My Traffic Ticket: Running a Red Light in Beverly Hills
Topic: Anecdotes
I thought you might like to see an authentic legal process up close, so I am putting this here.

I got a ticket for running a red light in Beverly Hills in December 2005. I was on my way to a job interview with N. (The famous pink rabbit English school in Japan.)

I was really angry about it. The ticket was for $350!! But the real reason I was so angry was because I hadn't committed the infraction. The motorcycle cop must have been asleep at the time because it wasn't even close. .

I decided to fight the case, but because I was going to return to Japan soon after, I had to submit my case in writing. First, I had to pay the court $350. Then I had to send in my argument with some photos. The case was resolved in April 2006. I WON! I just got a $350 check from the Court this week!

This is my case including the important photos, but I can't include the diagram. It was hand-drawn, and I don't have a copy here.The following is an exact copy of the letter I sent to the Beverly Hills Courthouse in late winter 2006:

I declare under penalty of perjury that this statement is true and correct.

This statement is eight pages long, including form TR-205, four typed pages, and three pages of evidence. Included are two pages of photos that I have labeled "Page 5" and "Page 6," and a street diagram I have labeled "Page 7."

Re: (My Name here)
Citation: R458409
Issue date: 12/01/05
Bail amount of $350 paid on January 30, 2006

I was given a ticket for allegedly running a red light at the intersection of Fountain and La Cienega. I was driving a light blue, 1992 Toyota Camry (a family sedan), and was traveling westbound on Fountain and turned left (southbound) onto La Cienega. I made the turn from the inner of the two lanes that are permitted to make left turns onto La Cienega. (See diagram on Page 7.)

Your Honor there is no doubt in my mind that I did not go through a red light. The light was just turning yellow when I entered the intersection. I am extremely confident of that because I had seen the solid "Don't walk" signal (see G on Page 6) a second or two before. (Indicating that the light would change to yellow soon.) In response I slowed and then slowed some more due to some traffic just ahead of me. (I was going about 5 mph.) I was prepared to stop and easily could have if I had wanted to. But there was no need to stop. The light finally turned yellow, and I eased into the intersection less than a second later. About midway through the intersection (20 feet or so), I came to a complete stop. (See photo D on Page 5 and diagram on Page 7.) There were vehicles in both lanes ahead of me and a car alongside of me. After we had been stopped for a second or so, the light finally turned red, and all the cars proceeded through the intersection. Soon afterward, the officer turned on his siren, and I pulled over to let him go by. I was baffled and angry when he stopped behind me.

Photo D: My car was roughly in the position of the rear car in this photo when the light changed to red. I was stopped in the intersection at the time. This view is from the officer's side about 20-30 meters north of where he was parked.

Prior to that the officer had been parked opposite me on his motorcycle near the mouth of the driveway ramp. He was facing the oncoming, westbound Fountain traffic. (See Page 6 photo G and diagram on Page 7.)

Photo G: The officer was parked in that apartment building driveway. This photo shows my view of the intersection, although I was in the left most lane, and this view is from the right most of the three lanes. The yellow light here lasts about 3 seconds.

There are several facts that should raise some doubts of my guilt. In brief, the location itself is extremely ill-suited to observing red light violations, particularly in consideration of where the officer was parked. There are two left turn lanes and the outer lane vehicles (when present) block the view of cars in the left most (inner) lane (where my car was). Even without an outer lane, the officer couldn't have seen my car and the traffic signal at the same time due to the position of his motorcycle and that of the traffic signals. Indeed he couldn't see my signal at all! Also, the problem of depth perception increased the difficulty even more. I was headed directly towards the officer, so there must have been difficulty in judging distances and positions. Finally, also because of traffic, it must have been difficult to see the intersection markings by themselves or in relation to my car.

The main hinderance is the second left turn lane. When there is traffic in the outer lane throughout the intersection, as was the case that morning, the cars in the inner lane can be completely obscured, especially by large vehicles. From a position facing the westbound Fountain traffic (where the officer was), it would have been very difficult to see cars in the inner lane at all. (Note the blocking effect of the small bus and van in photos B and D, respectively, on Page 5.)

Photo B: The bus is in the outer lane. This is the view the officer had. He obviously could not have seen my car in the inner lane. Also note that there are no traffic signals present except for northbound and southbound traffic.

During the incident, all traffic came to a halt briefly in the intersection. Vehicles in the outer lane were not going wide enough before turning and, therefore, crowding the inner lane. This brought all cars to a halt and constricted the gaps between vehicles, making it bumper to bumper and increasing the blocking effect of vehicles in the outer lane.

Another significant issue is the design of the intersection. La Cienega and Fountain is a 3-way intersection. Westbound Fountain traffic must turn left or right onto La Cienega. This design means there are no traffic signals that the officer could see above my car. The only traffic signals for westbound Fountain traffic were above, behind, and on either side of the officer's position. (No signals can be seen in the photo taken from the officer's position. See picture G on Page 6.) There is no signal above Fountain (see B and D on Page 5 and F on Page 6), as would be the case in a normal 4-way intersection. As such, Officer P. (the issuing officer) was in poor position to see red light infractions by cars going westbound on Fountain. He was parked almost even with or slightly in front of the signals for Fountain. The only way he could have seen them would have been to turn completely behind and look directly up. Even if he did so, he was too far directly under them to be able to see the lights themselves. It was early morning (8:30 am and the sun was low in the East, shining directly into the signals near him (and his eyes).

Therefore, the officer must have looked at the signals to his right on La Cienega. (See photo C on Page 5 and the diagram on Page 7.) But those signals are for southbound La Cienega-not Fountain. Even if he used the La Cienega signals, Officer P. could not see any of the three of them and my car at the same time. (Assuming he could see my car at all due to the traffic in the outer turn lane.) And if he did see the light and me at the same time, then I must have been far into the intersection! The signals for southbound La Cienega were approximately 90 degrees to the right of his field of vision if he was looking at Fountain.

Since it was the La Cienega southbound traffic signal he was looking at, there are some powerful arguments that I didn't run a red light. Maybe he was looking at my car and then glanced to see the green light. (Remember he was looking at the La Cienega signal, so it would have been green not red.) If so, he couldn't be sure the light hadn't changed in the interval between seeing my car and seeing the green light. I doubt this happened.

More likely he would say he saw the green light first and then he turned to see me enter the intersection. This seems to be the only possible scenario. If so, he is implying that I entered the intersection very late! (Of course, I concede that people do do such things, but it would be extremely dangerous and therefore unlikely.)

If Officer P. claimed that I entered the intersection after the La Cienega signal turned green, he would probably state that he was looking at a southbound La Cienega light and saw it turn green. Even the furthest of those lights were approximately 90 degrees away from his view of my car. After seeing the La Cienega green, the officer might say that he then turned to face Fountain and saw my car cross the white line delineating the intersection. That would mean that I entered the intersection a moment after he turned his head-all the while there had been a green light for La Cienega!

First of all, the signal for an intersecting street does not turn green simultaneously with the red of its compliment street. There is a lag of a second or so to safely allow people who run red lights to clear the intersection. (I would imagine that most people who run red lights go through before the compliment street light turns green.) Also there would be extra time necessary for the officer to process the information and turn his head to face Fountain. As a result, any car just starting to enter the intersection from Fountain after the officer turned his head would be doing something very dangerous indeed!

To take it further, since the officer's head would necessarily be turned 90 degrees away from my car; he wouldn't be able to see me enter the intersection at the same time. And at that point, he certainly wouldn't have had any expectation that a car would enter the intersection from Fountain that late, so he would have turned his head in a leisurely way. In such a situation, the split seconds would add up to a point where in order for this scenario to work, I would have had to have entered the intersection as much as two seconds after the light changed red-ridiculous! That would have been suicidal.

I am not a lawyer, so I will concede a couple of points. I was the last car through the intersection in the left most lane. It was not because cars behind me stopped for the red light. There were simply none behind me in either lane for a block or so.

Also, I didn't see the officer until he turned on his siren after I exited the intersection. While in the intersection, my view of him was blocked by a vehicle or vehicles ahead of me and alongside me in the outer left turn lane. This indicates that his view of me was obscured, as well.

Since the officer's position during the alleged infraction is significant, let me elaborate a little on it. At the time I saw him, it was through the rear view mirror and I could clearly see him attempting to start his motorcycle. I pulled over to let him pass, and he still hadn't moved much. I note this to show why I am sure that he was parked at the time.

I believe he was trying to start his bike because of the motions of his right arm and his right leg. Since he was facing Fountain, I could see him in profile. He seemed to be pressing the starter button and twisting the handgrip accelerator. Also, I saw him stand the bike up and disengage its kickstand. (One doesn't have a motorcycle on its kickstand when the engine is on unless it has just been started.) Because of that I am quite sure that he was parked with his engine off when he turned on his siren. (I have a motorcycle license and I've been riding for more than 25 years, so I am quite sure.)

It is impossible for me to know exactly where he was parked, though. I marked him in the photos and the diagram as being at the northern area of the ramp, which is what I remember. But he may have been 5-10 feet away from where I thought he was because of the problem of judging depth. Of course, that is largely irrelevant because even if he had been much farther away, he couldn't have seen any of my signals. I am certain that he was along the curb, so the signals still would have been behind him no matter where he was along the driveway or curb.

I think there is probably only one good position from which the officer could have properly judged a red light infraction by my car. If he had been going in the same direction, alongside, in front of, or just behind me on Fountain, he would have been able to see the signal, my car, and the white lines clearly at nearly the same time.

Facing northbound or southbound on La Cienega wouldn't have been much better. He would have been able to see my signal, but would have had to turn up to 180 degrees away from the intersection to do so.

The absolute worst position must be facing East, which the officer was. From just about any viewpoint, it's a tough place to observe Fountain traffic. The blocking outer lane and the lack of a signal in clear sight make it impossible to judge.

At this point, I would like to state that I don't think the officer lied. He was simply mistaken. I think my car must have been obscured by traffic in the outer lane, and so may have appeared (to Officer P.) to have come out of nowhere into the middle of the intersection. He may have been passively observing and not really been focused on the situation. Of course, this is all pure speculation. I have no idea what he saw.

To summarize, there is no doubt in my mind that I entered the intersection less than one second after the light turned yellow. (The yellow light at that intersection lasts about three seconds-like most yellows.) Also, the officer was parked facing me where he could not possibly see my car and my signal (or the La Cienega signals) at the same time.

Accordingly, I argue that Officer P. was in extremely poor position to have seen any red light infraction for the Fountain traffic.

I also repeat my sincere and confident belief that I am innocent. I was stopped and waiting in the middle of the intersection when the light changed red. It wasn't even close.

I know I have been long-winded. Thank you for your time.

My Name
Tokyo, Japan

(That's the end of the letter.)

I Support the War in Iraq--a response to Roy
Topic: Politics

This is an exchange between myself and Roy. These emails were written in 2004. I still fully believe it today. I added a couple of things to it today, Tuesday, June 20, 2006.

First up is Roy (September 15, 2004):

I do disagree about what you think of Bush. The guy is a moron, and if you
don't think so you haven't done your homework.

And ask yourself this. Why are we in Iraq and why did we go there in the
first place? You will find that the reasons the Government gave were not
supported with any evidence. The law of the land states that any country is
entitled to their own sovereignty no matter how its being ran. And if you
believe past genocide in Iraq is a good reason then don't forget that there
has been other incidents of genocide that the U.S. did nothing about, Africa
for example.

There was just no real reason to invade Iraq.
I would like to know your opinion on this but be objective.

I wrote the following to Roy on the 20th.:

Here?s some info and opinion on the Iraq war for you, Roy.

Why did we go to war in Iraq?

There are several reasons.

The 1991 war did not end in a peace treaty, it ended in a cease fire. What that means is that the current war is not a new war it is a continuation of the previous war which never officially ended.

The new war is largely a result of Hussein?s complete contempt for, and violations of, the cease-fire agreement, combined with a new President (Bush) and an American congress that was afraid of what Hussein might be able to do with unconventional weapons as shown by the terrorists in the 9/11 attacks.

In the cease fire, Saddam Hussein agreed to allow UN weapons inspectors into to his country and to a ?no fly? zone over parts of his country.

The ?no-fly? zone was intended to prevent him from attacking Kurds in the North of Iraq and enemy Muslims elsewhere in Iraq. None of his warplanes were permitted to fly in that zone, and Hussein agreed to allow US planes to patrol the area.

Almost from the beginning, Hussein shot at allied planes over the no-fly zone. Every day he fired anti-aircraft missiles at planes enforcing the no-fly zone in complete violation of the cease fire agreement he signed!!

Fortunately, his missiles were obsolete and didn't destroy any planes, but I've heard that it was a little nerve racking for the pilots to be shot at everyday. After all if they made a mistake or had a mechanical problem, they would be shot down and maybe die.

Almost from the beginning, Hussein harassed and delayed the weapons inspectors. He finally threw them out of the country in 1998; which is the year that the Clinton administration formally declared ?regime-change? in Iraq to be the official US policy there.

Either of these violations should have led to war, but I guess that Clinton didn't really see Hussein as a real threat even though he had large stockpiles of WMDs and had apparently violated all provisions of the cease-fire. Either that, or he didn't have the guts to go to war over it.

There?s absolutely no doubt that Hussein had WMDs at one time. Remember Iraq definitely had them in the 80s when they gassed 100,000 Kurds to death in northern Iraq.

Bill Clinton has repeatedly said that Iraq definitely had them in January of 2001 when he left office.

I think even Hussein admits that he had WMDs into the 90s. He just claims they destroyed all of them in the mid-90s. If that?s true, why didn't they just show the destruction process to the UN inspectors?

In 2002, the UN and the US congress were both convinced that Iraq had WMDs. That?s why the UN passed a resolution demanding that Iraq allow the inspectors to go back into Iraq.

What most people don't realize is that under the previous agreements, Hussein had the burden of proof, not the inspectors.

Iraq was required to prove that it had destroyed all their WMDs by showing the inspectors the sites where it had been done or allowing interviews with scientists who'd helped in the destruction. (2006: Let me emphasize this point again. Under the terms of the cease-fire agreement, Iraq HAD to destroy all WMDs. PROVE that it had destroyed all WMDs, or turn them over to the inspectors to be destroyed. The official Iraq policy was to deny their existence, or claim they had been destroyed, and refuse to offer any evidence in either case. The notion that inspectors had to search Iraq like a big Easter egg hunt looking for weapons is ridiculous. War should have been initiated at the first refusal to turn over all WMDs. "We don't have any WMDs" should have been absolutely unacceptable as a response.)

Iraq never allowed their scientists to be interviewed by the UN outside of Iraq with their families. Iraq claimed that any scientist could be interviewed, but claimed that none of them wanted to be interviewed. What a joke!

Hussein simply would've raped and murdered their families if they'd consented to interviews.

What Iraq could've done to prevent the war. Recently, Qadaffi in Libya called weapons inspectors into Libya to observe his destruction of WMDs.

Actually there was a ton of evidence to support the view that Iraq had WMDs. Even France and Germany thought so, they just didn't want to go to war over it.

If Saddam didn't have any weapons why did he pretend he did? Why would he destroy them in the 90s?

And if he did why did he do it secretly?

Why did he delay and harass the inspectors?

Why did he shoot at US planes everyday?

Why didn't he allow the inspectors to take his scientists out of the country for safe interviews?

Saddam was a huge supporter of terrorism. He sent $25,000 to every Palestinian suicide bomber who killed people in Israel. Of course, it went to the surviving family members. $25,000 is like a million to a Palestinian.

If Bush lied, why does Clinton say that Iraq had WMDs as late as 2001?

Bush wanted to be sure about the WMDs, so he directly asked the CIA head, Tennet, about the WMDs. He said, ?I want to know how good the evidence is for WMDs.? Tennet said, ?Mr. President, it?s a slam dunk!? This fact was first reported in an anti-Bush book by a liberal journalist by the name of Bob Woodward! (Tennet was the CIA head from the Clinton era.)

If Bush lied, why did congress and the UN vote to support him?

Personally, I think Saddam did have some weapons which were sent abroad or buried somewhere, but maybe not as many as we feared.

Even during the current war they've found lots of dual purpose factories which could easily be converted to making WMDs, although there weren't any WMDs themselves found.

We went to war to enforce the cease-fire agreement and the UN resolution, not to free the Iraqis.

The war was legal, just, and moral. Saddam murdered over a million in his 30 years as President. (2006: I've read some estimates that it was between 300,000 to 1 million.)

He attacked four countries without any provocation: Iran, Kuwait, Israel, and I can't remember the other. Maybe it was Saudi Arabia in the Gulf War.

In the post-9/11 era we couldn't afford to allow him to continue to mock the cease-fire agreement and the UN resolution.

Ultimately there are several good reasons for removing him from power.

He was a huge threat to our middle-east oil supply. After all, he'd attacked several oil countries before.

We are bringing democracy to Iraq! (Even though we will probably receive nothing in return except a $200 billion bill--and a little peace of mind.)

By the way, no, we aren't saving Africans from slaughter in Sudan. So what? Iraq is a greater threat to us, and we don't have the resources to bring justice to the entire world.

That doesn't negate the incredible good being done in Afghanistan and Iraq. But you're right, that wasn't the reason for attacking Iraq.

Bush really disappointed me with his lack of clarity on the war. We went to war to protect ourselves, not to free Iraq. Whoever decided to call the operation ?Iraqi Freedom? was a fool.

I was angered in 2003 that Bush allowed the WMD talk to become the number one reason, it never was.

He should have focused on the issue of the daily violations of the cease-fire, and the complete contempt being shown by Hussein for the WMD issue. Saddam had to PROVE there weren't any. Simply allowing inspections was never enough, he had to PROVE that he'd destroyed them.

Bush didn't think about the long-term, or maybe he thought people wouldn't care about the cease-fire agreement issue. Whatever, he could've done a better of laying out the reasons for the war.

Of course, he did mention everything I've mentioned in this letter. But he didn't emphasize the points I'm emphasizing here.

The bottom line is that reasons for the war were:

1. Enforce the cease-fire agreements.
2. Make sure there were no WMDs
3. Remove Iraq?s threat to our oil supply.
4. Remove a large supporter of terrorism.
5. Remove Iraq?s ability to produce WMDs in the future, or to provide them to terrorists.

All of these things became important after 9/11. We simply couldn't afford to have a rogue dictator-led country that spit in our face, threatened our oil supply, and could potentially provide terrorists with the capital and resources to acquire WMDs or other means to attack us.

If there had never been a cease-fire agreement, there could never have been a war. That?s the bottom line. No one forced Saddam to sign the cease-fire agreement, and no one forced him to violate EVERY damn provision in it. ANY violation in the cease-fire agreement meant that the US could resume the war!

As I've said again and again, There are a lot of countries that are very dangerous in the world, but Iraq was unique in 5 ways. They had a cease-fire agreement, they had gassed 100,000 people to death, they were active terrorism supporters, they threatened our oil supply, and they had already attacked four other countries.

You might feel that we can never morally attack another country to defend our oil supply, but why not?

Of course, it?s not the major issue, as I've made clear here. But we have the free-est, greatest country in the history of the planet. We are the ones that discovered oil in the middle-east, and we are the ones that are providing the technology to extract it from there. The Arabs, after 80 years, are still so technologically backward that they cannot manage the access to their oil supply. In spite of the hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars they've received in oil revenue.

Even if we attacked them to STEAL their oil, there would be a moral argument in our favor since they have no democracy and they oppress women and people of other religions.

But that?s just a hypothetical. That?s not the reason for the war.

But PROTECTING the middle-east from Hussein is important. Protecting our oil supply from a madman is in our interests as well.

Even if there were no WMDs, it doesn't matter because EVERYONE thought there were. They were wrong, perhaps, but they didn't lie. And even without any WMDs the war was just and moral.

I've spent a lot of time on this, Roy. Now if you disagree, please spend several hours of your time refuting my arguments! Haha!

Common English Mistakes
Topic: English Tips and Grammar
All of the following phrases or words are wrong or often used wrongly:

WRONG: One more please?
Students ask me this question when they want me to repeat a conversation I've just read from the textbook.
CORRECT: Could you read it again?
Could you repeat that? (If you can't hear a word or sentence.)

WRONG: I couldn't catch.
Students say this when they can't answer a question about text I've just read.
CORRECT: I didn't hear.
I couldn't catch that information.

WRONG: I have to finish the report until Monday morning.
CORRECT: I have to finish before Monday.
I have until Monday to finish the report.

WRONG: Almost Japanese like soccer:
"Almost" can be used in two ways. It means "nearly," but used with "all," or "all of," it means "nearly all," or "most."
Almost = nearly.
Almost all = 90%-99%:
CORRECT: I almost scored a goal.
Almost all Japanese like soccer.


WRONG: Please teach me your phone number:
We don't use "teach" to talk about giving simple information like phone numbers or addresses. Usually "give" is the proper word, but "tell" can also be used. "Teach" is used to talk about learning how to do complex things like to speak English or to ski.
CORRECT: Can I have your phone number?
What's your phone number?
Teach me how to use the internet.
Tell me your phone number.
Give me your phone number.

Talking about a time after another time
From the present time: "in"
WRONG: I'm going to LA two weeks later
CORRECT: I'm going to LA in two weeks.

From a time in the past to another time in the past: "later;" "after that"
CORRECT: I came to Tokyo in 2001. I met John two years later.
CORRECT: I woke up at 9. Less than two minutes after that, you called.

From a time in the future to another time later in the future: "later;" "after that"
CORRECT: I'm going to the movies at 7, and later, I'm going to see Kathy.
CORRECT: I'm going to graduate next year, and a year after that I'm going to get married.

Your house or apartment is not a "room."
WRONG: I cleaned my room.
CORRECT: I cleaned my apartment.


WRONG: There are two persons talking in this picture.
This is wrong because we don't use "person" in the plural. Use "people" instead.
CORRECT: There are two people in my family.


WRONG: I'm a safety driver:
"Safety" is a noun. In this situation, we use the adjective form: "safe".
CORRECT: I'm a safe driver.


WRONG: I recommend you to Kyoto:
CORRECT: I recommend Kyoto.
I recommend you go to Kyoto.
I recommend buying a yukata.

The differences between "(be) going to" and "will" to talk about the future:
"(be) going to" is used to indicate:
1. definite plans
WRONG: I will move to LA on June 1.
CORRECT: I'm going to move to LA on June 1. I'm moving on June 1.
2. uncontrollable things (like the weather or other people's feelings)
WRONG: It will rain. My girlfriend will be angry.
CORRECT: It's gonna rain. My girlfriend's going to be angry.

"will" is generally used to indicate:
1. a sudden decision: (ordering food) I'll have a beer. (phone ringing) I'll answer it.
2. a promise: I'll finish the report by tomorrow.
3. not sure: with "maybe," "probably," "I think," "I guess," etc: I'll probably go bowling tomorrow. Maybe I'll have time to stop by your place.

WRONG: I'm working for Sony. (I just started. I might quit soon.)
I'm living in Hakusan.

Using "verb + ing" (the present progressive) implies a new or temporary situation.
CORRECT: I work for Sony.
I live in Hakusan.

Don't use the word "hobby" so much! Americans rarely have any hobbies. We think a hobby is a VERY serious thing, like "Cosplay" or collecting stamps. We call simple things like reading, watching movies, playing tennis, etc "likes" or "interests"
WRONG: What is your hobby?:
CORRECT: What are your interests? I like to play tennis.
What do you do in your free time? I do a lot of reading.
What do you like to do? I'm really interested in WWII History.

talking about marriage with and without objects
The person you married is the object. If you mention him/her use "I married/divorced him/her." If you don't use "him/her," say "I got married/divorced last year."
WRONG: (no object) I married last year:
CORRECT: (no object) I got married last year.
WRONG: (with an object) I got married Susan last year:
CORRECT: (with an object) I married Susan last year.
If there is an object: "Tom Cruise married Nicole Kidman."
If there is no object: "Tom Cruise got married."

WRONG: I'm an office worker:
This is strange because it's so vague. There are many, many office jobs. Give more specific information.

CORRECT: I'm a manager at an import/export company.
I'm a secretary.


WRONG: The weather is fine.
"Fine" in this sentence doesn't mean "clear" or "beautiful," it means "ok."

CORRECT: The weather is great.
It's a beautiful day.
It's sunny.
Fine weather, isn't it?


WRONG: Have you ridden the jetcoaster at La Qua?
"Jetcoaster" isn't a word in English. Use "rollercoaster."

CORRECT: Have you ridden the rollercoaster at La Qua?

WRONG: Do you know sumo?
Usually we use "know" to refer to a person or school subject.
CORRECT: Do you know Japanese?
Do you know about sumo?
Have you heard of sumo?

WRONG: Ichiro is the strongest baseball player in the American League.
"Strong" generally means "muscular." Use "best."
CORRECT: Ichiro is the best baseball player in the American League.

WRONG: I have to back the videos to the video store.
"Back" is not a verb. Use "return."
CORRECT: I have to return the videos to the video store.

WRONG: Sushi is very delicious.
Words like "delicious" are very strong and don't need the word "very."
CORRECT: Sushi is delicious.

FORMAL: Stewart's English lessons are very difficult.
Actually, this isn't wrong. "difficult" is ok, but Americans use "hard" most of the time.
CORRECT: Stewart's English lessons are very hard.

WRONG: I'll explain you how to.
CORRECT: I'll explain IT to you.
"Explain" needs an object. For example, "I'll explain THE PROJECT to you."

"late" is NOT a verb in English, it's an adjective--unlike Japanese.
WRONG: I'm sorry to late.
CORRECT: I'm sorry to be late.
I'm sorry I'm late.

"smart" means "intelligent" not "thin"
WRONG: She is very smart.
CORRECT: She is very thin.
"Smart"= intelligent
"thin"= body shape

WRONG: If you are possible.
WRONG: If you are ok.
WRONG: Are you ok?
Use "it" instead of "you"
CORRECT: If it's possible, let's finish the project today.
Is it ok?
Is it ok with you?

WRONG: I have ever been to Hawaii.
CORRECT: I have been to Hawaii.
"Ever" is used in the question: "Have you EVER been to Hawaii?" The answer doesn't use ever: "Yes, I have--several times."

WRONG: (When seeing your friend for the first time in a long time) "Nice to meet you."
CORRECT: "Nice to see you again."
"Meet/met" usually mean "the first time." After you have met someone, and you see him unexpectedly you can say: "I saw Joe at the train station tonight." If it was planned, you can say, "I got together with/met up with (British/Australia)/had dinner with Joe.

WRONG: I mistaked.
CORRECT: I made a mistake.
"Mistake" is not used as a verb here. "Mistake" is sometimes used as a verb, but it needs an object: "I mistook him (object) for my husband." = "I thought he was my husband."

WRONG: I'm going to leave until Friday.
CORRECT: I'm not going to leave until Friday.
"Until" means do an action or remain in a state up to a certain. At that time you will STOP doing the action, or the state will change.
"I lived in Los Angeles until February."
"The report is due by Friday."

NOT WRONG, BUT CONFUSING: "I have got sick a lot this year."
CORRECT: I have gotten sick a lot this year.
This is very tricky. "Have got" does not really mean "have gotten," it means "have." Americans use "got" or "gotten" as a past participle. (The British use "got.")
"I've got to go (home now)" = "I have to go (home now)."

WRONG: He is cunning!
CORRECT: He is cheating.
In English, "cunning" means "smart/clever/intelligent." It has a negative nuance, but it is a personality trait (adjective). "Cheating" is an action.

"claim" has a very different meaning in English
WRONG: I claimed the manager
CORRECT: I complained to the manager.
WRONG: My landlord claimed me because my music was too loud.
("Claim" means to assert that something is true. "He claimed he could speak Japanese, but he couldn't.")
CORRECT: My landlord complained because my music was too loud.


WRONG: My father was died in 1998.
CORRECT: My father died in 1998.
"Died" is a verb, not an adjective. (die/died/died)

usually "next Thursday" means "Thursday next week." This is wrong if Thursday comes this week too.
WRONG: How about next Thursday?
CORRECT: How about this Thursday?
"This" means in this week. "Next" means in next week.

Japan: The Little Differences
Topic: Philosophical Rants
"But you know what the funniest thing about Europe is? It's the little differences. I mean they got the same shit there that they do here, but there it's just a little different."

--Vincent Vega (John Travolta) in Pulp Fiction

Vincent Vega was right-it's the little differences. He was talking about Europe, but I would describe Japan in exactly the same way. Japan is not as unique as most Americans think it is, but there are a lot of little differences.

The layout of homes is a good example. Everything is there (well, almost everything), but it's slightly different.

The kitchens and bathrooms are familiar, yet somehow very unlike their American counterparts. The ovens, stoves, kitchen sinks, bathtubs, and toilets are very strange and bizarre.

The oven consists of a mail slot-sized drawer that is virtually useless. The Japanese use them to cook fish, but it better be a very small fish. I've yet to use mine in 14 months of living here. One day a few months ago, I was feeling homesick, and I felt a nice thick frozen pizza would help me to forget my loneliness and remind me of home. I used to love Chicago Brothers pizzas until the company that makes them apparently went bankrupt. Unfortunately, the only way I could've baked a pizza in this oven would've been to cook it by the slice. I didn't bother.

My good friend, Sachiko, says that my microwave is really a convection oven as well, and that it can be used to bake things, just like my parents oven back home. I don't believe it. Sachiko wouldn't lie to me, but there must be some mistake or misunderstanding. The microwave couldn't also be a normal, heat-generating oven, could it? I'll have to investigate the device to determine its capabilities.

The toilets, bathtubs, showers, and wash-up basins are in a separate rooms! At first I laughed at this arrangement, but its brilliance was proven to me within a few days of my arrival in Japan. No more long, painful waits for women to play with their hair and faces in the morning when I have to go pee pee. The toilet is always open.

Most Japanese are as completely unaware of American-style bathrooms as we are of theirs. Some of them are really shocked to see an American bathroom. They think it's dirty and unsanitary to have a toilet in the same room as the bathtub and shower.

The convenience stores are identical on the surface, but on close inspection, they too are revealed to be highly alien. There are lots of fish and seafood products and about 20 different kinds of instant noodles. The scary thing is that there are tiny, one-inch long fish with gouged out eyes that are intended to be eaten as a snack, like potato chips or pretzels. I'm told that they are actually sweet, but I'll never know because the sight of sad, eye-less fish bodies makes me sick, so I'll never eat one.

How do they do it anyway? How do they poke out the eyes? It must be hard because they're so small. Does someone have to do it by hand? Or is there a machine that rips the eyes out automatically? The Japanese are so clever!

Kevin brought back some little orange crabs from his New Year's trip. He'd gone to some small island somewhere off the Tokyo coast. The crabs were about an inch in diameter, and they looked horrible.

But maybe it's me. Maybe I'm the one who's different. I refused to eat the dirty, insect-like, creatures, but a couple of Nova teachers confessed to trying them. Luckily, I didn't witness that, but I did have the sickening experience of watching a couple of students eat them. I couldn't look, and I didn't look, but unfortunately I could hear the horrifying sounds of my students munching on them. How could anyone eat a crab head, face, pinchers, legs, shell, everything?! Disgusting! I felt ill. I almost puked!

I think if I had a girlfriend that ate such disgusting things, I'd have a problem. How could I kiss her after she'd chewed on an eye-less fish body, or eaten a stinky little orange crab whole? It'd be like letting a dog lick your face after it ate a fly.

I eat beef. Yeah, I know, it's dead cow. I love beef, and I know I eat an animal that had a head and arms and legs and a mommy and daddy that loved it. But I don't eat the whole cow, just a few strips of flesh. And I don't have to stare at an eye-less cow head as I take a bit out of my burger.

The postal system is unique. All the mailmen wear green uniforms and ride little red Honda motorcycles. They work seven days a week, and they seem to make several trips a day to our apartment building, delivering batches of mail.

The TVs themselves are not too different; they even use the same NTSC format we do. But they actually use channels 1-12. It's hard to explain to them that in L.A. we don't use channels 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 12.

Of course the food is different, but even franchise food is different. Multi-national fast food places like Domino's, McDonald's, KFC, Shakey's, Wendy's, etc., are different. The Tokyo McDonalds' are actually much better than any I've had for decades in LA.

But not everything is so different. The mass transit is very familiar. The train cars are very similar, probably because all of them are made in Japan. And just like in LA, I can't understand what's being said over the loudspeakers in stations and on trains, or from the passengers. The subway in LA has an intercom that drivers seem to place in their mouths as they speak. Not that I could understand what they say most of the time anyway-so many of them are foreigners. It's probably easier for me to understand clear Japanese spoken by native Japanese than it is for me to understand broken English coming over a scratchy loudspeaker. The signs and maps in Japan's train stations would be much, much better than their LA counterparts if they didn't use mostly Chinese characters.

Some things are the same everywhere in every country and culture. In LA, I had the extremely disgusting experience of occasionally living with roommates that couldn't manage to properly use the toilet. I still have terrifying flashbacks of Grandpa Andrade's use of the bathroom waste baskets. Don't they teach people how to properly use a toilet in Latin America? No, you don't wipe away your filthy, stinky, bacteria-infested excrement and then throw it in the waste basket; that's wrong!

The Japanese are a very polite, reserved people. They try to avoid conflict and confrontation, so roommates are slightly less annoying in Japan. But they aren't perfect.

My roommate Taro is a very friendly guy. He comes from Osaka where people are said to be very friendly and colorful. Taro likes to drink hard liquor. He often poisons the bathroom with his noxious body fluids. For hours, no one can enter without retching. Taro's breath after a night of drinking is a mixture of shit, paint thinner, formaldehyde, and rotting-corpse. It must be highly flammable. He's also a smoker, so I'm surprised that after one of his many long, all-night, liquor binges he hasn't lit up a cigarette only to have his head burst into a huge fireball; he's been very lucky! Taro's breath carries the stink of death, and it ravages my lungs, nose, and soul like toxic waste, but the worst is yet to come.

Next he heads to the adjacent basin sink-room. He grabs his face and bends over the sink hacking up and spitting out a green slime-like substance; it's like a cat spitting out a fur ball. It sounds like he's choking on a chicken bone, and it must look like a huge, slimy aborted alien fetus coming out of its alien womb, but I wouldn't know for sure because I'm too scared to look. I just mentally rope off the whole region with yellow caution tape and avoid the area until someone detoxifies it.

Back at the toilet things are pretty ugly even after drunken Taro staggers back to his bed. The death-stench abates slightly after a few short hours, but there's usually a little piss that didn't quite make it into the toilet bowl. A few drops, or maybe even a little puddle for us to enjoy. If I move too quickly to carefully mop it up in the middle of the night, he'll usually make more little yellow ponds before sunrise.

He pisses with the pinpoint accuracy of a guy trying to fill a glass with water from a fire hose.