JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- Assistant Language Teacher (ALT) in Kanto region
- RCS (RCSコーポレーション), Kanto
- Salary: ¥180,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month includes performance bonus
-
- Assistant Language Teacher - TOKYO - late-March start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥230,000 ~ ¥255,000 / Month
-
- Assistant Language Teacher - Kanagawa Prefecture - late-March start
- Interac, Kanagawa
- Salary: ¥230,000 ~ ¥255,000 / Month
4
Moondog
Yo, LoudLight. That's not the real point.
Saying it would save the life of smokers didn't work so we turned it around and said it's about saving our lives. But all that is just window-dressing that's thrown out to bolster the case for getting the rude jerks, er, I mean drug addicts, to stop blowing their stinky effluent on those of us who are not drug addicts.
Smokers are, like all unreformed drug addicts, in denial. Frankly, we don't really mind if they die from cancer. We just want to be able to smell the roses and taste our dinner.
Posted in: Gov't figures show lowest ever percentage of smokers
2
Moondog
tmarie wrote:
I'm sure you're right. If you ask restaurant owners why they allow smoking, they'll usually say they fear losing customers if they prohibit it.
That's not what will happen, however. Two stories:
First story:
Twenty years or so ago some "crank" sued JR for not providing no-smoking cars on the Shinkansen. Rather than go to court, they agreed to designate one car on each train for no-smoking.
To their surprise, they discovered the no-smoking car would be jammed with people standing in the aisles while the rest of the cars had plenty of empty seats. When they first saw this, they naturally pointed out to the standing passengers (as a courtesy!) that seats were available in the next car.
The response from the passengers surprised them, however. Instead of thanking the staff and moving to the next car, the passengers complained that there were not enough no-smoking seats and continued standing. So (scratching their befuddled heads, no doubt), JR's managers increased ... and increased ... the number of no-smoking cars until until they found the right balance, that is, until almost all were no-smoking.
Second story:
About ten years ago, my wife and I were in the habit of going out to a movie two or three times a month and usually had dinner beforehand at an Indian restaurant nearby the theater. Of course, as with many Indian restaurants, they allowed smoking in the entire restaurant.
Every time we went there, like a stuck record, we asked them for a seat in a non-smoking area ("Sorry, we don't have one.") or in a corner where there are no smokers ("Uh, okay, we'll try ... but ... it may be difficult"). By and by, being regular customers, we came to know the owner/manager and pressed him continually to convert his smaller side-dining room into a no-smoking section.
He admitted that other customers also sometimes asked for non-smoking seats but resisted and resisted saying "most want to smoke." Finally, when I told him about JR's experience and pointed out that since the place was rarely more than half full he could test it without fear of turning anyone away, he agreed to give it a try. I told him to be sure to put a "No smoking section available" sign outside the door.
The next time we went there, he came rushing over and thanked us profusely for making him do that. He said his business had increased dramatically when he put the sign out. The biggest problem, he said was that for the first week he had people standing in line to sit in the non-smoking section while the larger smoking section remained half empty. He had been forced to reverse the sections making the small room for smoking and the main room no smoking.
Posted in: Gov't figures show lowest ever percentage of smokers
3
Moondog
This is great news. Japan has far too many people now.
Japan is roughly the size of the U.S. state of Montana but has half the population of the entire U.S. Moreover, most of Japan is unbuildable so imagine half of all the people in the U.S. living around the edge of Montana with the interior of the state, say 80%, empty. Hard to imagine, isn't it!
Posted in: Japan's population to shrink two thirds by 2110
0
Moondog
愚かさ would have been my choice. Ineptitude.
Posted in: 'Kizuna' chosen as kanji character of 2011
0
Moondog
I wrote:
arrestpaul replied:
Yes, pre-emptive. A reasonable use of pepper spray is to quell or disperse violent rioters, not people sitting on the ground. Like I said before, the police were likely just taking the opportunity to play with a 'toy' they cannot often use.
The entire event was an example of unreasonable police response. The police didn't need helmets, rifles and pepper spray (which, in the event, exposed them as jack-booted thugs). Three or four officers in regular uniform armed with ball point pens and ticket pads would have been sufficient. Give tickets to the people blocking the sidewalk* and then go back to the police station.
*If tickets for this inanely mild violation of the public order were really necessary.
Posted in: Calif college suspends police chief in pepper spray row
0
Moondog
Star-viking wrote:
You must be a lawyer! LOL. I'm sure the TEPCO lawyers will be making similar defenses.
If you say the last time a "sizable" tsunami hit "that part of the Fukushima coast"was in 869 A.D., I'm willing to believe you. But the problem with that 'fact' is that it's like telling a golfer that although lightening often hits trees on the course it's okay to stand under a particular tree during an electrical storm because lightening has never hit that tree.
In fact, tsunami hit up and down the Sanriku Coast on average every 40 years. That's why it's also know as "The Tsunami Coast." This is documented in numerous news reports and academic papers going back over a hundred years. Google it!
Tsunami hit the Sanriku coast in 1896, 1933, 1960 and now 2011. The 1960 tsunami was caused by a 9.5M earthquake in Chile and was just a decade before Fukushima was built. It was estimated at 23.6 meters while the '33 quake was about 30 meters. The tsunami in 1896 was about 25 meters.
That none of these happened to hit the "area" of the Fukushima plant means nothing. They hit nearby and the tsunami you mention in 869 indicates that Fukushima is, historically, also at risk.
The plant, which was built in the early 70's had an estimated use period of about 50 years so it could be reasonably expected that a tsunami in the range of 25 to 30 meters might hit it at least once during that period. And one did.
The plant is on a 13 meter rise above the sea and had a 5.7 meter wall so it's clear they prepared for less that could be expected, about 18 meters. Now, a tsunami of at least 30 meters could be reasonably expected so reason should have told them to prepare for 30 or even 40 meters to be on the safe side.
They put saving money ahead of safety and that's why they should go to prison.
Posted in: Gov't panel to investigate cause of Fukushima crisis launched
1
Moondog
The "cause" is already known. The plant was built to withstand an 11 meter tsunami in an area that is well-known to be hit by 25+ meter tsunami on average once every 40 years (which is also the expected life-span of the plant, by the way).
What needs to determined is "why" (hint: it rhymes with "honey") and "who." (Hmm. What rhymes with "amakudari?") When they determine the latter, those persons should be handed lengthy prison terms of, say, 30 years or more.
Posted in: Gov't panel to investigate cause of Fukushima crisis launched
1
Moondog
Silly poll. The correct way to do this is to simply have a single blank field to fill in the name of your favorite.
But if you have to have a list, there is no way it should list fewer than a hundred bands and then it still needs a blank at the end for bands that are not listed. To just list five bands with no space for write-in ... is moronic.
Oh, and while The Grateful Dead is my favorite band I would have to say that The Rolling Stones have to be considered The Greatest Rock Band. No one has done rock & roll better and/or longer than they have.
Posted in: Who gets your vote for the greatest rock band of all time?
0
Moondog
TigermothII wrote:
My job is frustrating, too, but that doesn't give me the right to pepper-spray my customers.
Well, IF, repeat, IF, then they should use reasonable force. But in this case the use of force was pre-emptive and in unreasonable measure.
See the difference??
Posted in: Calif college suspends police chief in pepper spray row
0
Moondog
I think a case can be made that the university has authority to order tents removed but there is more to it than just having that authority. University rules should be enforced uniformly and that does not appear to be the case.
Every fall at UCD, numerous students camp out on the campus in violation of the rules to protect a statue of the school mascot (from vandals from another school) but the university never destroys the camp or pepper-sprays the students. Why not? Rules are rules, right?
The answer is simple. The students protecting the statue are not making a political statement. The Occupy students are making a political statement (protected free speech, by the way) so they are attacked.
See the difference? Breaking the no-camping rule is okay unless you are political. If you are political, you will be attacked with "breaking the rules" as an excuse. They need that excuse to avoid, you know, looking like they are denying free speech which, in fact, is exactly what they are doing.
Posted in: Calif college suspends police chief in pepper spray row
0
Moondog
Numerous posters have defended this pepper-spraying as reasonable in view of the fact that the protesters were blocking the sidewalk, were ordered to move and didn't.
At issue is whether the police response was in reasonable proportion to the problem. Clearly it wasn't. The police were not under any threat whatsoever and did not need to use pepper spray to arrest the protesters. All they had to do was cuff them and move them out. Likely they just saw it as a chance to use one of their toys that usually stays in their toybox.
In the meantime, the police doing a much better job of blocking the walkway than were the students.
Posted in: Calif college suspends police chief in pepper spray row
0
Moondog
I'm curious to know why the house is unoccupied. The occupants died of cancer, perhaps?
Posted in: Radiation likely came from radium in bottles beneath floor of empty house
0
Moondog
Tamarama wrote:
I haven't gone down a rabbit hole. I just think it's fishy that there's no video and I'm asking why.
There's all kinds of info 'out there' that may or may not be true or may have a reasonable explanation. Just one example: Much has been made of reports by firefighters and others of explosions in the basement areas well before the buildings came down. If a fireman says there was an explosion, I believe him.
That doesn't mean I believe Geo. Bush's brother Marvin who ("they" say) was a part owner of the company that provided security for the buildings arranged to have bombs put there. There are plenty of other plausible explanations (e.g., the planes broke gas lines that caused gas from broken pipes to flow down pipe wells to the basement where it was ignited by a pilot light).
Almost everything about the conspiracy theories can be expalined-away or is simply unknowable. Just this one thing bothers me. There is no way to explain-away the lack of video of a plane hitting the Pentagon. It simply doesn't make sense.
And I don't think asking "why" constitutes going down a rabbit hole. The alternative to asking the question (if you care what happened that day) is to cover your eyes and yell "la-la-la-la-la" as loud as you can.
So, you don't have to go down the rabbit hole. Just remember the (round) hole in the Pentagon wall and if, someday, new irrefutable information causes you have a "Zapruder" moment, try not to let your head snap back in surprise.
Posted in: Ten years on, do you believe al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11?
1
Moondog
Tamarama wrote:
Yup, lunatics. And that's exactly what people said about the 'conspiracy nuts' who claimed there was a shooter behind the fence at the top of the grassy knoll in Dallas. Smoke, people looking and pointing at the knoll, strange man with umbrella, magic bullet, phony photo of Oswald with a rifle ... whatever, it was just too crazy to believe ... until we saw JFK's head snap back. Then, suddenly, it didn't all seem so crazy. We still don't know what happened that day in Dallas but we do know it wasn't what the Warren Commission said it was. We know that for sure.
And, I'm afraid, the 9/11 report is suspect as long as evidence is being suppressed. Missiles, pre-positioned detonation charges in three buildings, undamaged passport of hijacker (let's call it the "magic passport" after the pristine undamaged "magic bullet" that made four wounds in JFK and Connally) ... yes it's crazy. People who believe that must be nuts ... just like the crazy people who said Oswald didn't act alone.
Posted in: Ten years on, do you believe al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11?
0
Moondog
Tamarama wrote:
pawatan replied:
Sure, it sounds crazy but it's just speculation. But where does such an idea come from?
First, the government says "a plane hit the Pentagon" but suppresses the video.* Then, later, they release a really bad video that shows something hitting the Pentagon.
If shown the video and asked, "Does it look like a plane?" most people will answer "Maybe." If asked, however, "Does it look more like a plane ... or a missile?" those who know the difference between jet contrails and rocket exhaust would have to say "Well, it looks more like a missile than a plane due to the exhaust plume." But, really, no one can say. Maybe it was a white Peterbilt 18-wheel truck kicking up dust! (I'm not suggesting that it was ... I'm just saying ...)
Then you look at the hole in the building before the wall collapsed (round) and wonder why the wings didn't leave any mark on the walls or maybe fall off outside. Then you look at the holes on the twin towers (very wide oblong) and think ... what? I mean, really, what do you think? Isn't that round hole just a bit odd?
Can you see where this is going? Can you think of anything that flies, is round and doesn't have wide wings? Ever see a photo of a Tomahawk cruise missile? If one flew right in front of you (speed 550 mph) while you were driving down the highway could you say for sure just what it was? Would you think, "Wow, a cruise missile just flew in front of me going really fast!?" Or would you be more likely to think "Wow, a plane just flew in front of me going really fast!" (Keep in mind here that a cruise missile flies more like a plane than a traditional rocket.)
And, later, when you, the witness, heard on the news that American 77 flew into the Pentagon, what would you likely think you had seen? Would you be saying, "It looked more like a Tomahawk, to me?" (keeping in mind that most people haven't a clue what a cruise missile looks like). Or, would you be saying. "I saw that plane hit the Pentagon. It flew right in front of me!!"
Of course, you can say that a Tomahawk doesn't much look like a 757 and it's true. On the other hand, it isn't wildly different, either.
So, you can say it's nonsense, but there is a reason people are thinking along those lines. Myself, I don't know. Many things are possible. I'd just like to see the video and as long as it's being suppressed, I'm not accepting the official version.
Posted in: Ten years on, do you believe al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11?
0
Moondog
You can believe the official version if you wish but, myself, I'm way beyond that. I lost my naivete in 1975 when I saw JFK's head snap back in the Zapruder film which had been suppressed for 12 years. Before that, only stills had been shown in Life magazine and the Warren Commission Report. The most notable thing about the stills was what they didn't show--his head snapping back. That film put the lie to the Warren Commission. Forget about the magic bullet and the umbrella man and 10,000 other "fishy" things. That film is proof that there was a coverup and that the real killers are still (even today) on the loose.
And that is precisely why there is no good reason to believe the official version of 9/11 just because it's the official version.
So, sure, you can say I'm obsessed, if you want, but not for no reason. It annoys me when my government lies to allow murderers who attack this country (in the person of the president) to go free and I want to be sure they're not doing it again. I'm not optimistic that the tapes still exist, however. What are the odds they'd make that mistake again?
Posted in: Ten years on, do you believe al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11?
0
Moondog
@Tamarama wrote:
No, I'm not offering it as proof. If anything, it's a lack of proof. I'm simply asking for evidence that is apparently being suppressed.
I believe anything is possible. Having first-hand knowledge of the depth of incompetence that government workers are capable of I would have to say, yes, it's possible that it never occurred to anyone to put cameras on every side of the Pentagon. Maybe they just put them by the front door, you know, in case someone tried to sneak in.
Maybe some nincompoop was excited and pushed the emergency degauss button and erased every tape in the pentagon because, you know, the building was under attack. Heck, maybe the degausser was so strong it erased all the tapes in nearby buildings, too. Yup, anything's possible.
But is it plausible? It seems to me that you are willing to take the position that the official position is true because it's the official position. If you want to believe the results of the official commission even though members of that commission complain that they were not allowed to make a complete investigation and it comes off looking a whole lot like "The Warren Commission II" then, well, go ahead and believe it.
Posted in: Ten years on, do you believe al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11?
1
Moondog
@Asagao, anyone can take three years off work. It's just that most people won't. You have to be willing to take the leap.
Posted in: Minoru Saito, 77, nears finish of his 3-year, 28,500-mile 'wrong way' voyage
-4
Moondog
Ajinomoto is MSG, a well-known carcinogen. Avoid anything with an Ajinomoto label. They sell death, mainly.
As for the 'is it Japanese or Chinese" questions, it doesn't really matter. We're talking the U.S. here. To the average American, Japan and China are pretty much same-o same-o.
Posted in: Walmart bringing real Japanese food to the United States
0
Moondog
@pawatan wrote:
The first half of your sentence is indisputable (a plane was hijacked) but the second part that it flew into the Pentagon is, in fact, hotly disputed. And one of the reasons it's disputed is the lack of video that you admit you cannot understand.
Yes, interesting. Very interesting. If you think, then it must give you pause ... to wonder why.
Posted in: Ten years on, do you believe al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11?