So if I understand this article correctly, if you give into the (thoroughly understandable) temptation to administer a good, sound beating-up to Barney Frank, the hate-crimes bill that just passed the House says…uh…you’d better not be thinking about his homosexuality while you’re doing it? You’d better not be thinking about what other homos might feel if they hear about it?

The legislators quoted as supporting the bill seem to be vague on what actual good it will do. (I realize that soundbites are often like that, but this seems like one of those cases in which a pithy statement of purpose shouldn’t be all that hard to make.)

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., a supporter of the bill, contended it was protection for gays that drove the opposition.

“I wonder if our friends on the other side of the aisle would be singing the same offensive tune if we were talking about hate crimes based on race or religion,” she said, referring to Republican opponents. “It seems to me it is the category of individuals that they are offended by, rather than the fact that we have hate crimes laws at all.”

She then recounted cases where gay people were victims of violence.

The issue was personal for openly gay Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who said the bill would protect “people like me.” He said he wasn’t asking for approval from people with whom he didn’t want to associate.

Answering those who said the protections were not needed, Frank quoted Chico Marx, one of the Marx Brothers comedy team, from the movie “Duck Soup”: “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?”

Eric, of course, got on this immediately:

The horrendous expansion of federal power in the “Matthew Shepard Act” serves as proof of how wrong it was to have hate crime legislation in the first place. Adding new categories only compounds the error.

Of course, few people will take the time to analyze these things. They just hear the sound bytes about how it’s “doing something about gay bashing” on the one hand, or “attacking Christian free speech” on the other.

Eric posted a great deal about hate-crimes legislation a few years ago, and as he mentions in his latest post, he took a lot of heat for it. IIRC, there were two main arguments from supporters: (1) since hate-crimes provisions only apply to sentencing guidelines, they don’t actually create a new class of crimes, and (2) hate crimes deserve special designation because they do more harm–they damage whole groups, not just their direct individual victims, and they also damage those victims more–and have been found not to run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause.

Those distinctions aren’t meaningless, but I think they mostly score more points with legal theorists than with citizens debating how we want society to run in ethical and moral terms. There’s all sorts of legislation that’s possible under the Constitution but isn’t a good idea. And judges already have latitude in sentencing if they’re dealing with seriously egregious criminals.

So I think that what it comes down to is whether you accept the premise of greater harm, which I’ve always found highly suspect. Knowing that there are psychos–or even just miscreants–out to get you may paralyze you with fear if you’re that sort of person, but it could just as easily galvanize you into forming a crime-watch group, taking self-defense lessons, or (here’s an idea) buying a gun. I’ve never once seen good evidence for the constant contention that being targeted by an attacker for being gay somehow necessarily inflicts more psychological distess than being targeted by an attacker who sees you as a Total Perosn and hates you for who you are in all your fascinating, kaleidoscopic modalities. And as for group harm, there’s a thoroughly creepy assumption that we have some sort of queer hive-mind, through which we passively receive transmissions of dread.

What I suspect undergirds a lot of this is the idea that gays deserve some sort of redress because we’ve Suffered Enough. Getting the police to take a gay-bashing seriously used to be for the most part a lost cause. Even today, growing up gay is far from easy, but a lot of the difficulty is stuff that you just have to suck up. You can’t punish parents for telegraphing that they’re disappointed they won’t get grandchildren the conventional way, or kids for keeping a classmate at arm’s length because she’s on the butch side. However, if someone commits an illegal act motivated by anti-gay animus, you can try to ensure that the law really let’s him have it and thereby give gay people some sense that balance has been restored.

But there’s a problem with that thinking–aside from the moral outrage of using an offender as a stand-in for others. It sends the message that gays have to be treated with extra-special tenderness, even by law enforcement and the court system, which is not exactly the way to defeat the old charge that we’re all drama queens. Enshrining, in federal legislation, the idea that gays are more emotionally vulnerable than others…and that the community fabric is more easily rent when we’re victimized, or something…is just a kindly motivated way of telling us yet again that we’re not grown-ups.

Added later: I’ve reinserted a sentence that got lost during cutting and pasting.

It should be obvious by this point that I just kind of stop posting for weeks now and then, but I’m still grateful to those who’ve dropped a line to ask what’s up. Nothing in particular–except, perhaps, that my currently working as a translator considerably lowers the motivation to use free time to search out interesting Japanese news and translate it. And now that cherry blossom season is over there’s kind of a dead space for seasonal poetry.

There’s never a dead space for political idiocy, however, and Sweden resident Michael Moynihan pounces on some from a recent episode of The Daily Show:

Not a particularly funny bit, considering the available material, but a few points about the total awesomeness of Swedish social democracy and the show’s but-we’re-only-joking case for the Swedish model. (They are, after all, making a serious political point in an unserious way.) Cenac’s interview with ex-Abba frontman Björn Ulvaeus, during which he attempts to get him to admit that the song “Money, Money, Money” is a paean to American capitalism, leaves one with the impression that the millionaire songwriter is rather pleased with his country’s glorious socialist history. Well, no.

In 2007, the Stockholm daily Dagens Nyheter (DN) reported that governent “authorities claim[ed] Ulvaeus, using the services of a tax haven company, concealed millions in music production income to avoid paying taxes.” DN points out that “Since 1990 Ulvaeus royalties have been collected in a Dutch company, now known as Fintage. The company made a deal with the tax haven company Stanove, on the Dutch Antilles, to transfer 95% of [Abba’s] royalties there.” And avoid giving it to a mother desperately in need of a second year of maternity leave.

Nor is this a new issue for Ulvaeus. In 1982, before the Social Democratic Party returned to power on promises of soaking the rich, the Christian Science Monitor reported that Abba’s manager Stig Anderson was “deeply concerned by the threat of a Socialist takeover of his [business] empire. ‘If we had had these funds today, we would have been forced this year to part with about $US2.16 million…Why should I continue to work 14-15 hours a day to give money away like this?…We don’t want to leave Sweden. Our roots are here. We have our friends here. I intend to stay here and fight these funds even if the Social Democrats are elected. But if it becomes impossible, of course it would be very easy for us to move out.'”

All of this is, of course, just an excuse to indulge my recent ABBA jag. Here the four are performing the song from which I’ve snagged the title for this post:

Some child-of-the-’70s observations: Agnetha looks like a Cheryl Ladd who might actually pull a gun and waste you if need be. And Benny has exactly the same mannerisms at the piano as Christine McVie–from the little smile to the way the hair moves. And look at how tiny those microphones are! They were cutting edge, they were. And tell me you’ve every seen anyone look as fierce in a quilted jacket as Frida.

Bjorn doesn’t seem to be doing much; he just kind of reminds me of Dana Carvey.

Lest you think I’ve forgotten about Japan, here’s another performance for Japanese TV from the same period:

Can you imagine any production getting away with such a static set and nonexistent choreography today–especially when there’s not even any pretense that the band is performing live? Nowadays, poor Agnetha and Frida would have been rehearsed to within an inch of their lives, and there’d have to be something projected on the wall behind that arc-balloon thing.

Added later: Oops–I think Moynihan has permanent residency in Sweden but now lives in DC. At least, he does if his bio at Reason.com is updated.

This article in the Mainichi reports that the flow of refugees across the northern DPRK border has slowed. The reason? Much of it is financed by organizations in prosperous South Korea, but the world economic slowdown is making funding scarce. The blurb says:

The number of dappokusha fleeing from North Korea to China has decreased substantially. Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture, Jilin Province, China, which abuts the PRC-DPRK border. It’s the biggest stronghold of the refugee business, but the activities of the brokers who maneuver behind the scenes guiding refugees through are at a standstill. This year is the sixtieth anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries, and in addition to a heightened level of alert at the border, the effects of the financial crisis have stopped the money that gets to them from South Korea. However, the defections supported by the brokers are a “necessary evil.” Beyond the border, there’s a backlog of desperate people.

The article itself is of the punchy human-interest type, relating information about a particular broker:

The man is a former member of the PRC armed forces. His role is to move dappokusha who’ve crossed the Tuman River to a hideout in an apartment building in Yanbian. According to the man, there are (1) a border-crossing team, which works with collaborators on the DPRK side and guides [refugees] through the border crossing; (2) the man’s conveyance team; (3) the hideout-management team; (4) the long-distance-conveyance team, [to move people further] to Beijing and elsewhere. When dappokusha succeed in defecting to South Korea, suitable remuneration [in the form of] processing fees is largely provided by a support organization there in the ROK.

The situation on the ROK side is a major reason defection has decreased. It’s figured that “processing fees paid to Chinese brokers run an average of 100000 yuan (approx.1.4 million yen),” according to [a source] affiliated with a support organization. The man’s client is a South Korean religious group; donations from organizations and individuals were an effective source of capital, but “the Korean economy has cooled off, and donations have dropped of dramatically, so the flow of money is poor,” he added.

1.4 million yen is about $14000.

I love this report in the Yomiuri:

South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency announced on 29 March that there is a possibility that the launch of North Korea’s long-range ballistic missile under the guise of an “artificial satellite” will take place after 6 April due to weather conditions.

North Korea has announced to international organizations that the launch will take place between 4 and 8 April, but according to the Yonhap wire service, The [Republic of] Korea Meteorological Agency has forecast that, at the launch base in Musudanri, North Hambyong Province, weather conditions will be “overcast beginning 3 April, with rain or snow falling on the afternoon of 4 April, and heavy cloud cover on 5 April also.”

However, ROK forecasts have a bad reputation with citizens as “often inaccurate.”

Oh. All right, then.

Another Yomiuri article, this time posted to the English site, says that intercepting the missile could be difficult for Japan because, of course, no one knows exactly where it will go. This handy diagram is appended:

If you’re having a hard time reading that, the red lines represent paths in which the rocket falls on land in Japan–the solid line if it’s the first booster rocket to separate, the dotted line if there’s just not enough thrust off the launchpad and the whole thing flops.

The lead editorial in the Nikkei today carries the headline “Make due preparation for North Korea missile tests.”

In response to the North Korean ballistic missile test, nominally [for] an “artificial satellite,” the government has convened a security meeting and confirmed a plan to intercept the missile if it falls over Japan’s territory or territorial waters; Minister of Defense Yasukazu Hamada has for the first time issued an order, predicated on the Self-Defense Force Law, to destroy it.

…

Prime Minister Taro Aso instructed [attendees] at the security meeting to “be vigilant and adopt a firm and resolute stance.” If there is disarray in Japan, the result will only be that we’ve played into North Korea’s hands. In order to avoid that, at the stage when the launch date is imminent, and even more after the launch, the appropriate providing of information by the government will be indispensable. That point must especially be emphasized from the get-go.

The Japanese and United States governments have declared that, even if it were an “artificial satellite,” the launch would violate UNSC Resolution 1695, which was adopted after North Korea launched a series of missiles in July 2006, and UNSC Resolution 1718, from after the nuclear tests of October that year. Improvements in the performance of North Korean missiles are a direct threat to the U.S. and Japan.

Accordingly, U.S. Secretary of State Clinton warned that “this will affect the six-party talks revolving around nuclear issues, and [North Korea] will end up paying high compensation.” If North Korea ignores the warning and forges ahead with the launch, a debate will be raised at the UNSC [over measures that] include sanctions.

On the other hand, the Spokesperson for the DPRK Minister of Foreign Affairs [stated] that, if the Security Council makes an issue of the “launch of an artificial satellite,” then “denuclearization will be set back, and we will adopt the necessary strong measures,” implying a resumption of nuclear testing. This development reminds one of 2006, with its series of missile launches and nuclear testing. That’s possibly due to expecations that the scenario in which the U.S. government did a 180 [and pursue] a path of conciliation after the nuclear testing.

That switch to a path of conciliation is linked to the refusal [to allow] inspection during denuclearization, and to the new missile tests. If we consider these facts, it is necessary for not only Japan, the U.S., and South Korea, but also [all other] participants in the six-party talks, including China and Russia, to be sure of their resolve not to repeat the mistake.

The Japanese phrase used at the end there is 過ちを繰り替えさない, which echoes–I can’t imagine this is a coincidence, given that it’s part of the last sentence of an op-ed about nuclear weapons–the inscription on the Hiroshima memorial: 安らかに眠って下さい/過ちは繰り返しませぬから (“Rest in peace, for we will not repeat the mistake”).

I’m apparently getting slack, because I didn’t look out for this aspect of the Aso-Obama meeting, which had been toyed with a bit beforehand:

It turns out that North Korea and the global financial crisis were not the only topics on Prime Minister Taro Aso’s mind during summit talks Tuesday in Washington with President Barack Obama.

He also tried to sell the U.S. leader on Shinkansen technology; Obama’s reaction to the pitch was also keenly awaited back in Japan.

…

Aso’s pitch to Obama likely came after lobbying by Japanese railway companies eager to join in a plan being pushed by California for the United States’ first high-speed rail system. It is estimated to cost 3 trillion yen to construct the system, with plans calling for partial operations starting in 2020.

Yoshiyuki Kasai, chairman of Central Japan Railway Co. (JR Tokai), attended an international conference on the environment in Los Angeles in January.

He played up the advantages of the Shinkansen, saying “among high-speed trains, Japan’s bullet trains emit a small volume of carbon dioxide and the trains also cause comparatively little noise and vibration.”

The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism is setting up a group to promote bullet train exports that will include members from trading companies and JR Tokai and East Japan Railway Co. (JR East).

A specialist from the ministry’s Railway Bureau will be permanently based in the United States.

California’s provisional high-speed rail plan is, I have no doubt, as porky as any other such proposal, but at least it’s a region in which HSR actually makes sense. Like the Northeast Corridor, the SAN-SAN belt is long and narrow but short enough for it to be reasonable to expect plenty of people to make a trade-off between air speed and rail thrift. (Not sure what happens when you factor in the subsidies.) So, of course, is Japan–especially if you’re not going all the way from Sapporo to Fukuoka, which most people aren’t.

The bullet train in Japan really is a boon, and so is its newer cousin in Taiwan, which opened two years ago after a string of bidding and construction hiccups. It would be a bad idea for the US to go overboard on the boffo ground transportation projects, though…especially if federal money means Amtrak could be involved.

The lead editorial in the Nikkei munches over whether and why Prime Minister Aso was dissed on his state visit to Washington:

Prime Minister Taro Aso became the first foreign head of state to visit the White House during the Obama administration. It was the worst possible timing from the vantage point of public opinion vis-a-vis America, overlapping with President Obama’s first address to congress and [coming when] interest within the US was low.

…

After the meeting, the plan was for both heads of state to announce the content of their conversation to the press corps, but even that didn’t happen. The prime minister appeared before the press corps; however, the president didn’t show his face, and instead the White House presented a simple statement of twenty-one lines.

The opening of the statement was “Today, President Obama conducted a detailed conference with the prime minister of Japan revolving around cooperation between the two nations in the areas of the global economic crisis and other matters.” Really? He thought of himself as hosting “the prime minister of Japan” rather than Prime Minister Aso?

President Obama, during the photo session before the meeting, stated, “US-Japan friendship is of extreme importance, which is the reason that I asked the prime minister to be the first top-ranking foreign official to visit the Oval Office.”

However, if one looks at the visit overall, it wasn’t really consistent with the gravity of protocol toward the first foreign head of state to make a visit.

The administrations are different, so exact comparisons cannot be made, but during the Bush administration, both Prime Ministers Jun’ichiro Koizumi and Shinzo Abe went to Camp David for their first visits. Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda stayed at Blair House (the state guesthouse). Prime Minister Aso stayed at a hotel in Washington.

In matters of meetings betweent heads of state, the content is crucial, and it isn’t appropriate to exaggerate peripheral problems. However, this time around, both the US and Japan underscored the protocol significance of being the first visitor. In the world of diplomacy, if we take protocol to be important also, it comparisons with precedent must be made.

Foreign relations influence domestic politics. Prime Minister Aso, who’s in uncomfortable territory where domestic politics is concerned, may have sought an early visit to the US in hopes that the effect would be to buoy him decisively. That the US accepted has been said to be the result of being mindful of China.

On the other hand, domestic politics also influence foreign relations. They give Aso a respectful welcome as the prime minister of Japan, but that doesn’t mean they wish to build an individual relationship [as] fellow politicians–and if you look hard at the reality of Japanese domestic politics, for the moment it wouldn’t seem unreasonable if that were President Obama’s thinking.

The comments section is still going on this piece on IGF, which was given the promising headline “Gay. And Republican. And Not Confused.” There are good arguments for gay Republicans to make: it’s easier to change social conservatives’ minds about gay issues by working alongside them rather than as adversaries, being in the DNC’s pocket just gives the Dems a dependable voting bloc without having to deliver in hard policy terms, and politics is always about making trade-offs among competing political principles, among others.

Writer Alex Knepper does touch on those things, but unfortunately, he can’t help taking the martyred-gay-conservative tack, which is possibly the single best way to ensure that independents and doubting lefties stay far, far away from the GOP. You, dear reader, may never think about anything but your sexuality, but know ye that Alex Knepper is more complex than you can hope to imagine. (And forget that throwaway final paragraph, which is misdirection at its most disingenuous–no one starts every sentence with “I believe” this and “I realize” that out of humility):

I believe that the gay subculture is destructive. I am not completely sure why a person should be “proud” of his sexuality, which is not an accomplishment. I am confused by the discord between a group of people who insist that they’re just like everyone else on one hand and then on the other refuse to assimilate into mainstream society.

I am unable to relate to the faction of gay men who revolve their lives around their sexuality: their neighborhood is gay, their friends are gay, their music and movies are gay, their academic interests are gay, the stores that they frequent are gay — their lives are gay. I am not interested, though, in living my life as a gay man, but simply as a man. I envision a future in which a person’s sexual orientation will be an afterthought. I do not in any way whatsoever see the Democratic Party furthering that.

I have been discriminated against more by Democrats than by Republicans. I have been shunned and mocked by Democrats, many of whom will not accept me as a gay man unless I fit into their neatly packaged view of what a gay man is “supposed” to be. I have yet to encounter, on the other hand, a Republican who has rejected my presence in the party, shunned me on a personal level or refused to engage me on the issues.

Well, no, being homosexual isn’t an accomplishment, but then, neither is being left-handed or Italian. People express pride in all kinds of characteristics they came to through inheritance or circumstance, and we normally understand them to mean that they’re proud to identify with the people with the same raw materials who use them for good rather than ill. Of course, if you wander around gay groups looking for people to feel superior to, you’ll find a way. But you can deplore much that’s done under the banner of gay pride without dismissing the entire “gay subculture” as worthless and self-destructive. IGF, which is providing Knepper with a broader audience than his college newspaper, is a gay institution.

The commenters are accusing one another of being snippy at the expense of substance, but for the most part, they largely strike me as sticking pretty closely to one major issue: how do you make compromises without being a patsy? (There’s also some back-and-forth about actual policy, but it’s the usual snowball fight rather than a debate.)

Secretary of State Clinton–who’d have thought a year ago that we’d be typing that?–has visited Japan, where she met separately with Prime Minister Taro Aso, Minister of Foreign Affairs Hirofumi Nakasone, and Minister of Defense Yasukazu Hamada.

Secretary of State Clinton, at a joint press conference after her meeting with the Foreign Minister, issued a warning, strongly underscoring that “North Korea has intimated that there is a possibility of missile launches, but such behavior serves no purpose, and it will not aid in the progress of (US-DPRK) relations.” At the meeting with the Prime Minister, she stated, in connection with North Korea issues, “We would like to come to a decisive solution within the framework of the six-party talks, and that would include the Japanese abductee issue.”

At the meeting with the Defense Minister, she touched on the activities of the Maritime Defense Force, which is investigating Japanese deployments to combat piracy off the coast of Somalia, and issued a request: “We would be grateful if you could look into the possibility of providing aid and defense to foreign ships in times of emergency.” The Defense Minister responded, “We’re considering that and looking into a new law [that would make it possible to provide defense for foreign-registered ships as well].”

It’s hard to tell whether the “comprehensive solution” referred to in the headline will come to pass. It’s not even certain that the DPRK knows where all the abductees as yet unaccounted for ended up, painful as that is for the Japanese families in question. Tokyo has tried to get Washington and Beijing to put pressure on Pyongyang, but the issue tends to get backburnered, and it’s not really because of callousness. The nuclear and black-market issues are very pressing, while the abductee issue doesn’t appear to be. There’s been no information that I’ve seen recently to suggest that there are known living abductees waiting to be repatriated.

And yes, I’ve heard about soon-to-be-former Minister of Finance Shoichi Nakagawa’s unfortunate sensitivity to his cold medicine. You really have to watch out for those side-effects.

I’m a fan of Miss Manners, so people sometimes assume I must be one of those people who seek out copies of old etiquette books; but I’m really not. To me, writers who lack her Lewis Carroll sense of mischief about human interaction are kind of dull, if improving in an anthropological sense.

The anthropology itself can be fun, though. I wandered into the 1922 Emily Post on Bartleby a few days ago, and just about every chapter has some sort of surprise.

There’s the section on how a gentleman asks a lady to dance at a ball, which contains this paragraph:

When a gentleman is introduced to a lady he says, “May I have some of this?” or “Would you care to dance?”

I don’t hang out at hetero clubs much anymore, most of my friends being safely paired off by now, but I’m pretty sure if a guy walks up to a woman in a dance place and says, “May I have some of this?” he’d better be staring directly at the plate of sliders parked next to her margarita if he doesn’t want serious trouble.

The language can be surprising, too. The association of diamonds with ice is pretty obvious and primal, but I wasn’t aware people like Emily Post were throwing it around back then.

In your jewelry let diamonds be conspicuous by their absence. Nothing is more vulgar than a display of “ice” on a man’s shirt front, or on his fingers.

It’s also somehow comforting to know that elegant was being pretentiously overused even then:

There are certain words which have been singled out and misused by the undiscriminating until their value is destroyed. Long ago “elegant” was turned from a word denoting the essence of refinement and beauty, into gaudy trumpery.

Yes. It’s really annoying that you can’t actually use elegant to mean “simple and uncluttered” and expect people to know what you mean. A shame that that started so long ago.

I’m not sure what to make of her chapter on traveling abroad. Perhaps at that point, Americans really were the only group that had a tendency toward coarsely loud merriment that wouldn’t leave other travelers in peace and a high-handed attitude toward servitors. That crowd seems to have expanded since then, though, if my experience in Asia is any indication.