Tim Patrick's Blog, page 7

Figuring Out Stoplights in Japan

I’ve always found traffic lights in America to be pretty easy to understand. The solid red light means stop, the solid green means go, and the solid yellow means go real fast, there’s still time. (You should check that last one in the driver’s handbook just to be sure.) Once in a while, you will see a red, yellow, or green arrow, especially for left-turn lanes that have their own delayed schedules. Perhaps there is some oddball light system in Minot, North Dakota, that I’m not aware of, but generally those are the standard options.(9 more paragraphs)

The Meaning of ‘Excuse Me’ in Japanese

They say that Eskimos have fifty words for snow. I don’t know if that number has been updated to take climate change into account. But one thing I do know: Japanese has no shortage of words that express apology, deference, and pardon.(5 more paragraphs)

How to Get a Refund in Japan

If I had to sum up the process of getting a refund for something you bought in Japan, it would be this: You can’t. Well, that’s not entirely true. You can absolutely get a refund for some purchases. But compared to how things worked for me in the United States, the process here is more complicated, more exacting, and more emotionally charged.(10 more paragraphs)

Boku and Shimobe, The Humble Servant

I often dream of a day when I can sit down in front of a TV in Japan, flip through the channels, and understand completely what is being said on every program. Except for repeated news stories about the coronavirus or the war in Ukraine, my language skills simply can’t keep up. But I did watch a movie a few years ago that wasn’t overly difficult for someone at the JLPT N3 language level. The title is 「今夜、ロマンス劇場で」 (Konya, Romansu Gekijyō de), known in English as "Color Me True."(8 more paragraphs)

Enjoying Your Japanese Meiwaku Towel

Do you ever have one of those days where you perform major remodeling on the exterior of your home, inflicting several weeks of construction noise and dust on your neighbors? I hate it when that happens. But when it comes times for your own major renovation, you can balance out the noise with a meiwaku towel.(5 more paragraphs)

Visiting Tokyo During a Pandemic

When I moved to Japan a few years ago, I expected to engage in local tourism: visit thousand-year-old temples and castles, take in a bit of sumo or Noh, ride the bullet train to the far reaches of the country, have my fill of sushi and kaiseki, et cetera. But before I had that chance, the pandemic hit, and like pretty much everyone else in Japan, I gave up on my grand plans for fun and adventure.(8 more paragraphs)

Thank You for Reading!

The Well-Read Man Project began on May 1, 2011, with one simple goal: to read fifty of life’s most important books in just one year. It was a challenging run through 15,000 pages of sometimes dense, sometimes thrilling content. But the fun didn’t stop there. Once the core fifty books were done, I moved on to American history, philosophy, and politics, topics I’ve always had a passion for. About two years ago, I started blogging about the ideas I encountered, and how those ideas could help bring clarity to our modern discourse.

I hoped that the ideas I discovered in those classic works, especially in the Enlightenment texts from which America’s founders derived its core principles, could be helpful in discussing recent events. They certainly brought clarity to me, and as I communicated them through the posts on this web site, perhaps you found them helpful as well.

Unfortunately, it has been increasingly difficult to write with joy on political subjects. Politics has always been a blood sport, and I expected debate and conflict. But that conflict seems to be everywhere now, not just on political blogs, but in a large share of news stories, on Facebook, and even in movies and music, entertainments that had once brought relief from the world’s pressures.

I have decided to withdraw for a time from overt participation in the conflict. Therefore, I will be bringing the Well-Read Man Project to a close. If you have enjoyed my writings, do not fret. I will continue to publish books on various topics, from computer technology to history, and from religion to humor. My public Facebook page will have the latest information on my articles and books. You can also visit Owani Press to discover new books as they come out.

Thank you for joining me in this reading adventure over the past seven years. I gained much, not only from the great content I was able to consume, but from my many interactions with you. I urge to you to seek out the great ideas throughout your life. And remember: Clarity is Everything.

[Image Credits: Wikimedia]

This Weekend’s “March for Our Lives” Event Won’t Change Anything, and Here’s Why

This past weekend, hundreds of thousands of youth descended on Washington, DC, to demand changes in gun control legislation across the nation. The event grew in response to the Parkland, Florida, mass shooting that occurred more than a month earlier. Some of the speeches, including those by Parkland survivors, were moving and emotional, but they won’t lead to any true gun-law changes in America.

Change at a societal level is often elusive. Even for individuals, change is difficult, as anyone who has made a New Year’s promise to eat better or exercise more knows full well. Throughout history, there have been three primary ways that changes have come to societies. As with personal change, these attempts have been mixed bag. Yet nations and cultures still make the attempt, with a vision toward a better future.

The first type of societal change is an organic one, where you simply let the change occur naturally. The transition from nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes to fixed agricultural clans was likely an organic process. Such changes can take centuries or longer, and lack any type of intentionality. Even when successful, they are always in danger of sudden diversion or termination. Organic change takes luck, and cannot be relied upon to ensure improvement within a culture.

A second kind of societal change is one that embraces force, bringing about a transformation through mandatory demands on the culture, or on the people within that culture. Such changes are common, though not without risks, especially to the lives of those who oppose the change. Military force by charismatic leaders or commanders, attacks on government by angry mobs, and strikes by unionized workers are some common ways that force has been used to change the status quo within a nation.

Despite the collateral damage that force brings, it has been a more successful means of introducing intentional change into a society than purely organic methods. Wars alter national borders. Kings and presidents acquiesce, or even lose their heads, when the people rise up. Managers come back to the bargaining table when the workers threaten unrest.

The change that comes through force is very real, but it is often temporary. That’s because those who are the recipients—or victims—of that change silently reject the principles that led to the change. When the threat of force dissipates, or the people have had enough bullying, they go back to their old ways.

Change by force is exactly what was on display at the March for Our Lives event. The messages from celebrities and students alike included a mix of Puritanical shaming and generic taunts that “enough is enough.” David Hogg, a survivor of the Parkland shooting and advocate of gun-law changes, called on those present to turn out politicians who “allow the continued slaughter of our children and our future.” He finished his speech with a war cry: “We will not stop until every man, every woman, every child, and every American can live without fear of gun violence.” The message to members of Congress was clear: Do what we want, or we will replace you. I admire the gumption. But as a means of transforming society, it carries no more weight than the school bully who demands lunch money from other kids. Once the bullying or rabble-rousing ends, so does the change.

There is a third type of change, one that is perhaps not as widespread or as successful as force-based transitions, but that nonetheless has the advantage of longevity. This type of change is based on the promulgation of ideas within the culture. As citizens embrace new ideas, they impose changes on their own, peacefully, and in ways that cement the change, not only in the current generation, but in their offspring as well. If you want to bring about change that has the best chance for a positive, long-term impact on a society, this is the way to go.

The March for Our Lives event offered plenty of emotion and anguish, lots of finger waging toward the NRA, and numerous calls for better gun control laws, many identical to those demanded in the 1980s. Well-crafted, intellectual challenges to the Enlightenment philosophy embodied in the Second Amendment were not included among the heartfelt speeches this past weekend.

Partly, this is due to the audience. It’s hard to get that many kids to debate the finer points of seventeenth century thought when they’d rather be playing Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto. But mostly this intellectual lack stems from this hard truth: It’s a lot of work to change a culture through better ideas, especially if you can’t articulate those ideas. It’s much easier to fall back on Plan B: force.

[Image Credits: flickr/Fibonacci Blue]

Self-Evident Book Interview with History Podcaster Bruce Carlson!

A few weeks ago, I had a chance to sit down—virtually that is, over Skype—with Bruce Carlson, host of the My History Can Beat Up Your Politics podcast. The show’s episodes cover various topics from America’s history, from its founding to modern times. And it’s been around for more than a decade, nearly long enough to be the topic of a history podcast.

Of course, there are many podcasts that cover history. This show is different, thanks to how the host compares historical events to what is going on today. Are you a presidential candidate who won the popular vote but lost the Oval Office? You aren’t the first. Wondering what impact a government shutdown will have? Take a look into past shutdowns to see how they might compare. Impeachment on your mind? It was on the minds of congressmen back in the 1860s as well. These topical episodes cover a historical event in depth before trying to tackle the modern counterpart. The goal is to understand what might happen today in light of what happened in a similar situation decades or centuries ago.

In addition to these event-focused episodes, Mr. Carlson also does book reviews and author interviews. In the March 14, 2018 episode, Bruce and I discuss my new book, Self-Evident: Discovering the Ideas and Events That Made the Declaration of Independence Possible. In the 30-minute interview, we discuss the Declaration’s large section on the grievances, with a special focus on how Jefferson’s documentation of Britain’s abuses more than 240 years ago might apply to us today.

Beyond his standard podcast series, Bruce offers a “premium podcast” with even more in-depth research, and access to the full archive of all of his shows, going back to 2006. Whether you access this advanced series, or start out with his standard podcast episodes, you are sure to enhance your own understanding of modern American events by discovering what came before.

To listen to my interview with Bruce, or to experience any of his other podcast episodes, visit the My History Can Beat Up Your Politics web site. The podcasts are also available through iTunes, Stitcher, or other popular podcast platforms.

[Image Credits: Ben Hartwich, pixabay.com/yoursql719]

Why Conservatives Like Guns

The recent school shooting in Parkland, Florida once again raises that pesky question: Why are conservatives so gaga about firearms? In the days following the gruesome attack, many news outlets and commentators reminded the public that this was not the first school shooting during 2018, and that gun violence claims more than 33,000 Americans annually. In light of these numbers, how can anyone, especially “pro-life” conservatives, support gun ownership?

It’s a fair question, although the numbers alone tell only part of the story. For example, that 33,000 number is made up primarily of suicides (about two-thirds), which makes “gun violence” a loaded term, no pun intended. But that still leaves around 12,000 homicides per year committed with guns. There are almost a dozen countries with higher per-capita gun-death statistics, no small feat given the easy availability of weapons in the US. But all those intentional gun deaths are still concerning.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution lays out the general expectation for firearms: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Various groups battle over what the founders meant by Militia and Arms, and whether the standard in effect 250 years ago should guide us today. Whatever the outcome of these arguments, the reality is that the firearms experience of the typical American today is quite different from those in the colonial era. Few people today need to hunt for their nutritional needs, or chase wild animals off their properties, or warn away British Redcoats.

Because of my own natural unease with guns, some of the arguments made by opponents of the National Rifle Association (NRA) resonate with me. They say things like, “It’s OK for people to have guns for hunting or self-defense, but there’s no reason for anyone to have an arsenal.” Throw in the ability to pump ammunition through these weapons at a high rate, and the need for such access seems untenable.

Yet it’s not appropriate to establish a national gun policy based on my feelings, or even on the feelings of members of Congress. The right to bear arms is part of the Constitution, the foundation of our laws. It’s good that we debate the specifics of the Second Amendment, but we must first understand clearly why those who crafted the Bill of Rights cared about guns.

The reason we have a right to arms is not for hunting or basic self-defense, but to prevent tyranny, especially government-imposed tyranny. Such a statement sounds like something a crackpot patriot cult member might say. And yet, there is no getting around the founders’ intent. They had just fought a war against a tyrannical king, and they didn’t want to do it again.

This protective right against tyranny stems from our natural rights, which we received, according to the Declaration of Independence, directly from the Creator. William Blackstone, the great British jurist whose writings helped form America’s own laws, said that our individual rights cover both the “rights of persons” and the “rights of things,” both of which would be ours even if a government didn’t exist. But governments do exist, primarily “to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights.”

When people join together in society under a government, they “give up part of [their] natural liberty,” but they do not lose the rights, which are absolute. The founders took seriously these core rights, and understood that the protective powers they provide ultimately belong to the people, not their government. Thomas Jefferson warned that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [of securing rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” They should not do this for “light and transient causes,” but if there ever comes a point when the government no longer protects rights, or goes so far as to violate those rights, the people are authorized and empowered to impose their will on the government.

As I said earlier, this all sounds like the musings of a crackpot. But these ideas were found everywhere within the publications of that era, especially in the writings of members of Congress. The peace and prosperity of the United States today make tyranny seem unlikely, if not impossible. But tyrants appear with maddening regularly throughout history. Conservatives—and a fair number of liberals—embrace the Second Amendment not because they are indifferent to the cries of children, but because tyrants must be opposed. America, as a nation, has secured our rights for hundreds of years. But the authority and responsibility to guard against tyranny ultimately rests with a nation’s citizens, not its governmental officers.

[Image Credits: Taber Andrew Bain, flickr.com/photos/andrewbain/]