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
LFRAgain
mayhem,
Uhhh... Yeah.
Posted in: Obama to send 1,200 National Guard troops to U.S.-Mexico border
0
LFRAgain
timorborder at 11:11 AM JST - 26th May,
That was a very nice post. Interesting thoughts.
Posted in: N Korea cuts ties with South; raises war rhetoric
0
LFRAgain
manfromamerica,
Who would support a law that at its foundation is just plain dumb? People are gradually wising up to how truly ineffective and pointless the Arizona law will ultimately be. It’s political grandstanding at best.
Besides, how can sending more bodies to watch the Mexican border be qualitatively any different than deputizing 20,000 local Arizona law enforcement officials to root out illegals?
And doesn’t stopping illegals before they get across the boarder seem strategically more sound than trying to find them after they’ve already gotten in and taken that uninvited bite out of your precious American Pie?
It seems you’re more inclined to oppose this, not because you actually disagree with it, despite a boost in border patrols having BROAD conservative support, but rather because Obama’s behind it. Which would make your position, well, petty.
Posted in: Obama to send 1,200 National Guard troops to U.S.-Mexico border
0
LFRAgain
That's probably the only objection I have to this bill. It doesn't do anything to address one of the major facets of the meltdown, namely the handing out of time-bomb housing loans to highly unqualified borrowers.
Posted in: Senate passes massive Wall Street regulation bill
0
LFRAgain
Molenir,
You mean like knowingly peddling mortgage-back securities to Wall Street banks in order to generate quick profits before high-risk borrowers could inevitably default?
True, the government dropped the ball in a big way in actually regulating the way it was supposed to be. But the blame doesn't fall solely on the shoulders of the government. Large banks across the country knew that they were dealing in highly risky debt packages, and were warned by people like Warren Buffet that it was a bad idea. But the tantalizing prospect of high returns inherent with high risk seemed to blind financial institutions to dangers that could bring down their own houses.
This is where greed comes into the picture. Despite all the warning signs that the U.S. economy was heading towards a brick wall, banks continued to trade debt as a commodity up until the bitter end.
I understand that you're a big supporter of laissez faire economics, and in principle, I am too. But I think this ongoing recession provides a fairly compelling argument that the financial industry isn't really capable of or willing to police itself. This is when we should start questioning the wisdom of "profit at any cost."
In the very same way that you can't trust the government to do the right thing in all cases, when I look at the wreckage of the U.S. economy over the past 3 years, I can't bring myself to trust the financial industry to do the right thing either.
Posted in: Senate passes massive Wall Street regulation bill
0
LFRAgain
manfromamerica,
No one with even an ounce of integrity would try to peddle this yarn you've spun. My memory isn't so poor as to forget that the economy was tanking long before Obama stepped into office and that financial institutions like AIG and Lehman Bros. were doing their part to usher along that collapse.
You might also be interested to know that economic change generally take months or even years to be seen, much less measured. It's that very fact that lends a degree of legitimacy to Conservative claims that the prosperity of the Clinton Years were the result of Reagan Era economic policies. You can't simply pick and choose which reality you choose to ackowledge depending on the direction of the wind.
Posted in: Senate passes massive Wall Street regulation bill
0
LFRAgain
manfromamerica,
The answer to what you think is a clever question is quite simple: Profit, in and of itself, is not bad.
How that profit is attainted is an entirely different story.
Profit solely for the sake of profit leads to precisely what happened when Wall Street decided to trade debt as a valuable commodity. The bottom fell out, people lost their homes, jobs, pensions, and unemployment still hovers at around 10%.
So you tell us, is this the good kind of profit?
Posted in: Senate passes massive Wall Street regulation bill
0
LFRAgain
Molenir,
Okay, so let's assume you're right and Big Banks were indeed behind this push to codify into federal law sweeping restrictions and regulations on lending, borrowing, and investing practices. So what? I'm waiting for you to explain how an industry that goes out of its way to tie one hand behind its own back is doing anything sinister.
So you've apparently got the answer to this little mystery, but have chosen to play coy, perhaps to allow time for nervous anticipation to crest before you declare, "The Colonel did it with the candle stick in the Library."
C'mon, out with it, man. Help save the Republic. Tell us all why Big Banks really support this bill and what do they really get out of it.
Posted in: Senate passes massive Wall Street regulation bill
0
LFRAgain
Molenir,
I've been muddling through what I like to call the Stop Being Such Greedy A-Holes Bill, trying to eke out the reasons you think this is some sort of plot to open the door for some new totalitarian overlord, and out of some 30 pages of definitions, I can't find one paragraph, sentence, or phrase that could be construed as opening up and an all business enterprises in the U.S. to government takeover. It goes to great lengths to spell out what comprises "over the counter swap markets" and "security-based swap markets," but nothing in the definitions describes any sort of business venture, activity, or investment practice that could be undertaken by the vast majority of U.S. businesses. It reigns in financial institutions -- as in “financial institutions. Period.” As opposed to “financial institutions. {wink! wink}” that you seem to think it means.
Companies like Wal-Mart, even with its financing options, and credit cards handed out like candy to unqualified consumers, probably aren't going to be touched by this bill. At least not the retailing aspect of Wal-Mart. However, if the money wizards at Wal-Mart decide to get into risky, speculative trading of virtual capital, then yeah, they fall under the purview of this bill. And rightly so, particularly if their gambles to put a few extra million dollars into the pockets of the top tier of the company with money that they shouldn’t be investing in the first place lead to the dissolution of a company that employs 2.1 million people and generates $408 billion per year.
Joe “Small Business Owner” Smith isn’t going to be packaging debt and trading it on the securities market anytime soon, so he can rest easy, I think.
Posted in: Senate passes massive Wall Street regulation bill
0
LFRAgain
MartinLee,
To manipulate who? And to what end?
Posted in: N Korea warns of war if it is punished for S Korean ship sinking
0
LFRAgain
quest,
That's highly unlikely. The two economies are so incredibly interdependent upon one another that a crippled South Korea would mean a crippled Japan as well.
Quite the contrary, I see this as an opportunity for Japan and South Korea to forge stronger ties, and it wouldn't be too hard -- "the enemy of my enemy..." and all that. Besides, realistically speaking, Japan and South Korea haven't had a reason to hate each other for over 65 years.
North Korea on the other hand has spent the better part of the past 50 years provoking its neighbors for no appreciable reason.
Posted in: N Korea warns of war if it is punished for S Korean ship sinking
0
LFRAgain
arrestpaul (and jruaustralia to some degree),
Sigh... I'll say it one more time, if for no other reason than a certain soft spot for harp seals unaware of their defenselessness.
I believe -- and always have -- that the law aims at rounding up illegals, but does very little to address the reason illegals continue to -- and will continue -- to cross the border, which, as jruaustralia also pointed out, is employers who continue to hire illegals knowing that punishment for doing so is relatively minor. Of course, he may renege on that statement. He's a bit squirrelly that way.
Yes, and the laws aren't much different that what was in place before. In other words, motivating businesses to stop hiring illegals wasn't a priority to Arizona lawmakers. Which makes this law a joke.
No, I'm suggesting that someone who doesn't understand something so intrinsically basic to the American political system as the difference between a bill and a law isn’t scarcely qualified to criticize anyone’s interpretation of the Constitution, much less lecture anyone on laws of any sort.
The -- how should I say this? -- blithering ignorance? that compels certain posters to think, “Bill? Law? Meh… It’s all the same thing,” is the same sort of ignorance that leads him to call the Patriot Act, one of the most sweeping pieces of federal law to have been enacted in 50 years, the COMPatriot Act. If it weren’t so gosh darn pathetically sad, I’d laugh.
It’s the same sort of ignorance that compels certain posters to claim this law is going to change everything, while simultaneously making the argument that employers will never face the full weight of the law because Arizonans unanimously agree that they’ve got to their part to help hold together the Mexican economy by making sure illegals have jobs here so they can send money back across the border.
It’s the same sort of ignorance that makes certain posters sign off on incoherent rants with phrases like, “HAHAHA!” and “LOL”, as if this were a debate via Twitter between lunch buddies in the high school cafeteria over the virtues of Playstation 3 versus the X-Box. Again, I’d laugh if it weren’t just so pathetic.
What I’m suggesting here, since I have to spell out everything for two posters in particular who seem to have less grasp of the English language than the illegals they claim to oppose, is that I don’t have time for you two anymore. You contradict yourselves constantly, barely have a grasp on the issues surrounding this law, and can’t even comprehend the written language we’re using, despite having had plenty of free time to search the Internet for definitions of literary terms like, “comparison,” “contrast,” “irony,” and, well, straightforward “statement of fact.”
While it’s been fun watching you boys channel Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb, I’m going to go find something better to do with my time, like watch paint dry. ‘Nite! :-D
Posted in: LA approves Arizona boycott over immigration law
0
LFRAgain
It's called the PATRIOT Act, not the Compatriot Act. Sheesh...
Nope. Never said any such thing. I said the law doesn't focus its attention where it needs to be focused, namely at businesses that hire illegals. I thought that was pretty clear.
Look, friend. You've got to give me some sort of heads up here before this continues. Does your mind make any connection at all between the words "reading" and "comprehension"? If not, just say so, and work really hard to use smaller words and shorter sentences for you. :-D
Posted in: LA approves Arizona boycott over immigration law
0
LFRAgain
jruaustralia,
The most noticeable difference between my having, yes, read the law (it's not a "bill" anymore, sparky), and you having supposedly read it is that you clearly don't seem to understand it. But again, you also place greater stock in being that wonderful smart-ass again than in actually putting any thought into your posts, so I'm not too surprised. Good luck with that. ;-D
Posted in: LA approves Arizona boycott over immigration law
0
LFRAgain
jruaustralia,
Thank you, sir. You're finally starting to get it.
Which would lead most reasonable people to conclude that the new law is pointless. It only increases the police's ability to send illegals back through questionable ID checks. But it does virtually nothing to stop them from coming in.
Posted in: LA approves Arizona boycott over immigration law
0
LFRAgain
sfjp330,
Whoaaaa . . . Wait a second here. On the one hand, you're saying Arizona wants to send a "firm" message to the federal government that it's not going to tolerate illegals in Arizona anymore, going to far as to create a law that gives police liberal excuses to check for proof citizenship of any and all people legally detained for whatever reason.
But on the other, you're saying that Arizona is so compassionately sensitive about the economic needs of communities south of the border that it doesn't want to stem the flow of U.S. funds to Mexico, for fear the sudden drop will destabilize the Mexican economy?
Wow. And I really mean that. Wow. That was a truly acrobatic contrivance of a handful of barely related points to explain why Arizona won’t get tough on the employers who continue to employ illegals at no personal risk to themselves. After dozens of posts in which you attempt to hammer into the rest of us how great this law is, how serious it is, and how so much better than the federal approach it is, in the space of one paragraph, you’ve announced loud and clear that Arizona doesn’t really want a definitive end to the problem of illegal aliens.
Posted in: LA approves Arizona boycott over immigration law
0
LFRAgain
jruaustralia,
That was a semi-passable effort at misdirection, but no, the president of Mexico has nothing to do with this.
Posted in: LA approves Arizona boycott over immigration law
0
LFRAgain
techall,
Meanwhile, I guess for some people, principles seem to hold greater sway over their decisions than the Almighty Dollar.
BTW, it might be better to aim first before you fire, but that's just me . . . ;-)
Posted in: LA approves Arizona boycott over immigration law
0
LFRAgain
This isn't really an issue of what the guy's motivations were, what his gender was, or what country he hails from. Spewing a very public tirade of profanities, capped off with a one-fingered salute to your spouse -- with an infant child in tow -- is about as "Jerry Springer" trashy as one can get without wearing the obligatory "wife-beater" tank top and following up the floor show with a demonstration of how quickly he can shotgun a six-pack of lukewarm Schlitz Malt Liquor.
Paradoxically, what we see playing out these days on Reality TV isn’t all that entertaining in real life. It would seem that 10 years of watching people act like obnoxious jackasses on television still hasn’t magically made crude behavior cool or acceptable, and thankfully hasn’t convinced the vast majority of society that life would better if we could only cast off the oppressive yoke of -- gasp! -- civilized behavior. Being able to regulate when, where, and how we throw our little tantrums is one of the benchmarks of adulthood.
This anonymous Angry Western Guy is a jackass of the highest order and deserves to be publicly ridiculed for it. If only there were a name to go with the crude behavior . . .
Posted in: Dear Angry Western Guy
0
LFRAgain
arrestpaul,
Could you please refrain from discussing this like a petulant child?
I realize you’re still working through issues of having to grow up in the Age of "If you aren't with us, then you're with the *[insert enemy's name here]," but even you must be mature enough to recognize that life isn't really that black or white.
Believe it or not, one can actually oppose illegal immigration, and still be against this asinine law. Hard to fathom, I know. But gosh darn it, it's true. ;-)
Posted in: LA approves Arizona boycott over immigration law