sh*t mayor hashimoto says

“Osaka Castle & Halftecture” photo by hiromitsu morimoto (creative commons) via flickr

two and half of my lifetimes ago, japan didn’t play well with her neighbors, especially korea and china. she’s still having a hard time owning up to her bullying and such. that japan hasn’t gotten around to fully apologizing for its wrongdoings — or even recognizing them as such — isn’t a surprise; it’s become the awkward part of the dance that is korea-japan relations.

so last night when i saw on the korean news ticker that the mayor of osaka said that the “conscription of comfort women” or really, the trafficking of women for the purposes of sexual exploitation, was necessary for discipline, i first thought, “another item added to the laundry list of ‘stupid things people say’”. then i read the new york times article on the mayor’s statements.

there’s plenty of anger towards the denial of the truth, and this gives me hope in the future:

“The comfort women system was not necessary,” said Banri Kaieda, president of the opposition Democratic Party. That Japan was the clear aggressor in war “is a fact we must face up to,” he said.

the latter part of the article is what really stupefied and enraged me, so much so that i reacted in korean — “어머, 말도 안돼”:

Mr. Hashimoto also said Monday that he had told a senior American military official at the Marine Corps base in Okinawa that United States soldiers should make more use of the local adult entertainment industry to reduce sexual crimes against local women.

“We can’t control the sexual energy of these brave marines,” Mr. Hashimoto said he had told the American officer, whom he did not identify, on a recent visit there. “They must make more use of adult entertainers.”

is this man for real?

firstly, if i were a male marine, nay, even just male, i’d be insulted.

a man who applies himself to discipline in order to be marked as one of “the few, the proud”, would be miffed at the notion that he can’t exercise self-control over his libido — am i just speaking for myself and projecting?

am i the only one who would expect any man, but especially one who joined what arguably would be the most storied, elite branch of the american military, the one that claims a monopoly on honor, has the character and integrity to conduct himself in a befitting manner?

how would i reconcile being called “brave” and associated with the branch of the armed forces that markets themselves by saying they “don’t accept applications, only commitments”, only to be considered by the mayor to be nothing more than a brute with a guns, a walking blob of id trained in combat?

no thanks, mr. mayor.

secondly, the notion of proffering commercial sexual exploitation to reduce sexual crime? ridiculous, so much so that my head is nearly spinning.

let’s just suppose that the local adult industry is regulated as it might be in, say, amsterdam, or las vegas. the industry in those cities aren’t immune to trafficking — in fact, the industry in these places are fueled by and fuel trafficking.

and, do these cities enjoy a reduction in sexual crime? because this a rant, a very extemporaneous one, i haven’t done any preliminary research, but i’d bet that at least the reported rate in sexual crime remains static. the rates might be higher if one estimates the unreported incidences. and i’m asking because i don’t know — are sexual crimes higher in legally sanctioned red-light districts? is there a direct correlation/causal relationship between high rate of sex crimes and legality of “adult entertainment”?

thirdly. the cowardice of suggesting prostitution as a deterrent to sexual offenses. wow. is being mayor in japan a mostly ceremonial position? does not your title afford you with authority?

i grant that i’m ignorant on matters relating to military criminal justice and int’l law. i mean, is there really no recourse for charging and punishing foreign military with crimes committed in your city?

do american soldiers enjoy the kind of immunity that diplomats enjoy — is that the part i’m missing? like johnnie cochran would’ve said were he a prosecutor, “if you do the crime, you do the time” — does your justice system not work that way? the navy has jag officers that are posted overseas, doesn’t it? don’t some of them function as their defense attorneys and such, or don’t they?

i wish i weren’t so baffled by this so that i can think of an analogy to illustrate the ridiculousness of this. is this not what is meant when people talk of robbing peter to pay paul?

this guy. this shit.

now that i’ve been sufficiently riled up, time to get on with my lsat studying, which i hope lands me in a school that will help address the ignorances revealed in the writing of this rant, and give structure and utility to this otherwise hapless indignation.

a somewhat thought out rant: poor rich church

so this tweet caught mine eyes:

i proceeded to read the article and the following graf made my jaw drop:

It reported $158 million in real estate revenue for 2011, the majority of which went toward maintaining and supporting its real estate operations, the financial statement indicates. Of the $38 million left for the church’s operating budget, some $4 million was spent on communications, $3 million on philanthropic grant spending and $2.5 million on the church’s music program, church officials said. Nearly $6 million went to maintain Trinity’s historic properties, including the main church building, which was built in 1846; St. Paul’s Chapel; and several cemeteries, where luminaries including Alexander Hamilton and Edward I. Koch are buried. The remainder went into the church’s equity investment portfolio.

holy mother of pearl.

  • are tithes and offerings considered part of a church’s assets?
  • f’reals, $158 million only from real estate revenue?
  • so $2 billion minus $158 million equals…?
  • are there multiple parishes? how many parishioners? is the vestry, described in the article as “an august collection of corporate executives and philanthropists”, representative of the demographics of the parishioners?

i had skimmed the article again in the process of jotting these thoughts down and this part caught my attention again:

Some details are not included on the form, church officials said, like Mr. Cooper’s $475,000 annual salary — which rises to a total compensation of $1.3 million when his pension and the estimated cost of his residence in a $5.5 million, church-owned SoHo town house are added. For at least some of the defecting vestrymen — who complained Mr. Cooper was circumventing them in decision-making, subverting a review of his leadership and de-emphasizing religious education and philanthropy while obsessing about reconstructing the church’s administrative headquarters at 74 Trinity Place — those numbers rankle.

Mr. Cooper said he believed the church had the right balance between ministry, charity and its real estate business.

 

  • forget law school, get me to the seminary. (kidding! mostly.)
  • i don’t object to the multiplication of resources through smart investment at all and am in fact glad that this part of the body of Christ is stewarding the gift of financial savvy (see: the parable of the talents). what i find questionable is the amount of the resources being allocated to giving compared to operations and investment.
  • would not “the right balance” between the three categories of expenditure/whatever have the money divided equally? or is that just me taking the word “balance” literally?
  • speaking of the word, to pull a slight Jesus juke here, i find it challenging to imagine Jesus divvying up himself like this congregation here. i’d go out on a limb and say that he’d give away — charity, as it were, or charitable outreach, like microfinance or empowerment programs (y’know, not just handouts but restoring/edifying the imago dei and all) — a disproportionate amount of the assets. i think there’s definitely disproportion with trinity’s numbers, but i daresay it’s not a Christ-like disproportion.
  • i haven’t even visited the building and i feel riled up; i think i’m getting a lick of the saltiness of the situation. that a parishioner felt that he had to resort to litigation, that this disagreement dissolved into dissension that must now look outwards for some kind of damage control. this must grieve God.
  • i am thankful that trinity has been giving towards charity, and it’s not been chump change: “The parish’s good fortune has become an issue in the historic congregation, which has been racked by infighting in recent years over whether the church should be spending more money to help the poor and spread the faith, in New York and around the world.” (emphasis added)
  • however, still am sad at the lack of consensus to give more. “let’s not get too carried away with ourselves, now,” a plurality of parishioners may reason. i think we forget who we claim to follow. suppose he paused to do the sensible thing — we would still be left in need of rescue.
  • not to advocate reckless or witless giving, mind you. those decisions, too, must be submitted before God, wrestled through the wisdom he imparts to us through the Holy Spirit. yet i wish our nature were such that we’d let our generosity run as rampant as our greed — at the personal and corporate levels.
  • so, i get it, new york is an expensive place to live. given that my church hasn’t disclosed, as far as i know, each staffperson’s salary — only the total amount of the budget spent on salary — i’ll try to be as diplomatic as i can on this point… and i’m struggling. i want to avoid relegating pastors and missionaries and church-workers and missions mobilizers to living the “locusts, honey, and not even an extra tunic” lifestyle. i’m not advocating that his salary skirt as close to the poverty line as possible; in fact, if i were hard-pressed to put a number on ministry, i’d say $475,000 is a pittance. with that said, i wonder if the rector had considered taking a pay cut like a certain elected leader within the executive branch.
  • this serves as an example of the church-as-business paradigm, with the rector as ceo and this saddens me. i’d love to hear stories of the rector spending his days and nights prophesying over his parish and the surrounding community — comforting, encouraging, strengthening the people — rather than strategizing about “development”.
  • the church’s business ought to be the preaching of God’s Word, healing the sick, and the deliverance of evil spirits, at home and abroad, gathering believers and growing them into followers all the while. financial capital in and of itself doesn’t yield much, but financial investment into spiritual enterprises yields both natural and supernatural dividends, right?
  • i get the wisdom of growing the church’s investment/asset portfolio so that there continues to be a portfolio. but i’m concerned that we (we’re all one in Christ, yes?) are putting too much weight and pressure on ourselves to provide and sustain the endowment. the professor quoted in the article said that the prosperity of the church is queen anne’s legacy — and at the outset, he’s not wrong. but we as believers and followers of Christ ought to recognize that the Father had expected as much? surely the Creator and Sovereign of the universe, the Author and Perfecter of our faith, was not surprised by this bounty.

yet i could totally see God, sitting at the edge of the throne, eagerly anticipating his children wielding the authority that the Son has shared with them. i can see him gritting his teeth as he cheers us, Christ’s co-heirs. like a coach, even, yell-whispering courtside,

“Remember, you can’t serve me and money. I meant for the money to serve you, to serve me; don’t let money rule you!”

“Remember, too, that whatever you do to the least of these, you do onto me.”

“Yet still, nothing you spend on me will ever be too extravagant. Since you’ll always have the poor among you, refer back to that last thing I just said.”

i wonder if it’s possible for God to be wistful, waiting for us not to trust in riches or investment strategy or trends in the real estate market but solely in him — his dreams and love for us — waiting for us to invite him to show off. i think just maybe God is giddy and eager to make room for him to display his glory, to reward our faith.

does he get sad watching us hedge our bets and settle for sufficient, robbing ourselves of the joy of being blown away by his abundant goodness?

maybe this is my holy dare to the vestry and rector of trinity church: i want to watch what God does when we decide to give away more than what we keep (er, invest).

can’t a woman just go to law school?

I was going to add the following to the previous potpourri post but this train of thought went off-track, so here ’tis.

On Saturday, as Mom was flipping through the channels, we got drawn into the latter half of Overboard on abc family. Legally Blonde was next and we watched the first couple of scenes.

Then Mom saw that the Masters was airing on CBS, so she switched channels; by the time I flipped back to Legally Blonde, you see an aerial shot of Cambridge, specifically Harvard, and Elle Woods is introducing herself to some of her cohorts. [I can't embed the scene so you'll have to watch it here.]

We had missed the montage of Elle studying and her video personal statement to the admissions board at this point. Mom hasn’t seen this movie, so she didn’t catch that Reese Witherspoon’s character, at this point of the film (we didn’t continue watching long enough for the arc to unfold) is, prima facie, a very unlikely candidate for admission to this top-tier law school (even back in 2001, when the film was released). She says,

So she studied hard then…

All she’s observed is that Elle Woods is a student who studied hard, ergo got into Hahvahd Lawuh. Never mind that she’s only going in pursuit of a man, though given my current marital status and age, almost anything that would help me change said status would be amenable to my parents. But that’s another rabbit trail to pursue another day.

This vignette with my Mom took place after practically having been badgered — for the 37652983475th time — by two attorneys and a law student about the perils of pursuing law school the night before. Wanting, nay needing, to go to law school in order to prepare to practice law in such a way that allows me to do more than just vigorously, indignantly (good gravy, that is a word, yes?) shake my fists while reacting to injustice seemed to pass muster with them.

It must be a truth universally acknowledged that any practicing attorney must dissuade any and every prospective law student from continuing on the path to the J.D. Their cynicism, like others’, stung initially, but I realized I need not receive it as naysaying to my pursuit. I think I detected a sliver of encouragement beneath the warning of the uphill battle I face breaking the 90th percentile on LSAT being my Everest.

And I’m quite tempted to channel the cynicism as anger towards applicants who are motivated thusly – I think I met a few of them in class I took months ago — and making it that much more difficult for those of us who are rightly motivated yet slightly lacking the wherewithal. I think, WTF, get outta my way.

Ultimately, I can’t afford to give into comparison and let it steal my joy. It’s not the vast yet dwindling number of applicants I’m up against. Or the dismal odds of landing a public interest/government attorney position if I don’t graduate from a top-tier law school. Or the vast financial expense of law school.

The powers, principalities, and the devil seeking to steal, kill and destroy are part of the opposition. But mostly, it’s on me to stop listening to other voices that are (unwittingly) psyching me out. No one else is responsible for my continued trust in, search of, and abiding with God but me.

So there’s a chance there’s some nugget o’wisdom from my mom’s summation, albeit incomplete, of this early 21st century cinematic masterpiece. Perhaps.