JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
1
To be healthy, live in the big city
-
2
Japan's nuclear safety standards flawed, says commission chief
-
3
Teacher nabbed for using miror to peek up girl's skirt
-
4
From carnivores to herbivores: how men are defined in Japan
-
5
Why do Japanese change their attitude when they communicate with foreigners?
-
- 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
Noliving
Just to clarify this, it doesn't mean that because the US government was able to defeat the rebellion that it forced unions to enter politics, what happened was in the immediate aftermath the Union numbers in west virginia dropped substantially in west virginia but what happened was unions around the rest of US grew and became more powerful to the point that they could become a force to be reckoned with politically.
Another thing that is important to note about the battle of blair mountain was that the Sheriff of the county went on a shooting rampage with a private mercenary force paid for by the coal companies against union sympathizers which ignited the battle.
Posted in: The gun control debate: Do you support the right of citizens to own and bear firearms?
0
Noliving
Also suffrage was expanded with the barrel of a gun and through peaceful means, black suffrage was expanded through the barrel of a gun while women suffrage was not.
Posted in: The gun control debate: Do you support the right of citizens to own and bear firearms?
0
Noliving
I would say it can be considering it is the second largest armed insurrection next to the American civil war in the history of the US, over 1 million rounds of ammunition were fired. The battle's aftermath strengthened several key unions that were involved in the creation of the 1933-34 new deal package, that has been called the economic bill of rights.
The US back then was tyrannical with respect to labor conditions, that is why they kept having armed insurrections back then over labor conditions. Remember the book "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair, well if you read that book the US meat packing factory industry was very very very tyrannical with respect to labor conditions and sanitation.
US companies during the early 20th century were very much tyrants against their employees.
The Jungle is example in which positive social change can take place with out guns, but keep in mind all the Jungle did was improve sanitation it didn't actually improve in a lot of was the working conditions like pay, hours worked, vacation, retirement etc. but in some cases you need guns, like the miners of West Virginia in the battle of blair mountain.
This battle at blair mountain is a turning point, in that unions start to get involved in politics to get the law on their side and it accumulated in the New Deal of 1933 and the second new deal of 1934.
The US is really no longer as tyrannical with regards to its labor conditions primarily because of what happened at the battle of blair mountain.
Posted in: The gun control debate: Do you support the right of citizens to own and bear firearms?
0
Noliving
Battle of Blair Mountain could be seen as one that help prevent tyranny, in that the US was able to put down that rebellion, but the long term results of that rebellion were a major victory for those who rebelled in that it substantially improved Unions in multiple industries and the working conditions of miners in the decades to come.
So although the US was able to put down the rebellions that didn't mean they didn't change their policies after "defeating" the rebellions. So in a lot of ways those US government wins were Pyrrhic victories, because although they were victories the fact that the possibility of future insurrections was to great to keep the status quo in terms of laws/policies.
Kind of like with whats happening in Afghanistan and that is they are able to pretty much win every single gun battle they engage in but its not putting an end to the insurgency, so in a sense the US wins the battle but it loses the war.
Posted in: The gun control debate: Do you support the right of citizens to own and bear firearms?
0
Noliving
Which ironically helps support the argument that the government is not to be trusted.
Posted in: The gun control debate: Do you support the right of citizens to own and bear firearms?
0
Noliving
Such a cliché answer, one dead person no matter the age is a tragedy cleo, try being the friend or relative of someone that has died. Your going to have to do much better than that answer to explain why 775 is an alarming rate.
Posted in: The gun control debate: Do you support the right of citizens to own and bear firearms?
0
Noliving
Also cleo what makes the 775 out of 300 million an alarming rate?
Posted in: The gun control debate: Do you support the right of citizens to own and bear firearms?
0
Noliving
Or maybe the state should just ban recreational swimming or just swimming in general.
Posted in: The gun control debate: Do you support the right of citizens to own and bear firearms?
0
Noliving
Look I'm not trying to trivialize there deaths, but when someone like Mocheake uses hyperbole to try and make a point I'm going to call them out. 500 out of 300 million is not an alarming rate, do you ban baseball because four kids die each year from playing the sport? How about hockey and football? 449 kids on average die each year in the US from choking on balloons. Do we ban balloons now because people want to act out their party fantasies? How about Alcohol? over 1000 children in the US die from alcohol each year. Out of a population of 300 million are those really alarming rates cleo? If the goal is to reduce child deaths you would save far more lives by taking the keys and cell phones away from them. Heck cars in the US cars kill more people then guns do in the US even though there are more guns then cars in the US.
If we are going to ban private ownership of guns in order to save lives we might as well ban private ownership of motor vehicles and don't give me that crap about cars being necessary while guns are not. Because you can always take public transportation to get where you want to go and if you don't have public transportation then what you do is you take the money you would have spent on a privately own car and instead put it towards public transportation.
You really honestly think Cleo that people who own firearms are doing it because they want to act out there fantasies?
Posted in: The gun control debate: Do you support the right of citizens to own and bear firearms?
0
Noliving
The truth of the matter is that what Mocheake said is hyperbole, according to facts and figures only around 500 kids that also includes teenagers are killed each year by guns, the reason why I say only is because the US is a nation of 300 million people and legally own guns that are owned by 64 million people, 500 kids out of 64 million gun owners out of 300 million legally own guns out of a population of 300 million people isn't a very high rate, in fact is amazing low.
Posted in: The gun control debate: Do you support the right of citizens to own and bear firearms?
0
Noliving
Really? What's the rate?
Posted in: The gun control debate: Do you support the right of citizens to own and bear firearms?
0
Noliving
How is it strange? The article isn't about the "evidence" that Hezbollah claims to have. I have to say that the CBC news article(CBC Investigation: Who killed Lebanon's Rafik Hariri?) is much more convincing on showing that Hezbollah was indeed involved in the assassination than Hezbollah's evidence claiming it was Israel.
Posted in: Hezbollah and its allies topple Lebanon government
0
Noliving
How are you defining self defense?
Posted in: Arizona Rep Giffords shot, 6 killed, including judge, 9-year-old girl
0
Noliving
Its called youtube, you can see a whole bunch of videos of people using supersoakers that are flamethrowers and turning them into flamethrowers its not that hard at all. You fill up the bottle with some type of flammable fluid and add a lighter to the end of the nozzle and then burn away.
No most people don't even injure themselves with a supersoaker flamethrower.
The car point still stands, you can kill a whole bunch of people very quickly with them.
Yes guns do make killing a snap, so do cars and homemade flamethrowers even knives and bats. Do you even know what a military grade flamethrower is?
That is true with any object being used as a weapon, especially a gun, especially if they move off to the side and out of the guns sights.
Face it killing people by running them over with a car is a lot easier then you think it is.
Posted in: Arizona Rep Giffords shot, 6 killed, including judge, 9-year-old girl
0
Noliving
I meant "car"
Posted in: Arizona Rep Giffords shot, 6 killed, including judge, 9-year-old girl
0
Noliving
The problem with that argument is that it is said every single time a person kills someone with a gun, its an old tired argument that isn't going to change anything.
The other problem I have with that argument is that it just isn't true, you take a care and run it through such a tightly packed place like that was and you could easily kill just as many people. Take a homemade flamethrower, they are not that hard to make take a super soaker and fill it will a flammable liquid and then attach a lighter at the nozzle, you could easily kill a lot of people very quickly and painfully.
There are many tools and toys that are available today legally that can kill just as easily as a gun.
Posted in: Arizona Rep Giffords shot, 6 killed, including judge, 9-year-old girl
0
Noliving
After the Soviets left Afghanistan the US broke all ties with them, Pakistan chose to continue to use the "mujahideen" in the following decades and in some cases still using them, if they would have done what the US had done they probably would not be in this position. Plus the US had no direct contact with Bin laden or his group during the Soviet-Afghan war, the only contact the Pakistanis had with bin laden was that some of his fighters trained in their ISI training camps but the group that Bin laden was with was largely self funded and supplied.
The truth of the matter is that the ones responsible for the position that Pakistan is in is Pakistan, not Saudi Arabia or the US.
Posted in: Cheers and tears in Pakistan after governor's assassination
0
Noliving
huh that doesn't make sense.
Do you mean this could be said about the US government from the rest of the world?
Posted in: Without ambassadors, U.S.-Venezuela tensions grow
0
Noliving
No his post was generalizing Salafi Muslims, not all Muslims.
Posted in: Al-Qaida threat on Iraqi Christians linked to Egypt
0
Noliving
Technically only the "invasion" could be considered illegal, the occupation is actually legal under UN law because of the UNSC resolutions that were passed in the summer of 03 all the way till I believe end of 08 that legalized the occupation after the UNSC resolutions ended the SOFA took over which is also legal.
Posted in: U.S. Marine's Japanese widow allowed to live in U.S.