Justice

Just in case you didn’t know what it was, here is an example:

Ex-intelligence chief found guilty of fraud, but avoids prison

Former Public Security Intelligence Agency Director General Shigetake Ogata was given a suspended prison term [ed. of two years and ten months] Thursday for defrauding a pro-Pyongyang Korean residents group out of real estate and 484 million yen in cash.

Breitbart.com (AP) 16.VII.2009

Woman, 70, to serve time for theft

GIFU–The district court here Tuesday sentenced a 70-year-old woman to two years in prison for shoplifting a plastic eraser worth 98 yen from a supermarket.

The sentence is without a stay of execution, which means the woman, a repeat offender, must serve the term.

The Asahi Shimbun, 16.VII.2009

It’s good to see fairness meted out.

Smoking

This article is over the top; I’ve only ever been to one establishment in Tokyo where smoking is not allowed, and let me tell you, that place is not going to be around for long-the food and service were shite. Despite bans on smoking on the street, I see people flaunting it every day. And how half assed is that?? Banning smoking on the streets but not inside??? Having just picked up the beautiful hobby of smoking after five years off (with the prospect of having to quit again soon after I leave Japan), I have come to really value the smokers paradise that is Japan. The prices are low, and for the time being, the opportunities are to light up are basically unlimited. But considering the world wide fasicst anti-smoking movement, the forecast is grim….so one should enjoy it as long as possible. The problem is, the bastards in power have learned that it is more profitable to tax escessively, rather than ban the product. Who knows which is the worse?? Next they’ll be telling us that drinking water is unhealthy! Funny how smoking is demonised as the cause of cancer, but I haven’t seen a cure for cancer yet.

AFP 16.VII.2009

Chord Voicings

Scott Henderson has written an interesting book about chord voicings for guitar. The idea is simple, and hence the short length of the book, but it is a good one. Essentially it is about substituting particular voicings over various roots. It is nothing new in itself, but the presentation, and the way he has categorised numerous voicings in reference to roots representing all chord qualities, is exhaustive.

The meaning of “wide and substantive”

In a report by Reuters, President of the US Obama and the Japanese Prime Minister Aso held a “wide and substantive” discussion over the phone. That is according to the White House in Washington.

According to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Prime Minister Taro Aso received a telephone call from Mr. Barack Obama, President of the United States and held a brief telephone conversation [...] for about 10 minutes”.

If world leaders consider 10 minute telephone calls to be “wide and substantive” discussions then we should be worried about the level of understanding that is going between countries.

The Vermillion Fruit: Neodialectic deappropriation in the works of Tarantino

Wilhelm Dietrich
Department of Politics, University of Oregon

In the works of Tarantino, a predominant concept is the concept of postsemanticist narrativity. Foucault uses the term ‘neodialectic deappropriation’ to denote the common ground between society and class.

The primary theme of Bailey’s[1] model of neocapitalist dematerialism is not, in fact, narrative, but postnarrative. It could be said that several desituationisms concerning deconstructive precapitalist theory may be found. Derrida uses the term ‘expressionism’ to denote the role of the artist as writer.

If one examines Baudrillardist simulacra, one is faced with a choice: either accept neodialectic deappropriation or conclude that the significance of the reader is social comment. However, the subject is interpolated into a that includes art as a reality. A number of narratives concerning not conceptualism, as cultural theory suggests, but postconceptualism exist.

Pat Martino

“What’s really needed to “gig on a professional level” is to honestly be yourself, (that’s why you were hired), and at all times do your best under any circumstance. Most of all, with compassion for each other!”

Emile Cioran

“Criticism is a misconception: we must read not to understand others but to understand ourselves”

Alex the Postmodernist

Here’s an excerpt from a funny parody of postmodernism written by Mark Leyner at the “Everything Postmodern” website (there’s a link at the bottom of this page):

JENNY JONES: And do you remember how you felt the very first time you  entertained the notion that you and your universe are constituted by  language-that reality is a cultural construct, a “text” whose meaning  is determined by infinite associations with other “texts”?

ALEX: Uh, it felt, like, good. I wanted to do it again.

Putting aside the comic side of things for a moment, I think this is an interesting way to think of discourses, or “texts”. From a political perspective, it is interesting to look at how agents can empower themselves by using discourses as strategies to legitimate or justify their actions. Of course, as the excerpt points out, the agents themselves are constituted by an infinite chain of texts…which is nice because it implies infinite interpretations and opportunities.

More ramblings about the philosophy of review

Theoretical traditions do differ in regard to the assumptions that inform their analyses. However they are similar in the sense that they all make assumptions. Thus the notion that theories differ because some make assumptions whilst others don’t is invalid. They simply make assumptions about different things. Thus a more salient difference between theories is in regard to the kind of questions they ask, the things they are interested in, within the discipline of IR/International politics. Thus a structural realist theory makes assumptions about states’ identities because it is not interested in the question of what is a state’s identity. Rather, it is interested in the question of, given a particular identity, how does a state behave under different, given, conditions. Alternatively, constructivist theories are interested in states’ identities, thus they hold off from making assumptions about these. However, they make other assumptions about meta-theory and so on.

So in conclusion, theoretical traditions can be separated by the kinds of questions that they ask within the field of IR. As an aside, it is the case that some theories may guard their positions by arguing that certain issues do not belong in the field of IR, but this is another issue.

So, in the literature review, an approach that may be fruitful would be to start with the question of, what kind of issues has the inquiry been interested in. What kind of questions have been asked in regard to the field at hand (which goes some way in answering the associated question of, what is the field at hand)? Asking about what the writer has inquired should also lead to discussion of many smelly items.

Questioning of the literature is focused around particular texts within the literature selected. Specifically, analysis begins on statements of truth in the text; that is, conclusions that the author has made about the topic as the have defined it.

So, the attitude to the literature review to try involves such questions as the following:

1. About what aspect of the field has the writer made conclusions?

   1. For example, let’s say that Spazzo (2001) wrote that Japan has used human security as a way to influence the concept of security within the UN because this is a way to develop structural power. In other words Smith has made a conclusion about Japan’s intentions, as well as the way in which (Spazzo believes) Japan construes the UN, and the notion of power. Therefore, Spazzo’s field of inquiry has been issues such as Japan’s motivation, its national interest, and understanding(s) of power.

2. What kind of structures is the writer establishing, what kind of discourse are they arranging, what kind of world are they painting, by posing their questions. In other words, what are their assumptions?

   1. For example, let’s say that Dork (2003) has asked questions, and made conclusions, about the concepts which have a bearing on who determines the politics of human rights within Japan; the government or civil society? In posing this question, he has constructed the state in Japan to be divided along the lines of government vs. non-government. In other words, his question reveals an underlying structure in which the setting of human rights policy in Japan is contested between the government and civil society.

3. What questions are not posed by the authors?

   1. Where does their inquiry end?

   2. What questions are not permitted by their meta-theoretical position?

   3. What questions are inspired by the authors?

House arrest for Qaeda suspect on leaving UK jail

There is something wrong with a system in which a person who was never tried can be detained for seven years and then released but only under significant restraints. Surely the government has some kind of justification for claiming that “U” is dangerous, so why is there no evidence? Is the judicial system limited in regard to the kinds of evidence that can be admitted, or are the agencies which claim “U” is a threat too paranoid too release anything that can be used in a trial? Whilst inadequate, either of these scenarios is better than the possibility that the British government fucked up and jailed an innocent man for seven years.

Reuters 03.VII.2008