JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- 秘書及び業務サポート
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥4.0M / Year
-
- 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.
0
tigermoth
I had better watch what I say about the man as JT will yank the comment as 'vulgar' as they did mine from yesterday; perhaps the truth hurts too much for the left leaning.
You folks - such as smithinjapan - who support TK act as if 'it's no big thing' that he essentially killed someone. Certainly we all make mistakes - but most of ours do not involve murder, which was essentially his. Not approaching this from the right, or the left or any political angle, but simply what is legal and just.
Fact: he left a woman to die. Maybe she was already dead, and maybe whether or not he would have ran to a phone (as any sober, normal person would have) might have saved her life is open to speculation. He went home and did nothing for hours. If it's not murder then it shows a selfish sense of self-preservation that is incredibly appalling, and not the trait of a 'great man' - at least not in the common definition.
According to you and his supporters, we should simply overlook this; that his acheivements outweight his shortcomings. Huh? If he had left your sister at the bottom of that lake and went home to cover his backside, would you be so forgiving and hail him as hero?
And think of it in terms those of you on the left might better understand. If Ted had been a black man of a lower economic class, he would have done years in prison for leaving the scene of an accident, and certainly would have not become one of the most powerful senators in the nation. The left is always keen to point out how the 'rich Republicans' get away with so much, yet reluctant to hold their own to similar standards. So while it's appalling that Bush got out of real service, possibly in a combat zone, becuase of daddy's influence - and it is appalling - it's okay that Teddy got away with contributing to the death of a person because of his name. I see.
Posted in: World leaders pay tribute to Kennedy
0
tigermoth
This is all fine to argue on a forum such as this, but these political arguments based on liberal or conservative leanings and the ‘oh yeah? Well before you said…’ never really confronts the realities of an issue.
The U.S. carrying out and condoning torture of its enemies for information is the fundamental issue. Taken on its own, you can hardly argue that it is not morally horrendous to condone such a thing. In the past, the one thing that I think has always held Americans on a higher plateau was their refusal to lower themselves to the level of an enemy on such matters. We’re the ‘land of the free and the home of the brave’ – we don’t torture people. Piercing screams in a dank prison cell are scenes from the middle ages. We signed the Geneva Convention and always tried to uphold our moral standards (though only a fool would think we’ve always been honest to this).
But the problem is that our current enemy is fundamentally on the same level as the middle ages, where torture is an acceptable form of gaining information. In the first Gulf War (Desert Storm) the Iraqis unashamedly tortured those they captured. Those that we are fighting now wouldn’t think twice about torturing their American captors or beheading them on video. You have to get that Western, ‘civilized’ mind-set out of your heads. That is – if you want to have any sort of chance of ever ‘winning’ this war on terror – whatever that means. While it is morally superior to take the higher ground, it is impractical and dangerous on the level of survivability. Reject the stupid argument of ‘if we torture them, they will torture our soldiers – you’re only making things worse for them’. News flash – they already do torture anyone they might capture. Wrap your mind around the fact that they have absolutely no issue about detonating a bomb in a car in a crowded market that will assuredly kill scores of innocent civilians – not even the ‘enemy’ they’re fighting. Putting them on a board that simulates drowning, or threatening to shoot their family is child’s play.
It comes down to choices. The Bush administration made the difficult choice to obtain information in a manner that we all find horrendous. It should be pointed out that as far as we know they didn’t actually physically harm anyone – which is far more than our enemy can say. But it still goes against our beliefs of right and wrong, and our core values. But – and here’s the big thing – it might have saved some lives by stopping a terrorist plot. If not directly it might have ruined some plan or made them re-think something else. Or you can choose the moral high ground and just hope that normal intelligence channels can glean the information you need. Some it can, much it will not; the enemy is sophisticated and intelligent – not a bunch of 'guys on camels'.
Would you rather live with the moral implications that some guy was water-boarded in a basement at Gitmo but it prevented some event from happening? Or would you rather see another list of dozens, hundreds or thousands of names of dead men, women and children being shown on the news?
I work in NY and just went to the State Museum at lunch-time. They have a 9-11 display and on a video screen you can see the faces and names of all who died on that day. Without sounding corny, it is sobering. They aren’t obscure references or names from a newspaper article, but the smiling faces of the more than 2,900 people that had lives just like you and I. If psychologically torturing a few men can even potentially prevent that from happening again, then I have to say I’m for it. While it pulls at the fabric of our fundamental beliefs, I’m not prepared to potentially sacrifice so many innocent lives. A soldier trained, armed and put in harm’s way is vastly different than someone sitting at their desk in an office.
However, I do find it interesting – and a bit sickening as well – that so many of you are so very concerned about the civil rights of a few men who are likely terrorists (or supporters of their actions) in the first place, yet I never heard many of you rise in protest when they were doing the torturing and beheading.
Posted in: Obama administration launches criminal probe into CIA interrogation tactics
0
tigermoth
mnemosyne23:
There was a time in America when politicians actually worked for the people, believed in what they did, were fairly honest and upright citizens and were working for our common good. I would have lamented the death of any of them. That day seems very long gone. The Kennedys were a prime example of what could be termed as American power politics where attaining and keeping that power becomes more important than realizing that is wielded for the people.
And please; if Bush or Chenney were dead the liberals on here would be unashamedly dancing in the streets. Once upon a time people supported a president once he was elected - whether they agreed with his politics or not. That has proven a travesty as of late, so excuse me if we don't bow down in awed reverence that one died just because you respected him. My family is not rich - if I was drunk, drove off a bridge and left a girl in a car to drown and went home to sleep it off I'd likly be in jail rather than being a senator.
Posted in: Sen Edward Kennedy dies at 77
0
tigermoth
And Maple G you win the prize for hitting the nail on the head. It is the draconian attitude of Islam and its derivations, the hypocracy of western religions, and the inability of either side to see reason that means the world is forced to live in a constant state of division, mutual mistrust and open contempt. Give humanity another 2,000 years or so and maybe we'll have grown to that new level that can see the complete idiocy of caning a person for having a beer.
Posted in: Malaysia delays caning of Muslim woman who drank beer
0
tigermoth
So one idiot creates a website to 'ban Scottish products' and you classify every American as a knee-jerk lunatic. Oh wait, we are a nation of knee-jerk lunatics; but none-the-less it's an unfair conclusion. Yes, let's punish the hotel or shopkeep in Glasgow because some idiot in government decided to free a terrorist (humanitarian grounds? Come on). Hmmm. Rings a bell. Seems a good many of us have been condemned in a similar manner for our governments doings. No one quite gets that a democracy is only so to an extent.
Sod it. I'm not giving up my haggis or a good scotch (and no, the crap produced in the states does not compare at all!).
Posted in: Scottish government defends Lockerbie bomber's release
0
tigermoth
Maybe they should all sit down together in the fashion of the Harvard prof and the Prez and have a beer to discuss the issue. Oh wait...
Seriously - flogged for drinking a cold one? Who wants to be a part of that? When will people realize that organized religions were all created by man to keep control over people (and build personal power and wealth)? It has nothing to do with your hoped for afterlife. I have nothing against believing in god (whatever your brand might be) but why not make it a just, kind and loving one rather than one who instructs its followers to beat each other if they drink a distilled beverage?
Posted in: Malaysia delays caning of Muslim woman who drank beer
0
tigermoth
Sorry, quite obviously previous soldiers would not have treated it like a video game as they had none - but you know what I meant.
Posted in: Boycott of violent Japanese video game urged in U.S.
0
tigermoth
A lot of people shrug this off with a 'well, sensible people know the right and wrong of their actions and that a video game is just that - a pretend world of unreality'. Well, if you've ever had a look through some youtube videos of combat in Iraq you'd know that we are producing a culture that can seem a little less than sensitive to violence. This is isn't a knock again our troops - I support them 100%. But I recall one real video that was taken through a night vision lense. A group of Iraqis - suspected insurgents were hiding around a vehicle. A helicopter gunship was called in, given the green light to hose them all down and the comment by the young soldier observing was something 'oh dude you waisted them all - that was so cool' and he started laughing. When you read account by soldiers of past wars they might have been insensitive to killing to a degree, particularly during battle. But rarely do you hear them laughing and treating it like a video game.
The point is that de-sensitizing a generation through acceptance of random and horrific violence, whether it be in games or real life, cannot possibly be a good thing or have positive results. Those of us of an older generation grew up with violence on tv (no games until well into the teen years and then they were relatively primitive), but it was more like Bugs Bunny droping an anvil on Elmer Fudd's head - a far cry different than beating the elderly with bats, killing prostitutes and now apparently raping women. And these kids will lead the free world some day? You can say it has no effect, but I'll bet that clinical psychologists would disagree.
Posted in: Boycott of violent Japanese video game urged in U.S.
0
tigermoth
LostinNagoya I take offense in your remark. What nation of geniuses do you hail from? Let's take a look at your leader's decisions. A sum of a nation is not always reflected in those who lead it - life isn't that simple.
Posted in: How would you evaluate George W Bush's presidency?
0
tigermoth
With the story about the original cake decorating refusal incident was a video of the father talking about it. Let's just say he was at the lower end of the IQ scale. If you're ignorant enough to name your child after such an infamous person, then likely it's not a stretch to think there might be other valid reasons behind the children being taken away.
It isn't a crime to name your children such a thing; if stupid names were a crime than most recent Hollywood celebrities would be doing jail time for bestowing such gems as 'Apple'. The article brings up two interesting points; parents who should be held accountable for stupid names that their children must spend a lifetime suffering because of, and the vast and almost undefined power that CPS and other agencies have in taking children from their parents. It wasn't so long ago in our great 'democracy' that children were taken from homes with little explanation and parents and siblings never saw each other again. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for protecting the child. Likely an idiot who would name his kid Adolph Hitler doesn't deserve the privilege of raising children.
Posted in: New Jersey kids with Nazi-inspired names removed from home
0
tigermoth
Smithinjapan - Thanks for your civil posting - and the way discussion should be carried out; with intelligence and thought rather than anger, accusations and screaming. More of that on here would be nice.
We likely agree more on some of these points. While I suppose my comments could easily be construed as a defense of Bush's presidency, in truth I think he was a rotten president. But my point was more along the lines that situational precedence can affect perception. I think George is blamed for some things that perhaps should be at the very minimum equally shared. The Katrina response is always one of my favorites. The press gladly played GW as the fool on this one. It's easy to say the current administration should have been prepared, should have had the resources in place, should have...should have. Well, the old adage hindsight is 20/20 is a fundamental truth. New Orleans and the gulf coastal states are certainly used to hurricanes, but not of that magnitude. Yes, it was predicted, but I don't know if they envisioned the catasrophe that occured until right before it happened. The logisitics of getting that much manpower and equipment into place is enormous. The press and critics (including on here) obviously have no clue and think this is instantaneously achieved. Wouldn't those in local government have some responsibility? Could it perhaps be taken into account that to logistically rescue hundreds or thousands (who shoudln't have been so stupid and evacuated to begin with - shouldn't we as a species be bright enough to share some responsibility for our own well-being?)is not a matter of a few quick phone calls? Couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't some of those in previous administrations (and again falling to the local government - mayor, governor) have fought for the replacement of these shoddy levies if it was known as being so urgent? But instead they categorically say 'it was Bush's fault'.
And now President-elect Obama inherits all of this. Is it his fault if we have a major terrorist attack in a year? Is it his fault if the economy continues to flounder (which it will)? Is it his fault if a major earthquake wipes out half of California (it's been predicted for decades)? According to the mob thinking - yes, it will be his fault and therefore he will be a crappy president. I just find that thinking to be a bit too simplistic and flawed.
Posted in: How would you evaluate George W Bush's presidency?
0
tigermoth
While I would certainly agree that Bush's presidency was not a good one by any reckoning (and I've seen some rather mad conservative offerings that things like his support of water boarding, un-checked wire tapping and other knives into the back of our Constitution are reasons to hail his success) - see here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/986rockt.asp?pg=1
But I do take issue with particularly liberals throwing all the blame his way.
"How many terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001?"
Always love this question. Okay, sarge, on whose watch did 9/11 -- the worst terrorist attack on the US in its history -- occur?
Smithinjapan - While true, it was on his watch, I think it can be argued with some credence that Bill Clinton's denuding of the intelligence services did much to cause this lack of foresight. It takes time to build these networks and I would argue that the Bush administration simply had not had the time to do so in a sufficient manner before the attack.
I would say the same on the economy. While you might not want to listen to Sarge it IS fact that much of the housing loan crisis was the work of democrats under the Clinton administration. The policy of issuing risky loans to allow more middle and lower income people to buy is good in humanitarian practice, but economically unsound when they can't pay their loans. I think it's rahter short-sighted and unfair to place blame for policies that were enacted before Bush came to power.
And I would even offer to those who wrote 'Katrina' that while the Bush governmental response to the Hurricane was abysmal, those dikes have been ignored by more presidents than old Georgie. And the idiot Mayor and idiot Governor have much blame to shoulder there.
Blame him for the war(s), blame him for the economy becuase of these costly conflicts, blame him for his abuse of power and raking of the Constitution. But in fairness there should be some reflection and sould searching on the left for what was inherited. Just maybe Old Willy made a few poor decisions while going about ruining the carpets in the Oval Office.
And for my vote, that idiot Jimmy Carter - who has done more to ruin the institution of the Presidency than any other man - was undoubtedly one of the very worst presidents we have ever had. Yes, worse than Bush. Building houses for the homeless doesn't forgive his 'sins'.
Posted in: How would you evaluate George W Bush's presidency?
0
tigermoth
Are we so insane and thin-skinned these days that this is even news? And you'd think many of you on here were Saints as certainly you've never said ANYTHING that could be considered derogatory to a certain race or people. Being American, and generally hated and criticized/ridiculed for nothing other than my nationality (and nothing to do with my saintly personality of course), I can say it's all utter rubbish. I used to listen to Louis Farrakhan on the radio for laughs - he called us all 'white devils' every sunday - but it was never in the news nor did anyone care.
He's talking to his mates - who cares? Every serviceman likely uses the same terms. Right? Not really but it's certainly not news-worthy nor anything to get your knickers in a bunch. The current trend towards over-sensitivity to any remark is increasingly annoying. Grow a pair and thicken your skins a bit. Let's worry about whether we're or not we're in soup lines this time next year rather than a Prince calling someone a Paki.
Posted in: Lawmakers, Muslims criticize Prince Harry over racist comments
0
tigermoth
Hollywood and the entertainment industry have put too much stress on looks over substance and ability when it comes to entertainers. Essentially remakes don't 'make it' because the actors in them cannot compare to the originals. There's no finer example than Keneau Reeves I should think.
Same is true with network news. You used to have to be a genuine reporter who worked their way up through the ranks. Now they get models with pretty faces and hot bodies who can barely read, more less sniff out a newsworthy story.
Posted in: Why are Hollywood remakes of classic films, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" being a recent example, generally inferior to the originals?
0
tigermoth
azagnoraw - You keep somewhat annoyingly parroting the same question about what it it that people are not understanding. Well, simply your support for suicide bombers that walk into crowds of civilians and blow themselves up. To say this is anyway courageous is lunacy. I will give you that when an Isreali weapon (be it your tanks that you keep incessently referring to, aircraft bombs - whatever) hits civilian targets it is also reprehensible. The killing of people who wanted no part in killing always is.
But I would argue motive and purpose. If an Isreali tank is firing at a fair game target of opportunitiy - a Hamas rocket site - and accidentally hits civilian targets, that's a horrible thing and a crime against humanity as an warfare is. But to knowingly walk into a group of civilians - women and children - with the sole intent of blowing them up for terror purposes; that's an act without soul and without justification. That's what most human, feeling, thinking people believe. That you do not causes some disbelief, hence the reason that no one gets or agrees with your point (except perhaps those who are themselves terrorists).
Put another way - if I'm driving down the road, hit the gas to make the light before it turns red and hit a child who stepped out in the street, it's unfortunate, tragic and I could, should have been more careful. If I purposely go up on the sidewalk to hit that child for no reason but to kill him, I find that much more savagely eggregious. To say that killing innocents with a suicide bomb is any less cowardly than killing in some other manner is just stupidity at it's worst, and the reason we have these lunatics killing each other in the first place.
Posted in: Israel destroys Hamas homes, flattens Gaza mosque
0
tigermoth
Smithinjapan: You always strike me as being a bit brighter than many that post here, even though I frequently disagree with many of your statements. But disagreement should not harbor disrespect and useless arguments which is more the norm for JT.
But following your thread of thought that we should learn from history and the horrors that culminated in the Wannsee Conference to begin the serious enactment of the 'final solution', history has also shown that hideous cause propelled by religious dogma does not just go away. I think most of us understand that the majority of muslims aren't running about with bombs strapped to their torsos trying to kill 'the infedels' - but some are.
I hear a lot of talk about 'minimalizing' these terrorists - but not much on how exactly to do this. Open diatribe and talking with them? As an intelligent person you know that much too often where religious extremism and fervor is prevalent, reasoning isn't an option. Any more than FDR or Churchill could have convinced Hitler that liquidating jews was not a nice thing to do.
Certainly I'm not advocating the blaming of all Muslims for the actions of a proportionate few. But I think it's foolish not to realize that religious extremism is dangerous - whether muslim, christian or snake handler. The group that carried out the 9/11 attacks were small in number. History is full of small groups of determined individuals acheiving spectacular results. It's foolhardy to ignore history and ignore extremism. And I seem to recall a lot of these 'good muslims' in other nations dancing with glee when the 9/11 attacks occured. While condemning the lot or using the 'kill 'em all' mentality is rediculously stupid, cowardly and just wrong, so is trying to convince yourself that a majority of muslims agree with and embrace non-mulim society. That doesn't mean they should be killed by any means, but it requires a better solution that to have our new President meet with terrorist leaders and come back in Chamberlainesqe fashion waving a scrap of paper and foolishly declaring 'peace in our time'.
Posted in: Dealing with Muslim fundamentalism
0
tigermoth
What's the deal with a shoe being such an insult in the Islamic world? Foot odor, a bit of foot fungus and the lack of Desenex on the local chemist's shelves? I would think that the foot being given to man by God, Allah, whomever and walking on the earth he/she/it created would make it holy rather than dirty. Wonder if Nike could superimpose their trademark symbol on the shoes and create a new 'Just Do It' commercial?
Posted in: Bush dodges shoe protest during visit to Iraq
0
tigermoth
Everyone seems to assume the rational when we’re talking about the irrational. I believe it was Napoleon who said that religion was invented by the rich to keep the poor from killing them – and I think he put that rather well. In countries and regions dominated by societies where most/all of life is dictated by the strict doctrines of religious belief, improving our image is likely impossible. And before you argue that western societies such as our own are dictated by equally religious doctrines in the form of Christianity, that’s a joke as most that hypocritically go to church on Sundays do everything contrary to what is their religion teaches. Religion in the U.S. and other Western democracies is mainly a thing of convenience and playing to the irrational fear that if you don’t go then some chap dressed in red with horns and pitchfork will roast you over an eternal fire.
The old corny ‘freedom comes with a price’ is essentially true, but there are many costs. One of them is that the religiously driven see us as godless heathens without morals, and there is little we can do that will change that without embracing their faith. I’m perfectly at peace with the fact that when I shirk off the mortal coil that my bones and flesh will rot and I will simply be no more. If others want to kill each other or hate each other in the name of something that they irrationally believe in out of fear, I don’t wish to be dragged into it. The soon-to-be President can try his best, and I wish him all the luck, but it really will not make any difference. It is essentially reasoning with insanity – and I don’t mean that as a knock on Muslims per say as I think any religion of the same ilk (scary Southern Baptists and Jehovah’s Witnesses come to mind) is much the same.
It’s both funny and tragic that we laugh at the Greeks and Romans for all of their interesting gods from mythology but current beliefs are no less ignorant and based on that same primal fear that man has of death. But the fear is strong and pandering to the Muslims will not make them like us any more.
Posted in: Obama hopes to reboot U.S. image among Muslims
0
tigermoth
My father bought a brand new Ford which inexplicably burned to the frame in the driveway one night through some sort of freakish 'electrical problem'. Cars made my American manufacturers are crap, plain and simple. VW's and Hondas live forever.
Posted in: Angry Ford dealer in South Carolina blasts Japanese imports in ads
0
tigermoth
I even have staunchly Republican friends that agree on this; rather than let the hair-brained media start spreading tales about how Obama's team choices are 'dissappointing' to liberals, and how his cabinet appointees will have cat fights, let's let the man get in office and get to work first. Just maybe it will all work grandly fine. I can't imagine it could get too much worse!
Posted in: Cracks appear in Obama foreign policy team