However, having I’ve looked again at the final piece, I see that it’s not well written and certainly needs more work. Who knows, one of these days, I might edit it and put it up. In the meantime, I’ll be happy to email it to anyone who wants to see it—I actually sent it to Roy Berman because, if I remember correctly, I thought that he deserved an explanation of why I was doing this after I read his take on the affair and I wasn’t ready to put it out there just yet. You know where to find me; my email address is: firstname.lastname@example.org (also accessible from my profile). In any case, I think that the justifications for my attack—what else was it?—were more appropriately expressed in a paragraph from one of my counter-comments here. I’ll repeat it below for your convenience.
I think that the data, facts and opinions that I cite regarding the buraku issue are at least as good as the facts and opinions that Onishi raises in his article. I also think that my version of Nonaka’s political circumstances when he gave up running for LDP President is superior to Onishi’s. I leave it up to you the readers of this blog to decide who has a better case. However, that’s not the real issue at stake here. What I find disturbing is the fact that one of the few reports on Japan in the “newspaper of record” that appears to probe beneath the surface of events turns out to be a collage of anecdotes and opinions that ignores the substantial amount of material that do not support a personal take on Japan that appears to drive the reporter’s work. I have some guesses as to where that personal take—more temperament than ideology—comes from, and I’ve gained a little sympathy for Onishi as I progressed because of this. But that does not provide an excuse; this is a news report, not a short story that we are talking about.And that is as good a place as any to end this coda without a finale. Thanks for coming, you all.