JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
0
Alphaape
yabits, good points on the canal zone and the United Fruit Company (you may as well include the Dole family in Hawaii, they led the push for annexation of the islands), but by and large you would agree that post WW2 colonialism has not been so much about land grabs but economic grabs. Yes, US compaines have been leading the way in pressing for US govt to act in certain ways with foreign govts, just look at the Middle East. But, I think it is fair to say that Japan has done so too. Japan has been able to use her industrial capacity to make cars and put them onto the international market. Back in the 80's before the rise of silicon valley in the US, I believe Japan had the world market on chip production. They were able to concentrate their efforts in industry and other areas, with not having to really worry about defense since they fell under the US umbrella. If the US expanded in one area, and Japan was an ally and "favored nation status" with the US it could be assumed that they would reap benefits, without having to do the "dirty work."
I would just wish, that JT would be a bit more fair & balanced. She, using her title grants an aura of legitimacy to those of her thinking to others who may not be as well informed.
Posted in: From war to peace - Japanese style
0
Alphaape
i have seen her on various TV programs, and while I respect her service, I have to disagree. She, being a retired Col. and with a little bit of understanding how US military and policy work, should know that the US does not go to war to gain possessions. Yes, we did in the past, mainly against the native Indians in the west, but even with the Spanish American War and the resultant gainging of Guam and the PI (after a bloody war that cost more lives than the Spanish American War, similar to events in today's world) the US was not about establishing a land grab. We did see benefits of coaling stations and rights of passage in places like the PI, but an effort to just expand our territory and make an empire has not been the US policy. Even after WW2, we had military presence in many places but that was just that, a military presence to thrawt potential enemies, not as an expansion of the Amerian Empire.
Japan has benfitted from the US presence here, letting China and Russia know that an eastward expansion was not a good idea, and they have had the ability to increas their infrastructure and domestic spending on other things, and not have to sink massive amounts into military hardware as the US has. But I do think that this "we can all resolve our differences through peace" is not an ideal situation. If I remember correctly, Japan walked out of the League of Nations when they felt that they were being hampered because of their ability to modernize thier navy at the time and the Washington Naval Treaty limited them. Nations will have differnces, we as humans can't all get along on personal levels ourselves. I am not advocating going out and killing when you have a dispute, but we should at least realize that we have a right to prepare to defend yourself.
Posted in: From war to peace - Japanese style
0
Alphaape
Death Row for 13 years. It is time for him to make room for the next dirtbag.
Good riddance.
Posted in: U.S. parole board denies clemency for man condemned to die for killing Japanese student
0
Alphaape
I thought that any "club" or cafe is basically a blind date place. You pay to go in (in the case of a club) and you try to "get lucky" if you can.
Shouldn't the girls be hit with truancy (if the raids occured during school hours).
Posted in: Police raid 'blind-date cafe' in Tokyo, taking 31 high school, college girls into custody
0
Alphaape
Arkansas exports more rice to Japan than you think: "The Arkansas rice industry has benefited from efforts of USA Rice trade association’s efforts to expand the Japanese rice shop network selling U.S. rice year-round from 44 members in the Tokyo area to 105 members across Japan. U.S. rice is now penetrating Japanese supermarkets. USA Rice's sponsored delegation of Hong Kong importers/wholesalers last year has already resulted in trial purchases of U.S. rice, and more sales are expected."
So what we are probably seeing is the move for more protecionism for the rice growers here. Funny, how Japan seems to want to curb imports, but when the US tried to do so with the automobiles (which Japan makes some damn fine cars) the Japanese were smart enough to invest in plants in America. Maybe that is what some of the rice growers need to do. If they are so much in demand of protecting their profits (not really caring about the local growers) why don't they just invest in American farms. That way, they can play both ends of the spectrum.
Posted in: To protect Japanese farmers, the government promised that imported rice will not go into Japanese direct consumption. Foreign rice, including California rice, will be used for secondary purposes like prepared food.
0
Alphaape
If anything, this should motivate the politicians to increase defense spending and present it to the J-public as a matter of increasing their capabilities while at the same time asking the US to minimize our presence here. I know there are differnces between nations and cultures, but if US politicians can take acts of terror and form them into a cottage industry of anti-terrorism and force protection matters, I sure politicans here can do the same.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the US has created a blind hysteia when there really isn't one, because there is a threat out there, but they do have a tendency to take things a bit too far.
J-gov should view this as an opportunity to start increasing or updating their position militarily in the region, and start making decisions on their own.
Posted in: Japan unlikely to follow U.S. on defense
0
Alphaape
ampontan, It is not just America's fault. China has a lot to do with it. What is really happening is the shifting of farming and agriculture to places like China, where big agri-business think that they can grow and process food cheaply than in native places like Japan. But, one thing people are forgetting, unless we can develop a transporter system like on Star Trek, no matter how much you grow and process in a cheap place like China, you still have to ship it globally. There in lies the cost increase. Shipping companines are charging higher rates due to increased fuel costs, they are into making a profit so they pass it along to their customer, food wholesellers, who also are out to make a profit, so they pass their costs on to their customers, grocery retailers, and on and on.
So yes, food is produced cheaply, but everyone along the supply chain is out to make a profit and with the rising cost of shipping, you will have these prices rise.
Yes, we also need to be better stewards of the environment. Do we really need another development of luxury homes and malls where farmland once stood? Probably not. I think that in places like Japan (and America too) if you want to make better use of the land, just re-develop the over crowded cities better with better housing, and not try to expand so much into the countryside.
Posted in: What is causing the global food price spike and what should be done about it?
0
Alphaape
badsey, If a service member dies on active duty, there are a plethera of finamcial aid opportunites for the surviving children. Not to at least metnion, the child will get social security payments (normally about $900/per child, it may be more depending on how much the parent was making) up until age 23 if they are still in school. I know that may not seem like much, but once, when I was a poor college student working in a grocery store at $4.00/hour, if someone were going to give me an additional $900/month I would have gladly taken it.
Badsey, As far as 3 years, after one gets into the military and finishes basic training and any basic school of specialty instrcution, a year has almost passed. To send them out with only such a short time remaining would not really be cost effective, nor would it give units a time to be battle ready. When as soon as someone gets there, they are on the countdown clock to get out. Letting them stay at least 4 or 5 years will give units a chance to buil cohesion and better train.
For the comments you make on the war should not go on forever, I agree, but has nothing to do with the GI Bill. Two totally different matters. Yes they want to offer incentives to the military for the sacrifices that have been made for the war, but these changes have been on the burner for years. The GI BIll changes every so often, and many poliiticans are using the war as a rallying point to try to force changes.
Posted in: Obama criticizes McCain on veterans benefits
0
Alphaape
As I said in an earlier related post, Obama has no idea what he is talking about. If he wants to be President, he should get a full understandin of the issues before making his statements. We Americans are dumb, but not that dumb.
The GI Bill modifications that passed will help towards paying for in-state tuition at state colleges. I am for that, but the service member only has to do a 3 years and he is eligible for it. So there is no incentive to stay after he is in and we will be faced with a low rentenion rate as more people opt out.
The McCain plan would not offer as much money as the one Obama favors, and the service member would have had to serve at least 6 years (normally a second term), but the real key to his was that the benefits would be transferable to a spouse or child. So the longer they stayed in, the more that can be transferred. I would greatly prefer to give the benefit to my wife and kids than myself. You can get college credits from the work, but the ability to pass them on to family is a much better deal.
but, Obama is just pandering to the press and trying to make it seem like he is for the vets, and McCain isn't.
Posted in: Obama criticizes McCain on veterans benefits
0
Alphaape
Reace still is an issue in America, about the same as it is here in Nippon or any other part of the world. In Japan, their is a perception against gaijin because we are not seen as "uniquely Japanese." Well in America, it is not see as being "uniquely American" but along the color lines more or less.
If you look at housing statistics, you will see that keeping into consideration like income, blacks tend to live among their own and whites tend to live among their own. I am sure many can cite different situations but statistically, that is the case. Not that they are inherently racist, but people tend to live among people that they can easily relate too. Not to sit here and preach some "pax africana" or thta all blacks (and whites) get along together, no people are different. But it seems that no matter what the difference, when you at least walk out the door, you feel a bit more comfortable when you see the person coming out the door next to you at least looks like you in skin tone. I think that would even apply to Japan.
What is probably the cause of so much consternation in this election, is that with Obama and Hillary, people are afraid to see that this situation has come to light. The candidacies of Jackson and Sharpton do not count, since they were flukes, but Obama is a viable candidate at least on paper. His nomination will cause the whole opinion of race to come up, and Americans will have to honestly look at themselves. I don't think it is just a Democratic party issue. I like Gen. Colin Powell. Even though many wanted him to run on the Republican ticket back in 1996, I think these same issues of race would have come up. Just look at this election, Mitt Romney probably would have been a better candidate as far as strict conservative views, and wall street connections, but a lot of far right Republicans could not accept that he was a Mormon, and not an evangelical or even catholic. Even if McCain picked someone like Joe Liberman, a Jew, that would still cause some concerns to people.
I for one don't think Hillary should withdraw. Obama doesn't have the right amount of delegates, and there still is an issue with Florida and Michigan votes counting. But to just quit before the game is over I think sends a bad message. So the voters in South Dakota, and the other last stated don't count is what it says. At least Huckabee, even though he was loosing badly, still stayed in until McCain had secured the amount of pledge delegates needed. Play the game until the game is over, don't just walk off the field when you are loosing.
Posted in: Clinton apologizes for Robert Kennedy assassination remarks
0
Alphaape
1proudamerican, I have been in the military for 20 years. The drawdown that started under Bush 41, was due to the fact that the USSR fell and there was a "peace dividend" at hand. Then the 1st Iraq war, and there was a slight buildup. Aftwards, many of the older platforms were replaced with more expensive systems that had been proven in the Gulf War.
When Clinton came in, with his Sec Def Les Aspin, that is when the real drawdown began. I know many persons who took the VBI (Voluntary Buyout Incentive) and ran from the military as fast as they could. Well into Clinton's second term did this continue, and do you remember all the confusion of the base closures. I seem to remember Subic closed in '92 or '93. True, Bush 43 did try to make cuts, and contract many of the service out, but the whole process started back in earnest with Clinton.
As far as this GI Bill goes, they are only presenting one side of the story. Ok McCain did not vote for the bill, but they should at least explain why. As I pointed out, he wanted different provision as did the White House, and not because he has a "screw the vets" mentality.
Posted in: Senate deals Bush a defeat on Iraq war spending
0
Alphaape
Athletes, thanks for the background on the Burma situation. But, it is like I said, the opposition has been fighting there for a long time, and good for them. But now, the junta will get money and supplies, and with their policy of rewarding those who favor them, I guess more of the same will continue.
If the UN had any backbone, instead of going there to make the general agree to have money sent to them so that they can stuff their pockets, they should have told them, we will deal with whoever is left standing once the junta gets tossed out. I fear that the junta saw this as a way to get more money for them, to continue their suffering on the people of Burma.
Posted in: U.N. chief says Myanmar agrees to allow all aid workers into country
0
Alphaape
Researching further and looking at this weeks issue of Navy times, here is what the crux of the McCain vote no and the Bush veto:
"The main Pentagon objection, and there are several, is that the benefits package does not include an administration proposal that would blunt the draw of leaving the service to use GI Bill benefits by giving those who stay for six years or longer the option of transferring benefits to a spouse or children."
In other words, yes the bill will give vets more money and that is good, but the Pentagon wanted to make sure that it would not result in a force drain of people opting out to use it. They along with the White House wanted to add a provision that would allow those who stay longer than the initial tour, to transfer the benefits to a spouse or child. Now that would really be an incentive! Since so many here like to say that the military draws from the lowest segment of American society, can you imagine now of one of us "deck apes" had the GI bill, but since we were too dumb to go to college and ended up in the military, and now have a family that may add positively to the gene pool, how about sending them to school instead of me. I would be all for that. Spouses don't get many of the benefits and some have made sacrifices, so letting them go to school on me if they wanted to use my benefit would be fine by me. If I had two kids and they wanted to go to college, now instead of worrying about two tuitions, I would have one paid for from my benefits, and just deal with the other the best I could. That is far better than trying to pay for both.
As I said before, there is normally a lot to the story that gets reported. True the McCain proposal would have been less money, but I think the draw to that would be to let the family members get it. That in itself is tremendous. Let's face it, in most of the military specialties, especially the techincal ones, the amount of job training that you get will get you pretty close to most certifications needs in the civilian world. True you will have to pay for some out of your own pocket, but it can be done.
One thing people here may not know, that while you are on active duty, you also get TA (Tuition Assistance) that will pay for your class while you go to school. This is not part of the GI Bill benefit at all. You get a max of $7500 per fiscal year (for the Navy) and that does help you knock class costs down. True, you owe the Navy an extra year obligation if you accept, and if you flunk a class (which I did) you have to pay it back, but it is there.
So with a benefit like that, any military member could get their education if they really wanted. The GI Bill is there to help out and assist, not be a free education. I would have gladly accepted reduced tuition coverage, if I had the option of giving it to my spouse so she can finish her education with minimal impact on us financially or to my kids. Trust me, from once being a poor college student, if someone was able to give me the 1,100 a month (what the GI Bill pays to full time students) I would have been in "Seventh Heaven."
Posted in: Senate deals Bush a defeat on Iraq war spending
0
Alphaape
I am glad that help will be allowed to enter into the country. But, it disturbs me that once again, the international community has catered to a rouge regime and legitimized it. Now the junta leader, can say to his people (since he controls the media) that because of his grace and benevolence, he has negotiated help for the people, when it was there all along and everyone wanted to give, regardless of how the country was run.
One day, I hope a leader will say, I'm sorry, but if you don't want our help, then do it yourself. I know that sounds pessimistic, and innocent lives will be lost, but once the eventual war between this regime and the UN "police action" as in Korea, or either Thai or heaven forbid US/ASEAN intervention or its own internal civil war, many more "innocent victims" will die fighting for their freedom from this tyrant. It will happen sooner or later, I just hope that it does not come to that.
Posted in: U.N. chief says Myanmar agrees to allow all aid workers into country
0
Alphaape
adaydream, I am not all in favor of the actions that McCain did on the bill, what I am against is how it is being spun in the news. At least with him, I know where I stand as far as what he thinks education benefits should be. With others like Obama and Clinton, they are just voting to get "on the bandwagon" to support the troops. If Obama is for the troops, then how about standing up and saying the war was wrong, but we are going to get tough and try to work it out rather than saying if I am elected, I will pull you guys out. I am sure my friends there want to go home, but I don't need a leader who's first job is to cut and run.
What I think needs to be done, is a total revamp of the VA system. Like many have stated about vets trying to get benefits but getting screwed, yes it happens. Due to archane rules and regulations the bueracracy that is the VA is slow moving. Just look at how the wounded vets coming back were initially treated.
A good book to read on the subject of the GI Bill is called "Over Here: How the GI Bill Transformed the American Dream" and it goes into detail of how this great program started and some of the rocky patches. For instance back when my uncles tried to us it, a lot of the state schools in the south would not let them in because of the color of their skin, or adminstrators of the program only pushed for them to go to vocational schools and not regular university. However, through changes in the program, it has gotten better. And I think, that is what needs to be done. Yes add money, but let's make sure we are adding it in the right direction, and just not giving away more "stimulus checks" to our vets. I think we deserve it, and I plan on using the remaining portion of my allowances, but I just want to make sure it is done fairly.
Posted in: Senate deals Bush a defeat on Iraq war spending
0
Alphaape
McCain was not for the revised GI Bill as it stood in the current bill. He is not for giving further increases, but just not the method that was approved in this bill. His beliefe along with "W" was that that a more generous and expansive GI Bill would create an incentive for troops to get out of the military and go to college.
I am all for changes in the GI Bill, since I still have some education benefits left. But I want them to be well thought out. Just throwing out a larger increase in cash is good, but how will it be done? Now, I can go to school online and get the full tuition covered for the class. With this new measure, it will pay the full in-state tuition. So does that mean that I have to be a full time, physically located student? That means that I would have to quit work, and I would loose more money by doing that than the present method.
Like many of the bills and laws that get passed, some are not well thought out. I forsee many people leaving the military after their first term to get the college benefits.
Posted in: Senate deals Bush a defeat on Iraq war spending
0
Alphaape
For those who are bashing Bush's veto on this bill a few things to consider:
The GI Bill changes that were in this bill now give a vet up to the cost of full tuition for an in-state college tuition. The reason many did not want this, was because if you give these benefits only after you depart the service, then more people will opt to get out after their initial obligation. The other proposal to the GI Bill would have increased the benefits for vets, but not covered as much as the one approved. I have received GI Bill benefits for my education, and it is a good deal. I agree the progam should be re-worked, but not to this extreme.
Like other have said, this spending bill had more pork in it than any piece of spending legislation passed by the Diet here. It is not right to tack on other bills to defense matters, and for once "W" was trying to do the right thing and not approve this, but alas he is blasted for doing so. I believe that the bill also had a farm measure in it to give farmers greater leeway to let more "illegals" work under the guise of seasonal workers.
So, before you go and bash "W" on his non- support of the troops, please reseach. The Dems were not too good to the military. It is because of Bill Clinton, the military has been reduced to the size it is now, relying on contractors to do much of the work that military members used to do.
Posted in: Senate deals Bush a defeat on Iraq war spending
0
Alphaape
skip, that is correct. There was a recent story of how one of the superdelegates told the press that he would sell his vote for $20 million dollars that should go to an organization that helps reister Mexican-American voters in California, New Mexico, Florida, and Colorado ( http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/08/california-superdelegate-wants-20-million-for-his-support/)
So you see the Dems have built a system that is convoluted and easy to corrupt, and by their own incompetence will blow this election, and will get on the band wagon of bashing the Republicans for cheating and not playing fairly.
I think this summer will be a good one for politics.
Posted in: Clinton says she's not ready to concede
0
Alphaape
skip, here is how the process worked in Texas for their primary: "The Texas Democratic Party uses a combination of two processes to select delegates and determine how they will be allocated to each presidential candidate. First, the Party uses the results of the primary process to determine how 126 of its 193 pledged delegates will be allocated to each candidate. Second, the Party uses the caucus process to select its delegates and also to determine how many of the remaining 67 pledged delegates will be allocated to each candidate. Many states require that candidates receive at least 15% of the total votes to receive delegates. The Texas Democratic Party only applies this requirement to the primary process and the final step of the caucus process since those are the only two occasions in which the Party allocates delegates to candidates." For more info look here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TexasDemocraticprimaryandcaucuses,_2008)
Needles to say, that is pretty confusing. Whereas with the Republicans, in most of the states, if you get 51% of the vote, you win all the delegates. Some states do divide the delegates in proportion to your standing in the election results, but nothing like the Democrats have.
Also, it was the Democratic party both on the national level and state level that caused this mess with the FL and MI votes. They wanted those states to all vote in a block, and penalized them for moving up their primaries, and both campaigns and states agreed that their delegates would not be seated. They were all in the rush to be at the head of the line as far as news coverage. But now, look where it has landed them. All parties are at fault to me. If Obama is going to get the go ahead by superdelegates, then they should go ahead and seat the delegates from FL and MI. At least it will make it look like it was a fair race.
And, the Republicans don't have "superdelegates" which if you look closely are nothing but "political hacks" that can be bought off to insure the position to the highest bidder, and they don't have to go the way their state voted.
Posted in: Clinton says she's not ready to concede
0
Alphaape
Whatever the outcome, with Hillary now saying that she will continue on until the Democratic convention to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, it will be a pretty interestin summer. The only thing I can say is that the Dems have come up with all of these plans to count votes instead of the Republican way of the person with the most votes wins and gets the delegates rather than the formula that the Dems have used, have screwed themselves. With Bush with the lowest approval ratings ever, and a Democratic controlled House and Senate, it should have been a shoo-in for the Dems. But their petty infighting and trying to change the rules to fit everyone has cost them. That is what I see in Obama, he tries to be everything for everybody, and it will cost him the nomination by not being able to stand on an issue. Yes McCain panders too as does Hillary, but I think Obama leads the pack on that.
Posted in: Clinton says she's not ready to concede