JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
-
- 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
0
Wolfpack
If the new Speaker doesn't cut the Federal governments spending, I hope he joins Pelosi as the "former speaker" in 2012. America is an inch away from bankruptcy.
Posted in: 112th Congress convenes; Boehner elected speaker
0
Wolfpack
President Obama will likely punish the Captain by making him march in this years San Francisco gay pride parade. That will teach that big meanie not to be politically incorrect! We want our warriors to be all sugar and spice and everything nice - not "brusque"... No, that just won't do!
Posted in: U.S. Navy commander loses carrier job over lewd videos
0
Wolfpack
All that conservatives from both parties need to do is to be responsible and worked towards reducing the debt and deficit by reducing spending and rolling back ObamaCare. There is no need to try to throw red-meat to the partisans and scare the public against Obama and the Dems - the huge fiscal crisis that their Socialist policies already has the nation terrified for the future.
Posted in: GOP agenda: Major impact may be on 2012 election
0
Wolfpack
A monarchy is expensive and an anachronism in this day and age. However, as long as the Japanese people support it as a unifying force, then it's no big deal. They have no true political power other than symbolically.
Happy New Year!
Posted in: Imperial greetings
0
Wolfpack
GW:
My point is even easier to comprehend. Religion, in and of itself, does not kill. Are you unable to grasp that it is fallible human beings that are killing other people? The ideas that make up a religion do not do any harm to anyone. It is when people take these ideas and use them as an excuse to kill someone else - that is my point. Yes, you can say that religion is indirectly involved but the same can be said of many other ideas. For example, around 100 million people were killed during the 20th century based on a belief in Socialism. People simply used Socialism as an excuse to kill others that did not conform with this particular ideology.
It matters not the excuse used for killing. It is the act itself that is the crime. The motivation is irrelevant. Making ideas a crime is a dangerous way of thinking.
Posted in: Waiting for a sign
0
Wolfpack
All you need to know about the troubles between Arabs and Israel in the Middle East is perfectly illustrated by the failure of the Oslo Accords. Yaser Arafat - the longtime leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) - was offered a Palestinian state in exchange for ending the never ending terror campaign against Israel. Arafat played the game up to the very end and when it came time to make a decision, he refused the deal. Palestinians could be living in their own country right now but they said "NO!". More than any other event this is the most self-evident proof anyone needs for determining who the real aggressors are in this long running dispute. As Arafat and all of us know, if Arafat would have accepted the creation of the state of Palestine, he would have been killed by his own side.
The Arab states and numerous pan-Arab organizations are holding the Palestinian people hostage and using them as pawns and canon fodder. They keep the Palestinian people in slums when they could accept them into their own countries and help them economically. Instead, they use religious hatred, intimidation, and terrorism as a means to achieve their political goal of eliminating Israel. This is the primary goal - not the establishment of a Palestinian state. We all know this is what is really going on. It's just stupid to pretend otherwise.
How many decades do we need to watch the same negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians before people realize that this is just a never ending charade? The Israeli Foreign Minister is only stating what is obvious to anyone who has been paying attention over the 50 plus years since the United Nations established the state of Israel. The settlements issue is just one of a million excuses for the Palestinian side to be uncooperative. If the Palestinians really wanted peace they would take yes for an answer and accept the Oslo Accords and have their own state. They could then continue to negotiate over the remaining issues with the Israelis in peace.
Posted in: Israeli foreign minister: Peace with Palestinians is 'impossible'
0
Wolfpack
President Lee is doing the only rational thing he can in this situation. He is being tested by North Korea who are probing for weaknesses. However, all of this talk now will mean nothing if the North calls his bluff and the South Koreans refuse to respond in kind.
And for all of you peaceniks, it's easy to say that "war doesn't solve anything". However, if South Korea is invaded by the North, then war is the only option the South has. The people of the South wouldn't wan to live the way they do in the North.
Posted in: S Korea vows retaliation if North attacks again
0
Wolfpack
I would love to hear Al Gore's insight into the unusually code weather in Europe that is causing so many travel delays. I would venture to guess that he would state that the colder it gets, the more it proves that 'the planet has a fever.' By the way, where is Al Gore these days? He doesn't seem to get out in public all that much anymore. If I had to guess, I would think that he is likely snowed-in one of his mansions in Tennessee given the unusually severe winter weather that is currently being experienced on America's east coast.
Posted in: Snow, ice trap passengers in Europe's airports
0
Wolfpack
YongYang:
I have not found any reasoned argument by anyone - atheist or otherwise - that proves that there is no God.
Note that the absence of proof that God exists is not proof that he does not exist. It would be quite difficult for you to prove that the guy carrying the sign is not right about God. Here is an example to prove my point: Scientists did not discover Pluto until 1930. Which of course does not mean that Pluto did not exist before then. It was thought that due to irregularities in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune, that another planet must exist further out in the solar system. Therefore, based on observations humans decided that another planet must exist. Adherents to religion use this same reasoning (and others) to explain that God does in fact exist. I think they make a good point. However, I am simply waiting for the year when the discovery is actually made before I say that God does in fact exist.
Oh, and the irony about Pluto is that the calculations that led to it's discovery were later found to be incorrect.
Posted in: Waiting for a sign
0
Wolfpack
GW:
I think you have your proverbs mixed up or you just missed my point. What I am saying is that the bad that is done in the context of religion is done by people who purport to adhere to that religion and not by the teachings of that religion. There is a difference between what people do and what a religion expects people to do. This is where human self interest and/or interpretation comes in - which is up to people, not the ink on a piece of paper.
If by bad you are referring to my earlier mention of war begun for the sake of religion, then I think you are off base. In fact, you may also be misinterpreting religious texts as justification for war just as those who started such wars have done. For Christians, I don't think the Bible is telling people to wage war on anyone for religious reasons. I would even hazard to guess that the vast majority of believers and experts of religious texts would say that there is nothing in the Christian bible that states that man should wage war on other men. In fact, it encourages people to to the opposite. Here is a quote: 'But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you'. And most famously, 'turn the other cheek' to paraphrase a verse in the Bible. I am not even a Christian but I know that religious teachings themselves do not encourage war.
By your standard, any individual that is a member of an organization that does something wrong while in the service of that organization must be doing so because the organization itself is causing him to do so. All one has to do is find some line in some official document - or an omission - and twist it's meaning to suit whatever nefarious purpose one might have. We see the spin-meisters for political party's do this kind of thing to each other every day.
Posted in: Waiting for a sign
0
Wolfpack
grafton:
As a fellow middle-aged person I have put in a lot of serious and sometimes tormented thought about religion over the years. I think that your "atheist evangelist" phrase is exactly the type of thing I dislike about the opposition to religion. It just took you two words to say what I was trying to say in two paragraphs.
People get a lot of benefit from their beliefs - why actively seek to tear them from that even if you believe it to be a dillusion? I do agree that Christian evangelists at the train station can be annoying. As for myself, a few times I have found it difficult to get help with directions at a train station when Japanese folks look at me and assume that I am trying to spread the word. I get brushed off before before I can get to ".... doko desu ka?"
Atheism is basically an absence of belief. Advocates of atheism essentially are arguing for people to believe in nothing. That doesn't make much sense to me. It makes better sense for them to argue against using religion as a tool for injustice than for any religion at all. Whatever your views on any particular issue, most of what religion teaches and pursues is positive and a benefit to society. Where I part from you is that as an agnostic, I don't see how atheists can be so sure that their non-belief is any truer than the belief of a religious person. To my mind, an absence of proof sufficient to satisfy a non-believer does not make belief in a supreme being false.
As a citizen in a free - yet increasingly less so - society, I must tolerate a lot of other peoples points of view. I may not like them all, but I am sure everyone else doesn't like all of my views either.
Enjoy the rest of the holidays!
Posted in: Waiting for a sign
0
Wolfpack
grafton:
I was like you for a long time myself. I started out as a Catholic only because my parents were. I later felt that I couldn't believe in all of the miracles about Christ and God that I was reading and hearing about. At that point I became an atheist. For a while I also didn't have that "empty space" that you refer to that needed to be filled. However, that didn't last for too many years. I began to feel that there is something else about being human that isn't just flesh and blood, chemicals and neurons. I do feel that there is a space inside that needs to be attended to - I just don't know what to do about it yet. The fact that so many different peoples originating in different parts of the world within such different cultures all seemed to develop a spiritual belief system is telling to me. Interesting discussion.
Posted in: Waiting for a sign
0
Wolfpack
I have no more problem with this guy advertising for his God than I do seeing someone advertising for KFC. What's the big deal? There are so many people that just plain hate Christians. Ironically, these are the same people that tell those that do not think the way they do that they are intolerant. Just the pot calling the kettle black.
stevecpfc:
To think that religion will die out is to misunderstand human nature. It is a futile hope that will never be fulfilled. Even those that are strongly anti-religion usually believe in some form of human spirituality. This is in itself a belief in something that they cannot fully explain or understand. You may think that humanity has learned a lot and that science and reason can wipe away religion and spirituality; I don't think that is ever likely to occur. A tremendous amount of phylosophical and scientific brain power has been harnessed over centuries in an attempt to provide a full understanding of ourselves and the world around us and all we have been able to achieve is to create two more questions for every one we answer. There is also no possibility that a belief in government aided by science and reason will ever be able to compete with religion and/or spirituality. It failed in the Soviet Union and it will fail in China and is failing now in several socialist counties in Western Europe.
As an Agnostic, I have reached the conclusion that I just don't know if there is a God. I am unable to believe in the mystical teachings that nearly all religions and phylosophies provide. I just know that religion has done a lot of good for humanity. Those that point to wars waged with religion as a pretext are confusing religion with human nature. Wars waged with religion as it's rationale are wars that would still be waged by the same aggressors against the same foes based on the human propensity to attack and take from those that are different from themselves or out of fear. Religion is just one of many differences among people or groups that has been a misused force for uniting people against others. Holy books do not wage wars, it is the tyrants that misconstrue it's meaning to suit their own selfish goals that are the culprits. Look no farther than the Islamic jihadists that are currently using the Koran to justify their own war on the West and so-called Muslim apostates.
Enjoy the "spirit" of Christmas everyone - and Merry Christmas JT!
Posted in: Waiting for a sign
0
Wolfpack
Oh well, it's time now to push for separate facilities for heterosexuals. With the new policy, it makes no sense to separate men and women but not separate gay men/women from straight men/women. Or alternatively, just get rid of separate facilities for men and women and just put everyone in the same barracks, berthings, bathrooms, etc.
Give credit where credit is due, gay rights advocates have made a huge social change with far reaching implications for American society - all negative in my opinion. Gay marriage will be next as there is no legal reason to prevent it given the Federal governments endorsement of homosexuality. After that, anything goes! Brothers marrying sisters, sons marrying mothers, two women marrying three men and any other polygamous combination. Whose to say those types of relationships are any less legitimate than same sex marriage? If they are consenting adults and you love one another... gotta let them do it. Then the age of consent will have to be lowered so adults can get married to younger and younger 'spouses'. Age is just a number when love is concerned. Besides, adults mate with adolescents in nature all the time so it's got to be okay for people. The best thing is that we can get all of these folks in these non-traditional relationships into the military - it's what is right for our country and our national defense...
Posted in: Obama signs 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal
0
Wolfpack
SolidariTea:
This is the current state of decline that America is in I am sad to say. The West is definitely past it's prime in so many ways. The 'gaying' of the military is just one more sign of the misplaced priorities and cultural failures that are slowly eroding away America's leadership and respect in the world.
Posted in: U.S. Senate votes to overturn military gay ban
0
Wolfpack
SiouxChef:
I see it this way, there had been a 'traditional' Western morality regardless of the state of morality today. Until about 50 years ago, Western morality had been primarily influenced by Christian teachings and principles. Since then, morality has been dominated by a secular relativism that rejects religions role in society outright (it is relegated to the privacy of each individual only). Along with traditional religious morality, America's Founders based their governing principles on Natural Law. Since most of the Founders were very well educated and well read individuals, this popular view of the world put forth by certain philosophers became infused into America's founding documents. Despite the ridicule from the Left, there could be no America without the founders belief in Natural Law. This is the cultural and historic tradition that I grew up in.
The moral guidelines of Christianity and most other religions by themselves are not mystical, they are more apt to be influenced by thousands of years of human experience and observation of the world we live in. So the bottom line is, I can support the values and moral teachings that have been a traditional part of American culture, but have not been able to accept the mysticism associated with religion (miracles, wine from water, rising from the dead, etc.).
I do not accept homosexuality because it has no basis in my cultural or historic tradition or in how I see a properly functioning natural world. Alternatively, the abolition of slavery and segregation for example, makes sense within this cultural tradition. I know that homosexuality has always existed but so have many other sexual practices (such as polygamy and incest) that society doesn't generally accept as moral today but that are now open to re-interpretation. How can a homosexual say that incest is wrong among two consenting adults? It occurs in nature and they are adults. If they conceive and the child is "genetically challenged" then they can just get a legal abortion. By our new standards, none of this is any business of anyone else.
I think that those that favor full acceptance of homosexuality in Western society feel that they are only making arguments for same sex couples to be given a normalized status in society. However, they also make the case for undermining the committed relationships that the rest of society is based upon. If one man and one woman are no longer the standard, then what about all of the other arbitrary limitations put on relationships? If you think about it, there are many. A bisexual person can't marry two other people, marriage to a close relative is not allowed, relationships with people under 18 are forbidden, and there are many others. These are all arbitrary limitations that society has placed on what constitutes a legitimate relationship. You can debate the merits of each, but the rationale for excluding these relationships dissolves when you consider the winning arguments for normalizing homosexuality.
Posted in: U.S. Senate votes to overturn military gay ban
0
Wolfpack
proudnippon:
Not a good argument in defense of homosexuality. Incest, multiple partners, and sex with juveniles is also practiced by many species. So what is your point again?
Posted in: U.S. Senate votes to overturn military gay ban
0
Wolfpack
klein2:
I too am sorry "Klieny" that you are not able to understand. However, the bottom line is that the repeal of DADT is not the end of debate about public policy issues and human sexuality, it is actually just the beginning. The entire rationale for the repeal opens up a pandora's box of other groups of people that define themselves by their sexuality and whose "rights" cannot no longer be logically dismissed.
I believe in equal treatment under the law. But when you say you are in opposition to some general idea of 'discrimination' regarding one's 'basic humanity' then you are saying that there is no longer room for any concept of differentiating peoples character or in defining their morality. Morality is a cultural and social contract that is based upon a common understanding among those within a community. The acceptance of homosexuality within the armed forces and therefore pretty much completely accepted by the society in general, will have huge ramifications for the whole idea of morality in the US. The impact will be very negative to society in much the way that the sexual revolutions' impact has led to a dramatic rise in divorce, out of wedlock births, and juvenile criminality.
Posted in: U.S. Senate votes to overturn military gay ban
0
Wolfpack
smithinjapan:
So you are saying people don't choose who they have sex with? You are going down a path that you probably don't want to go with this line of reasoning. There are other sexual preferences that are also prevalent in society that could also be considered 'biological' that even Liberals and homosexuals would still find repugnant. A fuller discussion of this would likely be off subject but give it some thought and you will realize what I mean.
Posted in: U.S. Senate votes to overturn military gay ban
0
Wolfpack
Alphaape: In reference to your comments to smithinjapan-
I've always believed that there are two reasons that Liberals were pushing to have the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy changed. 1) a method to train society into believing that homosexuality is moral, 2) to damage the military - an institution that they have loathed for decades. With this reply, my second point has been made.
Posted in: U.S. Senate votes to overturn military gay ban