreme” depictions of sex.

The brouhaha has become so big that even Prime Minister Naoto Kan is attempting to bridge the divide between the industry, producer of one of Japan’s most cherished cultural exports, and Tokyo’s metropolitan government. A group of manga artists and publishers has said it will boycott Tokyo’s massive International Anime Fair in March.

That threat could hobble sales of the country’s beloved comic books. As Japan’s economic star continues to be eclipsed by China, cultural exports remain one of Japan’s few globally robust sectors.

Of course, there’s more to the story than the headlines indicate, as not all manga produced finds markets overseas:

The vast majority of manga in Japan aren’t pornographic, with internationally known titles such as “Dragon Ball,” “Naruto” and “Sailor Moon” attracting global readers of all ages.

But what sets Japan apart from much of the West is that here it is considered socially acceptable to read manga depicting sexually explicit acts. It is common to sit next to a suit-wearing Japanese commuter who is nonchalantly paging through cartoon sex scenes. Pornographic magazines with women dressed as Japanese schoolgirls on the cover are available at convenience stores around Tokyo, without anything obscuring the cover.

The only concession is that such publications are labeled “adult-only” and sealed shut, preventing browsers from peeking inside.

November 26, 2010

“[T]he anti-TSA movement … is really a front for the Koch brothers”

Filed under: Liberty, Media, Politics — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 08:46

Justin Raimondo pours scorn on the recent anti-libertarian hit piece in The Nation:

Speaking of implausible fiction, The Nation recently ran a piece by Mark “I spit on libertarians” Ames and Yasha Levine, which determined that the anti-TSA movement — that seems to have sprung up like a last gasp of life from the old America — is really a front for the Koch brothers, two formerly libertarian billionaires who have become the deus ex machina of clueless “progressive” commentators who cannot otherwise explain the explosion of anti-government anti-authoritarian populism currently upending politics. Glenn Greenwald seems to have taken care of the Ames-Levine fantasists, putting them in their proper place as apologists for the Obama regime and all its works, but one more thing needs to be said:

If Ames and Levine are going to become the “go to” team for the dirt on libertarians, such as it is, they ought to learn their subject. Because the very idea of Charles and David Koch leading a national resistance movement involving civil disobedience on a massive scale is laughable: to anyone who knows them, or knows of them in more than a glancing way, this can only provoke gales of unrestrained laughter. It is sheer laziness to believe this. Indeed, if only the Brothers Koch, and the plethora of organizations their money has funded, were that radical! Unfortunately, they are not: a stodgy, boring conservatism marks their both their methods and their politics, and always has.

Ames and Levine need to do some real research. It was the anti-Koch wing of the libertarian movement, centered around LewRockwell.com, that first gave John Tyner’s act of defiance the publicity and velocity that made it go viral. And if LRC is a front for the Koch brothers, then we have truly entered Bizarro World. In that case, so too is Antiwar.com a Koch front — and so why have we been doing this fundraising campaign for the past two weeks, begging our readers to save us from oblivion?

Gee, it seems like that check from the Kochs got lost in the mail! Charles, could you please look into that? Thanks.

H/T to Matt Welch for the link.

July 26, 2010

You’d have to say that they’re still following his guidelines

Filed under: Africa, Books, Media — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 00:10

In an issue of Granta several years back, Binyavanga Wainaina provided some highly detailed guidelines for western writers to use in their work about Africa. Based on the results, you’d have to say that his guidance has been taken to heart by most novelists, journalists, and television personalities:

Always use the word ‘Africa’ or ‘Darkness’ or ‘Safari’ in your title. Subtitles may include the words ‘Zanzibar’, ‘Masai’, ‘Zulu’, ‘Zambezi’, ‘Congo’, ‘Nile’, ‘Big’, ‘Sky’, ‘Shadow’, ‘Drum’, ‘Sun’ or ‘Bygone’. Also useful are words such as ‘Guerrillas’, ‘Timeless’, ‘Primordial’ and ‘Tribal’. Note that ‘People’ means Africans who are not black, while ‘The People’ means black Africans.

Never have a picture of a well-adjusted African on the cover of your book, or in it, unless that African has won the Nobel Prize. An AK-47, prominent ribs, naked breasts: use these. If you must include an African, make sure you get one in Masai or Zulu or Dogon dress.

In your text, treat Africa as if it were one country. It is hot and dusty with rolling grasslands and huge herds of animals and tall, thin people who are starving. Or it is hot and steamy with very short people who eat primates. Don’t get bogged down with precise descriptions. Africa is big: fifty-four countries, 900 million people who are too busy starving and dying and warring and emigrating to read your book. The continent is full of deserts, jungles, highlands, savannahs and many other things, but your reader doesn’t care about all that, so keep your descriptions romantic and evocative and unparticular.

Make sure you show how Africans have music and rhythm deep in their souls, and eat things no other humans eat. Do not mention rice and beef and wheat; monkey-brain is an African’s cuisine of choice, along with goat, snake, worms and grubs and all manner of game meat. Make sure you show that you are able to eat such food without flinching, and describe how you learn to enjoy it — because you care.

H/T to Gerard Vanderleun for the link.

July 5, 2010

QotD: Blogging and the spirit of journalism

Filed under: Media, Quotations — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:06

I believe the blogosphere first truly gained traction in America for a good reason. There is something about blogging’s freedom from the constraints of conventional journalism that captures an American ideal: civic engagement totally free of anyone else’s influence. It is an ideal of a fourth estate hostile to authorities public and private, suspicious of conventional wisdom, and, above all, confident, even when confidence seems absurd, in the power of the word and the argument to make a difference . . . in the end. The rise of this type of citizen journalism has, in my view, increasingly exposed some of the laziness and corruption in the professional version — even as there is still a huge amount to treasure and value in the legacy media, and a huge amount of partisan, mendacious claptrap on the blogs.

But what distinguishes the best of the new media is what could still be recaptured by the old: the mischievous spirit of journalism and free, unfettered inquiry. Journalism has gotten too pompous, too affluent, too self-loving, and too entwined with the establishment of both wings of American politics to be what we need it to be.

We need it to be fearless and obnoxious, out of a conviction that more speech, however much vulgarity and nonsense it creates, is always better than less speech. In America, this is a liberal spirit in the grandest sense of that word – but also a conservative one, since retaining that rebelliousness is tending to an ancient American tradition, from the Founders onward.

Andrew Sullivan, “Happy 4th”, Daily Dish, 2010-07-04

June 26, 2010

The ungentlemanly art of reporting

Filed under: Media, Military — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:39

Paul Wells looks at the methods employed by now-famous reporter-to-the-generals Michael Hastings:

Hastings is blunt about the fun a reporter on short-term assignment can have when he doesn’t have to worry about the repercussions of what he writes. “My job was basically: Ride the buses and planes with the candidates, have big lunches and dinners on the expense account, get sources drunk and singing, then report back the behind-the-scenes story.”

Then there is this paragraph. The sentence with the bad word is the most interesting to me as it will be to you, but the whole paragraph, with its tensions and contradictions, is worth considering:

   The dance with staffers is a perilous one. You’re probably not going to get much, if any, one-on-one time with the candidate, which means your sources of information are the people who work for him. So you pretend to be friendly and nonthreatening, and over time you “build trust,” which everybody involved knows is an illusion. If the time comes, if your editor calls for it, you’re supposed to fuck them over; and they’ll throw you under a bus without much thought, too. (I should say that personal friendships can actually develop, despite the odds.) For the top campaign officials and operatives, seduction and punishment of reporters is an art. Write this fluff piece now; we’ll give you something good later. No, don’t write it this way, write it that way. We’ll give you something good later.

This deserves to stand as one of the great bits of journalistic self-flagellation and revelation, only a notch below Janet Malcolm’s famous confession that “Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible.”

H/T to Taylor Empire Airways for the link.

March 24, 2010

Another “don’t pay attention to the facts” editorial

Filed under: Britain, Environment, Media — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 07:47

James Delingpole looks at the long, sad decline of The Economist from a bastion of common sense and rationality to today’s same-as-all-the-rest advocacy publication:

Can anyone tell me how The Economist got its title? I’m guessing it was probably founded in the early 18th century by some crazed charlatan called, perhaps, Zachariah Economist, who, because of the unfortunate coincidence of his surname managed to persuade thousands of gullible fools to part with their shirts on one of the South Sea Bubble companies. The one whose prospectus read “A company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is.”

One thing I know for sure: The Economist’s name can have no relationship whatsoever with the “dismal science” of economics because if it did then never in a million years could it have run an editorial (and feature) as lame, wrong-headed, intellectually dishonest and positively dangerous as the one it produced this week on the subject of Climate Change.

When I started reading The Economist, back in the early 1980s, I was very impressed by the quality of writing and the rather eclectic things they covered every week. I took up a subscription and it was something I never dumped in the garbage (or, later, the recycling bin), as there was always an interested party willing to take it off my hands.

I have to assume either an ownership change or very heavy turnover at the top of the editorial chain happened in the late 1990s, as the “tone” of the coverage changed significantly. The editorials and the choice of articles switched away from a free market emphasis to become much more like a British version of Time or Newsweek. The long-standing defence of free markets dwindled down to the occasional desultory mention of free trade, as they became more pro-state and pro-managed trade. I gave up my subscription a few years after that, as I found I was reading less and less of every issue. Where once I’d read the majority of the articles, at the end, I was just reading the odd editorial, an occasional feature, and the arts and sciences pages at the back.

From what James Delingpole writes, even the science pages have “turned”:

So, let me get this right: as even the Economist admits, scientists don’t really have a clue what the future holds regarding global warming. But that still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t DO something. Anything is better than nothing.

Let’s transpose that level of lame-brainery to the world of business, shall we? The real, decisions-have-consequences world in which, I imagine, most of The Economist’s readers operate.

So, we currently have a proposed scheme by Global PLC to spend around $45 trillion (that’s the International Energy Agency’s best estimate) combatting a problem which may or may not exist. The potential returns on this investment? Virtually nil. As the Spanish “Green Jobs” disaster has demonstrated, for every Green Job created by government intervention, another 2.2 jobs are lost in the real economy. It will also shave between 1 and 5 per cent off global GDP, create massive new layers of business-stifling taxation and regulation, and cause energy costs to rise to stratospheric new levels. Nice.

This combines the pro-state preferences of the current editorial group with the “consensus” science of the current science correspondant. I’m glad I gave up my subscription when I did . . .

January 26, 2010

QotD: Esquire magazine, tongue-bath attendant to the (political) stars

Filed under: Humour, Politics, Quotations — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 13:09

Anytime Esquire writes extensively about politicians, it’s going to be pretty icky, and this Tom Junod piece which compares Obama’s governing style to “positive discipline” parenting (this makes us a bunch of bratty children) is pretty super-icky. (Esquire can never quite get it through its head that what politicians do, mostly, is order around mass murder, mass theft, and the spinning of resources and power to their buddies. They certainly aren’t alone in missing this point, though. But they really, really, really miss it. Politicians to them are always noble guardians of the best in the American spirit or some such sententious bullshit.)

Brian Doherty, “Jazz and Modern Liberalism: The Eerie Parallels”, Hit and Run, 2010-01-26

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress