The Twilight Zone

I don't get it. I just don't get it. A year and a half ago, after having moved from one end of Tokyo to the other, I had to reregister my address with the local council and the national public health insurance scheme. I did this on the very day I moved and was told that my new health insurance card would be issued to me with the updated information. In the meantime, I was told, if I needed to charge any medical services to the insurance scheme, I was to use my current health insurance card. So I did. Twice.

I recently got a letter from the former insurance office (near where I used to live) instructing me that I have to refund them 8,000 yen for services I charged to their office after having moved. Today, I called up my current local insurance office and told them about the letter that was sent to me from the former office, and said that seeing as I was already properly reregistered with the current office at the time I incurred those fees, I thought that I wouldn't have to pay up. Not so, apparently.

The following is the essence of the phone call I had with a person from the local insurance office earlier today.

[Bureaucrat] You need to pay the other office the requested fees.

[Me - perplexed] Why?

[Bureaucrat] Because we won't be able to reimburse you until you pay the insurance scheme the outstanding amount.

[Me - perplexed] Huh? But I thought I was covered?

[Bureaucrat] You were. You were properly registered with this local insurance office at the time you incurred the fees at the former insurance office. However, at the time you incurred the fees, you had that former insurance office listed on your insurance card, and they paid the fees on your behalf.

[Me - perplexed] But when I called the insurance office at the time, I was instructed to use that old card until the new card was issued. It took you 6 months to issue the new card, and I couldn't wait that long to get treatment.

[Bureaucrat] That's correct.

[Me - perplexed] But you're going to make me pay anyway?

[Bureaucrat] Yes.

[Me - perplexed] But it's a national health scheme. The other office is 20 minutes away by train. Why can't you just resolve it internally?

[Bureaucrat] ... (pause) ... Please pay the amount by the stipulated deadline.

[Me - perplexed] But hang on. I don't understand. I reregistered on the very day I moved, I was covered at the time I incurred the costs, I confirmed that I was still allowed to use the insurance card, I used the insurance card, and yet I am still be asked to pay the amount of money.

[Bureaucrat] Yes, but you clearly don't understand. We're going to reimburse you. It's ok.

[Me - perplexed] So you want me to reimburse the insurance scheme in order for you to then reimburse me?

[Bureaucrat] Exactly!

(Intellingent observers will note that Kallun is still perplexed by the logic)

[Me - perplexed] And this doesn't strike you as strange?

[Bureaucrat] ... (pause) ... Please pay the amount by the stipulated deadline.

[Me - perplexed] How about this? How about I forgive your debt to me, and you forgive my debt to you, and we call it even?

[Bureaucrat] But you're going to get your money back. All you have to do is go an pay the amount, get a receipt, then bring your bank account details and the receipt into the office, and fill in the paperwork, and then we will reimburse you.

[Me - perplexed] And who is going to be responsible for paying the fees?

[Bureaucrat] What fees?

[Me - perplexed] The fees I'm going to incur when I have to withdraw money via an ATM in order to pay the amount, and the costs I'm going to incur in order to get to your office, and the time I'm going to waste in order to complete the entire procedure.

[Bureaucrat] ... (pause) ... Oh. Well... we won't be reimbursing you for that.

[Me - perplexed] So, tell me if my understanding is correct - essentially, I abided by the rules, I did what you told me to do, I used the card as instructed, and now I'm going to have to pay you for something you should have paid for in the first place only to then have you reimburse me for it less the transaction and other miscellaneous costs?

[Bureaucrat] ... (pause) ... Please pay the amount by the stipulated deadline.

At this point, Kallun is sure he can hear the theme music to the Twilight Zone ringing in his ears.

I'M BACK...

...and how better to do so than with a post about a phallus. As my very humble contribution to the debate re: theories about skyscrapers and their phallic symbolism, I submit an artistic representation of the soon-to-be-opened "Cocoon Tower" in Tokyo.

Well might one argue that the graphic depiction of the design is simply innocent, and that I am decidedly perverse, but I think the following photo of a poster I saw on the train this morning advertising said phallus (and adjacent gonad) highlights my point - the graphic designers clearly have a wicked sense of humour.


I mean, seriously, why else would you advertise the opening of a new building by presenting its image horizontally if you were not trying to be a smartarse?

It gets marginally better, though. As I was trying to send this image from my Japanese mobile phone (with which I took the offending photograph) to my computer in order to upload it onto the blog, I was prompted with two menu options/messages. The first screen (on the left), provides the option of attaching the photo to an email (to then be sent to my computer). The second poorly translated screen message (on the right), though, points out in a double entendre-esque way that my photo of the phallic building might not be sent because the "other phone may not play as the size is large".


















Needless to say, this kept me amused most of the day... clearly, I have no life.

Starbucks - Act 2

[Scene] I'm at Starbucks, standing in line behind a gaggle of giggling schoolgirls with no concept of volume, waiting to order. Having finished ordering, they exit stage left, and I step up to the register.

[Starbucks Dude] Hi. Welcome to Starbucks.
[Me] Hi. Can I have a cappuccino, please.
[Starbucks Dude] Certainly. Is that to have here or to take away?
[Me] To have here, please.
[Starbucks Dude] I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you can't - all the seats and tables are taken.
[Me, teeth firmly gritted] Well, then, I guess I'll have to have it to take away, won't I.
[Starbucks Dude] Are you sure?

In the darker recesses of my mind, I proceeded to commit horrible, unspeakable violence against Starbucks Dude...

The Starbucks Spasm

I was fortunate enough to be a witness today to a new dance that I have appropriately named the "Starbucks Spasm".

I'll explain the moves, so that you too can bust a move the next time you're off to get a hit of caffeine.

The man sitting on the couch next to mine took off his shoes - I'm not sure if it's important for the effective performance of the dance, but if at all possible, you should also probably try to mismatch the colour of the socks as best you can... the man who performed the dance today had a clever and attractive mix of neon pink and navy blue... each a different styles of sock too, of course.

Step two apparently involved throwing each foot up onto each armrest of the chair opposite the one you're sitting in, much like a woman would place her feet in stirrups before giving birth. I assume step three involves gyrating your hips and rotating your neck in clockwise and counterclockwise directions respectively, because the guy started what seemed to be a mid air yoga routine... or at least that's what I thought it was until I realised that his impressive 50 year old contortions matched the timing of the moderate-tempo Spanish music that was playing over the sound system. At this point, I concluded that it was either a clever new dance or an impressively elaborate epileptic fit.

I doubt it'll be a dance crazy that'll take the world by storm, but then I was wrong about the Macarena too...

A Considered Reflection
on a Considerable Period of Time

This post is a manifestation of a confluence of events - the end of 2007, my 1000th day in Japan, and my not having anything better to do. It seems to me to be an apt time to reflect on my time in Japan in general, and on 2007 specifically.

One of the more notable events of the year, I think, was that on March 20, I was living in a concrete box with a double-glazed window that could generously (and reluctantly) be described as a dormitory room; and on March 21, I was not. My move to an apartment on the other side of Tokyo was not simply a geographic relocation, it was a fundamental improvement in my standard of living.

Whereas before, when I was living in my concrete box, I would be awoken from my slumber by the melodious sounds of metal grinding against metal when the 6:02 morning train rumbled past my window; now, the only sound, if any, is the squeaking of rust wheels of the walkers used by the grandmas in my 'hood' to perambulate impatiently back and forth in front of the store on the 1st floor of my apartment building, waiting for it to open.

Whereas before, when I was living in my concrete box, I had to remind myself to close the curtains before getting out of the shower so as not to give the students in the high school directly opposite my window (on the other side of the train tracks) an unexpected biology lesson in gaijin genitalia; in my new apartment, I found myself one day looking out the window at the old lady in the building opposite mine looking back at my recently showered, wet and naked body, and it occurred to me that I should probably buy some curtains and then keep them closed.

Life is a learning curve, I have since discovered, and the occasional accidental expose of naked flesh makes it all the more interesting.

Something else I learnt (sans the exposure of naked flesh) was always to measure the width of the hallway into the living room before ordering a 2 seater couch. This lesson derived from my realisation that I am, in fact, utterly incapable of manipulating the fabric of time and space in order to bend the corporeal world (namely my narrow hallway) by the sheer force of my will. My creative mind lurched into action, and I conjured up the fantastical solution of energetically hurling the couch out the window of the building opposite mine and through the curtainless window of mine. However, after considered reflection, I arrived at the rather sensible conclusion that rocking up at the house of the old lady I had exposed myself to not a few days earlier, only to then ask her to if I could eject a couch out of her window, would be a considerably big ask...

Part 2 to follow tomorrow.

A milestone

The end of 2007 pretty much coincides with my 1000th day of living in Japan (this time around, at least), so I'll try and get something written for that day...

Language War - Part 3

After not having heard from Aunty I in a while, I arrived at the conclusion that she was recovering from the last devastating exchange, and so I decided to launch what I thought would be my final assault.

(Here are the links for part 1 and part 2.)

------------------------------------

From: Kallun
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:05 PM
To: Aunty I
Subject: Language War

Dear Ms. Aunty I,

Your prolonged silence has led me to believe that you have been humbled by my superior language skills. This is understandable.

I would like to make two amendments to two previous emails. I feel that I am entitled to make such changes as the Law of Language War, Article 17 stipulates that amendments to a previous email are permitted only if the recipient of such email has yet to respond. As such, my amendments are as follows:

1. Email sent to Ms. Aunty I dated September 19, 2007 at 11:53.

"As to you first comment," will be amended to "As to your first comment,"

2. Email sent to Ms. Aunty I dated September 19, 2007 at 15:57.

"After having reviewed the substance" will be amended to "After reviewing the substance"

That is all. I await your surrender.

Kallun

------------------------------------

From: Aunty I
Sent: 12 November 2007 18:38
To: Kallun
Subject: RE: Language War

Dear Mr. Kallun "You Are Not Worthy" [Insert surname here],

I am not familiar with the Law of Language War, Article 17. I strongly suspect that the reason for this unfamiliarity is that said Article either does not in fact exist, or exists only because you created it arbitrarily and without mandate or consent from any recognized legislative authority (and far worse, without damn well asking me first!)

I do not accept your purported revisions to glaring mistakes you previously made, which have been carefully saved for posterity in my Outlook folders, and therefore should be considered set in stone. What is done is done, and you shall bear the consequences.

At this point, I have no intention of surrendering, except in disgust.

Yours sincerely,

Aunty I

Worthy Opponent

Language War - Part 2

Here is part 2 of the Language War (part 1 is here). I should point out that Aunty I is not an actual relative, but a friend from university.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Kallun
Sent: 19 September 2007 15:57
To: Aunty I
Subject: RE: Language War

Dear Ms. Aunty I,

Pitying you as I do, I made a concerted attempt to 'infect' my email with certain, intentional failings for two reasons:

(1) to test you; and

(2) to give something to comment on, lest you collapse into a crying pile of self-doubt.

As to you first comment, I consulted my copy of the the Macquarie Dictionary to ascertain whether you were correct or woefully, hopelessly incorrect in your assertion that "Ms." was a stylistic practice unique to the United States of America. Sadly, again, you are mistaken. In fact, "Ms." is an honorific employed in Australia.

Unfortunately, you did not 'find' all of the 'Easter eggs' I left for you. This saddens me. It really does.

Additional comments on the erroneous usage of punctuation and grammar in the pigswill of an email you wrote (dated 18 September, 2007) are forthcoming.

This list is too long for me to deal with at this time.

Yours sincerely,

Kallun

P.S. Please note that "Nahni nahni nah nah" is actually spelt "narni narni nar nar". That is all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Kallun
Sent: 19 September 2007 15:57
To: Aunty I
Subject: RE: Language War

Dear Ms. Aunty I,

After having reviewed the substance of your invective-filled email, I feel that it is incumbent upon me to address certain elements raised by you that are inexcusably incorrect.

First, I would like to direct your attention to the 'em-dash' point in which you stated "dashes were used incorrectly in place of em-dashes." This statement is inherently self-conflicting. Were I to perform the mental contortions necessary to understand the flawed logic of this statement, I would have no choice but to conclude that 'dashes' and 'em-dashes' are mutually exclusive concepts. This, I'm sure you'll agree after considered reflection, is not the case. What I suspect you meant to say was that "en-dashes were used incorrectly in place of em-dashes." I reach this conclusion because it is obvious that the em-dash is a type of dash, as is the en-dash.

The basic premise of your argument, however, is incorrect. Please refer to the following website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Em-dash#Em_dash

Of particular note is the following passage:

"The Elements of Typographic Style recommends the more concise spaced en dash – like so – and argues that the length and visual magnitude of an em dash "belongs to the padded and corseted aesthetic of Victorian typography". The spaced en dash is also the house style for certain major publishers (Penguin and Routledge among them). However, some longstanding typographical guides such as The Chicago Manual of Style still recommend unspaced em dashes for this purpose. In practice, there is little consensus, and it is a matter of personal or house taste; the important thing is that usage should be consistent." (sic)

One could thus conclude that the en-dash is preferable to those of us who choose to converse in British English. Given your particular situation in life, I suppose you may be forgiven in your misguided belief that the em-dash should prevail in any and all circumstances.

What is particularly striking, however, is the unrestrained glee with which you articulated your disdain. Were I to diagnose this, I would assume that you suffer from 'premature elation'. I suspect that there may be an ointment to remedy this affliction, and I wish you well in your treatment.

Finally, you inappropriately indicted me as a "pedant who does not appreciate the intricacies of modern English language usage, including the appropriate use of relaxed grammatical standards in informal e-mail correspondence." This is unwarranted, as you were well aware that a formal declaration of language war had been issued prior to the offending e-mails. Accordingly, any "relaxed grammatical standards in informal e-mail correspondence" constitutes a poor tactical move on your part. Needless to say, Napoléon Bonaparte would be appalled.

I await your surrender.

That is all.

Yours sincerely,

Kallun

Language War - Part 1

On September 18, 2007, I declared Language War on Aunty I. I was compelled to do this as a preemptive measure to what I was sure was going to be an imminent syntactic assault on the grammar contained in an email I had written her.

Two and a half months have since passed, and it's a merciless and bloody battlefield out there in the digital ether! The serenity of Tokyo proper has been scathed and scarred with the malicious mêlée of missives back and forth across the broadband spectrum. A multitude of violent verbs and nouns and adjectives have been volleyed at yours truly, and all I've had to defend myself with from Aunty I's attacks is my copy of the Australian Macquarie dictionary and the confidence I have in my (some would say "superior") English language abilities.

I submit, as Exhibit A, round 1 of this semantic scrum!
(I've used pseudonyms for the email exchange. Also, my comments on her previous emails are the ones in red, unless it isn't already obvious.)

-------------------------------------------------

From: Kallun
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 3:00 PM
To: Aunty I
Subject: Language War

Dear Ms. Aunty I,

Please be informed that as per the email exchange dated August 24, 2007, I have compiled the following emails, and will now proceed to highlight what I believe to be failings, flaws, and other offensive foibles in the language contained therein.

That is all.

Thank you.

Kallun

---

From: Aunty I
Sent: 14 September 2007 17:06
To: Kallun
Subject: RE: The silence is deafening...

jesus. this is really very bad!!

[Comment] Ignoring the blasphemy, both sentences violate capitalisation protocols. Additionally, "really very bad" is either a redundant (ie: double) hyperbole, or it is missing a comma.

---

From: Aunty I
Sent: 13 September 2007 16:42
To: Kallun
CC: Aunty M
Subject: RE: The silence is deafening...

I am lost in the world of paperwork. Good times!

Actually, going quite OK.

Sorry for the long silence.

How are those housewarming party plans coming, you two?!

[Comment] The sentence - "Actually, going quite OK" - lacks a subject. Please rectify this at your earliest convenience, as I am still quiet unsure as to 'what' is "going quite OK" (sic).

Finally, "you two?!" can be either a question, or an exclamation. It cannot be both.

-------------------------------------------------

Aunty I responded with the following: (I've replace my surname with my first name.)

-------------------------------------------------

From: Aunty I
Sent: 18 September 2007 21:44
To: Kallun
Subject: RE: Language War

Dear Mr Kallun,

You are a pedant who does not appreciate the intricacies of modern English language usage, including the appropriate use of relaxed grammatical standards in informal e-mail correspondence.

I would, however, have been able to accept your comments with good grace, had it not been for the sad lack of attention to basic rules of spelling, grammar and consistency in your message below.

First, in your e-mail below, you referred to me initially as "Ms. Aunty I", suggesting that you proposed to adopt the spelling and stylistic practices of the United States of America. If this was your intention, then in your first comment in red, "capitalisation" should have been spelt "capitalization", and "ie" should have been spelt "i.e.".

Second, please re-acquaint yourself with the use of colons, as "(ie[sic]: double)" demonstrates incorrect use of the colon, you ignorant loon.

Third, in the comment, "[Comment] The sentence - "Actually, going quite OK" - lacks a subject.", dashes were used incorrectly in place of em-dashes. If you are, at this moment, asking yourself, "What the hell are em-dashes?", then perhaps, you young whippersnapper, you will find it necessary to admit that you have chosen to declare Language War on a formidable opponent.

Finally, please clarify the meaning of "quiet unsure", as used in the sentence below:

Please rectify this at your earliest convenience, as I am still quiet unsure as to 'what' is "going quite OK" (sic).

In short, Mr Kallun, your scathing comments on others' alleged failings would be better received, and far more persuasive, if delivered in a manner free from basic errors. Your pitiful effort below begs the inference that the writer is patently unqualified to form judgments on the correct use of the English language.

Nahni nahni nah nah.

Yours sincerely,

Aunty I

-------------------------------------------------

Stay tuned for further developments... Victory is in sight!