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
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
0
OldGeezer
taka,
Treating terrorist actions as a law enforcement issue would not have yielded any real results. The Taliban refused to surrender bin Laden and hosted terrorist training camps. Do you really expect that any wrangling from the law enforcement perspective would have prodded the Taliban into changing their minds? Would a court decision make a difference? The military option could have been used more effectively, but usage of it has driven most state-sponsored terrorism underground.
It remains that a true solution to Islamic terrorism will only arise with changes in Islam, a modernization of beliefs and purging of extremist teachings.
Posted in: White House still lacks solid intel on bin Laden
0
OldGeezer
Climate change is a natural occurrence and solar radiation likely has a far larger effect than CO2 AGW proponents admit. Furthermore, as the global temperature trend downwards, ice growth in the Antarctic has outpace ice melting.
"Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica. [...] Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/revealed-antarctic-ice-growing/story-e6frg6no-1225700046908
Posted in: Climate summit opens with boost from U.S.
0
OldGeezer
Unlawful enemy combatants are not entitled to civilian trials. In fact, military tribunals have been used by the United States to try unlawful enemy combatants (German infiltrators/saboteurs) since WWII. Civilian trials of unlawful enemy combatants such as KSM et al goes against precedence and risks exposure of intelligence assets and techniques. That is why the military and intelligence community is against civilian trials of such persons. New Yorkers are against NYC trials because 9/11 is a highly sensitive subject. Many conservatives are against the civilian trials because they do not trust the motives of administration for defying precedence for these trials and not others. Some liberals are against it because it has the hallmarks of a show-trial, a trial whose outcome is guaranteed, regardless of civilian restrictions on trial evidence.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa): “I don’t think you can say that failure to convict is not an option, when we have juries in this country.”
Attorney General Eric Holder: "I have thought about that possibility. Congress has passed legislation that would not allow the release of these individuals in this country. If there is not a successful conclusion to this trial, that would not mean that this person would be released into this country . . ."
Grassley: "My understanding is that if for some reason he’s not convicted, or a judge lets him off on a technicality, he’ll be an [unlawful] enemy combatant, so you’re right back where you started." (brackets mine)
According to the discussion with the Attorney General of the United States, no matter the outcome, the government still has the recourse of a military tribunal and there is no intention of ever releasing KSM. If so, why bother with the civilian trial? It defies precedence, creates a spectacle (like the Moussaoui trial), risk intelligence assets, and is effectively a show trial. All of the above are sound reason to not hold a civilian trial of unlawful enemy combatants.
Posted in: White House still lacks solid intel on bin Laden
0
OldGeezer
KSM is the self-admitted mastermind of 9/11 and known to have been behind other terrorist attacks (as confessed by captured terrorists and KSM himself). He claimed to have proposed the plan to OBL who approved it. Al Jazeera has aired footage of OBL in a planning session with two of the 9/11 hijackers. OBL was clearly involved in planning 9/11, but if there is a "mastermind", it appears to be KSM. Keep in mind that he may have been exaggerating that he planned it all "from A to Z."
Posted in: White House still lacks solid intel on bin Laden
0
OldGeezer
Simplified explanation: The number of jobs decreased by 11,000 but unemployment dropped by 0.2%. Why? The number of people considered unemployed decreased, even though there are less jobs. For example, the number of persons unemployed for 15 weeks or longer increased by 0.2%, suggesting that individuals are dropping off the chart, even though they are still unemployed. This eliminates long-term unemployment in the statistics.
Posted in: Obama calls for new ideas to create jobs
0
OldGeezer
What happens in the fourth quarter of most years, even during recessions? Unemployment decreases as companies take on both seasonal and permanent workers to meet fourth quarter demands. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the unemployment percentage of married men remained the same while the unemployment percentage of married women/female bread-winners decreased. In other words, women are having to make up for unemployed/underemployed spouses/significant others/support-paying spouses by getting jobs made available due to the annual fourth-quarter boost.
The new speculative bubble, driven by low interest rates, has boosted employment rates, but the resulting growth of GDP is unsustainable. Coupled with the collapsing commercial credit market, the danger of a double-dip and/or prolonged recession looms over the inflating economy.
Posted in: Obama calls for new ideas to create jobs
0
OldGeezer
BTW, the CRU has admitted that the data and e-mails are genuine, just "taken out of context".
Posted in: Obama to plead U.S. case at global warming summit
0
OldGeezer
You see, it depends upon what data you choose to see.
If you are unbiased, you have to admit that Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away. The British Antarctic Survey will be publishing a paper in the journal Geophysical Research Letters that confirms that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded. However, if you have an agenda, you cherry pick your data and look at ice melt in the Western section, where it has shrunk.
If you are not biased, you admit a correlation between sunspots and global temperature. If you are not biased, you admit that temperature tends to lead CO2, not the other way around. If you have an agenda, you declare solar changes to be minimal and adjust the data to fit your expectations.
If you are unbiased, you admit that tree ring data is not exactly dependable. If you have an agenda, you toss out ring data that does not fit.
If you are unbiased, you admit that the urban heat island effect (and poor locating of temperature measurement locations) skews the data. If you have an agenda, you don't admit that any such thing poses any significant effect.
If you are unbiased, you welcome healthy academic debate and contrary publishing. If you have an agenda, you expel any 'unbeliever' from peer and professional groups and seek to suppress the publishing of any contrary papers.
... Climate science has become less about science and more about politics. Receiving tens of millions of dollars in grant money for further CAGW/CAGCC research is further incentive for some, apparently.
Posted in: Obama to plead U.S. case at global warming summit
0
OldGeezer
If companies and local governments were actually that concerned about phone etiquette, they would utilize cellphone jammers in those sensitive areas, during performance times, and so forth. As it is, it is more of an annoyance that a real concern.
Posted in: Self-centered zombies running rampant through Japanese society
0
OldGeezer
The relaxing of military rules was done so for political reasons. Only one family gave permission for photos to be taken. The remainder did not.
Posted in: Obama makes midnight visit to Dover Air Force Base to honor fallen soldiers
0
OldGeezer
"with the American system denying services to sick people anyway, it's hard to argue Americans have unmitigated healthcare access if they don't qualify to begin with. (fallacy #1)"
Many of those without insurance get medical care anyways by using emergency rooms as free clinics. In 2006, 17.4% of all emergency room visits were by uninsured individuals. 12% of all emergency room visits were non-emergency. This not only puts a disproportionate burden upon emergency room staff, but it deprives those who really need emergency care from the attention that is required. This also means that the costs are transferred to those who do do pay, in the form of higher fees.
"The issue of rationed care is a misnomer since most issues are covered, for all family members, all the time, everyday, for the majority need to begin with. Sure not all issues, but why not ask what is on the list or not? Different Provinces here have different lists same in US States. This could be split up if too much to cover for everyone on the exotic stuff. Cosmetic surgery probably not, that's to be expected. Here you could also go with no list at all if you want. The point is that you don't have limitless money, which is why there are restrictions to begin with. Given your trillions of Chinese debt I can't see how you are allowed to ignore limitations anymore. (fallacy #2)"
"[Health services should not be guaranteed to] individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." - Ezekiel Emanuel, White House Health czar
"Big Pharma wants this the most because they charge more money for exotic and experimental drugs that are proven to not work any better than what's out there. US has the Big Pharma but your standard of living is quite low, [...]"
The U.S. standard of living is extremely high, second only to Luxemburg. According to the OECDP, the 2007 gross national income (US dollars, current prices and purchasing power parity) was $46,098 for the U.S., compared to $37,970 for Canada, and $35,842 for the U.K.
"[...] thus you can't equate their existence in your country to your health if I live longer in Canada. (fallacy #3).
The U.S. population is highly diverse: 12.4% of the 2007 population was foreign-born (a quarter of whom are from Mexico) and 20.2% of the 2008 population were non-white. This significantly skews the life-expectancy averages. For example, in 2005, whites (both U.S. born and foreign born) had a life expectancy of 78.3 years, compared to blacks who had a life expectancy of 73.2 years. Moreover, lifestyle choices have a significant impact on health, but Americans are not inclined to let the government dictate diet and so forth.
"Doctors know there are better and cheaper choices (they're doctors, and highly trained experts). They can always offer you alternatives to expensive drugs though. This is equivalent to the Pentagon's $1000 toilet seat. Again you'll save a lot if doctors are not pressured into sales."
Doctors are not so much "pressured into sales" as much as they choose branded products over generics, unless you consider the profit motive to be "pressure".
"RandD has always been a cure looking for a disease, not the other way round. They focus on where to make money, not where they can help and most certainly not research for it's own sake. (ie: Viagra) Hence why marketing is such a force in the US but no where else. (fallacy #4)
Developing drugs that people actually need (diabetes) would result in massive savings to worldwide disease. RandD might even stop wasting time in areas where there are not successful towards that massive effort which is more worthwhile."
I do not agree with pill-pushing (it increases costs with dubious benefits), but you are repeating a stereotypical perception. In the United States, profitable drugs fund research in other, less-profitable areas. 15.9% of R&D expenditures in the United States are spent on cancer research, even though cancer drugs only make up ~5% to 7% of sales. That's a disproportionate expenditure.
"With a healthcare provider no longer being part of a money supply it is no longer concerned with having multiple patients for their paycheque but actually keeping people well instead. When a healthcare system succeeds there are fewer people involved. It's not a supply or demand paradigm to being with, and thus the heart of understanding the problem. (fallacy #5)"
Whether money is the concern or not, health care is still subject to supply and demand. There is only x amount of medical resources whereas there is nigh-infinite demand for medical resources. Whether the transaction is in dollars, IOUs, or beans, between patients and providers or government and providers, the difference in supply and demand must result in equilibrium that does not fulfill everyone's needs/wants. Moreover, the financial rewards are certainly part of attracting the best and the brightest to the medical field. As for health-maintenance, it is more of a life-style issue.
"If fewer people are sick the taxes needed to support it are less thus you save money/or use less. If more people are sick then the taxes go up, but the cost is split over the population making it cheaper by volume.
It doesn't matter, either way money goes to the right place, to help people."
In a study of 1992-2000 statistics, the CDC measured who used health care. At 6,125 visits per 1,000 individuals, senior citizens (age 65 or older) accounted for almost half of total visits. Yet, those are the ones that will be most impacted by the administration's proposed UHC rationing scheme.
"Here you can discuss the rationing list in more detail. Go ahead and put everything on the list if you want, see what the cost is. Split it up by total population or available population and it's still cheaper by the dozen than any insurance you could possibly ever have. Reducing your top ten most ridiculous procedures only makes that better."
In our system, if you want a ridiculous procedure, you have to pay for it. A fool and their money are soon parted.
"Stop shooting yourselves. USA has the best doctors for gun shot wounds because you need them and sometimes we call a few up here for assistance. If that were to drastically drop in line with other countries so obviously would your health care costs. (obvious fact #1)"
That's an absurd statement. 20.3% of emergency room visits were due to accidental falls. 9.5% were due to motor vehicle accidents. 5.9% were due to assaults.
Overall Fall Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000: 2,671.86 Overall All Transport Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000: 1,423.47 Assault All Injury Causes Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000: 513.80 Violence-Related Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000: 17.96
Unintentional All Injury Causes Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000: 9,194.25 Unintentional Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000: 5.2
Gunshot injuries constituted less than 3.5% of injuries due to assault and less that 0.00057% of injuries due to accident.
"By putting the incentive on the doctors or to people themselves to live a more healthy lifestyle, that can happen as a community. McD's and high fructose corn syrup aren't it either. (obvious fact #2)"
Doctors can't force people to adopt healthy habits or to change their lifestyle. Moreover, most Americans do not believe that it is the government's job to force such changes.
"This has always been odd how America doesn't have universal healthcare. I hope you can figure it out, but there is clearly many (too many?) misunderstandings and logical errata."
One major "misunderstanding" is the notion that Americans share the exact same priorities or views as that of other nations' people.
"I don't know, if American's get any fatter the land itself might open up under the pressure and also solve the problem. (flippant stupid comment born of frustration #1)"
Combined with your erroneous conclusions, I can't say that I am surprised by your comment. Many Americans live at the extremes, but that is a lifestyle choice.
"Solutions exist but it means looking at it from the perspective of putting yourself all in the same pool. The part of universal means your fellow Americans after all. That's why the expectation is different in other countries as well as the choices they have made."
The assumption that you are making is that solutions don't exist from any other perspective other than universal health care.
"Hope that answers the last post."
It didn't, but it certainly made it clear that you don't have a clue.
Posted in: Obama says health care reform good for small businesses
0
OldGeezer
A few points.
Rationing: There are limits to what government funding will provide. The expectations that many Americans have is that any system will provide whatever they want, when they want it. Under UHC, prioritization will leave some patients, particularly those considered to have low expected outcomes or reduced life benefits, which is all just a nice way of saying that you are not expected to get better or that you are too old, so have some pain killers and wait for the end.
Wait times: Limited budgets results in wait times that can be as long as 14 - 24 weeks (e.g. Canada). That's not critical for most health problems, but for Americans that are used to 1 week or less wait times, it's unacceptable.
Reduced R&D incentive: What many people forget is that most of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies are based in the U.S. The top eight U.S. companies account for ~$33.3 billion dollars of R&D. UHC proponents argue that prices for medication will be lowered, but such cuts would have to include significant reductions in profit and that will unavoidably affect R&D expenditures. The Congressional Budget Office just released a report that indicated that no significant savings would be realized by the proposed UHC plan, so the benefits are somewhat dubious.
Reduced incentives for health care providers: Another way to reduce costs is to reduce pay for physicians. The result of this is a reduced incentive to spend the time and money to become a doctor. This actually encourages a dual system--a public system and a private system for the wealthy.
Nothing is free. For all of its proponents, UHC cannot change the principle of supply and demand.
Posted in: Obama says health care reform good for small businesses
0
OldGeezer
What many "tax the wealthy" proponents fail to understand is that the wealthy will retain their tax loopholes and gain financial opportunities by lobbying politicians. It is natural selection: the most opportunistic and exploitative are the ones that will continue to succeed. For example, Goldman Sachs has been heavily represented in every recent administration (including this one), has received bailout money, made a profit loaning said money to local and state government, and stands to make billions more through the proposed cap-and-trade / carbon tax bill. The wealthy that provide jobs and economic growth on the capital/industrial side are going to be encouraged to move more and more production overseas, because those who keep production in the United States are going to lose out.
In the 1990s, with the signing of NAFTA, normalization of trade relations with China, and increasing of taxes, U.S. capital began moving out of country in vast amounts. In its place were temporary consumption-side jobs. This transfer of capital created huge profits for companies, but it basically set the stage for recession: real GDP exceeded potential GDP; consumption-side grew while capital-side shrank. Who really lost out? The American citizen-taxpayer. Who really won? Government and the investment banks.
Taxes and other fees are used to support government, but it must not be forgotten that it also influences decision-making in a global marketplace. If taxes are primarily targeted at income, it encourages capital-side flight. If taxes are targeted at economically static wealth, it encourages investment in capital assets. Taxes should be aimed at encouraging the creation of capital-side jobs in the United States, not encouraging capital flight.
Posted in: U.S. House plan boosts taxes on rich to 20-year high
0
OldGeezer
In April 2008, the National Institute for Health Care Management published a brief on the uninsured in the United States. This is the same brief that proponents of Universal Health Care cite. However, they do not talk about the specifics in it. Using U.S. Census data, the NIHCM found that 15.7% (!) were in the upper 20% of income earners. 27.5% were in the two middle income quintiles. 31.0% were in the bottom 20% income quintile. (Of those in the bottom quintile, 38.9% were "undocumented immigrants" / illegal aliens.) If illegal aliens are excluded from eligibility, it means that only 8.8 million, 18.9% of the uninsured would pass means-testing (unable to afford private insurance).
In effect, that means the UHC bill, a bill that would effectively eliminate most forms of private coverage, is really giving health care to just 2.87% of the U.S. population at the expense of the vast majority of citizen taxpayers. UHC would dwarf Medicare and Medicaid, two giant government health care programs. Note what the Congressional Budget Office had to say about those two existing programs:
"Measured relative to GDP, almost all of the projected growth in federal spending other than interest payments on the debt comes from growth in spending on the three largest entitlement programs—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. For decades, spending on the federal government’s major health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid, has been growing faster than the economy (as has health care spending in the private sector). CBO projects that if current laws do not change, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid combined will grow from roughly 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent by 2035 and to more than 17 percent by 2080. That projection means that in 2080, without changes in policy, the federal government would be spending almost as much, as a share of the economy, on just its two major health care programs as it has spent on all of its programs and services in recent years."
The proposed UHC program is both unnecessary and unwise. In terms of cost/benefits, it will cost far too much for what it will provide. Moreover, regardless of any promised "savings", it will accelerate the already incredible accumulation of government debt. The only thing that it is really good for is for government to to gain yet more power at the literal expense of citizens and private industry.
Posted in: Obama challenges critics on health care
0
OldGeezer
It is ultimately about reward vs. cost of opportunity. People are investing in areas that give sufficient returns with lower opportunity costs. High energy prices, high labor costs, and high taxes are deterrents as the first two raise the cost of operations and the other lowers the financial benefits. Combined, they makes investment in U.S. manufacturing far less attractive than overseas investment or government bonds. In fact, Goldman Sachs (yes, the same one that required a bailout) made a hefty profit by loaning local and state governments money. Government borrowing takes away from domestic investment and since the governments often raise local and state taxes to pay for the loans, they reduce the incentive for local and state investment.
Posted in: U.S. House plan boosts taxes on rich to 20-year high
0
OldGeezer
The economic boom in the 1990s had to do with innovation in technology, higher profits due to outsourcing (reduction of production costs), and other factors exceeding the repressive effects of taxes. Taxes are never a positive factor for economic growth. Also, the budget never truly went black, because the U.S. government continued to borrow, increasing the federal debt every single year as it has done after Eisenhower. It's like balancing your checkbook while still borrowing money--it means you are controlling your rate of indebtedness, not preventing it.
Any tax structure must take resources away from the people and give it to the government (and those in authority). Government is a cost-center: it does not actually produce anything. It only reallocates resources to those that the authorities in particular government favors.
The larger a government, the more that it must take from the people in order to support itself. The economist (and social scientist) Mancur Olson wrote that government is like a stationary bandit that steals from people living in an area. It is in its best interest to avoid stealing so much as to reduce the amount that it can steal in the future. Moreover, it is in its own interest to "protect" the people that it steals from. (Think of "protection" rackets.)
It was for such reasons that the Founders of the United States had originally intended that the federal government be as small as practically possible. This would maximize freedom and liberty while providing for essential services (defense and stability). Apparently, the federal government is currently operating under the philosophy of becoming as large as practically possible.
Posted in: U.S. House plan boosts taxes on rich to 20-year high
0
OldGeezer
"I've looked at the polls. I can't win as a Republican, I can't win as an independent. The only way I have a shot is to be a Democrat." - Arlen Specter in a private meeting with Mel Martinez
Further evidence that George Washington was right... as if we needed anymore of it.
Posted in: Pennsylvania's Specter switches parties, bolstering Senate Democrats
0
OldGeezer
Most posters seem to be confused. North Korea does not do this in response to criticism or whatever the rest of the world does. It does this in order to generate a stronger response. By creating a strong response to its actions, it gains greater leverage when dealing with other countries. Therefore, North Korea will do whatever it wants to do and actually has more incentive to be belligerent if the international response is not strong enough. In a way, the more that it can get away with before getting its leash yanked, the more of an actual threat it becomes. This also increases its political leverage.
That is not to say that there isn't a limit. China is not interested in North Korea starting an actual war, so Pyongyang is highly unlikely to go that far. It geopolitical niche is that of gadfly or troll. Furthermore, that is why it is propped up.
Posted in: N Korea threatens nuclear, missile tests
0
OldGeezer
adaydream,
Actually, anti-piracy patrols started under the previous administration. Task Force 150 (Red Sea and Indian Ocean) was patrolling that region in addition to its counter-terrorism operations back in 2008. The force size was increased in response to piracy and there were only two ships taken in December of 2008. The only change is that Task Force 151 (Persian Gulf) is now responsible for the anti-piracy patrols in the region.
Posted in: U.S. cargo ship evades Somali pirate attack
0
OldGeezer
Was Hitler following the example of the founder of the Christian faith, Jesus? No. Is Bin Laden following the example of the founder of the Islamic faith, Muhammad? Yes.
Upon what clear teachings of the Koran do you base your evaluation of Bin Laden's claim? How is Bin Laden failing to submit to the teachings of Allah as given by his prophet Muhammad?
Posted in: Obama to Muslim world: No U.S. war with Islam