Monday May 28, 2012

senseiman's past comments

  • 0

    senseiman

    Smithinjapan, so 42 years = justice? How do you arrive at that equation? Seems like just an excuse to vent outrage rather than a serious argument. You say you aren`t advocating an eye for an eye argument, but your logic is more or less the same since the only objective standard you are judging his punishment by is how long the families of the victims will suffer.

    And how serious are you in raising the argument that if when he is released he will lie in order to get his license again?

    Posted in: Epileptic crane driver gets 7 years for deaths of 6 children in Tochigi

  • 0

    senseiman

    Mirai - * We have to disengage from the fact that this guy didn't "intend" to kill the children. Of course he had no intention (otherwise it would be murder by every definition of the word). but we're not judging nor should the prosecution should be trying to prove "intent". Rather, they need to prove criminal negligence and there is OVERWHELMING evidence that he was intentionally negligent. *

    They did prove criminal negligence. Otherwise he wouldnt be going to jail. Intention was never an issue, I just mentioned it to distinguish this from an actual murder case since you said it was murder. It isnt.

    That's not why people are so upset or surprised at. The biggest reason is the leniency of the sentence. I think we can all agree at this point that this is not just a mere unfortunate accident that couldn't be avoided. Despite the fact that he killed several children, while knowingly having a disability that adversely affects his mobility and ability to stay conscious, and have prior incidents because of this disability, he should be doing much harder time.

    Well that is a problem with sentencing. Im not sure what you would hope to accomplish by sentencing him to more than 7 years. Are you afraid that the threat of spending 7 years in prison and having the deaths of 6 kids on your conscience for the rest of your life wont be enough to deter future epileptics from getting behind the wheel? I highly doubt that. For that reason I find this obsession with the math to be a pointless exercise. 7 years or 42 years - what is the difference? The kids are still dead. This guys life is ruined and making him spend a few decades extra in jail at public expense isnt going to make it any more so. What exactly do you expect it to accomplish other than to satiate your own sense of outrage?

    I`ve worked in the criminal justice system (breifly and not in Japan I hasten to add). I can say that there is only a very narrow range of criminals for whom lengthy sentences serve any social purpose. Those are the dangerous, violent ones who are basically career criminals and have no fear of serving short stints in jail. The only way to deter them is through the threat of long sentences. For everybody else, including the vast majority of criminals, even short sentences (and 7 years in a prison here is not that short a sentence) have a massive deterent effect (its actually the risk of getting caught rather than the risk of a long sentence that deters most people).

    This guy does not fit into that hardened category nor does anybody else likely to commit a similar offence.

    Posted in: Epileptic crane driver gets 7 years for deaths of 6 children in Tochigi

  • 2

    senseiman

    Mirai - fair points. As a law school graduate I can correct your assertion that it is as good as murder. Murder requires a specific intention to kill. No legal system in the world (at least among developed countries) would recognize this as murder because it lacks the element of intent to kill. It is manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death, which is also what drunk driving causing death usually is. He did, of course, intend to get behind the wheel while knowing he posed a severe risk to others by doing so, which is why he was charged with a criminal offence, but the offence he committed was not legally murder.

    I should also note that if it had been an accident he wouldnt have been charged with anything at all, so Im very confused by why people think this distinction hasn`t already been taken into account by the judicial system. He committed a crime and he is being punished.

    As for the license, Im sure they did ask him if he had any disabilities before giving him his license. Note that he had a special license to operate this kind of equipment and not a regular one. I think it would be reasonable for the employer to accept the fact that he has the license as evidence that he doesnt pose a safety risk in operating it. The article says he hid the illness, which I take to indicate that he lied on his application. My point was simply that that sort of thing happens in every country (the earlier poster had implied this was something wrong with Japan).

    About his livelihood - you might be right, I hadn`t heard that before (I only faintly remember watching the news when it happened). That would certainly be relevant to sentencing and would suggest a harsher punishment was warranted.

    Posted in: Epileptic crane driver gets 7 years for deaths of 6 children in Tochigi

  • 2

    senseiman

    No question, the tragedy was entirely caused by the guy`s decision to get behind the wheel knowing the risks he posed to others by doing so.

    At the time this happened I wanted them to lock the guy up and throw away the key. In retrospect though I think 7 years is fair. This isnt some cold blooded killer. He was just a stupid guy who made a terrible decision that cost six kids their lives. Its not hard to see that he was in a hard situation - hide his illness or lose his livelihood. There is no excuse for the decision he made, but at the same time I can see how desperation could drive otherwise decent people (assuming he was one, we dont know) to do stupid things.

    Before I get slammed, I have to state again that I am not defending him. Im just saying that in the circumstances I dont think life imprisonment like one would recieve for intentionally murdering people would be appropriate.

    Also, Utrack, if you`ll notice the article said he hid his illness in order to get a license. No country in the world to my knowledge actually tests people for epilepsy as part of their driver licensing process.

    Posted in: Epileptic crane driver gets 7 years for deaths of 6 children in Tochigi

  • 0

    senseiman

    I have just read the relevant schedule and text of the IWC and I have a lot of trouble seeing how you can say Australia has no case. Im not saying they have a strong case, but my reading of the relevant texts seems reasonably open to Australias arguments.

    Also, an ICJ finding would only validate Japan`s interpretation of the exemption to the moratorium for scientific research and not the moratorium itself.

    As for the strength of the commercial whaling in disguise argument, it might not fly in the ICJ, but it is a powerful political tool because (if my understanding is corrrect) the research conducted could just as easily be gathered through non-lethal means. I say it wont fly in the ICJ because I dont think that is the test they will use to determine if it constitutes commercial whaling, but in terms of public opinion, it is hard to accept it as anything else (as you have more or less admitted in previous posts regarding the purpose of the program, which you described as being to keep the industry alive while it was banished).

    Posted in: Japan using quake disaster budget for whaling aid

  • -1

    senseiman

    I actually am familiar with the legal concept of good faith and legally if Japan is basing any case on arguing that Australia, by not voting in favor of lifting the moratorium, is not acting in good faith as per its international obligations then it has no case whatsoever.

    I looked up the Australian claim that was filed at the ICJ. It relates solely to the issue of Japan engaging in de facto commercial whaling, in violation of the letter of the law which bans such activity. The question of whether or not Australia has some "good faith" obligation to vote against the moratorium or reconsider it is not an issue and would not provide Japan with a defence. The case is purely a question of fact. I don't know enough about the facts at issue to speculate as to who will win, but I can tell you that this case will not resolve the moratorium issue as you seem to think it will, unless there is another case also pending which I am unaware of.

    If Japan wants a legal remedy along the lines you indicate they would have to bring a seperate claim, and not just against Australia but against all the other parties to the convention (if my understanding is correct, Australia alone does not have the power to overturn the moratorium, correct?) I'm not familiar enough with the ICJ's rules of civil procedure to know if such a claim would be possible though.

    Of course they could also simply leave the treaty or have entered a reservation to the moratorium, which they did not do.

    Posted in: Japan using quake disaster budget for whaling aid

  • -2

    senseiman

    David -

    The way you have described it does not sound like there is any legal obligation whatsoever to lift the moratorium. The mere fact that they cannot institute a permanent ban does not mean that they cannot continue to approve the extension of the current moratorium (or continue to enact new moratoriums, I'm not familiar with the exact process).

    "Fighting for international agreements to be honored" is, I should add, a ridiculous statement in this context . The agreement is being honored, it is merely the result that you object to. The agreement that the parties entered into clearly made this exact result possible within the rules and processes that it set down, otherwise Japan would have either left the organization (as they are free to do at any time) or pursued whatever legal remedies were available to them for its breach.

    Posted in: Japan using quake disaster budget for whaling aid

  • 0

    senseiman

    I would suggest it is nonsense to expect it to be possible for an industry that existed prior to the commercial moratorium to be able to continue to exist inspite of the commercial moratorium.

    How many other industries do you expect to prosper after being essentially banned?

    None that I can think of, but that is part of the point. Why go to the expense and trouble of trying to prop up an industry that has been effectively banned? It isnt a necessary industry, doesnt employ many people, etc etc. I understand why people in whaling towns want it propped up and that they have political backing, but that does not in and of itself make it good for the country.

    I've not seen any massive publicity campaign myself - what, did you receive fliers in the mail or see CMs on TV or something?

    Somehow I feel that every post you have written here is part of it.

    Posted in: Japan using quake disaster budget for whaling aid

  • 3

    senseiman

    David

    Policing is an activity that should legitimately be bourne by society. But that doesn't mean that a cost/benefit analysis should not be carried out when allocating scarce resources for such policing activity. Common sense dictates that spending $30 million to secure a type of economic activity that actually loses money is a poor allocation of resources.

    This isn't to say that all police activity has to be justified by such economic rationale, particularly when fundamental human rights are at stake. In this case, however, the activity is almost purely commercial save for the minimal amount of scientific research that is actually carried out (which itself is at any rate entirely geared at promoting commercial activity) and therefore this type of cost/ benefit analysis is perfectly reasonable.

    Posted in: Japan using quake disaster budget for whaling aid

  • 4

    senseiman

    David -

    To the extent that 2500 minke whales being killed per year would not pose a threat to the species, that may be true. That, however, does not mean that conservation is not an issue. If we accept your argument that there is a latent market for whale meat, then it is highly unlikely that any industry that does develop would be satisfied with a low quota for long. You would just be unleashing the same forces that necessitated the moratorium in the first place.

    As for the moratorium going against the "spirit" of the IWC, that term has no meaning under international law. The organization provided a procedure by which a moratorium could be arrived at. The members of the organization, following the correct procedures that they had all agreed upon, created the moratorium. Japan's concerns were addressed and it accepted the compromise.

    At any rate, this has nothing to do with the subject of the article, which is the subsidy and not the moratorium. Am I to take it that you, as a free-market thinker, are opposed to the subsidy?

    Posted in: Japan using quake disaster budget for whaling aid

  • 5

    senseiman

    David -

    You can't seriously be waving the flag of free market principles on the one hand while defending an industry whose entire existence is dependent on government subsidy on the other.

    It really is nonsense to suggest that there is some latent market for whale meat in Japan that will reveal itself only when the moratorium is lifted. The fact is that even with huge subsidies, which have included massive publicity campaigns to encourage whale meat consumption, no such market has appeared. Whale meat simply tastes bad and there isn't much that can be done about that. Allow market forces to work - and I should note that this is a completely seperate issue from the moratorium, we are talking about government subsidies here - and there is no reason to expect anything but small scale whaling to be able to exist, if that.

    The only logical conclusion is that you or whoever you work for favors a lifting of the moratorium AND a continuation of government subsidies.

    Posted in: Japan using quake disaster budget for whaling aid

  • 1

    senseiman

    Dotocom - while I agree that there are cultural differences at play here, it is a big leap to say that there are no conservation issues at stake and that by simply exercising their right to vote against Japanese proposals at the IWC the west is practicing "cultural imperialism".

    For starters the IWC is a voluntary treaty organization that Japan entered of its own free will. The fact is that all treaty obligations involve some sacrifices by the parties involved in exchange for certain benefits. For Japan the cost was accepting the formal moratorium while the benefit was allowing it to legally conduct a de facto whaling program under the guise of research.

    Simply exercising their rights under international law really should not be construed as cultural imperialism in this case. The violence and force you referred to in your earlier post, I should add, has come from private groups like Sea Shephard. They are a different story and I completely agree that they are a bunch of flaming idiots who are probably making Japanese opinion support whaling even more than before.

    As for the viability of the Japanese whaling industry, the very subject of this article answers your question. On security alone the government (not the industry itself) is spending more than 30$ million dollars. In contrast, in recent years the total sales of whale meat have only been about 45-50 million, barely more than what the security costs alone are. And that doesn't even begin to include the actual costs of conducting the catches, distrubution, marketing, etc. The fact is that the whaling industry has not been profitable for decades and only exists due to direct government subsidy.

    Posted in: Japan using quake disaster budget for whaling aid

  • 3

    senseiman

    Dotobock - have you ever even been to Japan? It is ridiculous to assert that whale meat is anywhere near as integral a part of Japanese culture as hamburgers or fish and chips are to the US and UK. The vast majority of people simply dont eat whale meat, save as something they had to eat as kids in school lunches once or twice a year. I dont deny that it is consumed in some locales and some people do like it, but it is not something that one sees every day. While I agree that violence or force cant be used to alter mindsets, the fact is that most peoples mindsets outside of regions that receive direct economic benefits from the whaling program are completely apathetic to the issue.

    Nessie - Thank you. I tend to agree with the Adam Smith argument. If the true cost of the whale meat was reflected in its price and all direct and indirect subsidies were removed the whaling program would probably collapse even if the moratorium were removed. The market just isn`t big enough.

    Posted in: Japan using quake disaster budget for whaling aid

  • 2

    senseiman

    Yes, Dotobock. Because I oppose whaling I also support totalitarianism.

    Posted in: Japan using quake disaster budget for whaling aid

  • 4

    senseiman

    True - this is from the government budget and not from donated money. Though one could argue that every yen in donated money has freed up budgetary space for the government to allocate money to this, so the indignation displayed here, while overblown, isn`t entirely without justification.

    My problem with it is that this money shouldnt be coming from the government budget at all. If fishing for whales requires billions of yen in security costs then the people who should be paying for it arent the taxpaying public but the people who eat this stuff through higher prices for whale meat.

    Well, that isnt my only problem with it, as in principle I dont think whaling should be legal at all. At any rate though the fact that the government is not only allowing it but actually subsidizing it really makes me fume, especially at a time when actual useful research budgets are being cut back everywhere and the country`s finances are in this much of a mess.

    Posted in: Japan using quake disaster budget for whaling aid

  • -1

    senseiman

    I understand completely, herefornow. Your apology is accepted.

    Posted in: Making Japan a more attractive place to do business

  • 1

    senseiman

    herefornow - stop making straw man arguments and putting words into my mouth.

    I havent made any comments about what I want or what I think Japan should or shouldnt do, I`ve simply commented on errors I perceived in the arguments put forward in the article and shortcomings in its general approach.

    Also I didnt say Japan had a growth rate of greater than 2% in 10 of the last 20 years, I said it had a positive growth rate in the majority of the last 20 years, which is a fact, not rubbish. It only experienced negative growth for a couple of years in the late 90s and in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. My purpose in doing so, I should add, was not to argue that Japan hasdone great. I just said it is a stretch to argue that Japans problems are mainly attributable to a lack of growth, that is all. Japan has a lot of problems that require a lot of change, I just don`t think the author of this article has done a particularly good job of making the case for the types of changes that are needed.

    And I DID NOT say that Japan should let companies hire more temps because they are easy to fire. I said that the author`s assertion that workers are impossible to fire (read the article, that is what he said) is simply untrue and I cited the situation of temp workers as evidence of that. SImply observing the existence of a fact does not mean that one thinks it is a good idea.

    Also, for someone who seems to advocate not doing things the same old way, did you not pick up on the fact that the author is basically calling for Japanese politicians to revert to the way things used to be under the LDP? He devotes a paragraph to chastising the current government for actually trying to change the governments way of doing business.Do whatever Keidanren says to do because that is the way the LDP did things` is basically what he is saying.

    Posted in: Making Japan a more attractive place to do business

  • -1

    senseiman

    herefornow - great. Im not advocating the status quo, Im saying that his arguments are unrealistic and are unlikely to bring about the results he wants.

    First, tax cuts. It is highly unrealistic to believe that companies are going to relocate to Japan just because the tax rate is 30% instead of 40%. Japan is never going to be able to compete with Hong Kong or other places on taxes so its kind of a dead letter. The country has a lot else going for it and taxes aren`t the only things companies look at when making thsoe decisions.

    Second, arguing that reducing the tax rate will increase revenues, as the author seems to do, is just a fallacy and one that a country with a public debt the size of Japans cant really play with. If corporate tax rates go down, somebody else`s tax rates are going to go up and that will have effects of its own.

    Third, the argument about labor laws is ridiculous. It is not impossible to fire workers. It is very difficult to fire seishain, but extremely easy to fire the hakken workers that most manufacturers are relying on in great numbers these days.

    The argument about CO2 has some merit in the sense that China and Korea have no similar commitments, but it also sounds like an excuse to do nothing.

    Also, its really misleading to suggest that Japan`s problems stem fundamentally from a lack of growth. For starters, in most of the past 20 years Japan actually has sustained growth in GDP, and prior to the global financial crisis of 2008 was in the midst of several years of uninterrupted growth. The troubles the country has had since then have had nothing to do with any of the problems he identifies, except for the high yen.

    It also ignores the fact that most of the problems Japan is going through aren`t unique to Japan but are typical for a lot of countries in the developed world.

    I could go on and on. A couple of the points he makes I might agree with but overall the article is just either wrong or too blatantly biased to be worth taking seriously.

    Posted in: Making Japan a more attractive place to do business

  • -1

    senseiman

    This isnt a very good article at all. Cutting corporate taxes wont reduce government income because, in theory, the tax savings will lead to an increase in share value? Umm.....OK. Increases in share value as such arent taxed so that doesnt lead to any increased revenue, even if one accepted the extremely dubious notion that a reduction in tax would cause a corresponding rise in share value. This whole reducing taxes will lead to increased government revenue argument has been a right wing talking point for a long time but there is very little evidence to back it up in reality.

    And what is he on about this environment of excess competition that is the fault of the anti monopoly law? Isn`t competition supposed to be a good thing?

    Bah, never mind.

    Take a look at the Wikipedia entry for GLOBIS University. Looks like an ad for an Eikaiwa;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlobisUniversityGraduateSchoolof_Management

    Posted in: Making Japan a more attractive place to do business

  • 0

    senseiman

    When I saw the title of this piece I was hoping for a thought provoking article about the mistakes Japan made during the bubble era and some kind of argument for why China, despite all evidence to the contrary, was going to avoid them. That would have been interesting, because there are a lot of parallels between China's economy today and Japan's in the 1980s . There are a ton of difference too of course, but still, it would have been interesting to read a comparison of the two.

    Instead we just get some rambling about China being bad, while Japan was an American friend in the 80s. And therefore they are different. OK, anybody could glean that info from 5 minutes on Wikipedia.

    Would it not be possible to get some commentary writers who actually know stuff about Japan and have something a bit more original to say? Please!

    Posted in: China of 2011 isn’t the Japan of 1980s

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

View all