JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- 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*
0
jeancolmar
First question: How does McCain know victory can be won by 2013. Next question, what does he mean by victory? Third question, at what cost? I am asking this from what I would imagine to be an American perspective.
My not American perspective is that this guy sounds like Nixon in 1972. He promised the Americans that he had a way out of Vietnam but he wasn't saying what it was. Nixon as president bombed Cambodia. Then he cut and ran, which was the smartest thing he did as president. Cutting and running was called "peace with honor." Then the puppet regime in Saigon fell, causing much suffering. But in the end the Vietnamese then took back their own country. And finally the US is friends with their former enemy. There were no dominos to fall.
My not American perspective is that McCain is talking through his hat. Unless he has a crystal ball or a time machine. My not American perspective is that in trying to win a war with people who want to take their own country back, McCain will commit genocide just as the US did in the Philippines after the Spanish-American war. And my not American perspective is that the US should not have started the war in the first place and has not moral right to win it.
John McCain is another neocon idiot, like George Bush. Under McCain there will be more wars and the Americans will not have the basic social welfare that even we in Japan enjoy under the LDP.
My not American perspective tells me that it is very likely that Bush will start a war with Iran and the war hysteria will push McCain into the White House. By the time 2013 rolls around the Americans will have forgotten all about it, just as they have forgotten all of George Bush's lies. Nothing will change. The US will remain a nation that makes trouble all over the world but cannot properly take of its own people, unlike they are in prison.
Save this article and bring it out in 2013.
Posted in: McCain says Iraq war can be won by 2013
0
jeancolmar
Stallone is nauseating, as is his character Rambo.
Rambo is the product of sour grapes: the American defeat in Vietnam. The Stallone argument is that the Americans did not kill enough people in Vietnam, which Rambo attempts to do alone. And that is the Stallone solution to everything. Kill enough people, preferably Asians, and preferably in the goriest way possible, and order is restored. That simple.
Of course in real life the US killed and maimed more people in Vietnam with a single carpet bombing than the fictional Rambo has in all of his movies.
But Rambo does remain an inspiration for terrorists like the Oklahoma City bombers, the "Right to Life" religious scummies who bomb abortion clinics and psychopaths who shoot their fellow students at school. Those are the Rambos of real life. The joke is that anyone can be a Rambo.
If there is one thing the democratic opposition of Myanmar does not need it is Rambo.
Posted in: Rambo takes aim at Myanmar junta
0
jeancolmar
Thank you Dan Manjt. Note that the that the first quote is from 1927, when Hitler was fighting for power. The Socialists were a strong and popular power. The reality is that Hitler was not an enemy of capitalism after all. Certainly not in relation to his own finances. Hitler was rich. He made money from Mein Kampf. His hero was Henry Ford, whose anti-semitic writings in the Dearborn Independent inspired him.
It is true that the Nazis were environmentally conscious. But to make the leap of logic that that made them socialists or leftists and that environmentalists are somehow connected to the Nazis is rubbish. The Nazis also believed in sport and physical fitness. Following neocon logic that should make anyone who believes in physical fitness programs a Nazi. Hitler detested smoking (and Franco and Mussolini were also non-smokers). So does that mean that if you are a non-smoker and hate it when people blow smoke in your face while you are eating you are a Nazi? The Volkswagen was born under the Nazis. So if you own a Volkswagen and are a beetle freak are you a Nazi?
Anyway, though the Nazis did a few good things, these were mitigated by the many bad things they did. (Which mitigates any arguments that they "were not all bad"). The good things could have just as easily been done by a reasonable Social Democratic government.
Posted in: German historians want Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' republished
0
jeancolmar
Oh yes, I also agree with I rock. The poster who begins his posting with, "Mr. Scott.....what's the deal?" is unfortunately typical of the sort of bootlicking Japanophile that this country and this world could do without. What's the deal? indeed. The man was socked in the face.
Posted in: A punching bag on the Odakyu line
0
jeancolmar
I was assaulted twice, not seriously thank goodness, on Japanese trains. Once in Kansai and once in Tokyo. Overcrowded trains are easy breeding places for violent behavior. The good thing is that they are not as violent as they could be.
By the by, editors, you forgot to give this poor writer his byline!
Posted in: A punching bag on the Odakyu line
0
jeancolmar
Where did Hayek get that quote? And what is the context?
Hitler said a lot of things. One thing he said (I paraphrase from memory) was that National Socialists and Marxism differ in that the former believes in private property and and the latter does not. True socialists, said Hitler, do not want to abolish private property. (I'll trace that quote if anyone is interested.)
Hitler said a lot of things in public and in private. But he ought to be judged by his actions. Who did Hitler put into concentration camps and murder? The German ruling class or social democrats, Communists, labor leaders?
Did he form an alliance with Stalin and invade Fascist Italy?
Labeling Hitler a leftist is one of the neocons big lies. (Another neocon lies is that George Orwell, a dedicated socialist, was reallly a neocon at heart.)
Neocon lies started the useless war against Iraq. Neocons and Nazis have much in common as liars.
National Socialism and real socialism--as it evolved in late 19th and 20th centuries--are diametric opposites. National Socialism is nationalistic, racist and authoritarian. Socialism is international and inclusive. I would add that real socialism--as opposed to Stalinism--is democratic, in that it wants workplace democracy.
To get back to the topic, all this goes to show why Mein Kampf and other Nazi writings ought to be made public. People really ought to know what the Nazis were about and what the Holocaust was about--it was even worse than what most people think it was.
The Nazis have been too easily demonized--to the point that just how evil they were is forgotten. Hannah Arendt spoke of the banality of evil with regard to Eichmann, the arch bureaucrat who claimed innocence because he was only following orders. But there is more to these people. Hurt nationalistic pride. Wild romanticism and utopianism. And they were foreshadowed by movements in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Once you see these people in their true light you will never be at ease with nationalistic passions. Let me underscore this: The Stalinist state was (and is) socialism gone wrong. The Nazis got exactly what they wanted, except a Reich that would exist for a thousand years.
It is easy to acknowledge evil, but it is difficult to look evil in the face. The time has come to look evil in the face.
One thing more. Profits from the sale of Mein Kampf ought to go into supporting Holocaust education.
Posted in: German historians want Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' republished
0
jeancolmar
Sucks. Blew the last sentence, which should read "As such, he is a cancer not only on the US but the world as well."
Posted in: McCain lashes out at '100 years' in Iraq ads
0
jeancolmar
Well go old More War McCain said it. One hundred years in Iraq. Only its is going to be "peace keeping." BS. Peace keeping means military action and that means fighting the people who want the invaders out of their counry.
McCain also wants a war with Iran.
On top of that, McCain wants to restart the Cold War with Russia. On his agenda is to kick Russia out of G8.
McCain is a Cold War and Bush era fossil. As such, he is an cancer on only on the US but the world as well.
Posted in: McCain lashes out at '100 years' in Iraq ads
0
jeancolmar
Appeasers: Like Chamberlain and (to repeat) the French conservatives.
Um, remember that Hitler sort of broke the non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union.
Posted in: German historians want Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' republished
0
jeancolmar
I need to add that National Socialism was not an entirely unified movement. It did contain elements opposing "financial capitalism" which was claimed to be controlled by the Jews. It had its right and left wings. Hitler belonged to the right-wing. The Nazis were above all nationalists. They were also racists. They opposed both the Social Democratic Party and the Communists. When Hitler seized power he had Social Democrats and Communists imprisoned. Then he did in his party's left-wing, more famously in the Night of the Long Knives.
Another thing: Who were the Appeasers? The British and French conservatives. Also, Western capitalism welcomed the Nazi state because they saw it is a guard against Communism.
Posted in: German historians want Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' republished
0
jeancolmar
Hitler's agenda was conservative. Do read the Nazis. For a "socialist" Hitler had good from Germany's capitalists. The Social Democrats, labor leaders, and, of course, Communists had it bad in Nazi Germany. Besides the Jews, Hitler also did in handicapped people (so-called useless eaters), homosexuals, Gypsies, Slavs and others.
Big business thrived under the Nazis. Foreign companies also loved the Nazis. Henry Ford was a long time fan of Hitler and the feeling was mutual. Ford cheerly set up factories in Germany. Hitler gave Ford medals which he never bothered to return the medals after the US went to war against Germany. Ford plants were not bombed in Germany during World War II.
Yes, indeed, Germany bans Holocaust denial. But the Germans are open about what happened. If you want to read a lot of garbage you can go to any number of Holocaust denial websites.
You know, there is a lot more I could say about all this but I am stopping here. One, this is getting off the point. Two, when a posting starts to look like free copy these days I cut it short. If JT wants me to write about Nazis in detail they can give me a byline.
Anyway, I have not seen any concrete evidence that the German scholars' desire to republish Mein Kampf is anything but scholarly interest. As I said, everybody ought to read the Nazis--with understanding the historical context of course.
Posted in: German historians want Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' republished
0
jeancolmar
This is brilliant. Let us hope this will have an impact somehow on how English is taught here.
Posted in: Read Real Japanese Essays
0
jeancolmar
Yes, indeed everyone knows what the acronym Nazi stands for. This was Hitler's way of getting the working class on his side. Socialism was popular in those days in Germany. So Hitler said, Oh we are socialists too, but national socialists. It was one example of the big lie. If you want to take National Socialist Workers Party at face then you might as well take Democratic People's Republics which are in fact dictatorships at face value.
Whatever the Muslims in Germany are doing, I've yet to see proof that this is why German scholars want to republish Mein Kampf. (I think this is a case of the ergo hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy.)
And Germany is open about the Holocaust. They are nasty to Holocaust deniers. But they are open about what happened.
Posted in: German historians want Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' republished
0
jeancolmar
The second sentence in the first paragraph should read: " Asking what you would do if a non-nuclear power attacked a nuclear power with nuclear weapons is inane."
This is what comes of not writing for money.
Posted in: Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran if Israel attacked
0
jeancolmar
Hitler was not a Marxist or a socialist. He was a ardent anti-Communist. Left-wingers and liberals found their ways to gas chambers. Hitler initially infiltrated the tiny German Socialist Workers Party and coopted it. HItler and the Nazis were real magpies, stealing from everyone, including the socialist movement. The swastika was an ancient symbol used by people as diverse as Indians and Native Americans. The Nazis used and twisted old German proverbs. They distorted Nietzsche. Hitler was brought up a Catholic and never left the faith. There were pagan Nazis and and Christian Nazis. Hitler remained a Christian. The churches followed Hitler, though there were dissenters (who were murdered). Above all, Hitler was a German nationalist, though he was not German. Jonah Goldberg is a liar--no doubt some sort of neocon.
I think everyone should read not only Mein Kampf but also Goebbels's speeches (for starters). You see how close the Nazis are to the people who govern us. What made the Nazis the monsters that they were will haunt anyone who digs into this stuff. It is not as easily deconstructed as the rubbish from the Holocaust deniers.
The Germans historians' desire to republish Mein Kampf has nothing Muslims. It has to do with the openness about the Holocaust. The Japanese should be so open about their Asian Holocaust.
Posted in: German historians want Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' republished
0
jeancolmar
The Germans ought to republish Mein Kampf and give lectures and seminars on it. Read in the context of what Hitler did it is a very scary book. What is so scary about it is that Hitler comes off as a perfectly normal right-wing bigot. Even taking into account that much of Mein Kampf was ghost-written, the mental atmosphere of normality that pervades that book is creepy. You wait for the bogie man to come out of the closet and there is no bogie man. Just rotten ideology that twisted around any neocon today come follow. (Just change "Jews" to "Muslims".) It's is comforting to think that Nazism and the Holocaust were the products of "man men." If you realize that the greatest evil of our times were created by basically rational people you are forced to realize that it can happen anywhere.
Posted in: German historians want Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' republished
0
jeancolmar
Good point. Japanese are a lonely people. Given the way this society has been set up is no surprise that some many people kill themselves. This is a sad story.
Posted in: Two women, tied together, leap from apartment to death in Maebashi
0
jeancolmar
Zapod, Iran does not have nuclear weapons. Israel does. Asking what you would do if a non-nuclear power attacked a nuclear power is inane. The Iranians and the Israelis have exchanged bitter words, but so far this has not led to military action. Of the two countries, Israel is the one most prone to attacking its neighbors on slim pretexts. So the question was inane for that reason too. I would have asked the question differently: In your judgement, what are the chances of Iran taking unilateral military action against Israel and Israel taking unilateral military action against Iran? This would have required more than a sound bite answer.
Given the kind of answer Clinton gave, she might as we have been asked, "What if space aliens invaded the Earth."
Posted in: Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran if Israel attacked
0
jeancolmar
Opps. Third paragraph should read: She did not say...
Posted in: Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran if Israel attacked
0
jeancolmar
Yes indeed, back to Clinton's comments. What ought to be underscored at this point is the real nature of Clinton's response to the inane, indeed childish question of Iran nuking Israel. She could have been logical and analytical, pointing out that Iran does not have the facilities to launch a nuclear attack on Israel and that it is unlikely it would launch a nuclear attack even if it did, citing the fact that no nuclear armed nation has used nuclear weapons in all the wars fought after World War II. She could have said simply that in the event Iran nuked or, for that matter, attacked Israel, the US and its allies would declare war on Iran. But what she said was vague and disingenuous: "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
Let's deconstruct this.
First off, she did say she would obliterate Iran as president. She simply said that "we" have the power to obliterate Iran. This a mere truism. Having the power does not mean using it. "In the next tens" does not necessarily have anything to do with her if she became president. In the next ten years could be tomorrow or after her presidency. In short the answer she gave was a non-answer. But she did use the provacative word "obliterate." Thus, though her answer signified nothing it nevertheless was filled with the sound and the fury that we associate with the neocon hawks.
Clinton is fence-sitting. She knows (probably better than her rival Obama) that there is going be military action taken against Iran in the near future. She does not know the size and the scope and how the American public will react, even if the media launches its typical war hysteria and shuts out dissenting voices. The Americans are sick of Iraq. But they are also easily misled into supporting American wars. So, given how the wind blows, Clinton is ready to either be a hawk or dove or something in between. "Obliterate" suggests that being a hawk would best serve her interests. But the fact that her answer was in the end so tentative suggests that she is ready to turn dovish if the war or Iran turns into another disaster like Iraq.
Remember two things about Clinton: She was next to her husband when he orchestrated the Nato rape of Yugoslavia and she voted from the making war on Iraq--though she says she would not do now knowing what she knows (which is what we who opposed the war from the start knew all along).
If you want to see Clinton's remark within the proper context you will need to go to news sources outside Japan Today. You'll see that the Pentagon is gunning for Iran.
Posted in: Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran if Israel attacked