JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- Core Developer - コアディベロッパー
- Midokura Japan K.K. - ミドクラジャパン株式会社, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥4.0M ~ ¥10.0M / Year Negotiable
-
- 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
0
tigermoth
You are correct Yuri. The situation we find ourselves in post 9/11 has brought an assault on our beloved Constitution that I think has many Americans extremely uneasy. And it's brought us to the point of rediculous. We can't take nail files or bottles of shampoo on aircraft. We hold people in prisons indefinitely. We restrict rights and freedoms that many of our ancestors died for us to have. We invade countries, kill often innocent people and ruin our economy in difficult wars. Why? Because some fundamentalist a-holes had to come here and ruin it all. And that's why we should hate them with every fibre of our being. And that's why some guy tying boxes to his arm and head causes panic on an airplane.
Perhaps if they had told him to stop and he defiantly kept going, it could have been termed the 'boxer rebellion'. Ah, I crack myself up.
Posted in: Pilot diverts jet to Philadelphia over teen's in-flight prayer
0
tigermoth
Well, lets's see. We've had one guy try to blow up an aircraft with explosive shoes, and another with explosive underwear - is it too much of a stretch that a dude strapping a box on his arm and one on his head might be up to something other than the normal?
Yuri you hate America and Americans so not surprising you would find fault in the reaction. While I do realize that the Japanese are more used to carrying out suprise attacks with aircraft, can you honestly sit there and tell me that if your country had been attacked in the last ten years by group of middle-eastern terrorists who hijacked aircraft and flew them into buildings to kill as many people as they could, and then you had others trying to blow up explosives hidden in their clothing, that someone strapping boxes to parts of their body while chanting in a middle-easter tongue would not arouse any alarm in you what-so-ever?
Perhaps it is ignorant that they didn't just ask him to open the small boxes and show the scriptures inside. I should think that would end it all quite easily. But I wouldn't call it paranoia that they were concerned in the first place. Then if it had turned out to be a real terrorist incident you would all be asking why no one thought it odd that some kid was strapping exposives to his arm and head.
Posted in: Pilot diverts jet to Philadelphia over teen's in-flight prayer
0
tigermoth
I think it's wildly amusing (yet in a pathetically sad way) that one of the stumbling blocks for two people to be allowed to marry if they wish is religious mantra. The Catholic church will preach to you why Bill and Steve can't get married, but quickly shut their yaps when asked why Father Francis who has been accused of touching a dozen little boys after sunday mass is allowed to simply move on to another diocese. So villanize human love and excuse (or at least hide) predatory depravity.
Excellent post dontknockit!
Posted in: Groundbreaking gay marriage trial starts in California
0
tigermoth
Zucronium (and others) - you miss the point completey; which isn't unusual. Giving evidence that some Republicans - or even if you want to implicate the whole party - whatever - are racist is beside the point. Was Reid's comment racist is the question, not which party has a higher incidence of overt racism. Defense through deflection is an old tactic of course, but one that deceives only the slow witted.
Earlier Yabits stated that he thought the term 'Negro' is not really, nor has it ever been considered racist. I bet to differ. Research the word and ask some older African Americans their opinion. Negro and even Negress were used widely up to the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 60's. Afterwards it was considered more of a slur by the black community.
Cover it however you wish; it's not so much fun when one of your boys shows his true colors now is it? If a Republican had made the same comment you guys would be howling for the 'blood of the racist' and you well know it. That's okay, the mask of self-rightiousness just slipped off a bit, I'm sure you guys can get it back in place just fine. Seems to be slipping off more and more though, doesn't it?
Posted in: GOP: Response to Reid remark shows double standard
0
tigermoth
Okay, but how do you know that when Lott made his comment he wasn't (a) meaning that it would have been better that he (Thurmond) won rather than Democrat Truman? The two party's hatreds of one another seems to know no bounds; and not necessarily meaning he support Thurmonds racist beliefs, and/or that (b) he was just trying to placate an old man on his 100th birthday? Old racist or not, folks tend to schmooze when it comes to the 100 year mark. Both parties threw Lott to the wolves. So why should your boy get a break? As you say, it could simply be a case of not knowing which term might be correct to use. Or he could have been saying in effect 'yep, Obama is 'white enough acting' to make it politically in America. I think in today's overly sensitive PC world just about all would label that as racism.
And again, my earlier point was that you seem to question whether the term 'negro' is indeed racist, and want to pretend that it is not. It is not I decrying it as such, but rather the Civil Rights movement as a whole who deemed it as such back in the latter 1950's and 60's. Yes, it is still used for things like 'negro spirituals' and 'United Negro College Fund' but that's more a case of historical context rather than contemporary practice.
Posted in: GOP: Response to Reid remark shows double standard
0
tigermoth
Yabits I see no reason to call me a fool just because we are discussing whether or not the term 'negro' is racist. Or whether or not using it in the terms of turning on and off "negro dialect" is racist.
But as you wish to call me a fool I shall call you a hypocrit. I'm sure that if you ask the President (out of the media spotlight, and if speaking to him in terms of the way friends do) he wouldn't care for the comment either. He must say it's okay now as he needs Harry Reid. I would have to hear the entire exerpt of what he was saying for context before passing complete judgement. But most agree that he was referring to the marketability of Barrack Obama for the presidency, and while perhaps he was stating what he beleives the American people may or may not accept, his comment was racist, essentially implying that is 'white enough' for the job. But racism is okay to left wing hypocrits like you who vascillate on appropriateness based on the determination of whether or not it was your side doing the offending.
Who's basking in their own foolishness - the one who can question both sides or the one that only sees the views of their own? Continue to bask in your denial.
Posted in: GOP: Response to Reid remark shows double standard
0
tigermoth
Yabits - go into the Bronx or Harlem and ask 'can one of you negroes give me directions to Manhattan?'. You will soon discover how well received the term 'negro' actually is! Wear good shoes, take a GPS.
Posted in: GOP: Response to Reid remark shows double standard
0
tigermoth
"Huh? You actually believe that there isn't such a thing as "black Engish?" If not, then let me AKS you this: What be y'alls point?
And is the word, "Negro" truly racist? So when the Spellman College glee club presents a program featuring "negro spirituals," you gonna send the race police in after them? (Spellman is an all-black school, btw.)"
Oh no, I'm from the south my friend (getting the 'my friend' part in just so I'm up to snuff) and am well aware of 'black english', ebonics or whatever moniker you choose. As a matter of point my wife typically gets very tired of hearing my diatribe on that while I can understand the reasons behind it, as a lover of language I think that African Americans have done more harm to themselves and the quest for racial equality through the purposeful morphing of the Queen's English than any other factors combined. But that's another argument. I also am well aware of 'negro spirituals'. But terminology is important and delicate in today's overly PC society, and I don't think the term 'negro' is seen as particularly positive these days.
Your argument that Reid's remarks are not racist because they are based on a 'truth' is no better than me saying that Lott was correct in supporting Strom's campaign as most 'negroes' - as seems to be your preference - woud admit to a preference of schooling within their own racial spectrum (i.e. perhaps one of the reasons places like Spellman exist - aside from the obvious descrimination of all white institutions). In all actuality - and I shouldn't speak without proof of research to quote - I think that enforced desegregation wasn't always preferred in the black community because of both the racial descrimination black school children had to endure, as well as the almost non-existent teachings of their own particular culture.
Posted in: GOP: Response to Reid remark shows double standard
0
tigermoth
I don't think it's really fair to classify the KKK as Republican. True, most likely all have voted for a republican ticket when some local nut-job wasn't perhaps running on some sort of fringe independent ticket, but in a real sense they aren't for a democracy so sticking them in a party is not quite correct. They vote Republican simply becuase given the choice it more closely represents their views, in a twisted sort of way. But I would say that a desire for racial extermination - or at least total exclusion - puts them in a spectrum outside of democracy. If you call what we have really a democracy these days.
Posted in: GOP: Response to Reid remark shows double standard
0
tigermoth
Is 'contextualization' even a word?? And why has calling people 'my friend' become apropos here? I digress. For some odd reason liberals seem to think that they are never hypocritical nor racist, which is of course total rubbish. They try to cover it up with self-rightiousness, but the clever can see through this quite clearly. What's right for the goose is right for the gander. Reid is a racist bozo - toss him out. If he wasn't racist he wouldn't have used the term 'negro' nor would he have likely brought it up in conversation - except behind closed doors where most of the population (white, black or brown) hides their racism so that they might hypocritically declare themselves 'open-minded'. Cynical? The truth is harsh sometimes.
Posted in: GOP: Response to Reid remark shows double standard
0
tigermoth
The number of posts, i.e. the interest and publicity generated was more than worth the 2 million, and served their intended purpose. You would easily pay a PR firm that much to get the depth of exposure Paul Watson and company wished for.
Also, with those commenting on why they would choose such a fragile boat - keep in mind that the Earthrace wasn't like some sort of speedboat you might see on your local lake. It was specially designed to endure rough seas and climate, with the ability to submerge for a bit without damage, etc. Not something bought at your local boat shop. And while it looked high tech mainly for the interest of setting a speed record, it wasn't quite as fragile as some seem to incur. For example, I think it had a triple hull design, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I still think SS are jackasses.
Posted in: Anti-whaling boat sinks off Antarctica
0
tigermoth
So Smith you're saying that all of those held at Gitmo are innocent?? I suppose they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and were not Taliban fighters. Odd coincidence that.
Zuc as always you puzzle me with your vitriol against the Republican party, as typically it makes your points barely relative to topic and most often nonsensical at best. Usually the left wing rant is that Bush held these men (innocent all according to Smith) in the first place and violated the Constitution in the process. Now, as it's convenient for your hatred of the man, he's the bad guy for letting more of them go than our current President. You don't even really have a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' type of argument, but rather just damn all if you're Republican.
Posted in: More terror suspects returning to fight after Guantanamo release
0
tigermoth
Seems to me that it shouldn't be that difficult to have some sort of Interpol database where all passengeres names are entered and if there is any sort of file on the person, this instantly comes back and they can be properly screened. Can't undestand why this proves so difficult. Apparently this latest gent was at least on a 'to be watched' list in the UK. Why do I seem to be able to do more with my computer than the government or FAA can handle?
Posted in: Security reviews under way in U.S. after airliner attack
0
tigermoth
By quality of healthcare I mean current state, or further that while it's not the best, it is certainly a good site better than what most nations enjoy. What I'm getting at here is based on the capitalist principals that - in my opinion - this country was founded upon. You might not agree with them because typically those on the left decry the evils of capitalism despite often being beneficiaries of such a system. But typically in a system of socialized medicine - which make no mistake that is what this is - doctors are not as well paid as they are here in the States under our current system. You might see this as a great equalizer of a system that has long overpaid doctors who should be more concerned with the public good. Fair enough, and I might even agree with that to a point. But there is a cause and effect to take into consideration. Right now, and part of this might just be my opinion, but I'll bet that it's backed up in truth, the US has a (relative to the rest of the world) high standard of medical care. I do realize there are many exceptions of course, I'm talking overall. One of the reasons for this is becuase of the high pay, hence high reward for being a well-trained and successful physician. As the incentive drops, so does the level of care. Add to that overworked doctors forced to see a lot more patients and the recipe is there for a sharp downfall in the overall quality of care. The metircs are there if you study nations with a system of socialized medicine, although one as large as ours converting to one is perhaps a different kettle of fish in some ways. I should think this is logic rather than over-reaction.
As for the issue of illegal immigrants and our dependence upon them, I have no doubt that we do. I don't agree with the 'instant anmesty' where all illegal immigrants are given citizensip - but allow them the processes and means to become citizens, and then let them pay taxes towards this medical care. I know the argument - well, if you do that then employers would have to pay them much more, offer benefits, etc. and there goes the cheap labor source. True, but it also means more humane and fair treatment of this labor source - something all should be for. I'd rather pay more for produce or whatever the commodity rather than pay through taxes for healthcare given to people who aren't even citizens of my country. Either way you pay - better in my opinion to have the increased tax base revenue and laws to keep these illegal immigrants from being abused by their employers (which is rampant).
The only issue I would have with the citizenship question is that there has to be a cap. We as Americans need to learn to do the dirty jobs rather than sit our our arses collecting public assistance becuase we're too lazy to do such work. I know how that sounds - like some old guy ultra-republican. But there is truth in many stereotypes. Plus the immigration issue is a tough one as I work with many folks from India that are in the process of applying for citizenship. It's a long and arduous process; if you make it easy for one group that hardly seems fair.
Finally, while I would fundamentally agree that there is a moral obligation to help one another when situation dictates, this moral imperative has become a tough road to traverse. As a people, we used to be clustered in families of small towns and villages where this was not only possible, but expected. Today the population has exploded to the point of madness and there are so many injustices in the equality and ability of people to provide for themselves, that it's simply overwhelming. True, we should start in our own back yard (it always gets me that we're asked to 'feed the world' and in recent years African nations have been the cause celeb when in fact there are people probably down the block from most of us that are going hungry). But now instead of being asked to help our families, or even our neighbors, we're being asked to help millions. It's a great and noble concept, but unrealistic when your average American families these days have problems even paying their bill and providing the basics for themselves. While this healthcare bill is designed to help those who cannot provide - it is taking from those who often have little. Obviously those who have more pay more, but crap roles down hill as they say.
Posted in: GOP vows fight as White House defends health bill
0
tigermoth
I find the comment about 'reviewing Japanese history' while in High School most interesting, and very telling. Four out of fifty?? I was under the impression that Japanese students learned about Japanese history, but that the part covering the Second World War was 'tailored' shall we say to leave out implicaton of blame or guilt. That is atrocious in itself, but that students are not taught the fascinating history of their own country and culture - well prior to the 20th century - seems unimaginable to me. Why would they not teach history in schools?
Posted in: New book suggests ulterior motive to timing of 1949 executions
0
tigermoth
Christmas luncheon - didn't get to finish my thought. Look, I don't begrudge anyone having available health care. Particularly the thought of children going without makes me ill. In a utopian society - which we by no means have, nor ever will given the nature of humankind - those that can would provide for those who cannot. But the unfortunate reality is that with the system of government that we have and the societal structure we've created, everything costs money. The the unfortunate economics are that when the government decides to fund such a thing as the current healthcare bill, someone must pay the cost of this. This is ultimately the taxpayer. Right now I live in the state of NY which is in a budget debacle. The net result is that our schools are the first to take a big cut. So I'm forced to send my children to schools that are underfunded with sub-standard equipment, thus lessening their chances in the world. Would I rather see more school funding for my kid's schools, or Joe down the stree who doesn't work get free healthcare? My choice is obvious.
It's quite easy to have that liberal attitude of helping your fellow man and 'being all in this together'. But put into practice with your average American family that is already stretched to the max, more federal spending equals more taxes which equals more strain on an already tough budget.
I have very many friends in the UK and in Canada. Doesn't sound so great to me as the quality of care in the US is measurably better. I've heard horror stories (issues down-played and called lies by the left) from English friends who wait forever to be seen and have the simplest of procedures done, despite some degree of pain. The system that we have, though admittedly considerably flawed, at least allows for a competitiveness among health care providers, with the benefit being that we receive better care due to this competition. My opinion is that we will lose this in the long run.
Why not look at combating and erradicating medicare/medicaid fraud? Studies show that the potential there is likely enough to pay for health care for all anyway. Which segways to another point; given human nature how much fraud will occur under this new system and how much of a further public drain will that be? For every honest person who might be out of work or impoverished and need some type of healthcare there are probably a greater number waiting to take advantage of system.
So yes, while you might think it horrible of me - and so be it - I get my sorry butt up each day, go to a job I don't like, work all week for less pay that I personally think that I deserve, am not rich or entitled in any way. I pull my own weight and do what I have to do to support my family. When you come in telling me I need to give some of my hard earned money to someone who isn't working so that they can have health care coverage - which I have to, and will continue to have to pay for out of my own salary, while at the same time our education system falls further into the gutter - yes, I have a problem.
Posted in: GOP vows fight as White House defends health bill
0
tigermoth
Sure they do - but they can afford expensive tax lawyers that allow them to right much of their expenses off, and get them out of paying much of what the rest of us do. Plus your average congressman or senator makes a hell of a lot more than I do, I can assure you.
Perhaps there are, but the bill still has to be paid. And yes, why SHOULD this fall on me as a taxpayer who does indeed pay for his own insurance? Why should I be forced to perhaps pay for illegal immigrants (which will happen). And you didn't anser one - will the quality of health care in this country remain as high?
Posted in: GOP vows fight as White House defends health bill
0
tigermoth
Who's paying for this plan Yabits - you? All the rich dem politicians? Any politician? No. The taxpayer is. What's the bill? I pay for my coverage - what do I get out of it as a plus? That's not greed my friend, that's survival. Do you have a family to support?
Posted in: GOP vows fight as White House defends health bill
0
tigermoth
All I can add it that all of this sounds just grand on paper to liberals; they love it because their party supports the health care bill. Gonna finally teach those evil republicans who have no conscience and no soul that we shall triumph. 30 million who don't have health care will get it, man. Power to the people. Take care of the poor and those who can't take care of themselves.
After your done hugging yourselves and singing a rousing version of Kum-Bay-Ya, can someone tell me who's going to pay for all of this? The answer is of course that we all will, through taxes. So me, as middle class (he says laughingly) joe who might pay $100 per paycheck for family coverage now could pay more under the new scheme (or the same perhaps) BUT get the pleasure of paying for 30 million of my fellow Americans who don't have coverage for whatever reason by paying more in taxes to support this program. And/or does the payment to doctors remain the same, or does it lessen in this plan. What I'm getting at is, is the quality of my healthcare going to diminish as the price for it goes up (which seems to be the case in the Canadian/European models). Add to this the President's stimulus package spending, and oh boy I'm being taxed into non-existance. The democratic way! Can you assure me that I won't be paying for the healthcare of illegal immigrants? Propably not. Can you assure me that I won't be paying more in premiums? Probably not. Can you assure me that the quality of my healthcare will remain at it's current level? Probably not. And I can assure myself that I will pay more in taxes.
So, can you see how maybe some have a problem with this? I'm betting that five or ten years into this effort, some of you die-hard liberals are going to have a problem with it as well. When your'e working, struggling to feel a family - having more of your money taken to help someone else - while perhaps noble in intent - is a bitter pill to swallow.
Posted in: GOP vows fight as White House defends health bill
0
tigermoth
"I dislike the remembrance of this date and how people use it to bash Japanese. Remember Pearl Harbor was used as a justification for killing surrendering Japanese (with surrender passes) to the attack with atomic weapons (only America has used these). Japan should never apologize for a nice attack, America punched out Iraq's lights twice without a declaration of war, why is this different? We came, we saw, we kicked your ass!"
Oh, I see - so killing American troops in an undeclared war is okay?? And we aren't allowed to remember our dead which your fellow countrymen murdered? You casually imply all's fair in war, then cry because we bombed the bejeesus out of your citys and incinerated a few - all's fair, remember? Only works one way - the Japanese way I suppose. A 'nice attack'??? What?
Posted in: Pearl Harbor attack remembered 68 years later