i-sako.com

It is a very common thing in Japan to be invited to go out for dinner and drinks with the people you work with. In most cases, if you work with nice people, this is a very pleasant experience, something to look forward to. In almost every case, though, this means ordering as a group, with a number of dishes being shared among the participants. This, too, is often a lot of fun, as it was during our department’s recent New Year’s party this evening. 



The food was absolutely fantastic, probably some of the best Italian food I’ve had in the nearly six years I’ve lived in Japan (and that says a lot, because Italian food is quite popular here), but there was one significant catch: the course we ordered came with two hours of all-you-can-drink beer, wine, or cocktails, a very common feature of Japanese meals known as nomihōdai (literally, “all you can drink,” although it probably should be thought of as “all you can stand"). 

The practice of offering nomihōdai is, in my opinion, a great disservice to the customer. It is presented, of course, as a bonus of sorts, but in truth it is nothing of the sort. Because the restaurant in question knows it is obligated to provide as much alcohol as its guests can consume, it often provides some of the cheapest drinks available. When presented alongside truly exquisite food, as was the case with tonight’s meal, the result is nothing short of catastrophic, like finding a turd in your punch bowl.

Given the choice between nomihōdai and pay-as-you-go drinks, I would rather have the latter—I would gladly pay more for a drink that matches the quality of the food it is served with, rather than be plied with an unlimited number of unpalatable drinks.

Fortunately for me, there was another party tonight, one with a much more appealing selection of beverages. Some of the other foreigners at my company are leaving for various reasons—some to go back to school, others being reassigned to different countries—so there was a farewell party at an Irish pub not far from where our New Year’s party had been held. A nice Guinness, even at 1,000 yen a pop, is far better than any amount of “free” no-name beer.



If only the Japanese knew what they are missing, I’m sure nomihōdai would all but disappear. For the time being, however, it seems that I’ll have to seek total satisfaction separately.

Last night I went to see Lawrence Lessig’s presentation at the “Open Meeting” sponsored by the newly established Creative Commons Japan. This makes the second time I’ve been within handshake-distance of the guy and still not had the chance to talk to him. (Damn sycophants, don’t they realize that I have important things to say to the professor? My autograph collection is hanging in the balance here!)

I’m not quite as interested in the Free Culture aspect of his work (I like it much better when he’s talking about architecture as politics), but the presentation was still pretty good. I certainly agreed with his points about the need for creative freedom as a bulwark against a future of DRM-enforced creative imprisonment.

I’m looking forward to his new book, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. His last one, The Future of Ideas, is one that I would recommend to anyone who has ever so much as touched a computer. 

It will be interesting to see how well the CC licenses catch on in Japan. Several of the questions from the audience last night were pretty skeptical about the merits of these “some rights reserved” licenses. Still, if even a small fraction of the population buys into the idea, that’s a lot of creative potential.

Someone who went to the meeting with me asked an interesting question: If people who live (and write) in Japan can be assumed to have Japanese copyright protection (life of the author, plus 50 years) instead of American copyright protection (life of the author, plus unlimited near-expiration extensions), which license should be used, the Japanese or the American? Does it make a difference at all if the content is posted to and hosted on a server in the United States? Not being a lawyer, I don’t know the answers to these questions. Any IP lawyers out there care to shed some light on this one?

From the people who brought you WWJD? bracelets comes a new Bible, Cosmo-style.

Pop Goes the Bible

With a trio of smiling teenage girls on the cover, along with teasers for beauty tips and dating advice, Revolve looks like it has more in common with Glamour than Gideon.



But don’t judge the Good Book by its cover. Revolve is an honest-to-goodness Bible, encompassing the New Testament from Matthew to Revelation. But its magazine-like styling and bright cover will help it seem hipper to today’s girls, the publishers hope.



“We asked teen girls how often they read the Bible,” says Laurie Whaley, one of Revolve’s editors and a spokeswoman for its publisher, Thomas Nelson Bibles. “The response that came back was, ‘Well, we don’t read the Bible.’



“They said, ‘It’s just too freaky, too intimidating. It doesn’t make any sense.’”

Reaching out to young people about matters of faith is not a bad thing, but I don’t think wrapping it up in pop culture is the best way to go about it. Perhaps I’m showing my elitist tendencies a bit, but why be trendy when you could be sublime?

Ultimately, religion should be about transmitting values, but are the values of pop culture consistent with our religious values? I ask because, as a father wondering what to teach his children about religion, I have serious doubts about our popular culture (which is largely an outgrowth of consumer culture, which is not a religious priority for me).

I hope to be able to educate my children about the finer points of all major religions, which seems to me like something that we should all be doing. If there is anything that can put a rest to religious conflict, it must be religious understanding. For some reason, I doubt the publishers of Revolve have any such thing in mind. Pity.

(Thanks to MetaFilter for the link.)

The state of Ohio may not be able to afford to educate its young people, but apparently it can afford $700,000 to create a system to scan their fingerprints while they stand in lunch lines. (Link via TalkLeft.)

Why bother with after-school programs when you can satisfy our national urge to create a police state instead?

I wonder if this applies to kids who bring their own lunches from home? I wonder if students will be allowed to opt-out?

[Aside: Your humble blogger once lived in Ohio, but please do not confuse him with an Ohioan. He would never spend $700K on such foolishness.]

It’s been very encouraging to see that American celebrities are not allowing themselves to be cowed by political and big business pressures. The Dixie Chicks have asserted their right to have an opinion, which comes as a pleasant about-face after Natalie Maines’ apology (which I found more inappropriate than her original comment about being “ashamed” to be from the same state as George Bush—freedom of speech comes with a concomitant responsibility to stand by what you say, after all).

I see they’ve even got The Boss himself, Bruce Springsteen, in their corner:

“The Dixie Chicks have taken a big hit lately for exercising their basic right to express themselves,” wrote Springsteen—who has been touring overseas. “For them to be banished wholesale from radio stations, and even entire radio networks, for speaking out is un-American. The pressure coming from the government and big business to enforce conformity of thought concerning the war and politics goes against everything that this country is about—namely freedom.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself: Pressuring people not to speak out against Bush is downright un-American.

Tim Robbins, another celebrity whose courage has impressed me recently, made a similar point at a recent speech to the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Among a great many other things that should give any freedom-loving person great pause, Robbins said:

A chill wind is blowing in this nation. A message is being sent through the White House and its allies in talk radio and Clear Channel and Cooperstown. If you oppose this administration, there can and will be ramifications.

From what we’ve seen happen to the Dixie Chicks, we know this to be true. It shouldn’t be. Thanks to the efforts of people like Springsteen and Robbins, our cultural heritage of freedom may very well survive the abuses of the Bush administration.